VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

awop said:
Michal Oliver gets Chelsea-Arsenal with Tierney at VAR :drool: This is going to be great !
Click to expand...

Both fanbases are up in arms about this one. Both fanbases think they will inexplicably get a red card out of nowhere.

In recent years though, Arsenal fans have way more reasons to be worried about Oliver than us. The City game from last season was mental.
 
WeePat said:
Both fanbases are up in arms about this one. Both fanbases think they will inexplicably get a red card out of nowhere.

In recent years though, Arsenal fans have way more reasons to be worried about Oliver than us. The City game from last season was mental.
Click to expand...
I'm not even worried he will shaft us more than Chelsea, just that one of them will inevitably make a dumb call and ruin the game.
 
awop said:
I'm not even worried he will shaft us more than Chelsea, just that one of them will inevitably make a dumb call and ruin the game.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. He is one of those centre of attention wannabe refs, so you're right to be worried.
 
WeePat said:
Both fanbases are up in arms about this one. Both fanbases think they will inexplicably get a red card out of nowhere.

In recent years though, Arsenal fans have way more reasons to be worried about Oliver than us. The City game from last season was mental.
Click to expand...
Meh, it's more about who's playing City, or if it can benefit City.
 
Golden Nugget said:
Did they ever release the audio for this one? This is one I’d really like to hear
Click to expand...
There’s that program Webb does with Owen. It’s fairly certain it will be included on that and it would stink to high hell if we don’t hear the audio for it too.
 
Pexbo said:
There’s that program Webb does with Owen. It’s fairly certain it will be included on that and it would stink to high hell if we don’t hear the audio for it too.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you expect. The audio won't be more interesting than Oliver saying that there's a kick on Ings' foot by De Ligt and that he fouls him
 
NotChatGPT said:
Not sure what you expect. The audio won't be more interesting than Oliver saying that there's a kick on Ings' foot by De Ligt and that he fouls him
Click to expand...
Coote was at the monitor for about 90 seconds and had to be shown the same replay from the same angle in slow motion about a dozen times. What was said during that time will be interesting.
 
Pexbo said:
Coote was at the monitor for about 90 seconds and had to be shown the same replay from the same angle in slow motion about a dozen times. What was said during that time will be interesting.
Click to expand...

I think it's obvious that it's going to be Oliver focusing on De Ligt making contact with Ing's ankle/foot and claiming it's a foul. It's hardly going to be anything controversial.
 
NotChatGPT said:
I think it's obvious that it's going to be Oliver focusing on De Ligt making contact with Ing's ankle/foot and claiming it's a foul. It's hardly going to be anything controversial.
Click to expand...
I’m not expecting it to be anything other than that. That doesn’t mean the dialog won’t be interesting. Coote looked like he took a lot of persuading, he looked loathed to give it so it will be interesting to see what Oliver said and how much he persisted. It’s not his job to persuade the on field referee of his opinion his only job is to present evidence and let the on field referee make up his own mind.
 
Pexbo said:
I’m not expecting it to be anything other than that. That doesn’t mean the dialog won’t be interesting. Coote looked like he took a lot of persuading, he looked loathed to give it so it will be interesting to see what Oliver said and how much he persisted. It’s not his job to persuade the on field referee of his opinion his only job is to present evidence and let the on field referee make up his own mind.
Click to expand...

Dunno if you watch rugby but the really big differences in how they review the footage is that the guy on the pitch asks for different views and often asks to see things in real time, as slo mo can be deceptive. The way that Oliver only showed a one second clip from a fixed angle on constant repeat was a joke. And it seems to be the way this always works. The guy supposedly making the call gets denied the information he needs to work out exactly what happened.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Dunno if you watch rugby but the really big differences in how they review the footage is that the guy on the pitch asks for different views and often asks to see things in real time, as slo mo can be deceptive. The way that Oliver only showed a one second clip from a fixed angle on constant repeat was a joke. And it seems to be the way this always works. The guy supposedly making the call gets denied the information he needs to work out exactly what happened.
Click to expand...
Yep. It’s like VAR makes up their mind and then feels they have to convince the on field referee of their opinion to justify calling them over to the monitor.

Again a combination of fragile egos not wanting to be disagreed with publicly and shock horror - different referees will always have different opinions on grey or subjective incidents.
 
NotChatGPT said:
I think it's obvious that it's going to be Oliver focusing on De Ligt making contact with Ing's ankle/foot and claiming it's a foul. It's hardly going to be anything controversial.
Click to expand...

And should be be attempting to persuade the ref for all of that time?

That's what will be interesting, who was controlling the conversation.

I really don't get why the ref doesn't get to see all of the angles and in real-time. Repeatedly looping of one angle can distort your perception of an incident.
 
