The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[bannedfromHandV]

7 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

The worst one at the weekend for me was the Burnley one.

It shows how bad it is when it's actually hard to pick which was the worst mistake.

Hourihane's disallowed goal, Deulofeu not getting a penalty or the Burnley goal chalked off.............it's tip of the iceberg stuff folks.

Can't wait for the end of season comparisons of the final league table and the final league table if VAR hadn't dropped the ball

[lapal_fan]

There's no accountability for the decisions either. The ref can only call what he see's (or doesn't in kev friends case).  

The way they do it in Italy is the best.  Something happens, when the ball is dead the var ref points out a potential error, ref goes to the sidelines, has a look, makes a call.

 

None of this removal of decision making from the refs.  

Like cricket, a lot of this weekends decisions should have been the ref's call, such was the slightness of the incidents.

[tomav84]

6 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

There's no accountability for the decisions either. The ref can only call what he see's (or doesn't in kev friends case).  

The way they do it in Italy is the best.  Something happens, when the ball is dead the var ref points out a potential error, ref goes to the sidelines, has a look, makes a call.

 

None of this removal of decision making from the refs.  

Like cricket, a lot of this weekends decisions should have been the ref's call, such was the slightness of the incidents.

the problem is that adds to the time to make the decisions. it was probably the most criticised aspect of VAR from the world cup and the FA, to their credit, told the refs to avoid using it where possible and give the responsibility to the VAR to essentially make the decision. its a method that completely works...IN THEORY

the biggest problem we have, and not sure if this is the case in other countries, is this 'referees union' that seems to exist. they refuse to publicly go against each others decision. ex referees are even defending indefensible decisions on sky etc. our ref was obviously told by VAR that there was a foul, but the ref never considered "hang on, it was right under my nose and didn't look like a foul...let me just go check". similarly the VAR in the spurs game didn't dare go against the ref's on field decision.

[bobzy]

3 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

But this is the problem with VAR isn't it - almost all instances can be subjective.

See I don't think it was a foul on Origi, I think he felt the slightest of contact and threw himself to the ground thus diving.

It's opinions and it's opinions in a split second - it should just stay that way.

I agree with the overall sentiment, but I don't think that's a subjective decision to be made.  It's just a foul.  Lindelof doesn't win the ball and kicks his man from behind.  You could argue Origi isn't going to get the ball afterwards anyway, but it's still a foul.

[bobzy]

55 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

It shows how bad it is when it's actually hard to pick which was the worst mistake.

Hourihane's disallowed goal, Deulofeu not getting a penalty or the Burnley goal chalked off.............it's tip of the iceberg stuff folks.

Can't wait for the end of season comparisons of the final league table and the final league table if VAR hadn't dropped the ball

Again, I think the Burnley decision is correct.  You could argue that Evans isn't going to catch the ball anyway, but Wood clips his ankle.  It may well be unintentional, but it's a foul every day of the week.

The Deulofeu one was utterly baffling.

[bannedfromHandV]

3 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Again, I think the Burnley decision is correct.  You could argue that Evans isn't going to catch the ball anyway, but Wood clips his ankle.  It may well be unintentional, but it's a foul every day of the week.

The Deulofeu one was utterly baffling.

But if it's accidental how can it be a foul (re Woods/Evans)? If anything Evans' running motion kicks into Woods rather than the other way round.

And perhaps I'm stuck in days gone by but for me if a player throws himself to the ground then it's a dive, irrespective of whether there is contact or not (and yes, I know that by that definition Grealish is a serial-diver but then I've never refuted that).

[StefanAVFC]

9 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Again, I think the Burnley decision is correct.  You could argue that Evans isn't going to catch the ball anyway, but Wood clips his ankle.  It may well be unintentional, but it's a foul every day of the week.

The Deulofeu one was utterly baffling.

I disagree. He isn't getting there, he gets a clip, half him sticking his leg out and half a coming together with Wood, and sends himself flying.

In the NFL, they have pass interference if the defender interferes with the catcher but it isn't called if the ball is uncatchable. It was the same here.

Edited October 21, 2019 by StefanAVFC

[tomav84]

The burnley one is a difficult one...but if its not clear and obvious then the goal should have stood

[bobzy]

7 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

But if it's accidental how can it be a foul (re Woods/Evans)? If anything Evans' running motion kicks into Woods rather than the other way round.

And perhaps I'm stuck in days gone by but for me if a player throws himself to the ground then it's a dive, irrespective of whether there is contact or not (and yes, I know that by that definition Grealish is a serial-diver but then I've never refuted that).

Why wouldn't it be a foul if it's accidental?  I'm a bit confused.  If you don't mean to impede someone, but you do, it's still a foul.

I agree with the throwing to ground, but taking a kick from an opponent is a foul.  It's a shame that players feel the need to do that to get a foul - perhaps Grealish found that out early days when he was taking a kicking - but it's still a foul.

For me, if you play the man and not the ball, it's a foul.  Shirt pulling, tripping, kicking - all fouls.

[bannedfromHandV]

9 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Why wouldn't it be a foul if it's  I'm a bit confused.  If you don't mean to impede someone, but you do, it's still a foul.

I agree with the throwing to ground, but taking a kick from an opponent is a foul.  It's a shame that players feel the need to do that to get a foul - perhaps Grealish found that out early days when he was taking a kicking - but it's still a foul.

For me, if you play the man and not the ball, it's a foul.  Shirt pulling, tripping, kicking - all fouls.

Because you can have a coming together of two players without it being a foul - contact itself does not equal a foul.

But this is where it becomes subjective isn’t it?

[bobzy]

3 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Because you can have a coming together of two players without it being a foul - contact itself does not equal a foul.

But this is where it becomes subjective isn’t it?

