VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

duffer said:
I'm not saying it needs to be broadcast live to the nation but the feed should be live to broadcasters so they can relay what happened straight away.
Click to expand...

Ah. Ok. That might work. Although based on the clips we heard it all sounds very chaotic, so the broadcaster would have a tough time interpreting what happened.

This all boils down to football being not suited to VAR. In other sports, the way they analyse these incidents is all very slow and deliberate. In football they all seem in a crazy hurry to reach a decision. Because football's best quality as a sporting entertainment is how fast paced it is. So they can't stop the game for long enough to do VAR properly. It's an unfixable shambles.
 
ShinjiNinja26 said:
How the feck have you came to that conclusion based on what’s been said? :wenger:

It’s hilarious they’ve been robbed for once but it won’t be funny in the long run as they’ll now be given every decision in their favour to make up for it.
Click to expand...


You can add all the conspiracies you want about what may or may not happen in future, but the fact is, Liverpool got a bad VAR call and now utd fans on the caf are raging. Even the Liverpool fans I know have moved on.
 
WeePat said:
I had to watch that like 17 times to be sure it came off Ward's hand. First couple of views I was certain the ball just bounced off Rashford's thigh.
Click to expand...
Probably get yourself checked out mate. And see an opticians as well.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
They're not identical. I was exaggerating to make a point. But the similarities are more important than the differences.

Both scenarios involve a genuine attempt by the defender to play the ball.
Both scenarios involve an attacking player getting to the ball ahead of the defender, so the defender misses the ball.
Both scenarios involve the attacking player being kicked/tripped up by the defender.
Both scenarios should be a free kick to the attacking player.

Genuinely surprised that anyone who regularly plays/watches football could see this as anything other than an obvious penalty.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's clear cut. Intent is irrelevant as many fouls are genuine attempts to get the ball. Indeed that's why the rules already reflect this and the keeper would receive a yellow here rather than a red, as used to be the case.
 
The entire argument on why VAR was needed was that the referees needed help as the game was fast. The reality was, that the referees were not fit for purpose and they certainly didn't want to admit that, so they rolled out a game-breaking process, completely changing the sport to enable these under par professionals to "do their job better".

All this experiment has done is showcase just how bad these "professionals" are. A total backfire, now they have to justify why the system is needed (it's not), and that the failures are down to human error. This is amazing, given how previous mistakes were down to "human error" too.
 
the entire narrative around this, just shows that your never going to have a 'fair' system that the majority are happy with, because most football fans are tribal, blinkered (and a bit thick). and the controversy generates heat which translates into clicks and $$$.
 


Seven seconds later, the VAR team realised their error. Panic set in, but they decided they couldn't go against protocol so they let play continue. But in this situation, where a very serious mistake has been identified within seconds of the restart, football would rather the VAR went against protocol to achieve the fairest outcome for the game. The match should have been stopped.

Not only did the VAR team fail to react, but also the management team, which could have stepped in and told the VAR team to roll the game back.

There was the opportunity to fix it, and it was missed.
Click to expand...

This is another point. I get that it's against their protocol to to go back once the restart has occurred, but you'd think anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that breaking the protocol at that point would be less of an issue than allowing the feck up to stand. They realised they make a mistake seconds later, it wouldn't be much of an issue to call it back.
 
Remember that just a few weeks ago Dermot Gallagher said this about the Saka foul on Fernandes,


There was another incident in the first half where Bukayo Saka was issued a yellow card for a studs-up lunge on Bruno Fernandes.

Gallagher did not believe this should have been upgraded to a red card.

He explained: “The fact he’s low, he’s come from such a short distance there’s no intensity.”
 
Surely there should be an apology for that incident with Matt Turner. That's pretty clear and obvious.

Hope that is one where they release the audio.
 
sullydnl said:




This is another point. I get that it's against their protocol to to go back once the restart has occurred, but you'd think anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that breaking the protocol at that point would be less of an issue than allowing the feck up to stand. They realised they make a mistake seconds later, it wouldn't be much of an issue to call it back.
Click to expand...

That would cause a bigger shit show than a wrongfully given offside to be fair. Protocol is being framed as some tossed to the side aspect here. I’d say that would give grounds for Spurs to get the game replayed. It’s a ref giving a goal when he literally isn’t allowed to
 
sullydnl said:
Click to expand...



Didn't VAR call back players after they had gone to the break at HT few years back in Germany.

This nonsense of the play started we cannot do anything is bullshit.

It happens all the time and the refs can reverse decisions. Imagine the ref awards a throw-in to team a and turns his back and team b takes the throw-in, they don't go, oh well the throw has been taken, we can't do anything about it.
 
bleedred said:
Didn't VAR call back players after they had gone to the break at HT few years back in Germany.

This nonsense of the play started we cannot do anything is bullshit.

It happens all the time and the refs can reverse decisions. Imagine the ref awards a throw-in to team a and turns his back and team b takes the throw-in, they don't go, oh well the throw has been taken, we can't do anything about it.


