The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[Stevo985]

5 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

They just need to remove the stigma around VAR correcting refs. It shouldn't be framed as "a clear and obvious error". It should be framed at giving the referee a better look at something he missed.

It shouldn't be seen as a dig at the ref, just giving him a chance to review his own decision.

 

As it stands I think VAR is looking for a reason to agree with the decision on the pitch. Which shouldn't be the case. It should be reviewing an incident completely independently of what the on field ref has done. If VAR disagrees with the ref, then he reviews it.

He can still overrule VAR and stick with his decision. But he gets another look at it.

 

Personally I'd actually like to see more VAR decisions review by the ref and for him to overrule VAR and stick with his decision. it would at least show it's being used properly rather than just for show

This thread is excellent. And it really backs up what I said above. They are bending over backwards to not overrule the on field referees. It's totally broken

 

 

 

[Lichfield Dean]

According to that thread (and the TV clip linked in it) the VAR official used the "defender had control of the ball" excuse to back up the ref. But that isn't in the rules!! That's insane! How can they think that's acceptable?

 

[Davkaus]

5 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said:

According to that thread (and the TV clip linked in it) the VAR official used the "defender had control of the ball" excuse to back up the ref. But that isn't in the rules!! That's insane! How can they think that's acceptable?

 

I think it's amazing, it basically legalises tackles that are so late that another player has posession while punishing ones that are only slightly mistimed.

They're not the brightest, are they.

Edited December 20, 2021 by Davkaus

[Lichfield Dean]

32 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I think it's amazing, it basically legalises tackles that are so late that another player has posession while punishing ones that are only slightly mistimed.

They're not the brightest, are they.

It also means that the rules are effectively meaningless if the officials can just make stuff up as they go along. You'd never see that in any other sport would you? Oh, wait...

[YLN]

On 19/12/2021 at 17:32, penguin said:

What the actual ****?

Top 6 are playing to different rules to the rest of us and they ain’t even attempting to hide it

I don't think that's a penalty. The defender is running away with the ball and was always in control of it, and then the striker and goalkeeper collide because of their momentum. 

I'm not sure now that I've watched it a few more times. I can understand why it wasn't given. You could just see it as a coming together of two players whose momentum carried them into each other off the ball. Like if two players are watching the ball, and run into each other. It could easily have been given, if you think of it as that the striker is about to chase the defender with the ball, but the goalkeeper takes him out of it clumsily.

...

Yeah it's a penalty. The striker is in play, and the goalkeeper clumsily collides with him. It didn't stop a goalscoring opportunity, but that's not at all in question here. 

Man City would have gotten that penalty for certain. No question

...

I see now that Dermot Gallagher agrees it should have been a penalty. And I don't like DG. And I've seen it from another angle. I think you could again make the argument that if the keeper had collected the ball and collided with the striker, that it wouldn't be a penalty, but because the defender takes it out of the keeper's hands, the GK's momentum just carries him forward into the striker except he now doesn't have the ball. He would have the ball in his hands if his own player hadn't taken it off him, in which case the striker jumps over the goalkeeper and it's not a penalty. 

It's a tough one. When he starts his lunge, he expects to just collect the ball, but the defender takes control of the ball instead of just shepherding it back to him. So it is the fault of the defender, or not a loud enough call from the keeper. I think they weighed all this up, and just went with the ref's decision.

 

[penguin]

1 hour ago, Lichfield Dean said:

According to that thread (and the TV clip linked in it) the VAR official used the "defender had control of the ball" excuse to back up the ref. But that isn't in the rules!! That's insane! How can they think that's acceptable?

 

I, for one, am looking forward with great excitement to this new era of NFL style off the ball wipe outs now the precedent has been set.

Unless of course they are completely making it up as they go along.

[foreveryoung]

45 minutes ago, YLN said:

I don't think that's a penalty. The defender is running away with the ball and was always in control of it, and then the striker and goalkeeper collide because of their momentum. 

I'm not sure now that I've watched it a few more times. I can understand why it wasn't given. You could just see it as a coming together of two players whose momentum carried them into each other off the ball. Like if two players are watching the ball, and run into each other. It could easily have been given, if you think of it as that the striker is about to chase the defender with the ball, but the goalkeeper takes him out of it clumsily.

...

Yeah it's a penalty. The striker is in play, and the goalkeeper clumsily collides with him. It didn't stop a goalscoring opportunity, but that's not at all in question here. 

Man City would have gotten that penalty for certain. No question

...

I see now that Dermot Gallagher agrees it should have been a penalty. And I don't like DG. And I've seen it from another angle. I think you could again make the argument that if the keeper had collected the ball and collided with the striker, that it wouldn't be a penalty, but because the defender takes it out of the keeper's hands, the GK's momentum just carries him forward into the striker except he now doesn't have the ball. He would have the ball in his hands if his own player hadn't taken it off him, in which case the striker jumps over the goalkeeper and it's not a penalty. 

It's a tough one. When he starts his lunge, he expects to just collect the ball, but the defender takes control of the ball instead of just shepherding it back to him. So it is the fault of the defender, or not a loud enough call from the keeper. I think they weighed all this up, and just went with the ref's decision.

 

The way I see it, if it it happens again will it be given. Answer is yes ofcourse, especially if it's the like of salah being taken by the keeper.

If not, we can just allow a keeper to keep the player way from the defender, by running out and knocking the player off balance.

[bobzy]

2 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

This thread is excellent. And it really backs up what I said above. They are bending over backwards to not overrule the on field referees. It's totally broken

 

 

 

That's good, but the issue with having referees come to review challenges all the time is that they basically take that as "I've got this wrong, I need to see why".  I can't remember many (any?) Premier League incidents where a ref has been advised to have a look on the monitor and gone "No, my initial decision was correct".

