VAR Issues

[DJ Barry Hammond]

6 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I thought if the ref blows when it’s a goal, it doesn’t go to var, therefore giving the ref the decision

Ok, so kind of in line with my hunch that the linesman gave a decision with the knowledge it could fall back on the technology - and that ‘offside’ wasn’t necessarily what his first instinct was 

[Craig]

Maybe he thought it was offside but knew that it was very tight, and knew that Iheanacho had a very good chance to score? So he kept his flag down until he'd scored and then let VAR take it's course. If so, sensible, but won't be possible in every offside situation. 

[yorkie1999]

1 minute ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

Ok, so kind of in line with my hunch that the linesman gave a decision with the knowledge it could fall back on the technology - and that ‘offside’ wasn’t necessarily what his first instinct was 

I think once it settles down and everyone is used to it, var will just become part of the game and ultimately what we’ll see is correct decisions and far less cheating from players who look for free kicks

[SCP4Ever]

9 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Come again? 

 

He’s blowing that whistle in either situation?

 

Remember, the referee doesn't know if it's a bad call. When the linesman raises the flag, it signifies an infraction, the ref needs to stop the game. Which is why linesmen are advised to let the play continue if it looks like a close call.

 

6 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Why is it  (VAR) restricted to only certain things, goals, penalties etc?

Football has a certain flow, play is supposed to be as continuous as possible. VAR review on every little thing would make for a boring game to watch, kind of like american football.

 

Anyway, the VAR in it's current form is designed to prevent gross mistakes from happening, mistakes that can potentially change the outcome of a match, which is why it's these situations that are subjected to review, and not everything like offsides, throw-ins, corners or goal kicks, hand-balls, etc.

Things like penalties and goals and red cards can change a game, and if they're wrongly decided, could cost points or trophies.

That's why the International Board chose these specific situations, because they felt that the added time taken in reviewing these plays was worth it given the impact on the game. Plus, the tryouts that have happened for a few seasons now show that the average times are significantly lower that expected, and the impact would be minimal, especially considering the time that's already wasted with substitutions, assisting players, not to mention delays that certain teams take when the results suit them.

[FantasticMrFox&Son]

Shearer and others having a goat VAR,.........................WRONG !!

Have a go at the useless pr*cks we employ as referees.

This year has been an all time low for ref's performance, makes you wonder how crooked/rigged the game has become.

After the exposure of corruption at the highest level of FIFA and UEFA do you really think the FA is clean ???

[ozleicester]

2 hours ago, SCP4Ever said:

 

Remember, the referee doesn't know if it's a bad call. When the linesman raises the flag, it signifies an infraction, the ref needs to stop the game. Which is why linesmen are advised to let the play continue if it looks like a close call.

 

Football has a certain flow, play is supposed to be as continuous as possible. VAR review on every little thing would make for a boring game to watch, kind of like american football.

 

Anyway, the VAR in it's current form is designed to prevent gross mistakes from happening, mistakes that can potentially change the outcome of a match, which is why it's these situations that are subjected to review, and not everything like offsides, throw-ins, corners or goal kicks, hand-balls, etc.

Things like penalties and goals and red cards can change a game, and if they're wrongly decided, could cost points or trophies.

That's why the International Board chose these specific situations, because they felt that the added time taken in reviewing these plays was worth it given the impact on the game. Plus, the tryouts that have happened for a few seasons now show that the average times are significantly lower that expected, and the impact would be minimal, especially considering the time that's already wasted with substitutions, assisting players, not to mention delays that certain teams take when the results suit them.

Really appreciate your informed and informational posts!

 

I wonder though how it is decided what is game changing... at this stage, corner and offside decisions for example are not considered for review, unless they result in a goal (i thinki this is the gist of what you are saying?)

 

If a corner is given mistakenly and a goal comes from that.. does the goal review go back to the corner decision or does the review only begin at the taking of the corner?

 

I couldnt agree more that the natural flow of football doesnt allow for VAR, unlike, tennis,cricket, rugby and American football etc there are not regular breaks in play, which seems to suggest that we could have 30 seconds - a minute of play going on, before a decision is reviewed. Does this happen currently in your experience and how does it affect the viewing pleasure and the flow of the game?