VARs biggest issue is still the quality of people running it and likely always will be. Yesterday in the SL/City game, there was an early handball where the City defender was crouching down with his arm out to the side. Not an unnatural position but making his silhouette much wider. Hits his hand, nothing. City then get a penalty for a handball later in the game when its come off his body and onto his arm.

Theres still no consistency even within the same game, let alone across them.
 
Withnail said:
And should be be attempting to persuade the ref for all of that time?

That's what will be interesting, who was controlling the conversation.

I really don't get why the ref doesn't get to see all of the angles and in real-time. Repeatedly looping of one angle can distort your perception of an incident.
Click to expand...

I think the easy answer is that it’s because they aren’t very intelligent.

It would be easy to implement training courses to have VAR certified people operating it, which is what they should do.

Doubt it’s going to happen anytime soon, especially not with Webb in charge.
 
Shane88 said:
Didn't Arsenal demand the audio from the Newcastle match and got it?

We didn't raise any noise. As passive and meek off the pitch as we are on it.
Click to expand...

Why would they have to demand it?

What makes you think we haven’t requested it?
 
Shane88 said:
Didn't Arsenal demand the audio from the Newcastle match and got it?

We didn't raise any noise. As passive and meek off the pitch as we are on it.
Click to expand...
We haven’t raised it through the press. Every chance we have gone through the proper channels though.
 
SuperiorXI said:
This narrative is not correct. Do we really think that Ten Hag was sacked over a penalty? No, it was all the other things.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t really matter, it’s better that it’s portraited as a mistake with large consequences rather than just the points lost.
 
SuperiorXI said:
That would be incorrect. So why does that make it better? Maybe in this crazy world of sensationalism and lies.
Click to expand...
It makes it better because it adds to the significance to the mistake. It wasn't simply a bad refereeing mistake that cost us points, it was a bad refereeing mistake that cost us points and had consequences for the job of a manager. Not sure why you'd want less scrutiny on the job Michael Oliver did rather than more
 
NotChatGPT said:
Doesn’t really matter, it’s better that it’s portraited as a mistake with large consequences rather than just the points lost.
Click to expand...
The one thing - the one thing - that could be said in defence of Ten Hag is the laughable and frankly bizarre decisions that went against us under his watch. Spurs away, Arsenal away and city home last year and obviously West Ham the other day (penalty decisions), very strange disallowed goals for 'subjective offsides' and the like, dodgy red cards for Casemiro and Bruno, letting other teams (i.e. Schar of Newcastle) get away with murder repeatedly.

Was he hard done by? Absolutely not, he was spoofing the job for nearly 2 years. But a symptom of his weak leadership was how easy it was for VAR and refs to turn the screw on us. Even if/when he spoke up against it, it just sounded like weak excuses, pleading for more time in a job he was clearly out of his depth to manage.

I dunno how you reverse this - I suppose a manager with more gravitas is harder to go against in this regard. Klopp threw his toys out of the pram repeatedly and it definitely worked for Liverpool, but then again Arteta follows the same tactic and it definitely isn't working for Arsenal.

Liverpool nearly marched to parliament after an offside decision against Spurs last year. All I'd like to see is a club official strike back in some way against the litany of crap decisions every once in a while.

Something like 'we believe that a referee receiving paid employment from associates of a rival club constitutes a conflict of interest and compromises their integrity to stay impartial, and we request that they be removed from officiating'.

I mean this is actually entirely reasonable :confused:
 
NotChatGPT said:
It makes it better because it adds to the significance to the mistake. It wasn't simply a bad refereeing mistake that cost us points, it was a bad refereeing mistake that cost us points and had consequences for the job of a manager. Not sure why you'd want less scrutiny on the job Michael Oliver did rather than more
Click to expand...
I want maximum scrutiny on Oliver, my post was about the narrative around the decision, it was not the reason Ten Hag lost his job and saying so is just plain wrong and lies.
 
SuperiorXI said:
I want maximum scrutiny on Oliver, my post was about the narrative around the decision, it was not the reason Ten Hag lost his job and saying so is just plain wrong and lies.
Click to expand...

But it adds to the scrutiny on the decision made by Michael Oliver.
 
SuperiorXI said:
You shouldn't use bullshit to win an argument, it weakens your position.
Click to expand...

What part is bullshit?

Refereeing mistake by Michael Oliver that resulted in manchester united losing points
Refereeing mistake by Michael Oliver resulted in Manchester United loss and Ten Hag being sacked.

Which one of those angles has higher significance?
 
After the Arsenal decision with Gabriel last season, what did the governing bodies say after? Did they say that it should be a penalty?

I think both should but it sucks that Arsenal were given the benefit of doubt last season and Villa weren't this season.
 
SilentWitness said:
After the Arsenal decision with Gabriel last season, what did the governing bodies say after? Did they say that it should be a penalty?

I think both should but it sucks that Arsenal were given the benefit of doubt last season and Villa weren't this season.
Click to expand...

Which one was that again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.