VAR decisions

Discussion in 'The Hornets' Nest - Watford Chat' started by hornetboy1, Aug 10, 2019.

  1. Happy yellow

    Happy yellow Academy Graduate

    Fred had a similar handball similar to the Ali one in the last minute vs Liverpool and a penalty was not given. It appears that the VAR officials/ referee's make up the rules as they go along as both according to the rules should of been handball and Liverpool ought to have had a penalty in the last minute.

    Also Man Utd had a corner shortly before that when there was a clear handball by a Utd player just before that - yet if Utd had scored the goal would not of been disallowed.

    Origi was fouled in the build up to the Utd goal and the goal should of been disallowed.

    VAR will only disallow a goal if it is offside or handball. They will not give a penalty unless it is handball.

    The referring authorities are stupid, inept and arrogant and they are the ones using VAR. They have decided to use VAR for only offsides and handballs.

    The game is a joke.
    hornetboy1 likes this.
  2. Roger Irrelevant

    Roger Irrelevant Reservist

  3. Davidmsawyer

    Davidmsawyer Statto Statto Statto

    2. If you if think that is your shoulder you need to go back to your biology lessons at school. Just touch your body where the ball makes contact with Alli and honestly say you consider that your shoulder.

    The galling thing was seeing Alli’s face after he scored, he knew he’d hand balled it.
  4. WillisWasTheWorst

    WillisWasTheWorst Reservist

    Every goal is reviewed by VAR. You don’t have to appeal for it. In the case of the Newcastle goal VAR simply missed the handball, which is unforgivable.
    CleyHorn likes this.
  5. WillisWasTheWorst

    WillisWasTheWorst Reservist

    If VAR can decide on offside down to the toenail, then it ought to be able to decide if the ball has hit the arm or the shoulder. However, until that is the case then the Alli ‘handball’ is debatable, just as it would be with no VAR.
    Happy bunny and CleyHorn like this.
  6. CleyHorn

    CleyHorn Reservist

    Just did touch it. Hasn't changed my mind. It's debatable.
  7. Davidmsawyer

    Davidmsawyer Statto Statto Statto

    Fair enough that’s your view. When I do the same I touch my (weak) muscle at the top of my arm. The EPL logo is on the arm not the shoulder, and Alli touched below that. It is close, but in my mind not debatable.
  8. Since63

    Since63 Reservist

    Problem with VAR on pens is that it has led to many refs (such as yesterday’s) not giving a pen as they think they’re covered by VAR....but the ‘bar’ is set so high that it is 99% certain it will not be over-ruled...
    Unless the defender basically nails the attacker’s head to the floor, if the ref doesn’t give it, then it will never be over-turned.
    A total waste of time
  9. CleyHorn

    CleyHorn Reservist

    Dinsdale Piranha was a superb defender. Gave away a lot of pens though.
  10. Happy bunny

    Happy bunny Cheered up a bit

    I remember him as vicious but fair. A bit like Joey Barton.
  11. CleyHorn

    CleyHorn Reservist

    If I'd been conducting my MotD survey re. this evening's Manure v 'Pool fixture my conclusions on the two VAR incidents would have been these. The pundits were Danny Murphy and Darren Fletcher.

    1. Murphy thought it was a foul on Origi. A bit later on Fletcher said the two of them had been arguing over the two incidents all evening. Murphy didn't contradict him on that one so I take it Fletcher thought it wasn't a foul. Chapman didn't offer a view. So that's 1-1 then. Nothing to record on the spreadsheet.

    Personally I thought it was a f.cking dive by Origi and that VAR shouldn't be 'mucking about' with fouls deep in the other half anyway. But, of course, for the purposes of this exercise, my opinion doesn't count.

    2. Fletcher thought it was right that the 'Pool goal was disallowed and Murphy contradicted the 'arguing all evening' bit and said he agreed. So 2-0 agreeing with the VAR decision. Nothing to see here then.

