Post by: Microscopist on Mon 25 May 2026 20:23
I meant Sky rather than BBC, but yet it would appear that VAR initially gave the broadcasters the wrong image. Who the broadcaster is isn't really relevant, whilst it was shown by Sky in the UK it was filmed by Premier League Productions and would have been shown by Stan is Australia, SuperSport in South Africa, Peacock in the USA, etc. But at the end of the day he was offside, doesn't matter whether it was millimetres, centimetres, off is off, it is black and white. It is what people wanted, even if they now don't want it when decisions go against them.
My comment about the pre-match meal was clearly meant as a joke to say how close it was, just as I could have as easily joked about how ironic the part of his body that he has been sat on for much of the season got him offside. I work day in day out with technology, and even with the increasing explosion of AI technology is only as good as the people operating it. I would guess that a human error resulted in the wrong image initially being given to the broadcasters, something that was eventually corrected. Mistakes happen in all walks of professional life, it just obviously gets more attention when a mistake is seen by millions of people worldwide.
I’d be surprised if the images shown in the stadium came through Sky but in any event they originated from VAR and whilst all of us make mistakes some credible explanation of how this image was created and how it came to be rejected would be welcome but as it hasn’t attracted extensive media attention I don’t suppose we will ever know.
Post by: rustyref on Mon 25 May 2026 19:53
My comment about the pre-match meal was clearly meant as a joke to say how close it was, just as I could have as easily joked about how ironic the part of his body that he has been sat on for much of the season got him offside. I work day in day out with technology, and even with the increasing explosion of AI technology is only as good as the people operating it. I would guess that a human error resulted in the wrong image initially being given to the broadcasters, something that was eventually corrected. Mistakes happen in all walks of professional life, it just obviously gets more attention when a mistake is seen by millions of people worldwide.
Post by: Microscopist on Mon 25 May 2026 19:32
In the grand scheme of things it was insignificant but in terms of trusting VAR for offside it was certainly negative.
in the closing minutes of the City v Villa game Foden ran onto a through ball into the penalty area and blasted the ball into the Villa net. So far as I could tell there was no flag. As is always the case VAR checkd and decided tha Foden was offside. Well it was certainly close and as Foden was coming back from an offside position whilst the ball was being played there was no basis to argue. A few minutes later a computer generated image was shown on the screen and at home which was labelled offside but showed only Foden’s arm, below the elbow, to be in an offside position. The graphic was noticed by the crowd and the players and Foden drew the referee’s attention to the graphic. As the game had been restarted there was obviously nothing he could do but shrug his shoulders. I believe the BBC revealed that the wrong graphic had been shown on the screen and had been replaced. I didn’t see the replacement graphic directly but from what I have seen online they look like ‘old fashiioned’ manually generated images shoiwing Foden to be a few mm offside. It was very close may well have been offside given the overgenerous estimation of the accuracy of VAR offside technology.
However, it does beg the question as to haw the initial graphic was produced and labelled Offsidf when it cl,early did not show an offside (Unless Foden has a previously unknown deformed right arm and a large growth from his right side.)
In my view most current VAR officials do not have the necessary skill set for the job particularly when it comes to trying to piece together three dimensional scenarios from two dimensional images. Video Refereeing should only be carried out by specialists and managed separately from on-field referees. Of course they need refereeinf exerience and a thorough knowledge of the laws but once selected to be VARs that should be their role and they should be then trained appropriately for that. I would then get rid of the nonsense of sending the referee to the monitor to agree with VAR 99% of the time and the VAR alone should be judged on his/her decision to over rule in all cases, including offsides, only where it is clearly and obvioiusly wrong in the first case.
BBC showed the wrong image, he was offside, albeit by an amount that should he have had a slightly smaller pre-match meal he might not have been.
With semi-automated I don't think the VAR officials do much, it is done by the technology itself and the fully trained VAR operator. It is only when the technology fails that they have to go back to the drawing of lines and determining the exact moment of the ball being played.
Well I was watching on Sky not BBC and the graphic was shown at the ground and I didn’t know that the BBC were running VAR, though it would explain a lot. Even if it was a BBC (which I very much doubt) fault they presumably got the image from the VAR so the question still stands - how come this image showing not offside was labelled Offside was produced? Your explanation would seem to imply that VAR over ruled the SAOT which would raise a more profound question.
I find you comment about Foden distasteful and shows a woeful lack of knowledge of anatomy and physiology if you think that eating a little extra would affect his backside so quickly.
I have no doubt that the VAR technicians are trained to operate the equipment but the mislabelling of this image suggest that they are not so astute at interpreting the images which is my point. That is in presumably the reason for having trained referees rather than just leaving it to the technicians.
Post by: rustyref on Mon 25 May 2026 18:14
In the grand scheme of things it was insignificant but in terms of trusting VAR for offside it was certainly negative.
in the closing minutes of the City v Villa game Foden ran onto a through ball into the penalty area and blasted the ball into the Villa net. So far as I could tell there was no flag. As is always the case VAR checkd and decided tha Foden was offside. Well it was certainly close and as Foden was coming back from an offside position whilst the ball was being played there was no basis to argue. A few minutes later a computer generated image was shown on the screen and at home which was labelled offside but showed only Foden’s arm, below the elbow, to be in an offside position. The graphic was noticed by the crowd and the players and Foden drew the referee’s attention to the graphic. As the game had been restarted there was obviously nothing he could do but shrug his shoulders. I believe the BBC revealed that the wrong graphic had been shown on the screen and had been replaced. I didn’t see the replacement graphic directly but from what I have seen online they look like ‘old fashiioned’ manually generated images shoiwing Foden to be a few mm offside. It was very close may well have been offside given the overgenerous estimation of the accuracy of VAR offside technology.
However, it does beg the question as to haw the initial graphic was produced and labelled Offsidf when it cl,early did not show an offside (Unless Foden has a previously unknown deformed right arm and a large growth from his right side.)
In my view most current VAR officials do not have the necessary skill set for the job particularly when it comes to trying to piece together three dimensional scenarios from two dimensional images. Video Refereeing should only be carried out by specialists and managed separately from on-field referees. Of course they need refereeinf exerience and a thorough knowledge of the laws but once selected to be VARs that should be their role and they should be then trained appropriately for that. I would then get rid of the nonsense of sending the referee to the monitor to agree with VAR 99% of the time and the VAR alone should be judged on his/her decision to over rule in all cases, including offsides, only where it is clearly and obvioiusly wrong in the first case.
BBC showed the wrong image, he was offside, albeit by an amount that should he have had a slightly smaller pre-match meal he might not have been.
With semi-automated I don't think the VAR officials do much, it is done by the technology itself and the fully trained VAR operator. It is only when the technology fails that they have to go back to the drawing of lines and determining the exact moment of the ball being played.
Post by: Microscopist on Mon 25 May 2026 17:35
in the closing minutes of the City v Villa game Foden ran onto a through ball into the penalty area and blasted the ball into the Villa net. So far as I could tell there was no flag. As is always the case VAR checkd and decided tha Foden was offside. Well it was certainly close and as Foden was coming back from an offside position whilst the ball was being played there was no basis to argue. A few minutes later a computer generated image was shown on the screen and at home which was labelled offside but showed only Foden’s arm, below the elbow, to be in an offside position. The graphic was noticed by the crowd and the players and Foden drew the referee’s attention to the graphic. As the game had been restarted there was obviously nothing he could do but shrug his shoulders. I believe the BBC revealed that the wrong graphic had been shown on the screen and had been replaced. I didn’t see the replacement graphic directly but from what I have seen online they look like ‘old fashiioned’ manually generated images shoiwing Foden to be a few mm offside. It was very close may well have been offside given the overgenerous estimation of the accuracy of VAR offside technology.
However, it does beg the question as to haw the initial graphic was produced and labelled Offsidf when it cl,early did not show an offside (Unless Foden has a previously unknown deformed right arm and a large growth from his right side.)
In my view most current VAR officials do not have the necessary skill set for the job particularly when it comes to trying to piece together three dimensional scenarios from two dimensional images. Video Refereeing should only be carried out by specialists and managed separately from on-field referees. Of course they need refereeinf exerience and a thorough knowledge of the laws but once selected to be VARs that should be their role and they should be then trained appropriately for that. I would then get rid of the nonsense of sending the referee to the monitor to agree with VAR 99% of the time and the VAR alone should be judged on his/her decision to over rule in all cases, including offsides, only where it is clearly and obvioiusly wrong in the first case.
Post by: OwdReds on Fri 27 Feb 2026 11:18
Post by: Ref Watcher on Fri 27 Feb 2026 11:08
Presumably the red card would still have been issued as Violent Conduct occurred even though the match should have been stopped a few seconds earlier which does seem rather against the laws of natural justice.It's no more against natural justice than prosecuting someone for punching a person in a pub after having their drink knocked over only to discover later that the person who was struck had already been barred from the premises. The fact that the victim was not have been entitled to be there does not justify the assault. Violence is violence and it should sanctioned accordingly.
Post by: OwdReds on Fri 27 Feb 2026 08:49
Post by: bmb on Tue 13 Jan 2026 22:33
https://tinyurl.com/2w37hez7
I hope this link works. 13 VAR mistakes this season compared with 10 last season. I don't believe that 13 is sufficient data to conclude anything such as the bigger clubs benefit most! Bournemouth have been unfortunate.
Also, I struggle to accept that a 3:2 split is a clear error although I agree it's not a situation where we surveyed 100 people....
Again, 3 more errors than last season is meaningless unless it becomes a trend.
I haven't got time to look at failures by referee and VAR. However Oliver got it wrong on VAR. Even the best make errors.
Bournemouth were on the wrong end more than anyone else last season as well. Senesi not seeing red twice is an improvement in that respect!! I agreed with Gillett sticking to his guns on that one though, however did comment on the other one that that he should have had a red.
Post by: Failed Ref on Tue 13 Jan 2026 11:43
I hope this link works. 13 VAR mistakes this season compared with 10 last season. I don't believe that 13 is sufficient data to conclude anything such as the bigger clubs benefit most! Bournemouth have been unfortunate.
Also, I struggle to accept that a 3:2 split is a clear error although I agree it's not a situation where we surveyed 100 people....
Again, 3 more errors than last season is meaningless unless it becomes a trend.
I haven't got time to look at failures by referee and VAR. However Oliver got it wrong on VAR. Even the best make errors.
Post by: ajb95 on Tue 30 Dec 2025 10:56
Maybe we should review failure to issue a second YC? Forest have sounded off again complaining about VAR and the officials in their game last weekend against Manchester City. Dermott Gallagher agreed that a second yellow should have been issued to a City player for SPA. Of course DG ignored Law 18, that is, you do not issue second yellow unless you really really have to thereby keeping 22 players on the pitch.
One thing VAR has visualised is the clear “Favourtism” towards bigger jus. Whilst the bigger clubs are generally getting a few more decisions against them, decisions that VAR cannot get involved like 2nd yellows still go against smaller clubs, like the decision at forest against Man City
Post by: Failed Ref on Mon 29 Dec 2025 20:07
Post by: TheThingFromLewes on Sun 28 Dec 2025 21:26
Not sure if this has been posted but Graham Scott seems to give very well thought out comments.
Post by: carrowman on Tue 02 Dec 2025 19:45
I've not yet read the full article, but Times reports that VARs are going to be able to review corners at next year's WC tournament. Seems sensible imo.
... Then throw-ins .... then all free-kicks and the game will either:
i) Take well over two hours to complete and/or
ii) No longer need an on-field referee - they will just announce the decisions on the TV and (maybe) in the stadium.
You could have an app and let a panel vote
Post by: Leggy on Tue 02 Dec 2025 19:13
I've not yet read the full article, but Times reports that VARs are going to be able to review corners at next year's WC tournament. Seems sensible imo.
... Then throw-ins .... then all free-kicks and the game will either:
i) Take well over two hours to complete and/or
ii) No longer need an on-field referee - they will just announce the decisions on the TV and (maybe) in the stadium.
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Tue 02 Dec 2025 09:03
Post by: TheThingFromLewes on Fri 10 Jan 2025 13:22
Challenges could be used in place of (not as well as) the work currently being carried out by VAR on non-factual matters. Otherwise we'll be there all night.
I'd like to see it, because - eventually - it would make the captain or coach (or whoever has responsibility for initiating the challenge) more circumspect. Having the challenge requires a cool head otherwise they will all be used up in the first ten minutes (example = cricket).
I have to respectfully disagree with this well balanced and thoughtful comment slightly…
Perhaps if VAR didn’t make such erroneous errors and poor judgements in the first place and began to get the trust back of fans and teams by cutting these misguided calls out, then the challenge procedure wouldn’t be warranted at all.
That includes VAR coming in and getting involved when it doesn’t need to.
I do fear that if this was introduced into the game, we would be turning the game into more of a drama and a circus… and not being discriminatory, more Americanised like the NFL.
The introduction of the in stadia announcement is as far as I would go.. but this is still a trial and we await to see the verdict from across the football and refereeing spectrum.
Post by: Ref Watcher on Fri 10 Jan 2025 12:23
Challenges could be used in place of (not as well as) the work currently being carried out by VAR on non-factual matters. Otherwise we'll be there all night.I agree. It would also make post match interviews more interesting with managers potentially being asked why they didn't challenge a decision when blaming the referee for something.
I'd like to see it, because - eventually - it would make the captain or coach (or whoever has responsibility for initiating the challenge) more circumspect. Having the challenge requires a cool head otherwise they will all be used up in the first ten minutes (example = cricket).
Post by: Leggy on Thu 09 Jan 2025 18:42
I'd like to see it, because - eventually - it would make the captain or coach (or whoever has responsibility for initiating the challenge) more circumspect. Having the challenge requires a cool head otherwise they will all be used up in the first ten minutes (example = cricket).
Post by: Ashington46 on Thu 09 Jan 2025 15:37
Serie B has had VAR for a few years, but for Ashington46's peace of mind I would suggest that English football lacks the financial, technical, physical and human resources to extend the system very much further. What I find more worrying is that the Italian FA is pushing IFAB to incorporate into VAR a (presumably limited) number of challenges (as in tennis). I must be missing something, but apart from other objections I can't see the point of this: I was under the impression that every incident that was potentially subject to a VAR intervention was checked anyway. Unless this a back-door way of allowing VAR to consider incidents at present excluded from its competence.
Many thanks for the info, however, please do not worry about my peace of mind, particularly where football is concerned these days.
I have stopped going to the professional game because it ceased to be of interest several years ago and I could comfortably live without it.
FIFA, UEFA and many national FAs just do as they wish, aided and abetted by the media and there is no consideration given to the fan who attends games on a weekly basis because kick off times are changed etc., etc. Hence my reason for stopping travelling almost 20000 miles per season just to watch my team play.
I have noted that there has been quite a bit of talk about introducing challenges as per tennis and the NRL, however, where will this stop?
Lots of decent non-league football around in my area.
Post by: jad on Thu 09 Jan 2025 14:19
Post by: Ashington46 on Wed 08 Jan 2025 12:34
A lot of clamour for VAR to be introduced in lower divisions. Myself not too sure. It was meant to do away with inconsistancies of decision making and helping refs get a decision right. Sadly lacking at times as to my mind has added another level of inconsistancy all by itself.
The ongoing efforts to hope that more people go to watch non-league football would be helped so much by the introduction of VAR in the lower divisions.
Edited to fix the quote thingamajigga! bmb
Post by: Bogart on Wed 08 Jan 2025 09:54
Post by: NRUReferee on Wed 24 Apr 2024 21:39
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Wed 24 Apr 2024 21:24
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 11 Apr 2024 22:33
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 11 Apr 2024 17:36
Post by: Microscopist on Fri 03 Nov 2023 10:16
On the purple lighting .. my understanding has been that blue/uv light is bad for the eyes.
"C Northcote Parkinson - ‘a perfection of planned layout is achieved only by institutions on the point of collapse… Perfection of planning is a symptom of decay. During a period of exciting discovery or progress there is not time to plan the perfect headquarters. The time for that comes later, when all the important work has been done.’"
Post by: Readingfan on Wed 01 Nov 2023 03:46
https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/38785057/no-plans-broadcast-chaotic-live-var-decisions-ifab
Post by: jad on Fri 08 Sep 2023 14:36
To answer this it was decided that the relevant audio and video extract would be revealed to the world last Friday (1 September). At this point I wish I could report exciting and shocking insights, but alas I have so far been unable to track down the full version in an accessible form, and the versions that I have seen on television and read about in the press have not been particularly revealing. At least that applies to the dialogue, but at one point Fourneau asks for a second camera angle, which was from behind the goal. This was unhelpful, since the defender was obscured by the forward he was supposedly fouling, thereby making it impossible to judge his actions. Having initially accepted Di Bello's interpretation, Fourneau was on the basis of the second angle hardly in a position to recommend a review.
Be that as it may, the view of Gianluca Rocchi, head of refereeing for Serie A, was that the handling of the incident was 'superficial', and it seems that the officials concerned will now, in the somewhat ludoesque terminology favoured by the Italian FA, have to miss a turn.
Post by: bmb on Mon 04 Sep 2023 23:47
Referees' body the PGMOL and the Premier League will regularly release in-game audio of on-field officials and VAR teams this season in a TV programme featuring Howard Webb and Michael Owen.
The first episode of Match Officials: Mic'd Up will air on Sky Sports and TNT Sports this week.
The show will aim to explain refereeing decisions using match footage and previously unreleased audio.
The idea was trialled at the end of the 2022-23 season.
Webb, the chief refereeing officer for PGMOL, took charge of the 2010 World Cup final.
Owen, who began his playing career at Liverpool and went on to play for Real Madrid and Manchester United, won the Ballon d'Or in 2001 and scored 40 goals in 89 appearances for England.
Post by: Leggy on Sun 13 Aug 2023 19:05
Why do VAR officials apparently need to wear their kit just to view TV pictures? Can they not wear "civvies"?
I think it's psychological to make them feel part of the team. It's also a work uniform so reinforces it's work time
And - as a work uniform - can be provided tax free!
Post by: bmb on Sun 13 Aug 2023 13:25
Why do VAR officials apparently need to wear their kit just to view TV pictures? Can they not wear "civvies"?
I think it's psychological to make them feel part of the team. It's also a work uniform so reinforces it's work time
Post by: Seagull on Sun 13 Aug 2023 12:47
Post by: bmb on Fri 11 Aug 2023 21:00
It's in the same place as where they have been at Stockley Park, it's the building next door to the old hub.
Post by: rustyref on Fri 11 Aug 2023 18:51
Post by: greeny on Fri 11 Aug 2023 18:28
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 11 Aug 2023 14:08
Whose voices did we hear apart from Webb?
Thanks.
Post by: Ben on Fri 11 Aug 2023 13:37
https://youtu.be/CQPV2blzbTc
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 13 Jun 2023 18:19
I'm not convinced this is a good decision.
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 27 Feb 2023 13:19
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 05 Feb 2023 12:22
Post by: bmb on Sun 05 Feb 2023 12:11
Is VAR intervening on ball in and out of play now, it hasn’t been in previous years? @newcastle v West Ham
Yes because its a matter of fact, its already happened on a game this season I seem to remember.
But surely it can only intervene in relation to one of the four categories for which VAR is used? It would not intervene on an incorrect line decision that does not revolve around a goal, penalty kick, red card or case of mistaken identity (although I am struggling to think of a case where that could happen!).
To be honest with each passing week I get more and more confused by what should be referred and what shouldn’t
It can be used to check for goal scored in the absence of GLT, been done a couple of times in Hungary, we don't have GLT. It comes under goal check for VAR purposes.
Post by: ajb95 on Sun 05 Feb 2023 11:34
Is VAR intervening on ball in and out of play now, it hasn’t been in previous years? @newcastle v West Ham
Yes because its a matter of fact, its already happened on a game this season I seem to remember.
But surely it can only intervene in relation to one of the four categories for which VAR is used? It would not intervene on an incorrect line decision that does not revolve around a goal, penalty kick, red card or case of mistaken identity (although I am struggling to think of a case where that could happen!).
To be honest with each passing week I get more and more confused by what should be referred and what shouldn’t
Post by: Leggy on Sun 05 Feb 2023 11:21
Is VAR intervening on ball in and out of play now, it hasn’t been in previous years? @newcastle v West Ham
Yes because its a matter of fact, its already happened on a game this season I seem to remember.
But surely it can only intervene in relation to one of the four categories for which VAR is used? It would not intervene on an incorrect line decision that does not revolve around a goal, penalty kick, red card or case of mistaken identity (although I am struggling to think of a case where that could happen!).
Post by: Carter on Sat 04 Feb 2023 19:56
Is VAR intervening on ball in and out of play now, it hasn’t been in previous years? @newcastle v West Ham
Yes because its a matter of fact, its already happened on a game this season I seem to remember.
Post by: Readingfan on Sat 04 Feb 2023 19:55
Is VAR intervening on ball in and out of play now, it hasn’t been in previous years? @newcastle v West Ham
It has always had the ability to intervene on ball in/out play if definitive footage existed that the on-field decision was wrong.
There was the Japan goal V Germany in the World Cup which was initially disallowed but given after VAR review.
Post by: ajb95 on Sat 04 Feb 2023 18:42
Post by: jad on Tue 06 Sep 2022 14:08
https://theconversation.com/var-i-used-motion-capture-technology-to-show-why-the-premier-league-gets-tight-offside-decisions-wrong-189223?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20September%206%202022%20-%202393623911&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20September%206%202022%20-%202393623911+CID_185bcfba255b01f8ffd181acfbf2eb58&utm_source=campaign_monitor_uk&utm_term=VAR%20I%20used%20motion%20capture%20technology%20to%20show%20why%20the%20Premier%20League%20gets%20tight%20offside%20decisions%20wrong
[Apologies for the length of the URL.]
Post by: Ref Fan on Sun 04 Sep 2022 15:21
My own view is that Mason, Gillett and Scott wrongly got involved and advised OFRs, while Coute failed to intervene when he should have done. I was surprised that in the Brentford v Leeds game, Jones didn't give anything for the pull-back outside, or the foul just inside, the area.
Post by: dave26 on Sat 03 Sep 2022 18:08
Post by: Readingfan on Sat 02 Jul 2022 12:28
Ideally, there would be some mechanism in place to alert fans and viewers if the system has indicated a likely offside which the VAR is just confirming.
If the assistant delays the flag and indicates over the headset they believe it to be offside, I wonder if something will be built in to allow the VAR to confirm this if the system indicates it? In time, that could stop the game from carrying on if the offside decision is known to be correct.
With the delayed flag, I still think that was something the Premier League got right initially and the approach of the assistant raising the flag but the referee delaying the whistle was preferable. It at least gave fans an idea of the likely final decision.
Post by: bmb on Fri 01 Jul 2022 16:10
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 20 Jun 2022 05:05
There's been some talk about what impact the system will have on the delayed flag process and I'm intrigued as to what it will be. It might work to have a system where the assistant communicates over the headset that they believe it to be offside and the VAR confirms this if so. It would be interesting as to how this worked in practice.
I am also wondering how they will deal with situations where there is ambiguity over whether a defender deflected the ball or deliberately played it. It might end up being the case that we still generally need to wait until the end of play before the decision is made so the delayed flag will still operate but the final decision will just be quicker? Not having to wait 3 or 4 minutes for lines to be drawn would certainly be a good thing.
The IFAB press conference also mentioned they would be looking at ways to deal with timekeeping. Perhaps the independent timekeeper concept or 60 minute games could be back on the table?
Post by: bmb on Sat 11 Jun 2022 15:37
https://www.espn.co.uk/football/english-premier-league/story/4675887/how-var-has-changed-the-premier-leaguefrom-penalties-to-offside-and-handball
Post by: bmb on Fri 22 Apr 2022 12:42
https://www.espn.co.uk/football/english-premier-league/story/4452736/how-var-decisions-have-affected-every-premier-league-club-in-2021-22https://www.espn.co.uk/football/english-premier-league/story/4452736/how-var-decisions-have-affected-every-premier-league-club-in-2021-22
Post by: Ref Watcher on Thu 21 Apr 2022 11:24
Scotland are set to introduce VAR in the top division next season - 41 of the 42 teams across the SPFL divisions voted in favour.VAR or the World Cup? ;)
It seems they are planning to introduce it midway through the season in December, after the World Cup, which I'm sure will cause some controversy.
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 21 Apr 2022 10:59
It seems they are planning to introduce it midway through the season in December, after the World Cup, which I'm sure will cause some controversy.
Post by: RCG on Sun 20 Mar 2022 18:32
On 2 occasions TMO suggested a review and on both Barnes went with what he had seen in field, with no loss of standing to either party.
Similarly Peyper pleased me that he used technology to see how Jack Nowell had ended up being under the jumper. Whilst I wasnt convinced it was an England penalty what it did show was it was definitely not a YC or worse a RC.
Post by: SimP on Sun 20 Mar 2022 16:57
Everton v Newcastle: Craig Pawson gives a yellow card for a foul by Allan on Saint Maximin. He's asked to check the screen by the VAR man. Result: Decision overturned from yellow to red.
Ireland v Scotland: Wayne Barnes wants to look at the process leading to a Scotland try. He asks the TMO to re-run the process leading up to the try. Result: Original on-field decision upheld.
For me, in rugby, the on-field ref was in charge of the process & used the evidence that he may have missed, but he was still strong enough to explain why he was backing his original decision & why he had no need to change. This seems to be the basis for rugby refs using TMO. On the other hand, Pawson went to the monitor & you felt that he was going to change his mind regardless. I don't recall a VAR incident where an on-field ref has stuck to his original decision despite the evidence. In football, the process is led by the VAR men in Stockley Park & the on-field refs feel compelled to reverse their original decision despite the evidence. It's like they have to follow the feedback of the VAR men.
This is ridiculous as the whole point of VAR is to correct "obvious" mistakes & for the on-field ref to lead the process, not follow it.
In rugby. the TMO men are not existing on-field refs so there is a clear demarcation between the TMO's & on-field refs, but in football, you have refs who can be VAR men for one game & then 3 days later, they are on-field refs & could ref the same team that they were VAR a few days before. There is clear possibility of refs being confused between the two roles & this could affect their decision-making.
It's clear to me that we can't have on-field refs being VAR refs & so we need a whole team of specialist VAR men who are retired as this is now a specialist role. Surely, there are enough ex-refs who would appreciate their experiences & services being utilised in this capacity.
Like it or not, VAR is here to stay, but the process & selection process of VAR men is a shambles & needs to change.
Post by: jacksamuel21 on Tue 08 Mar 2022 14:58
Something which hasn’t got a mention on here and I’m sure our resident Norwich fans will detail more but a clear penalty not given to Norwich v Brentford for a foul on Brandon Williams. Not sure how Taylor missed it but not sure who the var was and why they didn’t intervene
John Brooks I think. Not seen it myself so cannot comment
Post by: carrowman on Sun 06 Mar 2022 21:39
Norwich's disallowed goal is an interesting one, as yet no official pictures with lines have been shown. One still picture shows Pukki offside when he touches ! the ball, one still picture not in line shows he may have been onside when the cross was taken.
I believe John Brooks was on VAR, not sure he has done that many games, but had 5 major reviews which took a long time. Afraid Norwich are so poor and are in free fall to thankfully the VAR free championship, that when Brentford's 4th went in, me and a few thousand others left and I was 200 yards outside the ground before it was disallowed.
I await Dermot's verdict tomorrow but I think the correct decisions were got to in the end.
Post by: ajb95 on Sun 06 Mar 2022 21:14
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 18 Feb 2022 19:09
Post by: bmb on Sat 05 Feb 2022 01:37
https://www.espn.com/soccer/fifa-club-world-cup/story/4585586/robot-var-offside-disallows-first-goal-at-fifa-club-world-cup
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 04 Feb 2022 23:39
It is meant to give quicker decisions. It could be used in World Cup and seems aim is to start using it in Premier League from start of 2023/24.
Has anyone seen any games from Club World Cup or elsewhere using the system? Does the delayed flag process from assistants still work the same as information is given to VAR?
https://www.espn.co.uk/football/fifa-club-world-cup/story/4585586/robot-var-offside-disallows-first-goal-at-fifa-club-world-cup
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 28 Jan 2022 04:26
I always think the TV process is much better set up for the VAR. They have the chance to watch an incident multiple times from different angles at various speeds. They nearly always have/take more time than a referee will at the monitor. They are sat in the comfort of a studio with tech support. The referee, in contrast, is suddenly stood at a pitchside monitor, with players and coaches probably hassling them, and knowing there's a time pressure to get on with it.
As Ref Fan says, there must be some element of wondering if a FIFA referee can really be that wrong. I remember there was the last minute red card in West Ham V Fulham last season with Mike Dean refereeing which was overturned on appeal. Mike Dean didn't seem fully convinced at the monitor but i remember the Sky commentators saying that VAR Lee Mason was telling him that he could see a clenched fist had been used. I can't remember if this was an at all accurate description but you can perhaps understand why a referee would give the benefit of any doubt to a VAR who's spent the whole match watching TV replays and has had ample time to view the footage as they wish.
I think the clear and obvious dimension probably shifts when a referee is sent to the monitor - whereas initially it had to be clear and obvious the initial decision was wrong for VAR to intervene, I think at the monitor it probably has to be clear and obvious that the VAR is wrong for the referee not to go with them.
Post by: Ref Fan on Wed 26 Jan 2022 20:17
Why is it that when VAR recommends a on field review it is obvious that the referee will reverse his own decision why can they not think of it logically - a on field review should be with the mind set that VAR is showing the referee the evidence of what has happened the referee should then base his decision on that evidence if referees did it with that mindset I guarantee the ratio of VAR decisions would be more accurate
I do wonder what the mindset of referees is when VAR recommends an OFR. Just re-reading what Dermot Gallagher said in relation to the Jota penalty. Having stated it wasn't a penalty, the write up online of Dermot's comments finishes up with this: -
"In the eyes of the VAR, it was a clear and obvious error, so it's his prerogative to send him to the screen. "The referee then goes to the screen with a blank canvas and he decided to go with the VAR"
Is it really a 'blank canvas' when the referee has effectively been told he's made a clear and obvious error? If Friend had stuck with his initial decision (as he should have done), he's really telling an experienced FIFA referee in this instance 'you've looked at this 6 or 6 times from various angles and you're wrong. That's never a penalty.' So what advice/instructions has PGMOL given to referees on this?
Post by: dave26 on Wed 26 Jan 2022 18:47
Post by: rustyref on Tue 25 Jan 2022 14:31
Who've they got doing VAR? Boris?
Of course not, he's too busy partying ... 😂
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 25 Jan 2022 13:29
Who've they got doing VAR? Boris?
Post by: bmb on Mon 24 Jan 2022 16:52
Don't think it was Neil Swarbrick, apparently the person was not, nor had been a referee. There is something about it that doesn't ring true and I was just wondering if anyone could shed some light over whether such a role exists.
With our mobile units in Hungary we have a club official allocated who ensures the van is in the right place, all the right cables have been attached correctly, does the sound and video tests and relays any problems such as sound failure etc to the clubs and on field match officials. Could there be a similar role at Stockley Park or in the ground liaising with Stockley Park (without the physical cables needing to be attached and checked of course)?
I have done some digging as this intrigued me! It appears to be a term unique to the PL. There are 3 VAR match commanders who I believe are Adam Carter, Neil Swarbrick & Mike Mullarkey. Their role is to oversee the processes & ensure protocol is followed etc. They are allowed to be in and about at Stockley Park but not allowed to be involved in any decision making. Remember that incident when Neil Swarbrick & Stuart Attwell had words at one game a year or so ago? Can't remember the game off hand.
In Germany they use the term VAR project manager for what I think is the same role. Hellmut Krug was sacked in Germany in 2017 after an allegation he had interfered with 2 penalty decisions. He and the VAR team denied he had any influence but he was sacked anyway. https://www.dw.com/en/dfb-part-ways-with-var-project-manager-hellmut-krug/a-41261100
In terms of the responses I received from those in non UK refereeing:
IFAB - it is not a phrase they are familiar with.
UEFA - Neither UEFA nor FIFA have heard of this position but it could mean a VAR manager, which is a recognised role. Neither UEFA nor FIFA allow the VAR manager to be online with the VAR team or present in the VOR. They are not allowed to communicate with the VAR team at all unless there is a technical issue.
I also asked FIFA level refs from Hungary, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Slovakia & Russia - none have heard the term VAR match commander but all mentioned that there is a VAR manager present at Nyon, who ensures everything is working correctly and assists if there is a problem eg the comms going down but otherwise has no communication with the team during a match.
My conclusion is that the VAR match commander is just a fancy term for the VAR manager role. If they are however communicating with the VAR team during a match either by being online with the team or being in the VOR then they are breaching FIFA/UEFA guidelines and rules and should be removed immediately. They should also be sacked as was done in Germany even though it was not proven. It raises an integrity issue. Whether this occurs or not I do not know and I am not suggesting that it does.
Post by: ajb95 on Mon 24 Jan 2022 11:05
Post by: Ivanhoe on Mon 24 Jan 2022 10:54
Post by: bmb on Sun 23 Jan 2022 20:45
Don't think it was Neil Swarbrick, apparently the person was not, nor had been a referee. There is something about it that doesn't ring true and I was just wondering if anyone could shed some light over whether such a role exists.
With our mobile units in Hungary we have a club official allocated who ensures the van is in the right place, all the right cables have been attached correctly, does the sound and video tests and relays any problems such as sound failure etc to the clubs and on field match officials. Could there be a similar role at Stockley Park or in the ground liaising with Stockley Park (without the physical cables needing to be attached and checked of course)?
Post by: Microscopist on Sun 23 Jan 2022 19:47
Post by: bmb on Sun 23 Jan 2022 18:12
On occasion I have heard Mark Halsey refer to a "VAR Match Commander", he did so last year in the context of the non-referral of the non-penalty award when Alex McCrthy brought down Phil Foden. I'm not aware of this "VAR Match Commander" post and its role. Can anyone enlighten me?
Would that be the role of Neil Swarbrick? I believe he is always in and around Stockley Park when it's in use to ensure all is working smoothly in technical terms.
Post by: Microscopist on Sun 23 Jan 2022 17:20
Post by: Jake the Peg on Mon 23 Aug 2021 12:57
I've not seen but here is an article explaining what is and isn't handball (https://www.hungarianfootball.com/2021/07/07/law-12-handball-explained-in-detail/)
and an even better explanation from Kyros Vassaras! Although it is from Romanian TV he is speaking English.
https://youtu.be/JIfaMa3uBMo
If it fell into any he mentions as being a foul then VAR could intervene if they believe a penalty should have been awarded
Thanks very much for that which is very interesting. It's doesn't address the issue of "clear and obvious". How can something be clear and obvious if no one in the ground has seen it. To me this appears a much more nit picking use of VAR than we saw in the Euros.
Post by: Hadrian on Mon 23 Aug 2021 09:28
Hypothetical but may not have ended up that way. Leeds v Everton, Leeds shout for a penalty for a 'foul' on Bamford in the last move of the game. Darren England waves it away (correctly imo) and immediately blows for time. VAR look at the incident and agree with Darren. But what if VAR hadn't agreed with him? Presumably, although the game had ended, Darren would have needed to restart it to allow the penalty to be taken. Is that correct? Ty!
Yes indeed. See Brighton v Man Utd last season as an example, where Chris Kavanagh awarded a penalty to Man Utd after the final whistle for a handball just before it, after receiving VAR advice.
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Mon 23 Aug 2021 08:36
Post by: bmb on Sun 22 Aug 2021 21:03
and an even better explanation from Kyros Vassaras! Although it is from Romanian TV he is speaking English.
https://youtu.be/JIfaMa3uBMo
If it fell into any he mentions as being a foul then VAR could intervene if they believe a penalty should have been awarded
Post by: Jake the Peg on Sun 22 Aug 2021 16:28
What I want to know is how referees and VAR officials interpret "clear and obvious". There was an incident in the Villa v Newcastle match yesterday where Villa were awarded a penalty for handball. The incident was not seen by the referee or either of his assistants. It was not seen by any of the Villa players, none of whom appealed and all of whom simply carried on playing. David Coote was then informed by Jarred Gillett that he should look at the monitor on the side of the pitch. He decided that the defender (Lascelles) had his arm in an unnatural position when the ball hit it from about 4 feet away. Lascelles had actually put his foot up to stop the header. I have tried this morning to kick my foot to shoulder height whilst keeping my arms by my side and it is actually impossible!!
So can someone who is a referee explain to me why Gillett got involved when there was nothing clear and obvious about the incident and no one on the pitch thought there was anything wrong with what Lascelles had done - including Mings who headed the ball against his arm.
Post by: DublinRef on Fri 13 Aug 2021 11:43
While we might not agree with everything they do, the stronger management style of the likes of Rosetti and Collina is surely more desirable. If I was Mike Riley I would try and copy what happened at the EURO as closely as possible. To be fair, that is probably easier when you are dealing with the likes of Cakir rather than Jon Moss.
Post by: greeny on Thu 12 Aug 2021 15:23
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKrt9DJyCyI
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 12 Aug 2021 12:56
Some more clips on the new VAR rules for this season.
This was by Jamie Carragher with Mike Riley, Michael Oliver and Anthony Taylor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdmZ7L0T8aE
The following links contain videos by Riley and Chris Kavanagh explaining the new rules:
https://www.premierleague.com/news/2204759
https://www.premierleague.com/news/2204756
Thanks very much for posting Greeny. I especially enjoyed the one with Carragher. I wonder if there will be a longer version shown on Sky at some point?
It is good to see a bigger media profile but the sad thing is there will probably be complete silence as soon as the season starts. Ideally they would do something like the weekly Video Review in MLS or at least a few things like the above at various points in the season. It seems they've moved to try and improve some big issues with VAR but I think lack of communication and clarification has been a major problem.
Post by: greeny on Wed 11 Aug 2021 17:43
This was by Jamie Carragher with Mike Riley, Michael Oliver and Anthony Taylor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdmZ7L0T8aE
The following links contain videos by Riley and Chris Kavanagh explaining the new rules:
https://www.premierleague.com/news/2204759
https://www.premierleague.com/news/2204756
Post by: greeny on Mon 09 Aug 2021 16:02
https://www.premierleague.com/video/single/2203778
Post by: bmb on Sun 08 Aug 2021 14:07
On another note, UEFA have announced that VAR will be used in World Cup qualifiers from September, despite first three rounds being played without VAR in March. This seems a bit more debatable to me than it being used in some FA Cup games but not others as the games already played have a direct impact on the rest of the competition but the perception seems to be UEFA can do no wrong with VAR and everything about it is terrible in England so I doubt there will be many complaints.
I don't agree with VAR being introduced mid competition, whether that is a UEFA/FIFA competition or a domestic one. It removes the level playing field.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 08 Aug 2021 01:47
So 20 goals that were correctly disallowed for offside last season would be allowed this season even though there has been no Law change. That doesn't seem right to me.
I guess it depends what you mean by 'correctly'. The officials work to a particular process with the technology so the decisions will be 'correct' based on that. This seems to be allowing for fact technology is not 100% accurate and is in line with what has been allowed in other countries/competitions. I think the point where the arm is measured from for attacking offside has also become more generous to attackers.
On another note, UEFA have announced that VAR will be used in World Cup qualifiers from September, despite first three rounds being played without VAR in March. This seems a bit more debatable to me than it being used in some FA Cup games but not others as the games already played have a direct impact on the rest of the competition but the perception seems to be UEFA can do no wrong with VAR and everything about it is terrible in England so I doubt there will be many complaints.
edited to fix quote thingamajigga, bmb
Post by: ajb95 on Fri 06 Aug 2021 09:32
Post by: Ref Watcher on Fri 06 Aug 2021 09:25
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 05 Aug 2021 19:25
Post by: doowe on Thu 17 Jun 2021 09:22
What about only the part off the body you actually score with has to be i.e. score with a header your head must have been onside
It might not be the ‘scorer’ who is offside
Post by: TillysDad on Wed 16 Jun 2021 20:32
Post by: justalino on Fri 11 Jun 2021 14:37
However its done, Offside is still a binary thing - it is either offside or not offside and someone will still be called offside by "a toenail".
So the moaning will not cease - unless, football introduces the equivalent of "umpire's call". But for that, the ARs will have to make the "call" (as opposed to today's "wait and see" protocols" and - as long as it is within an agreed tolerance level- what they say goes. It does mean that you could have two identical scenarios with one called offside and the other not, but that is what happens in cricket and they sort of accept that. Might be a bit of a stretch for football though?
Agree totally. This will change nothing. Even if you say a player has to be two yards offside to be penalised, the 'pundits' will then start kicking off about the ones that are two yards and half an inch. It matters precious little where you draw the line, it's the perception of it that needs to change. The sooner everyone just accepts that some marginal calls will go for you and some against then these pointless conversations will stop.
Personally, I've always thought a far easier way of judging offside (and selling the decisions to the masses) would be just to use position of the feet.
Post by: ajb95 on Fri 11 Jun 2021 13:20
Post by: Ref Watcher on Fri 11 Jun 2021 09:19
"Premier League will use thicker lines to call marginal offside decisions with VAR next season, with the aim to give the attacker the benefit of the doubt"Allowing different competitions to decide the thickness of the lines sounds minor but it's actually allowing different margins of error. Offside in one competition won't be offside in another. I can't see IFAB standing quietly on the sidelines without issuing a standard for long.
Via SKY
Opinions?
Post by: Leggy on Fri 11 Jun 2021 06:56
So the moaning will not cease - unless, football introduces the equivalent of "umpire's call". But for that, the ARs will have to make the "call" (as opposed to today's "wait and see" protocols" and - as long as it is within an agreed tolerance level- what they say goes. It does mean that you could have two identical scenarios with one called offside and the other not, but that is what happens in cricket and they sort of accept that. Might be a bit of a stretch for football though?
Post by: GameDay2021 on Thu 10 Jun 2021 20:28
Via SKY
Opinions?
Post by: bmb on Thu 03 Jun 2021 13:30
https://sites.marjon.ac.uk/doughnut/2021/04/12/var-what-effect-has-var-video-assistant-referee-had-on-the-game-since-its-introduction-to-the-premier-league-in-the-2019-20-season/
Confirmation he is happy for the link to be shared
https://twitter.com/LewisRBlackmore/status/1399680378668040194
Post by: bmb on Sun 23 May 2021 15:08
As reported by nso.hu, at the annual general meeting of the MLSZ on May 14 (online in view of the epidemic), President Sándor Csányi spoke about the fact that many of those who have a role in the introduction of VAR have fallen ill, which may delay the introduction of the for the start of the next league season (the system has already been tested in the top league matches anyway). In his interview with our paper after the general meeting, the president of the MLSZ also said that despite the many unforeseen obstacles, there is at least an eighty percent chance that the VAR will be implemented according to the planned schedule, as it has the necessary professional background and is currently education is also taking place. To the previous interest of our paper, the following answer was received from the communication department of the Hungarian Football Association: “Implementing VAR is a complex task involving many experts. The effects of the epidemic severely hampered processes. In all cases, the association has found reassuring solutions to the problems that have arisen, so that preparations for the introduction of VAR are well under way. ”
Post by: ARF on Sun 18 Apr 2021 10:00
Not sure how Kavanagh as var in wolves v sheff utd didnt ask Jones to visit the screen in the first half.Just seen it on MotD - completely agree that IMO it's a red card for the Wolves player.
Brewster booked for a foul on Ait Nouri who had gone over the ball and connected with Brewster just above the ankle.
To me watching live it was a red card for Ait Nouri.
I can ustand Jones not seeing it as his line of vision was probably restricted by both players bodies, but was quite close to the touchline at the dugout side in wolves defending half. Not sure from the pics if Cann has a good view either.
Hope kavanagh has a better semi final tomorrow, especially if he doesnt see that challenge as a red card offence.
Post by: ajb95 on Sun 18 Apr 2021 09:48
Not sure how Kavanagh as var in wolves v sheff utd didnt ask Jones to visit the screen in the first half.
Brewster booked for a foul on Ait Nouri who had gone over the ball and connected with Brewster just above the ankle.
To me watching live it was a red card for Ait Nouri.
I can ustand Jones not seeing it as his line of vision was probably restricted by both players bodies, but was quite close to the touchline at the dugout side in wolves defending half. Not sure from the pics if Cann has a good view either.
Hope kavanagh has a better semi final tomorrow, especially if he doesnt see that challenge as a red card offence.
Agreed can’t believe Brewster was cautioned.
It’s no wonder players are frustrated when injustices like that go unpunished
Post by: Claretman on Sat 17 Apr 2021 22:31
Brewster booked for a foul on Ait Nouri who had gone over the ball and connected with Brewster just above the ankle.
To me watching live it was a red card for Ait Nouri.
I can ustand Jones not seeing it as his line of vision was probably restricted by both players bodies, but was quite close to the touchline at the dugout side in wolves defending half. Not sure from the pics if Cann has a good view either.
Hope kavanagh has a better semi final tomorrow, especially if he doesnt see that challenge as a red card offence.
Post by: carrowman on Sat 17 Apr 2021 21:46
Yes, we are back, hopefully in the year we have been away the major teething problems have been sorted and all is good with VAR :)
carrowman-- you obviously have a good sense of humour -----you will certainly need it!
Perhaps after Neil Davies ? ( don't think its Ed Smart ) performance tonight I might actually want VAR. Third goal offside, he was probably thinking VAR would save him.
Bournemouth's 1st Goal incorrectly flagged as well, correctly overruled by ref.
Post by: Ashington46 on Sat 17 Apr 2021 15:34
Yes, we are back, hopefully in the year we have been away the major teething problems have been sorted and all is good with VAR :)
carrowman-- you obviously have a good sense of humour -----you will certainly need it!
Post by: carrowman on Sat 17 Apr 2021 15:25
Post by: ajb95 on Sun 11 Apr 2021 17:54
Post by: guest42 on Sun 11 Apr 2021 17:10
Post by: Ref Fan on Sun 11 Apr 2021 14:05
Post by: dave26 on Sun 11 Apr 2021 12:46
Post by: Ref Fan on Sun 11 Apr 2021 12:20
As regards Fernandinho, it must be the 4th successive City game I've watched when he's been in the team and when he's got a YC. But it was only his 5th this season apparently so I assume he was missing for much of the early part of the season. Mischievously, I was only sorry when he duly received his YC yesterday that the other City defender was fairly close alongside Fernandinho. If he'd been a few yards behind, Andre could have sent him off for DOGSO.
"Very cynical" as the pundit politely put it!
Post by: Hendo on Sat 10 Apr 2021 22:03
I haven't seen this particular incident but I do have some sympathy where the contact with ball or the ground causes the foot to rise and catch the opponent higher up. The question for VAR though is "was it a clear and obvious error" not necessarily "would I have given a RC"? That said, Marriner, who on a previous occasion has stuck with his original (non-penalty) decision was obviously persuaded in this case.
Having watched the 2nd half and seen the incident only once, is it generally agreed that Fernandinho's what we might politely called a challenge only warranted a YC. I'm tempted to use Hendo's conjecture used in his many swipes at the alleged controversial decisions that United get, "I wonder what the decision would be had that foul been by a Leeds player". But as I say, maybe the YC was perfectly correct.
Definite red for Cooper, definite yellow for Fernandinho. Unbiased view. 😛
Post by: Ashington46 on Sat 10 Apr 2021 20:05
I think that Cooper was unfortunate today, however, that is the way in which the modern game at the top level has digressed into something which only bears a passing resemblance to the game which I used to love.
Post by: Ref Fan on Sat 10 Apr 2021 17:17
Having watched the 2nd half and seen the incident only once, is it generally agreed that Fernandinho's what we might politely called a challenge only warranted a YC. I'm tempted to use Hendo's conjecture used in his many swipes at the alleged controversial decisions that United get, "I wonder what the decision would be had that foul been by a Leeds player". But as I say, maybe the YC was perfectly correct.
Post by: DublinRef on Sat 10 Apr 2021 16:53
I would be interested to hear why ajb95 and dave26 think the tackle didn't warrant a red card, do you think it was a foul at all or just play on?
For me personally it is a nailed on red, yes he wins the ball but he lunges with both feet off the ground, at speed and makes contact with his studs into his opponents knee. I can't see how that doesn't endanger the safety of his opponent, but would be interested to hear others interpretations.
For me he doesn’t lunge in or have both feet off the ground. Players are allowed to slide in to tackle. He plays the ball and then there is contact which is inevitable given his foot is off the ground.
Every time a player goes in for a tackle there is going to be some kind of danger but that’s the risk of association football but no one is saying ban tackling (at the moment!)
Everything looks worse in slow motion..
Looking at it again you are correct that at the point of contact his trailing foot is still on the ground however it comes off the ground a moment later as he follows through.
I take you point about inevitable risk, however in my opinion, by tackling in this way you greatly increase that risk factor and that's where he has to take responsibility. I totally agree that the contact is inevitable but I just don't think he can come into the tackle and play the ball in that way without causing a significant risk to his opponent.
I have the feeling we will have to agree to disagree with this one but thank you for responding to me!
Post by: ajb95 on Sat 10 Apr 2021 16:40
I would be interested to hear why ajb95 and dave26 think the tackle didn't warrant a red card, do you think it was a foul at all or just play on?
For me personally it is a nailed on red, yes he wins the ball but he lunges with both feet off the ground, at speed and makes contact with his studs into his opponents knee. I can't see how that doesn't endanger the safety of his opponent, but would be interested to hear others interpretations.
For me he doesn’t lunge in or have both feet off the ground. Players are allowed to slide in to tackle. He plays the ball and then there is contact which is inevitable given his foot is off the ground.
Every time a player goes in for a tackle there is going to be some kind of danger but that’s the risk of association football but no one is saying ban tackling (at the moment!)
Everything looks worse in slow motion..
Post by: DublinRef on Sat 10 Apr 2021 16:14
For me personally it is a nailed on red, yes he wins the ball but he lunges with both feet off the ground, at speed and makes contact with his studs into his opponents knee. I can't see how that doesn't endanger the safety of his opponent, but would be interested to hear others interpretations.
Post by: ajb95 on Sat 10 Apr 2021 16:02
Post by: LateTackle on Sat 10 Apr 2021 14:08
Post by: ajb95 on Sat 10 Apr 2021 13:53
I agree ajb95 , I do wonder if the official on VAR looks at the incident from different and angles and speed take everything into account and ask themselves if they were refereeing that match would they overrule the referee and in this incident i bet it’s a no , I feel like based on this , the VAR views the angle that makes it look worse than it is and sends the referee to the monitor I am surprised that a referee of Marriners experience came to a RC conclusion
Agreed Dave. How Coote saw that as a red but didn’t see Pickford’s tackle on van Dijk
Post by: dave26 on Sat 10 Apr 2021 13:29
Post by: rustyref on Sat 10 Apr 2021 13:26
Post by: magpie1892 on Sat 10 Apr 2021 13:25
Peter Walton been on the sauce i think, BT need to grt rid of him as he is a bit out of touch with current laws
Post by: ajb95 on Sat 10 Apr 2021 13:20
Never a red card for Leeds in a million years. Cooper plays the ball and there is an inevitable contact with the follow through.
Terrible decision from VAR!
Post by: bmb on Sat 03 Apr 2021 19:27
:'(
Post by: ajb95 on Wed 31 Mar 2021 20:47
My beautiful NBI ruined from next season...
VAR almost certain from next season: http://www.csakfoci.hu/magyar-foci/nb-i/nb-i-szinte-biztos-hogy-a-kovetkezo-idenytol-mar-lesz-var-itt-az-mlsz-reakcioja
Basic translation:
As is well known, the plans of the Hungarian Football Association at the beginning of last year were that there could have been a video referee in NB I matches this season, but delays were caused by the pandemic.
csakfoci.hu asked the MLSZ - we know that currently training is taking place in the background of referees for the VAR system and have also started the technical preparation, in the cutting-edge stadiums.
THEREFORE, TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, VAR IS LIKELY TO BE APPLIED FROM THE NEXT CALL FOR NB I.
The Hungarian Football Association gave the following answer in connection with the topic :
The use of the video refereeing system is required by a rigorous and continuously monitored international training protocol consisting of nine overlapping steps. According to the scenario rewritten several times due to the epidemic situation, the first four levels of this were realised in Hungary by April. Meanwhile, a survey of the facilities involved has taken place, and the stadiums are ready to receive VAR cars to ensure the operation of the system.
"The coronavirus epidemic causes unprecedented difficulties in all areas of life, so it also significantly affects the scenario of home VAR training ," Attila Hanacsek , vice-chairman of the refereeing committee of the Hungarian Football Association, told csakfoci.hu. - Our selected referees practiced the correct application of the VAR protocol for 11 days in the roles of “video referee” (VAR) and “video referee assistant” (AVAR) under conditions similar to the live situation. We also provide the operators of the camera images and technical equipment used by VAR: our referees are gaining more and more expertise in this area as well.
Despite the difficulties, MLSZ will continue to train its specialists in the coming days, and it is planned that the video judging system will be operational in the 2021-2022 season of the OTP Bank League.
Good luck Hungary 👍
Post by: bmb on Wed 31 Mar 2021 20:32
VAR almost certain from next season: http://www.csakfoci.hu/magyar-foci/nb-i/nb-i-szinte-biztos-hogy-a-kovetkezo-idenytol-mar-lesz-var-itt-az-mlsz-reakcioja
Basic translation:
As is well known, the plans of the Hungarian Football Association at the beginning of last year were that there could have been a video referee in NB I matches this season, but delays were caused by the pandemic.
csakfoci.hu asked the MLSZ - we know that currently training is taking place in the background of referees for the VAR system and have also started the technical preparation, in the cutting-edge stadiums.
THEREFORE, TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, VAR IS LIKELY TO BE APPLIED FROM THE NEXT CALL FOR NB I.
The Hungarian Football Association gave the following answer in connection with the topic :
The use of the video refereeing system is required by a rigorous and continuously monitored international training protocol consisting of nine overlapping steps. According to the scenario rewritten several times due to the epidemic situation, the first four levels of this were realised in Hungary by April. Meanwhile, a survey of the facilities involved has taken place, and the stadiums are ready to receive VAR cars to ensure the operation of the system.
"The coronavirus epidemic causes unprecedented difficulties in all areas of life, so it also significantly affects the scenario of home VAR training ," Attila Hanacsek , vice-chairman of the refereeing committee of the Hungarian Football Association, told csakfoci.hu. - Our selected referees practiced the correct application of the VAR protocol for 11 days in the roles of “video referee” (VAR) and “video referee assistant” (AVAR) under conditions similar to the live situation. We also provide the operators of the camera images and technical equipment used by VAR: our referees are gaining more and more expertise in this area as well.
Despite the difficulties, MLSZ will continue to train its specialists in the coming days, and it is planned that the video judging system will be operational in the 2021-2022 season of the OTP Bank League.
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 15 Mar 2021 22:24
So it finally happens.
A bad injury occurs to a player because the offside flag has to be delayed.
To a team that have already suffered a terrible injury already this season.
I'm not convinced it would have made any difference considering how quickly it happened.
I've never really brought the argument about some injuries being 'avoidable' in this situation. If the assistant doesn't give offside but the replay shows the striker actually was off, is that considered avoidable? What if the assistant gives offside but the replay shows the striker was actually on?
Post by: Ivanhoe on Mon 15 Mar 2021 21:54
A bad injury occurs to a player because the offside flag has to be delayed.
To a team that have already suffered a terrible injury already this season.
Post by: Hendo on Sun 14 Mar 2021 13:58
Palace v WBA, Simon Hooper fails to spot a WBA handball in their penalty area. VAR Mike Dean asks him to review on the monitor. Simon Hooper then gives Palace a penalty. VAR at its best and for what it's intended in my view.
Man City v Southampton. Moss fails to spot a blatant foul, Andy Madley in the VAR room fails to spot it either. VAR at its worst and failing to do what it was intended for
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Sun 14 Mar 2021 13:25
Post by: ajb95 on Fri 12 Mar 2021 13:36
Post by: Microscopist on Fri 12 Mar 2021 12:54
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/manchester-united-city-var-news-20075050
Here are my suggestions:
First and foremost separate VAR from PGMOL and have specifically trained officials in the VAR room. Recently retired referees / assistant referees would be good candidates' particularly those who have had to retire through injury. I would also engage a small number of ex-players - not star names but straightforward professionals, specifically to advise on simulation.
Then:-
There are three problems with the Laws of the Game which are highlighted by VAR and which Elleray and his IFAB crew are too out of touch to correct:
Handball;
Offside;
Foul vs Simulation.
VAR officials, trying to stay within the current laws should consider for each of these the following aspects.
Handball - does the contact between hand/arm and ball give an advantage to the player, if not play on, if so - is it avoidable or not. If there is an advantage (eg preventing a goal or promising move or creating an opportunity or goal) and is considered unavoidable then award free kick / penalty but no card. If is considered avoidable then free kick / penalty plus yellow or red card depending on the nature of the advantage.
Current criteria for what constitutes hand/arm and what constitutes avoidable.
Offside - be aware of the error of measurement (preferably agree a figure for the average error of measurement) If the errors of measurement for the last defender overlap pass the decision back to the on-field officials - with the monitor if need be. If there is no overlap then rule either offside or not.
Foul vs simulation - consider carefully whether the reaction of the "fouled" player is proportional to the nature of the contact - if not then deny the foul, also consider carefully how the contact comes about does the "fouled" player contribute to initiating the contact (for example if a defender and attacker are both running together does the "fouled" player (say) either slow down without unreasonably or cross into the path of the opponent in order to promote contact?). If the "fouled" player contributes unreasonably to create the contact then rule out the foul.
Over to the rest of you!
Post by: Ref Watcher on Tue 09 Mar 2021 10:39
Another example from Australia of officials being mic'd up for VAR deciison - https://twitter.com/ALeague/status/1367051288253370371?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1367051288253370371%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fsport%2Ffootball%2Farticle-9320953%2FAustralias-League-mics-officials-let-fans-know-EXACTLY-calls-made.htmlAccording to today's Daily Telergraph, "Live audio of pitchside monitor reviews is being strongly considered by lawmakers after the Football Association expressed an appetite to demystify the video assistant referee's decision-making process."
I wonder when we'll get such transparency in Premier League?
Mark Bullingham (FA Chief Executive) is quoted as saying, "Anything which adds value to the fan, and demystifies any part of the decision-making by referees, has got to be something that we'd consider. We then need to look at counter arguments that might exist from any referees."
I would have thought that hearing this audio over the pictures, rather than the opinions of pundits who constantly tell us that they don't understand the Laws, could only be beneficial to be referees and the game. The pundits can always chip in with their uninformed opinions afterwards.
Post by: rustyref on Mon 08 Mar 2021 17:15
Another example from Australia of officials being mic'd up for VAR deciison - https://twitter.com/ALeague/status/1367051288253370371?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1367051288253370371%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fsport%2Ffootball%2Farticle-9320953%2FAustralias-League-mics-officials-let-fans-know-EXACTLY-calls-made.html
I wonder when we'll get such transparency in Premier League?
According to the comments that wasn't broadcast live though, rather they release the audio a few days later.
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 08 Mar 2021 13:05
I wonder when we'll get such transparency in Premier League?
Post by: Microscopist on Wed 24 Feb 2021 13:44
The Man United full backs get away with foul throws quite frequently and only very occasionally are they penalised. (Mind you, United are usually so poor with throw-ins, they might as well let the opposition take them in the first place!) It's unfortunate in this case it led to a goal...and you could pretty much substitute City for United in that post
Post by: Ref Fan on Tue 23 Feb 2021 10:21
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 23 Feb 2021 10:18
Post by: Ashington46 on Tue 23 Feb 2021 10:08
I was catching up on MOTD2 last night. Leicester's 2nd goal v Villa resulted from the worst foul throw you could ever imagine seeing, it was like a 5-year old trying to take a throw in. It was obviously missed (or ignored) by Oliver and the AR, although not by the AV bench by the sound of it, and the MOTD pundits suggested that VAR could not intervene because it involved a 'restart in play'. Is this correct? Surely it is more important that a goal results from legitimate actions which clearly in this case it did not.
Not sure about the intervention of VAR in this case, however, there are so many foul throws being ignored every game, I thought that it was another law which Mister Elleray et al had changed.
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Tue 23 Feb 2021 09:06
Post by: DublinRef on Sun 14 Feb 2021 15:08
So we are now giving handball against players from 2 yards away?? Poor from Scott to give it but why is Atkinson not intervening.
Sorry Scott has been poor this season and should be demoted at the end of the season
Under the current interpretation I think it is definitely a penalty once the arm is away from the body I feel those type of handballs will always be given now.
I do agree though that Scott has been one of the poorer performing referees this season. Over the last few years I actually thought he had been refereeing relatively well and I thought he deserved more games. This season though he seems to be operating at a lower standard and given his age can't have too long left in the top flight. I hate saying this about any referee but I feel the SG would be stronger if the likes of Gillet was promoted to replace him.
Post by: ajb95 on Sun 14 Feb 2021 14:51
Sorry Scott has been poor this season and should be demoted at the end of the season
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 12 Feb 2021 17:22
Post by: Ref Watcher on Thu 11 Feb 2021 15:13
Bristol City go out of FA Cup on a VAR decision which wouldn’t have been given if they were at home ( where the technology couldn’t be used ).Or, to put it another way: "Bristol City go out of the FA Cup due to a correct decision by the match officials. Had they been playing at home the team which should have won might not have done because of a refereeing error." I can't see that that is a bad thing personally.
Post by: guest42 on Thu 11 Feb 2021 11:56
Doesn't get away from the fact that one competition is being played out using two sets of rules
Post by: jad on Fri 22 Jan 2021 15:36
Where will it strike next?
Post by: Ashington46 on Mon 21 Dec 2020 14:51
Whisper it quietly but I think it's been quite a good few weeks for VAR in PL comparatively. Penalties given to Wolves against Liverpool and Chelsea correctly overturned, red cards correctly shown for SFP to Sheffield United and West Brom players this weekend, and penalty given to Leicester for Aurier's crazy challenge.
Still mistakes and things to improve of course but it definitely feels more settled than a year ago.
Depends if you think they were red cards or not...
I think they quite clearly were - do you not?
The one that really deserved a red card didn't even warrant a second glance from the referee because the VAR operator, who had earlier deemed a challenge dangerous for whatever contrived reason and brought it to the attention of the referee, must have thought that a challenge that hit the opponent halfway up his shin was not dangerous. It's a strange game that they play these days.
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 21 Dec 2020 13:36
Whisper it quietly but I think it's been quite a good few weeks for VAR in PL comparatively. Penalties given to Wolves against Liverpool and Chelsea correctly overturned, red cards correctly shown for SFP to Sheffield United and West Brom players this weekend, and penalty given to Leicester for Aurier's crazy challenge.
Still mistakes and things to improve of course but it definitely feels more settled than a year ago.
Depends if you think they were red cards or not...
I think they quite clearly were - do you not?
Post by: ajb95 on Mon 21 Dec 2020 13:08
Whisper it quietly but I think it's been quite a good few weeks for VAR in PL comparatively. Penalties given to Wolves against Liverpool and Chelsea correctly overturned, red cards correctly shown for SFP to Sheffield United and West Brom players this weekend, and penalty given to Leicester for Aurier's crazy challenge.
Still mistakes and things to improve of course but it definitely feels more settled than a year ago.
Depends if you think they were red cards or not...
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 21 Dec 2020 12:38
Still mistakes and things to improve of course but it definitely feels more settled than a year ago.
Post by: REDSTRIPE on Mon 07 Dec 2020 21:48
Yes I saw this incident on tv...............beyond belief......But who told him to give the free kick? If you have missed it completely start with an attacking drop ball.
I think it is a perfect one for the video panel as I am sure as soon as Geoff saw it after he knew a red had been missed.
(But not his fault, obviously, as he has Championship game next Wednesday)
Obviously not his fault, as not only does he get a Championship game, he gets the top championship game 1st v 3rd, and he gets Norwich for the 3rd time this season already, only last having them 2 weeks ago!
Post by: carrowman on Mon 07 Dec 2020 18:46
But who told him to give the free kick? If you have missed it completely start with an attacking drop ball.
I think it is a perfect one for the video panel as I am sure as soon as Geoff saw it after he knew a red had been missed.
(But not his fault, obviously, as he has Championship game next Wednesday)
Obviously not his fault, as not only does he get a Championship game, he gets the top championship game 1st v 3rd, and he gets Norwich for the 3rd time this season already, only last having them 2 weeks ago!
Post by: RCG on Mon 07 Dec 2020 17:21
I think it is a perfect one for the video panel as I am sure as soon as Geoff saw it after he knew a red had been missed.
(But not his fault, obviously, as he has Championship game next Wednesday)
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Mon 07 Dec 2020 16:28
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Mon 07 Dec 2020 09:19
Headlines on the back pages of this morning's Times, "Elleray: VAR is here to stay, global refereeing chief says technology works-but it may take a decade to perfect the system - ditching VAR would cause uproar - game is fairer and cleaner now - English game must learn to apply it better - the handball given against Ward (Crystal Palace v Everton in September) was a classic example of referees applying the laws too rigidly."
I agree with the Ward view (but then I would). Over to you!
I'm probably going to be shot down in flames as a Palace supporter, but I believe the decision by Paul Tierney to take back the yellow card to WBA's Pereira and issue a red card for planting a foot in the midriff of Palace's Van Aanholt was a perfect example of VAR helping to make the game 'fairer and cleaner'. Similarly the decision by Craig Pawson to overturn his decision to award Wolves a penalty when Coady went to ground and award Liverpool a free kick instead was a good example of VAR working, as was Tierney's decision to wave away penalty appeals from WBA when one of their players went to ground looking for a penalty. Three examples of VAR working properly for the good of the game. Possibly not relevant to VAR but I thought Sheffield United's Lowe was extremely lucky to stay on the pitch after committing a second yellow card offence v Leicester. OK the first yellow card was soft and Attwell perhaps dug himself into a hole issuing the card for that offence so early in the game, but the 2nd offence was nailed-on yellow and Attwell was wrong to allow Lowe to stay on the pitch. Fortunately Lowe's manager saw sense and replaced him at half time.
Post by: Ashington46 on Sun 06 Dec 2020 14:40
I accept that this has now become the norm in games when VAR is used, however, in three recent games I have seen play go on for quite some time before the move breaks down and the offside flag is raised. My question is, do the officials then play the added time from whrn the flagf should have gone up to when the offside was actually given, I suggest that this is not the case and this can amount to a few minutes in some games.
Post by: Ashington46 on Fri 04 Dec 2020 12:22
Headlines on the back pages of this morning's Times, "Elleray: VAR is here to stay, global refereeing chief says technology works-but it may take a decade to perfect the system - ditching VAR would cause uproar - game is fairer and cleaner now - English game must learn to apply it better - the handball given against Ward (Crystal Palace v Everton in September) was a classic example of referees applying the laws too rigidly."So is Mr Elleray going to us poor sods in the middle a list of laws that we don't have to apply rigidly?
I agree with the Ward view (but then I would). Over to you!
I really do sympathise with all you people who are still doing their bit to officiate this ever-changing game which is losing its appeal the more the powers that be mess around with it. Keep up the good work folks!
Post by: Ref Watcher on Fri 04 Dec 2020 11:31
Headlines on the back pages of this morning's Times, "Elleray: VAR is here to stay, global refereeing chief says technology works-but it may take a decade to perfect the system - ditching VAR would cause uproar - game is fairer and cleaner now - English game must learn to apply it better - the handball given against Ward (Crystal Palace v Everton in September) was a classic example of referees applying the laws too rigidly."So is Mr Elleray going to give us poor sods in the middle a list of laws that we don't have to apply rigidly?
I agree with the Ward view (but then I would). Over to you!
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Fri 04 Dec 2020 08:56
I agree with the Ward view (but then I would). Over to you!
Post by: Ref Fan on Tue 01 Dec 2020 15:14
Post by: Ref Watcher on Tue 01 Dec 2020 15:04
A smile goes a long way. If a manager approaches me on the pitch in a reasonable manner and asks if he can talk to me about..... I will often say that if he can do it without waving his arms about and with a smile on his face he is very welcome. Otherwise we will do it inside.Will Klopp receive a similar sanction as Bilic for approaching and querying the officials on the pitch at the end?
NO
Why not? Is it because he smiles whilst he is doing it?
