The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[bobzy]

17 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

Another issue, Cavani was never gonna get that ball.

Cavani made the foul, not JJ

 

It wasn't a foul, it was offside.  Those two colliding isn't the issue, it's the fact that Ramsey interfered from an offside position (which he did by stepping into Cavani's path).

[Stevo985]

3 minutes ago, bobzy said:

It wasn't a foul, it was offside.  Those two colliding isn't the issue, it's the fact that Ramsey interfered from an offside position (which he did by stepping into Cavani's path).

But that only applies if Cavani was going to get the ball. Which is debateable

[bobzy]

Just now, Stevo985 said:

But that only applies if Cavani was going to get the ball. Which is debateable

Not quite, it's if he impacts Cavani's ability to challenge for the ball.  Cavani wouldn't get the ball (IMO), but it's certainly reasonable to think he'd be in a position to challenge for it had he not been blocked.

[a-k]

2 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Not quite, it's if he impacts Cavani's ability to challenge for the ball.  Cavani wouldn't get the ball (IMO), but it's certainly reasonable to think he'd be in a position to challenge for it had he not been blocked.

That's not the point. If Michael Oliver blew for that in real-time, fair enough. Debatable, but it is what it is. The point is they spent three minutes looking at two other incidents, couldn't find anything, then decided to have a look at this incident. If this was so obvious and should be overturne, why was it not the first thing they were looking at?

[bobzy]

1 minute ago, a-k said:

That's not the point. If Michael Oliver blew for that in real-time, fair enough. Debatable, but it is what it is. The point is they spent three minutes looking at two other incidents, couldn't find anything, then decided to have a look at this incident. If this was so obvious and should be overturne, why was it not the first thing they were looking at?

As I said before, they basically had 3 different offside incidents to look at.  The other two (initial header, Watkins flicking the ball or not) are easy to decide - they're either offside or not when the ball was played.  For the Cavani/Ramsey situation, it depends how the referee interprets it which is why Michael Oliver was sent to the screen to have a look.

The time taken is annoying, but they got the right decision in the most logical order IMO.  Again, if the situation was reversed, I'd be wanting that called offside.

[a-k]

19 minutes ago, bobzy said:

As I said before, they basically had 3 different offside incidents to look at.  The other two (initial header, Watkins flicking the ball or not) are easy to decide - they're either offside or not when the ball was played.  For the Cavani/Ramsey situation, it depends how the referee interprets it which is why Michael Oliver was sent to the screen to have a look.

The time taken is annoying, but they got the right decision in the most logical order IMO.  Again, if the situation was reversed, I'd be wanting that called offside.

If they were easy to decide, why did they take longer than the one that was less obvious?

[bobzy]

1 minute ago, a-k said:

If they were easy to decide, why did they take longer than the one that was less obvious?

For me, they took too long deciding whether or not Watkins had flicked the ball when the deviation of the ball certainly implied he hadn't.  They also seemed to check for handball against Ings, which was never mentioned as an initial check (but maybe they thought it looked odd when reviewing the offside).

[StefanAVFC]

42 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Not quite, it's if he impacts Cavani's ability to challenge for the ball.  Cavani wouldn't get the ball (IMO), but it's certainly reasonable to think he'd be in a position to challenge for it had he not been blocked.

I don't disagree 100% but Shaw on Konsa, regardless of whether Konsa was getting to the ball, Shaw impeded him enough (giving him a bloody nose) but the ref nor VAR were interested.

What's the point if it isn't consistent?

[bobzy]

4 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I don't disagree 100% but Shaw on Konsa, regardless of whether Konsa was getting to the ball, Shaw impeded him enough (giving him a bloody nose) but the ref nor VAR were interested.

What's the point if it isn't consistent?

One of those which is "anywhere else on the pitch, it's a foul".  Same as shirt pulling at corners, happens all the time and very, very rarely are penalties given or even reviewed.  In fact, rarely do players appeal!  Can't remember who we played against, but Konsa won a header at a corner that missed and the opponent was almost pulling the shirt off his back.  No appeal from Konsa, no VAR review, no mention of it.

I don't really understand football rules or why certain things don't apply in certain situations when they do at all other times.

[Ingram85]

At least everyone else who supports other clubs can finally shut the **** up and stop banging on about the Sheff Utd goal now. 

[Spoony]

I’m just baffled by VAR. In this spurs Chelsea game, lo celso just went through the back of Kante in the area. The ball had already gone so it was just a mega late challenge, and nobody complained…but I don’t see how that still isn’t a penalty? There does seem to be an element of if no one is complaining then don’t bother checking it. Surely they can’t be the right approach…but that does seem to be the approach so if I were Gerrard I’d be telling my players to go ape shit and surround and shout at the ref after every single tackle in the box and after every goal conceded. Just in case. 

[jacketspuds]

Why bother sending the ref to the screen? Just turn the decision over.

Fans already celebrate when the TV signal comes out as they know what’s going to happen.

[foreveryoung]

23 minutes ago, jacketspuds said:

Why bother sending the ref to the screen? Just turn the decision over.

Fans already celebrate when the TV signal comes out as they know what’s going to happen.

I think it makes the ref think he has missed something, even if he don't see it on the screen, he'll know the VAR team have seen something wrong, so close to impossible to overturn, as really your over ruling other refs.

