VAR Discussion Thread - 2023/24 | PL clubs to vote on whether to scrap VAR (pg413)

[spacecadet]

If they ever have the balls to cover the multiple cases of the rags and dippers VAR advantages over the last three seasons, it would have more fucking episodes than Crimewatch. These fucking media darlings are totally unaccountable. Shit on yours and my shoes. Corrupt as fuck.

 

[bluenova]

Without trying to be pedantic, they need to follow a structure for these decisions. The very first question should be "Is he in an offisde position?" Always. Because if the answer is "No", there is no point faffing around considering line of sight, for example. It was an easy question to answer in this case, but it won't always be and they should be made to answer that question and others clearly in a pre-defined sequence. If they can't remember it, give them a questionnaire. They shouldn't just be chucking ideas out randomly. No wonder mistakes are made.

I know what you mean, but I am now imagining Michael Oliver surrounded by Fulham players, with the crowd whistling and jeering, shouting into his mic, "have you filled out form O11 correctly? Have you filled the form? I just need to know the forms are correctly filled and filed, and I'll give the goal."

 

[halfcenturyup]

I know what you mean, but I am now imagining Michael Oliver surrounded by Fulham players, with the crowd whistling and jeering, shouting into his mic, "have you filled out form O11 correctly? Have you filled the form? I just need to know the forms are correctly filled and filed, and I'll give the goal."

He should have sent two of them off. That would have shut them up. :)

 

[Bluearmy]

I know what you mean, but I am now imagining Michael Oliver surrounded by Fulham players, with the crowd whistling and jeering, shouting into his mic, "have you filled out form O11 correctly? Have you filled the form? I just need to know the forms are correctly filled and filed, and I'll give the goal."

Well they have proved themselves incapable at best (likely corrupt) of being able to administer the laws of the game correctly. So however they do it, questionnaire, cheat sheet or getting the IFAB book on laws of the game out, they need to do something as its a clusterfuck!!

 

[BlueHammer85]

Without trying to be pedantic, they need to follow a structure for these decisions. The very first question should be "Is he in an offisde position?" Always. Because if the answer is "No", there is no point faffing around considering line of sight, for example. It was an easy question to answer in this case, but it won't always be and they should be made to answer that question and others clearly in a pre-defined sequence. If they can't remember it, give them a questionnaire. They shouldn't just be chucking ideas out randomly. No wonder mistakes are made.

The time pressure is immense.
It was a point I made before, that some decisions are just not easy no matter how many checklists and questionnaires you have - football has many many grey areas and that’s why officials and pundits who have been in the game all their lives will debate refs verdics and come to different conclusions.

That’s not to excuse some of the really simple ones they’ve got wrong.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The time pressure is immense.
It was a point I made before, that some decisions are just not easy no matter how many checklists and questionnaires you have - football has many many grey areas and that’s why officials and pundits who have been in the game all their lives will debate refs verdics and come to different conclusions.

That’s not to excuse some of the really simple ones they’ve got wrong.

No it isn't. Surgeons have immense time pressure, air traffic controllers have immense time pressure. These guys just have to consider an incident, compare it to the laws and make an assessment. Nobody dies if they get it wrong, and they will sometimes. But if they can't do it systematically, coolly and in a way that explains the decision making process thoroughly and clearly, then get people in who can do that.

Maybe referees don't have that sort of analytical skill, which would be a problem in itself if you ask me, but this stuff can normally be trained.

 

[Bluearmy]

No it isn't. Surgeons have immense time pressure, air traffic controllers have immense time pressure. These guys just have to consider an incident, compare it to the laws and make an assessment. Nobody dies if they get it wrong, and they will sometimes. But if they can't do it systematically, coolly and in a way that explains the decision making process thoroughly and clearly, then get people in who can do that.

Maybe referees don't have that sort of analytical skill, which would be a problem in itself if you ask me, but this stuff can normally be trained.

When you hear some of that audio, it stands out that these are not the right people to be performing this type of work. And if this is whats released, image some of the stuff they’ve decided against releasing. You can only imagine how bad it is.

Its no surprise the Rashford incident has been omitted!! It would likely bring the whole house of cards crashing down

 

[tregyblue61]

What is clear to me is:

Webb says Leno hesitates, his reaction is a little slower because there are 2 Fulham players blocking his view as Ake heads the ball.

Now, in old money, I would give Akanji offside because he has to move out of the way, if not, the ball hits him. Todays law says he is onside because he did not touch or play the ball.

Leno is impacted by his own defenders, not Akanji.

