VAR thread 2022/23

[Don Karleone]

If a City player had done that, I wouldn't think it was a red card. That's what I go off. Yellow was the right call.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Spanner? Correct.

 

[Blue Mist]

Easy to hook though :)

Me or him :-)
I should really learn to ignore wums.

 

[moomba]

Remember Kompany getting sent off against the rags when he didn't even make contact. Just about every pundit said it was the correct call cause both legs were off the ground and he couldn't have been in control.


Sick of our players being kicked with no consequences.

 

[Len Rum]

Out of control.
Cynical.
Could have resulted in serious injury (pure chance it didn't)
Red.

 

[Blue Mist]

Remember Kompany getting sent off against the rags when he didn't even make contact. Just about every pundit said it was the correct call cause both legs were off the ground and he couldn't have been in control.


Sick of our players being kicked with no consequences.

That was when Rooney was the ref.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I see nobody wants debate in this thread.

It should be changed to moaning about VAR thread.

 

[bluemullet]

We will see a challenge like that seriously injuring someone soon, then all the defense of the ‘tactical foul” will change and there will be calls for more serious punishments. That challenge was cynical and Trippier was not in control. It could have ended very badly for Kev and that is the reason why the rules say red for dangerous challenges where the player is out of control. What would actually make that a red for VAR I wonder? Further to that point VAR is meant to come in for obvious errors. That wasn’t a clear and obvious error surely? I know all in the studio said they thought it was yellow but if Kev had been injured would they have said the same? I doubt it, which I think proves the point of why we have reds for dangerous tackles where the player is out of control.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I see nobody wants debate in this thread.

It should be changed to moaning about VAR thread.

Debate what?

The Ref deemed it to be a Red Card in real-time. Someone in Stockley park didn't agree, likely influenced by the TV company (in this case Sky) for not wanting to ruin the game product as a spectacle. The referee DID NOT MAKE A CLEAR AND OBVIOUS ERROR, yet VAR was still allowed to intervene when we are all told categorically week-in-week-out that VAR will only intervene for clear and obvious errors.

It's bullshit if they aren't going to be consistent with its use. It SHOULD NOT depend what colour shirt a team is wearing.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Debate what?

The Ref deemed it to be a Red Card in real-time. Someone in Stockley park didn't agree, likely influenced by the TV company (in this case Sky) for not wanting to ruin the game product as a spectacle. The referee DID NOT MAKE A CLEAR AND OBVIOUS ERROR, yet VAR was still allowed to intervene when we are all told categorically week-in-week-out that VAR will only intervene for clear and obvious errors.

It's bullshit if they aren't going to be consistent with its use. It SHOULD NOT depend what colour shirt a team is wearing.

This bit. There is no evidence of Sky influencing any decision.

The referee decided whether he made an error or not. He could have gone to the screen and not changed his mind, should he have thought he was still right.

The only thing to debate here is what a clear and obvious error is. That is subjective and why we still have these red card debates.

 

[Blue Mist]

I see nobody wants debate in this thread.

It should be changed to moaning about VAR thread.

It's not debate with you.
I never said it was a 2 footed challenge but you decided, for what ever reason, that is what I'd said. You even showed a photograph to prove it wasn't a 2 footed challenge.
Other than the West Ham wanker, sorry wum, no I was right first time, I will debate but it has to be an honest one.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

It's not debate with you.
I never said it was a 2 footed challenge but you decided, for what ever reason, that is what I'd said. You even showed a photograph to prove it wasn't a 2 footed challenge.
Other than the West Ham wanker, sorry wum, no I was right first time, I will debate but it has to be an honest one.

The two footed aspect, whatever you were describing, is irrelevant.

There wasn’t excessive force in the tackle and caught KDB with his boot, not studs.

