Video Assistant Referees (VAR)

[Disco]

 

Sounds class. Must be even better when the game isn’t even on TV.

Are stadiums in England also not showing any replays of VAR incidents to supporters? To me, this was the biggest problem at the World Cup with VAR. For the most part, people in the crowd didn't have any idea what was going on outside of the VAR review notification and the end result. During Argentina-Nigeria, a header by Rojo flicked off his arm in the box (would have been a clear penalty under the new rules I believe), but it wasn't anything noticeable for me, sat closer to the other end. Between our players crowding the ref, the referee having to communicate to the VAR official, and the actual review; there was probably a three-four minute break in the match, during which we received no clear explanation as to what was happening. The experience with it is much worse for people who are actually at the match compared with those watching at home or in the pub, which is not acceptable. If this is the way forward, they need to go full Yankee with this and at least engage the crowd and keep them informed.

 

 

I would think it would be even worse in the Premier League when an incident we did not see is then adjudicated by some third party we also cannot see. It should be the referee for any judgement based decision.

Does it though?

 

 

Read the thread.

This is pretty reflective of my views of the VAR calls for players offside by a millimetre or two. We are reviewing the position of a minimum of three bodies (two players and a ball) that are in motion and stopping time at the indeterminable point in time that a ball is "passed". The idea that this is an exact science is laughable and ruinous to the game of football. Offside is at its essence a simple rule, now we are using freeze-frame and trying to determine the point where Raheem Sterling's scapula turns into his humerus. This is what replay does in a sport. In the NFL, we are stopping the game to determine if the ball touched one blade of grass, and in the NBA we are stopping the game to see if a player's fingernail contacted the ball. Football will head the same way. It is inevitable.

 

Not as far as I’m aware. A message just pops up on screen if they’re reviewing however even if they did a fair few grounds don’t have big screens (Man Utd, Liverpool) or if they do they’re not in position for everyone to see (ourselves) so that’s another issue.

[Amir_9]

All for VAR to be honest. I'd rather watch a game with the correct rules applied as much as possible. That's just me personally.

 

VAR doesn't make any of the new rules any less confusing or surprising.

 

It's there to highlight the sort of decisions that can have teams avoid relegation rightfully and teams to qualify/win what they deserve correctly. Over the span of the season for me this is more important than "but we can't celebrate like we usually do"

[morla84]

Surely they could use the electronic advertisement hoardings to send a message to the fans of what is being reviewed and show what the official is seeing on the big screen, put a limit on the review time and ask everyone to sit in their seats for 5 mins after a goal before its approved?

[Guest neesy111]

[tweet]1163929537488576512[/tweet]?s=19

 

:facepalm: :facepalm:

[Groundhog63]

[tweet]1163929537488576512[/tweet]?s=19

 

:facepalm: :facepalm:

 

Thick.As.Whale.Spunk.

 

There's a fair few believe twoddle like that tho.

[1964]

This is a man given television time who thinks that the EU, which for all intents and purposes is a trade organisation governs football

[mrmojorisin75]

that is remarkable

[mrmojorisin75]

I think Holloway has made a push for the Brexitland PFM Prime Minister slot there, a dark horse but it's a bold pitch

 

Allardyce could be his Chancellor, need to find a role for Redknapp probs

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Redknapp would want Chancellor.

[leffe186]

I have absolutely no doubt what the law is meant to be doing, and the referees and the press are all going off how the law should have been written for what it is intended, not what it actually is.

 

Ignore the BBC, Michael Oliver, whoever - read the words that have been written down. There's a typo in there for good measure ("touches", should be touched). It's appallingly written, which is ironic seeing as the whole thing has been done solely for the benefit of people obsessed with accuracy and the LETTER OF THE LAW.

 

I suppose you could argue that he “gains possession” because if it doesn’t hit his arm it goes straight through to Ndombele, whereas his arm diverts it straight to Jesus. Like, if somebody punches the ball into the net they didn’t control the ball themselves, but they effectively gained possession.

 

It’s clearly an accident, but they also clearly scored a goal as a direct result of it hitting his arm. The question then is simply what we want refs to do with that information, plus all the other information on a video (pushing, offsides etc).

[Nobody]

I have absolutely no doubt what the law is meant to be doing, and the referees and the press are all going off how the law should have been written for what it is intended, not what it actually is.

 

Ignore the BBC, Michael Oliver, whoever - read the words that have been written down. There's a typo in there for good measure ("touches", should be touched). It's appallingly written, which is ironic seeing as the whole thing has been done solely for the benefit of people obsessed with accuracy and the LETTER OF THE LAW.

 

I suppose you could argue that he “gains possession” because if it doesn’t hit his arm it goes straight through to Ndombele, whereas his arm diverts it straight to Jesus. Like, if somebody punches the ball into the net they didn’t control the ball themselves, but they effectively gained possession.

 

It’s clearly an accident, but they also clearly scored a goal as a direct result of it hitting his arm. The question then is simply what we want refs to do with that information, plus all the other information on a video (pushing, offsides etc).

