VAR thread 2022/23

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Blue Mist said:
The spammers on, time to go.
Click to expand...

0_Piers-Morgan.jpg
 
@BlueHammer85 @Stephen230

Please provide reasonable explanations for the following (years in to VAR use, mind):

1) PL/FA/PGMOL refusal to share audio of officials during matches (the audio is already broadcast; this would be a near zero cost and technical change implementation).

2) Certain clubs (namely Liverpool and United) being allowed to have substantially different VAR supporting system setups, including fewer cameras leading to “blind spots” in VAR coverage, compared to other clubs in the league.
 
SebastianBlue said:
@BlueHammer85 @Stephen230

Please provide reasonable explanations for the following (years in to VAR use, mind):

1) PL/FA/PGMOL refusal to share audio of officials during matches (the audio is already broadcast; this would be a near zero cost and technical change implementation).

2) Certain clubs (namely Liverpool and United) being allowed to have substantially different VAR supporting system setups, including fewer cameras leading to “blind spots” in VAR coverage, compared to other clubs in the league.
Click to expand...

If i answer anything i get accused of trolling, wum or being a broken record.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
no different to you constantly sticking up for Harry and Meghan is it ? (like i do)

what's the point of a VAR thread if you can't debate points and can only scream and shout that it's all a conspiracy?
Click to expand...
Because you dont debate , you lecture and repeat yourself endlessly , you have no intention of giving any ground , it puts people off
 
BlueHammer85 said:
If i answer anything i get accused of trolling, wum or being a broken record.
Click to expand...
That’s a cop out, as you know there is no reasonable explanation for either of those situations.

The first costs the league and broadcasters nothing and substantially improves transparency and perceived integrity of the game.

The second is a textbook example of unfair competitive practices (which, in any other regulated industry, would eventually lead to legal and financial punishment).

I’ve never accused you of being a WUM, but I do think you are oddly obsessed with mental gymnastics to defend the indefensible. And I am not sure why, given you are a member of the class being taken advantage of.

Stockholm syndrome, perhaps?
 
SebastianBlue said:
@BlueHammer85 @Stephen230

Please provide reasonable explanations for the following (years in to VAR use, mind):

1) PL/FA/PGMOL refusal to share audio of officials during matches (the audio is already broadcast; this would be a near zero cost and technical change implementation).

2) Certain clubs (namely Liverpool and United) being allowed to have substantially different VAR supporting system setups, including fewer cameras leading to “blind spots” in VAR coverage, compared to other clubs in the league.
Click to expand...
In a £multi-billion industry there is simply NO reasonable explanation for the above other than the preservation (by deception) of said £multi-billion industry.
 
kaz7 said:
Because you dont debate , you lecture and repeat yourself endlessly , you have no intention of giving any ground , it puts people off
Click to expand...

I answer points constructively, don't abuse and scream and shout
see my last post literally a page ago in response to Paladins which offered up some fair criticism - Ive responded with a balanced link and my own views to his points and I give ground to VAR being more open to being more transparent.

so once again, you are wrong.
 
SebastianBlue said:
That’s a cop out, as you know there is no reasonable explanation for either of those situations.
Click to expand...

It's ok, i now have permission from Kaz to answer.

by the way, i constantly try and answer every question or point thrown at me - and it's why i'm responding all the time - then i get accused of spamming and wum - simply because i'm replying to peoples posts

will be back on your post.
 
Paladin said:
Conspiracy brigade? All we are doing is trying to find credible explanations from the evidence before us.

1. The corner taker wasn't offside at any point. Any competent referee's assistant will know that being in an offside position isn't the same as being offside. He was in an offside position for the first header (unsurprising really, as he had just taken the corner). But he was at least 30 yards away from the ball, and the ball stayed in front of the goal.

2. He was in an onside position when the second header was made.

3. He was not offside at any point during that attack.

4. Given he wasn't offside, why was he flagged offside? Why is nobody asking the linesman why he interpreted this as offside? He should be punished for making such basic errors.

5. What was the signal from Madley to his linesman?

6. Why didn't the linesman signal for offside until after Madley gave this gesture with his hand.

7. Why did the linesman appear to go towards the centre of the pitch, and change his mind after he saw the signal from Madley.

8. Can we hear the conversations between officials, if they have nothing to hide.

These are all genuine concerns, that PGMOL and other governing bodies are ignoring. It screams BENT.

All we have from them is that there wasn't enough video evidence to overturn the original decision, as if the offside decision in itself was marginal. It wasn't. As I said above, no competent assistant referee would have deemed that as offside.
Click to expand...
Great post. The other thing with this incident is that the liner was in a great position. When the ball was flicked back to the corner taker there was no obvious goal scoring opportunity and therefore given the new standards that are supposed to be implemented the flag should have gone up straight away. It was around seven seconds from the header to the ball crossing the line and then another four before the whistle blew. First thing a ref does when the ball goes in is to look at the liner and the fact it took four seconds to blow suggests the flag doesn't go up straight away after the goal is scored either. FA need to release the transcript of the conversations and they also need to explain why a game with VAR is allowed to go ahead when the technology doesn't work. The PL also need to come and explain why games are allowed to continue at Klanfield under the current set up.



