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.

 

[halfcenturyup]

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.

Yes, I know. And most people knew what you meant. I imagine.

Does nobody have access to these guidelines?

 

[stonerblue]

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).

well that's bollox as the other marginal offsides we've seen in the last week were all given.

 

[stonerblue]

Yes, I know. And most people knew what you meant. I imagine.

Does nobody have access to these guidelines?

one or two seemed a little confused...

 

[halfcenturyup]

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.

Oh right. Thanks for that. Do you have any idea why the secrecy? I would have thought it was in the referees' interests for Joe Public to be able to understand why they make their decisions.

And why the opposition to mic'ing up the refs?

I can't imagine any downside (other than with a tin hat on) and it may even show that referees know what they are doing. Imagine that :)

 

[AirbagsOptionalTheReturn]

well that's bollox as the other marginal offsides we've seen in the last week were all given.

I don't watch any other footy, even the highlights of other teams so not seen any (no other team are on the same planet as us stylistically) only looked up the "goal" last night due to the comments on the threads in here, but it would not surprise me at all

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

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).

It was introduced last season 21/22 giving an extra 5cm to the attacking player.
Dale Johnson has reported it loads of times.
His weekly summary of VAR decisions is good - better than the likes of nuggets like peter walton - and he explains why decisions are made with reference to current rule interpretations. It doesn't mean he necessarily agrees with the decision.

 

[Paladin]

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.

The point is, there are opposing, equally valid opinions of the same event. Neither opinion is necessarily right or wrong under the LOTG.

My opinion is that it should have been a yellow card. But the referee's first thought was that it was red. He was much closer than I was, with an excellent view of the incident. VAR (in my view) isn't there to offer alternative opinions, but to arbitrate on contentious judgements of fact.

From the guidance in the LOTG: "The original decision given by the referee will not be changed unless the video review clearly shows that the decision was a 'clear and obvious error'." The opinion that it was a red card was not an error!

 

[mat]

VAR (Banks): What's the red for?

Ref: Dangerous tackle mate.

VAR: Do you want to look again? Deano is going livid. Can't let City walk the title Jarred. Go to the monitor and make it a yellow.

 

[Manc Born & Bred]

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

When do you go back to school?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

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.

as @Paladin has said, this is about the "why was it changed" more than anything, and not knowing.

I thought it would be yellow, as much as anything because this type of challenge don't get red cards very often. The ones that get more are sometimes for a kick (different competiion, but e.g. Walker in the CL last year, which was just a kick and not an attempted trip).

The only thing I can think of is that the ref was mistaken in what he saw, and mistaken enough to justify downgrading. The TV cameras picking up the still of the challenge makes me think it was about where the first contact was - if Trippier hits the side of de Bruyne's leg, it's a definite red. I don't think he did.