VAR

802 posts
User avatar
Hoop Blah
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 13864
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:00
Location: I told you so.....

Re: VAR

by Hoop Blah » 22 Oct 2019 19:26

The Enfield Royal71
6ft Kerplunk Thought they've said they're not going to use a pitch side monitor for the refs to look at incidents again?


That's the whole point of var


They've said they want to avoid using it because of the delays to the game. The process they've implemented is, I think, that they'll use it at what they deem to be the appropriate time. The rest of the reviews will be left to the VAR to advise the ref of his opinion.

It looks like they've set the thresholds for overturning or reviewing too low though if they're not going to get involved with some of the decisions that have been made (or not made) this season.

Sanguine
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 12056
Joined: 27 Feb 2013 14:36

Re: VAR

by Sanguine » 23 Oct 2019 08:43

Hoop Blah
Sanguine
URZZZZ Sorry, talking about the Sokratis penalty incident. Egan (I think him) had his hands all over his shirt. Surely that’s a foul?


Oh yeah, that one. Agreed it was a foul.

If I heard correctly, I think Alan Shearer said on MoTD on Saturday that VAR has not been used to give a penalty yet.


Something like that yes, 90-odd games and not one decision given where the ref might've missed something.

The problem comes back to the totally subjective view of has the ref missed something that's clear and obvious. If it was just for factual issues then it would a lot more sense, but otherwise it's just replacing on set of issues with another.


The problem there is an unwillingness to overrule the on-field referee*, not with the system itself, which could and should work.

* on that topic, maybe its just time referees, or the union, took the massive stick out of their arse and considered officiating a game to be about getting decisions right, and not about their egos. Difference in the sports notwithstanding, one of the reasons technology works in rugby and cricket is because the on and off-field officials work as a team. There is no 'shame' in Nigel Owens getting a decision wrong in the heat of the moment - TMO just suggests that (for example) a tackle was too high and dangerous, and he reverses his decision.

User avatar
Hoop Blah
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 13864
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:00
Location: I told you so.....

Re: VAR

by Hoop Blah » 23 Oct 2019 08:59

Sanguine * on that topic, maybe its just time referees, or the union, took the massive stick out of their arse and considered officiating a game to be about getting decisions right, and not about their egos. Difference in the sports notwithstanding, one of the reasons technology works in rugby and cricket is because the on and off-field officials work as a team. There is no 'shame' in Nigel Owens getting a decision wrong in the heat of the moment - TMO just suggests that (for example) a tackle was too high and dangerous, and he reverses his decision.


I'm pretty in the dark about the rules of Rugby but I've always been under the impression that the majority of the rules and the decisions that they have to make are factual, and not subjective, so that makes quite a difference in the teamwork and re-referring argument.

Is that right, or am I totally wrong about the difference in rules.

Sanguine
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 12056
Joined: 27 Feb 2013 14:36

Re: VAR

by Sanguine » 23 Oct 2019 09:07

Hoop Blah
Sanguine * on that topic, maybe its just time referees, or the union, took the massive stick out of their arse and considered officiating a game to be about getting decisions right, and not about their egos. Difference in the sports notwithstanding, one of the reasons technology works in rugby and cricket is because the on and off-field officials work as a team. There is no 'shame' in Nigel Owens getting a decision wrong in the heat of the moment - TMO just suggests that (for example) a tackle was too high and dangerous, and he reverses his decision.


I'm pretty in the dark about the rules of Rugby but I've always been under the impression that the majority of the rules and the decisions that they have to make are factual, and not subjective, so that makes quite a difference in the teamwork and re-referring argument.

Is that right, or am I totally wrong about the difference in rules.


Yes and no. On paper, sure. And there are more decisions on which the TMO rules that are factual - was the ball over the try line? did the attacker have control of the ball for the try? was there a foot in touch? and so on. But there are plenty of subjective decisions around when a ruck/maul has formed, penalty infringements like a defender being off their feet, or coming in from the side, and dangerous play. There's just, in my view, much more reluctance in football to question an on-field decision.

As an aside, American Football is a funny one. On-field referees throw yellow flags on to the field when they see an infringement, then stop play and debate what they saw in front of everyone - from time to time not in complete agreement. I think there is a 'head' referee who ultimately makes the decision.

User avatar
Hoop Blah
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 13864
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:00
Location: I told you so.....

Re: VAR

by Hoop Blah » 23 Oct 2019 09:26

Sanguine
Hoop Blah
Sanguine * on that topic, maybe its just time referees, or the union, took the massive stick out of their arse and considered officiating a game to be about getting decisions right, and not about their egos. Difference in the sports notwithstanding, one of the reasons technology works in rugby and cricket is because the on and off-field officials work as a team. There is no 'shame' in Nigel Owens getting a decision wrong in the heat of the moment - TMO just suggests that (for example) a tackle was too high and dangerous, and he reverses his decision.


