VAR tonight

[Well b back 3,190]

Ridiculous 

Saha pushes a Southampton player in the face no red card ( apparently he didn’t do it very hard - didn’t think that mattered )

David Luiz genuine attempt to get ball, penalty given, double jeopardy rule should apply, but VAR decide they won’t bother with that rule and send him off.

Henderson moves miles before Man City penalty, but VAR can’t look at that, yet they can look at a millimetre of somebodies toe encroaching.

Tyrone Mings already booked and commits a deliberate handball. Would have been a second yellow but VAR not allowed to intervene unless it’s a straight red.

What is the point.

[Branston Pickle 3,634]

The Henderson thing was so blatant, he was miles off his line and plain to see.  How can we supposedly go to the mm on encroachment (Aarons, where his foot was just touching the line) on the one hand, to this, is a joke.

[Indy 3,283]

Not to mention the very late studs up challenge by Sheffield player not reviewed as a yellow card was given at the time,  pretty similar to Godfrey challenge, no consistency at all.

[The Real Buh 3,423]

Legal challenges soon. It’s the only way.

[Well b back 3,190]

21 minutes ago, Indy said:

Not to mention the very late studs up challenge by Sheffield player not reviewed as a yellow card was given at the time,  pretty similar to Godfrey challenge, no consistency at all.

Missed that one. Were VAR actually saying couldn’t be reviewed as the ref had already given a yellow ?

[Indy 3,283]

10 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Missed that one. Were VAR actually saying couldn’t be reviewed as the ref had already given a yellow ?

Nope but it appeared to not be reviewed to the same criteria as it was late studs up and in the same manner as Godfrey challenge. But at least should have been looked at by the ref again in my opinion 

[Well b back 3,190]

22 minutes ago, Indy said:

Nope but it appeared to not be reviewed to the same criteria as it was late studs up and in the same manner as Godfrey challenge. But at least should have been looked at by the ref again in my opinion 

It’s just so inconsistent. 

[Nuff Said 5,089]

The thing is if it’s right (as I think most of us would admit it was for Godfrey) some of the time, the comeback will be “would you prefer it if there were more inaccurate decisions? At least some are corrected.”

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

Lets be honest there needs to be a change, the word inconsistent to cheating.

 

 

 

[SwindonCanary 455]

Let's face it, VAR is a great idea,  but is being used incorrectly !

[Mason 47 1,373]

It's not going to settle down until they change how it is being used. Having looked at the Henderson thing, you don't even need VAR to see it and yet as others have mentioned we've been subject to the most absurd forensic decisions; either it's the letter of the law all the time or decisions are taken with a bit of contextual sense. It's unbalanced any other way.

Fun fact if I heard correctly on commentary tonight, Carrow Road was the first ground in England to see a red card overturned (Basham, Sheffield Utd) and also saw the first time the pitchside monitor was used to make a decision in a PL game (Godfrey sending off).

Aren't we lucky 

[Well b back 3,190]

2 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

The thing is if it’s right (as I think most of us would admit it was for Godfrey) some of the time, the comeback will be “would you prefer it if there were more inaccurate decisions? At least some are corrected.”

With respect I have no beef with Godfrey being sent off, until you see the Sheffield player not even referred. You have to then ask was Godfrey incorrect or was the Sheffield player incorrect ?. It seems every time there is a bad decision or a new way of doing it it’s us or Man City. 
How the heck Saha was not sent off is laughable, apparently he only pushed him in the face gently. The 2 clear and obvious errors tonight ( which we were told VAR was for ), Mings handball and Henderson’s movement off his line were outside the remit of VAR despite them being clear and obvious errors.

[hogesar 9,618]

It's an absolute joke, farce, whatever you want to call it.

[JF 694]

The challenge by Belic would have been checked because everything is checked. It was obviously quickly decided that the ref got it right so there was no prolonged check to hold the game up. Yellow card was the correct decision in my opinion 

[Nuff Said 5,089]

13 hours ago, Well b back said:

With respect I have no beef with Godfrey being sent off, until you see the Sheffield player not even referred. You have to then ask was Godfrey incorrect or was the Sheffield player incorrect ?. It seems every time there is a bad decision or a new way of doing it it’s us or Man City. 
How the heck Saha was not sent off is laughable, apparently he only pushed him in the face gently. The 2 clear and obvious errors tonight ( which we were told VAR was for ), Mings handball and Henderson’s movement off his line were outside the remit of VAR despite them being clear and obvious errors.

So you would prefer three wrong decisions instead of two? I completely understand how you feel, it’s all part of the “big clubs constantly get the favourable decisions” theme, but the argument has to be that things are improving, even if not consistently.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Nuff Said

[lincsy88 95]

I firmly believe VAR has been bought in to help out the 'bigger' teams, they certainly seem to get the rub of the green on most decisions. The whole thing is a farce if you ask me and if we do get relegated the one thing I am looking forward to about being the championship is no VAR. 

[City 2nd 191]

13 hours ago, Indy said:

Nope but it appeared to not be reviewed to the same criteria as it was late studs up and in the same manner as Godfrey challenge. But at least should have been looked at by the ref again in my opinion 

If it had have been would definitely have been a red. I do not understand how VAR did not call it at all! So inconsistent.

[Yellow Wal 314]

Once again VAR proves that it still relies upon the opinion of somebody relating to various fouls or breaking of the rules. 

It was far better when only one opinion mattered, that of the referee in charge of the match. 

The referee is now given a second chance in case he **** something up. (Players aren't!)

The correctness of decisions made determines the good referees from the bad and that is where it should end. We still get the same amount of discussion about decisions as we always did and we always will because they are always based on opinion.

