The VAR thread

[st albans fox]

9 minutes ago, ThaiFox said:

Unlike you I'm not a fan of VAR because it causes just as much controversy before it came in.

 

I agree with your comment about the Aubeyang goal.

 

But then I watched the whole of the Spuds v Bayern match yesterday and I couldn't believe VAR did not overturn two penalty decisions.

 

The first was the one given, which both commentators said was never a penalty. The ref gave it, it went to VAR and was given and Kane scored.

 

Later in the match, Danny Rose clearly sliced the legs away from a Bayern forward, but the ref waved it away as a dive. Again it went to VAR and it was not given. Rose got nowhere near the ball and clearly took the forwards legs. Again both commentators said a definite penalty and they could not believe it wasn't given.

 

The only reason the commentators could come up with as to why both these decisions were not overturned was to 'not undermine the referees decisions'.

 

Well, if that's the case, just what is the point of VAR?

 

And if those decisions had been reversed the score would have ended as 1-8 not 2-7!

The refs decision to award spurs a pen wasn’t considered a ‘clear and obvious error’.  Similarly the rose tackle late on where the ref deemed the contact insufficient to take the attacker down.  The latter not being awarded did surprise me ( together with aguero’s claim the previous evening) - i would expect these to be overturned in European comps though not in the prem. 

 

Consider if twenty refs can’t agree that it’s definitely a pen then if it isn’t given, it can’t be considered a clear and obvious error. I doubt you would find 20/20 in agreement on those two incidents at spurs so the decision stays with the on field refs original call. 

 

there have been some howlers so far  this season but I didn’t consider these two amongst them

[ThaiFox]

3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

The refs decision to award spurs a pen wasn’t considered a ‘clear and obvious error’.  Similarly the rose tackle late on where the ref deemed the contact insufficient to take the attacker down.  The latter not being awarded did surprise me ( together with aguero’s claim the previous evening) - i would expect these to be overturned in European comps though not in the prem. 

 

Consider if twenty refs can’t agree that it’s definitely a pen then if it isn’t given, it can’t be considered a clear and obvious error. I doubt you would find 20/20 in agreement on those two incidents at spurs so the decision stays with the on field refs original call. 

 

there have been some howlers so far  this season but I didn’t consider these two amongst them

Danny Rose challenge was stone wall penalty. He took the players legs, made no contact with the ball, and both commentators (one was former Spuds player Clive Allen) couldn't believe it wasn't overturned. 

 

Without question, the Rose challenge was a clear and obvious referee error. Insufficient contact? He scythed both his legs away! Anyone watching it again would surely agree?

 

The Kane penalty was a coming together of two players raising their legs high. The decision could just as easily have been a free kick to Bayern. It was a very soft penalty and could have gone either way, and again, both commentators thought it a very debatable decision which went in the favour of Spuds.

 

Maybe VAR felt it couldn't overrule the referees decision, and maybe it wasn't a clear and obvious error, but it certainly wasn't a clear an obvious penalty either.

 

VAR was introduced to overturn incorrect referee decisions, not to back them up, which is what I thought happened in this match and is why I am totally against VAR.

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, ThaiFox said:

Danny Rose challenge was stone wall penalty. He took the players legs, made no contact with the ball, and both commentators (one was former Spuds player Clive Allen) couldn't believe it wasn't overturned. 

 

Without question, the Rose challenge was a clear and obvious referee error. Insufficient contact? He scythed both his legs away! Anyone watching it again would surely agree?

 

The Kane penalty was a coming together of two players raising their legs high. The decision could just as easily have been a free kick to Bayern. It was a very soft penalty and could have gone either way, and again, both commentators thought it a very debatable decision which went in the favour of Spuds.

 

Maybe VAR felt it couldn't overrule the referees decision, and maybe it wasn't a clear and obvious error, but it certainly wasn't a clear an obvious penalty either.

 

VAR was introduced to overturn incorrect referee decisions, not to back them up, which is what I thought happened in this match and is why I am totally against VAR.

Well I for one don’t agree 100% with you on the rose challenge- the Bayern player had plenty of time to avoid his legs if he so wished. I would have given a pen but I can just about understand a ref taking a different view 

[Chester Dontlie]

8 hours ago, ThaiFox said:

Unlike you I'm not a fan of VAR because it causes just as much controversy before it came in.

 

I agree with your comment about the Aubeyang goal.

 

But then I watched the whole of the Spuds v Bayern match yesterday and I couldn't believe VAR did not overturn two penalty decisions.

