VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
This could be interesting
There's absolutely no way that it won't be heavily edited to make VAR and officials running it seem competent. If Neville and Carragher had anything about them they would drill him on how shit it is the majority of the time.
Interesting yes. But as it is not live, I'm not hoping for to much. We will see.
This should be live with both sound and picture. Mics and cam. Not something that can be edited in any way or form.
Agreed.
This will be an attempt to show how hard they have it and how difficult it is/ how much effort they are putting into improving it.
The overall theme will be "Are we perfect? No. Are we doing our damnedest to get every big decision right? Yes, so please give us a break."
To be fair the commentators can hear the conversation so I doubt there’s any shenanigans going on
Yeah, mens rea is the legal term- 'the guilty mind'. It means that part of what is punished in any crime is the intention.
Can they?!
Makes zero sense to me. The intent is there to stop the attack. Just because the challenge may be too laboured and the opposition can escape it, doesn't make it ok.
Yep, Gary has said it on commentary many times
I'm not saying that it is. Just that we need to hear this during games. I don't want any edited version like game highlights.
Can commentators hear? I have never heard anything about that. Why are they sometimes talking about need for explanation if they can heqr that? Are you sure about that?
Yeah, I think it’s how they know what’s being reviewed. I’m pretty sure I’ve heard Gary say it 1m times and he even sort of repeats what’s being said.
I can’t find Gary quotes now because of the Webb spam but I found this
The pundit is able to listen to talks in the VAR room while working for Sky, and has offered an insight into some of the chat he has picked up from the VAR room while regularly covering Rangers and Celtic clashes.
Edit another one
https://tbrfootball.com/sky-sports-...er-denying-wolves-a-penalty-vs-newcastle/?amp
The law doesn’t say that attempting to stop an attack is a yellow card. The law says that actually stopping a promising attack is a yellow card. Previously, a player who tackled an opponent and didn’t stop a promising attack was then given a yellow card for stopping an attack that was never stopped. How can that make more sense to you than this revision?
Just like a murder requires a dead victim stopping a promising attack needs to have a promising attack that is stopped for it to fulfil the criterion for a yellow card,
The law only penalises the successful attempt at stopping a promising attack with a yellow card, so you’d have to ignore the laws of the game for your opinion to be true. Not that that’s unheard of for PL refs, but still.
Like I’ve said to the other posters, the law only mentions it being a yellow if a promising attack is stopped. And like I posted above, they even made a specific point of it not being a yellow if the referee gives advantage and deems that the promising attack was not stopped. Still everyone “feels” like Casemiro should’ve had a red despite the rules being very clear on why it correctly wasn’t given. It’s the same as when we got punished for scoring a goal that was technically lawful because facts didn’t matter and everyone “felt” it was wrong which is more important than the actual laws of the game. Then that seeps into the media and the narrative is that we’re lucky with refs because Casemiro wasn’t sent off.
But just like attempted murder is a different crime from murder that carries a different punishment, attempted stopping of a promising attack is a different rule which isn’t punished with a yellow card.
That could mean he found out after. Not that he listened live. I’ll trust you on this one but I do have some reservations.
Where does this “promising attack” thing come from? I’m talking about a foul which, on its own merits, is worthy of a yellow. A blatant shirt pull or nasty tackle. Nothing to do with the promise of the attack it interrupts. It seems insane to me that these could go unpunished just because the team in possession doesn’t lose the ball and the referee decides to lallow the attacking team play on without stopping play to book someone. The way this always used to be referee’d was to book the offending player at the next natural break in play. Changing the rules to prevent this seems as unnecessary as it is dumb.
Ah, we’re talking about different things then. A tackle that’s reckless or careless etc will be given a yellow as normal. But there’s another law that says that stopping a promising attack is a yellow, also dubbed the tactical foul (that’s the law people are referring to when they say that Casemiro should’ve had a red against Brighton to indicate how lucky we are with refs). The tweet that I posted about the clarification refers to that law. But even then, there’s nothing saying that a shirt pull is automatically a yellow, so for a yellow to be shown for just the shirt pull itself it needs to be a “brutal” shirt pull (like clotheslining an opponent while holding the neck of the shirt) if it doesn’t stop a promising attack. Usually the cynical fouls like blatant trips and shirt pulls as teams are countering are yellows due to stopping promising attacks, and previously a player could be booked even if the attack went on, but shouldn’t be now if the ref’s given an advantage.
