VAR errors increase: Each of the 13 mistakes so far this season

[Baszab]

3 penalty appeals vs Brighton
Josh King goal vs Chelsea
Cash handball vs Villa
Muniz og vs Man utd
Offside goal vs Liverpool
Muniz goal vs Brentford
Penalty vs Chelsea
The last two didn't cost us any points.

And the Martinez on King

[Thailand Mick]

3 penalty appeals vs Brighton
Josh King goal vs Chelsea
Cash handball vs Villa
Muniz og vs Man utd
Offside goal vs Liverpool
Muniz goal vs Brentford
Penalty vs Chelsea
The last two didn't cost us any points.

And the Martinez on King

not a penalty for me.

[Arthur]

If there were no VAR and football relied solely upon the match officials, according to the data, Manchester United and Crystal Palace would be able to point to the greatest number of obvious refereeing injustices. And Bournemouth, Everton and... wait for it... ourselves would be seen as the luckiest clubs to benefit from such dubious calls.

Are we looking at different tables, or something? We are bottom of the VAR net decisions, which means we have had four more go against us than for us. Far from being the luckiest, we are the unluckiest.

The paragraph of mine you quote begins 'If there were no VAR...'

The table we are both looking at shows the consequences of VAR interventions. If there were no VAR, the match officials' original decisions would not have been overturned and the -4 in the net goals column (goals that have gone in the opposition's favour) would not exist. The 'dubious calls' to which I refer are on-field decisions, not VAR interventions.

Four goals that should not have counted against us, or should have counted for us (ie Josh King).
Two penalties that should not have been awarded against us or should have been awarded to us.

I think you are misinterpreting the information. Yes, VAR interventions have meant that four more goals have either been awarded to the opposition or ruled out for us than vice-versa, but Josh King's is the only one that is deemed an error by the Key Match-Incidents Panel. Every other intervention by VAR in our matches, the Panel consider to be correct. Likewise with the penalties; VAR has been responsible for the award of two to the opposition - but this doesn't mean VAR were wrong to do so. You seem to be of the mindset that every time VAR gets involved, a mistake is made.

The table shows that Chelsea and Man U have been the greatest beneficiaries of the VAR people's largesse, followed by Palace and Newcastle.

This would be true if it were a table solely of the mistakes VAR has made. But it's not. If VAR intervenes and an on-field mistake is put right, there is no 'largesse' involved. The BBC article to which the O.P. refers informs that there were 47 VAR interventions across all matches in the first half of the season. Of these 47, the KMI Panel considers only 2 to be inappropriate (Josh King being one of the two). The Panel has, however, identified 11 instances in which VAR should have intervened but failed to do so (none of which occurred in matches involving us).

If VAR put right the wrongs of match officials without ever making a mistake, no club could claim to have been treated unfairly. Whether top or bottom of the statistics table, in terms of 'fairness', every club would be equal. Some teams, however, have benefitted from the 13 mistakes VAR has made. Manchester United are not one of those clubs. Chelsea are. United's position in the table is the result of VAR having to overturn a number of poor refereeing decisions that have gone against them (more than have worked in their favour).

[Rupert]

Hi Arthur, the table refers to VAR mistakes, not VAR interventions. The times the powers that be acknowledge they got it wrong. Hence we are really getting seriously disadvantaged this season.

[Arthur]

May I ask whether you have read the article in full?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cvgrx8ml7m0o

Below is the table that tells us how many mistakes VAR made in the first half of the season - not the table I posted earlier in the thread (although the mistakes are included in the previous one's data.)



Your misunderstanding probably explains why my posts have made so little sense to you.

[Rupert]

I'm coming to the conclusion that this is going nowhere. The full article refers to all errors, including those not acted upon. If VAR made no interventions at all then it would make no errors, according to that table. The multiple times it should have (and chose not to) intervene would still show on the other table. The one that we are bottom of with all those goals and penalties that were wrongly given/not given. Which makes your claim that we are one of the blessed rather hard to comprehend.

