VAR thread 2022/23

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
For anybody genuinely interested in an unbiased, informed review of VAR decisions, ESPN journalist Dale Johnson ( @DaleJohnsonESPN ) does a weekly round up of all the VAR decisions in the Premier League every Monday. He knows the laws of the game. He understands VAR better than most and he isn’t afraid to call out decisions as bad calls.

This week he directly addressed a question asked on here numerous times this week, as to why Darren England was right, in his opinion, to give a penalty and send off Cancelo but also right 24 hours later not to intervene in the Alexander- Arnold incident, when acting as a VAR.

285719d107f975ec9772b60b78c64256.jpg


4d495ef44dc68013afc73227003d31e1.jpg
 
Stephen230 said:
For anybody genuinely interested in an unbiased, informed review of VAR decisions, ESPN journalist Dale Johnson ( @DaleJohnsonESPN ) does a weekly round up of all the VAR decisions in the Premier League every Monday. He knows the laws of the game. He understands VAR better than most and he isn’t afraid to call out decisions as bad calls.

This week he directly addressed a question asked on here numerous times this week, as to why Darren England was right, in his opinion, to give a penalty and send off Cancelo but also right 24 hours later not to intervene in the Alexander- Arnold incident, when acting as a VAR.

285719d107f975ec9772b60b78c64256.jpg


4d495ef44dc68013afc73227003d31e1.jpg
Click to expand...
I can understand that but it leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that in the Cancello incident VAR would not have intervened whichever decision (no foul/foul/foul +yellow/foul+red) provided that the referee had a clear view of the challenge and it was simply his opinion. To me that makes it even more important that we hear the dialogue between the on field referee and VAR.
 
Cassandra said:
I can understand that but it leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that in the Cancello incident VAR would not have intervened whichever decision (no foul/foul/foul +yellow/foul+red) provided that the referee had a clear view of the challenge and it was simply his opinion. To me that makes it even more important that we hear the dialogue between the on field referee and VAR.
Click to expand...

Obviously we’ll never know. But to everyone bar a few City fans, the Cancelo incident was as clear a penalty and red card as you could see. So I’m sure that if the referee hadn’t seen it like that for any reason, the VAR would have asked him to reconsider. Unlike the DeBruyne penalty, where the decision on the field was almost certainly going to stand either way.
 
Stephen230 said:
For anybody genuinely interested in an unbiased, informed review of VAR decisions, ESPN journalist Dale Johnson ( @DaleJohnsonESPN ) does a weekly round up of all the VAR decisions in the Premier League every Monday. He knows the laws of the game. He understands VAR better than most and he isn’t afraid to call out decisions as bad calls.

This week he directly addressed a question asked on here numerous times this week, as to why Darren England was right, in his opinion, to give a penalty and send off Cancelo but also right 24 hours later not to intervene in the Alexander- Arnold incident, when acting as a VAR.

285719d107f975ec9772b60b78c64256.jpg


4d495ef44dc68013afc73227003d31e1.jpg
Click to expand...

That is bullshit.

It’s exactly how it fucking works. Ref says no penalty but VAR tells him to go look again and when they do, it’s normally reversed.

Gaslighting fuckers lol
 
Stephen230 said:
Obviously we’ll never know. But to everyone bar a few City fans, the Cancelo incident was as clear a penalty and red card as you could see. So I’m sure that if the referee hadn’t seen it like that for any reason, the VAR would have asked him to reconsider. Unlike the DeBruyne penalty, where the decision on the field was almost certainly going to stand either way.
Click to expand...
VAR is not needed for such obvious cases. VAR is needed for non-obvious cases. It would have been strange if the referee hadn't seen the penalty in the Cancelo episode. Although football is sometimes filled with weirdness.
 
DarOv said:
VAR is not needed for such obvious cases. VAR is needed for non-obvious cases. It would have been strange if the referee hadn't seen the penalty in the Cancelo episode. Although football is sometimes filled with weirdness.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by saying it’s not needed for obvious cases? It was the number one driving force behind its inception. To correct obvious mistakes made by the referee.
 