And I’ll reiterate that I think it makes perfect sense for someone to not be booked for stopping a promising attack if no promising attack was stopped.
Howard Webb on Monday Night Football giving a "better insight into how VAR works" shortly.
Like to see them mention Casemiro in comparison to other decisions
It’s going to be a handpicked handful of completely uncontroversial decisions. Pure PR.
Finding it interesting. It works exactly how I think it does but so many can't wrap their heads around it. Hopefully what Webb says about the delay in raising the flag finally stops people complaining about it.
The one interesting thing I picked up which was also picked by Carragher is the information being given to the ref when he is asked to come & see the screen. This means that a clown like marriner basically influences the decision for example for the Casemiro Red by showing what he wants to show
Interesting to hear the audio. It does feel like the on field ref is very passive in these referrals though... They basically don't say anything at the monitor
What happened to tactical fouling? City do it all the time, yet they are hardly ever penalised because they do it so high up the pitch. It makes no sense. Nowhere does it say that tactical fouls only apply this and that many yards from goal.
And agree completelt. Blatant yellows should always be given retrospectively.
The novelty has quickly worn off. All we want is consistency, not Casemiro being a target whilst someone else can break an opponents nose with a closed fist and get away with it.
This ones pretty funny... but not for for the ref, Zinchenko... Offside offside offside, and when he overturns it saying 'Exactly well done'... because he still thinks it's offside was why it was overturned, ending with sarcastic clap too
Either way, these British refs don't come across as assertive as they should in general conversation with the players. The French ref who started this mic'd up stuff a few weeks back was miles better in actual player interactions, but we're looking at VAR here, not general refereeing I guess.
I get decisions are subjective but have a Var team of let’s say 6 people, 3 are on duty on match days (apart from 3pm Sat KO) and those 6 cover all the games across the season.
Let them over rule the refs, get rid of the pitch side monitor and have a semi consistent Var team making consistent decisions.
Let them over rule the refs, get rid of the pitch side monitor and have a semi consistent Var team making consistent decisions.
Each game needs its own VAR team. It won't work otherwise.
Of all the VAR missteps since its introduction, the inability to actually hear the rationale for why decisions were made was such an obvious one. Especially when you have other sports like Rugby to compare it to, where actually being able to hear the TMO process live so very obviously helps the audience to understand what's going on.
Aside from providing clarity, it helps sell the ref/VAR's POV of the incident as the audience and commentators will naturally tend to follow on from the logic they hear from the officials. Decisions that when left in isolation might seem debateable will seem more reasonable when you hear someone talking through them.
The more they do of it the better. Hopefully the rule against live audio changes in the future.
Aside from providing clarity, it helps sell the ref/VAR's POV of the incident as the audience and commentators will naturally tend to follow on from the logic they hear from the officials. Decisions that when left in isolation might seem debateable will seem more reasonable when you hear someone talking through them.
The more they do of it the better. Hopefully the rule against live audio changes in the future.
Thanks. I find it wierd that they allow commentators but not fans to hear and see it. I guess it is so they can talk about it through the game (tv contracts between TheFA and them?) but that don't do much for us.
This ones pretty funny... but not for for the ref, Zinchenko... Offside offside offside, and when he overturns it saying 'Exactly well done'... because he still thinks it's offside was why it was overturned, ending with sarcastic clap too
Either way, these British refs don't come across as assertive as they should in general conversation with the players. The French ref who started this mic'd up stuff a few weeks back was miles better in actual player interactions, but we're looking at VAR here, not general refereeing I guess.
I was gonna say. The one thing that always comes across most clearly whenever they mic up refs, pre or post VAR, is that top flight footballers are all total gobshites. So you can understand why there’s no chance of them ever allowing the audio go public (other than carefully edited retrospective packages like this) because of the damage it will do to the brand.
That seemed miles offside and then they went backwards and forwards on where the ball ‘left’ the passers foot untill he was onside. I don’t even trust the offsides anymore