Dogawful Officiating - Dave Coote suspended

[Guest]

I like Pilko's idea of having refs purely trained for VAR and those for the pitch. Why not use retired referees for example, who have tons of experience and can help the on-field younger refs? I know they have flaws, but the likes of Dean, Webb, Clattenburg, Riley...get them in there. 

[Likelylad]

Regarding the standard of the refs. 

It's a billion pound industry. They should have some sort of performance centre where you train people up that way and then fast track the best of the best. 

Having people going in at grass roots takes and working their way up for years far too long and is no guarantee of them being decent. 

Just an idea like but something needs to be done because the officials in this country are abysmal and it doesn't look like changing any time soon.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I always find it funny when people just say referees are abysmal though. Compared to what? What level of correct decisions do we expect? 

 

Having attended a fair bit of sport with my Dad, he hammers the referee even when the decision is quite obviously correct, so maybe I'm over biased in the other direction

 

 

Edited May 16 by AyeDubbleYoo

[Wullie]

I saw the clip again of Gordon's goal against Arsenal yesterday and the first thing the referee says to VAR is that the "ask on the pitch" is for a check whether the ball was out of play or not. 

 

Gordon said last night he was telling his team mates that it was a penalty and not to worry because the VAR would give it. I think that was quite naive. If the players know exactly what the foul is, it should be drummed into them to tell the referee what they need to look for to make sure it doesn't get missed.

[Andy]

11 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

I really don't feel like this is the case. The reason we have VAR is because everyone whinged for years about shocking decisions, I don't ever remember a time when it was fine.

 

When the decision is still wrong after it's gone to VAR it's 10x worse definitely, but it does feel like decisions are now right much more often since VAR's come in.

 

I think you could definitely argue significantly increased accuracy on offside decisions (which I'm all for keeping, just make it faster). I'm not so sure about the subjective stuff, particularly fouls leading to goals being disallowed, fouls leading to penalties (or not), and handball decisions. I'm sure there is an increase in accuracy, but it feels like VAR over-scrutinise these incidents and still get it wrong (at least in the opinion of many) on a fairly regular basis, so the trade off isn't worth it to me as a fan. 

 

It also feels like they're often desperate to disallow goals, looking at every aspect of the play from every angle, which is miles away from the "clear and obvious error" element and outright spoils the game. 

 

I'm aware most of this is down to the human using the tool, but the same humans will always be using the tool, and that's where the problem lies. Removing the human/subjective element from VAR is the best way forward for me.  

[Geordie_once_removed]

I would scrap the "clear and obvious bit" it's just far too subjective to ever work. Yesterday's foul on Gordon is such a good example of this. In real time I didn't think it was a foul. Based on the first couple of replays I still didn't. When I saw the one from behind and I saw the heel step I thought it was a foul and a penalty. Is this a "clear and obvious" error? I'm not sure. The decision is wrong but if it takes 3/4 camera angles and slow mo to spot it is "clear and obvious"?  In one match this is given, in another it isn't then you have this situation where everyone gets angry at a system that is supposed to remove human error. It's well meaning but unworkable.

 

For me the solution is pretty simple.

1. Scrap the clear and obvious bit, when a decision goes to VAR their job is to make the correct decision regardless of what the on field referee decided.

2. Give each team 3 VAR referrals per match. The managers have 30 seconds after an incident to call for this by, for example, pressing a button on a watch they have. If their decision is right they keep the referral, just like tennis. 

3. As soon as a referral is activated and play is stop the clock also automatically stops, to try to stop them being used as a time wasting strategy.

3. Only one referral is allowed after 85 minutes again to limit them being used in a tactical way to break up play/momentum in the crucial final minutes of a game.

4. I would also be tempted to put in place a max 1 minute rule for reviewing footage starting from when the first images are reviewed.  Also perhaps limit the slowing down of the footage to half speed as when you view somethings in super slow motion it warps the perception of them. Particularly the case for potential sendings off due to dangerous play.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 16 by Geordie_once_removed
Pimping my post

[Adam]

Why don't they add in a captain's challenge? VAR check it still but the captain can request once per game (maybe keep it if you are correct?) for the red to check the monitor. Yesterday Trippier uses his challenge to ask the ref to watch it. He is told Gordon is clipped and the ref can check it. 