Post by: TVOS on Mon 30 Nov 2020 19:53
I thought this forum was for discussing refereeing rather than for airing club bias. Liverpool have had eight decisions against them through VAR this season, no other club has more than four. Liverpool have also lost one of their key players for the season and VAR failed to identify the violent conduct that caused the injury.Liverpool for one on the wrong end of VAR decisions today - all I hasten to add correct ones too.
A spiked interview by Klopp complaint about various things afterwards and Jordan Henderson saying he would scrap VAR. How the leopard has changed its spots all of a sudden!
What goes round come round
You can guarantee because it is the media darlings who are now complaining, that this will gain some traction.
My question was how could the Brighton defender contort himself so that no part of his body was beyond the line?
The Salah offside looks the 'correct' decision to me.
I think most of the VAR decisions that have gone against Liverpool have been correct. Pickford should certainly have been sent off though.
You haven't answered that reasonable question about contortion. Try it yourself, but make sure there's someone around to help you up.
The defender's right foot looks to be furthest body part near the goal? - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/En8qYrqWMAABGnQ?format=jpg&name=large
I think I saw that defender on a TV show once, trying to escape from a box while tied up in chains!
Post by: TVOS on Mon 30 Nov 2020 19:50
I thought this forum was for discussing refereeing rather than for airing club bias. Liverpool have had eight decisions against them through VAR this season, no other club has more than four. Liverpool have also lost one of their key players for the season and VAR failed to identify the violent conduct that caused the injury.Liverpool for one on the wrong end of VAR decisions today - all I hasten to add correct ones too.
A spiked interview by Klopp complaint about various things afterwards and Jordan Henderson saying he would scrap VAR. How the leopard has changed its spots all of a sudden!
What goes round come round
You can guarantee because it is the media darlings who are now complaining, that this will gain some traction.
My question was how could the Brighton defender contort himself so that no part of his body was beyond the line?
I'd need to see some stats on this, but I would imagine a team like Liverpool get themselves into more attacking positions than the likes of Burnley, so the law of averages suggests there are more decisions at that end of the field that will go to VAR when they're involved.
I know VAR also includes defensive situations, but like I said, your figure of eight needs some context.
Post by: ajb95 on Mon 30 Nov 2020 13:54
Sarcastically applauding match officials is cheap, disrespectful and frankly pathetically puerile. I had thought better of Klopp ( if indeed he was applauding sarcastically which it certainly looked as if he was ) although I have never quite been as taken-in as some by the 'goody two-shoes' demeanour which he portrays. I hope on reflection he repents of his action. A disagreement expressed forthrightly is often far better than sarcastic applause in my book.
I could list a handful of other notable incidents where Klopp should have been punished but wasn’t, considering some other PL managers were then punished for similar but less offences.
The big one being when he ran on the pitch after Origi’s late goal against Everton.
Seems to be double standards for him!
Post by: Whistleblower on Mon 30 Nov 2020 13:41
Post by: Ashington46 on Mon 30 Nov 2020 11:02
VAR are turning these tight offside situations into a farce and I suggest bringing the game into disrepute. This is what I think needs to happen and happen fast.
It is stated unequivocally that level is ONSIDE. I would issue guidance which employs a generous definition of level and which states that being level is defined as any part of the torsos overlapping. Personally I always thought the "daylight" convention was a perfectly sensible one.
Let us go back to first principles as to why there is an offside rule in the first place. Surely it was there so ensure that the match moved up and down the pitch without attackers parking themselves in the opponents half in an opportunistic way. It was not designed to rule out an attacker's toe being marginally further to the goal than a defender's because the principle is still adhered to. Extremely tight offside calls ( even with the use of technology which is, of course, not fool proof ) should favour the attacker.
I agree with you about the principle of why the offside law was introduced, but I guess the challenge is how you effectively incorporate that into a more precise form of measurement that is now used.
Tight offsides with VAR are nothing new. I remember Juan Mata having a goal disallowed for Man Utd at Huddersfield in February 2018, nearly three years ago. I've consistently said that I won't criticise an individual VAR for an offside offside decision or complain about a particular one that is made (unless it's shown to be 100% wrong, like if they missed a defender further back etc.) - we've basically had the example of what might happen and it then just becomes a matter of time before a similar case inevitably repeats itself. I'm sure it will happen many more times before the end of the season and the same cycle of discussion will be replicated.
There are two possible developments that IFAB/FIFA are looking into as far as I'm aware:
The first relates to making the judgement of offside automated rather than requiring VAR to plot points and draw lines. This seems highly likely to come in, probably in the next two years before 2022 World Cup. This would see decisions made much more quickly (I think the 2-3 minute wait for an offside is one of the biggest problems) but obviously would still have pretty tight measurements.
The second is the idea, discussed previously on here, that if any part of the attacker is level with the second-last defender, they are instead judged onside. I believe this is currently being trialled. Arsene Wenger advocated this approach but I think has since voiced the concern it might give too much of an advantage to the striker. There's also the question of how easy/difficult this is to judge without VAR. I think it will probably take longer for such a fundamental law change to be considered and approved.
Are they also looking at the fact that, with ARs not flagging immediately that a player is offside, there have been several instances of play continuing and the offending side winning corners as a result. This is now happening more than I have ever known and it must be relevant to the instructions given that, should a goal be scored or a penalty awarded, then VAR will check for offside. It is not good enough and, yet again, I feel sorry for the officials who a re being restricted from doing their job.
I'm not sure I fully understand what you are saying?
The instruction to assistants in VAR games is if they think it's offside they should delay the flag if there is a chance of a goal - but they should always raise it at the end of the move.
If a goal is scored, the decision will either be offside or a goal, depending on VAR judgement.
If a goal isn't scored and ball goes out for corner etc, then the decision should be offside.
I know what the instruction is, however, this does not always happen which is the point that I was making. Players are told to play to the whistle, nothing has changed there.
In the past an AR would raise the flag, however, play could continue if the referee was happy that it should do so.
There was always the odd mistake, however, I thought that the whole purpose of VAR was to eradicate these mistakes ---put quite simply ---it doesn't.
Post by: Ref Fan on Mon 30 Nov 2020 10:58
Will Klopp receive a similar sanction as Bilic for approaching and querying the officials on the pitch at the end?
NO
Why not? Is it because he smiles whilst he is doing it?
Klopp wasn't shown a red card which I guess makes a difference.
Rightly or wrongly, it generally seems more accepted for managers to speak to officials at full-time than half-time.
I see Halsey reckons the officials were weak not dealing with Klopp, and that the 'smile' is for the cameras while he's berating or sarcastically applauding the officials.
As regards the Traori YC for simulation, my initial reaction was the referee was correct. The pundits on Sky after several replays concluded there was slight contact and then Traori dived accordingly. We moan that we want to see referees take action for simulation and then if they make a mistake, however understandable, should we be so keen to berate them? If they do nothing - no penalty and no card for diving, it might be construed as weak although that can be a good decision. As for VAR, it's possible I suppose that Marriner noted the contact but didn't consider it enough to justify a penalty.
Whatever Nuno said to Michael Oliver at the end of the game - maybe about the Traori YC - it was good to see it ended in smiles all round. A change from Klopps antics, but then his side had just lost 2 points!
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 30 Nov 2020 09:35
Will Klopp receive a similar sanction as Bilic for approaching and querying the officials on the pitch at the end?
NO
Why not? Is it because he smiles whilst he is doing it?
Klopp wasn't shown a red card which I guess makes a difference.
Rightly or wrongly, it generally seems more accepted for managers to speak to officials at full-time than half-time.
Post by: Ivanhoe on Mon 30 Nov 2020 08:51
Anyone think Luiz could have been sent off for the challenge on Jimenez ? I'm surprised it hasn't been discussed.
Post by: QuoCob on Sun 29 Nov 2020 23:51
Will Klopp receive a similar sanction as Bilic for approaching and querying the officials on the pitch at the end?
NO
Why not? Is it because he smiles whilst he is doing it?
Post by: Hendo on Sun 29 Nov 2020 23:01
Will Klopp receive a similar sanction as Bilic for approaching and querying the officials on the pitch at the end?
NO
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 29 Nov 2020 22:50
I thought this forum was for discussing refereeing rather than for airing club bias. Liverpool have had eight decisions against them through VAR this season, no other club has more than four. Liverpool have also lost one of their key players for the season and VAR failed to identify the violent conduct that caused the injury.Liverpool for one on the wrong end of VAR decisions today - all I hasten to add correct ones too.
A spiked interview by Klopp complaint about various things afterwards and Jordan Henderson saying he would scrap VAR. How the leopard has changed its spots all of a sudden!
What goes round come round
You can guarantee because it is the media darlings who are now complaining, that this will gain some traction.
My question was how could the Brighton defender contort himself so that no part of his body was beyond the line?
The Salah offside looks the 'correct' decision to me.
I think most of the VAR decisions that have gone against Liverpool have been correct. Pickford should certainly have been sent off though.
You haven't answered that reasonable question about contortion. Try it yourself, but make sure there's someone around to help you up.
The defender's right foot looks to be furthest body part near the goal? - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/En8qYrqWMAABGnQ?format=jpg&name=large
Post by: nemesis on Sun 29 Nov 2020 22:41
I thought this forum was for discussing refereeing rather than for airing club bias. Liverpool have had eight decisions against them through VAR this season, no other club has more than four. Liverpool have also lost one of their key players for the season and VAR failed to identify the violent conduct that caused the injury.Liverpool for one on the wrong end of VAR decisions today - all I hasten to add correct ones too.
A spiked interview by Klopp complaint about various things afterwards and Jordan Henderson saying he would scrap VAR. How the leopard has changed its spots all of a sudden!
What goes round come round
You can guarantee because it is the media darlings who are now complaining, that this will gain some traction.
My question was how could the Brighton defender contort himself so that no part of his body was beyond the line?
The Salah offside looks the 'correct' decision to me.
I think most of the VAR decisions that have gone against Liverpool have been correct. Pickford should certainly have been sent off though.
You haven't answered that reasonable question about contortion. Try it yourself, but make sure there's someone around to help you up.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 29 Nov 2020 21:45
VAR are turning these tight offside situations into a farce and I suggest bringing the game into disrepute. This is what I think needs to happen and happen fast.
It is stated unequivocally that level is ONSIDE. I would issue guidance which employs a generous definition of level and which states that being level is defined as any part of the torsos overlapping. Personally I always thought the "daylight" convention was a perfectly sensible one.
Let us go back to first principles as to why there is an offside rule in the first place. Surely it was there so ensure that the match moved up and down the pitch without attackers parking themselves in the opponents half in an opportunistic way. It was not designed to rule out an attacker's toe being marginally further to the goal than a defender's because the principle is still adhered to. Extremely tight offside calls ( even with the use of technology which is, of course, not fool proof ) should favour the attacker.
I agree with you about the principle of why the offside law was introduced, but I guess the challenge is how you effectively incorporate that into a more precise form of measurement that is now used.
Tight offsides with VAR are nothing new. I remember Juan Mata having a goal disallowed for Man Utd at Huddersfield in February 2018, nearly three years ago. I've consistently said that I won't criticise an individual VAR for an offside offside decision or complain about a particular one that is made (unless it's shown to be 100% wrong, like if they missed a defender further back etc.) - we've basically had the example of what might happen and it then just becomes a matter of time before a similar case inevitably repeats itself. I'm sure it will happen many more times before the end of the season and the same cycle of discussion will be replicated.
There are two possible developments that IFAB/FIFA are looking into as far as I'm aware:
The first relates to making the judgement of offside automated rather than requiring VAR to plot points and draw lines. This seems highly likely to come in, probably in the next two years before 2022 World Cup. This would see decisions made much more quickly (I think the 2-3 minute wait for an offside is one of the biggest problems) but obviously would still have pretty tight measurements.
The second is the idea, discussed previously on here, that if any part of the attacker is level with the second-last defender, they are instead judged onside. I believe this is currently being trialled. Arsene Wenger advocated this approach but I think has since voiced the concern it might give too much of an advantage to the striker. There's also the question of how easy/difficult this is to judge without VAR. I think it will probably take longer for such a fundamental law change to be considered and approved.
Are they also looking at the fact that, with ARs not flagging immediately that a player is offside, there have been several instances of play continuing and the offending side winning corners as a result. This is now happening more than I have ever known and it must be relevant to the instructions given that, should a goal be scored or a penalty awarded, then VAR will check for offside. It is not good enough and, yet again, I feel sorry for the officials who a re being restricted from doing their job.
I'm not sure I fully understand what you are saying?
The instruction to assistants in VAR games is if they think it's offside they should delay the flag if there is a chance of a goal - but they should always raise it at the end of the move.
If a goal is scored, the decision will either be offside or a goal, depending on VAR judgement.
If a goal isn't scored and ball goes out for corner etc, then the decision should be offside.
Post by: Ashington46 on Sun 29 Nov 2020 16:32
VAR are turning these tight offside situations into a farce and I suggest bringing the game into disrepute. This is what I think needs to happen and happen fast.
It is stated unequivocally that level is ONSIDE. I would issue guidance which employs a generous definition of level and which states that being level is defined as any part of the torsos overlapping. Personally I always thought the "daylight" convention was a perfectly sensible one.
Let us go back to first principles as to why there is an offside rule in the first place. Surely it was there so ensure that the match moved up and down the pitch without attackers parking themselves in the opponents half in an opportunistic way. It was not designed to rule out an attacker's toe being marginally further to the goal than a defender's because the principle is still adhered to. Extremely tight offside calls ( even with the use of technology which is, of course, not fool proof ) should favour the attacker.
I agree with you about the principle of why the offside law was introduced, but I guess the challenge is how you effectively incorporate that into a more precise form of measurement that is now used.
Tight offsides with VAR are nothing new. I remember Juan Mata having a goal disallowed for Man Utd at Huddersfield in February 2018, nearly three years ago. I've consistently said that I won't criticise an individual VAR for an offside offside decision or complain about a particular one that is made (unless it's shown to be 100% wrong, like if they missed a defender further back etc.) - we've basically had the example of what might happen and it then just becomes a matter of time before a similar case inevitably repeats itself. I'm sure it will happen many more times before the end of the season and the same cycle of discussion will be replicated.
There are two possible developments that IFAB/FIFA are looking into as far as I'm aware:
The first relates to making the judgement of offside automated rather than requiring VAR to plot points and draw lines. This seems highly likely to come in, probably in the next two years before 2022 World Cup. This would see decisions made much more quickly (I think the 2-3 minute wait for an offside is one of the biggest problems) but obviously would still have pretty tight measurements.
The second is the idea, discussed previously on here, that if any part of the attacker is level with the second-last defender, they are instead judged onside. I believe this is currently being trialled. Arsene Wenger advocated this approach but I think has since voiced the concern it might give too much of an advantage to the striker. There's also the question of how easy/difficult this is to judge without VAR. I think it will probably take longer for such a fundamental law change to be considered and approved.
Are they also looking at the fact that, with ARs not flagging immediately that a player is offside, there have been several instances of play continuing and the offending side winning corners as a result. This is now happening more than I have ever known and it must be relevant to the instructions given that, should a goal be scored or a penalty awarded, then VAR will check for offside. It is not good enough and, yet again, I feel sorry for the officials who a re being restricted from doing their job.
Post by: carrowman on Sun 29 Nov 2020 13:38
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 29 Nov 2020 13:33
VAR are turning these tight offside situations into a farce and I suggest bringing the game into disrepute. This is what I think needs to happen and happen fast.
It is stated unequivocally that level is ONSIDE. I would issue guidance which employs a generous definition of level and which states that being level is defined as any part of the torsos overlapping. Personally I always thought the "daylight" convention was a perfectly sensible one.
Let us go back to first principles as to why there is an offside rule in the first place. Surely it was there so ensure that the match moved up and down the pitch without attackers parking themselves in the opponents half in an opportunistic way. It was not designed to rule out an attacker's toe being marginally further to the goal than a defender's because the principle is still adhered to. Extremely tight offside calls ( even with the use of technology which is, of course, not fool proof ) should favour the attacker.
I agree with you about the principle of why the offside law was introduced, but I guess the challenge is how you effectively incorporate that into a more precise form of measurement that is now used.
Tight offsides with VAR are nothing new. I remember Juan Mata having a goal disallowed for Man Utd at Huddersfield in February 2018, nearly three years ago. I've consistently said that I won't criticise an individual VAR for an offside offside decision or complain about a particular one that is made (unless it's shown to be 100% wrong, like if they missed a defender further back etc.) - we've basically had the example of what might happen and it then just becomes a matter of time before a similar case inevitably repeats itself. I'm sure it will happen many more times before the end of the season and the same cycle of discussion will be replicated.
There are two possible developments that IFAB/FIFA are looking into as far as I'm aware:
The first relates to making the judgement of offside automated rather than requiring VAR to plot points and draw lines. This seems highly likely to come in, probably in the next two years before 2022 World Cup. This would see decisions made much more quickly (I think the 2-3 minute wait for an offside is one of the biggest problems) but obviously would still have pretty tight measurements.
The second is the idea, discussed previously on here, that if any part of the attacker is level with the second-last defender, they are instead judged onside. I believe this is currently being trialled. Arsene Wenger advocated this approach but I think has since voiced the concern it might give too much of an advantage to the striker. There's also the question of how easy/difficult this is to judge without VAR. I think it will probably take longer for such a fundamental law change to be considered and approved.
Post by: bmb on Sun 29 Nov 2020 13:10
I thought this forum was for discussing refereeing rather than for airing club bias.
It is. Can people please save their club bias for the various club fan forums please. This is not the place for it.
Post by: RCG on Sun 29 Nov 2020 12:39
Post by: Whistleblower on Sun 29 Nov 2020 11:17
It is stated unequivocally that level is ONSIDE. I would issue guidance which employs a generous definition of level and which states that being level is defined as any part of the torsos overlapping. Personally I always thought the "daylight" convention was a perfectly sensible one.
Let us go back to first principles as to why there is an offside rule in the first place. Surely it was there so ensure that the match moved up and down the pitch without attackers parking themselves in the opponents half in an opportunistic way. It was not designed to rule out an attacker's toe being marginally further to the goal than a defender's because the principle is still adhered to. Extremely tight offside calls ( even with the use of technology which is, of course, not fool proof ) should favour the attacker.
Post by: QuoCob on Sun 29 Nov 2020 10:43
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 29 Nov 2020 09:13
I thought this forum was for discussing refereeing rather than for airing club bias. Liverpool have had eight decisions against them through VAR this season, no other club has more than four. Liverpool have also lost one of their key players for the season and VAR failed to identify the violent conduct that caused the injury.Liverpool for one on the wrong end of VAR decisions today - all I hasten to add correct ones too.
A spiked interview by Klopp complaint about various things afterwards and Jordan Henderson saying he would scrap VAR. How the leopard has changed its spots all of a sudden!
What goes round come round
You can guarantee because it is the media darlings who are now complaining, that this will gain some traction.
My question was how could the Brighton defender contort himself so that no part of his body was beyond the line?
The Salah offside looks the 'correct' decision to me.
I think most of the VAR decisions that have gone against Liverpool have been correct. Pickford should certainly have been sent off though.
Post by: Scally Bob on Sun 29 Nov 2020 07:33
I thought this forum was for discussing refereeing rather than for airing club bias. Liverpool have had eight decisions against them through VAR this season, no other club has more than four. Liverpool have also lost one of their key players for the season and VAR failed to identify the violent conduct that caused the injury.Liverpool for one on the wrong end of VAR decisions today - all I hasten to add correct ones too.
A spiked interview by Klopp complaint about various things afterwards and Jordan Henderson saying he would scrap VAR. How the leopard has changed its spots all of a sudden!
What goes round come round
You can guarantee because it is the media darlings who are now complaining, that this will gain some traction.
My question was how could the Brighton defender contort himself so that no part of his body was beyond the line?
Post by: bmb on Sun 29 Nov 2020 02:14
For me this is not football. I'm so glad we are so far behind in the NBI and don't yet have VAR! If you have to start using 3D mapping tech aligned to the pitch or whatever the %^$£ it is then, well I just don't know! There is plenty I could say but then I'd have to ban myself for breaching the forum rules! Give me the good old 97% accuracy of the top AR's over this any day.
Post by: flipmode on Sun 29 Nov 2020 00:51
Liverpool for one on the wrong end of VAR decisions today - all I hasten to add correct ones too.
A spiked interview by Klopp complaint about various things afterwards and Jordan Henderson saying he would scrap VAR. How the leopard has changed its spots all of a sudden!
What goes round come round
You can guarantee because it is the media darlings who are now complaining, that this will gain some traction.
Post by: ajb95 on Sat 28 Nov 2020 22:55
Post by: Hendo on Sat 28 Nov 2020 19:52
A spiked interview by Klopp complaint about various things afterwards and Jordan Henderson saying he would scrap VAR. How the leopard has changed its spots all of a sudden!
What goes round come round
Post by: Scally Bob on Sat 28 Nov 2020 18:10
Post by: Ashington46 on Sun 08 Nov 2020 22:42
Dale Johnson on twitter says it's common place for Swarbrick to go and talk to the VAR officials at half-time.
I agree that it shouldn't be though.
What if a similar incident had happened in the second half and hadn't been referred? Everyone would have been speculating that Swarbrick had influenced Attwell (whether correct or not.)
There's scope in the VAR protocol for a player to be sent off later on if VAR sees an incident earlier missed but again how can this be allowed to happen if there's potential contact with the 'outside world'.
There's plenty of time for analysis and feedback after the match. 15 minutes at half-time isn't long enough considering the problems that many of them have!
He is the boss as far as VAR implementation is concerned, therefore, that being the case ---why should the boss not talk to his workforce because that is exactly what he is doing and everything else is just speculation.
Basically because there is a time & a place and a chit chat during half time is not the right time & place. It doesn't matter if the conversation was how's the wife & kids, you should have seen the dog trying to run up a steep muddy hill he other day, looked like this (hence the running simulation...) or whatever because the very nature of it occurring is enough to cast doubt over the integrity of the VAR for anyone looking to cast doubt over it. Why put themselves in that position? It is stupid. The very fact it can't be heard is what causes the speculation & can lead to doubt being cast.
Match assessors/observers are not allowed entry to the referees dressing room during half time, even UEFA match Delegates are not allowed any access to them, unless there is a major security issue that could affect the game & then they have to be accompanied by representatives from both teams. This is in place in the main to prevent outside influence and preserve integrity.
The VAR & AVAR are part of that match officials team and like the onfield officials no-one should have any access to them whatsoever during the course of a match, half time included for the same reasons - to prevent outside influence and preserve integrity.
I don't care if it is his boss, he has no right to be in that area during the course of a game & should certainly not be speaking to a match official who is active in a game.
I have no doubt about Stuart Attwell's integrity nor Neil Swarbricks integrity however there is an inbuilt protection for a reason for the on field match officials that should extend to every single member of their team, including those closed up in a little room in Stockley Park.
Thanks for the info bmb, however, in that case they really need to install security cameras within the VAR rooms and ensure that these have a direct feed to the various stadiums during the course of the match so that the managers can see that there is no outside interference whatsoever from anyone including the tea lady. Rules are rules.
Post by: bmb on Sun 08 Nov 2020 22:29
Dale Johnson on twitter says it's common place for Swarbrick to go and talk to the VAR officials at half-time.
I agree that it shouldn't be though.
What if a similar incident had happened in the second half and hadn't been referred? Everyone would have been speculating that Swarbrick had influenced Attwell (whether correct or not.)
There's scope in the VAR protocol for a player to be sent off later on if VAR sees an incident earlier missed but again how can this be allowed to happen if there's potential contact with the 'outside world'.
There's plenty of time for analysis and feedback after the match. 15 minutes at half-time isn't long enough considering the problems that many of them have!
He is the boss as far as VAR implementation is concerned, therefore, that being the case ---why should the boss not talk to his workforce because that is exactly what he is doing and everything else is just speculation.
Basically because there is a time & a place and a chit chat during half time is not the right time & place. It doesn't matter if the conversation was how's the wife & kids, you should have seen the dog trying to run up a steep muddy hill he other day, looked like this (hence the running simulation...) or whatever because the very nature of it occurring is enough to cast doubt over the integrity of the VAR for anyone looking to cast doubt over it. Why put themselves in that position? It is stupid. The very fact it can't be heard is what causes the speculation & can lead to doubt being cast.
Match assessors/observers are not allowed entry to the referees dressing room during half time, even UEFA match Delegates are not allowed any access to them, unless there is a major security issue that could affect the game & then they have to be accompanied by representatives from both teams. This is in place in the main to prevent outside influence and preserve integrity.
The VAR & AVAR are part of that match officials team and like the onfield officials no-one should have any access to them whatsoever during the course of a match, half time included for the same reasons - to prevent outside influence and preserve integrity.
I don't care if it is his boss, he has no right to be in that area during the course of a game & should certainly not be speaking to a match official who is active in a game.
I have no doubt about Stuart Attwell's integrity nor Neil Swarbricks integrity however there is an inbuilt protection for a reason for the on field match officials that should extend to every single member of their team, including those closed up in a little room in Stockley Park.
Post by: DublinRef on Sun 08 Nov 2020 22:17
Dale Johnson on twitter says it's common place for Swarbrick to go and talk to the VAR officials at half-time.
I agree that it shouldn't be though.
What if a similar incident had happened in the second half and hadn't been referred? Everyone would have been speculating that Swarbrick had influenced Attwell (whether correct or not.)
There's scope in the VAR protocol for a player to be sent off later on if VAR sees an incident earlier missed but again how can this be allowed to happen if there's potential contact with the 'outside world'.
There's plenty of time for analysis and feedback after the match. 15 minutes at half-time isn't long enough considering the problems that many of them have!
He is the boss as far as VAR implementation is concerned, therefore, that being the case ---why should the boss not talk to his workforce because that is exactly what he is doing and everything else is just speculation.
I suppose as his workforce is in the business of making decisions it is fair to speculate he is discussing the validity of decisions. I think this muddies the water as to who has a say in what the VAR recommends to the referee, does Swarbrick make comments to the VAR during the game? Does anyone else speak to the VAR at any stage during the match? More overarchingly, is the VAR being influenced by other parties during the game?
While I would be very confident the answer to both those questions is no - this interaction does suggest that the VAR is not isolated from the world as the PGMOL seemed to previously suggest and as, in my opinion, should be the way they operate.
Post by: DublinRef on Sun 08 Nov 2020 22:12
We finally have the first penalty awarded for a player kicking the ball at a defenders hand! Congratulations Anthony Taylor ;D
Dermot Gallagher has always said that Stockley Park was sealed off and there was no communication with the outside world whilst the VAR officials were in operation. Clearly wrong as Sky have just shown Neil Swarbrick in there at half-time speaking to Stuart Attwell - and making lots of gestures with his arms!
Footage of Neil Swarbrick inside the VAR area earlier.
https://twitter.com/footballdaily/status/1325453036773322755
Maybe people will think I'm overreacting, say they're all colleagues, talk regularly, its an informal chat etc etc. But I think that is somewhat inappropriate, for two reasons -
1. PGMOL have, from what I've seen, said that the VAR is essentially sealed away during the game, this clip throws that into doubt even if it is at half time
2. The contents of the conversation being unknown will lead people to conclude that the VAR is influenced or advised by Swarbrick, this raises obvious questions over whether or not Swarbrick or others have any interaction during the game itself
I am not for one second suggesting that the latter is actually happening, my main point is the optics of this - it could lead one to doubt, somewhat, the integrity of the process
Completely agree. If he has got it wrong, and I have not watched so offer zero opinion on that, then there is a time & place for Neil Swarbrick to give him guidance* & half time is not that time. It is a time when he should not be anywhere near him for any reason whatsoever if for no other reason than to protect the integrity of the VAR & whole process. *We have no way to tell what is being said so I'm not assuming that is what is happening in the clip, just a suggestion.
If Stuart has asked for guidance because he really doesn't know what the decision should be because the HB law is absolutely dreadful and the very strict harsh FIFA guidelined interpretations make it even more so, then the only people he should discuss it with are the on field referee and maybe get input from the AVAR as well. They are a legitimate member of the team. I'm sure he could 'play' the system enough to be able to say over the mic, do you know what, I have no idea if it is or isn't, can you do an onfield review and call it how you see it. Rather that than images coming out that look bad whichever way you look at them. Any further guidance either he wants to seek with his boss or his boss wants to seek with him must not occur until after the final whistle has gone.
Totally agree, while I am not in any doubt whatsoever of anyone's integrity as individuals, I do think the integrity of the process itself is somewhat compromised by this.
I see from Readingfan that Dale Johnson (who seems like he's honorary PGMOL spokesperson) has clarified this is a regular occurrence but I think official clarification is needed from the PGMOL on the nature and purpose of Swarbrick's communication with the VAR officials and how/if it is allowed under the protocols.
Post by: Ashington46 on Sun 08 Nov 2020 22:08
Dale Johnson on twitter says it's common place for Swarbrick to go and talk to the VAR officials at half-time.
I agree that it shouldn't be though.
What if a similar incident had happened in the second half and hadn't been referred? Everyone would have been speculating that Swarbrick had influenced Attwell (whether correct or not.)
There's scope in the VAR protocol for a player to be sent off later on if VAR sees an incident earlier missed but again how can this be allowed to happen if there's potential contact with the 'outside world'.
There's plenty of time for analysis and feedback after the match. 15 minutes at half-time isn't long enough considering the problems that many of them have!
He is the boss as far as VAR implementation is concerned, therefore, that being the case ---why should the boss not talk to his workforce because that is exactly what he is doing and everything else is just speculation.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 08 Nov 2020 21:47
I agree that it shouldn't be though.
What if a similar incident had happened in the second half and hadn't been referred? Everyone would have been speculating that Swarbrick had influenced Attwell (whether correct or not.)
There's scope in the VAR protocol for a player to be sent off later on if VAR sees an incident earlier missed but again how can this be allowed to happen if there's potential contact with the 'outside world'.
There's plenty of time for analysis and feedback after the match. 15 minutes at half-time isn't long enough considering the problems that many of them have!
Post by: bmb on Sun 08 Nov 2020 21:11
I think the active AR might have been telling Taylor there was a possible handball as he had by far the best view of it. No point in him signalling it though as they know VAR will have a look.
Well, that is their job!
I'm a bit confused about where the PL is with handball now. We saw a flurry of handballs earlier in the season, than quite a substantial change was announced for PL games, and now we've had two today.
Perhaps FIFA has told them they can't ignore the universal interpretations and guidelines and choose to go their own way again? Very much in line with the FIFA guidelines this weekend.
Well if so that has to be clearly communicated to everyone - we can't just all play 'guess what interpretations we're using this week?' every weekend!
I don't disagree. It's not fair on anyone, least of all the team of match officials who are the ones getting slated for it either way.
Post by: bmb on Sun 08 Nov 2020 21:09
We finally have the first penalty awarded for a player kicking the ball at a defenders hand! Congratulations Anthony Taylor ;D
Dermot Gallagher has always said that Stockley Park was sealed off and there was no communication with the outside world whilst the VAR officials were in operation. Clearly wrong as Sky have just shown Neil Swarbrick in there at half-time speaking to Stuart Attwell - and making lots of gestures with his arms!
Footage of Neil Swarbrick inside the VAR area earlier.
https://twitter.com/footballdaily/status/1325453036773322755
Maybe people will think I'm overreacting, say they're all colleagues, talk regularly, its an informal chat etc etc. But I think that is somewhat inappropriate, for two reasons -
1. PGMOL have, from what I've seen, said that the VAR is essentially sealed away during the game, this clip throws that into doubt even if it is at half time
2. The contents of the conversation being unknown will lead people to conclude that the VAR is influenced or advised by Swarbrick, this raises obvious questions over whether or not Swarbrick or others have any interaction during the game itself
I am not for one second suggesting that the latter is actually happening, my main point is the optics of this - it could lead one to doubt, somewhat, the integrity of the process
Completely agree. If he has got it wrong, and I have not watched so offer zero opinion on that, then there is a time & place for Neil Swarbrick to give him guidance* & half time is not that time. It is a time when he should not be anywhere near him for any reason whatsoever if for no other reason than to protect the integrity of the VAR & whole process. *We have no way to tell what is being said so I'm not assuming that is what is happening in the clip, just a suggestion.
If Stuart has asked for guidance because he really doesn't know what the decision should be because the HB law is absolutely dreadful and the very strict harsh FIFA guidelined interpretations make it even more so, then the only people he should discuss it with are the on field referee and maybe get input from the AVAR as well. They are a legitimate member of the team. I'm sure he could 'play' the system enough to be able to say over the mic, do you know what, I have no idea if it is or isn't, can you do an onfield review and call it how you see it. Rather that than images coming out that look bad whichever way you look at them. Any further guidance either he wants to seek with his boss or his boss wants to seek with him must not occur until after the final whistle has gone.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 08 Nov 2020 21:01
I think the active AR might have been telling Taylor there was a possible handball as he had by far the best view of it. No point in him signalling it though as they know VAR will have a look.
Well, that is their job!
I'm a bit confused about where the PL is with handball now. We saw a flurry of handballs earlier in the season, than quite a substantial change was announced for PL games, and now we've had two today.
Perhaps FIFA has told them they can't ignore the universal interpretations and guidelines and choose to go their own way again? Very much in line with the FIFA guidelines this weekend.
Well if so that has to be clearly communicated to everyone - we can't just all play 'guess what interpretations we're using this week?' every weekend!
Post by: bmb on Sun 08 Nov 2020 20:56
I think the active AR might have been telling Taylor there was a possible handball as he had by far the best view of it. No point in him signalling it though as they know VAR will have a look.
Well, that is their job!
I'm a bit confused about where the PL is with handball now. We saw a flurry of handballs earlier in the season, than quite a substantial change was announced for PL games, and now we've had two today.
Perhaps FIFA has told them they can't ignore the universal interpretations and guidelines and choose to go their own way again? Very much in line with the FIFA guidelines this weekend.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 08 Nov 2020 19:24
I think the active AR might have been telling Taylor there was a possible handball as he had by far the best view of it. No point in him signalling it though as they know VAR will have a look.
Well, that is their job!
I'm a bit confused about where the PL is with handball now. We saw a flurry of handballs earlier in the season, than quite a substantial change was announced for PL games, and now we've had two today.
Post by: DublinRef on Sun 08 Nov 2020 18:49
We finally have the first penalty awarded for a player kicking the ball at a defenders hand! Congratulations Anthony Taylor ;D
Dermot Gallagher has always said that Stockley Park was sealed off and there was no communication with the outside world whilst the VAR officials were in operation. Clearly wrong as Sky have just shown Neil Swarbrick in there at half-time speaking to Stuart Attwell - and making lots of gestures with his arms!
Footage of Neil Swarbrick inside the VAR area earlier.
https://twitter.com/footballdaily/status/1325453036773322755
Maybe people will think I'm overreacting, say they're all colleagues, talk regularly, its an informal chat etc etc. But I think that is somewhat inappropriate, for two reasons -
1. PGMOL have, from what I've seen, said that the VAR is essentially sealed away during the game, this clip throws that into doubt even if it is at half time
2. The contents of the conversation being unknown will lead people to conclude that the VAR is influenced or advised by Swarbrick, this raises obvious questions over whether or not Swarbrick or others have any interaction during the game itself
I am not for one second suggesting that the latter is actually happening, my main point is the optics of this - it could lead one to doubt, somewhat, the integrity of the process
Post by: bmb on Sun 08 Nov 2020 17:56
We finally have the first penalty awarded for a player kicking the ball at a defenders hand! Congratulations Anthony Taylor ;D
Dermot Gallagher has always said that Stockley Park was sealed off and there was no communication with the outside world whilst the VAR officials were in operation. Clearly wrong as Sky have just shown Neil Swarbrick in there at half-time speaking to Stuart Attwell - and making lots of gestures with his arms!
Footage of Neil Swarbrick inside the VAR area earlier.
https://twitter.com/footballdaily/status/1325453036773322755
Post by: rustyref on Sun 08 Nov 2020 16:17
Post by: ajb95 on Sun 08 Nov 2020 16:02
Missed the first Leicester penalty today but am confused by some comments on Sky about Taylor doubting himself. Was the penalty awarded and then VAR advised him to check the monitor with Taylor sticking to his initial decision; or did Taylor off his own initiative ask to check the monitor (is that allowed under the protocol?). Or was it a 'normal' situation of Taylor not giving the penalty, VAR advises check the monitor, and Taylor then points to the spot?
No a corner was awarded. Attwell has asked Taylor to have a look!
Post by: Ref Fan on Sun 08 Nov 2020 15:05
Post by: rustyref on Sun 08 Nov 2020 15:05
Agree about the Maguire 'penalty'. Not sure how PGMOL will explain that one.
Personally I thought West Ham were unlucky not to get a penalty. The view from behind the goal line which presumably VAR looked at was pretty clear to my mind, notwithstanding the ball was going through the GK. To be fair, it would have been more difficult for Taylor to spot.
And in the Liverpool v Sheffield United game was the Liverpool player's arm in a natural position when the ball hit his arm? Not sure so maybe not clear and obvious?
Even Maguire has publicly come and and said that he pushed Pickford before he was fouled, so I would assume the VAR check would have seen that.
I think you're a few weeks behind there!
D'oh, brain fart. Ignore me (most people do ... :) )
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 08 Nov 2020 15:04
Well according to match of the day last night they asked if you would like VAR to continue out of 250,000 votes a staggering but not surprising 70% said they want rid of it
It has become farcical now especially for Bamfords disallowed goal I would expect Mike Dean to get that correct people have defended VAR to give it time but that time has not proved to be used to improve its efficiency sadly it has gone the other way
Mike Dean did get it correct...
I think there's zero chance of VAR being scrapped. It's one thing to have a twitter poll on the day of controversy but we see it often said during Europa League, nations League etc. 'Why isn't there VAR?'
There was a survey of EFL supporters a while back where a clear majority wanted VAR introduced.
I do agree that there are clearly some improvements needed - in many cases with the laws rather than anything else. Mic the officials up, speed up/change the process of judging offside, come to a better consensus on handball, and filter out the VARs not up to the job.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 08 Nov 2020 15:00
We finally have the first penalty awarded for a player kicking the ball at a defenders hand! Congratulations Anthony Taylor ;D
Dermot Gallagher has always said that Stockley Park was sealed off and there was no communication with the outside world whilst the VAR officials were in operation. Clearly wrong as Sky have just shown Neil Swarbrick in there at half-time speaking to Stuart Attwell - and making lots of gestures with his arms!
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 08 Nov 2020 14:59
Agree about the Maguire 'penalty'. Not sure how PGMOL will explain that one.
Personally I thought West Ham were unlucky not to get a penalty. The view from behind the goal line which presumably VAR looked at was pretty clear to my mind, notwithstanding the ball was going through the GK. To be fair, it would have been more difficult for Taylor to spot.
And in the Liverpool v Sheffield United game was the Liverpool player's arm in a natural position when the ball hit his arm? Not sure so maybe not clear and obvious?
Even Maguire has publicly come and and said that he pushed Pickford before he was fouled, so I would assume the VAR check would have seen that.
I think you're a few weeks behind there!
Post by: rustyref on Sun 08 Nov 2020 14:51
Agree about the Maguire 'penalty'. Not sure how PGMOL will explain that one.
Personally I thought West Ham were unlucky not to get a penalty. The view from behind the goal line which presumably VAR looked at was pretty clear to my mind, notwithstanding the ball was going through the GK. To be fair, it would have been more difficult for Taylor to spot.
And in the Liverpool v Sheffield United game was the Liverpool player's arm in a natural position when the ball hit his arm? Not sure so maybe not clear and obvious?
Even Maguire has publicly come and and said that he pushed Pickford before he was fouled, so I would assume the VAR check would have seen that.
Post by: ajb95 on Sun 08 Nov 2020 14:43
Post by: dave26 on Sun 08 Nov 2020 08:41
It has become farcical now especially for Bamfords disallowed goal I would expect Mike Dean to get that correct people have defended VAR to give it time but that time has not proved to be used to improve its efficiency sadly it has gone the other way
Post by: ajb95 on Sun 25 Oct 2020 10:23
Agree about the Maguire 'penalty'. Not sure how PGMOL will explain that one.
Personally I thought West Ham were unlucky not to get a penalty. The view from behind the goal line which presumably VAR looked at was pretty clear to my mind, notwithstanding the ball was going through the GK. To be fair, it would have been more difficult for Taylor to spot.
And in the Liverpool v Sheffield United game was the Liverpool player's arm in a natural position when the ball hit his arm? Not sure so maybe not clear and obvious?
But what about the trip on Berge at 1-0? More clear than the penalty awarded
Post by: Ref Fan on Sun 25 Oct 2020 09:58
Personally I thought West Ham were unlucky not to get a penalty. The view from behind the goal line which presumably VAR looked at was pretty clear to my mind, notwithstanding the ball was going through the GK. To be fair, it would have been more difficult for Taylor to spot.
And in the Liverpool v Sheffield United game was the Liverpool player's arm in a natural position when the ball hit his arm? Not sure so maybe not clear and obvious?
Post by: Scally Bob on Sat 24 Oct 2020 23:54
The worst thing football has ever done (even worse than creating the Premier League) is to introduce this utter shambles.
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 11 Sep 2020 12:29
I'm not sure if that would still apply if Rice had immediately passed the ball rather than running with it for a bit!
Post by: bmb on Sun 06 Sep 2020 16:34
I wonder how long it will be before we see something like that in England/Europe? Given the absence of fans, now would be a good time to start trying something like that!
Not sure it will happen in England, would be good if it did though. I can see UEFA doing it for the bigger tournaments and if it is well received then extending it to the CL/EL.
I think it's a good thing myself. You may well still disagree with a decision but listening to the thought process that has gone into it answers so many questions.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 06 Sep 2020 13:50
I wonder how long it will be before we see something like that in England/Europe? Given the absence of fans, now would be a good time to start trying something like that!
Post by: Carter on Mon 10 Aug 2020 16:27
VAR's Most CONTROVERSIAL Decisions of the Season! | Part One | 2019/20 Premier League
https://youtu.be/5dGM9mdZ9_8
The 1st one is the worst decision both from VAR but the view of the incident that Kevin Friend (4th Official) had of it.
Surely the villa debacle of the non goal must be on the part 2
Post by: bmb on Mon 10 Aug 2020 15:20
https://youtu.be/5dGM9mdZ9_8
Post by: RCG on Sun 09 Aug 2020 13:08
Imagine all those incidents this year where the referee has looked surprised or resigned to having his authority stripped away. How easy it is to include video review in the referee's armoury
Straight talking, clear goals, referee able to communicate with players, clear decision making, little or no argument
(Goes off to find Mike Riley's email address to forward link)
In fairness the NFL has operated similarly in that only the referee watches the review and it is they that communicate the decision
Post by: dtrv2 on Sat 08 Aug 2020 18:15
VAR audio conversation in MLS tournament was broadcast live for first time - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PQCumRGQ_c
Oh to have this communication and transparency in England!
Not only that, but they also produce a weekly review of the VAR use showing the communication that took place and why the decision was correct/incorrect using the laws.
http://proreferees.com/2020/08/05/inside-video-review-mls-is-back-round-ko/
I hate their use of the handball law, which is very much like the UEFA, 'we'll ignore the deliberate part of the law' approach, but otherwise the MLS seem to have the use of VAR cracked and would be a great template for the PL to follow.
Post by: bmb on Fri 07 Aug 2020 12:59
Oh to have this communication and transparency in England!
Along with that speed, efficiency and lack of fuss! They can keep their yellow shirts though!
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 07 Aug 2020 11:02
Oh to have this communication and transparency in England!
Post by: TheThingFromLewes on Thu 06 Aug 2020 20:24
This is the piece from the PL website - https://www.premierleague.com/news/1749286
So, essentially the Premier League 'got it wrong' in every key aspect with its implementation.
This part of their explanation for goalkeeper encroachment confused me a bit - 'The protocol does not allow for tolerance levels, so if the goalkeeper saves a penalty and his foot is over the line then VAR will advise it is retake'. Surely it is only an infringemeent if both feet are off the line? (not over it)
Riley will be thrilled at the prospect of more monitor use!
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 06 Aug 2020 19:50
So, essentially the Premier League 'got it wrong' in every key aspect with its implementation.
This part of their explanation for goalkeeper encroachment confused me a bit - 'The protocol does not allow for tolerance levels, so if the goalkeeper saves a penalty and his foot is over the line then VAR will advise it is retake'. Surely it is only an infringemeent if both feet are off the line? (not over it)
Post by: Ashington46 on Thu 06 Aug 2020 17:18
PL clubs have approved VAR to continue next season.
FIFA have taken over running of VAR so there will be quite a few changes to PL's use as Dale Johnson summarises - https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1291364172425498624
Fractional offsides will continue but suggestion is Premier League won't broadcast process of lines being drawn on - we will only see the final decision as is the case in the Champions League, etc.
Increased use of pitchside monitors is good I think - people don't accept the alternative.
Goalkeepers penalised if they don't have one foot on their line when saving a penalty - this was not accepted well at the women's world cup so will be interesting to see how it works here. If they're going to do this I think onus has to be on assistant to make the call in real time - if they get it wrong then VAR can correct but problem for me with WWC was clear encroachment not penalised, everyone celebrates and you have the emotion of the save, and then a minute later it's made to be retaken.
Assistants keeping flag down for tight offsides - I'm not a fan of this. I think the PL's approach has worked much better than the CL's as you at least know what the likely decision is whereas with the CL a palyer can be clearly offside, score, everyone celebrates and then the flag does up!
My lips are sealed!
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 06 Aug 2020 16:33
FIFA have taken over running of VAR so there will be quite a few changes to PL's use as Dale Johnson summarises - https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1291364172425498624
Fractional offsides will continue but suggestion is Premier League won't broadcast process of lines being drawn on - we will only see the final decision as is the case in the Champions League, etc.
Increased use of pitchside monitors is good I think - people don't accept the alternative.
Goalkeepers penalised if they don't have one foot on their line when saving a penalty - this was not accepted well at the women's world cup so will be interesting to see how it works here. If they're going to do this I think onus has to be on assistant to make the call in real time - if they get it wrong then VAR can correct but problem for me with WWC was clear encroachment not penalised, everyone celebrates and you have the emotion of the save, and then a minute later it's made to be retaken.
Assistants keeping flag down for tight offsides - I'm not a fan of this. I think the PL's approach has worked much better than the CL's as you at least know what the likely decision is whereas with the CL a palyer can be clearly offside, score, everyone celebrates and then the flag does up!
Post by: ajb95 on Mon 13 Jul 2020 22:27
Post by: bmb on Mon 09 Mar 2020 22:22
Haven’t seen an angle that shows me it’s a handball. I think it’s the shoulder - how Oliver has seen it as a handball I don’t know! Whoever the VAR is need to hang up their career because that is poor!
Had to give it after the one given against Bournemouth in the Burnley game. At least it's consistent!
Post by: Ref Fan on Mon 09 Mar 2020 22:06
Post by: ajb95 on Mon 09 Mar 2020 21:55
Post by: bmb on Mon 09 Mar 2020 21:51
https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1237127126010257414
Post by: Bielsa’s Bucket on Mon 09 Mar 2020 21:29
Post by: Ashington46 on Mon 09 Mar 2020 19:13
How I envy those who support teams who do not have to endure VAR's intervention and who do not have to watch what is becoming a different game to the one that I have played, loved and watched for almost 70 years!
May I tempt you to come & enjoy the NBI before that gets ruined? ;)
I'm sure that you could, however, will they also not be trying to ban us oldies in case we get some virus or other?
I shall probably just go to Ashington FC and increase their average attendance to just under 250! Entrance for Senior, pie and a pint for under £6 and officials just doing their job without outside interference ---what's not to like?
Oh no you'd be welcomed with open arms! Trust me when the Hungarians see a foreign supporter at a game you really get well looked after! Everyone speaks to you, you might not understand a word they say but there's lots of smiles, handshakes, hugs - you name it! You can wander around on the terrace with your pint (and a cigarette if you are so inclined), be aware of low flying sunflower seed pods though - everyone seems to eat those blimmin things & the pods get everywhere!! Hungary is very generational, the older you are the more respect you get shown, it's a big thing there. You know you are getting old when everyone calls you Bácsi (uncle) or (Néni), irrespective of their own age! Cost of games varies but even the big Budapest derby is less than 10 euros for the posher seats, 6/7 euros in the bog standard stand where there is food available & beer is cheap. For lower classed games you can pay as little as 3.5 euros. That's adult prices - it's even cheaper for students & seniors! Magyar Kupa final (our FA Cup equivalent) a couple of years ago, tickets were about £6 and included entry into the youth final earlier in the day plus the adult final mid-late afternoon and a free hot dog!
Even the ultras would look after you if you ended up in amongst them! I did that at one of my 1st ever games there, walked slap bang into them on my way to the ground & was terrified when I did so! They escorted me to the ground, ensured I was fed, watered (although be very wary of litre bottles of clear liquid shoved your way as it's undoubtedly home brew pálinka, which is akin to rocket fuel & about 90% proof!), knew where the loos were & I was never left alone. By that I mean protected and looked after not hassled! Post match I was even escorted back to my hotel. When the inevitable flare up between opposing ultras occured I was swiftly moved right away from it with a ring of ultras around me to protect me! They never involve non-ultras in that side of things, it's a huge no-no. They actually police their own fans at National team games for that very reason - it's amazing! I did get yelled at once for making my own way to a NT game and was swiftly plonked (and yes literally!) in between a group of ultras for my own safety!! There is a fan march that takes place from the team hotel to the ground, ultras up front & at the back, and various points along the very long line of fans walking together as well as a line down each side watching for trouble. They lead the singing on the way & in the ground - they are nuts but I love them!
Thread completely derailed! #SorryNotSorry!
bmb --sounds absolutely brilliant and I do love Budapest although I have never been to football there --yet!!
As you say, thread derailed but it has taken 60 pages!
Post by: bmb on Mon 09 Mar 2020 17:41
How I envy those who support teams who do not have to endure VAR's intervention and who do not have to watch what is becoming a different game to the one that I have played, loved and watched for almost 70 years!
May I tempt you to come & enjoy the NBI before that gets ruined? ;)
I'm sure that you could, however, will they also not be trying to ban us oldies in case we get some virus or other?
I shall probably just go to Ashington FC and increase their average attendance to just under 250! Entrance for Senior, pie and a pint for under £6 and officials just doing their job without outside interference ---what's not to like?
Oh no you'd be welcomed with open arms! Trust me when the Hungarians see a foreign supporter at a game you really get well looked after! Everyone speaks to you, you might not understand a word they say but there's lots of smiles, handshakes, hugs - you name it! You can wander around on the terrace with your pint (and a cigarette if you are so inclined), be aware of low flying sunflower seed pods though - everyone seems to eat those blimmin things & the pods get everywhere!! Hungary is very generational, the older you are the more respect you get shown, it's a big thing there. You know you are getting old when everyone calls you Bácsi (uncle) or (Néni), irrespective of their own age! Cost of games varies but even the big Budapest derby is less than 10 euros for the posher seats, 6/7 euros in the bog standard stand where there is food available & beer is cheap. For lower classed games you can pay as little as 3.5 euros. That's adult prices - it's even cheaper for students & seniors! Magyar Kupa final (our FA Cup equivalent) a couple of years ago, tickets were about £6 and included entry into the youth final earlier in the day plus the adult final mid-late afternoon and a free hot dog!
Even the ultras would look after you if you ended up in amongst them! I did that at one of my 1st ever games there, walked slap bang into them on my way to the ground & was terrified when I did so! They escorted me to the ground, ensured I was fed, watered (although be very wary of litre bottles of clear liquid shoved your way as it's undoubtedly home brew pálinka, which is akin to rocket fuel & about 90% proof!), knew where the loos were & I was never left alone. By that I mean protected and looked after not hassled! Post match I was even escorted back to my hotel. When the inevitable flare up between opposing ultras occured I was swiftly moved right away from it with a ring of ultras around me to protect me! They never involve non-ultras in that side of things, it's a huge no-no. They actually police their own fans at National team games for that very reason - it's amazing! I did get yelled at once for making my own way to a NT game and was swiftly plonked (and yes literally!) in between a group of ultras for my own safety!! There is a fan march that takes place from the team hotel to the ground, ultras up front & at the back, and various points along the very long line of fans walking together as well as a line down each side watching for trouble. They lead the singing on the way & in the ground - they are nuts but I love them!
Thread completely derailed! #SorryNotSorry!
Post by: Ashington46 on Mon 09 Mar 2020 16:43
How I envy those who support teams who do not have to endure VAR's intervention and who do not have to watch what is becoming a different game to the one that I have played, loved and watched for almost 70 years!
May I tempt you to come & enjoy the NBI before that gets ruined? ;)
I'm sure that you could, however, will they also not be trying to ban us oldies in case we get some virus or other?
I shall probably just go to Ashington FC and increase their average attendance to just under 250! Entrance for Senior, pie and a pint for under £6 and officials just doing their job without outside interference ---what's not to like?
Post by: bmb on Mon 09 Mar 2020 15:49
How I envy those who support teams who do not have to endure VAR's intervention and who do not have to watch what is becoming a different game to the one that I have played, loved and watched for almost 70 years!
May I tempt you to come & enjoy the NBI before that gets ruined? ;)
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 09 Mar 2020 15:32
Post by: Ashington46 on Mon 09 Mar 2020 14:02
Wasn't it great to come off a match and discuss the what might have been if only etc., etc. Discuss the onfield officials' performance and then jsut put it all behind you and look forward to the next match ---with all its faults ----and there are always plenty, whether it is team selection, wrong substitutions, players having a stinker, officials being poor etc., etc.
How I envy those who support teams who do not have to endure VAR's intervention and who do not have to watch what is becoming a different game to the one that I have played, loved and watched for almost 70 years!
Post by: Ref Fan on Mon 09 Mar 2020 13:24
Hackett and Clattenburg in no doubt Fred should have had a penalty. Not exactly sure what foul another Hackett tweet was referring to but I suspect it was the United free kick leading to the first goal which he said wasn't a foul.
Halsey writing it was a bad weekend for VAR's.
I know some contributors often disagree with the views expressed by some of our ex PL and FIFA referees, but that doesn't mean their opinions always count for nothing.
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 09 Mar 2020 12:35
Dermot Gallagher seems to be the unofficial PGMOL spokesman, so what does he say?
Unofficial?!
Post by: Ref Fan on Mon 09 Mar 2020 12:32
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 09 Mar 2020 10:21
I only heard commentary of the Manchester Derby at the time and it didn’t sound like Mr Dean at his best. Having now viewed the Fred penalty/dive incident a few times, there is contact, but I’m unsure it’s as clearcut a penalty as other contributors assert.
Agreed, but it was very poor to book Fred when Mike Dean was unsure and VAR Andre Marriner should have intervened
If you agree that it wasn't a clearcut penalty, then surely VAR shouldn't have got involved because not giving a penalty wouldn't be a clear and obvious error (showing a yellow card for simulation might have been but VAR can't intervene on that alone. It has to think it was a clear and obvious penalty.)
I think a lot of the incidents over the weekend just go to show how high the PL's VAR bar is. I'm not sure the PL/PGMO would consider VAR to be incorrect with these decisions even though I think most fans would.
Post by: Microscopist on Mon 09 Mar 2020 08:56
(https://scontent.flhr4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/89242359_1511604215667208_4708523628143050752_o.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_oc=AQmxgRdVqDrBmzQyJKvB9YGaHzAva4PpMNCJYDKZ-tvir9xgOu_ly7PBuXjSBd9VkHsXS-YzTe_XSSJEA7SGahv9&_nc_ht=scontent.flhr4-1.fna&oh=7a538159c58d522ca6751e3d0a5b4097&oe=5E8DBF29)
Post by: Ref Fan on Mon 09 Mar 2020 08:24
Post by: Ref Fan on Mon 09 Mar 2020 08:20
"However, after watching the replays, it was clear Otamendi kicked Fred's shin. As a result, a penalty should have been awarded". He goes on "I wish Dean had been advised to take a look at the monitor at Old Trafford, because I am sure he would have reversed his decision and given the spot-kick.
Instead VAR made the final decision — and it was the wrong one".
Post by: dave26 on Mon 09 Mar 2020 03:23
I only heard commentary of the Manchester Derby at the time and it didn’t sound like Mr Dean at his best. Having now viewed the Fred penalty/dive incident a few times, there is contact, but I’m unsure it’s as clearcut a penalty as other contributors assert.
Agreed, but it was very poor to book Fred when Mike Dean was unsure and VAR Andre Marriner should have intervened
Post by: Boz on Mon 09 Mar 2020 02:58
Post by: Ref Fan on Sun 08 Mar 2020 22:55
Oliver at Liverpool for Bournemouth's goal, Pawson at Burnley I gather, and today how Marriner didn't get Dean to look at the monitor, or tell him he'd got it wrong for the foul on Fred is a complete mystery. Surely he couldn't claim not 'clear and obvious'.
Post by: dave26 on Sun 08 Mar 2020 22:01
Very poor decision to book Fred for simulation when it was a clear penalty not the first time Mike Dean has wrongly booked a player and another Utd player for simulation this season
Post by: ajb95 on Sun 08 Mar 2020 21:54
Post by: RCG on Sun 08 Mar 2020 17:29
Post by: QuoCob on Fri 06 Mar 2020 08:45
I'd guess there will probably be something a bit more specific than T-shirt line in the wording the LOTG ends up using.
Elsewhere, the Premier League have ditched handshakes because of the current situation. Carlo Ancelotti leading the trend? ;)
Wherever they draw the line(s), either for offside or on the arm, there'll still be controversy over centimetres or millimetres.
They're only moving the same boundary margin to another place of/for delineation.
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 05 Mar 2020 19:11
Elsewhere, the Premier League have ditched handshakes because of the current situation. Carlo Ancelotti leading the trend? ;)
Post by: Whistleblower on Thu 05 Mar 2020 09:57
A 't-shirt line' is set to be applied to help distinguish between where the arm/hand starts and the shoulder - it seems this is basically where a short-sleeve t-shirt ends. If the ball hits above that it will not be handball, if it hits below it will be considered the arm/hand. Apparently 5 of the 11 goals disallowed because of handball in the PL this season would have countedwith this new distinction.
What size t shirt as no doubt an XL t shirt sleeve is larger than a small size. Looking at the t shirt I am wearing the sleeve ends mid way between shoulder and elbow - so some distance away from the shoulder. Or are they talking about a t shirt with capped sleeves? Does all of the ball have to be above the line and we will then be looking at millimetre decisions again as in offside?
bruntyboy makes a very good point. The T shirts I wear are of the more generous cut and the sleeve stops almost on the elbow. That's because I have nothing in the muscle department to show off and nobody would want to see it anyway ! However I have noticed those ( mainly younger ) men of a more sculptured physique have sleeves which barely cover the armpit.
I fear the T shirt line rule will simply add more room for interpretation rather than less.
Post by: bruntyboy on Mon 02 Mar 2020 19:35
A 't-shirt line' is set to be applied to help distinguish between where the arm/hand starts and the shoulder - it seems this is basically where a short-sleeve t-shirt ends. If the ball hits above that it will not be handball, if it hits below it will be considered the arm/hand. Apparently 5 of the 11 goals disallowed because of handball in the PL this season would have countedwith this new distinction.
What size t shirt as no doubt an XL t shirt sleeve is larger than a small size. Looking at the t shirt I am wearing the sleeve ends mid way between shoulder and elbow - so some distance away from the shoulder. Or are they talking about a t shirt with capped sleeves? Does all of the ball have to be above the line and we will then be looking at millimetre decisions again as in offside?
Post by: bruntyboy on Mon 02 Mar 2020 19:29
From what I saw Kavanagh was happy to award the goal I wonder if the AR Constantine Hatzidakis was the one who recommended the VAR review as Kavanagh went to speak to him first
"Recommended the VAR review"? Aren't all goals automatically reviewed for possible infringements.
Post by: LateTackle on Mon 02 Mar 2020 18:48
Interesting - Mark Clattenburg says Everton’s disallowed goal should have stood , whereas Dermot Gallagher says it could have gone either way and had it been given it would have been acceptableI have made this point before, usually related to interpretations of offside in the past. The law may be straightforward in itself, yet once all the various ongoing interpretations are applied it simply confuses the matter to the point that a decision can be justified whatever it is. So whether the Everton goal had been given or not, it became the 'right' decision.
This mindset seems to have evolved because of the number of cameras which can show where there is an obvious glaring error. It is in the interest of the refereeing hierarchy to be able to justify just about anything. With the arrival of VAR all it has done is confuse everyone further. Maybe that is the intention.
Post by: QuoCob on Mon 02 Mar 2020 18:44
Post by: dave26 on Mon 02 Mar 2020 17:19
Post by: bmb on Mon 02 Mar 2020 16:28
A 't-shirt line' is set to be applied to help distinguish between where the arm/hand starts and the shoulder - it seems this is basically where a short-sleeve t-shirt ends. If the ball hits above that it will not be handball, if it hits below it will be considered the arm/hand. Apparently 5 of the 11 goals disallowed because of handball in the PL this season would have countedwith this new distinction.
I suspect one of those that wouldn't have been disallowed would not have been immediately followed with a penalty for the other team either...
Post by: TVOS on Mon 02 Mar 2020 16:07
Following on from Everton's disallowed 'goal', it's a shame VAR (or competent officials) weren't present for Portsmouth's second goal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgT1M3L8uSg&t=11s
It's arguably a bigger distraction than the Everton- Man United one. I do think the Law there (rather than VAR interpretation) needs another look in that case. Maybe if an attacking player is in an offside position in the six-yard box he should be given offside, end of.
I think 'arguably' is a massive understatement. I'm just surprised none of our players even questioned it, although going off some of their performances this season, maybe not!
Post by: JohnCoyle on Mon 02 Mar 2020 16:03
Following on from Everton's disallowed 'goal', it's a shame VAR (or competent officials) weren't present for Portsmouth's second goal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgT1M3L8uSg&t=11s
It's arguably a bigger distraction than the Everton- Man United one. I do think the Law there (rather than VAR interpretation) needs another look in that case. Maybe if an attacking player is in an offside position in the six-yard box he should be given offside, end of.
Post by: dave26 on Mon 02 Mar 2020 15:48
Post by: QuoCob on Mon 02 Mar 2020 15:05
Regarding the disallowed Everton goal, it is a very difficult decision to decide whether in similar circumstances a goal should be allowed. Previously there have been discussions about was the keeper distracted, was his vision obscured, was he concerned about a possible deflection? One answer mooted was that any attacker in an offside position between the goals is automatically deemed to be interfering with play, hence offside. It removes doubt. Is this an example? That referees are instructed to deem that the player is offside if he is between the posts because he may be interfering with play regardless of whether he moves or not? Similar to an attacker accidentally handling a ball in the build up to a goal, goal is automatically wiped off. It removes the doubt element. Note that De Gea claimed that he was distracted.... who are we to say? So the decision removes the doubt element.
I think that DeGea was distracted by the intervention of Maguire when he tried to block the shot...not the player on the ground.
Post by: TVOS on Mon 02 Mar 2020 14:58
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgT1M3L8uSg&t=11s
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 02 Mar 2020 14:55
Post by: JohnCoyle on Mon 02 Mar 2020 08:59
Regarding the disallowed Everton goal, it is a very difficult decision to decide whether in similar circumstances a goal should be allowed. Previously there have been discussions about was the keeper distracted, was his vision obscured, was he concerned about a possible deflection? One answer mooted was that any attacker in an offside position between the goals is automatically deemed to be interfering with play, hence offside. It removes doubt. Is this an example? That referees are instructed to deem that the player is offside if he is between the posts because he may be interfering with play regardless of whether he moves or not? Similar to an attacker accidentally handling a ball in the build up to a goal, goal is automatically wiped off. It removes the doubt element. Note that De Gea claimed that he was distracted.... who are we to say? So the decision removes the doubt element.
Strikes me that the whole direction of travel of the offside law and VAR is going towards the old "if you're offside, you're offside" interpretation that was in currency when I started watching football. It would have the merit of providing more certainty, but expect the number of goals scored (allowed) to be dramatically reduced and the return of such things as the Offside Trap.
Certainly VAR seems to exist in its current form mainly to disallow goals that would have been allowed (and maybe not particularly contentious either) 12 months ago.
Post by: Failed Ref on Mon 02 Mar 2020 07:54
Post by: LateTackle on Mon 02 Mar 2020 00:24
I do agree that the commentary of some games is abysmal. Sky don't seem to worry at all about the quality of commentary in lower division games, the pair today were dreadful, as were the pundits. I also agree that not every foul is a card, but it would be good to see referees at that level who know the difference.It seemed a bizarre decision to me. As long as the ball didn't touch the player sat on the ground, what was the problem? The idea that he was obstructing the keeper's view is ludicrous, unless Warwick Davis had been in goal! I am sure the goal would have stood but for VAR's interference.I also watched the Coventry game and thought it was very refreshing to see that the "it was a foul so it must be a caution" syndrome had not descended to this level of football, in spite of the commentators wanting it to be the case. I suppose that it will only be a matter of time because there are players falling around all over the place, that really does seem to have caught on.
I only saw the end as I had watched the Coventry v Sunderland game earlier. In that one a similar situation happened in that a shot deflected off a defender and then a forward in an offside position, so was rightly disallowed. No VAR there but somehow they got it right despite weak performances from both referee and linesman overall. (I continue to despair at the standard in the 3rd tier.)
However, that does not excuse the shocking leniency of Salisbury today. There were some pretty poor challenges, notably from Sunderland, yet the referee seemed to have little idea what was going on. The inconsistency to book the Coventry keeper after ignoring a more obvious example of dissent by Flanagan only seconds earlier was utterly bizarre. This is the second top-of-the-table clash at St Andrews this week that has seen a weak, ineffective referee appointed. At least the officials did get the offside 'goal' correct, although the linesman's part in it was verging on comical.
Post by: Ashington46 on Sun 01 Mar 2020 22:56
They've always been clear that VAR wouldn't ensure 100% accuracy and it's never been claimed that it would. The aim is to increase the accuracy from before.
Rugby League also uses video technology doesn't it?
Re Rugby League ---please read what I said, I think that it was clear without further explanation.
VAR in football will never, ever be 100% accurate, however, this is what the managers, players and modern fans seem to want, to say nothing of the media desire to raise more talking points and to pull all our officials apart. Mike RIley getting all the hassle about the non-use of monitors when it was the desire of the clubs in the first place.
Has it increased accuracy from before or has it increased controversy from what it was before?
Has it enhanced the enjoyment of the game as far as the average fan is concerned?
Will it eventually lead to giving us a better game to watch or is it just a red herring?
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 01 Mar 2020 22:19
Rugby League also uses video technology doesn't it?
Post by: Ashington46 on Sun 01 Mar 2020 21:58
Poor decision. Hussin was remarkably positive and possibly too quick. Mason's body language was 'questioning' at best, ge was not convinced but could not be 100% certain to overturn it
In other words, in spite of VAR being present, a wrong decision led to a goal, surely that defeats the object because VAR is supposed to ensure that, as far as decisions in football are concerned everything will be 100% correct ---or have I missed the point again?
It seems that Utopia is quite some way away yet, whether it be managers, players or officials making mistakes.
The only way to achieve this state is to have the game played and officiated by robots, take out all the human element and fans all over the world will be supremely happy.
Meanwhile, I will be thankful that Rugby League is available to watch without having any hang-ups about it being 100% correct all the time. They do miss the occasional forward pass etc. but it just does not seem to be discussed to the extent that quite a number of football incidents are.
Yes, I may be getting tedious, however, I shall never reach the heights of VAR!
Post by: RCG on Sun 01 Mar 2020 21:16
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 01 Mar 2020 20:54
Shame VAR cannot he used to help out linemen for corners and goal kicks. Today’s league cup final a clear goal kick for villa but hussin gives a corner and city score from it. Turns out to be the wining goal.
Ruined what was a very competent performance by Lee and his team. Kept control well even when things were heating up in the second half!
I can understand their reasoning for not doing it though, because if you wait until the ball's gone in then people will get frustrated if you start back to earlier phases, and if you have to check every corner/goal-kick/throw-in/free kick decision then we'll have a lot more delays.
Perhaps in future there might be something added to allow for obvious injustices to be quickly corrected but it is a delicate balance to work out.