 

The first was the one given, which both commentators said was never a penalty. The ref gave it, it went to VAR and was given and Kane scored.

 

Later in the match, Danny Rose clearly sliced the legs away from a Bayern forward, but the ref waved it away as a dive. Again it went to VAR and it was not given. Rose got nowhere near the ball and clearly took the forwards legs. Again both commentators said a definite penalty and they could not believe it wasn't given.

 

The only reason the commentators could come up with as to why both these decisions were not overturned was to 'not undermine the referees decisions'.

 

Well, if that's the case, just what is the point of VAR?

 

And if those decisions had been reversed the score would have ended as 1-8 not 2-7!

I saw that game too and I'm inclined to agree it should have ended 1-8. A human error, crap or bent refs (it happened in Europe many times before in crucial knockout stage games, that's why VAR is a must). But then if a penalty for Roses challenge on Coman was given, it would be just as controversial, I thought Coman clearly looked for the contact. 

 

There is no going around the fact that at the end of the day it is human eyes who watch the replays and it is human ref who makes the decisions. But if there was no VAR, they still would make the same decisions. As I said, the number of correct VAR calls is far greater than the incorrect (or missed) ones. 

Edited 3 October 2019 by Chester Dontlie

[ThaiFox]

1 hour ago, Chester Dontlie said:

I saw that game too and I'm inclined to agree it should have ended 1-8. A human error, crap or bent refs (it happened in Europe many times before in crucial knockout stage games, that's why VAR is a must). But then if a penalty for Roses challenge on Coman was given, it would be just as controversial, I thought Coman clearly looked for the contact. 

 

There is no going around the fact that at the end of the day it is human eyes who watch the replays and it is human ref who makes the decisions. But if there was no VAR, they still would make the same decisions. As I said, the number of correct VAR calls is far greater than the incorrect (or missed) ones. 

I agree that there have been incidents of bent refs or decisions made because referees are terrified of giving away teams favourable decisions, especially in Europe.

 

My grouse with VAR is that it is meant to be there to correct mistakes. The report I read, and posted on here a few weeks ago, stated VAR could be as much as 13-14 cms out on offside decisions. Therefore several of the goals disallowed, or given, for offsides this season could already have been VAR incorrect.

 

And, even if the Bayern player looked for contact, surely the speed and two footed scything down of a player without winning the ball is a surely a penalty all day long?  

 

 

4 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Well I for one don’t agree 100% with you on the rose challenge- the Bayern player had plenty of time to avoid his legs if he so wished. I would have given a pen but I can just about understand a ref taking a different view 

You don't 100% agree with me, but you would have also given a penalty?

 

I can also understand the referee taking a different view. The fact he initially indicated it as a dive showed that. My point is that if VAR is there to correct, or confirm, referees decisions. 

 

VAR should have overruled that decision after seeing the speed that Rose scythed two footed without winning the ball, into the Bayern forward which gave him little chance of avoiding contact.

 

Of course he might have been able to jump, he may even have been looking for it, but why should he back off or jump? The tackle was a foul. I've watched it several times, both in real time and slow motion, and I'm still amazed VAR didn't overrule it as a penalty! (as were both the match commentators). It was far more a penalty than the one that Spuds were awarded, which was very soft.

 

And would not a free kick have been awarded if Rose's tackle had happened on any other part of the pitch? 

[st albans fox]

3 hours ago, ThaiFox said:

I agree that there have been incidents of bent refs or decisions made because referees are terrified of giving away teams favourable decisions, especially in Europe.

 

My grouse with VAR is that it is meant to be there to correct mistakes. The report I read, and posted on here a few weeks ago, stated VAR could be as much as 13-14 cms out on offside decisions. Therefore several of the goals disallowed, or given, for offsides this season could already have been VAR incorrect.

 

And, even if the Bayern player looked for contact, surely the speed and two footed scything down of a player without winning the ball is a surely a penalty all day long?  

 

 

You don't 100% agree with me, but you would have also given a penalty?

 

I can also understand the referee taking a different view. The fact he initially indicated it as a dive showed that. My point is that if VAR is there to correct, or confirm, referees decisions. 

 

VAR should have overruled that decision after seeing the speed that Rose scythed two footed without winning the ball, into the Bayern forward which gave him little chance of avoiding contact.

