The VAR thread

[foxinsocks]

Var will only be credible when we scrap the "clear and obvious error criteria" - VAR should call it as they see it. IT is crazy that we can all see a mistake on sky yet the var says ...well it probably wasn't so clear to the ref - obviously or he would have made the right decision!

 

(NB: asking the ref to look at the monitor is an euphemism for "I think you have made a mistake" )

[LCFCCHRIS]

11 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

Var will only be credible when we scrap the "clear and obvious error criteria" - VAR should call it as they see it. IT is crazy that we can all see a mistake on sky yet the var says ...well it probably wasn't so clear to the ref - obviously or he would have made the right decision!

 

(NB: asking the ref to look at the monitor is an euphemism for "I think you have made a mistake" )

IMO the issue is, this may have worked if they didn't interpret it however they wanted. How many times have we seen them check for 3 minutes over an offside that's literally milimetres? That by definition makes it not clear or not obvious. It's gone in our favor too so not just against us. Other times we're crying for a check on something that looked super dodgy and nothing. Like you say may be better to scrap that all together at this stage as it's not being used as the rule intended. I think we've all learnt that VAR will still produce a fair few (some awful) errors a season same as standard reffing. 

[foxinsocks]

I wo

21 minutes ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

IMO the issue is, this may have worked if they didn't interpret it however they wanted. How many times have we seen them check for 3 minutes over an offside that's literally milimetres? That by definition makes it not clear or not obvious. It's gone in our favor too so not just against us. Other times we're crying for a check on something that looked super dodgy and nothing. Like you say may be better to scrap that all together at this stage as it's not being used as the rule intended. I think we've all learnt that VAR will still produce a fair few (some awful) errors a season same as standard reffing. 

Btw.. I would allow strikers a 10cm margin.  It would be the same for all teams and might make defenders think about the wisdom if a high line.

We also need to look at the hand ball in the build up rule... wasn't there a game where a defender handled it in their area accidently.. so it was not a pen... but then coz the ball went up thr field and a striker scored the goal had to be disallowed and the original unintentional hand ball given as a pen 

[LCFCCHRIS]

3 hours ago, foxinsocks said:

I wo

Btw.. I would allow strikers a 10cm margin.  It would be the same for all teams and might make defenders think about the wisdom if a high line.

We also need to look at the hand ball in the build up rule... wasn't there a game where a defender handled it in their area accidently.. so it was not a pen... but then coz the ball went up thr field and a striker scored the goal had to be disallowed and the original unintentional hand ball given as a pen 

Yeah see what you're saying. We just know that 10cm margin would even be abused too.. Unless they got the technology to get it down the millisecond when the ball was played. Agree that is just stupidity on the hand ball in build up like that. 

[Shane]

When the ref goes over to the tv why do they only show 1 angle sometimes?? Very strange 

[Phube]

3 minutes ago, Shane said:

When the ref goes over to the tv why do they only show 1 angle sometimes?? Very strange 

Agreed, if the deciding factor was the ball touch how can you show one angle that doesn’t conclusively show the ball touch?

[Aus Fox]

It’s an absolute bag of shite isn’t it. 

[Jonezy]

Yeah. They only showed the one angle where it was dubious. Pissed me off. But better get the bad calls out of the way in a game where the margins never were in our favour.

[Manwell Pablo]

Its a tough one. I’m not convinced it’s the right call. Not because he didn’t touch the ball because he did but I’d still deem Perez to be in control of the ball afterwards as he’s literally tickled it, meaning if Perez is still in control of the ball when he’s bought down, surely he’s been impeded and it’s a pen.

 

Would probably of made no difference anyway, we weren’t good enough and they deserved the 3 points.

[Aesc]

Just a general point, but why are they obsessed with a slightest touch on the ball? If a defender brushes the ball but doesn't dispossess the attacker, then their leg trips the attacker up, surely that's still a foul? Because regardless of the tiny touch on the ball, the attacker would have continued in possession if they hadn't been taken out?

[Kopfkino]

Tbh I don’t really want it to be a penalty cos it’s soft no matter what and there’s too many bullshit penalties (and free kicks given to Nancy’s from Brazil) but getting the ball can’t be the sole determinant. It’s the very faintest touch that doesn't affect the ball sufficiently to change the possession of it without interfering with the player.

