Dogawful Officiating

[Pilko]

We'll not get a pen in the the league all season. 100%.

[Dave]

Absolutely blatant pen and the decision not to go back and book Allen in the first half was outrageous. Just complete incompetence.

 

The pen was bad, the Allen thing was outrageous.

[Nobody]

The Allen non booking was the worst like. Fucking ridiculous, and things like that can win or lose games.

[Disco]

Absolutely blatant pen and the decision not to go back and book Allen in the first half was outrageous. Just complete incompetence.

 

The pen was bad, the Allen thing was outrageous.

 

Just flat out wrong. No interpretation needed. You'll not see a more blatant yellow.

[Nobody]

Was our last penalty the one where the ref invented a new rule and gave the opposition a free kick?

[DJ_NUFC]

Was our last penalty the one where the ref invented a new rule and gave the opposition a free kick?

 

That was something else, please don't remind me of the time the laws of the universe were broken and there was a glitch in the matrix.

[Nobody]

Clark not given a free kick in the opening minute when Crouch swings his arm in his face set a canny precedent.

[joeyt]

Was our last penalty the one where the ref invented a new rule and gave the opposition a free kick?

 

Nah we got one against Preston after that. The Joe Allen non-yellow card incident today was ridiculous

[Dave]

 

From a dead ball as well.

[Yorkie]

Dismal.

[Yorkie]

Cracking cliche football arrows, though, the blue one in-particular.

[Sima]

That Forest (A) game last season was peak incompetence/corruption (delete as appropriate).

[Dave]

Cracking cliche football arrows, though, the blue one in-particular.

 

Not mine, FWIW.

[Dave]

http://www.football365.com/news/footballs-nightmarish-future-starts-tonight

 

Totally agree with this.

[Wullie]

[Guest firetotheworks]

Everything beyond...

 

There’s much speculation about the effect this will have on the game itself, especially how it will disrupt the flow, and how it won’t even resolve some issues. But one thing is guaranteed: if it is deemed a success, its use will not be limited to these mythical game-changing situations for long – no matter what anyone says now – because the fact is that almost all of a football match is a game-changing situation. No one piece of action is divisible from the rest. It exists as a whole, with one action influencing another for two periods of 45 minutes. Maybe this is not acknowledged or understood enough.

 

is based on a presumption that the writer's just run away with like. Imo, it's him that doesn't understand VAR's implementation enough. I still think it'll be a disaster like, not because it's without its uses, but because they'll still make a complete pig's ear of it.

[Happinesstan]

 

Don't enjoy being a spelling Nazi, but ffs if you can't spell OTT.

[Kaizero]

It’s a stupid article. As I understand it, VAR will be used for offences after the whistle is blown. It’s a human decision to blow the whistle. You don’t go further back than where the whistle was blown. You check that offence and move on.

[Figures 1-0 Football]

I hope that the trial of VAR fails miserably, it’d be an absolute disaster if it comes in.

 

As the article on 365 states, is a penalty decision just as important as a foul 5 minutes before a goal is scored? If the foul is given correctly, the entire game would have been different and the goal might not have happened.

 

A lot of penalty decisions these days aren’t even ‘clear cut’, I mean, how often do we sit on her discussing a decision to death? How often do pundits disgaree on a certain decision? How will VAR help that? It wont.

[Guest firetotheworks]

That's based on something that they THINK will happen with VAR, not what is actually in place for VAR. You hear it time and time again about these situations, but it's canny clear like. If there's any contentious grey area whatsoever, then VAR isn't used. It has to be absolutely clear cut that an error has been made.

 

In practice that's absolutely fine, but I don't think it'll work because they won't use it properly and people will continue to not understand its use, or come out with shite such as 'define a clear cut error'

[Figures 1-0 Football]

That's based on something that they THINK will happen with VAR, not what is actually in place for VAR. You hear it time and time again about these situations, but it's canny clear like. If there's any contentious grey area whatsoever, then VAR isn't used. It has to be absolutely clear cut that an error has been made.

 

In practice that's absolutely fine, but I don't think it'll work because they won't use it properly and people will continue to not understand its use.

 

But VAR will be used where there is doubt with a penalty. How many people disagreed over the penalty that Chelsea got at Arsenal? Quite a few did on here.

 

So that decision would have been reviewed by VAR and it would still be a contentious decision.

 

The referee wont say ‘sorry lads, I cant review that one cos it looks a bit dodgy’.

[Guest firetotheworks]

That's based on something that they THINK will happen with VAR, not what is actually in place for VAR. You hear it time and time again about these situations, but it's canny clear like. If there's any contentious grey area whatsoever, then VAR isn't used. It has to be absolutely clear cut that an error has been made.