It's all
Click to expand...

If you read the piece he notes the difference between this and penalties awarded for offences before the FT/HT whistle.
 
Incredible how that Diaz one has happened.

Why the feck is the decision not just "offside or onside" instead of "confirm or overturn"?
 
DavidDeSchmikes said:
Click to expand...


This decision is not controversial. He's clearly caught the player high on his ankle. I find teams that play the high press, and tend to stick the boot in, get away with this type of challenge. The pundits need to learn the letter of the law as well. It's about endangering an opponent not whether 'he meant to hurt him'.

The only matter controversial in that entire incident is why the referee is shown a still imagine of the incident. This needs to stop. The VAR decision should be shown at real time and then one slow motion replay. I still don't understand why the on-field referee needs to make the final decision anyway. They are qualified referees in the VAR box and they should all follow the same protocol. Why do they waste time having the on-field referee go over to the monitor? Just tell the on-field referee what the decision should be.

VAR is becoming a circus which I'm sure the PGMOL referees are delighted about. It's not the technology it's the same referees making the mistakes. Some rules need refining, like handballs. The Premier League had the option to use the semi automated offside technology but said no. That needs to be introduced next season. But the main issue is the referees. 4 years on and it has to be a combination of sabotage, as they don't like the technology, or plain corruption. The refs don't earn much in Premier League terms. With the amount of betting there is such a high risk to match fixing.
 
Did Sky even bring up the clear penalty that United should have had against Palace that VAR was asleep for?
 
I think the argument of "the referee shouldn't have been shown the still image" is grasping at straws from Liverpool fans. It's a red end of story. Don't find it remotely controversial.
 
Better the Liverpool reaction than just casually accepting the horrendous decisions we get week after week.

VAR is giving sportswashing a run in the "ruining football" stakes.
 
Josep Dowling said:
This decision is not controversial. He's clearly caught the player high on his ankle. I find teams that play the high press, and tend to stick the boot in, get away with this type of challenge. The pundits need to learn the letter of the law as well. It's about endangering an opponent not whether 'he meant to hurt him'.

The only matter controversial in that entire incident is why the referee is shown a still imagine of the incident. This needs to stop. The VAR decision should be shown at real time and then one slow motion replay. I still don't understand why the on-field referee needs to make the final decision anyway. They are qualified referees in the VAR box and they should all follow the same protocol. Why do they waste time having the on-field referee go over to the monitor? Just tell the on-field referee what the decision should be.

VAR is becoming a circus which I'm sure the PGMOL referees are delighted about. It's not the technology it's the same referees making the mistakes. Some rules need refining, like handballs. The Premier League had the option to use the semi automated offside technology but said no. That needs to be introduced next season. But the main issue is the referees. 4 years on and it has to be a combination of sabotage, as they don't like the technology, or plain corruption. The refs don't earn much in Premier League terms. With the amount of betting there is such a high risk to match fixing.
Click to expand...

Agree this is a straightforward red. The Gusto one last week was less of a red than this.

The referee on the pitch has to control the game and make the decisions, not just be a puppet of some clown in the VAR booth. I'd prefer if the VAR say absolutely nothing and just show the replay to the on pitch referee. No still at all, just normal speed and slow motion. It's up to the referee to then call it as they see it.

They don't have good procedures for making decisions, that's why they keep making errors. There should be a checklist that is run through for every type of decision they're making. Get some trainers from the aerospace industry in to show them how pilots do it. The methodology can be the same. There are very rarely procedural errors with aircraft due to the checklists and confirmation system that is used.
 
Berbaclass said:
I think the argument of "the referee shouldn't have been shown the still image" is grasping at straws from Liverpool fans. It's a red end of story. Don't find it remotely controversial.
Click to expand...

Fair point but the point about 'run up to the incident' is a fair one too in my opinion.

In rugby for example, they are being very clear on sending offs and so on with head collisions. In order to determine if an incident is completely accidental, yellow card or red card, they don't just look at point of contact, they check the seconds before to see what happened and led to the incident. It allows the refs to determine the appropriate action. I think that would be fair enough, instead of literally just showing a still image.
 
Vault Dweller said:
Fair point but the point about 'run up to the incident' is a fair one too in my opinion.

In rugby for example, they are being very clear on sending offs and so on with head collisions. In order to determine if an incident is completely accidental, yellow card or red card, they don't just look at point of contact, they check the seconds before to see what happened and led to the incident. It allows the refs to determine the appropriate action. I think that would be fair enough, instead of literally just showing a still image.
Click to expand...
I think intent is irrelevant though because it's dangerous/reckless. I don't believe that's what he meant to do for a second, but he did do it...
 
Fridge chutney said:
Better the Liverpool reaction than just casually accepting the horrendous decisions we get week after week.

VAR is giving sportswashing a run in the "ruining football" stakes.
Click to expand...
ETH apparently trusts the refs and the process in his press conference. He had a chance to put more pressure on the VAR process like other mgs have done. I like him and I think he’s a good mgr and will bring united back but he needs to be a little bit more ruthless in these matters.
 
