VAR thread 2022/23

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stephen230 said:
I can’t see any screens from my seat anyway but from what I’ve noticed at other grounds, the only thing I’ve seen is a “VAR checking “ message. Which is pretty obvious anyway to anyone one sight. So what specifically are fans in grounds with no screens missing out on in relation to VAR?
Click to expand...
@Stephen230 Every club was told they had to have them. Only 2 told the PL to fuck off. Why are they allowed to break the rules ?
If they can refuse to have screens what else have they decided they don't want?
On a totally separate issue, Liverpool, despite building a new stand, do not abide by the agreement regarding the number of disabled (wheelchair) spaces. For many years united didn't either but at least they have corrected that.
It is always these 2 clubs. Screens don't affect Var but they do affect how much revenue you get if you have to remove seats. (Same as disability spaces)
 
SebastianBlue said:
You can always count on the contrarians. ;-)
Click to expand...

Or you can acknowledge that I wasn’t wrong when I said many on here think VAR was set up solely to benefit Liverpool & Man Utd - you tried to get me on this by setting up the poll and it’s backfired

I think even you can see why that counts as a conspiracy

My opinion, VAR was bought in to assist referees and officials on clear mistakes they’ve missed and for them to have a second look - it’s been bought in worldwide and for the most part, it’s a success that is improving season by season - there will always be the odd incorrect decision despite VAR and technical issues - it’s whether you believe these issues are on purpose for one big conspiracy or not.
 
Blue Mist said:
@Stephen230 Every club was told they had to have them. Only 2 told the PL to fuck off. Why are they allowed to break the rules ?
If they can refuse to have screens what else have they decided they don't want?
On a totally separate issue, Liverpool, despite building a new stand, do not abide by the agreement regarding the number of disabled (wheelchair) spaces. For many years united didn't either but at least they have corrected that.
It is always these 2 clubs. Screens don't affect Var but they do affect how much revenue you get if you have to remove seats. (Same as disability spaces)
Click to expand...

Ok thanks. I’m certainly not backing up United and Liverpool for not abiding by any rules. Or the authorities for allowing them to do so.

My specific point was, I’ve read on numerous occasions how their lack of big screens is giving them some sort of unfair advantage in the way VAR is administered at their home games. So we can put that one to bed at least.
 
Stephen230 said:
I can’t see any screens from my seat anyway but from what I’ve noticed at other grounds, the only thing I’ve seen is a “VAR checking “ message. Which is pretty obvious anyway to anyone one sight. So what specifically are fans in grounds with no screens missing out on in relation to VAR?
Click to expand...
Just the beautiful purple message that informs them that they can fuck off 'cos it's no goal! Unless yer at the Swamp or Anfield where the message will be preceded by the operatives in the VAR shed cheering a home worldie!
 
BlueHammer85 said:
Exactly - if there’s a conspiracy to benefit Liverpool/Man Utd with the use of VAR - they’ve cocked it right up. They can’t even give a dodgy penalty to Liverpool this season from a trademark Salah dive
Click to expand...

But they can rule out a perfectly good goal against them.
 
SebastianBlue said:
I have added a poll at this top of the thread to determine how many active in this thread believe that VAR was designed and implemented solely to benefit Liverpool and United, as you have defined the membership of the "conspiracy brigade".
Click to expand...
Bear in mind some posters (including the OP) use apps like Tapatalk on mobile devices, and these don't include functionality to vote on polls.

It's a ludicrous notion that VAR was implemented to favour certain clubs. For one reason, it is used in countries where those clubs will never compete. For me, it's a question of bias, and whether any bias is applied deliberately, or under instruction. Very difficult to prove without evidence.

The evidence we do have is limited at the moment. There are the Halsey comments. The more tenuous suggestions that unqualified Match Commanders can influence VAR decisions. Unanswered questions about communications between officials - I'm thinking of why Taylor changed his mind about a foul on Aguero, or Madley's gesture to his linesman in the Liverpool game.