Post by: ajb95 on Sun 01 Mar 2020 20:24
Ruined what was a very competent performance by Lee and his team. Kept control well even when things were heating up in the second half!
Post by: Ashington46 on Sun 01 Mar 2020 19:38
5. Eddie Howe is indeed one of the most respectful of managers and is a role model for those in
his profession.
In yesterday's local paper:
Howe confirmed the club had made contact to “try and get a better understanding” over the pivotal decisions.
He said: “We’ve had dialogue with the authorities to try and get a better understanding of the thought processes behind the decisions, basically.
“We left Burnley obviously very disappointed with the result, analysing incidents in the game to see how conclusions and decisions were made.
“It was quite difficult because when you’re seeing one thing and you think ‘I can’t see how that’s gone against us’ I think you have to seek answers.
“Not that you’re going to change the decisions, you’re not looking to do that, but just so you have a better understanding of the process involved.
“It’s still a little bit grey to be honest in my mind as to how those decisions were reached, despite having communication with the appropriate people.
“But it’s something we have to accept and we’re definitely not going to change it now. Our mindset has to be that we are very much focused in the moment.”
Howe added: “I’d like to think I’ve been pretty consistent with my thoughts on VAR.
“I think the offsides have improved the game. I know there will still be debate about how tight VAR should intervene with and how big are the lines and things like that but I think, in the main, it’s consistent for both teams.
“It’s been consistent through the season so I think that rule in itself has been pretty good.
"I think the way the game is going, VAR is not going to disappear so maybe the on-field referee using the monitors more to back his decision or to change his call but I still think it should be in his hands.”
“The others, there’s still been some bad decisions even with VAR and I’d like to trust the on-field referee a little bit more.......
This really is the crux of the matter but it is a very old fashioned view! Come on Eddie, you are almost saying that VAR should not have been introduced if we could trust the on-field referee.
What is football coming to if managers are saying that they could trust onfield referees to make decisions? I quite like this idea ---I wonder if it will ever catch on!
Post by: bmb on Sun 01 Mar 2020 19:27
5. Eddie Howe is indeed one of the most respectful of managers and is a role model for those in
his profession.
In yesterday's local paper:
Howe confirmed the club had made contact to “try and get a better understanding” over the pivotal decisions.
He said: “We’ve had dialogue with the authorities to try and get a better understanding of the thought processes behind the decisions, basically.
“We left Burnley obviously very disappointed with the result, analysing incidents in the game to see how conclusions and decisions were made.
“It was quite difficult because when you’re seeing one thing and you think ‘I can’t see how that’s gone against us’ I think you have to seek answers.
“Not that you’re going to change the decisions, you’re not looking to do that, but just so you have a better understanding of the process involved.
“It’s still a little bit grey to be honest in my mind as to how those decisions were reached, despite having communication with the appropriate people.
“But it’s something we have to accept and we’re definitely not going to change it now. Our mindset has to be that we are very much focused in the moment.”
Howe added: “I’d like to think I’ve been pretty consistent with my thoughts on VAR.
“I think the offsides have improved the game. I know there will still be debate about how tight VAR should intervene with and how big are the lines and things like that but I think, in the main, it’s consistent for both teams.
“It’s been consistent through the season so I think that rule in itself has been pretty good.
“The others, there’s still been some bad decisions even with VAR and I’d like to trust the on-field referee a little bit more.
“I think the way the game is going, VAR is not going to disappear so maybe the on-field referee using the monitors more to back his decision or to change his call but I still think it should be in his hands.”
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 01 Mar 2020 19:02
Post by: rustyref on Sun 01 Mar 2020 18:54
• 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
Keeper has full sight of the shot at all times. He hasn't challenged an opponent. He hasn't attempted to play the ball and has actually done the opposite. And his movement has zero impact on De Gea's ability to play the ball as by that time he has already dived the wrong way.
Post by: PhiltheRef on Sun 01 Mar 2020 17:32
Ball may have hit him so he moved his foot out of the way.
IMHO that makes him active and the movement has an effect on the incident.
Post by: Mackem ref on Sun 01 Mar 2020 17:13
Post by: Ashington46 on Sun 01 Mar 2020 17:08
It seemed a bizarre decision to me. As long as the ball didn't touch the player sat on the ground, what was the problem? The idea that he was obstructing the keeper's view is ludicrous, unless Warwick Davis had been in goal! I am sure the goal would have stood but for VAR's interference.Agreed. The shot would more likely have gone for a throw-in than in the net but for McGuire’s intervention. De Gea wasn’t prevented from doing anything he was simply wrong-footed by a clumsy attempt to play the ball by one of his own players.VAR is certainly getting better and giving everyone more drama, I think that Carlo Ancelotti must be its biggest fan he even managed to get a red card whilst enthusing about it today.
Will this be subject to a VAR review too? Surely, he was complimenting the officials as they always do at the end of the game, very harch red!
Agreed another perfectly good goal ruled out by VAR. But cannot defend Ancelotti's antics there. Very poor from a guy who is a very gentleman and humble guy. Well done to Kavanagh for showing him the red.
Thought Kavanagh was quite up and down. Good control and foul detection but maybe lacked a bit of authority at times. One poor decision which was handball by Fred when it hit his thigh.
I only saw the end as I had watched the Coventry v Sunderland game earlier. In that one a similar situation happened in that a shot deflected off a defender and then a forward in an offside position, so was rightly disallowed. No VAR there but somehow they got it right despite weak performances from both referee and linesman overall. (I continue to despair at the standard in the 3rd tier.)
I also watched the Coventry game and thought it was very refreshing to see that the "it was a foul so it must be a caution" syndrome had not descended to this level of football, in spite of the commentators wanting it to be the case. I suppose that it will only be a matter of time because there are players falling around all over the place, that really does seem to have caught on.
Post by: LateTackle on Sun 01 Mar 2020 16:30
It seemed a bizarre decision to me. As long as the ball didn't touch the player sat on the ground, what was the problem? The idea that he was obstructing the keeper's view is ludicrous, unless Warwick Davis had been in goal! I am sure the goal would have stood but for VAR's interference.Agreed. The shot would more likely have gone for a throw-in than in the net but for McGuire’s intervention. De Gea wasn’t prevented from doing anything he was simply wrong-footed by a clumsy attempt to play the ball by one of his own players.VAR is certainly getting better and giving everyone more drama, I think that Carlo Ancelotti must be its biggest fan he even managed to get a red card whilst enthusing about it today.
Will this be subject to a VAR review too? Surely, he was complimenting the officials as they always do at the end of the game, very harch red!
Agreed another perfectly good goal ruled out by VAR. But cannot defend Ancelotti's antics there. Very poor from a guy who is a very gentleman and humble guy. Well done to Kavanagh for showing him the red.
Thought Kavanagh was quite up and down. Good control and foul detection but maybe lacked a bit of authority at times. One poor decision which was handball by Fred when it hit his thigh.
I only saw the end as I had watched the Coventry v Sunderland game earlier. In that one a similar situation happened in that a shot deflected off a defender and then a forward in an offside position, so was rightly disallowed. No VAR there but somehow they got it right despite weak performances from both referee and linesman overall. (I continue to despair at the standard in the 3rd tier.)
Post by: Matt on Sun 01 Mar 2020 16:27
Agreed another perfectly good goal ruled out by VAR. But cannot defend Ancelotti's antics there. Very poor from a guy who is a very gentleman and humble guy. Well done to Kavanagh for showing him the red.And if the clip sky have shown of the incident it’s as equally a rubbish call as the offside.
Post by: Scally Bob on Sun 01 Mar 2020 16:16
Agreed. The shot would more likely have gone for a throw-in than in the net but for McGuire’s intervention. De Gea wasn’t prevented from doing anything he was simply wrong-footed by a clumsy attempt to play the ball by one of his own players.VAR is certainly getting better and giving everyone more drama, I think that Carlo Ancelotti must be its biggest fan he even managed to get a red card whilst enthusing about it today.
Will this be subject to a VAR review too? Surely, he was complimenting the officials as they always do at the end of the game, very harch red!
Agreed another perfectly good goal ruled out by VAR. But cannot defend Ancelotti's antics there. Very poor from a guy who is a very gentleman and humble guy. Well done to Kavanagh for showing him the red.
Thought Kavanagh was quite up and down. Good control and foul detection but maybe lacked a bit of authority at times. One poor decision which was handball by Fred when it hit his thigh.
Post by: ajb95 on Sun 01 Mar 2020 16:06
VAR is certainly getting better and giving everyone more drama, I think that Carlo Ancelotti must be its biggest fan he even managed to get a red card whilst enthusing about it today.
Will this be subject to a VAR review too? Surely, he was complimenting the officials as they always do at the end of the game, very harch red!
Agreed another perfectly good goal ruled out by VAR. But cannot defend Ancelotti's antics there. Very poor from a guy who is a very gentleman and humble guy. Well done to Kavanagh for showing him the red.
Thought Kavanagh was quite up and down. Good control and foul detection but maybe lacked a bit of authority at times. One poor decision which was handball by Fred when it hit his thigh.
Post by: Ashington46 on Sun 01 Mar 2020 15:59
Will this be subject to a VAR review too? Surely, he was complimenting the officials as they always do at the end of the game, very harsh red!
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 28 Feb 2020 23:37
Firstly, for those suggesting Coote might have 'lacked the confidence' to tell an experienced referee like Oliver he'd got it wrong it's worth remembering that Coote was VAR and Oliver was referee for the first use of a pitchside monitor in English domestic football this season in the Crystal Palace V Derby cup tie.
Secondly, this is why I'm not a fan of the idea of a challenge system. Imagine if Chelsea had used a challenge and the officials had inexplicably decided it wasn't a red card. The sense of injustice would just be compounded, even more so if losing that challenge prevented Chelsea from being able to overturn any incorrect decision that might occur later in the game.
Post by: bruntyboy on Fri 28 Feb 2020 20:03
At Old Trafford last night, first experience of VAR 'live'.
I was side on the player so didn't see the handball, but certainly from player reaction from both side decision looked correct. No more than murmur of complaint by Bruges, and dismissed player had time to get off the pitch, walk the length of the touchline and up the tunnel before the referee had even moved towards the monitor. Again, understanding that part of VAR is to be more clinical and factual, but the mood from the vast majority of the players/fans was decision was correct and therefore to me making the referee go to screens was overkill, and actually undermined him slightly, as questioning what he saw straight on from 10 yards away, that all players agreed with, was wrong.
Point of note I think the check was rather Mignolet would have saved it (as opposed to going wide) but that would be very difficult to prove one way or the other
What has Mignolet got to do with it? Fabianski "should" have saved that goal at Anfield the other nght.
Post by: adcr85 on Fri 28 Feb 2020 13:55
I was side on the player so didn't see the handball, but certainly from player reaction from both side decision looked correct. No more than murmur of complaint by Bruges, and dismissed player had time to get off the pitch, walk the length of the touchline and up the tunnel before the referee had even moved towards the monitor. Again, understanding that part of VAR is to be more clinical and factual, but the mood from the vast majority of the players/fans was decision was correct and therefore to me making the referee go to screens was overkill, and actually undermined him slightly, as questioning what he saw straight on from 10 yards away, that all players agreed with, was wrong.
Point of note I think the check was rather Mignolet would have saved it (as opposed to going wide) but that would be very difficult to prove one way or the other
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 28 Feb 2020 12:25
For those who think VAR is much better elsewhere than the PL's version, a needless 3 minute on-field review in Manchester UNited V Bruge for a red card for handball. Referee eventually upheld red card but use of monitor in this instance seemed unnecessary. Using it too much just as bad as using it too little.
I am pretty sure they were trying to determine if the shot was on target or not.
Hardly needless...…
On target is a red card for DOGSO but going wide and it would be a caution only.
Match changing in fact, although I do concur that 3 minutes was too long, albeit the check entirely appropriate.
A red card was not a clear and obvious error. You could not conclusively say from the replays that it was off target so in my view the VAR should have left it with the on-field decision rather than initiating the pantomime of the referee standing at a monitor for three minutes and watching the same angles they had, only to then award the penalty after all. VAR was not designed to be so forensic and it was lengthy delays such as that which initially led to suggestions that monitors shouldn't be sued.
Post by: RefObserver on Fri 28 Feb 2020 09:02
For those who think VAR is much better elsewhere than the PL's version, a needless 3 minute on-field review in Manchester UNited V Bruge for a red card for handball. Referee eventually upheld red card but use of monitor in this instance seemed unnecessary. Using it too much just as bad as using it too little.
I am pretty sure they were trying to determine if the shot was on target or not.
Hardly needless...…
On target is a red card for DOGSO but going wide and it would be a caution only.
Match changing in fact, although I do concur that 3 minutes was too long, albeit the check entirely appropriate.
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 27 Feb 2020 20:44
Post by: Whistleblower on Thu 27 Feb 2020 07:33
Or perhaps even Betty Turpin (late of The Rovers Return)?Turpin looks at the monitor and sees Alonso's flaying arm catch the Bayern player. Red card issued, Alonso departs, Correct decision and action. Simple!
Picture of Turpin in today's Times looking at the monitor, with the heading, 'Are you watching Mike Riley?' :D
In this case Riley is probably more dick Turpin than clement!
I wouldn't eat one of Mike Riley's Hotpots; too much of a dog's breakfast and as for Dick Turpin, well, hardly, he hasn't exactly "stand and delivered" has he ?
Post by: reflector on Wed 26 Feb 2020 22:25
Or perhaps even Betty Turpin (late of The Rovers Return)?Turpin looks at the monitor and sees Alonso's flaying arm catch the Bayern player. Red card issued, Alonso departs, Correct decision and action. Simple!
Picture of Turpin in today's Times looking at the monitor, with the heading, 'Are you watching Mike Riley?' :D
In this case Riley is probably more dick Turpin than clement!
Post by: ajb95 on Wed 26 Feb 2020 16:47
Turpin looks at the monitor and sees Alonso's flaying arm catch the Bayern player. Red card issued, Alonso departs, Correct decision and action. Simple!
Picture of Turpin in today's Times looking at the monitor, with the heading, 'Are you watching Mike Riley?' :D
In this case Riley is probably more dick Turpin than clement!
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Wed 26 Feb 2020 13:45
Turpin looks at the monitor and sees Alonso's flaying arm catch the Bayern player. Red card issued, Alonso departs, Correct decision and action. Simple!
Picture of Turpin in today's Times looking at the monitor, with the heading, 'Are you watching Mike Riley?' :D
Post by: bruntyboy on Wed 26 Feb 2020 00:37
Do we think the penalty would have been given if Bournemouth hadn’t scored? We won’t know that but I think it wouldn’t have been. Ben Mees at Southampton was similar the week before was similar as Smith controlled the ball to stop it from going out with his arm. I’m amazed Dean and in fact Cann who was on that side didn’t give it. If the first goal is ruled out (harsh on Bournemouth in my opinion as there still isn’t clear evidence that it touched the arm and yes I’m a Burnley fan) then the penalty has to be given as a matter of consistency. Until the refs start looking at the screens we are going to get different decisions in each game. I’m for VAR but we have to use it like the rest of the world. I think clubs will realise this and from next season this will happen. However we have to see The ref Making the final call as he is in charge of the game.
Your consistency argument only works if the defensive handball penalty is awarded following an unintentional handball by the defender.
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Tue 25 Feb 2020 22:44
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 25 Feb 2020 17:44
https://play.acast.com/s/The-Ornstein-and-Chapman-Podcast/b42e6226-142b-4502-85b2-e0642acb222f
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 25 Feb 2020 14:46
The onfield referee must make the final decision. Whether I've got my referee or supporters hat on I cannot see any other solution to this total mismanagement of VAR.
That only works if the initial part of the process is correct. In any competition using the system, the VAR has to say 'I recommend an on-field review for...' If the VAR says 'Check complete, you've got it right' then a referee's not going to look at the monitor. That was the main issue on Saturday.
Post by: Ivanhoe on Tue 25 Feb 2020 13:54
Post by: nemesis on Tue 25 Feb 2020 13:27
Do we think the penalty would have been given if Bournemouth hadn’t scored? We won’t know that but I think it wouldn’t have been. Ben Mees at Southampton was similar the week before was similar as Smith controlled the ball to stop it from going out with his arm. I’m amazed Dean and in fact Cann who was on that side didn’t give it. If the first goal is ruled out (harsh on Bournemouth in my opinion as there still isn’t clear evidence that it touched the arm and yes I’m a Burnley fan) then the penalty has to be given as a matter of consistency. Until the refs start looking at the screens we are going to get different decisions in each game. I’m for VAR but we have to use it like the rest of the world. I think clubs will realise this and from next season this will happen. However we have to see The ref Making the final call as he is in charge of the game.
Trust me we don’t want to go down the route of other European countries who’s implementation has been arguably worse
Wow ... that's too much for my comprehension.
It is difficult to contemplate how much worse it could actually be, although I guess it is important to differentiate between the system and the staggering incompetence of those people given the responsibility of using the system.
I do wonder if they are collectively trying to make it such an abject failure that it is dropped completely but I see no springtime for Hitler in the outcome.
Post by: ajb95 on Tue 25 Feb 2020 07:26
Do we think the penalty would have been given if Bournemouth hadn’t scored? We won’t know that but I think it wouldn’t have been. Ben Mees at Southampton was similar the week before was similar as Smith controlled the ball to stop it from going out with his arm. I’m amazed Dean and in fact Cann who was on that side didn’t give it. If the first goal is ruled out (harsh on Bournemouth in my opinion as there still isn’t clear evidence that it touched the arm and yes I’m a Burnley fan) then the penalty has to be given as a matter of consistency. Until the refs start looking at the screens we are going to get different decisions in each game. I’m for VAR but we have to use it like the rest of the world. I think clubs will realise this and from next season this will happen. However we have to see The ref Making the final call as he is in charge of the game.
Trust me we don’t want to go down the route of other European countries who’s implementation has been arguably worse
Post by: ClaretandBlue06 on Tue 25 Feb 2020 06:59
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Mon 24 Feb 2020 15:18
Chelsea v Spurs - Le Celso - Coote should have told Oliver to look at the monitor which would have led him to issue a red card.
Man City v Leicester - De Bruyne - a clear handball and should have been a penalty. A nonsense to suggest that he was protecting his head.
Burnley v AFCB - two 'handball' incidents - neither was given by the ref and there was no clear evidence to overrule either decision.
For what it is worth, I agree with Peter Walton apart from the 2nd penalty incident at Burnley when I thought the ball hit Wilson on the upper arm (not the shoulder) and was therefore a penalty. The pity is that AFCB went up the other end and scored what looked like a legitimate goal
and were therefore very aggrieved when play was pulled back and Burnley awarded a penalty which effectively took the game out of AFCB's reach.
My general view:
VAR and ref agree - no problem, Lazaro's rugby tackle on Zaha at Selhurst Park comes into this category;
VAR wants to overrule referee or there is serious doubt (as in the 1st Burnley penalty incident - shoulder /arm?) - ref is required to look at the monitor and make up his own mind from that.
Or is that being too simplistic? And of course that assumes that the VAR is doing his job properly which, as Walton suggests, Coote did not do at Chelsea.
Post by: Whistleblower on Mon 24 Feb 2020 13:26
However, I think we are deluding ourselves if we think there are a whole cadre of people, ex referees or not, who are going to make this think work well. Let the final decision be the onfield referee's consulting a monitor and VAR simply advisory to him.
As for Coote. A FIFA official and he can't work out one of the simplest decision with all the information to hand...we are in worrying times.
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 24 Feb 2020 13:10
Bobby Madley wrote a blog post a few months ago saying the Premier League and the clubs didn't want the monitors used after the Liverpool V West Brom incident so I don't think it's as if Mike Riley just suddenly walked in one idea and said 'I've decided to do my own thing with this'.
But I think they are trying to keep too many parties happy and not really pleasing anyone. you can't have a very high bar and have no delays but still get the vast majority of decisions correct. Something has to give.
I do wonder going forwards if Wenger's suggestion of using the big screens is passed whether we end up just following the rugby approach and the referee looks at a big screen to make the decision rather than running to a monitor.
Post by: reflector on Mon 24 Feb 2020 11:44
Typical I'm afraid. The whole purpose of VAR is to assist in getting decisions as correct as possible so why complicate it? Keep it as simple as possible and if the referee wants to have a look to see for himself, let him do so. In fact, go further and tell him that he must. The final decision should be that of the match referee as that is what he is there for.houldAs I understand it the referee can't just decide to go and have a look. VAR looks at it and if he feels the referee has made a clear and obvious error he will either overrule, or in the case of VC or SFP advise the referee to go and have a look at the monitor.
Interesting what the IFAB has to say about this in their protocol - apologies if this has been ;inked previously.
http://www.theifab.com/projects/vars/principles-practicalities-protocol
This was noted:
" The referee can initiate a ‘review’ for a potential ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ when:
the VAR (or another match official) recommends a ‘review’
the referee suspects that something serious has been ‘missed’
And then:
" The VAR describes to the referee what can be seen on the TV replay(s) but not the decision to be taken, and the referee then:
makes a final decision based on the referee’s own perception and the information from the VAR, and, where appropriate, input from other match officials – VAR-only review.
or
goes to the referee review area to view replay footage – ‘on-field review’ (OFR) – before making a final decision. The other match officials will not review the footage unless, in exceptional circumstances, asked to do so by the referee"
I hadn't appreciated the degree to which the Riley/Swarbrick protocol seems to vary from the IFAB
A 'criminal' disregard for the tools available to officials to ensure that the intention of VAR, to obtain the best results, is achieved.
It is a degradation of the system by the PGMOL that is irresponsible, with a major degree of negligence, and has been the main cause for the criticism and controversy that has occurred this season which in turn has spoiled the spectacle within the 'best league in the world' for all that are associated with it in whatever capacity.
I especially have sympathy for the Officials that have had to work with the VAR system with effectively one arm tied behind their backs.
Post by: QuoCob on Mon 24 Feb 2020 09:55
As I understand it the referee can't just decide to go and have a look. VAR looks at it and if he feels the referee has made a clear and obvious error he will either overrule, or in the case of VC or SFP advise the referee to go and have a look at the monitor.
Interesting what the IFAB has to say about this in their protocol - apologies if this has been ;inked previously.
http://www.theifab.com/projects/vars/principles-practicalities-protocol
This was noted:
" The referee can initiate a ‘review’ for a potential ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ when:
the VAR (or another match official) recommends a ‘review’
the referee suspects that something serious has been ‘missed’
And then:
" The VAR describes to the referee what can be seen on the TV replay(s) but not the decision to be taken, and the referee then:
makes a final decision based on the referee’s own perception and the information from the VAR, and, where appropriate, input from other match officials – VAR-only review.
or
goes to the referee review area to view replay footage – ‘on-field review’ (OFR) – before making a final decision. The other match officials will not review the footage unless, in exceptional circumstances, asked to do so by the referee"
I hadn't appreciated the degree to which the Riley/Swarbrick protocol seems to vary from the IFAB
A 'criminal' disregard for the tools available to officials to ensure that the intention of VAR, to obtain the best results, is achieved.
It is a degradation of the system by the PGMOL that is irresponsible, with a major degree of negligence, and has been the main cause for the criticism and controversy that has occurred this season which in turn has spoiled the spectacle within the 'best league in the world' for all that are associated with it in whatever capacity.
I especially have sympathy for the Officials that have had to work with the VAR system with effectively one arm tied behind their backs.
Post by: Ref Fan on Mon 24 Feb 2020 08:53
As I understand it the referee can't just decide to go and have a look. VAR looks at it and if he feels the referee has made a clear and obvious error he will either overrule, or in the case of VC or SFP advise the referee to go and have a look at the monitor.
Interesting what the IFAB has to say about this in their protocol - apologies if this has been ;inked previously.
http://www.theifab.com/projects/vars/principles-practicalities-protocol
This was noted:
" The referee can initiate a ‘review’ for a potential ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ when:
the VAR (or another match official) recommends a ‘review’
the referee suspects that something serious has been ‘missed’
And then:
" The VAR describes to the referee what can be seen on the TV replay(s) but not the decision to be taken, and the referee then:
makes a final decision based on the referee’s own perception and the information from the VAR, and, where appropriate, input from other match officials – VAR-only review.
or
goes to the referee review area to view replay footage – ‘on-field review’ (OFR) – before making a final decision. The other match officials will not review the footage unless, in exceptional circumstances, asked to do so by the referee"
I hadn't appreciated the degree to which the Riley/Swarbrick protocol seems to vary from the IFAB
Post by: flipmode on Mon 24 Feb 2020 00:20
I think other countries and organisations are ahead of the PL in England. MLS seem ot have been well led by Howard Webb for instance who is good with the media and they release audio clips every week and talk you through decisions.
Even going back 10 years, there were websites such as Ref World (?) where you could ask questions of referees and so on, so it feels like the PL's communications have gone backwards since then rather than forwards.
And it doesn't necessarily need to be led by referees. If you have a group of middle-aged former referees who aren't so up to date with cutting edge technology then bring in some people who do have those skills, even if not former referees themselves.
Completely agree with this! The A-League in Australia, whilst it does have its downfalls, has for me; absolutely nailed the implementation of VAR. It took a few teething problems in the outset to iron out, but they were nowhere near as prolonged and game defining, as the mistakes being made by the PL VAR's.
The biggest plus I see, is the regular releasing of audio after the game, when a critical VAR decision has been reached. It's provides clarity for the fans, outlines a clear thought process on how the decision was arrived at, and above all else, shows just how good VAR is when it is used correctly.
My main gripe with Riley's ALDI version of VAR is why the flaming heck are the referees not allowed to use those pitch-side monitors? What is the point of VAR if you're not using one of the main selling points of the system, I just don't get it at all?
Riley needs to face the music here. He needs to come out and acknowledge the shortcomings of the system he has implemented. He also needs to acknowledge that some VAR's have made very, very bad decisions, and what will happen/be implemented to make sure this does not happen again. How on earth Coote saw that incident as many times as he did, and came to the conclusion that it was not SFP, is really, really troubling.
Post by: Ref Fan on Sun 23 Feb 2020 19:31
As I understand it the referee can't just decide to go and have a look. VAR looks at it and if he feels the referee has made a clear and obvious error he will either overrule, or in the case of VC or SFP advise the referee to go and have a look at the monitor. For me there are two problems ...
- what is the definition of a clear and obvious error?
- in the case of yesterday afternoon's game we had a relatively inexperienced SG1 official as VAR with the match referee being one of the top FIFA referees in the World. Did that perhaps cloud his judgement in that he didn't feel comfortable telling such a senior referee that he was wrong. Sadly we will probably never know due to the wall of silence coming out of PGMOL towers.
Many thanks rustyref. I thought that was probably the case.
Incidentally, Gary Neville commented on Sky this afternoon that they can hear the conversation between VAR and the referee. I'm not sure I was aware of that. Are they forbidden from repeating, or indicating the gist, of what was said?
I also wondered if BT had the same access, in which case the chat between Oliver and Coote yesterday would be interesting to know. What a pity the PGMOL can't be more open on this.
Post by: reflector on Sun 23 Feb 2020 16:44
These are my observations from watching Match of the DayA brilliant summary of where we are on this As for Coote, how he ever got to the Select Group and then on to the FIFA list is quite astounding.
1. VAR is turning into a shambles
2. Referees must be allowed to consult pitchside monitors both on the advice of VAR and also
when they are personally unsure that they have made a correct decision.
3. PGMOL should not let Coote anywhere near a VAR appointment until he has received
intensive further training and passed some sort of a test that he understands the training.
4. Bournemouth were extremely hard done by.
5. Eddie Howe is indeed one of the most respectful of managers and is a role model for those in
his profession.
6. VAR is changing the intrinsic nature of football and for the worse, scrap it.
7. Silence from Riley is unaccaptable and it's time he was replaced with someone who has skills
in mass media communication.
Post by: Ashington46 on Sun 23 Feb 2020 16:39
I think other countries and organisations are ahead of the PL in England. MLS seem ot have been well led by Howard Webb for instance who is good with the media and they release audio clips every week and talk you through decisions.
Even going back 10 years, there were websites such as Ref World (?) where you could ask questions of referees and so on, so it feels like the PL's communications have gone backwards since then rather than forwards.
And it doesn't necessarily need to be led by referees. If you have a group of middle-aged former referees who aren't so up to date with cutting edge technology then bring in some people who do have those skills, even if not former referees themselves.
Could someone with knowledge please explain just when the game of football became an instrument of cutting edge technology.
I have been very misguided all these years in thinking that it was a game played by humans and officiated by humans and watched by humans.
They all understood that, what really matters is not how many passes are made, how many players are cautioned or dismissed, how much possession a team had, how many VAR reviews took place etc., it is the number of goals scored by one team being greater than those scored by the other.
Will cutting edge technology alter this? I think not.
Yes, I am a sad old beggar but only because I can see the game I love being ruined -----why? -----because money rules!
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 23 Feb 2020 16:05
Even going back 10 years, there were websites such as Ref World (?) where you could ask questions of referees and so on, so it feels like the PL's communications have gone backwards since then rather than forwards.
And it doesn't necessarily need to be led by referees. If you have a group of middle-aged former referees who aren't so up to date with cutting edge technology then bring in some people who do have those skills, even if not former referees themselves.
Post by: bmb on Sun 23 Feb 2020 15:49
The likes of Riley, Swarbrick, Gallagher and co just seem a bit stuck in the old days and unwilling to modernise. Football and the media landscape have moved on and they need to do much more in communication and so on than they are currently. If they can't, they should be replaced by people who can.
This is a global thing though. Time referees retire they are already middle aged & I don't mean that as an insult or anything like that, it's a simple fact. Those who are middle aged or older now grew up in a completely different world, the internet hadn't even been invented let alone become what it is today. Many of us have adapted to these modern days, many can barely switch on a PC but the reality is we are stuck at a stage where the dinosaurs still haven't quite died out and a lot of those dinosaurs are still in positions of power. Over the next few years they should be replaced by I don't know "more modernised" middle aged people - does that even make sense?! I know what I am trying to say!! There needs to be more progression in the majority of the ivory towers, not just the UK.
Our head of refereeing in Hungary is coming up 65 and has been in the job 20 odd years, our chair of the referee committee is coming up 71 and the other vice chair is I believe a sprightly 52! The first 2 still seem to live in a world where women are barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and the man goes out to provide for them! It's of no surprise to anyone but the President of our federation that in 2 years of preparing our referees for VAR we have a total of 3 who have done the course! 3 of our male FIFA referees aren't even trained! The same training methods from 20 years ago are still being used now - absolutely zero progression. As for communication - I'm not sure pen and paper has been discovered yet, let alone email!
My frustrated rant for the day! I'll go back to my NBI corner and stop interrupting now!
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 23 Feb 2020 15:02
I think that VAR has exposed that some of the Premier League referees don't excel in the actual decision making part even if they might excel in fitness, man-management, ability to let a game flow, etc. that have helped them get to the top as on-field referees (I remember Howard Webb saying that he thought management and game control were what generally separated the very top referees rather than their actual judgement on what a foul is, etc.) I think they will have to be quite ruthless come the end of the season in who they keep as a VAR. I think anyone who has got more than three (or whatever number you want to use) decisions wrong as a VAR over the course of the season shouldn't continue in that capacity and they should bring new people in as VARs to replace them.
Peter Walton's contributions on BT haven't give me much confidence that former referees are necessarily a magic solution though!
Post by: bmb on Sun 23 Feb 2020 14:38
Re. point 7, isn't Swarbrick in charge of VAR?
Even if he is Riley is the big boss man & will sanction the decisions of those under his, and I use the term loosely, leadership. Time for him to face the music instead of hiding away in the ivory towers trying to pretend all is well.
Post by: TVOS on Sun 23 Feb 2020 14:24
These are my observations from watching Match of the Day
1. VAR is turning into a shambles
2. Referees must be allowed to consult pitchside monitors both on the advice of VAR and also
when they are personally unsure that they have made a correct decision.
3. PGMOL should not let Coote anywhere near a VAR appointment until he has received
intensive further training and passed some sort of a test that he understands the training.
4. Bournemouth were extremely hard done by.
5. Eddie Howe is indeed one of the most respectful of managers and is a role model for those in
his profession.
6. VAR is changing the intrinsic nature of football and for the worse, scrap it.
7. Silence from Riley is unaccaptable and it's time he was replaced with someone who has skills
in mass media communication.
Re. point 7, isn't Swarbrick in charge of VAR?
Re. point 3, Coote should be let nowhere near another football match if he thinks that challenge wasn't worthy of a red.
Post by: Microscopist on Sun 23 Feb 2020 14:23
Quote
Peradventure he sleepeth ...What has Boris to do with this?
Quote
Also will Manchester CIty be fined by the FA for half their team crowding around the referee before their penalty was looked at?Given their conversion rate you might wonder why they bothered.
Quote
De Bruyne just got away with hands up in a wall at a free-kick. I think those at Stockley Park are using a different set of laws.Be nice to think they were using any set of laws. I note the the different, more obviously intentional and potentially more painful handball in the penalty area on Aguero against West Ham hasn't merited similar attention on here.
The real wonder of VAR is how Riley and Swarbrick are still in post. But with the state of Football Governance generally fitting Shakespeare's descriptor for Denmark, nothing is truly surprising.
Post by: JCFC on Sun 23 Feb 2020 13:21
7. Silence from Riley is unacceptable and it's time he was replaced with someone who has skills
in mass media communication.
Peradventure he sleepeth ...
Post by: Whistleblower on Sun 23 Feb 2020 13:15
1. VAR is turning into a shambles
2. Referees must be allowed to consult pitchside monitors both on the advice of VAR and also
when they are personally unsure that they have made a correct decision.
3. PGMOL should not let Coote anywhere near a VAR appointment until he has received
intensive further training and passed some sort of a test that he understands the training.
4. Bournemouth were extremely hard done by.
5. Eddie Howe is indeed one of the most respectful of managers and is a role model for those in
his profession.
6. VAR is changing the intrinsic nature of football and for the worse, scrap it.
7. Silence from Riley is unaccaptable and it's time he was replaced with someone who has skills
in mass media communication.
Post by: Ashington46 on Sun 23 Feb 2020 12:58
On MOTD neither of the two "handballs" in the Burnley game could definitely be seen to be either arm or shoulder. Are players' shirts now going to have a line drawn on them to show where an arm ends?
Also will Manchester CIty be fined by the FA for half their team crowding around the referee before their penalty was looked at?
I was at the Burnley game and Bournemouth can complain as much as they want about VAR, however, both were handball, the ball hitting the forearm of the players concerned and not the shoulder as was claimed.
Eh? Billings (I think) forearm is on top of his shoulder? What a medical mystery that guy is.
He certainly is. In the second half he barged a Burnley player in the back right in front of Mike Dean who correctly gave a free kick. The problem is that Billings tried to insist that it was shoulder to shoulder, therefore, he would seem to have a problem in knowing what is and what isn't a shoulder, whether it is his own or an opponent.
Post by: rustyref on Sun 23 Feb 2020 11:15
- what is the definition of a clear and obvious error?
- in the case of yesterday afternoon's game we had a relatively inexperienced SG1 official as VAR with the match referee being one of the top FIFA referees in the World. Did that perhaps cloud his judgement in that he didn't feel comfortable telling such a senior referee that he was wrong. Sadly we will probably never know due to the wall of silence coming out of PGMOL towers.
Post by: Ref Fan on Sun 23 Feb 2020 10:39
Can the Referee elect to look at the monitor of his own accord or has he to be advised to do so by the VAR in the case of a possible RC? Whatever Oliver did or didn't see directly yesterday, he must have realised something had happened by the immediate reaction of the Chelsea bench. And seeing footage again, I'm astonished if Friend as 4O gave him no input because he did have a clear view and was very close. Irrespective of what feed Oliver may have been getting from VAR, could he have decided to check for himself or does the protocol not allow that?
That perhaps raises another point. With the introduction of VAR, is there less incentive for AR's and 4O's to tell the referee if he's missed something?
As an aside, it's unfortunate that Oliver and Tierney were involved in such controversies over KMI's in my view because I felt both controlled their respective games very well. Oliver was getting praised on the BT commentary.
I do have some sympathy for David Coote. That error in the early game could hardly have put him in an ideal frame of mind for the later one. Incidentally, suppose he'd said he couldn't do the second game (unlikely), or if a VAR is taken ill during a game, what is plan B?
Post by: TheThingFromLewes on Sun 23 Feb 2020 10:22
On MOTD neither of the two "handballs" in the Burnley game could definitely be seen to be either arm or shoulder. Are players' shirts now going to have a line drawn on them to show where an arm ends?
Also will Manchester CIty be fined by the FA for half their team crowding around the referee before their penalty was looked at?
I was at the Burnley game and Bournemouth can complain as much as they want about VAR, however, both were handball, the ball hitting the forearm of the players concerned and not the shoulder as was claimed.
The main problem was that one of the ARs missed at least three clear offside decisions in the first half which, had they led to goals would have been reviewed. This is not what we should be seeing and I think that the instructions being given because of VAR are causing ARs big probllems.
I have been against VAR ever since it was introduced and led to a very debatable incident which led to France winning the World Cup, however, it is what FIFA decided would help the game and it is here to stay, therefore, just stop moaning about it and get on with the game and accept whatever decisions are given, because, like it or not, the VAR is just another human opinion about an incident and, although may of us on here have officiated at a decent level, we all have differing opinions of different incidents.
A simple game which three people used to look after at the top level is now deemed to need six people to officiate and, in the opinion of many, they still get it wrong. They have messed about with TLOG, given different interpretations, some of which are even open to question when VAR is used, undermined the authority of onfield officials, given the pundits more and more to talk about, often spouting rubbish because many don't seem to know TLOG etc., etc. ad nauseam.
VAR is here to stay, warts and all, so just get used and stop moaning ---it is what players, managers, the media etc. wanted ---isn't it?
One could argue that a lot of the PL teams and coaches etc would expect the decisions made to have some logic and be accurate, not the dross we saw yesterday particularly from Coote. Although I agree with the majority of your analysis. :-)
Post by: Matt on Sun 23 Feb 2020 10:17
Eh? Billings (I think) forearm is on top of his shoulder? What a medical mystery that guy is.On MOTD neither of the two "handballs" in the Burnley game could definitely be seen to be either arm or shoulder. Are players' shirts now going to have a line drawn on them to show where an arm ends?
Also will Manchester CIty be fined by the FA for half their team crowding around the referee before their penalty was looked at?
I was at the Burnley game and Bournemouth can complain as much as they want about VAR, however, both were handball, the ball hitting the forearm of the players concerned and not the shoulder as was claimed.
Post by: Ashington46 on Sun 23 Feb 2020 09:46
On MOTD neither of the two "handballs" in the Burnley game could definitely be seen to be either arm or shoulder. Are players' shirts now going to have a line drawn on them to show where an arm ends?
Also will Manchester CIty be fined by the FA for half their team crowding around the referee before their penalty was looked at?
I was at the Burnley game and Bournemouth can complain as much as they want about VAR, however, both were handball, the ball hitting the forearm of the players concerned and not the shoulder as was claimed.
The main problem was that one of the ARs missed at least three clear offside decisions in the first half which, had they led to goals would have been reviewed. This is not what we should be seeing and I think that the instructions being given because of VAR are causing ARs big probllems.
I have been against VAR ever since it was introduced and led to a very debatable incident which led to France winning the World Cup, however, it is what FIFA decided would help the game and it is here to stay, therefore, just stop moaning about it and get on with the game and accept whatever decisions are given, because, like it or not, the VAR is just another human opinion about an incident and, although may of us on here have officiated at a decent level, we all have differing opinions of different incidents.
A simple game which three people used to look after at the top level is now deemed to need six people to officiate and, in the opinion of many, they still get it wrong. They have messed about with TLOG, given different interpretations, some of which are even open to question when VAR is used, undermined the authority of onfield officials, given the pundits more and more to talk about, often spouting rubbish because many don't seem to know TLOG etc., etc. ad nauseam.
VAR is here to stay, warts and all, so just get used and stop moaning ---it is what players, managers, the media etc. wanted ---isn't it?
Post by: dave26 on Sun 23 Feb 2020 08:39
Some may remember that soon as VAR was being talked about making its way into football especially the PL i was one of the first to be critical and add that it would kill the game we all love and sadly due to the way it’s being used and the inconsistency it’s proving to be the case
Post by: bruntyboy on Sun 23 Feb 2020 00:55
Also will Manchester CIty be fined by the FA for half their team crowding around the referee before their penalty was looked at?
Post by: robbieg on Sat 22 Feb 2020 23:18
Today has been a very dark day for PL VAR decisions... this mess needs to be sorted damn quickly before it cascades into a full blown crisis.....
It's no wonder we seem to think some officials are simply incompetent.
It's time Riley was actually forced to face the music.
Dermot should call off sick on Monday for sky's ref watch and Riley should do what he gets paid!!!!! to do, actually appear in public and defend VAR.
I hope Sky have allocated a three hour slot to discuss this unutterable shambles that this weekend has produced.
As for hearing from the clowns running this debacle from the PGMOL on tv... there's more chance of Alan Young getting a FIFA badge than that happening.
Or Craig Hicks getting the 2022 World Cup Final gig.
Post by: refjd on Sat 22 Feb 2020 23:08
Post by: guest42 on Sat 22 Feb 2020 22:27
Get.
Rid.
I’m talking about both VAR and Riley.
The integrity of the beautiful game is rapidly going to the dogs...
To quote Paddy Donegan in 1976 - “It’s a Thundering Disgrace...”
Post by: Mattref20 on Sat 22 Feb 2020 21:15
Post by: TheThingFromLewes on Sat 22 Feb 2020 20:42
Today has been a very dark day for PL VAR decisions... this mess needs to be sorted damn quickly before it cascades into a full blown crisis.....
It's no wonder we seem to think some officials are simply incompetent.
It's time Riley was actually forced to face the music.
Dermot should call off sick on Monday for sky's ref watch and Riley should do what he gets paid!!!!! to do, actually appear in public and defend VAR.
I hope Sky have allocated a three hour slot to discuss this unutterable shambles that this weekend has produced.
As for hearing from the clowns running this debacle from the PGMOL on tv... there's more chance of Alan Young getting a FIFA badge than that happening.
Post by: carrowman on Sat 22 Feb 2020 20:38
Today has been a very dark day for PL VAR decisions... this mess needs to be sorted damn quickly before it cascades into a full blown crisis.....
It's no wonder we seem to think some officials are simply incompetent.
It's time Riley was actually forced to face the music.
Dermot should call off sick on Monday for sky's ref watch and Riley should do what he gets paid!!!!! to do, actually appear in public and defend VAR.
Post by: TheThingFromLewes on Sat 22 Feb 2020 20:18
It's no wonder we seem to think some officials are simply incompetent.
Post by: ajb95 on Sat 22 Feb 2020 18:56
De Bruyne just got away with hands up in a wall at a free-kick. I think those at Stockley Park are using a different set of laws.
And to top it off city awarded a penalty for something exactly the same! Ludicrous!
Post by: reflector on Sat 22 Feb 2020 18:45
Mike Dean said on the Peter Crouch podcast Eddie Howe was one of the most respectful managers - will be interesting to see if that's the case today!
He always has been, despite some absolutely shocking decisions going against us over the years. I don't expect today to be any different. He was taught the trade and coached throughout his career by men who were strong on respect towards referees.
He measured his words very carefully in a 5Live post match interview but managed to make very clear his discontent with what had happened in the match today as well as in other games. It was a far more effective way of getting his point across without recourse to ranting and raving and of course avoiding a letter from the FA.
Taking a wider view, if the powers that be want their officials to be respected, they are going to have to get this mess sorted out and quickly.
edited to fix quote thingamajigga
Post by: bmb on Sat 22 Feb 2020 18:36
Mike Dean said on the Peter Crouch podcast Eddie Howe was one of the most respectful managers - will be interesting to see if that's the case today!
He always has been, despite some absolutely shocking decisions going against us over the years. I don't expect today to be any different. He was taught the trade and coached throughout his career by men who were strong on respect towards referees.
From the BBC:
With the game at 0-0, Joshua King struck from a corner but saw the goal disallowed after a video check because of a handball by Philip Billing.
"For me, it's a clear goal," said Howe. "I think it's come off Phil's shoulder, and without that I don't think VAR get involved in [Wilson's] goal.
"I've always been clear on VAR. I like the offside decisions as it's black and white, right and wrong. But I've always maintained the referee should make the final decision on the pitch."
"We create our own destiny - not VAR, the referees or the studio. There were things we could have done better today, but my support is with the team. I thought we were very harshly treated."
Post by: carrowman on Sat 22 Feb 2020 18:03
Post by: bmb on Sat 22 Feb 2020 18:01
Mike Dean said on the Peter Crouch podcast Eddie Howe was one of the most respectful managers - will be interesting to see if that's the case today!
He always has been, despite some absolutely shocking decisions going against us over the years. I don't expect today to be any different. He was taught the trade and coached throughout his career by men who were strong on respect towards referees.
Post by: Readingfan on Sat 22 Feb 2020 17:02
Dean and VAR having a shocker at turf moor today. Clear goal for Bournemouth rules out for handball despite hitting his shoulder and then Burnley awarded a penalty for handball after Bournemouth equalise!!
Not seen them myself yet but BT said VAR got both right. I think that's the first time in the PL we've had a goal at one end cancelled for a penalty at the other?
Mike Dean said on the Peter Crouch podcast Eddie Howe was one of the most respectful managers - will be interesting to see if that's the case today!
Post by: ajb95 on Sat 22 Feb 2020 16:39
Post by: JCFC on Thu 20 Feb 2020 21:00
Post by: bmb on Thu 20 Feb 2020 20:31
"having VAR doesn't mean you don't have to go out in the morning and buy bread. Life goes on after VAR."
So there you have it.
Post by: Ashington46 on Tue 18 Feb 2020 22:39
I mentioned in another thread that I didn't think Anthony Taylor or Martin Atkinson had performed at their best recently - perhaps indicated by some interesting stats which have both of them having the most subjective decisions overturned by VAR (5 each) - https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229769618631331840The decisions were overturned because of someone else's opinion and had those decisions been made in any other level of English football this would not have happened.
Tell that to the young referee who you are mentoring and he will say but I thought that you told me that my decision was final and that I should stick with it and don't get into any argument about it ---players will reluctantly accept this.
You then have to explain that the Premier League plays to a different interpretation of The Laws of the Game to all other football in the country ---some of the looks I have received have been quite amazing.
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 18 Feb 2020 22:19
Post by: reflector on Tue 18 Feb 2020 16:16
I digress, but having seen the incident two or three times involving the late great Harry Gregg being bundled over the line by Nat Lofthouse in the 1958 FA Cup Final, do you think VAR would have intervened if the match had been played this season? I genuinely feel that Nat was going for the ball, and as Harry was falling backwards at the time and not in control of the ball in any shape or form, I don't think VAR would have seen it as a clear and obvious error by the referee, J Sherlock of Sheffield. I am sure there are contributors out there who will want to disagree!I don't think that it would have been considered in any way untoward back in the 1950's or that Mr Sherlock had made an error. It's good to see incidents such as this from time to time as a reminder as to how much the game has changed over the years.
RIP Harry, a great goalie and a very brave man.
Post by: Ashington46 on Tue 18 Feb 2020 16:11
Ah AT that is well before my time but in an era where you were permitted to breath near a goalie. These days it seems you only have to glance in a goalies direction and he'll get a free kick for it!
The big problem these days, bmb, is that it is not only the goalies which this applies to, so many players seem to be afflicted with balance problems, it makes me wonder whether or not they should be involved in a physical sport.
Post by: bmb on Tue 18 Feb 2020 16:00
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Tue 18 Feb 2020 15:54
RIP Harry, a great goalie and a very brave man.
Post by: ajb95 on Mon 17 Feb 2020 22:37
I was hoping the VAR was going to even things up and stop "big" teams getting the benefit of poor decisions. How has Harry Maguire got away with his kick, very similar to Son's which was a VAR red.
Because United are no longer a “big team”?? 😉😜
Post by: carrowman on Mon 17 Feb 2020 21:01
Post by: TVOS on Mon 17 Feb 2020 17:18
But I don't really understand what you're suggesting happened. Do you think Mike Dean knew but just couldn't be bothered to tell Coady?
I think 'feeling for the game' is too easy a line to bring out. 'Feeling for the game' could mean that the VAR does not give especially detailed information to try to avoid holding the game up. Or it could be that Oliver did tell Dean who was offside but Dean was too but in the moment Dean's concentration was on trying to placate the likes of Coady who were surrounding him and he didn't fully hear.
I haven't seen too much of a reaction to it and I don't think there is much reaction to be had really, apart from tabloids looking to make headlines.
My 'feeling for the game' line is in reaction to it being summarily dismissed on here, as opposed to what did or didn't happen at the game.
I have no idea what happened; I just find it hard to believe Michael Oliver wouldn't have regaled Mike Dean with a bit more information, which I've already said.
And Dean spoke to Coady as they were leaving the field at half-time, as shown by the cameras following them.
Post by: QuoCob on Mon 17 Feb 2020 16:54
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 17 Feb 2020 16:48
I think 'feeling for the game' is too easy a line to bring out. 'Feeling for the game' could mean that the VAR does not give especially detailed information to try to avoid holding the game up. Or it could be that Oliver did tell Dean who was offside but Dean was too but in the moment Dean's concentration was on trying to placate the likes of Coady who were surrounding him and he didn't fully hear.
I haven't seen too much of a reaction to it and I don't think there is much reaction to be had really, apart from tabloids looking to make headlines.
Post by: TVOS on Mon 17 Feb 2020 16:37
I'm with Ref Watcher really - it was an offside and a factual decision. Who knows whether Mike Dean was told the name of the player and forgot or if he was just told 'the corner taker'. If I'm the referee, I'm not that concerned with knowing the full intricacies of the decision or precisely how the offisde occurred - I just want to know that it's offside and where the restart is from.
If he was told "the corner taker", he could have said that to Conor Coady, which he didn't. If he was just told "it's offside", then that's a pretty poor standard of communication all round.
There is simply no excuse for him not to know (unless Michael Oliver didn't tell him, which is highly unlikely) and some of these posts are just supporting the referee for the sake of it.
It seems other posts are just criticising the referee for the sake of it.
Why is it highly unlikely that Michael Oliver wouldn't have told him who was offside? How do we know exactly what was said between everyone, including Dean and Coady? Why does it even matter whether or not Coady is told if it's Jota or Neto who's offside?
I'm not criticising the referee; I'm criticising the 'clutching at straws' going on in parts of this thread.
We know what Coady said because it was shown on TV and extensively online all weekend.
It matters because it has caused quite a lot of interest and debate and I find it hardly believable that there wasn't some form of more detailed information between two such professional and able referees as Oliver and Dean.
Anyone who doesn't think it matters has no feeling for the game.
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 17 Feb 2020 16:26
I'm with Ref Watcher really - it was an offside and a factual decision. Who knows whether Mike Dean was told the name of the player and forgot or if he was just told 'the corner taker'. If I'm the referee, I'm not that concerned with knowing the full intricacies of the decision or precisely how the offisde occurred - I just want to know that it's offside and where the restart is from.
If he was told "the corner taker", he could have said that to Conor Coady, which he didn't. If he was just told "it's offside", then that's a pretty poor standard of communication all round.
There is simply no excuse for him not to know (unless Michael Oliver didn't tell him, which is highly unlikely) and some of these posts are just supporting the referee for the sake of it.
It seems other posts are just criticising the referee for the sake of it.
Why is it highly unlikely that Michael Oliver wouldn't have told him who was offside? How do we know exactly what was said between everyone, including Dean and Coady? Why does it even matter whether or not Coady is told if it's Jota or Neto who's offside?
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 17 Feb 2020 16:16
Oh come on, please. That's clutching at straws a bit. It was a key incident in the game.
It also might give the decision more credibility if he had been able to answer Coady's perfectly valid question. Surely Michael Oliver had told Mike Dean how and where the offside occurred, if only for information purposes.
I'm pretty sure, going on previous posting patterns on this forum, that had the referee involved been Simon Hooper for example, it would be a vastly different view on here. Another example of him getting it wrong, not credible that he didn't know the details, yadda yadda ::) ::)
Perhaps so - but that doesn't mean it would be right!
Post by: TVOS on Mon 17 Feb 2020 16:14
I'm with Ref Watcher really - it was an offside and a factual decision. Who knows whether Mike Dean was told the name of the player and forgot or if he was just told 'the corner taker'. If I'm the referee, I'm not that concerned with knowing the full intricacies of the decision or precisely how the offisde occurred - I just want to know that it's offside and where the restart is from.
If he was told "the corner taker", he could have said that to Conor Coady, which he didn't. If he was just told "it's offside", then that's a pretty poor standard of communication all round.
There is simply no excuse for him not to know (unless Michael Oliver didn't tell him, which is highly unlikely) and some of these posts are just supporting the referee for the sake of it.
Post by: bmb on Mon 17 Feb 2020 16:06
Oh come on, please. That's clutching at straws a bit. It was a key incident in the game.
It also might give the decision more credibility if he had been able to answer Coady's perfectly valid question. Surely Michael Oliver had told Mike Dean how and where the offside occurred, if only for information purposes.
I'm pretty sure, going on previous posting patterns on this forum, that had the referee involved been Simon Hooper for example, it would be a vastly different view on here. Another example of him getting it wrong, not credible that he didn't know the details, yadda yadda ::) ::)
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 17 Feb 2020 15:55
Post by: TVOS on Mon 17 Feb 2020 14:33
https://twitter.com/btsportfootball/status/1228424384555180037Referees don't need to know who was offside, still less remember who it was later. They just need to know that someone was offside. They are making a decision not writing a match report.
https://www.sportbible.com/football/football-news-reactions-conor-coady-confronts-mike-dean-at-half-time-after-var-controversy-20200214?source=twitter
Player asks Mike Dean who was offside when the goal disallowed.
Mike Dean replies he doesn't know & points to his ear piece indicating it was a VAR decision
Player replies so you don't know, nobody knows, you're refereeing the game & you don't f'ing know!
All caught by the BBC camera!
Think there will be some outcry/fall out with this one!
Oh come on, please. That's clutching at straws a bit. It was a key incident in the game.
It also might give the decision more credibility if he had been able to answer Coady's perfectly valid question. Surely Michael Oliver had told Mike Dean how and where the offside occurred, if only for information purposes.
Post by: Ref Watcher on Mon 17 Feb 2020 12:37
https://twitter.com/btsportfootball/status/1228424384555180037Referees don't need to know who was offside, still less remember who it was later. They just need to know that someone was offside. They are making a decision not writing a match report.
https://www.sportbible.com/football/football-news-reactions-conor-coady-confronts-mike-dean-at-half-time-after-var-controversy-20200214?source=twitter
Player asks Mike Dean who was offside when the goal disallowed.
Mike Dean replies he doesn't know & points to his ear piece indicating it was a VAR decision
Player replies so you don't know, nobody knows, you're refereeing the game & you don't f'ing know!
All caught by the BBC camera!
Think there will be some outcry/fall out with this one!
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 17 Feb 2020 12:31
I don't especially buy the fan unrest argument or at least iff a fan commits an offence because of a VAR decision then it's quite possible they would do it in relation to something else at a football match too.
Post by: Ivanhoe on Mon 17 Feb 2020 12:12
Was it clear and obvious ?
Wolves Safety Officer stated that there were numerous incidents around the ground after the decision, some supporters left the ground and he thinks they are close to a major incident on the back of a VAR decision.
Is this what VAR set out to do, cause fan unrest and drive some away ?
Post by: nemesis on Sun 16 Feb 2020 12:18
Wolves v Leicester tonight shows another example of how the English game has been killed by our incompetent handling of VAR. Half a stud offside.... Maybe!
It's not specific to the English game and I'd say there have been closer ones given as offside - you can at least see that he's offside with the naked eye when you look at a still image which you haven't been able to do with all of them.
I think it is a difficult issue to find a resolution that everyone is happy with. Some people have suggested just using the feet to draw the offside line but that would have been offside last night. Some have suggested a 10cm margin of error but again I think he'd have been given offside. Even if you go with the 'Don't use lines, just rely on the naked eye' then it's something that would raise debate. There's obviously not much in it but equally you can see the right boot is ahead when you slow it right down.
Or just put the lines in the correct place??
I don't really see the relevance of that in relation to last night - is there any suggestion the lines weren't in the right place?
It's not possible to know. That for me is a problem.
Post by: Readingfan on Sat 15 Feb 2020 19:54
The red line from last night was clearly in line with Neto's right boot.
Post by: ajb95 on Sat 15 Feb 2020 17:04
Wolves v Leicester tonight shows another example of how the English game has been killed by our incompetent handling of VAR. Half a stud offside.... Maybe!
It's not specific to the English game and I'd say there have been closer ones given as offside - you can at least see that he's offside with the naked eye when you look at a still image which you haven't been able to do with all of them.
I think it is a difficult issue to find a resolution that everyone is happy with. Some people have suggested just using the feet to draw the offside line but that would have been offside last night. Some have suggested a 10cm margin of error but again I think he'd have been given offside. Even if you go with the 'Don't use lines, just rely on the naked eye' then it's something that would raise debate. There's obviously not much in it but equally you can see the right boot is ahead when you slow it right down.
Or just put the lines in the correct place??
I don't really see the relevance of that in relation to last night - is there any suggestion the lines weren't in the right place?
I haven’t seen one replay all season where the lines have been in the correct place!
Post by: Readingfan on Sat 15 Feb 2020 16:55
Wolves v Leicester tonight shows another example of how the English game has been killed by our incompetent handling of VAR. Half a stud offside.... Maybe!
It's not specific to the English game and I'd say there have been closer ones given as offside - you can at least see that he's offside with the naked eye when you look at a still image which you haven't been able to do with all of them.
I think it is a difficult issue to find a resolution that everyone is happy with. Some people have suggested just using the feet to draw the offside line but that would have been offside last night. Some have suggested a 10cm margin of error but again I think he'd have been given offside. Even if you go with the 'Don't use lines, just rely on the naked eye' then it's something that would raise debate. There's obviously not much in it but equally you can see the right boot is ahead when you slow it right down.
Or just put the lines in the correct place??
I don't really see the relevance of that in relation to last night - is there any suggestion the lines weren't in the right place?
Post by: ajb95 on Sat 15 Feb 2020 16:53
Wolves v Leicester tonight shows another example of how the English game has been killed by our incompetent handling of VAR. Half a stud offside.... Maybe!
It's not specific to the English game and I'd say there have been closer ones given as offside - you can at least see that he's offside with the naked eye when you look at a still image which you haven't been able to do with all of them.
I think it is a difficult issue to find a resolution that everyone is happy with. Some people have suggested just using the feet to draw the offside line but that would have been offside last night. Some have suggested a 10cm margin of error but again I think he'd have been given offside. Even if you go with the 'Don't use lines, just rely on the naked eye' then it's something that would raise debate. There's obviously not much in it but equally you can see the right boot is ahead when you slow it right down.
Or just put the lines in the correct place??
Post by: Readingfan on Sat 15 Feb 2020 15:26
Wolves v Leicester tonight shows another example of how the English game has been killed by our incompetent handling of VAR. Half a stud offside.... Maybe!
It's not specific to the English game and I'd say there have been closer ones given as offside - you can at least see that he's offside with the naked eye when you look at a still image which you haven't been able to do with all of them.
I think it is a difficult issue to find a resolution that everyone is happy with. Some people have suggested just using the feet to draw the offside line but that would have been offside last night. Some have suggested a 10cm margin of error but again I think he'd have been given offside. Even if you go with the 'Don't use lines, just rely on the naked eye' then it's something that would raise debate. There's obviously not much in it but equally you can see the right boot is ahead when you slow it right down.
Post by: Ashington46 on Sat 15 Feb 2020 11:39
The wolves player who took the corner was the person offside, neto i believe.
The corner was taken and passed to another wolves player, jota i believe, who then laid the ball
Backwards where neto, the corner taker ran from an offside position nearer to the corner flag ( the leicester
Defence had all moved up after the initial kick.) the offside position was very marginal ie a heel .
I wish the announcements/ big screen would actually tell the crowd why the decision had been made
Rather than just saying disallowed offside. They could have said neto offside as he played the ball to cross it into the area.
Clarification in the ground would be more helpful as not all fans are au fait with all the laws of the game.
Strangely, a lot of these fans, who are not au fait with all the laws of the game, go on their repective club message boards and give marks to the referees and criticise them up hill and down dale. Surely if they are qualified to do this, they do not need explanations! ;D
Post by: Readingfan on Sat 15 Feb 2020 11:18
Post by: Claretman on Sat 15 Feb 2020 10:36
The corner was taken and passed to another wolves player, jota i believe, who then laid the ball
Backwards where neto, the corner taker ran from an offside position nearer to the corner flag ( the leicester
Defence had all moved up after the initial kick.) the offside position was very marginal ie a heel .
I wish the announcements/ big screen would actually tell the crowd why the decision had been made
Rather than just saying disallowed offside. They could have said neto offside as he played the ball to cross it into the area.
Clarification in the ground would be more helpful as not all fans are au fait with all the laws of the game.
Post by: JohnCoyle on Sat 15 Feb 2020 09:56
Like I've said before, VAR seems to be taking us in a different direction of travel when it comes to interpreting the Offside Law. IFAB have some thinking to do at their forthcoming meeting.
Post by: ajb95 on Sat 15 Feb 2020 09:54
Just as an aside, it came to light that lower league teams had to pay half the VAR cost for FA Cup matches...so half of £9251+vat
Never actually thought of the costs involved!
That's going to be a big hit to a few of the smaller clubs.
They don't really pay for it, rather it is taken out of the match allowable expenses and they get half of what is left from gate receipts. So they get less income from the game.
So basically it hits smaller clubs financially!?
Post by: rustyref on Fri 14 Feb 2020 23:31
https://twitter.com/btsportfootball/status/1228424384555180037
https://www.sportbible.com/football/football-news-reactions-conor-coady-confronts-mike-dean-at-half-time-after-var-controversy-20200214?source=twitter
Player asks Mike Dean who was offside when the goal disallowed.
Mike Dean replies he doesn't know & points to his ear piece indicating it was a VAR decision
Player replies so you don't know, nobody knows, you're refereeing the game & you don't f'ing know!
All caught by the BBC camera!
Think there will be some outcry/fall out with this one!
I don't think so to be honest. It was a strange one but it was offside, the biggest complaints seem to be around that that pass had gone backwards so can't be offside, but that is a nonsense (sadly a lot of even qualified referees believe that you can only be offside if the ball is played forwards). Mike Dean probably won't have had a full picture of what the offside was, but he restarted play from the correct place so he at least had a good idea.
Post by: bmb on Fri 14 Feb 2020 22:41
https://www.sportbible.com/football/football-news-reactions-conor-coady-confronts-mike-dean-at-half-time-after-var-controversy-20200214?source=twitter
Player asks Mike Dean who was offside when the goal disallowed.
Mike Dean replies he doesn't know & points to his ear piece indicating it was a VAR decision
Player replies so you don't know, nobody knows, you're refereeing the game & you don't f'ing know!
All caught by the BBC camera!
Think there will be some outcry/fall out with this one!
Post by: rustyref on Fri 14 Feb 2020 22:02
Just as an aside, it came to light that lower league teams had to pay half the VAR cost for FA Cup matches...so half of £9251+vat
Never actually thought of the costs involved!
That's going to be a big hit to a few of the smaller clubs.
They don't really pay for it, rather it is taken out of the match allowable expenses and they get half of what is left from gate receipts. So they get less income from the game.
Does that not amount to EXACTLY the same thing ?
Yes, exactly the same in terms of financial outcome. But I still don't think it means they necessarily pay for it, rather they get less. For example, Liverpool massively reduced admission fees for the Shrewsbury game which meant they got less money and effectively had the same outcome. Another example might be if the police insisted on an increased presence at an FA cup game, that additional cost would come out of allowed expenses and reduce the amount the away team receive.
Post by: Ashington46 on Fri 14 Feb 2020 22:00
Wolves v Leicester tonight shows another example of how the English game has been killed by our incompetent handling of VAR. Half a stud offside.... Maybe!
Can't complain --correct decision --he was coming back from offside position.
This is what the modern fan wants -- perfection ---or is it the media that wants that?
Not incompetent handling of VAR --the decision was correct.
Why am I not renewing my season ticket next season after 68 seasons? Have a guess!
Post by: nemesis on Fri 14 Feb 2020 21:07
Just as an aside, it came to light that lower league teams had to pay half the VAR cost for FA Cup matches...so half of £9251+vat
Never actually thought of the costs involved!
That's going to be a big hit to a few of the smaller clubs.
They don't really pay for it, rather it is taken out of the match allowable expenses and they get half of what is left from gate receipts. So they get less income from the game.
Does that not amount to EXACTLY the same thing ?
Post by: bmb on Fri 14 Feb 2020 21:00
The MLSZ wanted to introduce it from next season but have finally realised that we simply don't have the infrastructure currently and only have 3 referees trained in its use! (Katalin Kulcsár, Tamás Bognár & Balázs Berke)
Post by: bmb on Fri 14 Feb 2020 20:57
Just as an aside, it came to light that lower league teams had to pay half the VAR cost for FA Cup matches...so half of £9251+vat
Never actually thought of the costs involved!
That's going to be a big hit to a few of the smaller clubs.
They don't really pay for it, rather it is taken out of the match allowable expenses and they get half of what is left from gate receipts. So they get less income from the game.
Thanks for the explanation
Post by: rustyref on Fri 14 Feb 2020 19:41
Just as an aside, it came to light that lower league teams had to pay half the VAR cost for FA Cup matches...so half of £9251+vat
Never actually thought of the costs involved!
That's going to be a big hit to a few of the smaller clubs.
They don't really pay for it, rather it is taken out of the match allowable expenses and they get half of what is left from gate receipts. So they get less income from the game.
Post by: jad on Fri 14 Feb 2020 14:11
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 14 Feb 2020 10:20
I don't think this is a very good idea and the expectation seems to be that IFAB will not grant permission.
Post by: bmb on Sat 08 Feb 2020 14:58
Just as an aside, it came to light that lower league teams had to pay half the VAR cost for FA Cup matches...so half of £9251+vat
Never actually thought of the costs involved!
That's going to be a big hit to a few of the smaller clubs.
Post by: Skydank on Sat 08 Feb 2020 08:36
Never actually thought of the costs involved!
Post by: bmb on Fri 07 Feb 2020 20:09
My two pennies worth on the subject is that I think the VAR line should be used on the foot or feet only. Sod using an armpit or a shoulder to gauge an offside decision using these dotted lines. Most goals arguably are scored with a foot or you need to use your feet to accelerate onto through balls.
This VAR shambles has gone on long enough and something radical needs exploring regarding offsides.
Feet & head maybe? Completely agree regarding the armpit etc
Post by: TheThingFromLewes on Fri 07 Feb 2020 19:49
This VAR shambles has gone on long enough and something radical needs exploring regarding offsides.
Post by: bmb on Fri 07 Feb 2020 18:20
I think you've got to have some kind of consistent measurement in place - yor suggestion still involves different decisions being given in different games.
A 10cm tolerance line provides some consistency in VAR games but will result in a reduction in the number of goals being disallowed. I think it's a sensible suggestion to consider.
Decisions will always be slightly different in every single game because of the human factor involved. We've all been there where even being an inch too far ahead or behind provides a completely different viewpoint because of the differing angle it provides. I can understand the point but it feels wrong to me.
Post by: QuoCob on Fri 07 Feb 2020 18:15
The Times reports the following:
'Premier League clubs have told referees chiefs they want to bring in a new VAR offside system for next season that will give attacking players 10cm leeway in marginal decisions.'
This would be done through generating a thicker line for the defender - apparently 9 of the 25 goals disallowed for offside in the PL so far this season would have been allowed if that was followed. It needs IFAB approval and other leagues/competitions likely to follow if granted.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/premier-league-clubs-want-10cm-leeway-for-var-offside-decisions-next-season-6mw8xcl59
I hate the VAR interventions re offside as I have probably made clear but I can't say I agree with this. You can't have a situation whereby you're off/onside in 1 game but not another because the rules are different, imo.
My opinion remains the same, it it can't be seen by the naked eye and a series of lines/equations you need a maths degree for and zooming the camera in etc then the AR's decision should stand. These guys have a high accuracy level & I feel this nose hair/toe by a mm etc offside stuff just undermines what a fantastic job they do overall.
