But when you see the results on the field, and you have the background knowledge concerning the refs and their ties, you just decide it's incompetence - despite the fact you know there is that conflict of interest in the first place?
VAR and Refs | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
It might just be incompetence, but most people use common sense to avoid putting people in situations where bad decisions can be questioned on the basis of conflict of interest
I don't see anything wrong with forest statement
It's a pathetic statement from an official club vehicle.
Like some pathetic newly out of uni kid who runs their twitter has forgotten he's not on his own personal account.
Absolutely - I agree with that and that's what I've been saying about putting controls in place.
Why not have the managers make the challenges?
Anyone know the difference between wan bissakas penalty and the crystal palace one at home we never got? Shocking decision
As far as I'm concerned all three of Forest's claims should have resulted in penalties and it's amazing that not a single one was given. The first is the most tenuous but Young kicks his ankle as he plays the ball, it's a foul that affects the play. The second one sees Young with his arms outstretched as if herding geese, these arms aren't in a natural running position unless he's scored. The third one Young goes right through the back of him while nowhere near the ball.
Crazy and everyone involved needs demoting.
Crazy and everyone involved needs demoting.
Unlike a challenge-based ref decision system, which would be entertaining, but rational and efficient.
Last edited:
I didn't decide anything. The explanations of of incompetence/clear and obvious ambiguity are more probable to me than bias/cheating but agree that if there is a conflict of interest then it should have been addressed. As it is, there hasn't been a confirmation of a conflict of interest / the PGMOL dismissed the Forest concerns when they were raised which would indicate that there was none...unless it's another case of incompetence.
You could do. I just feel like they are so far from the action that they probably can't see a lot. The best option would probably be either manager or captain.
Precisely.
I can maybe see why the first two penalties weren't given, but the 3rd one is a stonewaller and if it turns out that Attwell is a Luton Fan then it's natural that people wonder how someone can make such a monumental feck up. The easiest train of thought is the corruption one and even if its not true and it was a genuine error (although if Attwell can't see that is a penalty he should be nowhere near another football game for the rest of his life), people will never be convinced that is the case.
On the other hand, they have ipads.
That's a fair opinion to have. I personally just believe our referees are that bad.
I don't like the idea of them seeing all the replays and stuff that we do before deicing if they should challenge. It should be done on what they can see there and then.
Offside should be from the planted foot closest to the goal, just to make it easier with the lines and shit.
Handball should only be a penalty if it blocks a shot at goal, blocking a random cross should lead to a freekick instead of a penalty.
Handball should only be a penalty if it blocks a shot at goal, blocking a random cross should lead to a freekick instead of a penalty.
WHats pathetic? The statement? or that it was done at all? Or the words used?
There are fairly obvious issues with both of those.
The offside one; you can use that to actually gain exactly the sort of advantage offside is designed to prevent - you could get as much as half a meter's head start with that, if it's your back foot planted and the defender's front one.
For the other, you could then hand-block a pass to a player who's got, for instance, an easy tap-in, which would be much more valuable than blocking most shots on goal.
You say that but you would still get into he realms of clubs being upset about decisions going against them. It's not as if the Forest incidents weren't reviewed by VAR. Change the structure and introduce challenges and Forest are upset that they believe 3 clear penalties were denied, even with said challenge system.
In tennis (and cricket) at least, the challenge system is not to make subjective calls but stating whether the ball was in or out. Whether a batsman should be out based on clear technology.
The fundamental issue in these incidents is the subjectivity of handballs, penalties, red cards etc. I just don't think a challenge system makes things better.
Yeah I'm struggling to see this logic. Forest have been steadily escalating their response each time they've felt aggrieved. Clearly nothing has worked yet, so they've escalated again.
What else would you have them do? Roll over and accept it? It isn't like the press are up for helping, they seem to be rallying around the refs, brushing this conflict of interest under the rug and completely ignoring the even more egregious one in Michael Oliver being on the UAE payroll. I'm glad that a club has called the referees out, they're an old boys club focused more on self preservation than fairness or quality.
