Once everyone gets the "Liverpool title win" out of their system, hopefully things will get back to normal. Basically what happened to City and Pep who were once God's gift to the PL.
VAR Decisions - PL 19/20 Season
- Thread starter edcunited1878
- Start date
Once everyone gets the "Liverpool title win" out of their system, hopefully things will get back to normal. Basically what happened to City and Pep who were once God's gift to the PL.
I'm sure it's a grand conspiracy to only bring in pro Liverpool refs and reporters everywhere.
This place is becoming more and more like the RAWK of the old days.
Tell you what can you go over there?
Might as well get rid of linesmen. They have no role in the game any more.
Also on this there is pro Liverpool pundits everywhere. BT you have to listen to McMananman. He was second commentator for every single Champions League game United played last season.
Sky use Souness and Carragher for every big game.
BBC use Mark Lawrenson for predicting Premier League results and hasn’t had them lose for 3 years now. Danny Murphy as well.
United have Gary Neville who actually tries to be impartial unlike Liverpool pundits.
Handy for throw in decisions.
Was that not handball by the player who assisted on Newcastle's goal? Ball comes up and strikes the under side of his arm, it seems pretty clear.
its not a goal against Liverpool, so its not a handball at all and no one should even mention it.
In the spirit of christmas we gifted you two goals back so we're evens.
Well I noticed the commentators barely mentioned it...if United scored such a goal the outrage would be headline news!
If I look at all the penalties saved this year, I take it I won't find any of them show cases of encroachment, because this is being strictly referred in all instances?
Because I was pretty amazed City got a second chance on their penalty, I feel like both teams encroach on every penalty.
Of course, it made Wolves' victory all the sweeter in the end!
Because I was pretty amazed City got a second chance on their penalty, I feel like both teams encroach on every penalty.
Of course, it made Wolves' victory all the sweeter in the end!
They'll make penalties a separate part of the play at some point I reckon, and possibly ease up on the GK monitoring too.
VAR ball is coming. Or partly here already.
Teams can use offside properly to defend though, so that isn't quite the joke it has been for a few seasons.
Thing is though, we don't like the enforcing of narrow offsides, when they chalk goals off because of it. Where its played and adjudicated to the same at both ends probably needs saying here.
My main complaints now are that not all contact is a penalty, that it gets used to support the ref's decision because of their protocols, and in some games, the faffing about, but that is only some games. Probably, a load more different faffing about went on before, tbf.
VAR ball is coming. Or partly here already.
Teams can use offside properly to defend though, so that isn't quite the joke it has been for a few seasons.
Thing is though, we don't like the enforcing of narrow offsides, when they chalk goals off because of it. Where its played and adjudicated to the same at both ends probably needs saying here.
My main complaints now are that not all contact is a penalty, that it gets used to support the ref's decision because of their protocols, and in some games, the faffing about, but that is only some games. Probably, a load more different faffing about went on before, tbf.
Because tbe encroaching player cleared the ball.
Funnily enough, If he left it to Silva they would have had a free out.
I agree with the chants. VAR, implemented in its current form in the PL, is destroying the game. It's not football anymore.
It's supposed to be used to correct "clear and obvious errors" and nothing more. The technology is great, it's the way it's being used that is terrible. They are looking for reasons to disallow goals, which is not the way it's supposed to be used.
Except when Liverpool are involved.
Offsides have never fallen under the "clear and obvious" notion.
Mane had a goal harshly disallowed the other day. I agree that they have been relatively fortunate with VAR though, yes.
Antonio had a cracking goal disallowed the other day that really pissed me off, and I hate West Ham. I think the worst is still the debacle at Spurs when Sheff Utd's perfectly good goal was disallowed after something like 6 minutes.
I don't even understand the offside rule anymore, or the handball rule. They seem to change every other year.
Okay that I can believe, thanks!
I think it’s only a retake of the penalty, Happend to Leichester earlier. Vardy missed and maddison(?) scored the rebound, but vardy had to retake it and scored.
errr
Do the VAR panel actually understand the rules of the game?
You are not offside when you are not in front off the last player when the ball is played.
And in such a case as the Norwich goal....what inches and even then its not clear...the advantage is to the attacking team.
Anyway Norwich are playing Spurs off the park.
Do the VAR panel actually understand the rules of the game?
You are not offside when you are not in front off the last player when the ball is played.
And in such a case as the Norwich goal....what inches and even then its not clear...the advantage is to the attacking team.
Anyway Norwich are playing Spurs off the park.
Once again, the problem with VAR isn’t the offsides. It’s the decisions (or indecision) made by referees like Pawson and the officials with Jorginho. A blatant second yellow not given.
Same with Bardsley. It's often the little decisions that can sway a game in a team's favour. For example, letting a player like Kanté or Fernandinho off without a yellow card early on in a game can have big ramifications for the opposition later on.
We see it all the time with referees failing to punish smaller teams for time-wasting despite them starting in the 50th minute, which completely kills the momentum of the game and in a sneaky and game-destroying way worsens the chances of the trailing team to up the tempo. I mean, how hard is it to immediately book a goalkeeper when he suddenly decides that the opposite side of the six-yard box is the appropriate place to take goal kicks from? It's such an obvious move to destroy the game and I'd book goalkeepers immediately for doing it, since they never do it when chasing a goal.
