Jump to content

The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)


Stevo985

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Genie said:

and how about all the stuff we got away with? Maybe we’d not have got to the final in the first place...

That's fine, no reasonable fan will complain about getting beaten fairly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Genie said:

and how about all the stuff we got away with? Maybe we’d not have got to the final in the first place...

Sure. And that's fair. It's worth the minor inconveniences if it means we have a fairer game.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

Goal line tech wouldn't have determined that Vidic should have been sent off for his challenge on Gabby. VAR would have. The linesman could have too but he missed it too, and that's what VAR is for.

pretty sure VAR wouldnt have made a difference as Dowd saw everything and just gave a yellow card

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Zatman said:

pretty sure VAR wouldnt have made a difference as Dowd saw everything and just gave a yellow card

Depends.

If VAR had decided it should have been a red then they would have referred it to the ref to review.

Dowd might have had a different opinion if he'd been able to see it again. Just because he's "seen it" doesn't mean he hasn't missed anything.

 

If he'd reviewed it and still kept it as a yellow then fair enough. That would be a refereeing error, but VAR would have done it's job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

And then he was later, so avoided 2 reds.

**** Phil Dowd

Yep. I remember the reaction around me, we all thought he was getting a second yellow. Unbelievable really. That booking was at 1-1 as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "clear and obvious" nonsense is rearing its head again after England's games.

Football Ramble were complaining that even though the Wilson challenge WAS a foul, it wasn't a "clear and obvious" foul so it shouldn't have been referred to VAR.

That makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

The "clear and obvious" nonsense is rearing its head again after England's games.

Football Ramble were complaining that even though the Wilson challenge WAS a foul, it wasn't a "clear and obvious" foul so it shouldn't have been referred to VAR.

That makes no sense.

Basically - VAR gives a decision in your favour then it is great, the system works, the rules work,  the implementation and usage is spot on, and the laws and interpretation are correct.

It doesn't give you a decision and omfgitsabagofshitwhatthefuckthisisbollocks.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again the ref was only shown (or looked at) one angle while the TV viewers got to see it from other angles.

The home nation benefited(?) from this...

I don't get this, why only 1 angle?

Quote

"May have missed that there were other pictures"

Criticized after the VAR decision - only showed an angle

Bibiana Steinhaus was criticized after the VAR decision, which decided the meeting between France and Norway.

But when the judge examined the situation, she only had to see the criminal situation from an angle - at the same time as the TV viewers saw other, clearer pictures.

- The video judges may have missed it, says ex-judge Jonas Eriksson.

It was in the 71st minute of the match between France and Norway that the event took place.

Ingrid Syrstad Engen came high up with the doubles and met the French Marion Torrent's knee after a cleansing in his own penalty area. Judge Bibiana Steinhaus chose the video screen situation and then decided to point to the penalty point, while the Norwegian midfielder got yellow card for the bet.

Norway critical

Eugenie Le Sommer pushed it 2-1 on the penalty and France won the match.

- I think I hit the ball, but the referee looks different on the situation. It's hard, it's cut in the football heart, said Syrstrad Engel.

Norway's Swedish national coach Martin Sjögren, who confronted Steinhaus after the final signal, thinks that the penalty is incorrect.

- I must say that. In another match, on another occasion, I am not so sure it had been punished, says Sjögren to NRK.

"Shouldn't be punishment"

The fact that the affected team is criticizing a ruling that makes you lose the match is not unusual, but this time the decision was doubtful. On the TV pictures that were wired out, it actually looked like the Norwegian touches the ball before she meets Marion Torrent - while the Frenchman jumps into the duel in a way that might as well have given Norway a free kick.

- If there should be punishment? No, I don't think so. She is the best female judge in the world and points directly to the kicks and no player responds. But then she talks to the video domains and it becomes a VAR discussion. On the replay you see that the Norwegian meets the French, but the French also gets into the situation. It's hard, you can't say it's not punishment either. But it is not for such situations that we should use video surveys, says ex-judge Jonas Eriksson .

Only showed one angle

When Bibiana Steinhaus ran away to the small TV screen for VAR review, she only had to see the penalty situation from an angle - and from there it hardly appears that the Norwegian hits the ball. At the same time, other angles were wired out to the TV viewers, where the situation looked a little different.

