Man City can cry over the penalty all they want but actually, had VAR intervened, because of the VAR rules it would have been brought back for a Liverpool free kick anyway. It struck the City player's hand first and even though it was totally accidental, the attacking side are not allowed to gain an advantage from such an instance. Several goals have been chalked off for this in the PL this season.
General VAR - time to scrap it?
- Thread starter ZeroTheHero
- Start date
Gary Baldi
Well-known member
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 7,061
Agree, but it would have been a free kick to Liverpool on review rather than a goal?
This is what I was wondering.
I was pleasantly surprised at the World Cup, because VAR didn't completely ruin the competition.
They didn't use it very often, and when they did it was mostly pretty quick and mostly inarguably correct.
But the Premier League have for some reason decided to take a different tack, and it's a disaster.
They need to order whoever's running it to stop trying to get every minute decision right, and just concentrate on the clear refereeing errors. Otherwise their product is pretty soon going to be unwatchable.
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 8,585
I have made this into a poll.
oxford1985
Active member
- Joined
- 26 Feb 2018
- Messages
- 128
think VAR needs a complete review/overhaul, but they cant stop using it this season - its been used/made/overturned decisions in to many games that it would be unfair to remove mid way through a season
Similarly the Bundesliga (and Bundesliga 2) and the A League (2nd season as well) are doing the same as well in making a pig's ear of it. For example, Leipzig's penalty Vs Hertha when the Leipzig forward smashed the ball into a Hertha defender's hand from a foot away.
Essexyellows
Well-known member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 17,245
It is utter crap designed for TV viewers & pundits because "decisions cost money".
How the feck someones big toe can be "offside" is beyond comprehension.
Then the time taken just ruins the spontaneity of the live game.
Accept referees are human and get on with raising their standards first.
How the feck someones big toe can be "offside" is beyond comprehension.
Then the time taken just ruins the spontaneity of the live game.
Accept referees are human and get on with raising their standards first.
AbsoluteZero
Active member
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 330
It would be better if PGMOL shut up rather than come up with some flimsy excuses trying to justify a wrong decision made by VAR. TTA's arm was in a natural position - no it wasn't it was outstretched to make sure the ball couldn't reach Sterling. TTA's reaction time didn't allow him to move - yes it did the ball travelled a good 5-10 yards before it struck him it wasn't as if it was booted at him from 1 yard at 200mph. And anyway where should a goal be disallowed as we have been told any handball accidental or not that leads to a goal should be disallowed. Sheff Utd when Lundstram crossed the ball when he toenail was offside Tottenham defence actually cleared that ball, Sheff Utd then collected the cleared ball and reset and passed crossed and scored. So where does a phase of play end? Sheff Utd's goal disallowed despite 2 separate phases of play, Liverpool's goal stood in exactly the same circumstances when City cleared the first phase cross starting with handball and Liverpool collected the clearance and scored.
The main reason VAR has been introduced is because of the deteriorating quality of refereeing. As others have said why put those people who are deemed not fit to referee the game by themselves in charge of VAR. With the huge amount of money in the game over the last 20-30 years the investment in officials has fallen way behind, get the training facilities better, pay them more to do it. It's unbelievable that even at league 1 standard we have part time amateur referees in charge of our game every Saturday because there is not enough investment in them to get referees to do the job full time. It should be affordable, and made affordable. Salary cap or agent tax would fix it to put money in the right places. Then we wouldn't need VAR.
The main reason VAR has been introduced is because of the deteriorating quality of refereeing. As others have said why put those people who are deemed not fit to referee the game by themselves in charge of VAR. With the huge amount of money in the game over the last 20-30 years the investment in officials has fallen way behind, get the training facilities better, pay them more to do it. It's unbelievable that even at league 1 standard we have part time amateur referees in charge of our game every Saturday because there is not enough investment in them to get referees to do the job full time. It should be affordable, and made affordable. Salary cap or agent tax would fix it to put money in the right places. Then we wouldn't need VAR.
SSU Dozer
Junior Member
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 68
Apparently the hand ball rule for the attacking side is only applied if a goal is scored so it doesn't apply if the move leads to a penalty. Jut more nonsense really.
If VAR is this bad in the Premier, can you imagine what it would be like if we had it in League one?
Paul Cannell
Well-known member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 7,437
What is it good for?
Watched Ref Watch on Sky Sports News the other week as it was on in the background and Dermot Gallagher was laughable in trying to defend VAR decisions. Stephen Warnock and Alex Scott were looking at him in disbelief for his justifications and after one justification, Stephen Warnock actually said "Do you really believe what you just said?".
