Away to Wolves, Saturday 6th

EXETERHAMMER

The goal was disallowed because of the law. However, I would be furious with the decision if it was against us, as again a one fits all law stopped a good goal.


Context is important, and VAR takes this away.

Fabianski was never getting near the ball.

claretandbluesky

It's hard to argue with this decision as we all want VAR to work properly and this depends on officials who know and understand the rules of the game and don't change them for the area of the pitch things occur or the team playing. The problem with this decision is we all know regardless of the offside player being where he is it was a good header that Fabianski was getting nowhere near. If we we want VAR to be used properly theses things can't be allowed to matter.

If we can bring up the standard of officials then VAR is the greatest tool at their disposal to help them do their job. If they don't know the rules, are biased or afraid to make big decisions then VAR will always fail to improve the game. In this case it allowed the ref to apply the rules. Unfortunate on Wolves but not a wrong decision.

Bazshuayi

So... If the guy doesnt stand in an offside position directly in front of Fab, dord Fab theoretically have the chance to be in a different position and potentially one that couldve had a chance to save the goal bound effort?

I think its a fair decision (no bias). I also think there have been far more dubious decisions over a decent period of time (not just regarding us but plenty of other teams)

Brother_Sledge

I obviously think it was an excellent decision Baz but I think he is only offside the moment his teammate heads the ball.

ASLEFshrugged

VAR was Tim Robinson, he’s been a Premier League ref since 2019 and has reffed 477 matches at various levels

MunichHammer

Brother_Sledge said:

I obviously think it was an excellent decision Baz but I think he is only offside the moment his teammate heads the ball.

Antonio does the same for us and regularly stands in front of the keeper. With the 2-1 on Saturday it didn't matter as you can't be offside from a corner but as you said, the moment there is another (intentional) touch it becomes an issue.

Deanscaleshammer

I feel the root cause of all this analysis of the miniscule details of individual incidents is the lack of understanding and respect for the role of the officials. VAR just makes that worse imo.

If we reverted to the referees decision is final and any dissent resulted in an immediate big disadvantage to your team then VAR becomes unnecessary. It would also mean that elite player behaviour would become an example to youngsters and grassroots players.

buffybegood

Deanscaleshammer said:

If we reverted to the referees decision is final and any dissent resulted in an immediate big disadvantage to your team then VAR becomes unnecessary. It would also mean that elite player behaviour would become an example to youngsters and grassroots players.

The problem with this is that the standard of refereeing is just so poor atm. I totally agree that dissent should be stamped down on, but the onfield referees and linesmen just make so many mistakes you can understand why VAR has been introduced. Now it's here, they're never going to get rid of it. On the whole more correct decisions are arrived at (eg the disallowed goal on Saturday), and surely even LiVARpool would have had this one chalked off

IronHerb

Oldie but goodie. 😂

Deanscaleshammer

Not sure how we know about the standard of refereeing and whether it's getting better or worse. Would be interesting to try and come up with an accurate measure for that.

In my book the standard of referees is not relevant to the argument. I believe that most referees are trying to do a good job. The best ones ref the top games. They are human and will make mistakes.

In my opinion, the difficulty is that everyone is allowed to question their decisions rather than just accepting their authority and getting on with the game.

claretandbluesky

I think the reason we consider officials poor is the amount of criticisms of VAR. VAR technology is only as good as it's operators and there are too many bad decisions and too many unpenalised decisions in accordance with the rules of the game. There does also seem to be too much big club bias regard close decisions in the normal run of play also.

VAR should be the biggest improver of the game ensuring big decisions get called correctly. The process should be simple.

If we take the Phillips penalty against Newcastle the VAR should ask two questions but failed to ask the second.

First question is why is it a foul? because he kicks the player before the ball.
second question. Is there a reason that may not be a foul? yes the player tackled from behind and failed to reach the ball this impeding the players rightful attempt to contact the ball. If this is not a foul then stepping across a player anywhere on the pitch gets you a freekick when they contact you. called incorrectly


This weekend.
Is it offside? yes but the player did not touch the ball so no offside.
Is there a reason it is still offside? The player is standing directly in front of the keeper and obscuring his view and so interfering with play despite not touching the ball. Called correctly.

VAR fail to ask two questions so often and only rely on the first, or they don't know the rules so well as most fans.

Maddison clearly hit a player in the stomach yesterday, nothing done. Of course the player milked it, but it was deliberate. Why did the ref and VAR decide not to take any action? do they not know the rules or not wish to apply them to certain player or teams? Called incorrectly.

thornburyiron

C&B you’re answering your own questions. The reason your second question is not being asked is because the current rules on where VAR can or can’t be used don’t allow for it.
The VAR rules need to be revised and then, more importantly, the subjectivity should be eliminated as far as possible.
The trouble with this though is that it virtually removes any semblance of common sense in decision making.
I don’t think club bias plays any part but I do think that different VAR officials have a different view on things which causes the inconsistency. I expect if it was possible to analyse it you’d probably find VAR officials themselves are consistent with the decisions they make in the games they are the VAR.

claretandbluesky

I am not sure I get you. The examples i raise were all looked t by VAR but the first error was for not asking themselves the second question of why might the Phillips incident not have been the obvious foul it seemed. The second incident was asked, the Maddison one was reviewed for violent conduct I imagine but no action taken, I can only assume as they didn't punish the intent to punch but rather the fact it was a nothing of a punch.

