VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
I know that, and you know that, but some here seem to think that VAR upholding the decision is not part of the discussion.
It's simple either 4 officials got it wrong, or 4 got it right
Really
So enlighten me, how does VAR work ?
VAR has to guess whether or not a decision to overturn meets an arbitary threshold - not just whether a decision is correct or incorrect.
VAR could have well thought it shouldn't be a red card, but not that its clear and obvious, because contact has been made (which is wrong - again VAR can make wrong decisions).
But it's not.
A subjective decision has been made on the pitch by Kavanagh, in order to send him to the screen it has to be a clear and obvious error. It being a subjective decision, and it's a general rule of thumb that subjective decisions should stand, means that the referees are very rarely sent to the monitor for situations like this. If he'd given him a yellow card VAR wouldn't have recommended checking it on the monitor for potential serious foul play. schrodinger foul play.
I mean you know it has to be a monumental cock up for Dermot to disagree with a refs decision!!
But there has clearly been a dramatic change this season with pressure being put on VAR to not get involved and re-referee incidents. In fact, I don't think I have seen VAR change a single decision so far this season that wasn't related to offside. I am sure it has happened... and maybe someone can point to an incident, but it's very rare this season that VAR overturns anything penalty or red card related. That's definitely not because the decisions are so good.
I said it yesterday that i don't think Kavanagh has much of a view of the situation.
DERMOT SAYS: I don't think the referee can see it. He can't see the challenge happen. It's a glancing blow down the leg. He has an optical illusion, a more palatable decision would have been a yellow card.
Yeah I don't really blame Kavanagh too much - at first glance you can maybe see why he thought it was a red. It's a 100% VAR failing (which harks back to a complete flaw in the way VAR is operated).
Personally I think a red card decision should always be discussed at the monitor. It's a huge, game-changing, alteration (generally much greater then a penalty award in my opinion - depending on the time of award obviously) - so the refs gathering around for a minute or 2 to discuss it doesn't seem too crazy to me.
So that's it then, it's only merseyside and one absolute whopper on redcafe who think that's a red card.
I had a seriously low opinion of VAR before yesterday, but even I'm shocked that wasn't overturned. If it wasn't for the stopping a breakaway aspect, then it often wouldn't even be a yellow.
I had a seriously low opinion of VAR before yesterday, but even I'm shocked that wasn't overturned. If it wasn't for the stopping a breakaway aspect, then it often wouldn't even be a yellow.
I blame VAR, Kavanagh and Bruno.
I think it was last year, when Webb introduced VAR taking into account what the referee says he saw. VAR wouldn't just replay the situation to look for clear and obvious, but take into account how the referee describes the situation and see if his interpretation is similar to what they see on the screen. That was when Anthony Taylor got demoted for something the other refs had been doing for ages, so i wouldn't be surprised if there's a bit of an issue between Taylor and Webb. I have a feeling that special introduction didn't last very long, because the replay is pretty clear in terms of Kavanagh's view. For me it's quite telling that Kavanagh doesn't instantly blow for a foul and he doesn't run over to get involved in the situation but calmly walks over and pulls out the red
As I saw it they didn't send him to the screen so they didn't think there was a error in the decision
This is pure specualtion.
VAR have overturned reds before, 3 to date.
The EPL state that VAR review every yellow card or non carded offence for a possible red, or yellow
VAR also reviews every red card awarded
https://www.premierleague.com/var/red-card-decisions-explained
Genuinely think that would solve so many issues.
Let the referee look at the wrist-screen while the players are trying to argue with the ref, and if the decision is really close he can jog over to the screen.
The game was probably stopped for over two minutes after the tackle, and it would take the ref about 20 seconds to check that replay on his wrist and see that he got it wrong.
Take yesterdays game, other than the Bruno incident you probably only have the handball on Romero to check, which would also only need one replay to see that the call was correct. Just start the replay right away and the ref gets a quick look. I'm no fan of VAR, but if we can't get rid of it they need to do everything they can to make it better, and I don't see how a phone sized screen on the wrist don't improve on what we have today, no matter how looney it sounds.
According to the Premier League, all cards have to be reviewed by VAR, as do all possible cards.
On watching the clip from Sky, I tend to agree with Gallalgher, I think now the assistant had given it, and Kavanagh is acting on his instruction
He doesn't actually categorically state it's not a red, he infers it, but doesn't say it, as usual he's sat on the fence
This is why I think all red cards should just be reviewed at the monitor - there is always massive delay after a red card.
It's not my fault that your understanding of VAR is this limited. The nature of the clear and obvious threshold means that subjective decisions are statistically almost never challenged by telling the referee to review the situation on the monitor.
Having the ref run to the monitor before giving a red would also stop the players from arguing that it needs to be checked.
Would probably save time in the long run.
It's not my faut that you don't understand that ALL cards, Red and yellow are reviewed by VAR
From the EPL site
"If the evidence readily available to the VAR from the broadcast footage shows that the referee's on-field call is clearly and obviously wrong, the VAR can recommend the on-field referee goes to the pitchside monitor (RRA) to review.
The final decision will remain with the on-field referee."
Is that subjective enough, or will you be petitioning the RA, FA, and EPL ?
This is probably the best case scenario, it allows the officials time to catch a breath and think, plus they can review it away from players and the TV camera's
Just do it like rugby does with TMOs. It’s always ref decision but they use the technology well.
Yesterday should have been…
Ref “red card. VAR, from my angle, it looked studs up and endangering Maddison. Can you show me all the angles”
VAR “here you go”.
Ref “thanks, I think there’s a slip, a flicked leg and catches him with his heel. Yellow”
VAR “agree”
It’s easy.
