VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

Yeah, and it’s the source of thousands of controversial decisions every week! But you can’t outlaw contact, it’s part of the game. You can however, very easily not award penalties to players who go over after minimal to no contact.
The poster just argue around chasing a tail.

It's clear there is grey area that is left to interpretation. There is no way to accurately define recklessness level, maliciousness.

Incompetent, bookworm referees are afraid of taking responsibility to make a tough call, so they strictly apply (wrongly) the rule by the letter without consideration of possibility of unwritten situation.
 
Yeah, it happens in every game each week! But you can’t outlaw contact, it’s part of the game. You cam however easily not give penalties to players who go over after minimal to no contact though.

You say that but you see penalties given quite often when there is minimal to no contact due to poor referring. Similarly you see large contact and clear impeding and a player stays on their feet, opportunity is lost, and ref don’t give the pen :lol: (this is said in jest by the way)

The standard of referring doesn’t change what is a foul.

In any case though impeding the progress of a player without making contact is deemed a foul in the laws of the game. Feel free to read it up. And its also quite logical too.
My last response on that one.
 
i think it's obvious that var has been told, from the start of 2021-22, and more and more since then (especially sine howard webb) to not interfere with on-field calls.
if they want to keep it this way, i agree with you that it should go. it's only purpose is a 2-minute delay before agreeing with whatever the referee has decided.

if they were serious about reforming it, they'd consider allowing challenges from a team rather than inexplicably checking/not checking decisions.

i think it's clear that the refs at all levels (on-field, in the VAR room, in admin positions) want it to fail.

I don’t think that’s true at all. I think they’re doing their best to balance a deeply flawed system with the importance of keeping football a fast paced, relentless spectacle. However the fact you’re trying to explain what’s happening by making accusations of sabotage and corruption is exactly why VAR is such a disaster. And a predictable disaster too.

This specific penalty is the perfect example of why VAR was doomed to fail. In this thread you’ve got a clear split between those who agree and disagree with the call. There probably wasn’t contact but was the defender’s lunge enough to significantly impede the attacker? I dunno. Maybe? There’s been decisions like this every weekend since forever. With divided opinions amongst journalists, ex-players and the great and good of redcafe. And these split opinions aren’t because they lack training or don’t understand the rules. They’re the nature of the grey areas that will always exist in interpreting an incident like Liverpool’s penalty.

Before VAR the controversy around these was far less intense because anyone who was in any way sensible accepted that these were tough calls, made in the blink of an eye. And some of these calls would be incorrect. We could live with that. Now we have a system foisted on us which was sold to us as a way to remove human error. So any call that divides opinion gets attributed to VAR being not fit for purpose or, frequently, corruption.

If you were to do some sort of word cloud on football online chat pre and post VAR I guarantee you that use of the word “corruption” has exploded. The combination of all the additional stoppages in the game with that pervasive sense of injustice and unfairness is ruining football as a spectacle for many fans and is the exact opposite of what VAR was supposed to achieve.
 
Last edited:
Could they implement a middle ground for the ref when they don't clearly see a position? Ref whistles and signals VAR and asks for their advice (as the ref didn't see the incident clearly). Saves the refs little ego at being overruled and gives VAR purpose.
 
Could they implement a middle ground for the ref when they don't clearly see a position? Ref whistles and signals VAR and asks for their advice (as the ref didn't see the incident clearly). Saves the refs little ego at being overruled and gives VAR purpose.

This is the problem with it. The refs are all too protective of each other.

On field referees will always make mistakes especially when Klopp is on at them and the Anfield crowd is shouting for everything. VAR was supposed to bring a level of objectivity and clarity into refereeing, but unless it's a glaring and indefensible error the VAR ref will not intefere with the on field decision. The VAR referees are more concerned with not highlighting their mate's errors than using the system properly. If VAR was to work with them instead of overruling them maybe they would use it properly.



I always want ETH to start talking about this regularly. They're deciding games and are easily influenced by manager comments.
 
I don’t think that’s true at all. I think they’re doing their best to balance a deeply flawed system with the importance of keeping football a fast paced, relentless spectacle. However the fact you’re trying to explain what’s happening by making accusations of sabotage and corruption is exactly why VAR is such a disaster. And a predictable disaster too.