VAR should be in place to correct obviously incorrect decisions.  It's an incredibly simple role like that.  A professional referee with replays at his fingertips to clearly view where an error has been made and to correct that error.

[Stevo985]

5 minutes ago, bobzy said:

That's good, but the issue with having referees come to review challenges all the time is that they basically take that as "I've got this wrong, I need to see why".  I can't remember many (any?) Premier League incidents where a ref has been advised to have a look on the monitor and gone "No, my initial decision was correct".

But that's exactly the issue. They shouldn't have to think that.

It should be "we might have spotted something you didn't, have another look at it" and the refs should have the power to stick to their original decision.

It should be a conversation, like they do in any other sport.

 

VAR: "I think he's gone studs up there and it's a bit high so maybe it should be a red?"

Ref: "No that's how I saw it initially but I don't think there's enough force to justify a red so I'm sticking with a yellow"

 

Obviously that's simplified, but you get my point.

 

It's exactly the problem that they've set such a high bar for VAR reviews that things either aren't getting reviewed at all, or when they finally do get reviewed, the ref is thinking "well I MUST be wrong here if they're reviewing it"

[OutByEaster?]

The explanations/justifications aren't helping them.

"Cancelo was clear with the ball"

"Robertson's foot was not on the ground"

It's a bad decision, ratified by a friend with a replay machine, excused ridiculously for the media. 

It's hard to do the wrong thing three times on one decision, but they're managing it.

 

 

[foreveryoung]

The best answer is not to have there mates in the VAR room.  I bet they have a right banter over a beer after the game. "You got that one completely wrong". Ref "Yeah I know, who cares though, It's not as though I need to justify it, anyway, it's how I saw it at the time, ha ha ha ha".

[bobzy]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

But that's exactly the issue. They shouldn't have to think that.

It should be "we might have spotted something you didn't, have another look at it" and the refs should have the power to stick to their original decision.

It should be a conversation, like they do in any other sport.

 

VAR: "I think he's gone studs up there and it's a bit high so maybe it should be a red?"

Ref: "No that's how I saw it initially but I don't think there's enough force to justify a red so I'm sticking with a yellow"

 

Obviously that's simplified, but you get my point.

 

It's exactly the problem that they've set such a high bar for VAR reviews that things either aren't getting reviewed at all, or when they finally do get reviewed, the ref is thinking "well I MUST be wrong here if they're reviewing it"

It's not that they "shouldn't have to" think in that manner, it's just a human reaction.  VAR is there to catch things that are wrong so if the VAR is suggesting you "may want to have a look at that", they're basically saying the initial decision is wrong (in their opinion).  At the same time, you don't want VAR meddling with every decision that is borderline and giving the referee the chance to review it as he'll be reviewing so many incidents each game.  So you'll inevitably have referees thinking that any VAR review is them, essentially, getting it wrong.

It'd be far more efficient to sack off the theatre of a referee viewing a screen and just have someone overrule him when the decision is obviously wrong (i.e: Kane red, Newcastle penalty etc).

[Stevo985]

11 hours ago, bobzy said:

It's not that they "shouldn't have to" think in that manner, it's just a human reaction.  VAR is there to catch things that are wrong so if the VAR is suggesting you "may want to have a look at that", they're basically saying the initial decision is wrong (in their opinion).  At the same time, you don't want VAR meddling with every decision that is borderline and giving the referee the chance to review it as he'll be reviewing so many incidents each game.  So you'll inevitably have referees thinking that any VAR review is them, essentially, getting it wrong.

It'd be far more efficient to sack off the theatre of a referee viewing a screen and just have someone overrule him when the decision is obviously wrong (i.e: Kane red, Newcastle penalty etc).

But other sports manage it just fine. You don't see Rugby refs afraid to stick to their guns, it's done as a conversation. A joint decision by the on field ref and the VAR. It's not us and them, they review footage they haven't seen and come to a decision together.

[a m ole]

Now I have no problem with this in isolation because he was absolutely correct about the incidents in question, but Klopp has escaped punishment for his comments about Paul Tierney. Would many other managers be given the same leniency?

Edited December 21, 2021 by a m ole

[His Name Is Death]

19 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

This thread is excellent. And it really backs up what I said above. They are bending over backwards to not overrule the on field referees. It's totally broken

 

 

 

It's an excellent thread, but the fact that UEFA think Attwell and Kavanagh are fit for the PL doesn't really undermine the idea that they aren't fit for the PL. The fact of UEFA having a different opinion on the matter doesn't necessarily suggest a deeper reason for VAR's issues either, unless you want to believe that UEFA a reliable judge of competency. I thought UEFA were generally seen as incompetent and corrupt?

[Phil Silvers]

Corrupt FM innit.

 

[Brumstopdogs]

 

[jacketspuds]

2 hours ago, a m ole said:

Now I have no problem with this in isolation because he was absolutely correct about the incidents in question, but Klopp has escaped punishment for his comments about Paul Tierney. Would many other managers be given the same leniency?

Didn't Smith get into trouble for asking if Jon Moss got juggling balls for Xmas last season?

It's all a load of shit. I wouldn't be surprised if Sky get involved in what goes on in games as they need to keep the drama and suspense in the competition.

[Vive_La_Villa]

4 hours ago, a m ole said:

Now I have no problem with this in isolation because he was absolutely correct about the incidents in question, but Klopp has escaped punishment for his comments about Paul Tierney. Would many other managers be given the same leniency?

I’m shocked Klopp has escaped punishment for his behaviour throughout that game.  The mans just a bully.  

[Zatman]

14 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I’m shocked Klopp has escaped punishment for his behaviour throughout that game.  The mans just a bully.  

But he smiles when he wins so is a nice guy, one of the games true nice guys

Edited December 21, 2021 by Zatman