General officiating/rules

[maqroll]

One manager's challenge per half. Review the disputed sequence and make the call, don't automatically employ it for everything. If they want to fix VAR, they should do it like this.

[villa89]

12 hours ago, maqroll said:

One manager's challenge per half. Review the disputed sequence and make the call, don't automatically employ it for everything. If they want to fix VAR, they should do it like this.

Good god no, the last thing it needs is more complexity. Have the VAR ref in the background and let him radio down to the ref on the pitch if he has made an obvious mistake and tell him what to do. Same for Linesmen and offside calls. Otherwise do nothing, no pitch side monitors, no drawing lines at armpits, nothing that can't be looked at on replay within 15 seconds. 

Alternatively just get rid of VAR, it's shite and adds nothing to the game. 

[tomav84]

13 hours ago, maqroll said:

One manager's challenge per half. Review the disputed sequence and make the call, don't automatically employ it for everything. If they want to fix VAR, they should do it like this.

no way. it'll be exploited. 1-0 up going into stoppage time you'll execute your 'challenge' for a nothing decision to slow the game up. they'd have to do what they do in NFL where coaches cannot challenge in the last 2 mins of each half

anyway...the concept isn't the problem. it's how it's executed. the personnel simply are not good enough. they slow motion the replays to the extent that they are LOOKING for a reason to disallow a goal or give them a red card.

it was brought in to stop refereeing clangers. but it lost its way fairly early on and started re-refereeing games, which from the outset it said wasn't the aim

the only way this will be solved is putting a time limit on the decision making. 10-20 seconds a professional referee can easily decide whether an clanger has been made (as could most of us) so put that time limit in.

[villa4europe]

14 hours ago, maqroll said:

One manager's challenge per half. Review the disputed sequence and make the call, don't automatically employ it for everything. If they want to fix VAR, they should do it like this.

That won't stop the inept refs though 

Now they'll just review the challenges and get them wrong 

Its the refs and PGMOL that are broken not the technology 

[Stevo985]

15 hours ago, tom_avfc said:

I think it’s harsh to blame Mike Dean for that red card without knowing what is being said to him by VAR.

The fact he’s been called over to the screen means that Lee Mason on VAR believes he has made a mistake. I’d put the blame more on Mason for this one. If he doesn’t get involved then Mike Dean doesn’t even book Soucek and the right decision is made.

Effectively Mason has screwed over Dean here. You make him second guess himself by getting him to look at the screen and then show him hundreds of slow mo replays of an elbow hitting Mitrovic in the head while telling him it’s violent conduct.

I genuinely think that VAR is making worse decisions than just a normal referee and linesmen now. 

No. I don't agree.

If this is the case then VAR is fundamentally flawed. It should not be the job of VAR to overrule the referee on red card decisions. It should be the job to tell the ref he may have missed something and to review it in discussion with VAR.

If Mike Dean feels unable to stick to his original decision despite the opportunity to review it himself because of VAR then it is absolutely fundamentally broken.

[Stevo985]

15 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

For the purposes of accountability and explanation - would it be worth having a camera in the VR room and being able to see and hear the communication between the VAR official and the referee?

100%

I've been arguing for mic'd up refs for ages. I don't want to be that "oh but in rugby..." guy, but I'm going to be. That's how it is in rugby and it's way way better. You at least understand why a decision has been made even if you don't agree with it

[tom_avfc]

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

No. I don't agree.

If this is the case then VAR is fundamentally flawed. It should not be the job of VAR to overrule the referee on red card decisions. It should be the job to tell the ref he may have missed something and to review it in discussion with VAR.

If Mike Dean feels unable to stick to his original decision despite the opportunity to review it himself because of VAR then it is absolutely fundamentally broken.

Oh I completely agree. I think my phrasing was probably a bit off. I get that Mike Dean should be able to stick to his original decision and that is an issue in itself.

