VAR decisions

It wasn’t even a booking. The wolves bloke died theatrically like the scene from platoon. Refereeing standards have become shockingly bad recently.

 

He did well to recover and play on though.

 

At last, Mike Riley's easy ride seems to be coming to an end. Get rid of this incompetent fool.

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/mike-riley-sack-premier-league-var-offside-a4325366.html

 

Don't fall for the scapegoating HB1.

The Premier League delayed bringing in VAR for a year so it could get an iron grip on how it implemented it. The clubs then signed off the way it would be operated and, at a 'crisis meeting' in November, agreed no changes were needed.

 

Indeed they were.

 

Agreed. The decision should never have gone to VAR because it was simply a matter of opinion rather than fact. But once it had the clue should be in the A. Assistant. That wasn't assisting the ref. it was telling him he was wrong and that he should reverse his decision and he meekly obeyed. If he had been advised to go to the monitor then that would have been assisting him and he could then have had another look and made his own mind up.

But this is exactly the sort of thing that VAR shouldn't get involved in in the first place.

 

There was a tackle on Success near the end of yesterday's game, maybe the one that caused the free kick that Masina hit over, that was an extraordinarily reckless tackle by their defender. It could have easily have broken a leg but Success was lucky his shinpads did their job, yet it went unpunished, I think.

It is the lack of consistency that is making the game little more than a lottery when it comes to making game changing decisions. Comparing that tackle yesterday with Marriapa's 2nd booking that got him sent off recently (where he even pulled out the tackle and made no contact) and considering VAR was available for both.

I don't really see the point of VAR, if it is as inconsistent as the referees.

Personally, I preferred the "pre-VAR" scenario where refs made mistakes and we all had to live with them But the big difference I would have made is that I think that the obvious cheating that is so often picked up by slo-mo replays post match, is treated harshly, with retrospective lengthy bans applied. Over a few months, cheating would be greatly reduced I think our refs decisions would be much better if they knew that what they were witnessing was not being made up.

 

Mariappa's would never have been referred to VAR because he got a red from a second booking.

 

Well VAR worked correctly yesterday in the 2 decisions (offside & penalty) that Tranmere got.

 

Wasn't used for the red card though. If it's only used for one side, then it is not a fair system. It has the be for the benefit of both sides, not just fort the underdog to make a 'giant killing' headline.

 

I was close to that incident. It was a petulant kick out. An uncontested red.

 

Exactly. Most people in the crowd saw it.

It's just as easy as it is to suggest 'VAR' didn't check it as it is to suggest that the glance it required to determine it was a kick out happened.

 

I didn’t see the game but is the ref card an opinion? If it is then then I don’t feel it should be changed by another person. This is where the monitor must be used and allow the referee on the day make the decision. Offsides and penalties should be VAR but penalties should follow the soft dismissal rule in cricket. If it’s clear the ref is wrong it’s changed if it’s unclear, takes more than than thirty seconds it stays with the ref on the field. Mike Riley has made a complete mess of the system

 

Sending off a player for a second yellow, where no contact is made can be just as crucial for the result of a game, as a goal affecting 5mm offside decision. And that is before the player then has to serve a ban.

When is a VAR used? It is just too arbitary,

 

I’m not sure what is the crazier. The referee giving a red card or the fans that actually think it was a red card.

 

It was petulant and under the nose of the referee and he deemed it red. The fact it didn't get reviewed helps us if we appeal either that it wasn't worthy of a red or for a reduced suspension as it was so pathetic and not violent. Nevertheless Parayra kicked out, that is clear and fact.

 

I don’t think you can blame VAR for the situation with offsides, well in fact you can’t. Pre-VAR the rules for offside were the same, but you were relying on a human being to make the call. By chance some of them may have been extremely marginal either way, given or not, some may have been a foot on or offside, some even more. A human being doesn’t have the ability to call someone on or offside by a few milimetres, it was mostly luck if they did. If a call was wrong the anger was directed at the linesman but to a degree people accepted human error was always likely.

Now with the benefit of technology, it’s the actual rules that are annoying people not the technology itself. The technology allows the offside to be determined down to a matter of mm, and when it’s an armpit 1cm offside people are left feeling cheated by the system as it’s so close and previously it wasn’t possible to do this.

The rules probably need to change to allow for the technology so it’s just based on feet, or a chip somewhere on the same part of the body.

 

Its not right that VAR is only used in FA Cup games where the home side is in the Premier League. It should either be used in every game or no game. This isn't in any way excusing the 2nd half performance yesterday or Tranmere's comeback. It's simply unfair that many teams yesterday will have had decisions go against them because they're playing at a ground without the technology.

I honestly hope Tranmere beat us with an offside goal in the replay.

 

So you've moved on from VAR favouring the big teams then?

 

See, that kick out by Luka M is textbook violent conduct. Makes Pereyra's look like a tickle.

 

The offside rule was initially brought in to stop goal-hanging, and I don't think it is the spirit of the rule to "catch - out" a player who has strayed offside by a millimeter, maybe because he has bigger feet, or his strides are slightly out of synch with the defenders when the ball is passed forward. Nor was it designed to help a defender who is intentionally using the rule to catch the forward offside by suddenly "stepping up". The offside rule was designed to improve the flow of the game, not hinder it.

