Muttley
Well-known member
People are part of the system. You can't say that they are not. So what is the point of VAR?
Oh and I believe that linos are told NOT to flag for offside?
West Ham v Chelsea - VAR again
- Thread starter TheBoroBuzzard
- Start date
Oh and I believe that linos are told NOT to flag for offside?
Muttley
Well-known member
We were told that it would be used to "correct clear and obvious errors", yet here we are. With a succession of clear and obvious errors arguably caused or exacerbated by VAR
It's not working, it remains a solution to a problem that only exists in the heads of TV pundits. And it doesn't work.
It's not working, it remains a solution to a problem that only exists in the heads of TV pundits. And it doesn't work.
TeaCider
Well-known member
They're told not to flag immediately if there's a goalscoring opportunity and let the passage of play carry out.
They're still meant to flag if they think it's offside after.
Bad officiating was the problem this weekend, not VAR itself.
FishofContemplation
Well-known member
I'd say that's clearly false. Even on what I think we would probably say was one of its dodgiest days ever, by my recollection:
it correctly reversed two onfield mistakes at West Ham and Leicester;
it failed to reverse a definite and a highly probably mistake at Arsenal and West Ham;
it (possibly, I have as I said not yet seen convincing evidence) incorrectly reversed one at Palace.
So even on one of its dodgiest days, it left us at most with three wrong decisions instead of four. That's poor. But it's not more.
Chris_Boro
Well-known member
VAR still gets the majority if decisions right, scrapping it because of the few it doesn't is pointless and will only lead to the inevitable "this is why we had VAR" as soon a the wrong decision is made without it.
No, they still have to make a decision, there was two in Leeds v Man U game earlier. They are only told to allow the play to unfold before making a decision.
Muttley
Well-known member
And yet they don't because if a goal has been scored they know that VAR will revue. Which to an extent is OK if you accept ruining the game as a spectacle to overrule the occasional "clear and obvious" human error.
The experience of other sports using video replay technology (American Football, Rugby, Cricket, etc.) tells us that this makes umpires/refs/officials "decision shy" they leave it to the technology and that is EXACTLY what we are seeing in PL games compared to games at our level. So we get different behaviour from officials sometimes in cup competitions depending on location of the game.
It is a ludicrous failed experiment that has had no discernible positive impact on the game as a whole.
Get rid
Chris_Boro
Well-known member
Yes they do, I've just gave you two examples from one game today?
Here's an entire stats thread. 6 flagged offside goals were overtuned as of 6th January...
Last edited:
Scrote
Well-known member
It'll come as no surpise that "clear and obvious" isn't defined anywhere, but it doesn't state anywhere that the VAR official can't advise the referee on a decision - only that the ref can't change the decision if the review doesn't prove to be a "clear and obvious" error.
If we take your version as true can you walk me through the process?
1. Something happens (dodgy handball in this case).
2. Ref sees the hand to ball but judges it fair.
3. ??????????????
4. Ref tells VAR he saw it perfectly clearly and there is nothing to check.
What happens in step 3 in your scenario?
(in mine - the VAR official tells the ref there might be a "clear and obvious" error (which there was in this case))
Muttley
Well-known member
Were they "clear and obvious errors" I know the Leicester one wasn't
I haven't watched the Leeds Man Utd game but did either decision change the outcome of the game?
The price that we pay is the way in which the spectacle and experience of the game we love is being changed and I can see no evidence that it is changing it for the better. It is also creating a two tier system of officiating where decisions in different games involving (sometimes) the same teams are made in a different way.
It is a bad idea being poorly implemented.
FishofContemplation
Well-known member
Again that's simply not true. They do. They just wait. Again from the game this thread is about Chelsea had the ball in the net three times in the first 20 minutes or so. On two of those three, the AR then flagged (having correctly waited under his current instructions to see what happened). On the third he didn't. All three times he was proved right.
Chris_Boro
Well-known member
It's literally in what you quoted...
"The referee *may* be assisted by a video assistant referee (VAR) *only* in the event of a 'clear and obvious error' or 'serious missed incident' in relation to:"
I've highlighted the key words.
No clear and obvious error took place based on the current interpretation of the handball rules for VAR to intervene. You repeatedly saying it, doesn't make it so, it's in the laws.
Your order is wrong, the referee tells VAR what he thinks before any review takes place, VAR then makes a decision based on that interpretation which could simply be no further action required.
Clear and obvious is threshold of opinion based on the laws, interpretation and evidence available, this threshold is supposedly very high but also not defined.
As I've repeatedly said, without knowing what was said to the VAR, we cannot know if an error took place in the process, only that the process is slave to the interpretation of the laws of the game.
Chris_Boro
Well-known member
You're moving the goalpost, you said the AR never flag for offsides anymore which is demonstrably incorrect.
Offside's do not fall under "clear and obvious errors".
Debating VAR is no different to debating a missed offside or penalty decisions in the Championship, which due to the awful standard of refereeing, is crying out for VAR.
If we had better standard of officials then VAR wouldn't be required as much as it is, similarly if VAR had better officials running it, we wouldn't be having these type of debates at all.
Muttley
Well-known member
No I'm not. I used hyperbole to describe the way in which the behaviour of Assistant Referees is being changed by VAR. Plainly they DO put the flag up for "easy decisions" as time goes on that is becoming less frequent. It was always going to happen, experience in other sports and a simple understanding of the way in which humans make decisions will tell you that it is easier to let the tech call the ones where you aren't sure. And officials just get lazy. Good example from cricket, the umpire should call a "no ball" if the bowlers foot is outside the "bowling line", in games with video analysis it is virtually unknown now, Umpires simply do not look for it. Similar behaviour was noted in the NFL when video tech was first used, officials became reluctant to make calls relying on the tech.
