Var debate 2019/20

[smevchenko]

Well no. The Salah check was exactly how VAR should done. Was onside & not by milemetres, check quickly & move one quickly, rather than waiting for Mike Riley to play with his protractor

I'm not one for believing an agenda, or corruption that is designed to ensure City do not win the league, and you are right, VAR for offside's etc do need to be checked quickly and without disruption if possible, but then if that has happened, an image of the technology that has shown the player to be onside needs to be shown as soon as possible. Showing it 20 mins after the incident and not going into it with the same level of apparent scrutiny as the one in the Spurs game the day before only gives fans a reason to question how it is being used. The problem all season, hasn't so much been the refusal to overturn some decisions, or disallow very marginal offside's, it is the fact that they are consistently changing how decisions are reached game by game without informing the fans as to why. Over the course of a season, we are going to see some decisions given that would not have been given in a previous gameweek, and how can that be fair?

 

[mcfcphil]

VAR did check the Salah goal at the Stockley Park HQ, the PGMOL confirmed.
The PGMOL released a brief statement that said: "VAR checked for possible offside, and confirmed that the Salah goal was correct."

Referees have been told by PGMOL that a VAR check for offside will take at least one minute due to the time needed for the Hawkeye operator to set up the review for the video assistant referee.

If it was checked properly then you can bet your life they would have released the VAR footage, as they have done with all other offside decisions by VAR.

Do you not find it slightly strange that PGMOL would go to the effort of publicly responding to this conspiracy theory by releasing the statement but neglect to actually share the footage of the VAR assessment? What possible reason do you think they could have for not releasing the footage?

It wasn't checked.

 

[Rammy Blue]

So to be clear, you dont think that getting to the correct decision quickly and moving on is a good thing because the one the day before was a clusterfuck.

If VAR is to have any chance (which I doubt it does) the only way it will improve, is by evolving and most importantly getting quicker, while being correct. I'm stumped on the penalty, but to say the salah one is farce because it was too quick is farcical in itself

Give over you plank, we’ve still not seen the so called image to show he was apparently onside, even during the game, why?

 

[moomba]

So to be clear, you dont think that getting to the correct decision quickly and moving on is a good thing because the one the day before was a clusterfuck.

If VAR is to have any chance (which I doubt it does) the only way it will improve, is by evolving and most importantly getting quicker, while being correct. I'm stumped on the penalty, but to say the salah one is farce because it was too quick is farcical in itself

It's farcical because it's so inconsistent. It's ridiculous that one decision takes over 3 minutes, another takes a few seconds.

Getting it right is key, I'd forgive delays if the right decisions were made, the paying public we're informed wtf was going on and there was a degree of transparency about things.

As it is just about every aspect of Riley's VAR is farce.

 

[Claytop]

Next we’ll be hearing that VAR decisions will even themselves out over a season.

Laughable.

 

[Paladin]

So to be clear, you dont think that getting to the correct decision quickly and moving on is a good thing because the one the day before was a clusterfuck.

If VAR is to have any chance (which I doubt it does) the only way it will improve, is by evolving and most importantly getting quicker, while being correct. I'm stumped on the penalty, but to say the salah one is farce because it was too quick is farcical in itself

The Salah goal is farcical, because there is no evidence that VAR even looked at the incident.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

it's not been great but it has given more decisions right then the old flawed system.

That may be right when all decisions are taken into account but some decisions are far more significant than others; decisions which have an effect on relegation are of an importance which cannot be exaggerated and those which affect the top of the table are too. At the end of the season a survey of the quality of decisions and who exactly benefits and who suffers would be both interesting and, I suspect, instructive. So far the MEN argues that City have benefited from one VAR decision (the second goal against Villa) but has been on the wrong end of 9, at least 7 of which were crucial in influencing the result and one other which kept the match "alive". They have also provided pictures which show that the explanations given for refusing City a penalty in the fourth minute at Anfield are simply not true but have been repeated so often by officials that one "must doubt their competence or their integrity". I am certainly not alone in believing City were NEVER going to be awarded a penalty early on while the score was 0-0 and certainly not when Oliver's howler was followed by a Liverpool goal 22 seconds later. I think also that we forget that City came back well after that setback and had at least a couple of good chances. Salah's goal eased tension among the Hollywood choir and he was never in a month of Sundays going to be found offside. The explanations, which showed that VAR can review decisions super fast if need be, reminded me of truth in the old East Germany - it's rubbish, we know it's rubbish, you know it's rubbish but it's all you're getting and you'd better not complain. And then the myth; the heroic working class heroes of Anfield inspired by Chairman Klopp race into a 9 point lead over the spineless capitalists of Manchester City and their dirty oil rich Arab owners.

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

So to be clear, you dont think that getting to the correct decision quickly and moving on is a good thing because the one the day before was a clusterfuck.

If VAR is to have any chance (which I doubt it does) the only way it will improve, is by evolving and most importantly getting quicker, while being correct. I'm stumped on the penalty, but to say the salah one is farce because it was too quick is farcical in itself

In order to buy over support from fans, the VAR team have explained (albeit a bit haphazardly) the procedure for checking for offsides and how the end decision is arrived at, through consistent image marking, to the watching public. This check was performed so quickly, and the imagery not provided in the same way as in other cases and not using the same image marking, that there is suspicion of how this one check was undertaken. If the speed of this was as a direct result of the failure of one the day before, then yet again City have suffered through lack of due diligence.

That said, in real time, I think he's onside, but that is NOT the issue. There should be proof and it has not yet been seen.

 

[cleavers]

it's not been great but it has given more decisions right then the old flawed system.

With the "old system" would you have said onside or offside ?

I thought off at the time, but the goal was given, the image shown still isn't conclusive either way.

In my view on this occasion, even as a City fan, I think the goal should stand, because there is no proof he is on or off, and I think the striker in that case should get the benefit of the doubt. Goal given, its not incorrect, goal not given its still not incorrect, its completely impossible to tell, and the technology doesn't answer it, but I'd love to know what decision would have been made had the lino subsequently raised his flag, that we'll never know.

One other thing that image shows, is just how poorly we defended it, Walker should be preventing the cross, neither CB in a good position, and Angelino has already lost salah, then there's our midfield, absolutely nowhere.

 

[blueinsa]

They did, it was clearly stated it was being checked on Sky commentary, and that the "check was over", what they didn't do until about 20 minutes later was show a conclusive replay, at the time it looked offside, so you have to ask why it took 20 minutes to show the "proof" ?

Saying the are checking it without actually showing the VAR check as they do in all other tv games just isn't going to wash.

They didn't check it because it was either not working and they have all lied to say it was or they have blatantly fucking cheated?

Regardless it isn't good or right.

Where is the official VAR offside footage?