[ozleicester]

2 hours ago, SCP4Ever said:

Remember, the referee doesn't know if it's a bad call. When the linesman raises the flag, it signifies an infraction, the ref needs to stop the game. Which is why linesmen are advised to let the play continue if it looks like a close call.

this is the sort of thing which really concerns me.. the lino's are going to let close calls go, who knows what occurs as a result, injuries, cards, who knows.

[WigstonWanderer]

On 17/01/2018 at 08:37, Donut said:

This is where VAR also falls down for me in that some decisions are basically "allowed" to be wrong.

 

Example: through ball played to striker who is offside. Linesman does not flag it. Striker runs all the way to the goal and the keeper saves the ball around the post for a corner.

 

The game is stopped....but its not stopped for a goal.

 

so should the game resume with a corner to the attacking team which would not exist had the offside been flagged or a free kick (rightly) to the defending team?

 

There are just way too many uncovered scenarios i feel.

I think you have raised a very good point here. Refs/linesman letting the game run could lead to the attacking side getting corners or other advantages that would otherwise not have accrued.

 

Hopefully in practice, once match officials have had chance to settle down with the new tech, they will only let things ride if they are uncertain, but otherwise award a free kick, as without VAR. In that way, it effectively gives the attacker the benefit of the doubt, which as I understand is what is supposed to happen anyway, even without VAR.

[KrefelderFox666]

People having a go at the VAR last night (mainly referring to pundits here) need to get a grip. The referee made the decision to book Willian for a dive. The VAR saw it and deemed that the referee had not made a howler so didn't intervene or overrule him. I have no problem with that.

 

Looking at the replay it creates a lot of doubt. Yes the defender leaves a leg in and it's in Willian's path. Willian, instead of playing on and shooting, decides to lift off and make the most of that leg. If I remember correctly, people were having a go at Mahrez for doing exactly this on Saturday at Stamford Bridge. It supports the fact that the VAR was unable to see a clear error from the referee. Penalty calls (and red cards) are just too dificult to write in stone due to the nature of the "open" and "vague" rulebook.

 

You just need to look at different leagues and how the same rules are applied differently in every league.

 

Summary:

 

VAR was used correctly yesterday (based on current expectations). We may see changes in the future where VAR can overrule referees but that makes referees look like idiots (even though they're just humans making genuine mistakes).

 

The only thing I found weird was the VAR being used for a corner as that is not one of the 4 reasons, not sure if it was actually used to determine that or whether they quickly checked if it was actually a penalty.

[katieakita]

Technology and new ideas need time to bed in but watching the end of the Chelsea Vs Norwich game last night VAR and refereeing are not helped but the likes of |ermaine Jenas and the garbage coming out of his mouth last night. Ref's have been poor but having one stand up to the play acting on display last night should be applauded not criticised. Willian was booked because the ref thought he dived and watching the replay you can see he has a point as he is going down before contact was made. Jenas could not see that despite numerous replays and lets be honest they had already had a player booked for diving. Then we had the sending off of Pedro which was deserved and then Morata and his red card, if you are pulled back you don't normally take another step and throw yourself forward and if you then direct foul language at the official you deserve to be sent off. The play acting from Chelsea made it a hard night for the Ref and mistakes will be made if you continually play this way. Sometimes Refs and the likes of VAR need support and not the antics of last night. Without officials however bad we don't have a game so maybe the media should try to make this work rather than try to destroy it.

[SCP4Ever]

6 hours ago, ozleicester said:

Really appreciate your informed and informational posts!

 

I wonder though how it is decided what is game changing... at this stage, corner and offside decisions for example are not considered for review, unless they result in a goal (i thinki this is the gist of what you are saying?)

 

If a corner is given mistakenly and a goal comes from that.. does the goal review go back to the corner decision or does the review only begin at the taking of the corner?

 

I couldnt agree more that the natural flow of football doesnt allow for VAR, unlike, tennis,cricket, rugby and American football etc there are not regular breaks in play, which seems to suggest that we could have 30 seconds - a minute of play going on, before a decision is reviewed. Does this happen currently in your experience and how does it affect the viewing pleasure and the flow of the game?

Yes, all goals are reviewed for irregularities, but only the play leading up to the goal. If you score a legal goal out from a badly given free kick, the goal will stand. From what I understand (and I could be wrong), the play includes all passes and moves leading up to the goal starting when the ball was first controlled by the scoring team. So for example, if you steal the ball from the other team, that counts as a new play, but if you get a rebound off an opponent, it's the same play as it was before. So yes, you can indeed have such a long lead up to a VAR review. That link I posted from the Dutch super cup was a good example, the missed penalty was on the opposing box, and the play moved on to the other side where a goal was scored.
 

