Var debate 2019/20

[blue44]

garth crooks says

"
Referee Andre Marriner had an impeded view for a clear and obvious penalty on Silva by Jefferson Lerma. The referee cannot give what he cannot see but I thought that was why we had the video assistant referee. Does this scientific 'know it all' only give what the rest of us cannot see and find mystifying?

Manchester City fans expressed their complete and utter frustration with the science. I wasn't surprised. "

 

[Dubai Blue]

For the penalty yesterday, var would have given the pen of the ref had said down the microphone:
I was looking the other way so I didn't see anything. Or
Silva has gone through and there was no contact

If the ref says:
Silva has gone through and the defender caught his foot but it was minimal and not enough for him to go down

VAR won't give the pen

How did we not get the Rodri penalty against Spurs then?

The referee clearly didn't see that one as he was looking in the other direction. So why hasn't VAR helped him out? Presumably because the on-field ref has spun a load of bollocks down the line, if what you're saying above is the correct protocol.

Both the Rodri and Silva penalties were absolute stonewallers. Regardless of what they're claiming down their headsets, the referees can't possibly have seen either incident clearly. Because, if they had, they'd have given penalties in both cases.

So we're now apparently in the farcical situation where we COULD use technology to get the right decisions (which VAR's proponents insist is the only thing that matters), but we're choosing instead to just go with what the on-field referee saw (or thinks he saw) in real time. Kind of like how we have done for the last 120+ years!

If, as you say, we're still fully reliant on the on-field referees being honest in their appraisals of what they've seen (or not seen), there really is no point in having VAR at all.

For those of us against VAR, its introduction has completely fucked up the game we love. And for those who are in favour of it, it's not even doing the one thing they promised the rest of us it would do (i.e., get decisions right).

You really do have to ask yourself what the point of it all is!

 

[give it to gordon]

garth crooks says

"
Referee Andre Marriner had an impeded view for a clear and obvious penalty on Silva by Jefferson Lerma. The referee cannot give what he cannot see but I thought that was why we had the video assistant referee. Does this scientific 'know it all' only give what the rest of us cannot see and find mystifying?

Manchester City fans expressed their complete and utter frustration with the science. I wasn't surprised. "

yea but from what I have read on here Marriner has to admit he didn't see it for VAR to be used so Garth he must have seen it or the ref lied

for VAR to be used the ref has to admit he missed it , that wont happen with their ego's

 

[cibaman]

Is it right that there is a monitor for the match ref to look at and yet it haws not been used? I thought the whole point of VAR was to draw attention to things the match officials might have missed and to allow them to have another, closer look. I don't think it was ever meant for the new boy in the box to have the final say so.

The match ref HAS to be in charge - he can make mistakes or have his view obstructed, so he should be seen to have another look at the suggestion of the VAR man. There is no shame in missing things. Anyone can make a mistake -admitting it would create a better impression of refs than the arrogant 'I am always right and my mate in the VAR box agrees' does them no credit.

Anyone remember the good old days not so long ago when the liner (sorry the assistant referee is better) would intervene and help the ref with something he missed. They are miked up ffs - it's not hard and in the really olden days a decent determined liner would stay put with his flag in the air until the match ref saw it and went to see what he had seen.

I never thought I would ever agree with something Andy Gray and his side kicks said but he shows the probs with frame speed and the moment the ball is touched.

I don’t have any problem at all with them using VAR to rule on offsides. So what if its not 100% accurate due to frame speeds ? It’s still more accurate than a human being trying to look at two different places at the same time. They probably should introduce a small margin for error. There’s also an issue with offsides near the halfway line, whether to raise the flag or keep it down. I’m in favour of keeping it down, but there will circumstances when an offside pass doesn’t lead to an immediate goal but creates pressure eg a corner leading to a goal. And there will be controversy over whether players are active or not. But overall VAR will lead to many more correct offside decisions.