And yet we have the introduction of "clarifications" to facilitate the use of VAR. And I think I would call VAR drawing the line on the wrong player a "clear and obvious error".
And every single goal in the PL is put through this tedious process without allowing the paying punters in the stands to see the video footage so that it doesn't make the angry (or whatever).
Honestly, it was sold as correcting errors but in truth it is changing the game and making it a worse spectacle.
FishofContemplation
Well-known member
I've pointed out that's not true in respect of the very game this thread is about. They wait. Then they put their flag up if they think it's offside. The ARs did this every time in the West Ham Chelsea game. They got every one except the last one right. All they said were offside, they were right. When they said onside, they were right for all except the last one (which was very close). They're not ducking decisions and you're unfairly badmouthing them to suggest they are.
That's your argument. That it's tedious and unnecessary. That it takes the spontaneity out. That's one I can get behind. Why do VAR opponents have to make the other stuff up?
Scrote
Well-known member
The review takes place after the check.
VAR checks and then lets the ref know if they think there should be a review.
Under the current laws it should have been called as a handball and therefore a penalty.
The VAR official will have checked and should have told the ref he might have made a mistake. At that point the ref can say that he thought x. VAR then tells him that y happened and should have told the ref to review as it was a subjective decision (not e.g. an offside which is objective).
The ref doesn't instigate a review (mainly because he's already made a decision - it makes zero sense). That's not to say a ref can't ask to see it on the monitor after he's been told there might be a problem but he isn't allowed to request a review apropos of nothing.
If you have information that no-one else is privy to that instructs the VAR official to wait until he's asked for a review then please share. I'll happily stand corrected.
FishofContemplation
Well-known member
Assuming we accept it struck the hand, which it clearly and obviously did, under current laws it should be called as handball if AND ONLY IF, either the referee thinks the WH player:
- deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball, OR
- touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger.
I wouldn't give it for the second at all. His hand is in a natural position for someone who is falling. His body is not unnaturally bigger.
So, if I'm the VAR and the ref said it hit his knee he's clearly and obviously wrong. And VAR reverses. If the ref said it wasn't deliberate, I think he's probably wrong, but not clearly and obviously as if I'm the VAR I'm not psychic either, so I can't reverse. If the ref said it's not made his body unnaturally bigger, I'd agree.
Therefore, under the current rules, I can't reverse the decision except in scenario 1. I probably leave a wrong decision standing, But I can't reverse the decision. Why is this hard?
Last edited:
Scrote
Well-known member
Why is it hard? Because people keep conflating different parts of the rules.
1. Having watched the video footage it's clear that the defender puts his hand out at a right angle to deflect the ball (it moves up and out). It wasn't in a natural position (the ruling about grounding also applied).
2. Because it's a subjective decisison, VAR cannot overrule the ref (e.g. sending off the wrong player). VAR checks and then tells the referee he may have made a mistake. At that point the ref and VAR have a quick discussion. In this case, VAR should have told the ref that the defender made a clear movement towards the ball and that the ref should review the decision. VAR doesn't know what the ref actually saw so can't base the "clear and obvious" call on anything other than it's own interpretation. It's then up to the ref to review and decide if he has, indeed, made a "clear and obvious" error.
FishofContemplation
Well-known member
To be fair I said I thought it was deliberate. I said I would have given the decision on the basis I think the defender made a clear movement towards the ball. But if the ref doesn't, that's that. It's a judgment call.
One of the problems is we don't hear the conversations, like we do in other sports.
One of the problems is we don't hear the conversations, like we do in other sports.
Scrote
Well-known member
You also said this, which is what I'm disputing:
Once the VAR official has seen the deliberate movement towards the ball the only thing which prevents a review is the referee saying he saw that movement and doesn't think it was enough for a pen. At that point VAR asks him to look at the monitor. Nothing prevents VAR from being used to reverse that decision.
If the ref refuses to look then that will go on his match review and I doubt very much that any ref would take a chance on something so minor (viewing the monitor).
The only other scenario in which the ref decides not to review is if he knows he has given the wrong decision but doesn't want to change it for some other nefarious reason (and bear in mind he can see it on the monitor and still stick to his original decision).
So we have:
1. Ref thought it hit his knee = review and penalty
2. Ref saw it hit his hand but determined it to be accidental = review and penalty
3. Ref saw it hit his hand and thought it was deliberate but West Ham have paid him off (I never did trust that bird* off the Apprentice)
As a minor correction to an earlier post, the rules do allow the ref to initiate a review in the case where he believes something has been missed - this is for incidents where players have started up with the handbags off the ball.
*misogyny for comedic value only
Once the VAR official has seen the deliberate movement towards the ball the only thing which prevents a review is the referee saying he saw that movement and doesn't think it was enough for a pen. At that point VAR asks him to look at the monitor. Nothing prevents VAR from being used to reverse that decision.
If the ref refuses to look then that will go on his match review and I doubt very much that any ref would take a chance on something so minor (viewing the monitor).
The only other scenario in which the ref decides not to review is if he knows he has given the wrong decision but doesn't want to change it for some other nefarious reason (and bear in mind he can see it on the monitor and still stick to his original decision).
So we have:
1. Ref thought it hit his knee = review and penalty
2. Ref saw it hit his hand but determined it to be accidental = review and penalty
3. Ref saw it hit his hand and thought it was deliberate but West Ham have paid him off (I never did trust that bird* off the Apprentice)
As a minor correction to an earlier post, the rules do allow the ref to initiate a review in the case where he believes something has been missed - this is for incidents where players have started up with the handbags off the ball.
*misogyny for comedic value only