Dogawful Officiating

[leffe186]

Just to say, watching the highlights of the Spurs-Liverpool match just now, and Neville’s commentary during the Jones red card is absolutely terrible

[The College Dropout]

8 hours ago, Displayname said:

Do you have the exact wording of the rule? 

Pretty sure there is a rule that the ref have to go by the decisions made by VAR regarding offsides. So rules were already broken by letting the game go on with the wrong decision. The question then becomes which rulebreaking does less harm.

No I do not have the wording of the ‘laws’. 
 

But they followed the laws of the game by going with the VAR decision. It was just the wrong decision.  I guess ‘VAR check complete - decision X’. When the game is restarted, that’s it there’s no further changes that can be made even if new evidence is brought to light.

 

VAR checks will take ages now and people will complain some more.  
 

I do think new procedures need to be brought in and use of automated offsides too.
 

I don’t believe the law around restarting the game should be changed though.  Massive rabbit hole that.  Upon further review - decisions will always be proven to be wrong.  Where do you draw the line at bring backs? 30 seconds? 1 minute? People only want bring backs in this instance because it was immediately obvious in real time and on TV. But that shouldn’t have any impact on implementing the laws of the game. 

[1964]

I doubt the laws will change as it appears to me, perhaps wrongly, that we are spectacularly bad at using VAR.  That commentary was a joke, too many voices with no clarity at all

[Terrymac1966]

1 minute ago, 1964 said:

I doubt the laws will change as it appears to me, perhaps wrongly, that we are spectacularly bad at using VAR.  That commentary was a joke, too many voices with no clarity at all

Spectacularly bad indeed.

It should be easy in reality.

[1964]

4 minutes ago, Terrymac1966 said:

Spectacularly bad indeed.

It should be easy in reality.

Agreed it should.  One of the basic principles should be a clear line of communication with the ref, it's that basic.  Four people all talking at the same time is a recipe for disaster.

 

Hopefully if there is any good to come out of this it is that it's not co-ordinated corruption or match fixing, so the conspiracy theorists can pipe down.  It is incompetence, and lack of leadership.  

 

It's also not VAR that's the problem, without it the goal is still disallowed.  Blaming VAR is like blaming a car because your 10 Yr old keeps crashing it

[The College Dropout]

7 minutes ago, 1964 said:

I doubt the laws will change as it appears to me, perhaps wrongly, that we are spectacularly bad at using VAR.  That commentary was a joke, too many voices with no clarity at all

I read somewhere that assistant VAR tend to be more junior referees compared to the main one. I think that should change.  It leads to deferential behaviour.  Assistant VAR was useless. 
 

I guess 90% of ref talk is informal like in the video. For offsides there should be a simple script. 
 

Pundits scream for consistency but want refs to bypass laws when it’s convenient for them.  

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, 1964 said:

Agreed it should.  One of the basic principles should be a clear line of communication with the ref, it's that basic.  Four people all talking at the same time is a recipe for disaster.

 

Hopefully if there is any good to come out of this it is that it's not co-ordinated corruption or match fixing, so the conspiracy theorists can pipe down.  It is incompetence, and lack of leadership.  

 

It's also not VAR that's the problem, without it the goal is still disallowed.  Blaming VAR is like blaming a car because your 10 Yr old keeps crashing it

People treat VAR like a machine. It’s still people. People will always make mistakes. 
 

Even calling it incompetence is a lot (although it is).  People don’t berate players or manager  (in the media) so much for incompetence and they are paid a lot more money. 
 

Being a ref is a thankless job. Less and less people will want to do it. The upside is so low. 

[Cronky]

A bad mistake, but a lot of the fuss around this has been unconstructive. In rugby, the ref starts off by making his decision clear to VAR, and if that had happened it would all have been avoided. 

 

Once the process is over and play restarts, I'd agree that you can't then go back and change the decision retrospectively. We'd then get into the territory of how bad does a decision have to be before it can be re-visited in that way. That would only increase the confusion.

 

 

[Gallowgate Toon]

Did clubs vote against the semi-automated offside tech? Can't see a reason why we wouldn't want it - quicker, more accurate, mitigates human stupidity.

 

I'd be happy if they just brought that technology in and fucked the rest of VAR off. Far too many of the decisions it's used for are still so subjective that it renders the whole thing pointless. We have to endure endless shite debates about it too.

 

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by Gallowgate Toon

[Matt1892]

8 minutes ago, Gallowgate Toon said:

Did clubs vote against the semi-automated offside tech? Can't see a reason why we wouldn't want it - quicker, more accurate, mitigates human stupidity.

 

I'd be happy if they just brought that technology in and fucked the rest of VAR off. Far too many of the decisions it's used for are still so subjective that it renders the whole thing pointless. We have to endure endless shite debates about it too.

 

 

 

They agreed not to even discuss it and kept it off the agenda of the AGM.

 

I read that there was moaning around the semi automated part meaning it was still open to human error; however the human interference would be to decide if the person offside was interfering with play.

[joeyt]

Looked to me that VAR should have communicated the mistake to the onfield referee who would then explain the situation to the managers.

 

Spurs may have let Liverpool walk the ball in if the refs were bound to not allow the goal to be given because the game had been restarted 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, joeyt said:

Looked to me that VAR should have communicated the mistake to the onfield referee who would then explain the situation to the managers.

 

Spurs may have let Liverpool walk the ball in if the refs were bound to not allow the goal to be given because the game had been restarted 

 

Aye. Ball went out of play soon after. Stop it, explain to captains and managers what happened. Own up to the mistake, see what they agree on. 

