VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

I was looking at the disallowed goal for Brentford against Newcastle.
Looking at the shadows on the pitch, and the lines on the grass, the Newcastle player in the middle with his arm raised looks to be playing the Brentford player onside.
Probably have to put it down to the curvature of the planet!
 
As well as yesterday's VAR Michael Oliver being on the payroll of city's owners, in refereeing matches in the UAE, there was another conflict of interest in that Newcastle needed United to lose, for them to qualify for European football next season. So, why the feck was he the VAR?
 
Fitchett said:
As well as yesterday's VAR Michael Oliver being on the payroll of city's owners, in refereeing matches in the UAE, there was another conflict of interest in that Newcastle needed United to lose, for them to qualify for European football next season. So, why the feck was he the VAR?
Click to expand...
If he is so biased how come City didn't get a penalty yesterday?
 
WeePat said:
‘Forward invaded the defender’s space’ is not a reason I’ve ever heard for not giving a stonewall penalty.

Click to expand...

I agree it's a penalty but I don't think the panel are making a very cohesive argument either. There is a distinction between cutting across the defender and getting brought down fairly, versus cutting across the defender to manufacture contact. The key point with the latter is your path towards the ball - is it true or have you stepped across to make contact, diverting from the natural path towards the ball? That's the distinction they need to be focusing on to justify why it was a penalty.
 
I was surprised the linesman put his flag up for the disallowed Rashford goal, these days they usually let them go to VAR. He did look like he was offside, but it was marginal and you mostly seem to see these left to VAR to decide.
 
The Sterling one isn't a mistake for me. Defenders don't have to get out of the way, you're allowed to occupy your space on the pitch. You're just not allowed to move in to the attacker, I think he just runs in to the defender here. No problem with that not being given.

The Oliver one against Everton, they've closed ranks around his decision. No way in a million years he doesn't go with VAR to cancel it unless except for the fact it could cost Arsenal the title as he doesn't know the score in the other game. That simple for me.

Haaland one in the cup final might be given in different circumstances. I'd be happy with massively stricter enforcement of contact in the box on crosses, to stop attackers getting impeded, from corners and set pieces especially. Holding your ground is fine as a defender, but preventing an attacker from moving or moving in to them should be a foul. Problem is they tried it before, for about half a season and there were a lot of penalties given, then they just scrapped that idea. Need to follow it through, will make the game better and more variance in results if you keep enforcing it.

Like the 6 second rule for keepers holding the ball, the law is clear but no one actually enforces it properly.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
Haaland throwing himself to the floor isnt a penalty and neither is Foden throwing himself to the floor.
Click to expand...
Never suggested they were, but the narrative is that Oliver is a paid lackey of City, he had the perfect opportunity on Saturday to say to the referee "he pulled him down that's a penalty" on the Haaland one, he didn't which suggests that perhaps he isn't in the pocket of anyone, but of course that doesn't fit the agenda
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Results from MUST survey are in. Majority of United fans want it abolished completely. Proud day to be a red.
Click to expand...
Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Newcastle are already certain to vote to keep and i'm sure United will too. Plus the PGMOL has already put out briefs of "we're working on improvements".
It won't be abolished, don't get your hopes up.
 
It very very obviously won't be abolished.
This will just bring a lot of pressure to get it used differently, which I don't think anyone would complain about.
 
There needs to be more honesty about what it actually is. It isn't "technology" eliminating those infamous miscarriages of justice. It's more about spending a very, very, very long time to determine using guesswork if someone's nose appears to be offside on a low quality, pixilated image.

"Yay"
 
I see that the Slovenian gangster who absolutely shafted us in the Champions League against Atletico Madrid two years ago is refereeing the Champions League Final tonight. Unbelievable!
 
Fitchett said:
I see that the Slovenian gangster who absolutely shafted us in the Champions League against Atletico Madrid two years ago is refereeing the Champions League Final tonight. Unbelievable!
Click to expand...
He should have been banned from refereeing for life after that. Absolutely disgraceful.
 
If it’s abolished it would be another great example of fans fighting back to protect the great game the greedy suits are trying to ruin.
 
ShinjiNinja26 said:
It’s not the technology that’s needing scrapped, it’s the clowns operating it. The standard of officiating is at rock bottom in the PL.
Click to expand...

VAR is a person, not a "technology"

People need to stop talking as if human error is getting in the way of a super-intelligent, flawless, computer operating system. It's a man looking at a screen with people saying it's not it man looking at the screen that's the problem, but the man looking at the screen.

If your mate looks at a screen and concludes something you disagree with, does he become a "technology"?
 
Malons said:
VAR is a person, not a "technology"
Click to expand...