 

[St.Pauli support]

Strange discussion.
To evaluate if a player is offside by moving somehow and irritating the keeper, only that player must be looked at.
Not the keeper or his reaction (what if he has none?), not other players.
I don't assume German offside rules are different to PL's. Irritating the keeper in an offside position by a clear movement is very strictly seen as playing an active role and therefore he's offside.

A rule has to make some sense. And the sense in this case is, the keeper would have to wait and see if Akanji deflects the ball or not before deciding which way to jump. That's a disadvantage, and that shouldn't be the case when the player is in an offside position.

 

[BlueHammer85]

No it isn't. Surgeons have immense time pressure, air traffic controllers have immense time pressure. These guys just have to consider an incident, compare it to the laws and make an assessment. Nobody dies if they get it wrong, and they will sometimes. But if they can't do it systematically, coolly and in a way that explains the decision making process thoroughly and clearly, then get people in who can do that.

Maybe referees don't have that sort of analytical skill, which would be a problem in itself if you ask me, but this stuff can normally be trained.

look at the nationwide anger when VAR officials get a incident wrong - discussed on TV channels , Newspapers, 50+ pages on forums if decision has gone against your team. Potentially suspended from your job, publicly named, likely get ‘corrupt ****’ and ‘incompetent’ thrown at you from all angles.

So whilst not life saving like your examples, I stand by the public scrutiny makes the decision making immense. F*ck being a ref!

 

[halfcenturyup]

So whilst not life saving like your examples, I stand by the public scrutiny makes the decision making immense. F*ck being a ref!

Referees have had shit thrown at them since the 60s when I first went to Maine Road, and presumably before. I am sure they have pretty thick skins.

I accept your point that there is more scrutiny now, which is exactly why the review process should be robust and systematic. Of course, fans and pundits will still disagree with some of their decisions but, at the very least, it needs to sound professional and under control, not the "two men in a pub" audio we had on the Onana incident, for example.

Strange discussion.
To evaluate if a player is offside by moving somehow and irritating the keeper, only that player must be looked at.
Not the keeper or his reaction (what if he has none?), not other players.
I don't assume German offside rules are different to PL's. Irritating the keeper in an offside position by a clear movement is very strictly seen as playing an active role and therefore he's offside.

A rule has to make some sense. And the sense in this case is, the keeper would have to wait and see if Akanji deflects the ball or not before deciding which way to jump. That's a disadvantage, and that shouldn't be the case when the player is in an offside position.

Exactly right. What we are discussing here isn't the law, which is pretty clear to me, it is how the law is interpreted by PGMOL. It seems in Germany they have a sensible interpretation. In the PL, they don't and it changes to suit the occasion.

 

[Bluearmy]

Referees have had shit thrown at them since the 60s when I first went to Maine Road, and presumably before. I am sure they have pretty thick skins.

I accept your point that there is more scrutiny now, which is exactly why the review process should be robust and systematic. Of course, fans and pundits will still disagree with some of their decisions but, at the very least, it needs to sound professional and under control, not the "two men in a pub" audio we had on the Onana incident, for example.

Exactly right. What we are discussing here isn't the law, which is pretty clear to me, it is how the law is interpreted by PGMOL. It seems in Germany they have a sensible interpretation. In the PL, they don't and it changes to suit the occasion.

Yep, these types of goals have been given for years/decade or two here. Never any huge controversy until it comes to us!! See below goal Spuds scored against us given without any conversation about it being offside….

Same as the goal we scored against Villa a season or two back (Rodri coming back from offside i think it was, Mings took 2 touches before we won it back and scored) which had happened a few times previously that season to others and then was promptly wall to wall coverage when we were portrayed as being a beneficiary.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

What we are discussing here isn't the law, which is pretty clear to me, it is how the law is interpreted by PGMOL. It seems in Germany they have a sensible interpretation. In the PL, they don't and it changes to suit the occasion.

Which is why I firmly believe the PL is not, and never was a level playing field. Certain clubs have been getting more than their fair share of favourable decisions (since 1992) which has seriously influenced their league position.

Teams like City have had to work a damn site harder to realise their achievements over teams that have essentially been gifted results.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Exactly right. What we are discussing here isn't the law, which is pretty clear to me, it is how the law is interpreted by PGMOL. It seems in Germany they have a sensible interpretation. In the PL, they don't and it changes to suit the occasion.

So you honestly believe for every incident you can get a ‘sensible interpretation’ and everything in black and white?

You think a simple checklist can cover every single aspect of decision making ?

Unfortunately I don’t have the same faith, watched football long enough to realise we all see incidences differently and even some I genuinely can’t judge it either way.