 

Of course he might have been able to jump, he may even have been looking for it, but why should he back off or jump? The tackle was a foul. I've watched it several times, both in real time and slow motion, and I'm still amazed VAR didn't overrule it as a penalty! (as were both the match commentators). It was far more a penalty than the one that Spuds were awarded, which was very soft.

 

And would not a free kick have been awarded if Rose's tackle had happened on any other part of the pitch? 

 ...... it isn’t simply a question of the var ref ‘what would you give there ‘?  The var ref has to decide with his assistants ‘ is that a cast iron certain error to give/not to give a pen. Only if he considers that there is absolutely no way anyone could possibly make the opposite decision to that which the referee has given would he ask him to review it.  

 

Both those on field calls - whilst I agree the vast majority would be giving an opposite decision to the referee, it wouldn’t be 100% and therefore the refs original decision stands 

[ozleicester]

VAR was introduced to remove confusion and dispute. 

 

Going well then

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

VAR was introduced to remove confusion and dispute. 

 

Going well then

No it wasn't because that's impossible. It was introduced to reduce the likelihood of a refereeing mistake having a decisive influence on the outcome of a match, and to help referees make decisions. Say what you want about the way it's been implemented but the aim of VAR is not and has never been to rid the game of all officiating errors and controversies - if that's what you were expecting or hoping for then that's a problem on your end, not VAR's.

[ozleicester]

2 hours ago, Guest said:

No it wasn't because that's impossible. It was introduced to reduce the likelihood of a refereeing mistake having a decisive influence on the outcome of a match, and to help referees make decisions. Say what you want about the way it's been implemented but the aim of VAR is not and has never been to rid the game of all officiating errors and controversies - if that's what you were expecting or hoping for then that's a problem on your end, not VAR's.

Pretty sure weve said the same thing

[ThaiFox]

9 hours ago, st albans fox said:

 ...... it isn’t simply a question of the var ref ‘what would you give there ‘?  The var ref has to decide with his assistants ‘ is that a cast iron certain error to give/not to give a pen. Only if he considers that there is absolutely no way anyone could possibly make the opposite decision to that which the referee has given would he ask him to review it.  

 

Both those on field calls - whilst I agree the vast majority would be giving an opposite decision to the referee, it wouldn’t be 100% and therefore the refs original decision stands 

I know exactly what your saying, and I understand the 'clear and obvious error' part of VAR.

 

I'm just trying to get my head around why and what is the point of it?

 

VAR was introduced to ensure decisions are fair and just. 

 

It's not just the Spuds v Bayern match. How about the many other very debatable decisions so far since it's introduction? All showing that VAR provides just as many mistakes and errors as the referee on the field. Plus we've already had a report showing it could be as much as 13-14cms out on offside decisions which would probably make VAR offside errors at around the same rate as any linesman on the field.

 

As ozleicester says above:

4 hours ago, ozleicester said:

VAR was introduced to remove confusion and dispute. 

 

Going well then

 

[shailen]

I don't think VAR is a problem at all. Just use it to ensure there was no clear and obvious errors like the arsenal goal the other night. Perfect example of when it has been used correctly.

 

Using it for marginal decisions which are so tight is where imo it has to change. In cricket they go with the umpires call and similarly it should be that the referee's decision stands unless it's clear and obvious that it is wrong. This should apply to all decisions like handball, penalties, red card offenses and offsides in the lead up to goals.

[Facecloth]

5 hours ago, Guest said:

No it wasn't because that's impossible. It was introduced to reduce the likelihood of a refereeing mistake having a decisive influence on the outcome of a match, and to help referees make decisions. Say what you want about the way it's been implemented but the aim of VAR is not and has never been to rid the game of all officiating errors and controversies - if that's what you were expecting or hoping for then that's a problem on your end, not VAR's.

Thing is I don't think some of the things its picking up on are mistakes. Sure technically there may have been an infringement, but I don't think Sterlings offside v West Ham could be considered a mistake. Nor the handball that disallowed Dendoncker or Jesus' goals. I can't see a ref or linesman picking up on those in real time, so how can they be classed as mistakes. VAR mistakes though have and could have effected results. They've brought in this handball rule that VAR is being strick on, as with the Dendoncker and Jesus' goals but misses one that lead to Newcastles equaliser against Watford. They failed to award a penalty to Man City v Bournemouth for Lermas foul on Silva, it was one of the most blatant penalties you'll ever see, yet it sherked the responsibility. Its offered very little to the game other than nit pick at thing a ref or linesman would never see in real time anyway, and piss people off.

