The VAR thread

[UniFox21]

It's the consistency that pisses me off.  Sterling gets a penalty for a tap, fine isn't a clear and obvious error. Ederson has taken Barnes out whose then flipped into the goal with the ball nowhere near being taken. How wasn't it a foul? 

 

What's the point if under a tap a player can get a foul, but when genuinely taken out we get absolutely nothing?

[Jonezy]

Can someone point to the rules in the football laws, that let a goalie just completely clatter an opposition player without any consequence? 

 

Also thought it was a soft pen, which again rewarded the diving culture in modern football. Love football, but some stuff is well wonky at the moment.

[TheF1Bob]

Useless as usual.

[Guest BlueBrett]

I think one of the major issues with VAR is there are fundamental differences in the way it's applied to different situations. Drives me fking mad.

 

We are told they will only overrule referees in the case of a 'clear and obvious error' which is ambiguous enough in itself, but then in the case of off-sides it comes down to millimeters that ****ing legolas wouldn't be able to spot. I don't understand why they have adopted a different philosophy for its application in different types of decisions. Surely they should at least try to be consistent. They need to either be more prescriptive towards the refs for regular decisions, allowing them less grace to make 'arguably unclear and not necessarily painfully obvious errors' or they should do away with it altogether for off-sides (or at the very least say they are only gonna check the validity of actual calls, not keep going back over every single 'was he/wasn't he situation).

 

 

[Kopfkino]

12 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

It's the consistency that pisses me off.  Sterling gets a penalty for a tap, fine isn't a clear and obvious error. Ederson has taken Barnes out whose then flipped into the goal with the ball nowhere near being taken. How wasn't it a foul? 

 

What's the point if under a tap a player can get a foul, but when genuinely taken out we get absolutely nothing?

Idk if there was any kind of check on the Barnes one but you don't know what Mike Dean has said to the VAR (which is why the convos should be broadcast). If he said to the VAR that he's deemed it to just be an unavoidable collision of two players moving in opposite directions then that's not an unfair summary of the incident and certainly no grounds to overturn it. 

I mean tbh the Barnes one looks worse(and ended worse for him) because of how he flips but that was just unfortunate and shouldn't matter for the judgement. 

 

Too often it feels like people just want VAR to confirm their belief and '**** VAR' if it doesn't. They've ****ed it up no doubt by not using the monitors, it's much better for the ref to look at his own decision and change his mind rather han having two opinions feeding into it. 

[st albans fox]

11 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Idk if there was any kind of check on the Barnes one but you don't know what Mike Dean has said to the VAR (which is why the convos should be broadcast). If he said to the VAR that he's deemed it to just be an unavoidable collision of two players moving in opposite directions then that's not an unfair summary of the incident and certainly no grounds to overturn it. 

I mean tbh the Barnes one looks worse(and ended worse for him) because of how he flips but that was just unfortunate and shouldn't matter for the judgement. 

 

Too often it feels like people just want VAR to confirm their belief and '**** VAR' if it doesn't. They've ****ed it up no doubt by not using the monitors, it's much better for the ref to look at his own decision and change his mind rather han having two opinions feeding into it. 

This !

 

the referee knows what he has seen .... only by viewing it himself can he decide if there is something else that occurred which he didn’t see which would have made him give a different decision.  VAR is not supposed to re referee the game .. PGMOL argue that’s why they don’t generally over turn on field decisions. I could argue that the failure of the match day ref to look at any incident means that the VAR is re refereeing the game.  Expect fifa to make it obligatory for the on field ref to go to the screens in future seasons ......

[UniFox21]

16 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Idk if there was any kind of check on the Barnes one but you don't know what Mike Dean has said to the VAR (which is why the convos should be broadcast). If he said to the VAR that he's deemed it to just be an unavoidable collision of two players moving in opposite directions then that's not an unfair summary of the incident and certainly no grounds to overturn it. 

I mean tbh the Barnes one looks worse(and ended worse for him) because of how he flips but that was just unfortunate and shouldn't matter for the judgement. 

 

Too often it feels like people just want VAR to confirm their belief and '**** VAR' if it doesn't. They've ****ed it up no doubt by not using the monitors, it's much better for the ref to look at his own decision and change his mind rather han having two opinions feeding into it. 

If Dean has looked at it and thought it wasn't due to X reason, then as you've said, we need to be informed of that rather than us all guessing. 

 

The explanation from the VAR people of the contact being "inevitable" annoyed me, as Barnes was fully taken out, in a reckless manner. I think the fact Barnes missed the chance, combined with the small touch for Sterling's penalty probably aggravated me a tad.

 

 

Edit; and how the officials still aren't checking the monitors is a joke. VAR should review, then if they believe there is an error, the official should be able to review his decision rather than be told to change it 

Edited 22 December 2019 by UniFox21

[Corky]

Is the one on Barnes not a penalty? I know the ball went well wide but we've seen players taken out after the ball has gone before and a foul given. Let's say, for example, he flicks it over the keeper and could well head it in but is taken out and a defender gets back to clear, that would surely be given. Why wasn't yesterday's?

