Dogawful Officiating

[geordiesteve710]

12 hours ago, 80 said:

It's like saying electricity isn't responsible for light pollution, it's the inept electricity users.

If you think that's bad wait until you see the law on punishing drivers for speeding.

 

It's the stupid fucking cars that are travelling fast but they get away with it every single time. Outrageous.

[geordiesteve710]

13 hours ago, Unbelievable said:

The goal would have stood had the VAR referee not called Tierney to watch the sequence. Tierney accidentally got it right on the pitch, and was tempted to reconsider. Before we had VAR no such thing as a VAR referee existed, hence VAR is at fault. VAR is not just some screen, it’s technology being used by people to inform their decision making. It’s not lead to better, or more consistent, decision making though.

I'd happily bin VAR off tomorrow I hate it. But it's not the fault of VAR as a system that both users thought the Forest player didn't mean to play the ball that he moved his foot towards

 

Vaguely competent referees would have got that right regardless of VAR. 

[snabelkabel]

10 hours ago, Wullie said:

 

Are you talking about a Newcastle game here? If not, this was a high profile example of exactly that.

 

 

I’m quite confident it was a newcastle game, it almost like that, but it was our left CB making the tackle/block. I don’t remember what season it was, but VAR was being used.

[Hanshithispantz]

I cannot really take any statistic telling me x amount of decisions have improved with VAR when we know VAR has a 'high bar' meaning penalties will be waved away unless they're really, really, really a penalty. It's obviously been introduced due to the problem corners were bringing, but it means we're seeing players being thrown over in the box constantly with nothing given. These decisions are 'wrong', they would not be overturned if the ref had gave them.

 

Juxtapose this with VAR micromanaging other calls, going out of their way to find infringements, and we have a really weird system that is letting a load of obvious infringements go, and 'correcting' others which would have caused no controversy beyond a shrug of the shoulders otherwise.

 

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by Hanshithispantz

[joeyt]

17 minutes ago, snabelkabel said:

I’m quite confident it was a newcastle game, it almost like that, but it was our left CB making the tackle/block. I don’t remember what season it was, but VAR was being used.

 

I think it was schar Vs watkins. First goal here

 

https://youtu.be/ngcm1N_CTds

[madras]

6 hours ago, Kaizero said:

 

 

 

The change in statistics coming immediately after the implementation of VAR - in comparison to how things were before VAR - and then continuing after VAR... It means it is a scientifically measurable direct cause of the effect of VAR being implemented. 

 

It's impossible to argue against. There was one set of statistics before VAR, those changed immediately and remained changed after VAR was introduced. It is cause and effect. There is obvious correlation between the two, jesus christ, man  

 

It is also obviously not "the game changing". It was a measurable immediate fucking effect after VAR was implemented. One day there was no VAR, the next day there was VAR. That's when the measurable statistics changed. That is what caused the change.

 

 

 

Correlation does not prove causation. Which leagues were used as control groups ie have fouls remained constant in leagues where VAR isn't in use ? Have referees been told to let the game go a bit (the answer is yes) ?

 

I like VAR when it's quick and gets stuff right. It pisses me off when it takes ages and comes to a decision only the ref and a bloke in a booth out of the whole country can see and sometimes looks like they are looking for a reason to allow or disallow something.

[joeyt]

Also is there any truth in Kaiz's claim that VAR is working perfectly in other countries and that it's just the PL using it wrong?

 

I'm not a huge watcher of European football but there's been recent champions league games completely ruined by the use of VAR

[gbandit]

It’s been shit in the last two matches I watched in Ligue 1 and Serie A. No idea on the whole as I watch about five premier league matches per week and all the highlights, whereas I watch a match or two from the other leagues per week and not the highlights 

[80]

3 hours ago, geordiesteve710 said:

If you think that's bad wait until you see the law on punishing drivers for speeding.

 

It's the stupid fucking cars that are travelling fast but they get away with it every single time. Outrageous.