I have two proposed changes to the current VAR system that I think would improve it immeasurably overnight:
1) Do away with drawing lines for offsides. As has been widely observed, offside is not a rule that was introduced to ding players for being half a toe offside. Similarly, as Jonathan Wilson has championed for years, the margin of error in the adjudication of an offside is huge depending on the precise moment the ball can be said to 'leave the foot' of the last attacking player before the offside player - the frame rate at which games are currently filmed is not sufficiently high to be able to determine with any accuracy when the ball 'last touched an attacking player', so the moment that is chosen for the drawing of the lines is totally arbitrary. However, VAR is undeniably a good thing when it corrects clear injustices: see, off the top of my head, the Aubameyang goal at Old Trafford about a month ago. From a replay, you could clearly see that he was two yards onside, and to have denied Arsenal such a clear goal in such an important game would have been wrong. You do not need to draw a line to see the decision was wrong, and it is for those kinds of instances that I think VAR should be used. This for me would also bring VAR back to its 'clear and obvious error' roots.
2) Mic up the refs. I think one of the biggest frustrations with VAR at the moment is the lack of transparency. We see a replay of something we consider to be a clear foul, we expect VAR to overturn the decision, and eventually the ref simply waves play on. It is not explained to viewers why a goal / foul / handball etc that we consider to be stonewall is not given, and that leads to the anger. I don't watch any rugby beyond the World Cup and 6 Nations, but the way TMO works there is excellent I think, especially when you have a great ref like Nigel Owens talking through the issue clearly. While you may disagree with the decision if it is tight, you are at least afforded an explanation, and an insight into why the referee made the decision they did. If this was adopted, I think we would see a reduction in the conspiracy theories (along the lines of 'the refs at Stockley Park don't want to make their mates seem bad by overturning the decision') and scepticism around the current system. It would also provide some much needed clarity on issues like Liverpool's first goal yesterday. I don't understand why play wasn't pulled back for either a penalty, or a handball in the buildup to a goal, and it would have been helpful to have the man making the decision explain in real time why he made the decision he did.
Thoughts?
1) Do away with drawing lines for offsides. As has been widely observed, offside is not a rule that was introduced to ding players for being half a toe offside. Similarly, as Jonathan Wilson has championed for years, the margin of error in the adjudication of an offside is huge depending on the precise moment the ball can be said to 'leave the foot' of the last attacking player before the offside player - the frame rate at which games are currently filmed is not sufficiently high to be able to determine with any accuracy when the ball 'last touched an attacking player', so the moment that is chosen for the drawing of the lines is totally arbitrary. However, VAR is undeniably a good thing when it corrects clear injustices: see, off the top of my head, the Aubameyang goal at Old Trafford about a month ago. From a replay, you could clearly see that he was two yards onside, and to have denied Arsenal such a clear goal in such an important game would have been wrong. You do not need to draw a line to see the decision was wrong, and it is for those kinds of instances that I think VAR should be used. This for me would also bring VAR back to its 'clear and obvious error' roots.
2) Mic up the refs. I think one of the biggest frustrations with VAR at the moment is the lack of transparency. We see a replay of something we consider to be a clear foul, we expect VAR to overturn the decision, and eventually the ref simply waves play on. It is not explained to viewers why a goal / foul / handball etc that we consider to be stonewall is not given, and that leads to the anger. I don't watch any rugby beyond the World Cup and 6 Nations, but the way TMO works there is excellent I think, especially when you have a great ref like Nigel Owens talking through the issue clearly. While you may disagree with the decision if it is tight, you are at least afforded an explanation, and an insight into why the referee made the decision they did. If this was adopted, I think we would see a reduction in the conspiracy theories (along the lines of 'the refs at Stockley Park don't want to make their mates seem bad by overturning the decision') and scepticism around the current system. It would also provide some much needed clarity on issues like Liverpool's first goal yesterday. I don't understand why play wasn't pulled back for either a penalty, or a handball in the buildup to a goal, and it would have been helpful to have the man making the decision explain in real time why he made the decision he did.
Thoughts?