[Collymore]

4 hours ago, BlueBrett said:

I think one of the major issues with VAR is there are fundamental differences in the way it's applied to different situations. Drives me fking mad.

 

We are told they will only overrule referees in the case of a 'clear and obvious error' which is ambiguous enough in itself, but then in the case of off-sides it comes down to millimeters that ****ing legolas wouldn't be able to spot. I don't understand why they have adopted a different philosophy for its application in different types of decisions. Surely they should at least try to be consistent. They need to either be more prescriptive towards the refs for regular decisions, allowing them less grace to make 'arguably unclear and not necessarily painfully obvious errors' or they should do away with it altogether for off-sides (or at the very least say they are only gonna check the validity of actual calls, not keep going back over every single 'was he/wasn't he situation).

 

 

Exactly this this. 

 

The "Obvious error" means that you've signed the death warrant for a team by just making a decision as there seems to be a culture of "Refs must not be seen to be wrong"

 

The Vardy yellow card dive a few weeks back and Sterling's dive yesterday is a perfect example. Both almost identical (you could argue that Vardy had more of a penalty shout) but two opposite outcomes just because the ref decided to make a decision.

 

Why not just see that Vardy and Sterling have gone down, make no decision and then go over to the monitor to have a look?  Drives me insane and seems so unfair. 

Edited 22 December 2019 by Collymore

[st albans fox]

11 minutes ago, Corky said:

Is the one on Barnes not a penalty? I know the ball went well wide but we've seen players taken out after the ball has gone before and a foul given. Let's say, for example, he flicks it over the keeper and could well head it in but is taken out and a defender gets back to clear, that would surely be given. Why wasn't yesterday's?

The poor connection with the ball and it’s disappearance out of play affects the decision ....... goalkeepers are told to take everything as a last resort in defending their goal ...... if the ball had still been in play and within Barnes effective control (ie within his reach next movements)  then it would be a pen. The judgement that the ball was on its way towards the corner flag and almost dead affected the call .... we see plenty of occasions where players dribble the ball out of play but get taken by the keeper as it goes over the bye line ..... pen given .... the difference being that the player has control of the ball before the collision .......yesterday Barnes had no control of the ball at any stage 

[Arkie Bennett]

27 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

The poor connection with the ball and it’s disappearance out of play affects the decision ....... goalkeepers are told to take everything as a last resort in defending their goal ...... if the ball had still been in play and within Barnes effective control (ie within his reach next movements)  then it would be a pen. The judgement that the ball was on its way towards the corner flag and almost dead affected the call .... we see plenty of occasions where players dribble the ball out of play but get taken by the keeper as it goes over the bye line ..... pen given .... the difference being that the player has control of the ball before the collision .......yesterday Barnes had no control of the ball at any stage 

So it's ok to wipe an opponent out, injuring them, because the ball is elsewhere?

[st albans fox]

Just now, Arkie Bennett said:

So it's ok to wipe an opponent out, injuring them, because the ball is elsewhere?

absolutely not but the argument is that the keeper is spreading himself in a normal fashion ..... had Barnes been standing still then he may well have got the decision but he was moving forwards towards the ball and ederson was doing the same .... like I said, if Barnes has any kind of control of the ball with a good touch then he gets a pen ....but he never has control of the ball so the two of them collide with forward movement on both parties ......you’re always taught to keep your eyes on the ball as it arrives and not your opponent ....this is a perfect illustration why ..... just as Ritchie got a worse injury by bottling his challenge with hamza, so too did Harvey yesterday .....he could have got a goal and not ended up with an injury .....

[DennisNedry]

How was Sterling's pen not overturned? Blatant dive. 

[TheUltimateWinner]

Re. the sterling penalty, what annoys me is this:

 

In real time I think most people would give a penalty there so I can't blame the on-field referee for that. However, the system is flawed as is it seems VAR are trusting the refs one angle and split second decision making, even if other angles and subsequent replays suggest different. What should be happening is this; VAR says to the on field referee "there's an angle here which shows sterling initiated contact" (which is subjective), take a look at this on the monitor. But because the PGMOL are so arrogant and think their way is best, they won't allow this. Even when FIFA is urging them to use monitors, they're still going against it.

Edited 22 December 2019 by TheUltimateWinner

[HybridFox]

Brought in to help referees who don't want to be helped

[st albans fox]

8 hours ago, TheUltimateWinner said:

Re. the sterling penalty, what annoys me is this:

 

In real time I think most people would give a penalty there so I can't blame the on-field referee for that. However, the system is flawed as is it seems VAR are trusting the refs one angle and split second decision making, even if other angles and subsequent replays suggest different. What should be happening is this; VAR says to the on field referee "there's an angle here which shows sterling initiated contact" (which is subjective), take a look at this on the monitor. But because the PGMOL are so arrogant and think their way is best, they won't allow this. Even when FIFA is urging them to use monitors, they're still going against it.

No way mike dean is reversing his decision ..... Ricky kicks sterling’s foot/ankle as he goes past him ..... yes he stumbles a pace later but it’s still a pen ....

