Jump to content

Video Assistant Referees (VAR)


VAR to be used in the Premier League, are you:  

298 members have voted

  1. 1. VAR to be used in the Premier League, are you:

    • Happy
    • Ambivalent
    • Angry


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ball was away from Kane before Lascelles went down, Kane was always struggling to get to it. I would have been pissed if it went against us, one of those where you would be claiming that somewhere along the lines you have been paid back for a wrong decision if it went for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ball was away from Kane before Lascelles went down, Kane was always struggling to get to it. I would have been kissed if it went against us, one of those where you would be claiming that somewhere along the lines you have been paid back for a wrong decision if it went for you.

 

Aye. But that wasn't how Murphy saw it. He was saying that the VAR guys thought it was a foul, but that was just their opinion, and couldn't overturn the decision because they knew where Dean was coming from.

 

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if that was exactly what was going on. Like I said, Painful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they're determined to retain this margin for error, then I really don't understand its purpose in the first place.

 

My view of the Kane/Lascelles incident today is: Lascelles impeded Kane without managing to get a fair touch on the ball. It was clumsy and a little bit unfortunate (unlike, say, a late tackle where he's taken his shooting leg from under him), but the presence of an out-of-control defender has ultimately prevented an attacker from getting a clear shot at goal. Surely, given those circumstances, we're talking foul and penalty?

 

Assuming my view of the incident is correct, the referee therefore has missed an infringement. On what grounds is that infringement allowed to prevail, if VAR has been introduced to ensure that the correct decisions are made? What's the criteria there? Do the officials in the back-office have to completely contradict the existence and purpose of the technology by arbitrarily 'looking through the eyes of the referee' and finding a balance somewhere? How is that a fair system? It's like trying to be subjective for subjective's sake, even though you've got all the tools to be objective. It's inconsistent and - more concerningly - it smashes open the door for biased calls.

 

I just find the whole thing utterly flawed and a total fucking waste of everybody's time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they're determined to retain this margin for error, then I really don't understand its purpose in the first place.

 

My view of the Kane/Lascelles incident today is: Lascelles impeded Kane without managing to get a fair touch on the ball. It was clumsy and a little bit unfortunate (unlike, say, a late tackle where he's taken his shooting leg from under him), but the presence of an out-of-control defender has ultimately prevented an attacker from getting a clear shot at goal. Surely, given those circumstances, we're talking foul and penalty?

 

Assuming my view of the incident is correct, the referee therefore has missed an infringement. On what grounds is that infringement allowed to prevail, if VAR has been introduced to ensure that the correct decisions are made? What's the criteria there? Do they completely contradict the existence and purpose of the technology by arbitrarily 'looking through the eyes of the referee' and finding a balance somewhere? How is that a fair system? It's like trying to be subjective for subjective's sake, even though you've got all the tools to be subjective. It's inconsistent and - more concerningly - it smashes open the door for biased calls.

 

I just find the whole thing utterly flawed and a total fucking waste of everybody's time.

 

They make themselves look totally ridiculous by holding different standards to different incidents. They've apparently been told to apply a very high bar to overturn a penalty decision, so Lascelles/Lerma/Lamela in the last two weekends are not considered enough of a howler to overturn. That would be all well and good, "clear and obvious" in action, if they weren't examining offsides to the nearest atom and don't get me started on handball.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i thought it was the right call on the penalty, lascelles went over and brushed him but it was hardly a barge or anything...kane basically held his position rather than moving to the ball which he could have done in order to buy a penna

 

Kane leaned his body towards Lascelles. Was looking for the penalty IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i thought it was the right call on the penalty, lascelles went over and brushed him but it was hardly a barge or anything...kane basically held his position rather than moving to the ball which he could have done in order to buy a penna

 

Kane leaned his body towards Lascelles. Was looking for the penalty IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i thought it was the right call on the penalty, lascelles went over and brushed him but it was hardly a barge or anything...kane basically held his position rather than moving to the ball which he could have done in order to buy a penna

 

Kane leaned his body towards Lascelles. Was looking for the penalty IMO.

 

precisely, the ball was there but he stopped moving toward it and looked for lascelles instead

 

correct call

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lascelles was nowhere near the ball and quite clearly impeded Kane. Whether or not Kane was looking for it is a different discussion. Should've been a penalty, but we got lucky today.

 

Wouldn't say it's a different discussion since it's almost definitely the reason it wasn't given IMO. Many penalties are denied on the basis of "he was looking for it".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lascelles was nowhere near the ball and quite clearly impeded Kane. Whether or not Kane was looking for it is a different discussion. Should've been a penalty, but we got lucky today.

 

Wouldn't say it's a different discussion since it's almost definitely the reason it wasn't given IMO. Many penalties are denied on the basis of "he was looking for it".

 

But a foul is a foul, wouldn't you agree? Whether the player is looking for it should be irrelevant as long as he is in fact fouled. Kane was looking for it, but he was hindered by Lascelles who didn't try to play the ball. In my eyes that's a penalty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it depends, if the striker goes out of his way to make contact it can't always be a penalty or they'd all just ignore the ball and look for the defender's leg at every opportunity. And saying Lascelles didn't try to play the ball is a bit harsh since he fell over and injured himself, it's not like it was a reckless lunge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day Laccelles has fallen over and taken Kane down with him in the penalty box. Injury or no injury, looking for it or not, it is a pen. The laws don’t legislate for players looking for pens unless they’ve deliberately looked to cheat I.e. dived.

 

I can see why VAR didn’t give it now if we’re having this much of a debate about it. And that is one of the reasons why football is rife with refereeing controversy. Different referees have different opinion, see things differently, etc. Controversy in decision will always be a part of football and if there is one thing VAR has done it has certainly proved that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought it was a pen at the time but theres one particular angle where it looks like Kane leans in and because Lascelles isnt there, because hes already fallen, it makes Kane go down and then he seems to deliberately put his leg over Lascalles to make it more likea foul than it was.

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...