Last edited:
We've (Saints) have done quite well from it so far!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50944416
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50944416
Another disgraceful call that hinders City/benefits the Scousers just there.
How the feck do they keep getting away with it?!
How the feck do they keep getting away with it?!
How is that not a pen? 
What's the point of the ref going over to the monitor (rather than have another ref make the call)?
Seems like this will put more pressure on the on-field ref, add more times to VAR decisions with no benefit.
Seems like this will put more pressure on the on-field ref, add more times to VAR decisions with no benefit.
Another wrong on-field decision that VAR corrected then.
The main difference is that the on-field ref still is the one in charge and responsible. With the VAR the on-field just has to trust the VAR.
Also it is more likely that a ref will will change his own decision after reviewing than a VAR will tell his colleague "you got it wrong im taking the decision that you got it wrong".
It's not trusting the VAR though, it's trusting another, equally qualified ref who has the benefit of not being knackered or having 22 players trying to influence decisions for the entire game.
Your second point might be true in a lot of cases (not last week, when Aubamayang got a yellow and the the VAR ref overturned it) but this change to the process seems a cop-out to save face, rather than an improvement to the system.
The point is that subjective calls are by definition subjective. Two different refs may judge the same situation differently. Letting the same ref make the call is both more consistent, and better in general because the VAR has to take the ref's judgement into consideration. A VAR ref simply won't change a decision unless it's clearly and obviously wrong.
So any situation that isn't clear without a shadow of a doubt won't be overturned, because it's not a mistake. Even if upon review the ref might think it was
I personally think every decision should be judged on its own merit. Referring should not be encouraged to be inconsistent from one game to the next, depending on what mood the particular ref is in.
I don't know if you remember the Chelsea v Spurs "battle of the bridge" game from a few years ago (where Spurs went mental and tried to murder the Chelsea players), the ref has since admitted he didn't send of 4 Spurs players because he didn't want to be seen to "ruin the game". If those decisions were taken away from the on-field ref, we would not have to worry about them shitting themselves and not enforcing the laws of the game.
I'd be happy with VAR being in contact communication with the on-field ref. I don't think it should be seen as overulling them, they are helping them.
In theory the benefits are:
1) You have one person overruling his own subjective opinion, as opposed to having one person's subjective opinion overruling another person's subjective opinion. The former being a lot more difficult to argue with if the decision goes against you. Having the person who made the initial decision also make the decision to overrule it is more authoritative as it is clear that even the person who made the initial call agrees it was wrong.
2) In theory you get better decisions as less weight is placed on the referee's initial interpretation. Example: Imagine an attacker is running through on goal, defender touches him slightly, attacker goes down. If the referee's interpretation is "I saw there was contact, I didn't think there was enough for a foul" then VAR is currently unlikely to overturn the decision. If the referee's interpretation is "I don't think there was contact at all", then Var is currently likely to overturn the decision. So two different outcomes from the exact same incident, all depending on how factually wrong the referee's initial call (which the fans never hear) was as VAR is trying to determine whether a clear mistake was made. Whereas if VAR can refer the incident back to the ref then the ultimate decision gets made based on what actually happened, irrespective of what the ref initially thought. So the ref is free to say "I missed the contact the first time around but even having seen it now, I still don't think it was a foul" or "I saw the contact the first time but actually now that I see it again it wasn't enough for a foul". A more nuanced decision-making process that would benefit subjective calls.
3. Having the referee walk over to the side of the pitch and be seen making the decision is arguably more visually appealing to the audience (both at home and in the stadium) than having the ref stand around with his finger to his ear waiting for a call to be made elsewhere.
Last edited:
Even more so you don't want inconsistent refereeing within the same game
Ultimately most of the rules are subjective. Therefore different refs being inconsistent from each other is normal and won't change(and teams employ actual scouts to learn the refs tendencies and those reports are then given to the players before the games, so they know what to expect)
Keep in mind that the video the refs watch is at livespeed, so it's just a matter of having a second look, perhaps from a better angle, to judge.
Take the walcott non-penalty from everton-brighton for example: 9 out of 10 think it's a penalty. But it's only 9 out of 10 - therefore it's not clear and obvious, therefore VAR can't change the refs decision because it's technically not a mistake. But if the ref sees it again, from a different angle, he might change his mind
This is an entirely different argument. What you're saying here is you need better refs
Regarding the Firmino goal, I think most sane people would have awarded a foul there. Even more so if it had happened in other leagues. VVD knows where DDG is and barges into him without playing the ball.
Whether it was enough of a mistake on the ref's part for VAR to overturn the goal is a higher bar to clear but, again, I think it's within the bounds of reason.
This is a point though:
Whether it was enough of a mistake on the ref's part for VAR to overturn the goal is a higher bar to clear but, again, I think it's within the bounds of reason.
This is a point though:
The Calvert-Lewin decision was criminal though. I suppose the question that needs to be asked is: is it fairer for a ref to be inconsistent, or consistently wrong?
I guess ideally you'd give the ref the extra opportunity to be consistent but complement that by being stricter in terms of keeping his interpretation of the rules in line with other refs. Basically if VAR gives you a second chance and you still feck up, you get held accountable.
Key issue in both decision, which is consistent, is that Pawson was wrong both times. Both were textbool fouls
All correct today, and not just because two went for us!