This specific penalty is the perfect example of why VAR was doomed to fail. In this thread you’ve got a clear split between those who agree and disagree with the call. There probably wasn’t contact but was the defender’s lunge enough to significantly impede the attacker? I dunno. Maybe? There’s been decisions like this every weekend since forever. With divided opinions amongst journalists, ex-players and the great and good of redcafe. And these split opinions aren’t because they lack training or don’t understand the rules. They’re the nature of the grey areas that will always exist in interpreting an incident like Liverpool’s penalty.

Before VAR the controversy around these was far less intense because anyone who was in any way sensible accepted that these were tough calls, made in the blink of an eye. And some of these calls would be incorrect. We could live with that. Now we have a system foisted on us which was sold to us as a way to remove human error. So any call that divides opinion gets attributed to VAR being not fit for purpose or, frequently, corruption.

If you were to do some sort of word cloud on football online chat pre and post VAR I guarantee you that use of the word “corruption” has exploded. The combination of all the additional stoppages in the game with that pervasive sense of injustice and unfairness is ruining football as a spectacle for many fans and is the exact opposite of what VAR was supposed to achieve.

VAR isn’t really flawed, its just poorly executed. It also it not there to get every decision right, its there to improve the outcome of decisions. The people in the VAR room should be independent of match referees (there is too much conflict of interest) in my opinion, especially when they are reluctant to make their fellow referee look bad.

At the end of the day it still humans making decisions so there will be errors, what you want is less errors then before.

In this case if there is a split between whether people believe its a penalty or not then its not a clear and obvious error and VAR cannot intervene.

Also is VAR really ruining football as a spectacle? I tend to find that view quite dramatic, but I guess it must for some people.

The main thing that annoys me about VAR is that the referees seem to want more to protect themselves than to implement a system properly.
 
VAR isn’t really flawed, its just poorly executed. It also it not there to get every decision right, its there to improve the outcome of decisions. The people in the VAR room should be independent of match referees (there is too much conflict of interest) in my opinion, especially when they are reluctant to make their fellow referee look bad.

At the end of the day it still humans making decisions so there will be errors, what you want is less errors then before.

In this case if there is a split between whether people believe its a penalty or not then its not a clear and obvious error and VAR cannot intervene.

Also is VAR really ruining football as a spectacle? I tend to find that view quite dramatic, but I guess it must for some people.

The main thing that annoys me about VAR is that the referees seem to want more to protect themselves than to implement a system properly.

I’d love to see a poll from match-going fans. I’m willing to bet that 90%+ would say that VAR has made football less enjoyable to watch. And their entertainment should be the main priority with football.

For those who aren’t at the games it might be a stretch to say the game is being ruined as a spectacle but there’s definitely a stronger sense of injustice since VAR was rolled out. And I don’t see how anyone can enjoy watching a sport as much as they did before if they’ve become convinced that the game is corrupt.
 
So the foul on Wout in the penalty area went unpunished with a penalty but yesterday the same action was given as a penalty.
Makes you think why Liverpool are getting every decision game after game !!
 
So the foul on Wout in the penalty area went unpunished with a penalty but yesterday the same action was given as a penalty.
Makes you think why Liverpool are getting every decision game after game !!
Not even the same, does the lad even touch Nunez?! It's ridiculous.
 
I’d love to see a poll from match-going fans. I’m willing to bet that 90%+ would say that VAR has made football less enjoyable to watch. And their entertainment should be the main priority with football.

For those who aren’t at the games it might be a stretch to say the game is being ruined as a spectacle but there’s definitely a stronger sense of injustice since VAR was rolled out. And I don’t see how anyone can enjoy watching a sport as much as they did before if they’ve become convinced that the game is corrupt.

I don't disagree with that, but I also am aware of the media campaign against VAR before its arrival and during its implementation.
 
You think the sense of injustice that screams out from every thread about refereeing this season is down to a media campaign?!

No, the sense of injustice about refereeing decisions precedes VAR (and it was very strong); what I am saying is the campaign against VAR started well before VAR was even introduced, along with a lot of miss information. Which has contributed in my opinion to a lot of the negativity that surrounds it (not all of it)

Still, I have gripes about VAR, especially its implementation as I mentioned above.
 