[Aus Fox]

The main problem tonight is the clear and obvious error.

The fact is it wasn’t, it’s one of those where if Mason hadn’t given it, there’s not enough evidence to overturn his decision, but likewise the fact it was given in play, I don’t think there is evidence to say that there was a clear and obvious error.

[Tom12345]

Poor tonight. Ref given decision real time. There was no clear and obvious error to me. Incorrect decision to overrule.

[worth_the_wait]

56 minutes ago, Aesc said:

Just a general point, but why are they obsessed with a slightest touch on the ball? If a defender brushes the ball but doesn't dispossess the attacker, then their leg trips the attacker up, surely that's still a foul? Because regardless of the tiny touch on the ball, the attacker would have continued in possession if they hadn't been taken out?

Because most of the pundits on TV have no idea what they are talking about.

[Les-TA-Jon]

57 minutes ago, Aus Fox said:

The main problem tonight is the clear and obvious error.

The fact is it wasn’t, it’s one of those where if Mason hadn’t given it, there’s not enough evidence to overturn his decision, but likewise the fact it was given in play, I don’t think there is evidence to say that there was a clear and obvious error.

The ref gave it because he thought he didn’t get the ball. The VAR obviously said “I think you should check because we wonder whether he got the ball” the ref looked and thought he got the ball. 
 

the difference between thinking the defender didn’t get/did get the ball is the clear and obvious error 

[Webbo]

If they tell the ref to go to the monitor, it means it's being over ruled. It's a farce.

[Clever Fox]

11 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If they tell the ref to go to the monitor, it means it's being over ruled. It's a farce.

Not really, It means Var can't decide either way, So gives the Ref another chance to look at it again.

What was wrong with the monitor was that he only seen one view. He should be able to see all angles.

Personally I think he got it right. Perez was going down from the moment he felt the challenge coming in.

[Webbo]

6 minutes ago, Clever Fox said:

Not really, It means Var can't decide either way, So gives the Ref another chance to look at it again.

What was wrong with the monitor was that he only seen one view. He should be able to see all angles.

Personally I think he got it right. Perez was going down from the moment he felt the challenge coming in.

How many times have they been to the monitor and the decision hasn't been overturned?

[Ian Nacho]

It’s better how the use in the NFL. They put the emphasis on finding clear evidence that the original decision was wrong. If there’s no clear evidence that the referee was wrong then the on-field decision stays. From my point of view, there certainly wasn’t any clear evidence Gomes got the ball. 

[Guest Fktf]

I don't see how they're taking into account the perspective of the camera on these decisions. If you drew a line from spurs 24, from this view it looks like his right foot is closest to goal, but clearly his left leg is going to be the closest because of the way he is moving.

 

The same problem happens when drawing the line from the deepest defender. 

 

[Ian Nacho]

1 hour ago, Fktf said:

I don't see how they're taking into account the perspective of the camera on these decisions. If you drew a line from spurs 24, from this view it looks like his right foot is closest to goal, but clearly his left leg is going to be the closest because of the way he is moving.

 

The same problem happens when drawing the line from the deepest defender. 

 

If they’re being petty with peoples arm hair being offside, they need to be petty with the angles the picture is being taken. 

[Unabomber]

Today’s decision was one of the worst ever, clearly onside. That coupled with Pawson not giving our pen on first glance looks like corruption. 

[KrefelderFox666]

29 minutes ago, Unabomber said:

Today’s decision was one of the worst ever, clearly onside. That coupled with Pawson not giving our pen on first glance looks like corruption. 

I just think they should get rid of the lines. Watch a replay and if it's not clear either way, stick with the on field decision.

[Unabomber]

Just now, KrefelderFox666 said:

I just think they should get rid of the lines. Watch a replay and if it's not clear either way, stick with the on field decision.

Yeah agree cos with the lines how do they get when then player actually plays the ball? They should just judge it as it happens. Today it was clearly onside. 

[NaijaFox]

Yep, we wuz robbed today.

Shouldn't it be "clear and obvious error" to overturn? 

 

Edited 20 December 2020 by NaijaFox