The VAR thread

[NaijaFox]

6 hours ago, FoxOfMelton said:

https://streamable.com/izc43

 

How can VAR review this and still not give a penalty? Absolutely disgusting

And Mike Dean was right there! Incredible...smh

[Jonezy]

I don't understand why the accidental handball leading to goal rule gets so much hate. At least it is clear. Defensive handballs are just a lottery with absolute no consistency in the decisions. 

 

Also football really needs to let the refs explain their decisions after the game like in other sports. I believe that could clear some things up.

 

Still think VAR is the way forward, but the implementation in english football is a confusing mess.

[ealingfox]

As I said before no doubt that prat in goal would have saved the pen but I'm still astounded that wasnt given. If that is not handball I honestly dont know what is.

 

I am generally pro-VAR but shit like that emphatically defeats the object of it.

Edited 29 January 2020 by ealingfox

[mabrah]

17 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

If that is not handball I honestly dont know what is.

Ditto. It was a shot on goal that was blocked, intentionally or otherwise, by the defenders arm. Admittedly, I can't quote you the rules chapter and verse, but I would have thought* that was a textbook handball.

 

*But then you know what thought did.

 

This is not sour grapes (well, maybe a little!) but genuine confusion. I really don't get how VAR didn't give that given the ref didn't see it or think it handball. To me, that was a clear and obvious error and what I thought VAR was there for. But maybe I ought read the "chapter and verse" before making assumptions!

[Guest Cujek]

58 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

As I said before no doubt that prat in goal would have saved the pen but I'm still astounded that wasnt given. If that is not handball I honestly dont know what is.

 

I am generally pro-VAR but shit like that emphatically defeats the object of it.

I cant imagine what excuse most of these mouth breathing ref's would come up with.

 

How on earth that was missed is beyond me, the use of VAR is baffling and should just be scrapped.

[st albans fox]

The excuse from PGMOL was the distance between madison and makamba was small together with the pace on the shot being quick

 

thats simply embarrassing- his arm is almost above his head - there’s nothing else to say ..... how soft should a shot be then ?  Terrible excuse for an inexcusable non decision from the VAR 

 

I can’t imagine what the people at IFAB are thinking this morning when they see how VAR is being used here re offsides and yet misses that last night ... we will be lucky enough to keep our license for using it !

 

 

 

 

 

[Always Next Year]

Do they use the live broadcasting cameras for the VAR playbacks or another set of cameras.

Its funny how Sky can pick up a clear handball in seconds and some knob miles away can’t. Who was on the VAR panel Riley another useless fool.

I also recall that refs have now been told to use the touchline monitors, Well Mr Dean !!!! the second I saw it was Mike Dean in charge I knew we would not get any justice.

The guy is a complete dick.

And like someone as already said his mate Gallagher on Sky will say it was not a clear handball.

Its not VAR that’s at fault it’s the officials that are shit scared of being wrong and won’t change there minds.

[joachim1965]

12 hours ago, FoxOfMelton said:

https://streamable.com/izc43

 

How can VAR review this and still not give a penalty? Absolutely disgusting

That is the most blatant penalty, he literally saves it.

[Oxfordfox83]

19 minutes ago, Always Next Year said:

Do they use the live broadcasting cameras for the VAR playbacks or another set of cameras.

Its funny how Sky can pick up a clear handball in seconds and some knob miles away can’t. Who was on the VAR panel Riley another useless fool.

I also recall that refs have now been told to use the touchline monitors, Well Mr Dean !!!! the second I saw it was Mike Dean in charge I knew we would not get any justice.

The guy is a complete dick.

And like someone as already said his mate Gallagher on Sky will say it was not a clear handball.

Its not VAR that’s at fault it’s the officials that are shit scared of being wrong and won’t change there minds.

Sick of this argument.

 

The officials are part of what VAR is-there’s no version of VAR without them. If they’re shit, VAR’s shit. And it is...

[CosbehFox]

32 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

The excuse from PGMOL was the distance between madison and makamba was small together with the pace on the shot being quick

 

thats simply embarrassing- his arm is almost above his head - there’s nothing else to say ..... how soft should a shot be then ?  Terrible excuse for an inexcusable non decision from the VAR 

 

I can’t imagine what the people at IFAB are thinking this morning when they see how VAR is being used here re offsides and yet misses that last night ... we will be lucky enough to keep our license for using it !