Vault Dweller said:
Fair point but the point about 'run up to the incident' is a fair one too in my opinion.

In rugby for example, they are being very clear on sending offs and so on with head collisions. In order to determine if an incident is completely accidental, yellow card or red card, they don't just look at point of contact, they check the seconds before to see what happened and led to the incident. It allows the refs to determine the appropriate action. I think that would be fair enough, instead of literally just showing a still image.
Click to expand...

It’s all about the mad rush in football to get a decision as quick as possible. Because they’re acutely aware that everyone fecking hates these long delays, which ruin football as a spectacle. Rugby is a sport with regular stops in play, so much better suited to VAR. And nobody minds when the ref is walked through multiple replays by the TMO. That just isn’t an option in football, where VAR has already slowed the game down way to much as it is.
 
njred said:
ETH apparently trusts the refs and the process in his press conference. He had a chance to put more pressure on the VAR process like other mgs have done. I like him and I think he’s a good mgr and will bring united back but he needs to be a little bit more ruthless in these matters.
Click to expand...
Fully agree. The ruthless approach has typically worked well over the years for the best managers in England.
 
njred said:
ETH apparently trusts the refs and the process in his press conference. He had a chance to put more pressure on the VAR process like other mgs have done. I like him and I think he’s a good mgr and will bring united back but he needs to be a little bit more ruthless in these matters.
Click to expand...
He is deluded. That is not how the refs work in England. They are influenced by media talk and manager pressure. And with rules like handball and offside and many others that are vague and open to interpretation nowadays, and VAR conveniently using the "clear and obvious" excuse, the refs will decide things based on the pressure.
 
Berbaclass said:
I think intent is irrelevant though because it's dangerous/reckless. I don't believe that's what he meant to do for a second, but he did do it...
Click to expand...

Even if you only make contact by accidentally standing on the ball or something similar?

Pogue Mahone said:
It’s all about the mad rush in football to get a decision as quick as possible. Because they’re acutely aware that everyone fecking hates these long delays, which ruin football as a spectacle. Rugby is a sport with regular stops in play, so much better suited to VAR. And nobody minds when the ref is walked through multiple replays by the TMO. That just isn’t an option in football, where VAR has already slowed the game down way to much as it is.
Click to expand...

That's a fair assessment, but sometimes they take so long to make a decision I can't help but think if they saw the same incident replayed through (say over 4 seconds or so) they would reach a decision quicker. Still images and things like that don't help with many decisions.
 
Vault Dweller said:
Even if you only make contact by accidentally standing on the ball or something similar?
Click to expand...
Yes because it is a reckless tackle, he went over the top because he used too much force.

I've also just rewatched the VAR review of the challenge. The referee isn't shown a still image, he's shown a small clip of the challenge looped. It's only a still before he gets to the monitor and they then play it for him. I think the narrative around that aspect is incorrect.
 
Berbaclass said:
Yes because it is a reckless tackle, he went over the top because he used too much force.

I've also just rewatched the VAR review of the challenge. The referee isn't shown a still image, he's shown a small clip of the challenge looped. It's only a still before he gets to the monitor and they then play it for him. I think the narrative around that aspect is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

I don't think tackles like that should be a red, same with Casemiro last season but also understand why it is given as such.
 
MegadrivePerson said:
Remember that just a few weeks ago Dermot Gallagher said this about the Saka foul on Fernandes,


There was another incident in the first half where Bukayo Saka was issued a yellow card for a studs-up lunge on Bruno Fernandes.

Gallagher did not believe this should have been upgraded to a red card.

He explained: “The fact he’s low, he’s come from such a short distance there’s no intensity.”
Click to expand...
There is always excuse when it comes to decisions against us.

Rules are different when it comes to us. We need to find out why we are getting crazy decisions against us? What is going on? The more this happens the more you question what have referees and VAR against us.
 
I thought the red was uncontroversial. I do agree that leading with the still is a bit tendentious though.
 
Vault Dweller said:
Fair enough.

I don't think tackles like that should be a red, same with Casemiro last season but also understand why it is given as such.
Click to expand...

Liverpool have appealed Curtis Jones's red card but it will ridiculous if its rescinded when Casemiro had to serve a 4 match ban for a similar thing.
 
We should have appealed Casemiro.
 
I bet the Jones red card will be overturned as a sort of apology for disallowing the onside goal.

VAR, or the implementation of it, is shite and should just be scrapped. The Forest goalie booting the Brentford striker up in the air and somehow getting away with it is only marginally worse than missing the offside.
 
Thing is though if the Jones red card gets rescinded the FA has set its precedent for these type of tackles in the future, which probably won't be applied consistently
 
Pexbo said:
It would have but I think Curtis will win his appeal and it would show the different standards.
Click to expand...

I don't think they can - 'cos it'll then set a precedent for those types of challenges (like Gutso last week) not being red cards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.