I see that the FA (or is it the Premier League?) have introduced a Key Match Incident Panel to review VAR decisions. 'The Key Match Incident Panel is independent and made up of three former players or coaches, one Premier League representative and one from the Professional Game Match Officials Board, the referees' body.'(BBC quote)
Basically this is a hindsight operation that does not change the actual result but may give rise to better refereeing and VAR decision making.
This is all very worthy but does not address the main VAR problem of the length of time decisions take. If a VAR decision takes longer than 30 seconds there is no clear and obvious error by the match official.
I think most supporters accept that human errors will always take place, especially if the VAR team have just returned from a busy few days in Saudi. Surely it is better to have a prompt decision whether right or wrong that does not interfere with the matchplay.
We need a new body to scrutinise the findings of the Key Match Incident Panel.
It will be good for the VAR officials to know that an independent body is watching them - a kind of Ofvar.
So we're going to have a review team to review the review team. It's quite absurd when you think of it.
Quote from: Whitestone on May 10, 2024, 02:38:42 PMSo we're going to have a review team to review the review team. It's quite absurd when you think of it.
I think we need to review your review.
It means there's some accountability, which is a good thing. However, its a little concerning that all three announced decisions were 3-2 verdicts from the panel of 5. I've not seen the Man City v Wolves penalty, but the Kai Havertz penalty v Bournemouth is to me very clearly not a penalty, with Havertz initiating contact. I find it worrying that 2/5 thought it should have been a penalty. The disallowed Bournemouth goal v Arsenal was a 3-2 decision in favour of disallowing - again I thought it pretty clear but 2/5 thought it should have been allowed.
The Better Days -
The man in the middle in this top of the table clash is Mr Arthur Fotheringham. Mr Fotheringham blows his whistle and the game begins.
Now. The referee is Mr Arthur Fotheringham and his two lines people are .....The fourth official is oh and the fourteen people in the VAR chamber of horrors and the Key Match Incident Panel are.....
How can you trust a system that needs so many people all of whom are open to making mistakes AND OR being biased. Less really is best. When did we need so many safety nets to get one incident right.
Quote from: Holders on May 10, 2024, 01:56:39 PMIt will be good for the VAR officials to know that an independent body is watching them - a kind of Ofvar.
Would prefer F-Ofvar !
It means there's some accountability, which is a good thing. However, its a little concerning that all three announced decisions were 3-2 verdicts from the panel of 5. I've not seen the Man City v Wolves penalty, but the Kai Havertz penalty v Bournemouth is to me very clearly not a penalty, with Havertz initiating contact. I find it worrying that 2/5 thought it should have been a penalty. The disallowed Bournemouth goal v Arsenal was a 3-2 decision in favour of disallowing - again I thought it pretty clear but 2/5 thought it should have been allowed.
[/quote]
So they basically have a vote as to whether they think the decision is right or wrong. What an absolute farce.
It is all very worthy, but it still makes no difference to the main problem with VAR. Not whether it gets decisions right or not, but which decisions it chooses to ignore.
Going back, yet again, to the third minute of our FA Cup match at Old Trafford last season. The push on Mitrovich in the United penalty area. Ignored by the ref. Ignored by VAR. Would also be ignored by this new panel as well, as VAR failed to pick up on it at all, so there is no controversial key match incident to review. Yet, by definition, a third minute penalty away at Old Trafford might well be very key to the final score (had it been one of the 55% of awarded penalties we actually scored that season).
So how does this help?
Have said before, if the Ref is biased or crap then there's no point having someone similar in a var box as well.
The bigger teams have always had more favourable decisions from officials so no point in var except for offside.
How does var rate in European leagues?
Sounds like a case of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.
The actual people on the board is the most concerning. 3 former players or coaches... Straight away how many players and coaches have ever refereed a game of football? How high up the pyramid are they selecting these from? Consistency is what we are looking for.
For me it is great for creating drama in the press to sell some papers but not much else as it's not like you can reverse the decision with a penalty. I guess the only thing it could be good for is stopping a ban on a red card occurring as the red card "isn't safe"
I have never known so many clueless people running football, they just keep digging the hole deeper and deeper and burying their heads in it.
It is all utter ninsense, let the referee and linesmen make the calls. Decision made, over and done. Takes a few seconds.
Quote from: Wolf on May 10, 2024, 03:14:30 PMIt means there's some accountability, which is a good thing. However, its a little concerning that all three announced decisions were 3-2 verdicts from the panel of 5. I've not seen the Man City v Wolves penalty, but the Kai Havertz penalty v Bournemouth is to me very clearly not a penalty, with Havertz initiating contact. I find it worrying that 2/5 thought it should have been a penalty. The disallowed Bournemouth goal v Arsenal was a 3-2 decision in favour of disallowing - again I thought it pretty clear but 2/5 thought it should have been allowed.
Surely , if there has to be a clear and obvious error then the review team should be unanimous? Anything less means something is NOT clear.
Quote from: Lighthouse on May 10, 2024, 03:24:27 PMThe Better Days -
The man in the middle in this top of the table clash is Mr Arthur Fotheringham. Mr Fotheringham blows his whistle and the game begins.
Now. The referee is Mr Arthur Fotheringham and his two lines people are .....The fourth official is oh and the fourteen people in the VAR chamber of horrors and the Key Match Incident Panel are.....
How can you trust a system that needs so many people all of whom are open to making mistakes AND OR being biased. Less really is best. When did we need so many safety nets to get one incident right.
Ah, the better days. Those days when, if you were not in the stadium, you saw nothing of the match at all. There was a straightforward reason there was no need for a review panel back then: in the absence of television cameras, there was no way of reviewing an incident.
In the 'better days', a decision that now proves contentious such as that, recently, to award a penalty to Arsenal for the Bournemouth goalkeeper's challenge on Kai Havertz would have been accepted far more readily. In real time, even the vast majority of those inside the stadium would not have seen the incident clearly enough to notice the Arsenal player purposely drag his foot in the split-second before contact was made.
In the 'better days', the referee's decision to deem the Bournemouth goalkeeper's challenge an infringement wouldn't have been captured by television cameras and beamed around the world to millions of people in frame-by-frame slow motion such that each and every one of us can form an opinion of the match officials' competency. It is precisely because referees' actions are so widely scrutinised, and the consequent anger and lack of forgiveness or understanding to the point of vilification so many people display when, in their opinion, a referee has got it wrong that has made it necessary to involve additional layers of decision-making and review.
If you tell me that you never - or almost never - take advantage of the fact that, nowadays, every game can either be watched live or viewed subsequently, be it in its entirety or highlights, from the comfort of your sofa, and that the only occasions you see football is when you are personally in attendance, then I shall accept you are justified to complain that matches are no longer solely under the jurisdiction of a referee and two linesmen.
If, however, you take the opportunity if it arises (as do I) to watch televised action from those of our matches you cannot attend, I put it to you that yours is a case of someone wanting have one's cake and eat it too - in circumstances in which it's simply not possible.
The Establishment is as bent as a banana, totally corrupt and full of greed which is the only snake that cannot be charmed.
Will they pollute the river