I'm not aware of an incident where a player accidentally clips another's feet/ankles from behind and it not be given as a foul.

[sharkyvilla]

5 hours ago, lapal_fan said:

There's no accountability for the decisions either. The ref can only call what he see's (or doesn't in kev friends case).  

The way they do it in Italy is the best.  Something happens, when the ball is dead the var ref points out a potential error, ref goes to the sidelines, has a look, makes a call.

 

None of this removal of decision making from the refs.  

Like cricket, a lot of this weekends decisions should have been the ref's call, such was the slightness of the incidents.

Exactly.  The stupid thing is I reckon if the refs themselves had been told to check some of these incidents then they would have changed their mind.  They should have started off with the system that is used everywhere else like you say, and if eventually everyone gets up to speed with it empower the bloke in the truck to take more responsibility.

[fightoffyour]

If the problem with the ref going to view a monitor is time then why can't have a tablet on him somehow, e.g. in a chest pocket. They don't weigh anything these days so it would hardly impede. If that technology isn't working or he needs a bigger screen then he can go the pitch side monitor still.

[bannedfromHandV]

2 hours ago, bobzy said:

I'm not aware of an incident where a player accidentally clips another's feet/ankles from behind and it not be given as a foul.

I’m not arguing the point of whether or not it was a foul, we have differing views but then I think that would represent people on the whole and therefore, whatever your opinion (or mine) - it’s subjective.

And that is why VAR cannot work to 100% accuracy in these matters, what might be 100% accuracy to one person might be 0% accuracy to another.

I can’t see that ever changing, football is just too fluid.

That all being said, I also don’t see a way back from this point now, it’s not going to go away, right now I’d say scrap it for everything that’s not a matter of lines, ie definitive, was it offside, was the ball out of play, was it in the penalty area - everything else just leave to the on-field officials and we just accept that there will be occasional errors.

Thats what I would do, but it won’t happen, the stakes are too high and the criticism too loud when a ref does make an error. 
 

All of that doesn’t even take into account the impact on fans and players from an aesthetic perspective, the not-knowing what’s going on at the grounds, the celebration of scoring to see it chalked off a minute-plus afterwards - and yes, we’ve all celebrated goals for years for them to be chalked off, but you realise that within seconds and you don’t really have time to savour it but the ‘goals’ we’ve had fall foul of VAR have been taken off a good minute or more later and well after the initial euphoria has been and gone. Look at what happened to City against spurs last season in the champions league, in what was a crazy game, a super charged atmosphere - which by the way, is what football is actually all about (not stats, not being correct) and when it’s at its absolute best - scoring in the last seconds to draw level and go through, a Sterling hat trick to boot, imagine that feeling and having it taken away, again a good minute plus, if not more on that one.

Its sickening, I have zero affection for City but I genuinely felt sick watching that happen, it just went against everything that football is as far as I was concerned.

Anyway, none of this was really aimed at you, I’m stoned and ranting, feel free to ignore   

[Genie]

Where is @Stevo985 to tell us it’s gonna be alright? It’s an absolute shit show as it stands and progressively getting worse.

[Mic09]

I blame the officials and the premier League 100% - it's not the video replays that are bad, it's the implementation.

[sne]

Kinda funny situation in the Swedish top tier Allsvenskan where loads of people and journalists are clamoring for VAR after a game yesterday where the the ref and assistant had a shocker, missing a blatant pen, incorrectly ruling out a goal for offside and missing another offside that led to the game winning goal.

The result will very possibly lead to Djurgården who won the game also ending up title winners and the ref has even come out and said he got it all terribly wrong.

Thing is it was my team IFK Göteborg who got the short stick in these decisions and I still don't want a VAR because it's crap and none of the journalists who are gagging for it are for some reason mentioning the calamitous weekend in the PL.

Obviously the PL version of VAR is as bad as it can possibly be, but it proves that just having VAR doesn't get you the right calls.

What you need is competent refs 

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, sne said:

and the ref has even come out and said he got it all terribly wrong.

See, if refs or the FA EVER did that, I would have 10000x more respect for them

Look at the Palace one. They stood by the decision, when everybody in the footballing world knew it was a huge screw up.

[sne]

Was a paywall article in the Telegraph yesterday, can only read the ingress of the article but the headline is pretty damning.

Quote

VAR has overturned one subjective decision in 89 Premier League games - can that really be justified?

Carrow Road on the afternoon of August 24 still remains the only place where a subjective decision by a Premier League referee was overturned. In 89 games so far this season there has just been the one which, at the very least, is a remarkable statistic.

It came on 78 minutes as Chelsea believed they had scored against Norwich City with Kurt Zouma bundling the ball into the net after goalkeeper Tim Krul had leaped to catch it, fumbling it under pressure from Olivier Giroud. Referee Martin Atkinson gave the goal but changed his mind after consultation with the VAR.

In the end Chelsea won anyway, gaining a 3-2 victory with two goals from Tammy Abraham earning Frank Lampard his first win as manager....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/10/21/var-has-overturned-one-subjective-decision-89-premier-league/

Thank's if anyone can post the full article.

Edited October 22, 2019 by sne

[Pelle]

5 minutes ago, sne said:

Was a paywall article in the Telegraph yesterday, can only read the ingress of the article but the headline is pretty damning.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/10/21/var-has-overturned-one-subjective-decision-89-premier-league/

Thank's if anyone can post the full article.

Wouldn't that be two now with Hourihane's goal ruled out, even if it was wrong?

Agree with your other post about yesterday's game. IFK is my team too and I was furious yesterday but when they started to talk about VAR in the studio I started to cringe and wondered if they had followed the shambles of PL. But then again, Olof Lundh is from Malmö and Hasse Backe I think is a Hammarby fan and I guess the 3rd guy is an AIK fan.