Jump to content

Video Assistant Referees (VAR)


Figures 1-0 Football
[[Template core/global/global/poll is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Recommended Posts

Would VAR have cleared up either of the major decisions yesterday ?

 

I was going to ask that too.

 

It wouldn’t have been used on the elbow because the ref allowed play to continue.

 

On the Yedlin red, it’s a matter of judgement. Even if VAR was used they could easily have agreed it was a red.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would VAR have cleared up either of the major decisions yesterday ?

 

I was going to ask that too.

 

It wouldn’t have been used on the elbow because the ref allowed play to continue.

 

On the Yedlin red, it’s a matter of judgement. Even if VAR was used they could easily have agreed it was a red.

 

Is that the rule? Genuine question. Once play did stop could he not have went back to it?  The useless prick should have stopped play for the head injury anyway.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would VAR have cleared up either of the major decisions yesterday ?

 

I was going to ask that too.

 

It wouldn’t have been used on the elbow because the ref allowed play to continue.

 

On the Yedlin red, it’s a matter of judgement. Even if VAR was used they could easily have agreed it was a red.

 

What? VAR is still used when play isn't stopped.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure either. But why would he if he didn’t see anything wrong?

 

Fair point.  I'm just wondering if he could have went back to it once it was obvious something had happened (which should have been when he noticed the head injury).  Suppose it's all ifs and buts really.

 

The VAR panel alert the ref to it, not the other way on (in that example).

 

Makes more sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are three ways VAR can play out during the game:

 

1. The video referee speaks to the on-field referee through an earpiece, who will put his hand up to pause play and inform the players a decision is being reviewed. If satisfied there is no error, he will signal for play to re-start.

 

2. VAR decides. In this instance the referee will draw a rectangle with his arms to replicate a TV a screen. The video referee will review the incident and the referee will make the same signal if he wishes to change his decision.

 

3, An 'on-field review', as we saw when Italy were rewarded a penalty at Wembley earlier this year. With more subjective decisions, the video referee will instruct the referee to watch a replay on a pitchside screen. He will make the 'TV signal' before communicating his final decision.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But on option 2, what constitutes an incident or a decision? Just anything seen on TV?

 

If so I guess that’s good, I just thought it was more restricted for some reason.

 

It's not just "on TV". The VAR panel have loads of screens and loads of camera angles. No way they would have missed it last night.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But on option 2, what constitutes an incident or a decision? Just anything seen on TV?

 

If so I guess that’s good, I just thought it was more restricted for some reason.

 

It's not just "on TV". The VAR panel have loads of screens and loads of camera angles. No way they would have missed it last night.

 

Exactly really don’t understand how people don’t think the decision would be changed?

 

Also of course the game could be pulled back after continuing- even if wolves had scored

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my understanding with the elbow yesterday, play would have continued with the VAR ref altering Dean once he had seen the incident. So even if Wolves had gone up the other end and scored, they could have reviewed the elbow and brought play back to that point. Makes more sense to let play continue till it stops with the ball out of play or play stagnates, then call the review.

 

Either way its needed sooner than later, no excuse for it not be used already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my understanding with the elbow yesterday, play would have continued with the VAR ref altering Dean once he had seen the incident. So even if Wolves had gone up the other end and scored, they could have reviewed the elbow and brought play back to that point. Makes more sense to let play continue till it stops with the ball out of play or play stagnates, then call the review.

 

Either way its needed sooner than later, no excuse for it not be used already.

 

To the actual letter of the law ref should have stopped the game for the head injury. During the break in play he would have reviewed the incident (either after being alerted to it, or actually being a good ref and taking a look at it himself).

 

 

The whole incident is indefensible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my understanding with the elbow yesterday, play would have continued with the VAR ref altering Dean once he had seen the incident. So even if Wolves had gone up the other end and scored, they could have reviewed the elbow and brought play back to that point. Makes more sense to let play continue till it stops with the ball out of play or play stagnates, then call the review.

 

Either way its needed sooner than later, no excuse for it not be used already.

 

To the actual letter of the law ref should have stopped the game for the head injury. During the break in play he would have reviewed the incident (either after being alerted to it, or actually being a good ref and taking a look at it himself).

 

 

The whole incident is indefensible.

 

Does the ref have to stop the game every time somebody clutches their head? Or is the decision down to whether he thinks the injury is genuine? If Dean thought Perez had been hit in the face with the ball, he would likely assume he is faking it. Doe sthe ref have to stop the game anyway?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But on option 2, what constitutes an incident or a decision? Just anything seen on TV?

 

If so I guess that’s good, I just thought it was more restricted for some reason.

 

It's not just "on TV". The VAR panel have loads of screens and loads of camera angles. No way they would have missed it last night.

 

Exactly really don’t understand how people don’t think the decision would be changed?

 

Also of course the game could be pulled back after continuing- even if wolves had scored

 

No but what I mean is, VAR are just watching the game effectively as an always-on video referee who can tell the on-pitch ref anything at any time?

 

I thought there were more restrictions than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

VAR is all well and good but at the end of the day a cunt like Mike Dean still has to have another look at it has to admit he got it wrong and that's always going to be the issue. Dean absolutely loves the attention and goes out of his way to turn each match into the Mike Dean show. He's supremely arrogant and that's always the flaw, the officials in the studio can say he got it wrong but it's ultimately up to Dean to change his mind. VAR wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference on Sunday imho.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my understanding with the elbow yesterday, play would have continued with the VAR ref altering Dean once he had seen the incident. So even if Wolves had gone up the other end and scored, they could have reviewed the elbow and brought play back to that point. Makes more sense to let play continue till it stops with the ball out of play or play stagnates, then call the review.

 

Either way its needed sooner than later, no excuse for it not be used already.

 

To the actual letter of the law ref should have stopped the game for the head injury. During the break in play he would have reviewed the incident (either after being alerted to it, or actually being a good ref and taking a look at it himself).

 

 

The whole incident is indefensible.

 

Does the ref have to stop the game every time somebody clutches their head? Or is the decision down to whether he thinks the injury is genuine? If Dean thought Perez had been hit in the face with the ball, he would likely assume he is faking it. Doe sthe ref have to stop the game anyway?

 

 

Ref HAS to stop the game for any injury deemed serious, regardless of the cause. However, he’s a bit of a wanker, so I reckon if Perez had taken a machete to the throat he still wouldn’t stop it.

 

Even a ball to the face can knock a player out, break a nose etc, so the game needed to be stopped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After the elbow Dean made a conscious decision not to look back to check on Perez and simply ran up the pitch as Wolves broke. It was bad enough that he didn’t see the elbow but he also deliberately disregarded a head injury.

 

Yedlin was fouled for the sending off and that’s mostly been glossed over, clear pull on his shirt but he didn’t dare throw himself to the ground in case it wasn’t given.

 

Has to be said though; we let in 2 poor goals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can just guarantee the first time VARS gets used in a game involving us, it's going to go against us and we get a goal ruled out, or get a penalty given against us  :lol:

 

On the positive side, for that to happen it would mean we had avoided relegation this season and were playing in the Premiership next season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...