General officiating/rules

[sharkyvilla]

55 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

Good thread on VAR and offside

 

Offside is going to be sorted out by the automated system.  It should have been used this season after how successful it was at the World Cup.  Yesterday's looked offside to my eye test from the first replays they showed but that graphic is pretty unsatisfactory.  Nonetheless it shouldn't be a talking point any more once the season is over.

I'd also like the handball rule simplified with the use of technology if possible.  Make the rule based on reaction times, if a player gets hit by the ball on the arm within half a second (or whatever time they decide is fair) then it's not hand ball as they couldn't be expected to get their arm out of the way in time.  Anything beyond that is handball.  Then it's standardised across the whole of football.  Screw the subjective 'natural position' bollocks.

[Folski]

It seems the point the var was taken from was actually earlier as the ball was scooped didn’t leave his foot till about two tenths of a second later

[StefanAVFC]

The word salad here to justify it:

Quote

VAR review: Of the three situations this is the one where Forest have a legitimate complaint. The referee's description of an incident is at the centre of the VAR's decision-making, so if Taylor thinks Young got the ball and replays suggest he didn't, surely that qualifies as a clear and obvious error?

It's not quite that simple, as it still requires the VAR to judge that the error is a missed penalty; a referee isn't just sent to the monitor to have another look purely if the description doesn't match. But wrongly thinking a player has won the ball when he's taken the opponent should qualify.

The Premier League is desperate to limit the impact of VAR upon games, which is why it wants such a high bar for interventions. It wants VAR to go back to it's original remit of "minimum interference for maximum benefit," but it hinges on good decisions on the field in the first place.

Here you go, I made the protocol better

Ref: ball, no pen!

VAR: He didn't get the ball so you should take another look

Then the on field ref can decide if THEY made the mistake or not.

The way they've implemented it is just horrific.

[fightoffyour]

6 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

The word salad here to justify it:

Here you go, I made the protocol better

Ref: ball, no pen!

VAR: He didn't get the ball so you should take another look

Then the on field ref can decide if THEY made the mistake or not.

The way they've implemented it is just horrific.

[HKP90]

22 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

The word salad here to justify it:

Here you go, I made the protocol better

Ref: ball, no pen!

VAR: He didn't get the ball so you should take another look

Then the on field ref can decide if THEY made the mistake or not.

The way they've implemented it is just horrific.

Referees won't call out their own mistakes when they are presented with an opportunity to reinforce their credibility. They will think it makes them look weak (even though it would actually show qualities of self criticism, which is a strength). It will also I'm sure be monitored, so if they make a number of mistakes, it will add to a database of their errors which will reduce the chance that they get more work. The system as is allows refs to delegate responsibility to VAR, which is exactly what they are doing. 

The only way I see VAR actually offering any help, is as a tool, to be used by referees at their own judgment at the side of the pitch, without the referral. That way refs can use it to bolster their own decision making, without implication of error.  

[foreveryoung]

2 hours ago, Folski said:

It seems the point the var was taken from was actually earlier as the ball was scooped didn’t leave his foot till about two tenths of a second later

This is why there is no way you can call those toe offsides like the Coventry one. You are manually taking the camera back when the ball leaves his foot, no way you can do that by eye.

Someone noted on the wireless earlier, who was a professional editor, they are actually using the wrong cameras for stills and slow mos. They should actually be using Global cameras for anyone in the know, you might be able to shead some more light on this. 

[fightoffyour]

2 hours ago, Folski said:

It seems the point the var was taken from was actually earlier as the ball was scooped didn’t leave his foot till about two tenths of a second later

The rule is actually first point of contact with the ball, not when it leaves the foot:

 

[MrBlack]

13 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

The rule is actually first point of contact with the ball, not when it leaves the foot:

 

It is, but even so they've used a frame where the ball isn't moving for the Coventry goal. 

So it's possible that it's before his foot came in contact with the ball. The next frame (due to the insufficient frame rates) the ball is a blur so has clearly been struck at this moment. 

So the event they're trying to judge took place between those two frames. 

And if VAR use the second frame he's onside. They used the first frame where the player is apparently offside.  Ignoring the fact the lines drawn don't appear to be in the right place, but they've definitely erred on the side of the defence here. And that isn't what football rules should be. We should be giving the benefit of the doubt to attacking play.

But more than all that, we need to bring back spontaneous and instantaneous joy. **** VAR.

Edited April 22 by MrBlack

[ThunderPower_14]

1 hour ago, HKP90 said:

Referees won't call out their own mistakes when they are presented with an opportunity to reinforce their credibility. They will think it makes them look weak (even though it would actually show qualities of self criticism, which is a strength). It will also I'm sure be monitored, so if they make a number of mistakes, it will add to a database of their errors which will reduce the chance that they get more work. The system as is allows refs to delegate responsibility to VAR, which is exactly what they are doing. 

The only way I see VAR actually offering any help, is as a tool, to be used by referees at their own judgment at the side of the pitch, without the referral. That way refs can use it to bolster their own decision making, without implication of error.  

I do really like the idea that refs can call for another look without VAR intervening for things like penalty shouts and red cards. There is really no reason why the ref can't ask the question himself, unless play is still going.

I think refs are far more likely to call out their own mistakes than they are to call out the mistakes of their colleagues. VAR will always err on the side of the onfield ref for this reason. The onfield ref has a feel for the game, and if the responsibility and accountability for the decision is placed squarely on them, then we'll be more likely to get correct decisions.

