VAR impact and consequence log - game 27

[MikeF]

The only thing that is clear and obvious is how the bloody thing is being implemented.

My main question would be why is the ref not using the monitor by the side of the pitch? Swarbrick (guy in charge of its implementation) was on the radio the other week defending this stating that it would take too long for him to review and didn't want to make the ref run another 50 yards. If the ref isn't fit enough yo run another 50 yards to make that review, I'd argue he shouldn't be out there and the first reason for them not using the monitor would be that it would take too long to review which seems ironic given the fact that it routinely takes them over 2mins to decide in some office miles away. If it's good enough for the World Cup...

And as for the use of it for offside and adjudging whether someone is offside by a toe is fecking ludicrous. The Grealish one from yesterday was utterly preposterous and not what the bloody thing was brought in for as far as I'm concerned as it was not CLEAR AND OBVIOUS.

 

[MCBlueFan]

The answer to your question here is simple. If a goal is scored and there was a foul/penalty at the opposite end prior to the goal then it should of been a penalty.

There's no two ways about it because had the referee spotted it then the penalty would of and should of been given in the first place. The rules on VAR are that penalty decisions should be reviewed.

The whole point of VAR is to make sure that key moments aren't influenced by bad or missed decisions.

There are consistency issues and it isn't great to watch but that is something for them to improve.

>> There's no two ways about it because had the referee spotted it then the penalty would of and should of been given in the first place
That's one view (and, since I don't know for sure, I'll say "is quite likely" the way, in fact that the currently laws of the game apply).

However, from a perspective of equity... there's another view, which is this. An infraction occurred and a penalty should have been awarded - that is to say, punishment for the offending side is deserved. How then, is it at all fair, if the offending side actually benefits from the non-call?

In American Football, such situations are handled by giving the damaged side a choice - you may choose to accept the penalty or instead may choose to let the subsequent play stand.

So long as VAR is going to lag, then I think it fair (perhaps controversial) to institute a "your choice to accept the penalty or to accept subsequent play" rule.
===
My proposed "solution" is of course flawed - what needs to be fixed is the huge delay between when an offsides/penalty occurs and when VAR finally pulls back the play.

 

[caseball]

It's because VAR doesn't check for offsides that don't become part of a goal or goal scoring opportunity so reverts back to the "linesperson is wrong" situation like we've always had.

So a top class team of officials would have either not flagged in the first place and reviewed the penalty when the ball went dead or the ref would have ignored the flag, played on and then reviewed the penalty and possible offside?

 

[ZanteWeatherman]

Quote
Its become nothing more than a TV spectator sport, at least you can nip to the fridge for a can when the VAR sign goes up.[/QUOTE]

Abso-f**king-lutely this..........

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

So a top class team of officials would have either not flagged in the first place and reviewed the penalty when the ball went dead or the ref would have ignored the flag, played on and then reviewed the penalty and possible offside?

Officials (even the best) make mistakes, we've always known that, but if we bring in VAR for everything it'll be even more of a car crash than it is right now, therefore general offsides flagged wrongly cannot currently be changed by VAR. It is an anomaly but I understand it, the game restarts at the place where the game was last stopped (regardless of whether that decision was right or wrong).

 

[caseball]

Officials (even the best) make mistakes, we've always known that, but if we bring in VAR for everything it'll be even more of a car crash than it is right now, therefore general offsides flagged wrongly cannot currently be changed by VAR. It is an anomaly but I understand it, the game restarts at the place where the game was last stopped (regardless of whether that decision was right or wrong).

It's clear they have to have some way of restarting the game but it would perhaps be better to not review the penalty, give the free kick and own up to the mistake. I don't care much for the way they use video replay but the biggest problem the people implementing the system have is their way of communicating to fans. It's non-existent where and when it should be prioritised and when they should be careful what they say, various people are making comments to the press and on TV.

 

[berryblue]

I hate VAR, and what about the 2 minutes added on at half time, yet 4 mins at full time

Thought for ages fans haven't a clue how long a game actually lasts any more and Refs are just guessing. Rugby league has a timekeeper, football should have the same and the Ref indicating stop and restart.

 

[Blue Mist]

I hate VAR, and what about the 2 minutes added on at half time, yet 4 mins at full time

Easy, someone told the ref that he had not added enough minutes on at the end of the first half so he added them to the end of the second half. it was nothing to do with Everton pressing for an equaliser.

 

[Millwallawayveteran1988]

Easy, someone told the ref that he had not added enough minutes on at the end of the first half so he added them to the end of the second half. it was nothing to do with Everton pressing for an equaliser.

there were also 3 goals and numerous substitutions so not that out of line anyway. I was fearing 5/6 with the lack of time for VAR checks but thankfully they kept it at 4.

 

[GOULDYBOBS]

The answer to your question here is simple. If a goal is scored and there was a foul/penalty at the opposite end prior to the goal then it should of been a penalty.

There's no two ways about it because had the referee spotted it then the penalty would of and should of been given in the first place. The rules on VAR are that penalty decisions should be reviewed.

The whole point of VAR is to make sure that key moments aren't influenced by bad or missed decisions.

There are consistency issues and it isn't great to watch but that is something for them to improve.

Anfield springs to mind