A major problem, with the fast game these days, is a lino struggles to watch the ball when it is struck forward, at the same time as the player furthest forward - he needs two pairs of eyes. That is where VAR should come in, and in my view should only over-rule the officials decision when it is a clear error on a "officials - call" basis, just like cricket, after a quick assessment, as that is more in line with what the offside rule was designed for. No way should there be an electronic analysis.

 

All straight red cards are reviewed by VAR I believe, so RP's would have been reviewed yesterday.

 

You would have thought so, but there was no message to that effect on the screen.

 

They 'soft check' everything but it doesn't trigger a full review with all the bells and whistles unless the first couple of replays suggest there's an error. So, in theory, Stockley Park looked at a couple of quick replays, combined probably with having heard Scott's explanation, and left it be.

I don't think it was a clear and obvious error and so used correctly, VAR shouldn't intervene. That isn't the threshold for an appeal though where, in essence, three ex-refs are sent video footage and are asked what they'd do. Basically they're re-refereeing it after the event.

 

True. The way it has been implemented and gets communicated in the stadium is poor. But every straight red is checked according to what I have just looked up. The fact RP didn't argue it tells you the review would have been over pretty quickly - it was a clear cut decision.

 

You still haven't got past what would constitute a 'clear error'. That's a very subjective call without clear parameters. The purpose of VAR is to be both objective and more accurate and you would choose to make it subjective and less accurate when its accuracy can only improve from its already high standard. A somewhat bizarre and retrograde move then.

Sure the offside rule was introduced to negate 'goal hanging' but I'm not sure where 'improving the flow of the game' comes from. Linos have always had the problem of having to look in two directions at once.

What is certain is that VAR, as currently utilised, is disrupting the flow of the game. So time limit it then. One minute? And change the law to give some sort of advantage to the attacker so that all those very marginal 'goals' currently disallowed would then stand.

 

Something like a 20 mm "buffer zone" within which the attacker is still deemed not clearly offside...

 

Could do although I'd prefer a bit more than that. 50mm? Even better i.m.h.o. would be to draw the lines at the part of the attacker's foot furthest from the goal and the part of defender's foot nearest the goal i.e. if there's foot 'overlap' then it's onside.

 

Except of course the head is clearly a major "scoring part" of the body

 

Yes, my understanding was that it was introduced and then amended to improve the flow of the game, with more playing through the midfield with less lumping it up to attackers standing around the keeper.

I don't want our game to made "objective" any more than it is already is (pre VAR). We don't want players picked on the basis of their Opta stats, do we? We may as well be like some of the posters on here. In the autumn I got fed up with trying to defend my view that we are better than bottom place, with other posters who just say something like, "The stats don't lie, we are the worse team in the Premier League, look at the Table!" Why bother watching the ****ing match, then? Why not just buy a Sunday paper and look at the tables?

Yes, football is subjective, and most of us don't support our team based on the stats. We use subjective judgements on 99% of the rules, why not offside? Certainly, if they have to start using digital lines and cursers on the screen, then it isn't a "clear error". When they start all that nonsense, it is down to micro fractions of a second, when is the instant of when a pass is made? Is it when the kicker changes the direction of the ball? Is it when it leaves his foot? Who knows? It's a game of football FFS.

So my first change would be to scrap all that digital analysis nonsense and I think the VAR people should take a look maybe once or twice dependant on the angle they have available, and if it isn't clear to them that a mistake has been made, then they should leave it with the officials decision on the pitch. We don't want defenders relying on the offside rule to break up an attack, and if they try and step up to catch a forward offside, but it isn't clear and not spotted, then tough.

Then we should extend the VAR use to spotting clear and obvious errors elsewhere. Otherwise, just leave it with the officials and come down hard on cheats with retrospective bans. A good use of VAR would be similar to rugby. There is nothing wrong with a ref asking VAR. "There was contact, the player went down, I know there was contact, was it in or outside the area?" or "It looks like a pen, can you check there was contact or whether it looks like the player dived?" The ref asking questions like that still takes into account that he is closest to the action and in tune with the game and the context of something happening (his experience).

 

I'm a big supporter of VAR, though I believe it needs to be implemented better by those who are running it.

However, some people are saying it is unfairly used in the FA Cup as it is not used in every match, because not all grounds have the technology. I have to say I agree with that sentiment, it is unfair that some games have it but others do not.

Lets take our own game as an example, had the match been played at Tranmere we would have won 3-1, because two vital VAR decisions which were available at The Vic, that went Tranmeres way would not have happened at Prenton Park. I'm not saying that it was unfair that Tranmere got those decisions, but that others might not have got the advantage of similar decisions had they been playing at a ground without the technology.

Therefore I do not believe the technology should be used in the FA Cup, especially as it only comes into play from the 3rd round onward when the teams with the technology enter the competition. Not using it at all in the competition seems the only way to keep the FA Cup on a fair and level playing field.

 

How would it be fair? Tranmere would have unfairly lost the game to us without VAR.