H
horseman
Guest
i go back to the City Spurs game that none of the experts/pundits have explained.
city score so it gets reviewed VAR shows it brushes a city players hand on the way though, nobody saw it nobody appealed for it but VAR says no goal
But what if had hit the spurs players hand and city didn't score, it would never have been reviewed and city are denied a penalty so an obvious flaw in the system surely?
i have said from day 1 leave it to the officials, if the players had not started surrounding the ref years ago and managers etc constantly moaned about decisions but somehow never saw the incident they did benefit from this shi*e would never be needed. having said that if it must be used then it should be Global at every league game, these "decisions" are as important when Rochdale play Accrington as they are for the premier teams across the globe...Tv has to taken responsibility for this also as for years they have had to scrutinize from every angle to prove why it should not be a goal etc to belittle officials and justify the crazy money they pay their so called expert pundits, stop tv replays let the officials get on with the job and players,managers etc accept their decisions.
city score so it gets reviewed VAR shows it brushes a city players hand on the way though, nobody saw it nobody appealed for it but VAR says no goal
But what if had hit the spurs players hand and city didn't score, it would never have been reviewed and city are denied a penalty so an obvious flaw in the system surely?
i have said from day 1 leave it to the officials, if the players had not started surrounding the ref years ago and managers etc constantly moaned about decisions but somehow never saw the incident they did benefit from this shi*e would never be needed. having said that if it must be used then it should be Global at every league game, these "decisions" are as important when Rochdale play Accrington as they are for the premier teams across the globe...Tv has to taken responsibility for this also as for years they have had to scrutinize from every angle to prove why it should not be a goal etc to belittle officials and justify the crazy money they pay their so called expert pundits, stop tv replays let the officials get on with the job and players,managers etc accept their decisions.
H
horseman
Guest
The "importance" of the game is irrelevant it is about the right decision whether it's at Anfield Old Trafford or Accrington
in the first instance where it hits a city players hand surely a case for ref would have played the advantage?
no need to mic up the ref if he and the other officials had been allowed to do their job to the best of their ability, none of them intend to make an error but players took it upon themselves to surround the officials and managers etc moaned at every opportunity.
Just send the useless equipment to the scrap heap along with the world club championship sat dishes etc and let the fans enjoy the game again
I can just see if VAR was ever scrapped, in the following weekend a linesman will make a howler and a goal will be disallowed when 2 feet onside. The 'experts' on Sky will say what a disgrace it is.
Lineker apparently suggested that if in 30 seconds VAR isnt clear then go with the original decision. So clear and obvious errors ate the ones that will be cleared up.
Agreed, I was just making a stylistic flourish. The point stands thought that if I were an Arsenal fan and that goal was disallowed, when there is clear and available video evidence that the decision is wrong I would be extremely frustrated. That said, that's the only situation I can think of off the top of my head when VAR has been used to correct a flagrant injustice. City's stoppage time 'goal' against Spurs in last year's champions league QF maybe?
Yeah but then surely the advantage is over when TAA commits a clear handball in the box to prevent an obvious goal scoring opportunity? The two don't cancel themselves out. A ref playing advantage doesn't give the other team carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want in the aftermath.
I think this is sort of placebo. I appreciate everyone is doing their job to the best of their ability, but I imagine (I haven't been to a match in a stadium where VAR has been in use yet) that hearing the process of the decision being made would alleviate a lot of the frustration that enduring 4 minutes of having a ref standing with their finger to their ear with no idea what's going on brings.
Again, I think VAR should work. It's just being used stupidly. Remember how raging everyone was after England Germany in 2010, when Blatter's reaction to England's disallowed goal was along the lines of 'arguing about decisions with other fans in the pub after the game is one of the reasons football is so great'. You can grumble about the process, but when an obvious error is overturned you can't have too many complaints. The line that used to be used of 'well, the ref's made a howler, but these things even themselves out over the course of a season' always really bugged me. As far as I could see there was absolutely no empirical evidence for that stance, and anyway, in e.g. cup competitions there can be no 'evening out' possible. If Sterling's goal had been allowed to stand, Spurs would have wrongly not been through to the next round. There's no way that decision could 'even itself out', as they would have been out of the competition.
Essexyellows
Well-known member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 17,245
The game is too pacy for VAR. It destroys the flow and excitement.
VAR fits in well with Rugby and works really well with a miked up referee who explains what hes reviewing and why. Having said that the referees in rugby are of a far higher standard than football and the pace of the game is different.
Also works well in cricket, again its an "overall" pace of the game that lends itself to cricket well and the technology works.
A toenail offside at 50 frames a second or whatever doesn`t work.....and then it takes 3 or 4 minutes to review.
Maybe give the team captains limited reviews per match?
VAR fits in well with Rugby and works really well with a miked up referee who explains what hes reviewing and why. Having said that the referees in rugby are of a far higher standard than football and the pace of the game is different.
Also works well in cricket, again its an "overall" pace of the game that lends itself to cricket well and the technology works.
A toenail offside at 50 frames a second or whatever doesn`t work.....and then it takes 3 or 4 minutes to review.
Maybe give the team captains limited reviews per match?