Exactly, Assistant Referees usually work with a better margin for error than 10cm leeway by only using their Mark 1 eyeballs.
We have moved from something that was not an exact science into something with 10cm leeway that will also not be an exact science.
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 07 Feb 2020 18:11
A 10cm tolerance line provides some consistency in VAR games but will result in a reduction in the number of goals being disallowed. I think it's a sensible suggestion to consider.
Post by: bmb on Fri 07 Feb 2020 18:07
The Times reports the following:
'Premier League clubs have told referees chiefs they want to bring in a new VAR offside system for next season that will give attacking players 10cm leeway in marginal decisions.'
This would be done through generating a thicker line for the defender - apparently 9 of the 25 goals disallowed for offside in the PL so far this season would have been allowed if that was followed. It needs IFAB approval and other leagues/competitions likely to follow if granted.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/premier-league-clubs-want-10cm-leeway-for-var-offside-decisions-next-season-6mw8xcl59
I hate the VAR interventions re offside as I have probably made clear but I can't say I agree with this. You can't have a situation whereby you're off/onside in 1 game but not another because the rules are different, imo.
My opinion remains the same, if it can't be seen by the naked eye and needs a series of lines/equations you need a maths degree for and zooming the camera in etc then the AR's decision should stand. These guys have a high accuracy level & I feel this nose hair/toe by a mm etc offside stuff just undermines what a fantastic job they do overall.
Post by: QuoCob on Fri 07 Feb 2020 17:33
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 07 Feb 2020 17:18
'Premier League clubs have told referees chiefs they want to bring in a new VAR offside system for next season that will give attacking players 10cm leeway in marginal decisions.'
This would be done through generating a thicker line for the defender - apparently 9 of the 25 goals disallowed for offside in the PL so far this season would have been allowed if that was followed. It needs IFAB approval and other leagues/competitions likely to follow if granted.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/premier-league-clubs-want-10cm-leeway-for-var-offside-decisions-next-season-6mw8xcl59
Post by: flipmode on Sun 19 Jan 2020 23:58
I get a message saying 'video not available in your area'?
Which is the one people might not agree with?
I'd say #3
In relation to #5 he clarified the audio between the ref at the pitchside monitor and the VAR when the players are not present.
(Attachment Link)
They do #5 in the A-League but only in post match analysis. It's so insightful and eliminates any controversy for post match discussion as you can clearly hear and see how they have come to the decision they have.
Post by: QuoCob on Sun 19 Jan 2020 15:30
I had been defending VAR when goals were disallowed for handball blaming the law change instead but that law is in general not being enforced in the Championship. Peter Bankes (ironically SG1 of course) disregarded the ball twice very clearly striking the hand of the goalscorer in the QPR - Leeds game and Dean Whitestone ignored similar last weekend, although much less clear to be fair.
Are the referees making a stand I wonder, one they cannot make when VAR is in operation.
Aren't you being slightly disingenuous, he didn't 'disregard' the handballs, he wasn't in a position to see the incident and it was on the blindside of the AR. Without VAR there was no other decision that he could make.
Post by: DublinRef on Sun 19 Jan 2020 13:12
I had been defending VAR when goals were disallowed for handball blaming the law change instead but that law is in general not being enforced in the Championship. Peter Bankes (ironically SG1 of course) disregarded the ball twice very clearly striking the hand of the goalscorer in the QPR - Leeds game and Dean Whitestone ignored similar last weekend, although much less clear to be fair.
Are the referees making a stand I wonder, one they cannot make when VAR is in operation.
Crystal Palace may want to thank VAR for overturning a penalty award to Man City for handball. However, as the Sunday Times makes clear today, this was actually a shocking decision by the normally reliable Graham Scott, in that it was a clear body to hand action and was thus never a penalty. I think Graham can count himself extremely fortunate that he had VAR available to get him 'out of jail'!
Talking of the Championship, I noted that (for the second week running), Jarred Gillett made a bad error in sending off Luongo after just 23 minutes of Sheffield Wednesday's game v Blackburn. It was never imo a red card, perhaps a yellow, perhaps not even that, with Luongo seeming to pull out of a tackle rather than going in with studs showing, which is presumably how Jarred saw it. But of course Wednesday had no recourse to VAR to get the red card overturned and they eventually lost 0-5. I rather hope Wednesday win any appeal.
AT I will take your word for it as you are always most accurate in your posting however from the angle I saw Luongo appeared to make contact high on the shin of his opponent, now I have only seen one angle of the incident from behind the goal (not the best view) so I will reserve final judgement, from what I saw however I thought a red card seemed understandable.
On the Graham Scott incident I agree with you, I can only assume he thought the ball was played directly onto the defenders hand in which case a pk would've been correct, VAR correctly intervening as rebounded up off his foot. I also agree with your assessment of Graham Scott, a very fine referee who quietly goes about his business, he should, in my opinion, be rewarded with more high profile appointments.
With respect to the broader thread of VAR, I think VAR should be introduced to the championship at the earliest opportunity, I also feel that the decision during the week to allow referees to view red card incidents on the screen, while one I applaud, simply makes you scratch your head as to why penalty kick incidents don't require viewing by the on field referee.
Post by: Bielsa’s Bucket on Sun 19 Jan 2020 12:28
As far as I know Tony Harrington is the only one to use a circle red cardPitchside monitor used for the first time in PL history today - Paul Tierney at Norwich to show a red card.
2 weeks running he has to upgrade his on-field yellow, worrying that one of our "top" refs doesn't seem able to spot/see serious foul play with his own eyes.
At least Norwich got a penalty ( 2 out of 22 ) although only after a lengthy VAR check !!! - Apparently there may have been a hand ball somewhere in the build up. So looking forward going back to the Championship.
I don't know what you are on about carrowman - it was a definite ball to hand, his hand is in a completely natural position, nothing deliberate, purely accidental...
(Attachment Link)
Cracking save by Steve Cook to be fair! Many a goalie would have loved to have claimed that one. One of those, 'please tell me he didn't actually just do what I think he just did' moments! Onwards & upwards though eh! We may well be joining you in the championship - the best part of that will be all the johnny-come-latelys will disappear back off to supporting Man Utd/Chelsea/Liverpool or whoever they supported so loyally until 5 years ago! ::)
Tierney has finally ditched his circle red card... one of the last it seems who did use it.
I Noticed That As Well, Are there actually any refs left in English league football that still use a circle red card. Must Admit I Can See Why He Ditched It, Never looked easy to fit in your pocket.
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Sun 19 Jan 2020 11:38
I had been defending VAR when goals were disallowed for handball blaming the law change instead but that law is in general not being enforced in the Championship. Peter Bankes (ironically SG1 of course) disregarded the ball twice very clearly striking the hand of the goalscorer in the QPR - Leeds game and Dean Whitestone ignored similar last weekend, although much less clear to be fair.
Are the referees making a stand I wonder, one they cannot make when VAR is in operation.
Crystal Palace may want to thank VAR for overturning a penalty award to Man City for handball. However, as the Sunday Times makes clear today, this was actually a shocking decision by the normally reliable Graham Scott, in that it was a clear body to hand action and was thus never a penalty. I think Graham can count himself extremely fortunate that he had VAR available to get him 'out of jail'!
Talking of the Championship, I noted that (for the second week running), Jarred Gillett made a bad error in sending off Luongo after just 23 minutes of Sheffield Wednesday's game v Blackburn. It was never imo a red card, perhaps a yellow, perhaps not even that, with Luongo seeming to pull out of a tackle rather than going in with studs showing, which is presumably how Jarred saw it. But of course Wednesday had no recourse to VAR to get the red card overturned and they eventually lost 0-5. I rather hope Wednesday win any appeal.
Post by: Hertsref123 on Sun 19 Jan 2020 10:55
Pitchside monitor used for the first time in PL history today - Paul Tierney at Norwich to show a red card.
2 weeks running he has to upgrade his on-field yellow, worrying that one of our "top" refs doesn't seem able to spot/see serious foul play with his own eyes.
At least Norwich got a penalty ( 2 out of 22 ) although only after a lengthy VAR check !!! - Apparently there may have been a hand ball somewhere in the build up. So looking forward going back to the Championship.
I don't know what you are on about carrowman - it was a definite ball to hand, his hand is in a completely natural position, nothing deliberate, purely accidental...
(Attachment Link)
Cracking save by Steve Cook to be fair! Many a goalie would have loved to have claimed that one. One of those, 'please tell me he didn't actually just do what I think he just did' moments! Onwards & upwards though eh! We may well be joining you in the championship - the best part of that will be all the johnny-come-latelys will disappear back off to supporting Man Utd/Chelsea/Liverpool or whoever they supported so loyally until 5 years ago! ::)
Tierney has finally ditched his circle red card... one of the last it seems who did use it.
I Noticed That As Well, Are there actually any refs left in English league football that still use a circle red card. Must Admit I Can See Why He Ditched It, Never looked easy to fit in your pocket.
Post by: TheThingFromLewes on Sun 19 Jan 2020 07:09
Pitchside monitor used for the first time in PL history today - Paul Tierney at Norwich to show a red card.
2 weeks running he has to upgrade his on-field yellow, worrying that one of our "top" refs doesn't seem able to spot/see serious foul play with his own eyes.
At least Norwich got a penalty ( 2 out of 22 ) although only after a lengthy VAR check !!! - Apparently there may have been a hand ball somewhere in the build up. So looking forward going back to the Championship.
I don't know what you are on about carrowman - it was a definite ball to hand, his hand is in a completely natural position, nothing deliberate, purely accidental...
(Attachment Link)
Cracking save by Steve Cook to be fair! Many a goalie would have loved to have claimed that one. One of those, 'please tell me he didn't actually just do what I think he just did' moments! Onwards & upwards though eh! We may well be joining you in the championship - the best part of that will be all the johnny-come-latelys will disappear back off to supporting Man Utd/Chelsea/Liverpool or whoever they supported so loyally until 5 years ago! ::)
Tierney has finally ditched his circle red card... one of the last it seems who did use it.
Post by: bmb on Sat 18 Jan 2020 23:47
Pitchside monitor used for the first time in PL history today - Paul Tierney at Norwich to show a red card.
2 weeks running he has to upgrade his on-field yellow, worrying that one of our "top" refs doesn't seem able to spot/see serious foul play with his own eyes.
At least Norwich got a penalty ( 2 out of 22 ) although only after a lengthy VAR check !!! - Apparently there may have been a hand ball somewhere in the build up. So looking forward going back to the Championship.
I don't know what you are on about carrowman - it was a definite ball to hand, his hand is in a completely natural position, nothing deliberate, purely accidental...
[attachimg=1]
Cracking save by Steve Cook to be fair! Many a goalie would have loved to have claimed that one. One of those, 'please tell me he didn't actually just do what I think he just did' moments! Onwards & upwards though eh! We may well be joining you in the championship - the best part of that will be all the johnny-come-latelys will disappear back off to supporting Man Utd/Chelsea/Liverpool or whoever they supported so loyally until 5 years ago! ::)
Post by: ajb95 on Sat 18 Jan 2020 20:58
Pitchside monitor used for the first time in PL history today - Paul Tierney at Norwich to show a red card.
2 weeks running he has to upgrade his on-field yellow, worrying that one of our "top" refs doesn't seem able to spot/see serious foul play with his own eyes.
Two weeks running the tackle has looked fairly innocuous on 1st viewing and worthy of a yellow card. Tierney from his angle has correctly given a yellow card each time. Looking at it close up, both are very bad tackles which are worthy of a red card, and rightly upgraded to a red, but it is not because Tierney cannot detect serious foul play
Post by: Game of Throw Ins on Sat 18 Jan 2020 19:53
Are the referees making a stand I wonder, one they cannot make when VAR is in operation.
Post by: carrowman on Sat 18 Jan 2020 18:23
Pitchside monitor used for the first time in PL history today - Paul Tierney at Norwich to show a red card.
2 weeks running he has to upgrade his on-field yellow, worrying that one of our "top" refs doesn't seem able to spot/see serious foul play with his own eyes.
At least Norwich got a penalty ( 2 out of 22 ) although only after a lengthy VAR check !!! - Apparently there may have been a hand ball somewhere in the build up. So looking forward going back to the Championship.
Post by: Readingfan on Sat 18 Jan 2020 17:00
Post by: magpie1892 on Sat 18 Jan 2020 16:35
Moss was the VAR at Stockley Park
Post by: Hertsref123 on Sat 18 Jan 2020 10:56
The Times reports that PL referees have been told to use pitchside monitors for red card decisions from this weekend - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/premier-league-referees-told-to-use-pitchside-monitors-this-weekend-for-red-card-calls-8jvx89c9p
About Time To Be Honest.
Post by: QuoCob on Fri 17 Jan 2020 21:01
The Times reports that PL referees have been told to use pitchside monitors for red card decisions from this weekend - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/premier-league-referees-told-to-use-pitchside-monitors-this-weekend-for-red-card-calls-8jvx89c9p
A shocking and terrible confirmation that they had previously been told not to use them...
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 17 Jan 2020 13:11
Post by: DublinRef on Wed 15 Jan 2020 23:09
Opinions?
https://twitter.com/CayenneAoyama__/status/1217447860716703746
Contact directly and squarely on the shin over the ball with a little bit of force too but - its clear that its the way he rolled his foot over the ball that lead to the contact making it somewhat incidental, while there are clear factors for a red card I'm not sure that its a 100% VAR intervention worthy incident. I think I'd side with red card on the whole (although terribly unlucky for the player) but I think it was wrong for VAR to intervene. Interesting one hard to call for me I can see both sides!
Post by: Readingfan on Wed 15 Jan 2020 20:38
Post by: Readingfan on Wed 15 Jan 2020 17:27
The big complaint that I am hearing is the delay after every goal with everyone left in limbo as to whether it's going to stand and no one in the ground knowing what's being looked at except the match officials. That's typically three per game to start with. If it is left to a challenge from a team to a trigger a review then only offences that 'football expects' to be punished will be reviewed.I don't agree with captains having challenges. I think it would just increase the number of VAR reviews in each match and you'd end up with some injustices because of a team having already used their challenges and not being able to correct a major howler that might occur later.I disagree. Now that VAR has been implemented it seems the biggest objection to it amongst players and fans is the delay and uncertainty that the checking of every major incident is causing. I am now leaning towards the idea of incidents only being checked if a challenge is made. It wouldn't necessarily have to be the captain; it could be someone on the bench as it would be unreasonable to expect a goalkeeper captain to decide whether to challenge a call at the other end of the pitch (even though goalkeepers in my experience believe they can accurately determine all offsides at the other end ::)). There would obviously have to be a time limit within which a challenge must be made and there should be a limit to the number of unsuccessful challenges a team can make (perhaps two per match). If there was a major howler after a team has burned all their challenges so be it; they should have used them more wisely, like in cricket. In turn this would allow the Stockley Park operation to be scaled down as there would be no need to have a VAR and AVAR monitoring everything in real time. In fact every challenge could be adjudicated on by the match referee on the pitch-side monitor.
Bout two challenges per team means four VAR reviews per match. How many games do we have that now currently? Yes, VAR might have a look at something for 5 seconds to confirm it but we don't generally have four lengthy reviews in a game. We did in Everton V Tottenham earlier in the season and it was awful to watch.
I think that you'd still end up with a large proportion of goals being challenged, namely most of the ones that are currently resulting in delays. But there'd perhaps be even more of a delay because there'd first be an interim period where a team had to decide whether to challenge it and you'd also have some other challenges on top of this that probably wouldn't currently be looked at for such a length.
I think the preferable option is to re-define attacking handball and how offside is judged by VAR so that fewer goals end up being disallowed by VAR, which I agree isn't great for the spectacle/emotion of the game.
Improving communication, such as by allowing us to hear the VARs, would also help with this. I think that it should be possible fairly quickly to identify if there is something obvious that needs to be checked. If there isn't, then the goal should stand. You could perhaps have a system like in rugby where it is quickly a case of 'We need to check for...' but perhaps led by the VAR rather than the referee to save checking for every goal
I think the objective should certainly be to minimise the number of goals that are disallowed and the lengthy delays in between. Take the Man City V Everton goal on NYD that was offside. I thought the VAR assistants were always tracking offside and it was a pretty clear one so it should have been possible basically straight away to say 'We need to check for possible offside - (see replay) offside. Goal disallowed.'
Post by: Ref Watcher on Wed 15 Jan 2020 16:49
The big complaint that I am hearing is the delay after every goal with everyone left in limbo as to whether it's going to stand and no one in the ground knowing what's being looked at except the match officials. That's typically three per game to start with. If it is left to a challenge from a team to a trigger a review then only offences that 'football expects' to be punished will be reviewed.I don't agree with captains having challenges. I think it would just increase the number of VAR reviews in each match and you'd end up with some injustices because of a team having already used their challenges and not being able to correct a major howler that might occur later.I disagree. Now that VAR has been implemented it seems the biggest objection to it amongst players and fans is the delay and uncertainty that the checking of every major incident is causing. I am now leaning towards the idea of incidents only being checked if a challenge is made. It wouldn't necessarily have to be the captain; it could be someone on the bench as it would be unreasonable to expect a goalkeeper captain to decide whether to challenge a call at the other end of the pitch (even though goalkeepers in my experience believe they can accurately determine all offsides at the other end ::)). There would obviously have to be a time limit within which a challenge must be made and there should be a limit to the number of unsuccessful challenges a team can make (perhaps two per match). If there was a major howler after a team has burned all their challenges so be it; they should have used them more wisely, like in cricket. In turn this would allow the Stockley Park operation to be scaled down as there would be no need to have a VAR and AVAR monitoring everything in real time. In fact every challenge could be adjudicated on by the match referee on the pitch-side monitor.
Bout two challenges per team means four VAR reviews per match. How many games do we have that now currently? Yes, VAR might have a look at something for 5 seconds to confirm it but we don't generally have four lengthy reviews in a game. We did in Everton V Tottenham earlier in the season and it was awful to watch.
Post by: bmb on Wed 15 Jan 2020 15:17
https://twitter.com/CayenneAoyama__/status/1217447860716703746
Post by: TheThingFromLewes on Wed 15 Jan 2020 15:03
Post by: Readingfan on Wed 15 Jan 2020 13:02
I don't agree with captains having challenges. I think it would just increase the number of VAR reviews in each match and you'd end up with some injustices because of a team having already used their challenges and not being able to correct a major howler that might occur later.I disagree. Now that VAR has been implemented it seems the biggest objection to it amongst players and fans is the delay and uncertainty that the checking of every major incident is causing. I am now leaning towards the idea of incidents only being checked if a challenge is made. It wouldn't necessarily have to be the captain; it could be someone on the bench as it would be unreasonable to expect a goalkeeper captain to decide whether to challenge a call at the other end of the pitch (even though goalkeepers in my experience believe they can accurately determine all offsides at the other end ::)). There would obviously have to be a time limit within which a challenge must be made and there should be a limit to the number of unsuccessful challenges a team can make (perhaps two per match). If there was a major howler after a team has burned all their challenges so be it; they should have used them more wisely, like in cricket. In turn this would allow the Stockley Park operation to be scaled down as there would be no need to have a VAR and AVAR monitoring everything in real time. In fact every challenge could be adjudicated on by the match referee on the pitch-side monitor.
Bout two challenges per team means four VAR reviews per match. How many games do we have that now currently? Yes, VAR might have a look at something for 5 seconds to confirm it but we don't generally have four lengthy reviews in a game. We did in Everton V Tottenham earlier in the season and it was awful to watch.
I think the question of who makes a challenge and how long they get would be difficult to determine. You can say it shouldn't be a captain for if they're at the other end of the pitch but what if the incident happens the other end of the pitch to the coaching staff. There wasn't that much of a reaction to the red card tackle in the Crystal Palace V Arsenal game at the time on Saturday but with replays it clearly was a red card. Would it be an improvement if that was missed if it happened to occur on the far touchline?
I'm not a regular cricket watcher but it seems there is often more of a factual basis to cricket reviews, whereas we've seen in football that sometimes a decision isn't changed when everyone thinks it should be and others where a decision is changed when most people don't think it should. You'd just be increasing the significance of these subjective decisions because it could also be allowing/denying teams the chance to overturn a decision later.
I remember there was a major decision in a significant cricket match for England last year where the decision was wrong but all challenges had been used up and it felt quite unsatisfactory to me. You can say a team shouldn't use up their challenges but there are lots of situations in football which are so borderline or very subjective that no one can really be sure what the outcome will be. If England had a goal disallowed for a tight offside decision in the 1986 quarter-final which turned out to be just about correct and a Trent Alexander-Arnold handball penalty appeal similar to the Liverpool V Man City game that the referee chose not to give and the Hand Of God then happens then you're basically back to where you started; you haven't cleared up the Clear and Obvious error and in some cases you're just taking up more time to look at other decisions.
Post by: Ref Watcher on Wed 15 Jan 2020 11:40
I don't agree with captains having challenges. I think it would just increase the number of VAR reviews in each match and you'd end up with some injustices because of a team having already used their challenges and not being able to correct a major howler that might occur later.I disagree. Now that VAR has been implemented it seems the biggest objection to it amongst players and fans is the delay and uncertainty that the checking of every major incident is causing. I am now leaning towards the idea of incidents only being checked if a challenge is made. It wouldn't necessarily have to be the captain; it could be someone on the bench as it would be unreasonable to expect a goalkeeper captain to decide whether to challenge a call at the other end of the pitch (even though goalkeepers in my experience believe they can accurately determine all offsides at the other end ::)). There would obviously have to be a time limit within which a challenge must be made and there should be a limit to the number of unsuccessful challenges a team can make (perhaps two per match). If there was a major howler after a team has burned all their challenges so be it; they should have used them more wisely, like in cricket. In turn this would allow the Stockley Park operation to be scaled down as there would be no need to have a VAR and AVAR monitoring everything in real time. In fact every challenge could be adjudicated on by the match referee on the pitch-side monitor.
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 14 Jan 2020 22:19
Of course, in reality, there probably are some decisions which are influenced by the presence of VAR but these should only be a small number and as you say it's probably not possible to accurately know this number.
Post by: QuoCob on Tue 14 Jan 2020 21:49
How many goals have been disallowed after no flag, because of the no flag direction to ARs, that would have also been disallowed pre-VAR because the AR would have flagged correctly using their un-aided judgement?
Conversely, how many goals have been allowed, again because of the no flag direction, that would have been disallowed pre-VAR because the AR would have flagged incorrectly using their un-aided judgement?
By virtue of these, ideally, the statistics for or against VAR would/should need to take those into account too?
(Although it would require a great deal of honesty from those ARs)
Post by: bmb on Tue 14 Jan 2020 19:13
I'm sorry but I cannot agree with (1). By all means amend the current VAR provision to ensure that goals are given unless a player is clearly offside, but don't get rid of it altogether. As an example, Wickham's late and crucial equaliser for Palace at Norwich recently was onside by a foot but would have been ruled out if VAR had not been available. We've wanted VAR for long enough to sort out controversial decisions, including offsides, and we should not now be getting rid of it in this crucial area.
His point was about the decisions where after numerous lines are drawn someone's toenail or armpit are then deemed to play them on/offside, decisions mentioned often on here & not in a positive manner either. He said either the law needed amending slightly to get rid of those decisions where you basically need a degree in maths/science (my words not his) to determine if a toenail is offside or to ditch it completely and leave it up to the AR's.
Post by: bmb on Tue 14 Jan 2020 19:09
I agree. I think there's a strong case for changing the way offside is done with VAR but I wouldn't remove it completely. The Man Utd V Arsenal game would have been a major error if VAR had not corrected it.
That was basically his suggestion - either ditch it completely and leave it to the AR's who had a very high accuracy level (97/98%) pre VAR or change the way it is done/measured, more to get rid of decisions where an armpit or toenail is deemed off/onside.
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 14 Jan 2020 18:39
I agree we should be able to hear the audio and I'd probably say pitchside monitors should be used a bit more than they have been in the PL.
Defining Clear and Obvious is a reasonable objective but not easy to do.
I don't agree with captains having challenges. I think it would just increase the number of VAR reviews in each match and you'd end up with some injustices because of a team having already used their challenges and not being able to correct a major howler that might occur later.
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Tue 14 Jan 2020 15:48
Post by: bmb on Tue 14 Jan 2020 02:25
I get a message saying 'video not available in your area'?
Which is the one people might not agree with?
I'd say #3
In relation to #5 he clarified the audio between the ref at the pitchside monitor and the VAR when the players are not present.
[attachimg=1]
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 13 Jan 2020 20:50
Which is the one people might not agree with?
Post by: bmb on Mon 13 Jan 2020 19:26
https://sports.yahoo.com/five-point-plan-improve-var-133043171.html
I think 1, 2, 4 & 5 are pretty widely agreed with on here at least
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 13 Jan 2020 11:02
Post by: QuoCob on Sun 12 Jan 2020 23:25
Post by: ajb95 on Sun 12 Jan 2020 16:48
Andy Roberston's studs up challenge on Tanganga, looked similar to the Abemeyang Red. Mr Atkinson didn't even think it merited a YC. Like it or not, he is having a poor season in the middle.
Boz, apologies. I meant to agree with you and my finger slipped just as I clicked. Don't know if it can be corrected.
I'm not even sure Atkinson gave a foul but he probably didn't have the best angle. To me it seemed like a classic case of the ball running away from a player and Robertson lunging in and following through, catching his opponent with some force on the shin like the Abemeyang incident.
Worthy of note that Craig Pawson was VAR for both games.
For me he is over stretching yes he wins the ball for me it was dangerous play and should have been a yellow card. Incidentally Robertson also caught alderweireld on half way very late and should also have been a yellow. Atkinson again took no action!
Post by: Ref Fan on Sun 12 Jan 2020 14:31
Andy Roberston's studs up challenge on Tanganga, looked similar to the Abemeyang Red. Mr Atkinson didn't even think it merited a YC. Like it or not, he is having a poor season in the middle.
Boz, apologies. I meant to agree with you and my finger slipped just as I clicked. Don't know if it can be corrected.
I'm not even sure Atkinson gave a foul but he probably didn't have the best angle. To me it seemed like a classic case of the ball running away from a player and Robertson lunging in and following through, catching his opponent with some force on the shin like the Abemeyang incident.
Worthy of note that Craig Pawson was VAR for both games.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 12 Jan 2020 12:54
Well done to VAR Craig Pawson for recommending upgrade of Aubameyang's yellow to red at Selhurst Park this lunchtime. At first glance it seemed that Paul Tierney's award of a yellow card was correct but replays showed studs into the ankle and a red card warranted for serious foul play. The comment was made by a friend at the game as to why it took so long to make the decision, but the right decision was reached in the end, so a plus for VAR on this occasion.
And surely a prime example of when a referee should use the monitor, much better to sell decision.
If an incident is missed by referee then by all means accept decision and outcome but if it is changing an on field decision the ref needs to look.
Had Tierney seen one replay from a slightly different angle he would have gone red.
Personally I think yesterday was the sort of incident where using the monitor isn't really needed. People are already asking why it wasn't done within 30 seconds and going to the monitor would probably have just taken even more time. It was a clear red card and the decision was replayed on the big screen afterwards which certainly sold it to the crowd.
Post by: TVOS on Sun 12 Jan 2020 12:08
Andy Roberston's studs up challenge on Tanganga, looked similar to the Abemeyang Red. Mr Atkinson didn't even think it merited a YC. Like it or not, he is having a poor season in the middle.
It was nothing like it.
Robertson got a toe to the ball and his momentum took him through to the Spurs player, whereas Aubameyang made no contact with the ball at all.
Post by: Boz on Sun 12 Jan 2020 11:54
Post by: RCG on Sun 12 Jan 2020 10:45
Well done to VAR Craig Pawson for recommending upgrade of Aubameyang's yellow to red at Selhurst Park this lunchtime. At first glance it seemed that Paul Tierney's award of a yellow card was correct but replays showed studs into the ankle and a red card warranted for serious foul play. The comment was made by a friend at the game as to why it took so long to make the decision, but the right decision was reached in the end, so a plus for VAR on this occasion.
And surely a prime example of when a referee should use the monitor, much better to sell decision.
If an incident is missed by referee then by all means accept decision and outcome but if it is changing an on field decision the ref needs to look.
Had Tierney seen one replay from a slightly different angle he would have gone red.
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Sat 11 Jan 2020 17:41
Post by: JohnCoyle on Sat 11 Jan 2020 11:42
There have been various instances in the past where the ball has gone in off a striker's arm accidentally and most people seem to think it should have been disallowed so I can understand why IFAB made the change - I just think it is too ambiguous and they've taken it too far. If it's the final touch (or perhaps at a push penultimate touch) I can understand it being disallowed, even if handball not intentional.
The law doesn't really even make sense, especially in a non-VAR game. Rice hasn't committed any offence at the point it hits his arm. If the referee had seen it in real time, what is he meant to do? Allow play to continue if Rice turns back and plays it to his full-back but if he plays a through pass to the striker blow the whistle?
I'd bet you that 99 times out of 100 if that same incident happened in a non-VAR game, the goal would have stood. In the other case, the referee would have a very difficult decision to try and sell to the attacking team. The law as it stands is an ass.
Post by: Readingfan on Sat 11 Jan 2020 11:19
The law doesn't really even make sense, especially in a non-VAR game. Rice hasn't committed any offence at the point it hits his arm. If the referee had seen it in real time, what is he meant to do? Allow play to continue if Rice turns back and plays it to his full-back but if he plays a through pass to the striker blow the whistle?
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Sat 11 Jan 2020 11:02
Post by: JohnCoyle on Sat 11 Jan 2020 09:51
As Bruntyboy correctly says, had the same thing happened to Rice when he'd been in his own penalty area, no way would a penalty be given.
VAR here is a red herring- under the law as it stands VAR was correct to disallow the goal. (Incidentally VAR gets involved in such decisions because such things are very difficult for officials to spot in real time).
Either the Law should be changed to cover only "the act of scoring a goal" or we should revert to the previous Law.
Post by: bruntyboy on Sat 11 Jan 2020 01:09
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 10 Jan 2020 22:38
I agree the handball law should change. It felt dubious when the ball went directly in from an attacker's hand, even if inadvertent, but IFAB used the 'football expects' phrase when introducing the new wording. I don't think most people in football expect a goal to be disallowed in those circumstances.
Obviously VAR didn't have anywhere to go other than disallowing it.
Post by: guest379 on Fri 10 Jan 2020 22:33
To me if the arm is used in the build-up to a goal, it has to be disallowed as it feels you've conceded from an illegal use of a body part that is not part of the game. So I like this rule! How many times in the past have we seen goals scored with arms and fumed about it afterwards - every club has been on the wrong end of it. So well done to the VAR team tonight. Albeit when van Dijk handled last week against Wolves in the build-up to Liverpool's winning goal against Wolves, the VAR team that day did not do their job properly! The inconsistency is barmy.
Post by: Carter on Fri 10 Jan 2020 22:30
90 minutes into the resumption of PL and VAR strikes again.....And did it’s job correctly. It’s the new, stupid and universally detested “handball rule” that struck!
It begs the question how far back in play do you check for handball, in this case I would suggest it is clear cut as he assisted the goal.
but if another player passed it to Rice and had handled it would that be considered?
The rule is crap, but so is VAR and should be got rid of.
Post by: TheThingFromLewes on Fri 10 Jan 2020 22:14
It's been clarified that the directives for the FA Cup matches aren't any different from the Premier League games, as seen by VAR decisions yesterday.
Which would indicate that this a two fingered salute in the direction of Riley if the directive still applies in the FA Cup. Let's hope Oliver and the VAR officials do not receive any throwback from the clowns leading PGMOL.
Absolutely. It needed a senior referee to break ranks and take ownership of his onfield decisions, hopefully more will now follow.
And that senior referee might just be Mike Dean; he seems to be about the likeliest candidate to me.
[/quote]
I still can’t get the hang of the quote thing either whistleblower!
Post by: robbie_scouse on Fri 10 Jan 2020 22:11
90 minutes into the resumption of PL and VAR strikes again.....And did it’s job correctly. It’s the new, stupid and universally detested “handball rule” that struck!
Post by: TheThingFromLewes on Fri 10 Jan 2020 22:01
Post by: Hendo on Thu 09 Jan 2020 23:11
Good job, especially for Tranmere there was VAR as how 2 Select group officials did not spot it was a defensive header for which an offside was flagged, is unbelievable
Also the penalty I thought was very obvious at first viewing.
Just caught up with the highlights of this match. We have been talking on here of how Atkinson seems fed up with VAR. I thought, rightly or wrongly, that Graham Scotts body language gave the imprsssion he was somewhat pi**ed off with the whole thing too
Post by: Whistleblower on Thu 09 Jan 2020 13:20
It's been clarified that the directives for the FA Cup matches aren't any different from the Premier League games, as seen by VAR decisions yesterday.
Which would indicate that this a two fingered salute in the direction of Riley if the directive still applies in the FA Cup. Let's hope Oliver and the VAR officials do not receive any throwback from the clowns leading PGMOL.
Absolutely. It needed a senior referee to break ranks and take ownership of his onfield decisions, hopefully more will now follow.
[/quote]
And that senior referee might just be Mike Dean; he seems to be about the likeliest candidate to me.
Post by: Ivanhoe on Thu 09 Jan 2020 11:41
It's been clarified that the directives for the FA Cup matches aren't any different from the Premier League games, as seen by VAR decisions yesterday.
Which would indicate that this a two fingered salute in the direction of Riley if the directive still applies in the FA Cup. Let's hope Oliver and the VAR officials do not receive any throwback from the clowns leading PGMOL.
[/quote]
Absolutely. It needed a senior referee to break ranks and take ownership of his onfield decisions, hopefully more will now follow.
Post by: Ref Fan on Tue 07 Jan 2020 18:33
"When VAR is making these overturns on penalties and red cards, all the match ref can do is relate what he's been told on the headset.
If the ref watches the incident, he has clear knowledge of the incident which underlines his authority and the confidence of players and fans"
In another post, he mentions Oliver explaining to the Palace players the reason for the RC decision.
It does seem however that the protocol for using the monitor applies where a referee has not seen an off-the-ball incident, not when he has seen or partially seen an incident which he has misjudged in terms of its severity.
.
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 07 Jan 2020 18:20
Post by: Carter on Tue 07 Jan 2020 18:09
VAR does not over rule the decision to send off Pereyra, yet he wins an appeal, how can that be.
VAR is a complete and utter joke and should be scrapped, riley and co should be 'retired'
Roberto Pereyra’s three-match suspension has been removed with immediate effect following a successful claim of wrongful dismissal. The Watford FC midfielder was dismissed for violent conduct during the Emirates FA Cup fixture against Tranmere Rovers FC on Saturday [04/01/20)
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 06 Jan 2020 14:44
'Brud has since gone back on his comments, telling German outlet Sportschau 'if the images... show that there is an offside position, the video assistant should continue to report. Even if it is only a centimetre. Offside is offside.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7852189/Referees-VAR-protest-lawmakers-suggest-wrongly-applying-rules.html
'
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 05 Jan 2020 21:42
I don't really get the obsession with pitchside monitors. I've no problem with them being used but equally if Oliver had just shown the red card without looking at one then I'd have been fine with that too.
It's been clarified that the directives for the FA Cup matches aren't any different from the Premier League games, as seen by VAR decisions yesterday.
But I thought one of the strong arguments for using the monitors was that it is the onfield referee who is perceived to make the final decision. There have been several comments on these threads about how Atkinson for example has looked cheesed off at having decisions overturned. As we don't know the gist of conversations between referee and VAR, it's difficult to assess when a referee has pressed his case for a particular penalty or non-penalty for example leading to a decision not being changed. How much pressure there is on a referee to change his decision having looked at the monitor is another matter,
but the intention I thought was for it to be seen that the referee made that final decision.
I think there are pros and cons either way. It just seems to me we're reaching a point where a referee would get more praise for making a wrong decision after using the monitor than they would if the right decision was made without the monitor being used which I don't think is healthy.
I think there are bigger issues to resolve with VAR than simply the use of monitors.
I think the best step would be using big screens like in rugby so the fans knew what was going on and referees could also view these without the need to run over to the monitor and be surrounded.
Sorry but I don't think it would be at all sensible for refs to view incidents on big screens with the fans. And, although I've not yet seen today's use of the monitor at Selhurst Park, my understanding is that players and officials are not permitted to go anywhere near the monitor whilst it is being viewed by the ref and security guys are on hand to ensure that this protocol is followed.
Why not? It works fine in other sports. I'm pretty certain that at some point over this decade VAR will be updated to allow spectators to see incidents as they are being reviewed as the current approahc is clearly causing major frustration.
The officials aren't meant to be surrounded but certainly there are times when that has happened, with the first use of pitchside monitors in Liverpool V West Brom a few years ago being a prime example. And even if they're not, it does take a bit of extra time to go over to them (although I would settle for an approach in the short-term where the officials were mic'd up so there was at least some communication and referees could use monitors if necessary.)
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Sun 05 Jan 2020 21:32
I don't really get the obsession with pitchside monitors. I've no problem with them being used but equally if Oliver had just shown the red card without looking at one then I'd have been fine with that too.
It's been clarified that the directives for the FA Cup matches aren't any different from the Premier League games, as seen by VAR decisions yesterday.
But I thought one of the strong arguments for using the monitors was that it is the onfield referee who is perceived to make the final decision. There have been several comments on these threads about how Atkinson for example has looked cheesed off at having decisions overturned. As we don't know the gist of conversations between referee and VAR, it's difficult to assess when a referee has pressed his case for a particular penalty or non-penalty for example leading to a decision not being changed. How much pressure there is on a referee to change his decision having looked at the monitor is another matter,
but the intention I thought was for it to be seen that the referee made that final decision.
I think there are pros and cons either way. It just seems to me we're reaching a point where a referee would get more praise for making a wrong decision after using the monitor than they would if the right decision was made without the monitor being used which I don't think is healthy.
I think there are bigger issues to resolve with VAR than simply the use of monitors.
I think the best step would be using big screens like in rugby so the fans knew what was going on and referees could also view these without the need to run over to the monitor and be surrounded.
Sorry but I don't think it would be at all sensible for refs to view incidents on big screens with the fans. And, although I've not yet seen today's use of the monitor at Selhurst Park, my understanding is that players and officials are not permitted to go anywhere near the monitor whilst it is being viewed by the ref and security guys are on hand to ensure that this protocol is followed.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 05 Jan 2020 21:18
I don't really get the obsession with pitchside monitors. I've no problem with them being used but equally if Oliver had just shown the red card without looking at one then I'd have been fine with that too.
It's been clarified that the directives for the FA Cup matches aren't any different from the Premier League games, as seen by VAR decisions yesterday.
But I thought one of the strong arguments for using the monitors was that it is the onfield referee who is perceived to make the final decision. There have been several comments on these threads about how Atkinson for example has looked cheesed off at having decisions overturned. As we don't know the gist of conversations between referee and VAR, it's difficult to assess when a referee has pressed his case for a particular penalty or non-penalty for example leading to a decision not being changed. How much pressure there is on a referee to change his decision having looked at the monitor is another matter,
but the intention I thought was for it to be seen that the referee made that final decision.
I think there are pros and cons either way. It just seems to me we're reaching a point where a referee would get more praise for making a wrong decision after using the monitor than they would if the right decision was made without the monitor being used which I don't think is healthy.
I think there are bigger issues to resolve with VAR than simply the use of monitors.
I think the best step would be using big screens like in rugby so the fans knew what was going on and referees could also view these without the need to run over to the monitor and be surrounded.
Post by: Ref Fan on Sun 05 Jan 2020 20:58
I don't really get the obsession with pitchside monitors. I've no problem with them being used but equally if Oliver had just shown the red card without looking at one then I'd have been fine with that too.
It's been clarified that the directives for the FA Cup matches aren't any different from the Premier League games, as seen by VAR decisions yesterday.
But I thought one of the strong arguments for using the monitors was that it is the onfield referee who is perceived to make the final decision. There have been several comments on these threads about how Atkinson for example has looked cheesed off at having decisions overturned. As we don't know the gist of conversations between referee and VAR, it's difficult to assess when a referee has pressed his case for a particular penalty or non-penalty for example leading to a decision not being changed. How much pressure there is on a referee to change his decision having looked at the monitor is another matter,
but the intention I thought was for it to be seen that the referee made that final decision.
Post by: TheThingFromLewes on Sun 05 Jan 2020 19:31
I don't really get the obsession with pitchside monitors. I've no problem with them being used but equally if Oliver had just shown the red card without looking at one then I'd have been fine with that too.
It's been clarified that the directives for the FA Cup matches aren't any different from the Premier League games, as seen by VAR decisions yesterday.
Which would indicate that this a two fingered salute in the direction of Riley if the directive still applies in the FA Cup. Let's hope Oliver and the VAR officials do not receive any throwback from the clowns leading PGMOL.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 05 Jan 2020 19:14
It's been clarified that the directives for the FA Cup matches aren't any different from the Premier League games, as seen by VAR decisions yesterday.
Post by: reflector on Sun 05 Jan 2020 19:08
At last, a bit of common sense being shown. Hopefully, they will have seen that it didn't actually hurt so maybe it will open the door for more.So, with Michael Oliver using the pitch side monitor this afternoon, does that make it impossible for the PL to resist? Surely if they don't use them it'll be even more of a mockery than it currently is!
I’m guessing he’s following the FA’s wishes in using the monitor. I hope that Riley was watching and absorbing!
He was right to do, took responsibility for the decision and correctly issued a red card. How refreshing for a change
Post by: Hendo on Sun 05 Jan 2020 17:49
So, with Michael Oliver using the pitch side monitor this afternoon, does that make it impossible for the PL to resist? Surely if they don't use them it'll be even more of a mockery than it currently is!
I’m guessing he’s following the FA’s wishes in using the monitor. I hope that Riley was watching and absorbing!
He was right to do, took responsibility for the decision and correctly issued a red card. How refreshing for a change
Post by: TheThingFromLewes on Sun 05 Jan 2020 17:39
So, with Michael Oliver using the pitch side monitor this afternoon, does that make it impossible for the PL to resist? Surely if they don't use them it'll be even more of a mockery than it currently is!
I’m guessing he’s following the FA’s wishes in using the monitor. I hope that Riley was watching and absorbing!
Post by: Mackem ref on Sun 05 Jan 2020 16:30
Post by: bmb on Sun 05 Jan 2020 12:47
So we have VAR officials deciding whether the referee was correct. And we have observers also deciding if the VAR reviews are correct. I find myself wondering why these wonderful 'observers' aren't administering the VAR themselves.I’ve been told today (second hand originally from an SG assistant) that the reason referees are not using the monitors is that if they review and don’t change their decision then they’ll have marks deducted by the observer as it’s considered that the VAR is correct. Therefore it’s easier to just accept the recommendation of VAR (don’t know how it’s judged that the original decision gets overturned anyway, presumably has less impact than sticking with your original decision when told to overturn)
The UEFA marking guidelines state:
When the referee accepts the advice from the VAR for a VAR only review (factual decision) & observer thinks the VAR decision was incorrect it is viewed as a mistake by the VAR.
C&O Mistake by referee followed by no VAR intervention - they both lose marks
C&O Mistake by referee corrected after VAR intervention - ref loses mark, VAR gets bonus
Correct call by ref followed by wrong VAR intervention (including if monitor used & ref stays with his decision & VAR intervention was wrong) - VAR loses -1
Ref incorrectly changes his original decision - Ref & VAR lose marks
C&O Mistake by ref & following VAR intervention ref stays with original decision but VAR was correct - mistake by ref, VAR bonus +1
It's always been the way for observers or assessors as they were once known to decide whether a referee was right or wrong his decision making and then write their report giving the merit mark they feel is correct, even occasionally in Sunday park football. The higher up the leagues they go they also assess the rest of the match officials team so that hasn't really changed either. VAR is another member of the team, whether we like it or not. It's no different to them assessing the referee/AR's & AAR's.
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Sun 05 Jan 2020 11:47
Post by: rustyref on Sun 05 Jan 2020 11:14
Two VAR decisions in Tranmere's favour in the 3-3 at Watford, but a couple of other observations. The Watford keeper handled outside the penalty area early in the second half, missed by the officials. Don't think it was a potential RC as he was dealing with a back-pass and the nearest Rovers attacker was some distance away, but a free-kick on the edge of the box should have been given. I presume the RC for Pereyra was VAR checked, seemed quite a harsh one.
VAR cannot get involved in free kick decisions, so if there is no question of DOGSO there's nothing they can do there.
Post by: LateTackle on Sun 05 Jan 2020 11:11
So we have VAR officials deciding whether the referee was correct. And we have observers also deciding if the VAR reviews are correct. I find myself wondering why these wonderful 'observers' aren't administering the VAR themselves.I’ve been told today (second hand originally from an SG assistant) that the reason referees are not using the monitors is that if they review and don’t change their decision then they’ll have marks deducted by the observer as it’s considered that the VAR is correct. Therefore it’s easier to just accept the recommendation of VAR (don’t know how it’s judged that the original decision gets overturned anyway, presumably has less impact than sticking with your original decision when told to overturn)
The UEFA marking guidelines state:
When the referee accepts the advice from the VAR for a VAR only review (factual decision) & observer thinks the VAR decision was incorrect it is viewed as a mistake by the VAR.
C&O Mistake by referee followed by no VAR intervention - they both lose marks
C&O Mistake by referee corrected after VAR intervention - ref loses mark, VAR gets bonus
Correct call by ref followed by wrong VAR intervention (including if monitor used & ref stays with his decision & VAR intervention was wrong) - VAR loses -1
Ref incorrectly changes his original decision - Ref & VAR lose marks
C&O Mistake by ref & following VAR intervention ref stays with original decision but VAR was correct - mistake by ref, VAR bonus +1
Post by: RCG on Sun 05 Jan 2020 09:29
Also the penalty I thought was very obvious at first viewing.
Post by: Boz on Sat 04 Jan 2020 23:55
Was listening to five live this evening driving back from work and one animated caller called Lee Mason hopeless after today's game at the Etihad....
Any body share those sentiments as I've not seen any highlights.
Listened to match commentary and seen the highlights, didn't hear/see anything wrong with Mr Mason's performance from either. Unsure an SG1 official was really needed for a game of this ilk.
Post by: Boz on Sat 04 Jan 2020 23:50
Post by: TheThingFromLewes on Sat 04 Jan 2020 21:02
Any body share those sentiments as I've not seen any highlights.
Post by: Readingfan on Sat 04 Jan 2020 20:52
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Sat 04 Jan 2020 20:21
Post by: bmb on Sat 04 Jan 2020 20:19
I’ve been told today (second hand originally from an SG assistant) that the reason referees are not using the monitors is that if they review and don’t change their decision then they’ll have marks deducted by the observer as it’s considered that the VAR is correct. Therefore it’s easier to just accept the recommendation of VAR (don’t know how it’s judged that the original decision gets overturned anyway, presumably has less impact than sticking with your original decision when told to overturn)
The UEFA marking guidelines state:
When the referee accepts the advice from the VAR for a VAR only review (factual decision) & observer thinks the VAR decision was incorrect it is viewed as a mistake by the VAR.
C&O Mistake by referee followed by no VAR intervention - they both lose marks
C&O Mistake by referee corrected after VAR intervention - ref loses mark, VAR gets bonus
Correct call by ref followed by wrong VAR intervention (including if monitor used & ref stays with his decision & VAR intervention was wrong) - VAR loses -1
Ref incorrectly changes his original decision - Ref & VAR lose marks
C&O Mistake by ref & following VAR intervention ref stays with original decision but VAR was correct - mistake by ref, VAR bonus +1
Post by: PhiltheRef on Sat 04 Jan 2020 19:37
As our American Cousins would say...."go figure"
Post by: AG1983 on Sat 04 Jan 2020 18:14
Post by: Readingfan on Sat 04 Jan 2020 17:04
I see in the Southampton vs. Huddersfield Cup Tie today that Shane Long has had a goal disallowed for an unclear and unobvious offside.
Thing is - why are some ties in the same round being allowed to have VAR in place - and others not. Not very fair and equitable to the integrity of the FA Cup...
Personally I don't agree. I think VAR should be used where possible but obviously logistically can't be used on every single FA Cup game.
By its nature, the FA Cup is not the same for everyone because some teams are away to Man City whilst others are away to Oxford. The draw dictates which games are played at PL grounds and therefore use VAR.
The irony is that some people making the 'All or nothing' argument regarding the FA Cup - such as Hackett - are those demanding that the Premier League, which is a comparison across 10 months, change the offside measurements mid-season.
I suppose there could be an argument that they could have taken a different approach to measuring offside with VAR for the FA Cup but I doubt that was ever likely to happen.
Post by: guest42 on Sat 04 Jan 2020 15:52
Thing is - why are some ties in the same round being allowed to have VAR in place - and others not. Not very fair and equitable to the integrity of the FA Cup...
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 02 Jan 2020 16:57
Post by: Ashington46 on Thu 02 Jan 2020 16:47
I did see this on twitter - Gary Lineker I think it was who tweeted it. It's a graphic about the potential inaccuracy of the finer margins in relation to offside. Be interested in everyone's view.
(Attachment Link)
What do I think ?
The same as I did 6 months ago, although I didn't have a picture to explain it.
Happily a couple of you agreed with me.
https://ratetheref.createaforum.com/general-discussion-5/the-var-thread/?message=8671
I agreed with you then and I most certainly agree with those sentiments now.
Post by: bmb on Thu 02 Jan 2020 15:21
I did see this on twitter - Gary Lineker I think it was who tweeted it. It's a graphic about the potential inaccuracy of the finer margins in relation to offside. Be interested in everyone's view.
What do I think ?
The same as I did 6 months ago, although I didn't have a picture to explain it.
Happily a couple of you agreed with me.
https://ratetheref.createaforum.com/general-discussion-5/the-var-thread/?message=8671
Like me!
Post by: nemesis on Thu 02 Jan 2020 14:44
I did see this on twitter - Gary Lineker I think it was who tweeted it. It's a graphic about the potential inaccuracy of the finer margins in relation to offside. Be interested in everyone's view.
(Attachment Link)
What do I think ?
The same as I did 6 months ago, although I didn't have a picture to explain it.
Happily a couple of you agreed with me.
https://ratetheref.createaforum.com/general-discussion-5/the-var-thread/?message=8671
Post by: TheThingFromLewes on Thu 02 Jan 2020 14:28
So, in my opinion, that means Mason will lose one mark for yesterday and already lost one mark for suggesting penalty to Madley at Brighton earlier in the season. Is he trying to be excused for VAR duties.......😂😂
Mason shouldn't be anywhere near a SG1 game in my opinion....
Post by: Mackem ref on Thu 02 Jan 2020 14:02
Post by: bmb on Thu 02 Jan 2020 13:54
So, the marking system... I know at UEFA level a referee still gets marked down if he misses a KMI even if it gets corrected by VAR/AAR/AR. I include my quote from a different thread regarding the Guidelines for UEFA Referee Observers.
What happens though when the referee make a perfectly correct decision (as it sounds like Mr Scott did yesterday) and VAR comes along and overturns it wrongly? That turned the decision from being correct to being a KMI error. Does the referee now only get a 7.9 because he now has a KMI error in the game?
I have my answer - Mr Scott would not have been penalised for the incorrect VAR decision. The VAR would have -1 deducted from his own mark though so it affects his overall mark & not that of the referee!
Post by: bmb on Thu 02 Jan 2020 12:41
https://twitter.com/kristemple/status/1212712087639724034
Post by: bmb on Thu 02 Jan 2020 12:29
What happens though when the referee make a perfectly correct decision (as it sounds like Mr Scott did yesterday) and VAR comes along and overturns it wrongly? That turned the decision from being correct to being a KMI error. Does the referee now only get a 7.9 because he now has a KMI error in the game?
Time to harass my man at IFAB I suspect for an answer to that!
I don't know about PL but at UEFA level they will still be marked down. Guidelines for UEFA Referee Observers states this: (AAR has been changed to VAR now)
A clear refereeing mistake made by the referee still has to be considered even when the decision has been corrected after consultation with the Assistant Referee or Additional Assistant Referee. The same principal should also be used if the Assistant Referee or Additional Assistant Referee makes such a mistake.
Examples:
A penalty kick and a yellow card is awarded by the referee, but following intervention of the Additional Assistant Referee the decision is correctly overturned and play is restarted with a drop ball.
The referee fails to send off a player who has been cautioned for the 2nd time and play is about to restart. Fortunately the Assistant Referee intervenes prior to the restart of play and advises the referee of his error.
Whilst both decisions are corrected, UEFA cannot accept such mistakes at international level and therefore the mark applied should be less than 8.0.
Post by: ajb95 on Thu 02 Jan 2020 10:28
I can’t believe Lee Mason has overturned the red card! The challenge ticked lots of boxes for SFP and Mr Scott was in an excellent position to decide it should be a red card. This is a clear example where:
1) The match referee viewing the incident on a monitor would be beneficial to make their decision.
2) Clear communication from VAR to supporters - surely there should be information given to press/supporters to explain the decision making process, especially as it wasn’t a clear and obvious error!
Or an error at all?
Post by: Mackem ref on Thu 02 Jan 2020 00:32
1) The match referee viewing the incident on a monitor would be beneficial to make their decision.
2) Clear communication from VAR to supporters - surely there should be information given to press/supporters to explain the decision making process, especially as it wasn’t a clear and obvious error!
Post by: ajb95 on Wed 01 Jan 2020 20:59
As I didn't bother watching I have no idea whether correctly or not but penalty for WHU & later in the game a red card rescinded & downgraded to yellow on VAR say so. The twitter version ranges from Noble fell over his own feet to it was stone walled in relation to the penalty and for the red from it was never a foul to it was 2 footed, studs up, scissor action stonewalled! I shall wait for people who know what they are talking about to inform me of which end of the spectrum the decisions were or failing that await you lot analysing it ;)
General consensus is AFCB were completely inept in all departments by both sets of supporters!
Penalty: not wrong but certainly in the soft category.
Red card: absolutely a red all day long. A very nasty and dangerous challenge and well done to Mr SCOTT for giving the correct sanction in real time. A very underrated referee who quietly goes about is business in an unfussy calm manner.
Downgraded in advice of VAR. it was lee Mason, how he has seen that as only a yellow is anyone guess!
Post by: carrowman on Wed 01 Jan 2020 20:52
I am obviously biased but I was glad that there was VAR at the Norwich v Palace game. AR flagged for offside as Wickham put the ball in the net for the late Palace equaliser, but the VAR check revealed that a Norwich foot had clearly played him onside.
I thought that the oft-criticised Jon Moss had a really good game this evening. Sensible refereeing, spot on with the yellow cards and didn't miss much. Well done!
I'm sure you are. So FIFA assistant Smart, didn't flag Pukki on Saturday and it was offside, today flags Wickham and he's onside. He doesn't seem to know whether he should or shouldn't. It would be interesting to know if this would affect his mark in a UEFA game.
Moss- sensible refereeing if you are a palace fan? Norwich 12 fouls 5 booked, Palace 9 fouls non booked. Of course non of palace's were serious fouls and non of the times Zaha fell over and fouls weren't given could be described as simulation.
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Wed 01 Jan 2020 19:36
I thought that the oft-criticised Jon Moss had a really good game this evening. Sensible refereeing, spot on with the yellow cards and didn't miss much. Well done!
Post by: bmb on Wed 01 Jan 2020 19:23
General consensus is AFCB were completely inept in all departments by both sets of supporters!
Post by: Readingfan on Wed 01 Jan 2020 18:24
Something needs to be done about the timekeeping.
Post by: Ref Fan on Wed 01 Jan 2020 17:08
In the later Southampton v Spurs game, there were rather more VAR checks and Mike Dean was kept busy, not helped by some antics by Mourinho.
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Wed 01 Jan 2020 16:29
'The year of 2019 ended with VAR controversy at Anfield, Carrow Road and St Mary's as goals by Pedro Neto, Teemu Pukki and Max Meyer were ruled out after players were deemed marginally offside.
And on a sunny lunchtime at Turf Moor on New Year's Day, nothing changed.
Grealish's disallowed goal, which came in the 12th minute and was ruled out following a two-minute VAR consultation, was victim to another marginal offside call which angered fans inside the stadium.
Striker Wesley, who contested an aerial ball during the build-up to the goal, was deemed offside by barely an inch - the back of his heel appearing to cross one of several lines drawn by VAR'.
I wonder what the topic for discussion will be on New Year's Day 2030? !
Post by: bmb on Wed 01 Jan 2020 15:44
Post by: Microscopist on Wed 01 Jan 2020 14:14
Quote
I wouldn't actually know Van Djik to look at...(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/12/29/20/22774148-7835085-image-a-29_1577650037110.jpg)
Post by: bmb on Wed 01 Jan 2020 14:08
[attachimg=1]
Post by: bmb on Wed 01 Jan 2020 14:01
Post by: Microscopist on Wed 01 Jan 2020 13:16
Quote
....it was said they'd looked at the possible Van Djik handball on Sunday...Which would suggest that the "handball" was considered material to whether the goal was allowed or not. That makes sense as had Van Djik received the ball from an offside position, or had he won the ball in a clear foul challenge, I suspect that the goal would have been ruled out without any questions being asked.
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 31 Dec 2019 17:41
Am I the only one to notice that certain times Mike Riley etc are quick to come out and defend the VAR but in the last few weeks when it’s being called a farce, slammed and damned losing the support for it we don’t hear so much as a peep about it and how wrong or any defence of the decisions such as the ones over the weekend in games involving Man City , Sheff Utd , wolves and so forth
I don't think there's any major difference. A lot of the time it's the broadcasters who have provided information and presumably the PGMO/Premier League supply it if requested - it was said they'd looked at the possible Van Djik handball on Sunday for instance on Sky and also that VAR had checked at what point the whistle blew.
I think the main times Mike Riley has come out and spoken has been during international breaks.
I'm not sure there's a lot more they can say about offsides. A method has been agreed for this season and it's not going to change now but it probably will for next season.
Post by: dave26 on Tue 31 Dec 2019 17:29
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 31 Dec 2019 14:10
It's a bit like the whole pitchside monitor thing. If they're that concerned about all leagues using them then they should just have made it compulsory to start with. You can't give people an option and then complain when they don't choose your preferred option.
Post by: bmb on Tue 31 Dec 2019 12:26
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50944416
Seems IFAB think PL being too forensic re offsides
I don't think it's just the PL who are taking this approach to offside. It seems a bit late in the day for IFAB to start issuing such advice. If they wanted a certain process followed, they should have ensured it happened from the beginning!
Whilst I agree, Im also open to later tinkering if it improves the whole system!
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 31 Dec 2019 11:17
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50944416
Seems IFAB think PL being too forensic re offsides
I don't think it's just the PL who are taking this approach to offside. It seems a bit late in the day for IFAB to start issuing such advice. If they wanted a certain process followed, they should have ensured it happened from the beginning!
Post by: Toprefm on Tue 31 Dec 2019 10:11
Seems IFAB think PL being too forensic re offsides
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 30 Dec 2019 21:26
It feels like a confused message from IFAB really because tight offsides have been judged by VAR for a few years now so it seems a bit late to suddenly come out and say 'Actually, clear and obvious should apply to offside and we don't want this' when a lot of people have grown used to hearing 'clear and obvious doesn't apply to offside - you're either on or you're off.'
Post by: Scally Bob on Mon 30 Dec 2019 19:05
Lukas Brud, general secretary of the International Football Association Board, said: "With VAR we see some things that are going in a direction that we may need to re-adjust."
He said the body would reissue guidance on VAR's use after its annual general meeting in February.
"If you spend multiple minutes trying to identify whether it is offside or not, then it's not clear and obvious and the original decision should stand," he said.
He added: "What we really need to stress is that 'clear and obvious' applies to every single situation that is being reviewed by the VAR or the referee.
This is Riley thinking like the accountant he is instead of encouraging his reports to act in the way IFAB intended.
The technology isn’t good enough for offside, it’s only ones like Milner at West Ham or Chelsea at Cardiff last season they should review.
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 30 Dec 2019 16:28
Post by: Ref Fan on Mon 30 Dec 2019 14:32
Anthony Taylor requiring VAR to intervene in one of his decisions for the fifth time in December alone (I won't count the offside.)
At some point, you've got to say he's out of form.
How Taylor is rated higher in the pecking order in some quarters than Oliver is absolute garbage.
Rosetti must know something more.
Edy, does Rosetti take any notice of what's happening in the PL or any domestic league for that matter? Mind you, although not mentioned on here, both Mark Halsey and Peter Walton in articles referred to a penalty Taylor missed in the Lyon v Leipzig CL game recently. I presume in that instance he would have been advised to look at the monitor and so changed his own mind. Perhaps Rosetti didn't notice that!
As has been said before, it was unfortunate that Oliver's two decisions to award Real Madrid a penalty and send off Buffon (which most neutral observers thought were correct) happened to involve an Italian team. It seems Collina however was more sympathetic.
Phil the Ref, I thought VAR automatically checked goals anyway, so I'm not sure why you should suggest that Anthony Taylor initiated the review.
I didn't see the Lyon-Leipzig match but I read that there was a penalty given by VAR. Probably the observer noted that mistake. However, in UEFA level, a referee isn't punished on 1 mistake (especially one that it doesn't affect the outcome of the match). Rosetti seems to like Taylor's European style and that's keeping him ahead of Oliver. Also don't forget that Oliver has got a 2nd chance from UEFA.
IMO, UEFA will never forget the fuss that was created after the Real-Juve match. It's the same with the famous Cakir-Nani incident with the difference that Cakir was already considered a top-class referee. Cakir was also left out of that season and probably missed the CL final as a result of that match.
I think you are absolutely right edy. Once you establish an international reputation for good or ill, then it seems very hard to shake it off irrespective of subsequent performances be they good or poor. Rosetti certainly seems to have a mind set.
I would like to give David Elleray a penny for his thoughts about whether Taylor or Oliver is better. For no other reason than interest.
I don't think we'll be allowed to forget that Oliver had a second chance from U.E.F.A. It's the second or third time I've read about it as if he's the only referee ever to get a second chance. Doesn't that refer to a game about 5 years ago when Oliver was still u30? If the potential was there, would it not have been unreasonable not to give him a second chance?
As for the "fuss" after the Juve-RM game, while I can understand the initial reaction of frustration and anger of Juve to losing out so late on, the personal abuse of Oliver and subsequent threats to his wife were totally unacceptable. The "fuss" in my view lay at Juve's door, not the referee who many felt made 2 correct decisions.
If you are relating the views of U.E.F.A. edy rather than your own, I think it says more about U.E.F.A. (and perhaps Rosetti) than it does Michael Oliver.
There may be perfectly valid reasons why U.E.F.A. tend to prefer Taylor's style of refereeing in Europe to Oliver's as you say, but I would be disappointed if Oliver was being unduly hindered by the "fuss", or what happened years ago given that he was deemed to have progressed well enough to be promoted to elite category.
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Mon 30 Dec 2019 12:13
Aurier vs. Leicester, Kane vs. Brighton, McGoldrick vs. Spurs, Pukki vs. Spurs, Burn vs. Bournemouth. All given offside by imaginary lines, probably been more I can't recall. This has gotten beyond ridiculous. If there's nothing in it or they can't decide, they're giving offside instead of benefit with the on-field decision, which is pure madness and degrading for the assistants who do a good job. Let the goals stand if the call is inconclusive!
Zaha v Southampton for one (OK I am biased, but Zaha was level with the Southampton defender and he knew it). VAR has corrected a few poor and controversial decisions, Taylor at Spurs v Chelsea being an obvious example, but these have been more than offset this past weekend and we seem to be reverting to type with goals being disallowed for the most marginal of offsides. Something needs to be done on VAR and offsides and pretty damn quickly as well in my view.
Post by: Whistleblower on Mon 30 Dec 2019 10:33
Anthony Taylor requiring VAR to intervene in one of his decisions for the fifth time in December alone (I won't count the offside.)
At some point, you've got to say he's out of form.
How Taylor is rated higher in the pecking order in some quarters than Oliver is absolute garbage.
Rosetti must know something more.
Edy, does Rosetti take any notice of what's happening in the PL or any domestic league for that matter? Mind you, although not mentioned on here, both Mark Halsey and Peter Walton in articles referred to a penalty Taylor missed in the Lyon v Leipzig CL game recently. I presume in that instance he would have been advised to look at the monitor and so changed his own mind. Perhaps Rosetti didn't notice that!
As has been said before, it was unfortunate that Oliver's two decisions to award Real Madrid a penalty and send off Buffon (which most neutral observers thought were correct) happened to involve an Italian team. It seems Collina however was more sympathetic.
Phil the Ref, I thought VAR automatically checked goals anyway, so I'm not sure why you should suggest that Anthony Taylor initiated the review.
I didn't see the Lyon-Leipzig match but I read that there was a penalty given by VAR. Probably the observer noted that mistake. However, in UEFA level, a referee isn't punished on 1 mistake (especially one that it doesn't affect the outcome of the match). Rosetti seems to like Taylor's European style and that's keeping him ahead of Oliver. Also don't forget that Oliver has got a 2nd chance from UEFA.
IMO, UEFA will never forget the fuss that was created after the Real-Juve match. It's the same with the famous Cakir-Nani incident with the difference that Cakir was already considered a top-class referee. Cakir was also left out of that season and probably missed the CL final as a result of that match.
I think you are absolutely right edy. Once you establish an international reputation for good or ill, then it seems very hard to shake it off irrespective of subsequent performances be they good or poor. Rosetti certainly seems to have a mind set.
I would like to give David Elleray a penny for his thoughts about whether Taylor or Oliver is better. For no other reason than interest.
Post by: Whistleblower on Mon 30 Dec 2019 10:24
Because he is better.
Choosing, if he has, to refer to VAR for confirmation is not necessarily an error
Not perhaps the most objective or dispassionate judgement bearing in mind previously declared allegiances. Taylor is a fine referee who, at the moment, seems to be relying on VAR to help him reach a correct decision which might reasonabbly have been made on-field. In another thread I have quoted Henry Winter the Chief Football Corrspondent of the Times who shares this view about Taylor. Doesn't necessarily make it right of course but I would claim him as a credible witness.
Post by: guest3 on Mon 30 Dec 2019 09:55
Anthony Taylor requiring VAR to intervene in one of his decisions for the fifth time in December alone (I won't count the offside.)
At some point, you've got to say he's out of form.
How Taylor is rated higher in the pecking order in some quarters than Oliver is absolute garbage.
Rosetti must know something more.
Edy, does Rosetti take any notice of what's happening in the PL or any domestic league for that matter? Mind you, although not mentioned on here, both Mark Halsey and Peter Walton in articles referred to a penalty Taylor missed in the Lyon v Leipzig CL game recently. I presume in that instance he would have been advised to look at the monitor and so changed his own mind. Perhaps Rosetti didn't notice that!
As has been said before, it was unfortunate that Oliver's two decisions to award Real Madrid a penalty and send off Buffon (which most neutral observers thought were correct) happened to involve an Italian team. It seems Collina however was more sympathetic.
Phil the Ref, I thought VAR automatically checked goals anyway, so I'm not sure why you should suggest that Anthony Taylor initiated the review.
I didn't see the Lyon-Leipzig match but I read that there was a penalty given by VAR. Probably the observer noted that mistake. However, in UEFA level, a referee isn't punished on 1 mistake (especially one that it doesn't affect the outcome of the match). Rosetti seems to like Taylor's European style and that's keeping him ahead of Oliver. Also don't forget that Oliver has got a 2nd chance from UEFA.
IMO, UEFA will never forget the fuss that was created after the Real-Juve match. It's the same with the famous Cakir-Nani incident with the difference that Cakir was already considered a top-class referee. Cakir was also left out of that season and probably missed the CL final as a result of that match.
Post by: dave26 on Mon 30 Dec 2019 09:43
Since VAR has become a farce I no longer watch as much football because VAR has sucked the enjoyment out of what was once a beautiful game
Post by: Ashington46 on Sun 29 Dec 2019 22:47
Feel sorry for the wolves players who scored a very good goal! Even Liverpool players were sure it was a goal- they all looked embarrassed it was disallowed!
And poor Sheffield United who have now had SEVEN goals disallowed for offside this season!!