 

In practice that's absolutely fine, but I don't think it'll work because they won't use it properly and people will continue to not understand its use.

 

But VAR will be used where there is doubt with a penalty. How many people disagreed over the penalty that Chelsea got at Arsenal? Quite a few did on here.

 

So that decision would have been reviewed by VAR and it would still be a contentious decision.

 

The referee wont say ‘sorry lads, I cant review that one cos it looks a bit dodgy’.

 

No it won't. Or it shouldn't anyway.

[Figures 1-0 Football]

That's based on something that they THINK will happen with VAR, not what is actually in place for VAR. You hear it time and time again about these situations, but it's canny clear like. If there's any contentious grey area whatsoever, then VAR isn't used. It has to be absolutely clear cut that an error has been made.

 

In practice that's absolutely fine, but I don't think it'll work because they won't use it properly and people will continue to not understand its use.

 

But VAR will be used where there is doubt with a penalty. How many people disagreed over the penalty that Chelsea got at Arsenal? Quite a few did on here.

 

So that decision would have been reviewed by VAR and it would still be a contentious decision.

 

The referee wont say ‘sorry lads, I cant review that one cos it looks a bit dodgy’.

 

No it won't. Or it shouldn't anyway.

 

Why wouldn’t it? The referee would definitely review it as the Arsenal players would claim a dive and the Chelsea players would be totally the opposite.

 

The referee would go into it looking for issues around whether or not there was contact, when he’d then get sucked into whether or not the contact was sufficient for the player to go down - which is perception rather than clear cut.

 

Why wouldn’t the referee review it? Who or what would stop them?

[Guest firetotheworks]

That's based on something that they THINK will happen with VAR, not what is actually in place for VAR. You hear it time and time again about these situations, but it's canny clear like. If there's any contentious grey area whatsoever, then VAR isn't used. It has to be absolutely clear cut that an error has been made.

 

In practice that's absolutely fine, but I don't think it'll work because they won't use it properly and people will continue to not understand its use.

 

But VAR will be used where there is doubt with a penalty. How many people disagreed over the penalty that Chelsea got at Arsenal? Quite a few did on here.

 

So that decision would have been reviewed by VAR and it would still be a contentious decision.

 

The referee wont say ‘sorry lads, I cant review that one cos it looks a bit dodgy’.

 

No it won't. Or it shouldn't anyway.

 

Why wouldn’t it? The referee would definitely review it as the Arsenal players would claim a dive and the Chelsea players would be totally the opposite.

 

The referee would go into it looking for issues around whether or not there was contact, when he’d then get sucked into whether or not the contact was sufficient for the player to go down - which is perception rather than clear cut.

 

Why wouldn’t the referee review it? Who or what would stop them?

 

For exactly the reason that I mentioned in the previous post - If there's any contentious grey area whatsoever, then VAR isn't used. It has to be absolutely clear cut that an error has been made. If the referee checks then it should be that they have serious doubts, or it should be because the VAR panel know that an obviously erroneous decision has been made. VAR isn't there for the reasons that you've mentioned, but it seems to be a misconception that everyone including pundits seems to have.

[Kaizero]

That's based on something that they THINK will happen with VAR, not what is actually in place for VAR. You hear it time and time again about these situations, but it's canny clear like. If there's any contentious grey area whatsoever, then VAR isn't used. It has to be absolutely clear cut that an error has been made.

 

In practice that's absolutely fine, but I don't think it'll work because they won't use it properly and people will continue to not understand its use.

 

But VAR will be used where there is doubt with a penalty. How many people disagreed over the penalty that Chelsea got at Arsenal? Quite a few did on here.

 

So that decision would have been reviewed by VAR and it would still be a contentious decision.

 

The referee wont say ‘sorry lads, I cant review that one cos it looks a bit dodgy’.

 

No it won't. Or it shouldn't anyway.

 

Why wouldn’t it? The referee would definitely review it as the Arsenal players would claim a dive and the Chelsea players would be totally the opposite.

 

The referee would go into it looking for issues around whether or not there was contact, when he’d then get sucked into whether or not the contact was sufficient for the player to go down - which is perception rather than clear cut.

 

Why wouldn’t the referee review it? Who or what would stop them?

 

For exactly the reason that I mentioned in the previous post - If there's any contentious grey area whatsoever, then VAR isn't used. It has to be absolutely clear cut that an error has been made. If the referee checks then it should be that they have serious doubts, or it should be because the VAR panel know that an obviously erroneous decision has been made. VAR isn't there for the reasons that you've mentioned, but it seems to be a misconception that everyone including pundits seems to have.

 

KI