It doesn't matter that VAR review every single decision there is, you still have the threshold of clear and obvious which you keep skipping over. It's been repeated again and again, and then a few more times by Webb, that VAR isn't there to re-referee matches but to let the subjective decisions stand unless they are clearly wrong. VAR not recommending the referee to go to the screen isn't some magical approval where everyone in the team agrees on the outcome, they just agree that the situation doesn't meet the threshold to get involved and that's the end of it.
He's trying to tell you that the "clearly and obviously wrong" statement is providing an imaginary threshold that is impossible to uphold.
So you’re positive VAR reviews ALL yellow cards? Sure?
https://www.premierleague.com/news/4108701
(and AGAIN with the smart arse condescending posts?)
It
Doesn't
Matter
"All red cards awarded in the Premier League are automatically checked by the VAR.
The VAR also checks for possible red-card incidents for which the on-field referee has awarded a yellow card or no card at all."
It's just a generic statement that VAR aren't prohibited from getting involved no matter what the referee decides.*
*The VAR is NOT permitted within the VAR protocol to intervene for an incident where a second yellow card leads to a red card, unless the VAR believes the second yellow card should be upgraded to a direct red.
The issue here is still the threshold of clear and obvious and how it effects situations like this, where VAR won't get involved no matter what the outcome is and everyone is happy because it's a subjective decision
I know that - the threshold is stupid. As above, do it like rugby… I love Union, I don’t care if a ref makes a decision and reverses it (which PGMOL seem to want to avoid as scared of how they’ll look). Ref can caveat his decision AND TMO can query.
Slightly off tangent to Bruno decision but just pointing out that not every claim being made on here with 100% certainty is correct….
Wouldn’t change anything. The way the screen review works isn’t fit for purpose. I have a rant about this here.
In my mind it would be an open discussion between the ref and VAR at that point - not some daft "show me the evidence to back up my decision" nonsense... just a ""let's see all the angles/what happened" discussion.
Even Dale thinks its not a red.
Also says we've a good chance of getting it overturned - which is what i've been saying.
Also says we've a good chance of getting it overturned - which is what i've been saying.
Reviewing at the pitch side monitor is dumb and wastes time for no benefit whatsoever. There should not even be a pitch side monitor.
The (equally qualified) ref in the VAR studio should simply tell the on pitch ref what the right decision is.
The (equally qualified) ref in the VAR studio should simply tell the on pitch ref what the right decision is.
The current downsides with VAR is that the threshold puts too much weight on the decision made by the on the pitch referee. One week the referee will signal for a penalty and VAR won't intervene, next weekend you'll have an identical situation and no penalty where VAR doesn't intervene. Both situations could be penalties, both situations might not be penalties, but the threshold for clear and obvious makes that irrelevant.
The only way to get away from that issue is to remove the threshold and open up for more discussions between the referee and VAR.
There was a funny example of this in Norway a while back, referee made a decision (i dont remember if it was penalty related or disallowing a goal due to a foul) where VAR didn't get involved because of the clear and obvious threshold, where the referee is interviewed afterwards about the situation and says he wishes VAR got involved because after watching the replay he sees he made a mistake.
That however, brings us into a territory that no one really wants to get into from the referees perspective, where the referee on the pitch isn't the main man and the match is re-refereed by technology
Yup. He’s spot on.
This image is the clearest I’ve seen. So obvious it’s just a trip, with Madisson never in any danger.
The idea that we have to put up with VAR and it can’t correct an error which video review can so easily clear up is absolutely infuriating.
They should also stop using daft nicknames and be more professional on the audio.
As per my rant, though, the discussion they need to have takes several minutes to look through all the angles. So is only acceptable in a sport like rugby which is full of long stoppages or where teams have a limited number of challenges.
Another, quicker option, is that the decision is made by the video reviewer without both officials seeing the same footage. This review needs to be seen by the fans in real time though. Or the wait would be excruciating (this happens in field hockey)
.
I'm not sure it'd take that long? Maybe 2 minutes max? But again, the game generally stops for that long anyway when their is a red card.
Also, with the limited amount of red cards that are actually shown, and with how game altering it is, I think its worth the time for both all the players, and the fans, to take that time to get those decisions correct.
Best image I've seen, his foot is halfway up Madisons leg, so hardly a trip like a tap on the ankle, plus he's stretching for the ball.He’s spot on.
This image is the clearest I’ve seen. So obvious it’s just a trip, with Madisson never in any danger.
The idea that we have to put up with VAR and it can’t correct an error which video review can so easily clear up is absolutely infuriating.
I take it back, from that angle and that image it's a yellow at most.
The question has to be asked, if the VAR crew saw this, why didn't they rescind the red on the pitch?
Fair play to them for admitting it at least.... Thought they might close ranks...
Ref should have been sent to the monitor to view the reverse angle. Don't need VAR to say anything, ref will surely see it as a yellow then.
Fair play!
As for the VAR question - it probably comes down to them just looking at the initial "lunge" and thats it... (and hopefully not simply about making their mates look bad!)
It will be overturned.
We had two reds overturned for Douglas Luiz in the VAR era.
It was a yellow card but not enough for a red.
We had two reds overturned for Douglas Luiz in the VAR era.
It was a yellow card but not enough for a red.
I suppose we're back to you not understanding VAR and the concept of "clear and obvious" where subjective decisions will stand in probably 99,9% of all situations.
They didn't agree it was a red.
They determined that him giving a red in this situation didn't meet the higher bar this year for sending the ref to the monitor to review due to a clear and obvious error.
There's a massive difference between the two and that's the problem with VAR.