- The judge has no idea which images are available. If the judge is to make a superb decision, that person should have access to as many pictures as possible, says Jonas Eriksson.

 

a76f2cfd-cf9c-41e2-b871-b3ce4b47e5d0?fit

 

The video domains therefore chose to show only an angle for Steinhaus?

- They have the task of presenting and sending the pictures that are available. But the video judges may have missed that there were other pictures, or he might not see everyone. They are in a pressed position and it is not easy to select relevant images for a short time. But according to me, the judge should have looked at more angles to be able to secure who is playing on the ball first, if it would have played a role now.

"Not relevant to display other images"

Judge Sara Persson, who was jailed to the World Cup in the final stage, gives his view on the event.

- I think like this: The VAR judges select the picture with the best angle, the one that shows how the foot hits, where it hits and what speed it brings. I simply think they didn't think it was relevant to show other pictures.

Wouldn't it have been better to show more angles, which clearly shows that the Norwegian hits the ball?

- In this case, it is not necessary. Meeting the ball is not always the best defense, it can be punishment anyway, says Persson and continues:

- Then I also think that you want to shorten the time during the review. They felt that the information they provided was sufficient for the judge.

Could Steinhaus have asked about other pictures?

- Yes, I can't think of anything else.

You don't think they missed the other pictures anyway?

- Absolutely not.

https://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/fotboll/a/vQ9alX/kan-ha-missat-att-det-fanns-andra-bilder

(Google translate)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really not a fan of how they are using VAR in the women's World Cup.

It takes 2 minutes of stopped play before they even decide IF the ref is going to watch the video, and then however long it takes for the ref to watch the video.

and the as above the ref doesn't even get to see it from all angles available.

The sheer number of VAR reviews per game is also exhausting. Especially since the calls are dubious even after the reviews.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, sne said:

Really not a fan of how they are using VAR in the women's World Cup.

It takes 2 minutes of stopped play before they even decide IF the ref is going to watch the video, and then however long it takes for the ref to watch the video.

and the as above the ref doesn't even get to see it from all angles available.

The sheer number of VAR reviews per game is also exhausting. Especially since the calls are dubious even after the reviews.

 

It's ridiculous how much time is spent waiting for VAR decisions. And half the time they are reviewing something that happened in the buildup to the thing that you thought they were reviewing.

And in this Australia-Brazil game VAR didn't rule a goal offside when a Brazil defender headed the ball into her own net when an Australian player in an offside position was also jumping for the ball, which I find a weird decision. So I don't see how VAR is really taking away the personal opinion side of decisions anyway, it is just slowing everything down and making controversial decisions take two minutes minimum every single time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said:

It's ridiculous how much time is spent waiting for VAR decisions. And half the time they are reviewing something that happened in the buildup to the thing that you thought they were reviewing.

And in this Australia-Brazil game VAR didn't rule a goal offside when a Brazil defender headed the ball into her own net when an Australian player in an offside position was also jumping for the ball, which I find a weird decision. So I don't see how VAR is really taking away the personal opinion side of decisions anyway, it is just slowing everything down and making controversial decisions take two minutes minimum every single time.

Apparently it's the right call according to new rules.

Nya offsidereglerna

Dubious as always thou.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it had been the defender beside Kerr it would have been offside. But the defender who headed it in was in front of that contest with no eyes on the attacker. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ponky said:

If it had been the defender beside Kerr it would have been offside. But the defender who headed it in was in front of that contest with no eyes on the attacker. 

I thought that at first, but it's equally true that if the Australian striker hadn't been there then the Brazilian wouldn't have headed the ball (she knew full well where the attacker was imo). I guess it all hinges on the interpretation of words like 'close' and 'clearly attempting to play the ball' in the above bullet points. But yes, with the new rules posted above perhaps it was an understandable decision in the end.

Either way, it still took an absolute age to get to the result.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nearly 5 minutes for VAR to callback a simple offside in Copa America for Peru vs Venezuela. 

Worst part was injury for 4 minutes and ref only checked when players were recovered and ready to start

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/06/2019 at 11:56, Milfner said:

Vidic wasn't booked

Jesus.

The worst thing is that if that was Dunne on Owen, he'd have the red right out. Pleased with his defiant decision. Prick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â