I'm pretty in the dark about the rules of Rugby but I've always been under the impression that the majority of the rules and the decisions that they have to make are factual, and not subjective, so that makes quite a difference in the teamwork and re-referring argument.

Is that right, or am I totally wrong about the difference in rules.


Yes and no. On paper, sure. And there are more decisions on which the TMO rules that are factual - was the ball over the try line? did the attacker have control of the ball for the try? was there a foot in touch? and so on. But there are plenty of subjective decisions around when a ruck/maul has formed, penalty infringements like a defender being off their feet, or coming in from the side, and dangerous play. There's just, in my view, much more reluctance in football to question an on-field decision.

As an aside, American Football is a funny one. On-field referees throw yellow flags on to the field when they see an infringement, then stop play and debate what they saw in front of everyone - from time to time not in complete agreement. I think there is a 'head' referee who ultimately makes the decision.


I agree there's a reluctance to criticise or overturn a refs decisions in football. You only have to listen to the ex-refs the broadcasters use in their coverage to see that, and that's partly because decisions are usually so subjective.

Rugby and NFL are much more stop start, like cricket, and so re-ref'ing fits in more with the flow of the game. In the defence of VAR they're trying not to ruin the flow of the game by constantly looking over any potential error.


User avatar
John Madejski's Wallet
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 11569
Joined: 10 Apr 2005 00:22
Location: Anyone who lives within their means shows a serious lack of imagination

Re: VAR

by John Madejski's Wallet » 26 Oct 2019 23:06

VAR can fukking fukk off.

No way was that a foul in the Brighton-Everton game

May as well cancel football if you can't accidentally touch someone when you're looking somewhere else

User avatar
Franchise FC
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3989
Joined: 22 May 2007 16:24
Location: The Frozen North

Re: VAR

by Franchise FC » 27 Oct 2019 06:56

John Madejski's Wallet VAR can fukking fukk off.

No way was that a foul in the Brighton-Everton game

May as well cancel football if you can't accidentally touch someone when you're looking somewhere else

How is that incident more of a penalty than the one on David Silva earlier this season which was not given ?
It’s crap and it’s got to go

User avatar
BR0B0T
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7908
Joined: 08 Nov 2016 23:25

Re: VAR

by BR0B0T » 27 Oct 2019 17:24

VAR pens awarded at Norwich...

first one, soft as oxf*rd, second one is a pen (based on previous)

but it's ok, we managed to fcuk both pens

URZZZZ
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2310
Joined: 20 Apr 2013 18:30

Re: VAR

by URZZZZ » 27 Oct 2019 18:33

VAR at the Arsenal game calls off a perfectly good goal for Arsenal. There was always going to be a transition element when using VAR, but this is too much. It's ruining football and it quite simply has to go


User avatar
genome
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 17689
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 13:29
Location: Universe

Re: VAR

by genome » 27 Oct 2019 23:23

Yeah. It's bollocks. End of.

User avatar
Old Man Andrews
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11133
Joined: 02 Oct 2017 13:06
Location: The South of England

Re: VAR

by Old Man Andrews » 28 Oct 2019 11:35

Complete and utter shambles this weekend. If I didn't know better it is almost as if our refs are doing things wrong on purpose in order to turn around and say "We tried VAR but it just isn't suitable for us in England".

Sanguine
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 12056
Joined: 27 Feb 2013 14:36

Re: VAR

by Sanguine » 28 Oct 2019 16:22

John Madejski's Wallet VAR can fukking fukk off.

No way was that a foul in the Brighton-Everton game

May as well cancel football if you can't accidentally touch someone when you're looking somewhere else


:|

he didn't 'accidentally touch someone', he trod on his foot. That's a foul anywhere else on the pitch, so it's a penalty too. I found the MoTD analysis of the Keane foul frustrating. They (and Shearer in particular) have rightly been highlighting how VAR hadn't been used up to now to <i>give</i> a penalty, and the second that it is, and it was a foul whether Keane intended contact or not, they are up in arms. Bizarre.

Sanguine
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 12056
Joined: 27 Feb 2013 14:36

Re: VAR

by Sanguine » 28 Oct 2019 16:23

BR0B0T VAR pens awarded at Norwich...

first one, soft as oxf*rd, second one is a pen (based on previous)

but it's ok, we managed to fcuk both pens


Perhaps more pertinently, the Premier League are choosing a 'soft' interpretation of the rule that says keepers need a foot on the line - Krul clearly had both feet well off the line for both saves.


User avatar
Franchise FC
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3989
Joined: 22 May 2007 16:24
Location: The Frozen North

Re: VAR

by Franchise FC » 28 Oct 2019 16:25

Sanguine
John Madejski's Wallet VAR can fukking fukk off.

No way was that a foul in the Brighton-Everton game

May as well cancel football if you can't accidentally touch someone when you're looking somewhere else


:|

he didn't 'accidentally touch someone', he trod on his foot. That's a foul anywhere else on the pitch, so it's a penalty too. I found the MoTD analysis of the Keane foul frustrating. They (and Shearer in particular) have rightly been highlighting how VAR hadn't been used up to now to <i>give</i> a penalty, and the second that it is, and it was a foul whether Keane intended contact or not, they are up in arms. Bizarre.