It's like the VAR doesn't want to undermine the referee, I don't know why they don't just get the refs to look at the screen then make the decision himself if he got something wrong or not
 
I think they need to have it so, when an on field ref makes a decision to give a pen or a straight red. He immediately goes to the monitor and reviews the footage alongside the VAR. Forget clear and obvious when the ref has made a decision we need to make sure that decision is correct. Give the refs the opportunity to immediately check there own decisions. You may find they are more confident to make a decision initially on-field if they can immediately check it themselves, and have the fallback of actually looking themselves.
 
It's like the VAR doesn't want to undermine the referee, I don't know why they don't just get the refs to look at the screen then make the decision himself if he got something wrong or not

I don't think the goal should be to undermine the referee, but I think this is the issue. The VAR making a decision that overrules the ref is not undermining the referee.
In my work as a software engineer we have checks and balances, when I commit some code, there is a code review, I don't see it as someone undermining me if they point out a mistake or suggest an improvement we are all one team.

The need for one person to be in control is a bit of an issue, in my opinion. Obviously, referees feel/felt threatened by VAR in some way I imagine.

Also if the person who make the original decision is the one doing the review, then you are susceptible to more errors due to confirmation bias.
 
Disagree. Nunez right foot avoids the outstretched leg of the defender from when he swang, which is why his left stretches back to counter balance. Difference of opinion I guess but seems to me if Nunez wanted to dive he just runs into the defenders leg which is swung right infront of him.
But Nunez takes a completely normal stride with his left foot and plants the foot as if he wasn't touched, then for some reason his left leg collapses.

The refs were giving it the "is the fall proportional to the contact?" thing in that there would be an end to "soft penalties", and this is exactly what I thought they meant. Minimal contact, player could easily keep running but chooses to go down under minimal contact.

https://www.espn.com/soccer/english...mp-to-cut-soft-penaltiessave-20-offside-goals

"The principles we established are: the referee should look for contact and establish clear contact, then ask if that contact has a consequence, and then has the player used that contact to try and win a foul or win a penalty," Riley added. "It's not sufficient to say 'yes there's contact.'

"I think partly we got into that frame of mind by the forensic analysis that went on in the VAR world. Contact on its own is only part of what the referee should look for; consider consequence and the motivation of the player as well."
 
It's like the VAR doesn't want to undermine the referee, I don't know why they don't just get the refs to look at the screen then make the decision himself if he got something wrong or not
Exactly. Surely most referees would want to make the correct decision most of the time? The VAR's role should be to say "it's possible that another decision might be more correct here, go to the monitor and have a look". If we want the maximum amount of maximally correct calls, that is, which it doesn't seem that the PGMOL is interested in.

This "clear and obvious" threshold just introduces another layer of subjectivity where the VAR can randomly intervene on something that isn't clear and obvious, and randomly choose to not intervene on something that is clear and obvious, for reasons known only to themselves.

I'd imagine that Attwell, considering he's supposedly told Fulham players he made a mistake, would have wanted the opportunity to make the right decision. So remove the VAR and replace them with video technicians, allow the ref himself to check a call that he might feel he hasn't properly seen and let the teams force the ref to the monitor for a limited amount of times per game (with the challenges being kept if successful). That way the ref only has to feel that the other decision is more correct than the one he made, and we'd get more correct calls.

"But what about time-wasting" you ask? The VAR in Newcastle-Brentford that awarded the penalty against Isak looked at 23 replays, presumably to ascertain whether the mistake to not award the penalty was "clear and obvious", and after the 23rd replay he decided that it was obvious. It took five minutes from the incident until the penalty was awarded, because after those 23 replays the ref still had to go to the monitor and "decide", although now everyone in the stadium knew he'd been told he'd made a clear and obvious mistake. If a team challenges that decision, and the ref goes out, I can assure you that it won't take more than 23 replays for the ref to decide the correct decision based on a balance of probability. If a team challenges a pen that is in no way a pen, only to waste time, then it'd take 2-3 replays (plus the time for the ref to run out to the monitor and back) to decide, which would be somewhere around 45 seconds.
 
From the Dale Johnson ESPN column, highlighting the problem with VAR (bold mine)

It could be argued that attempting an overhead kick is far more dangerous than simply trying to get to the ball before an opponent, but such incidents are rarely punished with a red card. At the end of Aston Villa's 1-0 defeat at Manchester United, Calum Chambers kicked Luke Shaw in the head, and while he conceded a free kick, there was no card.

