The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[Nigel]

2 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

Also, why was there no penalty check? The rules are confusing. Awarding the foul was a clear and obvious error (I know the term is meaningless), but managers have no ability to challenge this absurdity.

This was the same as when Watkins goal was ruled out (against Burnley?) for offside.  He was being manhandled in the box for an obvious penalty but this bit was completely overlooked. 

If you are going to rule using the technology then the whole stage of play has to be looked over, not just the bit they are looking at. 

[Davkaus]

10 minutes ago, Herman22 said:

But the argument in the Brighton Villa game was he got a microscopic touch on the ball but took Trez out, so no pen. 

The lack of consistency is the problem. 

Not this one again. He didn't take Trez out, there was contact then Trezeguet threw both legs back and fell to the floor. The ref ultimately has to decide if a challenge is careless, reckless or dangerous, even if it gets the ball first.

There's a bit more nuance to it than "any contact is a foul". I think one of the PR problems with VAR is that many football rules are inherently subjective, so there's no point pretending we're ever getting things 100% right or removing any kind of debate about decisions.

Edited December 27, 2020 by Davkaus

[BG_Villa_Fan]

1 minute ago, Davkaus said:

Not this one again. He didn't take Trez out, there was contact then Trezeguet threw both legs back and fell to the floor.

There's a bit more nuance to it than "any contact is a foul".

Wait wait so your opinion is that the Leeds penalty is real but Villa’s against Brighton not? Seriously?

[Davkaus]

3 minutes ago, BG_Villa_Fan said:

Wait wait so your opinion is that the Leeds penalty is real but Villa’s against Brighton not? Seriously?

Absolutely, I don't even think they're comparable. One completely clattered his man and prevented him trying to get to the ball when it was still in play and the other was a minor leg on leg collision in which I think Trez went down very softly.

Edited December 27, 2020 by Davkaus

[StefanAVFC]

1 hour ago, PaulC said:

I actually thought Taylor did well yesterday. 

I thought he was absolutely appalling, summed up by giving Palace a FK in the Mings/Zaha bust up, which occurred after we got a FK for a foul on McGinn.

[Davkaus]

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

I thought he was absolutely appalling, summed up by giving Palace a FK in the Mings/Zaha bust up, which occurred after we got a FK for a foul on McGinn.

I didn't even notice that, I need to watch it again. 

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Absolutely, I don't even think they're comparable. One completely clattered his man and prevented him trying to get to the ball when it was still in play and the other was a minor leg on leg collision in which I think Trez went down very softly.

Regardless of our opinions of the softness of the foul, he still 100% impeded Trezeguet, regardless of how easily he went down.

[Herman22]

5 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Not this one again. He didn't take Trez out, there was contact then Trezeguet threw both legs back and fell to the floor. The ref ultimately has to decide if a challenge is careless, reckless or dangerous, even if it gets the ball first.

There's a bit more nuance to it than "any contact is a foul". I think one of the PR problems with VAR is that many football rules are inherently subjective, so there's no point pretending we're ever getting things 100% right or removing any kind of debate about decisions.

As far as I can see the ref in the Villa Brighton game gave a pen. Because he thought there was contact on Trez, he then looked at the replay and overturned the decision based on the slight touch from the defender. The touch on Trez was never in question and was confirmed by the VAR. 

And if any contact isn't a pen explain the Arsenal pen against Chelsea last night which was confirmed by VAR? 

[BG_Villa_Fan]

9 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Absolutely, I don't even think they're comparable. One completely clattered his man and prevented him trying to get to the ball when it was still in play and the other was a minor leg on leg collision in which I think Trez went down very softly.

The Villa pen was denied not because the ref didn’t think there was contact but solely because he saw on the VAR replay that the defender barely touched the ball first. You could even hear him say it ffs. 

[a-k]

17 minutes ago, Nigel said:

This was the same as when Watkins goal was ruled out (against Burnley?) for offside.  He was being manhandled in the box for an obvious penalty but this bit was completely overlooked. 

If you are going to rule using the technology then the whole stage of play has to be looked over, not just the bit they are looking at. 

PGMOL said it was looked at and wasn't a clear and obvious error. Outrageous.

[Nigel]

1 minute ago, a-k said:

PGMOL said it was looked at and wasn't a clear and obvious error. Outrageous.

Yep, the very fact that he was being manhandled caused him to be offside!

As you say...outrageous!

