The VAR thread

[bfox]

3 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

Both goals was ruled out for being in the eye line of the goalkeeper, linesman’s flag is up for offside on both goals 

 

what we don’t know is has the linesman flagged solely based because Barnes is in an offside position and VAR have then told the ref he’s interfering with play OR has the referee come to that conclusion and VAR has backed him up as I’m not sure how the linesman can see that Barnes is interfering from his angle 

Well the linesman has to flag it I guess right? from his angle Barnes is offside for sure, maybe I'm wrong here and have completely got the rules wrong. I know you can't go offside from a corner, but it's off Ndidi's head?  Does the problem then becomes VARs job to prove that this call was an obvious error. It was an error, but whether it was 100% clear I guess is the debate here. I'm baffled as to why they only looked at it from about 1 angle which was almost as bad as the linesman's angle? Should of gave it to the ref to look at. As for the peno, that was complete bonkers.

Edited 20 September 2021 by bfox

[ajthefox]

On 15/09/2021 at 20:37, SemperEadem said:

Football is better with poor officiating, wrong decisions, controversy. Scrap VAR & goal line technology, you win some you lose some.

What's wrong with goal line technology? That doesn't even affect the game it just automatically notifies the ref if it was a goal.

 

Baby, bath water and throwing things springs to mind.

[drumbeat]

4 minutes ago, bfox said:

I'm baffled as to why they only looked at it from about 1 angle which was almost as bad as the linesman's angle?

I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a moment, and purely for the sake of discussion.

 

They may have only needed 1 angle to decide. IF (note IF) the question was 'Is the player offside?' then that 1 angle may well be enough to answer that question.

 

As mentioned before, I don't think any of us actually know WHO made the decision and WHAT decision they made (offside? interfering?) nor what VAR did or didn't review. We could be in a completely farcical situation that the linesman flags the offside, ref takes that as sacrosanct and VAR adjudges that decision to not be a 'clear and obvious' error.  That is, nobody has actually made a judgement on interfering with play - just the offside. I dunno, I'm just painting a hypothetical scenario.

 

I think it's the lack of clarity as much as anything else that's at the heart of this debate. None of us actually know what the process was. And it's entirely possible that the 3 of them (linesman, ref and VAR) all assumed the other made the actual call) Think about it; no way could the linesman make a call that required a judgement on line of sight and interfering. They simply didn't have that view themselves. He could only really judge onside/offside. (That said, they could have seen Barnes grappling with the Sanchez for the 2nd one)

 

Maybe what this ought be telling us is that a) that 'interfering with play' law itself is a judgement call minefield and maybe ought be reduced to a simple onside/offside call, and b) the process of VAR (linesman to ref to VAR) is either lacking transparency OR flawed. 

 

 

[Lcfc82]

It annoys me how it’s just accepted in the media ( e.g ref watch on sky )and by the PL that they get decisions wrong. 

The whole point of VAR was that it was supposed to cut out all the wrong decisions. But we are getting just as many bad refereeing decisions as we were before VAR. it’s not acceptable to get decisions wrong with the technology they have to hand and if it’s a decision that is open to interpretation then VAR shouldn’t be getting involved anyway and it should be left to the on field officials.

 

And to the people saying it wasn’t VAR it was the linesman who made the decisions yesterday. That’s fine I can accept if the on field officials miss something but I can’t accept someone looking back at video footage and still coming to the wrong decision.
 

 

[Babylon]

7 minutes ago, drumbeat said:

I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a moment, and purely for the sake of discussion.

 

They may have only needed 1 angle to decide. IF (note IF) the question was 'Is the player offside?' then that 1 angle may well be enough to answer that question.

 

As mentioned before, I don't think any of us actually know WHO made the decision and WHAT decision they made (offside? interfering?) nor what VAR did or didn't review. We could be in a completely farcical situation that the linesman flags the offside, ref takes that as sacrosanct and VAR adjudges that decision to not be a 'clear and obvious' error.  That is, nobody has actually made a judgement on interfering with play - just the offside. I dunno, I'm just painting a hypothetical scenario.

