It was worthwhile. I was letting another poster know that some people on here are sure they’re always right and never listen to opinions/flex a viewpoint.
If oyu disagree, post or don’t post… same for me.
(I was a ref 16 years… that’s never a red.)
VAR and Refs | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
If oyu disagree, post or don’t post… same for me.
(I was a ref 16 years… that’s never a red.)
The whole sending them over to the monitor thing doesn’t work anyway. They’re squinting at a small screen, with fans and players screeching at them, watching a couple of carefully selected views with no back and forth discussion or explanation from the VAR guy about why those images/angles have been selected. All under immense pressure to make a decision as quickly as possible. It’s a charade to give the illusion of the referee on the pitch making the call.
In rugby the replays are shown on a massive screen and the onfield officials have a detailed back and forth with the guy in charge of the footage. They can ask to look at particular angles multiple times, or ask for angles they haven’t yet seen. They can ask for footage to be sped up, or slowed down, or paused at a particular moment. This often takes several minutes. It’s a world away from the football pantomime.
That is the only way to effectively use video replays in football. But it’s completely unacceptable because it takes far too fecking long for a sport that’s main selling point is non stop, relentless action. Plus football fans have been deemed incapable of seeing this footage without smashing the place up in a fit of rage. So playing it on a big screen isn’t an option.
It’s all a Catch 22. Video review are not suited to football and using them creates more controversy than it removes. While also wrecking the game as a spectacle.
Side note. A lot of rugby fans hate video reviews too. And think the sport was far better to watch in the days before it was introduced.
He did.
His leadership is poor, he's not mature enough mentally for me.
Chris Kavanagh - Ashton-under-Lyne, Greater Manchester A fan of non-League Droylsden.
Yes, I believe that referee from Greater Manchester only has affiliation with non league Droylsden.
Yes, I believe that referee from Greater Manchester only has affiliation with non league Droylsden.
Because the onfield referee is the person who has been appointed to take charge of the game, VAR isnt there to referee the game its their to assist the onfield referee with refereeing the game the same way a linesman is.
I also think that Kavanagh has a fairly shit view of the situation, with the two players between him and the foul
That is the crux of the problem right there.
In rugby they work together as a team to get to the right call. It’s not always correct but everyone can see how they made the decision because we all hear the conversation.
In football it’s some bizarre “the on field decision must be made by the referee and even if he fecks it up there probably won’t be any var intervention “
Cricket is much more black and white and easily driven by technology.
I too was a Ref.
Which proves it's down to opinion.
I've looked at it from various viewpoints, and it's still a red.
As for flexing a viewpoint ... pot/kettle
It was never a red, every single pundit said it was never a red and if the ref had of been sent to the monitor he would have said no red as well.
How many pundits have been on the referees course and worked their way up to refereeing a game
I'll wait.
As I said it's a matter of opinions, and in this case the only opinion that counts is the referees
The laws of the game state "If in the opinon of the referee......."
Think we'll appeal and it'll get overturned.
I do not think it will get overturned, even though it should be, in a sensible world. The refs can "hide" behind "serious foul play" due to studs being showed before the tackle and considered reckless. The tackle in itself is never ever a red though.
This right here is the problem. That's how the refs see it and it's nonsense.
Getting to the right decision based on video replays, because humans can't see everything, is not undermining the on-field referee.
Harsh red, just like any if any of the handballs are given they would be harsh penalties.
No mitigation or consideration given to the fact that he slipped and barely made even the slightest bit of contact with Maddison. Who made the most of it.
No mitigation or consideration given to the fact that he slipped and barely made even the slightest bit of contact with Maddison. Who made the most of it.
Good old Matty with consistently bad takes on practically every post. Is this cos we took the piss in his ill advised introductory post?
Absolutely agree. Just because it's always been done this way doesn't make it the right approach. Traditional ways of things quite often fall by the wayside once new technologies are adopted.
The refs are an archaic group who need a complete overhaul in terms of attitude and approach to adjudicating games of football. Webb has been the worst thing to happen to the officiating of the game.
He's currently sabotaging VAR and we're moving further away from the goal of using the technology available to work together as a team to get to right decision. What do they find so scary about that?
He doesn’t go in studs showing, he slips, flicks a leg out and catches Maddison .. with the back of his heel. There’s zero risk of danger to the player (Maddison).