They’ve clearly set the bar too high for penalty reviews. It seems to me to be a cultural thing, refs not wanting to overrule their colleagues. There needs to be a review of the guidelines given to VAR officials. Although they had better make it clear that new guidelines have been introduced otherwise it will fuel conspiracy theorists if they start awarding penalties for similar challenges to those on Rodri, Silva, Kane etc

 

[Neville Kneville]

How did we not get the Rodri penalty against Spurs then?

The referee clearly didn't see that one as he was looking in the other direction. So why hasn't VAR helped him out? Presumably because the on-field ref has spun a load of bollocks down the line, if what you're saying above is the correct protocol.

Both the Rodri and Silva penalties were absolute stonewallers. Regardless of what they're claiming down their headsets, the referees can't possibly have seen either incident clearly. Because, if they had, they'd have given penalties in both cases.

So we're now apparently in the farcical situation where we COULD use technology to get the right decisions (which VAR's proponents insist is the only thing that matters), but we're choosing instead to just go with what the on-field referee saw in real time. Kind of like how we have done for the last 120+ years!

If, as you say, we're still fully reliant on the on-field referees being honest in their appraisals of what they've seen (or not seen), there really is no point in having VAR at all.

For those of us against VAR, its introduction has completely fucked up the game we love. And for those who are in favour of it, it's not even doing the one thing they promised the rest of us it would do (i.e., get decisions right).

You really do have to ask yourself what the point of it all is!

Here's a question: WHAT THE FUCK WERE THEY REVIEWING ?

 

[give it to gordon]

Here's a question: WHAT THE FUCK WERE THEY REVIEWING ?

for penalties they review nothing unless the ref admits he missed the 'foul' so I guess they only review goals to see if they can be ruled out

 

[Blue Mooner]

Another thing, what's this bullcr*p about not changing subjective decisions? There's nothing more subjective these days than a handball decision?

Someone explain to me for example when your arms are in an unnatural position...? Do not for a second try and convince me that is black and white.

It's all bullsh*t they are making it up as they go along including this setting the bar high..where the f*ck is this mythical bar and why do no fans know where it starts?

 

[Neville Kneville]

for penalties they review nothing unless the ref admits he missed the 'foul' so I guess they only review goals to see if they can be ruled out

The game stopped whilst they reviewed it.

 

[Rammy Blue]

What is amusing is the way the commentary teams and pundits are at a complete loss too, there literally is no one who understands the system bar the idiots at PIGMOL.

The way Andy Gray explains their meetings gives me the impression that Riley really is just tweaking this on a weekly basis, for example the way ahead of the second round of matches the offsides got changed where suddenly he tells the assistant refs to flag as per normal even if it’s too close to call - once again eliminating the whole point of VAR.

It stinks.

 

[jrb]

As somebody who was in favour of VAR, and was looking forward to it’s implementation to correct wrong refereeing decisions on the pitch, I’m starting to dislike VAR, and more so, the faceless officials sat in a room using VAR to make incorrect ‘refereeing’ decisions.

The chant is spreading.

“F*** VAR!”

Penalty on David Silva not given by VAR.

That’s 2 stonewall penalties not given by VAR in the last 2 games.

 

[give it to gordon]

The game stopped whilst they reviewed it.

in that case I have no idea what the hell is going on with VAR !!

 

[Brendan110_0]

As somebody who was in favour of VAR, and was looking forward to it’s implementation to correct wrong refereeing decisions on the pitch, I’m starting to dislike VAR, and more so, the faceless officials sat in a room using VAR to make incorrect ‘refereeing’ decisions.

The chant is spreading.

“F*** VAR!”

Penalty on David Silva not given by VAR.

That’s 2 stonewall penalties not given by VAR in the last 2 games.

VAR isn't going to be used to change penalty decisions (that was made clear by Shearer last night on MOTD) - so why are they reviewing them? Practise for actually overturning them next season maybe?

 

[Silvas' left eyebrow]

This is why the ‘clear and obvious’ rule needs to be better explained.

The best explanation I’ve heard is that if there were ten refs in the VAR room viewing the incident, 9 or even possibly all 10 of them would have to agree it’s a penalty. Anything less than that (such as at ours last week) and they won’t tell the ref to look at it on his pitch side monitor.