    So nothing would need be recorded on the SPREADSHEET at all. Unless:

    Maybe some weight should be given to 'split decisions'. So, seeing as Murphy disagreed with the VAR decision on No.1 maybe that should be recorded as Manure +half and 'Pool - half. Any involvement required by Line Aker/Chapman we'd be into thirds. Maybe their contribution should always be recorded anyway. Two further observations:

    Unusually for MotD2 this was a pitchside presentation. Presumably because there was just the one match. It was quite tricky to ascertain what the views of the pundits were. I suspect that would be easier in a studio situation.

    The two pundits were ex-players one each from the two teams. So bias is possible/likely. All MotD pundits are likely to be ex-players from one team or another most likely from a top six one. Shearer is a permanent fixture and likely (even if he tries to avoid it) to show bias towards Newcastle. I am not, at this stage of thinking this thing through, sure of how that bias might be eliminated.
  12. Hornpete

    Hornpete Reservist

    If Andre had been in on goal having it come off his shoulder im sure we'd all think it was a Gray area. He'd have skyed it though.
  13. Carpster

    Carpster Reservist

    I'm old school and personally hate VAR. It's ruining the beautiful game IMO. It's supposed to stop controversy, not create it.
    WillisWasTheWorst likes this.
  14. I see where your coming from, it really should NOT be creating controversy, but that is down to the Muppet's who are running it, not the actual technology.

    Overall if the technology is used correctly you should get fair and genuine decisions, which has to be good for the game IMO.
    CleyHorn likes this.
  15. hornetboy1

    hornetboy1 First Team

    The way I see VAR and penalty reviews, in particular, is this.

    The referee will no longer give a penalty, unless it’s very obvious to him. He will wait for the review. The guy in the VAR studio does not want to undermine his colleague, so clear and obvious penalties are not given.

    It’s so obvious what needs to happen. The VAR official has to say to the referee, I have a different angle to you and I think you may like to check it on the pitch-side monitor.

    Ok, if a referee checks the monitor it implies the guy in Stockley Park thinks he got it wrong, but it would ensure correct decisions are made the majority of the time.

    If VAR is letting clear penalties go, then the review is not worth the time. They shouldn’t even bother doing it.

    This has to change and the pitch-side monitor has to be used for clear and obvious things that the official may have missed in real time.
    goldpapaya and CleyHorn like this.
  16. Carpster

    Carpster Reservist

    Absolutely no doubt about what you're saying about technology! It's still in its infancy but I believe it needed a hell of a lot more testing before being implemented into the biggest league in the world. I suppose we will always have human error no matter what. But it must eliminate most of the errors and at this point it isn't. Week in week out there are arguments by former players for and against decisions made by VAR. For instance the choices made against us on Saturday were incompetent the ones made yesterday in the Man U v Liverpool were correct IMO. But you still have former pro footballers arguing about those made. It's baffling and I'm starting to feel like the referee's are having their job's made harder because it's being scrutinised even more than ever.
    I have no doubt it will work in the end but when I don't know.
  17. Happy bunny

    Happy bunny Cheered up a bit

    There's no doubt reffing is more difficult than it used to be, due to the ever-increasing speed or the game and greater skill at cheating. Secondly, English reffing standards, which used to be among the best in the world, now seem to be in decline

    Two remedies:

    1) VAR should no longer be to correct 'clear and obvious errors', which adds a layer of subjectivity. They should simply answer the question, was the on-field decision wrong or not?

    2) The best retired refs should be used. Doesn't matter how decrepit they are if they're sitting in front of a screen. Active refs should never be used, as they'll always have at the back of their minds thst they wouldn't like their on-field decisions to be overturned next week.
  18. Hornpete

    Hornpete Reservist

    I'm of the opinion that fans at the game, armchair fans, players and pundits all accept that its difficult to be a ref, all accept that refs have one view, no slow motion, no HD angle. We all understand that mistakes can happen.

