Sorry another VAR thread

[Ste43]

Now the dust has settled from Saturday evening a lot of conversations I've had have been around the "foul" on Saka, the Kane "no penalty" decisions and the officials in general.
VAR was supposed to reduce obvious errors in the game and move us away from the bias conspiracies' surrounding questionable referees. As VAR isn't going anywhere is it time we moved to the rugby method of VAR usage with mic'd up officials and the replays on the big screens for all to see? This is the only way for me we are going to have full transparency and any accountability around the decisions made. E.g. I would have loved to have heard the explanation around not awarding Saka a free kick whilst the ref is watching a replay with everyone else in the stadium.

I know it will add more time onto games however we appear to be heading in that direction anyway given the time added on in this World Cup...

 

[Rofesleg]

One thing I've noticed when var is used in rugby is that the laws are a lot more black and white than in football with less room for subjective interpretation.
Not sure if that is correct but it did seem that way to me.

 

[Johnny Vincents Motorbike]

The ref gave England TWO penalties - has that happened before in this WC? - - its going to be difficult to make a case that he was 'bias'.

VAR is an Albatross around footballs neck.

in my humble opinion the Ref gets back to making the decisions, we stick with those decisions as previously done - VAR is for occasions when Terry Henry hand balled it in V Republic of Ireland - or Maradona and his basketball manoeuvre V England - these instances are few and far removed and so should the clinical use of VAR in a football match.

 

[Ingleby_Flash]

Now the dust has settled from Saturday evening a lot of conversations I've had have been around the "foul" on Saka, the Kane "no penalty" decisions and the officials in general.
VAR was supposed to reduce obvious errors in the game and move us away from the bias conspiracies' surrounding questionable referees. As VAR isn't going anywhere is it time we moved to the rugby method of VAR usage with mic'd up officials and the replays on the big screens for all to see? This is the only way for me we are going to have full transparency and any accountability around the decisions made. E.g. I would have loved to have heard the explanation around not awarding Saka a free kick whilst the ref is watching a replay with everyone else in the stadium.

I know it will add more time onto games however we appear to be heading in that direction anyway given the time added on in this World Cup...

The other problem we’d have in football, that your sensible suggestion doesn’t take into account, is that in Rugby the players and fans show respect to the ref. It would just lead to further chaos in footbalI.

 

[Muttley]

IMHO the only way I can see it working is to make it challenge based. So to take the example of England's penalties against France either our Captain or Manager/Coach (not sure which it should be) can throw a challenge flag which stops the game at the next break of play and the decision is reviewed and amended if necessary, there are a limited number of challenges available (2/3 pre game?) and incorrect challenges are "lost", correct ones retained. Like in most sports if there is no conclusive proof of an error the referee's call is upheld. I agree that all such challenges must be communicated to the fans in the ground, relevant video shown on a big telly and the decision relayed to them.

 

[Norman_Conquest]

Now the dust has settled from Saturday evening a lot of conversations I've had have been around the "foul" on Saka, the Kane "no penalty" decisions and the officials in general.
VAR was supposed to reduce obvious errors in the game and move us away from the bias conspiracies' surrounding questionable referees. As VAR isn't going anywhere is it time we moved to the rugby method of VAR usage with mic'd up officials and the replays on the big screens for all to see? This is the only way for me we are going to have full transparency and any accountability around the decisions made. E.g. I would have loved to have heard the explanation around not awarding Saka a free kick whilst the ref is watching a replay with everyone else in the stadium.

I know it will add more time onto games however we appear to be heading in that direction anyway given the time added on in this World Cup...

I have said all along, and I am sure Smalltown (who watches a lot of rugby) would back me up on this; the rugby official's game improved with the introduction of microphones and the use of VAR. There are still some decisions that not everyone agrees on, but 99% of them are correct.

It also allows the fans to know exactly what the officials are looking at.

 

[Norfolkred1]

I also think the Refs assistant should have a lot more power as the have in Rugby. The amount of abuse the assistances get is not acceptable and should be punished accordingly.

 

[Nano]

The penalty that wasn't given was the correct decision by VAR because the referee didn't give it so they could only overturn it if there was a clear and obvious error. There was clearly a foul but you couldn't see conclusively whether it was in or out of the box. Some angles it looked clearly in and some clearly out. As they can't say conclusively then the on-field decision stands. Had the referee given the penalty on the pitch then VAR wouldn't have overturned it either for the same reasons.

The one on Saka is more difficult to understand. If you watch it closely there was a slight kick at the beginning which I don't think was a foul and then Saka went down under pressure which could have been seen as initiating the contact. I personally think it was a foul, just giving some possible reasons. I was surprised they looked that far back but as they did it makes it less understandable.