 

I think it's the lack of clarity as much as anything else that's at the heart of this debate. None of us actually know what the process was. And it's entirely possible that the 3 of them (linesman, ref and VAR) all assumed the other made the actual call) Think about it; no way could the linesman make a call that required a judgement on line of sight and interfering. They simply didn't have that view themselves. He could only really judge onside/offside. (That said, they could have seen Barnes grappling with the Sanchez for the 2nd one)

 

Maybe what this ought be telling us is that a) that 'interfering with play' law itself is a judgement call minefield and maybe ought be reduced to a simple onside/offside call, and b) the process of VAR (linesman to ref to VAR) is either lacking transparency OR flawed. 

 

 

True, but it's not a straight offside as he didn't touch the ball. It's an "interfering with play" call, in which case you've got to look at more than one angle to know that. 

[drumbeat]

1 minute ago, Babylon said:

True, but it's not a straight offside as he didn't touch the ball. It's an "interfering with play" call, in which case you've got to look at more than one angle to know that. 

I don't want to get bogged down in this but that's not the point I was making. I'm talking about transparency and potential confusion or misunderstanding in the decision process.

 

IF the linesman only flags that the player is offside, not that they're interfering (as I said, they clearly can't always judge that one) then who has made that call? The ref speaks to the linesman, linesman says 'it was offside ref', ref says ok and gives it, VAR sees nothing to suggest the offside call is wrong, in fact sees that it is clearly right - so decision stands. Who actually made the call on interfering with play?

 

If the discussion here indicates anything it's that nobody really knows what the process was for arriving at the decision. We won't get agreement on the subjective 'interfering' call but, officially (and objectively?), Barnes was offside. That's the reason given. That's then qualified with the line of sight or interfering with play justification - but it's unclear to us who actually made that call, or whether VAR even considered it. 

 

Constrain yourself to that single question - was Barnes offside? If that's all that's considered then the answer is easier to see, and easier for VAR to validate. And maybe that really ought be the only call to be made in future, i.e. change the law, - if for no other reason than to avoid the subjective nature of the call and the endless debate that ensues. Debate that, with no disrespect to anyone, few know enough about (myself included)  

[FrankieADZ]

did they even talk about Brightons penalty on ref watch today?

[Lcfc82]

1 minute ago, FrankieADZ said:

did they even talk about Brightons penalty on ref watch today?

Yeah said it was the wrong decision. Should of been free kick to Leicester.

Thats what it says on sky sports website, I didn’t see the actual program 

[KrefelderFox666]

1 hour ago, jammie82uk said:

Both goals was ruled out for being in the eye line of the goalkeeper, linesman’s flag is up for offside on both goals 

 

what we don’t know is has the linesman flagged solely based because Barnes is in an offside position and VAR have then told the ref he’s interfering with play OR has the referee come to that conclusion and VAR has backed him up as I’m not sure how the linesman can see that Barnes is interfering from his angle 

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

So without VAR we would have lost also. The annoying thing is this "clear and obvious" to overrule. Should have happened on the pen. The two offsides more difficult. Then you see the Kyle Walker penalty, no clear mistake yet it gets overturned?

 

It's these inconsistencies that are really annoying people and rightly so. I have said many times, why can't the VAR go to the ref more often and say, you might want to look at this or have the balls to say I think you got it wrong, can we check/discuss. Humans make mistakes but this current process allows for inconsistencies and bad mistakes (much worse when a wrong decision is made after a review).

 

I am still giving VAR a chance but it needs to improve and there has been little movement in 3 odd years.

[Saxondale]

It’s working very well this season, now they’ve changed how it’s applied.

 

The problem yesterday was not with VAR, but with the judgment of those operating it and their interpretation of the laws of the game.

 

[Super_horns]

40 minutes ago, Lcfc82 said:

Yeah said it was the wrong decision. Should of been free kick to Leicester.

Thats what it says on sky sports website, I didn’t see the actual program 

You have to wonder what they saw or didn’t seen.

 

Almoet as if they only looked at half of the footage?