    Therefore I have no understanding of why there is a need to go to the pitch monitor? Just say via radio mic; "Mr Kavanagh, it appears you missed or didnt get a good angle of the trip. I can confirm no contact on the ball and clearly tripped the forward. You should overrule and award a penalty". The ref can then ask to confirm anything, such as "was there interferance from the forward before they got in the area" or "It appeared the forward initiated the contact, can you confirm this was not the case?". VAR then confirm or look for what the ref may have seen. Theres no need for the on field ref to disbelieve his colleagues and no need to get him to delay the game further by having a second look.

    Cricket decisions first check for no ball. Then impact, ball tracking, impact point etc etc.

    Goals should follow a set procedure. Offside? Handball, foul in immediate build up. In checking Dele Alis handball they should also have looked for fouls in the build up but I bet they didnt even look at Kane pushing Kabasele. Just made a call on arm or shoulder.
  19. hornetboy1

    hornetboy1 First Team

    I agree with you, but it's clear that's not what the PGMOL want to do. They do not want to undermine the on-field official in any way, for subjective decisions. They are using VAR in offsides and handball goals scored (apart from against us of course). They are not using it for any other incident.

    They don't want a TV referee to officiate the game......and to be fair to them, I do get that. In order for the on-field referee to have full control, he has to be the one who makes the decision. The only way he can do this is by looking at the monitor himself, after advice from the TV ref to review.
  20. Bwood_Horn

    Bwood_Horn Squad Player

    I keep repeating this - 'steal' the entire video referee umpire protocol from hockey. (including the right to referral). Even keep the umpire name so as not to detract from the referee's authority/role.
  21. Siohmy

    Siohmy Reservist

    Agree. If VAR is to be continued to be used to make calls such as fouls in the area then the only realistic option is to get the ref to look at the pitch side monitor. As was mentioned on MotD not one penalty referral on behalf of the attacking team has been successful this season which is a joke. I’d believe that if the ref had seen the replay he’d have changed his mind and given a penalty. He may also have given the one on Rose but at least he gets the chance to make the call. It’s clear none of the VAR officials have the balls to overrule the ref no matter how bad the initial decision seems.

    As for the handball (ignore the Kane push as well I guess), Lineker’s somewhat disbelieving and tactful response to Phil Neville saying it wasn’t was all I needed. The ball hit the upper arm. Last time I looked below the shoulder blade was the arm.
  22. CleyHorn

    CleyHorn Reservist

    There seems to be a concensus here.

    1. Refs are currently simply 'protecting their own' to the detriment of the game.

    2. This could be solved by either:

    - the onfield ref. making use of the pitchside monitor or,

    - them simply getting 'less precious' and letting VAR make the decision irrespective of the ref's original one.

    Both should work. Personally I'd prefer the latter but seeing as refs' are 'up their own arses with their egos' might have to settle for the former in the meantime.
  23. CleyHorn

    CleyHorn Reservist

    There will always be marginal decisions to argue about. What's perhaps becoming clearer is that far more decisions are marginal than we previously thought. Which confirms that being a ref. is a very difficult job whereas being the average biased supporter at a match isn't.

    Therefore VAR should be being used to simply 'get decisions right' and bring the refs' community back into repute.

    If they could just 'get over themselves' and use the system to their benefit then thst could happen and we could move on from the current charade.
    Happy bunny likes this.
  24. Siohmy

    Siohmy Reservist

    Unfortunately I think the only viable one is the former. It is human nature not to overrule or change something unless 100% certain. I play in a quiz team and there are times where I’ve felt fairly confident about an answer but someone else has come up with an answer first and is equally, or more, confident. Most of the time it is human nature to doubt yourself no matter how much evidence is in front of you. When you factor in the opinion nature of deciding what is and isn’t a foul then it does not surprise me in the least that most calls are not overturned. The fact none have been is nothing short of damning.

    If the ref takes a second look with the benefit of better angles then he is more likely to overturn the decision. If he still comes to the conclusion that Deulofeu’s was not a penalty then, to be polite, he ability as a ref has to be questioned. VAR then, for the most part, works better and possibly exposes really crap referees.

