Dogawful Officiating

[El Prontonise]

14 minutes ago, geordiesteve710 said:

 

See, this goes to highlight how subjective a lot of these decisions are. I've always been of the view that if you make any contact whatsoever on the ball before (NOT after) contact with an opponent then it isn't a foul (as long as not going over the top of the ball, endangering opponent etc.) If we're saying that a slight touch on the ball isn't enough to make it a legal tackle then how much of a touch is needed, how is it measured and how do we get a consistent approach as to where the line is?

 

My point isn't to start an argument with you about what is or isn't a foul tackle, I'm trying to highlight that a lot of decisions in football are extremely subjective indeed. It's the nature of the game. Which is why I think that VAR should only really be used for anything matter of fact and the absolute howlers, not to open another can of worms at every slightly debatable decision.

 

This is spot on, I've always said it's also opened up a bit on how flawed the rules on with just assumptions on what is a foul or not.

[geordiesteve710]

32 minutes ago, El Prontonise said:

 

This is spot on, I've always said it's also opened up a bit on how flawed the rules on with just assumptions on what is a foul or not.

 

Yep. A lot of football officiating seems to be by "convention" rather than strict application of the law. Prime example- a sliding defender wiping out a striker after they've got a shot off is nearly always seen as fair game, whether or not the ball is still in play. Mark Hughes or Alan Shearer doing the same to a defender just after they've cleared the ball was always* punished with a yellow card (similarly, these days, any slight contact with a defender after jumping to try to block their clearance.)

 

*not necessarily "always" for Hughes, but that was more to do with the badge on his shirt than anything.

 

 

Edited April 7 by geordiesteve710

[Cf]

3 hours ago, Elma said:

 

Agree on that. My take on VAR would fix that. Give each team one review per game that they can use for anything they think is a major mistake (retained if upheld). Automate the offsides so that only really leaves fouls for goals, mistaken identity, and card upgrades/downgrades.

 

The team notifies the 4th official, and the ref goes straight to the screen to review with only tech officials in Stockley Park to show every angle requested.

 

Saves on running a second VAR team of officials every game and the onfield ref will feel under no peer pressure at the monitor to make the call they think is correct. Would also save review time as you wouldn't have that window where the VAR team do an initial assessment.

 

 

 

 

Lineker was suggesting something similar on MOTD yesterday. 

 

I'm not sure how a challenge system would work in practice though in terms of relaying that you wish to challenge in the right timeframes. 

 

The other issue is the subjective mess (that's an autocorrect for subjectiveness but I think it works) of the calls. Say a team rightly thinks they should have a penalty but VAR is like nah, you have a case but stick with on field decision. You've now lost your challenge and don't get to go for the stone wallers. 

 

Just bin the whole thing. I don't see how they can keep going like this. I'm still not sure what problem it was designed to solve. 

[geordiesteve710]

1 hour ago, gbandit said:

My take would be about what the outcome is -

 

If you get a first touch on the ball and it clears it and then milliseconds later you clatter into someone then that’s fine and not a foul for me unless it was  dangerous play, high foot, off the ground etc into someone’s standing leg.

 

If you make contact with the ball, it’s a feather touch that doesn’t take the ball away from the opponent and then you clatter the opponent and take them out then that’s completely different for me. That’s the argument I’d make 

 

I understand what you mean, and also why you have that view. For me I've always seen it as part of the skill of defending, if you can produce a tackle so precise in a pressure situation where the risk is if you get it even slightly wrong you're in the shit, that you even feather the ball before (safely) wiping out the opponent then the law would reward that skill by deeming it not to be a foul regardless of whether you change the direction of the ball by xx degrees/ mph/rotations per second/ any other measure.

 

I don't think either of our interpretations are so nonsensical as to be stupid, but if we were looking at it on VAR we would come to very different conclusions. So why send that kind of decision for VAR to review in the first place?

[OCK]

Most refreshing games this season were the cup games where VAR couldn't be used. Games flowed, which meant the crowds weren't stunned 2-5 minutes of dead football while VAR did a thing.

[nufcnick]

57 minutes ago, OCK said:

Most refreshing games this season were the cup games where VAR couldn't be used. Games flowed, which meant the crowds weren't stunned 2-5 minutes of dead football while VAR did a thing.

Really??? Considering we were shafted in the Chelsea game because there was no VAR, they would have been down to 10 men after 10 minutes and we would have certainly went on to win that game. 

[DahnSahf]

1 hour ago, Cf said:

Just bin the whole thing. I don't see how they can keep going like this. I'm still not sure what problem it was designed to solve. 

