VAR thread 2022/23

[stonerblue]

In short no it isnt. Touching the ball has little relevance to whether a foul has taken place. The french player clatters the Moroccan recklessly. Impeding him accordingly. Not sure how some dont see that as a foul/penalty. It certainly is according to the current laws of the game.

Funny how var can make some people blind..

 

[halfcenturyup]

In short no it isnt. Touching the ball has little relevance to whether a foul has taken place. The french player clatters the Moroccan recklessly. Impeding him accordingly. Not sure how some dont see that as a foul/penalty. It certainly is according to the current laws of the game.

That's what I thought. It just seems like one of these lazy pundit comments when they don't actually understand what they are talking about.

 

[Stephen230]

In short no it isnt. Touching the ball has little relevance to whether a foul has taken place. The french player clatters the Moroccan recklessly. Impeding him accordingly. Not sure how some dont see that as a foul/penalty. It certainly is according to the current laws of the game.

Touching the ball certainly doesn’t allow you to follow through with the tackle with impunity. But it’s almost certainly the justification the VAR used to decide the referee hadn’t made a clear error.

It was the same VAR who advised a penalty for Saudi Arabia against Portugal though and it certainly looked more of a penalty than that one did.

 

[Bluearmy]

Touching the ball certainly doesn’t allow you to follow through with the tackle with impunity. But it’s almost certainly the justification the VAR used to decide the referee hadn’t made a clear error.

It was the same VAR who advised a penalty for Saudi Arabia against Portugal though and it certainly looked more of a penalty than that one did.

Of course the ref made a clear error, in fact 2 of them. He gave a foul against the moroccan player for having the audacity to get smashed. Then doubled down by booked him for god knows what, being on the pitch maybe….??

 

[Stephen230]

Of course the ref made a clear error, in fact 2 of them. He gave a foul against the moroccan player for having the audacity to get smashed. Then doubled down by booked him for god knows what, being on the pitch maybe….??

I didn’t say it wasn’t an error. The VAR has no jurisdiction to advise overturning the yellow card once he’s decided not to recommend a review of the penalty.

 

[Blue Mist]

I didn’t say it wasn’t an error. The VAR has no jurisdiction to advise overturning the yellow card once he’s decided not to recommend a review of the penalty.

Which means if it had been his second yellow he'd have been sent off. Its not really that good is it this var thing.

Edit: I see Morocco have now made an official complaint about that incident and the one where a forward was hauled down in the area, no penalty given and no var intervention.

 

[Stephen230]

Which means if it had been his second yellow he'd have been sent off. Its not really that good is it this var thing.

Edit: I see Morocco have now made an official complaint about that incident and the one where a forward was hauled down in the area, no penalty given and no var intervention.

That seems to suggest you’re advocating VARs powers are widened to get involved in a wider range of incidents?

 

[halfcenturyup]

That seems to suggest you’re advocating VARs powers are widened to get involved in a wider range of incidents?

Or maybe that they should at least get the right outcome on the limited number of incidents they want to look at? Isn't that the point of VAR. To get decisions right? The Kane non-penalty against France was another one. OK, VAR couldn't overturn the referee's decision with a definite proof that the incident was on the line, but shouldn't they be allowed to award the free-kick just outside the box? Seems ludicrous that they can only allow a decision to be half right.

 

[Blue Mist]

That seems to suggest you’re advocating VARs powers are widened to get involved in a wider range of incidents?

I'm not advocating anything. I think it's a crock of shit and the more they try and fix it, the worse it gets.
The world's biggest football competition. The semi-final. Supposedly the best in charge and yet.......

 

[Stephen230]

Or maybe that they should at least get the right outcome on the limited number of incidents they want to look at? Isn't that the point of VAR. To get decisions right? The Kane non-penalty against France was another one. OK, VAR couldn't overturn the referee's decision with a definite proof that the incident was on the line, but shouldn't they be allowed to award the free-kick just outside the box? Seems ludicrous that they can only allow a decision to be half right.

That’s a personal opinion. Opponents to that would probably say that the VAR giving free kicks that the referee has missed is getting away from correcting mistakes on major issues and veering into ‘re-refereeing the game ‘ territory.

 

[halfcenturyup]

That’s a personal opinion. Opponents to that would probably say that the VAR giving free kicks that the referee has missed is getting away from correcting mistakes on major issues and veering into ‘re-refereeing the game ‘ territory.

Well, possibly, but it wasn't a question around the number and type of incidents that VAR could or should review or "re-refereeing the game" on a continuous basis. It was a question of whether VAR should get the correct outcome for each of the incidents it is authorised to look at.

 

[Blue Mist]

That’s a personal opinion. Opponents to that would probably say that the VAR giving free kicks that the referee has missed is getting away from correcting mistakes on major issues and veering into ‘re-refereeing the game ‘ territory.

It appears you would have no objection to a World Cup semi final being distorted by a player wrongly dismissed for a foul he didn't commit (2nd booking)
You don't want Var to intervene in that.

So why have it ? If it can allow that scenario to happen you may as well just leave it to the incompetent fuckwit referee in the first place. Funnily enough, most of us have being saying that for years.

