Var debate 2019/20

[Fabled mabel]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...ngry-fans-chant-F-VAR-inside-drab-bunker.html

I seem to remember seeing an answer to your question in this article yesterday.

Interesting. Much of the article is about what an idyllic location it's in and then moves quickly, certainly and perhaps boastfully to the five goals it 'correctly' ruled out.
So if they take pics from the TV companies even with the help of the 'technician' they only get to see what the TCVcompany shows to them? If the technician is from Hawkeye they do a far better job on cricket (and perhaps rugby) than they do on our multi billion sport.
Far too often the officials seem to make unanimous decisions - life ain't like that - these decisions are not apparent to huge amounts of watching fans.
Of course if they showed viewers exactly what they were looking at and explaining their decisions it would be better for us but transparency seems the last thing they want, especially when two of the Sky4 don't even has big screens.

 

[Bandofblues]

I listen to about half a dozen football podcasts and most of the talking heads have had the Stockley Park indoctrination day. The common theme is that they’ll start broadcasting the communication between ref and var in the next season or so for transparency but that they wanted to get used to the system first.

It’s sorely needed and this thread knows that at best, people think var is useless and at worst, they think it’s a conspiracy to help Liverpool. Neither thoughts are right for the good of the game and it’s on them for their implementation of it.

I really don't see what there is that the refs need to get used to.
The PL have already stated that VAR cant be used for a second look by the ref to make a decision so the only way it can be used is the VAR draws the refs attention to an incident.

Penalty not given by ref:
VAR to Ref: You might want to check that one, looks like a probable penalty.
Ref to VAR: OK I'll take a look
Ref walks to monitor and checks.

Penalty incorrectly given by ref:
VAR to Ref: Weve checked the video and there's no contact. No penalty.
Ref to VAR: OK thanks.

I just don't see how or why it is complicated. They don't even have to open the mike when VAR isn't in play and when it is can just tell the players to stand 10yds away out of swearing distance.

 

[Neville Kneville]

I listen to about half a dozen football podcasts and most of the talking heads have had the Stockley Park indoctrination day. The common theme is that they’ll start broadcasting the communication between ref and var in the next season or so for transparency but that they wanted to get used to the system first.

It’s sorely needed and this thread knows that at best, people think var is useless and at worst, they think it’s a conspiracy to help Liverpool. Neither thoughts are right for the good of the game and it’s on them for their implementation of it.

It's not a 'conspiracy to help Liverpool' just as all the shit decisions they have had in their favour in the last 50.years were not a 'conspiracy to help Liverpool' it is just a continuation of the usual.

Certain clubs, get more favourable decisions. Unconscious, bias, outside pressure, a mixture of everything; it happens, it has always happen & it will happen with v.a.r.

You personally have already fallen into the trap by mentioning Utd's 'pens'.

Implying that proves it's ok, because they didn't get a couple of decisions v Palace.

They didn't get a decision v us, when Bravo 'could' have had a red card. Jonny Evans got a red, off none other than Clattenburg. Mané got sent off for kicking Ederson, even by Jon Moss.

It happens. They don't get 'every' decision (they wouldn't even if it was fixed, quite the opposite) they just get more than their fair share.

When they need it, Liverpool, Utd, Bayern, Barca etc will get more crucial decisions than we will. Some will be mirror images of ones we don't get. It's not because refs are being paid, it's just what they do & have always done.

Refs are in charge of v.a.r. so they will do it with v.a.r. not always, just 'enough'. And at the end, they will look back to the ones they didn't get & go: "see....it evens out ".

 

[simon23]

one of the real problems (amongst a number of them) seems to be the differing interpritations of "clear and obvious" and when/how that is used.

For all fans the two none penalty incidents were "clear and obvious" penalties and for the ref to not give them is a "clear and obvious" mistake.

So how/when does the VAR officials deem that the ref has made a "clear and obvious" mistake as its my understanding it is only then that they will intervene and say to a ref he needs to change his decision.

