VAR thread 2022/23

[mat]

It's ironic that VAR was sold as removing controversial decisions, yet here we are. Blues arguing over controversial decisions.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

If we're speculating on what went on between the referee and the VAR, how about...

VAR: "Red card, checking. What reasoning did you give the red card for?"
Ref: "Use of excessive force against an opponent when not challenging for the ball. Violent conduct."
VAR: "Fair enough, if that's your opinion, it's a red card under the Laws of the Game."

I agree it's speculation, and yours is as reasonable a process as mine.

The transcript would clear away a lot of the "we don't know" aspect that makes any opinion on the reasons for the change guesswork.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I agree it's speculation, and yours is as reasonable a process as mine.

The transcript would clear away a lot of the "we don't know" aspect that makes any opinion on the reasons for the change guesswork.

Do you wonder why the PiGMOL have been so reluctant to allow unfettered access to the VAR comm's?

 

[AirbagsOptionalTheReturn]

Apparently the RAGS 2nd last night was within new "tolerance" levels brought into VAR this season (first I have heard of it) - from a tweet by Dale Johnson at ESPN "Would have been offside in 2020-21. When a player is onside due to tolerance level one green line is shown, drawn to the defender."

Amazing the first we hear about this new tolerance it is for the RAG's benefit, waits to see if same tolerance will be given to other teams.

I am all for VAR, if used and communicated to the fans correctly, things like clear and obvious need to be explained live if a decision is overturned (like the red against us the other day), offsides like this should be explained at the time as well (not just showing wonky lines), if they did that and adopted the Rugby set-up I am sure everyone would be a lot happier (they still get things wrong in Rugby but the numbers are much smaller).

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Do you wonder why the PiGMOL have been so reluctant to allow unfettered access to the VAR comm's?

I wasn't aware that the comms are available in any country - happy to be proved wrong, but they aren't available at international tournaments.

I don't think that the TV people should have access when radio don't.

 

[bluenova]

If we're speculating on what went on between the referee and the VAR, how about...

VAR: "Red card, checking. What reasoning did you give the red card for?"
Ref: "Use of excessive force against an opponent when not challenging for the ball. Violent conduct."
VAR: "Fair enough, if that's your opinion, it's a red card under the Laws of the Game."

I know @MillionMilesAway has suggested this is as 'reasonable' as their suggestion, but I have to disagree.

The ref wouldn't be quoting the law back at VAR, he'd be saying WHY he thought this hit that threshold, so a conversation like the one you replied to would be much more likely.

The VAR needs to know WHY he thought it was excessive force, so that the refs onfield decision can be supported. If he says 'studs up challenge at knee height', and that's what happened, then, even if the VAR disagrees that it was worthy of a red, they should defer to the ref. If that's not what happened, then they tell the ref to have another look.

I'm surprised it was overturned - I think it was one where, whichever way the ref gave it (yellow or red), it would be upheld. I can also see that if we had the audio or an explanation, that would help a lot, but even before I'd read the post you replied to, I'd assumed the same kind of thinking.

 

[stonerblue]

The referees have guidelines about how to apply the laws of the game, don't they? Does anyone know if these are published?

Or is it like some sort of secret society where nobody is allowed to know how anything works unless they have a weird handshake?

These 'guidelines' are what i was originally on about regarding both feet off the ground when tackling. I'm pretty sure that it was the mantra for several seasons that that shoul;d be regarded as out of control.

 

[stonerblue]

My counter-argument is that Trippier didn't lunge at the player. He lunged in front of the player to impede him.

What?

 

[richardtheref]

The referees have guidelines about how to apply the laws of the game, don't they? Does anyone know if these are published?

Or is it like some sort of secret society where nobody is allowed to know how anything works unless they have a weird handshake?

They are not available to public. When I was registered I would get sent them sent each year, usually 4 weeks after the season started.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

These 'guidelines' are what i was originally on about regarding both feet off the ground when tackling. I'm pretty sure that it was the mantra for several seasons that that should be regarded as out of control.

Did that not come into force after Rughead coerced the referee into giving Vinny his marching orders for a perfectly timed and executed challenge on Nani in the Derby?

IIRC there was a very similar challenge in the next round of games that went totally unpunished.