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

[Always Ali]

Lets take the Rashford offside/goal (disgraceful decision I repeat over and over)

we get to the hear the transcript -

Lino flags 'offside ref'
Ref 'hold up, I didn't see Rashford touch the ball are you sure there was enough interference'
Lino 'I'm not to sure, you maybe right
Ref 'yeh looked like he didn't interfere '

Goal stands.

I mean we can pretty much guess that was the conversation. would that have satisfied ?

- I would like also to have more transparency and what was said, but I'm still unsure it will satisfy and i think the transcripts can be read and manipulated to make it look really corrupt.

"Just give the goal Stuart (Atwell)"

 

[halfcenturyup]

What if it’s endemic of the behaviour in PGMOL?

And that's the point, in any respectable regulatory environment, there would be an independent investigation into all of Dean's decisions to see if there was a pattern, and probably into the environment as a whole to see if Dean is a one-off or indicative of the environment as a whole.

PGMOL? Crickets I imagine.

 

[BlueHammer85]

And the more effort attempting to make it perfect by constantly changing the rules is just pissing into the wind.

So are offside decisions as hotly debated as they were a few years ago ? Same for handball decisions?

Still odd uproar, but both improving season on season.

It is ever evolving, and can only do so by trial and error especially when so many laws and interpretations are in the mix.

I’m for continuing down this path instead of giving up and going back to how it was - i understand for others they feel differently.

 

[Kmezn]

Lets take the Rashford offside/goal (disgraceful decision I repeat over and over)

we get to the hear the transcript -

Lino flags 'offside ref'
Ref 'hold up, I didn't see Rashford touch the ball are you sure there was enough interference'
Lino 'I'm not to sure, you maybe right
Ref 'yeh looked like he didn't interfere '

Goal stands.

I mean we can pretty much guess that was the conversation. would that have satisfied ?

- I would like also to have more transparency and what was said, but I'm still unsure it will satisfy and i think the transcripts can be read and manipulated to make it look really corrupt.

There's no 2 ways at looking at it it's a terrible decision that just looks like corruption with no other option but yes a good devil's advocate arguement.

The bit I'd expect the var to input during that is "it looks like the keeper is adjusting his position based on the offside attacker do you want to come to the monitor to check that you're sure?"

I don't mind not liking the decision. But I always want to understand things...

 

[cheekybids]

Lets take the Rashford offside/goal (disgraceful decision I repeat over and over)

we get to the hear the transcript -

Lino flags 'offside ref'
Ref 'hold up, I didn't see Rashford touch the ball are you sure there was enough interference'
Lino 'I'm not to sure, you maybe right
Ref 'yeh looked like he didn't interfere '

Goal stands.

I mean we can pretty much guess that was the conversation. would that have satisfied ?

- I would like also to have more transparency and what was said, but I'm still unsure it will satisfy and i think the transcripts can be read and manipulated to make it look really corrupt.

Let’s discuss that & ask yourself how did that even become “subjective”. There’s not a person who has played the game or refereed the game that would have considered that as a legitimate goal. On the back of that you had the most experienced linesman in the EPL flagging it off.

& yet we had a referee, VAR team & head of PGMOL telling us that we only learnt after that football doesn’t want that goal allowed & in future it won’t be.

How fucking thick do they take us for?

You know there’s a thread on another page explaining we’ve had 1 penalty in the league versus the Rags in over 50 years, obviously it’s not corruption, it’s just mistakes. Even with a system that’s there to stop them.

 

[Kmezn]

So are offside decisions as hotly debated as they were a few years ago ? Same for handball decisions?

Still odd uproar, but both improving season on season.

It is ever evolving, and can only do so by trial and error especially when so many laws and interpretations are in the mix.

I’m for continuing down this path instead of giving up and going back to how it was - i understand for others they feel differently.

We're 2 weeks or so into the season and there's been a few people are complaining about already but too early to say if there are improvements but yes more changes begets more problems and solutions.... That's just a fact of changing things

 

[Nascent Blues]

the problem is, every single officiating mistake, every wrong decision can just be labelled as 'corruption' (in many forms)

Mike Dean admitting he should have sent ref over and deeply regrets he doesn't - is that really proof of 'corruption' ? it was a human error. Not saying it's acceptable either. but it's clear he didn't make that decision on the back of a dodgy envelope and higher instructions from the FA.

