Author Topic: The VAR thread  (Read 33118 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

ajb95

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 976
    • View Profile
Re: The VAR thread
« Reply #60 on: Wed 16 Jan 2019 21:24 »
This keeps coming up.  Clear and obvious does NOT apply for offsides, it relates to when the decision could be in the opinion of the referee.

Offside is black and white, either the player was on or off, there is no opinion involved.

You say opinion is not involved but in the OPINION of the linesman he was onside and correctly awarded. A different official in his OPINION thinks itís offside incorrectly. Time to ditch the lines - they are confusing and unhelpful. When doing offside the image needs to be stopped in line with the last part of the body and in recent cases this isnít the case!

rustyref

  • RTR Veterans
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
Re: The VAR thread
« Reply #61 on: Wed 16 Jan 2019 22:49 »
a) there are no linesmen as you say Ö

b) they have paid a lot of money for proven technology. If we are going to use technology then it has to be accepted as infallible.

Technology is here and it is here to stay.  People just need to accept this as it will not be changing.

Microscopist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
Re: The VAR thread
« Reply #62 on: Wed 16 Jan 2019 23:16 »
a) there are no linesmen as you say Ö

b) they have paid a lot of money for proven technology. If we are going to use technology then it has to be accepted as infallible.

Technology is here and it is here to stay.  People just need to accept this as it will not be changing.

It appears that the technolology only relates to a grid at pitch level and with a limited number of cameras.  When the camera is not in line with the last defender this means that there are optical errors in relating the apparent alignment of the head and the feet.  These could be corrected in various ways but do not seem to be being considered.  Additionally there are, in any measurement, errors and there appears to be no assessment of the degree in error (e.g. by having a broader line and have any part of the body lying within that line being regarded as within the margin of error of the method of measurement).  It is possible for the technology to accomodate these issues, but they first need to be recognised and then the attention needs to put in to compensate for them.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

nemesis

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 583
    • View Profile
Re: The VAR thread
« Reply #63 on: Wed 16 Jan 2019 23:39 »
This keeps coming up.  Clear and obvious does NOT apply for offsides, it relates to when the decision could be in the opinion of the referee.

Offside is black and white, either the player was on or off, there is no opinion involved.

What about the referee's judgement on whether a player is interfering etc ?

Readingfan

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,624
    • View Profile
Re: The VAR thread
« Reply #64 on: Wed 16 Jan 2019 23:59 »
This keeps coming up.  Clear and obvious does NOT apply for offsides, it relates to when the decision could be in the opinion of the referee.

Offside is black and white, either the player was on or off, there is no opinion involved.

What about the referee's judgement on whether a player is interfering etc ?

That would fall more into the opinion category - at international level it would probably result in the referee taking an On-Field Review if the VAR thought a clear and obvious error had been made. OFRs are not normally required for offside.

Readingfan

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,624
    • View Profile
Re: The VAR thread
« Reply #65 on: Thu 17 Jan 2019 00:10 »
This keeps coming up.  Clear and obvious does NOT apply for offsides, it relates to when the decision could be in the opinion of the referee.

Offside is black and white, either the player was on or off, there is no opinion involved.

Whilst I agree in principle (although a goalkeeper is either on the line or off the line when saving a penalty but I doubt the same approach will be taken to that!), there is presumably some element of human involvement because I guess someone has to decide when exactly the ball is played and make some interpretation on the images provided (otherwise it would be much quicker!)

I do think one issue is the technology seems to lack a bit of credibility, such as the wonky lines at Huddersfield last season. Dermot Gallagher's explanation that VAR offside lines are only calibrated with the feet and ignores other parts of the body is concerning and clarity needs to be given.

The BBC stated tonight that there will be some form of tactical camera used by the Premier League next year which will improve matters - if that's the case, why isn't it being used now?

bruntyboy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: The VAR thread
« Reply #66 on: Thu 17 Jan 2019 00:53 »
This keeps coming up.  Clear and obvious does NOT apply for offsides, it relates to when the decision could be in the opinion of the referee.

Offside is black and white, either the player was on or off, there is no opinion involved.

What about the referee's judgement on whether a player is interfering etc ?