The only technology that has been 100% accepted is goal line technology simply because that is not about opinion. And that is where it should end.

VAR has, nevertheless, achieved its aim. The referees on the day get less criticism now than they ever have because all the 'blame' belongs to VAR!

We must look after referees, how ever much it costs and how ever much it ruins the game!

[Indy 3,283]

2 hours ago, City 2nd said:

If it had have been would definitely have been a red. I do not understand how VAR did not call it at all! So inconsistent.

All the independent reports have all leaned towards it should have been a red.

It was late, it was studs lunging and potentially an ankle breaking tackle.

My issue is both tackles were similar, both seen by the ref at the time both yellow cards issued at the time. The official watching VAR made the call for the ref to review the Godfrey challenge yet the official watching the Sheffield match chose not too......had the same guy reviewed it would he called for both to be reviewed by doing so he’s inviting pressure on the ref to give a red, as he must believe it warranted a red to ask the ref to review it!

Its a shambles and should be scrapped.

[Grando 260]

I still wonder whether some sort of number cap on the referrals - and allowing the manager's to decide - like in cricket or tennis, might be the way to go? If you had two challenges say (you'd keep one you'd used if it proved correct), then you'd have to be prudent and not risk losing them on every ridiculous half-chance of a penalty. And you wouldn't refer and check an obvious goal like ours on Saturday, if you had any sense.

It wouldn't be any worse a system, at any rate.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

35 minutes ago, Indy said:

All the independent reports have all leaned towards it should have been a red.

It was late, it was studs lunging and potentially an ankle breaking tackle.

My issue is both tackles were similar, both seen by the ref at the time both yellow cards issued at the time. The official watching VAR made the call for the ref to review the Godfrey challenge yet the official watching the Sheffield match chose not too......had the same guy reviewed it would he called for both to be reviewed by doing so he’s inviting pressure on the ref to give a red, as he must believe it warranted a red to ask the ref to review it!

Its a shambles and should be scrapped.

If it was the VAR official watching the game. But maybe it was someone else. It's not.passed me by that in the case of Godfrey and Aubameyang the offense took place near the fourth official. I would be disappointed to find out there are different rules for different sides of the pitch. Especially as the fourth official is subject to managers in his ear during such incidents.

[Indy 3,283]

17 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

If it was the VAR official watching the game. But maybe it was someone else. It's not.passed me by that in the case of Godfrey and Aubameyang the offense took place near the fourth official. I would be disappointed to find out there are different rules for different sides of the pitch. Especially as the fourth official is subject to managers in his ear during such incidents.

Who knows nutty I just can’t see how one is reviewed and the other not so, surely if the ref sees it as a yellow he has assessed the event made his mind up he doesn’t see it as a red card so no Clear and Obvious mistake, his decision has been made....if he didn’t see the challenge then fine review it on the monitor.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I doubt it's coincidence Indy. 

[sgncfc 1,221]

17 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

Let's face it, VAR is a great idea,  but is being used incorrectly !

Disagree - VAR is not a great idea. If it is used as intended - so that EVERY decision of note is the correct one, it sterilises the game and robs us of those moments we go to games to see, which are usually at least contributed to by the human error of the referees and assistants. We may as well watch two teams of evenly matched robots in different coloured shirts. 

Just imagine - No England World Cup win in 1966; no "Hand of God" in 1986; No "did it cross the line" v Germany; No Thierry Henry handball for France against Ireland in the playoff; no Simeon Jackson winner against Derby. You really want all those moments to never happen again? So we have nothing to talk about? No disagreements? 

I hate it with a passion. 

 

 

[lake district canary 4,531]

3 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

 it sterilises the game

This^^^.  Technology is being allowed to take over in so many walks of life, often to the detriment of spontaneity and creativity. 

And VAR is just another play thing of those in power....a bit like HSD......hard to find anyone that really wants it, hardly anyone thinks it will make things better, but we're going to get it anyway, at a big cost and despite the opposition to it. 

 

[hogesar 9,618]

Anyone who has been to games cannot possibly think VAR is a good thing. As said above, completely ruins football.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

19 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

This^^^.  Technology is being allowed to take over in so many walks of life, often to the detriment of spontaneity and creativity. 

And VAR is just another play thing of those in power....a bit like HSD......hard to find anyone that really wants it, hardly anyone thinks it will make things better, but we're going to get it anyway, at a big cost and despite the opposition to it. 

 

Indeed Lakey. And in an environment where money is King the more people involved in decisions increases the opportunity for corruption.

[Yellow Wal 314]

1 hour ago, Grando said:

I still wonder whether some sort of number cap on the referrals - and allowing the manager's to decide - like in cricket or tennis, might be the way to go? If you had two challenges say (you'd keep one you'd used if it proved correct), then you'd have to be prudent and not risk losing them on every ridiculous half-chance of a penalty. And you wouldn't refer and check an obvious goal like ours on Saturday, if you had any sense.

It wouldn't be any worse a system, at any rate.

But remember the decisions after a referral in both cricket and tennis rely solely upon fact.

In tennis the ball is either in or out and with cricket there is no question other than that which can be proven decisively.

Unfortunately VAR is not so decisive and often relies upon someone's opinion .......... and that is the reason it will never work!

[Grando 260]

4 hours ago, Yellow Wal said:

But remember the decisions after a referral in both cricket and tennis rely solely upon fact.

In tennis the ball is either in or out and with cricket there is no question other than that which can be proven decisively.

Unfortunately VAR is not so decisive and often relies upon someone's opinion .......... and that is the reason it will never work!

Fair point!

[nutty nigel 7,509]

What area of the pitch was the Cantwell tackle that went to a review?