VAR... ha ha ha

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Rogue Baboon"]Willian brings his legs together, buckles his legs and drags his feet looking for contact.

If the ref says he saw the contact but deems Willian has gone looking for it than it’s hard to argue against him[/quote]

The thing that annoys me the most is the way the pundits all start with the "he''s entitled to go down" nonsense.  The first instinct of Willans was to go down - he was looking for it and made a conscious effort to catch Klose''s leg - and that is cheating.   The commentators and on the radio this morning are bleating "there was contact" "there was contact, wa wa" but that is just so ridiciculous when the player could have just carried on running.  Yes, he had to jump over the tackle - yes Maratz had a hand on his shoulder - but he too just thought great, he touched me I''ll throw myself to the floor. Both dives and both cheating.  The Pedro theatricals was really the worst one and was rightly condemned - but only because he wasn''t touched - but they were all dives and treated rightly.  It was a breath of fresh air to see the cheating dealt with properly - and if that was because of VAR then that can be only good.  It would need all referees to buy into the same attitude as last night''s referee, but one can only hope the tide is turning gainst cheating.  It would be about time!

 

[Making Plans 936]

[quote user="Rogue Baboon"]The BBC have posted the clip from all angles including a slo-mo with the caption saying Shearer thinks VAR is a shambles.

Literally everybody other than Chelsea fans seem to think Willian was already well on his way down before the contact, which suggests VAR actually worked perfectly[/quote]The clue is in how he fell. Normally you would fall flat on your face/stomach but as he had already decided to go down he managed to roll over and land on his side. It was a dive but the contact was caused by him, not Klose

[SwindonCanary 455]

The Ref at the ground said it was not a penalty and the Ref at VAR agreed with him.Murphy broke the off-side trap by the half way line, the linesman''s flag went up and play was stopped. On replays he was onside VAR does not help in these situations  

[TCCANARY 263]

"Mike Riley has said that while Video Assistant Referees

are not intended to make refereeing decisions 100% accurate, the game’s

newest technological innovation will be viewed positively if it leads

to a 2% reduction in errors by officials."Riley said that refs get 96% of decisions correct so with VAR they expect it to go up to 98%.I think the ref''s mindset was influenced by the initial dive for a penalty that wasn''t and the subsequent decisions he gave the benfit of doubt to the defenders.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="SwindonCanary"]The Ref at the ground said it was not a penalty and the Ref at VAR agreed with him.Murphy broke the off-side trap by the half way line, the linesman''s flag went up and play was stopped. On replays he was onside VAR does not help in these situations   [/quote]Agreed, and maybe a referee needs to play the advantage to the ''offside'' attacker by not blowing immediately (if the decision is clearly marginal) , similarly to how the ref would handle a foul currently.  Play is allowed to continue for a few seconds, and if a goal is scored then the ref consults VAR, and if it was offside then the ref restarts where the offside was committed. If no goal is scored the ref simply adheres to the earlier offside decision but with no reference to VAR.   

[Guest]

I honestly think if it had been at the other end we would have been claiming we were robbed. That is my opinion. Which of course is the area where any VAR will and has fallen down.

We have opinions that Willian dived because both feet were off the ground, that he initiated the contact etc. They are all valid points.

The referee we assume, asked for VAR because he was being hounded by Chelsea players. Because initially he blew his whistle, pointed for a free kick to us and took out his yellow card and strode towards Willian and booked him.

That leads me to assume he had made up his mind immediately. However under the barrage of Chelsea pleas he obviously wilted slightly and turned to VAR.

I assume he asked, having already made up his mind, whether there was clear evidence to change his decision.

And again I assume the VAR assistant was fifty fifty. Therefore there was no clear evidence.

Yet the pundits in the studio, telling us that they were all ex professional footballers, agreed to a man it was a penalty.

I am reasonably happy about the goal line technology. It is almost instant and doesn''t involve both teams surrounding the ref pleading their case.

But VAR is going to get very messy unless we adopt all the methods of Rugby Union.

You do not go near a ref, You do not touch a ref. If you argue with a decision you get marched ten yards back.

The referee makes a decision and asks the question of VAR in a pointed way so his decision is not undermined but clarified.

The players run the game off the pitch with their demands and now they will be trying to run it on the pitch. They will be demanding checking a controversial throw in that took place three minutes before a goal was scored.

If it is to be used, so that there can be less errors, as supporters of it claim, then its scope has to be narrowed to one or two areas and only the ref or his assistants allowed to call for it.