I do take your point that their may be consistency from individual VAR operators but possibly not referees across the board. Without VAR it's a case of what did the Ref see, but with VAR it's a case of lets apply the rules to what happened. sadly in so many cases they either don't know the rules or don't apply them. They didn't with Phillips but did against Wolves.

IronHerb

You say VAR operators but they are referees, the same ones who make the poor decisions when in charge of a game.

thornburyiron

C&B my point re the Philips incident was VAR was looking at did he foul Gordon. There is no compulsion on VAR to determine why there was a foul as once it’s a foul it’s a foul. They can look to see if he was offside before the foul.
The second questions you say they failed to ask they don’t have to ask.

thornburyiron

IH yes they are but if they consistently make the same mistakes that is at least a step in the right direction as opposed to their having a different interpretation on a match by match basis. 😉

EXETERHAMMER

Consistently bad is not good enough

claretandbluesky

IronHerb said:

You say VAR operators but they are referees, the same ones who make the poor decisions when in charge of a game.

But they have a different role to the referee when in charge of VAR, just as a fourth official, or linesman has a different role, even though they may in many cases also be referees. The referee has excuses for missing things and wrong decisions but the VAR operator doesn't. So we can blame VAR operators for things we can't really blame referee's for. They should all understand the same rules however.

claretandbluesky

thornburyiron said:

C&B my point re the Philips incident was VAR was looking at did he foul Gordon. There is no compulsion on VAR to determine why there was a foul as once it’s a foul it’s a foul. They can look to see if he was offside before the foul.
The second questions you say they failed to ask they don’t have to ask.

But to ask that question is surely the exact task of VAR! Otherwise we just have the referee's decision, who had said it's a foul because he kicked him. In that example it's a foul because he kicked him ( ref decided this), but not a foul because of the reason he kicked him which was Gordons action, which should have overruled the first decision of the ref, who could be excused for only seeing the contact Phillips made. Var should have said it's not a foul by asking why did he kick him, to which the answer is Gordon placed his leg in front of his kicking action but made no contact with the ball, hence really a foul on Phillips.

VAR are there to ask that question, they review decisions.

MrsGrey

Clear and obvious, though.

buffybegood

MrsGrey said:

Clear and obvious, though.

They only use "clear and obvious" when it suits them; at other times it's "it sometimes takes a while to arrive at the correct decision".

It genuinely feels at times as though they have an outcome (goal/no goal, penalty/no penalty etc) they want to achieve, and then apply whatever makes that outcome easier to justify.

thornburyiron

Once they decide yes the referee was correct it was a foul there is no scope for them to look for mitigating circumstances.
VAR have guidelines to follow and don’t look outwith them otherwise you might have one day that he was kicked twice himself so it’s justified.
If you start making up second questions where do you stop? A third, fourth, fifth whatever.
I’m not saying it’s the right way but it’s how it is at the moment.

BerlinHammer

If it takes longer than 1 or 2 minutes for VAR to make a decision, then its not clear and obvious. If they need the ref to go to the screen, then surely it cant be clear and obvious?
VAR was really quick in making decisions in the PSG game yesterday, so im not sure why they can't do the same in prem.

claretandbluesky

This clear and obvious is an error, and there is absolutely no reason for a referee to ever go to a screen. That is a nonsense invention that has not quite been realised yet.

Here's the issue

what are they setting up a screen for? what is the ref looking at a screen for?

VAR have the technology in the studio and they look at it and make a judgment because they have a much better view of what actually happened than the referee. All they need do is make the call according to what they have seen in accordance with the rules of the game.

IF they want a second opinion I believe there is a second VAR official in the booth now also. So what they are saying is they want a third opinion and we want a man on the pitch to give it. It's pure theatre that is resented by most fans.

If there is an incident VAR with the best views states the decision that should be awarded, no clear and obvious, just the decision of the people with best view, no screens for a third opinion. One VAR official is the decision maker and the second is there to raise any issue he finds with that decision before it is relayed to the ref. After considering any objection to his initial finding the lead official gives his final decision.

buffybegood

But that really reduces the power of the guy in the middle; any decision that VAR looks at is then refereed solely by the VAR official rather than the referee. This goes completely against the guideline that VAR isn't there to re-referee the game, as all important decisions would be made by the VAR not the on-field referee.

claretandbluesky

But the only thing that matters is the correct decision. If the VAR is not there to re referee those decisions why have it at all? Just leave it to a referee in that case.


I am not in favour of every decision being assessed as the game must have flow. I would keep the current decision for which VAR is consulted, but when it is VAR always overrules the referee on the field as it has a better view. None of this clear and obvious and no need for a screen.

MrsGrey

The very fact of having VAR is an acknowledgement that the man in black gets it wrong sometimes.

Can't see the problem with VAR changing the decision.

buffybegood

claretandbluesky said:

I am not in favour of every decision being assessed as the game must have flow. I would keep the current decision for which VAR is consulted, but when it is VAR always overrules the referee on the field as it has a better view. None of this clear and obvious and no need for a screen.

I agree it's not a bad idea at all, but it's a complete departure from how VAR has been utilised so far.

Brother_Sledge

There would still be an element of 'umpires call' for the really close ones and the ref should 100% make a decision and not rely on VAR to step in. What I hate about VAR is they seldom look at replays in normal speed which distorts the evidence.

Dodger58

The Key Match Incidents Panel has ruled the officials were correct to disallow Wolves 'equaliser' ... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68796858