This, we are led to believe, is because they don’t want refs tottering over to review incidents several times a game (after they trialled that in the cups last season and managers moaned about players getting cold and pulling muscles) and therefore the PL have set “a very high bar” for subjective decisions like that.

They are trying too make penalty decision subject when just like offside they are a matter of fact.

 

[Neville Kneville]

"Run it through again please Tarquin......."

"Foot comes down...on top of Silva's foot....he goes down...in pain...."

"One more time please sweeteee...."

"Foot comes down... yep.....on top of Silva's foot....yep.......he goes down...in pain....yep..."

"Yep ok....I've made my decision...NOOOOO PENAL TEEEEEEE HEHE HEHE ! " (round of applause)

 

[Silvas' left eyebrow]

Silva foot stamped on yesterday by Bournemouth was FACT and a penalty.....

There is no harm in saying ref got it wrong and overturning his decision.....that's what VAR is for !

 

[Rammy Blue]

As somebody who was in favour of VAR, and was looking forward to it’s implementation to correct wrong refereeing decisions on the pitch, I’m starting to dislike VAR, and more so, the faceless officials sat in a room using VAR to make incorrect ‘refereeing’ decisions.

The chant is spreading.

“F*** VAR!”

Penalty on David Silva not given by VAR.

That’s 2 stonewall penalties not given by VAR in the last 2 games.

The “amusing” part too was that Lerma knew it was stonewall as well, his reaction after the stamp said it all as he did the obligatory throw of 2 arms high into the air with the I didn’t touch him look.

 

[Silvas' left eyebrow]

VAR isn't going to be used to change penalty decisions (that was made clear by Shearer last night on MOTD) - so why are they reviewing them? Practise for actually overturning them next season maybe?

They are still fighting against FACT.

I imagine it was the same when finger prints came in.

 

[give it to gordon]

with these VAR reviews I cant say I have notice much of an increase in added time, we were at the Schalke game 7-0 VAR was used for all the goals in the first half taking about 10 mins plus to give all 4 goals yet the added time was only 3 or 4 mins , same in the second half I reckon I was done out of 15 minutes of football which I had paid to see ! the match was only about 75 to 80 mins of playing time. a good 10 to 15 minutes were spent waiting for VAR....

 

[jaiguruKun]

VAR isn't going to be used to change penalty decisions (that was made clear by Shearer last night on MOTD) - so why are they reviewing them? Practise for actually overturning them next season maybe?

Why is the PL trying to reinvent the way VAR is used instead of looking at how it is used successfully in other countries?
Three games in and there hasn’t been one incorrect decision overturned, not one instance where we would have said in previous seasons that the ref’s got in wrong has been corrected. In its current form it’s a total waste of time.

 

[Fabled mabel]

Excellent post and yes, apparently there is a monitor at the side of the pitch. Watched some post on you tube post after the Spurs game where Glenn Hoddle pointed out that the ref didn’t want to keep going over to it because it would add too much time on at the end of the each game. Well, why have it at all if they’re not going to use it.

Thanks for that. My excuse is that I sit opposite the away bench and just can't spot a TV monitor on the other side. Referees can't spot stuff under their nose though.

I think the VAR worked quite well in the 2018 WC because they did use the monitors and it was seen by people as the match ref having the final say which is important. Less so in the Champions League but they had that fiasco with it not working in that Ota incident.

My next question for you or anyone else is that we know the VAR has another ref in his little box but what technical assistance do they get with all those cameras and camera angles and who selects what is seen. There is a lot of technology there and I expect a ref to be a football expert (some hope of that) rather than a techno freak. In the videos above Andy Gray asks people off screen to do the frame by frame stuff for him and I remember when he was at Sky he was pretty good with the tech stuff - well it was his day job.

I am cynical about what the VAR gets to see when I see the the decisions that have gone against us in the first three games and consider how Sky still love the Sky 4. BT have got rid of that dreadful Liverpool fan of a CEO but there are still many left.