VAR thread 2022/23
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
- Status
Stephen230
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2022
- Messages
- 7,335
- Team supported
- MCFC
Not only would be that be very difficult to administer it would also be be giving an advantage to teams who genuinely injure players due to foul play.
Strange that VAR didn't draw the referee's attention to this pull on Harland's shirt when it investigated the possible foul on Stones. Particularly so when we think back to the disallowed Foden goal against Liverpool.
Stephen230
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2022
- Messages
- 7,335
- Team supported
- MCFC
Howard Webb will be pretty pleased with the first couple of weeks of his tenure I imagine.
His desire to give referees the confidence to stick with their original decision when they think they’re right after been sent to the monitor seems to have worked when Andy Madley stuck to his guns after Mike Dean sent him to the monitor for a potential handball in the Palace, Fulham game.
And two cases where VAR was used for the exact reasons people were crying out for it be introduced in the first place. The handball given when the ball hit the guy in the face during the Arsenal, West Ham game. And the Rashford handball at Wolves. Two clear incorrect decisions by the referee that the VAR corrected with one quick look at a replay.
I’ve no problem with people who think VAR should be scrapped. As long as they don’t overlook that decisions like those two would not be corrected.
His desire to give referees the confidence to stick with their original decision when they think they’re right after been sent to the monitor seems to have worked when Andy Madley stuck to his guns after Mike Dean sent him to the monitor for a potential handball in the Palace, Fulham game.
And two cases where VAR was used for the exact reasons people were crying out for it be introduced in the first place. The handball given when the ball hit the guy in the face during the Arsenal, West Ham game. And the Rashford handball at Wolves. Two clear incorrect decisions by the referee that the VAR corrected with one quick look at a replay.
I’ve no problem with people who think VAR should be scrapped. As long as they don’t overlook that decisions like those two would not be corrected.
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
You can't take those figures in isolation. The team with the most time in the opposition penalty area are statistically more likely get more penalties.
Given the amount that City SHOULD have had we should be way out in front on penalties awarded.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,596
Hmm.
On the first point, I thought protocol was not to refer borderline decisions back to the referee? If the referee overrules a referral then surely the VAR didn't follow protocol?
On your second point, this is the classic deflection technique used on here. 95% of the people on here accept that VAR is here to stay, we just want it to be transparent and consistent. It's great that it is correcting obvious referee mistakes, but surely that is the absolute minimum?
Stephen230
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2022
- Messages
- 7,335
- Team supported
- MCFC
Webb made the point in his interview that he wanted both the referee and the VAR to be more confident in making decisions independently. Taking advantage of the other’s input but not feeling obligated to agree with it if they see it differently.
In the Palace incident, Dean was probably wrong to advise the referee checks the monitor. He maybe thought there was a case that it was a deliberate handball. But it seemed pretty clear that the player headed the ball accidentally onto his own arm, which is specifically given as an example of no handball. Perhaps in the past Madley would have felt obliged to agree with Dean but he correctly stuck to his original decision and an incorrect VAR intervention was avoided. Yes, ideally Dean wouldn’t have got involved at all. But the correct decision was reached in the end, which is the most important thing.
the-ecstacy-of-eight
Well-Known Member
I'm afraid that's simply confirmation bias pal
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,596
Fair enough. I was really being a bit snide following the Mahrez discussion we had earlier, for which apologies.
But tell me, do you think the Mahrez decision in the end was correct? It may be that you do, in which case fair enough again. Or do you think following protocol prevented the referee from reviewing a decision that maybe he didn't see clearly?
Sometimes I am confused whether the objective is to get things right, or to "let" the referees potentially make "mistakes" without re-refereeing.
The Light Was Yellow Sir
Well-Known Member
The laws of the game are quite clear in this respect and yet they are NEVER enforced.
This is from the IFAB laws of the game, on the FA website.
INJURIES
- allows play to continue until the ball is out of play if a player is only slightly injured
- stops play if a player is seriously injured and ensures that the player is removed from the field of play. An injured player may not be treated on the field of play and may only re-enter after play has restarted; if the ball is in play, re-entry must be from the touchline but if the ball is out of play, it may be from any boundary line.
Hilariously, so is the one about the keeper holding the ball for six seconds.
“An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area, commits any of the following offences:
- controls the ball with the hand/arm for more than six seconds before releasing it”
I have no doubt, if both those laws were strictly enforced, time wasting would be consigned to history.
- Status