[Guest]

I am a fan of VAR and I think it is the future of football but I'm seriously concerned with the use or to be more precise lack of use of VAR at the moment. Wrong decisions NOT being overturned and then the use of the subjective sentence "not clear and obvious" smacks as an alternate way to continue helping the "big" clubs to win games. Use VAR and use it properly. subjective not objective.

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Thing is I don't think some of the things its picking up on are mistakes. Sure technically there may have been an infringement, but I don't think Sterlings offside v West Ham could be considered a mistake. Nor the handball that disallowed Dendoncker or Jesus' goals. I can't see a ref or linesman picking up on those in real time, so how can they be classed as mistakes. VAR mistakes though have and could have effected results. They've brought in this handball rule that VAR is being strick on, as with the Dendoncker and Jesus' goals but misses one that lead to Newcastles equaliser against Watford. They failed to award a penalty to Man City v Bournemouth for Lermas foul on Silva, it was one of the most blatant penalties you'll ever see, yet it sherked the responsibility. Its offered very little to the game other than nit pick at thing a ref or linesman would never see in real time anyway, and piss people off.

The way it's been applied so far has been inconsistent, you'll get no argument from me on that. I think they've hamstrung themselves a little with the "high bar for intervention" approach and have probably set the bar too high initially, but then after the Champions League that's exactly what people wanted the Premier League to do. There are still going to be game-changing mistakes made because there is simply no way to avoid that. There are inevitably going to be incidents where the outcome depends on a subjective interpretation of events. That was my point in my reply to the earlier post - there's a lot of pretty tedious comments about to the effect of "well there are still mistakes being made so what's the point of VAR?", which would only be a reasonable argument to make if the stated aim of VAR was to completely eradicate refereeing errors from the game. The aim is basically to reduce the number of big errors made and I'd be very surprised if statistically that hasn't been the case thus far.

 

As for it picking up on things the officials haven't spotted - that's kind of the point of it, no? An offside being difficult to see in real time with the naked eye doesn't stop it from being an offside. Not spotting an offside that leads to a goal is definitely a mistake in my eyes - one that's easy to make, sure, but a mistake nonetheless, even if the margin is small. I know not everybody sees it like that, which is fair enough. 

[Facecloth]

1 hour ago, Guest said:

The way it's been applied so far has been inconsistent, you'll get no argument from me on that. I think they've hamstrung themselves a little with the "high bar for intervention" approach and have probably set the bar too high initially, but then after the Champions League that's exactly what people wanted the Premier League to do. There are still going to be game-changing mistakes made because there is simply no way to avoid that. There are inevitably going to be incidents where the outcome depends on a subjective interpretation of events. That was my point in my reply to the earlier post - there's a lot of pretty tedious comments about to the effect of "well there are still mistakes being made so what's the point of VAR?", which would only be a reasonable argument to make if the stated aim of VAR was to completely eradicate refereeing errors from the game. The aim is basically to reduce the number of big errors made and I'd be very surprised if statistically that hasn't been the case thus far.

 

As for it picking up on things the officials haven't spotted - that's kind of the point of it, no? An offside being difficult to see in real time with the naked eye doesn't stop it from being an offside. Not spotting an offside that leads to a goal is definitely a mistake in my eyes - one that's easy to make, sure, but a mistake nonetheless, even if the margin is small. I know not everybody sees it like that, which is fair enough. 

But other than the very tight offsides and handballs I can only think of two errors it's corrected. The Dan Burn offside in the Brighton West Ham game that lead to a goal. He was a good yard offside. And the King goal for Bournemouth that was given as offside when he was a good yard onside. It's not given or revoked a penalty, it's not given or overturned a red card. It's backed the ref on these decision, but never given one off it's own back. I find it hard to believe any opposition fan would be up in arms had they lost a game to either of those Jesus goals against West Ham or Spurs, for the offside or the handball by Laporte. If something cant reasonably be expected to be picked up by a ref or a linesman, how can it be classed as a mistake? 

 

It hasn't reduced any big errors, in fact it's made them. It's ignored that Man City penalty v Bournemouth, ignored Tielemans red v Bournemouth. It's missed the Newcastle handball v Watford despite having numerous camera angles. Not only is ruining the game by CSIing the **** out of it to spot a player a mm offside, it's also missing stuff despite having all the angles in the world to view them. Basically we've gone from having one ref on the field occasionally and understandably missing the odd thing, to a that plus a couple of extra ones sat in a room watching it on numerous TV screens in slow motion missing exactly the same things.