In principle I do agree with you. But the original comparison I was gonna make, which I'd guess would be the popular viewpoint on here, is it's like saying guns don't kill people, people do.

 

Despite that, most people here see the difference in the numbers between Britain and America as being related to the lack of guns here, and don't want all the bans lifted. Even though it's totally true that a million new AR15s wouldn't kill anyone in this country. It's thought that given people will be holding those guns, massacres would be inevitable.

 

The point is the existence of the thing pretty much ensures, given human nature, that light bulbs will be powered, cars be driven fast and shootings will occur. After that it's just a judgement call on whether the thing is worth having despite these essentially guaranteed downsides.

 

Back to VAR, I don't see it having anywhere near enough upside on this entertainment product (the fun being what makes football more popular than other sports like swimming and hammer throwing).

[snabelkabel]

5 hours ago, joeyt said:

 

I think it was schar Vs watkins. First goal here

 

https://youtu.be/ngcm1N_CTds

I guess we been on the wrong side of that rule multiple times, as it’s another i remember. Can’t remember ever getting the benefit of that rule tho..

[TheBrownBottle]

19 hours ago, Kaizero said:

 

 

 

The change in statistics coming immediately after the implementation of VAR - in comparison to how things were before VAR - and then continuing after VAR... It means it is a scientifically measurable direct cause of the effect of VAR being implemented. 

 

It's impossible to argue against. There was one set of statistics before VAR, those changed immediately and remained changed after VAR was introduced. It is cause and effect. There is obvious correlation between the two, jesus christ, man  

 

It is also obviously not "the game changing". It was a measurable immediate fucking effect after VAR was implemented. One day there was no VAR, the next day there was VAR. That's when the measurable statistics changed. That is what caused the change.

 

 

 

It’s perfectly easy to argue against - where did the previous figures come from?  Which decisions were reviewed in order to come up with the ‘decreases in diving’, etc?  What was the solid basis upon which a dive was judged to be a dive?  Which leagues were used as a control group?

 

I meant it when I said pseudoscientific.  It’s completely qualitative and built upon suppositions.  You see cast-iron facts - I see fundamentally flawed amateur research. 
 

NB VAR being the root cause of the reduction in WC FKs - how often is VAR used on FKs?  How many times has a FK - not a pen - been ruled out or given by VAR?  The answer, of course, is zero - it doesn’t rule on them.  But apparently the 30% reduction is down to VAR?  Correlation mixed up with causation there. 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by TheBrownBottle

[Stifler]

In regards to the Mitro incident, the referee’s have honestly had this coming for years and it’s of their own making.

Ok what he did was wrong, but let’s not make out as if he shoved him to the floor.

The fact that referee’s refuse to yellow card players who dive, do similar to what Mitro did, and talk back is what has lead to this. You saw it where Bruno for Man Utd got away with it.

On top of this for a little while now Man Utd in particular have been getting referee’s from greater Manchester refereeing their games. In a lot of those games there has been questionable decisions given in favour of them.

Fulham knew this ahead of the match and any decision against them was always going to spark something, even if the decision was correct.

 

You have grassroots referee’s saying players abuse referee’s because they see it on TV in the Premier League. The problem is not just with those at the top level, it is making it a problem for the officials at all levels, all because the referee’s at the top level don’t have enough respect to both be brave enough to stand up for themselves, and to be consistent with it, especially to players of bigger clubs and bigger names.

Yes give Mitro a ban, but let’s not sit around and neglect the fact that it’s a problem of their own making.

[Skeletor]

Frustrations are inevitably going to boil over when referees are unaccountable and make questionable decisions all the time. I don't condone what Mitrovic did but until referees are held to account, disciplined and even sacked for incompetence/corruption tempers will flare as there is too much riding on every game.

[Geordie Ahmed]

I love Mitro but there's absolutely no defending what he did, he crossed the line and he will rightly get an extended ban

[madras]

3 minutes ago, Skeletor said:

Frustrations are inevitably going to boil over when referees are unaccountable and make questionable decisions all the time. I don't condone what Mitrovic did but until referees are held to account, disciplined and even sacked for incompetence/corruption tempers will flare as there is too much riding on every game.