 

As the guys above say usually Dermot will defend or give some sort of excuse for the officials so when he is saying it’s wrong you know it must be bad !

Edited 20 September 2021 by Super_horns

[fuchsntf]

First decisions & Moves The Ref & Linesman did their job as asked...

The ref's & VAR officials Communicaticated with each other

There ends any initial idea of common-sense...

 

# Vestergaard Peno descision....Stasi-descision.!! Delibrately ( After 1 year VAR Experience & chance to prove intent & value),

   biasedly, morally-corupt,  decided to ignore events, before, after & around the descision..Really no excuses

 

@   I suggest , that a neutral VAR-panel Sit every Montag & Tuesday & all  game officials get merit, Plus Yellow & Red cards for descisions.

   like players get their game moment descisions..And a small group of alloted 2-5 Media People can ask/demand/enquire on individual VAR game descisions

 

# Barnes 1St offside/obstruction....Lets say I can understand...but if any top 4 side bet Away with anything similiar...proves Bias & moral-corruption.

# Barnes 2nd offside...poor,pathetic descision......Linesman-flag  correct.  VAR descision incompetent,unprofessional,

 

   I reckon VAR-ref had gone for a piss, and a bias Southern-neanderthal incompetent operator was left to make the descision...

   The decisions on VAR are in comparison to Top European leagues, is still English, snot nosed authoritian. Moral-Corrupt & large hint of bias

   & too many issues asking the questions of total incompetence...Its Not just what we see with Leicester descisions,its across All PL games.

   pathetic organisation, and regulations in descision are totally unprofessionell & no Platform to regular hold common-sense inquiries or immediate

   Supporter open understandable changes..

   If seems they are delibrately, wanting to destroy a basically Good & Top idea, und in 5 years can get it debunked  &  cancel it out, for the next 50 years..

 

   Again its Not VAR, but those Twats Handling it...The English version that still Works on no questions asked-old-boys-power-bias doctrin.

 

The Rugby version, not perfect, But makes English- VAR, refs & officials a laughing stock....

 

 

 

 

[mozartfox]

24 minutes ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

So without VAR we would have lost also. The annoying thing is this "clear and obvious" to overrule. Should have happened on the pen. The two offsides more difficult. Then you see the Kyle Walker penalty, no clear mistake yet it gets overturned?

 

It's these inconsistencies that are really annoying people and rightly so. I have said many times, why can't the VAR go to the ref more often and say, you might want to look at this or have the balls to say I think you got it wrong, can we check/discuss. Humans make mistakes but this current process allows for inconsistencies and bad mistakes (much worse when a wrong decision is made after a review).

 

I am still giving VAR a chance but it needs to improve and there has been little movement in 3 odd years.

Either of the VAR person doing the WHU v Ronaldo United game or the Clown doing our game do not understand the off-side law.  The Lingard Goal was identical in terms of CR7 being behind the last defender as in our second chalk-off.  Surely VAR is also there to bring an element of consistency to decisions (as well as clearing up Officials' Brain-farts) ?

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, drumbeat said:

I don't want to get bogged down in this but that's not the point I was making. I'm talking about transparency and potential confusion or misunderstanding in the decision process.

 

IF the linesman only flags that the player is offside, not that they're interfering (as I said, they clearly can't always judge that one) then who has made that call? The ref speaks to the linesman, linesman says 'it was offside ref', ref says ok and gives it, VAR sees nothing to suggest the offside call is wrong, in fact sees that it is clearly right - so decision stands. Who actually made the call on interfering with play?

 

If the discussion here indicates anything it's that nobody really knows what the process was for arriving at the decision. We won't get agreement on the subjective 'interfering' call but, officially (and objectively?), Barnes was offside. That's the reason given. That's then qualified with the line of sight or interfering with play justification - but it's unclear to us who actually made that call, or whether VAR even considered it. 

