VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

[half & half derby scarf]

Apart from that Wolves game, when have you ever not known what is going on after there’s been a VAR overturn?

Play stops, or doesn’t restart, while the ref sticks his finger in his ear. He runs over to the screen. Watches it a couple of times and then draws a square in the air. Everyone knows whatever his original decision was, it’s now the opposite.

Wasting more time telling everyone what they already know isn’t making anything clearer.

Not the point given that pretty much every time if I'm actually at a game you have to wait several minutes wondering wtf is going on before you even get to that stage

 

[Andy TheCatalyst Morrison]

Southampton would have been denied there first win and a huge 3 points today if it wasn't for VAR.

You continually miss the point about VAR. Every time they get a decision right you’re on here lauding it like it’s some kind of miracle.

People’s problems with VAR are:
1) The lack of transparency / accountability
2) The amount of time it takes and paying fans in the ground having to wait for minutes at a time without a fucking clue what’s going on (linked to 1)
3) They still get an incomprehensible number of decisions wrong which is absolutely inexcusable

So coming on here bigging up VAR every time they get a decision right is ridiculous. That should be the minimum requirement for the downsides of 1 and 2. Add “within a reasonable time frame” and “in a clear and transparent way” to that and I’ll happily join you in singing it’s praises.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Southampton would have been denied there first win and a huge 3 points today if it wasn't for VAR.

But why did a simple offside take so fuckin' long. If the system is up to snuff an offside doesn't need to be seen from ten different angles. Freeze frame, draw line, onside, offside - twenty secs. Could be that the VAR wallahs were a little more desperate not to screw Soton than Everton.

 

[BlueHammer85]

You continually miss the point about VAR. Every time they get a decision right you’re on here lauding it like it’s some kind of miracle.

People’s problems with VAR are:
1) The lack of transparency / accountability
2) The amount of time it takes and paying fans in the ground having to wait for minutes at a time without a fucking clue what’s going on (linked to 1)
3) They still get an incomprehensible number of decisions wrong which is absolutely inexcusable

So coming on here bigging up VAR every time they get a decision right is ridiculous. That should be the minimum requirement for the downsides of 1 and 2. Add “within a reasonable time frame” and “in a clear and transparent way” to that and I’ll happily join you in singing it’s praises.

I think it’s good to bring balance to a thread that only focuses on outrage when there’s a controversial decision.
I understand the downsides, notably the small delay at times can be frustrating- but that’s got to be worth it when you see the joy and huge outcome it does for teams like Southampton , would of been cruel for them to be denied a win when we have the tech in place to get the right verdict.

 

[BlueHammer85]

But why did a simple offside take so fuckin' long. If the system is up to snuff an offside doesn't need to be seen from ten different angles. Freeze frame, draw line, onside, offside - twenty secs. Could be that the VAR wallahs were a little more desperate not to screw Soton than Everton.

Or the outcome is so huge in the context of things that they took a few extra moments just to be sure, the offside was so so close. They have to be sure - otherwise it’s pure outrage and everyone screaming corruption.
The speed of outcomes has definately improved season by season.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Or the outcome is so huge in the context of things that they took a few extra moments just to be sure, the offside was so so close. They have to be sure - otherwise it’s pure outrage and everyone screaming corruption.
The speed of outcomes has definately improved season by season.

Jeez, it couldn't have deteriorated from the first inception. It's far from acceptable in it's present iteration. There are still decisions based on a VAR + pitchside monitor that are at odds with decisions from the previous week!

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

I was at a talk by Andy Madley last week. He said that 1 of the reasons pgmol doesn't want refs explaining var decisions is that 1 of the current refs has a speech impediment. I then pointed out that during my time on the Northern league said referee had no such impediment. Madley didn't know what to say

...so Madley says PiGMOL don't want it but Webb says PiGMOL do want it. Sounds about right for that bunch of charlatans.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

...so Madley says PiGMOL don't want it but Webb says PiGMOL do want it. Sounds about right for that bunch of charlatans.

Yup.

Saying one thing publicly... This is why I don't trust them to run the game. About a transparent as apair of blackout curtains, by design.

Webb can say what he wants. Unless we have actual proof that the PiGMOL have been actively lobbying for a rule change to allow the audio to be broadcast, then I'm going to take his comments with a huge shovel of salt.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

ahh, the glorious days pre VAR.