Seems like they achieve it in Rugby and other sports. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

4 minutes ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

I love Mitro but there's absolutely no defending what he did, he crossed the line and he will rightly get an extended ban

Also nothing to do with the officials since the decision was 100% correct. 

[madras]

Just now, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Also nothing to do with the officials since the decision was 100% correct. 

I think it was more "you'll VAR that but not mine in the first half".

[Guest]

5-6 game ban easily. Needs to be a complete clamp down on players getting in refs faces for me. Anything contentious then the captain should be allowed to speak to the referee so the ref can explain a decision. The way the like of Bruno Fernandes go on is ridiculous and pathetic. First time he cries within a yard of the ref, book the twat. If he thinks he's been hard done by, whinge to his captain and start the process. If he does that the captain will soon get fed up and hopefully it stops. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Ah right, sorry I didn’t see the first half. 

[madras]

Just now, Optimistic Nut said:

5-6 game ban easily. Needs to be a complete clamp down on players getting in refs faces for me. Anything contentious then the captain should be allowed to speak to the referee so the ref can explain a decision. The way the like of Bruno Fernandes go on is ridiculous and pathetic. First time he cries within a yard of the ref, book the twat. If he thinks he's been hard done by, whinge to his captain and start the process. If he does that the captain will soon get fed up and hopefully it stops. 

The rules are already there to do that but not used for some reason.

[Skeletor]

2 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

5-6 game ban easily. Needs to be a complete clamp down on players getting in refs faces for me. Anything contentious then the captain should be allowed to speak to the referee so the ref can explain a decision. The way the like of Bruno Fernandes go on is ridiculous and pathetic. First time he cries within a yard of the ref, book the twat. If he thinks he's been hard done by, whinge to his captain and start the process. If he does that the captain will soon get fed up and hopefully it stops. 

 

Has to be a two way street though. Referees should be doing post-match interviews so they can be questioned about dodgy decisions they've made and allow that to be part of the post-game analysis and rightly take criticism where they've fucked up.

[Pokerprince2004]

Just watched 'Ref Watch' on Sky Sports News and Dermot Gallagher went through all the rules regarding offside for Andersons goal and said there was no way that goal should have been ruled offside. Was completely on our side and said the ref was definitely wrong. I think Tierney is so damn lucky we got a winner as if it finished 1-1 there would've been hell on IMO

[AyeDubbleYoo]

4 minutes ago, Skeletor said:

 

Has to be a two way street though. Referees should be doing post-match interviews so they can be questioned about dodgy decisions they've made and allow that to be part of the post-game analysis and rightly take criticism where they've fucked up.

Think you need to be a bit careful with this kind of thing. 
 

I agree refs should have to make a call during the game and explain what the rule which applies. I would put them on mic for 20 seconds to do this. 
 

But I don’t see the benefit to making them come out after the game and face a grilling. 
 

The basic premise should be that the ref is acting the best he can and deserves respect associated with his role. 
 

Ideally the ref should be anonymous and not really noticed. 

[Skeletor]

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Think you need to be a bit careful with this kind of thing. 
 

I agree refs should have to make a call during the game and explain what the rule which applies. I would put them on mic for 20 seconds to do this. 
 

But I don’t see the benefit to making them come out after the game and face a grilling. 
 

The basic premise should be that the ref is acting the best he can and deserves respect associated with his role. 
 

Ideally the ref should be anonymous and not really noticed. 

 

Decades of bad refereeing have lost them this privilege. Refereeing needs massive reform which requires full accountability to the fans. The bigger problem is that no-one in a position of authority wants to come out and be honest about how bad the state of refereeing is in this country.

 

 

Edited March 20, 2023 by Skeletor

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I don’t really agree, I just think the culture of football is to have a go at referees. Almost regardless of what they actually do. 
 

Of course they do some mad things and make some mistakes, and those should be addressed. 
 

But overall the assumption should be that they are trying to get it right.