VAR Discussion thread

TitianGerm

Quazzie wrote: »

Yeah. Southampton took a free kick and the ball was rolling so should've been retaken. They scored from it and VAR can't call it back for that reason because it doesn't look at restarts

Why doesn't it look at restarts? They seem to go back a decent bit for other decisions.

Quazzie

CSF wrote: »

I agree with you, but my point is that VAR can not win because people are not rational. Imagine the fume all over the internet and what idiots like Jeff Stelling would be inciting if that goal had been pulled back.

I know what you're saying and to be fair I didn't spot it at the time, or anyone else for that matter it seems, but it surely the whole point of VAR is to correct the mistakes that the ref misses. This was one of those.

But back to my original point. Does anyone know the reason why VAR doesn't look at restarts?

Wonder how many points lost and gained now in the league this season due to disgraceful VAR decisions

The table might look at lot different that it currently does now I'd suspect

CSF

Quazzie wrote: »

I know what you're saying and to be fair I didn't spot it at the time, or anyone else for that matter it seems, but it surely the whole point of VAR is to correct the mistakes that the ref misses. This was one of those.

But back to my original point. Does anyone know the reason why VAR doesn't look at restarts?

They only look at a very specific list of things. This was widely lauded as a ‘minimal interference, maximum benefit’ policy.

They have a rule about attacking players in walls now but it’s not enforced by VAR either.

Tom Mann Centuria

So f*cking slow too.

darced

Deleted User wrote: »

Wonder how many points lost and gained now in the league this season due to disgraceful VAR decisions

The table might look at lot different that it currently does now I'd suspect

Before today Liverpool would be unchanged, City two points better off, United would have a point less.

blanch152

Unbelievable, Southampton player in the box when penalty taken, and VAR doesn't rule out the goal!

CSF

blanch152 wrote: »

Unbelievable, Southampton player in the box when penalty taken, and VAR doesn't rule out the goal!

I don’t think that is something that is reviewable either in the Premier League. And again, if they’d ruled that out, the world would erupt.

Quazzie

blanch152 wrote: »

Unbelievable, Southampton player in the box when penalty taken, and VAR doesn't rule out the goal!

That's a restart. VAR can't review it

Tom Mann Centuria

Quazzie wrote: »

That's a restart. VAR can't review it

Apart from they are retaking the Leicester pen v Brighton for encroachment.

Quazzie

CSF wrote: »

I don’t think that is something that is reviewable either in the Premier League. And again, if they’d ruled that out, the world would erupt.

You can't give two goals in the same game when both could've been legitimately disallowed because you're afraid what Jeff Stelliing would say. Thats a nonsensical way to look at it

CSF

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Apart from they are retaking the Leicester pen v Brighton for encroachment.

Jesus, I was under the same impression and that is a woeful case of inconsistency then.

Tom Mann Centuria

They need a set of referees that ONLY do VAR and nothing else. Takes away the inconsistencies that happen every week, because every ref sees things differently.

CSF

Quazzie wrote: »

You can't give two goals in the same game when both could've been legitimately disallowed because you're afraid what Jeff Stelliing would say. Thats a nonsensical way to look at it

That’s not my belief. I think the rules should be applied as per the letter of the law. I’m just discussing how people view VAR.

Apply the rules to the letter - VAR is ruining football. You can’t re-referee everything.
Don’t apply the rules to the letter - VAR can’t even get decisions right

.G.

darced wrote: »

Before today Liverpool would be unchanged, City two points better off, United would have a point less.

After today, Liverpool would also be unchanged.

Lolz at the fume, clear push on a lad who without it was in with a chance of heading it clear. Foul all day long,every pundit I've heard so far say they agree with it.

Not forgetting there was even less of a push on Zaha to win the freekick in the first place, if thats foul so is the one that VAR got right.

martingriff

.G. wrote: »

After today, Liverpool would also be unchanged.