Unless we have an officiating system with or without VAR that can guarantee every single decision is 100% correct, that can satisfy both sets of players, managers and fans at all times - then everything is just labelled as 'corrupt'

It's interesting that you have omitted the reason why he didn't send the ref over, which leads me to believe you are choosing to ignore and address the very point that posters are alluding to: that he didn't want his 'mate' to get any grief.

How many other reasons can you think of that a ref/VAR might choose to consciously ignore and refuse to implement a rule that would correct an obvious error during a match that is being played? How many of those reasons do not fall under corruption? How many do fall under corruption?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Lets take the Rashford offside/goal (disgraceful decision I repeat over and over)

we get to the hear the transcript -

Lino flags 'offside ref'
Ref 'hold up, I didn't see Rashford touch the ball are you sure there was enough interference'
Lino 'I'm not to sure, you maybe right
Ref 'yeh looked like he didn't interfere '

Goal stands.

I mean we can pretty much guess that was the conversation. would that have satisfied ?

No, because now with the stupid rules they have in place they have to consider individually the four criteria for interfering with play. If they don't they aren't doing their job properly. Don't forget the justification for letting the goal stand was that none of the four criteria applied so they had no option but to give it. Which was bollocks btw. But let's at least hear them considering them.

Btw, I would love to hear the real-time justification for not interfering with Akanji's decision to step up and put himself at a two metre disadvantage exactly to play Rashford offside (which he did) or for not interfering with Ederson positioning himself for a shot from Rashford and then being blindsided by Fernandes.

Still raw, as you can tell :)

 

[cheekybids]

And that's the point, in any respectable regulatory environment, there would be an independent investigation into all of Dean's decisions to see if there was a pattern, and probably into the environment as a whole to see if Dean is a one-off or indicative of the environment as a whole.

PGMOL? Crickets I imagine.

It seems they are far keener to investigate players that deny wrongdoing compared to referees that admit to deliberately manipulating LOTG.

 

[Phil1]

Some proper brass neck on you Mark. Even though there’s irrefutable proof that there’s decisions being made in the VAR room that are dishonest and against the integrity of the game you’re still coming up with your usual nonsense to defend it.
What Dean has said is indefensible and should worry all involved at the top levels of the game.

 

[meltonblue]

What if it’s endemic of the behaviour in PGMOL?

Then if PGMOL is doing it then I’d agree the clubs would have a case as it shows they aren’t capable of governing - that I’d agree far more about it being abuse of discretion if they were aware of the motives behind Deans actions. I don’t think it applies to Dean himself.

 

[cheekybids]

Then if PGMOL is doing it then I’d agree the clubs would have a case as it shows they aren’t capable of governing - that I’d agree far more about it being abuse of discretion if they were aware of the motives behind Deans actions. I don’t think it applies to Dean himself.

He’s confessed his motives.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Mike Dean’s admission, and especially this passage, essentially proves what I and many others have asserted for quite awhile now: the referees know there is no real accountability for their corrupt decisions.

"That was a major error. If they don't score from the corner it is not as big an issue," Dean said.

"I knew full well I would be stood down the week after."

And this was an example of corruption because once these types of incidents become commonplace, with authorities making no real attempts to prevent them, it becomes corruption. You cannot claim simple errors or incompetence when governing bodies are aware they are happening, have the tools to prevent them (and/or are aware the current mitigation methods are not working), but choose not to make changes to stop them.

Jobs for the boys is also a form of corruption, even if it is less egregious than more bombastic types like bribery, extortion, or illicit manipulation (which is likely also taking place in the PL).

I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but here we go again:

1 baffling decision is a mistake.
5 baffling decisions is incompetence.
10+ baffling decisions is corruption.

For those that missed it:

Ex-ref avoided VAR call to save colleague 'grief'

Former referee Mike Dean said he did not alert a fellow official to a missed call via the VAR because he wanted to spare him "more grief".

www.espn.com

This also yet another feather in the cap for calls for an independent entity to handle VAR.

This admission would literally be criminal in any other regulatory scenario.

Can you imagine what would happen if a FCA inspector said they didn’t bring a colleague up on missing obvious and egregious regulatory violations because they were not just his coworker but also his friend and he wanted to protect them from consequences?

We all knows that happens in the financial industry, given regulatory capture — at least I know for a fact it does — but it is rarely brought in to the public.

And this is an example of regulatory capture in the PL.

 

[meltonblue]

He’s confessed his motives.

I know, and if he confessed them at the time to PGMOL (or willingly didn’t scrutinise enough), then I’d be absolutely saying they’re corrupt.

