General officiating/rules

[tomav84]

1 hour ago, sidcow said:

I repeat, it's the clear and obvious error is what's the (main) problem. **** that off and just say what you see. 

i disagree here and we hated VAR much more when they were interfering with the subjective stuff.

mistakes are always going to happen...but still no excuse for the mitoma non-penalty at the weekend. anyone with an ounce on football knowledge could see that's a stone wall penalty except those that matter apparently. mistakes will be made, but errors like that simply should not happen

[StefanAVFC]

2 hours ago, sidcow said:

But I don't get this. 

Refereeing IS a hard job. 

You're trying to view multiple. Things at the same time that are happening at 100 miles a hour. It's actually impossible really, they should just accept that mistakes are inevitably made and accept the technology will spot it. 

I repeat, it's the clear and obvious error is what's the (main) problem. **** that off and just say what you see. 

Because they’re terrified of overruling each other and making each other look bad. 
 

An independent VAR would fix that. 

[sidcow]

12 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

i disagree here and we hated VAR much more when they were interfering with the subjective stuff.

mistakes are always going to happen...but still no excuse for the mitoma non-penalty at the weekend. anyone with an ounce on football knowledge could see that's a stone wall penalty except those that matter apparently. mistakes will be made, but errors like that simply should not happen

But the problem is they KNOW a wrong decision has been made, but they don't consider is "clear and obvious" enough to overrule. 

That's why clear and obvious is a big problem. The original decision on the pitch puts way too much weighting on if a decision is going to be overruled or not. If they ignore that and just made an impartial decision on what they actually see there will be far more correct decisions made. 

[tomav84]

Just now, sidcow said:

But the problem is they KNOW a wrong decision has been made, but they don't consider is "clear and obvious" enough to overrule. 

That's why clear and obvious is a big problem. The original decision on the pitch puts way too much weighting on if a decision is going to be overruled or not. If they ignore that and just made an impartial decision on what they actually see there will be far more correct decisions made. 

in the mitoma case, IMO, is a clear and obvious error.

we have been much more angry about the subjective decisions in the past. i feel you possibly have a short memory about some of the decisions VAR has given against us (usually at old trafford) which have not been clear and obvious errors.

[sidcow]

9 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

in the mitoma case, IMO, is a clear and obvious error.

we have been much more angry about the subjective decisions in the past. i feel you possibly have a short memory about some of the decisions VAR has given against us (usually at old trafford) which have not been clear and obvious errors.

Exactly. So now you are doubling the chance of a bad decision by adding ANOTHER unnecessary subjective decision into the mix. 

My OP said errors would still occur - they shouldn't but for some reason (corruption? Big Club Bias? Personal vendetta?) bad decisions are still made regardless, but now we have:

1) Subjective decision - was it a foul, handball or whatever in the first place

2) Subjective decision 2 - I've seen the evidence there is an error, but is that error clear and obvious enough for me to overrule it. 

For some reason on the second one they almost always back the onfield decision. Take that second subjectivity away, just call it as you see it. 

In fact I wonder if it's possible to not let the VAR guys even know what the decision was.  That would be ideal. Just present them with the footage with zero knowledge of what the on field ref decided. 

Edited April 10, 2023 by sidcow

[tomav84]

]

6 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Exactly. So now you are doubling the chance of a bad decision by adding ANOTHER unnecessary subjective decision into the mix. 

My OP said errors would still occur - they shouldn't but for some reason (corruption? Big Club Bias? Personal vendetta?) bad decisions are still made regardless, but now we have:

1) Subjective decision - was it a foul, handball or whatever in the first place

2) Subjective decision 2 - I've seen the evidence there is an error, but is that error clear and obvious enough for me to overrule it. 

For some reason on the second one they almost always back the onfield decision. Take that second subjectivity away, just call it as you see it. 

In fact I wonder if it's possible to not let the VAR guys even know what the decision was.  That would be ideal. Just present them with the footage with zero knowledge of what the on field ref decided. 

VAR was never brought in for subjective decisions though. it's to correct the absolute howlers so by definition the on field decisions will be backed more than not.

the main criticisms of VAR is that it's either 1) missed a howler (like the mitoma one) or 2) got involved where the incident has been subjective

 

[StefanAVFC]

In the Brighton game they had it both ways though. The Mac Allister ‘handball’ didn’t show a definitive angle that it hit his arm imo, I’m still adamant it hit his hip. Yet they overruled the on field decision. 

[fightoffyour]

14 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

In the Brighton game they had it both ways though. The Mac Allister ‘handball’ didn’t show a definitive angle that it hit his arm imo, I’m still adamant it hit his hip. Yet they overruled the on field decision. 

Yeah just watched the highlights, handily compiled here.

