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

[BlueMonkey79]

Anyone heard the VAR live communication between us and Fulham on the Akanji offside.

It sounded like chaos!

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

^^ Only just caught up with the footage.

I think as various people have mentioned the absence of any actual reference to the LOTG when reviewing is quite astonishing. These are professionals FGS

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

I'd love to ask Webb can we hear the audio for the Rashford/Fernandes goal at the swamp last season. If you've NOTHING to hide let's hear it ?

Sure he'd be only too happy to oblige :)

 

[TinFoilHat]

^^ Only just caught up with the footage.

I think as various people have mentioned the absence of any actual reference to the LOTG when reviewing is quite astonishing. These are professionals FGS

Sounded like a group of Ladz discussing it on a bar. The pet names etc.

 

[halfcenturyup]

^^ Only just caught up with the footage.

I think as various people have mentioned the absence of any actual reference to the LOTG when reviewing is quite astonishing. These are professionals FGS

Incredible isn't it? We are three years (is it?) into this mess and there is no formal procedure for determining VAR outcomes. The P in PGMOL stands for professional does it not? No truly professional body would ever be so incompetent. Or negligent.

Maybe this is the problem with VAR. Everyone understands that referees have to take an instinctual view on things. They see things once at real time and have a rough job. But this touchy-feely approach seems to he working in VAR as well. And it doesn't work well at VAR. It needs to be a rigorous, rules-based process that advises the referee with clarity.

To the PL: Pay me what you are paying Webb and I will sort it out for you. Who wants to be my assistant? (Have you seen that gym?) :P

 

[TonyColemansbagofapples]

I thought the P stood for Pisstaking

 

[Bluearmy]

^^ Only just caught up with the footage.

I think as various people have mentioned the absence of any actual reference to the LOTG when reviewing is quite astonishing. These are professionals FGS

Its frankly astounding…. But not a surprise to many. A piss up in a brewery comes to mind!!

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

I naively thought they’d have some form of protocol they pulled out and guided their decision making, to help them make consistent decisions and apply the relevant laws. Clearly not! It seems to be “what do we reckon lads”?. No one in the media seems to be picking up on it this

 

[bluenova]

^^ Only just caught up with the footage.

I think as various people have mentioned the absence of any actual reference to the LOTG when reviewing is quite astonishing. These are professionals FGS

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".

 

[halfcenturyup]

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".

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.