Var debate 2019/20

Bluearmy said:
In this instance 8 seconds as it was is not a silly amount of time to bring something back, so the point is mute.... I remember one incident where one team was off the pitch at half time and got brought back on, now that I would agree would be ludicrous...
Click to expand...
Yep that would be mad
 
Balijatelli said:
The **** Dived!!!!
Click to expand...
As people in Macclesfield say "Origi be wankhi"
store.ashx
 
deafmanstevo said:
Why cant some people accept VAR bollocked it up for Liverpool , it's funny watching their manager and fans squirm.
It would be boring if everything was perfect.
Click to expand...

Looks like the jobs done, in your case. Blaming VAR and not the ref. VAR is just backing up the refs, but it's the refs that are wrong in the first place.
I Won't accept that VAR bollocked it up. It was not a foul , for me and Mane's is handball under the new rules, even the old rules.
 
Bluearmy said:
There is nothing in the rules that says what you're saying.... In fact there have been incidents where decisions have been changed where longer periods have elapsed.
Click to expand...

Have there been any this season in the PL?
Each tournament in the past has run on its own guidelines, and may not compare directly.
 
karen7 said:
That's what i mean,they haven't told us how far back they are going but the rodders one and yesterday show the ref is making the call when it's far back,it's one of many things they seem to be making it up as they go along
Click to expand...

It may be that an arguable foul in the build-up is referred to the ref. If the ref says he saw it, as far as I can tell VAR doesn't get involved unless it's a sending off offence.

At some point there might be one which is pulled back, and then there will be even more questions when incidents like this one will come up again. I don't see how a regulation could be written to cover it.
 
I think this has got muddled by broadcasters and managers not necessarily knowing the rules. From the Premier League site https://www.premierleague.com/news/1297352:

All goals scored in the Premier League will automatically be checked by the Video Assistant Referee (VAR).
They will check for any infringements by the attacking team in the attacking possession phase that led to the goal.
For factual decisions such as offside or the ball being out of play, the VAR will inform the referee, who will overturn any award of a goal.
For subjective decisions such as a foul or a handball, VAR can be used to overturn if a “clear and obvious error” has been identified.
The referee will explain his decision to the VAR and what he has seen.
If the evidence provided by the broadcast footage does not accord with what the referee believes he has seen, then the VAR can recommend an overturn.
The final decision will remain with the on-field referee.

Attacking possession phase is:
The starting point for a phase of play that leads to a goal or penalty incident will be limited to the immediate phase and not necessarily go back to when the attacking team gained possession.
Other factors for consideration will be the ability of the defence to reset and the momentum of the attack.

On those guidelines, I don't see how Atkinson's decision could be overturned - there is certainly a split opinion on whether Lindelof fouled Origi, and if Atkinson thought there wasn't enough there for a freekick, it's decided. It would also require (as I see it) Lindelof to be considered 'immediate phase', 60 yards from goal.
 
So the VAR can rule out a goal for offside or out of play. We know that the playback isn't up to judging offside consistently. I also doubt that it can always show the right angle to judge if the ball's out. So the system isn't going to give every team the same treatment every time. It's fundamentally flawed. I could deal with that if there was a dialogue between the ref and the VAR that we could all hear.

Also, the VAR can only advise the ref that a handball or foul occurred if he considers the ref made a clear and obvious error in, presumably, not blowing for it. So that implies that the VAR thought Oliver made a clear and obvious error in not blowing for Laporte's non-deliberate handball against Spurs. Oliver could also have stuck with his original decision. It also implies that the VAR and the ref could decide that not blowing for Alli's handball on Saturday was not a clear and obvious error and the goal could be allowed.

It's also a bit strange that they still think handball is a subjective call. IFAB have illustrated the rule with about 20 video clips on their website. Handball has been defined more than any other foul. It shouldn't be considered subjective anymore.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
I think this has got muddled by broadcasters and managers not necessarily knowing the rules. From the Premier League site https://www.premierleague.com/news/1297352:

All goals scored in the Premier League will automatically be checked by the Video Assistant Referee (VAR).
They will check for any infringements by the attacking team in the attacking possession phase that led to the goal.
For factual decisions such as offside or the ball being out of play, the VAR will inform the referee, who will overturn any award of a goal.
For subjective decisions such as a foul or a handball, VAR can be used to overturn if a “clear and obvious error” has been identified.
The referee will explain his decision to the VAR and what he has seen.
If the evidence provided by the broadcast footage does not accord with what the referee believes he has seen, then the VAR can recommend an overturn.
The final decision will remain with the on-field referee.