 

The problem it was designed to solve was the huge number of game changing officiating mistakes which had been revealed by the advent of the instant replay and the launch of Sky.

[Elma]

4 hours ago, Cf said:

The other issue is the subjective mess (that's an autocorrect for subjectiveness but I think it works) of the calls. Say a team rightly thinks they should have a penalty but VAR is like nah, you have a case but stick with on field decision. You've now lost your challenge and don't get to go for the stone wallers. 

 

Just bin the whole thing. I don't see how they can keep going like this. I'm still not sure what problem it was designed to solve. 

 

I understand the view of those who want it binned but there was significant clamour for it when big decisions were being incorrectly called and it was working well in other sports.

 

On the first point, I don't see it as VAR any more, not in the sense it's being used now. It's simply giving the onfield ref another chance to see the incident so it would be the ref and the ref alone reviewing the footage. If he fails to uphold the team's decision to review then it's lost, like in cricket. It will encourage teams to use it strategically and not waste it frivolously.

 

You could always give two reviews but personally I'd favour one. The only abuse of it I can foresee is teams throwing it at last minute goals against if they haven't already used it.

[Cronky]

5 hours ago, Cf said:

 

Just bin the whole thing. I don't see how they can keep going like this. I'm still not sure what problem it was designed to solve. 

 

I don't think the aim was to 'solve' anything. It was just to make the decision-making around important decisions a bit better, by reducing the number of howlers.

 

It's never going to be perfect, though I think some improvements will still be made as the officials grow in experience.

 

I do suspect that many of those who are moaning the loudest now, were the ones who were most keen on bringing it in. And the worst culprits are ex-players, who spent a large part of their careers moaning about officials and can now continue unabated. 

[joeyt]

There's too much money behind it for them to bin it

[Thorpinho]

Question about VAR…if they review it/‘see it’, does that mean no retrospective action can be taken after the game? The James Maddison punch today made me wonder whether he could be banned or not for our game, or more generally whether retrospective action is even possible these days

[Danh1]

What gets me is how for some decisions we hear “VAR didn’t intervene as it wasn’t an obvious error” but then for others it takes anything up to 5 minutes to record such an obvious error.

 

It’s as if even the thick cunts who operate VAR don’t even know what its purpose is. 

[Miercoles]

9 hours ago, Cf said:

I'm still not sure what problem it was designed to solve. 

 

Ireland/France 2009.

 

[Cronky]

On 07/04/2024 at 20:39, Danh1 said:

What gets me is how for some decisions we hear “VAR didn’t intervene as it wasn’t an obvious error” but then for others it takes anything up to 5 minutes to record such an obvious error.

 

It’s as if even the thick cunts who operate VAR don’t even know what its purpose is. 

 

We're then in the territory of how to define 'obvious'. You can't completely remove the element of subjectivity. 

[Danh1]

13 hours ago, Cronky said:

 

We're then in the territory of how to define 'obvious'. You can't completely remove the element of subjectivity. 

Agree with you.

 

Scrap VAR is the right outcome for me. Maybe keep it for offsides, then again, even they can get murky I.e. Anderson’s goal at Forest.

[Optimistic Nut]

The ref's explanation for not giving the Arsenal handball is shit, like. 

[DebuchyAndTheBeast]

On 06/04/2024 at 23:08, CPL said:

Also now that the game has finished and it probably helped that we won. I think the goal for us was correctly disallowed. 

 

Still though, VAR is being used too much to over referee games and should only be used if there is a blatant and obvious error. Subjective fouls should stay with the on field decision.

 

I agree that it was a foul. No reason for BDB to stick his elbow out and catch the defender.

 

As for the disallowed Wolves goal, I don't understand what O'Neill is whining about. His player was miles offside and just in front of the keeper. 

[Paully]

WTF! Incredible! 

 

 

[Rod]

1 hour ago, Paully said:

WTF! Incredible! 

 

https://x.com/san_pers/status/1778148417467818374?s=46&t=FsEm6VC2ijNnTjHjyXU7DA

I'm sure the referee is stroud.  Enough said.

[Fezzle]

6 hours ago, Paully said:

WTF! Incredible! 

 

https://x.com/san_pers/status/1778148417467818374?s=46&t=FsEm6VC2ijNnTjHjyXU7DA

Every time a valid reason to want var binned turns up the championship delivers. This and onions handball this week plus plenty others this season, that's incredible 

[DebuchyAndTheBeast]

13 hours ago, Paully said:

WTF! Incredible! 