If the onfield ref knew beyond any doubt that Young didn't get the ball, he's giving a penalty 100% of the time, but you have a situation here where a VAR official in an air conditioned office somewhere away from the coalface is basically guessing why the onfield ref didn't give it and is loathe to overturn a decision made by one of his colleagues. Ridiculous. Just let the onfield ref review his own work, with the full weight of responsibility for getting it right on his shoulders.

[HKP90]

1 minute ago, ThunderPower_14 said:

I do really like the idea that refs can call for another look without VAR intervening for things like penalty shouts and red cards. There is really no reason why the ref can't ask the question himself, unless play is still going.

I think refs are far more likely to call out their own mistakes than they are to call out the mistakes of their colleagues. VAR will always err on the side of the onfield ref for this reason. The onfield ref has a feel for the game, and if the responsibility and accountability for the decision is placed squarely on them, then we'll be more likely to get correct decisions.

If the onfield ref knew beyond any doubt that Young didn't get the ball, he's giving a penalty 100% of the time, but you have a situation here where a VAR official in an air conditioned office somewhere away from the coalface is basically guessing why the onfield ref didn't give it and is loathe to overturn a decision made by one of his colleagues. Ridiculous. Just let the onfield ref review his own work, with the full weight of responsibility for getting it right on his shoulders.

Agree 100% with all of this.

[fightoffyour]

59 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

It is, but even so they've used a frame where the ball isn't moving for the Coventry goal. 

So it's possible that it's before his foot came in contact with the ball. The next frame (due to the insufficient frame rates) the ball is a blur so has clearly been struck at this moment. 

So the event they're trying to judge took place between those two frames. 

And if VAR use the second frame he's onside. They used the first frame where the player is apparently offside.  Ignoring the fact the lines drawn don't appear to be in the right place, but they've definitely erred on the side of the defence here. And that isn't what football rules should be. We should be giving the benefit of the doubt to attacking play.

But more than all that, we need to bring back spontaneous and instantaneous joy. **** VAR.

Agree with everything really, but I still think it can work in principle with higher fps, greater margin for error, and the help of automated technology that can call an offside on the screen in as little time as it would take to notice a linesman's flag up after celebrating.

Referees I want to review the footage on a device before they even make a tough decision, independent of (additional) bias or possible inferred criticism of their performance. I've been suggesting this for years already.

Both of these aspects together would actually rather render VAR as we know it now as obsolete actually.

Edited April 22 by fightoffyour

[bannedfromHandV]

Barcelona are more embarrassing than Forest! Demanding the game be replayed from the weekend because of a goal/no goal situation that occurred in the 28th minute.

Threatening legal action too, what a joke and what a bunch of clowns, a club that has benefitted massively from cheating (financially) off the pitch for a long time now.

[StefanAVFC]

 

**** me, the continuous rewarding of failure within top refereeing circles is just an embarassment.

[Genie]

Was there an official explanation of what happened in the Liverpool v West Ham game yesterday? 

Areola catches the ball, Areola rolls the ball onto the floor, Gravenbirch runs to tap the ball into the goal, ref blows the whistle and tells the physio to come onto the pitch and treat the keeper even though he’s fine. Keeper then kicks the ball out of his hands (therefore not a free kick).

Edit: It was Cody Gakpo

Edited April 28 by Genie

[mikeyp102]

I think it’s fair to say the standard of reffing in the conference league is even worse than the prem, and that’s saying something.

[VillaChris]

39 minutes ago, mikeyp102 said:

I think it’s fair to say the standard of reffing in the conference league is even worse than the prem, and that’s saying something.

Thought he got the pen calls right but in general play he was staggeringly abysmal with his interpretations.

[OutByEaster?]

I tell you what I'd like to see on penalties.

The ref gives the penalty, allows a few seconds for everyone to realise the he has, then he recovers the ball and puts it on the spot - he blows his whistle to let people know the ball is now on the spot, gives everyone around ten seconds, then blows his whistle again - at that point, the penalty taker should be able to take it.

Goalkeeper off having a drink when it goes in? Tough shit.

Three players in the box when the penalty taker scores? Tough shit.

Penalty missed but two players still in the box - penalty taker gets to re-take it, players in the box booked if the ref thinks they're time-wasting.

Exactly the same rules we have now on what is and isn't an offence, but with the advantage given to the penalty taker - the defensive team can only really delay it by putting players between the ball and the goal and even then, the taker gets what becomes a free shot at getting it past them, knowing he'll get another go if they block it.

It'd stop all this gubbins we have at the moment in a heartbeat - if the penalty taker is ready he can take it, if it doesn't go in it gets re-taken if there is an offence (including the defensive team still having players in the box) they'd clear out of there sharp enough under those conditions.

Simple.

[villa89]

27 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I tell you what I'd like to see on penalties.

The ref gives the penalty, allows a few seconds for everyone to realise the he has, then he recovers the ball and puts it on the spot

There's the first problem. As soon as ref gives a penalty he is surrounded by players complaining so he can't recover the ball. 

[Davkaus]

4 minutes ago, villa89 said:

There's the first problem. As soon as ref gives a penalty he is surrounded by players complaining so he can't recover the ball. 

Which is already against the rules, they just need to consistently book each player. No warnings, just get the card out. Players ignore the rules because they know there's no downside

[OutByEaster?]

6 minutes ago, villa89 said:

There's the first problem. As soon as ref gives a penalty he is surrounded by players complaining so he can't recover the ball. 

Anyone can recover the ball - there's loads of them around the pitch - if the penalty taker gets a ball we're good to go.