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

[Mon Autre]

Agree totally,if it’s that tight and it’s taking more than let’s say 10-20 secs to judge not 2-3 mins then you give the benefit to the attacker which was always meant to be the case,unfortunately situations arise where because of which teams are playing they are determined to try and sway a tight call either way..

I think some fans, managers and the media have probably made this situation worse though because when it's their own team that's affected then the need for pragmatism and subjectivity tends to go out of the window. If you have a goal awarded against you where the player's toe looked like it might have been offside after dozen slow motion replays and countless lines drawn on the screen, then you need to be willing to suck up the fact that no obvious advantage was gained and you maybe should have defended the situation better. Some people would still want referees hauled over the coals for decisions like that though.

 

[M18CTID]

On forests point about Atwell being a Luton fan, if so he shouldn't be involded in games of teams fighting relegation
But then the wolves game at the swamp Michael Salisbury was the VAR official who ruled against Wolves on many calls and he is a known United fan since school

so seems PGMOL don't care about such

I've no idea if Atwell is a Luton fan or not but if he is then Forest have every right to call that out because he shouldn't be involved in officiating a game involving one of Luton's relegation rivals. Spitty and Neville can call that Forest statement embarrassing if they want but there's a genuine whiff if he indeed supports Luton and they've been denied 3 penalties in the same game.

 

[mancboy]

I've no idea if Atwell is a Luton fan or not but if he is then Forest have every right to call that out because he shouldn't be involved in officiating a game involving one of Luton's relegation rivals. Spitty and Neville can call that Forest statement embarrassing if they want but there's a genuine whiff if they've been denied 3 penalties in the same game.

That was my point , its a press driven narrative to immediately decry the idea that anything shady is afoot despite obvious evidence and you have to question why they are driving that narrative so hard

 

[Betterdeedthan red]

It's not bent some ex ref on 5 live said so this morning.
Bollocks

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

I think some fans, managers and the media have probably made this situation worse though because when it's their own team that's affected then the need for pragmatism and subjectivity tends to go out of the window. If you have a goal awarded against you where the player's toe looked like it might have been offside after dozen slow motion replays and countless lines drawn on the screen, then you need to be willing to suck up the fact that no obvious advantage was gained and you maybe should have defended the situation better. Some people would still want referees hauled over the coals for decisions like that though.

The reality is however you cut it the margins of the rules will work for and against one team over another. Someone will always get pissed off.

Imagine that scenario was reversed and it was the rags that had scored that goal. Replays show he's a toe offside but benefit given to the attacker. We would all be having the same arguments.

Ultimately rules have to set a line and every decision has to fall one way or the other.

Gutted for Coventry but I don't fault the rules or the process. Although I would like to see a margin of error on these lines and benefit given to the referee decision.

 

[Mon Autre]

I've no idea if Atwell is a Luton fan or not but if he is then Forest have every right to call that out because he shouldn't be involved in officiating a game involving one of Luton's relegation rivals. Spitty and Neville can call that Forest statement embarrassing if they want but there's a genuine whiff if he indeed supports Luton and they've been denied 3 penalties in the same game.

Or maybe people just need to be wiling to accept that these people are professionals and should be trusted to behave with integrity. Players come up against their boyhood clubs and former teams all of the time but are trusted to do their jobs.

Obviously, if Atwell's calls are driven by incompetence rather than bias then that's a problem in of itself but i find it quite hard to believe that someone would risk their livelihood and reputation making deliberately bad calls, especially in today's landscape where they know all contentious calls are going to be looked at and discussed in minute detail.

 

[Mon Autre]

The reality is however you cut it the margins of the rules will work for and against one team over another. Someone will always get pissed off.

Imagine that scenario was reversed and it was the rags that had scored that goal. Replays show he's a toe offside but benefit given to the attacker. We would all be having the same arguments.

Ultimately rules have to set a line and every decision has to fall one way or the other.

Gutted for Coventry but I don't fault the rules or the process. Although I would like to see a margin of error on these lines and benefit given to the referee decision.

I agree that if the roles were reversed and United had had that goal given we would still see the same amount of airtime given to poring over the decision, because it's become pretty obvious that broadcasters are lazily relying on VAR decisions to fill airtime, create content and discussion points. But personally, i'd be very "meh" about it. For me, whoever is involved, I don't think you can be mad if a goal is given in those circumstances. It's consistency that i want to see above all.

 

[Norbert D]

That was my point , its a press driven narrative to immediately decry the idea that anything shady is afoot despite obvious evidence and you have to question why they are driving that narrative so hard

I saw one headline that said “Forest in the dock” and FA to open investigation, implying it’s an investigation into Forest’s wrongdoing but no mention of the obvious cheating, collusion and joint enterprise by two corrupt officials.