Edited 4 October 2019 by Facecloth

[KrefelderFox666]

7 hours ago, ozleicester said:

VAR was introduced to remove confusion and dispute. 

 

Going well then

Don't think that was the reason. If a rule/law is interpreted in different ways, then VAR isn't going to stop confusion or dispute.

[KrefelderFox666]

16 hours ago, ThaiFox said:

I agree that there have been incidents of bent refs or decisions made because referees are terrified of giving away teams favourable decisions, especially in Europe.

 

My grouse with VAR is that it is meant to be there to correct mistakes. The report I read, and posted on here a few weeks ago, stated VAR could be as much as 13-14 cms out on offside decisions. Therefore several of the goals disallowed, or given, for offsides this season could already have been VAR incorrect.

 

And, even if the Bayern player looked for contact, surely the speed and two footed scything down of a player without winning the ball is a surely a penalty all day long?  

 

 

You don't 100% agree with me, but you would have also given a penalty?

 

I can also understand the referee taking a different view. The fact he initially indicated it as a dive showed that. My point is that if VAR is there to correct, or confirm, referees decisions. 

 

VAR should have overruled that decision after seeing the speed that Rose scythed two footed without winning the ball, into the Bayern forward which gave him little chance of avoiding contact.

 

Of course he might have been able to jump, he may even have been looking for it, but why should he back off or jump? The tackle was a foul. I've watched it several times, both in real time and slow motion, and I'm still amazed VAR didn't overrule it as a penalty! (as were both the match commentators). It was far more a penalty than the one that Spuds were awarded, which was very soft.

 

And would not a free kick have been awarded if Rose's tackle had happened on any other part of the pitch? 

What is slightly annoying is when a player goes down looking for a penalty, be it a foul or a dive. If the referee does not give a penalty, then he must produce a yellow card for simluation. Then VAR can check if it was a dive, or whether there was contact and it is penalty. Now, if the ref doesn't give a penalty, VAR doesn't tend to overrule unless they think it was a clear stonewall foul. Slight contact isn't going to overturn a decision even if we think it could have been a penalty.

 

Again, it's the laws that are the problem. At the end of the day, it is still a human interpreting the situation and making a decision. Whereas with offside, there is no interpretation, it either is on or offside.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

But other than the very tight offsides and handballs I can only think of two errors it's correct.

I can't say I've the time or inclination to go back through every game this season scanning for VAR interventions but just off the top of my head you can add Aubameyang's goal the other night and Perez's for us against Spurs. I think you're being a bit selective.

 

7 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

It's not given or revoked a penalty, it's not given or overturned a red card. It's backed the ref on these decision, but never given one off it's own back.

It hasn't, hence why I agreed with you that it hasn't been active enough with regards to overruling referees and said I would like to see the threshold for intervention lowered - that said, we're seven games into the season so there's plenty of time and scope for that to happen.

 

12 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

If something cant reasonably be expected to be picked up by a ref or a linesman, how can it be classed as a mistake? 

Maybe mistake was the wrong word. My point was there are lots of things officials will miss due to the speed of the game and the players. I don't think it makes sense to criticise VAR for intervening on the basis that it would have been difficult for the officials to see the incident. Like I said, if you give a goal when the scorer was offside according to the laws or handled the ball according to the laws, that is an error as far as I'm concerned and one worth correcting. Again, I understand why you'd disagree with interpreting the laws in that way.

 

24 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

It hasn't reduced any big errors, in fact it's made them. It's ignored that Man City penalty v Bournemouth, ignored Tielemans red v Bournemouth. It's missed the Newcastle handball v Watford despite having numerous camera angles.

But that isn't VAR making the errors, is it? Those incorrect decisions already existed, they haven't happened because of VAR. At the risk of repeating myself, you are still going to get these errors on subjective decisions like fouls and defensive handballs because the system still relies on a referee interpreting the events and making a decision. Like I said, I fully expect that the statistics over the course of the season will show a reduction in errors and I don't think they would support your claim.

 

Ultimately I'm broadly in favour of VAR and you obviously aren't, so I think I'll leave you to it else we'll just be going round in circles.

[Yes N'Didi]

2 hours ago, Facecloth said:

It hasn't reduced any big errors, in fact it's made them.

I'm assuming you missed this one then. I'm not saying it's perfect - but imagine if this happened to us on Saturday against Liverpool. Would you be in favour?