My point was more that he shouldn't have even be put into that position in the first place. Why on Earth is the VAR (who is also a Premier League referee) asking him to have a look at something like that? Its only human that having a decision that you have made in the spur of the moment be questioned by a fellow Premier League referee will make you second guess yourself.

If you're then shown a load of slow-mo replays of a guy's elbow hitting someone else in the face then all that the VAR has achieved is to make the decision much more difficult than it would have been otherwise.

The fundamental flaw in VAR is the people sat in the room watching it. They're quite simply not good enough. Lee Mason could look at that as many times as we could at home and he was the only person that thought that it was even worth a look. 

I get that VAR shouldn't be overruling the referees but in effect even by telling the ref to go and look at the screen they are saying that they think there's an issue with the on field decision. As you say without knowing the conversation being held between them its difficult to say for certain but the fact that he's being called over to the screen suggests to me that Lee Mason genuinely believes that's a red card.

[villa4europe]

They need to take it back to the world cup, the trial and demonstration that they sold to the world as to what VAR was

VAR is always watching, sees everything, when VAR thinks he has seen something that the pitch ref didn't he messages down "you might want to take a better look at that mate" and the pitch ref goes and takes another look 

They didn't go back through every goal trying to disallow it, they didn't get lines out, PGMOL are using it as a checking system to make sure every goal was perfect 

PGMOL are not using the technology how it was trialed, the question shouldn't be is the technology correct or do we even need it, the question is why are PGMOL applying it differently to how FIFA want it used and how the rest of the world are seemingly using it? 

The answer will either be ineptitude, corruption, arrogance, deliberately causing controversy as a marketing tool, sabotage because the refs don't want it or a mixture of all of the above

Edited February 9, 2021 by villa4europe

[Stevo985]

22 minutes ago, tom_avfc said:

Oh I completely agree. I think my phrasing was probably a bit off. I get that Mike Dean should be able to stick to his original decision and that is an issue in itself.

My point was more that he shouldn't have even be put into that position in the first place. Why on Earth is the VAR (who is also a Premier League referee) asking him to have a look at something like that? Its only human that having a decision that you have made in the spur of the moment be questioned by a fellow Premier League referee will make you second guess yourself.

If you're then shown a load of slow-mo replays of a guy's elbow hitting someone else in the face then all that the VAR has achieved is to make the decision much more difficult than it would have been otherwise.

The fundamental flaw in VAR is the people sat in the room watching it. They're quite simply not good enough. Lee Mason could look at that as many times as we could at home and he was the only person that thought that it was even worth a look. 

I get that VAR shouldn't be overruling the referees but in effect even by telling the ref to go and look at the screen they are saying that they think there's an issue with the on field decision. As you say without knowing the conversation being held between them its difficult to say for certain but the fact that he's being called over to the screen suggests to me that Lee Mason genuinely believes that's a red card.

No again I don't agree. I think that kind of thing is EXACTLY what VAR is there for. That incident was worthy of a review. He's elbowed someone in the face. I'm fine with Mike Dean being asked to look at it.

If he feels so pressured by VAR telling him to review it that he HAS to give the red card then they may as well not have it.

[tom_avfc]

2 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

No again I don't agree. I think that kind of thing is EXACTLY what VAR is there for. That incident was worthy of a review. He's elbowed someone in the face. I'm fine with Mike Dean being asked to look at it.

If he feels so pressured by VAR telling him to review it that he HAS to give the red card then they may as well not have it.

I just don't think that incident was worthy of calling Dean over to look at it. Its clearly not deliberate. The guy sitting watching that should be able to take one look at a replay at full speed and determine that its not a contentious call at all as almost everybody watching on TV did.

If we're going to start sending the ref over to the screen for decisions as obvious as that that he's got right at the time then the games are going to get stupidly long. 