This is where the expectations of fans and pundits and the reality of VAR protocol collide. With a high threshold for intervention, it's not always a mistake for the VAR not to advise an overturn -- even if public opinion might say otherwise. The panel may well decide that while this wasn't a clear and obvious error for the VAR to get involved, the referee should have produced the red card. There is a growing list of this category of judgements, which suggests while VAR is improving there is still plenty of work for chief refereeing officer Howard Webb to do regarding decision-making by officials on the field.
So if a referee should have given a red card, then you can argue that giving a yellow card isn't necessarily a clear and obvious mistake. But if the referee even fails to produce a yellow card for something that "should be" a red, then surely the mistake is clear and obvious?

Edit: More nuggets from this week's column. Exasperation increases for every paragraph

Possible red card: Skipp on Diaz
What happened: In the 33rd minute, Skipp challenged Luis Diaz on the edge of the area. While the Spurs player got a toe to the ball first, his follow through then caught the Liverpool forward above the ankle. Referee Tierney gave no decision and play continued.

VAR decision: No red card.

VAR review: Tierney obviously saw that Skipp won the ball but completely missed the follow-through contact, and should have awarded a free kick to Liverpool and showed the yellow card.

On a weekly basis we see similar tackles, where a player is stepping into a challenge, gets the timing slightly wrong and catches the opponent above the boot. It has been consistent throughout the season that these haven't been VAR red cards.
To cross the threshold for intervention, the VAR is looking for a player coming in with force, leaving the ground or making contact from behind high above the boot.

Take Virgil van Dijk's challenge on Amadou Onana in September, when the Liverpool defender caught Onana higher on the shin after stepping into a challenge. Referee Anthony Taylor issued a yellow card, which wasn't upgraded after a VAR check.

If the referee gives a red card in these situations it won't be overturned, but they haven't been awarded through VAR.

If this challenge had happened a yard further forward on the penalty area line, then it could have been reviewed as a possible penalty, and then Skipp could have been booked. But the VAR is powerless simply to say a yellow card has been missed for a tackle outside the box.
Conveniently, Dale Johnson was out travelling when the Casemiro incident happened so he still hasn't commented on that.

Anyway, it can't get more annoying now, can it?

Possible penalty: Konate on Richarlison
What happened: In the 85th minute, a cross came into the area from Pedro Porro. Ibrahima Konate had his left arm on Richarlison's chest and the striker went to ground asking for a penalty. Referee Tierney made it clear there was no spot kick.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: While Konate took a huge risk by having his arm across the chest of Richarlison, the Brazil international appeared to go to ground in a way that didn't fit with the level of contact. Richarlison seems to arch his back to imitate being pulled back. The Liverpool defender wasn't pulling or holding the shirt of Richarlison, so it wouldn't be considered a clear and obvious error not to give a penalty.

If the referee had awarded it, then it certainly would have stood -- as we'll see in the Palace vs. West Ham game.
Oh you mean like Nuñez who was slightly struck from the left side on his knee (if even that), managed to plant the foot and then went flying three yards forward?

Still confused, and not even on a higher level.
 
Last edited:
From the Dale Johnson ESPN column, highlighting the problem with VAR (bold mine)


So if a referee should have given a red card, then you can argue that giving a yellow card isn't necessarily a clear and obvious mistake. But if the referee even fails to produce a yellow card for something that most likely is a red, then surely the mistake is clear and obvious.

It's like they make up excuses all the time to make the decision that they want to make at any point.

There will never be clearly defined objective criteria for what constitutes "clear and obvious" so there's no solution to this problem.
 
From the Dale Johnson ESPN column, highlighting the problem with VAR (bold mine)


So if a referee should have given a red card, then you can argue that giving a yellow card isn't necessarily a clear and obvious mistake. But if the referee even fails to produce a yellow card for something that most likely is a red, then surely the mistake is clear and obvious.

It's like they make up excuses all the time to make the decision that they want to make at any point.
You are highlighting issues with the implementation and the fact the people implementing it have an interest to defend their own decisions.

That is not an issue with VAR itself as a tool.

