Old Sod's Army-More VAR nonsense

[bog]

Turns out that he who was sat in his office making decisions via the VAR admits he 'forgot the rules' about the possibility of Pickford being sent off as he remained silent probably munching his crisps.....

092.gif

[Arthur]

If this is another complaint that VAR throws up bad decisions, I would say that, pre-VAR, Pickford would still have got away with his challenge without being carded owing to the offside decision.

The VAR official made a mistake in forgetting the rules - which is poor on his part - but this doesn't mean VAR itself is at fault because, but for human negligence, this would have been a situation in which VAR ensured justice was done at the time rather than retrospectively.

[Lighthouse]

As I said on another thread. VAR decisions must be publicly explained. Too often they take time and the decisions are still controversial. We must have the referee or official explain themselves over VAR decisions otherwise the whole thing will become ridiculous.

[jarv]

Good title...NONSENSE...spot on. Many on here played at a decent level as did I. We all knew what a foul , handball or offside was. Seems to me nobody actually knows now.  I am totally fed up with it. I think I said before, var is ok for tennis, cricket or a horses nose win, but NOT for football. In cricket, they take a quick look and decide, don't they??? They dont have to stand around in the rain for 10 minutes.

[Neutral Zone Ultra]

As I said on another thread. VAR decisions must be publicly explained. Too often they take time and the decisions are still controversial. We must have the referee or official explain themselves over VAR decisions otherwise the whole thing will become ridiculous.

I agree, especially on controversial decisions. If the Premier League wants to throw its weight behind something as divisive as VAR it needs to be prepared to justify it when it takes precedence in a game.

[toshes mate]

In field hockey they chose an option for either side to challenge the two onfield umpires during each quarter of a game.  The challenge is retained if found correct.  It is noteworthy that video playback is often inconclusive in, for example, determining if the ball struck foot or stick because of the speed of the game but when it works it really does work. 

Football had a choice and VAR came out of that and anyone who believes it is fit for purpose really needs to answer questions about offsides given on less than a hair's breadth, or handballs where the ball clearly strikes the player rather than the player deliberately playing the ball with their hand or arm.  The rule is changed to overcome that question simply because decision making has become so much of a lottery over the many years of decline in suitable referees.  Invest in referees, protect them from abuse, and ensure that they are as close to perfect as any human can be, but please, please, please get rid of VAR.

[Jimmy Hill]

Its so obvious what to do with VAR which why it is so frustrating. Is it a clear Hand Ball, Off side or foul and the ref misses it. Bring it back. If its marginal then leave it alone.

[bog]

In field hockey they chose an option for either side to challenge the two onfield umpires during each quarter of a game.  The challenge is retained if found correct.  It is noteworthy that video playback is often inconclusive in, for example, determining if the ball struck foot or stick because of the speed of the game but when it works it really does work. 

Football had a choice and VAR came out of that and anyone who believes it is fit for purpose really needs to answer questions about offsides given on less than a hair's breadth, or handballs where the ball clearly strikes the player rather than the player deliberately playing the ball with their hand or arm.  The rule is changed to overcome that question simply because decision making has become so much of a lottery over the many years of decline in suitable referees.  Invest in referees, protect them from abuse, and ensure that they are as close to perfect as any human can be, but please, please, please get rid of VAR.

+1. Just keep for the ball over the goal line. Great managers in the past, Busby, Shankly, Clough, Ramsey, Nicholson never used to get at refs. Revie started it and it has now become the norm to undermine them. When huge money is at stake the basic respect in the game goes out the window. Diving now flourishes.       

[bobby01]

It's been a slippery slope since offside was changed to active and inactive none sense. As tosh says improve ref standards, if anyone can honestly say that the 2 relevant offsides in the Mersey game were conclusive I would like to hear their opinion.

[res]

If this is another complaint that VAR throws up bad decisions, I would say that, pre-VAR, Pickford would still have got away with his challenge without being carded owing to the offside decision.