Aye. Guess Laporte "gains possession" the moment the ball hits his hand, according to the rules. It's still absolute horse shit that they have another rule depending on what happens after the incident. Either it's a foul or not, it shouldn't matter what happens after.

[Wullie]

Scenario: Blue defender handles the ball accidentally in his own penalty area, clearly not a penalty, arms by his side, whatever. He immediately boots the ball downfield to his striker, who scores. The original handball in his own box is now an offence because of the goal.

 

Is it a) a penalty to Red, b) an indirect free kick in the Blue box to Red or c) nobody knows because IFAB haven't thought their daft rule change through?

[Nobody]

Scenario: Blue defender handles the ball accidentally in his own penalty area, clearly not a penalty, arms by his side, whatever. He immediately boots the ball downfield to his striker, who scores. The original handball in his own box is now an offence because of the goal.

 

Is it a) a penalty to Red, b) an indirect free kick in the Blue box to Red or c) nobody knows because IFAB haven't thought their daft rule change through?

C

[GeordieDazzler]

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/sport/2019/08/football-s-adoption-var-another-symptom-era-can-t-stand-nuance

[Guest chopey]

Mourinhos quote the other day was quality.

[triggs]

[tweet]1163929537488576512[/tweet]?s=19

 

:facepalm: :facepalm:

 

IFAB changed the rules on handball. IFAB is made up of 4 votes for FIFA and one each for the English, Welsh, Scottish and NI FA's and nobody else so its the other way around if anything

[Happinesstan]

So I'm watching the LIV-ARS game on MOTD (4ish hours after the event) and there is an incident which VAR deems worthy of a second look;

 

Commentator: " I've no idea what they're looking at".

 

Maybe somebody could have asked somebody, before recording started.

[ToonArmy1892]

So I'm watching the LIV-ARS game on MOTD (4ish hours after the event) and there is an incident which VAR deems worthy of a second look;

 

Commentator: " I've no idea what they're looking at".

 

Maybe somebody could have asked somebody, before recording started.

 

?

 

He is commentating live.

[Happinesstan]

So I'm watching the LIV-ARS game on MOTD (4ish hours after the event) and there is an incident which VAR deems worthy of a second look;

 

Commentator: " I've no idea what they're looking at".

 

Maybe somebody could have asked somebody, before recording started.

 

?

 

He is commentating live.

 

It's edited.

[jdckelly]

its edited yes but the commentator does his stuff live not later

[ToonArmy1892]

So I'm watching the LIV-ARS game on MOTD (4ish hours after the event) and there is an incident which VAR deems worthy of a second look;

 

Commentator: " I've no idea what they're looking at".

 

Maybe somebody could have asked somebody, before recording started.

 

?

 

He is commentating live.

 

It's edited.

 

Of course the action they show is, but the commentators are live, they don't commentate a re-run.

[Happinesstan]

So I'm watching the LIV-ARS game on MOTD (4ish hours after the event) and there is an incident which VAR deems worthy of a second look;

 

Commentator: " I've no idea what they're looking at".

 

Maybe somebody could have asked somebody, before recording started.

 

?

 

He is commentating live.

 

It's edited.

 

Of course the action they show is, but the commentators are live, they don't commentate a re-run.

 

The post match analysis isn't live though. Point is, the program didn't address it. It was, essentially, a nothing event, why bother showing it in the highlights, if they're not going to clarify it in analysis?

 

[ToonArmy1892]

So I'm watching the LIV-ARS game on MOTD (4ish hours after the event) and there is an incident which VAR deems worthy of a second look;

 

Commentator: " I've no idea what they're looking at".

 

Maybe somebody could have asked somebody, before recording started.

 

?

 

He is commentating live.

 

It's edited.

 

Of course the action they show is, but the commentators are live, they don't commentate a re-run.

 

The post match analysis isn't live though. Point is, the program didn't address it. It was, essentially, a nothing event, why bother showing it in the highlights, if they're not going to clarify it in analysis?

 

I'm pretty sure the post match analysis is live like but i agree with your point.

 

It was like a dig at VAR.

[Happinesstan]

So I'm watching the LIV-ARS game on MOTD (4ish hours after the event) and there is an incident which VAR deems worthy of a second look;

 

Commentator: " I've no idea what they're looking at".

 

Maybe somebody could have asked somebody, before recording started.

 

?

 

He is commentating live.

 

It's edited.

 

Of course the action they show is, but the commentators are live, they don't commentate a re-run.

 

The post match analysis isn't live though. Point is, the program didn't address it. It was, essentially, a nothing event, why bother showing it in the highlights, if they're not going to clarify it in analysis?

 

I'm pretty sure the post match analysis is live like but i agree with your point.

 

It was like a dig at VAR.

 

That's what I thought. But it's a stupid dig when somebody at the BBC could clearly have discovered the facts, in the four hours between the live (as it happens) commentary, and the live (on the telly 4 hours after the event) analysis.

 

[ToonArmy1892]

Clear pen not given in the Citeh game, that's the problem with pens and reds, it's just the VAR's opinion.