Gary Neville doubling down on his original stance re Nottingham Forrest
I like Gary and enjoying listening to his opinions. I strongly disagree with this one though.
it gets to a point where change is necessary and how do clubs go about enforcing that change. If they carry on regardless nothing happens. What happened to NF was beyond a joke and could damage them for 10 years…if they go down and can’t get back up
it’s a shambles every week. Even a day apart we’ve seen conflicting penalty decisions.
And the decision to have a known Luton fan is mental. I’m not suggesting he’s cheating, but if you’ve got the opportunity to remove any element of doubt then of course you would make that change.
can you imagine…a Liverpool fan on var for a Utd game that are chasing points to get out of danger. It’d be pandemonium on here
I back NF and respect Saha for arguing against Gary.
I’d even like utd to come out and question the penalty decision citing the Grealish incident. If we (all clubs) just lie down, nothing will change and week after week we’ll continue to see shocking decisions
I like Gary and enjoying listening to his opinions. I strongly disagree with this one though.
it gets to a point where change is necessary and how do clubs go about enforcing that change. If they carry on regardless nothing happens. What happened to NF was beyond a joke and could damage them for 10 years…if they go down and can’t get back up
it’s a shambles every week. Even a day apart we’ve seen conflicting penalty decisions.
And the decision to have a known Luton fan is mental. I’m not suggesting he’s cheating, but if you’ve got the opportunity to remove any element of doubt then of course you would make that change.
can you imagine…a Liverpool fan on var for a Utd game that are chasing points to get out of danger. It’d be pandemonium on here
I back NF and respect Saha for arguing against Gary.
I’d even like utd to come out and question the penalty decision citing the Grealish incident. If we (all clubs) just lie down, nothing will change and week after week we’ll continue to see shocking decisions
I am struggling to understand why so many are offended by the Forest statement. The incompetence needs to be called out regularly, if pundits aren't going to do it then I don't mind clubs wading in.
The NHL has a challenge system like that, which works fine. It won't fix many of the issues with VAR, but at least it would remove the whole mess with what gets VAR-checked and what doesn't, and above all what is sufficiently "clear and obvious" for VAR to overturn a ref decision.
It’s a multi-billion quid industry and these decisions can cost tens of millions to clubs and tens if not hundreds of thousands to players. I remember someone saying about how unprofessional football is considering how big it is and this is a great example. You have these power hungry referees deciding huge things and getting away with whatever they like.
For anyone thinking there isn’t an agenda against United, they should take note of the furore over Coventry Vs United in media, social media and even the Jeremy Vine show just now!
It’s all ‘poor ickle Coventry and ‘big bad United’. Never mind the fact their last goal WAS offside and the Wan Bissaka pen shouldn’t have been given.
Whenever United are believed to have gained from VAR or a referees decision, there’s absolute uproar, but complete silence if United are on the wrong end of it.
Prepare for another endless run of bad decisions against United, because referees and VAR dare not give us anything
It’s all ‘poor ickle Coventry and ‘big bad United’. Never mind the fact their last goal WAS offside and the Wan Bissaka pen shouldn’t have been given.
Whenever United are believed to have gained from VAR or a referees decision, there’s absolute uproar, but complete silence if United are on the wrong end of it.
Prepare for another endless run of bad decisions against United, because referees and VAR dare not give us anything
Its also funny cos people on here (maybe not the poster) have called for ETH to start having a go at the ref. Even listening to Carragher, he was saying that statement would have been fine if the manager said it (bar the luton line)
but weve seen managers / players do this and get fined for bringing the game into disrepute.
This way you wont get one person fined, maybe just the org together, at most. But the one thing it does is it brings it into media attention, which seems to be what Neville/Sky want to avoid for some reason?
Nevilles rant was so odd. Sahas response was more composed and made more sense.