[joeyt]

Would have taken the pressure off the refs too and put the ball in Postecoglou's court who might have received some of the flak if he didn't let them score

[The College Dropout]

28 minutes ago, joeyt said:

Looked to me that VAR should have communicated the mistake to the onfield referee who would then explain the situation to the managers.

 

Spurs may have let Liverpool walk the ball in if the refs were bound to not allow the goal to be given because the game had been restarted 

Think that's fine for sportsmen to do themselves. But it shouldn't be initiated because of an officiating mistake they don't know about.

 

I use the Bournemouth ghost goal as an example. That error was in a 6-pointer with something like 4 games to go. If the VAR had said, something went wrong with goal-line technology - goal should've stood. There's no way Villa score an own goal. Nor should there be an onus for them to do so. Relegation will cost people their jobs, their job is to protect the interest of Aston Villa.

 

That stuff is nice but should not happen unless something crazy happens. An officiating mistake - isn't something crazy.

 

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by The College Dropout

[Guest]

[The College Dropout]

5 minutes ago, joeyt said:

Would have taken the pressure off the refs too and put the ball in Postecoglou's court who might have received some of the flak if he didn't let them score

Refs shouldn't do things to take responsibility off their shoulders. It's not Ange's job to officiate a game or make it fair.

[Guest]

[Wullie]

2 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

No I do not have the wording of the ‘laws’. 
 

But they followed the laws of the game by going with the VAR decision. It was just the wrong decision.  I guess ‘VAR check complete - decision X’. When the game is restarted, that’s it there’s no further changes that can be made even if new evidence is brought to light.

 

VAR checks will take ages now and people will complain some more.  
 

I do think new procedures need to be brought in and use of automated offsides too.
 

I don’t believe the law around restarting the game should be changed though.  Massive rabbit hole that.  Upon further review - decisions will always be proven to be wrong.  Where do you draw the line at bring backs? 30 seconds? 1 minute? People only want bring backs in this instance because it was immediately obvious in real time and on TV. But that shouldn’t have any impact on implementing the laws of the game. 

 

Why do you keep saying the wrong decision was made? That's not what happened. The correct decision was made but wrongly communicated to the referee. That is not the same thing.

[wyn davies]

Not bothered re this , Livarpool never kick off when it's in there favour , where as us and other clubs basically get ignored .

[The College Dropout]

29 minutes ago, Wullie said:

 

Why do you keep saying the wrong decision was made? That's not what happened. The correct decision was made but wrongly communicated to the referee. That is not the same thing.

His words to the ref were:

 

Replay operator: 2D line on the boot. Yep OK.

VAR: And stop. Check complete, check complete. That's fine, perfect. Off.

Referee: Cheers, mate.

VAR: Thank you, mate.

 

However, he got there. He communicated the wrong decision to the ref and the ref continued the game. Misunderstanding the onfield decision or whatever doesn't really matter, the ref fairly understood the decision as offside (base on hazy comms) and the game continued. That's following the laws of the game.

 

I'm looking at it black and white because IMO refereeing needs to be as black and white as possible. He communicates the wrong decision. He doesn't realise it until it's too late to change it according to the laws of the game as I understand them.

 

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by The College Dropout

[NUFC]

On 02/10/2023 at 15:26, KaKa said:

 

The at least drew the lines for that Isak goal and took the time to go through the necessary steps.

 

They said it was based on his sleeve, and it was close enough that it could be subjective.

 

Yesterday they didn't even know what the call in the pitch was, and didn't bother drawing the lines or making sure of the final decision, and then didn't correct the error between however many of them were in there.

 

You guys are too caught up with Liverpool. I'm more concerned about what these plonkers do during our upcoming games.

 

They did draw the lines, you just don't get to see it on the TV feed.

[joeyt]

5 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

His words to the ref were:

 

Replay operator: 2D line on the boot. Yep OK.

VAR: And stop. Check complete, check complete. That's fine, perfect. Off.

Referee: Cheers, mate.

VAR: Thank you, mate.

 

However, he got there. He communicated the wrong decision to the ref and the ref continued the game. Misunderstanding the onfield decision or whatever doesn't really matter, the ref fairly understood the decision as offside (base on hazy comms) and the game continued. That's following the laws of the game.

 

I'm looking at it black and white because IMO refereeing needs to be as black and white as possible. He communicates the wrong decision. He doesn't realise it until it's too late to change it according to the laws of the game as I understand them.

 

 

 

 

He doesn't say "off" does he?

 

None of the transcripts have the word "off" in them

[NUFC]

15 hours ago, pubteam said:

Is VAR literally just one person sat I front of a screen or do they have a team pulling the clips up, helping with the technology?

 

VAR, AVAR & Video Replay Operator

[The College Dropout]

26 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

He doesn't say "off" does he?

 

None of the transcripts have the word "off" in them

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/articles/c9rek7q7kqpo according to this he does

 

Listening to this https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/67003308

 

With the context that the onfield decision is offside.

He says check "Check complete. Check complete. that's fine. Perfect."

 

Whistle is blown immediately. Someone says "Off. Playing."

 

That's the correct procedure. But the VAR has said the wrong thing - a mistake. VAR has either not understood the onfield decision and confirmed the wrong outcome, or has not understood it is onside and has confirmed the wrong outcome.

 

In either case. VAR made the wrong decision.

 

What needs to change is specifying what the check complete decision is. "Check complete - number x back foot is playing number y right foot onside. The goal should stand." Or to the contrary. What they use is open to confusion.

 

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by The College Dropout

[Kid Icarus]

If you listen to the audio that BBC transcript is another layer of incorrect communication  

 

the VAR says 'that's fine' it's the ref that says off after blowing his whistle, not the VAR. 

 

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by Kid Icarus