 

Same with havertz challenge at SJP, captain asks ref to check it and he's is off. 

[ChrisMcQuillan]

Just now, Adam said:

Why don't they add in a captain's challenge? VAR check it still but the captain can request once per game (maybe keep it if you are correct?) for the red to check the monitor. Yesterday Trippier uses his challenge to ask the ref to watch it. He is told Gordon is clipped and the ref can check it. 

 

Same with havertz challenge at SJP, captain asks ref to check it and he's is off. 

Agreed on this. They need to look to cricket on several areas. 

 

So firstly, challenges. Each team has say two challenges. If they are correct, they keep the challenge, if they're wrong, they lose it. Same as tennis. Game goes to extra time, you get a challenge back. Simple.

 

Then with offsides, they need to look at the LBW review in cricket. With ball tracking, they acknowledge it can't be 100% accurate (like offsides, where the camera frames can't know 100% when the ball leaves the foot. In a cricket LBW, if the ball is clearly hitting the stump it's given out. If it's clearly missing, it's not out. If less than half the ball is clipping the stumps, it's given as umpire's call, where the decision of the on-field umpire is retained.

 

With offsides, the attacker line and the defender line should have a small margin of error (maybe an inch or two). If the two lines overlap, it goes down as "linesman's call" instead of "onside" or "offside" - and the onfield decision is retained. It would stop this nonsense of being millimetres offside.

 

 

[Geordie_once_removed]

4 minutes ago, Adam said:

Why don't they add in a captain's challenge? VAR check it still but the captain can request once per game (maybe keep it if you are correct?) for the red to check the monitor. Yesterday Trippier uses his challenge to ask the ref to watch it. He is told Gordon is clipped and the ref can check it. 

 

Same with havertz challenge at SJP, captain asks ref to check it and he's is off. 

I'd keep it as the manager. The captain can always signal to them they think it should be reviewed. For me this would add an interesting extra layer to being a manager.

[Bimpy474]

31 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

I like Pilko's idea of having refs purely trained for VAR and those for the pitch. Why not use retired referees for example, who have tons of experience and can help the on-field younger refs? I know they have flaws, but the likes of Dean, Webb, Clattenburg, Riley...get them in there. 

 

They already were doing that, Lee Mason. As it happens a terrible ref, then terrible on the VAR.

 

Your point is fairly sound if those refs are good in the first place, and then retrained solely on VAR. 

 

We just don't have any decent refs to retrain, only absolute weapons who are still part of it. Unbiased and unattached to PGMOL would be how'd go. Easy said than done mind.

[Likelylad]

38 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I always find it funny when people just say referees are abysmal though. Compared to what? What level of correct decisions do we expect? 

 

Having attended a fair bit of sport with my Dad, he hammers the referee even when the decision is quite obviously correct, so maybe I'm over biased in the other direction

 

 

 

Ha, i mean yeah fair one. I'm just saying that i can count on 1 hand the numbers of times i've watched a game in the prem and thought aye the ref had a good game there. 

Consistent errors from VAR who's whole onus of being is to support the ref and catch things they miss in the heat/speed of the game. It's just a shitshow.

Also, i'm probably projecting as i'm still absolutely fuming about the pen decision last night. 

[Kid Icarus]

13 minutes ago, Adam said:

Why don't they add in a captain's challenge? VAR check it still but the captain can request once per game (maybe keep it if you are correct?) for the red to check the monitor. Yesterday Trippier uses his challenge to ask the ref to watch it. He is told Gordon is clipped and the ref can check it. 

 

Same with havertz challenge at SJP, captain asks ref to check it and he's is off. 

 

I think this is potentially one of those ones where, similar to the rationale for VAR in the first place, you make the assumption that they'll make the correct decision then when they don't it's infuriating on a higher level. 

 

Personally cautious about adding layers with their own repurcussions (eg what if Gordon was hauled down after we'd used a captain's challenge?) when the focus could be on fixing/replacing existing methods, eg automated offsides and a clearer and fairer interpretation of handball.