Lolz at the fume, clear push on a lad who without it was in with a chance of heading it clear. Foul all day long,every pundit I've heard so far say they agree with it.

Not forgetting there was even less of a push on Zaha to win the freekick in the first place, if thats foul so is the one that VAR got right.

I agree a foul off the ball are given everywhere else and I say if it was an attacking teams player that was fouled a penalty should be given

Agent Coulson

Well Roy say VAR got it right and that his player did push Lovren.

murpho999

Deleted User wrote: »

Wonder how many points lost and gained now in the league this season due to disgraceful VAR decisions

The table might look at lot different that it currently does now I'd suspect

Have a look here.
Also below is a picture from another newspaper's VAR table. Daily express. Link is here.



VAR is not as controversial as many try to make out.

Also, how would previous year tables have looked if mistaken decisions had been removed?
People seem to forget that VAR gets the majority of decisions right.

brick tamland

murpho999 wrote: »

Have a look here.
Also below is a picture from another newspaper's VAR table. Daily express. Link is here.



VAR is not as controversial as many try to make out.

Also, how would previous year tables have looked if mistaken decisions had been removed?
People seem to forget that VAR gets the majority of decisions right.

Table proves nothing. Too subjective

Whos decided for example the Mane peno at Villa was a correct decision. Loads of other examples.

citytillidie

Oranage2 wrote: »

Slight touch on the liverpool defender, he goes down like a scammer on a damp floor in a Liverpool Tesco, ball goes in the net, var rules it out.

Same foul for the Palace free kick so one can not be a free kick and the other not

brick tamland

citytillidie wrote: »

Same foul for the Palace free kick so one can not be a free kick and the other not

Lovern was not getting near the ball. Way too high. Is that meant to be taken into account (Genuinely dont know)

citytillidie

brick tamland wrote: »

Lovern was not getting near the ball. Way too high. Is that meant to be taken into account (Genuinely dont know)

Foul is a foul

.G.

PGMOL this week owned up to 4 VAR mistakes, none of them were decisions for Liverpool.

murpho999

brick tamland wrote: »

Table proves nothing. Too subjective

Whos decided for example the Mane peno at Villa was a correct decision. Loads of other examples.

I'm sure if it showed that Liverpool should have 9 points less that you and T.Hanks^ would have agreed with it.

I provided two sources with similar tables.

You can't just dismiss it because you don't like the results.

Also, do you not think the Mane decision (which I thought was correct) was cancelled out by the Firmino armpit one in the same game?

Shanotheslayer

The table doesn't take into account the momentum swing of the game etc.

For example if a team goes 1-0 down they have to attack more etc leading to more open spaces etc etc.

fullstop

Oranage2 wrote: »

Maybe enough but the ball goes straight into the net from the free kick, the foul doesn't even interfere with play.

No it doesn’t. Wijnaldum and then Tomkins touch it. It was stupid from Ayew and it was a foul, even his manager said it.

Fitz*

When it takes multiple minutes and VAR comes to the correct decision, like the Sheffield United goal today, then I don't see a problem. It's getting the correct decision.

Offsides, I think has to change slightly.

CSF

FitzShane wrote: »

When it takes multiple minutes and VAR comes to the correct decision, like the Sheffield United goal today, then I don't see a problem. It's getting the correct decision.

Offsides, I think has to change slightly.

Worth a mention though that VAR didn’t actually add anything here since the ref never gave handball in the first place right?

Fitz*

CSF wrote: »

Worth a mention though that VAR didn’t actually add anything here since the ref never gave handball in the first place right?

That's true. These days, the commentators always seem to say that the goal is being reviewed by VAR after every goal. So do VAR actually review every single goal, before it is allowed?

osarusan

FitzShane wrote: »

That's true. These days, the commentators always seem to say that the goal is being reviewed by VAR after every goal. So do VAR actually review every single goal, before it is allowed?