 

[cheekybids]

I know, and if he confessed them at the time to PGMOL (or willingly didn’t scrutinise enough), then I’d be absolutely saying they’re corrupt.

So Dean has to go to the PGMOL confessional & say “bless me Howard for I have sinned, it’s been 1 week since my last confession.” How about the question is asked by the assessor as per below….

Each Premier League match is evaluated by a former senior referee who scrutinises every decision using the match footage and event data to measure the officials' technical performance. Former players and managers (Match Delegates) assess the accuracy and consistency of decision-making and their management of the match.

Taylor says he missed it & then over to Mike Dean & he has to say he missed it or he saw it & let it go.

Or the Assessor missed it so didn’t ask the referee who missed it & therefore didn’t ask the VAR about it.

 

[cheekybids]

Mike Dean’s admission, and especially this passage, essentially proves what I and many others have asserted for quite awhile now: the referees know there is no real accountability for their corrupt decisions.

"That was a major error. If they don't score from the corner it is not as big an issue," Dean said.

"I knew full well I would be stood down the week after."

And this was an example of corruption because once these types of incidents become commonplace, with authorities making no real attempts to prevent them, it becomes corruption. You cannot claim simple errors or incompetence when governing bodies are aware they are happening, have the tools to prevent them (and/or are aware the current mitigation methods are not working), but choose not to make changes to stop them.

Jobs for the boys is also a form of corruption, even if it is less egregious than more bombastic types like bribery, extortion, or illicit manipulation (which is likely also taking place in the PL).

I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but here we go again:

1 baffling decision is a mistake.
5 baffling decisions is incompetence.
10+ baffling decisions is corruption.

For those that missed it:

Ex-ref avoided VAR call to save colleague 'grief'

Former referee Mike Dean said he did not alert a fellow official to a missed call via the VAR because he wanted to spare him "more grief".

www.espn.com

This also yet another feather in the cap for calls for an independent entity to handle VAR.

This admission would literally be criminal in any other regulatory scenario.

Can you imagine what would happen if a FCA inspector said they didn’t bring a colleague up on missing obvious and egregious regulatory violations because they were not just his coworker but also his friend and he wanted to protect them from consequences?

We all knows that happens in the financial industry, given regulatory capture — at least I know for a fact it does — but it is rarely brought in to the public.

And this is an example of regulatory capture in the PL.

We investigate & ban players for bookings but referees get a week off match deciding decisions.

There needs to be a bit more critical thinking.

I also don’t think Dean is that naive saying this, I think he’s thrown a hand grenade.

 

[halfcenturyup]

So Dean has to go to the PGMOL confessional & say “bless me Howard for I have sinned, it’s been 1 week since my last confession.” How about the question is asked by the assessor as per below….

Each Premier League match is evaluated by a former senior referee who scrutinises every decision using the match footage and event data to measure the officials' technical performance. Former players and managers (Match Delegates) assess the accuracy and consistency of decision-making and their management of the match.

Michael Oliver says he missed it & then over to Mike Dean & he has to say he missed it or he saw it & let it go.

Or the Assessor missed it so didn’t ask the referee who missed it & therefore didn’t ask the VAR about it.

Or the whole accountability thing is a sham and should rebuilt from the bottom up.

 

[cheekybids]

Or the whole accountability thing is a sham and should rebuilt from the bottom up.

There really isn’t a lot of questions being asked is there.

 

[meltonblue]

So Dean has to go to the PGMOL confessional & say “bless me Howard for I have sinned, it’s been 1 week since my last confession.” How about the question is asked by the assessor as per below….

Each Premier League match is evaluated by a former senior referee who scrutinises every decision using the match footage and event data to measure the officials' technical performance. Former players and managers (Match Delegates) assess the accuracy and consistency of decision-making and their management of the match.

Michael Oliver says he missed it & then over to Mike Dean & he has to say he missed it or he saw it & let it go.

Or the Assessor missed it so didn’t ask the referee who missed it & therefore didn’t ask the VAR about it.

Not sure I get your point? If they just missed it it’s incompetence. If they either knew about it or knowingly missed it then I agree it’s corruption.

Like I said earlier, I agree with the idea of an independent body running VAR and also a different one running the assessments as either way, it shows having pgmol doing all of it doesn’t work.

 

[KentBlue]

There really isn’t a lot of questions being asked is there.

We can ask the questions but we'll never get answers.