 

I think there were some fairly good points raised on MOTD2 by Mark Chapman that because VAR was used quite heavily to rule out goals in the opening round of matches, it was met with a lot of anger, but these were more down to referees incorrectly allowing goals and then having to rule them out. We've had a couple of goals (Arsenal, as highlighted, and Bournemouth the other week) now given as a result of being ruled out incorrectly in which VAR is giving the goal. This will hopefully help perception.

 

Is it perfect? No. Will it resolve all marginal calls? No. Will it overturn blatant errors which could determine results and define seasons. Yes. 

 

As mentioned above, over the course of the season it will have significantly reduced clear mistakes.

 

 

[Facecloth]

2 minutes ago, Yes N'Didi said:

I'm assuming you missed this one then. I'm not saying it's perfect - but imagine if this happened to us on Saturday against Liverpool. Would you be in favour?

 

I think there were some fairly good points raised on MOTD2 by Mark Chapman that because VAR was used quite heavily to rule out goals in the opening round of matches, it was met with a lot of anger, but these were more down to referees incorrectly allowing goals and then having to rule them out. We've had a couple of goals (Arsenal, as highlighted, and Bournemouth the other week) now given as a result of being ruled out incorrectly in which VAR is giving the goal. This will hopefully help perception.

 

Is it perfect? No. Will it resolve all marginal calls? No. Will it overturn blatant errors which could determine results and define seasons. Yes. 

 

As mentioned above, over the course of the season it will have significantly reduced clear mistakes.

 

 

I did forget to mention that one, tbh I play 5 aside on a Monday and usually miss the games, and there's never great highlights so it doesn't stick on my mind. That's fine because that's an horrendous mistake. That's exactly what it should be used for. I was happy when it stepped in on the three it's overturned. They all been pretty clear at the first view of a replay, no need for lines and ultra slow motion. It is exactly why I thought it was being brought in.

 

It needs to stop with the mm offsides and slight brushes of the hand though, I'm pretty sure nobody was bothered by them, and nobody feels aggrieved if a goal results from them. If something isn't immediately clear on the first pausing of a replay like the one above, then let it go. It needs to have more balls to step in on the blatant mistakes the officials are making. Every red card and penalty is a subjective decision, it can't keep hiding behind that. The two ones I mentioned earlier, Silva penalty and Tielemans red were pretty obvious. Refs are only human, nobody is blaming them for missing stuff, that's why people wanted this brought in, as an extra pair of eye, but it's pretty pointless if it's just going to look at everything that isn't an offside or handball and can't be proven by lines and agree with the ref, because we just end up with just as many talking points, just as many frustrated fans, just as many poor decisions, with more refs and more delays.

[ThaiFox]

21 hours ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

What is slightly annoying is when a player goes down looking for a penalty, be it a foul or a dive. If the referee does not give a penalty, then he must produce a yellow card for simluation. Then VAR can check if it was a dive, or whether there was contact and it is penalty. Now, if the ref doesn't give a penalty, VAR doesn't tend to overrule unless they think it was a clear stonewall foul. Slight contact isn't going to overturn a decision even if we think it could have been a penalty.

 

Again, it's the laws that are the problem. At the end of the day, it is still a human interpreting the situation and making a decision. Whereas with offside, there is no interpretation, it either is on or offside.

Except the report that has already concluded that VAR can be as much as 13-14 cms out on offside decisions. To my reckoning, that makes at least four goals, disallowed so far this season, could well have been the wrong VAR decision, including the Son offside against us.

 

As for diving. Referees (and the FA) have brought this upon themselves. They very, very rarely give a penalty if the player doesn't go over. The players are having to fall because it's virtually the only way they will get a penalty. VAR should be able to clear this up, but so far it's not proved anymore effective than what we had before. In fact, after watching the women's world cup, I would say it's actually worse on decision making. 

 

VAR will reduce the quality of referees and linesmen. They will rely more and more on VAR and the 4th off field official, rather than making their own firm and final decision. 

[Aus Fox]

What the **** is the point in VAR not a single decision is ever turned over! May as well keep it just for offisides absolutely bullshit

[Corky]

We were going to get something against us at some point, frustrating but it happens.

[Manwell Pablo]

If this is our pen there’s contact. 

 

I am am more concerned with what the fck Marc Albrighton is doing there than VAR tbh. Pissed off.

[Tuna]

1 minute ago, Aus Fox said:

What the **** is the point in VAR not a single decision is ever turned over! May as well keep it just for offisides absolutely bullshit

Like Wolves and Spurs goals against us then?