VAR thread 2022/23

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

So it very much did its job and that’s what it’s there for.

It doesn't detract from the fact that the referee was looking right at it but 'failed' to see it.

 

[Stephen230]

That was me. Three seconds was a bit flippant, but it was certainly check complete very quickly after the ball hit the back of the net. It was way faster than it normally takes for a 'normal' VAR check which roused my suspicions at the time. After the goal Sky only showed a single brief replay with no lines drawn on the screen.

At half-time they showed a graphic that looked like some intern had knocked up on MS Paint, and there was no frame of reference as to the moment the ball was played. All very amateurish.

I’ll accept your word it was an unusually quick review. I honestly can’t remember.

On a more general point though, the reviews that are solely about is a player onside/ off side at the point of a specific freeze frame, do tend to be done pretty quickly. I think that has improved since the recent tolerance level was introduced.

The ones that tend to take the longest are those that involve multiple factors. For example those like the Salah one the other day where they have to consider both the offside and whether they’d been a deliberate play at the ball. Or those where there’s both an onside/ offside and also penalty/ no penalty to consider.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I’ll accept your word it was an unusually quick review. I honestly can’t remember.

On a more general point though, the reviews that are solely about is a player onside/ off side at the point of a specific freeze frame, do tend to be done pretty quickly. I think that has improved since the recent tolerance level was introduced.

The ones that tend to take the longest are those that involve multiple factors. For example those like the Salah one the other day where they have to consider both the offside and whether they’d been a deliberate play at the ball. Or those where there’s both an onside/ offside and also penalty/ no penalty to consider.

Basic offsides are usually relatively quick, and TV companies 99 times out of 100 show the lines on multiple replays. On this occasion that was certainly not the case.

 

[Stephen230]

Basic offsides are usually relatively quick, and TV companies 99 times out of 100 show the lines on multiple replays. On this occasion that was certainly not the case.

My memory is fucked. But is that right? If you’d asked me how often they bother showing the lines, I’d have guessed just on the really close ones, maybe 5 or 10% of the time.

 

[SWP's back]

It doesn't detract from the fact that the referee was looking right at it but 'failed' to see it.

Which isn’t remotely the fault of VAR which did its bloody job.

Without VAR, that’s not a penalty and would be being talked about at length in the agenda or bad refereeing thread.

Only a select number of City fans could use VAR doing its job as a reason denigrate VAR.

 

[HelloCity]

 

[Stephen230]

View attachment 65657

That’s exactly what I speculated might have been the issue with the Wolves “goal” at the time.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

View attachment 65657

Tight cunts.

 

[Stephen230]

Tight cunts.

Yeah but on the flip side they’ve just had an hour and a half interview with Harry on ITV. Swings and roundabouts.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Which isn’t remotely the fault of VAR which did its bloody job.

Without VAR, that’s not a penalty and would be being talked about at length in the agenda or bad refereeing thread.

Only a select number of City fans could use VAR doing its job as a reason denigrate VAR.

I'm not denigrating VAR for that. I'm having a go at the referee for missing an obvious handball. In our game v Chelsea I didn't really see any great issue with VAR.