It was a cynical foul and if you were trying to suggest he could get a 1 match ban red for not trying to get the ball in fouling a player about to start a dangerous attack, I’d be with you

I honestly call all decisions as I see them. I try to remove bias. I’m not trying to WUM anyone, I just don’t think VAR is here to fuck football up for anybody.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Clear and obvious errors don't come any clearer, unfortunately this was after the clear and obvious correct decision.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

This bit. There is no evidence of Sky influencing any decision.

The referee decided whether he made an error or not. He could have gone to the screen and not changed his mind, should he have thought he was still right.

The only thing to debate here is what a clear and obvious error is. That is subjective and why we still have these red card debates.

We still don't have access to any audio and we don't know what feeds they have in the VAR cabin, so we'll never know.

A clear error in this case would be Trippier making zero contact, but there is still the intent. The ref saw it and made a subjective call based on what he saw. It should not be overridden by another subjective decision.

 

[Paladin]

For what it’s worth , having a debate over the pros and cons of VAR is nothing to do with what club anyone supports
If you really think my objective is to be at odds with Blues then why would I create some Music threads which have been enjoyed by many, run challenges for Blues during lockdown, donate to various posters charities over the years and personally helped a few Blues with addiction issues.

Your only issue is that I see some positives with VAR and don’t believe it’s all a conspiracy , for some reason that annoys you so much that I must be a WUM , a ‘fucktard’ and whatever childish insults you continue to throw at me.

If anyone tags me and wants a rational debate then I’ll respond, if not - I’m out of this thread and I’ll leave the likes of you to carry on shouting at the clouds over everything. Have a good one.

You're not on your own @BlueHammer85. Many people on here agree with a lot of the points you make. Many disagree too, but that's what debate is all about. If some people are unable to keep it civil, then that's their problem, and it's a mark against their character, not yours.

Please don't be put off by the vocal, bullying minority. Your opinions are absolutely necessary, and help to give this topic some much needed balance.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

We still don't have access to any audio and we don't know what feeds they have in the VAR cabin, so we'll never know.

A clear error in this case would be Trippier making zero contact, but there is still the intent. The ref saw it and made a subjective call based on what he saw. It should not be overridden by another subjective decision.

And that’s where your bar for VAR is.

It’s almost impossible for it to be standardised as all the decisions are different.

I think a lot of more experienced refs would have given a yellow card on field and let VAR have a look at excessive force and control.

If a subjective decision cannot be overridden by another subjective decision, then no decision could be looked at barring offside and goal line technology.

 

[Paladin]

If that fucking spanner comes on gobbing off about VAR it will prove mine and many others point. He is here to Spam
2 feet off the ground above knee high and yet var told the ref not to give a red. Bent.

This is a poor attitude. You are maligning someone in anticipation of what he might say. Why not at least allow him to voice his opinion, before bad-mouthing him?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Yellow card for me. Would be gutted if one of our players was sent off for that challenge.

 

[Tommy_Catons_Perm]

Debate what?

The Ref deemed it to be a Red Card in real-time. Someone in Stockley park didn't agree, likely influenced by the TV company (in this case Sky) for not wanting to ruin the game product as a spectacle. The referee DID NOT MAKE A CLEAR AND OBVIOUS ERROR, yet VAR was still allowed to intervene when we are all told categorically week-in-week-out that VAR will only intervene for clear and obvious errors.

It's bullshit if they aren't going to be consistent with its use. It SHOULD NOT depend what colour shirt a team is wearing.

I thought that VAR was used to review all red cards regardless of whether there is a "clear and obvious" error? Like it reviews all goals and offsides.

The clear and obvious criteria is used for example when the ref misses a foul which could be a penalty. But the ref dies not see the foul or wrongly thinks there is no foul...so he made an error.

I could be wrong. The clear and obvious criteria seems like obfuscation to protect the officials.

 

[Paladin]

I see nobody wants debate in this thread.

It should be changed to moaning about VAR thread.

You're almost right. A few people are open to debate, but they soon get hounded out if you disagree with their opinions.