I've only seen the still picture with the line once and I'm not sure which part of the Wolves player's anatomy was deemed offside. It didn't appear to be his foot or his head, and the only part that was in front of the defender that I could see was his arm which doesn't count. That's assuming I was looking at the right player! Not the infamous armpit again was it??
Offside is meant to be factual and not subjective but I've seen some criticism that the exact moment the attacker passes the ball is not 100% accurate as well as questions about the line drawn. But I don't pretend to be knowledgeable on the technical aspects.
The present situation on offside is unsatisfactory but there seems to be no agreed solution on how it could be improved.
Here’s a solution: scrap VAR and go back to two or three offside decisions a season being talking points.
Sadly, this will not happen and things will get worse!
Post by: Scally Bob on Sun 29 Dec 2019 22:08
Feel sorry for the wolves players who scored a very good goal! Even Liverpool players were sure it was a goal- they all looked embarrassed it was disallowed!
And poor Sheffield United who have now had SEVEN goals disallowed for offside this season!!
I've only seen the still picture with the line once and I'm not sure which part of the Wolves player's anatomy was deemed offside. It didn't appear to be his foot or his head, and the only part that was in front of the defender that I could see was his arm which doesn't count. That's assuming I was looking at the right player! Not the infamous armpit again was it??
Offside is meant to be factual and not subjective but I've seen some criticism that the exact moment the attacker passes the ball is not 100% accurate as well as questions about the line drawn. But I don't pretend to be knowledgeable on the technical aspects.
The present situation on offside is unsatisfactory but there seems to be no agreed solution on how it could be improved.
Here’s a solution: scrap VAR and go back to two or three offside decisions a season being talking points.
Post by: Ref Fan on Sun 29 Dec 2019 21:30
Feel sorry for the wolves players who scored a very good goal! Even Liverpool players were sure it was a goal- they all looked embarrassed it was disallowed!
And poor Sheffield United who have now had SEVEN goals disallowed for offside this season!!
I've only seen the still picture with the line once and I'm not sure which part of the Wolves player's anatomy was deemed offside. It didn't appear to be his foot or his head, and the only part that was in front of the defender that I could see was his arm which doesn't count. That's assuming I was looking at the right player! Not the infamous armpit again was it??
Offside is meant to be factual and not subjective but I've seen some criticism that the exact moment the attacker passes the ball is not 100% accurate as well as questions about the line drawn. But I don't pretend to be knowledgeable on the technical aspects.
The present situation on offside is unsatisfactory but there seems to be no agreed solution on how it could be improved.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 29 Dec 2019 21:14
Because he is better.
Choosing, if he has, to refer to VAR for confirmation is not necessarily an error
Taylor disallowed the goal because he thought the ball had hit the arm. The goal was eventually allowed because the ball had not hit the arm. I don't see how anyone can suggest that the incorrect decision wasn't initially made.
Post by: ajb95 on Sun 29 Dec 2019 21:01
And poor Sheffield United who have now had SEVEN goals disallowed for offside this season!!
Post by: Ref Fan on Sun 29 Dec 2019 20:34
I should be wary of asserting how superior Oliver is to Taylor. All referees, including Oliver, can have a poor spell, compounded if there is an unusually high number of KMIS to rule on. My view is MO is a more natural referee but like a few other members on here believe that while Oliver has the edge it's fairly close and not a huge gap.
That said, Taylor has had a bad month and may be glad to see the back of 2019 despite some fine performances earlier in the year.
Post by: Ref Fan on Sun 29 Dec 2019 20:11
Anthony Taylor requiring VAR to intervene in one of his decisions for the fifth time in December alone (I won't count the offside.)
At some point, you've got to say he's out of form.
How Taylor is rated higher in the pecking order in some quarters than Oliver is absolute garbage.
Rosetti must know something more.
Edy, does Rosetti take any notice of what's happening in the PL or any domestic league for that matter? Mind you, although not mentioned on here, both Mark Halsey and Peter Walton in articles referred to a penalty Taylor missed in the Lyon v Leipzig CL game recently. I presume in that instance he would have been advised to look at the monitor and so changed his own mind. Perhaps Rosetti didn't notice that!
As has been said before, it was unfortunate that Oliver's two decisions to award Real Madrid a penalty and send off Buffon (which most neutral observers thought were correct) happened to involve an Italian team. It seems Collina however was more sympathetic.
Phil the Ref, I thought VAR automatically checked goals anyway, so I'm not sure why you should suggest that Anthony Taylor initiated the review.
Post by: guest81 on Sun 29 Dec 2019 19:32
Post by: guest3 on Sun 29 Dec 2019 18:45
Anthony Taylor requiring VAR to intervene in one of his decisions for the fifth time in December alone (I won't count the offside.)
At some point, you've got to say he's out of form.
How Taylor is rated higher in the pecking order in some quarters than Oliver is absolute garbage.
Rosetti must know something more.
Post by: Bielsa’s Bucket on Sun 29 Dec 2019 18:27
Because he is better.Have to disagree with you about Taylor whilst he is a decent ref his last few months have been poor and has got a lot of kmi’s wrong whereas Oliver is almost always spot on with his decisions. Have got Taylor next Monday at the Emirates hopefully will not have to use VAR.
Choosing, if he has, to refer to VAR for confirmation is not necessarily an error
Post by: TVOS on Sun 29 Dec 2019 18:25
Because he is better.
Choosing, if he has, to refer to VAR for confirmation is not necessarily an error
On what do you base your 'he is better' comment?
Post by: guest81 on Sun 29 Dec 2019 18:16
Post by: guest81 on Sun 29 Dec 2019 18:12
Post by: PhiltheRef on Sun 29 Dec 2019 18:04
Choosing, if he has, to refer to VAR for confirmation is not necessarily an error
Post by: TheThingFromLewes on Sun 29 Dec 2019 17:44
Anthony Taylor requiring VAR to intervene in one of his decisions for the fifth time in December alone (I won't count the offside.)
At some point, you've got to say he's out of form.
How Taylor is rated higher in the pecking order in some quarters than Oliver is absolute garbage.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 29 Dec 2019 17:33
At some point, you've got to say he's out of form.
Post by: dave26 on Sun 29 Dec 2019 07:49
These should be used only for possible handball , RC’s , penalties and clear and obvious errors only
Post by: bmb on Sun 29 Dec 2019 04:11
Post by: guest379 on Sat 28 Dec 2019 23:30
Post by: marcwhu on Sat 28 Dec 2019 21:57
I'm not sure you can criticise Kavanagh, he can only go on what the lines show. Would he draw the lines or would it be his VAR assistant Halliday?
As far as I know and happy to be corrected but it is actually the Hawkeye technicians that draw the lines for the VAR and VAR assistant to then use and judge if it is on and off.
There was talk earlier in the season that they are developing software where the lines are drawn automatically and not having to be drawn each and everytime but who knows how far that is off coming in.
Post by: carrowman on Sat 28 Dec 2019 20:51
I keep going back to cricket and if an umpire doesn't give someone out but Hawkeye shows the ball was going to hit the stumps, he still isn't out if it is marginal.
When will Sky/Press eventually get to speak to Riley and get him to admit that single handedly he's ruining football with his interpretation that he's forcing on his officials.
Unfortunately by the time VAR is amended and it will, Norwich will be back in the championship playing proper football.
Post by: Matt on Sat 28 Dec 2019 20:43
and what's that got to do with a black and white decision such as offside when he's VAR?
Post by: Scally Bob on Sat 28 Dec 2019 19:42
This rubbish is ruining football. Twenty goals this season chalked off for these millimetre-close VAR decisions. Brighton and Norwich both ridiculous calls and inconclusive. They can try and justify their calls but I’m not even remotely convinced.
I’d love to see what an Observer would say if I tried to judge offside from the angle of those cameras. It’s not needed and putting Riley in charge of it-well what could possibly go wrong?
In my opinion Chris Kavanagh is a decent referee, I think he’s going to go far but that’s just my opinion.
I’d also say that I’ve driven a car without getting any points on my licence or being involved in an accident for over forty years. Experience, instinct, gut feel, appreciation of my surroundings and knowing when to take action all contribute. I can’t however manage to control an imaginary vehicle on a computer screen. It’s just not the same and neither is VAR.
Post by: Readingfan on Sat 28 Dec 2019 19:38
I don't think there's much more to say about the offside situation at present. A certain method was agreed pre-season and will have to be used for the next few months. There have been indications IFAB will consider altering the way in which offsides are judged come next season.
Post by: Scally Bob on Sat 28 Dec 2019 18:40
I’d love to see what an Observer would say if I tried to judge offside from the angle of those cameras. It’s not needed and putting Riley in charge of it-well what could possibly go wrong?
Post by: TheThingFromLewes on Sat 28 Dec 2019 18:07
I'm sorry but it's now getting more comical than Basil Fawlty in his prime.
Post by: Readingfan on Sat 28 Dec 2019 01:15
And VAR ruins another refereeing performance. Atkinson bang on not to give a penalty!
And then it checks for encroachment which is NOT in the VAR remit!
Utterly shameful! Ruining the beautiful game!
It is in the remit, VAR will check encroachment if it affects the outcome. So given the encroaching player cleared the ball the clearly impacted on the outcome.
Since when??
We were told that VAR would be checking penalties, red cards, mistaken identity and offsides. It wasn’t mentioned anywhere about checking encroachment.
If it is checking encroachment then it has been woeful in this respect all season!
There have been several retakes this season because of encroachment linked to VAR. It's been in the LOTG for some time (relative to VAR's introduciton) and is obviously linked to penalties/goals.
I know it’s in the LOTG - but when VAR came in we were given the 4 instances where it would be used.
This wasn’t one of them.
Well, it's been there for as long as I can remember. Whether it was included the very first day VAR was devised three or four years ago I don't know but it's certainly been there a while. I don't remember them ever specifically suggesting that it wouldn't be looked at and it is related to the aspect of goals/penalties as I said - it's certainly in the VAR remit now.
Post by: ajb95 on Sat 28 Dec 2019 01:06
And VAR ruins another refereeing performance. Atkinson bang on not to give a penalty!
And then it checks for encroachment which is NOT in the VAR remit!
Utterly shameful! Ruining the beautiful game!
It is in the remit, VAR will check encroachment if it affects the outcome. So given the encroaching player cleared the ball the clearly impacted on the outcome.
Since when??
We were told that VAR would be checking penalties, red cards, mistaken identity and offsides. It wasn’t mentioned anywhere about checking encroachment.
If it is checking encroachment then it has been woeful in this respect all season!
There have been several retakes this season because of encroachment linked to VAR. It's been in the LOTG for some time (relative to VAR's introduciton) and is obviously linked to penalties/goals.
I know it’s in the LOTG - but when VAR came in we were given the 4 instances where it would be used.
This wasn’t one of them.
Post by: Readingfan on Sat 28 Dec 2019 00:49
And VAR ruins another refereeing performance. Atkinson bang on not to give a penalty!
And then it checks for encroachment which is NOT in the VAR remit!
Utterly shameful! Ruining the beautiful game!
It is in the remit, VAR will check encroachment if it affects the outcome. So given the encroaching player cleared the ball the clearly impacted on the outcome.
Since when??
We were told that VAR would be checking penalties, red cards, mistaken identity and offsides. It wasn’t mentioned anywhere about checking encroachment.
If it is checking encroachment then it has been woeful in this respect all season!
There have been several retakes this season because of encroachment linked to VAR. It's been in the LOTG for some time (relative to VAR's introduciton) and is obviously linked to penalties/goals.
Post by: rustyref on Fri 27 Dec 2019 22:07
And VAR ruins another refereeing performance. Atkinson bang on not to give a penalty!
And then it checks for encroachment which is NOT in the VAR remit!
Utterly shameful! Ruining the beautiful game!
It is in the remit, VAR will check encroachment if it affects the outcome. So given the encroaching player cleared the ball the clearly impacted on the outcome.
Since when??
We were told that VAR would be checking penalties, red cards, mistaken identity and offsides. It wasn’t mentioned anywhere about checking encroachment.
If it is checking encroachment then it has been woeful in this respect all season!
Happened already this season, including in the Norwich vs Arsenal game as here https://www.football.london/arsenal-fc/news/reason-var-decision-arsenal-penalty-17346819
They only check it if the encroachment affects the outcome, which means one of …
- the keeper saves it and was off the line
- the penalty is saved or missed and a defender encroaches and plays the ball
- the penalty is saved or missed and an attacker encroaches and plays the ball
Post by: ajb95 on Fri 27 Dec 2019 21:23
And VAR ruins another refereeing performance. Atkinson bang on not to give a penalty!
And then it checks for encroachment which is NOT in the VAR remit!
Utterly shameful! Ruining the beautiful game!
It is in the remit, VAR will check encroachment if it affects the outcome. So given the encroaching player cleared the ball the clearly impacted on the outcome.
Since when??
We were told that VAR would be checking penalties, red cards, mistaken identity and offsides. It wasn’t mentioned anywhere about checking encroachment.
If it is checking encroachment then it has been woeful in this respect all season!
Post by: Ashington46 on Fri 27 Dec 2019 20:55
Football in Ireland is ruined by lack of money and people at the top who haven’t a clue how to run our game and I think on a much bigger scale across the water it’s ruined by to many off the field interference What a shambles at wolves tonight, you wouldn’t see it at a Sunday league game
You definitely would never see it in a Sunday League game nor, in all probability outside the top two divisions in England in the future, however, it is the way that the game is going and it will not get any better because those in power (FIFA) and the media are pushing the game down this path. Enjoy the games in the lower divisions and the pyramid and non-league because, hopefully, they will remain football as we know it.
Post by: rustyref on Fri 27 Dec 2019 20:51
And VAR ruins another refereeing performance. Atkinson bang on not to give a penalty!
And then it checks for encroachment which is NOT in the VAR remit!
Utterly shameful! Ruining the beautiful game!
It is in the remit, VAR will check encroachment if it affects the outcome. So given the encroaching player cleared the ball the clearly impacted on the outcome.
Post by: guest81 on Fri 27 Dec 2019 20:40
Post by: TheThingFromLewes on Fri 27 Dec 2019 20:22
And VAR ruins another refereeing performance. Atkinson bang on not to give a penalty!
And then it checks for encroachment which is NOT in the VAR remit!
Utterly shameful! Ruining the beautiful game!
Precisely why we all think Atkinson looks uninterested....might as well hand the refereeing over to a referee sitting hundreds of miles away in a warm box surrounded by tea and biscuits.
Post by: ajb95 on Fri 27 Dec 2019 20:20
And then it checks for encroachment which is NOT in the VAR remit!
Utterly shameful! Ruining the beautiful game!
Post by: ajb95 on Tue 10 Dec 2019 19:15
Just a question as we head towards Xmas:
There are 9 games on both Boxing Day and New Year’s Day:
That means 9 referees which leaves 8 to act as VAR and 4th official.
Particularly on new year the kick offs are staggered so more than 1 ref could so 2-3 games as VAR.
Is there going to be enough refs considering there is a full package of fl games which will need 12 SG2 refs and 24 FL refs?
They've had plenty of weekends with 8 games on a Saturday and 6 games at 3pm, so the only real difference on Boxing Day is the 8pm game. I'd expect a VAR to do both the 12.30 and 17.30 games and another to do a 3pm and the 8pm game.
Of course, the situation with Bury means there's only 11 League 1 fixtures for each round this season.
But they’ve not had 7 games KO at 3pm!?
I don't think there's a day with 7 3pm kick-offs?
You're right Wolves v City is on Friday, my apolgies
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 10 Dec 2019 17:02
Just a question as we head towards Xmas:
There are 9 games on both Boxing Day and New Year’s Day:
That means 9 referees which leaves 8 to act as VAR and 4th official.
Particularly on new year the kick offs are staggered so more than 1 ref could so 2-3 games as VAR.
Is there going to be enough refs considering there is a full package of fl games which will need 12 SG2 refs and 24 FL refs?
They've had plenty of weekends with 8 games on a Saturday and 6 games at 3pm, so the only real difference on Boxing Day is the 8pm game. I'd expect a VAR to do both the 12.30 and 17.30 games and another to do a 3pm and the 8pm game.
Of course, the situation with Bury means there's only 11 League 1 fixtures for each round this season.
But they’ve not had 7 games KO at 3pm!?
I don't think there's a day with 7 3pm kick-offs?
Post by: ajb95 on Tue 10 Dec 2019 16:57
Just a question as we head towards Xmas:
There are 9 games on both Boxing Day and New Year’s Day:
That means 9 referees which leaves 8 to act as VAR and 4th official.
Particularly on new year the kick offs are staggered so more than 1 ref could so 2-3 games as VAR.
Is there going to be enough refs considering there is a full package of fl games which will need 12 SG2 refs and 24 FL refs?
They've had plenty of weekends with 8 games on a Saturday and 6 games at 3pm, so the only real difference on Boxing Day is the 8pm game. I'd expect a VAR to do both the 12.30 and 17.30 games and another to do a 3pm and the 8pm game.
Of course, the situation with Bury means there's only 11 League 1 fixtures for each round this season.
But they’ve not had 7 games KO at 3pm!?
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 10 Dec 2019 14:10
Just a question as we head towards Xmas:
There are 9 games on both Boxing Day and New Year’s Day:
That means 9 referees which leaves 8 to act as VAR and 4th official.
Particularly on new year the kick offs are staggered so more than 1 ref could so 2-3 games as VAR.
Is there going to be enough refs considering there is a full package of fl games which will need 12 SG2 refs and 24 FL refs?
They've had plenty of weekends with 8 games on a Saturday and 6 games at 3pm, so the only real difference on Boxing Day is the 8pm game. I'd expect a VAR to do both the 12.30 and 17.30 games and another to do a 3pm and the 8pm game.
Of course, the situation with Bury means there's only 11 League 1 fixtures for each round this season.
Post by: ajb95 on Mon 09 Dec 2019 20:55
There are 9 games on both Boxing Day and New Year’s Day:
That means 9 referees which leaves 8 to act as VAR and 4th official.
Particularly on new year the kick offs are staggered so more than 1 ref could so 2-3 games as VAR.
Is there going to be enough refs considering there is a full package of fl games which will need 12 SG2 refs and 24 FL refs?
Post by: Boz on Sun 08 Dec 2019 17:10
Writing from a fan rather than refereeing perspective, a VAR decision in favour of City must be due sometime soon, surely?
Post by: Microscopist on Sun 08 Dec 2019 16:38
Post by: rustyref on Sun 08 Dec 2019 16:14
Agreed. I thought VAR did pretty well today. There couldn't have been much argument about the penalty - I assume Taylor's view was (partially) blocked as it didn't look too difficult a decision. The 2 City appeals for handball were in my view also correctly denied by referee and VAR.Overall I thought Taylor had a fair game and City lost because, like Norwich, Liverpool and Wolves, United exploited their weakness in leaving huge amounts of space at the back.
Another top team out with Taylor, Dean and Oliver.
A couple of points - the first on the penalty scored by Rashford, and it is a bit pedantic. Should Rashford have been allowed to take the penalty? Seemed to me that he was receiving attention on the pitch whilst VAR was in progress, so should he not have had to leave the field of play?
Secondly the Fred non-handball - as the law is written I understand why a penalty was not given. However, it further illustrated the inadequacy of the handball law. Effectively it now means that a defender can block a shot or pass by "falling over" and blocking the ball with his hand/arm between his/her body and the ground. It is a total nonsense to have such a large differential between attackers and defenders in the penalty area when it comes to handball.
That's a law change this year, the line below was added to the exclusions as to when a player who has received treatment has to leave the pitch.
- a penalty kick has been awarded and the injured player will be the kicker
Post by: Microscopist on Sun 08 Dec 2019 15:55
Agreed. I thought VAR did pretty well today. There couldn't have been much argument about the penalty - I assume Taylor's view was (partially) blocked as it didn't look too difficult a decision. The 2 City appeals for handball were in my view also correctly denied by referee and VAR.Overall I thought Taylor had a fair game and City lost because, like Norwich, Liverpool and Wolves, United exploited their weakness in leaving huge amounts of space at the back.
Another top team out with Taylor, Dean and Oliver.
A couple of points - the first on the penalty scored by Rashford, and it is a bit pedantic. Should Rashford have been allowed to take the penalty? Seemed to me that he was receiving attention on the pitch whilst VAR was in progress, so should he not have had to leave the field of play?
Secondly the Fred non-handball - as the law is written I understand why a penalty was not given. However, it further illustrated the inadequacy of the handball law. Effectively it now means that a defender can block a shot or pass by "falling over" and blocking the ball with his hand/arm between his/her body and the ground. It is a total nonsense to have such a large differential between attackers and defenders in the penalty area when it comes to handball.
Post by: Ref Fan on Sun 08 Dec 2019 13:58
Another top team out with Taylor, Dean and Oliver.
Post by: Readingfan on Sat 07 Dec 2019 21:38
Whilst there have still been some interventions missed, it does feel to me like there have been some improvements to VAR since the international break, as Gary Neville said in commentary. We seemed to go from nothing being given at the start of the season to interventions no one was expecting around mid October.
Since the Nov international break, we've seen Burnley correctly given a penalty at Watford, United correctly given a penalty at City today, and Leicester denied a penalty against Everton last week.
Post by: bmb on Sun 01 Dec 2019 22:54
At this rate, I do wonder if Mike Riley/Neil Swarbrick will still be in their current roles this time next year.
I strongly suspect yes!
I think you're probably right! Although one does wonder what it would take for Mike Riley's position to come under serious pressure. He's done 10 years which is a long time in any job in modern football!
The joys of no fixed term contracts. That said whist in Hungary our referees themselves are on 1-3 year contracts, our referee manager has been in the job around 19/20 years now!
Post by: rustyref on Sun 01 Dec 2019 19:29
Yes, and I also believe it was the Norwich fans who had held on to the ball to waste time and then threw it on when play had restarted so I certainly don't have any sympathy with them on this.
I thought VAR was used well in the Leicester game today. Maybe Simon Hooper has found his role!
Yes, relevant part of law 5 states …
an extra ball, other object or animal enters the field of play during the match, the referee must:
–– stop play (and restart with a dropped ball) only if it interferes with play unless the ball is going into the goal and the interference does not prevent a defending player playing the ball, the goal is awarded if the
ball enters the goal (even if contact was made with the ball) unless the interference was by the attacking team
–– allow play to continue if it does not interfere with play and have it removed at the earliest possible opportunity
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 01 Dec 2019 19:14
In the "old" days when we had the multi ball system, I think most games had to be stopped because 2 balls were on the pitch. We are led to believe every goal is checked, so why was Arsenal's second goal allowed when there was another ball in the penalty area, or is VAR now allowed to decide which things to ignore.
Because law is clear that play is only stopped if the extra ball interferes with play, and it clearly didn't here.
Yes, and I also believe it was the Norwich fans who had held on to the ball to waste time and then threw it on when play had restarted so I certainly don't have any sympathy with them on this.
I thought VAR was used well in the Leicester game today. Maybe Simon Hooper has found his role!
Post by: rustyref on Sun 01 Dec 2019 18:30
In the "old" days when we had the multi ball system, I think most games had to be stopped because 2 balls were on the pitch. We are led to believe every goal is checked, so why was Arsenal's second goal allowed when there was another ball in the penalty area, or is VAR now allowed to decide which things to ignore.
Because law is clear that play is only stopped if the extra ball interferes with play, and it clearly didn't here.
Post by: Ashington46 on Sun 01 Dec 2019 17:31
At this rate, I do wonder if Mike Riley/Neil Swarbrick will still be in their current roles this time next year.
I strongly suspect yes!
I think you're probably right! Although one does wonder what it would take for Mike Riley's position to come under serious pressure. He's done 10 years which is a long time in any job in modern football!
Here's an idea to give Mike a bit of a change --he could apply to become CEO of the PL, they seem to be struggling to find someone who will bow down to their wishes. :D
Post by: carrowman on Sun 01 Dec 2019 17:30
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 01 Dec 2019 17:22
At this rate, I do wonder if Mike Riley/Neil Swarbrick will still be in their current roles this time next year.
I strongly suspect yes!
I think you're probably right! Although one does wonder what it would take for Mike Riley's position to come under serious pressure. He's done 10 years which is a long time in any job in modern football!
Post by: bmb on Sun 01 Dec 2019 17:05
At this rate, I do wonder if Mike Riley/Neil Swarbrick will still be in their current roles this time next year.
I strongly suspect yes!
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 01 Dec 2019 16:06
You know full well that’s not what I’m saying.It was so obvious that the referee missed it and the defenders missed it. The same defenders who if there'd been even a sniff of a handball would've been screaming at Oliver.
Well, the replays show that it clearly hit the hand. If we are relying on the players to spot offences for them to be given then we really are in trouble!
I don't really understand what you are saying. There can be no doubt that VAR should have disallowed the goal?
Post by: Matt on Sun 01 Dec 2019 15:12
You know full well that’s not what I’m saying.It was so obvious that the referee missed it and the defenders missed it. The same defenders who if there'd been even a sniff of a handball would've been screaming at Oliver.
Well, the replays show that it clearly hit the hand. If we are relying on the players to spot offences for them to be given then we really are in trouble!
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 01 Dec 2019 13:30
It was so obvious that the referee missed it and the defenders missed it. The same defenders who if there'd been even a sniff of a handball would've been screaming at Oliver.
Well, the replays show that it clearly hit the hand. If we are relying on the players to spot offences for them to be given then we really are in trouble!
Post by: Matt on Sun 01 Dec 2019 13:16
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 01 Dec 2019 12:44
Newcastle score a goal after an attacking handball with Watford 1-0 up. VAR misses it. Manager sacked.
Southampton score a goal after an attacking handball with Watford 1-0 up. VAR misses it. Manager sacked.
Reports also suggest PGMO believe Watford should have had a penalty against Spurs (that was pretty clear) and Tottenham's goal should have been disallowed for handball.
Surely unacceptable that two matter of fact decisions have been missed and have both gone against the team bottom of the league. Just about sums up where VAR is right now.
At this rate, I do wonder if Mike Riley/Neil Swarbrick will still be in their current roles this time next year.
Post by: rustyref on Sun 01 Dec 2019 12:42
You must have sharp eyes Readingfan (and rustyref) because the only question going through my mind watching it live on tv was how close the ball was to going out of play before it was squeezed across for Ings to score. Perhaps specsavers calls for me.
I do agree it's a mystery why VAR didn't pick it up. Doubt Oliver had a chance of seeing it from his angle.
Actually real time is a bit of a push, it was actually the first replay when I thought something looked wrong.
Post by: Ref Fan on Sun 01 Dec 2019 11:58
I do agree it's a mystery why VAR didn't pick it up. Doubt Oliver had a chance of seeing it from his angle.
Post by: rustyref on Sun 01 Dec 2019 11:53
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 01 Dec 2019 11:03
I don't really understand how VAR could have failed to look at the required angle. I appreciate in a very rare circumstance there might be something that no one expects on live viewing (like the Skrtel handball in the Liverpool V Man City game in 2014) but in something like this it seemed an obvious question that needed clearing up.
Post by: ajb95 on Sat 30 Nov 2019 22:47
Post by: LateTackle on Sat 30 Nov 2019 15:02
On the other hand, I have compared it to cricket's DRS, which has generally been a great asset to the game in getting things overwhelmingly correct. My only issue has been that umpires should be able to refer more decisions to DRS themselves rather than rely on a review quota for each team.
I have to say that much of my DRS optimism was shattered by the antics in Hamilton on day 1 of the second test match. Umpire Oxenford gave Taylor out lbw, which was reasonably obvious with the naked eye. Taylor consulted his partner and reviewed almost out of desperation in case it was missing leg stump. Cue Hotspot, when Oxenford declared there was no mark so no bat involved. Then a check on Snicko showed a spike well after the ball passed the bat, which seemed to utterly confuse the hapless Oxenford. So he reverts back to Hotspot and now declares he can see an imaginary mark on the bat, so tells the onfield umpire to change his decision. Sheer blatant incompetence (at best!)
Oxenford didn't have a great game in the middle in the first test, but in some ways this is worse as he has completely undermined the onfield umpire, Dharmasena, who had been 100% correct. I think that Oxenford should be removed from top level umpiring, at least temporarily. I relate the story because it demonstrates that, while the technology is improving and becoming reliable, you still need competent people running it. This is rare in cricket, yet we seem to be a long way from that in football.
Post by: bmb on Wed 27 Nov 2019 19:00
QuoteWhat was a bit strange here is that the AR appeared to hold his ground rather than move quickly down the line, and that is a universal signal that they aren't happy with something. So at a guess I would say there was possibly some communication around who the last touch came off and then VAR got involved.
Yes, I can see that argument, but if the linesman doesn't know whether it is offside (which is fair enough) then the default would be not to give it. If he waits for the VAR to tell him then that is not really the on-field decision. If he could judge that Sterling was offside then we don't need VAR and if I were wanting to "sell" the Premier League explanation then I'd be producing the evidence that there was no touch - unless of course it was just a guess by the VAR.
That isn't what I meant. Before VAR assistants had to make a decision, and that is still the case now. But there were and still are times where as an assistant you know that a player is in an offside position, but there are other factors that you aren't sure about, like who played it last or whether a player in an offside position in the line of sight of the keeper to an extent that they are interfering with an opponent.
Before VAR you would hold your ground, the referee would know there is something wrong and come over for a chat. That applied even with audio comms as it helped to sell the decision. With VAR there is no need as it will come up on the screen and will be obvious to all. So my guess is that the assistant held his position, the referee realised there was a VAR review anyway so didn't need to go and talk to him and they just waited for the outcome.
At one level, I guess that my issue is partly semantic - can a decision taken in consultation with the VAR really be described as being an on-field decision?
At another level, I wonder just what the relative roles of the on-field officials and the VAR are. In cricket it seems fairly clear. On referral the third umpire carries out an apparently independent review of the decision following a fairly clear protocol. However, in football the review appears to be a consultation between the VAR and the on-field officials. In this incident the consultation takes place before an on-field decision has been signalled (Understanding your point that the AR has stood his ground). To me that has changed the relationship between the VAR and the on-field officials and prevents the VAR from actually reviewing a decision because they have already been involved in making the decision. I prefer the cricket approach because the review seems to be independent of the on-field umpires. Once the review, or in this case the initial decision making becomes consultative (and secretive), then there is an issue of dominant personalities having an undue influence on the decision making.
You have to remember, however, that the review in cricket is called for by the players and is out of the hands of the onfield officials anyway.
Additionally VAR can (whether they always do or not is a different discussion) intervene if they feel the referee has missed something and say he needs to review, it's not only down to a referee to ask for it to reviewed like with a cricket umpire, you could class that as an independent review of course but if a review then occurs, they as in VAR might look at it further, the referee may use a pitchside monitor (well outside of England in a Euro fixture!) and then a final decision is made so it still is part of a discussion regarding the decision.
Post by: Ashington46 on Wed 27 Nov 2019 17:19
QuoteWhat was a bit strange here is that the AR appeared to hold his ground rather than move quickly down the line, and that is a universal signal that they aren't happy with something. So at a guess I would say there was possibly some communication around who the last touch came off and then VAR got involved.
Yes, I can see that argument, but if the linesman doesn't know whether it is offside (which is fair enough) then the default would be not to give it. If he waits for the VAR to tell him then that is not really the on-field decision. If he could judge that Sterling was offside then we don't need VAR and if I were wanting to "sell" the Premier League explanation then I'd be producing the evidence that there was no touch - unless of course it was just a guess by the VAR.
That isn't what I meant. Before VAR assistants had to make a decision, and that is still the case now. But there were and still are times where as an assistant you know that a player is in an offside position, but there are other factors that you aren't sure about, like who played it last or whether a player in an offside position in the line of sight of the keeper to an extent that they are interfering with an opponent.
Before VAR you would hold your ground, the referee would know there is something wrong and come over for a chat. That applied even with audio comms as it helped to sell the decision. With VAR there is no need as it will come up on the screen and will be obvious to all. So my guess is that the assistant held his position, the referee realised there was a VAR review anyway so didn't need to go and talk to him and they just waited for the outcome.
At one level, I guess that my issue is partly semantic - can a decision taken in consultation with the VAR really be described as being an on-field decision?
At another level, I wonder just what the relative roles of the on-field officials and the VAR are. In cricket it seems fairly clear. On referral the third umpire carries out an apparently independent review of the decision following a fairly clear protocol. However, in football the review appears to be a consultation between the VAR and the on-field officials. In this incident the consultation takes place before an on-field decision has been signalled (Understanding your point that the AR has stood his ground). To me that has changed the relationship between the VAR and the on-field officials and prevents the VAR from actually reviewing a decision because they have already been involved in making the decision. I prefer the cricket approach because the review seems to be independent of the on-field umpires. Once the review, or in this case the initial decision making becomes consultative (and secretive), then there is an issue of dominant personalities having an undue influence on the decision making.
You have to remember, however, that the review in cricket is called for by the players and is out of the hands of the onfield officials anyway.
Post by: Microscopist on Wed 27 Nov 2019 16:20
QuoteWhat was a bit strange here is that the AR appeared to hold his ground rather than move quickly down the line, and that is a universal signal that they aren't happy with something. So at a guess I would say there was possibly some communication around who the last touch came off and then VAR got involved.
Yes, I can see that argument, but if the linesman doesn't know whether it is offside (which is fair enough) then the default would be not to give it. If he waits for the VAR to tell him then that is not really the on-field decision. If he could judge that Sterling was offside then we don't need VAR and if I were wanting to "sell" the Premier League explanation then I'd be producing the evidence that there was no touch - unless of course it was just a guess by the VAR.
That isn't what I meant. Before VAR assistants had to make a decision, and that is still the case now. But there were and still are times where as an assistant you know that a player is in an offside position, but there are other factors that you aren't sure about, like who played it last or whether a player in an offside position in the line of sight of the keeper to an extent that they are interfering with an opponent.
Before VAR you would hold your ground, the referee would know there is something wrong and come over for a chat. That applied even with audio comms as it helped to sell the decision. With VAR there is no need as it will come up on the screen and will be obvious to all. So my guess is that the assistant held his position, the referee realised there was a VAR review anyway so didn't need to go and talk to him and they just waited for the outcome.
At one level, I guess that my issue is partly semantic - can a decision taken in consultation with the VAR really be described as being an on-field decision?
At another level, I wonder just what the relative roles of the on-field officials and the VAR are. In cricket it seems fairly clear. On referral the third umpire carries out an apparently independent review of the decision following a fairly clear protocol. However, in football the review appears to be a consultation between the VAR and the on-field officials. In this incident the consultation takes place before an on-field decision has been signalled (Understanding your point that the AR has stood his ground). To me that has changed the relationship between the VAR and the on-field officials and prevents the VAR from actually reviewing a decision because they have already been involved in making the decision. I prefer the cricket approach because the review seems to be independent of the on-field umpires. Once the review, or in this case the initial decision making becomes consultative (and secretive), then there is an issue of dominant personalities having an undue influence on the decision making.
Post by: Readingfan on Wed 27 Nov 2019 14:27
There are also reports that leagues including Australia are putting pressure on IFAB to allow conversations between officials to be broadcast. Australia have submitted a 3 stage model for this - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7693297/VAR-joy-killer-Fans-stadiums-need-know-whats-going-just-stay-home.html
Post by: rustyref on Tue 26 Nov 2019 22:36
QuoteWhat was a bit strange here is that the AR appeared to hold his ground rather than move quickly down the line, and that is a universal signal that they aren't happy with something. So at a guess I would say there was possibly some communication around who the last touch came off and then VAR got involved.
Yes, I can see that argument, but if the linesman doesn't know whether it is offside (which is fair enough) then the default would be not to give it. If he waits for the VAR to tell him then that is not really the on-field decision. If he could judge that Sterling was offside then we don't need VAR and if I were wanting to "sell" the Premier League explanation then I'd be producing the evidence that there was no touch - unless of course it was just a guess by the VAR.
That isn't what I meant. Before VAR assistants had to make a decision, and that is still the case now. But there were and still are times where as an assistant you know that a player is in an offside position, but there are other factors that you aren't sure about, like who played it last or whether a player in an offside position in the line of sight of the keeper to an extent that they are interfering with an opponent.
Before VAR you would hold your ground, the referee would know there is something wrong and come over for a chat. That applied even with audio comms as it helped to sell the decision. With VAR there is no need as it will come up on the screen and will be obvious to all. So my guess is that the assistant held his position, the referee realised there was a VAR review anyway so didn't need to go and talk to him and they just waited for the outcome.
Post by: Microscopist on Tue 26 Nov 2019 22:23
Quote
What was a bit strange here is that the AR appeared to hold his ground rather than move quickly down the line, and that is a universal signal that they aren't happy with something. So at a guess I would say there was possibly some communication around who the last touch came off and then VAR got involved.
Yes, I can see that argument, but if the linesman doesn't know whether it is offside (which is fair enough) then the default would be not to give it. If he waits for the VAR to tell him then that is not really the on-field decision. If he could judge that Sterling was offside then we don't need VAR and if I were wanting to "sell" the Premier League explanation then I'd be producing the evidence that there was no touch - unless of course it was just a guess by the VAR.
Post by: rustyref on Tue 26 Nov 2019 19:18
Not wishing to reopen the debate on whether VAR is accurate enough to give marginal offside decisions but rather thinking about the communication of marginal resuts.
The Premier League on twitter as the goal was disallowed -QuotePremier League Retweeted Premier LeagueThis was followed shortly afterwards with -
After consulting the VAR, referee Martin Atkinson has overturned the goal because Raheem Sterling was offside Man City 2-1 Chelsea (90+4)QuotePremier LeagueVerified account @premierleague Nov 23Compare this with what happened on-field. As the "goal" was scored Atkinson appeared to turn away and no flag was raised. After about 50 seconds with Atkinson talking on his headset he turns to the AR who promptly raises his flag and Atkinson turns round and appears to say "yes", before signalling that the goal has been ruled out.
Correction: The on-field decision was offside and a goal was not awarded. The VAR checked and confirmed this was correct
It is suggested that the AR wanted to check whether the ball had glanced off the defender's head, although there are no images that I have seen which give a definitive answer to this. It also seems improbable to me that the AR could have given such a tight decision which would surely have had to have given the benefit of the doubt to the attacker?
In any event with VAR widely treated with suspicion is this really the way to inspire confidence in the system?
How long can Riley and Swarbrick stay in post?
What was a bit strange here is that the AR appeared to hold his ground rather than move quickly down the line, and that is a universal signal that they aren't happy with something. So at a guess I would say there was possibly some communication around who the last touch came off and then VAR got involved.
Post by: flipmode on Tue 26 Nov 2019 00:26
Not wishing to reopen the debate on whether VAR is accurate enough to give marginal offside decisions but rather thinking about the communication of marginal resuts.
The Premier League on twitter as the goal was disallowed -QuotePremier League Retweeted Premier LeagueThis was followed shortly afterwards with -
After consulting the VAR, referee Martin Atkinson has overturned the goal because Raheem Sterling was offside Man City 2-1 Chelsea (90+4)QuotePremier LeagueVerified account @premierleague Nov 23Compare this with what happened on-field. As the "goal" was scored Atkinson appeared to turn away and no flag was raised. After about 50 seconds with Atkinson talking on his headset he turns to the AR who promptly raises his flag and Atkinson turns round and appears to say "yes", before signalling that the goal has been ruled out.
Correction: The on-field decision was offside and a goal was not awarded. The VAR checked and confirmed this was correct
It is suggested that the AR wanted to check whether the ball had glanced off the defender's head, although there are no images that I have seen which give a definitive answer to this. It also seems improbable to me that the AR could have given such a tight decision which would surely have had to have given the benefit of the doubt to the attacker?
In any event with VAR widely treated with suspicion is this really the way to inspire confidence in the system?
How long can Riley and Swarbrick stay in post?
I would also argue that this one, more so than the Sterling one at West Ham earlier in the season was less conclusive EVEN with the images shown. I know there is data, measurements and analytics to prove otherwise, but the image that was displayed with media outlets did nothing to convince me that the correct decision had been made here.
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 26 Nov 2019 00:19
Post by: bruntyboy on Mon 25 Nov 2019 19:26
Not wishing to reopen the debate on whether VAR is accurate enough to give marginal offside decisions but rather thinking about the communication of marginal resuts.
The Premier League on twitter as the goal was disallowed -QuotePremier League Retweeted Premier LeagueThis was followed shortly afterwards with -
After consulting the VAR, referee Martin Atkinson has overturned the goal because Raheem Sterling was offside Man City 2-1 Chelsea (90+4)QuotePremier LeagueVerified account @premierleague Nov 23Compare this with what happened on-field. As the "goal" was scored Atkinson appeared to turn away and no flag was raised. After about 50 seconds with Atkinson talking on his headset he turns to the AR who promptly raises his flag and Atkinson turns round and appears to say "yes", before signalling that the goal has been ruled out.
Correction: The on-field decision was offside and a goal was not awarded. The VAR checked and confirmed this was correct
It is suggested that the AR wanted to check whether the ball had glanced off the defender's head, although there are no images that I have seen which give a definitive answer to this. It also seems improbable to me that the AR could have given such a tight decision which would surely have had to have given the benefit of the doubt to the attacker?
In any event with VAR widely treated with suspicion is this really the way to inspire confidence in the system?
How long can Riley and Swarbrick stay in post?
Agreed. I also think it’s another one where the benefit of doubt should be given to the attacker to score.
On another note, the Sheffield United leveller seem to cause a lot of debate. Personally I don’t think it’s handball, but saw someone mention that there was enough evidence on the limited replays given, to give handball.
I disagree, the replays were inconclusive so wasn’t clear and obvious in my eyes!
Surely "clear and obvious error" is not relevant in this situation as the question is purely did the ball touch the attacker's arm or not. Given his view and the positioning of the player there is no way that the referee could have determined in the first instance whether it hit his arm or not.
Post by: ajb95 on Mon 25 Nov 2019 17:46
Not wishing to reopen the debate on whether VAR is accurate enough to give marginal offside decisions but rather thinking about the communication of marginal resuts.
The Premier League on twitter as the goal was disallowed -QuotePremier League Retweeted Premier LeagueThis was followed shortly afterwards with -
After consulting the VAR, referee Martin Atkinson has overturned the goal because Raheem Sterling was offside Man City 2-1 Chelsea (90+4)QuotePremier LeagueVerified account @premierleague Nov 23Compare this with what happened on-field. As the "goal" was scored Atkinson appeared to turn away and no flag was raised. After about 50 seconds with Atkinson talking on his headset he turns to the AR who promptly raises his flag and Atkinson turns round and appears to say "yes", before signalling that the goal has been ruled out.
Correction: The on-field decision was offside and a goal was not awarded. The VAR checked and confirmed this was correct
It is suggested that the AR wanted to check whether the ball had glanced off the defender's head, although there are no images that I have seen which give a definitive answer to this. It also seems improbable to me that the AR could have given such a tight decision which would surely have had to have given the benefit of the doubt to the attacker?
In any event with VAR widely treated with suspicion is this really the way to inspire confidence in the system?
How long can Riley and Swarbrick stay in post?
Agreed. I also think it’s another one where the benefit of doubt should be given to the attacker to score.
On another note, the Sheffield United leveller seem to cause a lot of debate. Personally I don’t think it’s handball, but saw someone mention that there was enough evidence on the limited replays given, to give handball.
I disagree, the replays were inconclusive so wasn’t clear and obvious in my eyes!
Post by: Microscopist on Mon 25 Nov 2019 17:19
The Premier League on twitter as the goal was disallowed -
Quote
Premier League Retweeted Premier LeagueThis was followed shortly afterwards with -
After consulting the VAR, referee Martin Atkinson has overturned the goal because Raheem Sterling was offside Man City 2-1 Chelsea (90+4)
Quote
Premier LeagueVerified account @premierleague Nov 23Compare this with what happened on-field. As the "goal" was scored Atkinson appeared to turn away and no flag was raised. After about 50 seconds with Atkinson talking on his headset he turns to the AR who promptly raises his flag and Atkinson turns round and appears to say "yes", before signalling that the goal has been ruled out.
Correction: The on-field decision was offside and a goal was not awarded. The VAR checked and confirmed this was correct
It is suggested that the AR wanted to check whether the ball had glanced off the defender's head, although there are no images that I have seen which give a definitive answer to this. It also seems improbable to me that the AR could have given such a tight decision which would surely have had to have given the benefit of the doubt to the attacker?
In any event with VAR widely treated with suspicion is this really the way to inspire confidence in the system?
How long can Riley and Swarbrick stay in post?
Post by: bruntyboy on Sun 24 Nov 2019 00:44
Interesting situation at Brighton V Leicester.
James Maddison scored a rebound after a penalty had been saved but had encroached into the area so the penalty was retaken after VAR intervention as he'd had a direct impact (and I believe there were players from both sides who had encroached.)
But if the penalty had gone straight in or the actual player who scored hadn't encroached then VAR would not have intervened.
I'm not fully clear on whether VAR is meant to recommend the penalty be retaken in such instances (as both teams encroached) or disallow the goal as it was the Leicester player who had the direct impact - you could say it's a bit unfair on the defending team because if the penalty had gone straight in then it wouldn't have been retaken (even though technically a referee should order this if both teams encroach, regardless of the outcome) and if a defender who'd encroached had cleared the ball then it would have been retaken.
This is where using VAR is wrong as it is only being used to correct one offence when given the laws of the game tha apply specifically in a penalty scenario it could be used to correct others (e.g. goalkeeper off the line and other encroachments as mentioned above) and it is not doing so.
Post by: Readingfan on Sat 23 Nov 2019 17:14
James Maddison scored a rebound after a penalty had been saved but had encroached into the area so the penalty was retaken after VAR intervention as he'd had a direct impact (and I believe there were players from both sides who had encroached.)
But if the penalty had gone straight in or the actual player who scored hadn't encroached then VAR would not have intervened.
I'm not fully clear on whether VAR is meant to recommend the penalty be retaken in such instances (as both teams encroached) or disallow the goal as it was the Leicester player who had the direct impact - you could say it's a bit unfair on the defending team because if the penalty had gone straight in then it wouldn't have been retaken (even though technically a referee should order this if both teams encroach, regardless of the outcome) and if a defender who'd encroached had cleared the ball then it would have been retaken.
Post by: Readingfan on Sat 23 Nov 2019 12:20
Post by: Ref Fan on Sat 23 Nov 2019 08:13
Post by: flipmode on Sat 23 Nov 2019 01:39
Mike Riley says there were another four mistakes in the few weeks before the latest international break, this time with VAR incorrectly changing decisions - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50517096
Decisions were giving Brighton penalty V Everton, giving Man Utd first penalty V Norwich, disallowing Arsenal goal against Crystal Palace, giving Watford penalty against Chelsea.
I was surprised to hear this, and no information on decisions that weren't overturned but should have been. Is he really saying that every other decision was correct?
Post by: bruntyboy on Sat 23 Nov 2019 00:39
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 22 Nov 2019 23:52
Decisions were giving Brighton penalty V Everton, giving Man Utd first penalty V Norwich, disallowing Arsenal goal against Crystal Palace, giving Watford penalty against Chelsea.
Post by: Hendo on Fri 15 Nov 2019 08:06
I think he brought in a certain HM Webb of South Yorkshire
Who?🤔
Post by: RCG on Fri 15 Nov 2019 04:57
Post by: TheThingFromLewes on Thu 14 Nov 2019 23:58
It has to happen - and I think it will do one day.
A good start would be for the Premier League to at least release the audio conversations afterwards like they do in the MLS. America far, far ahead of us at the moment sadly.
Wasn't Grandad involved in getting VAR up and running over there ?
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 14 Nov 2019 22:15
A good start would be for the Premier League to at least release the audio conversations afterwards like they do in the MLS. America far, far ahead of us at the moment sadly.
Post by: RCG on Thu 14 Nov 2019 21:11
In Rugby it shows how many times the gut feel on the field is actually right and how good our referees are
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 14 Nov 2019 17:41
I accept that in cases where a referee is 95% certain of a decision (as we've heard Martin Atkinson saying n the past) then they have more scope now to go with that judgement - but there's no reason to think that Michael Oliver was 95% certain.
You'd presume if a referee had a strong instinct that it was a penalty but hadn't given it then they would communicate that to the VAR who might be more likely to overturn it.
Post by: Microscopist on Thu 14 Nov 2019 17:24
Equally, if you're not certain then why not think 'I won't give a penalty and VAR can look at it'.One advantage is that you avoid the case where a goal is scored at the other end possibly assisted by the offence in the penalty area and you then have a double decision to make. In either event you will have the same VAR delay but you will have potentially an additional element of wasted time if you decide it should be a penalty. I'm effectively suggesting that the decision to call a penalty with VAR should move from a "beyond reasonable doubt" basis to a "balance of probabilities" basis.
In the vast majority of cases, VAR hasn't been changing decisions so I would say the onus is very much onthe referee to get it right first time. Even if it's a very soft penalty then the likelihood is that VAR won't overturn it.
The second paragraph is I think related to the "referee gets it right first time every time" even if the view is imperfect mindset which pretty much negates the use of VAR.
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 14 Nov 2019 17:14
In the vast majority of cases, VAR hasn't been changing decisions so I would say the onus is very much onthe referee to get it right first time. Even if it's a very soft penalty then the likelihood is that VAR won't overturn it.
Post by: Microscopist on Thu 14 Nov 2019 17:10
In the case of penalties I have heard it said that Aktkinson and Oliver in particular, like to have no doubt at all before awarding a penalty. I can understand this when there is no VAR. I would argue however that this mindset should change when VAR is available. One explanation for Oliver's non award of a penalty at Anfield was that sideways on he couldn't be sure of, if you like, Trent Alexander-Arnold's "silhouette". No VAR, no problem in letting play go on, but with VAR surely the referee could say "I think there is a good chance that that may be a penalty - so let's have a look at it by calling it as a penalty and then take a more detailed look from different angles and see if I'm right". If I'm wrong there is no harm done. OK referees like umpires in the early days of DRS might feel afronted that they have had to change their minds but surely getting the best decision is most important.
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 14 Nov 2019 16:12
Post by: bruntyboy on Tue 12 Nov 2019 19:29
The BBC reported over the weekend that pitchside monitors were likely to be introduced following the PL meeting this week but The Times suggests that Mike Riley is still resistant to this.
Interesting thread about the offside decision in the Spurs game at the weekend - https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1194193505368838145
Two issues from the comments on that thread:
1. "There is no attacking handball in your half". It is quite possible for a player to score from within their own half so what happens if that player (or another in the build up) uses his hand before shooting?
2. "A clearance that does not reach or is not controlled by a teamamte" is not a reset. Again it is easily possible for a kicked or headed clearance to reach the half way line or further without another team mate getting the ball. Surely in those instances it's got to be a reset.
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 12 Nov 2019 17:27
Interesting thread about the offside decision in the Spurs game at the weekend - https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1194193505368838145
Post by: bruntyboy on Tue 12 Nov 2019 00:00
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/50380641
According to Neil Swarbrick VAR is currently at 7/10 with room to evolve.
He also quotes an accuracy rate of 90%. However that's their opinion as there have been many decisions where the general consensus on here and elsewhere is that the decison is wrong although they have decided it is correct.
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 11 Nov 2019 18:04
Wow, talk about being decisive! Just what you want from someone in a leadership position.
It feels like they are completely out of touch with general opinion. It might have taken rugby 6 or 7 years but you'd hope it would take football less than that because there's no need for us to make the same mistakes other sports did. And football has been using VAR for 3 years so we're already half way there anyway.
Post by: exref_fromOZ on Mon 11 Nov 2019 17:41
According to Neil Swarbrick VAR is currently at 7/10 with room to evolve.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 10 Nov 2019 19:56
I'm not sure there's too much more to say about the offside decisions this season.
The Premier League clubs signed up to it pre-season and you can't cahnge the measurements mid-season. For instance, Spurs had a very narrow goal disallowed against Leicester and one went in their favour yesterday.
They need to come up with a method 'everyone' is happy with for the start of next season though.
But surely if the measurements are wrong then they should be changed. You don’t go on using the same method just because of timing issues!
As I'm sure the 'All or Nothing' FA Cup gang from last season would agree with, you can't go changing the measurement used 12 weeks into a league season - Liverpool had a tight goal disallowed against Aston Villa last weekend. If Man City, for instance, score with the exact same incident in the next match you can't then allow it. It would completely distort the results across the season.
Well, yes, but in League One, some teams have benefited from playing Bolton's youth team, while others have had to take on a team of senior players, so it distortion doesn't seem to bother those in charge there.
I guess there are always going to be uncontrollable variables that change across a season due to a team's resources or situation. Manchester City were probably hampered by not having Ederson or Laporte today.
But if the way that League 1 was adjudicated was to change midway through the season - such as introducing VAR - then I don't think that would be right as you are using different measures to judge the same situation which contribute to the comparative results over a season.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 10 Nov 2019 19:53
Just read the VAR small print -
“All VAR referrals (or incidents which should be referred) involving Liverpool F C are to be found unconditionally in favour of the said Liverpool team”
Like the Firminho goal disallowed last week V Aston Villa or the 'foul' on Origi not given against Manchester United?
Post by: Ashington46 on Sun 10 Nov 2019 19:46
Just read the VAR small print -
“All VAR referrals (or incidents which should be referred) involving Liverpool F C are to be found unconditionally in favour of the said Liverpool team”
Oh dear. There is bitter and then there is bitter!
And there is wanting to see consistency and wanting to see consistency
The top managers, in particular, wanted the introduction of VAR and I am sure that the media, particularly TV were pleased that they wanted it, therefore, they should just get on with it and accept the outcome. They are not prepared to accept that 4 officials can look after a game so, surely, with the addition of 2 more at the VAR end, nothing could be wrong at all necause so many officials are giving their opinion and they are trained and have worked their way up to the position. Consistency rules ---doesn't it?
Post by: refjd on Sun 10 Nov 2019 19:41
Just read the VAR small print -
“All VAR referrals (or incidents which should be referred) involving Liverpool F C are to be found unconditionally in favour of the said Liverpool team”
Apart from when they play Manchester United!
Post by: Hendo on Sun 10 Nov 2019 19:29
Just read the VAR small print -
“All VAR referrals (or incidents which should be referred) involving Liverpool F C are to be found unconditionally in favour of the said Liverpool team”
Oh dear. There is bitter and then there is bitter!
And there is wanting to see consistency and wanting to see consistency
Post by: Ashington46 on Sun 10 Nov 2019 19:18
Just read the VAR small print -
“All VAR referrals (or incidents which should be referred) involving Liverpool F C are to be found unconditionally in favour of the said Liverpool team”
Oh dear. There is bitter and then there is bitter!
Post by: Hendo on Sun 10 Nov 2019 19:02
“All VAR referrals (or incidents which should be referred) involving Liverpool F C are to be found unconditionally in favour of the said Liverpool team”
Post by: TVOS on Sun 10 Nov 2019 18:45
I'm not sure there's too much more to say about the offside decisions this season.
The Premier League clubs signed up to it pre-season and you can't cahnge the measurements mid-season. For instance, Spurs had a very narrow goal disallowed against Leicester and one went in their favour yesterday.
They need to come up with a method 'everyone' is happy with for the start of next season though.
But surely if the measurements are wrong then they should be changed. You don’t go on using the same method just because of timing issues!
As I'm sure the 'All or Nothing' FA Cup gang from last season would agree with, you can't go changing the measurement used 12 weeks into a league season - Liverpool had a tight goal disallowed against Aston Villa last weekend. If Man City, for instance, score with the exact same incident in the next match you can't then allow it. It would completely distort the results across the season.
Well, yes, but in League One, some teams have benefited from playing Bolton's youth team, while others have had to take on a team of senior players, so it distortion doesn't seem to bother those in charge there.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 10 Nov 2019 17:29
I'm not sure there's too much more to say about the offside decisions this season.
The Premier League clubs signed up to it pre-season and you can't cahnge the measurements mid-season. For instance, Spurs had a very narrow goal disallowed against Leicester and one went in their favour yesterday.
They need to come up with a method 'everyone' is happy with for the start of next season though.
But surely if the measurements are wrong then they should be changed. You don’t go on using the same method just because of timing issues!
As I'm sure the 'All or Nothing' FA Cup gang from last season would agree with, you can't go changing the measurement used 12 weeks into a league season - Liverpool had a tight goal disallowed against Aston Villa last weekend. If Man City, for instance, score with the exact same incident in the next match you can't then allow it. It would completely distort the results across the season.
Post by: ajb95 on Sun 10 Nov 2019 17:20
I'm not sure there's too much more to say about the offside decisions this season.
The Premier League clubs signed up to it pre-season and you can't cahnge the measurements mid-season. For instance, Spurs had a very narrow goal disallowed against Leicester and one went in their favour yesterday.
They need to come up with a method 'everyone' is happy with for the start of next season though.
But surely if the measurements are wrong then they should be changed. You don’t go on using the same method just because of timing issues!
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 10 Nov 2019 15:16
The Premier League clubs signed up to it pre-season and you can't cahnge the measurements mid-season. For instance, Spurs had a very narrow goal disallowed against Leicester and one went in their favour yesterday.
They need to come up with a method 'everyone' is happy with for the start of next season though.
Post by: Skydank on Sun 10 Nov 2019 12:34
Post by: Ref Fan on Sun 10 Nov 2019 12:25
And I thought offside was supposed to be fact and not subjective!!
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Sat 09 Nov 2019 10:10
Post by: JCFC on Fri 08 Nov 2019 16:48
"Reviews" are generally only for incidents relating to the players but, in exceptional circumstances, there could be a "review" for a RC offence or a goal/penalty incident involving someone on the team list e.g. a substitute/team, official commits an offence against an opposing player or enters the field of play to stop a goal.
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 08 Nov 2019 16:27
I'm not sure that they were being critical: the point was referred to them and they gave an interpretation that normally VAR intervention would apply to active players, "exceptional circumstances" being when a sub or club official actually entered the field to interfere with an opponent or create a goal.
So is it the case that VAR generally only applies to active players apart from exceptioanl circumstances?
Post by: JCFC on Fri 08 Nov 2019 15:44
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 08 Nov 2019 12:58
One from the Bundesliga 2!!
https://twitter.com/FootballJOE/status/1188389772340928512
The German FA reports the IFAB's verdict as being that even though the decision was correct, this was not one of the "exceptional circumstances" in which the VAR should have intervened. Where that leaves the referee (Timo Gerach in this case) once VAR has done, however, is not clear.
I don't see that IFAB can criticise too much - whilst I don't think the decision was in the spirit of the game at all, you can't really argue against someone who regards it as a clear error.
Post by: JCFC on Fri 08 Nov 2019 12:51
One from the Bundesliga 2!!
https://twitter.com/FootballJOE/status/1188389772340928512
The German FA reports the IFAB's verdict as being that even though the decision was correct, this was not one of the "exceptional circumstances" in which the VAR should have intervened. Where that leaves the referee (Timo Gerach in this case) once VAR has done, however, is not clear.
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 08 Nov 2019 12:14
I don't understand why the substitution after took so long to process though - the officials seemed to really lack any authority in dealing with the situation.
Post by: flipmode on Fri 08 Nov 2019 02:23
Why would he dive there though? Stays on his feet and he has a totally open goal with an easy angle to shoot from?
Why would he not? Try to get the keeper sent off and score from the resulting penalty/free kick? It's a double whammy then. Plus, from my time in their presence; professional footballers don't often strike me as the most intelligent of people, just sayin'. ;D
I find it hard to believe that any team or player, no matter how unintelligent, would rather have a free kick from 25 yards out and play against 10 men for 9 minutes than have a guaranteed goal.
You'd be very, very, surprised.
Post by: Microscopist on Thu 07 Nov 2019 10:02
Quote
Plus, from my time in their presence; professional footballers don't often strike me as the most intelligent of people, just sayin'.
Quote
I find it hard to believe that any team or player, no matter how unintelligent, would rather have a free kick from 25 yards out and play against 10 men for 9 minutes than have a guaranteed goal.
I'm trying to make up my mind as to whether Bravo's actions support flipmode or rusty ref in their proposals. At first glance Bravo's "challenge" seemed plain daft - diving in feet first but also using his hands as back-up seemed a sure fire way of getting a red card either by cleaning out Ilicic or giving an inviting target for him to trip over, or by handling the ball (and he has previous for that). But maybe it was a stunning act of selfless genius. Seeing City, as is their wont at times, had left Ilicic with a clear run on goal, perhaps like rusty ref he realised that City would be better off facing a free kick from 25 or so yards and hanging on for the last few minutes. Maybe he was simply trying to get the free kick as far away from the goal as possible. After all there had only been a couple of direct shots on goal in the previous 80 minutes. So Bravo genius or clown?
Post by: rustyref on Thu 07 Nov 2019 06:28
Why would he dive there though? Stays on his feet and he has a totally open goal with an easy angle to shoot from?
Why would he not? Try to get the keeper sent off and score from the resulting penalty/free kick? It's a double whammy then. Plus, from my time in their presence; professional footballers don't often strike me as the most intelligent of people, just sayin'. ;D
I find it hard to believe that any team or player, no matter how unintelligent, would rather have a free kick from 25 yards out and play against 10 men for 9 minutes than have a guaranteed goal.
Post by: flipmode on Thu 07 Nov 2019 01:44
Why would he dive there though? Stays on his feet and he has a totally open goal with an easy angle to shoot from?
Why would he not? Try to get the keeper sent off and score from the resulting penalty/free kick? It's a double whammy then. Plus, from my time in their presence; professional footballers don't often strike me as the most intelligent of people, just sayin'. ;D
Post by: rustyref on Thu 07 Nov 2019 00:46
Post by: flipmode on Thu 07 Nov 2019 00:21
It's a little disappointing too, as up until that point I thought VAR had been used excellently in our game with quick turnaround times and minimal fuss.
Post by: Microscopist on Wed 06 Nov 2019 22:13
I've not seen the incident microscopist, but do I take it that the offence was D.O.G.S.O.?Well, I had my tongue slightly in my cheek!
If it was for a reckless challenge, it would stay as yellow wouldn't it?
Apologies if it's a dumb question.
It was a pull back with no intent to play the ball with Sterling having a clear run onto a De Bruyne pass to be one on one with the keeper. So I would have argued it coud have been a red card anyhow. The question would be was Sterling close enough to the pass?I think when Ilicic looks back on the result he might reflect that he would have been better to have stayed on his feet rather than falling over in the incident that saw Bravo sent off.
Post by: Ashington46 on Wed 06 Nov 2019 22:03
Tonight in the CL it seems VAR has been a utter complete and total farce across several matches especially in the Atalanta vs Man City match
Dave, you can't say that ---it is the future of the game and is just what the authorities, media and, if you believe them, the managers want in order to improve the game.
Long live VAR!
Post by: dave26 on Wed 06 Nov 2019 21:45
Post by: Ref Fan on Wed 06 Nov 2019 21:31
If it was for a reckless challenge, it would stay as yellow wouldn't it?
Apologies if it's a dumb question.
Post by: Microscopist on Wed 06 Nov 2019 20:54
Just watched the Bayern highlights from yesterday, after 8 minutes Frankfurt were awarded a penalty. The Bayern players complained that it was outside the area, official encouraged to VAR/look at the screen. Official changed his decision to a DFK outside of the area and sent off Boateng. Bayern lost 5-1... ;DSadly Aleksey Kulbakov did not convert the yellow card to red when VAR ruled the foul was completed outside the area tonight.
Post by: QuoCob on Sun 03 Nov 2019 23:29
Post by: Microscopist on Sun 03 Nov 2019 17:59
Anatomical - where does the shoulder end and the arm begin?
Optical - too few cameras to properly correct for parallax;
Timing - cameras with too low a frame rate to determine exactly when contact is made with the ball.
(I noted that the moment of playing the ball is considered to be when contact is made with the ball rather than when it departs - I don't think this is entirely logical since theoretically a player could balance the ball on his/her foot whilst a team mate runs from an offside position before flicking the ball through - but that's perhaps being a bit too pedantic).
I would suggest that the thickness of the lines (for both attacking point nearest to goal and the defending point nearest to goal) be adjusted to represent an estimated 50% degree of certainty (I'd guess that the line would be between 50 and 150 mm thick). Only if the attacking line were closer to goal than the attacking line, with no overlap would VAR say it was a definite offside. If the lines overlapped the decision could either be, like cricket - remain with the on-field decision, or simply say too close to call therefore onside.
Post by: Ashington46 on Sun 03 Nov 2019 17:57
The ball no longer matters when you go into a tackle, as was seen yesterday when Dawson was cautioned for an excellent tackle just because his opponent went rolling around on the pitch afterwards. We are getting to a point where players will no longer tackle because it will be deemed to be a danger to an opponent or something else which will be invented.
Post by: Irishref1985 on Sun 03 Nov 2019 16:25
Interesting comments.......
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 03 Nov 2019 12:52
Post by: Scally Bob on Sun 03 Nov 2019 11:35
The VAR angle is poor anyway. If an on-field AR was looking from that angle he/she would be behind play.
So the panacea for all decisions gets another one wrong.
Post by: Readingfan on Sat 02 Nov 2019 19:47
I don't think it was a penalty and I can't see how it's any where near clear and obvious, certainly not if it's taking that long.
There was one angle where it looked like there might have been just as much of a 'foul' on a Chelsea player earlier in the move although we didn't see a closer replay.
The reason for not having referees view the monitors was supposedly to reduce time but that argument becomes futile if they are taking that long anyway.
The other notable thing over the last few weeks has been that the time lost isn't being added on properly - it was at least 3 minutes from the original incident to the penalty being taken and only 5 minutes of stoppage time.
Post by: Hertsref123 on Sat 02 Nov 2019 19:24
Post by: carrowman on Sat 02 Nov 2019 19:13
Not for me. Took far too long, surely there has to be a limit in time or numbers of replays
Post by: jad on Fri 01 Nov 2019 13:51
Post by: Ref Watcher on Wed 30 Oct 2019 12:01
The article reports on a growing feeling amongst clubs that allowing referees to consult the pitch side monitors will remove some of the criticism of VAR.So after all the years of people demanding video replays as a panacea for all that is wrong with refereeing we are now in a situation where an on-field official will be used to scrutinise the decisions of the video official. You couldn't make it up.
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 29 Oct 2019 23:17
Post by: bmb on Tue 29 Oct 2019 13:18
So, the club chairmen not so much have an input on PGMOL policy but actually instruct PGMOL on what they do?
It has long been mentioned on here about "keeping the shareholders happy"...
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 29 Oct 2019 12:56
I've never believed the decision not to use pitchside monitors was exclusive the decision of Mike Riley because the decision goes beyond refereeing - it has an impact on the flow of the game, how much football is played, how spectators feel about it, etc.
I don't think decisions on VAR should be regarded as only coming under the refereeing umbrella because it has a much wider impact on the game overall.
Only at the top level! We must all remember that the game at the lower level is not important any more amd should be ignored.
The introduction of VAR at any level has an impact on the game - therefore, I'd expect there to be a consultation before it happened as to the best way of doing it.
If EFL clubs don't want it introduced to the EFL at any point then it's not going to be introduced there. If they do want it then most probably it will happen at some stage.
Post by: Ashington46 on Tue 29 Oct 2019 12:47
I've never believed the decision not to use pitchside monitors was exclusive the decision of Mike Riley because the decision goes beyond refereeing - it has an impact on the flow of the game, how much football is played, how spectators feel about it, etc.
I don't think decisions on VAR should be regarded as only coming under the refereeing umbrella because it has a much wider impact on the game overall.
Only at the top level! We must all remember that the game at the lower level is not important any more amd should be ignored.
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 29 Oct 2019 12:37
I don't think decisions on VAR should be regarded as only coming under the refereeing umbrella because it has a much wider impact on the game overall.
Post by: kelxref on Tue 29 Oct 2019 11:58
Whilst personally (if the report is accurate) I think this is a positive move, it does lay bare the direct control the clubs have over PGMOL policy. Indeed the article quotes one chairman saying "...if it changes the outcome of a game, we will seriously consider making the change". So, the club chairmen not so much have an input on PGMOL policy but actually instruct PGMOL on what they do?
Post by: flipmode on Tue 29 Oct 2019 02:00
I listened to a podcast last night about the introduction of the back-pass rule and the chaos that ensued, especially in relation to Italia 90 and the inception of the Premier League.
It made me realise that if you came to football as a fan now, you'd never even know that the back-pass rule wasn't a thing.
