Var debate 2019/20

[SWP's back]

Please provide one post of me saying Sterling is “proven” to be onside, you won’t find one because I’ve been the poster all along saying the camera technology means close onside/offside decisions are impossible, even backed up with the same maths equations which was subsequently in the Daily Mail. Good luck and stop being purposefully deceptive.

As for me being “biased” I think proving your “proven correct” decisions as complete and utter lies with factual evidence is pretty balanced but again if you’ve got to try and be purposefully deceptive to fit your narrative so be it.

Same inference when you state:

I presume I’m correct in saying both decisions were actually “correct” decisions or decisions which couldn’t ever be proven incorrect?

To which I replied:

“Yes as much as the Jesus offside and ball hitting Laporte’s hand can also be argued as being ‘proven correct’.”

So you can keep going on about me lying but it’s your reading and cognition skills that are lacking. My point being that proponents of VAR such as PGMOL can argue that they got all four decisions (both offsides, handball and penalty retake) right. Not sure how you found that difficult to follow.

 

[Paladin]

No contact is needed, nor does a player need to go down. The daft thing is refs rarely give a pen if a player does not go down, and make up their own laws.

Absolutely. Nor does a foul need to be of a particular character or strength.

It is quite plain, a direct free kick is awarded (penalty when in the box, by a defender) if a player holds an opponent, or impedes an opponent with contact. Laporte was held last week, Silva was impeded this week, Salah was quite clearly held, so three penalties should have been given.

All this nonsense about 'it wasn't enough to make him go down' or 'he should have fallen backwards from that type of strangle-hold' is just PGMOL and referees trying to justify each other's errors. They should just stick to what is written in the 17 laws of the game.

 

[Fabled mabel]

From ESPN’s Premier League Weekend Review and Sky Sports’ Premier League Talking Points...

Nearly everyone sees that VAR, in it’s current implementation, is useless, except for the entities employing it.


ESPN

VAR complaint of the weekend

Who knew that the biggest flaw in VAR -- or at least the way VAR is being implemented in England -- would be when it didn't get involved, as opposed to when it did? To pick just a couple of examples from the weekend (and there were more -- oh there were more), Manchester City and Tottenham were not awarded clear penalties even after they were checked, apparently because there wasn't enough evidence that they were clear and obvious mistakes, and thus the subjective decisions couldn't be corrected.

If these weren't clear and obvious, it's becoming evident that VAR is just someone drawing lines on a screen to decide infinitesimally marginal offside calls.

VAR is a mistake, a system that shouldn't have been brought in, but as it's here it should at least ensure as many on-field mistakes as possible are rectified. But if it won't overturn these decisions, clear to virtually everyone, then it's pointless.

Unless things change, we've essentially got the worst of both worlds: the game has been fundamentally altered and changed as a live spectacle without actually making decisions more accurate. Well done everyone. Well done.


Sky Sports

VAR implementation still an issue

There was some luck involved though. Handball decisions were the talk of the first fortnight of the season but over the weekend, it was another aspect of VAR's impact on penalty calls that came to the fore. Chelsea, Manchester City and Tottenham all had strong shouts turned down. The law might be clear but it is not obvious that it is leading to improved decisions.

Chelsea captain Cesar Azpilicueta took a kick to the knee from Norwich's Marco Stiepermann inside the box. City captain David Silva had his foot trodden on by Bournemouth's Jefferson Lerma. Then Spurs striker Harry Kane was impeded by Jamaal Lascelles, the Newcastle skipper diving into his path. Not once was a penalty given.

For subjective decisions, VAR deems that when there is not enough evidence to overturn the original call, it sticks with the on-field decision. Is this encouraging referees not to flag - leaving it instead to their colleagues at Stockley Park? The curious consequence of such a high threshold is that incidents most would regard as penalties are still being missed.

It seems the TV boys are at last waking up to whats going on (or not going on).

 

[kaz7]

That's not quite what they've been told, VAR are told to only refer the referee to the screen if they think he would change his decision, there would be no point having the screens, if they were told they weren't to use them. I think we'll see them used a bit more now, as there have been a couple of awkward decisions made by VAR followed by considerable debate from the media, the system will adapt as it gets more data, I'm sure of that, and the "its all against city" paranoia will die down imho. We are bound to get more decisions than most others because of the way we play.

They no doubt have this shady threshold in place for using the monitor,a last min wining goals wasn't enough and so far they have not used the monitor once,oliver not watching the rodders one was ideal to look at the monitor,instead swarbrick has lied about it,they have no intention of letting them use the monitors,they are there for the CL

 

[kaz7]

Same inference when you state:



To which I replied:

“Yes as much as the Jesus offside and ball hitting Laporte’s hand can also be argued as being ‘proven correct’.”

So you can keep going on about me lying but it’s your reading and cognition skills that are lacking. My point being that proponents of VAR such as PGMOL can argue that they got all four decisions (both offsides, handball and penalty retake) right. Not sure how you found that difficult to follow.

And yet they admit the speed of the camera and the doubt about when the ball leaves the players foot lends itself to them not getting it correct,more of a guess but they have to justify var somehow

 

[ballinio]

Kane’s was a pen in my opinion , Silvas was 100% , both not given , in fact the softest one of the weekend was Wolves pen which was given..it’s like the Mad Hatters tea party now.

 

[Jesus2018]

Keep getting told I'm a conspiracy nut and every team always feels these rhibgs are against them. Just a coincidence then that we've had so many already.

 

[mikemcfc]

That’s down to the refs on field.

but that doesn't explain anything, other than that ref on the field is bad, or bent,
it's still bullshit.

 

[ballinio]

To be fair, I think @Florida Blue ’s point was that the current VAR implementation could be completely blind to which club the decision has been made (or not made) against (or for), but if we agree that Liverpool are still refereed differently to the rest of the clubs in the league (as in they are advantaged more regularly than other clubs), the “blind” implementation of VAR, which to date has been to not overturn “subjective” in/decisions by referees, means that Liverpool still benefits from the current implementation of VAR, regardless if there is no intended bias (or bias at all).

A good point

 

[SebastianBlue]

Kane’s was a pen in my opinion , Silvas was 100% , both not given , in fact the softest one of the weekend was Wolves pen which was given..it’s like the Mad Hatters tea party now.

Having been to a Mad Hatter’s “tea party”, I concur.