VAR thread 2022/23

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Ok, well I’m not saying that unverified rumours aren’t ever true. But was there any sort of proper evidence that made that claim more likely to be true, outside of the normal pissed off football fans angry at perceived bad refereeing?

IIRC it was briefly mentioned by one of the TV companies at the time, but then it was never mentioned again and I can't find any reference to it online.

 

[Stephen230]

IIRC it was briefly mentioned by one of the TV companies at the time, but then it was never mentioned again and I can't find any reference to it online.

Fair enough. I honestly don’t recall hearing that suggestion before. Not sure if it was you or not but someone suggested on another thread that the Salah goal review took about three seconds. I would have thought if they were trying to cover up the fact the VAR equipment wasn’t working, they’d be more likely to go the other way and pretend they were reviewing it for a prolonged period rather than barely at all.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

The VAR team would know 100% the status of their equipment. I would fully expect it to be communicated to the match officials prior to the match, and any changes in equipment status communicated to them during the match.

Yep, they would have 100% knew about the issue, we, as fans, have seen it at their place for many years and argued the fact that VAR wasn’t working. Now we have the explanation.

And, knowing this, they couldn’t allow it to go to VAR because they knew it couldn’t make a decision so, even against a backdrop of millions viewing, they decided to make the decision to stick the flag up, again, knowing it couldn’t be over-ruled.

NB. I‘m not a conspiracy nut, and it could’ve been done to protect the fact that VAR isn’t fully functional in that ground, but the evidence is there for all to see. Unless you choose not to.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Do you ever feel that some are contrary just to get a rise and a few more clicks?

:)

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Do you ever feel that some are contrary just to get a rise and a few more clicks?

I do that all the time in the politics forum. You always get the same few cunts falling for it.

 

[SWP's back]

No. Thanks to Var the refs dont need to make important decisions, they simply wait for Var. Why give a decision and then look stupid when Var overturn it, just leave it to someone else to do the hardwork.
That cannot be right. Once you decide you don't need to be mentally alert you are on a downward slope.

But that is the ref who erred, not var.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

I do that all the time in the politics forum. You always get the same few cunts falling for it.

I quite like you in there, that’s why the ‘Like’ button come in very handy. No need to engage ;-)

 

[SWP's back]

The first penalty came from VAR, but only because the ref, who was looking straight at it didn't give it for some inexplicable reason.

So it very much did its job and that’s what it’s there for.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Fair enough. I honestly don’t recall hearing that suggestion before. Not sure if it was you or not but someone suggested on another thread that the Salah goal review took about three seconds. I would have thought if they were trying to cover up the fact the VAR equipment wasn’t working, they’d be more likely to go the other way and pretend they were reviewing it for a prolonged period rather than barely at all.

That was me. Three seconds was a bit flippant, but it was certainly check complete very quickly after the ball hit the back of the net. It was way faster than it normally takes for a 'normal' VAR check which roused my suspicions at the time. After the goal Sky only showed a single brief replay with no lines drawn on the screen.

At half-time they showed a graphic that looked like some intern had knocked up on MS Paint, and there was no frame of reference as to the moment the ball was played. All very amateurish.

 

[SWP's back]

Only because the blind **** looking at it didn’t ‘see’ it.

Which as we all know, is the point.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

So it very much did its job and that’s what it’s there for.

It doesn't detract from the fact that the referee was looking right at it but 'failed' to see it.

 

[Stephen230]

That was me. Three seconds was a bit flippant, but it was certainly check complete very quickly after the ball hit the back of the net. It was way faster than it normally takes for a 'normal' VAR check which roused my suspicions at the time. After the goal Sky only showed a single brief replay with no lines drawn on the screen.

At half-time they showed a graphic that looked like some intern had knocked up on MS Paint, and there was no frame of reference as to the moment the ball was played. All very amateurish.

I’ll accept your word it was an unusually quick review. I honestly can’t remember.

On a more general point though, the reviews that are solely about is a player onside/ off side at the point of a specific freeze frame, do tend to be done pretty quickly. I think that has improved since the recent tolerance level was introduced.

The ones that tend to take the longest are those that involve multiple factors. For example those like the Salah one the other day where they have to consider both the offside and whether they’d been a deliberate play at the ball. Or those where there’s both an onside/ offside and also penalty/ no penalty to consider.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I’ll accept your word it was an unusually quick review. I honestly can’t remember.

On a more general point though, the reviews that are solely about is a player onside/ off side at the point of a specific freeze frame, do tend to be done pretty quickly. I think that has improved since the recent tolerance level was introduced.

The ones that tend to take the longest are those that involve multiple factors. For example those like the Salah one the other day where they have to consider both the offside and whether they’d been a deliberate play at the ball. Or those where there’s both an onside/ offside and also penalty/ no penalty to consider.

Basic offsides are usually relatively quick, and TV companies 99 times out of 100 show the lines on multiple replays. On this occasion that was certainly not the case.

 

[Stephen230]

Basic offsides are usually relatively quick, and TV companies 99 times out of 100 show the lines on multiple replays. On this occasion that was certainly not the case.

My memory is fucked. But is that right? If you’d asked me how often they bother showing the lines, I’d have guessed just on the really close ones, maybe 5 or 10% of the time.

 

[SWP's back]

It doesn't detract from the fact that the referee was looking right at it but 'failed' to see it.

Which isn’t remotely the fault of VAR which did its bloody job.

Without VAR, that’s not a penalty and would be being talked about at length in the agenda or bad refereeing thread.

Only a select number of City fans could use VAR doing its job as a reason denigrate VAR.

 

[HelloCity]

 

[Stephen230]

View attachment 65657

That’s exactly what I speculated might have been the issue with the Wolves “goal” at the time.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

View attachment 65657

Tight cunts.

 

[Stephen230]

Tight cunts.

Yeah but on the flip side they’ve just had an hour and a half interview with Harry on ITV. Swings and roundabouts.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Which isn’t remotely the fault of VAR which did its bloody job.

Without VAR, that’s not a penalty and would be being talked about at length in the agenda or bad refereeing thread.

Only a select number of City fans could use VAR doing its job as a reason denigrate VAR.

I'm not denigrating VAR for that. I'm having a go at the referee for missing an obvious handball. In our game v Chelsea I didn't really see any great issue with VAR.