VAR thread 2022/23

[Alan Harper's Tash]

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.

That’s almost the perfect scenario where VAR was needed.

Its not an exact science as what every single one of us deems excessive force will differ by various degrees.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

And you can be guilty of violent conduct without even making contact with an opponent.

Fair dos. This wasn’t that though. That’s surely when someone jumps in with both feet aimed at the player etc. and somehow misses?

 

[Blue Mist]

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.

Hang on. I don't think Var was invented to curb our progress either. VAR the machine is only as good as those that operate it and that is the problem. The people that operate it. Full stop end of. It was supposed to only interfere if a ref had made a clear and obvious error. Today's rescinded red cannot, in any possible way, be called a clear and obvious error, therefore Var was wrong and if it was wrong it is not fit for purpose.

 

[RayCTID]

The only real contentious VAR decision was the red card incident. In my point of view it was reckless

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

The only real contentious VAR decision was the red card incident. In my point of view it was wreckless

Unlike the titanic them, as the ship has since been found.

 

[RayCTID]

Unlike the titanic them, as the ship has since been found.

Alright smart arse

 

[Paladin]

Fair dos. This wasn’t that though. That’s surely when someone jumps in with both feet aimed at the player etc. and somehow misses?

Probably yes, but there will be other scenarios. @Trevor Morley's Tache in the previous post hits the nail on the head, saying that everyone will have a different tolerance level for what constitutes excessive force. Today, the referee's first opinion was valid and should not have been overturned (IMO).

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Probably yes, but there will be other scenarios. @Trevor Morley's Tache in the previous post hits the nail on the head, saying that everyone will have a different tolerance level for what constitutes excessive force. Today, the referee's first opinion was valid and should not have been overturned (IMO).

Do you think a more experienced referee would have been more likely to brandish a yellow card and let VAR look it over?

I was surprised that he chose red when it came.

It‘s a late, high tackle without much force. Good luck in picking which boxes that ticks!

 

[Paladin]

Hang on. I don't think Var was invented to curb our progress either. VAR the machine is only as good as those that operate it and that is the problem. The people that operate it. Full stop end of. It was supposed to only interfere if a ref had made a clear and obvious error. Today's rescinded red cannot, in any possible way, be called a clear and obvious error, therefore Var was wrong and if it was wrong it is not fit for purpose.

Apologies, I didn't mean to infer anything about your overall view of the intentions of VAR. What I am really trying to get across is that there are many conflicting opinions about football, and we should be careful about dismissing any as being wrong or false or invalid.

I also wanted to defend one particular contributor, because this and other threads, this forum would be a much poorer place without him.

 

[Paladin]

Do you think a more experienced referee would have been more likely to brandish a yellow card and let VAR look it over?

I was surprised that he chose red when it came.

It‘s a late, high tackle without much force. Good luck in picking which boxes that ticks!

This is precisely it. No opinion on this is wrong, because the interpretation is subjective. The referee's first opinion was not wrong. If he had brandished a yellow card initially, it wouldn't have been wrong. VAR had no business to intervene.

Here are three offences in the Laws of the Game that are to be sanctioned with a red card.

The second one is not open to interpretation. The other two most certainly are.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Do you think a more experienced referee would have been more likely to brandish a yellow card and let VAR look it over?

I was surprised that he chose red when it came.

It‘s a late, high tackle without much force. Good luck in picking which boxes that ticks!

For what it's worth I think the challenge could have resulted in a Yellow Card and I wouldn't have been upset.

I was annoyed because the on field ref was essentially coerced into altering his original decision. Even though he was well within his rights to stick with his original decision after viewing it on the monitor, everyone knows that very rarely happens.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Probably yes, but there will be other scenarios. @Trevor Morley's Tache in the previous post hits the nail on the head, saying that everyone will have a different tolerance level for what constitutes excessive force. Today, the referee's first opinion was valid and should not have been overturned (IMO).

I think this is the key point. There is also likely to be a difference between the specific guidelines to the refs and various opinions/beliefs in what they are here - simply, we're making guesses at what is going on.

In this case, the challenge didn't make contact with the studs, and was placed in front of de Bruyne (as opposed to smashing into his leg from the side). Either of those and it's a definite red card. WIthout them, it MAY not reach the bar for serious foul play - we don't know what the ref saw, and if he saw it wrongly, that may have given cause to his decision and reversal.

Whether such high cynical blocks should get a red card automatically is an interesting question which would just add a different instance to make subjective decisions on!

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

This is precisely it. No opinion on this is wrong, because the interpretation is subjective. The referee's first opinion was not wrong. If he had brandished a yellow card initially, it wouldn't have been wrong. VAR had no business to intervene.

Here are three offences in the Laws of the Game that are to be sanctioned with a red card.

The second one is not open to interpretation. The other two most certainly are.

It probably needs hair pulling adding to it after last weekend!

Then again, how significant a tug would warrant serious foul play or violent conduct…

 

[mat]

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.

I'm pro VAR.

I just want real transparency. Until then I will wear my tin foil hat.

"It's only live once" followed by dodgy decisions in their Sunday afternoon games every week gets my Illuminati radar going.

As an aside didn't Stones get red carded against Villa a couple of years ago for the same tackle?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

For what it's worth I think the challenge could have resulted in a Yellow Card and I wouldn't have been upset.

I was annoyed because the on field ref was essentially coerced into altering his original decision. Even though he was well within his rights to stick with his original decision after viewing it on the monitor, everyone knows that very rarely happens.

That’s what VAR brings though. Another pair of eyes.

If we could hear the dialogue, we’d know one way or t’other as to the level of coercion.

We do need to get over this “re-refereeing decisions” issue though. It’s happening anyway in certain circumstances and not (Brighton penalty) in others.

They either need to stick with 99% of on field decisions or let the referee watch any potentially contentious decision. For example, the ref should have been sent to the monitor for the Brighton penalty.

I don’t think many fans would moan about a ref looking at the screen 5 times a game if he was able to give his own subjective and consistent decision on any contentious decision.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I'm pro VAR.

I just want real transparency. Until then I will wear my tin foil hat.

"It's only live once" followed by dodgy decisions in their Sunday afternoon games every week gets my Illuminati radar going.

As an aside didn't Stones get red carded against Villa a couple of years ago for the same tackle?

From memory, he planted his studs in the Villa player’s thigh, although he was starting to slide and was lower than usual.

I do think the fact studs weren’t involved is what has saved Trippier.

 

[mat]

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).

5live commentary team said it was and that was the reason for the VAR. They were confused it was for offside instead

 

[madloaf]

I'm pro VAR.

I just want real transparency. Until then I will wear my tin foil hat.

"It's only live once" followed by dodgy decisions in their Sunday afternoon games every week gets my Illuminati radar going.

As an aside didn't Stones get red carded against Villa a couple of years ago for the same tackle?

'Its only live once (but delay your elation for 135 seconds whilst we check some imaginary lines)' . All VAR decisions are bad because they ruin the entertainment part of football.

 

[deano ou812]

I'm pro VAR.

I just want real transparency. Until then I will wear my tin foil hat.

"It's only live once" followed by dodgy decisions in their Sunday afternoon games every week gets my Illuminati radar going.

As an aside didn't Stones get red carded against Villa a couple of years ago for the same tackle?

Yes he did Mat good memory ..

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Yes he did Mat good memory ..