I'm not sure what sending Mike Dean across to look at that adds to the decision making process. Its a professional referee looking at it in the first place. If he doesn't feel that there's a clear and obvious error or at least a decent likelihood of a clear and obvious error he shouldn't be telling him to go and watch the screen.

[villa89]

3 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

It should not be the job of VAR to overrule the referee on red card decisions. It should be the job to tell the ref he may have missed something and to review it in discussion with VAR.

This doesn't work. If you watch rugby you see that you end up with two or more officials talking to each other over the radio and nobody making a decision. It takes too long and it's a total mess. The Ref is asking the TMO what to do and then the TMO won't tell him because it's the ref's job to make the decision. It's a shambles and takes way too long. There's a myth out there that it works in rugby when it doesn't. If you look at cricket the 4th official just tells the umpire what to do, he doesn't show him replays or ask him anything. It's out or it's not, change the decision if needed. Then it works. 

I think it is fine for the VAR to over rule the ref, the ref can't see everything and doesn't have access to slow motion replays. Ref's get things wrong all the time, it's no big deal. VAR should be there to correct any obvious mistakes, quickly.  

Edited February 9, 2021 by villa89

[Stevo985]

19 minutes ago, villa89 said:

This doesn't work. If you watch rugby you see that you end up with two or more officials talking to each other over the radio and nobody making a decision. It takes too long and it's a total mess. The Ref is asking the TMO what to do and then the TMO won't tell him because it's the ref's job to make the decision. It's a shambles and takes way too long. There's a myth out there that it works in rugby when it doesn't. If you look at cricket the 4th official just tells the umpire what to do, he doesn't show him replays or ask him anything. It's out or it's not, change the decision if needed. Then it works. 

I think it is fine for the VAR to over rule the ref, the ref can't see everything and doesn't have access to slow motion replays. Ref's get things wrong all the time, it's no big deal. VAR should be there to correct any obvious mistakes, quickly.  

I disagree. I think the authority should remain with the referee on the pitch.

[tom_avfc]

14 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I disagree. I think the authority should remain with the referee on the pitch.

I don't see why this should be the case. There's no point in having another Premier League referee on VAR if they're not going to make decisions themselves. I don't think VAR should be used for anything that isn't an obvious howler. It should be the sort of decision that every referee would be in agreement with in which case the guy at Stockley Park might as well make the decision.

I also don't really get why there needs to be any sort of discussion between the ref and VAR about that incident at the weekend. Its so obviously not deliberate that there's absolutely nothing to gain from asking Mike Dean to watch it on a screen. It wasted a fair chunk of time and also planted a seed of doubt in the ref's mind that he'd missed something when he quite clearly hadn't.

Obviously I'm not absolving Dean of any of the blame himself - he should have stuck with his original decision. However I don't see why he should have been put in the position of being asked to look at that again. Its dreadful from the VAR official.

[villa89]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

I disagree. I think the authority should remain with the referee on the pitch.

Why? He's not any less of an authority if he gets over ruled by a VAR. Players arent going to just start playing on when he blows his whistle or refusing to leave if he gives them a red card. 

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, villa89 said:

Why? He's not any less of an authority if he gets over ruled by a VAR. Players arent going to just start playing on when he blows his whistle or refusing to leave if he gives them a red card. 

Because then the decisions remain consistent. You don't have one ref interpreting it one way and a different ref interpreting it another. That confuses things.

Take the advice of the VAR and make your decision

[sharkyvilla]

7 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

100%

I've been arguing for mic'd up refs for ages. I don't want to be that "oh but in rugby..." guy, but I'm going to be. That's how it is in rugby and it's way way better. You at least understand why a decision has been made even if you don't agree with it

It would have to be only the VAR you can hear as the TV would pick up too much bad language from players round the ref I'd have thought.  In rugby the players respect the ref, whereas football is a free-for-all.  It doesnt help refs that football is the only sport I can think of where cheating is an accepted part of the game but nothing will change that.  Like you I'd much rather the refs themselves look at the screen themselves as often as possible as they know why they made the decision and having another look is sensible to see if they saw it wrong.  There's also a problem where the ref is often the oldest person on the pitch and it must be tough to be in the right position all the time.