 

[Kippax77]

That was my point , its a press driven narrative to immediately decry the idea that anything shady is afoot despite obvious evidence and you have to question why they are driving that narrative so hard

Exactly this.
Spitty and Ratboy know who get the favours and don't want any of it being unearthed

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

It's not bent some ex ref on 5 live said so this morning.
Bollocks

Circle those wagons!

 

[BlueTG]

Or maybe people just need to be wiling to accept that these people are professionals and should be trusted to behave with integrity. Players come up against their boyhood clubs and former teams all of the time but are trusted to do their jobs.

Obviously, if Atwell's calls are driven by incompetence rather than bias then that's a problem in of itself but i find it quite hard to believe that someone would risk their livelihood and reputation making deliberately bad calls, especially in today's landscape where they know all contentious calls are going to be looked at and discussed in minute detail.

It has to be said though, that it’s a lot easier to influence your supported team from behind a screen on VAR, than it is playing directly against them. And then there’s the conversation of subconscious bias.

 

[mancboy]

Or maybe people just need to be wiling to accept that these people are professionals and should be trusted to behave with integrity. Players come up against their boyhood clubs and former teams all of the time but are trusted to do their jobs.

Obviously, if Atwell's calls are driven by incompetence rather than bias then that's a problem in of itself but i find it quite hard to believe that someone would risk their livelihood and reputation making deliberately bad calls, especially in today's landscape where they know all contentious calls are going to be looked at and discussed in minute detail.

Genuine question why do you find that hard to believe when refs are protected up on high, how many refs this season have made multiple bad calls and i dont mean calls where you think something has gone against you because the ref hasnt given it, i mean demonstrably bad calls backed up by video evidence and it hasnt affected their ability to ref one bit, maybe stood down on to var for 1 week, an empty apology and they are back reffing in a couple of weeks, its hardly a big jump to believe that they would make calls based on their bias when there is no consequence for getting calls or contentious calls wrong.

 

[Norbert D]

Genuine question why do you find that hard to believe when refs are protected up on high, how many refs this season have made multiple bad calls and i dont mean calls where you think something has gone against you because the ref hasnt given it, i mean demonstrably bad calls backed up by video evidence and it hasnt affected their ability to ref one bit, maybe stood down on to var for 1 week, an empty apology and they are back reffing in a couple of weeks, its hardly a big jump to believe that they would make calls based on their bias when there is no consequence for getting calls or contentious calls wrong.

Although I think Twatwell is a cheating ****, I don’t think his performance yesterday had a anything to do with his perceived support of Luton, in fact thats more a badge of convenience just like rag twat Alty. No, I think it was more a case of not contradicting his mate and maybe embarrassing him on the field. Lovable scousers rogue referee Mike Dean admitted on occasion he didn’t intervene from the VAR bunker because he was watching his mates back. Now a convenient effect of Twatwell‘s lack of honesty may well have been a boost to Luton, but doubt that was his motive.

 

[jimharri]

It'll be interesting to hear what Gallagher has to say this morning. He very very rarely contradicts either referees or VAR officials. But that carry on at Goodison was laughable. 3 nailed on penalties, none of them given.

 

[deano ou812]

Look I know there’s a number on here myself included in that,who call it for corruption or cheating or incompetence when decisions seem to favour at times certain teams.
Lets not forget a few years back the pen that was given to the rags after FT against Brighton.

 

[Norbert D]

It'll be interesting to hear what Gallagher has to say this morning. He very very rarely contradicts either referees or VAR officials. But that carry on at Goodison was laughable. 3 nailed on penalties, none of them given.

Carry on up the PiGMOB, got a ring to it ! Pun intended…

 

[ancoats]

Whatever reservations people might rightly have about the process around picking the actual frame they use, this one was close but not quite close enough for the lines to overlap. I’ve not seen the official lines but they’ll be a very slim strip of green between the two lines. That part of the process isn’t a human decision. It’s computer generated.

I think I saw a still frame of the offside and the lines did look to be overlapping, So they should have given the goal

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

It's not bent some ex ref on 5 live said so this morning.
Bollocks

There is no definitive proof either way... and therein lies the problem.

When they keep presiding over dodgy decisions and then just shrugging their shoulders and issuing another hollow apology it just compounds the problem and makes it look suspicious at best.

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

Whatever reservations people might rightly have about the process around picking the actual frame they use, this one was close but not quite close enough for the lines to overlap. I’ve not seen the official lines but they’ll be a very slim strip of green between the two lines. That part of the process isn’t a human decision. It’s computer generated.

I was under the impression that the frame selection part of the process was 100% selected by 'human eye' process and then the rest of the process from that point on was 'automated', is my assumption incorrect?

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I was under the impression that the frame selection part of the process was 100% selected by 'human eye' process and then the rest of the process from that point on was 'automated', is my assumption incorrect?

Yup.