 

 

 

 

 

As people around me said at the time, in European competition it gets given. PGMOL and their use of VAR are off writing their own rules away from IFAB 

[TheUltimateWinner]

13 minutes ago, Oxfordfox83 said:

Sick of this argument.

 

The officials are part of what VAR is-there’s no version of VAR without them. If they’re shit, VAR’s shit. And it is...

VAR needs binning as it ruins the in game experience for match going fans. All it's doing is taking away goals which no fan wanted it to be brought in for. We didn't want VAR for MM offsides or for a man based in a London office to rewind play 2 mins as it brushed someones arm and therefore must rule out a goal. We wanted it to overturn clear and obvious errors which it isn't doing.

 

The standard of officiating is awful this year. It's gotten worse and worse and now VAR has just amplified their sheer and utter incompetence. When using VAR it's like they spin this thing and see what it lands on... 

 

 

[Dan LCFC]

It's either corrupt or deliberately misused. It's one or the other without a doubt.

[UniFox21]

46 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

The excuse from PGMOL was the distance between madison and makamba was small together with the pace on the shot being quick

 

thats simply embarrassing- his arm is almost above his head - there’s nothing else to say ..... how soft should a shot be then ?  Terrible excuse for an inexcusable non decision from the VAR 

 

I can’t imagine what the people at IFAB are thinking this morning when they see how VAR is being used here re offsides and yet misses that last night ... we will be lucky enough to keep our license for using it !

 

 

 

 

 

Genuinely don't know how it wasn't given. His arms above his head, it's there to block and in an unnatural position. 

 

Does that mean we can now block with our arms? Swear if i see an ex official claim it should've been a penalty I'll lose it. 

[joachim1965]

5 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Genuinely don't know how it wasn't given. His arms above his head, it's there to block and in an unnatural position. 

 

Does that mean we can now block with our arms? Swear if i see an ex official claim it should've been a penalty I'll lose it. 

If his arm was down by his side then fair enough, but that was a clear block that stopped Maddisons attempt on goal.

Shocking.

[mabrah]

I don't get the distance argument. Shot on target, ball hits arm - end of story isn't it? Nobody's suggesting it was deliberate so why does the distance matter? It was a goal scoring opportunity denied. 

 

[Les-TA-Jon]

Yes but the nature of this weird 'clear and obvious' thing means that the VAR room can both simultaneously think it's a pen, and not give it and be 'correct' in doing so. 

 

They have to see the footage, make the decision and agree that the referee made a clear and obvious mistake in the original decision, in order to overturn it. 

 

So if Mike Dean said to them "I saw it hit his arm, and thought it was ball to hand" then, even with the benefit of the replays, they struggle to overturn it. But if Dean said "I thought it hit his ribs" then they can overturn it. 

 

This is what is now uniquely frustrating about VAR. We finally have the officials looking at the replays, but we still can't simply get to the correct decision, because they have this weird preoccupation with not wanting to 're-referee' matches and decisions. 

Edited 29 January 2020 by Les-TA-Jon

[mabrah]

51 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

They have to see the footage, make the decision and agree that the referee made a clear and obvious mistake in the original decision, in order to overturn it. So if Mike Dean said to them "I saw it hit his arm, and thought it was ball to hand" then, even with the benefit of the replays, they struggle to overturn it. But if Dean said "I thought it hit his ribs" then they can overturn it. 

 

Thanks for that interpretation. It goes a long way to explaining what the situation might be. It certainly explains why VAR didn't award a penalty.

 

But if it is the case (and I have absolutely no reason to doubt you) then it's daft. Maybe the 'clear and obvious' bit should be dropped in favour of 'if VAR sees a wrong decision' because the way I see it is that what's at stake here is the correct decision not the referee's interpretation. If the ref's wrong, either factually or in interpretation, then they're wrong. If I understand the handball correctly (and maybe I don't) then I don't see any room for subjectivity in Nakamba's hand ball - the ball hit his arm.

