VAR thread 2022/23

[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 ..