[Wullie]

16 minutes ago, ChrisMcQuillan said:

With offsides, the attacker line and the defender line should have a small margin of error (maybe an inch or two). If the two lines overlap, it goes down as "linesman's call" instead of "onside" or "offside" - and the onfield decision is retained. It would stop this nonsense of being millimetres offside.

 

This has always seemed to me such a wildly obvious and easy fix to the problem, rather than going too far the other way and doing the thing Wenger has suggested which would change the game too much and quickly be exposed as equally ridiculous. 

 

Bring back the concept which existed in football for over 100 years of "level". Offside was always meant to be something that could be seen with the naked eye by a linesman - if it's not, it's not offside! If you're going to use the technology therefore, change the rules to give a buffer of an inch or two so that only obvious offsides are called.

[Kid Icarus]

35 minutes ago, Andy said:

 

I think you could definitely argue significantly increased accuracy on offside decisions (which I'm all for keeping, just make it faster). I'm not so sure about the subjective stuff, particularly fouls leading to goals being disallowed, fouls leading to penalties (or not), and handball decisions. I'm sure there is an increase in accuracy, but it feels like VAR over-scrutinise these incidents and still get it wrong (at least in the opinion of many) on a fairly regular basis, so the trade off isn't worth it to me as a fan. 

 

It also feels like they're often desperate to disallow goals, looking at every aspect of the play from every angle, which is miles away from the "clear and obvious error" element and outright spoils the game. 

 

I'm aware most of this is down to the human using the tool, but the same humans will always be using the tool, and that's where the problem lies. Removing the human/subjective element from VAR is the best way forward for me.  

I agree with you here tbf.

[South-Cheshire-Toon]

I think this may have been said many a time before - but I'd keep with it - BUT with the following changes -

 

1. Like Rugby, have an open mic so everyone can hear what happening.

2. Have 3 people review the incident - not 1 - therefore a more objective decision can be made.

3. Update the offside rule so that it the FEET of the people - none of this arm / ear being in front etc.

4. A decision has to be made in 2 mins - otherwise the onfield decision is taken.

5. Allowing a 'pull back' - like in the rugby - 'VAR to bring to the ref's attention something that has happened - stamping / punching etc.

 

Perhaps 4 is a bit harsh - but would go with it - and if none of the above implemented then fuck it off completely.

[Abacus]

I understand and have some sympathy for the perfectly reasonable objections to VAR, not just the inconsistency but most particularly the impact on fans experience.

 

However, it's not going away for international or European football, so it's going nowhere and we might as well get used to it.

 

So it's going to be about refining, while accepting it's never going to perfect with human beings in charge. Train them better, tweak the rules, each year and carry on.

 

I did wonder if we'll get to the point where some sort of incorruptible AI could be fed all the rules and have access to all the camera angles, to make decisions in seconds. But then there'd be no point even having the poor ref in the first place and it's probably not as fun shouting at computers.

[Monkey Alan]

There were some comical decisions pre-VAR. If it gets scrapped, prepare yourself for Man United scoring goals while 12 yards offside.

 

Regarding VAR being too slow, there is no need to have refs run over to a screen to make a decision. This should be done in the VAR room. “You got that one wrong, reverse it.” The only reason they persist with the running over to the screen pantomime is to protect the integrity of the ref but the integrity of the game should be more important. Really obvious stuff.

 

Also, convoluted ideas like ‘each team gets 3 VAR shouts’ is not necessary. Just have competent people there to correct the ref’s big mistakes.

 

On offside, the Wenger law solves nothing. It only changes the place at which the line should be drawn. Personally, I prefer the rule to favour the defender but if we were to revert to the daylight rule (Wenger law), I could cope. I see a lot of people saying that more leeway should be given but this too solves nothing. 15cm leeway? What about 16? 17? It will always, and indeed has to, come down to the smallest unit we can realistically hope to measure. Computers could take human bias out of the decision but people will always be on or off by the width of a short n curly.

 

Whenever I imagine the VAR room, I picture 4 blokes sat round a table. One is tucking into a pizza, another is leaning back in his chair whilst eyeing a sideways copy of Nuts magazine and the other two are trying to do that thing where you turn your eyelids inside out.

 

Beep beep beep…

 

“Yeah, just give it, mate”

[The Prophet]

Bewwwww.