The challenge thing is a stupid idea because you end up with challenges being called when they shouldn't, just in case or even worse running out of challenges and then not getting a genuine wrong decision overturned because you had some marginal calls that were subjective. The current system is fine, it's just the referee standards are still too low. Hopefully that improves over time. I think being mic'd up could help but would it lead to the home team being given more because the crowd can influence the ref if they know exactly what he said? And not sure having the referees mic'd up and explaining their decision will work for international football. Would they even necessarily speak english or whatever language the clubs playing speak?

We're also talking as if the rest of the game happens as it did if it was ruled out. France are still the better team and probably would have won anyway. Goals change games and they changed the way they were playing once they had the lead.

 

[LowMoorBoro]

It seems like the controversy has moved from the referees decisions to the official in charge of VARs decisions. It’s still subjective in most cases, a lot of decisions VAR makes are near clear and obvious.
This also leads to a lack of consistency in its application.

 

[Rauko]

I've always said that VAR should be used for black and white decisions and nothing else. Subjective opinions about whether something is or isn't a foul should not fall in the realms of VAR otherwise what you end up with is people in the VAR control room reffing the game and the ref on the pitch being somebody who just follows their instructions and blows his whistle for kickoff, halftime and fulltime.

How many times has a ref been "advised" to look at an incident on the screen and then stuck to his original decision? I would say never. Why not? Because he's looked at the screen .. somebody else must have seen something and if he doesn't go along with what they say and go with his original decision instead he's going to get pelters for it from the refs body, the team and the managers in question, the fans, the pundits. Instead of running across to the TV screen he should just do what he's told - it will save time as he's just going to follow the party line anyways.

So who's reffing the game? Him or a committee in a control room 50 miles away?

Does this mean he'll get something wrong? Yes. He's going to make mistakes. That's part and parcel of the game.

Harry Kane made a mistake blazing the ball over the bar from the spot - should he be allowed to re-think his decision to welly it and take it again?

In the box or out of the box. Over the line or not over the line. Offside (proper offside - not a toe-nail offside) or not.

That's it. Nothing more.

If not then we should just ref games like an episode of Strictly with the audience voting whether something was a foul or not. Text "Foul" or "No Foul" to 8821 on your phone if you think it was a foul or not. 5p of each text goes to charity.

And why not? The collective opinion of millions must carry more weight than the ref in the middle of the pitch or a committee in a VAR control room.

Let the ref ref the game. Everybody else butt out.

 

[TeaCider]

How many times has a ref been "advised" to look at an incident on the screen and then stuck to his original decision? I would say never.

You'd be wrong to say that.

It does happen.

It's rare, but that's largely because most of the time they've got their original decision wrong and have been offered a chance to correct that.

 

[Rauko]

You'd be wrong to say that.

It does happen.

It's rare, but that's largely because most of the time they've got their original decision wrong and have been offered a chance to correct that.

I've never seen it. But who's decided the original decision is wrong?

That's the point. That's the refs job .. What you think is a foul .. I don't. And vice versa. He's the ref. He has to call it as he sees it and not be put under even more pressure to ref the game how somebody else wants him to ref it. He already has players in his ear influencing him, fans questioning his parentage and the colour of his kit and managers raging at him for slight injustices. He doesn't need an all seeing eye looking on putting him under even more pressure to ref the game like others want him to.

Refs have personalities like everyone. Some let things go to let the game flow. Some are harsh and crack down on every little thing. Some give a quiet word to calm things down, other flash cards around like Paul Daniels.

With VAR looking at everything then they have to Ref the game how the Gods Eye in the sky dictates to them. Decision by committee. Computer says No. What's the point of him?

Just get rid of refs. Seriously. Just have some guy in a control room 50 mile away make all the decisions. You don't need a ref on the pitch at all.

 

[WindyNook]

The ref gave England TWO penalties - has that happened before in this WC? - - its going to be difficult to make a case that he was 'bias'.

VAR is an Albatross around footballs neck.

in my humble opinion the Ref gets back to making the decisions, we stick with those decisions as previously done - VAR is for occasions when Terry Henry hand balled it in V Republic of Ireland - or Maradona and his basketball manoeuvre V England - these instances are few and far removed and so should the clinical use of VAR in a football match.

The ref only gave us one penalty.

 

[Andy_W]

The ref gave England TWO penalties - has that happened before in this WC? - - its going to be difficult to make a case that he was 'bias'.

VAR is an Albatross around footballs neck.

in my humble opinion the Ref gets back to making the decisions, we stick with those decisions as previously done - VAR is for occasions when Terry Henry hand balled it in V Republic of Ireland - or Maradona and his basketball manoeuvre V England - these instances are few and far removed and so should the clinical use of VAR in a football match.