 

I haven’t seen or heard one non Lcfc fan claim it wasn’t a pen ....... mane was different 

[oxford blue]

VAR was used correctly in Spurs v Chelsea today. Gazzaniga flattened Alonso and the ref (Anthony Taylor) was going to give it the other way. A clear and obvious error corrected.

[Lizhang]

12 hours ago, TheUltimateWinner said:

Re. the sterling penalty, what annoys me is this:

 

In real time I think most people would give a penalty there so I can't blame the on-field referee for that. However, the system is flawed as is it seems VAR are trusting the refs one angle and split second decision making, even if other angles and subsequent replays suggest different. What should be happening is this; VAR says to the on field referee "there's an angle here which shows sterling initiated contact" (which is subjective), take a look at this on the monitor. But because the PGMOL are so arrogant and think their way is best, they won't allow this. Even when FIFA is urging them to use monitors, they're still going against it.

The problem is that the on-field ref is the main ref. Imho, it would be much better to have older, more experienced refs (maybe those failing the physical tests due to age or over the age limit) as the VAR and have those guys call the shots. If they are not sure of what they are seeing, they are old, wise and experienced enough to trust the judgement of the on-field ref.

 

In hockey, this is exactly what happens, the judgement of the VAR is trusted, the on-field ref doesn't even look at the footage, he takes the VAR's word for it.

 

In Belgium we are sending good +/-40 year old experienced refs off into retirement, while the young guys that are failing on the pitch, are being repurposed as VAR. It doesn't get any more asinine than that. It's like the dumb leading the blind.

 

It also doesn't help that there is this stupid rule of "clear error". What does that mean? Clear to whom? If it is clear on the replay, it should be a clear error, no? No, apparently it should have been clear to the on-field ref... basically, that means no error is clear because if it were clear to the ref, he wouldn't have screwed up now, would he? So we now have to theorize about what "might" have been clear to the ref, but where he made the wrong decision. Basically, the only way i can interpret that, is if we assume the ref is willfully making wrong decisions. If it's wrong and you can clearly see it on the footage, overturn it. But that's probably too straight forward and doesn't leave anything to chance. Maybe they don't really want it to be foolproof either?

Edited 23 December 2019 by Lizhang

[Legend_in_blue]

Being run as a closed shop.  Decisions like today's are going through without criticism.  It's as though because we're up against world champions and as we've been abject in response ourselves, there's no need to question the decision making (or lack of it).  So much for this system being a leveller against the so called bigger teams.

 

The disparity grows ever wider each week.

Edited 27 December 2019 by Legend_in_blue

[HybridFox]

The pitchside monitor or showing on big screens should be mandatory. The referee should be looking at footage at the same time with VAR effectively acting as a second opinion.

 

At the moment, referee makes an incorrect call, VAR don't want to overrule referee hence incorrect call stands.

 

In its current form, I'm happy for the entire thing to be scrapped. If the same sh*** decisons are made, then why bother having it.

[ScouseFox]

a pretty blatant handball i thought. however i’ve seen nothing since but i am almost sure the corner that led to the first goal went out of play? no idea if the highlights post match or MOTD covered this, and if they did fair play. but it was an outswinger that started its out swing from about row H in the kop. surely. 

[Deeg67]

1 hour ago, ScouseFox said:

a pretty blatant handball i thought. however i’ve seen nothing since but i am almost sure the corner that led to the first goal went out of play? no idea if the highlights post match or MOTD covered this, and if they did fair play. but it was an outswinger that started its out swing from about row H in the kop. surely. 

Are folks really complaining about that call? If the situation was reversed and Oliver didn’t give a pen this place would have been apoplectic. Seems pretty clear-cut to me - arm extended and he even leaned into the ball a little.

[Phube]

3 hours ago, Deeg67 said:

Are folks really complaining about that call? If the situation was reversed and Oliver didn’t give a pen this place would have been apoplectic. Seems pretty clear-cut to me - arm extended and he even leaned into the ball a little.

 You know who are complaining the most about it; Man City fans!

 

 

 

1-0 to Liverpool at the time; result NO penalty! 
 

This is why people can’t trust VAR, it’s the inconsistency in the same action.

 

Same with Manè & Sterling’s pen vs Vardy’s yellow card!

Edited 27 December 2019 by Phube

[Jonezy]

Its really unreal with Liverpool. Apart from the Napoli game (talk about a non pen being awarded) they just get every single bounce and momentum changing decison going for them. 

 

Caglar is a pen though. Its extremely unlucky, but its a pen. The Arnold one should be a pen too, but a second before it hits Arnold's arm, it hits Bernardo Silva's arm, so maybe that come into consideration too.

 

With the most blatant shirt pull on Ricardo being ignored before the corner that lead to the 1-0 goal and the Villa non-freekick (and a yellow for Ricardo) leading to their goal, Michael Oliver has gone right to the top of ref biased incompetence. 

 

Why can't the refs be questioned after the game? I would like to hear their explanations and honest assessments about their decisions. 

[HybridFox]

As Kasper predicted, Dermot Gallagher's come on Sky and gave the ref a pat on the back. Biased f***