 

https://x.com/san_pers/status/1778148417467818374?s=46&t=FsEm6VC2ijNnTjHjyXU7DA

 

People who want to bin VAR must have the memory of a goldfish. This one is as bad as the Watford vs Reading ghost goal 

[captainhaircut]

42 minutes ago, Conjo said:

Just a reminder that a lot of people were happy when Longstaff came back start of the season as Tonali wasn't playing very well beyond his debut, and we saw a clear improvement in performance results.

 

Not saying Longstaff is the solution to our best XI, but fully fit he can be a valuable squad member with added benefit of being home grown for European competition.

I wish this “clear improvement” nonsense would be put to bed.
 

Tonali started against villa at home, Man City away, Liverpool home and Brighton away. Villa he was brilliant whilst we were winning against Liverpool when he came off. We were 1-0 down against Brighton when he came off. 

 

We then played Brentford, Sheff U, Burnley, West Ham (Tonali started) and Palace in the league. We also played Milan, Man City and PSG in cups and Tonali started them all. 
 

So not some miraculous change in form. Just playing Brentford, Sheff U, Burnley and Palace instead of Man City, Liverpool and Brighton. 
 

 

[Sammys_Tekkers]

Was at the West Brom game last night, and it was so obvious in real time it was miles outside the box. Absolutely baffling.

[Groo]

15 hours ago, Paully said:

WTF! Incredible! 

 

https://x.com/san_pers/status/1778148417467818374?s=46&t=FsEm6VC2ijNnTjHjyXU7DA

 

The ref actually got it right.

 

Pinched the below from our site, someone looked up the interference rule.

 

 

 

Definition of 'possession' by a goalkeeper

"Once the goalkeeper has gained possession (also known as “control”) of the ball, an opponent may not interfere with or block the goalkeeper’s distribution of the ball. For example, players have a right to maintain a position achieved during the normal course of play, but they may not try to block the goalkeeper’s movement while he or she is holding the ball and trying to distribute it. Nor may opposing players do anything to hinder, interfere with, or block a goalkeeper who is throwing or punting the ball back into play. The goalkeeper has already gained possession and is granted up to six seconds to release the ball back into play by other players. A goalkeeper in the act of distributing the ball may not be challenged under these circumstances. (This includes trying to head a ball out of the goalkeeper’s open hand or playing a ball being bounced or tossed into the air by the goalkeeper.) An opponent does not violate the Law, however, if that player takes advantage of a ball clearly released by the goalkeeper directly to him or her, in his or her direction, or deflecting off him or her nonviolently”

In yesterday's case, Rushworth definitely had 'possession' and 'control' of the ball with both hands but it was dislodged from his 'possession' by Ennis's head as he stood up. Yes, it was clearly unintentional but that doesn't matter, any infringement is still an infringement whether intentional or unintentional. In fact, free-kicks are probably awarded more often for unintentional fouls or handballs than for clearly intentional ones with the latter more likely to result in a yellow card. Maybe it was borderline at worst but reading that, I think the ref just about got it right.

[Optimistic Nut]

Just now, Groo said:

 

The ref actually got it right.

 

Pinched the below from our site, someone looked up the interference rule.

 

 

 

Definition of 'possession' by a goalkeeper

"Once the goalkeeper has gained possession (also known as “control”) of the ball, an opponent may not interfere with or block the goalkeeper’s distribution of the ball. For example, players have a right to maintain a position achieved during the normal course of play, but they may not try to block the goalkeeper’s movement while he or she is holding the ball and trying to distribute it. Nor may opposing players do anything to hinder, interfere with, or block a goalkeeper who is throwing or punting the ball back into play. The goalkeeper has already gained possession and is granted up to six seconds to release the ball back into play by other players. A goalkeeper in the act of distributing the ball may not be challenged under these circumstances. (This includes trying to head a ball out of the goalkeeper’s open hand or playing a ball being bounced or tossed into the air by the goalkeeper.) An opponent does not violate the Law, however, if that player takes advantage of a ball clearly released by the goalkeeper directly to him or her, in his or her direction, or deflecting off him or her nonviolently”

In yesterday's case, Rushworth definitely had 'possession' and 'control' of the ball with both hands but it was dislodged from his 'possession' by Ennis's head as he stood up. Yes, it was clearly unintentional but that doesn't matter, any infringement is still an infringement whether intentional or unintentional. In fact, free-kicks are probably awarded more often for unintentional fouls or handballs than for clearly intentional ones with the latter more likely to result in a yellow card. Maybe it was borderline at worst but reading that, I think the ref just about got it right.

 

This isn't linked to that.