Be interesting to hear what the VAR are saying to the ref.  "go and have a look, it looks like a foul/offside to us"? Hard for the ref then to say, "No it's fine, play on"! The procedure is wrong and needs looking at.

[May-Z]

I wonder if there's a way to make it more like rugby where the TMO is directed by the referee as what to look for. 

Psychologically, being told to go to the monitor means the ref will think he needs to change something. 

If he was in charge of asking for a closer inspection, there's less conflict and less passing of who is in control of the decision.

[foreveryoung]

1 hour ago, May-Z said:

I wonder if there's a way to make it more like rugby where the TMO is directed by the referee as what to look for. 

Psychologically, being told to go to the monitor means the ref will think he needs to change something. 

If he was in charge of asking for a closer inspection, there's less conflict and less passing of who is in control of the decision.

Like this.

 

[Spoony]

1 hour ago, foreveryoung said:

Like this.

 

Hmmm it’s all well and good but can you imagine the realities. The dogs abuse they get for decisions certain fans don’t agree with will just be even worse and I think the massive increase I pressure isn’t going to help get the right decision. This is an example of a very straightforward decision. 

[Phil Silvers]

VAR / PGMOL needs a whistleblower (intended).

The quicker the game is officiated in a fair unbiased agenda free manner, the sooner the game will be exciting and not infuriating to watch.

#CLEANFOOTBALLUP

[JPJCB]

9 hours ago, Spoony said:

Hmmm it’s all well and good but can you imagine the realities. The dogs abuse they get for decisions certain fans don’t agree with will just be even worse and I think the massive increase I pressure isn’t going to help get the right decision. This is an example of a very straightforward decision. 

Being controversial for a second this reveals the bigger issue at play here which is that in football we’re absolutely obsessed with refereeing decisions when we should just accept that mistakes from referees are just part of the game (like the weather) and move on. 
 

I blame the media for that mainly. Every pundit discussion is part dedicated to some decision which might/might not be wrong rather than just moving on and focussing on the football. You don’t see that in other sports (rugby, cricket, tennis) which just take the decisions as a given and move on. That drives fans into obsessing over the refereeing as well and calls for ever greater accuracy (I.e VAR). But really it’s just spurious accuracy and all VaR does is focus even more attention on decisions that might or might not be wrong- it’s funny that everyone thought VAR was well used at the Euros- it’s because they basically decided to have a really high threshold for it being used at all so it rarely interfered with anything.

I’ll admit I fall into this trap as well- look a few pages back and you’ll find me raging at the decision the other night. But football would be better if we obsessed less over refs and more over the game.

[Zatman]

1 minute ago, JPJCB said:

Being controversial for a second this reveals the bigger issue at play here which is that in football we’re absolutely obsessed with refereeing decisions when we should just accept that mistakes from referees are just part of the game (like the weather) and move on. 
 

I blame the media for that mainly. Every pundit discussion is part dedicated to some decision which might/might not be wrong rather than just moving on and focussing on the football. You don’t see that in other sports (rugby, cricket, tennis) which just take the decisions as a given and move on. That drives fans into obsessing over the refereeing as well and calls for ever greater accuracy (I.e VAR). But really it’s just spurious accuracy and all VaR does is focus even more attention on decisions that might or might not be wrong- it’s funny that everyone thought VAR was well used at the Euros- it’s because they basically decided to have a really high threshold for it being used at all so it rarely interfered with anything.

I’ll admit I fall into this trap as well- look a few pages back and you’ll find me raging at the decision the other night. But football would be better if we obsessed less over refs and more over the game.

I agree with this, referees have been the blame because some pundits are afraid to call out high profile managers for making mistakes so go for the weakest guy on the pitch

For me I have only been more critical of referees since VAR came in

[Phil Silvers]

15 minutes ago, JPJCB said:

Being controversial for a second this reveals the bigger issue at play here which is that in football we’re absolutely obsessed with refereeing decisions when we should just accept that mistakes from referees are just part of the game (like the weather) and move on. 
 

I blame the media for that mainly. Every pundit discussion is part dedicated to some decision which might/might not be wrong rather than just moving on and focussing on the football. You don’t see that in other sports (rugby, cricket, tennis) which just take the decisions as a given and move on. That drives fans into obsessing over the refereeing as well and calls for ever greater accuracy (I.e VAR). But really it’s just spurious accuracy and all VaR does is focus even more attention on decisions that might or might not be wrong- it’s funny that everyone thought VAR was well used at the Euros- it’s because they basically decided to have a really high threshold for it being used at all so it rarely interfered with anything.

I’ll admit I fall into this trap as well- look a few pages back and you’ll find me raging at the decision the other night. But football would be better if we obsessed less over refs and more over the game.

 

12 minutes ago, Zatman said:

I agree with this, referees have been the blame because some pundits are afraid to call out high profile managers for making mistakes so go for the weakest guy on the pitch

For me I have only been more critical of referees since VAR came in

VAR just hasn't made a difference and has just made the issue worse IMO, as you say, we used to just shrug our shoulders, say bloody referee and enjoy watching the rest of the match, You would feel it swings in roundabouts, win some lose some decisions type of attitude.

All I feel now is that it spoils the flow and excitement of the game and that it feels like situations are being manipulated to give certain teams an advantage.

Edited January 15, 2022 by Phil Silvers