 

Constrain yourself to that single question - was Barnes offside? If that's all that's considered then the answer is easier to see, and easier for VAR to validate. And maybe that really ought be the only call to be made in future, i.e. change the law, - if for no other reason than to avoid the subjective nature of the call and the endless debate that ensues. Debate that, with no disrespect to anyone, few know enough about (myself included)  

You can't be offside from a corner, so if the Lino flags him offside he's an idiot and VAR would / should overturn it. 

 

I terms of the process, it's not transparent and that's the problem. If anything it's less transparent than last season now. I just don't understand why we can't have straight dialogue audio and visuals so we know what's been asked and what's been looked at. 

 

As far as I know, as the Lino flagged the question would be, "is there a reason to change that". In which case they look for clear and obvious, it's subjective so they leave it with the onfield decision, even if the person in the box thinks it was wrong. Which is stupid. 

 

 

 

[StanSP]

57 minutes ago, FrankieADZ said:

did they even talk about Brightons penalty on ref watch today?

Doesn't look like it. 

[SuperMike]

VAR - I used to like it, thinking it would over-ride errors. It didn't yesterday (3 times) and our season (as far as league standings go) is as good as over.

Nice one, VAR!

[CosbehFox]

2 hours ago, RowlattsFox said:

I wonder if it's a tactic Brighton have actually thought up or just a coincidence. I think more teams will take the chances now and catch someone offside. For Thiago Silva's goal for Chelsea, there was a Spurs player marking the chelsea player in front of the keeper but if he leaves him he's definitely being called offside. 

A lot of teams are increasingly doing it - you take the players off the post though. We do it. 
 

Just read that the VAR for the Man U v West Ham was the shambles of a ref we had for Norwich who continually had no authority and struggled with decision making 

[jammie82uk]

38 minutes ago, Saxondale said:

It’s working very well this season, now they’ve changed how it’s applied.

 

The problem yesterday was not with VAR, but with the judgment of those operating it and their interpretation of the laws of the game.

 

That has always has been the case

[moore_94]

First ever overseas referee for a match - Watford vs Newcastle

 

Has already had a stinker this season, was VAR in Burnley vs Brighton at the start of the season and Brighton actually got done over as Burnley scored from a corner but Maupay was fouled, goal still given 

 

https://www.sportingnews.com/au/football/news/australian-referee-jarred-gillett-caught-up-in-premier-league-controversy/lsuutenjkylc121mzx9bcvokm

 

 

[jammie82uk]

1 hour ago, FrankieADZ said:

did they even talk about Brightons penalty on ref watch today?

They did but basically said the same as this 

 

 

[Super_horns]

The Arsenal /Burnley penalty was a good use of VAR but we still see too many subjective calls that basically rely on the guess work of 3/4 men who have different views on things .

 

This weekend we might get the same sort of incidents but with different outcomes.

 

Is that making VAR worthless if all refs aren’t applying the same rules to an incident ?

 

Peter Banks seems to be involved in a lot of these dramas.

 

Maybe he is just a rubbish official?

[cruzFOX]

I was exhausted yesterday and even more exhausted today. How can we delete this past weekend from our memory anyone? I'm sure a resounding win against Burnley will go along way but I'm not even confident BR will set the team up to be on the front foot from kick off. What happened to hard nosed questioning too? Why hasn't BR faced the glaring obvious questions we all have about our style of play and the players picked? Honeymoon is over he needs to better explain these performances not look as confused or surprised as we fans are afterwards ffs.

[jammie82uk]

reading this thread on Twitter it does seem the reason it was ruled out is because Barnes  moved 

 

 

[jmono84]

They just need to use common sense and they explain their decisions afterwards so we can understand if it’s justified or not.

 

I’m not buying they didn’t see the pull on the arm because Vestergaad told the ref on numerous occasions he had been pulled.

 

It seems they ignored it, maybe the ref thought it wasn’t enough contact. These need to be accountable for their decisions and I’ll be all for having their mic’s listened to. 

[jammie82uk]

2 minutes ago, jmono84 said:

I’ll be all for having their mic’s listened to. 

I don’t know why we can’t already as the broadcast team certainly listen to them live, at this point I would even accept it if it was like F1 where it is delayed