I wonder if we might be the same with VAR sometime in the future? I remember over in Australia it was a bit of a farce when it arrived, and took a while to get used to, but on the whole now out here I feel like it's used to it's full potential and with minimum fuss.
Link to the Podcast, if anyone is interested (26 mins) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/374-unsure-footing/id394775318?i=1000453654383
Post by: bruntyboy on Mon 28 Oct 2019 20:51
Flipmode, I don't think we've seen any penalties retaken in the PL for a goalkeeper being off their line. There were loads at the Women's World Cup over the summer and most people were heavily critical of this process and it was specifically said before the start of the season that VAR was largely going to leave that to the on-field officials.
Man City did have a penalty retaken against West Ham but that was because the player who cleared it (Rice) had encroached into the penalty area. I'm not sure if that was a factor yesterday.
I think if you're going to be disallowing goals it really does need to be a blindingly obvious offence for people to accept it. That wasn't the case at Arsenal yesterday. I thought Atkinson's signalling was very poor though - surely the whole point of making the sign is so that everyone knows what's happening but he looked very half-hearted and was holding the ball in his hands at the time.
Which isn't the case with all of the offside and handball decisions.
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 28 Oct 2019 19:41
Flipmode, I don't think we've seen any penalties retaken in the PL for a goalkeeper being off their line. There were loads at the Women's World Cup over the summer and most people were heavily critical of this process and it was specifically said before the start of the season that VAR was largely going to leave that to the on-field officials.
Man City did have a penalty retaken against West Ham but that was because the player who cleared it (Rice) had encroached into the penalty area. I'm not sure if that was a factor yesterday.
I think if you're going to be disallowing goals it really does need to be a blindingly obvious offence for people to accept it. That wasn't the case at Arsenal yesterday. I thought Atkinson's signalling was very poor though - surely the whole point of making the sign is so that everyone knows what's happening but he looked very half-hearted and was holding the ball in his hands at the time.
Probably half-hearted because he knew that it was wrong and by not being allowed to view it on the monitor, had to go with the VAR 'advice'?
They are allowed to view the monitors if they wish - they are just encouraged to do it sparingly.
If Atkinson really had doubts then he should have gone and looked.
Definitely, but who will be the first one to go against Mr Riley and do it?
If anyone would, you'd think a senior and established referee such as Atkinson would be most likely.
Post by: QuoCob on Mon 28 Oct 2019 17:44
Flipmode, I don't think we've seen any penalties retaken in the PL for a goalkeeper being off their line. There were loads at the Women's World Cup over the summer and most people were heavily critical of this process and it was specifically said before the start of the season that VAR was largely going to leave that to the on-field officials.
Man City did have a penalty retaken against West Ham but that was because the player who cleared it (Rice) had encroached into the penalty area. I'm not sure if that was a factor yesterday.
I think if you're going to be disallowing goals it really does need to be a blindingly obvious offence for people to accept it. That wasn't the case at Arsenal yesterday. I thought Atkinson's signalling was very poor though - surely the whole point of making the sign is so that everyone knows what's happening but he looked very half-hearted and was holding the ball in his hands at the time.
Probably half-hearted because he knew that it was wrong and by not being allowed to view it on the monitor, had to go with the VAR 'advice'?
They are allowed to view the monitors if they wish - they are just encouraged to do it sparingly.
If Atkinson really had doubts then he should have gone and looked.
Definitely, but who will be the first one to go against Mr Riley and do it?
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 28 Oct 2019 15:54
Flipmode, I don't think we've seen any penalties retaken in the PL for a goalkeeper being off their line. There were loads at the Women's World Cup over the summer and most people were heavily critical of this process and it was specifically said before the start of the season that VAR was largely going to leave that to the on-field officials.
Man City did have a penalty retaken against West Ham but that was because the player who cleared it (Rice) had encroached into the penalty area. I'm not sure if that was a factor yesterday.
I think if you're going to be disallowing goals it really does need to be a blindingly obvious offence for people to accept it. That wasn't the case at Arsenal yesterday. I thought Atkinson's signalling was very poor though - surely the whole point of making the sign is so that everyone knows what's happening but he looked very half-hearted and was holding the ball in his hands at the time.
Probably half-hearted because he knew that it was wrong and by not being allowed to view it on the monitor, had to go with the VAR 'advice'?
They are allowed to view the monitors if they wish - they are just encouraged to do it sparingly.
If Atkinson really had doubts then he should have gone and looked.
Post by: QuoCob on Mon 28 Oct 2019 14:11
Flipmode, I don't think we've seen any penalties retaken in the PL for a goalkeeper being off their line. There were loads at the Women's World Cup over the summer and most people were heavily critical of this process and it was specifically said before the start of the season that VAR was largely going to leave that to the on-field officials.
Man City did have a penalty retaken against West Ham but that was because the player who cleared it (Rice) had encroached into the penalty area. I'm not sure if that was a factor yesterday.
I think if you're going to be disallowing goals it really does need to be a blindingly obvious offence for people to accept it. That wasn't the case at Arsenal yesterday. I thought Atkinson's signalling was very poor though - surely the whole point of making the sign is so that everyone knows what's happening but he looked very half-hearted and was holding the ball in his hands at the time.
Probably half-hearted because he knew that it was wrong and by not being allowed to view it on the monitor, had to go with the VAR 'advice'?
Post by: Tim Wills on Mon 28 Oct 2019 13:38
One from the Bundesliga 2!!I suppose being German the referee can use the excuse that he was only following orders.
https://twitter.com/FootballJOE/status/1188389772340928512
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 28 Oct 2019 11:51
Man City did have a penalty retaken against West Ham but that was because the player who cleared it (Rice) had encroached into the penalty area. I'm not sure if that was a factor yesterday.
I think if you're going to be disallowing goals it really does need to be a blindingly obvious offence for people to accept it. That wasn't the case at Arsenal yesterday. I thought Atkinson's signalling was very poor though - surely the whole point of making the sign is so that everyone knows what's happening but he looked very half-hearted and was holding the ball in his hands at the time.
Post by: Hertsref123 on Mon 28 Oct 2019 10:49
Post by: QuoCob on Mon 28 Oct 2019 10:00
If he had watched it on the monitor he 'may' have kept to his original decision.
Once again he has been stuffed by the VAR official without an opportunity to see it for himself.
Post by: flipmode on Mon 28 Oct 2019 01:27
I remember early on in the season we had a number of penalties retaken for keepers being off their line, and now that has seemingly fallen by the wayside.
I wonder what will be next? ::)
Post by: bruntyboy on Mon 28 Oct 2019 00:29
I apologise to attwell, only 1 penalty imo incorrect. Should it not have been a red card for Godfrey for first foul in the area - not an attempt to play the ball...? (Not a penalty anyway imo)
Both United penalties should have been retaken with Krul nearly on the 6 yard line. Poor from west who is stood on the goal line.
Terrible decision to rule out winning goal for Arsenal. Looks like if anything should have been a penalty for a foul on chambers!
Both penalties Krul was way off the line. If VAR can give offsides over a matter of mms then it should be dealing with those which are a matter of fact not opinion. If the first one is re-taken (and he is booked as required) then surely he will stay on his line for second one.
Post by: TVOS on Sun 27 Oct 2019 23:32
Attwell having a nightmare at Norwich (no pun intended despite it being Halloween). 2 very debatable penalties for United and wan bissaka arguably lucky to still be on the pitch!
I'm glad you said it not me.
Where do you start. Attwell might as well not have been there, just let Coote ( who Riley has considered not experienced enough to appoint to a Man U game in the premier league ) referee the game from the bunker. If it takes at least 3 minutes to review and look at replays countless times it just can't be a clear and obvious error. From then on i'm afraid Attwell was back to how he used to be when everyone wondered how he got promoted, how he didn't give the second I'll never know. If he's one of our FIFA ref's you do have to wonder.
There must also be a rule that the watch doesn't stop if they are reviewing. It was at least 3 mins for the first one, we then had another one which wasn't quite as long, then the usual additional wasted time and yet we only played 3! Can't ref's do the basics right it should have been at least 5
There was a shocking tackle from Young which was only a yellow. Surprised that wasn't reviewed. If it was, there was no indication on the screen it was unlike the penalties.
After all the time spent how on VAR how can the powers that be have implemented such a mess.
Refereeing a Man United game in the Premier League is completely different to watching selected incidents on a TV monitor in a darkened room!
Post by: Bielsa’s Bucket on Sun 27 Oct 2019 23:30
Post by: ajb95 on Sun 27 Oct 2019 23:30
Both United penalties should have been retaken with Krul nearly on the 6 yard line. Poor from west who is stood on the goal line.
Terrible decision to rule out winning goal for Arsenal. Looks like if anything should have been a penalty for a foul on chambers!
Post by: dtrv2 on Sun 27 Oct 2019 23:18
It's doing the job for judging offsides, and is getting a bit better at penalties, but otherwise it really needs to improve before all trust and support for it has gone.
Post by: Hertsref123 on Sun 27 Oct 2019 20:50
Atkinson strays far to close to play for my liking, He was hit by the ball once (which also happened to him in the Bournemouth game), and had to restart. He was nearly caught up in the play so many times as well.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 27 Oct 2019 20:45
Post by: carrowman on Sun 27 Oct 2019 19:39
Attwell having a nightmare at Norwich (no pun intended despite it being Halloween). 2 very debatable penalties for United and wan bissaka arguably lucky to still be on the pitch!
I'm glad you said it not me.
Where do you start. Attwell might as well not have been there, just let Coote ( who Riley has considered not experienced enough to appoint to a Man U game in the premier league ) referee the game from the bunker. If it takes at least 3 minutes to review and look at replays countless times it just can't be a clear and obvious error. From then on i'm afraid Attwell was back to how he used to be when everyone wondered how he got promoted, how he didn't give the second I'll never know. If he's one of our FIFA ref's you do have to wonder.
There must also be a rule that the watch doesn't stop if they are reviewing. It was at least 3 mins for the first one, we then had another one which wasn't quite as long, then the usual additional wasted time and yet we only played 3! Can't ref's do the basics right it should have been at least 5
There was a shocking tackle from Young which was only a yellow. Surprised that wasn't reviewed. If it was, there was no indication on the screen it was unlike the penalties.
After all the time spent how on VAR how can the powers that be have implemented such a mess.
Post by: SuffolkRef on Sun 27 Oct 2019 17:36
Attwell having a nightmare at Norwich (no pun intended despite it being Halloween). 2 very debatable penalties for United and wan bissaka arguably lucky to still be on the pitch!
Sky said that Attwell did not give the penalties but David Coote on VAR did ?
Also Atkinson cautioned Zaha for simulation but Jarred Gillett overruled and awarded the penalty.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 27 Oct 2019 17:33
There must have been a change of directive.
Post by: ajb95 on Sun 27 Oct 2019 17:21
Post by: Ashington46 on Sun 27 Oct 2019 16:26
One from the Bundesliga 2!!
https://twitter.com/FootballJOE/status/1188389772340928512
I saw this earlier today and my reaction was that officialdom has gone totally bonkers --with the aid of VAR!
Common sense obviously no longer has a place in the modern game and everything must be done by the book --so it would appear.
The ball was going out for a goal kick, with no opponent anywhere near, and must have been partially over the line from the angle seen, therefore, all the player is doing is returning the ball for the kick to be taken, however, VAR got involved and ............
Enjoy the modern game folks!
Post by: Carter on Sun 27 Oct 2019 16:09
One from the Bundesliga 2!!
https://twitter.com/FootballJOE/status/1188389772340928512
WOW
I have to say I would have thought it would have been a drop ball, but there again I havent refereed for a few years now and obviously I have missed something
Post by: bmb on Sun 27 Oct 2019 15:48
https://twitter.com/FootballJOE/status/1188389772340928512
Post by: Ref Fan on Sat 26 Oct 2019 21:25
Of course, some decisions will remain very much in the 'subjective' category, and presumably VAR reaction may still depend on what information they are fed by the referee about an incident. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I got the impression Oliver was very quick to indicate VAR was checking - did he realise he may have got it wrong?
Post by: Readingfan on Sat 26 Oct 2019 19:30
I'm guessing there has been a meeting this past week!
Post by: JohnCoyle on Mon 21 Oct 2019 11:56
And therein lies the problem of not using the pitch side monitors. Kavanagh could have said "Martin, you might want to have a look at that as it seems harsh", Atkinson can then quickly take a look and make his own mind up.
It's a very divisive issue. Many people said when VAR first came in - I think including you although could be wrong? - that looking at the monitors just caused more problems and put added pressure on them and was generally a waste of time because they generally went with the original decision.
I think in that situation it would have been better to go in the direction you describe as it was a bit more on the 'harsh' side than clearly wrong. In clearer instances, the referee going to look maybe isn't as necessary.
In an ideal world, I'd like it to operate like rugby where they put the pictures on the big screen and the referee/VAR work together and the conversations can be heard by everyone. Quicker, more transparent, better communication with fans, probably more accurate decision making. Maybe one day we'll get there!
I was indeed anti pitch side monitor, but my view has changed somewhat given what has happened. I still think obvious ones could and should be given without using it, but perhaps ones that are more "in the opinion of the referee" should use it. Otherwise we are going to see VAR carry on just being used for offside and handball, and continuing to see clearly incorrect penalty decisions not being overturned.
On the evidence of this weekend, it seems to be used almost exclusively to rule goals out and not to award penalties even where these may be fully justified. Is that really the intention?
Post by: Ref Fan on Mon 21 Oct 2019 10:59
Vague recollections of a couple of other challenges with a high boot. Didn't Jon Moss give a straight RC in a game last season (or was it the season before that?). I seem to recall that caused some controversy but not sure whether it went to appeal. The other occasion - did Anthony Taylor send off 2 players in the same game and were both RCs rescinded? Was at least one of those for a high boot? I'm sure some will remember more accurately than me but the point is that sort of challenge does seem to lead to different interpretations. Dangerous, however accidental, or reckless? Excessive force? Out of control? Endangering an opponent? They often can tick one or some of the boxes but not all.
Post by: Ivanhoe on Mon 21 Oct 2019 10:31
Post by: Microscopist on Mon 21 Oct 2019 10:04
Quote
Studding anyone in or around the head there is surely only one decision ?The studs were pointing away from Kouyaté, so I'm afraid you have made something of a "straw man" argument.
Post by: Ivanhoe on Mon 21 Oct 2019 09:49
Mike Riley needs sacking.
The referees are making VAR not fit for purpose.
They have obviously been told not to use the pitch side monitors, how else can it be explained that not one referee has used them. Similarly the fact that no penalty decisions have been reversed despite us seeing blatant errors every week. Again, they must have been told not to dob their colleagues in.
The handball definition that differs between defenders and attackers is an absolute joke.
Post by: Microscopist on Mon 21 Oct 2019 09:23
Quote
To friend microscopist, it struck me that some City fans in the light of past incidents might not be ecstatic at the prospect of Anthony Taylor or Michael Oliver, and lo and behold they got 2 for the price of one yesterday. However, I don't believe City should feel too aggrieved. With regard to the de Bruyne challenge, I was trying to think of past incidents which resulted in a different sanction. No surprise perhaps that Nana being red carded by Cakir in a CL match some years ago for a high foot catching his opponent (who he may not have even been aware of) in the chest. That decision was endorsed by some on here although I (biased perhaps) thought a YC would have sufficed. In yesterday's incident, de Bruyne's foot was even higher, making contact with the opponent's face who he must surely have seen. I just cannot square the circle of how both decisions - RC by Cakir and nothing by Taylor - could be correct.So far this season the appointment of Michael Oliver to a City game does not fill me with joy, that would also have been the case in earlier seasons for Anthony Taylor. I thought Taylor was good during the first half in the Palace - City game, less so in the second half - that is naturally a subjective view. Based on the amount of compaining to the television my BLFG would endorse that view! She did comment at half time that it had been very quiet.
I don't think de Bruyne himself would have questioned receiving a yellow card for that challenge. His reaction appeard to be to immediately turn to apologise and check that Kouyaté was OK. Having said that, and in mitigation, since de Bruyne still had a foot on the ground by the time his foot had reached shoulder high most of the momentum would have expired and the studs were pointing away from Kouyaté who had come up from behind him. However there would have been no complaints if a yellow card had been shown provided that the reciprocal challenge was treated in the same way. Nani's challenge whilst much lower was studs showing and his body momentum was moving towards his oppponent, I think. However, in the Palace game the reaction of the two teams to each of the de Bruyne v Kouyaté incidents was interesting Palace players quite vigorously wanting a yellow card for de Bruyne whilst challenging, equally vigorously, whether the Kouyaté challenge should even have been a foul.
Post by: Ref Fan on Mon 21 Oct 2019 08:48
I think the point of VAR now has seemingly shifted. We’re no longer using it to determine if a clear and obvious error has occurred, we’re using it to determine if the decision is too big to ignore.
How two PGMOL referees decided the foul on KDB was not a penalty is just staggering.
Of the 2 incidents in which Watford and City should have been awarded penalties, I felt the one Watford didn't get was slightly more obvious. 100% a clear and obvious error. In the other, I thought Taylor should have given the penalty but that there was just a bit of wriggle room. Nevertheless, I'd love to have heard the conversation between Taylor and Oliver (good friends I gather), as I still sensed it took longer than normal before a VAR decision was reached. Maybe wishful thinking, but I did wonder whether Oliver was close to breaking the mold and advising Taylor to look at the monitor. Such a pity he didn't if that were the case.
Post by: Scally Bob on Mon 21 Oct 2019 07:59
Post by: flipmode on Mon 21 Oct 2019 02:01
How two PGMOL referees decided the foul on KDB was not a penalty is just staggering.
Post by: rustyref on Sun 20 Oct 2019 16:16
And therein lies the problem of not using the pitch side monitors. Kavanagh could have said "Martin, you might want to have a look at that as it seems harsh", Atkinson can then quickly take a look and make his own mind up.
It's a very divisive issue. Many people said when VAR first came in - I think including you although could be wrong? - that looking at the monitors just caused more problems and put added pressure on them and was generally a waste of time because they generally went with the original decision.
I think in that situation it would have been better to go in the direction you describe as it was a bit more on the 'harsh' side than clearly wrong. In clearer instances, the referee going to look maybe isn't as necessary.
In an ideal world, I'd like it to operate like rugby where they put the pictures on the big screen and the referee/VAR work together and the conversations can be heard by everyone. Quicker, more transparent, better communication with fans, probably more accurate decision making. Maybe one day we'll get there!
I was indeed anti pitch side monitor, but my view has changed somewhat given what has happened. I still think obvious ones could and should be given without using it, but perhaps ones that are more "in the opinion of the referee" should use it. Otherwise we are going to see VAR carry on just being used for offside and handball, and continuing to see clearly incorrect penalty decisions not being overturned.
Post by: nemesis on Sun 20 Oct 2019 15:55
And therein lies the problem of not using the pitch side monitors. Kavanagh could have said "Martin, you might want to have a look at that as it seems harsh", Atkinson can then quickly take a look and make his own mind up.
Or not so quickly!
It's a very divisive issue. Many people said when VAR first came in - I think including you although could be wrong? - that looking at the monitors just caused more problems and put added pressure on them and was generally a waste of time because they generally went with the original decision.
I think in that situation it would have been better to go in the direction you describe as it was a bit more on the 'harsh' side than clearly wrong. In clearer instances, the referee going to look maybe isn't as necessary.
In an ideal world, I'd like it to operate like rugby where they put the pictures on the big screen and the referee/VAR work together and the conversations can be heard by everyone. Quicker, more transparent, better communication with fans, probably more accurate decision making. Maybe one day we'll get there!
It would certainly be interesting to hear the VAR explain why that wasn't a penalty to Watford. A statement without hesitation, repetition or deviation. Good luck with that.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 20 Oct 2019 15:49
And therein lies the problem of not using the pitch side monitors. Kavanagh could have said "Martin, you might want to have a look at that as it seems harsh", Atkinson can then quickly take a look and make his own mind up.
Or not so quickly!
It's a very divisive issue. Many people said when VAR first came in - I think including you although could be wrong? - that looking at the monitors just caused more problems and put added pressure on them and was generally a waste of time because they generally went with the original decision.
I think in that situation it would have been better to go in the direction you describe as it was a bit more on the 'harsh' side than clearly wrong. In clearer instances, the referee going to look maybe isn't as necessary.
In an ideal world, I'd like it to operate like rugby where they put the pictures on the big screen and the referee/VAR work together and the conversations can be heard by everyone. Quicker, more transparent, better communication with fans, probably more accurate decision making. Maybe one day we'll get there!
Post by: rustyref on Sun 20 Oct 2019 15:05
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 20 Oct 2019 12:28
I think one of the real difficulties about implementing VAR is the hierarchy of the referees and the fact that there will be times that you have a referee in the VAR booth who is vastly less experienced than the on field referee.Don't forget last season you had Kavanagh who was in his first or second year of PL overturn one of Atkinsons decisions in the FA Cup Wolves v Utd when Ashley Young was sent off and then unsent off and given a yellow.
For instance, in the Spurs game you had John Brooks as VAR who has never refereed a premier league game (although he has run the line in a number of games). It must be tough for him to overrule a Premier League referee and I wouldn't be surprised if this would cause him to subconsciously raise the bar higher than others for overturning decisions, which is why he didn't overturn either the penalty or the handball (I believe he should have overturned both).
We have a similar situation in today's big Man Utd vs Liverpool game, where you have David Coote, a rather inexperienced select group official in his second season in the SG expected to overturn decisions from Martin Atkinson, a vastly experienced highly decorated SG official. Must be tough in my opinion, and there has to be a culture in the Select Group for the referees to be comfortable with this, and at the moment I don't think there is.
It was Lindelof rather than Young - various reports suggested that Atkinson was very unhappy with Kavanagh's decision which perhaps hasn't helped in the long-term.
Post by: Matt on Sun 20 Oct 2019 11:00
I think one of the real difficulties about implementing VAR is the hierarchy of the referees and the fact that there will be times that you have a referee in the VAR booth who is vastly less experienced than the on field referee.Don't forget last season you had Kavanagh who was in his first or second year of PL overturn one of Atkinsons decisions in the FA Cup Wolves v Utd when Ashley Young was sent off and then unsent off and given a yellow.
For instance, in the Spurs game you had John Brooks as VAR who has never refereed a premier league game (although he has run the line in a number of games). It must be tough for him to overrule a Premier League referee and I wouldn't be surprised if this would cause him to subconsciously raise the bar higher than others for overturning decisions, which is why he didn't overturn either the penalty or the handball (I believe he should have overturned both).
We have a similar situation in today's big Man Utd vs Liverpool game, where you have David Coote, a rather inexperienced select group official in his second season in the SG expected to overturn decisions from Martin Atkinson, a vastly experienced highly decorated SG official. Must be tough in my opinion, and there has to be a culture in the Select Group for the referees to be comfortable with this, and at the moment I don't think there is.
Post by: badref on Sun 20 Oct 2019 10:33
For instance, in the Spurs game you had John Brooks as VAR who has never refereed a premier league game (although he has run the line in a number of games). It must be tough for him to overrule a Premier League referee and I wouldn't be surprised if this would cause him to subconsciously raise the bar higher than others for overturning decisions, which is why he didn't overturn either the penalty or the handball (I believe he should have overturned both).
We have a similar situation in today's big Man Utd vs Liverpool game, where you have David Coote, a rather inexperienced select group official in his second season in the SG expected to overturn decisions from Martin Atkinson, a vastly experienced highly decorated SG official. Must be tough in my opinion, and there has to be a culture in the Select Group for the referees to be comfortable with this, and at the moment I don't think there is.
Post by: Ref Fan on Sun 20 Oct 2019 10:23
QuoteAnd one of the clearest cautions of the season for Kevin De Bruyne missed by Taylor as well for clear dangerous play towards Kouyate...and, if that statement is accepted, vice versa.QuoteFairly blatant penalty not given in Man City’s favour by Mr Taylor today, where VAR didn’t overturn. Though less pivotal than the two ajb95 mentionsMichael Oliver involved again I hear.
Reading the comments (on another thread I think) from the poster who reckons Spurs have had some bad decisions from Mike Dean, I found myself asking whether there are referees I've seen at OT when United have not got the rub of the green. I do not in any way infer that referees are biased but I suspect I may not be the only one who may prefer not to see a particular referee because of past decisions that have not gone their way which we strongly believe were wrong. To be honest, I wouldn't be over enthusiastic about having Paul Tierney in charge after (in my view) 2 poor decisions earlier this season, whilst hoping he'd be better another time.
To friend microscopist, it struck me that some City fans in the light of past incidents might not be ecstatic at the prospect of Anthony Taylor or Michael Oliver, and lo and behold they got 2 for the price of one yesterday. However, I don't believe City should feel too aggrieved. With regard to the de Bruyne challenge, I was trying to think of past incidents which resulted in a different sanction. No surprise perhaps that Nana being red carded by Cakir in a CL match some years ago for a high foot catching his opponent (who he may not have even been aware of) in the chest. That decision was endorsed by some on here although I (biased perhaps) thought a YC would have sufficed. In yesterday's incident, de Bruyne's foot was even higher, making contact with the opponent's face who he must surely have seen. I just cannot square the circle of how both decisions - RC by Cakir and nothing by Taylor - could be correct.
Yes, City should probably have had a penalty for the Zaha challenge and if Taylor had given it, I'm sure it would not have been overturned. That said, there have been several more clear cut penalties not given, nor overturned, in other games this season so it was no surprise when Oliver didn't get Taylor to change his mind. However, the review took longer than usual so I did wonder whether Oliver was in two minds about it. Taylor did seem to have a decent view but only from 1 angle and we don't know what he said to Oliver.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 20 Oct 2019 00:30
It feels like there is too much of a disparity between penalising attacking players for offences compared to penalising defenders which is resulting in quite a few goals being disallowed but very few being awarded that weren't originally given.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 20 Oct 2019 00:26
I think it'd be much easier if the PGMOL came out and just said that VAR isn't going to be used for penalty decisions, and then remove the clearly unncessary pitchside monitors. It'd stop all the arguments about VAR not overturning clearly incorrect penalty decisions.
They can't come out and say that though because they'd be in breach of IFAB protocol.
Post by: dtrv2 on Sat 19 Oct 2019 23:52
Either that, or there's a rethink and VAR is used for what it was intended, i.e. to correct incorrect decisions. In 2 months there cannot possibly have been no incorrect non-penalty decisions, but that's what VAR would have you believe.
At the moment, we have an unhappy medium. It's technically there to correct incorrect decisions, but currently doesn't have the balls to do this for penalties.
It's working great for offsides, for goal checks, checking red cards, but it's currently a shambles for penalty decisions, and it's tarring the whole VAR program.
Post by: TheThingFromLewes on Sat 19 Oct 2019 23:30
Post by: ajb95 on Sat 19 Oct 2019 22:17
VAR doesn’t currently deal with missed cautions though?Fairly blatant penalty not given in Man City’s favour by Mr Taylor today, where VAR didn’t overturn. Though less pivotal than the two ajb95 mentions
And one of the clearest cautions of the season for Kevin De Bruyne missed by Taylor as well for clear dangerous play towards Kouyate.
True, but if one of our top referees cannot determine that, then god help us!
Post by: Microscopist on Sat 19 Oct 2019 20:40
Quote
And one of the clearest cautions of the season for Kevin De Bruyne missed by Taylor as well for clear dangerous play towards Kouyate...and, if that statement is accepted, vice versa.
Quote
Fairly blatant penalty not given in Man City’s favour by Mr Taylor today, where VAR didn’t overturn. Though less pivotal than the two ajb95 mentionsMichael Oliver involved again I hear.
Post by: Boz on Sat 19 Oct 2019 20:38
VAR doesn’t currently deal with missed cautions though?Fairly blatant penalty not given in Man City’s favour by Mr Taylor today, where VAR didn’t overturn. Though less pivotal than the two ajb95 mentions
And one of the clearest cautions of the season for Kevin De Bruyne missed by Taylor as well for clear dangerous play towards Kouyate.
Post by: guest42 on Sat 19 Oct 2019 20:24
Post by: ajb95 on Sat 19 Oct 2019 19:43
Fairly blatant penalty not given in Man City’s favour by Mr Taylor today, where VAR didn’t overturn. Though less pivotal than the two ajb95 mentions
And one of the clearest cautions of the season for Kevin De Bruyne missed by Taylor as well for clear dangerous play towards Kouyate.
Post by: Boz on Sat 19 Oct 2019 19:41
Post by: ajb95 on Sat 19 Oct 2019 18:52
Absolute farce!
Time to get rid end of!
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 05 Aug 2019 12:15
Interesting to hear Jon Moss simply telling Martin Atkinson it should be a red card and Atkinson immediately went with that.
I really think the system would work so much better if these were made public as a matter of routine (no swearing that I could hear!) I heard the rugby referee Nigel Owens saying similar recently, suggesting that the audio provides clarification as to why the decision has been made and can often reduce confusion and criticism from fans/media who are able to understand the reasoning behind the decision.
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 05 Aug 2019 09:44
Surprised Atkinson didn't allow play to continue for the De Bruyne 1 on 1 chance. It was offside in this instance but you can imagine cases across the season where the flag incorrectly goes up so I'd have thought playing on just in case would be the better approach when there's an obvious goal scoring chance (which from what I'd read was the recommended policy in the PL.)
What is the remit to SG/FL assistants in this instance? If an assistant flagged for offside, and the players continued and scored, yet VAR sees it wasn't offside, would a goal be allowed? Or would play be "dead" the moment the flag is raised?
Play to the whistle, the flags are for the Referees benefit not the players.
Yes, the goal would stand so long as the referee had not blown the whistle. I think we saw how it is supposed to work in the PL with the Sterling chance when he hit the post. The flag was raised for offside but Atkinson allowed the shot to be taken first (and then gave advantage anyway as Liverpool got possession of the ball.)
Post by: QuoCob on Mon 05 Aug 2019 08:00
Surprised Atkinson didn't allow play to continue for the De Bruyne 1 on 1 chance. It was offside in this instance but you can imagine cases across the season where the flag incorrectly goes up so I'd have thought playing on just in case would be the better approach when there's an obvious goal scoring chance (which from what I'd read was the recommended policy in the PL.)
What is the remit to SG/FL assistants in this instance? If an assistant flagged for offside, and the players continued and scored, yet VAR sees it wasn't offside, would a goal be allowed? Or would play be "dead" the moment the flag is raised?
Play to the whistle, the flags are for the Referees benefit not the players.
Post by: flipmode on Mon 05 Aug 2019 01:16
Surprised Atkinson didn't allow play to continue for the De Bruyne 1 on 1 chance. It was offside in this instance but you can imagine cases across the season where the flag incorrectly goes up so I'd have thought playing on just in case would be the better approach when there's an obvious goal scoring chance (which from what I'd read was the recommended policy in the PL.)
What is the remit to SG/FL assistants in this instance? If an assistant flagged for offside, and the players continued and scored, yet VAR sees it wasn't offside, would a goal be allowed? Or would play be "dead" the moment the flag is raised?
Post by: bmb on Sun 04 Aug 2019 21:16
VAR is not being used in Bolivia but the referee decided to use it anyway.
https://t.co/LyoJCyVncZ
Love how he starts to give the TV review signal & then stops himself! Wonder if there will be any repercussions for him from this.
Post by: guest3 on Sun 04 Aug 2019 17:43
https://t.co/LyoJCyVncZ
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 04 Aug 2019 16:02
Post by: flipmode on Fri 02 Aug 2019 04:49
I wonder how positive they'll be when VAR spots a VC incident say, or a SFP missed by the on field referee which then adversely affects their team, and ultimately causes them to lose the game? :D
Post by: RCG on Fri 12 Jul 2019 19:46
As with the Womens World Cup and most new law changes there will be a few weeks of everything being given/referred/reviewed and then it will settle
Post by: Ashington46 on Fri 12 Jul 2019 19:30
But surely having a different interpretation in the PL as will be used in CL, EL, qualifiers etc puts our teams and officials at a disadvantage?
I agree that reviews need to be quicker, VAR needs to be trusted more (when you see Kuipers and Makkelie together it gels, runs smoother) but to implement a different system seems barmy to me
I think there has been a difference in interpretation between the Premier League and other competitions abroad for a long time.
If you change it in the Premier League then you'd surely also have to change it in the football league (at least - and probably elsewhere in England too to avoid confusion/different standards) because Premier League teams could face those sides in domestic cup competitions.
I think it's much better for a handful of teams and a couple of referees to adjust to a stricter interpretation of handball when involved in UEFA/FIFA games maybe a dozen or so times a season rather than impose a handball interpretation on the whole of the English pyramid that most people in the country seem opposed to.
I am somewhat confused as to exactly what is happening to football in the UK. Can anyone explain which Laws of the Game we shall be using throughout all football in the UK.
Will it be FIFA Laws of the Game, FIFA Laws of the Game for matches with VAR or Premier League Laws for matches with VAR with certain exceptions?
Or will it be those listed above plus UEFA Laws for matches with VAR?
They will be using new LOTG with interpretations otherwise generally the same as we have seen in past few years in the UK.
Reading ---many thanks for that. In other words we will be using a different interpretation of the LOTG to the rest of European and World football.
It should be interesting for all those watching the games on TV in the various foreign countries.
Yes, but I don't think that's really anything new. I've been watching football for over 20 years and there has certainly generally been a difference in interpretation between England and elsewhere in that time.
Haha. I've been playing, officiating and watching senior football in 16 different countries during the last 53years since I joined the RAF and I agree that there have always been different interpretations, however, none have ever been clouded with the use of VAR until now.
Wherever, I was it was what the referee said that was the important thing ---even if you didn't agree with everything, we accepted it and got on with the game.
I accept that I have seen the best days of the game and that the authorities these days seem to be obsessed with whatever media-driven gimmick they can introduce next to see more goals scored --c'est la vie.
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 12 Jul 2019 18:14
But surely having a different interpretation in the PL as will be used in CL, EL, qualifiers etc puts our teams and officials at a disadvantage?
I agree that reviews need to be quicker, VAR needs to be trusted more (when you see Kuipers and Makkelie together it gels, runs smoother) but to implement a different system seems barmy to me
I think there has been a difference in interpretation between the Premier League and other competitions abroad for a long time.
If you change it in the Premier League then you'd surely also have to change it in the football league (at least - and probably elsewhere in England too to avoid confusion/different standards) because Premier League teams could face those sides in domestic cup competitions.
I think it's much better for a handful of teams and a couple of referees to adjust to a stricter interpretation of handball when involved in UEFA/FIFA games maybe a dozen or so times a season rather than impose a handball interpretation on the whole of the English pyramid that most people in the country seem opposed to.
I am somewhat confused as to exactly what is happening to football in the UK. Can anyone explain which Laws of the Game we shall be using throughout all football in the UK.
Will it be FIFA Laws of the Game, FIFA Laws of the Game for matches with VAR or Premier League Laws for matches with VAR with certain exceptions?
Or will it be those listed above plus UEFA Laws for matches with VAR?
They will be using new LOTG with interpretations otherwise generally the same as we have seen in past few years in the UK.
Reading ---many thanks for that. In other words we will be using a different interpretation of the LOTG to the rest of European and World football.
It should be interesting for all those watching the games on TV in the various foreign countries.
Yes, but I don't think that's really anything new. I've been watching football for over 20 years and there has certainly generally been a difference in interpretation between England and elsewhere in that time.
Post by: Ashington46 on Fri 12 Jul 2019 17:15
But surely having a different interpretation in the PL as will be used in CL, EL, qualifiers etc puts our teams and officials at a disadvantage?
I agree that reviews need to be quicker, VAR needs to be trusted more (when you see Kuipers and Makkelie together it gels, runs smoother) but to implement a different system seems barmy to me
I think there has been a difference in interpretation between the Premier League and other competitions abroad for a long time.
If you change it in the Premier League then you'd surely also have to change it in the football league (at least - and probably elsewhere in England too to avoid confusion/different standards) because Premier League teams could face those sides in domestic cup competitions.
I think it's much better for a handful of teams and a couple of referees to adjust to a stricter interpretation of handball when involved in UEFA/FIFA games maybe a dozen or so times a season rather than impose a handball interpretation on the whole of the English pyramid that most people in the country seem opposed to.
I am somewhat confused as to exactly what is happening to football in the UK. Can anyone explain which Laws of the Game we shall be using throughout all football in the UK.
Will it be FIFA Laws of the Game, FIFA Laws of the Game for matches with VAR or Premier League Laws for matches with VAR with certain exceptions?
Or will it be those listed above plus UEFA Laws for matches with VAR?
They will be using new LOTG with interpretations otherwise generally the same as we have seen in past few years in the UK.
Reading ---many thanks for that. In other words we will be using a different interpretation of the LOTG to the rest of European and World football.
It should be interesting for all those watching the games on TV in the various foreign countries.
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 12 Jul 2019 16:50
But surely having a different interpretation in the PL as will be used in CL, EL, qualifiers etc puts our teams and officials at a disadvantage?
I agree that reviews need to be quicker, VAR needs to be trusted more (when you see Kuipers and Makkelie together it gels, runs smoother) but to implement a different system seems barmy to me
I think there has been a difference in interpretation between the Premier League and other competitions abroad for a long time.
If you change it in the Premier League then you'd surely also have to change it in the football league (at least - and probably elsewhere in England too to avoid confusion/different standards) because Premier League teams could face those sides in domestic cup competitions.
I think it's much better for a handful of teams and a couple of referees to adjust to a stricter interpretation of handball when involved in UEFA/FIFA games maybe a dozen or so times a season rather than impose a handball interpretation on the whole of the English pyramid that most people in the country seem opposed to.
I am somewhat confused as to exactly what is happening to football in the UK. Can anyone explain which Laws of the Game we shall be using throughout all football in the UK.
Will it be FIFA Laws of the Game, FIFA Laws of the Game for matches with VAR or Premier League Laws for matches with VAR with certain exceptions?
Or will it be those listed above plus UEFA Laws for matches with VAR?
They will be using new LOTG with interpretations otherwise generally the same as we have seen in past few years in the UK.
Post by: Ashington46 on Fri 12 Jul 2019 16:22
But surely having a different interpretation in the PL as will be used in CL, EL, qualifiers etc puts our teams and officials at a disadvantage?
I agree that reviews need to be quicker, VAR needs to be trusted more (when you see Kuipers and Makkelie together it gels, runs smoother) but to implement a different system seems barmy to me
I think there has been a difference in interpretation between the Premier League and other competitions abroad for a long time.
If you change it in the Premier League then you'd surely also have to change it in the football league (at least - and probably elsewhere in England too to avoid confusion/different standards) because Premier League teams could face those sides in domestic cup competitions.
I think it's much better for a handful of teams and a couple of referees to adjust to a stricter interpretation of handball when involved in UEFA/FIFA games maybe a dozen or so times a season rather than impose a handball interpretation on the whole of the English pyramid that most people in the country seem opposed to.
I am somewhat confused as to exactly what is happening to football in the UK. Can anyone explain which Laws of the Game we shall be using throughout all football in the UK.
Will it be FIFA Laws of the Game, FIFA Laws of the Game for matches with VAR or Premier League Laws for matches with VAR with certain exceptions?
Or will it be those listed above plus UEFA Laws for matches with VAR?
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 09 Jul 2019 12:07
But surely having a different interpretation in the PL as will be used in CL, EL, qualifiers etc puts our teams and officials at a disadvantage?
I agree that reviews need to be quicker, VAR needs to be trusted more (when you see Kuipers and Makkelie together it gels, runs smoother) but to implement a different system seems barmy to me
Part of the evolution I guess and if our less intrusive way seems to work better then perhaps it will be adopted further afield. I think we all agree with Mike Riley regarding the handball scenario's as it's something many of us have raised concerns about. Most players in the PL, who play in Europe regularly are already used to stricter interpretations in the CL/EL so I think they should be able to adapt. It's always been the way that HB seem harsher in mainland Europe so in many ways it is nothing new.
And let's not forget that UEFA/FIFA's interpretation was different under the wording of the previous laws of the game, certainly over the past 12 months, so the new wording has not changed that much.
FIFA often impose different directives for the World Cup. I can remember some years when they were very strict on fairly standard tackles or aerial challenges and we saw a surge in red cards. In the 2014 and 2018 World Cups they were notably lenient on cynical fouls that would have automatically produced a yellow card in most other competitions - is the Premier League (and English football in general) expected to regularly make extensive changes to all its interpretations based on the latest whim of FIFA?
Post by: bmb on Tue 09 Jul 2019 01:43
But surely having a different interpretation in the PL as will be used in CL, EL, qualifiers etc puts our teams and officials at a disadvantage?
I agree that reviews need to be quicker, VAR needs to be trusted more (when you see Kuipers and Makkelie together it gels, runs smoother) but to implement a different system seems barmy to me
Part of the evolution I guess and if our less intrusive way seems to work better then perhaps it will be adopted further afield. I think we all agree with Mike Riley regarding the handball scenario's as it's something many of us have raised concerns about. Most players in the PL, who play in Europe regularly are already used to stricter interpretations in the CL/EL so I think they should be able to adapt. It's always been the way that HB seem harsher in mainland Europe so in many ways it is nothing new.
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Mon 08 Jul 2019 21:35
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 08 Jul 2019 19:18
But surely having a different interpretation in the PL as will be used in CL, EL, qualifiers etc puts our teams and officials at a disadvantage?
I agree that reviews need to be quicker, VAR needs to be trusted more (when you see Kuipers and Makkelie together it gels, runs smoother) but to implement a different system seems barmy to me
I think there has been a difference in interpretation between the Premier League and other competitions abroad for a long time.
If you change it in the Premier League then you'd surely also have to change it in the football league (at least - and probably elsewhere in England too to avoid confusion/different standards) because Premier League teams could face those sides in domestic cup competitions.
I think it's much better for a handful of teams and a couple of referees to adjust to a stricter interpretation of handball when involved in UEFA/FIFA games maybe a dozen or so times a season rather than impose a handball interpretation on the whole of the English pyramid that most people in the country seem opposed to.
Post by: RCG on Mon 08 Jul 2019 19:04
I agree that reviews need to be quicker, VAR needs to be trusted more (when you see Kuipers and Makkelie together it gels, runs smoother) but to implement a different system seems barmy to me
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 08 Jul 2019 09:59
The essence of it is contained here - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48903289
Riley confirms that handball interpretation will not be as severe as we have seen in the Champions League/women's world cup - '“What we don’t want to create is a culture when defenders have to defend with their hands behind their back or where it is acceptable for attackers to try to drill the ball at their hand to win a penalty.'
There have been 14 decisions changed in the 69 trial matches played with VAR in England so far, so a review about 1 in every 5 games - this is less frequent than in other countries and I think reflects a desire to maintain the flow of the game and keep to the 'clear and obvious error' threshold.
It also confirms that pitchside monitors will be used sparingly - referees are expected to trust the VAR unless the information they are receiving deviates significantly from their expectations/interpretation. There will be pitchside monitors that referees can use but only if they really feel that it is necessary. Riley said how often in other countries there are four or five minutes taken for an on-field review which basically consist of the VAR and the referee looking at the same incident and coming to the obvious conclusion.
As I said previously, I actually think that the introduction of VAR in the Premier League could be a reasonably smooth and effective one. I think that generally speaking it wasn't too intrusive in the trial matches in England last season.
Post by: JohnCoyle on Mon 08 Jul 2019 09:31
If you took the interpretations of offside at the WWC and applied them to cricket, it would mean that every time a ball was clipping the stumps the batsman would be given out LBW (assuming the other conditions had been satisfied, of course). Test matches would be over in two or three days.
I think change will have to come and some "margin of error" will need to be brought in so that only obviously incorrect decisions will be overturned. At present, the way VAR is being applied goes against the direction of how offside has been interpreted over the last 30-odd years: where interpretations have been changed to ensure that more goals are scored. If you're going to start ruling that goals should be disallowed for something that could not reasonably be seen by an official with the naked eye, you might as well go back to the old days of "if you're offside, you're offside."
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 07 Jul 2019 23:54
In general, rather like the men's world cup last summer, it feels like VAR has been smoother during the knockout stages - I'm not sure if this is due to circumstance, players having got more used to the system or the better officials (both on-field and VAR) being used.
Post by: ajb95 on Sat 06 Jul 2019 23:37
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Sat 06 Jul 2019 09:56
Edit - also reported that play at Wimbledon has had to be held up on more than one occasion by the sound of champagne corks popping and even the odd cork flying on to the court. At least that shouldn't happen in football, should it...? ;D
Post by: JCFC on Fri 05 Jul 2019 19:46
1 word you rarely hear is "Játékvezető"
In fairness, you hear it even less frequently on Match of the Day.
Post by: bmb on Fri 05 Jul 2019 16:16
what I want to know is will VAR reduce the cost of my TV license, or for the better off , their sky subscription. If VAR turns out to be such a success. which I very much doubt, Surely the BBC will not require the amount of overpaid pundits, how much does Lynaker get these days?, to second guess and gabble on when in actual fact we could see more actual action from the games.
Far from it, they'll now have a ref and a VAR ref to slate and moan about, that has to be worth at least an extra 30 mins waffle time!
Would love to see the UK based shows be more like the góóól show on M4 sports. Yes they have the pundits and some waffle but the waffle is often tactical type stuff & the ref only gets the briefest of mentions if they have made a real big game changing error. My Hungarian is not enough to follow everything they say, but I am friends with the analyst from the show & he will always translate any parts of it for me that I completely don't understand but I know the key words & basics. 1 word you rarely hear is "Játékvezető" or even the referees name.
Post by: Kopref on Fri 05 Jul 2019 15:58
Post by: bmb on Thu 04 Jul 2019 12:17
This is interesting!
https://twitter.com/tancredipalmeri/status/1146530545846947840?s=21
Going to be very interesting to see how this one plays out.
Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't we seen a referee sent home from a tournament (not the WWC but last year sometime) with the reason being they had ignored VAR & given a wrong call? May well have been speculation on here as to that being the reason, come to think of it but it seems to ring a bell with me!
Post by: bruntyboy on Wed 03 Jul 2019 23:12
https://twitter.com/tancredipalmeri/status/1146530545846947840?s=21
Post by: Microscopist on Wed 03 Jul 2019 22:59
Quote
A minor point but I am not sure that this has any basis in law?
In general terms, 'careless' is not a card at all but with DOGSO in the penalty area then I think any foul has to be at least a yellow, even if accidental?
Quote
We should again remember that clear and obvious does not apply to offside - you are always either onside or offside.
The question then becomes the extent to which the technology can accurately determine that. I don't know the precise figure for that but I believe the World Cup, like the Premier League next season, uses a 3D system which has a high level of accuracy, even if not at 100%. I believe the judgement is probably more accurate than anything we've had previously so I'm happy to accept it - it's worth remembering that it will also allow some goals that would previously have been disallowed.
Sorry if my remarks didn't seem sufficiently germane to the context, which was the future and the need to modify the philosophy of how VAR is applied. In this context the current laws are only relevant insofar as they need to be changed for VAR decisions.
Not sure what 3D systems are being considered; Man City, Liverpool and Arsenal are reportedly installing 38 cameras that are integrated through an Intel system to allow viewing from any angle. Also not sure whether the World Cup you are referring to is the current Women's World Cup or last year's Men's World Cup but both only seem to show conventional views in support of offside decisions.
Quote
There seem to be a couple of relevant questions here - one is whether the technology is accurate enough to judge a player being half a toe offside and the second is the more philosophical/empathy question as to whether a player being half a toe offside should be penalised.
Have a clear view on the first and you solve the second. Accepting a corridor of uncertainty for VAR offside decisions means that you can have a higher degree certainty for decisions outside that corridor. Cricket seems to be more statistically savvy and having swallowed the camel (so to speak) of Duckworth-Lewis does not strain at the gnat of umpire's decision for LBW referrals. The problem of two similar reconstructed situations having different outcomes depending on the original umpire's call does not to cause dispute in cricket.
The cricket DRS had problems at first when at times I wondered whether some video umpires were being deliberately obtuse to try and discredit the system. Now and particularly since we see and hear the video umpire going through the process I think that it greatly enhances the game and has improved umpiring performance.
Post by: Readingfan on Wed 03 Jul 2019 20:57
We should again remember that clear and obvious does not apply to offside - you are always either onside or offside.
The question then becomes the extent to which the technology can accurately determine that. I don't know the precise figure for that but I believe the World Cup, like the Premier League next season, uses a 3D system which has a high level of accuracy, even if not at 100%. I believe the judgement is probably more accurate than anything we've had previously so I'm happy to accept it - it's worth remembering that it will also allow some goals that would previously have been disallowed.
That's fair enough & if I had £1 for every time I have screamed at a TV pundit who mutters well it was only an inch or so offside that it still means it's offside you eejit then I'd be a very rich young lady! However at the same time, I also firmly believe that if it is not detectable by the naked human eye then it should not be overruled by VAR. I'm talking about the decisions that are literally mm. It's ok to have the technology that uses the 3D imagery etc to get as near to 100% accuracy as possible but what happens when a goal is struck off as offside or given as onside in the CL for/against a PL team that would have resulted in a different decision in the PL because of the different technology used & the PL then start whining one of their teams has been eliminated by inferior technology? That just sets up a whole new dispute over it all. Ok you can get the difference due to the human factor anyway but if it's technology that is basically billed as stopping these incidents from being missed one way or the other then do you not think those really fine margins need to be the same across every competition they will be used in as opposed to CL game game in x country only have 12 camera angles & 2D technology and in y country having 36 cameras & 3D technology. No point, imo, in taking away the human error factor just to replace it with a technology error factor.The interpretation or the laws need to change so that some tolerance or threshold can be allowed for a goal (similar to cricket with DRS and umpires call) so that instances like this can be awarded as a goal - which is the objective of the game, and something we should be encouraging!
This to me makes more sense. Even with an it's either on or off call, have some degree of tolerance & basically common sense for those tiniest of margins. My yardstick being if it is not detectable by the human eye then it should stand as per the AR's call even if the player was a mm on or off in the other direction to the call. I'm open to my personal yardstick maybe not being the best solution & hearing different solutions but I do feel it's a step too far when an offside call literally comes down to just a mm or so & an AR gets overruled on something they have zero chance of ever being able to see.
I don't think we should view VAR as necessarily reflecting upon whether the initial decision that an official made was good or bad. If I was an official at that level I think I would accept that technology could offer a higher percentage of accuracy than I was able to myself.
What would you do if there two very tight decisions that were difficult to detect by a human in real time? One is given onside at one end and the other is given offside at the other end but the technology indicates that the margin of offside/onside was exactly the same in both scenarios.
Ideally all technology would be of the maximum standard but I'm not sure that reducing it for the best technology because some providers aren't as good is an effective answer. I don't believe that goal-line technology is quite 100% accurate but it is close as we are realistically going to get so everyone accepts whatever judgement is made, no matter how difficult it would be to make in real time.
There seem to be a couple of relevant questions here - one is whether the technology is accurate enough to judge a player being half a toe offside and the second is the more philosophical/empathy question as to whether a player being half a toe offside should be penalised.
Post by: bmb on Wed 03 Jul 2019 19:39
We should again remember that clear and obvious does not apply to offside - you are always either onside or offside.
The question then becomes the extent to which the technology can accurately determine that. I don't know the precise figure for that but I believe the World Cup, like the Premier League next season, uses a 3D system which has a high level of accuracy, even if not at 100%. I believe the judgement is probably more accurate than anything we've had previously so I'm happy to accept it - it's worth remembering that it will also allow some goals that would previously have been disallowed.
That's fair enough & if I had £1 for every time I have screamed at a TV pundit who mutters well it was only an inch or so offside that it still means it's offside you eejit then I'd be a very rich young lady! However at the same time, I also firmly believe that if it is not detectable by the naked human eye then it should not be overruled by VAR. I'm talking about the decisions that are literally mm. It's ok to have the technology that uses the 3D imagery etc to get as near to 100% accuracy as possible but what happens when a goal is struck off as offside or given as onside in the CL for/against a PL team that would have resulted in a different decision in the PL because of the different technology used & the PL then start whining one of their teams has been eliminated by inferior technology? That just sets up a whole new dispute over it all. Ok you can get the difference due to the human factor anyway but if it's technology that is basically billed as stopping these incidents from being missed one way or the other then do you not think those really fine margins need to be the same across every competition they will be used in as opposed to CL game game in x country only have 12 camera angles & 2D technology and in y country having 36 cameras & 3D technology. No point, imo, in taking away the human error factor just to replace it with a technology error factor.
The interpretation or the laws need to change so that some tolerance or threshold can be allowed for a goal (similar to cricket with DRS and umpires call) so that instances like this can be awarded as a goal - which is the objective of the game, and something we should be encouraging!
This to me makes more sense. Even with an it's either on or off call, have some degree of tolerance & basically common sense for those tiniest of margins. My yardstick being if it is not detectable by the human eye then it should stand as per the AR's call even if the player was a mm on or off in the other direction to the call. I'm open to my personal yardstick maybe not being the best solution & hearing different solutions but I do feel it's a step too far when an offside call literally comes down to just a mm or so & an AR gets overruled on something they have zero chance of ever being able to see.
Post by: Ashington46 on Wed 03 Jul 2019 19:17
We should again remember that clear and obvious does not apply to offside - you are always either onside or offside.
The question then becomes the extent to which the technology can accurately determine that. I don't know the precise figure for that but I believe the World Cup, like the Premier League next season, uses a 3D system which has a high level of accuracy, even if not at 100%. I believe the judgement is probably more accurate than anything we've had previously so I'm happy to accept it - it's worth remembering that it will also allow some goals that would previously have been disallowed.
Not on the 72 EFL grounds and the countless grounds of clubs in the Pyramid system, however, I suppose that they do not matter in the grand scale of things.
I'm not sure what the relevance of that really is - most probably the use of VAR in England beyond the Premier League will increase at least slightly at some point in the future but I don't think you can criticise VAR for being too accurate in comparison to games played without VAR.
The relevance is that we have a system in England which means clubs can gain promotion through the pyramid system all the way through the leagues until they reach the Premier League.
We also have a system through which officials can also progress until they reach the required standard to officiate in the Premier League. In order t odo this that have to work their way up from the lower level and rely on their own judgement whilst being watched by observers and then aided or abetted by people watching videos of their performance.
Having reached what, without International recognition, would be the pinnacle of their career they are then placed in a situation where they are not considered good enough to actually officiate in a PL match without someone else's opinion being brought to bear whilst the game is in progress.
When VAR is called into action, these officials are left standing around like a spare part whilst other people, who could be miles away, deliver a verdict on something which may or may not be seen by the fans who have paid good money to watch the match.
In effect, we are close to having one set of Laws in order to accommodate VAR and another set for the rest of football, particularly if the PL decide not to adopt the ruling about goalkeepers having to have one foot on the line.
Who is the governing body of football? Should we not play to the Laws which they set down or is it OK just to pick and choose. I only ask so that I can advise young referees which set of Laws they need to know.
Post by: ajb95 on Wed 03 Jul 2019 19:05
We should again remember that clear and obvious does not apply to offside - you are always either onside or offside.
The question then becomes the extent to which the technology can accurately determine that. I don't know the precise figure for that but I believe the World Cup, like the Premier League next season, uses a 3D system which has a high level of accuracy, even if not at 100%. I believe the judgement is probably more accurate than anything we've had previously so I'm happy to accept it - it's worth remembering that it will also allow some goals that would previously have been disallowed.
Not on the 72 EFL grounds and the countless grounds of clubs in the Pyramid system, however, I suppose that they do not matter in the grand scale of things.
I'm not sure what the relevance of that really is - most probably the use of VAR in England beyond the Premier League will increase at least slightly at some point in the future but I don't think you can criticise VAR for being too accurate in comparison to games played without VAR.
But i don't think the technology is correct. Last night reminded me of the Tottenham v Chelsea league cup semi-final 1st leg at Wembley when Tottenham were awarded a penalty after Kane was adjudged to be onside after being initially flagged offside. The camera angle from on top of the play is deceiving. Surely the camera angle(s) being used need to be at pitch side level and across. That would give a true reflection of whether its offside or not. Its like in cricket - many countries used hotspot when DRS was first introduced but in some countries, particularly hot ones, it wasn't always picking up the edge even though there was one, so snicko was used more often.
The interpretation or the laws need to change so that some tolerance or threshold can be allowed for a goal (similar to cricket with DRS and umpires call) so that instances like this can be awarded as a goal - which is the objective of the game, and something we should be encouraging!
Post by: Readingfan on Wed 03 Jul 2019 18:10
Quote...too microscopicImpossible
The future! :(
The future .... well there needs to be a serious look at the philosophy of VAR. The penalty was one that would, I think, rarely be given by an on-field referee, it's too hard to judge. However, VAR shows a touch which, even if it didn't cause the tumble that followed, most probably caused White to miss her kick. So it should be a foul as it is contact, clearly initiated by the defender, which has impeded the attacker. Yellow card if the the referee thinks it was "careless" rather than "accidental",.
A minor point but I am not sure that this has any basis in law?
In general terms, 'careless' is not a card at all but with DOGSO in the penalty area then I think any foul has to be at least a yellow, even if accidental?
Post by: Readingfan on Wed 03 Jul 2019 18:06
We should again remember that clear and obvious does not apply to offside - you are always either onside or offside.
The question then becomes the extent to which the technology can accurately determine that. I don't know the precise figure for that but I believe the World Cup, like the Premier League next season, uses a 3D system which has a high level of accuracy, even if not at 100%. I believe the judgement is probably more accurate than anything we've had previously so I'm happy to accept it - it's worth remembering that it will also allow some goals that would previously have been disallowed.
Not on the 72 EFL grounds and the countless grounds of clubs in the Pyramid system, however, I suppose that they do not matter in the grand scale of things.
I'm not sure what the relevance of that really is - most probably the use of VAR in England beyond the Premier League will increase at least slightly at some point in the future but I don't think you can criticise VAR for being too accurate in comparison to games played without VAR.
Post by: Ashington46 on Wed 03 Jul 2019 18:03
We should again remember that clear and obvious does not apply to offside - you are always either onside or offside.
The question then becomes the extent to which the technology can accurately determine that. I don't know the precise figure for that but I believe the World Cup, like the Premier League next season, uses a 3D system which has a high level of accuracy, even if not at 100%. I believe the judgement is probably more accurate than anything we've had previously so I'm happy to accept it - it's worth remembering that it will also allow some goals that would previously have been disallowed.
Not on the 72 EFL grounds and the countless grounds of clubs in the Pyramid system, however, I suppose that they do not matter in the grand scale of things.
Post by: Readingfan on Wed 03 Jul 2019 17:56
The question then becomes the extent to which the technology can accurately determine that. I don't know the precise figure for that but I believe the World Cup, like the Premier League next season, uses a 3D system which has a high level of accuracy, even if not at 100%. I believe the judgement is probably more accurate than anything we've had previously so I'm happy to accept it - it's worth remembering that it will also allow some goals that would previously have been disallowed.
Post by: Ashington46 on Wed 03 Jul 2019 17:02
Quote...too microscopicImpossible
The future! :(
The future .... well there needs to be a serious look at the philosophy of VAR. The penalty was one that would, I think, rarely be given by an on-field referee, it's too hard to judge. However, VAR shows a touch which, even if it didn't cause the tumble that followed, most probably caused White to miss her kick. So it should be a foul as it is contact, clearly initiated by the defender, which has impeded the attacker. Yellow card if the the referee thinks it was "careless" rather than "accidental", red card if the referee thinks it was deliberate and not an attempt to play the ball.
The question is whether this is the kind of "obvious" error or not? If we say yes then we have, in effect different interpretations of the law for VAR decisions than for those in non VAR situations. I can see pro's and con's. At the top level of professional players the game is becoming quite different from the game as played by part-time and amateur players - do we want to widen that gap further? On the other hand should we encourage the sly, almost imperceptible nudges that prevent players from playing the ball cleanly. bruntyboy mentions the slight push by a defender as an attacker jumps to head for goal - happens all the time, just slightly tilting the body so the header is misdirected - rarely in my view accidental on the part of the defender; but is it just part of the game?
I remember in days of yore when Kevin Keegan was manager of Fulham, City played at Craven Cottage. Mid way through the first half City's big Georgian central defender, Kakhaber Tskhadadze was nudged by Chris Coleman as he was making a defensive header - that nudge caused him to land off balance and rupture several knee ligamnents and effectively end his playing career (although he had some success as a manger). Probably would never have been given as a foul then or now - was it deliberate? - who knows. But it simply illustrates that slight (one might even say microscopic) nudges can have profound effects.
Moving on to offside (and goalkeeper moving at penalties) decisions I have said repeatedly that VAR in these cases has errors, both inherent in the laws themselves and caused by the rather sparse equipment (although I understand that 3D VAR will be used in the Premiership). If we are to overturn onfield decisions we need to appreciate and have an estimate of these errors and only overturn the onfield decision if there is, say a 90%, 95% or whatever, chance that it is wrong. It shouldn't be that difficult to estimate the average error on an offside decision and draw a line of sufficient thickness where only decisions which fall outhwith that line would cause the on-field decision to be reversed. I'd guess that England's goal last night would probably have stood. As an aside and with a slight Scottish bias, I wonder, if the same VAR scutiny as seen in the Scotland v Argentina game had applied to last night's game, whether the penalty would have needed to be retaken.
Totally agree about the VAR observations which, in my opinion, are in grave danger of diminishing the respect for the onfield officials which is a shame.
Yes, we know that some officials do let themselves down on occasion, however, they are making decisions at full speed and are always having to contend with players trying to bend the Laws!
Regarding your observations on the slightest push having an effect, yes, you are correct. I played semi-pro for quite a number of years when I was in the RAF and my first manager was Jim Langley who was player manager at Hillingdon Borough and played in my position, therefore, I didn't manage to get in the team. However, as a 19 year old, I learned so much from him in my year there. One of the things he taught me was that, as a defender, if you jumped up for a ball with an opponent, just a slight push in the back with your thumb could project your opponent a foot or more.
It always worked and was almost impossible to spot by the officials.
Needless to say, when I was refereeing I was aware of this little dodge, however, I rarely spotted it either1
Post by: Microscopist on Wed 03 Jul 2019 16:29
Quote...too microscopicImpossible
The future! :(
The future .... well there needs to be a serious look at the philosophy of VAR. The penalty was one that would, I think, rarely be given by an on-field referee, it's too hard to judge. However, VAR shows a touch which, even if it didn't cause the tumble that followed, most probably caused White to miss her kick. So it should be a foul as it is contact, clearly initiated by the defender, which has impeded the attacker. Yellow card if the the referee thinks it was "careless" rather than "accidental", red card if the referee thinks it was deliberate and not an attempt to play the ball.
The question is whether this is the kind of "obvious" error or not? If we say yes then we have, in effect different interpretations of the law for VAR decisions than for those in non VAR situations. I can see pro's and con's. At the top level of professional players the game is becoming quite different from the game as played by part-time and amateur players - do we want to widen that gap further? On the other hand should we encourage the sly, almost imperceptible nudges that prevent players from playing the ball cleanly. bruntyboy mentions the slight push by a defender as an attacker jumps to head for goal - happens all the time, just slightly tilting the body so the header is misdirected - rarely in my view accidental on the part of the defender; but is it just part of the game?
I remember in days of yore when Kevin Keegan was manager of Fulham, City played at Craven Cottage. Mid way through the first half City's big Georgian central defender, Kakhaber Tskhadadze was nudged by Chris Coleman as he was making a defensive header - that nudge caused him to land off balance and rupture several knee ligamnents and effectively end his playing career (although he had some success as a manger). Probably would never have been given as a foul then or now - was it deliberate? - who knows. But it simply illustrates that slight (one might even say microscopic) nudges can have profound effects.
Moving on to offside (and goalkeeper moving at penalties) decisions I have said repeatedly that VAR in these cases has errors, both inherent in the laws themselves and caused by the rather sparse equipment (although I understand that 3D VAR will be used in the Premiership). If we are to overturn onfield decisions we need to appreciate and have an estimate of these errors and only overturn the onfield decision if there is, say a 90%, 95% or whatever, chance that it is wrong. It shouldn't be that difficult to estimate the average error on an offside decision and draw a line of sufficient thickness where only decisions which fall outhwith that line would cause the on-field decision to be reversed. I'd guess that England's goal last night would probably have stood. As an aside and with a slight Scottish bias, I wonder, if the same VAR scutiny as seen in the Scotland v Argentina game had applied to last night's game, whether the penalty would have needed to be retaken.
Post by: bmb on Wed 03 Jul 2019 14:19
A sneaky shove in the back on the blindside of the referee that can be seen instantaneously & obviously from a different angle then fine, a strikers hand helping the ball over the line into the goal again on the blindside of the referee (like Kassai had in the Turkey v Croatia match played without VAR or AARs) I'm ok with those being given rather than go unpunished as I'm sure most of us are. That to me is what VAR should be being used for, something that a match official, be it the ref or AR would/could see if they were in a different position/had X-ray vision. That handball when facing goal, that the referee cannot see through players to see and that their AR may miss because firstly they are concentrating more on the offsides, as they should be, and secondly because the sheer volume of players in the area is going to give them a degree of an impeded view anyway - that's where they need that extra pair of eyes & those are the decisions that everyone wants to see them receive help if needs be to get right. I'm fine with a player who has used gamesmanship and thrown themself to the floor like a sack of spuds when there has been zero contact getting caught out & not getting a penalty they clearly did not deserve. I also think a booking and a 3 match ban should follow that scenario but that's nothing to do with VAR! It might force them to clean up their game a bit when they don't win them anymore - a ban each time they did it certainly would work rather quickly! However when it comes to having to play any incident from all 24+ cameras just to find someones bootlace brush another player or something equally as ridiculous or when needing to use a mathematical equation that Einstein would have been proud of to determine that 0.0001mm of a players toenail was offside for me it then goes past being clear & obvious. Yay on the one hand for the correct decision, but even that's no guarantee depending on the competency of the VAR ref themselves & the quality & the angles of images available to them. On the other hand though, the skills & the errors are what make the game beautiful, whether they are on the part of the 22 players or the 3-5 strong team of match officials. There is clear & obvious when seen from another angle or there is technically correct while being more detrimental to the game as a whole, imo!
Post by: Ashington46 on Wed 03 Jul 2019 11:03
Quote...too microscopicImpossible
The future! :(
Post by: Microscopist on Wed 03 Jul 2019 10:36
Quote
...too microscopicImpossible
Post by: QuoCob on Wed 03 Jul 2019 08:31
Two crucial VAR incidents in tonight's semi-final. Decision to disallow the England goal was correct - just - but I could not see any contact leading to the England penalty, despite the numerous replays. Sad that England couldn't profit from the penalty but, on balance, the better side won.
The only angle that you could see contact was from behind, the USA player caught her 'kicking' leg on the down swing.
I thought that the official had a decent game. Didn't think that she 'lost control' at all.
The commentator saying that 'she had forgotten that she had already awarded a caution' was a bit disingenuous, officials cannot remember all incidents throughout a game and I believe that as soon as she looked at her card, she correctly awarded the red.
Post by: QuoCob on Wed 03 Jul 2019 08:19
How long will it be until the law is changed and offsides are only given within the 18 yard line to the goal line?
Also unless there is SFP involved I'd like penalties not to be given if. like DOGSO, players are not heading towards the goal when fouled - just a direct free kick.
The offside law change you suggest was tested on a London league in the 1970s and was discarded after less than a season, although I cannot think why.
It was used during the Watney Cup Competition for 2/3 seasons from 1971.
"This measure was designed to reduce midfield congestion and promote more goals, at a time when defences were becoming much better organised."
"It proved to be a success with fewer stoppages and less defensive football."
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Wed 03 Jul 2019 08:12
How long will it be until the law is changed and offsides are only given within the 18 yard line to the goal line?
Also unless there is SFP involved I'd like penalties not to be given if. like DOGSO, players are not heading towards the goal when fouled - just a direct free kick.
The offside law change you suggest was tested on a London league in the 1970s and was discarded after less than a season, although I cannot think why.
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 02 Jul 2019 23:21
Post by: bruntyboy on Tue 02 Jul 2019 23:11
Also unless there is SFP involved I'd like penalties not to be given if. like DOGSO, players are not heading towards the goal when fouled - just a direct free kick.
Post by: bruntyboy on Tue 02 Jul 2019 22:58
Why was the American defender not sent off in the incident leading up to the penalty? Not dogso?