 

[Davkaus]

7 minutes ago, BG_Villa_Fan said:

The Villa pen was denied not because the ref didn’t think there was contact but solely because he saw on the VAR replay that the defender barely touched the ball first. You could even hear him say it ffs. 

Making contact with the ball first can mean something that would otherwise be a foul is not. On the other hand, making contact with the ball does not mean any further contact with the ball is definitely not a foul. GEtting the ball can be the difference between a challenge being a foul or not, but it's not always the only factor. It all comes down to the severity of the challenge.

E.g.:

A light collision might be a foul if the ball isn't played, but if the player gets the ball first, it's an acceptable amount of contact to make during a fair tackle, but not winning the ball would make it a foul. Getting the man first before the ball is always a foul. In the Trezeguet incident (leaving aside @StefanAVFC's thoughts on impeding - I'd need to watch that again), the referee has decided it's a fair amount of contact to make in a challenge, but it would have been a foul if he hadn't got the ball, or if he'd got the man first then the ball.

At the other extreme, going in to a player with your studs up is always a foul, ball or not. 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2020 by Davkaus

[StefanAVFC]

5 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Making contact with the ball first can mean something that would otherwise be a foul is not. On the other hand, making contact with the ball does not mean any further contact with the ball is definitely not a foul. GEtting the ball can be the difference between a challenge being a foul or not, but it's not always the only factor. It all comes down to the severity of the challenge.

E.g.:

A light collision might be a foul if the ball isn't played, but if the player gets the ball first, it's an acceptable amount of contact to make during a fair tackle, but not winning the ball would make it a foul. Getting the man first before the ball is always a foul. In the Trezeguet incident (leaving aside @StefanAVFC's thoughts on impeding - I'd need to watch that again), the referee has decided it's a fair amount of contact to make in a challenge, but it would have been a foul if he hadn't got the ball, or if he'd got the man first then the ball.

At the other extreme, going in to a player with your studs up is always a foul, ball or not. 

 

 

All fair points, but at the end of the day, was it a clear and obvious error, enough of one that it should have been overturned?

[PaulC]

19 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I thought he was absolutely appalling, summed up by giving Palace a FK in the Mings/Zaha bust up, which occurred after we got a FK for a foul on McGinn.

Well I thought he handled the game pretty well. He got the non-pen spot-on and could easily have changed his mind like some refs when going to see the video evidence. He let the game flow as much as possible and he was probably right on the two yellows for Mings as he did rake his studs into the back of Zaha's leg no matter how soft it seemed

[Davkaus]

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

All fair points, but at the end of the day, was it a clear and obvious error, enough of one that it should have been overturned?

Absolutely not. We agree on something  

Some of these decisions we see being referred to VAR that then need 3 or 4 minutes and replays from various angles just astonish me. How anyone can watch it with a straight face and think it's for the good of the game is beyond me. 

[villa4europe]

18 minutes ago, PaulC said:

Well I thought he handled the game pretty well. He got the non-pen spot-on and could easily have changed his mind like some refs when going to see the video evidence. He let the game flow as much as possible and he was probably right on the two yellows for Mings as he did rake his studs into the back of Zaha's leg no matter how soft it seemed

I thought after the sending off he went pretty lax with the yellows, as a result there were a lot of frustrating ones in the 2nd half that Palace didn't get, cash could have got one vs Zaha but there were several bad Palace ones with no card, they could have had 2 players sent off, definitely ward should have gone for that tackle on targett

[StefanAVFC]

9 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

definitely ward should have gone for that tackle on targett

Unreal that wasn't given. What was he thinking???

[Davkaus]

There's potentially two points to discuss in the disallowed Burnley goal. First the whistle being blown. I made this point in the other thread, this is going to happen while VAR is only in the PL; refs don't get any proper VAR experience until working in the PL, and have to work against their instincts of flagging/blowing the whistle that they've honed over years in lower leagues.

Once it goes to VAR, they can't give the goal, play was stopped. Was the challenge from the keeper a foul, should it have been a penalty? I'd say not. I'd say no foul either way and the goal should have stood, but the ref really dropped the ball. 

[Chindie]

Dyche isn't going to be able to talk after the screaming match that ref is about to get.

[PaulC]

11 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

I thought after the sending off he went pretty lax with the yellows, as a result there were a lot of frustrating ones in the 2nd half that Palace didn't get, cash could have got one vs Zaha but there were several bad Palace ones with no card, they could have had 2 players sent off, definitely ward should have gone for that tackle on targett

It shows what a difficult job it is