If the panel agree that the referee has made a mistake then they should intervene. That was always the premise. Its basically supposed to be a peer review panel and its a panel because if they all agree then you have grounds to say that its clear and obvious and if they don't all agree then you have grounds to say its ambiguous.

Once you then try to add any other dimension over and above a unanimous panel decision you break the system.

The system cannot get everything right because it has human elements. When you attempt to manipulate a simple system so to optimise to get everything right (increase the threshold, let the referee have another look etc) you break the system
 
Last edited:
I think they need to have it so, when an on field ref makes a decision to give a pen or a straight red. He immediately goes to the monitor and reviews the footage alongside the VAR. Forget clear and obvious when the ref has made a decision we need to make sure that decision is correct. Give the refs the opportunity to immediately check there own decisions. You may find they are more confident to make a decision initially on-field if they can immediately check it themselves, and have the fallback of actually looking themselves.
That is a very good idea.
 
I think they need to have it so, when an on field ref makes a decision to give a pen or a straight red. He immediately goes to the monitor and reviews the footage alongside the VAR. Forget clear and obvious when the ref has made a decision we need to make sure that decision is correct. Give the refs the opportunity to immediately check there own decisions. You may find they are more confident to make a decision initially on-field if they can immediately check it themselves, and have the fallback of actually looking themselves.
They should have a smartphone or tablet to review decisions, a screen at the edge of the pitch is unnecessary.
 
https://www.fulhamfc.com/news/2023/may/03/cairney-frustrating-decision/

Match referee Stuart Atwell told Fulham players that Liverpool's penalty “wasn’t a penalty”
So who is making the calls if not referee? And if he knew it wasn't penalty why did they call it penalty. This is why it is important with transparency. We urgently need mics and cams on referees and VAR room. Thee is no way around. As soon as people get that it will be for the better.
 
i agree the process needs mics and we need to hear their reasoning because it is being ruined right now. Think as was mentioned it just feels like VAR is trying to not go against refs whenever they can help it, as if having the audacity to have the ref check it out on video is going to be an insult to them
 
We are genuinely getting shagged by the refs this season.

That "foul" on Encisco, for which Shaw was booked by the way, was an absolute farce. Brighton don't win the game without it.
 
If our club don't come out in every way it can we deserve this every week. We need official statements from the club and we need tenHag to answer every question by mentioning decisions against us. We need investigation. This is not normal. We are being done by referees and VAR over and over.
 
Thank God VAR exists so that results are no longer determined by controversy.

Every. fecking. week.
 
We should refuse to play any match Marriner gets assigned to us as the ref or var
 
As much as we have ourselves to blame we are continuously being absolutely fecked over by the refs.

Sickening, absolutely fecking sickening.
 
If our club don't come out in every way it can we deserve this every week. We need official statements from club and we need tenHag to answer every question by mentioning decisions against us. We need investigation. This is not normal. We are being done by referees and VAR over and over.

Agreed. 3 point swing created by referees in 24 hours with Liverpool "penalty" and that Brighton "free kick".
 
We should refuse to play any match Marriner gets assigned to us as the ref or var

We are running out of referees who should be deemed acceptable to officiate our games.

The whole lot are as spineless, arrogant and incompetent as it gets.
 
Casemiro could have had a red, Antony was lucky booting MacAllister and Shaw arguably should have had a 2nd yellow (his first was a joke) for the penalty. Ref was shite but things also went in our favour too.
 
What was it with the freekick before the corner kick leading to Shaw handball? If you can't see the difference between simulation and a foul standing that close, there is just no hope
 
What was it with the freekick before the corner kick leading to Shaw handball? If you can't see the difference between simulation and a foul standing that close, there is just no hope
Enciso flopped to the ground and Marriner obliged. Never in a million years was that a free kick, but Marrined spotted something that he didn't like, most likely that we had a chance to counter-attack after the dive.
 
Casemiro could have had a red, Antony was lucky booting MacAllister and Shaw arguably should have had a 2nd yellow (his first was a joke) for the penalty. Ref was shite but things also went in our favour too.
When should Cass have had a red? Walked a tightrope but he was never close to being sent off. ‘Booting’ MacAllister? :lol: …and you’d never see a yellow for that by Shaw and a penalty.