 

[Stephen230]

It appears you would have no objection to a World Cup semi final being distorted by a player wrongly dismissed for a foul he didn't commit (2nd booking)
You don't want Var to intervene in that.

So why have it ? If it can allow that scenario to happen you may as well just leave it to the incompetent fuckwit referee in the first place. Funnily enough, most of us have being saying that for years.

Not sure where you’ve got that idea from? I’ve just pointed out why he probably didn’t get involved ( the touch on the ball ) And why he couldn’t have reversed a second yellow if the original decision stood. I don’t make the rules. Just pointing out what they are.

 

[Stephen230]

Well, possibly, but it wasn't a question around the number and type of incidents that VAR could or should review or "re-refereeing the game" on a continuous basis. It was a question of whether VAR should get the correct outcome for each of the incidents it is authorised to look at.

The purpose of VAR was to increase the number of correct decisions. Nobody worth listening to has ever claimed it will correct all incorrect decisions. So many decisions in football are based on an opinion not facts. So one man’s correct decision is another man’s mistake anyway.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The purpose of VAR was to increase the number of correct decisions. Nobody worth listening to has ever claimed it will correct all incorrect decisions. So many decisions in football are based on an opinion not facts. So one man’s correct decision is another man’s mistake anyway.

This is dragging on too long, but can you at least accept, without resorting to platitudes (don't want to re-referee the game, not expecting to get everything right, decisions are subjective, etc ..), that VAR protocol COULD be to give the referee the opportunity to get decisions right in all the incidents it looks at. Not all incidents on the pitch in the 90 minutes, just those the protocol says it can look at. What benefit to the game is there in a protocol that actually validates a bad decision (such as not awarding a free-kick to Kane in the non-penalty incident, or the yellow card in the FRA-MAR game). Both could have been reviewed by the referee as part of the incident review and the correct outcome could have been applied.

I know it's not the protocol, but I can't think of one reason why it shouldn't be.

 

[BlueHammer85]

The purpose of VAR was to increase the number of correct decisions. Nobody worth listening to has ever claimed it will correct all incorrect decisions. So many decisions in football are based on an opinion not facts. So one man’s correct decision is another man’s mistake anyway.

exactly right

and the number of correct decisions this WC has far outweighed previous tournaments, vast majority of games was free flowing and free of refereeing fuck ups which has been refreshing - always going to get the odd debatable/wrong decision whatever system is in place - the added time also reduced wasting time - I hope we can bring that in the domestic game

 

[Stephen230]

This is dragging on too long, but can you at least accept, without resorting to platitudes (don't want to re-referee the game, not expecting to get everything right, decisions are subjective, etc ..), that VAR protocol COULD be to give the referee the opportunity to get decisions right in all the incidents it looks at. Not all incidents on the pitch in the 90 minutes, just those the protocol says it can look at. What benefit to the game is there in a protocol that actually validates a bad decision (such as not awarding a free-kick to Kane in the non-penalty incident, or the yellow card in the FRA-MAR game). Both could have been reviewed by the referee as part of the incident review and the correct outcome could have been applied.

I know it's not the protocol, but I can't think of one reason why it shouldn't be.

Yes, I don’t personally see any major issue with the VAR advising on the correct restart in cases it is reviewing anyway.

 

[Bluearmy]

I didn’t say it wasn’t an error. The VAR has no jurisdiction to advise overturning the yellow card once he’s decided not to recommend a review of the penalty.

What? It was 2 clear errors (foul and penalty) which the referee got wrong and then VAR clearly got wrong also. In both cases. They may have some crap rule about not resinding the yellow which is laughable in itself. However the main point is they all got the foul wrong and missed a clear penalty. If that isnt correctable then both the refs and VAR need to be removed from the game as they are pointless with that train of thought….

 

[Stephen230]

What? It was 2 clear errors (foul and penalty) which the referee got wrong and then VAR clearly got wrong also. In both cases. They may have some crap rule about not resinding the yellow which is laughable in itself. However the main point is they all got the foul wrong and missed a clear penalty. If that isnt correctable then both the refs and VAR need to be removed from the game as they are pointless with that train of thought….

What? It was 2 clear errors (foul and penalty) which the referee got wrong and then VAR clearly got wrong also. In both cases. They may have some crap rule about not resinding the yellow which is laughable in itself. However the main point is they all got the foul wrong and missed a clear penalty. If that isnt correctable then both the refs and VAR need to be removed from the game as they are pointless with that train of thought….

I can’t even remember which incident we’re talking about here but generally speaking there is a flaw in a lot of people’s criticism of individual VAR decisions, in that they fail to understand that a referee and a VAR are working to two completely different sets of criteria. What might well be an incorrect decision on the field isn’t automatically a mistake by the VAR if he doesn’t overturn it.

People might not agree with that procedure and I’ve no problem with that. But I see a lot of criticism of an individual VAR, when they have followed protocol precisely as instructed.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Few decisions here and there which could have been better … but overall out of 64 games there wasn’t much uproar and massively wrong errors. VAR worked very well. Impressed with a lot of the refs letting stuff go (too much at times) to allow the matches to flow better, they were much stricter on time wasting and the more added time being given is long overdue