They literally use technology as part of VAR. the various cameras, the lines for offsides etc. I didn’t think that needed explaining but obviously it does. That part is not the issue, the issue is the “persons” using the technology to make the decisions are the same clowns that are running around the pitch making errors every other week.
 
The refs operating the system - that is the problem, not the system itself. Correct decision to keep it
 
DixieDean said:
A shame. It's made football worse.
Click to expand...


The only issue, apparently, with the "technology" of a man looking at a screen, is the man looking at the screen. Most seem agreed that even though the man looking at the screen thing doesn't work, it's the right decision to keep the system where the man is looking at the screen in place, because it isn't the system of man looking at screen that doesn't work, but instead it's the man looking at a screen.

Remove man looking at a screen from the innovative technology of a man looking at a screen and a system where a man looks at a screen would be brilliant.

Maybe Robocop can do it? Bet he can look the feck out of a screen.
 
Samid said:


Apparently only Wolves wanted to get rid.
Click to expand...

Wolves must feel a little silly now.

Post season, when the dust has settled and we're not all furious about the most recent decision, I think it would seem odd to imagine returning to a place whereby no VAR existed. Now VAR / automated tech for offside only, similar to goalline tech? I might have been up for that, but don't know if that was on the cards.

Think the issue is one of expectation. Clearly VAR has made a lot of dubious decisions, but clubs and fans alike I feel expect the margin of error to be near zero for incorrect calls. Even with all the tech and training in the world, that's not possible.

For me, it's still clear that "on the balance" VAR has resulted in less errors, but the errors get highlighted more because we now expect little to no errors.

I would like to see something like this; the official in VAR, the referee and 1 linesman / 4th official review decisions / replays in tandem. Every decision needs a 2 to 1 majority, made at that time, not when VAR stops play. Because at that stage it's all a farce because we know the decision has already be made. Mic them up and let's see the rationale for a decision, based on the on-field judgement at that moment in time. So essentially, clear and obvious decided by a 2 to 1 majority, not a singular individual in VAR.

Now to me, the two glaring issues here are (i) the time delay involved in that. Much of what VAR looks at is cleared without stopping the game if clearly nothing to see - that should stay the same but could result in more stoppages, and (ii) VAR still has to make the initial judgement on whether it's a high enough bar for review in the first instance.

I don't know how to tackle these issues fully, but I feel like this should be the model. Because the high-bar breaks down on those decisions when we know that the referee hasn't seen enough to call the 'on-field' with certainty, but VAR can't overturn something if not clear and obvious. So we enter this ultra gray area where decisions are getting made when neither VAR nor the ref are sure, but no threshold is met for an on-field review.

There's no perfect solution, but I think as a starting point, the 2-step process as it currently is, has to go.
 
Other clubs agree with them, they just want to try and improve it, not to scrap it. I agree, kind of.

I also think it's good having a competition without it, like the league cup was last season largely. Then at least we can see the other side.
 
Really disappointed, but not surprised by the decision.

What has annoyed me is that seemingly the clubs who weren't entirely happy with it, have been fobbed off so easily.

Improving communication is such a small part of the problem. Nothing tangible will come from this. The PL and PGMOL are quite happy with the current situation of being able to re-referee the game only when it suits them, with no real accountability.
 
No surprise wolves wanted it scrapped as they was one of the teams it’s screwed over quite a lot… VAR isn’t a problem. It’s the people using it… improve the people.
 
Malons said:
The only issue, apparently, with the "technology" of a man looking at a screen, is the man looking at the screen. Most seem agreed that even though the man looking at the screen thing doesn't work, it's the right decision to keep the system where the man is looking at the screen in place, because it isn't the system of man looking at screen that doesn't work, but instead it's the man looking at a screen.

Remove man looking at a screen from the innovative technology of a man looking at a screen and a system where a man looks at a screen would be brilliant.

Maybe Robocop can do it? Bet he can look the feck out of a screen.
Click to expand...
You do realise there is more to it than that, right?



This is an example from years ago.
 
Flying high said:
Really disappointed, but not surprised by the decision.

What has annoyed me is that seemingly the clubs who weren't entirely happy with it, have been fobbed off so easily.

Improving communication is such a small part of the problem. Nothing tangible will come from this. The PL and PGMOL are quite happy with the current situation of being able to re-referee the game only when it suits them, with no real accountability.
Click to expand...
There is more accountability than there used to be because refs can't hide behind the excuse of missing it
 
Hammondo said:
There is more accountability than there used to be because refs can't hide behind the excuse of missing it
Click to expand...

Kind of. If it's clear that they missed something, then the VAR might intervene to tell them. But only sometimes. They are just as likely to assume the ref did see it so not want to overturn whatever decision was or wasn't made.

Like I said, they now get the chance to re-referee the game when it suits them and, unfortunately, this seems driven by agenda more than wanting to get to the correct decision every time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.