Can clear and obvious ever be used in extremely marginal offside calls? For me no, as they are not clear and obvious to the naked eye. - contradictory to this however it is a black and white call (taking into account the camera speeds against the speeds the players are moving etc) so its certainly more clear than a foul with is a subjective call.

Maybe they need to do a number of things to help:

1. Re write the handball rule (or at least part of it - its an abomination as it stands.

2. Take out the clear and obvious statement - this goes hand in hand with the most crucial point in that VAR should be seen by ALL (esp ref's and its implementors) as something that is there to HELP not criticise a ref's performance - anyone who has ref'd any level of game from kids Sunday league right the way to the top should know what an extremely hard job it is. To this, VAR officials need to be stronger and not afraid to say to a ref - "having looked at the video evidence a number of times you have got to change your decision there." - this would especially apply to the penalty decisions which are possibly the hardest to judge

3. Re -write the offside rule - go back to the idea that there must be daylight between attacker and defender for it to be offside - Im no mathematician but this would give at least some margin of error in terms of movement of the player and camera speed. It wold also take out (mostly) the arguments about which part of the body is level/not level -it wold give the advantage to the attackers but surely thats what the whole world of football want to see anyway?

In no way is this 100% proof and fouls/penalties will always be subjective - i think its impossible for them not to be. Was Salah's a penalty - yes it was soft but then Luiz should not have hold of his shirt. Does it impede him? I know someone grabbing my short aint stopping me running in the direction I want to go -but Luiz shouldnt be doing it

Does a slight touch knock a player over running at speed of a sterling, sane, salah, martial etc - from experience it certainly does...it doesnt take much at the pace those guys are running to knock them over due to momentum - slow motion replays make it look theatrical (and sometimes it is lets not kid ourselves - players do it at times). There wasnt a single pundit who said the rodri one wasnt a penalty however -you have to (as a ref) look at that and go - "ok i made a mistake - and here is my final point - the people in charge need to come out and say this as they are doing their own (and the VAR systems) credibility huge damage

 

[SWP's back]

It's not a 'conspiracy to help Liverpool' just as all the shit decisions they have had in their favour in the last 50.years were not a 'conspiracy to help Liverpool' it is just a continuation of the usual.

Certain clubs, get more favourable decisions. Unconscious, bias, outside pressure, a mixture of everything; it happens, it has always happen & it will happen with v.a.r.

You personally have already fallen into the trap by mentioning Utd's 'pens'.

Implying that proves it's ok, because they didn't get a couple of decisions v Palace.

They didn't get a decision v us, when Bravo 'could' have had a red card. Jonny Evans got a red, off none other than Clattenburg. Mané got sent off for kicking Ederson, even by Jon Moss.

It happens. They don't get 'every' decision (they wouldn't even if it was fixed, quite the opposite) they just get more than their fair share.

When they need it, Liverpool, Utd, Bayern, Barca etc will get more crucial decisions than we will. Some will be mirror images of ones we don't get. It's not because refs are being paid, it's just what they do & have always done.

Refs are in charge of v.a.r. so they will do it with v.a.r. not always, just 'enough'. And at the end, they will look back to the ones they didn't get & go: "see....it evens out ".

In your paranoid mind maybe.

 

[cibaman]

Agreed, but the advantage HAS to be with the attacker, so a close call (6 inches/15 inches depending onwhere you read the accuracy) should not be flagged

If, prior to VAR, a refs asst had kept his flag down when the cameras showed a player to be 6+ inches offside, there would have demands for him to be sent to Specsavers

 

[squirtyflower]

Bein Sports taking VAR apart for being useless in not making the ref check the monitor for all these decisions.

Saying IFAB’s rules state the referee SHOULD be invited to view the replay on the monitor.

Using German league from today as example of how it should be used and how VAR made a ref re-look at an incident today and he changed his mind.