Attacking possession phase is:
The starting point for a phase of play that leads to a goal or penalty incident will be limited to the immediate phase and not necessarily go back to when the attacking team gained possession.
Other factors for consideration will be the ability of the defence to reset and the momentum of the attack.

On those guidelines, I don't see how Atkinson's decision could be overturned - there is certainly a split opinion on whether Lindelof fouled Origi, and if Atkinson thought there wasn't enough there for a freekick, it's decided. It would also require (as I see it) Lindelof to be considered 'immediate phase', 60 yards from goal.
Click to expand...

As well as the obvious issues with VAR not overturning incorrect decisions by the referee, I think the PL guidelines are flawed. Throughout the last 2 seasons we were told that shirt pulling/obstruction at corners was going to be punished (and this did indeed have an effect for a few weeks). It is a classic example of how VAR could be used effectively and yet it isn't even covered by the PL's guidelines above. i.e if the ref doesn't see it and there is no goal then VAR can't even step in.
We've seen it happen to Rodrigo this season and last night (i think it was mustaphi) had his shirt nearly ripped off him as the corner came over. It was clearly picked up by the camera and repeated in slow motion. A stone wall penalty and yet VAR couldn't even rule on it due to the inept guidelines.

I suspect that due to lobbying from PGMOL, the PL have climbed down from the strict application of VAR that we saw in one or 2 games early doors. The problem now is that VAR is fudged in favour of respecting the referee's initial decision. It makes a mockery of the whole thing and is why myself and many others are making a protest and jacking it in after this season unless they sort it out.
 
caseball said:
So the VAR can rule out a goal for offside or out of play. We know that the playback isn't up to judging offside consistently. I also doubt that it can always show the right angle to judge if the ball's out. So the system isn't going to give every team the same treatment every time. It's fundamentally flawed. I could deal with that if there was a dialogue between the ref and the VAR that we could all hear.

Also, the VAR can only advise the ref that a handball or foul occurred if he considers the ref made a clear and obvious error in, presumably, not blowing for it. So that implies that the VAR thought Oliver made a clear and obvious error in not blowing for Laporte's non-deliberate handball against Spurs. Oliver could also have stuck with his original decision. It also implies that the VAR and the ref could decide that not blowing for Alli's handball on Saturday was not a clear and obvious error and the goal could be allowed.

It's also a bit strange that they still think handball is a subjective call. IFAB have illustrated the rule with about 20 video clips on their website. Handball has been defined more than any other foul. It shouldn't be considered subjective anymore.
Click to expand...

Oliver/Laporte - no, I don't think so.

Handball by an attacking player, offside and line calls are considered factual not subjective, and are all judged the same. They do no need to be 'clear and obvious'.
 
half & half derby scarf said:
As well as the obvious issues with VAR not overturning incorrect decisions by the referee, I think the PL guidelines are flawed. Throughout the last 2 seasons we were told that shirt pulling/obstruction at corners was going to be punished (and this did indeed have an effect for a few weeks). It is a classic example of how VAR could be used effectively and yet it isn't even covered by the PL's guidelines above. i.e if the ref doesn't see it and there is no goal then VAR can't even step in.
We've seen it happen to Rodrigo this season and last night (i think it was mustaphi) had his shirt nearly ripped off him as the corner came over. It was clearly picked up by the camera and repeated in slow motion. A stone wall penalty and yet VAR couldn't even rule on it due to the inept guidelines.

I suspect that due to lobbying from PGMOL, the PL have climbed down from the strict application of VAR that we saw in one or 2 games early doors. The problem now is that VAR is fudged in favour of respecting the referee's initial decision. It makes a mockery of the whole thing and is why myself and many others are making a protest and jacking it in after this season unless they sort it out.
Click to expand...