From my own point of view as a former referee, my starting point is to ask if there is any plausible explanation for an event. Looking at the Salah goal, this is a misinterpretation of a directive given this season, and offside was the correct decision. Why is a professional referee, on at least £70,000 a year, making these mistakes? Why didn't anyone in the VAR room use the clarification they had been given at the start of this season? It's inexcusable. For the disallowed goal, could the linesman possibly have seen in his field of vision, from supposedly being in line with the last defender, ANY Wolves player to the right of Alexander-Arnold when the ball was headed to Nunes? 100% not, from the angles we've seen. Did he raise his flag immediately as the goal was scored? It appears not, because camera angles suggest he had turned back towards the half way line. Did he raise his flag before or after the hand gesture from Madley? Undoubtedly after.

Two different refereeing mistakes directly benefiting one team in one game gives a very strong indication of at best, bias. I hope Wolves receive some proper explanations, and there is some real accountability to go with them.
 
We'd have had more points with VAR in 17/18, say 101, than without VAR, for we wouldn't have lost from United in April. There was a blatant foul on Aguero in the box in the final 10 minutes or so.

More importantly, we wouldn't have lost 3:0 at Anfield back then, for their first goal wouldn't have stood, Jesus's goal might have stood, though (dubious offside), and a pen vs Sterling would have been given. Instead of 3:0 that game could have easily been 2:2. Also, Sane's goal in the 2nd leg would have been a fact. 2:0 and a whole 2nd half would have made it a different game/tie. This tie with Liverpool in 2018 would have been completely different with VAR.
 
Stephen230 said:
Ok thanks. I’m certainly not backing up United and Liverpool for not abiding by any rules. Or the authorities for allowing them to do so.

My specific point was, I’ve read on numerous occasions how their lack of big screens is giving them some sort of unfair advantage in the way VAR is administered at their home games. So we can put that one to bed at least.
Click to expand...
Yep, I'm anti var but laugh when I read the comments that not having screens somehow gives those two an advantage.
 
Stephen230 said:
That had nothing to do with phases of play. That’s just muddying the waters. They decided, rightly or as I’m sure most City fans would think, wrongly, that it wasn’t handball. If they’d decided it was handball, everything that happened after that would have been irrelevant, no matter how many phases of play there had been before play was stopped.
Click to expand...
That was the wrong decision in that case. As far as I remember, at that point, any touch of the ball against the hand that preceded a goal meant that the goal had to be disallowed. We had one around that time where the ball brushed against Laporte's hand at a corner, and the subsequent goal was disallowed.

The ball definitely touched Alexander-Arnold's hand, so for the goal to have been allowed to stand, they must have decided it was not the same phase of play.
 
Paladin said:
That was the wrong decision in that case. As far as I remember, at that point, any touch of the ball against the hand that preceded a goal meant that the goal had to be disallowed. We had one around that time where the ball brushed against Laporte's hand at a corner, and the subsequent goal was disallowed.

The ball definitely touched Alexander-Arnold's hand, so for the goal to have been allowed to stand, they must have decided it was not the same phase of play.
Click to expand...

It might well have been the wrong decision but phases of play is totally irrelevant in cases like this. If Chelsea had scored the other night in the time it took to stop play, we would have been in an identical situation. And that goal would have been chalked off and the penalty given.
 
alexmcity said:
In some games, probably Yes.

BUT it's easier to manipulate results without VAR. Look for example at our CL tie with Liverpool in 2018. We were hard done by in both legs.
Click to expand...
You could argue it's easier. The referee could make a marginal decision one way knowing full well it's the other way and VAR are stuck with the 'clear & obvious' get out. Same with Yellow Cards that should be Red - Ref gives it, VAR doesn't overturn it.

It's not only VAR decisions though. I've seen throw ins clearly come off opposing players and the ref/lino gives it the opposite way. You also have the disparity in applying the LOTG where opposition players can foul with impunity, yet ours are first foul yellow card. Then there is the application of the advantage rule and the ref blocking the passing lanes (as a particular referee used to do regularly with Spanish Dave). Then there is the subsequent stat padding towards the end of the game (booking a couple of opposition players for cheap fouls) to level things up when the match result sewn up. ALL theses things can affect the outcome of a game without VAR's intervention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top