Didn't you mean to say opinion?  ;)

bruntyboy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: The VAR thread
« Reply #67 on: Thu 17 Jan 2019 01:02 »

Why do VAR referees have to be actual referees?  Opening up the position to those who are way short of those fitness levels and may not have the man-management skills of referees, such as they are, will give a massively larger pool from which to source the very best at making VAR decisions. It's such a different skill that it's unlikely the best at one will also be the best at the other.

Agree, as long as the final decision remains with the on field official to retain their ability to interpret the Law as is required and appropriate.

Am I correct in thinking that none of the VAR decisions made this weekend were actually reviewed by the onfield official?
I was at Burnley on Saturday and the whole situation was farcical. Those of us who actually paid to go to the game had any idea what was happening because Simon Hooper just stood in the penalty area and then, after about 90 seconds, he blew the whistle which Vydra thought was the signal to take the penalty only then to be stopped in his tracks by Hooper's raised arm, quickly followed by the AR's raised flag and offside was given --not against Vydra but against Sam Vokes who had not interfered with play at all ---the ball having gone way over his head.
At no point did Simon Hooper go to look at the incident and, on viewing the other incidents, I don't think that any other onfield official reviewed a decision.

Is this going to be the normal procedure?

I'm pretty sure that offside was given against Vydra. Hence there was no need for the referee t o look at the monitor.

I think the procedure in England will generally be that the referee does not look at the monitor but accepts the information from the VAR.

I know there has been mixed views on this. Personally I generally think it helps for the referee to go and look - the radio commentators for the Palace V Grimsby game were quite confused by Atkinson suddenly pulling a red card out after he'd shown a yellow. They were asking if it was for dissent, etc.

I think going to the monitor can help with the referee's credibility, particularly when it's the second minute of a game, and make it clearer what is happening (it would be different if the officials were mic'ed up).

How will this work if say the referee has already cautioned a couple of players for "orange" tackles but then another similar tackle occurs which is not seen by the referee but is seen by the reviewer (and which in his opinion is a red but would be deemed by the referee as orange and a caution under the way he has been refereeing the game)? Also presumably even if he looks at the monitor the referee is not allowed to show a yellow (which could also potentially be a second yellow for that player).

kelxref

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: The VAR thread
« Reply #68 on: Thu 17 Jan 2019 08:31 »
On bruntyboys post about the ę orange Ľ cards and not going to OFRs,
I think in the end we will have to change to the protocol used in the World
Cup to avoid this potential inconsistency. I think I read somewhere that the
Bundesliga attemped to avoid OFRs when they started with VAR but abandoned
it after a few weeks for this very reason.

Also I do think it is possible to give a yellow card after an OFR. I seem to recall
in the World Cup Ronaldo was given a yellow after Diedhiou was asked to review
a slap (for a possible red card) and he deemed it worthy of only a yellow card. So certainly
it appears to have been permissible under the protocols used at the World Cup last year.


Readingfan

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,624
    • View Profile
Re: The VAR thread
« Reply #69 on: Thu 17 Jan 2019 13:16 »

Why do VAR referees have to be actual referees?  Opening up the position to those who are way short of those fitness levels and may not have the man-management skills of referees, such as they are, will give a massively larger pool from which to source the very best at making VAR decisions. It's such a different skill that it's unlikely the best at one will also be the best at the other.

Agree, as long as the final decision remains with the on field official to retain their ability to interpret the Law as is required and appropriate.

Am I correct in thinking that none of the VAR decisions made this weekend were actually reviewed by the onfield official?
I was at Burnley on Saturday and the whole situation was farcical. Those of us who actually paid to go to the game had any idea what was happening because Simon Hooper just stood in the penalty area and then, after about 90 seconds, he blew the whistle which Vydra thought was the signal to take the penalty only then to be stopped in his tracks by Hooper's raised arm, quickly followed by the AR's raised flag and offside was given --not against Vydra but against Sam Vokes who had not interfered with play at all ---the ball having gone way over his head.
At no point did Simon Hooper go to look at the incident and, on viewing the other incidents, I don't think that any other onfield official reviewed a decision.

Is this going to be the normal procedure?

I'm pretty sure that offside was given against Vydra. Hence there was no need for the referee t o look at the monitor.

I think the procedure in England will generally be that the referee does not look at the monitor but accepts the information from the VAR.

I know there has been mixed views on this. Personally I generally think it helps for the referee to go and look - the radio commentators for the Palace V Grimsby game were quite confused by Atkinson suddenly pulling a red card out after he'd shown a yellow. They were asking if it was for dissent, etc.