Anyway, feel free to respond if you wish, I am putting this to bed and will let you have the last word.

[Sting of the North]

The table at the bottom clearly does not refer to VAR errors but to VAR interventions (correct or not). It shows that we would likely have been better off without VAR, but not because VAR makes errors, but because it has detected things that we would have otherwise gotten away with.

The first table is about errors.

However, the whole discussion is slightly flawed for several reasons:

- Firstly we cannot know the impact the existance of VAR has on the decisions by the referees. Would all calls actually have been the same if there was no VAR?

- Secondly, since this is still very subjective (mainly because of the clear and obvious mantra), it often feels like a coin toss whether VAR gets involved or not. They did manage to not get involved when Martinez took out King, for example, even though to me that looked like a crystal clear penalty if you look at other similar instances. There are of course countless similar instances, for which some VAR gets involved and some it doesn't, and it is really hard to see some sort of consistency. The eye test tells me that we have been quite badly treated overall.

- Lastly, there is obviously no consistency when applying something like to now famous 5 cm rule. This in itself makes kind of a mockery out of the whole thing.

Just my thoughts.

[Andrew]

I think VAR has made the rules turn from the referee has the last word to a forensic examination of every microsecond.

The interpretations are bizare.

Two players making a reasonable attempt to play a loose ball used to be accepted but now the player that arrives a millisecond late and as a result touches the opponent gives away a foul, and potentially booked. A ball striking your arm can result in a free kick/penalty even if you have no way of removing your arm... an unatural position has been invented. If somebody drives the ball at you and you move your hands to protect your face or crown jewels, that is a natural position. I used to know what a hand ball and offside were, not any more.

The most bizare is the push in the back is no longer a fould.... bassey V man utd was pushed in the back, the player doing it scores and a goal is allowed. What is that about? The commentators say he should have been stronger; no, he was pushed from behind and as such it is a foul not two players jostling for position.

These are such easy things to put right but the people running the sport have no interest in making it simpler.

In our games I have seen so many errors that it is a joke and really spoiling the whole thing!

[SuffolkWhite]

I think VAR has made the rules turn from the referee has the last word to a forensic examination of every microsecond.

The interpretations are bizare.

Two players making a reasonable attempt to play a loose ball used to be accepted but now the player that arrives a millisecond late and as a result touches the opponent gives away a foul, and potentially booked. A ball striking your arm can result in a free kick/penalty even if you have no way of removing your arm... an unatural position has been invented. If somebody drives the ball at you and you move your hands to protect your face or crown jewels, that is a natural position. I used to know what a hand ball and offside were, not any more.

The most bizare is the push in the back is no longer a fould.... bassey V man utd was pushed in the back, the player doing it scores and a goal is allowed. What is that about? The commentators say he should have been stronger; no, he was pushed from behind and as such it is a foul not two players jostling for position.

These are such easy things to put right but the people running the sport have no interest in making it simpler.

In our games I have seen so many errors that it is a joke and really spoiling the whole thing!

The push on Bassey, if that was a Utd player the foul is given. The thing is, the Ref or var won't give it to us because of the general bias to big teams, that situation had always existed for the smaller clubs. Still not right and still infuriating.

[Andrew]

I think VAR has made the rules turn from the referee has the last word to a forensic examination of every microsecond.

The interpretations are bizare.

Two players making a reasonable attempt to play a loose ball used to be accepted but now the player that arrives a millisecond late and as a result touches the opponent gives away a foul, and potentially booked. A ball striking your arm can result in a free kick/penalty even if you have no way of removing your arm... an unatural position has been invented. If somebody drives the ball at you and you move your hands to protect your face or crown jewels, that is a natural position. I used to know what a hand ball and offside were, not any more.

The most bizare is the push in the back is no longer a fould.... bassey V man utd was pushed in the back, the player doing it scores and a goal is allowed. What is that about? The commentators say he should have been stronger; no, he was pushed from behind and as such it is a foul not two players jostling for position.