[paul moy 235]

The referee''s position was behind Willian, and when I saw his view on replay I knew straight away from the position of Willian''s feet together for lift off that it was obviously a dive.  The pundits, who did not impress me at all, seemed only interested in the view facing Willian so inevitably came to the wrong decision.

[Hairy Canary 668]

Rather than VAR ending up giving more penalties I''m hoping it will expose more of the cheating.

Three players booked for diving by the same team in the same game. Surely that has never happened before?That''s disgusting Chelsea and if the PL had any balls they would be fined.

Amazing that the pundits are still wittering on about whether a penalty should have been awarded or not and missing the far more important point that one team was resorting to unprecedented levels of cheating. This is a chance to make a clear statement of intent against diving but don''t hold your breath.

[AJ 1,218]

Re: players entitled to go down. Definitely my biggest gripe in the modern game along with the idea players have to go to ground to have been fouled in the box. A foul is a foul wherever it is on the pitch. Nice to see a confident ref sticking to his guns last night. Thought he was excellent

[Crabbycanary3 994]

VAR WILL make a positive difference MP. It won''t be foolproof, but it certainly will improve things, and expose (change?) one or two cheats, and also help Refs. You are totally missing the point of it, if you think it is useless, and offers nothing.

[Ray 111]

Whilst I am delighted with the non award of the penalty, I am quite certain we got away with one there. I''m steering clear of the VAR process myself, however Graham Poll says as follows;

What a shambles. On Tuesday at Leicester I heaped praise on the video referee.

After Wednesday''s game I’m baffled. When Norwich defender Timm Klose brought down Willian in the box in extra time, I can understand Graham Scott not seeing any contact. I can understand him thinking the Chelsea forward dived – but that’s why we have the technology.

Video referee Mike Jones should have said, ‘No, there’s contact, it’s a trip. It’s a penalty.’

The video referee has said it is not clear and obvious. What is then? A rugby tackle? At the very least, Jones has to tell Scott to go to the video screen at the side of the pitch so he can see a replay for himself.

There were also two red cards for Chelsea in extra time, and both were correct.

I know we wear yellow and green specs but I didn''t see a dive by Willian and the pics I have seen this morning haven''t changed my mind. IMO, it was a pen and we got away with it, great. Pedro and Morata got what they deserved, Willian did not and that opinion is ratified by the ex-player pundits on the night and the ex ref Mr Poll, which all counts for bugger all of course, but I''m as certain as I can be, had it been the other way round we would all be up in arms.

[Hairy Canary 668]

Agree with much of the Ray but the point is that different people have watched the video and formed different opinions of the incident.

That being the case surely it would totally undermine the referees authority if the VAR''s opinion took precedence over that of the Ref on the pitch?

[Making Plans 936]

[quote user="Crabbycanary3"]VAR WILL make a positive difference MP. It won''t be foolproof, but it certainly will improve things, and expose (change?) one or two cheats, and also help Refs. You are totally missing the point of it, if you think it is useless, and offers nothing.[/quote]We will see in the fullness of time.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Crabbycanary3"]VAR WILL make a positive difference MP. It won''t be foolproof, but it certainly will improve things, and expose (change?) one or two cheats, and also help Refs. You are totally missing the point of it, if you think it is useless, and offers nothing.[/quote]No it will just over excite the not too bright.We have seen the Morata penalty claim umpteen times and still opinions are divided. So all this would become, is the decision being passed to another subjective opinion.The decisions should rest with the referee.In a highly charged match City only has one booking (Maddison) despit the grappling efforts of a few City players. The refereee exercised his judgement and possibly decided that Maddison was ''falling down'' too often so a booking might be the answer.Over riding the referees authority will cause far more problems than ever it seeks to solve.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

I actually agree with your last line Ray, but that is because it is the current trend.

Just because the pundits and Poll, say it was a penalty, doesn''t mean they are right. It just means they have been brainwashed, into thinking that any contact is a foul. The reason there was contact was because Willian drew the contact.

Hopefully this is the start of a sea change in this thinking, and that we happened to be the first beneficiaries of this. History has been made!