If you're not overturning the Mitoma "handball" because there's not enough clear evidence that he didn't handle the ball, how can you overturn the MacAllister "handball" decision and rule out the goal when there's even less evidence (i.e., none) that he did handle it?

 

[tomav84]

3 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

Yeah just watched the highlights, handily compiled here.

If you're not overturning the Mitoma "handball" because there's not enough clear evidence that he didn't handle the ball, how can you overturn the MacAllister "handball" decision and rule out the goal when there's even less evidence (i.e., none) that he did handle it?

 

the mitoma one was mad though, the lino even pointed to where on his arm it hit him, and by the letter of the law, it's not handball because if it hits the badge or above it's not handball so VAR should've stepped in

the macallister one it did just brush his hand and therefore cannot be allowed as it's automatic handball if it then goes straight in the goal, whether deliberate or accidental. so was unfortunate, but correct decision.

[villa4europe]

4 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

the mitoma one was mad though, the lino even pointed to where on his arm it hit him, and by the letter of the law, it's not handball because if it hits the badge or above it's not handball so VAR should've stepped in

the macallister one it did just brush his hand and therefore cannot be allowed as it's automatic handball if it then goes straight in the goal, whether deliberate or accidental. so was unfortunate, but correct decision.

Agree

Then I'd say the spurs handball I'm not too fussed about but the mitoma one and the dunk shirt pull are all day pens 

So for me just the 3 incorrect decisions against brighton 

I don't think it is corruption I think it's ineptitidude but games like that make it a hard argument and at best if it is ineptitude how can you be that bad at this level 

[Davkaus]

7 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

the mitoma one was mad though, the lino even pointed to where on his arm it hit him, and by the letter of the law, it's not handball because if it hits the badge or above it's not handball so VAR should've stepped in

 

Nah, I think if it hits him where the linesman taps, that's handball, it's below the armpit. It's tough to call from the footage I've seen but probably just about handball

[Genie]

 

[tomav84]

3 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Nah, I think if it hits him where the linesman taps, that's handball, it's below the armpit. It's tough to call from the footage I've seen but probably just about handball

ah ok i thought the 'green' was lower - then agree, correct decision

[villa4europe]

6 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Nah, I think if it hits him where the linesman taps, that's handball, it's below the armpit. It's tough to call from the footage I've seen but probably just about handball

But that's another PGMOL problem... That wasn't the rule last year, they used the sleeve and the thing with man City having longer sleeves than everyone else

[fightoffyour]

17 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

the mitoma one was mad though, the lino even pointed to where on his arm it hit him, and by the letter of the law, it's not handball because if it hits the badge or above it's not handball so VAR should've stepped in

the macallister one it did just brush his hand and therefore cannot be allowed as it's automatic handball if it then goes straight in the goal, whether deliberate or accidental. so was unfortunate, but correct decision.

Haven't seen any definitive evidence of hitting his hand but I haven't spent ages looking

[a-k]

28 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

Yeah just watched the highlights, handily compiled here.

1) Lenglet handball: Yes it hit his hand, but had absolutely no effect on the play and regardless of what the rules say that is never worthy of a pen

2) Mitoma handball: Hits him above the elbow and along the end of the sleeve shirt. It's not handball IMO, but because the interpretation here is subjective and murky af, I can see why it wouldn't be overturned as a "clear and obvious error", because it's not clear to anyone what the rule is

3) Mac Allister handball: Does the ball go in the net if it doesn't deflect off his hand? I'm not sure. Mac Allister did nothing wrong and was unlucky, but the goal came from a deflection off a hand

4) Hojberg tackle: This is the mistake. It's a foul and a pen under the current rules. However, as I and others have said, this is not worth of a pen as it did not deny an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and one may argue that Son might have gotten to the ball first anyways. Doesn't excuse VAR here, but would much rather see these given as indirect FKs

[6065_Villa]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

Because they’re terrified of overruling each other and making each other look bad. 
 

An independent VAR would fix that. 

I know it's a different game but cricket review system often overrule the onfield umpires as they get to see the action again and call it as it is with no backlash on the two onfield umpires.

[Seal]

the thing that annoys me/I don't get about the mitoma handball, is that he only (possibly) handballs it because he is pushed by the defender. As the goal gets disallowed, can it not be said that this push prevents a goal scoring opportunity, so even if it is a handball (I don't think it is) it should still be a penalty  to brighton for the push?

[foreveryoung]

Anyone notice the blatant handball for the West Ham goal too, not even looked at.

[sharkyvilla]

21 hours ago, mikeyp102 said:

The late flagging for offside is so annoying. Forest had a couple yesterday that weren’t even close, but play ran on for quite a while until missed, then okay went all the back. 

I assume the PL will introduce the offside technology next season and at least that's one issue that will be solved. 

I don't know whether there is a way to use similar technology to help with handballs if they can detect when a ball makes contact and with which part of the body, the distance the ball has travelled and what speed etc.