These are such easy things to put right but the people running the sport have no interest in making it simpler.

In our games I have seen so many errors that it is a joke and really spoiling the whole thing!

The push on Bassey, if that was a Utd player the foul is given. The thing is, the Ref or var won't give it to us because of the general bias to big teams, that situation had always existed for the smaller clubs. Still not right and still infuriating.

Well I didn't like to say that agian because I have already said the same so mmany times. However, I suspect Wirtz's goal would have been ruled out at the other end, King's goal allowed if he would have been in blue, etc etc. The referees, many of them, have an integrity deficiency. This dates back to me for years but the first big one d'urso V middlesborough. I said when he became the substitute refereee on the day he would not let us win, and he didn't, then there was Halsey, and the list goes on and on, it really does not even out.

[alfie]

I think VAR has made the rules turn from the referee has the last word to a forensic examination of every microsecond.

The interpretations are bizare.

Two players making a reasonable attempt to play a loose ball used to be accepted but now the player that arrives a millisecond late and as a result touches the opponent gives away a foul, and potentially booked. A ball striking your arm can result in a free kick/penalty even if you have no way of removing your arm... an unatural position has been invented. If somebody drives the ball at you and you move your hands to protect your face or crown jewels, that is a natural position. I used to know what a hand ball and offside were, not any more.

The most bizare is the push in the back is no longer a fould.... bassey V man utd was pushed in the back, the player doing it scores and a goal is allowed. What is that about? The commentators say he should have been stronger; no, he was pushed from behind and as such it is a foul not two players jostling for position.

These are such easy things to put right but the people running the sport have no interest in making it simpler.

In our games I have seen so many errors that it is a joke and really spoiling the whole thing!

Same as shirt pulling, even blatant pulls are being ignored, in the Morocco v Nigeria game a foul was given to Morocco even though he grabbed the Nigerian shirt and pulled him forward and they both fell, one of the commentators actually said the ref made the right decision, completely ignoring the shirt pulling was the reason they fell over.

[jarv]

This is doing my head in.  I have not been well for a few days so in simple terms, my question is...How many points have we lost due to var (and maybe how many gained)..

[alfie]

This is doing my head in.  I have not been well for a few days so in simple terms, my question is...How many points have we lost due to var (and maybe how many gained)..

We don't know if we would have lost or gained points, if for example Kings goal was given, we could still have gone on to lose,

[Logicalman]

.......

......

I agree the table takes a bit of working out - in part, I suspect, because it's not familiar to us.

What it does not indicate, however, is that the KMI panel have identified 4 incorrect decisions, each of which has resulted in a goal either being wrongly taken away from us or wrongly awarded against us.

It does show we have had four more VAR decisions go against us than in our favour and that, overall, we've been disadvantaged by 4 goals - either goals for us that VAR ruled out, or goals we conceded due to the intervention of VAR. (Of these, the Key Match-Incidents Panel have identified only one instance of VAR intervening incorrectly to change an on-field decision: Josh King at Chelsea.)

It also tells us 2 penalties have been awarded against us after VAR has sent the referee to the monitor. (If converted, these are not an addition to our 4-goal deficit; they are part of it.)

How many times VAR has intervened in our matches cannot be determined from the table.

The 2 additional incidents - one of which would have gone in our favour and the other against us - indicate the KMI Panel deemed the referee to have made a mistake which, nonetheless, did not meet the 'clear and obvious' marker to merit the involvement of VAR.

I presume the statistics are accurate; I certainly wouldn't trust myself to recall every instance VAR has seen fit to change an on-field decision this season.

-----

I would agree 100% with this assessment, thank you Arthur!

[Colton F.C.]

This is doing my head in.  I have not been well for a few days so in simple terms, my question is...How many points have we lost due to var (and maybe how many gained)..

