VAR impact and consequence log - game 27

[flook]

The only point i was trying to make, is right from the very first game, i started to question VAR's motives, and feared for the future. VAR started badly and got worse (i genuinely believe we suffered worse than most - about on par with Sheffield United) Certain clubs have undeniably benefited from favourable VAR implementation. Yes it has improved in recent weeks, but is still unbelievably inconsistent, and i believe had it been used fairly and consistently, whilst i'm not suggesting we would retain our title, we would't be anything like 22 points behind.

I agree completely, Liverpool have benefited significantly more than we have, but we haven't suffered the most. Is it deliberate? is it cheating? who really knows, we all have opinions, but until there is actual evidence, opinion is all it is. I thought (hoped) it was all going to blow up when Mark Halsey came out with his comments about being instructed on how to referee certain teams/games, but that went very quiet very quickly.

Trouble is, when people on here go off on one stating that, using todays example, people are cheating and lying, when in fact it's not possible to prove that, and when in all likelihood it was an error, it just makes them, and by association the rest of City fans, as entitled as the dipper fans, at least in neutrals and dispassionate observers eyes

 

[flook]

I don't want to start another 20 page war of words but I do think some of this needs to be seen as systemic cheating/corruption, we tend to look far too often at isolated incidents. Previous incidences of corruption have been systemic (e.g. Italy) and have been designed as an advantage/disadvantage to certain teams in regards to early bookings, bookings for first fouls, disparity in judgement of what is and is not a foul, tight offsides, inconclusive handballs, ignoring persistent fouling the other way, ignoring persistent time wasting, fixture stockpiling, red cards in the lead up to big games which won't be seen by the casual football fan, just by those who watch those teams on a regular basis. I'm finished, can't you tell I've had the day off work today.

It's difficult to argue that certain teams have been treated far better than others with regards to VAR (and refereeing generally) decisions, so I won't even try :)

 

[ctid1894]

It's difficult to argue that certain teams have been treated far better than others with regards to VAR (and refereeing generally) decisions, so I won't even try :)

Thank fuck for that ;)

 

[Andy TheCatalyst Morrison]

Exactly you fucking baffoon, a decision he didn't have to make. Sorry for the insult but ffs, it's just so obvious, you're arguing against yourself here. As a referee he doesn't have and absolutely should NOT make any decision he's unsure of or has any doubts about. The fact he did make a decision and subsequently told the players a lie that Aurier had "played the ball" is the whole argument, the reasoning of him trying to exert his authority has been used as justification by the Dean defence lawyers but that's just deceptive (dictionary definition of a lie).

Oh the irony. The word is "BUFFOON". And there really is no need to attempt to be insulting.

It's difficult to see what problem you have with understanding that he HAS TO MAKE A DECISION, whether to give a penalty or not to give a penalty. It's a DECISION. So, yes, he has to make a DECISION one way or the other. Just because it's not the DECISION that you want him to make, it's still a DECISION. He chose to justify that DECISION by saying that he thought Aurier took the ball. If he didn't attempt to make that justification, the DECISION to not give a penalty is still a DECISION.

We won't even get on to your definition of a lie, which is just ludicrous.

 

[Andy TheCatalyst Morrison]

He says he got the ball because he thought he got the ball. You have decided to interpret it as him saying "I swear on my kids life he got the ball" when what he is actually saying is in my opinion he got the ball. Even if he is not sure he has to act with the authority of a man that does know. Players will eat a ref alive that looks indecisive making decisions.

Fuck me, some sense at last

 

[ctid1894]

Oh the irony. The word is "BUFFOON". And there really is no need to attempt to be insulting.

It's difficult to see what problem you have with understanding that he HAS TO MAKE A DECISION, whether to give a penalty or not to give a penalty. It's a DECISION. So, yes, he has to make a DECISION one way or the other. Just because it's not the DECISION that you want him to make, it's still a DECISION. He chose to justify that DECISION by saying that he thought Aurier took the ball. If he didn't attempt to make that justification, the DECISION to not give a penalty is still a DECISION.

We won't even get on to your definition of a lie, which is just ludicrous.

Hahaha ok ;) you're wrong but don't worry, too much time has passed to care.

 

[Chief Tactician]

The following is an article showing a survey among fans about the impact of VAR, and the grade of satisfaction. Fair enough to say that most fans don't think it has worked too well so far. Especially fans in the north-west are dissatisfied about it:

https://www.skysports.com/football/...sky-sports-survey-with-yougov-results-in-full

Some of the suggestions to make it better are interesting I think (see the bottom of the article).

 

[Chief Tactician]

Also, I think that this here deserves to be added to the discussion:

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Also, I think that this here deserves to be added to the discussion:

It does lack context, really. It's kind of random numbers as it stands.
How many of those overturns were to correct a referee error (e.g. Aurier on Aguero, although of course we didn't get a goal out of that one), or a marginal offside cancelling a goal. So, are those -3 Villa goals marginal offsides being corrected?

 

[Chief Tactician]

It does lack context, really. It's kind of random numbers as it stands.
How many of those overturns were to correct a referee error (e.g. Aurier on Aguero, although of course we didn't get a goal out of that one), or a marginal offside cancelling a goal. So, are those -3 Villa goals marginal offsides being corrected?

Yeah of course, the context lacks a bit. I don't know whether there are more precise stats somewhere, it would be interesting to see them.

But from what I've seen until now, when VAR intervenes, for instance to call off a goal from an offside position, or to give a penalty for a foul which has been overlooked by the ref, it's mostly the correct decision (there are of course some weird exceptions to that). The above stats are in relation to that.

But the most blatant errors made in my opinion have come when VAR refused to intervene despite of needing to do that. That's because of this strange rule that VAR should only correct 'blatant' ref errors. That's not good enough in my opinion. What is a 'blatant' error? Too much room for interpretation for that... A foul is a foul, and should be addressed at all times. The guy in front of his VAR screen shouldn't ask himself whether it's blatant enough to intervene or not.