[Jim Smith 2,314]

I think last nights game showed a couple of things about VAR, namely:

1. There needs to be some careful parameters for when it is or is not used. Decisions such as the Willian one are subjective and i think it would set a really dangerous precedent if the VAR could jump in and undermine the ref on the field. I suspect there is already some kind of tacit agreement between refs that they are not going to make each other look like t**ts through the VAR officials undermining their on field colleagues. If the VAR official steps in on a decision such as the Willian one the frankly they will have to step on 25 times a game where there are challenges that are borderline fouls.

2. One of the perhaps pleasant consequences for clubs like ours may be that big clubs get less of the soft penalties or "homer" decisions that they have been used to getting as refs will be more prepared to punish diving knowing they can get their decision checked at the time. The VAR official is also not likely to be influenced by the crowd.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

You are right, to a point, Hercules, but time, and the game, has moved on, and the Referees haven''t (can''t). This is a combination of their (Refs) bosses) and their own physical limitations, when you are trying to ask them to keep speed with the athletes of the modern era.

VAR will definitely help certain things, and help the Ref''s get more decisions correct, and stop a certain amount of vilification of them

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="Ray"]Whilst I am delighted with the non award of the penalty, I am quite certain we got away with one there. I''m steering clear of the VAR process myself, however Graham Poll says as follows;

What a shambles. On Tuesday at Leicester I heaped praise on the video referee.

After Wednesday''s game I’m baffled. When Norwich defender Timm Klose brought down Willian in the box in extra time, I can understand Graham Scott not seeing any contact. I can understand him thinking the Chelsea forward dived – but that’s why we have the technology.

Video referee Mike Jones should have said, ‘No, there’s contact, it’s a trip. It’s a penalty.’

The video referee has said it is not clear and obvious. What is then? A rugby tackle? At the very least, Jones has to tell Scott to go to the video screen at the side of the pitch so he can see a replay for himself.

There were also two red cards for Chelsea in extra time, and both were correct.

I know we wear yellow and green specs but I didn''t see a dive by Willian and the pics I have seen this morning haven''t changed my mind. IMO, it was a pen and we got away with it, great. Pedro and Morata got what they deserved, Willian did not and that opinion is ratified by the ex-player pundits on the night and the ex ref Mr Poll, which all counts for bugger all of course, but I''m as certain as I can be, had it been the other way round we would all be up in arms.[/quote]

Surely it all depends on what the VAR ref was being asked to look at and without seeinga transcript of the discussion then its very difficult for anyone to comment. In rugby, the question the VAR official is being asked to answer is often crucial (e.g. is there any reason I can;t award this?)

If the refs view was that there has been contact but Willian was already diving the you can quite clearly see why the VAR official would not be in a position to suggesta reversal because that is not obviously wrong.

If the ref has said that he does not believe there was any contact at all then clearly the VAR official should be alerting him to the fact that is not the case and suggesting he takes a second look at it on the monitor.

[ricardo 7,345]

Don''t know how you can come to that conclusion Ray. The view from behind shows a clear dive. Both feet off the floor and going down before he was anywhere near Tim''s leg. The ref was perfectly positioned to see it and was brave enough to call it.

Having said that, of course we would have moaned had it been the other way.

[Bill 1,788]

What then if the VAR had said it WAS a penalty ?This goes to the nub of the problem, and put further pressure on referees to refer more back.Idiocy, if only that it would extend games further and lead to stop start games.How would you then deal with (9.999of games where it was not available  ?

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Hercules"]What then if the VAR had said it WAS a penalty ?This goes to the nub of the problem, and put further pressure on referees to refer more back.Idiocy, if only that it would extend games further and lead to stop start games.How would you then deal with (9.999of games where it was not available  ?[/quote]The referee''s decision overrides VAR, and the referee last night knew in his own mind it was not a penalty, as he had the perfect view to see a dive.

[Woodman 92]

VAR or not, the best way to eliminate the cheating is a straight red. Pedro would have been off during normal time and who knows what would have happened.

If you do that, I''d be happy for there to be an appeal process AFTER the game to rescind the red, but it would very quickly cut cheating out of the game.

Sadly, refs need more help because of the deceptiveness of players - like Willian, who drew contact from Klose and was expecting a penalty to be given. I suspect he and they will get more if they continue to play that way.

[Bill 1,788]

Yes, but that raises the question of the referee being ''over ruled, ie the opinions differ. At the moment any televised replay can be dismissed as hindsight.it also raise the question of what happens in between a controversial decision and AR being acted upon, as the ball needs to be out of play.What happens if that ''out of play'' is a goal for the other side ?