[Groundhog63]

I'm liking that idea for teams/captains/manager to have "appeals" in-play. 

Like cricket and tennis. 

 

Can't be arsed to quote the earlier mentions but I'm with you guys ?

[Abacus]

10 minutes ago, Monkey Alan said:

Regarding VAR being too slow, there is no need to have refs run over to a screen to make a decision. This should be done in the VAR room. “You got that one wrong, reverse it.” The only reason they persist with the running over to the screen pantomime is to protect the integrity of the ref but the integrity of the game should be more important. Really obvious stuff.

 

Agreed, but on this point I think it does the exact opposite.

 

"I know, so as to maintain your dignity we'll make you run across the pitch in front of a baying crowd for it to be pointed out in front of everyone as to how you've been a knob."

[Fezzle]

2 minutes ago, Abacus said:

Agreed, but on this point I think it does the exact opposite.

 

"I know, so as to maintain your dignity we'll make you run across the pitch in front of a baying crowd for it to be pointed out in front of everyone as to how you've been a knob."

Unless you are in Parc des Princes obviously

[Dandy Man]

2 hours ago, Andy said:

 

I think you could definitely argue significantly increased accuracy on offside decisions (which I'm all for keeping, just make it faster). I'm not so sure about the subjective stuff, particularly fouls leading to goals being disallowed, fouls leading to penalties (or not), and handball decisions. I'm sure there is an increase in accuracy, but it feels like VAR over-scrutinise these incidents and still get it wrong (at least in the opinion of many) on a fairly regular basis, so the trade off isn't worth it to me as a fan. 

 

It also feels like they're often desperate to disallow goals, looking at every aspect of the play from every angle, which is miles away from the "clear and obvious error" element and outright spoils the game. 

 

I'm aware most of this is down to the human using the tool, but the same humans will always be using the tool, and that's where the problem lies. Removing the human/subjective element from VAR is the best way forward for me.  

 

This is one of my biggest gripes with VAR, it's basically inherently flawed in this respect as it's only applied retroactively after a goal and you can't go reviewing every potentially incorrect decision or soft free kick that gets given that might have prevented a team from otherwise scoring.

[1964]

It's pointless scrapping VAR, it's the judgement of the officials that is in need of improvement.   If baboons were operating air traffic control you wouldn't scrap radar because planes keep crashing

[Wullie]

22 minutes ago, Dandy Man said:

 

This is one of my biggest gripes with VAR, it's basically inherently flawed in this respect as it's only applied retroactively after a goal and you can't go reviewing every potentially incorrect decision or soft free kick that gets given that might have prevented a team from otherwise scoring.

 

Indeed. I've always said this, football isn't like tennis or cricket where every point or every delivery is independent of each other. Giving a throw-in the wrong way affects every other thing that happens on the field from that point onwards. 

[DebuchyAndTheBeast]

2 hours ago, ChrisMcQuillan said:

With offsides, the attacker line and the defender line should have a small margin of error (maybe an inch or two). If the two lines overlap, it goes down as "linesman's call" instead of "onside" or "offside" - and the onfield decision is retained. It would stop this nonsense of being millimetres offside.

 

 

 

You could have an extreme case where the linesman is biased towards a team. He could give offsides for all tight offside goals scored against them and not raise his flag for tight offside goals they score. Therefore you'll end up with one team getting all the 50/50 calls.

 

I'm for a change in the offside rule but Wenger's idea ,while favouring the attacker, doesn't solve the current issues with offside rules.

 

I think that there should be a new offside rule where each half of the pitch would be divided into 6-9 rectangular areas. If a defender is anywhere inside one of those areas in his own half, an opposing attacker cannot be offside as long as he is also within the same area, even if he is behind the defender. It wouldn't eliminate tight calls but it would be easier for the linesman to judge compared to the current rule and may even give instant decisions with a semi-automated system. It would also be simpler for defenders compared to Wenger's rule because they would know where to position themselves to set up an offside trap. Games would also be more open and teams which defend close to their own goal would not be able to use the offside trap. The only disadvantages I think would be that a football pitch would end up looking more like an American football pitch and there would be more work for the groundsman when painting the new lines.