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

[halfcenturyup]

var highlighting various shithousery situations, with retrospective punishments, a public game clock that would nullify time-wasting to a large extent. straight red for the so-called "professional foul", ie deliberate foul play, simple enough to put into practice, and would help to diminish the ever-present suspicion of corruption. Breath not held of course....The off-side situation, relying on perfect synchronisation of two events, with a technology that was never designed to be used with millimetre and nano second parameters could be resolved by scrapping a law brought in more than a century ago, when "goal-hanging" was a universal tactic. Bit like the scrum in RU, defended to the hilt by the luddites, who would rather see the game die than admit the bleedin' obvious.

Yerwot?

 

[cleavers]

Pointless putting any effort into explaining VAR errors, no one gets the points back

In this case, there would be no getting points back anyway, we scored 4 other times.

 

[Gray]

Pointless putting any effort into explaining VAR errors, no one gets the points back

How about replaying the games. More TV coverage, more money, more ripping off the match going fan. What is there to not like about that?

 

[BlueHammer85]

How about replaying the games. More TV coverage, more money, more ripping off the match going fan. What is there to not like about that?

More moaning.

 

[Bigga]

What I'm failing to understand is why they're bothering to release the conversations, post match, if they're so confident to do so.

Some 'chats' must be pretty bullshit otherwise they'd allow mic'd up conversation from the ref and VAR now.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Who the fuck is that scouser shouting ‘Where, where … ‘? No wonder they can’t get, anything right with that fucker screaming in the background.

 

[Tommy_Catons_Perm]

Quite right. The lack of terminology from the laws is astounding. The Onana incident. Late, very late, clumsy. What is all that about? It's like two guys discussing it in a pub.

The discussion should be: Was he making a challenge? Yes. Did he show a lack of attention or consideration? Yes ("clumsy"), offense, direct free kick. Penalty. Did he act with disregard to the safety of (or consequences to) an opponent? Yes. Yellow card. Did he use excessive force? No. No red card.

Done and dusted, and explained with the LOTG so everyone can understand it in ten seconds.

It's like amateur hour. Don't they get any training? Too busy with Webbsy, Deansy and all the other cuntsies in their first-class gym and canteen, I imagine.

I watched the Rugby League Challenge Cup final. The VAR footage and conversations were presented live using precise language in a manner similar to your suggestion. Even though i'm not a rugby fan it was clear and understandable how and why the VAR reached the decisions. The VAR came across as competent and professional.

Contrast that with the football VAR footage which is shambolic and unconvincing.

 

[Tommy_Catons_Perm]

I don’t often bother with these threads but there’s something bothersome about PGMOL. Can’t quite figure out why but when I hear the referees communicate in football it sounds odd. Yet when I watch Rugby League/Union it sounds far more coherent and all around more professional.

Took the words right out of my mouth. I hadn't read your post before I posted above.

 

[pauls]

What I'm failing to understand is why they're bothering to release the conversations, post match, if they're so confident to do so.

Some 'chats' must be pretty bullshit otherwise they'd allow mic'd up conversation from the ref and VAR now.

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 ?

 

[danielwood5]

I agree.

It highlights the inconsistency/Incompetence/corruption* of match officials.

The dippers one was allowed as well which had an even stronger arguement than Ake's being disallowed.

If the inconsistency/Incompetence/corruption* with regards to this rule continues team will get cute with offside/players blocking keepers view and rolling the dice on if the officials give it.




*Choose which is applicable from your viewpoint

They've already been doing that, when the rules were first changed on offsides, and the whole active/inactive thing was added, Alardyce at Bolton would put a player right on top of the goalkeeper from corners and freekicks to block his runs to the ball, it was pretty effective and they ended up quite high up the league for a few seasons.

 

[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.