VAR thread 2022/23

[Alan Harper's Tash]

It’s a fine line IMHO. A tactical foul to me is when a players wriggled past you and you take out his legs or body check him when he’s put the ball past you. When a player is in full flight and you’ve got to hurl yourself a couple of yards at him to stop him it’s a bit beyond a simple tactical foul.

When I first saw it I thought it was a yellow, when I saw the replay I thought it weren’t great and was a red that. The ref thought the opposite once he was asked to go look again… he’s already been told he’s wrong so was always going to change his mind… they always do.

Can’t imagine VAR did the refs confidence much good yesterday.

Don’t disagree with most of that.

We don’t know what the VAR ref said to the on field ref though. Stating he’s been told he is wrong may well be unfair.

 

[blue by birth]

Neither was Trippier. He was executing a tactical foul.

Tactical yes .but both feet off the ground..could have been red.. definitely wasn't a good tackle..no attempt to win the ball..very cynical and the only plus for him it wasn't studs into Kev's knee

 

[Paladin]

That wasn't a red yesterday. The still image makes it look really bad and if you were using just that it would be a red but in reality it was just a cynical challenge to stop a break.
If a red wasn't given at first, I doubt many would have been saying it should have been a red.

I agree with this. The point is though, the referee on first sight deemed it a red card. This wasn't a mistake, it was an opinion. A valid opinion. VAR isn't there to offer an alternative opinion, no matter how valid that opinion is. It should be used to correct mistakes, and the red card wasn't a mistake.

Had the referee issued a yellow card initially, the same would apply - VAR should not be used to change that decision because it was based on how the referee viewed the incident.

Another poster said from the FA's own website, a number of incidents were played back to VAR officials, and a range of interpretations was reported back. The on field referee's opinion should precede over the VAR's opinion.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Tactical yes .but both feet off the ground..could have been red.. definitely wasn't a good tackle..no attempt to win the ball..very cynical and the only plus for him it wasn't studs into Kev's knee

100% agree with that. It could have been much worse.

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

Yes but adding 2 subjective views doesn’t help. There should be 1 arbiter of the game who using tech should explain his/her decisions. It happens across lots of other sports. Its VAR in football is sub optimal.

 

[stonerblue]

Is someone out of control when jumping to head the ball?

I‘m not sure you can have a blanket rule like that.

No, but if he was taking a throw-in it would be a foul....

 

[coolcity]

I agree with this. The point is though, the referee on first sight deemed it a red card. This wasn't a mistake, it was an opinion. A valid opinion. VAR isn't there to offer an alternative opinion, no matter how valid that opinion is. It should be used to correct mistakes, and the red card wasn't a mistake.

Had the referee issued a yellow card initially, the same would apply - VAR should not be used to change that decision because it was based on how the referee viewed the incident.

Another poster said from the FA's own website, a number of incidents were played back to VAR officials, and a range of interpretations was reported back. The on field referee's opinion should precede over the VAR's opinion.

It was a red for me, for the reasons stated in the post above, both feet off the ground and very late, no attempt to play the ball. Seen them given for less.

I think the whole setup with VAR is wrong though. Every weekend we see half a dozen or more goals chalked off for very close offside calls, after VAR is checked. If the ref gives a goal on a close call it may be wrong technically, but it's not necessarily a "clear and obvious error". So why are VAR involved?

It's spoiling the game (I think "ruining" is too far), and if we must have it I'd rather see a system like they have in cricket where each team captain gets a number of review requests, rather than VAR checking every single thing. The offside thing, where a shirt sleeve or something like that puts a player offside is ridiculous, and not in the spirit of the game.

I've never liked the offside rule much anyway.

 

[jaiguruKun]

The ref going over to the monitor as become a pointless sham as they never have the backbone to stick to their original decision!

 

[Stephen230]

It was a red for me, for the reasons stated in the post above, both feet off the ground and very late, no attempt to play the ball. Seen them given for less.

I think the whole setup with VAR is wrong though. Every weekend we see half a dozen or more goals chalked off for very close offside calls, after VAR is checked. If the ref gives a goal on a close call it may be wrong technically, but it's not necessarily a "clear and obvious error". So why are VAR involved?