Ultimately PGMOL have to take responsibility, Mike Riley especially, for how farcically badly they've prepared all the officials.  How hard can it be to reasonably decide what a handball is, what interfering with play is etc before the start of the season when they've supposedly be reffing at the top level for years?  If given the right leadership I think it would be ten times better.

[bannedfromHandV]

8 hours ago, tomav84 said:

no way. it'll be exploited. 1-0 up going into stoppage time you'll execute your 'challenge' for a nothing decision to slow the game up. they'd have to do what they do in NFL where coaches cannot challenge in the last 2 mins of each half

anyway...the concept isn't the problem. it's how it's executed. the personnel simply are not good enough. they slow motion the replays to the extent that they are LOOKING for a reason to disallow a goal or give them a red card.

it was brought in to stop refereeing clangers. but it lost its way fairly early on and started re-refereeing games, which from the outset it said wasn't the aim

the only way this will be solved is putting a time limit on the decision making. 10-20 seconds a professional referee can easily decide whether an clanger has been made (as could most of us) so put that time limit in.

I actually disagree in some respects, I think the concept is the problem.

How many people would prefer to go back to football without VAR? I know that a lot of people are hanging hopes on it somehow getting better and to a point where it just fits seamlessly into the fabric of the game eradicating all bad decisions and making officiating near perfect. But that’s a total fallacy in my opinion. 
 

It’s beginning to go round in circles, we go from using common sense to people demanding simplification, those two things do not exist in partnership because common sense means different things to different people, even in a narrow context such as football. What one person thinks is deliberate differs from another person, likewise for something reckless (in borderline cases) or cynical.

At the start of the season they went with simplified rules for handball, if it hits your arm below the sleeve it’s handball. But then we ended up with the ridiculous decisions which I think culminated in a Spurs player giving away a penalty in the last minute of a game when he wasn’t facing the ball and it was directed at him from about 2 yards away - now that’s an easy one to apply common sense to and it’s why i believe the rules were changed again soon afterwards, but so many other decisions are far less easy to apply common sense to.

I actually do feel sorry for the referees now, and I’m not a usual sympathiser. But VAR was supposed to make their jobs easier and it 100% has not, I’d say the only tangible benefit for refs now is that they seem to be getting far less on-field abuse from players, they’re not being chased after and surrounded so often. 
 

Then you add in the possibility of it all being used to manipulate results, I mean who knows what the PL may have agreed to in order to keep Liverpool and United from running away to start their own league, but that’s super conspiratorial obvs.

Offsides are where it can be, and is used well i would add, I mean you’re either offside or you’re not, but I wonder if they could change the rule (would be a big change) so that you’re only offside if no part of your body is in line with a defender, i.e. your whole body is in advance of the last defender. There will still be times when it’ll become super tight and will need to be worked out but at least then you’re not offside because your nose is in advance of the defender but because your entire body is, makes it less galling potentially.

[sharkyvilla]

Tbh I don't mind the idea of replacing it with managers and/or captains having the responsibility to ask for reviews.  Say a player dives to try and win a penalty that's not given, he then has the responsibility either to risk getting his team's appeal wasted by telling the captain or manager to use it, or basically admit that he has tried to cheat and keep the review for later in the match.  It might just improve player behaviour, you never know.  Also maybe they could have 3 VAR refs to look at an incident and have a set time limit, e.g. 90 seconds.  They have to make a decision in that time and the majority wins, if it's unanimous against the team appealing then the review is lost, if it's 2 to 1 then the review is retained.

[Hornso]

Lee Mason stood down by the Premier League.

[Zatman]

1 hour ago, Hornso said:

Lee Mason stood down by the Premier League.

Will Nuno get his money back?