I think going to the monitor can help with the referee's credibility, particularly when it's the second minute of a game, and make it clearer what is happening (it would be different if the officials were mic'ed up).

How will this work if say the referee has already cautioned a couple of players for "orange" tackles but then another similar tackle occurs which is not seen by the referee but is seen by the reviewer (and which in his opinion is a red but would be deemed by the referee as orange and a caution under the way he has been refereeing the game)? Also presumably even if he looks at the monitor the referee is not allowed to show a yellow (which could also potentially be a second yellow for that player).

I'm not sure I fully understand the question - the VAR looks at everything anyway so if there were two similar tackles in the 8th and 82nd minute of the match, one of which resulted in the referee showing a yellow card and the second of which the referee didn't show a yellow card, the VAR should theoretically either recommend a red card for both challenges if they think it was SFP or allow the referee's decision to stand in both cases if they don't think they were red card tackles.

bruntyboy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: The VAR thread
« Reply #70 on: Thu 17 Jan 2019 19:49 »

Why do VAR referees have to be actual referees?  Opening up the position to those who are way short of those fitness levels and may not have the man-management skills of referees, such as they are, will give a massively larger pool from which to source the very best at making VAR decisions. It's such a different skill that it's unlikely the best at one will also be the best at the other.

Agree, as long as the final decision remains with the on field official to retain their ability to interpret the Law as is required and appropriate.

Am I correct in thinking that none of the VAR decisions made this weekend were actually reviewed by the onfield official?
I was at Burnley on Saturday and the whole situation was farcical. Those of us who actually paid to go to the game had any idea what was happening because Simon Hooper just stood in the penalty area and then, after about 90 seconds, he blew the whistle which Vydra thought was the signal to take the penalty only then to be stopped in his tracks by Hooper's raised arm, quickly followed by the AR's raised flag and offside was given --not against Vydra but against Sam Vokes who had not interfered with play at all ---the ball having gone way over his head.
At no point did Simon Hooper go to look at the incident and, on viewing the other incidents, I don't think that any other onfield official reviewed a decision.

Is this going to be the normal procedure?

I'm pretty sure that offside was given against Vydra. Hence there was no need for the referee t o look at the monitor.

I think the procedure in England will generally be that the referee does not look at the monitor but accepts the information from the VAR.

I know there has been mixed views on this. Personally I generally think it helps for the referee to go and look - the radio commentators for the Palace V Grimsby game were quite confused by Atkinson suddenly pulling a red card out after he'd shown a yellow. They were asking if it was for dissent, etc.

I think going to the monitor can help with the referee's credibility, particularly when it's the second minute of a game, and make it clearer what is happening (it would be different if the officials were mic'ed up).

How will this work if say the referee has already cautioned a couple of players for "orange" tackles but then another similar tackle occurs which is not seen by the referee but is seen by the reviewer (and which in his opinion is a red but would be deemed by the referee as orange and a caution under the way he has been refereeing the game)? Also presumably even if he looks at the monitor the referee is not allowed to show a yellow (which could also potentially be a second yellow for that player).

I'm not sure I fully understand the question - the VAR looks at everything anyway so if there were two similar tackles in the 8th and 82nd minute of the match, one of which resulted in the referee showing a yellow card and the second of which the referee didn't show a yellow card, the VAR should theoretically either recommend a red card for both challenges if they think it was SFP or allow the referee's decision to stand in both cases if they don't think they were red card tackles.

If the referee has fully seen the first incident and is happy with YC why should he be overruled by VAR suggesting a RC (especially if the protocol in England is that the referee doesn't go and look at a monitor)? If there is a suggestion for RC then surely the onfield referee should be the final arbiter and must review it on the monitor.  As shown on here regularly one man's YC foul is another's orange is another's RC.

Readingfan

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,624
    • View Profile
Re: The VAR thread
« Reply #71 on: Thu 17 Jan 2019 20:26 »

Why do VAR referees have to be actual referees?  Opening up the position to those who are way short of those fitness levels and may not have the man-management skills of referees, such as they are, will give a massively larger pool from which to source the very best at making VAR decisions. It's such a different skill that it's unlikely the best at one will also be the best at the other.

Agree, as long as the final decision remains with the on field official to retain their ability to interpret the Law as is required and appropriate.

