VAR thread 2022/23

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wasn't VAR supposed to provide objectivity?
As long as there's subjectivity it is inconsistent, open to abuse and therefore unfit for purpose - apart from manipulating subjectively desired outcomes. Should never have been introduced in this remedial state of development.
 
I think it was a yellow card,but I’ll go along with what carragher said a while back the ref makes the decision then VAR starts telling him you need to look at it again all while he’s heading over to screen the VAR official is talking to him planting that seed of doubt,when all he should be saying is go have a look nothing else..
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sky can hear the Comms and vice versa.

Hinchcliffe preaching it's a yellow wouldn't have any bearing on the system would it? Like Carragher begging the rags handball goal stood against Brighton.


I just want us to hear the Comms in real time. Maybe then I wouldn't be so cynical that 3 weeks of super Sunday matches have had VAR calls that have manipulated the result.
 
OK Mr Tash, first ... I never advocated a one or three match ban. I saw an out of control foul, let someone else decide how many matches.
The referee agreed with me..... until Var intervened.
I said 2 feet were off the ground and he was out of control. The Premier League and pigmob stated 2 feet off the ground and out of control was a red so they like the referee today agreed with me.
Please explain where I am wrong ?
 
mat said:
Sky can hear the Comms and vice versa.

Hinchcliffe preaching it's a yellow wouldn't have any bearing on the system would it? Like Carragher begging the rags handball goal stood against Brighton.


I just want us to hear the Comms in real time. Maybe then I wouldn't be so cynical that 3 weeks of super Sunday matches have had VAR calls that have manipulated the result.
Click to expand...
Sure, they can hear what’s going on. We should too, imho.

They don’t contribute to the decision though.

I doubt anyone listens to Hinchcliffe, in any context.

It hasn’t manipulated today’s result. We may have gone on to win, but we don’t know for sure.

If Haaland had buried his late chance, we’d be chatting much more calmly about the VAR decision.
 
Blue Mist said:
OK Mr Tash, first ... I never advocated a one or three match ban. I saw an out of control foul, let someone else decide how many matches.
The referee agreed with me..... until Var intervened.
I said 2 feet were off the ground and he was out of control. The Premier League and pigmob stated 2 feet off the ground and out of control was a red so they like the referee today agreed with me.
Please explain where I am wrong ?
Click to expand...
It’s hard to prove he is out of control and there was no excessive force. He went in to trip KDB to stop a promising attack. He achieved that, without injuring the opponent.

The offence you are suggesting carries a 3 game mandatory ban.

You can tackle with both feet off the floor. You cannot hit your opponent with both feet.
 
Tommy_Catons_Perm said:
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.
Click to expand...
The clear and obvious criteria is another layer of subjectivity which muddies the water even further. Not only does it protect the officials but it also does nothing to remove the potential for corruption. If anything it makes it worse.
 
City players seemed to be suggesting that Almiron's goal was handball but VAR just checked the offside and nothing else. Haven't seen a still frame or slo mo to determine what part of his body it hit. Strange that those types of VAR decisions get studied in detail for other teams (in red).
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
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.
Click to expand...

In theory, yes. In practice, this just doesn't happen. How many times has a referee been to the monitor and not reversed his decision? I can't remember a single one.

It's as if the VAR is the senior referee and if he says go to the monitor, you know you have made a mistake and are instructed to change your decision. It's almost like a protocol.

In hindsight, I think Dean was right not to refer Taylor to the monitor last week because that would have resulted in Taylor changing his mind and sending the Spurs player off - because that appears to be the protocol. However, Dean will have seen Taylor looking straight at the incident. He knows Taylor can't claim to have missed the incident, so it wasn't right to ask Taylor to go to the monitor because Taylor deemed the incident not worthy of punishment for violent conduct. That is a subjective decision about which two referees are entitled to hold differing views.

The Trippier incident today is the same in my opinion. The referee deemed it a red card, having had a clear view of the incident. His view wasn't impeded. There was nothing extra in the review that he didn't know without the review. It wasn't a clear and obvious error - just a matter of opinion. It's fair for other people including the VAR to have a different opinion, but it is a subjective matter, so the referee's immediate opinion was not wrong or invalid.

VAR should be correcting errors, not overturning decisions based on subjective interpretation.

FIFA's definition of violent conduct is "Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball."

Trippier was not challenging for the ball. The question is, did he use excessive force or brutality. I think he did. The referee thought he did. These are perfectly valid opinions, and the referee having this opinion is not an error. The VAR thought he didn't use excessive force or brutality. A valid opinion, but having opposing opinions is not an error.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
It’s hard to prove he is out of control and there was no excessive force. He went in to trip KDB to stop a promising attack. He achieved that, without injuring the opponent.

The offence you are suggesting carries a 3 game mandatory ban.

You can tackle with both feet off the floor. You cannot hit your opponent with both feet.
Click to expand...
Vinny got a straight red in the Rag's match when he clearly won the ball. The bullshit excuse at the time was two footed, out of control when we all know it was a perfectly executed, perfectly timed challenge.

Now I know we've moved on from there but we are still no clearer in our understanding of what is and what isn't a reckless/dangerous challenge because the 'interpretation' changes from game to game for whatever reason we can only speculate. I have my suspicions.
 
Paladin said:
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?
Click to expand...
@Paladin He has regularly voiced his opinion. On many occasions he has been proved wrong. He is a wum.
I will debate with all and accept I am wrong when shown to be. That can be shown when I ranted about the match commander. Richard the Ref put me right, I accepted it fully, I was wrong. We have suffered disgraceful decisions since 2010 so most of us are wary of the var officials and their very strange decisions, when the west ham fan comes on here, this thread, he takes no account of that. He is always opposed to anything a Blue says.
 
Blue Mist said:
@Paladin He has regularly voiced his opinion. On many occasions he has been proved wrong. He is a wum.
I will debate with all and accept I am wrong when shown to be. That can be shown when I ranted about the match commander. Richard the Ref put me right, I accepted it fully, I was wrong. We have suffered disgraceful decisions since 2010 so most of us are wary of the var officials and their very strange decisions, when the west ham fan comes on here, this thread, he takes no account of that. He is always opposed to anything a Blue says.
Click to expand...
I think he has some alternative views to what most of us see. He keeps us grounded. I don't always agree with him, but I don't think VAR was invented as a means of curtailing City's progress.

VAR isn't perfect, but it might get better as time passes.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
It’s hard to prove he is out of control and there was no excessive force. He went in to trip KDB to stop a promising attack. He achieved that, without injuring the opponent.

The offence you are suggesting carries a 3 game mandatory ban.

You can tackle with both feet off the floor. You cannot hit your opponent with both feet.
Click to expand...

And you can be guilty of violent conduct without even making contact with an opponent.
d60597f74af65dd7c2ce30b52ee91882.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top