Ah yes the good ol days. When genuinely contentious moments happened organically due to endless flowing football. When the ref saw what he saw and made a decision, and stuck with that decision. And sometimes there was outrage over his decision, and there was passion. And one set of fans felt that they were undone and the other set of fans felt that it was justified. What I would give to see football like this again, to see a call like this made and everyone having to live with it, and react to it. The best part about it was there was no waiting. It all happened in one moment and that was it.

As to the decision itself, well I can understand the viewpoint of the commentator, outraged by the decision. There's a lot to unpack on this tackle. First, the claim that Berg "clearly" got to the ball first. Well, lets go piece by piece. The through pass bounced through Berg's legs onto Sharpe, who possessed the ball and dribbled it forward back into direction of Berg who was closing down. So the ball was played forward by Sharpe, right into the path of Berg, who found the ball at his feet and kicked the ball through for a would-be corner kick right as Berg shoulder barges Sharpe and they both go down.

What did the referee see? He saw the shoulder barge, he saw Berg not playing the ball as much as he collided into Sharpe. Now, on the other hand, technically Berg did kick the ball right as they collided, but he didn't "clearly" get to the ball before they collided. From the replay, you can see that their upper bodies collided at about the exact moment as Berg kicked the ball. And it wasn't clear that Berg was actually even playing the ball. Yes he got to it, but only because Sharpe had dribbled it forward in his direction. If we're honest Berg couldn't avoid kicking that ball as it was directly into his path.

So the reason for the instinctive decision by the referee to call a penalty and send him off was due to the shoulder barge, the actual impact of his upper body into Sharpe was what he saw. The fact that Berg kicked the ball forward, technically getting to the ball right as that impact happened makes it a difficult call.

I personally think that the best decision there would have been to not call a penalty and allow it to go for a corner kick, given that they both were converging on each other and arguably brought each other down. And the fact that Berg did get his foot on to the ball right as that was happening, though he didn't get his foot onto the ball "clearly" before the impact nor was it clear that he was actually playing the ball. It could also be fairly and reasonably be interpreted as the referee did, that he simply found the ball at his feet and that his upper body smashed into Sharpe in a manner that brought him down.

Now imagine for a moment that this went to VAR review, what do you think would be the result? If I had to guess, I would bet that they would see the shoulder barge and uphold the referee decision of penalty, maybe they would reduce the red to a yellow, but they would probably still give the penalty due to the way Berg was coming in hard in the upper body, and seeing that although he got his foot onto the ball, it wasn't "clearly" before the shoulder impact, and he wasn't clearly making a play on the ball, but rather that he just found the ball at his feet from the dribble from Sharpe.

So for all the outrage there, VAR wouldn't necessarily have overruled the decision and made it a corner. I personally saw nothing wrong with the referee giving a penalty and sending him off, though I would say it was a bit harsh but I wouldn't call it a howler.

The referee saw the way that Berg rammed into Sharpe with his shoulder who was dribbling through the box and he lost his opportunity for a shot on goal. Berg could have slide tackled that ball forward not and not brought Sharpe down and it would have been a corner.

In conclusion, this was a contentious decision, a decision that you could reasonable argue should have been a no-call and a corner kick, but that kind of collision in the box (pre-VAR or with VAR) generally would always cause a foul to be a called, and since the attacker was dribbling into the box he had his goal scoring opportunity taken away from him.

While I personally would have preferred to see a no-call be given here, I have no issue with the referee's decision. Seeing a dribbling attacker entering the box and then being brought down, it's hard for a referee not to call that a penalty in real-time. Again, harsh but not unreasonable given how hard Berg went into Sharpe with his upper body who was merely trying to maintain his dribble forward into the box. Berg did get his foot on to the ball and kicked it forward right as that collision was happening, but not clearly "before" the collision as was argued by the geuninely emotional and passionate commentator, which was fun to see.

See the way that commentator reacted to that is what is missing in today's football. There's no longer genuine passion like that. That kind of passion and ballsy refereeing what is missing in the sport we all love. And I love seeing the players protest and the referee standing his ground and pointing to the spot.