Exactly. Wasn't this a similar scenario to the example of a cross being played into the box and the attacker is pushed by the defender before being able to head the ball?
Post by: Whistleblower on Tue 02 Jul 2019 22:36
I really don't like these "inch" offside decisions because I don't think that's the original point of having an offside rule but technically it was correct and if VAR is going to hone things down to such fine margins then I think it's a pity. Just my view but it's a shame to see a great move and a well taken goal ruled out by a margin which can have given hardly any material advantage to the attacker.
As to the penalty. It took me about six views of slow motion to see the very slight contact but I think it was a correct decision. So perhaps that is an argument for VAR marginal decisions after all.
The better team won I thought, but the Lionesses can be very proud of what they have achieved
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Tue 02 Jul 2019 22:29
Two crucial VAR incidents in tonight's semi-final. Decision to disallow the England goal was correct - just - but I could not see any contact leading to the England penalty, despite the numerous replays. Sad that England couldn't profit from the penalty but, on balance, the better side won.Thought both decisions were correct tbh offside by a toenail , and pk for touching her standing foot . That aside I was very impressed with the Brazilian referee.
Neville was clearly less impressed and commented specifically on the Brazilian referee's 'lack of control'. I had mixed views. Most decisions were correct and the 2nd yellow leading to the red was also correct although the ref appeared to have to be told that it was a 2nd yellow. And she was supremely fit throughout. However I had the underlying feeling that at times she was being led rather than in control, and those staring eyes .... scary! Another sad semi-final ending for an England team, but Neville and his players have plenty to be proud of and they have done much to promote the women's game in this country, with the home Euros to follow, and this can only be a good thing.
Post by: ajb95 on Tue 02 Jul 2019 22:13
Post by: Ref Fan on Tue 02 Jul 2019 22:13
Interesting that the commentator said the 2nd YC should have been a straight Red which was my reaction. Not that it made any difference although I suppose it could have done had it been a 1st YC.
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Tue 02 Jul 2019 22:02
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 28 Jun 2019 23:40
I am reasonably optimistic that we will see a positive implementation of VAR in the Premier League - I think there have been indications that they have learnt from the use of the system elsewhere and devised an effective approach. We will have to wait and see of course!
Post by: guest42 on Fri 28 Jun 2019 22:02
Telegraph reports that the referee's performance on Sunday was officially regarded as 'good' - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-cup/2019/06/24/referee-england-game-twice-overruled-var-advice-prevent-cameroon/
Ridiculous if true!
She will probably be awarded the Final such is the bizarre nature of International Assessments and Appointments
I think you could be right. She has been retained in the pool of 11 for the final stages - see appointments ;D
Delighted she’s been retained. Managed to protect the integrity of the sport ultimately - despite the utter abhorrence of VAR trying to stick their oar in when it’s not wanted or warranted to undermine her control totally.
Tonight was interesting - late France penalty claim that would have been given in any other game so far on insistence from the Vidiots doesn’t even get reviewed.
So much for FIFA’s supposed “consistency and integrity of VAR”
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Fri 28 Jun 2019 11:31
Telegraph reports that the referee's performance on Sunday was officially regarded as 'good' - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-cup/2019/06/24/referee-england-game-twice-overruled-var-advice-prevent-cameroon/
Ridiculous if true!
She will probably be awarded the Final such is the bizarre nature of International Assessments and Appointments
I think you could be right. She has been retained in the pool of 11 for the final stages - see appointments ;D
Post by: nemesis on Fri 28 Jun 2019 09:49
Another ridiculous handball decision in Netherlands-Japan - it's going to kill the game if you can blast the ball against a player a yard away and get a penalty
Which has been shown to be totally and utterly inconsistent in decision making just now in the first quarter final.
But because it was a situation with an England player handling the ball as above - nary a peep as the VAR makes sure the bigger nation is “looked after” by “switching it off and on again”
Nonsense !
" .... it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:
directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)"
Why did that not apply in the Champions League final?
Wasn't the Champions League Final "last year's" Laws ?
(Not that I can remember anything about that match,)
Post by: bruntyboy on Fri 28 Jun 2019 00:36
Another ridiculous handball decision in Netherlands-Japan - it's going to kill the game if you can blast the ball against a player a yard away and get a penalty
Which has been shown to be totally and utterly inconsistent in decision making just now in the first quarter final.
But because it was a situation with an England player handling the ball as above - nary a peep as the VAR makes sure the bigger nation is “looked after” by “switching it off and on again”
Nonsense !
" .... it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:
directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)"
Why did that not apply in the Champions League final?
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 28 Jun 2019 00:22
I’m basing it on the VAR application of law so far this tournament.
If everyone else gets utterly unwarranted penalties - I want them to be given tonight as well
;)
I think most penalties given for handball at this World Cup would be considered 'correct' by the lawmakers - for the reasons pointed out, I would also say the officials were correct not to give a penalty in this case.
Post by: Carter on Thu 27 Jun 2019 21:42
I’m basing it on the VAR application of law so far this tournament.
If everyone else gets utterly unwarranted penalties - I want them to be given tonight as well
;)
Thats ridiculous just beacuse there has been some terrible VAR decisions in past games, you cant criticise if the correct decision are/was given tonight.
Post by: guest42 on Thu 27 Jun 2019 21:22
If everyone else gets utterly unwarranted penalties - I want them to be given tonight as well
;)
Post by: nemesis on Thu 27 Jun 2019 21:19
Another ridiculous handball decision in Netherlands-Japan - it's going to kill the game if you can blast the ball against a player a yard away and get a penalty
Which has been shown to be totally and utterly inconsistent in decision making just now in the first quarter final.
But because it was a situation with an England player handling the ball as above - nary a peep as the VAR makes sure the bigger nation is “looked after” by “switching it off and on again”
Nonsense !
" .... it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:
directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)"
Post by: guest42 on Thu 27 Jun 2019 20:42
An official who makes both Keith Hackett and Valentine Ivanov seem like Howard Webb in comparison
Post by: guest42 on Thu 27 Jun 2019 20:38
Another ridiculous handball decision in Netherlands-Japan - it's going to kill the game if you can blast the ball against a player a yard away and get a penalty
Which has been shown to be totally and utterly inconsistent in decision making just now in the first quarter final.
But because it was a situation with an England player handling the ball as above - nary a peep as the VAR makes sure the bigger nation is “looked after” by “switching it off and on again”
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 27 Jun 2019 17:30
Another ridiculous handball decision in Netherlands-Japan - it's going to kill the game if you can blast the ball against a player a yard away and get a penalty
Given the way handball is going, I was pondering recently if it would be better to make handball offences (in the penalty area at least) an indirect free-kick rather than a penalty - with the exception of offences such as deliberately preventing a goal which would still be a red card and a penalty.
As mentioned plenty of times, in a lot of cases the defender has little intention to handle the ball and his team gain little advantage from it, so for the opposition to get a goal on a high number of occasions from a penalty does not seem the best approach.
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 27 Jun 2019 16:20
Some of the statistics presented are here - https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/refereeing-media-briefing-france-2019-match-1-44-statistics.pdf?cloudid=b7h9pras9shxrwulsfux
8 final decisions wrong after use of VAR seems quite a lot to me, considering that they are presumably definitely mistakes (i.e. if there was any doubt I guess FIFA would side with the decision made.)
Anyone want to suggest what the 8 were? I reckon 4 of them would be what should have been a penalty for hand ball in the Japan V Scotland game, high kick that should have been a red card (I think in Netherlands V Cameroon?), and the two decisions the referee should have changed in England V Cameroon.
Interesting to see that the 2018 World Cup had the fewest uses of VAR per match - I wonder if this suggests that the referees in the other tournaments have been at a lower standard and therefore needed decisions correcting more regularly or that VAR is interfering more frequently, or perhaps a bit of both?
I'm not sure that FIFA can really take issue with the Premier League if they don't enforce the goalkeeper encroachment law as precisely considering that FIFA didn't implement this at the World Cup and UEFA didn't in the Champions League last season, etc. (I know the criteria for goalkeeper encroachment has been modified but it was still part of the laws before.)
Reading ---surely you can't be advocating the selective use of VAR as far as the keeper is concerned. The criteria has changed, as you say, and they are going to have VAR at all the PL matches. This is an easier thing to consider than a marginal offside, therefore, it should definitely be used to decide whether or not a keeper has been outside of the law otherwise what is the point of having VAR?
The PL obviously do not wish to play football in accordance with the directives laid down by the governing body ---a strange state of affairs unless they dispense with the use of VAR totally ---now that would be a great idea.
I said before that if they have a zero tolerance approach to offside then they probably should for the goalkeeper at penalties.
However, I don't think that FIFA/IFAB have much room to sanction the Premier League if they choose not to have this approach considering that goalkeeper encroachment has seldom been penalised by VAR prior to this summer even though there were laws governing this.
Post by: Ashington46 on Thu 27 Jun 2019 14:14
Some of the statistics presented are here - https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/refereeing-media-briefing-france-2019-match-1-44-statistics.pdf?cloudid=b7h9pras9shxrwulsfux
8 final decisions wrong after use of VAR seems quite a lot to me, considering that they are presumably definitely mistakes (i.e. if there was any doubt I guess FIFA would side with the decision made.)
Anyone want to suggest what the 8 were? I reckon 4 of them would be what should have been a penalty for hand ball in the Japan V Scotland game, high kick that should have been a red card (I think in Netherlands V Cameroon?), and the two decisions the referee should have changed in England V Cameroon.
Interesting to see that the 2018 World Cup had the fewest uses of VAR per match - I wonder if this suggests that the referees in the other tournaments have been at a lower standard and therefore needed decisions correcting more regularly or that VAR is interfering more frequently, or perhaps a bit of both?
I'm not sure that FIFA can really take issue with the Premier League if they don't enforce the goalkeeper encroachment law as precisely considering that FIFA didn't implement this at the World Cup and UEFA didn't in the Champions League last season, etc. (I know the criteria for goalkeeper encroachment has been modified but it was still part of the laws before.)
Reading ---surely you can't be advocating the selective use of VAR as far as the keeper is concerned. The criteria has changed, as you say, and they are going to have VAR at all the PL matches. This is an easier thing to consider than a marginal offside, therefore, it should definitely be used to decide whether or not a keeper has been outside of the law otherwise what is the point of having VAR?
The PL obviously do not wish to play football in accordance with the directives laid down by the governing body ---a strange state of affairs unless they dispense with the use of VAR totally ---now that would be a great idea.
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 27 Jun 2019 12:37
8 final decisions wrong after use of VAR seems quite a lot to me, considering that they are presumably definitely mistakes (i.e. if there was any doubt I guess FIFA would side with the decision made.)
Anyone want to suggest what the 8 were? I reckon 4 of them would be what should have been a penalty for hand ball in the Japan V Scotland game, high kick that should have been a red card (I think in Netherlands V Cameroon?), and the two decisions the referee should have changed in England V Cameroon.
Interesting to see that the 2018 World Cup had the fewest uses of VAR per match - I wonder if this suggests that the referees in the other tournaments have been at a lower standard and therefore needed decisions correcting more regularly or that VAR is interfering more frequently, or perhaps a bit of both?
I'm not sure that FIFA can really take issue with the Premier League if they don't enforce the goalkeeper encroachment law as precisely considering that FIFA didn't implement this at the World Cup and UEFA didn't in the Champions League last season, etc. (I know the criteria for goalkeeper encroachment has been modified but it was still part of the laws before.)
Post by: guest18 on Thu 27 Jun 2019 09:10
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 27 Jun 2019 02:30
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Wed 26 Jun 2019 11:59
In last nights match the argument put forward was that the shot was on target, so prevented a goal scoring chance but falls under similar ruling of DOGSO when an attempt has been made to play the ball
Crazy, b****y crazy (the decision, not you RCG). We come back to the earlier view that players in the PL are going to be coached next season to blast the ball against a defender's arm because a penalty will result. Crazy ???
Post by: RCG on Wed 26 Jun 2019 11:21
Post by: nemesis on Wed 26 Jun 2019 10:42
The game is already dead if that is a correct handball decision. That is never ever ever handball in a million years.
If they've decided that totally accidental handballs are going to be penalties, at least don't compound the injustice with a yellow card !!!!
Post by: Ashington46 on Wed 26 Jun 2019 09:54
Another ridiculous handball decision in Netherlands-Japan - it's going to kill the game if you can blast the ball against a player a yard away and get a penalty
The game is already dead if that is a correct handball decision. That is never ever ever handball in a million years.
We had better just get used to it because this is the direction in which those running the game are pushing it.
Never mind, every decision will be 100% correct ----won't it?
Post by: BabyRef on Wed 26 Jun 2019 02:18
Post by: Ashington46 on Tue 25 Jun 2019 19:21
I don't think it is a valid argument that we should blame VAR for correcting the initially incorrect offside decisions - it indicates its contribution to officiating.
Who is to say that the Cameroon players would not have reacted in a similar way if decisions had gone against them in a non-VAR game?
We should not encourage incorrect decision making for fear of how players might otherwise react.
Reading --you obviously know a lot more about VAR than I do so could you explain what would happen in this scenario.
What happens in a situation where the AR is told that the flag should not be raised, play continues and the keeper comes out to try and stop the forward but commits a foul and is given a second yellow card, because he has already been cautioned for being off his line at a penallty kick.
He is on his way off the pitch but then VAR advises that there was an offside situation in that build up and play should be restarted with a free kick to the defence. What then happens to the keeper because he has been dismissed.
Alternatively, you could have a similar situation where the keeper has stopped the attack but suffers a serious injury because the AR allowed play to go on, even though he/she thought that it could well have been offside and this is proved to be the case by VAR.
Disciplinary action relating to offences connected to the passage of play such as a yellow card for SPA or a red card for DOGSO would be rescinded if VAR examined the incident - VAR can only look at direct red cards though so in the scenario you mention presumably the second yellow card would either stand or if the assistant believed it to be offside they would advise the referee of this and the offside would be given.
It's true that there could potentially be an injury but then that's true of a wide variety of things in football. Players have picked up injuries before in training, the warm-up or a friendly match. You can never 100% avoid the possibility of it happening.
In both instances, the potential second yellow and the injury to the keeper would be avoided if the AR was allowed to flag and give what they considered to be the correct decision in both cases. It is the fact that they are being told not to flag in order to let play continue which has led to both situations which could then be rescinded by VAR ---except that one player has been dismissed in the second yellow case and the other has been injured when they did not need to be if the decision which was finally arrived at had been given in the first place.
It is a can of worms and there are many other situations which could come into play and that is not even mentioning possible events off the field.
It is obvous that FIFA are willing to change TLOG to accommodate the use of VAR and it is something which we will all have to get used to.
How has the game survived so long without technology.
They will be telling me next that the Victorians weren't able to build things without technology. ;)
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 25 Jun 2019 19:10
I don't think it is a valid argument that we should blame VAR for correcting the initially incorrect offside decisions - it indicates its contribution to officiating.
Who is to say that the Cameroon players would not have reacted in a similar way if decisions had gone against them in a non-VAR game?
We should not encourage incorrect decision making for fear of how players might otherwise react.
Reading --you obviously know a lot more about VAR than I do so could you explain what would happen in this scenario.
What happens in a situation where the AR is told that the flag should not be raised, play continues and the keeper comes out to try and stop the forward but commits a foul and is given a second yellow card, because he has already been cautioned for being off his line at a penallty kick.
He is on his way off the pitch but then VAR advises that there was an offside situation in that build up and play should be restarted with a free kick to the defence. What then happens to the keeper because he has been dismissed.
Alternatively, you could have a similar situation where the keeper has stopped the attack but suffers a serious injury because the AR allowed play to go on, even though he/she thought that it could well have been offside and this is proved to be the case by VAR.
Disciplinary action relating to offences connected to the passage of play such as a yellow card for SPA or a red card for DOGSO would be rescinded if VAR examined the incident - VAR can only look at direct red cards though so in the scenario you mention presumably the second yellow card would either stand or if the assistant believed it to be offside they would advise the referee of this and the offside would be given.
It's true that there could potentially be an injury but then that's true of a wide variety of things in football. Players have picked up injuries before in training, the warm-up or a friendly match. You can never 100% avoid the possibility of it happening.
Post by: Ashington46 on Tue 25 Jun 2019 18:49
I don't think it is a valid argument that we should blame VAR for correcting the initially incorrect offside decisions - it indicates its contribution to officiating.
Who is to say that the Cameroon players would not have reacted in a similar way if decisions had gone against them in a non-VAR game?
We should not encourage incorrect decision making for fear of how players might otherwise react.
Reading --you obviously know a lot more about VAR than I do so could you explain what would happen in this scenario.
What happens in a situation where the AR is told that the flag should not be raised, play continues and the keeper comes out to try and stop the forward but commits a foul and is given a second yellow card, because he has already been cautioned for being off his line at a penallty kick.
He is on his way off the pitch but then VAR advises that there was an offside situation in that build up and play should be restarted with a free kick to the defence. What then happens to the keeper because he has been dismissed.
Alternatively, you could have a similar situation where the keeper has stopped the attack but suffers a serious injury because the AR allowed play to go on, even though he/she thought that it could well have been offside and this is proved to be the case by VAR.
Post by: RCG on Tue 25 Jun 2019 18:43
1. Allowing officials to "ignore" clear advice to the contrary for fear of what one team might do
2. Promoting the fact that if you do not get your own way cause a stir ( the Cameroon Hamleys appeared to have been emptied of stock with the amount of toys thrown) and
3. Saying the referee's performance was good
It devalues what has been a good natured footballing tournament
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 25 Jun 2019 18:20
Who is to say that the Cameroon players would not have reacted in a similar way if decisions had gone against them in a non-VAR game?
We should not encourage incorrect decision making for fear of how players might otherwise react.
Post by: Ashington46 on Tue 25 Jun 2019 18:11
The elbow early on in the match should have been seen by the AR for what it was and she should have helped the referee because it should have been a red.
The same AR did not raise her flag for offside, as instructed, in the move for the England goal, however, she raised the flag once the ball was in the net, thus bringing in a VAR judgement ---without VAR, presumably she would have flagged earlier and the goal would not have stood.
Likewise, the Cameroon goal which was disallowed by VAR was never flagged and that also would have stood.
The referee, in both cases, had to wait for the VAR judgement coming through and was then stuck with Cameroon players who just did not want to accept the ruling and the referee, not VAR, was left to explain exactly what had happened and to say that the game would continue.
I think that the VAR rulings badly affected the confidence of the onfield officials because after those incidents they missed several things including the penalty incident and the assault on Steph Houghton.
It is difficult for any of us who have not been involved in the use of VAR to say exactly how we would feel if we had been officiating in the match. We can criticise until the cows come home, however, the problems in that match were caused by the use of VAR and its quest to be 100% correct. Had things been left to the onfield officials, particularly the offside decisions, I do not think that things would have degenerated as they did.
The officials were selected because of their ability in normal circumstances and they do not become poor overnight.
Post by: LateTackle on Tue 25 Jun 2019 17:55
Telegraph reports that the referee's performance on Sunday was officially regarded as 'good' - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-cup/2019/06/24/referee-england-game-twice-overruled-var-advice-prevent-cameroon/
Ridiculous if true!
She will probably be awarded the Final such is the bizarre nature of International Assessments and Appointments
FIFA backing her. Mad!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7179001/Referee-twice-ignored-VAR-recommendations-decisions-against-Cameroon.html
If it is true that the referee overruled VAR to 'keep the peace' then that confirms what we all saw happen at the time. It doesn't make it right and doesn't change the fact that the referee had a very poor game anyway. Her control had long disappeared by that time and she looked like she would rather have been anywhere but on that pitch.
I could have an iota of sympathy for FIFA here if they now apply serious sanctions to Cameroon, along the lines of banning them from the next World Cup, given the appalling behaviour of their players and coach.
Post by: QuoCob on Tue 25 Jun 2019 17:50
Very difficult to officiate in the circumstances.
If she started to wade in with cards, the Cameroonian women would have definitely walked off, I was surprised that they didn't anyway.
Giving her the benefit of doubt, I believe that she assessed the situation, realised that she was dealing with players that didn't understand the VAR system and stood off to ensure that the game was completed. They are going to be hit with sanctions anyway.
Shame that VAR didn't help her more with the elbow and spitting. For the leg breaker at the end, she probably decided that a caution would at least complete the game without further controversy from the Cameroons.
My 'Benefit of Doubt' post wasn't far off then...
Post by: bmb on Tue 25 Jun 2019 17:41
Telegraph reports that the referee's performance on Sunday was officially regarded as 'good' - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-cup/2019/06/24/referee-england-game-twice-overruled-var-advice-prevent-cameroon/
Ridiculous if true!
She will probably be awarded the Final such is the bizarre nature of International Assessments and Appointments
FIFA backing her. Mad!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7179001/Referee-twice-ignored-VAR-recommendations-decisions-against-Cameroon.html
Post by: Whistleblower on Tue 25 Jun 2019 17:11
Telegraph reports that the referee's performance on Sunday was officially regarded as 'good' - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-cup/2019/06/24/referee-england-game-twice-overruled-var-advice-prevent-cameroon/
Ridiculous if true!
She will probably be awarded the Final such is the bizarre nature of International Assessments and Appointments
Post by: bmb on Tue 25 Jun 2019 16:40
Nor me. Even with slow motion repeats I couldn't see any contact worthy of a penalty being awarded.
This was my honest-rose-tints-removed thought. There was some contact but it was minimal at best & I would have to say it was a very soft penalty. Consistent with other decisions in the tournament but that doesn't necessarily make it right!
Off to sulk now!
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 25 Jun 2019 14:45
Ridiculous if true!
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 25 Jun 2019 11:42
One thing I have liked about VAR in this World Cup is that they have generally added on reasonable amounts of injury time (apart from Scotland v Argentina!) - 7 minutes seems to have become the norm.
Article about VAR in Premier League - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/06/24/var-premier-league-will-have-high-bar-usage-not-entail-long/
How has VAR assisted in adding on reasonable time for injuries?
What VAR has done is increase the amount of added time because of the increased amount of stoppages, due to reviews taking place. In several instances there has still been a severe shortfall, the classic one being the game you mention
When VAR was first introduced there was very little extra stoppage time added on.
If they are going to have lengthy stoppages then I at least want that to be reflected in some way in increased lengths of stoppage time, although I agree that there is still room for further improvement.
Post by: Whistleblower on Tue 25 Jun 2019 11:15
Post by: ajb95 on Tue 25 Jun 2019 07:51
Katalin added 7 mins tonight after a 5 in VAR delay. Be interested to know any views on the decision - I am very biased!
For the second one not a penalty for me. VAR told her to have a look presumably because it was wrong. But she stuck with her original decision!
Post by: guest18 on Tue 25 Jun 2019 07:28
One thing I have liked about VAR in this World Cup is that they have generally added on reasonable amounts of injury time (apart from Scotland v Argentina!) - 7 minutes seems to have become the norm.
Article about VAR in Premier League - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/06/24/var-premier-league-will-have-high-bar-usage-not-entail-long/
How has VAR assisted in adding on reasonable time for injuries?
What VAR has done is increase the amount of added time because of the increased amount of stoppages, due to reviews taking place. In several instances there has still been a severe shortfall, the classic one being the game you mention
Post by: bmb on Mon 24 Jun 2019 22:21
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 24 Jun 2019 21:59
Article about VAR in Premier League - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/06/24/var-premier-league-will-have-high-bar-usage-not-entail-long/
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 24 Jun 2019 13:49
Within the WWC I would agree, however compare to U20 WC the best decision makers got on and made decisions, the better game managers got the matches in the latter stages.
Your ability to referee got you to the world cup, go out and referee as you did. Should you miss something VAR should help you out
Whilst I agree with those sentiments, my reservations about VAR are that it is making one decision more important than another, in fact, because of the lack of use of VAR in many matches outside the 'elite' competitions, they are making out that these matches are more important than others.
We will check for offside, handball in the penalty area, the odd tackle here and there, however, the officials have to make decisions all over the field and, because they are human, they will make the odd mistake.
The only fair way is to check every decision because they have the technology to do so and they will then be fair to both teams and everyone should be happy.
Of course this will never happen and most fans will say thank goodness for that, however, the system as it is being used now is unfair because it is selective and they have even gone against their own directives in the event of a penalty shoot out.
What realistic alternative would you propose, bearing in mind that a number of other sports utilising video technology only apply it to particular situations?
Whilst it can be annoying - and even occasionally significant to the result - when a referee gets a throw-in wrong on the halfway line, it is generally more annoying and significant to the result when they get a penalty decision wrong.
If it could be applied in every single football match played then great but clearly that is not (currently) feasible - I presume the same is true of rugby/cricket, etc.
Post by: nemesis on Mon 24 Jun 2019 11:53
VAR Missed two red cards (spitting and an elbow) which is the whole reason the system was brought in for - whilst sticking up a freeze frame of an onside goal that makes it look like it was an offside. Resulting in the On-Field Referee’s Control and authority being totally destroyed through no fault of her own.
Bravo FIFA - Bravo...
I don't think the spitting was intentional, but the elbow was. England should have also had a penalty following a VAR review, but I can see why they didn't give it as there would have been every chance of Cameroon simply walking off the pitch.
.... a dangerous precedent, pandering to ill-discipline.
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 24 Jun 2019 10:56
. For the leg breaker at the end, she probably decided that a caution would at least complete the game without further controversy from the Cameroons.
And that should be deemed acceptable?
Show the red card and then if necessary blow the final whistle (wasn't the Fourth Official the referee for the Scotland game the other day? She could give a few tips on bad timekeeping!) or if completely unavoidable abandon the game.
I didn't say that I deemed it to be acceptable, just a 'benefit of doubt' reason for why she probably made that decision which has been echoed by some others on here and in the media.
My other concern is that the Cameroon players made their protestations after they had viewed the big screen, if a 'hostile' crowd took a similar view from the big screen that the VAR decision (in their eyes) was wrong, could a similar disruption/riot be initiated from the terraces/stands?
I do not consider this doubt to have any benefit at all - in fact, I would think just as badly of her (perhaps worse) if she thought it was a red card but didn't have the courage to administer this compared to if she just didn't think it was a red card after viewing the replay.
Given her unwillingness to do anything about the Cameroon's players antics earlier in the game and the fact I don't think the officials even penalised the foul initially, it could easily be either!
As for the second point, I don't think that this should be a significant concern. It's easy enough nowadays for people to view clips on their phones or on TV screens at half-time etc. Even without VAR people generally know when a wrong decision has been made and refrain from anything too dreadful. There might need to be some consideration about the most effective way of displaying the information on the screen but I think it should happen - one of the biggest complaints about VAR so far has been the lack of transparency with those inside the stadium.
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 24 Jun 2019 10:49
I agree. The game was a disgrace as a spectacle but that wasn't down to VAR. The referee was utterly useless and just stood and watched as the situations unfolded. She didn't lose control, she never had any in the first place.VAR ruining another game here - England v Cameroon
By correctly allowing an England goal and correctly disallowing a Cameroon goal?
In truth VAR got the England 2nd goal, and the Cameroon disallowed goal spot on. I dread to think what would have happened had there been no VAR. Cameroon were a disgrace and are clearly unfit to be in such a tournament if their behaviour is this poor. However, the referee did absolutely nothing to sanction some disgraceful incidents. She just stood back and watched.
So inept was the referee that the game may as well have been refereed from the VAR truck. The commentator said this referee was expected to go far. On this performance so she should - straight back to China. From what I've seen of this tournament, the standard of refereeing is simply unacceptable. Alex Scott made this point too. In my view, if the standard of women referees is not good enough, they need to use men as well. I say this as someone who refereed lots of women's games in my active days.
Even if you believe the referee was poor in her execution of the decisions, we had the back up of VAR, yet England denied a clear pen and Cameroon should have 2 reds particularly that challenge on houghton right at the end.
VAR correctly referred them - the referee just chose not to sanction them. (In England, I certainly expect that the situation at the end would just have automatically ended in a red card without the need for an On-Field Review.)
There have been plenty of occasions in the Premier League where the referee hasn't shown a red card for those challenges.
Without VAR, yes.
My point is that they are only going to use on-field reviews sparingly in England so I think this is one where there would be no need for an OFR and the VAR would generally just recommend a straight red card be shown.
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 24 Jun 2019 10:47
I disagree. It's a cop out. We now have a situation where the same offence is a yellow card in all games unless there is VAR. In other words the Laws are different between the top level and the rest of the game. That can't be right. The problem is the Law on goalkeeper movement. Either amend it or enforce it.FIFA have requested a law change from IFAB which has been approved for the rest of the tournament - goalkeepers will not get yellow cards for coming off their line during a penalty shootout so that will prevent the red card situation from occurring then - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48723902
Good! Problem identified, tweak made.
Isn't it just temporary for the rest of the tournament? I presume they will come up with a more permanent decision after the tournament which will apply in all games.
I think that the yellow card for the goalkeeper should but be removed entirely but they can't really completely do that mid-tournament.
Post by: Ref Watcher on Mon 24 Jun 2019 10:10
I disagree. It's a cop out. We now have a situation where the same offence is a yellow card in all games unless there is VAR. In other words the Laws are different between the top level and the rest of the game. That can't be right. The problem is the Law on goalkeeper movement. Either amend it or enforce it.FIFA have requested a law change from IFAB which has been approved for the rest of the tournament - goalkeepers will not get yellow cards for coming off their line during a penalty shootout so that will prevent the red card situation from occurring then - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48723902
Good! Problem identified, tweak made.
Post by: QuoCob on Mon 24 Jun 2019 10:02
. For the leg breaker at the end, she probably decided that a caution would at least complete the game without further controversy from the Cameroons.
And that should be deemed acceptable?
Show the red card and then if necessary blow the final whistle (wasn't the Fourth Official the referee for the Scotland game the other day? She could give a few tips on bad timekeeping!) or if completely unavoidable abandon the game.
I didn't say that I deemed it to be acceptable, just a 'benefit of doubt' reason for why she probably made that decision which has been echoed by some others on here and in the media.
My other concern is that the Cameroon players made their protestations after they had viewed the big screen, if a 'hostile' crowd took a similar view from the big screen that the VAR decision (in their eyes) was wrong, could a similar disruption/riot be initiated from the terraces/stands?
Post by: Ashington46 on Mon 24 Jun 2019 09:03
Within the WWC I would agree, however compare to U20 WC the best decision makers got on and made decisions, the better game managers got the matches in the latter stages.
Your ability to referee got you to the world cup, go out and referee as you did. Should you miss something VAR should help you out
Whilst I agree with those sentiments, my reservations about VAR are that it is making one decision more important than another, in fact, because of the lack of use of VAR in many matches outside the 'elite' competitions, they are making out that these matches are more important than others.
We will check for offside, handball in the penalty area, the odd tackle here and there, however, the officials have to make decisions all over the field and, because they are human, they will make the odd mistake.
The only fair way is to check every decision because they have the technology to do so and they will then be fair to both teams and everyone should be happy.
Of course this will never happen and most fans will say thank goodness for that, however, the system as it is being used now is unfair because it is selective and they have even gone against their own directives in the event of a penalty shoot out.
Post by: RCG on Mon 24 Jun 2019 07:05
Your ability to referee got you to the world cup, go out and referee as you did. Should you miss something VAR should help you out
Post by: mande70 on Mon 24 Jun 2019 01:10
Quote
There is also a perception that VAR decisions appear to going more in favour of the bigger team/host rather than the international minnows in women's football.
the referees at the WWC are afraid to make decisions against the bigger teams so are using the VAR to help make the decision. when it comes to the smaller teams they are not as afraid to be contentious and thus are happy to make the decisions without the need to goto VAR.
I'm sorry part of my enjoyment of the game has always been the human interpretation, the human error and the aftermath of both. bringing in VAR is making it all too clinical, and as mentioned previously it's not being utilised correctly, whether thats through lack of training, lack of thought, or just generally rushing it through.
I have said earlier in this thread about how rules have to be the same no matter what continent you are playing in, but having watched the wwc, the uefa u21, copa america and the african cup of nations, there is no way they are all singing off the same sheet, in regards rules.
referees are afraid to make decisions, afraid to be controversial, and using a system that is supposed to bring clarity to make decisions for them. it begs the question, why even have the referee on the field of play, when it appears that any controversy will be decided from a video box.
Post by: bruntyboy on Sun 23 Jun 2019 23:19
I agree. The game was a disgrace as a spectacle but that wasn't down to VAR. The referee was utterly useless and just stood and watched as the situations unfolded. She didn't lose control, she never had any in the first place.VAR ruining another game here - England v Cameroon
By correctly allowing an England goal and correctly disallowing a Cameroon goal?
In truth VAR got the England 2nd goal, and the Cameroon disallowed goal spot on. I dread to think what would have happened had there been no VAR. Cameroon were a disgrace and are clearly unfit to be in such a tournament if their behaviour is this poor. However, the referee did absolutely nothing to sanction some disgraceful incidents. She just stood back and watched.
So inept was the referee that the game may as well have been refereed from the VAR truck. The commentator said this referee was expected to go far. On this performance so she should - straight back to China. From what I've seen of this tournament, the standard of refereeing is simply unacceptable. Alex Scott made this point too. In my view, if the standard of women referees is not good enough, they need to use men as well. I say this as someone who refereed lots of women's games in my active days.
If there had been no VAR then the England 2nd goal would have been disallowed for offside and the Cameroon goal would have been allowed. :)
Post by: bruntyboy on Sun 23 Jun 2019 23:16
I agree. The game was a disgrace as a spectacle but that wasn't down to VAR. The referee was utterly useless and just stood and watched as the situations unfolded. She didn't lose control, she never had any in the first place.VAR ruining another game here - England v Cameroon
By correctly allowing an England goal and correctly disallowing a Cameroon goal?
In truth VAR got the England 2nd goal, and the Cameroon disallowed goal spot on. I dread to think what would have happened had there been no VAR. Cameroon were a disgrace and are clearly unfit to be in such a tournament if their behaviour is this poor. However, the referee did absolutely nothing to sanction some disgraceful incidents. She just stood back and watched.
So inept was the referee that the game may as well have been refereed from the VAR truck. The commentator said this referee was expected to go far. On this performance so she should - straight back to China. From what I've seen of this tournament, the standard of refereeing is simply unacceptable. Alex Scott made this point too. In my view, if the standard of women referees is not good enough, they need to use men as well. I say this as someone who refereed lots of women's games in my active days.
Even if you believe the referee was poor in her execution of the decisions, we had the back up of VAR, yet England denied a clear pen and Cameroon should have 2 reds particularly that challenge on houghton right at the end.
VAR correctly referred them - the referee just chose not to sanction them. (In England, I certainly expect that the situation at the end would just have automatically ended in a red card without the need for an On-Field Review.)
There have been plenty of occasions in the Premier League where the referee hasn't shown a red card for those challenges.
Post by: Tim Wills on Sun 23 Jun 2019 21:51
Post by: LateTackle on Sun 23 Jun 2019 20:21
I agree with that point. Even the commentators suggested that the referee was being "diplomatic" in trying to get to the end. Otherwise, how can you explain her total inaction. I believe England were denied a penalty, there should have been a red card for the tackle at the end, and numerous yellows. How the No 7 remained on the pitch is beyond me.I agree. The game was a disgrace as a spectacle but that wasn't down to VAR. The referee was utterly useless and just stood and watched as the situations unfolded. She didn't lose control, she never had any in the first place.VAR ruining another game here - England v Cameroon
By correctly allowing an England goal and correctly disallowing a Cameroon goal?
In truth VAR got the England 2nd goal, and the Cameroon disallowed goal spot on. I dread to think what would have happened had there been no VAR. Cameroon were a disgrace and are clearly unfit to be in such a tournament if their behaviour is this poor. However, the referee did absolutely nothing to sanction some disgraceful incidents. She just stood back and watched.
So inept was the referee that the game may as well have been refereed from the VAR truck. The commentator said this referee was expected to go far. On this performance so she should - straight back to China. From what I've seen of this tournament, the standard of refereeing is simply unacceptable. Alex Scott made this point too. In my view, if the standard of women referees is not good enough, they need to use men as well. I say this as someone who refereed lots of women's games in my active days.
Even if you believe the referee was poor in her execution of the decisions, we had the back up of VAR, yet England denied a clear pen and Cameroon should have 2 reds particularly that challenge on houghton right at the end.
VAR correctly referred them - the referee just chose not to sanction them. (In England, I certainly expect that the situation at the end would just have automatically ended in a red card without the need for an On-Field Review.)
I can only think that the referee had decided the game was over as a contest and wanted to get off the pitch asap. We don't know what she was being told in her ear, but I suspect it wasn't "Do nothing!" I maintain that the main issue was the lack of action by the referee in controlling the Cameroon players and bench. If applying correct decisions meant they walked off, so be it. As I said before, they are not fit to be in such a high profile competition.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 23 Jun 2019 19:41
Then it’s up to the VAR in that case to set out plain and clearly - as with the TMO in Rugby and other leagues across the world. “This WILL be a Red Card”.
Unfortunately - the VAR tonight didn’t have the cojones to do this and abdicated his responsibility to protect the safety of the players from getting hurt.
VAR can say whatever they like to the referee, they can tell them 100 times over it was SFP & a red BUT the referee does not have to follow what they say - any decisions ultimately remain the responsibility of the person on the pitch with the whistle, as it has always been. Just as a referee can overrule their AR or an AAR if they have them, they can also overrule VAR. We don't know what the VAR said to her but whatever it was she made the decisions that she made. If she has chosen to ignore them & make her own decision and it was wrong then she will be sat later on in front of the likes of Rosetti explaining herself.
Indeed - within the laws there obviously needs to be a written hierarchy for any instance where a referee and VAR might disagree.
I have also seen some instances in rugby where the referee looks at the screen and makes the decision themselves - things like 'I'm happy with that' or 'I've just seen it and I've got a decision'.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 23 Jun 2019 19:39
I agree. The game was a disgrace as a spectacle but that wasn't down to VAR. The referee was utterly useless and just stood and watched as the situations unfolded. She didn't lose control, she never had any in the first place.VAR ruining another game here - England v Cameroon
By correctly allowing an England goal and correctly disallowing a Cameroon goal?
In truth VAR got the England 2nd goal, and the Cameroon disallowed goal spot on. I dread to think what would have happened had there been no VAR. Cameroon were a disgrace and are clearly unfit to be in such a tournament if their behaviour is this poor. However, the referee did absolutely nothing to sanction some disgraceful incidents. She just stood back and watched.
So inept was the referee that the game may as well have been refereed from the VAR truck. The commentator said this referee was expected to go far. On this performance so she should - straight back to China. From what I've seen of this tournament, the standard of refereeing is simply unacceptable. Alex Scott made this point too. In my view, if the standard of women referees is not good enough, they need to use men as well. I say this as someone who refereed lots of women's games in my active days.
Even if you believe the referee was poor in her execution of the decisions, we had the back up of VAR, yet England denied a clear pen and Cameroon should have 2 reds particularly that challenge on houghton right at the end.
VAR correctly referred them - the referee just chose not to sanction them. (In England, I certainly expect that the situation at the end would just have automatically ended in a red card without the need for an On-Field Review.)
Post by: bmb on Sun 23 Jun 2019 19:37
Then it’s up to the VAR in that case to set out plain and clearly - as with the TMO in Rugby and other leagues across the world. “This WILL be a Red Card”.
Unfortunately - the VAR tonight didn’t have the cojones to do this and abdicated his responsibility to protect the safety of the players from getting hurt.
VAR can say whatever they like to the referee, they can tell them 100 times over it was SFP & a red BUT the referee does not have to follow what they say - any decisions ultimately remain the responsibility of the person on the pitch with the whistle, as it has always been. Just as a referee can overrule their AR or an AAR if they have them, they can also overrule VAR. We don't know what the VAR said to her but whatever it was she made the decisions that she made. If she has chosen to ignore them & make her own decision and it was wrong then she will be sat later on in front of the likes of Rosetti explaining herself.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 23 Jun 2019 19:35
. For the leg breaker at the end, she probably decided that a caution would at least complete the game without further controversy from the Cameroons.
And that should be deemed acceptable?
Show the red card and then if necessary blow the final whistle (wasn't the Fourth Official the referee for the Scotland game the other day? She could give a few tips on bad timekeeping!) or if completely unavoidable abandon the game.
Post by: RCG on Sun 23 Jun 2019 19:34
I agree the "telly box" signal should only be used if there is a reversal of an on field decision as I genuinely thought a penalty had been awarded
If the referee has viewed that last challenge as a yellow card then that alone should be enough to end her WC without any of the other issues (too much chat, not enough positiveness, needed to be strong and decisive(
No one knows what will be checked, referred, looked at or reversed.
As the professionalism in womens football increases so does the gap in quality of the teams but also the officials.
Referees need to have experienced other cultures more regularly before attending an international competition. If necessary, in the short term, cut the number of referees and give them more games
Post by: ajb95 on Sun 23 Jun 2019 19:31
I agree. The game was a disgrace as a spectacle but that wasn't down to VAR. The referee was utterly useless and just stood and watched as the situations unfolded. She didn't lose control, she never had any in the first place.VAR ruining another game here - England v Cameroon
By correctly allowing an England goal and correctly disallowing a Cameroon goal?
In truth VAR got the England 2nd goal, and the Cameroon disallowed goal spot on. I dread to think what would have happened had there been no VAR. Cameroon were a disgrace and are clearly unfit to be in such a tournament if their behaviour is this poor. However, the referee did absolutely nothing to sanction some disgraceful incidents. She just stood back and watched.
So inept was the referee that the game may as well have been refereed from the VAR truck. The commentator said this referee was expected to go far. On this performance so she should - straight back to China. From what I've seen of this tournament, the standard of refereeing is simply unacceptable. Alex Scott made this point too. In my view, if the standard of women referees is not good enough, they need to use men as well. I say this as someone who refereed lots of women's games in my active days.
How can you criticise the actions of the on-field referee? It is not up to her to control the actions of the Cameroon players? She lost control because of VAR- nothing more nothing less. Whilst the decisions may be technically correct, in relation to the Cameroon disallowed goal - was it in the spirit of the game?
Even if you believe the referee was poor in her execution of the decisions, we had the back up of VAR, yet England denied a clear pen and Cameroon should have 2 reds particularly that challenge on houghton right at the end.
Post by: QuoCob on Sun 23 Jun 2019 19:27
If she started to wade in with cards, the Cameroonian women would have definitely walked off, I was surprised that they didn't anyway.
Giving her the benefit of doubt, I believe that she assessed the situation, realised that she was dealing with players that didn't understand the VAR system and stood off to ensure that the game was completed. They are going to be hit with sanctions anyway.
Shame that VAR didn't help her more with the elbow and spitting. For the leg breaker at the end, she probably decided that a caution would at least complete the game without further controversy from the Cameroons.
Post by: guest42 on Sun 23 Jun 2019 19:24
Unfortunately - the VAR tonight didn’t have the cojones to do this and abdicated his responsibility to protect the safety of the players from getting hurt.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 23 Jun 2019 19:22
I agree. The game was a disgrace as a spectacle but that wasn't down to VAR. The referee was utterly useless and just stood and watched as the situations unfolded. She didn't lose control, she never had any in the first place.VAR ruining another game here - England v Cameroon
By correctly allowing an England goal and correctly disallowing a Cameroon goal?
In truth VAR got the England 2nd goal, and the Cameroon disallowed goal spot on. I dread to think what would have happened had there been no VAR. Cameroon were a disgrace and are clearly unfit to be in such a tournament if their behaviour is this poor. However, the referee did absolutely nothing to sanction some disgraceful incidents. She just stood back and watched.
So inept was the referee that the game may as well have been refereed from the VAR truck. The commentator said this referee was expected to go far. On this performance so she should - straight back to China. From what I've seen of this tournament, the standard of refereeing is simply unacceptable. Alex Scott made this point too. In my view, if the standard of women referees is not good enough, they need to use men as well. I say this as someone who refereed lots of women's games in my active days.
But did the VAR pick up the spitting, the elbow or the SFP at the end - leading to further loss of discipline by the Cameroonians? Did the VAR displaying incorrect information on the massive video screens cause the Cameroonians to lose the heads completely and refuse to kick off.
Or are you simply going to blame the referee for their ineptness as well?
It certainly picked up the SFP at the end - which the referee looked up and decided was just a yellow card.
By anyone's reckoning, that was a pretty hopeless refereeing performance.
Post by: guest42 on Sun 23 Jun 2019 19:15
I agree. The game was a disgrace as a spectacle but that wasn't down to VAR. The referee was utterly useless and just stood and watched as the situations unfolded. She didn't lose control, she never had any in the first place.VAR ruining another game here - England v Cameroon
By correctly allowing an England goal and correctly disallowing a Cameroon goal?
In truth VAR got the England 2nd goal, and the Cameroon disallowed goal spot on. I dread to think what would have happened had there been no VAR. Cameroon were a disgrace and are clearly unfit to be in such a tournament if their behaviour is this poor. However, the referee did absolutely nothing to sanction some disgraceful incidents. She just stood back and watched.
So inept was the referee that the game may as well have been refereed from the VAR truck. The commentator said this referee was expected to go far. On this performance so she should - straight back to China. From what I've seen of this tournament, the standard of refereeing is simply unacceptable. Alex Scott made this point too. In my view, if the standard of women referees is not good enough, they need to use men as well. I say this as someone who refereed lots of women's games in my active days.
But did the VAR pick up the spitting, the elbow or the SFP at the end - leading to further loss of discipline by the Cameroonians? Did the VAR displaying incorrect information on the massive video screens cause the Cameroonians to lose the heads completely and refuse to kick off.
Or are you simply going to blame the referee for their ineptness as well?
Post by: guest42 on Sun 23 Jun 2019 19:10
Is referees making the VAR signal even when the decision is not being changed a new thing?
I thought that generally it was only made when the decision was reversed. I think it works better this way because it is a clear signal that a decision is to be changed. I don't see much point in making a TV signal and then indicating that you're sticking with the goal kick you had initially given.
Think it’s more due to the referee thinking “I don’t want to take responsibility for this if you kick off massively as a result - so I’ll do a bit of transference to the armchair lot iwatching this on a 22-inch CRT monitor in a truck 80 miles away”
Post by: LateTackle on Sun 23 Jun 2019 19:08
I agree. The game was a disgrace as a spectacle but that wasn't down to VAR. The referee was utterly useless and just stood and watched as the situations unfolded. She didn't lose control, she never had any in the first place.VAR ruining another game here - England v Cameroon
By correctly allowing an England goal and correctly disallowing a Cameroon goal?
In truth VAR got the England 2nd goal, and the Cameroon disallowed goal spot on. I dread to think what would have happened had there been no VAR. Cameroon were a disgrace and are clearly unfit to be in such a tournament if their behaviour is this poor. However, the referee did absolutely nothing to sanction some disgraceful incidents. She just stood back and watched.
So inept was the referee that the game may as well have been refereed from the VAR truck. The commentator said this referee was expected to go far. On this performance so she should - straight back to China. From what I've seen of this tournament, the standard of refereeing is simply unacceptable. Alex Scott made this point too. In my view, if the standard of women referees is not good enough, they need to use men as well. I say this as someone who refereed lots of women's games in my active days.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 23 Jun 2019 19:00
I thought that generally it was only made when the decision was reversed. I think it works better this way because it is a clear signal that a decision is to be changed. I don't see much point in making a TV signal and then indicating that you're sticking with the goal kick you had initially given.
Post by: rustyref on Sun 23 Jun 2019 18:23
VAR Missed two red cards (spitting and an elbow) which is the whole reason the system was brought in for - whilst sticking up a freeze frame of an onside goal that makes it look like it was an offside. Resulting in the On-Field Referee’s Control and authority being totally destroyed through no fault of her own.
Bravo FIFA - Bravo...
I don't think the spitting was intentional, but the elbow was. England should have also had a penalty following a VAR review, but I can see why they didn't give it as there would have been every chance of Cameroon simply walking off the pitch.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 23 Jun 2019 18:18
VAR ruining another game here - England v Cameroon
By correctly allowing an England goal and correctly disallowing a Cameroon goal?
Because she had a toe offside??
Yes - under the current laws that is offside.
Personally I would change the wording of the law to give more benefit to the attacking player but whatever way you do it there needs to be a precise measurement and there will be some instances when the attacking player marginally exceeds that.
Post by: ajb95 on Sun 23 Jun 2019 18:14
VAR ruining another game here - England v Cameroon
By correctly allowing an England goal and correctly disallowing a Cameroon goal?
Because she had a toe offside?? It’s absolutely ridiculous!!
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 23 Jun 2019 18:05
VAR ruining another game here - England v Cameroon
By correctly allowing an England goal and correctly disallowing a Cameroon goal?
Post by: guest42 on Sun 23 Jun 2019 17:54
Bravo FIFA - Bravo...
Post by: ajb95 on Sun 23 Jun 2019 17:46
Post by: guest18 on Fri 21 Jun 2019 18:28
FIFA have requested a law change from IFAB which has been approved for the rest of the tournament - goalkeepers will not get yellow cards for coming off their line during a penalty shootout so that will prevent the red card situation from occurring then - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48723902
Just a little extra evidence that the whole VAR thing has been ill thought out
Post by: Ashington46 on Fri 21 Jun 2019 17:14
FIFA have requested a law change from IFAB which has been approved for the rest of the tournament - goalkeepers will not get yellow cards for coming off their line during a penalty shootout so that will prevent the red card situation from occurring then - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48723902
This still won't affect the situation with a twice taken penalty which could result in two yellow cards being issued and could easily have happened the other night but was overlooked because the retaken penalty was scored.
It seems that they are being selective in the application of their own directives.
Post by: bmb on Fri 21 Jun 2019 17:09
FIFA have requested a law change from IFAB which has been approved for the rest of the tournament - goalkeepers will not get yellow cards for coming off their line during a penalty shootout so that will prevent the red card situation from occurring then - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48723902
Good! Problem identified, tweak made.
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 21 Jun 2019 17:02
Post by: bmb on Fri 21 Jun 2019 16:57
As Quocob says "Eventually I believe that VAR will improve the game for players, spectators and officials alike but time needs to be allowed for these teething problems to be smoothed out. This will be aided enormously by player, spectator and officials eventual familiarity of all the nuances that are included by its use, especially as it has been introduced alongside fundamental changes to the interpretations of many offences." I completely agree with that! It's just difficult at times to remain patient while the key problems are identified and tweaks made!
I do think the VAR refs have been instructed to highlight the goalkeepers off the line, probably as it's one of the changes. We have all see the phases in the men's games, one tournament they go all on shirt pulling, the next tournament it's something else!
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 21 Jun 2019 16:54
in my view VAR will eventually both improve refereeing standards and add to the enjoyment of the game.
There are two issues.
Firstly VAR is highlighting problems with how the laws of the game are written and understood. In olden days pre-exhaustive televising of games refereeing decisions were observed by spectators at the time and there was little hard evidence against which decisions could be judged. Then TV came along and referees were at a disadvantage in only having one chance and one viewing and it was not unreasonable to excuse errors on the basis of what you don't see you can't give. Now we have VAR and that excuse has to a large extent vanished but we are still seeing inconsistancies in the application of the laws. So there are areas where the law needs to be clearer, but that is the case with or without VAR.
Secondly there is the view that the technology of VAR is absolute, it is not. Like all measurements it is prone to error and allowance should be made for this. Having said that it is more precise than simple human observation - and should give better decisions.
To take the example of the Scotland - Argentina game:
Penalty - on first viewing it seemed to me to be a penalty and I was surprised that it wasn't given. The VAR took a long time, and I can only surmise that they wanted to see if the defender got a touch on the ball first (whether that should make any difference or not is a separate issue). From what I have seen of the video footage the VAR neither confirms nor denies whether there was a touch on the ball as any possible contact is always shielded from the camera - although looks more likely that there was no touch at a different angle from that which the referee had seen. So the touch or no touch is unseen and shouldn't be used to change the original decision; on the other hand had the referee given the penalty VAR should not have been used to reverse it.
Retake: I've seen two different stills one shows the keeper clearly off her line and the other would suggest perhaps part of her foot just overhangs the line (define jumping? she is clearly in the act of jumping, does the jump only count if both feet are already off the ground?) The point is that striking the ball is not instantaneous - guesstimate that the foot is in contact with the ball for 1/100 sec - someone can move perhaps 10mm. If you then take frame rates into account the movement could be 15 to 30 mm. So VAR has to take into account the uncertainty of measurement - which didn't seem to be the case here.
A good post I think.
I do not think that there is such a thing as 100% accuracy in terms of decision making because it suggests that every decision is an absolute and there is always a correct decision and an incorrect decision.
I don't believe this to be the case but, unlike others, I don't necessarily regard this as a problem. I think that a 'better' decision can generally be made when the officials have access to the best viewing angles rather than simply the one they happened to have on the pitch. Within reason, I am happy to accept the judgement that the officials reach after viewing these pictures because that is your job and their decision making process has been as informed as it can be.
I think there is sometimes the feeling that every person needs to agree with the overall decision made but I don't think this is the case and very rarely happens anyway, apart from notable moments like the Maradona handball. Take the France V Norway penalty. With the benefit of replays, I thought that the Norway player definitely fouled the French player but I might not have spotted this at first viewing. I've seen some people who also think it was clearly a foul, some who aren't sure and some who are convinced it wasn't. Therefore, there would always be a degree of disagreement at the final decision made but if I was the VAR I would have referred it and if I was the referee looking at it I think I would have judged it as a foul. Others might not have because they interpreted the incident differently - I think that's not unreasonable and I don't think that is going to change.
I don't know enough about the accuracy levels of the technology being used to really comment but I would presume they are more precise than a human could manage in real time. One thing that is clear is that by being able to measure incidents to a greater precision you are going to end up with different judgements, such as goals being disallowed for having a toe offside or slight goalkeeper encroachment being penalised because officials can either measure it to a higher degree or cannot use common sense to turn a blind eye to minor offences in the way they once could. I suppose that it will be up to the lawmakers in due course to clarify certain laws and to decide if they want such a stringent approach or want to relax the laws a little in view of this (you will clearly still have marginal decisions either way just like with goal-line technology but I think some laws could be adapted a bit to reflect the spirit of the game and the way it has generally been played a bit more.)
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 21 Jun 2019 16:37
That is my main complaint - I feel it was unfair on the referees themselves to spring it onto them essentially at the last moment. Bibiana Steinhaus is the only one who had ever done a game with VAR prior to the tournament. I don't think it right that any referee should have the experience of their first VAR game with a worldwide audience of hundreds of thousands if not millions watching particularly given the lack of pre-tournament training. 10 days technical training a couple of weeks or so before the tournament, whilst also getting to grip with the changes in the LOTG, after 3 years of training to not have it is inadequate, imo. Bringing it in at the last minute has placed too much emphasis/focus on it, it's new, it's the first time & everyone - fans/players/managers/pundits are focusing on it & scrutinising it, probably too much, but that is human nature & football, off the pitch! That is my bigger complaint than any decisions actually made, I feel the refs have had an extra huge pressure dumped on them at the last moment, they are being expected to utilise it & get it right because of the big audience & the historical nature of it, if you understand what I mean, whilst actually learning to use it for the first time.
The changes to the LOTG will also play a part in the decisions. Everyone is expecting it to work as it did in Russia but the LOTG have been refined since then. The latest tweaking/refining/rewrite only came into force for this tournament and the roles are now slightly different to what they were in Russia. There's a big VAR section included now, that wasn't there for Russia. Things like the goalie having to have at least 1 foot on the line is a prime example & seems to be one of the more 'controversial things' - fans/players/managers/pundits haven't yet got to grip with the changes to the LOTG because this is the first time they are seeing them in action which has seemed to add to the complaints because decisions are being made that they simply don't expect because they haven't studied the changes in depth.
Ultimately in the context of not deciding earlier to introduce VAR I think they had two choices:
1. Recognise that the standard of refereeing was not good enough and implement VAR as in Russia, using VARs who had experience. This would mean a slightly rushed implementation of the system and some referees lacking experience of the process.
2. Recognise that the standard of refereeing was not good enough but resist the temptation to introduce VAR for the tournament, meaning that referees would not have to use it without experience but there would be no mechanism in place to correct mistakes that were made, no matter how bad.
Personally I think that 1 is the better outcome.
The main question I would ask about the planning with VAR is what directives were given to VARs regarding goalkeepers being off the line for penalties? I presume a very strict implementation was instructed because it seems unlikely that one or two of them just started randomly doing it. If so, was this communicated to the players/coaches and the wider media? If not, why not.
Post by: QuoCob on Fri 21 Jun 2019 16:31
It's not necessarily the actual/number of mistakes, it's the way that it has been deployed which hasn't assisted any of the officials in it's use especially in addition to the amount of fundamental changes in how KMIs are interpreted.
That's why I mentioned the ball not leaving the area at goal kicks earlier (surprisingly without any comments in response), even something as simple as that is proving difficult to take on board/accept after so many years, what chance do we/they have for the more technical revisions whilst officiating with VAR live for the first time and operating in these intense media spotlights?
Eventually I believe that VAR will improve the game for players, spectators and officials alike but time needs to be allowed for these teething problems to be smoothed out. This will be aided enormously by player, spectator and officials eventual familiarity of all the nuances that are included by it's use, especially as it has been introduced alongside fundamental changes to the interpretations of many offences.
Post by: Microscopist on Fri 21 Jun 2019 16:24
There are two issues.
Firstly VAR is highlighting problems with how the laws of the game are written and understood. In olden days pre-exhaustive televising of games refereeing decisions were observed by spectators at the time and there was little hard evidence against which decisions could be judged. Then TV came along and referees were at a disadvantage in only having one chance and one viewing and it was not unreasonable to excuse errors on the basis of what you don't see you can't give. Now we have VAR and that excuse has to a large extent vanished but we are still seeing inconsistancies in the application of the laws. So there are areas where the law needs to be clearer, but that is the case with or without VAR.
Secondly there is the view that the technology of VAR is absolute, it is not. Like all measurements it is prone to error and allowance should be made for this. Having said that it is more precise than simple human observation - and should give better decisions.
To take the example of the Scotland - Argentina game:
Penalty - on first viewing it seemed to me to be a penalty and I was surprised that it wasn't given. The VAR took a long time, and I can only surmise that they wanted to see if the defender got a touch on the ball first (whether that should make any difference or not is a separate issue). From what I have seen of the video footage the VAR neither confirms nor denies whether there was a touch on the ball as any possible contact is always shielded from the camera - although looks more likely that there was no touch at a different angle from that which the referee had seen. So the touch or no touch is unseen and shouldn't be used to change the original decision; on the other hand had the referee given the penalty VAR should not have been used to reverse it.
Retake: I've seen two different stills one shows the keeper clearly off her line and the other would suggest perhaps part of her foot just overhangs the line (define jumping? she is clearly in the act of jumping, does the jump only count if both feet are already off the ground?) The point is that striking the ball is not instantaneous - guesstimate that the foot is in contact with the ball for 1/100 sec - someone can move perhaps 10mm. If you then take frame rates into account the movement could be 15 to 30 mm. So VAR has to take into account the uncertainty of measurement - which didn't seem to be the case here.
Post by: bmb on Fri 21 Jun 2019 15:58
The changes to the LOTG will also play a part in the decisions. Everyone is expecting it to work as it did in Russia but the LOTG have been refined since then. The latest tweaking/refining/rewrite only came into force for this tournament and the roles are now slightly different to what they were in Russia. There's a big VAR section included now, that wasn't there for Russia. Things like the goalie having to have at least 1 foot on the line is a prime example & seems to be one of the more 'controversial things' - fans/players/managers/pundits haven't yet got to grip with the changes to the LOTG because this is the first time they are seeing them in action which has seemed to add to the complaints because decisions are being made that they simply don't expect because they haven't studied the changes in depth.
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 21 Jun 2019 15:19
I have seen a number of the WWC games. It's the randomness of it's use, in games where similar incidents have or have not been referred or indicated as having been referred to VAR.
For example, last night's USA v Sweden there were a couple of similar KMI's at each end in the penalty area's a couple were and a couple weren't. The non offside for the USA second goal when the offside player clearly challenged/intimidated the Swedish defender to slice the ball to the USA player in front of goal. There is also a perception that VAR decisions appear to going more in favour of the bigger team/host rather than the international minnows in women's football.
A definite perception of officials being like rabbits in headlights and the length of time taken over what appear to be relatively easy decisions.
It's not about mistakes, it's the use of and the confidence of the officials both on field and in the VAR box in using it which could've been easily improved by better 'live' preparation.
Remember that VAR are checking everything and that they have predominant responsibility for whether or not a review takes place because they are the ones with access to the pictures.
As mentioned, the VARs are men who have plenty of experience as VARs with many of them being used at the World Cup in Russia last summer.
I agree that it would ideally have been better for the referees to have more experience officiating with VAR but equally there were clear logistical challenges with organising that considering the number of officials involved from across the world and the fact that no domestic women leagues (as far as I'm aware) use VAR. This was even more of a challenge when you consider that the decision to use VAR was only made a few months before the tournament.
Rightly or wrongly, I don't think that FIFA were initially planning on having VAR at this World Cup but there was a clamour for it considering its perceived success at the World Cup last summer and the concern about the standard of refereeing without it. I do think that some of the refereeing in the tournament has been poor and therefore think it is preferable that VAR has been incorporated. I think the main complaint that some people would have is VAR being too intrusive/pedantic on occasions.
Post by: QuoCob on Fri 21 Jun 2019 14:45
For example, last night's USA v Sweden there were a couple of similar KMI's at each end in the penalty area's a couple were and a couple weren't. The non offside for the USA second goal when the offside player clearly challenged/intimidated the Swedish defender to slice the ball to the USA player in front of goal. There is also a perception that VAR decisions appear to going more in favour of the bigger team/host rather than the international minnows in women's football.
A definite perception of officials being like rabbits in headlights and the length of time taken over what appear to be relatively easy decisions.
It's not about mistakes, it's the use of and the confidence of the officials both on field and in the VAR box in using it which could've been easily improved by better 'live' preparation.
Post by: bmb on Fri 21 Jun 2019 14:20
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 21 Jun 2019 11:56
I've never refereed a game with VAR but I'm pretty certain that if I was asked to referee a game tomorrow and the game was pretty much stopped from 86 minutes to 94 minutes then I would manage to add on more than one minute!
If the lady in question needs to referee half a dozen matches with VAR to grasp that then refereeing perhaps isn't for her.
Post by: nemesis on Fri 21 Jun 2019 11:42
The VAR preparation for this tournament was useless, imo. None of the refs referee in leagues where VAR is in use, it hasn't reached women's domestic leagues yet, and all they had by way of preparation was a 10 day/2 week course held just before the tournament started. Not real live games - manufactured scenarios with FIFA instructors. I don't think a single one of them had any VAR experience prior to that. My opinion is that FIFA in rushing to have parity (can't think of another way of putting it) between the men's tournaments and the women's one and making a decision so late on in the day has led to the referees being ill prepared and completely inexperienced with VAR. They had 3 years of training for the tournament - VAR course was 2 weeks, they returned home one weekend and left the next weekend for the tournament. It might have been a couple of weeks but no more. I know Katalin Kulcsár also attended the men's/mixed VAR course in Qatar I think it was, a few weeks before that one, which was only a 4 maybe 5 day course. Her Hungarian assistant was with her & I believe the English ladies also attended as I remember Sian mentioning it. I don't know if any others were there or not, they may have been. They should not have thrust it on them at such short notice, it is unfair on them & I suspect has been instrumental in the problems that have now happened. Personally I think it is completely wrong that any referee has their first live use VAR game in a world cup, it's no wonder there are issues.
I'm very thankful Katalin has had 2 excellent games with very little need for VAR intervention! Long may that continue. In the Jamaica v China game she did have a pen shout that she indicated no to (correctly) but was also talking on her comms asking her Hungarian assistant & the VAR team if there had been contact at the same time. She got a quick response and play carried on. It was the correct decision. I have to admit I have only watched the games she has been involved in!
Well, that explains a lot emphasising the fact that these officials have effectively been hung out to dry which is disgraceful.
What will the effect be on those officials who haven't 'coped' as well as others and have had their 'mistakes' caused by their relative inexperience with VAR highlighted so publicly?
What decisions made during the Women's World Cup would you or BMB attribute to the referee's lack of VAR experience?
Well one certainly forgot to stop her watch whilst it was going on!!!
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 21 Jun 2019 11:07
The VAR preparation for this tournament was useless, imo. None of the refs referee in leagues where VAR is in use, it hasn't reached women's domestic leagues yet, and all they had by way of preparation was a 10 day/2 week course held just before the tournament started. Not real live games - manufactured scenarios with FIFA instructors. I don't think a single one of them had any VAR experience prior to that. My opinion is that FIFA in rushing to have parity (can't think of another way of putting it) between the men's tournaments and the women's one and making a decision so late on in the day has led to the referees being ill prepared and completely inexperienced with VAR. They had 3 years of training for the tournament - VAR course was 2 weeks, they returned home one weekend and left the next weekend for the tournament. It might have been a couple of weeks but no more. I know Katalin Kulcsár also attended the men's/mixed VAR course in Qatar I think it was, a few weeks before that one, which was only a 4 maybe 5 day course. Her Hungarian assistant was with her & I believe the English ladies also attended as I remember Sian mentioning it. I don't know if any others were there or not, they may have been. They should not have thrust it on them at such short notice, it is unfair on them & I suspect has been instrumental in the problems that have now happened. Personally I think it is completely wrong that any referee has their first live use VAR game in a world cup, it's no wonder there are issues.
I'm very thankful Katalin has had 2 excellent games with very little need for VAR intervention! Long may that continue. In the Jamaica v China game she did have a pen shout that she indicated no to (correctly) but was also talking on her comms asking her Hungarian assistant & the VAR team if there had been contact at the same time. She got a quick response and play carried on. It was the correct decision. I have to admit I have only watched the games she has been involved in!
Well, that explains a lot emphasising the fact that these officials have effectively been hung out to dry which is disgraceful.
What will the effect be on those officials who haven't 'coped' as well as others and have had their 'mistakes' caused by their relative inexperience with VAR highlighted so publicly?
What decisions made during the Women's World Cup would you or BMB attribute to the referee's lack of VAR experience?
Post by: Ashington46 on Fri 21 Jun 2019 09:05
Interesting that this thread is now 17 pages long....
Just to be clear in what is being said so I understand it clearly:
VAR has been brought in to certain situations to clear up any confusion and to determine the correct decision based on the evidence it has, including overturning clear and obvious errors by on field match officials.
Now in my short experience of VAR from world cups, champions league, Domestic Cups, and several leagues from around Europe including Germany l, Spain and Italy, clear and obvious hasn’t really come into the picture IMHO.
In the many instances of VAR intervention I have seen, very few decisions that have been overturned due to a clear and obvious error but most of the decisions have been overturned which myself and the majority of fans pundits etc. have said were NOT a penalty.
The decision making process is practically the same - the difference is that there is an extra official watching it on a screen and the referees can have a look at pitch side. It remains subject to personal interpretation of the selected officials on the day. No matter how black and white the rules are!
Football is highly subjective with many of the laws being unclear and vague, so applying something such as VAR to a sport such as this is extremely difficult and inevitably increases confusion removes clarity which in turn ruins the viewing spectacle of the sport!
ajb --I totally agree, however, we have to come to terms with the fact that they will be able to change TLOG in order to accommodate VAR because it is what the media and those running the game want. As you correctly say, it is just introducing another opinion (or more than one?) relating to an incident and they are still not 100% certain to make the correct decision. Sadly, it is the future.
Post by: ajb95 on Fri 21 Jun 2019 08:46
Just to be clear in what is being said so I understand it clearly:
VAR has been brought in to certain situations to clear up any confusion and to determine the correct decision based on the evidence it has, including overturning clear and obvious errors by on field match officials.
Now in my short experience of VAR from world cups, champions league, Domestic Cups, and several leagues from around Europe including Germany l, Spain and Italy, clear and obvious hasn’t really come into the picture IMHO.
In the many instances of VAR intervention I have seen, very few decisions that have been overturned due to a clear and obvious error but most of the decisions have been overturned which myself and the majority of fans pundits etc. have said were NOT a penalty.
The decision making process is practically the same - the difference is that there is an extra official watching it on a screen and the referees can have a look at pitch side. It remains subject to personal interpretation of the selected officials on the day. No matter how black and white the rules are!