The VAR official made a mistake in forgetting the rules - which is poor on his part - but this doesn't mean VAR itself is at fault because, but for human negligence, this would have been a situation in which VAR ensured justice was done at the time rather than retrospectively.

Don't agree. Pre VAR, Pickford probably would have been red carded, there's plenty of examples of cards being (correctly) dished out after off side etc decisions. Dangerous/reckless play happens, and should be punished, at any time on the pitch, even when the ball is dead. One of the problems with VAR is that ref. are getting "scared" of VAR...so, with Pickford, the ref. could see what happened, probably would have given a red card, but waited for VAR which didn't tell him anything about the challenge, only the marginal offside. Similarly (and I'm trying not to be biased), the ref. saw Mitro's mild coming together with the Sheffield defender (it was literally in front of him), decided there was nothing in it (hence allowing play to continue), but took the call from the VAR man as an instruction to award a penalty...what the ref. saw on the screen was exactly what he saw in real time but felt overruled by VAR.

[Gezza]

Can you guys answer this question regarding the Sheffield Utd game. Between Fulham clearing the ball and the ref stopping play to award a penalty, after VAR intervened, Cairney had a shot at the other end which narrowly went the wrong side of the post. If he had scored would the goal have stood ?

[bog]

Can you guys answer this question regarding the Sheffield Utd game. Between Fulham clearing the ball and the ref stopping play to award a penalty, after VAR intervened, Cairney had a shot at the other end which narrowly went the wrong side of the post. If he had scored would the goal have stood ?

No. So like that time at Anfield when we all thought Mitro had put us 1 up, no a hairline linesman's decision denies us and they go straight down the other end and score so its 1 down instead. :031:

[alfie]

Good title...NONSENSE...spot on. Many on here played at a decent level as did I. We all knew what a foul , handball or offside was. Seems to me nobody actually knows now.  I am totally fed up with it. I think I said before, var is ok for tennis, cricket or a horses nose win, but NOT for football. In cricket, they take a quick look and decide, don't they??? They dont have to stand around in the rain for 10 minutes.

The difference with other sports rugby, tennis, cricket, the game has already stopped. They don't play on and then stop it after couple of minutes.

[toshes mate]

Similarly (and I'm trying not to be biased), the ref. saw Mitro's mild coming together with the Sheffield defender (it was literally in front of him), decided there was nothing in it (hence allowing play to continue), but took the call from the VAR man as an instruction to award a penalty...what the ref. saw on the screen was exactly what he saw in real time but felt overruled by VAR.

Agree with the sentiment but the VAR view was side on and close up (not head on and close up) and in two dimensions not three.  My thought at the time was of a VAR jobsworth deciding there was a better angle for a decision to be made on a very soft incident and that is why it took so long in being brought to the referee's attention.  In other words it was selective decision making which is not in keeping with the spirit of the game and the rules about consistency.  There will sometimes be better angles to judge controversial decisions but there was nothing controversial about Marriner's original decision until VAR intervened.

[Arthur]

If this is another complaint that VAR throws up bad decisions, I would say that, pre-VAR, Pickford would still have got away with his challenge without being carded owing to the offside decision.

The VAR official made a mistake in forgetting the rules - which is poor on his part - but this doesn't mean VAR itself is at fault because, but for human negligence, this would have been a situation in which VAR ensured justice was done at the time rather than retrospectively.

Don't agree. Pre VAR, Pickford probably would have been red carded, there's plenty of examples of cards being (correctly) dished out after off side etc decisions.

If you say you know of plenty of decisions of red cards being issued for fouls committed after the cessation of play, obviously I am in no position to say you are wrong.

And yet, nor has your telling me that such instances have occurred convinced me that I am wrong. My knowing that you know has not brought one previous instance to my mind; had you listed even a handful of the many instances you know of, I would have been indebted. As matters stand, however, I shall continue to hold my original opinion and call for an honourable truce.