Freeze it after about 2 seconds and you will see Alexander - Arnold is playing the guy on by about a yard
 
SebastianBlue said:
That’s a cop out, as you know there is no reasonable explanation for either of those situations.

The first costs the league and broadcasters nothing and substantially improves transparency and perceived integrity of the game.

The second is a textbook example of unfair competitive practices (which, in any other regulated industry, would eventually lead to legal and financial punishment).

I’ve never accused you of being a WUM, but I do think you are oddly obsessed with mental gymnastics to defend the indefensible. And I am not sure why, given you are a member of the class being taken advantage of.

Stockholm syndrome, perhaps?
Click to expand...
There's your problem right there. Football is 'self-governed'.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
The number of penalties as a stand-alone statistic is largely irrelevant. But if you were to analyse percentage of game time in possession in the opposition penalty area against the number of penalties awarded there might be something in it.
Click to expand...
Do you think the possession in the opposition penalty area is something that changes significantly? When evened across all clubs in a whole season?

Surely changes to the rules/guidance would have more of an effect, but it's difficult to extract that.

I was simply thinking that SebastianBlue has a point, that if refs become reluctant to give penalties, then "clear and obvious" is an issue. On the other hand, anything that results in less penalties is good from my point of view - they're usually far too harsh a punishment.
 
SebastianBlue said:
@BlueHammer85 @Stephen230

Please provide reasonable explanations for the following (years in to VAR use, mind):

1) PL/FA/PGMOL refusal to share audio of officials during matches (the audio is already broadcast; this would be a near zero cost and technical change implementation).

2) Certain clubs (namely Liverpool and United) being allowed to have substantially different VAR supporting system setups, including fewer cameras leading to “blind spots” in VAR coverage, compared to other clubs in the league.
Click to expand...

1) I'm in agreement - I've said this so many times - I would like more transparency - if that means hearing the audio then so be it - what I've also mentioned so many times (literally a page ago) is that I don't think it will squash those who think it's all conspiracy - audio being released will just make some dissect every single word and twist it into a conspiracy - I very much doubt had the audio of that goal yesterday been released it would satisfy

lino you think it's offside ? '
Lino 'yeh I'm sure there was an offside in that phase, get the boys in the VAR to double check'
Var room 'no probs... ah fuck, we don't have the angle set up''

so releasing this audio would help in any way shape or form ?

as for why they don't - it's likely to protect the officials from to much scrutiny over every single grey area decision - I hope they do in future though - they need to make sure to implement it properly though but it's something in the pipeline - https://fanbanter.co.uk/major-chang...at-premier-league-fans-have-been-calling-for/


2) Again, answered this, it's something that needs to be addressed - all stadiums should be set up to not have these blind spot issues I totally agree.

it's something Liverpool also raised last year - https://www.thisisanfield.com/2022/...tion-pep-awaits-biggest-test-latest-lfc-news/

what it does expose is how we do need VAR and need it to work - because officials are constantly getting these calls wrong.


hope that's ok and you can see I've given a fair and honest answer like I always try to do.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
1) I'm in agreement - I've said this so many times - I would like more transparency - if that means hearing the audio then so be it - what I've also mentioned so many times (literally a page ago) is that I don't think it will squash those who think it's all conspiracy - audio being released will just make some dissect every single word and twist it into a conspiracy - I very much doubt had the audio of that goal yesterday been released it would satisfy

lino you think it's offside ? '
Lino 'yeh I'm sure there was an offside in that phase, get the boys in the VAR to double check'
Var room 'no probs... ah fuck, we don't have the angle set up''

so releasing this audio would help in any way shape or form ?

as for why they don't - it's likely to protect the officials from to much scrutiny over every single grey area decision - I hope they do in future though - they need to make sure to implement it properly though but it's something in the pipeline - https://fanbanter.co.uk/major-chang...at-premier-league-fans-have-been-calling-for/


2) Again, answered this, it's something that needs to be addressed - all stadiums should be set up to not have these blind spot issues I totally agree.

it's something Liverpool also raised last year - https://www.thisisanfield.com/2022/...tion-pep-awaits-biggest-test-latest-lfc-news/

what it does expose is how we do need VAR and need it to work - because officials are constantly getting these calls wrong.


hope that's ok and you can see I've given a fair and honest answer like I always try to do.
Click to expand...
Liverpool raised it about another club, but it must have slipped their mind to mention the issues at their ground... And NOBODY called them out on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top