 

VAR isn't about the ref, it's about the game. There should be no 'shame' (or whatever you want to call it) in VAR saying the ref is wrong. A ref calls a decision as they see it, all in a split second, and that can be acknowledged. A 'no fault' correction of a decision can be inherent in the VAR reversal of a ref's decision. Tbh, I thought that was what VAR was supposed to do. 

[Ian Nacho]

VAR creates more controversy. If the ref misses it fair enough, frustrating but I can get over that. But when they’ve had a chance to look at it again, and you’ve seen the pictures which they have, and they still get it wrong. 

[Les-TA-Jon]

16 minutes ago, mabrah said:

 

Thanks for that interpretation. It goes a long way to explaining what the situation might be. It certainly explains why VAR didn't award a penalty.

 

But if it is the case (and I have absolutely no reason to doubt you) then it's daft. Maybe the 'clear and obvious' bit should be dropped in favour of 'if VAR sees a wrong decision' because the way I see it is that what's at stake here is the correct decision not the referee's interpretation. If the ref's wrong, either factually or in interpretation, then they're wrong. If I understand the handball correctly (and maybe I don't) then I don't see any room for subjectivity in Nakamba's hand ball - the ball hit his arm.

 

VAR isn't about the ref, it's about the game. There should be no 'shame' (or whatever you want to call it) in VAR saying the ref is wrong. A ref calls a decision as they see it, all in a split second, and that can be acknowledged. A 'no fault' correction of a decision can be inherent in the VAR reversal of a ref's decision. Tbh, I thought that was what VAR was supposed to do. 

Yeah exactly - that's my point - there's nothing inherently wrong with VAR - its just the implementation at the minute that's letting it down. It should be about getting to the right decision, end of. Regardless of who gets overturned, or who's ego gets hurt. 

[ultrafox]

At the end of the season the FA need to call an investigation on how VAR is used.

Of course some decisions are marginal and could go either way...but some decisions are down right awful and need some explanation.

They should review all questionable decisions (like the one last night) and ask some basic questions such as

. Who takes the final decision at Stockley Park (they are an anonymous lot with a great deal of power)

. What rule book and rules are they following

. what rule applied to the decision in question.

. what teams do the Stockley Park staff support. 

 

Everyone except the ref, Stockley Park and Villa knows that was a stonewall penalty. 

 

It's just a joke. 

Edited 29 January 2020 by ultrafox

[KrefelderFox666]

2 hours ago, ultrafox said:

At the end of the season the FA need to call an investigation on how VAR is used.

Of course some decisions are marginal and could go either way...but some decisions are down right awful and need some explanation.

They should review all questionable decisions (like the one last night) and ask some basic questions such as

. Who takes the final decision at Stockley Park (they are an anonymous lot with a great deal of power)

. What rule book and rules are they following

. what rule applied to the decision in question.

. what teams do the Stockley Park staff support. 

 

Everyone except the ref, Stockley Park and Villa knows that was a stonewall penalty. 

 

It's just a joke. 

The solution is simple really. VAR should only be checking offsides/handballs in build up to goal. For potential penalties or red cards, VAR should notify the referee. The referee and VAR then look at the scene together and discuss it between them (potentially with this being replayed to fans over stadium tannoy/TV). Rugby is the perfect example of how video referees work well. It's beyond me how football cannot follow suit.

[Spudulike]

Has this been reviewed by the 'expert' refs such as Gallagher ??

If this involved one of the Sky media darling clubs they would be going on and on about it.

If it was a genuine error by the VAR deciders then they should own up, apologise and explain how they will remedy it.

If it wasn't a mistake then tell us why.

Those that paid to watch that last night deserve an explanation.

 

 

[Col city fan]

I’d still scrap it

It isn’t ‘always getting things right’, it’s just moved on the debate to another level

That was handball last night. If VAR can’t pick THAT up it’s not fit for purpose

I really do see it as concrete as that

[Legend_in_blue]

It's not that they haven't seen it, they've chosen to ignore it.

 

That's the problem right there.

 

 

[davieG]

Perhaps they viewed the wrong incident because the attempt immediately before Maddison's hit the defender in the side of his waist and that was the one Sky initially showed we all thought fair enough not a penalty. it was only later on they showed the actual hand ball incident.