Maddison takes two steps then collapses and a few players run to the ref… as they did all game (dived and over reacted), I was there. It’s a silly flicked out leg, reckless, no endangerment, a clear yellow. It’s not serious foul play because of the lack of player risk and lack of excessive force. It’s also not violent conduct. There were tackles in this game (both sides) that were worse than Bruno’s (others made no attempt at the ball) and got yellows, no questions asked.. because that’s all they were. The ref sees the height of Bruno’s leg and reaction and judges the reaction not the tackle/foul.. as he did all game.
There were loads of situations today that if you want to quote “it’s the letter of the law, take off your red tinted glasses” were also cards. Time wasting started within ten minutes. Johnson got booked then dived for a pen a few minutes later. There were four tackles from behind by Spurs players before one got a booking. They gave away free kicks and stood a few yards from the ball semi protesting… that’s delaying a restart. Two Spurs players waved imaginary cards at the Bruno incident.
He was a poor ref in a poor game.
This place is full of opinions, there’s no need to be so condescending to posters - despite it just being written, it still comes across. It’s generally something anti-United and you always keep going and want to have the last (pretentious) word, there’s no need.
Scoured the internet for the worst and most misleading angle!
Studs towards players leg!
Pause this on the second replay the second contact is made and you’ll see that Bruno’s ankle makes contact with him and guess what! It means his foot and studs are pointing AWAY from him.
Even Maddison said not a red, is he a top red?
Even Jamie Redknapp did and he’s a moron ABU. The third (?) replay clearly shows foot up (not studs raised/leading) and catches Maddison with his heel.
Never a red. Happens every weekend with no red.
Once he said he was a ref for 15 years it all started to make sense.
Can’t believe it needs spelling out (to the odd poster) as to why it doesn’t meet law 12 red card thresholds.
Webb should be sacked (not for this decision), standard has plummeted.
Webb should be sacked (not for this decision), standard has plummeted.
Of course it doesn't - why is why I'm pretty confident it'll be overturned.
If the ref views that challenge on screen, there's no way he's giving a red. Why is there an insistence on the ref having to "make the decision" in that split second?
Imagine a situation where Kavanagh says "I didn't like the look of that tackle, but bring it up on screen for me so I can have a second look."
It did look bad in that split second, but surely after a quick consultation with VAR, it's a yellow for stopping a counter attack and the game moves on.
This whole "high-bar" for overruling decisions is awful. Now we are annoyed about TWO bad decisions, instead of just a poor onfield call.
Imagine a situation where Kavanagh says "I didn't like the look of that tackle, but bring it up on screen for me so I can have a second look."
It did look bad in that split second, but surely after a quick consultation with VAR, it's a yellow for stopping a counter attack and the game moves on.
This whole "high-bar" for overruling decisions is awful. Now we are annoyed about TWO bad decisions, instead of just a poor onfield call.
Think that’s bad, try being a fan of a non Old Firm team in Scotland and being asked to believe that no ref from the west coast of Scotland supports either Rangers or Celtic.
If the on pitch gives a red and the VAR team agrees but then it gets successfully appealed, that VAR team should have to re-learn the rules.
I can accept the on pitch ref making a mistake but the team of refs in the VAR unit who have the benefit of replays? It's bordering on negligence if they mess up something like "was it a red or not".
Indeed, and during the period after lockdown where Droylsden went into a 3 year hiatus, I'm sure Mr Kavanagh took no interest in any other club
So the Bruno red was a perfect example of how dumb I find the way PL refs use VAR.
I can actually fully understand the on field ref giving it, because on initial viewing it looks like a pretty obvious red card. Then VAR comes in, and you can see that he slips and that's what causes the challenge.
There's still an element of subjectivity there were you COULD say he slipped but still had the opportunity not to raise his foot into the challenge...but that isn't what the referee would have seen and its supposed to be the ref who is making the decision, so surely at that point you get him to have a look at it and its up to him if he changes his mind?
If the point is not to undermine him then this is the correct way to do it. Supply him with the information and leave it to him to make the decision. Instead we have this stupid "high freshold" or "obvious error" nonsense where they've decided to make VAR all about whether or not the referee has made a mistake. So anytime someone slips or something freakish or simply quite fast happens, where its near impossible for the on field ref to call it correctly, it now wont get overturned because even though its the EXACT thing VAR is supposed to help with, it will never be an "obvious" error.
Its so fecking dumb it angers me whenever I think about it, and comes down to the same thing it does everywhere which is the PGMOL is full of incompetent people who shouldn't be in charge of officiating football matches.