We don't know if we would have lost or gained points, if for example Kings goal was given, we could still have gone on to lose,

I think you will find that in the MOTD programe following the King outrage the panel (Danny and a knowledgeable female player) agrree that the King goal should have stood.  They then went on to state that the two goals scored by the other team should have been disallowed.  In the first there was clear pushing at a corner and in the second the Sessegnon 'handball' infringement should not have stood. 

Therefore no penalty, three VAR errors and three dropped points.

[alfie]

This is doing my head in.  I have not been well for a few days so in simple terms, my question is...How many points have we lost due to var (and maybe how many gained)..

We don't know if we would have lost or gained points, if for example Kings goal was given, we could still have gone on to lose,

I think you will find that in the MOTD programe following the King outrage the panel (Danny and a knowledgeable female player) agrree that the King goal should have stood.  They then went on to state that the two goals scored by the other team should have been disallowed.  In the first there was clear pushing at a corner and in the second the Sessegnon 'handball' infringement should not have stood. 

Therefore no penalty, three VAR errors and three dropped points.

So the king goal stands, they may have gone on to score more who knows, we may have gone on to score more. You cannot say that we would have won or lost.

I guess if you think that then that's fine, I'm not going to argue.

[Arthur]

However, the whole discussion is slightly flawed for several reasons:

However flawed this discussion may be, it is, in my opinion, rather less flawed than the vast majority of discussions that take place around VAR and referees on this forum.

Firstly, the reasons you subsequently gave are not specific to this discussion; you could post them in any thread about VAR.

Secondly, almost every other discussion relating to the impact of VAR is essentially a uncalibrated list of each individual's perceived errors. In other words, if someone believes a particular intervention or non-intervention by VAR to have been a mistake and another person thinks differently, it is one person's opinion against another's with, typically, no yardstick against which to assess who is correct.

In this instance, however, we have a yardstick. Via the Key Match-Incidents Panel - as independent and as knowledgeable a body as there currently is - there is now a 'line in the sand' which separates the incorrect from the correct. In other threads, each person has drawn this line wherever it has suited them - hardly a flawless way to conduct an examination of VAR.

[Arthur]

I used to know what a hand ball and offside were, not any more.

The rules may have been easier to understand but this doesn't necessarily make them fairer or improve football as a spectacle.

For example, when I started going to games, this goal (as you must know) would have been disallowed:



Wilson's wonderful touch and rifled finish, for what proved to be the winning goal, would have been ruled out due to a team-mate who neither impeded nor impacted the opposition's ability to prevent the ball finding the back of the net.

Now, you may tell me you would prefer to see Wilson's strike chalked off - that you would rather have an offside law that makes no allowances for a player in an offside position. Not me. I go to games for the excitement of seeing us score and win. It would be no consolation to have that joy taken away from me just to be be able to say that I find it dead easy to tell when a player is offside. If the offside law needs a caveat-or-three written into it to make football more thrilling and not burst my bubble for no good reason, then so be it.

[Thailand Mick]

I used to know what a hand ball and offside were, not any more.

The rules may have been easier to understand but this doesn't necessarily make them fairer or improve football as a spectacle.

For example, when I started going to games, this goal (as you must know) would have been disallowed:



Wilson's wonderful touch and rifled finish, for what proved to be the winning goal, would have been ruled out due to a team-mate who neither impeded nor impacted the opposition's ability to prevent the ball finding the back of the net.

Now, you may tell me you would prefer to see Wilson's strike chalked off - that you would rather have an offside law that makes no allowances for a player in an offside position. Not me. I go to games for the excitement of seeing us score and win. It would be no consolation to have that joy taken away from me just to be be able to say that I find it dead easy to tell when a player is offside. If the offside law needs a caveat-or-three written into it to make football more thrilling and not burst my bubble for no good reason, then so be it.

you're right it's about opinions, for me I would have no complaints about Raul being given offside as he originally tried to gain an advantage and we don't know if that affected the defenders reason for holding a higher line but then I don't want to see Chuck given offside for a toe so I think you can even out the lost goals by allowing a greater tolerance on the distance but anyone involved in an offside goal is deemed interfering irrespective of which phase it was.