So yeah, it can happen, but i's not common. As for time taken, our referees use VAR sparingly, it seems to us. There are plenty of games with no reversed calls, and added time as been not much different from before. On average, of course. But in Italy, for example, they use it a lot more. There have been games with 8 to 10 minutes of added time because of VAR.

It's still very much a work in progress, the people currently serving as VARs need to understand what their limits are, what they can call and let slide. Like that Willian penalty. I thought it was mostly a dive, as did the referee and VAR, but a lot of people saw it differently. The VAR could have considered it differently, and informed the referee of such.

The referees also need to understand (and trust) that if they get a bad decision, they have someone to help them with that, someone with access to the TV feed that can spot things he can't, from different angles and at different speeds.

And the linesmen now have a safety net that allows them to do what they should be doing anyway, when in doubt, let the game play on.

 

As for the last bit, about enjoyment and the flow of the game, it hasn't changed it, the games still happen as before. But we do have a bit more confidence that we're not gonna get screwed so easily as in the past. Our football stinks too much of one club getting all the calls in their favour, and our credibility, and or referee's credibility as well, is next to nothing. This as helped a lot in that regard, showing just how incompetent (or biased) everyone is.

 

6 hours ago, ozleicester said:

this is the sort of thing which really concerns me.. the lino's are going to let close calls go, who knows what occurs as a result, injuries, cards, who knows.

How is that different from what we have now? It's just another tool at their disposal that allows them to make better and more accurate calls.

 

 

39 minutes ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

People having a go at the VAR last night (mainly referring to pundits here) need to get a grip. The referee made the decision to book Willian for a dive. The VAR saw it and deemed that the referee had not made a howler so didn't intervene or overrule him. I have no problem with that.

Looking at the replay it creates a lot of doubt. Yes the defender leaves a leg in and it's in Willian's path. Willian, instead of playing on and shooting, decides to lift off and make the most of that leg. If I remember correctly, people were having a go at Mahrez for doing exactly this on Saturday at Stamford Bridge. It supports the fact that the VAR was unable to see a clear error from the referee. Penalty calls (and red cards) are just too dificult to write in stone due to the nature of the "open" and "vague" rulebook.

 

You just need to look at different leagues and how the same rules are applied differently in every league.

 

Summary:

VAR was used correctly yesterday (based on current expectations). We may see changes in the future where VAR can overrule referees but that makes referees look like idiots (even though they're just humans making genuine mistakes).

The only thing I found weird was the VAR being used for a corner as that is not one of the 4 reasons, not sure if it was actually used to determine that or whether they quickly checked if it was actually a penalty.

That's pretty much the gist of it. It's always the referee's decision, and even if the VAR doesn't agree, at most he can inform him, tell him to check the images and see for himself. 

[Super_horns]

Could it just be both the ref and guy watching the video agreed the Chelsea player dived - presume if they both think the same then VAR won't be used.

 

We will get refs being so scared at making a mistake in the eyes of some that they will rely on the VAR all the time - would that be a good thing for the game?

 

Of course we want to rule out clear cut errors but mistakes are going to happen.

[justfoxes]

I think the only sides that will have problems with VAR are the likes of Chelsea which will show how much a bunch of Divers they truly are, it’s a real shame we didn’t have VAR at Chelsea last weekend Morata and Kante could have seen Red for those consistent fouling and diving and would have probably seen that Chilwell was damn unlucky !!

Edited 18 January 2018 by justfoxes

[Carl the Llama]

The annoying thing about the Willian 'controversy' is had that been Vardy you just know Shearer and co. would all be apoplectic about his audacity to try conning the ref, they'd spot that he dangled his left leg in deliberately to make contact and they'd notice how he obviously held his right leg back when he could have used it to land and continue his run but chose not to because the ball was already getting away from him, concluding that the referees combined to make the right call.  I can't think why they didn't do that for Willian.

[Leeds Fox]

53 minutes ago, justfoxes said:

I think the only sides that will have problems with VAR are the likes of Chelsea which will show how much a bunch of Divers they truly are, it’s a real shame we didn’t have VAR at Chelsea last weekend Morata and Kante could have seen Red for those consistent fouling and diving and would have probably seen that Chilwell was damn unlucky !!