In the cold light of the next day - I’m getting my head around the tweet I initially slated my club for putting out. I’m still not comfortable with the allegations of corruption. However, we‘ve had blatantly awful decisions all season and all we’ve had as a response each time is an apology, with the excuse of “bad day at the office”. Obviously this is making no difference so to the quality of reffing or VAR. At least by standing up to the vested interest protecting the incompetent refs this might force change for the benefit of the game as a whole.
They showed a different frame to the var check of the offside. They actually tried hard to give a goal to Coventry. Just watch the frames before the check and after the check. Completely two different frames.
Where can we find them?
Well we know if a ref did want to commit a few biased based decisions here and there, they could do so knowing that the media, pundits and even most fans will insist we cannot question any official’s integrity. And that the suggestion of corruption and/or bias is absurd, not having the possibility of being true.
Apparently it’s completely impossible for human beings involved in football officiating to ever display bias if they have a British passport.
Just as we have previously demonstrated sheer arrogance, almost borderline delusion, in the past to claim “English refs are the best in the world” and we now know that to be demonstrably untrue, we are again displaying the same arrogance in claiming “English refs are the most impartial in the world!”
Regardless of whether the god awful decision making is as a result of bias or incompetence, we arrive at the same destination. And it’s not acceptable.
Apparently it’s completely impossible for human beings involved in football officiating to ever display bias if they have a British passport.
Just as we have previously demonstrated sheer arrogance, almost borderline delusion, in the past to claim “English refs are the best in the world” and we now know that to be demonstrably untrue, we are again displaying the same arrogance in claiming “English refs are the most impartial in the world!”
Regardless of whether the god awful decision making is as a result of bias or incompetence, we arrive at the same destination. And it’s not acceptable.
We’ve not even had that and you’d never believe that we’ve had any decisions go against us.
BBC post on socials has the frame where the ball has just left the foot of the assister, rather than the frame where it first makes contact. The attacker was moving towards goal while AWB was stepping away so the difference is quite large.
It’s just as we’ve been saying, referees get absolute shit for making the correct decisions in United’s favour, no wonder they are terrified of making the incorrect decision and give every 50/50 against us, or worse 40/60.
The biggest issue with VAR is clear and obvious. As Mike Dean said, the VARs don't really want their mates on field to look like mugs. I understand not trying to re-referee the game but for red cards and penalties you want the right decision, not "close enough". Especially with not given decisions (eg Grealish) you end up over weighting on-field decisions that the ref may not even have seen properly himself.
It's been the case all season long, why change now!I know all basically admitting that the narrative is greater than applying the rules correctly, basically screw united.
Publically no, probably never will be.
But if the club made PGMOL aware before the game then there is some evidence somewhere.
PGMOL isn't going to confirm or deny it they never do (this is not the first time its happened)
Not re-refereeing the game is a total cop out.
IMO they should have three officials on VAR for each match. It requires a majority of two decisions to overrule the referee and it doesn’t matter about “clear and obvious”, just take each decision to its merits.
Maximum 90 seconds to review a decision, if they need to take longer than that - that’s where your clear and obvious comes into play. A decision can’t be made quickly therefore whatever decision was given on the field of play is accepted and move forward.
There is also then the pressure on officials to make the correct decision with them not wanting to constantly be the odd one out and their colleagues determining otherwise.
They need to change the mindset (and silly “clear and obvious” wording) and copy rugby.
Rugby TMOs aren’t over ruling or re-refereeing colleagues… they’re giving the onfield official some information that they think is relevant on key decisions. The onfield official can agree, disagree, ask for more angles but it’s still his/her final decision… the difference is any decision is made as a fully (as much as possible) informed one.
Rugby refs don’t see TMOs as interfering and TMOs don’t get upset if a ref says “thanks but I’m sticking with decision”. they’re grown adults
I think the problem is the “warning” wording and the insinuation that there is direct bias/cheating. The Clattenberg article is much more reasoned in his wording, and I think most people would agree with what he says there.
PGMOL has a list of affiliations of each referee. I’m sure someone would have pointed out by now if he had ever ref’d a Luton match, so (unless someone does find an example where he has done so) I’d be fairly confident that list says he’s a Luton fan.