Football is highly subjective with many of the laws being unclear and vague, so applying something such as VAR to a sport such as this is extremely difficult and inevitably increases confusion removes clarity which in turn ruins the viewing spectacle of the sport!
Post by: QuoCob on Fri 21 Jun 2019 08:35
The VAR preparation for this tournament was useless, imo. None of the refs referee in leagues where VAR is in use, it hasn't reached women's domestic leagues yet, and all they had by way of preparation was a 10 day/2 week course held just before the tournament started. Not real live games - manufactured scenarios with FIFA instructors. I don't think a single one of them had any VAR experience prior to that. My opinion is that FIFA in rushing to have parity (can't think of another way of putting it) between the men's tournaments and the women's one and making a decision so late on in the day has led to the referees being ill prepared and completely inexperienced with VAR. They had 3 years of training for the tournament - VAR course was 2 weeks, they returned home one weekend and left the next weekend for the tournament. It might have been a couple of weeks but no more. I know Katalin Kulcsár also attended the men's/mixed VAR course in Qatar I think it was, a few weeks before that one, which was only a 4 maybe 5 day course. Her Hungarian assistant was with her & I believe the English ladies also attended as I remember Sian mentioning it. I don't know if any others were there or not, they may have been. They should not have thrust it on them at such short notice, it is unfair on them & I suspect has been instrumental in the problems that have now happened. Personally I think it is completely wrong that any referee has their first live use VAR game in a world cup, it's no wonder there are issues.
I'm very thankful Katalin has had 2 excellent games with very little need for VAR intervention! Long may that continue. In the Jamaica v China game she did have a pen shout that she indicated no to (correctly) but was also talking on her comms asking her Hungarian assistant & the VAR team if there had been contact at the same time. She got a quick response and play carried on. It was the correct decision. I have to admit I have only watched the games she has been involved in!
Well, that explains a lot emphasising the fact that these officials have effectively been hung out to dry which is disgraceful.
What will the effect be on those officials who haven't 'coped' as well as others and have had their 'mistakes' caused by their relative inexperience with VAR highlighted so publicly?
Post by: mande70 on Fri 21 Jun 2019 00:38
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 20 Jun 2019 23:38
I'm not sure that FIFA were initially planning on having VAR at this World Cup but there was a clamour for it and an argument that if the men's World Cup had it, why shouldn't the women's? I think the desire for VAR to be introduced has been understandable considering the poor standard that some of the officials have displayed.
I don't think that most of the issues have been due to a lack of VAR experience because I can't really think of an example where the protocol or process hasn't been followed. The VARs have sometimes been more pedantic than they have been previously but that is nothing to do with the referees themselves. I think some of the referees just aren't good enough.
Post by: bmb on Thu 20 Jun 2019 23:08
I'm very thankful Katalin has had 2 excellent games with very little need for VAR intervention! Long may that continue. In the Jamaica v China game she did have a pen shout that she indicated no to (correctly) but was also talking on her comms asking her Hungarian assistant & the VAR team if there had been contact at the same time. She got a quick response and play carried on. It was the correct decision. I have to admit I have only watched the games she has been involved in!
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 20 Jun 2019 19:17
So do you want goalkeepers to be penalised if they come off their line or not? You have said that it was farcical and a disgrace but now seem to want it applied.
(And whilst I agree that there should be consistency where possible in the interpretations, there are different sets of laws being used because the Women's World Cup is using the new laws and the UEFA U21s is using the old ones.)
I would tend to agree with you that Scotland should have had a handball against Japan but even with VAR there is always the possibility of different interpretation or human error - you can never fully eliminate that. Arguing that VAR is bad because it didn't deliver the correct decision when it could have done seems a bit like arguing that ovens are a bad thing because people sometimes burn their dinner.
to be honest no i dont want the rule, but if its going to be there and implemented that they will be penalised for doing so, then you have to have the same rule for all, the same degree of measurement and not this human interpretation that we have seen so far. it will come to a head and a goalie will be sent off for a retake of two penalties and straying from his line twice.
Or, more likely in the short-term future, straying from her line!
Post by: mande70 on Thu 20 Jun 2019 19:06
So do you want goalkeepers to be penalised if they come off their line or not? You have said that it was farcical and a disgrace but now seem to want it applied.
(And whilst I agree that there should be consistency where possible in the interpretations, there are different sets of laws being used because the Women's World Cup is using the new laws and the UEFA U21s is using the old ones.)
I would tend to agree with you that Scotland should have had a handball against Japan but even with VAR there is always the possibility of different interpretation or human error - you can never fully eliminate that. Arguing that VAR is bad because it didn't deliver the correct decision when it could have done seems a bit like arguing that ovens are a bad thing because people sometimes burn their dinner.
to be honest no i dont want the rule, but if its going to be there and implemented that they will be penalised for doing so, then you have to have the same rule for all, the same degree of measurement and not this human interpretation that we have seen so far. it will come to a head and a goalie will be sent off for a retake of two penalties and straying from his line twice.
Post by: Failed Ref on Thu 20 Jun 2019 17:11
Post by: QuoCob on Thu 20 Jun 2019 16:46
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 20 Jun 2019 15:29
I think the question in the poll isn't really right, as there isn't a doubt that it will increase the standard of refereeing assuming that is based on the percentage of correct major decisions. It has already corrected numerous incorrect decisions that would otherwise have had to a major injustice. The problem is, in my opinion anyway, is they are trying too hard to justify its existence by getting involved in way too minute a detail, especially in the WWC. I don't recall seeing it being used to penalise encroachment in other senior tournaments where VAR has been used, and let's face it there has been encroachment at almost every penalty. Even more so with the old law where the keeper had to stay completely on the goal line, as opposed to now where it is only one foot.
I think a better question would be do you think VAR will negatively affect spectator enjoyment of football.
I absolutely agree with this. I can only think that the negative perception that some people on here have of VAR meant they were going to answer 'negatively' to any question about it because from a statistical point of view I think that it is hard to argue that it won't enhance the overall accuracy of decision making in the long-term.
The more pertinent questions seem to be whether the benefits outweigh the disadvantages and whether it will affect overall enjoyment of playing/watching the game.
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 20 Jun 2019 15:26
(And whilst I agree that there should be consistency where possible in the interpretations, there are different sets of laws being used because the Women's World Cup is using the new laws and the UEFA U21s is using the old ones.)
I would tend to agree with you that Scotland should have had a handball against Japan but even with VAR there is always the possibility of different interpretation or human error - you can never fully eliminate that. Arguing that VAR is bad because it didn't deliver the correct decision when it could have done seems a bit like arguing that ovens are a bad thing because people sometimes burn their dinner.
Post by: mande70 on Thu 20 Jun 2019 15:14
the rule is the rule, fifa are the governing body so therefore the rule in their tournament should hold sway over any other tournament in the world, no matter who the governing body is.
ive watched a fifa, uefa and conmebol tournament in recent days and seen three different interpretations of the same rules applied. so what were now saying is the rules are there but var means nada because its open to the refs interpretation of the incident and the rule.
the three penalty incidents in the japan game, japan appealed, it went to var and they got it for a soft collision. the same happened at the other end and it was not given, that part i understand, some you get some you dont, but the blatant handball? scotland appealed and the ref walked away uninterested, didnt even consult var.
Quote
I hope you're not suggesting corruption by FIFA. Next you'll be suggesting that the decision to hold a World Cup in a desert with no football history, no football grounds but loads of money wasn't entirely above board[/quote(Edited comments re dishonesty, corruption etc not allowed . Especially whilst legal investigations are continuing)
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 20 Jun 2019 15:05
Which person or persons are in overall charge of this event and therefore by implication responsible for the success or failure of VAR.? They cannot claim with any credibility at the end of the event that VAR has been a success, in fact far from it.
Collina and Busacca I presume.
I do not see why they would not consider VAR a success in the tournament generally - they presumably instructed a precise measurement of the goalkeeper off the line and tonight was certainly consistent with what we have seen in other games. They certainly can't suddenly change the tolerance level mid-tournament - imagine if Nigeria had been knocked out because of Scotland winning when a penalty had been retaken in that game in similar circumstances.
and yet Dean Henderson was near enough at the 6 yard line to save his penalty and yet the same level of measurement was not used in the Scotland match? Alexander was a step off her line, and hardly gaining any advantage against the penalty taker, but was penalised as was Schneider for Jamaica. Henderson meanwhile was doing a fine impersonation of Dida when saving his.
what gets me is they are creating a rod for their own back, by allowing opposing teams to scream penalty, or asking for var if they miss the ensuing penalty. I watched scotland have one blatant penalty denied and another good shout for a penalty denied in the same game that Japan were given a penalty by VAR for nothing more than a soft collision. japan complained, and got it, scotland complained vehmently and got nothing on either occasion.
Henderson was in the UEFA U21s so a different competition and under UEFA's stipulation, with a different tolerance level seemingly being applied. I think there should be more consistency between different competitions but then you yourself seem to be suggesting that you thought Henderson should have been penalised but the Scotland keeper shouldn't have been which is hardly consistent in itself.
Japan were given a penalty by the referee as I remember rather than VAR. And clearly officials shouldn't just give a penalty to Scotland because they appealed for it.
Post by: nemesis on Thu 20 Jun 2019 15:01
Which person or persons are in overall charge of this event and therefore by implication responsible for the success or failure of VAR.? They cannot claim with any credibility at the end of the event that VAR has been a success, in fact far from it.
Collina and Busacca I presume.
I do not see why they would not consider VAR a success in the tournament generally - they presumably instructed a precise measurement of the goalkeeper off the line and tonight was certainly consistent with what we have seen in other games. They certainly can't suddenly change the tolerance level mid-tournament - imagine if Nigeria had been knocked out because of Scotland winning when a penalty had been retaken in that game in similar circumstances.
and yet Dean Henderson was near enough at the 6 yard line to save his penalty and yet the same level of measurement was not used in the Scotland match? Alexander was a step off her line, and hardly gaining any advantage against the penalty taker, but was penalised as was Schneider for Jamaica. Henderson meanwhile was doing a fine impersonation of Dida when saving his.
what gets me is they are creating a rod for their own back, by allowing opposing teams to scream penalty, or asking for var if they miss the ensuing penalty. I watched scotland have one blatant penalty denied and another good shout for a penalty denied in the same game that Japan were given a penalty by VAR for nothing more than a soft collision. japan complained, and got it, scotland complained vehmently and got nothing on either occasion. you cant have rules for one and rules for another, (Edited). ....
I hope you're not suggesting corruption by FIFA. Next you'll be suggesting that the decision to hold a World Cup in a desert with no football history, no football grounds but loads of money wasn't entirely above board.
Post by: mande70 on Thu 20 Jun 2019 14:29
Which person or persons are in overall charge of this event and therefore by implication responsible for the success or failure of VAR.? They cannot claim with any credibility at the end of the event that VAR has been a success, in fact far from it.
Collina and Busacca I presume.
I do not see why they would not consider VAR a success in the tournament generally - they presumably instructed a precise measurement of the goalkeeper off the line and tonight was certainly consistent with what we have seen in other games. They certainly can't suddenly change the tolerance level mid-tournament - imagine if Nigeria had been knocked out because of Scotland winning when a penalty had been retaken in that game in similar circumstances.
and yet Dean Henderson was near enough at the 6 yard line to save his penalty and yet the same level of measurement was not used in the Scotland match? Alexander was a step off her line, and hardly gaining any advantage against the penalty taker, but was penalised as was Schneider for Jamaica. Henderson meanwhile was doing a fine impersonation of Dida when saving his.
what gets me is they are creating a rod for their own back, by allowing opposing teams to scream penalty, or asking for var if they miss the ensuing penalty. I watched scotland have one blatant penalty denied and another good shout for a penalty denied in the same game that Japan were given a penalty by VAR for nothing more than a soft collision. japan complained, and got it, scotland complained vehmently and got nothing on either occasion. you cant have rules for one and rules for another, (Edited *sorry just cannot allow that)
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 20 Jun 2019 14:25
Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but penalty shoot outs will take an age under these interuptations....But my main question is will a goalkeeper be cautioned for moving off their line during a penalty shoot out?
Yes - I'm sure at some point someone will do it twice and be sent off.
And you feel that will be good for the game?
I think that it is reasonable goalkeepers who have completely moved off their line. If I was a keeper I think that I would probably be tempted to start a bit further back with one foot behind the line and part of one foot on the line and then get forward movement that way.
Referees have turned a blind eye to goalkeepers coming off their line at penalties for too long, meaning that - rather like goalkeepers holding on to the ball for double the six second limit - people have come to accept it. I suspect that over time goalkeepers will adapt to a stricter interpretation of the law.
That said, I don't think that that a yellow card should be necessary and I would remove that part from the laws.
Post by: bruntyboy on Thu 20 Jun 2019 13:54
Attacking players are still allowed their "stutter" - another thing that should have been outlawed long ago.
Post by: Carter on Thu 20 Jun 2019 13:38
The Times are reporting that the Premier League will not be using VAR to determine if a keeper moves prior to a penalty kick being taken. This will stay with the on-field team.
Although I think the law is an ass .. I'm not sure about this 'pick and mix' approach to what laws is implemented.
My views are clear I am against VAR.
But how on earth can the PGMOL decide to ignore the laws of the game (which VAR is a part of), what will happen in European games, or world cup qualifiers, players (Keepers)will have to adapt and go aginst instincts.
If we are going to have it there must be consistency (that word again) across all leagues / tournaments that are using it, or just scrap it (yes please)
Post by: Skydank on Thu 20 Jun 2019 11:45
Although I think the law is an ass .. I'm not sure about this 'pick and mix' approach to what laws is implemented.
Post by: guest18 on Thu 20 Jun 2019 08:34
Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but penalty shoot outs will take an age under these interuptations....But my main question is will a goalkeeper be cautioned for moving off their line during a penalty shoot out?
Yes - I'm sure at some point someone will do it twice and be sent off.
And you feel that will be good for the game?
Post by: Readingfan on Wed 19 Jun 2019 23:44
Which person or persons are in overall charge of this event and therefore by implication responsible for the success or failure of VAR.? They cannot claim with any credibility at the end of the event that VAR has been a success, in fact far from it.
Collina and Busacca I presume.
I do not see why they would not consider VAR a success in the tournament generally - they presumably instructed a precise measurement of the goalkeeper off the line and tonight was certainly consistent with what we have seen in other games. They certainly can't suddenly change the tolerance level mid-tournament - imagine if Nigeria had been knocked out because of Scotland winning when a penalty had been retaken in that game in similar circumstances.
Post by: ajb95 on Wed 19 Jun 2019 22:53
Post by: Hendo on Wed 19 Jun 2019 22:51
Post by: RCG on Wed 19 Jun 2019 22:39
The Korean referee is the greatest example of why timing should be done by someone else and clearly communicated.
The BBC feed had the appeal for the penalty at 86 mins, penalty saved at 91 mins and goal scored at 94 minutes. 8 minutes real time but actually only about 30 seconds playing time whilst VAR tried to get through to the referee. So roughly 10% of that match time was given over to the penalty decision and associated fuss
Not one player realised she had blown the final whistle, that says something
Post by: SuffolkRef on Wed 19 Jun 2019 22:36
and we have another farcical var decision tonight, with the keeper saving the penalty and it was forced to be retaken for minimal movement of her line. the amount of times scotland have been on the wrong end of var decisions in this world cup is a disgrace
If you're either on or off for offside then surely you are either on or off the line for the purposes of this.
The main complain Scotland should have is regards the lack of additional time. That was absolutely disgraceful. I think that Hyang Ok Ri should be ashamed and shouldn't referee another game in this tournament certainly.
Blowing for a free kick to be taken while a substitution is taking place was rather unusual.
Post by: Readingfan on Wed 19 Jun 2019 22:31
Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but penalty shoot outs will take an age under these interuptations....But my main question is will a goalkeeper be cautioned for moving off their line during a penalty shoot out?
Yes - I'm sure at some point someone will do it twice and be sent off.
Post by: Skydank on Wed 19 Jun 2019 22:28
Post by: Readingfan on Wed 19 Jun 2019 22:24
and we have another farcical var decision tonight, with the keeper saving the penalty and it was forced to be retaken for minimal movement of her line. the amount of times scotland have been on the wrong end of var decisions in this world cup is a disgrace
If you're either on or off for offside then surely you are either on or off the line for the purposes of this.
The main complain Scotland should have is regards the lack of additional time. That was absolutely disgraceful. I think that Hyang Ok Ri should be ashamed and shouldn't referee another game in this tournament certainly.
Post by: mande70 on Wed 19 Jun 2019 21:52
Post by: Readingfan on Wed 19 Jun 2019 21:01
This is a nonsense. If they don't want a Law on encroachment, get rid - or water down. Don't just ignore it.
Totally! To me it seems ludicrous to have encroachment dealt with (or not) by the ref but change it to VAR if whoever has encroached then essentially plays the ball from a rebound - if they want to keep encroachment then let either the ref or the VAR deal with every aspect of it instead of trying to share out various elements across the team. That in itself will cause confusion unnecessarily.
I think that it kind of makes sense in terms of the VAR intervention because as we have seen people get frustrated when perceived minor/trivial technical offences are pulled up so if a penalty goes straight in and is disallowed a few minutes later because an attacking player had a toe in the penalty area or vice versa then it becomes controversial because no one is expecting it and it is not considered to have had a material effect.
I do agree with Nemesis though that it would probably be sensible to apply a similar ruling to all penalties.
Post by: bmb on Wed 19 Jun 2019 20:41
This is a nonsense. If they don't want a Law on encroachment, get rid - or water down. Don't just ignore it.
Totally! To me it seems ludicrous to have encroachment dealt with (or not) by the ref but change it to VAR if whoever has encroached then essentially plays the ball from a rebound - if they want to keep encroachment then let either the ref or the VAR deal with every aspect of it instead of trying to share out various elements across the team. That in itself will cause confusion unnecessarily.
Post by: Readingfan on Wed 19 Jun 2019 18:25
The French attackers must have shown remarkable self-control at the retaken penalty: none of them can have had even a toe on the line before the kick or it would have been retaken. Or would it? Perhaps that is a law that is not to be observed by VAR. It would at least have been good to see a wider view replayed!
If you freeze the action the moment the kick is taken there is a French forward encroaching in the box so it should have been retaken if this general pedantic behaviour from the VAR s is to be consistent. But no, it’s the host country so let it go
That's not the role of the VAR unless anyone encroaching becomes directly involved in play. Nothing to do with it being the host nation. *YAWN* Perhaps try to actually read up on the role of the VAR & their responsibilities...
It's up to the referee to decide on encroachment not the VAR, unless the player encroaching benefits directly from doing so. If there was encroachment then that is on the ref not VAR.
In relation to penalties the VAR role is as follows:
The role of the VAR is to ensure that no clearly wrong decisions are taken in conjunction with awarding or not awarding a penalty kick. This includes:
a) penalty kick incorrectly awarded
b) penalty kick offence not penalised
c) location of offence (inside or outside the penalty area)
d) offence by the attacking team in the build-up to the penalty incident
e) ball out of play prior to the incident
f) offence by goalkeeper and/or kicker at the taking of the penalty kick
g) encroachment by an attacker or defender who becomes directly involved in play if the penalty kick rebounds from the goalpost, cross bar or goalkeeper.
IMO. All you are really saying is that the whole VAR system has been ill-thought-out
Well there is that as well! More seriously though it is in its early stages and there are many tweaks to come yet. Hopefully the tweaks will improve the areas that need it. It's the sort of thing that you can talk about all day long and easily miss x scenario when trying to foresee what it needs to be helping with but the reality is that it is the sort of thing that can only be improved upon having seen it in action.
I think you have hit the nail on the head regarding the tweaks to come, hence my original comment. The problems should have been ironed out behind closed doors, before being foisted on the public and opening the system to justified criticism.
I played cricket for many years to a reasonable standard but would never have felt competent to write the criteria for the DRS system, even though it is easier to apply to that game. Those who did formulate the policies, more or less got it right from the start when it was introduced real time.
Likewise, rugby union is a game I enjoy on TV, whist being ignorant of the not so fine details. It seems to me that, again, there has hardly ever been any problems when the review system comes into play.
For many years Sepp Blatter insisted it would never happen in football, but when it did, it was done with what seemed to be with undue haste and a Laissez-faire attitude
I think Sepp Blatter's opposition was the main aspect stopping the system from being implemented because there was a growing clamour for it to be introduced. The timescale was probably dictated by wanting it ready for the 2018 World Cup and I think it had a generally positive use in that tournament.
There was a lot of consideration that went into the process. There was an initial phase of testing to determine and refine the protocol and then a two year live testing period. The system was tested in over 2000 games, including 972 competitive games (i.e. approx two and a half Premier League seasons.) Emphasis was given to the competitive games because these entailed a more realistic use of VAR.
Additionally, players and coaches regularly contribute to advisory panels. In relation to VAR, a survey was undertaken with about 15,000 supporters from 25 different countries and 80% were in favour of VAR. The number of associations/competitions interested in using VAR increased from 6 in June 2016 to over 40 by the start of 2018. It seems to me that there are an increased number of associations looking to introduce the system following its use at the World Cup.
It was recognised that there are a number of challenge relating to each individual association/competition implementing VAR, relating to a range of aspects such as project managements, referee/VAR education and training, and financial/technological provision. I would suggest that generally the system improves in each country as experience develops and usage improves.
All of this is taken from the IFAB minutes from the March 2018 meeting here - http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/781/140832_240119_IFAB_AGM2018Minutes_v1.0.pdf
There was additionally a podcast interview with the CEO of IFAB relatively recently. He noted some of the work that has gone into the system, including consultation with many other sports that have used video refereeing. He stated that he thought the protocol was pretty much set in stone after the work that has gone into it and he did not anticipate any major changes in the near future - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lukas-brud-the-ceo-of-ifab/id1355692059?i=1000425811521
In summary, I personally think that the foundations and principles of VAR are generally reasonable ones and I don't envisage too much deviation from these. Football is more subjective than many sports and are always going to be decisions that people don'It agree with but I think that the evidence suggests this often improves with time, like most processes in life. The main change I would like to see is being able to hear the VAR but I'm not sure how many people would regard this as a major issue - I think that video refereeing is long overdue and will be of benefit to officiating and the game.
Post by: rustyref on Wed 19 Jun 2019 17:57
I think a better question would be do you think VAR will negatively affect spectator enjoyment of football.
Post by: nemesis on Wed 19 Jun 2019 15:48
The French attackers must have shown remarkable self-control at the retaken penalty: none of them can have had even a toe on the line before the kick or it would have been retaken. Or would it? Perhaps that is a law that is not to be observed by VAR. It would at least have been good to see a wider view replayed!
If you freeze the action the moment the kick is taken there is a French forward encroaching in the box so it should have been retaken if this general pedantic behaviour from the VAR s is to be consistent. But no, it’s the host country so let it go
That's not the role of the VAR unless anyone encroaching becomes directly involved in play. Nothing to do with it being the host nation. *YAWN* Perhaps try to actually read up on the role of the VAR & their responsibilities...
It's up to the referee to decide on encroachment not the VAR, unless the player encroaching benefits directly from doing so. If there was encroachment then that is on the ref not VAR.
In relation to penalties the VAR role is as follows:
The role of the VAR is to ensure that no clearly wrong decisions are taken in conjunction with awarding or not awarding a penalty kick. This includes:
a) penalty kick incorrectly awarded
b) penalty kick offence not penalised
c) location of offence (inside or outside the penalty area)
d) offence by the attacking team in the build-up to the penalty incident
e) ball out of play prior to the incident
f) offence by goalkeeper and/or kicker at the taking of the penalty kick
g) encroachment by an attacker or defender who becomes directly involved in play if the penalty kick rebounds from the goalpost, cross bar or goalkeeper.
Indeed, that is the remit of VAR.
So just as the referees on the field do, the authorities are picking and choosing which Laws to apply/check for.
This is a nonsense. If they don't want a Law on encroachment, get rid - or water down. Don't just ignore it.
Post by: guest18 on Wed 19 Jun 2019 15:30
The French attackers must have shown remarkable self-control at the retaken penalty: none of them can have had even a toe on the line before the kick or it would have been retaken. Or would it? Perhaps that is a law that is not to be observed by VAR. It would at least have been good to see a wider view replayed!
If you freeze the action the moment the kick is taken there is a French forward encroaching in the box so it should have been retaken if this general pedantic behaviour from the VAR s is to be consistent. But no, it’s the host country so let it go
That's not the role of the VAR unless anyone encroaching becomes directly involved in play. Nothing to do with it being the host nation. *YAWN* Perhaps try to actually read up on the role of the VAR & their responsibilities...
It's up to the referee to decide on encroachment not the VAR, unless the player encroaching benefits directly from doing so. If there was encroachment then that is on the ref not VAR.
In relation to penalties the VAR role is as follows:
The role of the VAR is to ensure that no clearly wrong decisions are taken in conjunction with awarding or not awarding a penalty kick. This includes:
a) penalty kick incorrectly awarded
b) penalty kick offence not penalised
c) location of offence (inside or outside the penalty area)
d) offence by the attacking team in the build-up to the penalty incident
e) ball out of play prior to the incident
f) offence by goalkeeper and/or kicker at the taking of the penalty kick
g) encroachment by an attacker or defender who becomes directly involved in play if the penalty kick rebounds from the goalpost, cross bar or goalkeeper.
IMO. All you are really saying is that the whole VAR system has been ill-thought-out
Well there is that as well! More seriously though it is in its early stages and there are many tweaks to come yet. Hopefully the tweaks will improve the areas that need it. It's the sort of thing that you can talk about all day long and easily miss x scenario when trying to foresee what it needs to be helping with but the reality is that it is the sort of thing that can only be improved upon having seen it in action.
I think you have hit the nail on the head regarding the tweaks to come, hence my original comment. The problems should have been ironed out behind closed doors, before being foisted on the public and opening the system to justified criticism.
I played cricket for many years to a reasonable standard but would never have felt competent to write the criteria for the DRS system, even though it is easier to apply to that game. Those who did formulate the policies, more or less got it right from the start when it was introduced real time.
Likewise, rugby union is a game I enjoy on TV, whist being ignorant of the not so fine details. It seems to me that, again, there has hardly ever been any problems when the review system comes into play.
For many years Sepp Blatter insisted it would never happen in football, but when it did, it was done with what seemed to be with undue haste and a Laissez-faire attitude
Post by: bmb on Wed 19 Jun 2019 14:21
The French attackers must have shown remarkable self-control at the retaken penalty: none of them can have had even a toe on the line before the kick or it would have been retaken. Or would it? Perhaps that is a law that is not to be observed by VAR. It would at least have been good to see a wider view replayed!
If you freeze the action the moment the kick is taken there is a French forward encroaching in the box so it should have been retaken if this general pedantic behaviour from the VAR s is to be consistent. But no, it’s the host country so let it go
That's not the role of the VAR unless anyone encroaching becomes directly involved in play. Nothing to do with it being the host nation. *YAWN* Perhaps try to actually read up on the role of the VAR & their responsibilities...
It's up to the referee to decide on encroachment not the VAR, unless the player encroaching benefits directly from doing so. If there was encroachment then that is on the ref not VAR.
In relation to penalties the VAR role is as follows:
The role of the VAR is to ensure that no clearly wrong decisions are taken in conjunction with awarding or not awarding a penalty kick. This includes:
a) penalty kick incorrectly awarded
b) penalty kick offence not penalised
c) location of offence (inside or outside the penalty area)
d) offence by the attacking team in the build-up to the penalty incident
e) ball out of play prior to the incident
f) offence by goalkeeper and/or kicker at the taking of the penalty kick
g) encroachment by an attacker or defender who becomes directly involved in play if the penalty kick rebounds from the goalpost, cross bar or goalkeeper.
IMO. All you are really saying is that the whole VAR system has been ill-thought-out
Well there is that as well! More seriously though it is in its early stages and there are many tweaks to come yet. Hopefully the tweaks will improve the areas that need it. It's the sort of thing that you can talk about all day long and easily miss x scenario when trying to foresee what it needs to be helping with but the reality is that it is the sort of thing that can only be improved upon having seen it in action.
Post by: Readingfan on Wed 19 Jun 2019 11:38
The French attackers must have shown remarkable self-control at the retaken penalty: none of them can have had even a toe on the line before the kick or it would have been retaken. Or would it? Perhaps that is a law that is not to be observed by VAR. It would at least have been good to see a wider view replayed!
If you freeze the action the moment the kick is taken there is a French forward encroaching in the box so it should have been retaken if this general pedantic behaviour from the VAR s is to be consistent. But no, it’s the host country so let it go
That's not the role of the VAR unless anyone encroaching becomes directly involved in play. Nothing to do with it being the host nation. *YAWN* Perhaps try to actually read up on the role of the VAR & their responsibilities...
It's up to the referee to decide on encroachment not the VAR, unless the player encroaching benefits directly from doing so. If there was encroachment then that is on the ref not VAR.
In relation to penalties the VAR role is as follows:
The role of the VAR is to ensure that no clearly wrong decisions are taken in conjunction with awarding or not awarding a penalty kick. This includes:
a) penalty kick incorrectly awarded
b) penalty kick offence not penalised
c) location of offence (inside or outside the penalty area)
d) offence by the attacking team in the build-up to the penalty incident
e) ball out of play prior to the incident
f) offence by goalkeeper and/or kicker at the taking of the penalty kick
g) encroachment by an attacker or defender who becomes directly involved in play if the penalty kick rebounds from the goalpost, cross bar or goalkeeper.
IMO. All you are really saying is that the whole VAR system has been ill-thought-out
What would you suggest be done differently?
It is easy to suggest potential problems that might arise on an individual bassi but there seem to be just as many problems (often more) with whatever alternative suggestion I have seen people propose.
I certainly don't think it can be said that it was ill thought out because it's clear this wasn't something something that was just decided in 5 minutes - it was a lengthy process involving consultation with stakeholders, research and trials, consideration of how it should be used and hypothetical scenarios, and the compilation of extensive documentation and guidance.
Post by: guest18 on Wed 19 Jun 2019 07:43
The French attackers must have shown remarkable self-control at the retaken penalty: none of them can have had even a toe on the line before the kick or it would have been retaken. Or would it? Perhaps that is a law that is not to be observed by VAR. It would at least have been good to see a wider view replayed!
If you freeze the action the moment the kick is taken there is a French forward encroaching in the box so it should have been retaken if this general pedantic behaviour from the VAR s is to be consistent. But no, it’s the host country so let it go
That's not the role of the VAR unless anyone encroaching becomes directly involved in play. Nothing to do with it being the host nation. *YAWN* Perhaps try to actually read up on the role of the VAR & their responsibilities...
It's up to the referee to decide on encroachment not the VAR, unless the player encroaching benefits directly from doing so. If there was encroachment then that is on the ref not VAR.
In relation to penalties the VAR role is as follows:
The role of the VAR is to ensure that no clearly wrong decisions are taken in conjunction with awarding or not awarding a penalty kick. This includes:
a) penalty kick incorrectly awarded
b) penalty kick offence not penalised
c) location of offence (inside or outside the penalty area)
d) offence by the attacking team in the build-up to the penalty incident
e) ball out of play prior to the incident
f) offence by goalkeeper and/or kicker at the taking of the penalty kick
g) encroachment by an attacker or defender who becomes directly involved in play if the penalty kick rebounds from the goalpost, cross bar or goalkeeper.
IMO. All you are really saying is that the whole VAR system has been ill-thought-out
Post by: bmb on Wed 19 Jun 2019 01:16
The French attackers must have shown remarkable self-control at the retaken penalty: none of them can have had even a toe on the line before the kick or it would have been retaken. Or would it? Perhaps that is a law that is not to be observed by VAR. It would at least have been good to see a wider view replayed!
If you freeze the action the moment the kick is taken there is a French forward encroaching in the box so it should have been retaken if this general pedantic behaviour from the VAR s is to be consistent. But no, it’s the host country so let it go
That's not the role of the VAR unless anyone encroaching becomes directly involved in play. Nothing to do with it being the host nation. *YAWN* Perhaps try to actually read up on the role of the VAR & their responsibilities...
It's up to the referee to decide on encroachment not the VAR, unless the player encroaching benefits directly from doing so. If there was encroachment then that is on the ref not VAR.
In relation to penalties the VAR role is as follows:
The role of the VAR is to ensure that no clearly wrong decisions are taken in conjunction with awarding or not awarding a penalty kick. This includes:
a) penalty kick incorrectly awarded
b) penalty kick offence not penalised
c) location of offence (inside or outside the penalty area)
d) offence by the attacking team in the build-up to the penalty incident
e) ball out of play prior to the incident
f) offence by goalkeeper and/or kicker at the taking of the penalty kick
g) encroachment by an attacker or defender who becomes directly involved in play if the penalty kick rebounds from the goalpost, cross bar or goalkeeper.
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 18 Jun 2019 23:45
Post by: Hendo on Tue 18 Jun 2019 23:07
The French attackers must have shown remarkable self-control at the retaken penalty: none of them can have had even a toe on the line before the kick or it would have been retaken. Or would it? Perhaps that is a law that is not to be observed by VAR. It would at least have been good to see a wider view replayed!
If you freeze the action the moment the kick is taken there is a French forward encroaching in the box so it should have been retaken if this general pedantic behaviour from the VAR s is to be consistent. But no, it’s the host country so let it go
Post by: bmb on Tue 18 Jun 2019 22:47
Post by: RCG on Tue 18 Jun 2019 22:31
Somethings will never change, home advantage clearly penetrated the VAR box. Was it the proximity to the crowd or the FIFA bean counter? (I think France would still have topped that group anyway)
Post by: QuoCob on Tue 18 Jun 2019 22:28
Penalty awarded in U21 game by Madden after VAR review with Attwell as VAR.
It was one of those handballs which I'm not necessarily sure would be punished in the Premier League but in line with offences penalised in Europe.
And a VAR offside decision at the end of the game took almost 4 minutes from goal being scored to play restarted, how on earth can it take that long?
Don't expect to get an early train after a game...
Post by: nemesis on Tue 18 Jun 2019 22:10
I think VAR will be a disaster going forward, and potentially could lead to crowd disorder on certain game in certain circumstances.
I do hope I am wrong.
This whole penalty situation will be a disaster.
I doubt we will get very many missed penalties not retaken.
VAR has been in place for a couple of years and it has been quite rare for penalties to be retaken when they've not been scored - I'm sure in time goalkeepers will adapt and manage to keep at least one foot on the line.
hmmm ..... I guess they weren't against a host nation in a World Cup
Post by: Stroudie on Tue 18 Jun 2019 21:28
VAR has always applied to penalties and encroachement, etc. - I think you have to have a zero tolerance policy because it is like offside, you are either on or you are not.
Wasn’t used in the England v France U21 game, England GK well off his line to save the first penalty
Post by: rustyref on Tue 18 Jun 2019 19:45
Penalty awarded in U21 game by Madden after VAR review with Attwell as VAR.
It was one of those handballs which I'm not necessarily sure would be punished in the Premier League but in line with offences penalised in Europe.
And a VAR offside decision at the end of the game took almost 4 minutes from goal being scored to play restarted, how on earth can it take that long?
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 18 Jun 2019 18:25
It was one of those handballs which I'm not necessarily sure would be punished in the Premier League but in line with offences penalised in Europe.
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 18 Jun 2019 17:15
I think VAR will be a disaster going forward, and potentially could lead to crowd disorder on certain game in certain circumstances.
I do hope I am wrong.
This whole penalty situation will be a disaster.
I doubt we will get very many missed penalties not retaken.
VAR has been in place for a couple of years and it has been quite rare for penalties to be retaken when they've not been scored - I'm sure in time goalkeepers will adapt and manage to keep at least one foot on the line.
Post by: QuoCob on Tue 18 Jun 2019 16:51
Traditional officiating, with traditional mistakes and good old fashioned abuse of the officials when a decision goes against us. (Irrespective of whether it was correct or not ;D)
Post by: Carter on Tue 18 Jun 2019 16:27
I do hope I am wrong.
This whole penalty situation will be a disaster.
I doubt we will get very many missed penalties not retaken.
Post by: Ref Watcher on Tue 18 Jun 2019 15:36
So far all VAR has done it seems is ruined the games. Seems more talking points about poor VAR not reviewed VAR than if the ref made the original decision.One of the early arguments against bringing in video replays was that it would take away all the talking points from the game and that people would have nothing to argue about in the pub. At least that concern has gone out of the window. :D
Post by: Toprefm on Tue 18 Jun 2019 10:02
Post by: Ashington46 on Tue 18 Jun 2019 09:44
When it became clear that VAR was coming in I wanted it to eliminate injustices and to hopefully reduce cynicism such as so called grappling by defenders at set pieces. Instead it is becoming a tool for pedantry and micromanagement.
I really am not concerned if a goalkeeper strays off the line if the kicker puts the ball wide anyway or if a players boot lace is in an offside position in a ‘goal’ scored in open play. If we’re going to see the spontaneity taking out of goal celebrations or penalty taking dramas I want it to be for a very good reason.
VAR has the potential to be an asset to the game. It’s success or failure will not be down to it’s existence, it will be down to it’s application.
But how do you develop an application that ignores minor offsides but penalises other errors for example?
You just get more people into the VAR room so that they can discuss the matter in minute detail, perhaps even with the help of a pundit (Who probably doesn't know the Laws anyway) and then the committee can come to their decision ---meanwhile on the pitch ---bit only at some matches .........
Cynical --yes but also accepting the fact that all this is going to happen to make the game better ???
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 18 Jun 2019 08:23
When it became clear that VAR was coming in I wanted it to eliminate injustices and to hopefully reduce cynicism such as so called grappling by defenders at set pieces. Instead it is becoming a tool for pedantry and micromanagement.
I really am not concerned if a goalkeeper strays off the line if the kicker puts the ball wide anyway or if a players boot lace is in an offside position in a ‘goal’ scored in open play. If we’re going to see the spontaneity taking out of goal celebrations or penalty taking dramas I want it to be for a very good reason.
VAR has the potential to be an asset to the game. It’s success or failure will not be down to it’s existence, it will be down to it’s application.
But how do you develop an application that ignores minor offsides but penalises other errors for example?
Post by: Game of Throw Ins on Tue 18 Jun 2019 07:53
I really am not concerned if a goalkeeper strays off the line if the kicker puts the ball wide anyway or if a players boot lace is in an offside position in a ‘goal’ scored in open play. If we’re going to see the spontaneity taking out of goal celebrations or penalty taking dramas I want it to be for a very good reason.
VAR has the potential to be an asset to the game. It’s success or failure will not be down to it’s existence, it will be down to it’s application.
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 18 Jun 2019 07:38
It feels difficult to me to justify a retake in this situation when the goalkeeper hasn't even saved it considering that as far as I'm aware penalties haven't been retaken when attacking players have encroached in the area and it has been scored.
I think the yellow card should also be removed by the lawmakers because it doesn't apply the other way round (I believe) and being a fraction off the line can't really be considered unsporting.
Just had a look at the VAR protocols in the IFAB app:
• offence by goalkeeper and/or kicker at the taking of a penalty kick or encroachment by an attacker or defender who becomes directly involved in play if the penalty kick rebounds from the goalpost, crossbar or goalkeeper
So they’ll get the goalkeeper every time for being even 1cm off the line - but ignore any attackers in the area if they happen not to get involved with a rebound.
Seems extremely inequitable to be honest...
Edit: and from looking at the replays on the BBC just now - several French players were encroaching on both spot kicks.
I guess it is the same for the penalty taker/goalkeeper as those directly involved in the incident (penalty could be retaken or goal could be disallowed as a result of an offence) and players not involved (attackers and defenders) are then treated in a distinct way - I've always thought that the encroachment law should only really apply to active participants in the move (a bit like offside.)
I think that it is something that will be reduced soon enough. I'm sure keepers will learn very swiftly to make sure they have one foot on the line for at least most penalties. People have complained for a long time about keepers not being penalised for coming off their line and saving a penalty.
Post by: bmb on Tue 18 Jun 2019 00:18
Just get used to it folks ---this is the future of the game that was once so enjoyable to watch and which, for this 72 year old who still travels over 300 miles to watch my team play home games, signals the end of a beautiful friendship after this coming season.
My friends persuaded me to renew my season ticket for the coming season, however, I am not looking forward to it with any enthusiasm because of the fiasco of VAR.
I didn't tell anyone I wasn't renewing until after the deadline date had past. 25 years of being a ST holder at AFCB has come to an end.
Thankfully we are still a couple of years behind in Hungary so my enjoyment can continue there for now...
Post by: rustyref on Mon 17 Jun 2019 23:09
They are being punished by a retake so I'm not sure that a caution is necessary in law.
If there are any penalty shoot outs in the knock out stage it could get interesting. VAR may take a while to adjudicate where the feet of the goalkeeper is in relation to the line and there could be a few cards as well.
Law is clear, if you give the retake it has to be a caution to the keeper, it is mandatory. I don't agree with that or the retake in this case, but that is how it works.
Post by: Ashington46 on Mon 17 Jun 2019 23:01
My friends persuaded me to renew my season ticket for the coming season, however, I am not looking forward to it with any enthusiasm because of the fiasco of VAR.
Post by: SuffolkRef on Mon 17 Jun 2019 22:03
If there are any penalty shoot outs in the knock out stage it could get interesting. VAR may take a while to adjudicate where the feet of the goalkeeper is in relation to the line and there could be a few cards as well.
Post by: guest42 on Mon 17 Jun 2019 22:02
It feels difficult to me to justify a retake in this situation when the goalkeeper hasn't even saved it considering that as far as I'm aware penalties haven't been retaken when attacking players have encroached in the area and it has been scored.
I think the yellow card should also be removed by the lawmakers because it doesn't apply the other way round (I believe) and being a fraction off the line can't really be considered unsporting.
Just had a look at the VAR protocols in the IFAB app:
• offence by goalkeeper and/or kicker at the taking of a penalty kick or encroachment by an attacker or defender who becomes directly involved in play if the penalty kick rebounds from the goalpost, crossbar or goalkeeper
So they’ll get the goalkeeper every time for being even 1cm off the line - but ignore any attackers in the area if they happen not to get involved with a rebound.
Seems extremely inequitable to be honest...
Edit: and from looking at the replays on the BBC just now - several French players were encroaching on both spot kicks.
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 17 Jun 2019 21:55
I think the yellow card should also be removed by the lawmakers because it doesn't apply the other way round (I believe) and being a fraction off the line can't really be considered unsporting.
Post by: JCFC on Mon 17 Jun 2019 21:53
Post by: guest42 on Mon 17 Jun 2019 21:40
Post by: Hertsref123 on Mon 17 Jun 2019 12:53
Post by: QuoCob on Mon 17 Jun 2019 09:34
Post by: mande70 on Sun 16 Jun 2019 21:54
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 16 Jun 2019 00:29
Makkelie was the VAR for the Jamaica V Italy penalty retake - I think he's been one of the best VARs and did the Champions League final.
I'm surprised that Valeri didn't intervene for this challenge in the Netherlands V Cameroon game - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/48649215
Post by: mande70 on Sun 16 Jun 2019 00:17
Post by: bmb on Sat 15 Jun 2019 19:12
if you are going to have it then it has to be used, scotland will likely go home now on the back of three dubious decisions 2 of which were not even var analysed and yet were as contentious as the other var reviewed decisions i have seen.
They will have been analysed as a matter of course, penalty shouts fall into the criteria, not every analysis is indicated with a stopping of the game & a ref drawing a rectangle in the air. They likely told the ref to carry on, as no a clear and obvious error had been made, in their opinion.
Post by: Ashington46 on Sat 15 Jun 2019 17:48
Post by: Readingfan on Sat 15 Jun 2019 17:18
I don't think there's really any evidence to suggest that the 'bigger' teams get a better deal with VAR. I remember Portugal having quite a debatable handball given against them through VAR against Iran at the World Cup last year, a goal given to South Korea by VAR helped knock out Germany, Brazil thought VAR should have disallowed a Switzerland goal against them but it didn't, England thought they should have had a penalty against Tunisia but didn't, many people thought Chelsea should have had a penalty against Norwich in one of the first games in England played with VAR, most people thought the Tottenham goal against Rochdale that was disallowed through VAR was the incorrect decision...
Post by: nemesis on Sat 15 Jun 2019 11:08
Remember that VAR is constantly checking incidents throughout the game to see if it feels a review ought to be recommended, so VAR was in use for all of the incidents you refer to - the officials operating it on the day just didn't that a clear and obvious error had been made.
Hmmm ..... so instead of referees on the field who cannot exhibit a degree of consistency, even within a game let alone across all games, with a perception that certain teams get a better deal than others, we have a team of VAR officials (unnecessarily dressed in referees' kit) sat in a room somewhere displaying exactly the same symptoms.
That was not what I was hoping for from "technology", different people making the same "mistakes" from a different place.
Goal line technology has been excellent. Offside verification is promising but I'm not convinced of the exactitude of it with everything hinging on the precise fraction of a second that the line is drawn. Say it takes a fifth of a second to execute a kick, it's often more, a person travelling at just 10 mph will have moved about 3 feet in that time.
I am also not comfortable with assistants not flagging for clear offsides if there's a chance of a goal scoring opportunity.
Post by: Aberdare on Sat 15 Jun 2019 08:32
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 14 Jun 2019 23:27
Post by: mande70 on Fri 14 Jun 2019 21:26
then take scotlands 2 penalty incidents that would have made the score possibly 3-2 in their favour against a team they were unlikely to beat. var was not used at all for the penalty incidents but it appears to be getting used for minimal penalty incidents and minimal incidents in favour of the higher ranked teams.
if you are going to have it then it has to be used, scotland will likely go home now on the back of three dubious decisions 2 of which were not even var analysed and yet were as contentious as the other var reviewed decisions i have seen.
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 14 Jun 2019 20:01
Post by: Carter on Fri 14 Jun 2019 18:28
yes an offence had been committed with no foot on the line, but with both feet around 12" in front at the point of contact.
Keepers might as well let the ball go in because I would suggest that any keeper will make that forward motion for all penalties and he/she also will get cautioned.
I despair at how this is all panning out.
I had no idea that VAR would apply to this.
Post by: mande70 on Fri 14 Jun 2019 18:18
vAR is to make it all black/white, thats to say to make the decisions more clear and so that the fans understand the decisions and can have the luxury of replay.
now, ive watched the womens world cup today, and watched as VAR was not used for 3 penalty incidents in the scotland v japan womens game, but yet was used for a stupid use imo when the jamaican keeper moved from her line early in a penalty incident v italy.
going back to the 3 penalty incidents, all 3 could have been given if you are utilising the rules of the game as they have been used up till now in the wwc. scotland were on the wrong end of a VAR decision the other day v england for a use of the hand when etheball hit a defenders hand unintentionally from a cross, today the japan defender delibarately uses her hand to block a flick up of the ball, yet the ref not only declines the penalty cal, but declines to use VAR.
she then follows that up by giving japan a penalty with no use of VAR for an innocuous challenge where the japan attacker went down with little physical contact and gave it despite being not up with play and gave it with not a moments decision time.
the same then happened at the other end and scotland were denied a penalty, denied any var decision and the ref waved them away.
then we have the call of VAR being used to analyze a keeper moving on the line. I mean seriously FFS, ive watched thousands of penalties, and lost count of the amount of times a keeper has moved or moved early, Milans keeper Dida used to do it all the time.
my point is though if you have VAR and have contencious moments in a game WHY NOT USE IT for the sake of clarity. why leave yourself open to debate and criticism when you choose not to use it and get found out to be wrong afterwards.
it seems to me its yet another scenario of the big clubs getting the benefit of VAR while the smaller teams are denied it.
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 13 Jun 2019 22:21
Post by: Scally Bob on Thu 13 Jun 2019 21:54
Post by: guest18 on Thu 13 Jun 2019 21:34
QuoteIt's factual, you are on or you are off, even if there is only millimetres in it. As long as the technology is accurate they have to judge offsides as on or off, they can't say it is too tight to call as that says the technology isn't good enough.In absolute terms you are right but every measurement has a margin of error. In the case of goal line technology I'd expect this to be very small because it monitors a relatively small area and the cameras can be positioned to give optimum effect. However, for offside the error will likely be a bit higher, for a few reasons including: the cameras cannot always be optimally positioned and due to finite time intervals between frames (not withstanding the philosophical choice of whether the ball is played at the moment the foot makes contact with the ball or the moment that it leaves the foot). An average error could be calculated for these decisions as seems to be the case in cricket LBW decisions where the error is assessed (or guessed?) as half the width of the ball. If we apply the concept of measurement error in the case of an offside decision, lets say that the degree of error is +/- 2.5cm then a line 5cm wide could be drawn centered on the most goalward relevant part of the last defender's body. Then if any relevant part of an attacker's body is goalside of this line then it is offside irrespective of the original decision on the field. Alternatively if all of the relevant parts of an attacker are further away from the line then the decision is onside irrespective of the on field decision, If the nearest relevant point of an attacker to goal is within the width of the line then the decision reverts to the on-field official's decision.
Phew! I’m glad it wouldn’t be me rewriting Law 11.
Post by: nemesis on Thu 13 Jun 2019 17:24
I am struggling with France penalty award last night! Have I misunderstood the interpretation of the LOG?
You are not on your own!
The referee, a Bundesliga Official, seemed content to play on, however, just as in the World Cup Final, VAR intervened.
These two incidents in high profile FIFA Tournaments have convinced me that the referees could well have been placed under pressure to award penalties using FIFA's new toy to justify the decisions ---neither of which I can come to terms with the more I watch them.
Strange that France have benefited from them both.
I know that changes are made with the aim of improving the game. however, the modern game is becoming far removed from the game which I played and officiated in for almost 60 years and, personally, I don't like it.
It's strange that you find that strange!
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 13 Jun 2019 15:57
As for offsides, whilst there is some margin for error I do think that technology is more accurate than a human can be in real time so am happy to go with what the technology indicates.
Post by: Microscopist on Thu 13 Jun 2019 11:29
Quote
It's factual, you are on or you are off, even if there is only millimetres in it. As long as the technology is accurate they have to judge offsides as on or off, they can't say it is too tight to call as that says the technology isn't good enough.In absolute terms you are right but every measurement has a margin of error. In the case of goal line technology I'd expect this to be very small because it monitors a relatively small area and the cameras can be positioned to give optimum effect. However, for offside the error will likely be a bit higher, for a few reasons including: the cameras cannot always be optimally positioned and due to finite time intervals between frames (not withstanding the philosophical choice of whether the ball is played at the moment the foot makes contact with the ball or the moment that it leaves the foot). An average error could be calculated for these decisions as seems to be the case in cricket LBW decisions where the error is assessed (or guessed?) as half the width of the ball. If we apply the concept of measurement error in the case of an offside decision, lets say that the degree of error is +/- 2.5cm then a line 5cm wide could be drawn centered on the most goalward relevant part of the last defender's body. Then if any relevant part of an attacker's body is goalside of this line then it is offside irrespective of the original decision on the field. Alternatively if all of the relevant parts of an attacker are further away from the line then the decision is onside irrespective of the on field decision, If the nearest relevant point of an attacker to goal is within the width of the line then the decision reverts to the on-field official's decision.
Post by: Ashington46 on Thu 13 Jun 2019 09:20
I am struggling with France penalty award last night! Have I misunderstood the interpretation of the LOG?
You are not on your own!
The referee, a Bundesliga Official, seemed content to play on, however, just as in the World Cup Final, VAR intervened.
These two incidents in high profile FIFA Tournaments have convinced me that the referees could well have been placed under pressure to award penalties using FIFA's new toy to justify the decisions ---neither of which I can come to terms with the more I watch them.
Strange that France have benefited from them both.
I know that changes are made with the aim of improving the game. however, the modern game is becoming far removed from the game which I played and officiated in for almost 60 years and, personally, I don't like it.
Post by: Failed Ref on Thu 13 Jun 2019 07:27
Post by: guest42 on Thu 13 Jun 2019 06:40
Post by: rustyref on Sat 08 Jun 2019 16:39
England v Holland, Lingard goal disallowed for offside by VAR.
Perfect example of it being too close to call and the benefit should go to the forward. They have to do something like in cricket with Umpires call if the margin isn't significant. They have to make the line wider to take the closeness out.
.
Also do what they do in Rugby and physically stop the clock when VAR is being used
It's factual, you are on or you are off, even if there is only millimetres in it. As long as the technology is accurate they have to judge offsides as on or off, they can't say it is too tight to call as that says the technology isn't good enough.
Post by: bruntyboy on Fri 07 Jun 2019 23:12
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 07 Jun 2019 11:05
I would be happy for some kind of independent timekeeper.
I think VAR has provided some great drama over the past two nights - tonight's was tight but I believe correct. It would not be right for a place in a final to be decided by a marginal offside.
But it has been decided by a marginal offside and I'm not convinced that VAR should overturn something that is that close to call and not so long ago the benefit was to go to attackers which it did yesterday until VAR was used and I think that margin is too tight and would be saying this if it had been a Dutch goal. I'd much rather it be used to clear the blinding obvious errors like against Cardiff
But then how do you decide which are the blindingly obvious and which offsides are only 'marginal'.
The benefit previously had to sometimes go to the attacker because the judgement had to be made by an assistant at pitch level who had one look at it and wasn't always in the right position, etc.
There might be some goals ruled out for tight offsides but there will equally be others given where hte assistant think it's offside but is actually onside (we saw this with Man Utd V Barcelona and Porto V Liverpool in the CL quarter-finals) and equally we are seeing more penalties awarded so the overall number of goals scored is more likely to increase rather than decrease.
Liverpool very, very nearly scored against Man City in January whilst Man City only just scored against Burnley near the end of the season. If we hadn't had GDS for those incidents then perhaps they would have bene called incorrectly but, whilst both were marginal, both were correct in the end.
Post by: Toprefm on Fri 07 Jun 2019 09:30
I would be happy for some kind of independent timekeeper.
I think VAR has provided some great drama over the past two nights - tonight's was tight but I believe correct. It would not be right for a place in a final to be decided by a marginal offside.
But it has been decided by a marginal offside and I'm not convinced that VAR should overturn something that is that close to call and not so long ago the benefit was to go to attackers which it did yesterday until VAR was used and I think that margin is too tight and would be saying this if it had been a Dutch goal. I'd much rather it be used to clear the blinding obvious errors like against Cardiff
Post by: Joecphillips on Fri 07 Jun 2019 00:06
England v Holland, Lingard goal disallowed for offside by VAR.
Perfect example of it being too close to call and the benefit should go to the forward. They have to do something like in cricket with Umpires call if the margin isn't significant. They have to make the line wider to take the closeness out.
.
Also do what they do in Rugby and physically stop the clock when VAR is being used
Totally disagree, it is what the modern fan and the media want, therefore they have to ensure that every decision is 100% correct. AR is instructed not to flag so how can it then be like cricket because no call has been made?
I am totally against VAR, however, it is the way that our beloved game is going and we will just have to accept it as the way forward because UEFA and FIFA are totally behind its use.
As far as stopping the clock is concerned --when do you do this? In last night's match the game had progressed down the other end of the field when there was a review of an incident in the other penalty area resulting in a penalty. Should t he clock them be wound back to when the original offence was deemed to have been committed or when the incident was referred which was some time later?
The whole thing is a total mess, however, it will rule the game from now on --very sad indeed. Goal line technology is great, however, VAR ............
The linesman can be instructed to flag at the end of the move and go from there
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 06 Jun 2019 23:42
I think VAR has provided some great drama over the past two nights - tonight's was tight but I believe correct. It would not be right for a place in a final to be decided by a marginal offside.
Post by: bruntyboy on Thu 06 Jun 2019 23:23
Post by: Ashington46 on Thu 06 Jun 2019 22:43
England v Holland, Lingard goal disallowed for offside by VAR.
Perfect example of it being too close to call and the benefit should go to the forward. They have to do something like in cricket with Umpires call if the margin isn't significant. They have to make the line wider to take the closeness out.
.
Also do what they do in Rugby and physically stop the clock when VAR is being used
Totally disagree, it is what the modern fan and the media want, therefore they have to ensure that every decision is 100% correct. AR is instructed not to flag so how can it then be like cricket because no call has been made?
I am totally against VAR, however, it is the way that our beloved game is going and we will just have to accept it as the way forward because UEFA and FIFA are totally behind its use.
As far as stopping the clock is concerned --when do you do this? In last night's match the game had progressed down the other end of the field when there was a review of an incident in the other penalty area resulting in a penalty. Should t he clock them be wound back to when the original offence was deemed to have been committed or when the incident was referred which was some time later?
The whole thing is a total mess, however, it will rule the game from now on --very sad indeed. Goal line technology is great, however, VAR ............
Post by: carrowman on Thu 06 Jun 2019 21:40
Perfect example of it being too close to call and the benefit should go to the forward. They have to do something like in cricket with Umpires call if the margin isn't significant. They have to make the line wider to take the closeness out.
.
Also do what they do in Rugby and physically stop the clock when VAR is being used
Post by: Readingfan on Wed 05 Jun 2019 18:37
I think that this is a good move.
What I would really like to see is a move towards the media communication in the MLS - they have some excellent resources they produce, such as Inside Video Review where you can hear the discussions between the officials (I believe this has also been done in other countries, such as Netherlands although obviously in Dutch!) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6I-2PjtOzE
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 04 Jun 2019 23:39
Richard Keys has tweeted that Mike Riley has backed down on his policy regarding referees generally not using pitchside monitors and PL referees will follow the example of Champmions League referees, etc. in using them.
If accurate, it seems odd for Riley to suddenly change his approach at this point after a whole season of using a different system.
Personally I think that use of pitchside monitors is appropriate for tighter/more subjective decisions but at times their use in other competitions has been unnecessary - if a referee is happy to take advice of VAR without consulting monitor I'm fine with that too (e..g if Zidane headbutt had been missed in 2006 final - if referee said that he'd missed it and VAR said 'violent heatbutt into chest, clear red card' I don't think it would be necessary for the referee to look for himself.
I agree it should ultimately be the on field referee having the final say and therein lies the problem with VAR. Who's opinion is the more correct for use of a better phrase. The on field ref who sees it in real time and deems it a red card or the off field ref who sees it from god knows how many angles and says yellow.
Opinions will always vary as this great site demonstrates
Personally I would bet that a certain gentleman from Uefa or Fifa or both has had a word saying do it this way or English refs will suffer in international appointments as demonstrated on the CL knock out latter stage games already this season.
Given the involvement of as many as 4 English teams from the quarter finals onwards (and only one quarter final tie had no English teams) it was hardly surprising the English refs weren't involved
I think it's clear that it was because they didn't have VAR experience - only referees with VAR experience were used, with some of them getting two matches in the same knockout round which is very unusual.
Even if all four English teams had got knocked out in the last 16, I don't think Oliver or Taylor would have had a CL refereeing appointment.
Post by: bruntyboy on Tue 04 Jun 2019 23:27
Richard Keys has tweeted that Mike Riley has backed down on his policy regarding referees generally not using pitchside monitors and PL referees will follow the example of Champmions League referees, etc. in using them.
If accurate, it seems odd for Riley to suddenly change his approach at this point after a whole season of using a different system.
Personally I think that use of pitchside monitors is appropriate for tighter/more subjective decisions but at times their use in other competitions has been unnecessary - if a referee is happy to take advice of VAR without consulting monitor I'm fine with that too (e..g if Zidane headbutt had been missed in 2006 final - if referee said that he'd missed it and VAR said 'violent heatbutt into chest, clear red card' I don't think it would be necessary for the referee to look for himself.
I agree it should ultimately be the on field referee having the final say and therein lies the problem with VAR. Who's opinion is the more correct for use of a better phrase. The on field ref who sees it in real time and deems it a red card or the off field ref who sees it from god knows how many angles and says yellow.
Opinions will always vary as this great site demonstrates
Personally I would bet that a certain gentleman from Uefa or Fifa or both has had a word saying do it this way or English refs will suffer in international appointments as demonstrated on the CL knock out latter stage games already this season.
Given the involvement of as many as 4 English teams from the quarter finals onwards (and only one quarter final tie had no English teams) it was hardly surprising the English refs weren't involved
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 04 Jun 2019 17:30
Contrary to what the article says, weren't replays shown on big screens at the World Cup when a decision had been changed by VAR?
I laughed at the suggestion that fans could sign up for a text message service:
'Hey George mate, I've just had a text to say that the goal's been given'.
'I know Fred, they've just kicked-off again.'
'Oh, so that's why everyone was celebrating.'
My phone normally doesn't work properly around a football stadium anyway!
Post by: Readingfan on Fri 24 May 2019 12:26
Perhaps the most interesting aspect is when he says 'There will be a panel of Premier League referees who are VARs and we're recruiting five Championship referees to act as VARs as well'
He also says they expect accuracy of KMI to improve from 82% to 87% - I wonder what the remaining 13% are that they still think will be wrong? (I guess mainly those outside VAR protocol such as second yellow cards or incorrect corners leaidng up to goals, etc.)
Post by: flipmode on Tue 21 May 2019 00:28
Should have given the goal as he is clearly onside (assuming the line is correct). Offside should never be too close to call, you are either on or off, or level in which case you are on.
My offside interpretation aligns perfectly with yours. ;D
Post by: Ashington46 on Mon 20 May 2019 17:49
Should have given the goal as he is clearly onside (assuming the line is correct). Offside should never be too close to call, you are either on or off, or level in which case you are on.
It does depend on the quality of the technology available though.
I have seen some clips from the MLS in America where they seemingly only have the camera angles (sometimes not even fully in line) and don't have any lines to impose, etc. and there have been times the VAR has said something along the lines of 'we can't tell' and gone with the on-field decision.
I heard the other week that in the Premier League they will be using a 2D system rather than the 3D system that was used at the World Cup so there is some room for potential inaccuracy in offside VAR decisions.
Don't tell me that there will be a potential for VAR to be wrong ---that would just be the same as a wrong decision by the onfield officials ---we can't have any of that in modern football ---I thought that everything had to be 100% correct to keep everyone happy.
WHat is the game coming to? :D
Post by: Readingfan on Mon 20 May 2019 17:43
Should have given the goal as he is clearly onside (assuming the line is correct). Offside should never be too close to call, you are either on or off, or level in which case you are on.
It does depend on the quality of the technology available though.
I have seen some clips from the MLS in America where they seemingly only have the camera angles (sometimes not even fully in line) and don't have any lines to impose, etc. and there have been times the VAR has said something along the lines of 'we can't tell' and gone with the on-field decision.
I heard the other week that in the Premier League they will be using a 2D system rather than the 3D system that was used at the World Cup so there is some room for potential inaccuracy in offside VAR decisions.
Post by: rustyref on Mon 20 May 2019 17:28
Post by: flipmode on Mon 20 May 2019 01:09
The reasoning given was because the offside was "too tight to call".
(https://s2.yapics.com/05/20/2320yGWa05_th.png) (https://yapics.com/a2320yGWa05-6528)
Thoughts?
A video for the highlights of the game can be found here - https://www.foxsports.com.au/video/football/a-league/match-highlights/per-v-syd-match-highlights!731419
Post by: Toprefm on Wed 15 May 2019 10:24
Richard Keys has tweeted that Mike Riley has backed down on his policy regarding referees generally not using pitchside monitors and PL referees will follow the example of Champmions League referees, etc. in using them.
If accurate, it seems odd for Riley to suddenly change his approach at this point after a whole season of using a different system.
Personally I think that use of pitchside monitors is appropriate for tighter/more subjective decisions but at times their use in other competitions has been unnecessary - if a referee is happy to take advice of VAR without consulting monitor I'm fine with that too (e..g if Zidane headbutt had been missed in 2006 final - if referee said that he'd missed it and VAR said 'violent heatbutt into chest, clear red card' I don't think it would be necessary for the referee to look for himself.
I agree it should ultimately be the on field referee having the final say and therein lies the problem with VAR. Who's opinion is the more correct for use of a better phrase. The on field ref who sees it in real time and deems it a red card or the off field ref who sees it from god knows how many angles and says yellow.
Opinions will always vary as this great site demonstrates
Personally I would bet that a certain gentleman from Uefa or Fifa or both has had a word saying do it this way or English refs will suffer in international appointments as demonstrated on the CL knock out latter stage games already this season.
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 14 May 2019 17:24
If accurate, it seems odd for Riley to suddenly change his approach at this point after a whole season of using a different system.
Personally I think that use of pitchside monitors is appropriate for tighter/more subjective decisions but at times their use in other competitions has been unnecessary - if a referee is happy to take advice of VAR without consulting monitor I'm fine with that too (e..g if Zidane headbutt had been missed in 2006 final - if referee said that he'd missed it and VAR said 'violent heatbutt into chest, clear red card' I don't think it would be necessary for the referee to look for himself.
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 12 May 2019 21:27
There has been quite a lot in the media about VAR over the weekend.
Post by: bmb on Fri 19 Apr 2019 13:11
VAR Review + Unseen Footage | Parody (https://www.facebook.com/madkomodo/videos/318436195488716/)
Post by: Readingfan on Tue 16 Apr 2019 22:20
Post by: bruntyboy on Wed 10 Apr 2019 19:02
Post by: reflector on Wed 10 Apr 2019 13:52
I agree - not really a penalty under the UK interpretation but in a UEFA tie. as soon as I saw it, I had little doubt it would be given. That all needs sorting out but it didn't alter the fact that the VAR side of things seemed to go pretty smoothly.I thought it worked well in the Spurs v Man City game last night - reasonably quick, decisive and not too intrusive. In fact, almost exactly how I imagined it could work.
The only downfall being it wasn’t a penalty...
I think it was more of a penalty than many others we've seen - based on how international referees have adjudicated handball over the past 12 months or so, I think a penalty was the right decision.
Post by: Readingfan on Wed 10 Apr 2019 10:43
I thought it worked well in the Spurs v Man City game last night - reasonably quick, decisive and not too intrusive. In fact, almost exactly how I imagined it could work.
The only downfall being it wasn’t a penalty...
I think it was more of a penalty than many others we've seen - based on how international referees have adjudicated handball over the past 12 months or so, I think a penalty was the right decision.
Post by: ajb95 on Wed 10 Apr 2019 07:43
I thought it worked well in the Spurs v Man City game last night - reasonably quick, decisive and not too intrusive. In fact, almost exactly how I imagined it could work.
The only downfall being it wasn’t a penalty...
Post by: reflector on Wed 10 Apr 2019 07:33
Post by: flipmode on Wed 10 Apr 2019 01:33
Post by: Readingfan on Thu 04 Apr 2019 17:51
It's also been confirmed that if VAR is used to change a decision in FA Cup semi-finals this weekend a definitive replay of the incident will subsequently be shown on the big screens (I believe this was also the case at the World Cup last summer.)
Post by: bmb on Sun 24 Mar 2019 17:55
Post by: Readingfan on Sun 24 Mar 2019 16:54
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Sun 24 Mar 2019 16:20
Post by: JohnCoyle on Thu 21 Mar 2019 11:37
Mark Halsey suggested in a radio interview the other day that SG2 referees will be used as VARs for some Premier League games - if correct, it does beg the question as to why none have been used as VAR in the trial stage?
Can you imagine Andy Davies telling Michael Oliver that he's got a decision wrong?!
If there's any justice, Andy Davies will be reffing on the National League next season. The absolute farce of the Oxford v Bradford game last Saturday should result in demotion.
Post by: Acme Thunderer on Thu 21 Mar 2019 11:00
Not before time imho.
Post by: bmb on Wed 20 Mar 2019 21:07
Mark Halsey suggested in a radio interview the other day that SG2 referees will be used as VARs for some Premier League games - if correct, it does beg the question as to why none have been used as VAR in the trial stage?I suspect because the priority will have been to train the SG1 refs first as they will naturally be the first choice.
They spent most of last season training Neil Swarbrick/Mike Jones on VAR who haven't done a single game this year!
This is so true!
Post by: Readingfan on Wed 20 Mar 2019 18:21
Mark Halsey suggested in a radio interview the other day that SG2 referees will be used as VARs for some Premier League games - if correct, it does beg the question as to why none have been used as VAR in the trial stage?I suspect because the priority will have been to train the SG1 refs first as they will naturally be the first choice.
They spent most of last season training Neil Swarbrick/Mike Jones on VAR who haven't done a single game this year!