Did you think the challenge on David Silva in the game against Bournemouth earlier in the season was a penalty ?
Significantly worse than the Brighton/Everton incident and no penalty.
So a time-wasting, subjective system no-one really wants is found to be just as inconsistent as simply refereeing the game.

And the Arsenal disallowed goal - :shock: :shock: :shock:

Sanguine
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 12056
Joined: 27 Feb 2013 14:36

Re: VAR

by Sanguine » 28 Oct 2019 16:26

Franchise FC
Sanguine
John Madejski's Wallet VAR can fukking fukk off.

No way was that a foul in the Brighton-Everton game

May as well cancel football if you can't accidentally touch someone when you're looking somewhere else


:|

he didn't 'accidentally touch someone', he trod on his foot. That's a foul anywhere else on the pitch, so it's a penalty too. I found the MoTD analysis of the Keane foul frustrating. They (and Shearer in particular) have rightly been highlighting how VAR hadn't been used up to now to <i>give</i> a penalty, and the second that it is, and it was a foul whether Keane intended contact or not, they are up in arms. Bizarre.

Did you think the challenge on David Silva in the game against Bournemouth earlier in the season was a penalty ?
Significantly worse than the Brighton/Everton incident and no penalty.
So a time-wasting, subjective system no-one really wants is found to be just as inconsistent as simply refereeing the game.

And the Arsenal disallowed goal - :shock: :shock: :shock:


Yes, the challenge on Silva was clearly a penalty, albeit that decision appears to have resulted from a previous unwillingness to overrule the on-field referee. If that has been observed and 'refined' then all the better.

User avatar
BR0B0T
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7908
Joined: 08 Nov 2016 23:25

Re: VAR

by BR0B0T » 28 Oct 2019 17:21

Sanguine
BR0B0T VAR pens awarded at Norwich...

first one, soft as oxf*rd, second one is a pen (based on previous)

but it's ok, we managed to fcuk both pens


Perhaps more pertinently, the Premier League are choosing a 'soft' interpretation of the rule that says keepers need a foot on the line - Krul clearly had both feet well off the line for both saves.


they checked it as well apparently!

Both should've been re-taken but that would prolly be taking the piss (on balance) tbf

User avatar
John Madejski's Wallet
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 11569
Joined: 10 Apr 2005 00:22
Location: Anyone who lives within their means shows a serious lack of imagination

Re: VAR

by John Madejski's Wallet » 28 Oct 2019 21:18

Sanguine
John Madejski's Wallet VAR can fukking fukk off.

No way was that a foul in the Brighton-Everton game

May as well cancel football if you can't accidentally touch someone when you're looking somewhere else


:|

he didn't 'accidentally touch someone', he trod on his foot. That's a foul anywhere else on the pitch, so it's a penalty too. I found the MoTD analysis of the Keane foul frustrating. They (and Shearer in particular) have rightly been highlighting how VAR hadn't been used up to now to <i>give</i> a penalty, and the second that it is, and it was a foul whether Keane intended contact or not, they are up in arms. Bizarre.

Wahey :D , been waiting for you to come and defend your beloved VAR. No one apart from you and the VAR ref thinks that was a pen

Sanguine
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 12056
Joined: 27 Feb 2013 14:36

Re: VAR

by Sanguine » 29 Oct 2019 09:37

John Madejski's Wallet
Sanguine
John Madejski's Wallet VAR can fukking fukk off.

No way was that a foul in the Brighton-Everton game

May as well cancel football if you can't accidentally touch someone when you're looking somewhere else


:|

he didn't 'accidentally touch someone', he trod on his foot. That's a foul anywhere else on the pitch, so it's a penalty too. I found the MoTD analysis of the Keane foul frustrating. They (and Shearer in particular) have rightly been highlighting how VAR hadn't been used up to now to <i>give</i> a penalty, and the second that it is, and it was a foul whether Keane intended contact or not, they are up in arms. Bizarre.

Wahey :D , been waiting for you to come and defend your beloved VAR. No one apart from you and the VAR ref thinks that was a pen


Well, a) that's not true, and b) VAR is not my 'beloved' (when did you morph into DD), I just try to have a level of debate beyond 'waaaaaaa, stop spoiling my footballz!'

User avatar
Winston Biscuit
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10046
Joined: 05 May 2017 07:32
Location: We have always been at war with Eastasia

Re: VAR

by Winston Biscuit » 29 Oct 2019 10:06

I am very much on Team waaaaaaa, stop spoiling my footballz! btw

User avatar
Whore Jackie
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1655
Joined: 09 Feb 2006 13:48
Location: Over 'ere

Re: VAR

by Whore Jackie » 29 Oct 2019 12:43

James Milner isn't a fan.

802 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

It is currently 11 Dec 2019 08:17