 

VAR wouldn’t have changed those calls in my eyes. The referee is going to blow up for fouls when he sees fit in normal play. He’ll book who he wants to book. Chilwell would have still seen both yellows, because they were both fouls. The first was soft and wasn’t worthy of a booking but VAR wouldn’t have changed that. Kante committing numerous fouls without being booked wouldn’t have been changed by VAR either. The ref gave the fouls but didn’t see fit to book Kante. Had Chilwells second booking gone to VAR, it could have just as easily seen him walk. It wasn’t intentional but it could still be seen as dangerous. A VAR ref wouldn’t have gone against they fact that it was a clear foul, it was endangering the opposition and he had already been booked. The first, wasn’t a booking purely as a matter of consistency, but a VAR ref won’t get involved in those decisions.

 

I’m not saying those decisions are correct but they won’t be an aspect that VAR is looking at, it’s just poor (inconsistent) refereeing.

 

 

Edited 18 January 2018 by Leeds Fox

[fox in the sox]

20 hours ago, Mrfox452 said:

Ref and var have both had a shocker!

 

Willian one should have been a pen, but var disagreed?

 

Morata one ain't a dive imo but it weren't a pen.

 

Bit of a mess atm. If it is going to be introduced there's gotta be some serious refining.  

You say 'Willian should have been a pen' but that is just your opinion - penalty decisions are always about opinion. Every time there is a penalty incident now there will be somebody asking why they didn't go to VAR. If penalty decisions are to be included they will have to look at it every time - if it turns out this is wasting too much time it needs to be scrapped.

[foxinsocks]

5 minutes ago, Leeds Fox said:

 

VAR wouldn’t have changed those calls in my eyes. The referee is going to blow up for fouls when he sees fit in normal play. He’ll book who he wants to book. Chilwell would have still seen both yellows, because they were both fouls. The first was soft and wasn’t worthy of a booking but VAR wouldn’t have changed that. Kante committing numerous fouls without being booked wouldn’t have been changed by VAR either. The ref gave the fouls but didn’t see fit to book Kante. Had Chilwells second booking gone to VAR, it could have just as easily seen him walk. It wasn’t intentional but it could still be seen as dangerous. A VAR ref wouldn’t have gone against they fact that it was a clear foul, it was endangering the opposition and he had already been booked. The first, wasn’t a booking purely as a matter of consistency, but a VAR ref won’t get involved in those decisions.

 

I’m not saying those decisions are correct but they won’t be an aspect that VAR is looking at, it’s just poor (inconsistent) refereeing.

 

 

You are right.  We now have some incidents where the var gets involved and not others.  I wouldblike to see the var look at every corner kick and cry foul for holding...it is rife.  These are pens that the ref doesnt even query...

[st albans fox]

10 hours ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

  

The only thing I found weird was the VAR being used for a corner as that is not one of the 4 reasons, not sure if it was actually used to determine that or whether they quickly checked if it was actually a penalty.

There was an incident in the box just before the ball went out for a corner - presumably the VAR man was checking that 

 

I agree with all you said 

[Leeds Fox]

4 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

You are right.  We now have some incidents where the var gets involved and not others.  I wouldblike to see the var look at every corner kick and cry foul for holding...it is rife.  These are pens that the ref doesnt even query...

 

You’re right, grappling from corners is a huge issue. It’s a matter that is so vague. Many get waved away as it becomes a ‘6 of one, half a dozen of the other’ situation as the player being held usually uses arms to get free. It’s an easy cop-out for the referees. 

 

The goal line referees were brought in to help combat this but it was rare they ever made a call. 

 

Unfortunately, as unfair as it is, I don’t feel that the game will never get away from that. Unless it is a clear foul (and by that I mean a Huth style bear hug rather than a bit of pushing and shoving), due to the physical nature of the game. 

 

On the halfway line, most of those incidents would get a free kick but it’s almost accepted that the attacking players at corners will be held/pushed/impeaded.

[SCP4Ever]

12 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

There was an incident in the box just before the ball went out for a corner - presumably the VAR man was checking that 

 

I agree with all you said 

That´s correct. 