Most cases are pretty clear and VAR works for these I’d say on average 95% of the time - without VAR then even these clear cases you’re leaving it to a couple on-field officials to take a guess which imo is a no go.

 

[halfcenturyup]

So you honestly believe for every incident you can get a ‘sensible interpretation’ and everything in black and white?

You think a simple checklist can cover every single aspect of decision making ?

Unfortunately I don’t have the same faith, watched football long enough to realise we all see incidences differently and even some I genuinely can’t judge it either way.

Most cases are pretty clear and VAR works for these I’d say on average 95% of the time - without VAR then even these clear cases you’re leaving it to a couple on-field officials to take a guess which imo is a no go.

I wasn't being entirely serious with the checklist thing (they are supposed to know this shit) and, of course you are right, but you are missing the point.

The point isn't to have a flowchart of yes and no questions until you get the right prescribed decision. It's to get a rational decision making process in place that clearly and confidently comes to an appropriate answer. Fans will always have a different view on certain things, but referees should be able to quote what the actual law says and which elements of the law are applicable to every incident. I can't imagine why you are against formalising it better. I think it's all a big pig's breakfast but even I want referees to show to all of us that they can do their job.

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

I wasn't being entirely serious with the checklist thing (they are supposed to know this shit) and, of course you are right, but you are missing the point.

The point isn't to have a flowchart of yes and no questions until you get the right prescribed decision. It's to get a rational decision making process in place that clearly and confidently comes to an appropriate answer. Fans will always have a different view on certain things, but referees should be able to quote what the actual law says and which elements of the law are applicable to every incident. I can't imagine why you are against formalising it better. I think it's all a big pig's breakfast but even I want referees to show to all of us that they can do their job.

A checklist would definitely help tbh. It puts the words of the actual law at the front of your collective minds

 

[danielwood5]

It does sound pretty chaotic, which I guess is lots of people trying to make a decision quickly, but there are various references to the law mentioned in the Ake video. They mention "line of sight" almost immediately, then "offside position" and finally, "has he made an obvious action to impact on the ability of the goalkeeper" which is a paraphrasing of the law.

They then focus on whether it's having a clear impact, and they seem to agree fairly easily that it's not clear enough to say yes. They talk about Leno having sight of the ball the whole time, and the time to make a full length dive.

Given the decision they came up with at the end, I'd be pretty happy with that review. Webb makes it clear that he'd disallow it, but his own language about the impact on Leno is pretty wishy-washy. The VAR argued that it was a subjective decision, and Webb, even with time to think about this, still uses weak language, using words like "seems" to have an effect on Leno, or "we think". All very passive, rather that "it has an effect", and "it is".

That's what's quite interesting with this one, if you only listen to the VAR and assistant VAR it's really obvious why they made the decision they did and they reference the laws they are using to come to that decision.
Then Webb comes in and decides he knows what's going on in the keepers mind at the point that Ake heads the ball and then he just muddies the conversation and decision up all over again.
From the video it makes the VAR guys seem professional and competent then Webb throws them under the bus to appease the baying press pack.

 

[BlueHammer85]

I wasn't being entirely serious with the checklist thing (they are supposed to know this shit) and, of course you are right, but you are missing the point.

The point isn't to have a flowchart of yes and no questions until you get the right prescribed decision. It's to get a rational decision making process in place that clearly and confidently comes to an appropriate answer. Fans will always have a different view on certain things, but referees should be able to quote what the actual law says and which elements of the law are applicable to every incident. I can't imagine why you are against formalising it better. I think it's all a big pig's breakfast but even I want referees to show to all of us that they can do their job.

Got no objection to find ways to make it improve - that’s always been the massive benefit of VAR , pre VAR we had no way of improving officiating.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Got no objection to find ways to make it improve - that’s always been the massive benefit of VAR , pre VAR we had no way of improving officiating.

Of course we did. It was called training.

And before you tell me (I know you will) more mistakes were made before VAR, that again isn't the point. Fewer mistakes would have been made before VAR with better training, and fewer mistakes would be made now too.

 

[halfcenturyup]

A checklist would definitely help tbh. It puts the words of the actual law at the front of your collective minds

They should know it all, tbh. Pretty damming if they don't. I mentioned before that the skilkset to referee is different to the skillset to be VAR imho.

Referees have to make decisions in a chaotic environment in a split second, sometimes, often maybe, guessing what may have happened. Everyone understands that. It's a tough job.

But the VAR needs to be structured, precise, clear and confident. Just dumping referees in there when they aren't properly prepared is a disaster waiting to happen. And the audio proves it. Again imho.