General officiating/rules

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, bobzy said:

But it then sets a precedent.

Every single missed and/or given big decision can be questioned by the managers with this being a past example of being able to stop the game, go back and re-apply a ruling.  It'd open a huge can of worms; even if it makes sense as a "one off".

It's different when it's a subjective call on field or in the VAR room vs an objective error.

[bobzy]

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

How is it a nonsense?

There are precedents in the game for sportsmanship based on kicking the ball out, or even on field mistakes being made.

If a goal has been wiped out due to a human error (not a poor decision or subjective call), and spotted immediately, I'm sure any manager would want to know.

Everyone at Villa Park would've known that the goal against Sheffield United had actually crossed the line rather than not.  You're suggesting that what should've happened there is that Villa allow Sheffield United to score?  It's just never going to happen.

Referee has made a mistake; side benefits.  That's what happens.  Same way that player makes a mistake; other side benefits.

[LondonLax]

 

4 minutes ago, JPJCB said:

The fact is that in grand scheme of things you’re gonna get far more criticism for not intervening to allow a perfectly legal goal than interrupting a meaningless passage of play in the interests of the precious rule book. No common sense was applied 

If you thing the surrounding and harassment of referees is bad now imagine what it would be like in a world where they can disregard play and go back to an earlier point in the match to redo it. 

[HKP90]

18 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I don't think this matters conceptually. VAR isn't there to get 100% of decisions right 100% of the time. It's to give referees an opportunity to review decisions they have missed or gotten wrong. They might still get it wrong, but it gives them the best opportunity to get it right in their own opinion.

Conceptually.

Practically it's not even close to that. It's a **** shit show

If the purpose of VAR is solely to give referees access to review decisions made on the field, why have VAR analysis people at all? Just put a big screen next to the pitch with a rewind button on it, and let the ref use it when he wants to look again. 

No, there is a layer of interpretation and decision making going on off the pitch by VAR officials- what should the ref review, what angles should he have, what lines, where lines are drawn. That's why it sucks. It's been implemented, in part at least, as a way to make decision making empirical. But this is not tennis, where the ball is in, or out, likewise cricket. Even the so-called empirical elements such as offside are not, as there is a layer of context to be applied (phases of play, eyelines, etc). That's why it's rubbish. I could handle refereeing mistakes in the heat of the moment, but the way it's working now is like a surgeon taking 2 weeks to prepare for an operation, and then wading in with a chainsaw while two other doctors stand by and argue about how many microns the tooth size on the chainsaw is.     

[bobzy]

2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

It's different when it's a subjective call on field or in the VAR room vs an objective error.

I think you know full well that it'd come into question time and time and time again.  Looking at the sheer amount of **** moaning about referees in the match threads - you're telling me that isn't amplified during a game?  Come on, think properly about it.

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, bobzy said:

Everyone at Villa Park would've known that the goal against Sheffield United had actually crossed the line rather than not.  You're suggesting that what should've happened there is that Villa allow Sheffield United to score?  It's just never going to happen.

Referee has made a mistake; side benefits.  That's what happens.  Same way that player makes a mistake; other side benefits.

No they wouldn't.

The reason we have a technology that tracks the ball over the line is due to cameras/human eye sight being unreliable.

Here the tech worked fine, the correct decision was made but communicated badly.

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, bobzy said:

I think you know full well that it'd come into question time and time and time again.  Looking at the sheer amount of **** moaning about referees in the match threads - you're telling me that isn't amplified during a game?  Come on, think properly about it.

I'm not saying they should have gone back, against the rule book.

But I don't see the harm in relaying the info down to the managers via the 4th official in the incredibly rare cases where an objective mistake is made, and immediately spotted. No subjective cases.

No one wants mistakes to be found after the game and then any points added/games replayed etc.

That's very daft.

[bobzy]

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

No they wouldn't.

The reason we have a technology that tracks the ball over the line is due to cameras/human eye sight being unreliable.

Here the tech worked fine, the correct decision was made but communicated badly.

You're just being obtuse now.  The incident happened in the first half, the TV cameras and ground cameras clearly picked up that it was over the line.  It would've been known by everyone involved that the ball had crossed the line.

[LondonLax]

2 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

If the purpose of VAR is solely to give referees access to review decisions made on the field, why have VAR analysis people at all? Just put a big screen next to the pitch with a rewind button on it, and let the ref use it when he wants to look again. 

Which camera should he look at though when rewinding? You’d still need a VAR team to do the leg work setting it up for him. 

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, bobzy said:

You're just being obtuse now.  The incident happened in the first half, the TV cameras and ground cameras clearly picked up that it was over the line.  It would've been known by everyone involved that the ball had crossed the line.

Eh?

How am I being obtuse?

That was a totally different case. There was no objective way to say whether it crossed the line, as the tech is the only objective method for doing so. Without that tech, it would be a subjective decision whether it was over the line or not.

The objective method for this offside are the lines. They showed without a doubt that it was onside. So it's objectively true that Diaz was onside.

[HKP90]

1 minute ago, LondonLax said:

Which camera should he look at though when rewinding? You’d still need a VAR team to do the leg work setting it up for him. 

I'd prefer no VAR at all. If we had to have it, single camera centrally mounted continuous feed. At most. 

You imply that this needs to be complex to be effective. Far from it. KEEP IT SIMPLE. Until VAR came in the refs had no replay option at all. Maybe they can just use their bloody judgment, as refs have been doing for over a hundred years. 