An attacking hold is probably not reviewable without a goal being claimed.
Fouls for penalties can be VARed though, I would have thought.

It is broken by the fudge you mention. The flaw is that VAR says "potential hold" to onfield ref. Onfield ref says "saw it, not a penalty", and then it stops. As yet, we have no idea what constitutes something that would lead to a penalty being given via VAR review.

Haven't seen last night's to comment on it.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
An attacking hold is probably not reviewable without a goal being claimed.
Fouls for penalties can be VARed though, I would have thought.

It is broken by the fudge you mention. The flaw is that VAR says "potential hold" to onfield ref. Onfield ref says "saw it, not a penalty", and then it stops. As yet, we have no idea what constitutes something that would lead to a penalty being given via VAR review.

Haven't seen last night's to comment on it.
Click to expand...

My mistake, it was Sokratis who was pulled.
 
Going back to the Rodrigo incident:

Neil Swarbrick - the ex referee and now chief of VAR said:

“The arm was around the top of the body, yet Rodri fell forward. He didn’t fall backwards like he was pulled, he fell forward, so he felt contact, can he win the header? No he can’t, so he’s gone down looking for a penalty."

He's basically accused Rodrigo of cheating. Shouldn't he be forced to resign? How can he fall backwards without defying the laws of gravity?

jzOaBIW.jpg
 
half & half derby scarf said:
Going back to the Rodrigo incident:

Neil Swarbrick - the ex referee and now chief of VAR said:

“The arm was around the top of the body, yet Rodri fell forward. He didn’t fall backwards like he was pulled, he fell forward, so he felt contact, can he win the header? No he can’t, so he’s gone down looking for a penalty."

He's basically accused Rodrigo of cheating. Shouldn't he be forced to resign? How can he fall backwards without defying the laws of gravity?

jzOaBIW.jpg
Click to expand...

Everyone laughed at the woefulness of that attempt. It was one of the early signs that they weren't overruling refs.
 
I have yet to see a player after being pushed fall backwards. Surely this would be a miracle if that ever happened. So now you know if you feel a push fall backwards and that should result in a penalty.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Fouls for penalties can be VARed though, I would have thought.

It is broken by the fudge you mention. The flaw is that VAR says "potential hold" to onfield ref. Onfield ref says "saw it, not a penalty", and then it stops. As yet, we have no idea what constitutes something that would lead to a penalty being given via VAR review.
Click to expand...

Nor will you. VAR is there to confirm onfield decisions. No onfield decisions, as yet, have been overturned.
 
Going back to the offsides, when it came in we had a discussion on here about frame rates and the inherent uncertainty.

It's taken the media about 2 months to catch up with us, but here's the argument re-run as to why VAR can not make a definitive VAR call.

What they can do is call an offside but with a degree of uncertainty - all measurements carry such an error budget.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...-2-4cm-offside-allowed-13cm-margin-error.html
 
Marvin said:
Going back to the offsides, when it came in we had a discussion on here about frame rates and the inherent uncertainty.

It's taken the media about 2 months to catch up with us, but here's the argument re-run as to why VAR can not make a definitive VAR call.

What they can do is call an offside but with a degree of uncertainty - all measurements carry such an error budget.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...-2-4cm-offside-allowed-13cm-margin-error.html
Click to expand...
You do know that story was 17 August, they were aware, just didn't want to do anything about it
 
half & half derby scarf said:
Going back to the Rodrigo incident:

Neil Swarbrick - the ex referee and now chief of VAR said:

“The arm was around the top of the body, yet Rodri fell forward. He didn’t fall backwards like he was pulled, he fell forward, so he felt contact, can he win the header? No he can’t, so he’s gone down looking for a penalty."

He's basically accused Rodrigo of cheating. Shouldn't he be forced to resign? How can he fall backwards without defying the laws of gravity?

jzOaBIW.jpg
Click to expand...

It seems fairly obvious that if someone as strong as professional footballer is pulling you backwards, you're pushing forward to get away from then, and then they release their grip the motion will carry you forward and not backwards. What sort or nonsense is this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top