It's spoiling the game (I think "ruining" is too far), and if we must have it I'd rather see a system like they have in cricket where each team captain gets a number of review requests, rather than VAR checking every single thing. The offside thing, where a shirt sleeve or something like that puts a player offside is ridiculous, and not in the spirit of the game.

I've never liked the offside rule much anyway.

It was mentioned by someone on Match of the Day that the shirt line thing isn’t a VAR issue. It’s a law of the game. It is just more apparent in VAR games because they have the technology. I agree with whoever it was that said on the programme that they’d prefer the laws to be changed so off side is judged on feet position only. I doubt when they were originally defining exactly what offside was, they ever considered that one day people would be drawing lines on a screen to see if someone’s upper arm was a couple of millimetres advanced than someone else’s arse.

 

[metalblue]

Don’t disagree with most of that.

We don’t know what the VAR ref said to the on field ref though. Stating he’s been told he is wrong may well be unfair.

I know what it means when Mrs MB tells me to check again ;)

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Don’t disagree with most of that.

We don’t know what the VAR ref said to the on field ref though. Stating he’s been told he is wrong may well be unfair.

Unfair is an understatement. More like bang out of order ir that's the case.

 

[blueinsa]

Dermot the apologist defends it by saying he doesn’t put his studs into his knee so it’s not dangerous, it’s a yellow lol.

So as long as you use the front of your foot go in as high as you like with a tackle then eh?

Fucking bullshit from the cunts as they try to excuse yet another bullshit VAR decision.

 

[mat]

Darren Dipper England will be ready tonight

 

[RiversideBlue]

Personally, i thought it was a yellow card however, it sure as hell wasnt a clear and obvious error, so VAR should have stayed out of it and the red card should have stood.

 

[Barcon]

Personally, i thought it was a yellow card however, it sure as hell wasnt a clear and obvious error, so VAR should have stayed out of it and the red card should have stood.

Agreed.

 

[jaiguruKun]

If we must have it I'd rather see a system like they have in cricket where each team captain gets a number of review requests, rather than VAR checking every single thing. The offside thing, where a shirt sleeve or something like that puts a player offside is ridiculous, and not in the spirit of the game.

That would never work, football is totally different to cricket. It would be impossible for a captain/manager to decide in the heat of the moment whether it's worth a review or not. It would be a complete lottery. I do agree the offside law needs changing to favour the attacker more, how exactly I'm not entirely sure.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I think players know that a HIGH tackle (as in over the ball in a 50-50 or above the ankle on a supposed tackle) is dangerous and a strong candidate for a red card!

What is happening now is a joke! Red cards are being rescinded because the “studs weren’t up, even though he was tacked at the knee” from behind, while executing a professional foul!

As I said earlier, I can only assume the VAR official asked the Ref WHY he gave the red card, so he could check that in super slo-mo that was exactly what happened.

The tackle was a professional foul, on the knee, from behind, both feet off the ground, but NOT studs up! So, the VAR Official must have said, “I think you should have a look in super slo-mo, because I don’t see studs up, only studs to the side, even though your view of ALL the other aspects of the challenge was spot on.”

Whether he said, “Are you sure you want to send him off with the score at 3-3 late in the game?!”…who knows?!

Yet another reason we should be able to HEAR THE DISCUSSION, and WHY THE VAR OFFICIAL BELIEVES THE REF MAY HAVE MADE A CLEAR & OBVIOUS ERROR, even if it is after the match!

 

[ChicagoBlue]

That would never work, football is totally different to cricket. It would be impossible for a captain/manager to decide in the heat of the moment whether it's worth a review or not. It would be a complete lottery. I do agree the offside law needs changing to favour the attacker more, how exactly I'm not entirely sure.

They manage it in American Football.

 

[mat]

Personally, i thought it was a yellow card however, it sure as hell wasnt a clear and obvious error, so VAR should have stayed out of it and the red card should have stood.

So VAR manipulated the result?

We'd have won with them down to 10 I'm certain of it.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Unfair is an understatement. More like bang out of order ir that's the case.

Absolutely, but it is hypothetical at the moment.