    Also, if it means that refs may play on a bit more in the knowledge he can pull the play back, it may actually help the game flow more and some of the goals which are scored 2-3 seconds later will stand.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    CleyHorn likes this.
  25. Knight GT

    Knight GT Predictor extraordinaire 2013/14

    What I would like to know is, what did the guy in Stockley Park see for the penalty decision to come to the conclusion that that it wasn't a clear error? It is not debatable, it is a clear foul in the box. You only need to see it once, it's absolutely stonewall.
  26. Hornpete

    Hornpete Reservist

    The only explanation i can think of is that they were evening the decisions out after the less blatent Rose decision.
  27. hornetboy1

    hornetboy1 First Team

    He would have seen it the same as everyone one else. He would have known it’s a penalty, but he’s not allowed to referee the referee. This is a clear directive from the top.

    Reviewing penalties is totally pointless. It’s just a meaningless tick in the box to say there was a VAR check and once again the on-field referee was correct.

    This is all monitored. Sure they’ll get a bit of heat over this one as it’s been widely reported, but next week it will be forgotten.

    They will look at their chart and say, look, we had 200 VAR checks and only a handful of overturns. This low percentage shows how well the on-field official is doing as his decisions are not being changed by VAR. Of course they will have to overturn a small minority to make the results look believable.

    They are clearly manipulating the end result to ensure referees look good.

    VAR is not being used to improve the game, it’s being used to con people into thinking referees are not making mistakes.
    Siohmy, CleyHorn, FromDiv4 and 3 others like this.
  28. FromDiv4

    FromDiv4 Reservist

    Are you referring to the 1st half dive, or the 2nd half dive?
  29. hornetboy1

    hornetboy1 First Team

    They just had a discussion over VAR on Sky, because it happened in the United v Liverpool match. All the focus was on a foul in the build up to the United goal. Because it happened to Liverpool there becomes a major media enquiry.

    They are going to have a chat about how VAR is working in a summit in Switzerland on Wednesday and new directives will be issued on the back of this.

    For the record, there has been over 500 VAR checks and just 19 overturned decisions, which is inline with pre-season predictions.

    Of course it's inline with pre-season predictions, because referees are manipulation the data to make it look this way.

    In our case there have been 5 major calls to have gone against us. It's a crazy amount in just nine matches.

    Murray's handball against Brighton with the score at 0-1.
    Deulofeu's non-penalty at Everton.
    The handball goal Newcastle scored.
    Deulofeu's non-penalty at Spurs
    Alli's handball equaliser.

    I don't think any of those examples are particularly contentious.

    How many VAR decisions have gone for us......that's right....a big fat ZERO.
  30. CleyHorn

    CleyHorn Reservist

    Numbers two and five are contentious.
  31. Hornpete

    Hornpete Reservist

    If the ref was balancing it out. How could i mean the 2nd one?
  32. Dreadnought

    Dreadnought MMC 2010/11 Prediction league 3rd 2011/12

    The other issue with the VAR official we had on Saturday is he is not even a PL official but a referee in the Football League so even less chance of him over ruling one of his ‘superior’ mates.

    I found it odd that we were the only game on Saturday that did not have a PL ref as the VAR official, if we had we might have got the same decision as the scoreboard on the Alli handball, still don’t believe we would have got the penalty though!!
    Happy bunny likes this.
  33. Sort of OK

    Sort of OK First Year Pro

    I caught a bit 5 Live in the car yesterday evening and they also had a long rant about VAR going on and on about the Liverpool game, probably 10 mins, Chris Sutton was part of it and then said what about Watford not being given a penalty at Spurs, scandalous decision. Presenter immediately said we'll be talking Spurs a bit later and moved on!
  34. reids

    reids Squad Player

    It was utilised during the World Cup which is arguably a bigger competition than the PL, and had a mistake count of 0. The way the PL is using it is abysmal and is what's causing all these mistakes. I was a massive VAR advocate before this season, but it's currently not fit for purpose if this is how we're going to use it.
    CleyHorn and Cassetti's Beard like this.
  35. Since63

    Since63 Reservist

    Although the push by Kane was less contentious but not even reviewed it seems...

Share This Page