There should almost never be any "obvious" errors in the first place in the sense that the PGMOL seem to infer, because top level officials should be able to referee a football game fairly and competently without making massive cock ups every single week. VAR should be for when something happens they didn't see or where the full context isn't clear in real time and so it wasn't reasonable to expect them to be able to get the decision right without the VAR's help
I can actually fully understand the on field ref giving it, because on initial viewing it looks like a pretty obvious red card. Then VAR comes in, and you can see that he slips and that's what causes the challenge.
There's still an element of subjectivity there were you COULD say he slipped but still had the opportunity not to raise his foot into the challenge...but that isn't what the referee would have seen and its supposed to be the ref who is making the decision, so surely at that point you get him to have a look at it and its up to him if he changes his mind?
If the point is not to undermine him then this is the correct way to do it. Supply him with the information and leave it to him to make the decision. Instead we have this stupid "high freshold" or "obvious error" nonsense where they've decided to make VAR all about whether or not the referee has made a mistake. So anytime someone slips or something freakish or simply quite fast happens, where its near impossible for the on field ref to call it correctly, it now wont get overturned because even though its the EXACT thing VAR is supposed to help with, it will never be an "obvious" error.
Its so fecking dumb it angers me whenever I think about it, and comes down to the same thing it does everywhere which is the PGMOL is full of incompetent people who shouldn't be in charge of officiating football matches.
There should almost never be any "obvious" errors in the first place in the sense that the PGMOL seem to infer, because top level officials should be able to referee a football game fairly and competently without making massive cock ups every single week. VAR should be for when something happens they didn't see or where the full context isn't clear in real time and so it wasn't reasonable to expect them to be able to get the decision right without the VAR's help
Last edited:
I have a very tiny degree of sympathy with the VAR team with stuff like this - mainly becaues of the "clear and obvious" bullshit.
VAR can't just decide whether something is right or wrong, they have to imagine a completely arbitary line in their head that is based on absolutely nothing and then decide whether or not the decision has met that threshold - it's an absolutely crazy way to inform decision making, yet here we are.
Also this "and VAR are having a look" crap.
They should be looking at everything, all game. The only time you should hear about it is when they want the referee to go check something because they think he didn't see something or didn't get the full picture.
I don't know how or why the TV coverage has gotten involved where they have a little red flashing light or something to indicate VAR has awoken from its slumber. Who presses this button? What are they doing for the rest of the game?
They should be looking at everything, all game. The only time you should hear about it is when they want the referee to go check something because they think he didn't see something or didn't get the full picture.
I don't know how or why the TV coverage has gotten involved where they have a little red flashing light or something to indicate VAR has awoken from its slumber. Who presses this button? What are they doing for the rest of the game?
Thank you for that valuable contribution to the forum.
It shows the sum total of your IQ, when you have to resort to single emojii as a reply.
Another on ignore
Who wants the last word is up for debate, you can always move on and stop replying.
Like a lot of people, I may not like the decisions referees make, but I accept them and move on.
In this case, in my opinion, he was right.
In this case, in your opinion, he was wrong.
We are both entitled to our opinions, because that's all they are.
Ok, then explain how it meets the threshold/criteria of law 12.
Because the last decent ref we had (Hackett) is 100% certain it doesn’t meet them.
(and less of the smart arse low IQ comments… ‘criticise the post not the poster’)
Dermot says the ref can’t see the tackle clearly because there’s two players in front of him.
Which means he guessed from reactions.
He SHOULD have given yellow and let VAR upgrade if it was worse.
Can’t have referees guessing
Which means he guessed from reactions.
He SHOULD have given yellow and let VAR upgrade if it was worse.
Can’t have referees guessing
It's Hacketts opinion
The rules of foootball state "If in the opinion of the referee......"
I did say in another post, on a different day with a different Ref, it may not have been given, or initially been given, but there is a likelihood tha VAR would have called it back, and asked the Ref to go to the screen.
Obviously VAR thought the same, if they were in doubt they (he) would of asked him to go to the screen, but they didn't, so that's four officials on the day agreeing it's a red.
I don't doubt that during the season we will see similar tackles/slips/contact, and in each one a different ref will make a similar of different decision, that doesn't make my opinion (or yours) on this one wrong.
That's not how VAR works.
How else will they do their job. Standard of PL refs is seen as a joke around Europe, only the PL for all its riches does nothing about it - you have to assume because the fallout from all these cruddy decisions generates so much money for the media they think it’s worth it.
I agree, but VAR must have looked at it from several angles, more than the ref could, and upheld it, so your agrument is a tad invalid, and so is Gallaghers