 

[Phil1]

Ah yes the good ol days. When genuinely contentious moments happened organically due to endless flowing football. When the ref saw what he saw and made a decision, and stuck with that decision. And sometimes there was outrage over his decision, and there was passion. And one set of fans felt that they were undone and the other set of fans felt that it was justified. What I would give to see football like this again, to see a call like this made and everyone having to live with it, and react to it. The best part about it was there was no waiting. It all happened in one moment and that was it.

As to the decision itself, well I can understand the viewpoint of the commentator, outraged by the decision. There's a lot to unpack on this tackle. First, the claim that Berg "clearly" got to the ball first. Well, lets go piece by piece. The through pass bounced through Berg's legs onto Sharpe, who possessed the ball and dribbled it forward back into direction of Berg who was closing down. So the ball was played forward by Sharpe, right into the path of Berg, who found the ball at his feet and kicked the ball through for a would-be corner kick right as Berg shoulder barges Sharpe and they both go down.

What did the referee see? He saw the shoulder barge, he saw Berg not playing the ball as much as he collided into Sharpe. Now, on the other hand, technically Berg did kick the ball right as they collided, but he didn't "clearly" get to the ball before they collided. From the replay, you can see that their upper bodies collided at about the exact moment as Berg kicked the ball. And it wasn't clear that Berg was actually even playing the ball. Yes he got to it, but only because Sharpe had dribbled it forward in his direction. If we're honest Berg couldn't avoid kicking that ball as it was directly into his path.

So the reason for the instinctive decision by the referee to call a penalty and send him off was due to the shoulder barge, the actual impact of his upper body into Sharpe was what he saw. The fact that Berg kicked the ball forward, technically getting to the ball right as that impact happened makes it a difficult call.

I personally think that the best decision there would have been to not call a penalty and allow it to go for a corner kick, given that they both were converging on each other and arguably brought each other down. And the fact that Berg did get his foot on to the ball right as that was happening, though he didn't get his foot onto the ball "clearly" before the impact nor was it clear that he was actually playing the ball. It could also be fairly and reasonably be interpreted as the referee did, that he simply found the ball at his feet and that his upper body smashed into Sharpe in a manner that brought him down.

Now imagine for a moment that this went to VAR review, what do you think would be the result? If I had to guess, I would bet that they would see the shoulder barge and uphold the referee decision of penalty, maybe they would reduce the red to a yellow, but they would probably still give the penalty due to the way Berg was coming in hard in the upper body, and seeing that although he got his foot onto the ball, it wasn't "clearly" before the shoulder impact, and he wasn't clearly making a play on the ball, but rather that he just found the ball at his feet from the dribble from Sharpe.

So for all the outrage there, VAR wouldn't necessarily have overruled the decision and made it a corner. I personally saw nothing wrong with the referee giving a penalty and sending him off, though I would say it was a bit harsh but I wouldn't call it a howler.

The referee saw the way that Berg rammed into Sharpe with his shoulder who was dribbling through the box and he lost his opportunity for a shot on goal. Berg could have slide tackled that ball forward not and not brought Sharpe down and it would have been a corner.

In conclusion, this was a contentious decision, a decision that you could reasonable argue should have been a no-call and a corner kick, but that kind of collision in the box (pre-VAR or with VAR) generally would always cause a foul to be a called, and since the attacker was dribbling into the box he had his goal scoring opportunity taken away from him.

While I personally would have preferred to see a no-call be given here, I have no issue with the referee's decision. Seeing a dribbling attacker entering the box and then being brought down, it's hard for a referee not to call that a penalty in real-time. Again, harsh but not unreasonable given how hard Berg went into Sharpe with his upper body who was merely trying to maintain his dribble forward into the box. Berg did get his foot on to the ball and kicked it forward right as that collision was happening, but not clearly "before" the collision as was argued by the geuninely emotional and passionate commentator, which was fun to see.

See the way that commentator reacted to that is what is missing in today's football. There's no longer genuine passion like that. That kind of passion and ballsy refereeing what is missing in the sport we all love. And I love seeing the players protest and the referee standing his ground and pointing to the spot.

I’ve just got home and it’s fair to say I’m, well a bit wired.
So taking that in mind I’ve gotta say the way peoples brains work never ceases to amaze me.
How somebody has managed to find the time or effort to make that post is batshit crazy.
I’m still unsure if I’m in awe or not, I’ll sleep on it.