Remember, the VAR can only intervene when the game is stopped, so imagine there's a potential red card offense that the ref misses, and the ball gets cleared for a throw-in. The VAR will likely ask the referee to delay the restart so that he can confirm if there's need to notify his principal. So just because the game pauses for a bit doesn't mean there's going to be an intervention, it's just the VAR asking for time in order to confirm things. Before any VAR call, the referee needs to make that square sign to indicate that there's a VAR review in progress.

[Mrfox452]

45 minutes ago, fox in the sox said:

You say 'Willian should have been a pen' but that is just your opinion - penalty decisions are always about opinion. Every time there is a penalty incident now there will be somebody asking why they didn't go to VAR. If penalty decisions are to be included they will have to look at it every time - if it turns out this is wasting too much time it needs to be scrapped.

Most refereeing decisions are based on opinions, handballs, red cards, free kicks, etc.

 

The thing is if some pen claims are being referred to var and some not, then incorrect decisions will continue to be made. Like you said do we look at all pen claims? Personally for it to work you may have to.

 

Like you said it's based on opinions, but the main issue I have with Var is that wrong decisions will continue to be made.

 

Now it got us a goal the other night, but in the same game the opposition may have had incorrect decisions go against them that weren't reffered to VAR. 

 

Which means were in the exact same situation we are now without var.

 

Im not totally against var, and the only way we're gonna know if it works is if we trial it out.

 

I'd say next season just give a proper go and see how it works.

[foxinsocks]

3 hours ago, Leeds Fox said:

 

You’re right, grappling from corners is a huge issue. It’s a matter that is so vague. Many get waved away as it becomes a ‘6 of one, half a dozen of the other’ situation as the player being held usually uses arms to get free. It’s an easy cop-out for the referees. 

 

The goal line referees were brought in to help combat this but it was rare they ever made a call. 

 

Unfortunately, as unfair as it is, I don’t feel that the game will never get away from that. Unless it is a clear foul (and by that I mean a Huth style bear hug rather than a bit of pushing and shoving), due to the physical nature of the game. 

 

On the halfway line, most of those incidents would get a free kick but it’s almost accepted that the attacking players at corners will be held/pushed/impeaded.

Actually I think there are three fouls that destroy entertainment/incident.

1 grappling at corners...no wonder it's impossible to score from one

2. Holding or pushing the centre fwd as he goes for a ball from a goal kick etc

3. The cynical fouls to stop a breakaway when a team loses the ball.  E.g.. man utd always do this.

Yet of these the first is a potential pen and so the var should alert the ref....not the other way round

Edited 18 January 2018 by foxinsocks

[jammie82uk]

3 hours ago, SCP4Ever said:

the referee needs to make that square sign to indicate that there's a VAR review in progress.

According to head of referees Mike Riley 

 

The referee only needs to make the square signal when a VAR review overturns the decision on the pitch 

 

the given signal to inform the crowd that a review is in progress is to hold a finger to the ear and to raise your other hand to stop play 

[Donut]

Id scrap VAR for a penalty appeal.

 

The Willian example made it look all the more strange. 

 

If we accepted that in real time to the referee with one view and his angle it looked like a dive, i think its more acceptable to give that decision than another man look at the incident, see its definitely not a dive (norwich defender has admitted he committed a foul) and stick with the referees decision that he hasnt made an obvious error.

 

Im sure the VARs opinion is that the incidents should be penalties in his opinion. But thats not the same as proving the referee made a mistake.

 

This just makes the situation worse. Teams and fans will think TWO men have conspired against them not one and i cant see many fans accepting that incidents like the willian and iborra penalties, on second viewing shouldnt be overturned.

 

But then again are VARs honestly going to be inclined to overturn decisions which will only solidify the belief refereeing standards are inconsistent and that referees are making lots of bad decisions? I doubt they will.

 

 

Edited 18 January 2018 by Donut

[Leeds Fox]

3 hours ago, foxinsocks said:

Actually I think there are three fouls that destroy entertainment/incident.

1 grappling at corners...no wonder it's impossible to score from one

2. Holding or pushing the centre fwd as he goes for a ball from a goal kick etc

3. The cynical fouls to stop a breakaway when a team loses the ball.  E.g.. man utd always do this.

Yet of these the first is a potential pen and so the var should alert the ref....not the other way round

 

Agree, however VAR doesn’t alert the ref. It acts as a second opinion on a decision. Which is why the referee will still be in charge of the game until he asks for a review.