Taking the puss out of Mike Riley and saying “Sorry Mike, you’re wrong”. “PL is only league in the world doing it this way”

I said last season that the introduction of the PL version of VAR was going to be a cheats charter. Unfortunately the cheats are the refs conning the public.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Roll the whole thing back and give the ref a monitor for when they need it . Simple, and it keeps the subjective decisions with the guy on the field.... Not some concoction of people behind the scenes.

 

[cibaman]

one of the real problems (amongst a number of them) seems to be the differing interpritations of "clear and obvious" and when/how that is used.

For all fans the two none penalty incidents were "clear and obvious" penalties and for the ref to not give them is a "clear and obvious" mistake.

So how/when does the VAR officials deem that the ref has made a "clear and obvious" mistake as its my understanding it is only then that they will intervene and say to a ref he needs to change his decision.

Can clear and obvious ever be used in extremely marginal offside calls? For me no, as they are not clear and obvious to the naked eye. - contradictory to this however it is a black and white call (taking into account the camera speeds against the speeds the players are moving etc) so its certainly more clear than a foul with is a subjective call.

Maybe they need to do a number of things to help:

1. Re write the handball rule (or at least part of it - its an abomination as it stands.

2. Take out the clear and obvious statement - this goes hand in hand with the most crucial point in that VAR should be seen by ALL (esp ref's and its implementors) as something that is there to HELP not criticise a ref's performance - anyone who has ref'd any level of game from kids Sunday league right the way to the top should know what an extremely hard job it is. To this, VAR officials need to be stronger and not afraid to say to a ref - "having looked at the video evidence a number of times you have got to change your decision there." - this would especially apply to the penalty decisions which are possibly the hardest to judge

3. Re -write the offside rule - go back to the idea that there must be daylight between attacker and defender for it to be offside - Im no mathematician but this would give at least some margin of error in terms of movement of the player and camera speed. It wold also take out (mostly) the arguments about which part of the body is level/not level -it wold give the advantage to the attackers but surely thats what the whole world of football want to see anyway?

In no way is this 100% proof and fouls/penalties will always be subjective - i think its impossible for them not to be. Was Salah's a penalty - yes it was soft but then Luiz should not have hold of his shirt. Does it impede him? I know someone grabbing my short aint stopping me running in the direction I want to go -but Luiz shouldnt be doing it

Does a slight touch knock a player over running at speed of a sterling, sane, salah, martial etc - from experience it certainly does...it doesnt take much at the pace those guys are running to knock them over due to momentum - slow motion replays make it look theatrical (and sometimes it is lets not kid ourselves - players do it at times). There wasnt a single pundit who said the rodri one wasnt a penalty however -you have to (as a ref) look at that and go - "ok i made a mistake - and here is my final point - the people in charge need to come out and say this as they are doing their own (and the VAR systems) credibility huge damage

2 When they first introduced reviews in cricket there was massive opposition from commentators who claimed it would undermine umpires. But now it’s almost 100% accepted, especially by the umpires. There’s been a huge culture shift.

Joel Wilson will be bitterly regretting this morning that the Aussies didn’t have one more review left yesterday.

 

[balotellishaircut]

I really don't see what there is that the refs need to get used to.
The PL have already stated that VAR cant be used for a second look by the ref to make a decision so the only way it can be used is the VAR draws the refs attention to an incident.

Penalty not given by ref:
VAR to Ref: You might want to check that one, looks like a probable penalty.
Ref to VAR: OK I'll take a look
Ref walks to monitor and checks.

Penalty incorrectly given by ref:
VAR to Ref: Weve checked the video and there's no contact. No penalty.
Ref to VAR: OK thanks.

I just don't see how or why it is complicated. They don't even have to open the mike when VAR isn't in play and when it is can just tell the players to stand 10yds away out of swearing distance.

Its complicated because it's used in this country and viewed by numpties, who think the ref should be always 100% right, the guy stands on Merlins foot and the Var ref says no penalty, corruption before our very eyes.