 

[Mic09]

5 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Which camera should he look at though when rewinding? You’d still need a VAR team to do the leg work setting it up for him. 

A computer science graduate can easily make an app that allows to flick between cameras that's incorporated in the VAR screen. You know, the stuff pundits use during the half time game review. 

It's incredible how beneficial VAR can be, and how complicated they made it to result in the shambles we have today. 

[Stevo985]

12 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

If the purpose of VAR is solely to give referees access to review decisions made on the field, why have VAR analysis people at all? Just put a big screen next to the pitch with a rewind button on it, and let the ref use it when he wants to look again. 

Because the whole point is that it's for things the ref might have missed. It should be a case of either

1. The ref gives a decision and asks the VAR to double check it for him. They either say it's fine or tell him he should have another look at it. Again this is how it works in other sports. I've given the goal but I'd like you to check that tackle in the lead up to see if it was a foul?" "I've ruled that goal out for handball but can we have another look at it to make sure that's correct?"

or

2. The ref completely misses something but the VAR pick it up and tell him they think he's missed something and he should have another look. "You've not given that penalty but we think there was contact, we think you should review it"

 

I don't think the VAR should be making decisions other than black and white things like offsides or if the ball is out of play etc

For everything else the ref should be able to look at it and have a discussion with the VAR to come to a conclusion

Edited October 4, 2023 by Stevo985

[LondonLax]

2 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

I'd prefer no VAR at all. If we had to have it, single camera centrally mounted continuous feed. At most. 

You imply that this needs to be complex to be effective. Far from it. KEEP IT SIMPLE. Until VAR came in the refs had no replay option at all. Maybe they can just use their bloody judgment, as refs have been doing for over a hundred years. 

 

I don’t like VAR much but you would be going back to getting a wrong call like the one in the Liverpool Spurs game every match weekend and I don’t think people would be willing to go back to that.

With some clearer communication protocols it should be simple enough to eliminate the Liverpool Spurs example from ever happening again.

There are probably plenty more improvements they could make as well. 

[HKP90]

2 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I don’t like VAR much but you would be going back to getting a wrong call like the one in the Liverpool Spurs game every match weekend and I don’t think people would be willing to go back to that.

With some clearer communication protocols it should be simple enough to eliminate the Liverpool Spurs example from ever happening again.

There are probably plenty more improvements they could make as well. 

You think it's better now? Waiting 5 mins to celebrate any goal because someone has a toenail in an offside position during a previous phase? 

Mistakes happen, it's life, we're humans. The real mistake would be to think that VAR can eliminate mistakes by taking responsibility away from refs in an effort to quantify the unquantifiable. 

[bobzy]

Just now, HKP90 said:

You think it's better now? Waiting 5 mins to celebrate any goal because someone has a toenail in an offside position during a previous phase? 

Mistakes happen, it's life, we're humans. The real mistake would be to think that VAR can eliminate mistakes by taking responsibility away from refs in an effort to quantify the unquantifiable. 

For me overall, yes.  The whole "waiting to celebrate" doesn't happen; crowds celebrate when the ball hits the net.  They might then sigh and have a period of "VAR check", but the celebrations still happen.

You watch some of the decisions in the Championship and it's crazy  

[bobzy]

11 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Eh?

How am I being obtuse?

That was a totally different case. There was no objective way to say whether it crossed the line, as the tech is the only objective method for doing so. Without that tech, it would be a subjective decision whether it was over the line or not.

The objective method for this offside are the lines. They showed without a doubt that it was onside. So it's objectively true that Diaz was onside.

You don't need the tech - you can just look.  Same with the Luis offside, a line is just a measure to look at it.

[LondonLax]

4 minutes ago, bobzy said:

You don't need the tech - you can just look.  Same with the Luis offside, a line is just a measure to look at it.

It was pretty obvious to everyone at the time but they certainly would have known watching it back at half time that the goal should have stood. 

 

 

 

[StefanAVFC]

6 minutes ago, bobzy said:

You don't need the tech - you can just look.  Same with the Luis offside, a line is just a measure to look at it.

You're missing my point.

When you work with tech it has to be the only objective measure of truth.

In our case, the tech, the only objective measure, said no goal. This was wrong but here this is the only measure that can 100% whether it was a goal or not.

In the Diaz goal, the objective measure said goal. The line was created from the tech.

I'm not saying any mistake should go down to the managers via the 4th official. but very specific, rare, objective mistakes that are immediately spotted (so rare I can't even think of another one), for sure.

[Mark Albrighton]

With the ghost goal, I’ve often wondered whether it was possible Nyland and the Villa players thought that there was some infringement that occurred and that’s why the goal hadn’t been given. I’m not suggesting that did happen, just that I could imagine it as a possibility. I’ve never seen what Nyland had to say about it.

Yeah they could see potentially see a mistake had happened at half time (although do teams typically look back at contentious decisions at half time?), but by the time the return to the pitch, it would be about 20 minutes after the incident happened so letting Sheffield United walk it in would be a bit much.

Ultimately with all this, it’s a mistake. Yes it’s a bad mistake. Another one will happen again soon enough but it likely won’t have happened to Liverpool so it won’t be of national interest. I feel some sympathy towards Liverpool’s next few opponents as I doubt many 50/50 calls will go their way for the foreseeable.