Yes, every goal is reviewed automatically. Most of the time it takes only a few seconds.

inforfun

I dont think this penalty should have been given and the var is once again sleeping\not looking at the right thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyidUIVWlos

At 7.40.

https://gyazo.com/b76cabe21fb8550736dba1e0a0c10949

And shortly after that, the Groningen defender should have been off with a red card.
The only thing the var has added is more bias in decisions.

osarusan

Decision seems ok to me. If you take a bit of a wild swipe in the area you better make sure nobody nips in ahead of you.

Don't see what the screenshot adds either - there was a player in an offside position clearly for sure, but he didn't contest the ball or get involved.

inforfun

Penalty was a foul. Not disputing that.
The going down like a sack of potatoes nauseating.
Off side guy might nog have challenged the bal but him being there has influence on the way the defender is going to defend.

CSF

inforfun wrote: »

Penalty was a foul. Not disputing that.
The going down like a sack of potatoes nauseating.
Off side guy might nog have challenged the bal but him being there has influence on the way the defender is going to defend.

The way they phrase the rule is that you have to make a play for the ball or be in someone’s line of sight basically right?

Technically every player in an offside position is influencing play, considering how the 2 teams’ shapes are interdependent so I dunno where to begin or end with that.

osarusan

inforfun wrote: »

Penalty was a foul. Not disputing that.
The going down like a sack of potatoes nauseating.
Off side guy might nog have challenged the bal but him being there has influence on the way the defender is going to defend.

I don't think it meets any of the IFAB criteria for somebody in an offside position committing an offside offence by 'becoming involved in active play':

Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

• interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
• interfering with an opponent by:
• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
• challenging an opponent for the ball or
• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

*The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used
or

• gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
• rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
• been deliberately saved by any opponent
• A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.

dfx-

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

They need a set of referees that ONLY do VAR and nothing else. Takes away the inconsistencies that happen every week, because every ref sees things differently.

that doesn't settle it - the set of referees only doing VAR will be inconsistent from game to game.

It all comes down to accepting there will be inconsistency and injustice. In which case VAR is redundant.

Harry Palmr

Things would be much simpler if the attacking player is given the advantage where it's hard/impossible to make a firm judgement, so the millimetre offside is removed from the equaison at the very least. If we're going to have wrong decisions then let them be wrong in favour of more goals not less.

inforfun

osarusan wrote: »

I don't think it meets any of the IFAB criteria for somebody in an offside position committing an offside offence by 'becoming involved in active play':



[/LIST]

If the attacker isnt there\ would have been judged 100% certain to be off side, the defender can let that ball go over the line.
But he decides to head it because who knows nowadays wat the ref\var are going to decide.

Goals are disallowed because the attacker's foreskin is off side and this guy somehow has no influence on the situation at hand?

CSF

inforfun wrote: »

If the attacker isnt there\ would have been judged 100% certain to be off side, the defender can let that ball go over the line.
But he decides to head it because who knows nowadays wat the ref\var are going to decide.

Goals are disallowed because the attacker's foreskin is off side and this guy somehow has no influence on the situation at hand?

The problem there though is it’s not a VAR issue, it’s an unclear rules issue.

The same would have come up if that Sheff United goal had been disallowed yesterday. People would have been fuming about VAR when really it’s this nonsense handball rule that is the issue.

Liam O

CSF wrote: »

The problem there though is it’s not a VAR issue, it’s an unclear rules issue.

The same would have come up if that Sheff United goal had been disallowed yesterday. People would have been fuming about VAR when really it’s this nonsense handball rule that is the issue.

I thought the handball rule was going to be if it went in off the hand only but until yesterday it was seemingly interpreted as any contact with the arm in the buildup to a goal equals it being disallowed. I'm still not totally sure it hit McBurnie's arm rather than his shoulder but the lack of transparency is galling.