Stephen230 said:
Obviously we’ll never know. But to everyone bar a few City fans, the Cancelo incident was as clear a penalty and red card as you could see. So I’m sure that if the referee hadn’t seen it like that for any reason, the VAR would have asked him to reconsider. Unlike the DeBruyne penalty, where the decision on the field was almost certainly going to stand either way.
Click to expand...
But it wasn't a penalty and red to everyone else. When I spoke to people in work, none of whom are City fans, opinion was divided and on Talksport (I know) yesterday, I think it was the Chelsea fan presenter on Hawksbee and Jacobs said it was never a penalty or red. And that was just the few people I spoke to or heard, so you can multiply that by whatever for footy fans as a whole.
So as I say, not everyone thought it was pen and red.
 
exiled-blue said:
But it wasn't a penalty and red to everyone else. When I spoke to people in work, none of whom are City fans, opinion was divided and on Talksport (I know) yesterday, I think it was the Chelsea fan presenter on Hawksbee and Jacobs said it was never a penalty or red. And that was just the few people I spoke to or heard, so you can multiply that by whatever for footy fans as a whole.
So as I say, not everyone thought it was pen and red.
Click to expand...

Maybe I should have qualified it by saying…Anybody with even a rudimentary understanding of the laws of the game.
 
AirbagsOptionalTheReturn said:
And there we go - needless dig at a fellow poster.
Click to expand...

He offered no opinion on whether he thought it was the correct decision or not, so reply was no reflection on him. In any case, stating that someone has no clue about the laws of football isn’t having a dig. Just stating a fact. I have no clue about the rules of rugby union but I wouldn’t be offended if someone pointed that out.
 
Stephen230 said:
Maybe I should have qualified it by saying…Anybody with even a rudimentary understanding of the laws of the game.
Click to expand...
I have no idea how good the knowledge of the laws of the game are to my friends at work or the guy on the radio. It was their opinion, and as one said, who is a Brighton fan, it was pretty much the same challenge Haaland made on the Brighton defender when he scored his goal.
Plus looking at some of the decisions made by referees in the league this season, I'm not sure some of them know the laws of the game as well as they should.
 
exiled-blue said:
I have no idea how good the knowledge of the laws of the game are to my friends at work or the guy on the radio. It was their opinion, and as one said, who is a Brighton fan, it was pretty much the same challenge Haaland made on the Brighton defender when he scored his goal.
Plus looking at some of the decisions made by referees in the league this season, I'm not sure some of them know the laws of the game as well as they should.
Click to expand...

I’d disagree it was a similar challenge to Haaland’s. In that instance you had two players who only had eyes for getting to the ball. There was contact and on another day a referee could have seen it as a foul by Haaland. But it’s the sort of contact that referees have been encouraged to rule as part and parcel of a contact sport when players are challenging for a ball.

Cancelo had no intent to play the ball. He literally changed the angle of his run from heading towards the ball, to realising he wasn’t going to get it and diverting his run straight into the man and barging him over. The only explanations I’ve seen trying to justify why it wasn’t a foul have been claims that it was similar to an incident that hadn’t yet happened at the time.
 
Stephen230 said:
Not sure what you mean by saying it’s not needed for obvious cases? It was the number one driving force behind its inception. To correct obvious mistakes made by the referee.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. I mean, it's rare to turn to VAR in such obvious cases. But if there was a mistake there, then VAR helps fix it.
 
Stephen230 said:
I’d disagree it was a similar challenge to Haaland’s. In that instance you had two players who only had eyes for getting to the ball. There was contact and on another day a referee could have seen it as a foul by Haaland. But it’s the sort of contact that referees have been encouraged to rule as part and parcel of a contact sport when players are challenging for a ball.

Cancelo had no intent to play the ball. He literally changed the angle of his run from heading towards the ball, to realising he wasn’t going to get it and diverting his run straight into the man and barging him over. The only explanations I’ve seen trying to justify why it wasn’t a foul have been claims that it was similar to an incident that hadn’t yet happened at the time.
Click to expand...
Definitely a rough game. He did not play with the ball, but with another player. Also, intentionally. Red!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top