Var debate 2019/20

[hammocity]

Unfortunately for me (but fortunately for my cardiologist), I have the capacity to be equally annoyed by both our profligacy in that match and the current moronic implementation of VAR.

I have arrhythmia but find find a few beers stop the jam tart from reacting too much to the ridiculous decisions made against us.

 

[yerwot?]

The standard of decision-making has declined!!! Any objective measure of the penalty review process can see that there were 3 penalties at least that were not given despite VAR reviews:

City, Chelsea and Spurs lost out. (There may have been others too eg Martial).

My only explanation for this is that on-field refs are leaving difficult decisions to VAR review, and VAR review are only over-ruling ref if it was a clear and obvious error by the ref in not awarding a penalty. i.e. they may find that the player stood on the forward's foot, and conclude that the ref could not have seen that.

I am guessing here, because they are not explaining themselves.

It is an absurd situation where the game is being stopped by a system that does not yet work.

Why are the media not asking these questions?

that covers the issue pretty comprehensively, the "not explaining themselves" being at the heart of the matter. Seems to be a common problem in this country.....

 

[SWP's back]

Gray and Keys got binned off for making sexist comments, not for being outspoken

Sort of. They’d always been bantering old school sexists.

The leak of their behaviour happened when they disagreed with Sky management about certain narratives and wanted full editorial decision on what they said.

 

[SWP's back]

It took six years for NFL to bin their version of VAR, perhaps half full stadiums in England may force the FA to not take so long.

Is it completely gone now in NFL?

 

[hammocity]

Is it completely gone now in NFL?

I don’t think so, it’s just a watered down version. New Orleans Saints were shafted by a decision in the Superbowl semi final last season which if VAR had been available would have seen them get to the final, it was very harsh but the NFL said there was no way they were going back to the review system they kicked out in 1991. I’m no expert on NFL, I had a vested interest in that game as I’d had a bet on the Saints to win the Supebowl, hopefully someone with more knowledge on American football can give us a heads up.

 

[BringBackSwales]

The issue should be - did the referee get the decision right or wrong, not was it “clear and obvious”. It strikes me that VAR “referees” deciding if something is clear and obvious is subjective, not the issue itself - an incident is either a pen or not a pen. Nobody is interested in whether the ref initially got it right or wrong, we are interested in it being right. It is understandable that a ref misses something in real time, it isn’t understandable how they review it in slow motion, and still come to the same wrong conclusion.

 

[crazyg]

The VAR officials don't know the rules they are supposed to be administrating. And not one official or pundit has pointed it out. Laporte did not gain possession or control of the ball. It randomly bounced off him. According to the laws above he did not therefore commit a foul. Jesus' goal should have stood even under the new rules.

The officials in charge of the game don't know what they are doing.

Oh they do, they do.

 

[OrigamiNinja]

The issue should be - did the referee get the decision right or wrong, not was it “clear and obvious”. It strikes me that VAR “referees” deciding if something is clear and obvious is subjective, not the issue itself - an incident is either a pen or not a pen. Nobody is interested in whether the ref initially got it right or wrong, we are interested in it being right. It is understandable that a ref misses something in real time, it isn’t understandable how they review it in slow motion, and still come to the same wrong conclusion.

Couldnt agree more.

The majority of fans were in favour of VAR because we expected referees to be playing by the usual laws of the game i.e. was it, or wasnt it a foul? Instead, while introducing VAR, they have decided to play by their own rules, introducing new terms into the game such as 'threshold' and 'high bar'. We didn't ask for this, nor were we told this would be the case. Why has Mike Riley been told that he can overrule 100+ years of laws of the game and introduce his own interpretation of the laws and effectively negate the influence of technology that was brought in to assist referees and get decisions correct?

The powers that be need to tell Riley and his cabal that they will do as they're told, they will implement the rules and VAR as designed and not their own version of it. They should be told that they either do it, or VAR will be taken out of their control and be given to an independent body who will apply it as designed.

 

[Dodge]

The standard of decision-making has declined!!! Any objective measure of the penalty review process can see that there were 3 penalties at least that were not given despite VAR reviews:

City, Chelsea and Spurs lost out. (There may have been others too eg Martial).

My only explanation for this is that on-field refs are leaving difficult decisions to VAR review, and VAR review are only over-ruling ref if it was a clear and obvious error by the ref in not awarding a penalty. i.e. they may find that the player stood on the forward's foot, and conclude that the ref could not have seen that.

I am guessing here, because they are not explaining themselves.

It is an absurd situation where the game is being stopped by a system that does not yet work.

Why are the media not asking these questions?

I suggest that football fans who have been to these games contact the Premier League, and FIFA with objective explanations and observations.

They may genuinely think it is going OK.

Contrary to what others think, I think there's quite a decent chance that the Premier League will withdraw VAR in its current format. There is clear evidence that the standard of refereeing has declined since its introduction.

One glance at the "who has had the most points/goals/penalties (delete as appropriate) wiped off under the new VAR system" table, tells you exactly why the media are not asking these questions. Had the Jesus non-goal been Ham Salad, they'd be marching from Fleet St to Stockley Park demanding change and Rileys head on a platter. This is the new natural order of things, if it stitches up City, nothing to see here.

 

[Rammy Blue]

The issue should be - did the referee get the decision right or wrong, not was it “clear and obvious”. It strikes me that VAR “referees” deciding if something is clear and obvious is subjective, not the issue itself - an incident is either a pen or not a pen. Nobody is interested in whether the ref initially got it right or wrong, we are interested in it being right. It is understandable that a ref misses something in real time, it isn’t understandable how they review it in slow motion, and still come to the same wrong conclusion.

Exactly. And once again, I will add, that hiding behind the “we don’t want to slow the game down by reviewing at pitch side monitor” is just utter bullshit and code for them wanting to still be able to control the results. Personally I have no issue with the game having a few minutes added on due to the ref checking stuff pitchside, chances are it happens no more than a couple of times a game, big deal.