Am I correct in thinking that none of the VAR decisions made this weekend were actually reviewed by the onfield official?
I was at Burnley on Saturday and the whole situation was farcical. Those of us who actually paid to go to the game had any idea what was happening because Simon Hooper just stood in the penalty area and then, after about 90 seconds, he blew the whistle which Vydra thought was the signal to take the penalty only then to be stopped in his tracks by Hooper's raised arm, quickly followed by the AR's raised flag and offside was given --not against Vydra but against Sam Vokes who had not interfered with play at all ---the ball having gone way over his head.
At no point did Simon Hooper go to look at the incident and, on viewing the other incidents, I don't think that any other onfield official reviewed a decision.

Is this going to be the normal procedure?

I'm pretty sure that offside was given against Vydra. Hence there was no need for the referee t o look at the monitor.

I think the procedure in England will generally be that the referee does not look at the monitor but accepts the information from the VAR.

I know there has been mixed views on this. Personally I generally think it helps for the referee to go and look - the radio commentators for the Palace V Grimsby game were quite confused by Atkinson suddenly pulling a red card out after he'd shown a yellow. They were asking if it was for dissent, etc.

I think going to the monitor can help with the referee's credibility, particularly when it's the second minute of a game, and make it clearer what is happening (it would be different if the officials were mic'ed up).

How will this work if say the referee has already cautioned a couple of players for "orange" tackles but then another similar tackle occurs which is not seen by the referee but is seen by the reviewer (and which in his opinion is a red but would be deemed by the referee as orange and a caution under the way he has been refereeing the game)? Also presumably even if he looks at the monitor the referee is not allowed to show a yellow (which could also potentially be a second yellow for that player).

I'm not sure I fully understand the question - the VAR looks at everything anyway so if there were two similar tackles in the 8th and 82nd minute of the match, one of which resulted in the referee showing a yellow card and the second of which the referee didn't show a yellow card, the VAR should theoretically either recommend a red card for both challenges if they think it was SFP or allow the referee's decision to stand in both cases if they don't think they were red card tackles.

If the referee has fully seen the first incident and is happy with YC why should he be overruled by VAR suggesting a RC (especially if the protocol in England is that the referee doesn't go and look at a monitor)? If there is a suggestion for RC then surely the onfield referee should be the final arbiter and must review it on the monitor.  As shown on here regularly one man's YC foul is another's orange is another's RC.

I tend to agree with you that the referee should go and look at the monitor for subjective decisions.

However, the PGMO would argue that the VAR should only be suggesting that a decision be changed if it was clearly wrong - hence if a tackle is in the 'orange' category I would suggest that a referee failing to show a red card should not be regarded as being clearly wrong.

The decision by Martin Atkinson in the Crystal Palace V Grimsby game is more the type of challenge which would be upgraded from yellow to red, which I think the majority of people would agree with.

Acme Thunderer

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,221
    • View Profile
Re: The VAR thread
« Reply #72 on: Fri 18 Jan 2019 14:17 »
Times today reports that English football is proposing to change its rules to allow replays of VAR decisions to be shown on big screens when the new technology is introduced full time in the PL next season. At present clubs are prohibited from replaying contentious decisions at grounds for public order reasons, but there is an awareness of the need to improve the fan experience at matches. In the current PL, only Liverpool and Man Utd don't have big screens and there are no plans to make them compulsory. Instead VAR decisions would be communicated to fans at these grounds via the scoreboard or stadium announcer, but without an accompanying explanation. There are no plans either to set a time limit for making VAR decisions, although it was noted and criticised that it took almost two minutes for Anthony Taylor to disallow Bryson's 'goal' for Derby v Southampton on Wednesday.

AT - at Selhurst Park, it is impossible for home fans in some of the 'posh' seats to see the sole stadium screen at the Whitehorse Lane end, and it could be a problem at grounds if some fans can see a VAR replay and others not.
Like Like x 1 View List

Readingfan

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,624
    • View Profile
Re: The VAR thread
« Reply #73 on: Mon 21 Jan 2019 18:45 »
BT Sport commentator Darren Fletcher says that VAR will mean the end of AARs in the Champions League.

Readingfan

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,624
    • View Profile
Re: The VAR thread
« Reply #74 on: Wed 23 Jan 2019 13:31 »
I've also seen various reports that the VARs at Champions League games will actually be at the stadium rather than from a central base as happened in the World Cup and happens in the FA Cup.