The fact the ref is making a decision on what he is being told rather than what he is looking at is a joke. No fan of the Rugger but when you hear a discussion between the ref and the TMO in that it's related to the ref making a decision and asking if there's any reason he can't. Yesterday was not conclusive after a few looks so the benefit of the doubt being given to SHU I'm not too unhappy about.

Now I still believe Jones was fouled for the first one though. Didn't seem to be much of a check on that though for some reason...

osarusan

Liam O wrote: »

The fact the ref is making a decision on what he is being told rather than what he is looking at is a joke.

I don't think the on-field ref is the one making the decision though. He is just getting a message in his ear saying 'Goal' or 'Offside' or whatever.

Scott Tenorman

osarusan wrote: »

I don't think the on-field ref is the one making the decision though. He is just getting a message in his ear saying 'Goal' or 'Offside' or whatever.

That is what Liam said

osarusan

CSF wrote: »

The problem there though is it’s not a VAR issue, it’s an unclear rules issue.

This sums it all up for me, it's what I've said all along.

VAR isn't anything other than a second chance to apply the laws for big moments. It hasn't changed anything except the extent to which the laws are scrutinised.

What we are seeing is that firstly, what fans and pundits alike think the laws are (or should be) is often way off what the laws actually are. And secondly, there is huge inconsistency among officials about how to apply those laws.

osarusan

Scott Tenorman wrote: »

That is what Liam said

Ok fair enough, I thought he meant it was the ref weighing up evidence in his ear, rather than just relaying a decision in his ear.

Hyzepher

The offside rule could be changed so that ALL of the attacking player needs to be offside before they are offside rather than just some of the attacker. I think it would be easier to enforce and get right

Liam O

osarusan wrote: »

Ok fair enough, I thought he meant it was the ref weighing up evidence in his ear, rather than just relaying a decision in his ear.

Yeah I didn't really get that across clearly. The ref should be looking at it again if there is any ambiguity. It should be him looking at it and asking if there's anything stopping him changing or upholding the decision. Right now it is so guarded and secret. It's a joke.

CSF

Liam O wrote: »

I thought the handball rule was going to be if it went in off the hand only but until yesterday it was seemingly interpreted as any contact with the arm in the buildup to a goal equals it being disallowed. I'm still not totally sure it hit McBurnie's arm rather than his shoulder but the lack of transparency is galling.

The fact the ref is making a decision on what he is being told rather than what he is looking at is a joke. No fan of the Rugger but when you hear a discussion between the ref and the TMO in that it's related to the ref making a decision and asking if there's any reason he can't. Yesterday was not conclusive after a few looks so the benefit of the doubt being given to SHU I'm not too unhappy about.

Now I still believe Jones was fouled for the first one though. Didn't seem to be much of a check on that though for some reason...

It’s very clear on the handball rule. Any touch of the hand/arm in the build up to a goal results in the goal being ruled out.

On one hand, it’s good that they’ve put in an actual rule that they’re going to enforce. However, I think they’ve gone too far with it and I don’t think the discrepancy between attacking and defensive handballs should be as pronounced as it is.

Liam O

Hyzepher wrote: »

The offside rule could be changed so that ALL of the attacking player needs to be offside before they are offside rather than just some of the attacker. I think it would be easier to enforce and get right

But then you have someone onside by the hair on their calf and you are in the same situation. Again, it should only be if it is clear and obvious that an error has been made. If you have to look at it for more than 30 seconds without conclusion it's not clear and obvious and an on-field decision should stand.

gimli2112

You have to imagine they're sitting in their booth thinking "Oh oh!" when a marginal decision comes their way.
Except Martin Atkinson of course who is confident in his brilliance.

osarusan

Hyzepher wrote: »

The offside rule could be changed so that ALL of the attacking player needs to be offside before they are offside rather than just some of the attacker. I think it would be easier to enforce and get right

You'll still end up with a line and a discussion about whether a heel or a toe is on or millimetres over the line.