[Jim Smith 2,314]

My understanding is that if the VAR official thinks a mistake has been made then they notify the ref and suggest he takes a second look at it on the pitchside monitor. It is then for the on field ref to decide if he wants to change his decision.

So the VAR cannot award the penalty, all they can do is suggest to the ref that they think a mistake has been made and suggest he has another look

[Ray 111]

In reply to a few points raised.

I''m not so sure both feet were off the ground when Klose went in (as opposed to making contact) but that is as good as irrelevant as Klose caught the leading leg and when you are running both feet do leave the ground, hence why road walking requires one foot to appear to be in contact with the ground at all times, so, whether or not both feet were off the ground is of little consequence.

As to whether the VAR should take precedence over the ref, perhaps not, but it works that way in cricket. If we are going to have VAR then surely it should be there to iron out any injustices, otherwise what is the point, on this occasion my own feelings are that the ref should have been advised to take a pitch side view (which he may have been of course?), then he can overrule himself, or not as the case may be, this does away with the argument that the refs are being overruled. If the ref then makes a decision the nation can see is wrong then I guess the assessor will have something to say.

[ricardo 7,345]

It was not a case of feet off the floor as in running. I thought it was a pen at first instance but the refs view from behind clearly showed it to be initiated by Willian himself and not Tim.

[Ray 111]

Don''t agree with that sentiment Ricardo, perhaps we need our own VAR!?!?

My reasons for my opinion, Klose did not make contact with the ball and his leg went across the path of Willian. Could Willian have vaulted Klose''s outstretched leg, possibly, does he have to, no. Why should he, if he vaults his is now out of his stride and his next touch will not have been the one he would have taken, which may have resulted in a goal.

Surely it is not the responsibility of the attacker to take action so the defender gets away with a foul/penalty, it must be the responsibility of the defender to defend in such a way that he avoids giving away penalties.

I accept that the ref''s view could have produced a different opinion and before VAR I would have said "So be it" but if VAR is only there to look at things from the ref''s view position then I say again, "Why bother?"

Of course I''m glad it went the way it did, but can you imagine the outrage on here if it been the other way round?

[Jim Smith 2,314]

Ray - VAR is there to look for and correct obvious mistakes.

As I have said above the key question is what was the video ref being asked to check. If the ref said to him that he knows there was some contact but he felt that Willian played for it then the process and decision are fine. The point is debatable but its a subjective decision and you have to go with the ref on the fields initial decision because there is no obvious mistake.

If the ref indciated in conversations with the VAR that he didn;t think there was any contact between the players then the VAR should have corrected him and suggested he take another look on the touchline monitor because he was clearly mistaken in that belief.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Ray"]Don''t agree with that sentiment Ricardo, perhaps we need our own VAR!?!?

My reasons for my opinion, Klose did not make contact with the ball and his leg went across the path of Willian. Could Willian have vaulted Klose''s outstretched leg, possibly, does he have to, no. Why should he, if he vaults his is now out of his stride and his next touch will not have been the one he would have taken, which may have resulted in a goal.

Surely it is not the responsibility of the attacker to take action so the defender gets away with a foul/penalty, it must be the responsibility of the defender to defend in such a way that he avoids giving away penalties.

I accept that the ref''s view could have produced a different opinion and before VAR I would have said "So be it" but if VAR is only there to look at things from the ref''s view position then I say again, "Why bother?"

Of course I''m glad it went the way it did, but can you imagine the outrage on here if it been the other way round?[/quote]It is far better to have it with the potential to rectify obvious errors, such as the ''offside'' Leicester goal earlier in the week, and offsides such as the Murphy one last night, which was not offside, but the ref had blown, so an opportunity to play on for a few seconds and maybe to see a valid goal scored was missed. Thus, teething problems need ironing out but there will clearly be an overall benefit in getting more decisions right, and cutting out the cheating and such things as erroneous issuing of red or yellow cards.   Referees have to learn not to be too quick with the whistle, or to issue a red or yellow card, and this will take time in order to work out the intricacies of utilising VAR to maximum potential for the benefit of the game.

 

[Ray 111]

Jim,

In essence I agree with what you have said, maybe the system is flawed, albeit in its infancy. Maybe adopt another of the cricket rules, insomuch each on field captain has, let''s say 5 seconds to call for the ref to take a pitch side view, and limit the number of times they can call for it to say two per half. If the call is correct then they keep their two calls.

One thing for sure, is like all things in football it will be debated and debated and ....