The ref gave one penalty (as he had to), VAR basically gave one (as he couldn't ignore that), and he ignored VAR for the other. He should have also sent off Hernandez for Mount penalty, as he wasn't even making any attempt at the ball.

Most games don't have one clear-cut penalty incident, this certainly had two and the other on Kane was a certain foul which continued on into the box (which I think makes that a penalty also).

VAR is great, and gets most decisions right, but it needs to be used better, other sports manage to do it better than football (Rugby, NFL, Cricket, Tennis) etc.

 

[LowMoorBoro]

The ref gave one penalty (as he had to), VAR basically gave one (as he couldn't ignore that), and he ignored VAR for the other. He should have also sent off Hernandez for Mount penalty, as he wasn't even making any attempt at the ball.

Most games don't have one clear-cut penalty incident, this certainly had two and the other on Kane was a certain foul which continued on into the box (which I think makes that a penalty also).

VAR is great, and gets most decisions right, but it needs to be used better, other sports manage to do it better than football (Rugby, NFL, Cricket, Tennis) etc.

Whoever the ref in the studio on itv said it couldn’t have been a red, as for it to be a denial of a clear goal scoring opportunity the attacker has to have the ball under control.
I don’t know how true that is, just what they said.

 

[Johngannonsunderpants]

It just doesn't work and needs to go.

 

[Andy_W]

Whoever the ref in the studio on itv said it couldn’t have been a red, as for it to be a denial of a clear goal scoring opportunity the attacker has to have the ball under control.
I don’t know how true that is, just what they said.

I'm not sure if that's correct, as I've seen red cards given for players being pulled back when they were running to meet a square ball.

The player fouling him (when not going for the ball) denied him any opportunity of taking control of it. Could have even been a professional foul I suppose?

If he had been going for the ball, or even looking at it, then fair enough, but he wasn't.

 

[Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret]

No just get rid of the damn thing.

 

[Nano]

I've never seen it. But who's decided the original decision is wrong?

That's the point. That's the refs job .. What you think is a foul .. I don't. And vice versa. He's the ref. He has to call it as he sees it and not be put under even more pressure to ref the game how somebody else wants him to ref it. He already has players in his ear influencing him, fans questioning his parentage and the colour of his kit and managers raging at him for slight injustices. He doesn't need an all seeing eye looking on putting him under even more pressure to ref the game like others want him to.

Refs have personalities like everyone. Some let things go to let the game flow. Some are harsh and crack down on every little thing. Some give a quiet word to calm things down, other flash cards around like Paul Daniels.

With VAR looking at everything then they have to Ref the game how the Gods Eye in the sky dictates to them. Decision by committee. Computer says No. What's the point of him?

Just get rid of refs. Seriously. Just have some guy in a control room 50 mile away make all the decisions. You don't need a ref on the pitch at all.

This doesn't make sense and it is just an anti-VAR rant. The referee gets referred to the monitor when the VAR team think they have got the on-field decision wrong. When VAR was first introduced they didn't do that and people complained the referee didn't get to make the decision. Now the referee does because he sees it and makes the decision. It doesn't get referred for anything that isn't a subjective decision.

Whoever the ref in the studio on itv said it couldn’t have been a red, as for it to be a denial of a clear goal scoring opportunity the attacker has to have the ball under control.
I don’t know how true that is, just what they said.

It was Peter Walton. He seems to get more wrong than right but he was right in this case. It was the same as any cynical foul to break up play which is a yellow. It wasn't violent so couldn't be a red. There was no goal scoring opportunity because the ball sailed over them both so there was no denial of a goal scoring opportunity.

I'm not sure if that's correct, as I've seen red cards given for players being pulled back when they were running to meet a square ball.

The player fouling him (when not going for the ball) denied him any opportunity of taking control of it. Could have even been a professional foul I suppose?

If he had been going for the ball, or even looking at it, then fair enough, but he wasn't.

Think back to the Euro final when Chiellini pulled Saka back. That was the same situation. It's a deliberate, cynical foul but not violent so just a yellow.



VAR got most things right in the game. The only questionable one is the foul in the lead up to the 1st goal.

 

[TeaCider]

Whoever the ref in the studio on itv said it couldn’t have been a red, as for it to be a denial of a clear goal scoring opportunity the attacker has to have the ball under control.
I don’t know how true that is, just what they said.

"Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling,
pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.

The following must be considered:

• distance between the offence and the goal
• general direction of the play
• likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
• location and number of defenders "

He's wrong to say that, there was no attempt to play the ball, he should have been sent off.

It was a clear goalscoring opportunity.