More VAR rubbish

[Making Plans 936]

Don't know if anyone was watching Chelsea v Spurs.

So Spurs player makes an horendous red card tackle which is reffered to VAR.

Everyone says it's a red, no question.

VAR says NO because.......................................................he had nowhere else to put his foot (FFS)

Now after the game VAR have changed their mind and now say it is a red card tackle

It gets worse every week

[ricardo 7,343]

The clearest red you will ever see, it could have snapped his leg in half. Unbelievable that  VAR missed it.

[carrowman 1]

Big decision that could affect us, a 3 game ban would rule him out of cup game, another player less for Spurs would be good.

[Surfer 1,547]

VAR refs obviously have it in for Frank Lampard’s Chelsea this month. Out turn tomorrow I’m sure. 

[TIL 1010 4,721]

Beyond a joke !

I thought VAR was supposed to eliminate human error ?

[Nuff Said 5,089]

35 minutes ago, Making Plans said:

Don't know if anyone was watching Chelsea v Spurs.

So Spurs player makes an horendous red card tackle which is reffered to VAR.

Everyone says it's a red, no question.

VAR says NO because.......................................................he had nowhere else to put his foot (FFS)

Now after the game VAR have changed their mind and now say it is a red card tackle

It gets worse every week

This has become a farce now. Refs never comment on their decisions post-match. Why has this been done now, and what happened in the meantime to change their mind? Did someone from PGMOL tell them to say it to try and head off the outcry?

 

I can’t see anyone (including Spurs fans) on the BBC live feed who doesn’t think it was a red card.

[Hillhead 114]

38 minutes ago, ricardo said:

The clearest red you will ever see, it could have snapped his leg in half. Unbelievable that  VAR missed it.

This.

Can’t believe how long the referee in the BT studio tried to defend it for either. At what point he realised actually saying the right thing and looking out for player safety might be the best option vs just blindly attempting to stand up for refereeI don’t know ... but it took way too long. 

for as long as we have human making subjective decisions and cameras they only run at 50 FPS the controversy will never go away.

[Surfer 1,547]

So what happened to the on-pitch ref reviewing the tackle on his monitor? Or is that only for us? 

[Indy 3,283]

Just seen it! So was it Harry Kane in the VAR chair? If that’s not a red then we might as well go back to 1970’s tackling!

[The Real Buh 3,423]

1. Mike Riley needs to go now, not at the end of the season, now.

2. Full investigation into how VAR was so poorly used this season

3. separate open investigation into corruption within the PGMOL 

4. Root and Stem reform of referee training. The standards of our referees has literally never been worse.

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,131]

The VAR not offside call for the goal annoyed me more. Why was the line drawn a split second before the Chelsea player kicked the ball instead of when he actually touched it when it could be argued Giroud was offside by a hairs breadth. Ordinarily i wouldn't care, as it was the right call, but compare that to Pukki's disallowed goal. If you want to judge these calls by the letter of the law and if a player is offside by a mm fine, but who decides what exact moment the offside call is made.Is it when the ball is first touched or after it leaves the players foot? Is the technology advanced enough to detect the moment there is space between the passing players boot and the ball? If not there is significant margin for error there. 

 

I'm complaining about incredibly small margins and minute fractions of seconds here.But if the call was made a third of a second earlier on the Pukki goal he would have been level or onside. To me it always looked like the call was made for that goal a fraction too late, likewise the one today felt slightly too early. Is there a rule or guideline for this or is it really just up to some officials discretion? 

[Ian 1,129]

6 hours ago, Making Plans said:

Don't know if anyone was watching Chelsea v Spurs.

So Spurs player makes an horendous red card tackle which is reffered to VAR.

Everyone says it's a red, no question.

VAR says NO because.......................................................he had nowhere else to put his foot (FFS)

Now after the game VAR have changed their mind and now say it is a red card tackle

It gets worse every week

Was that really the reason given!? Fcking hell, this is getting absolutely ludicrous now.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

That was the most ridiculous one, but that game wasn't alone in producing ridiculous decisions today. Burnley v Bournemouth and Leicester v ManCity being two others with decisions by VAR that were just not fair.

[East Rider 548]

1 hour ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

The VAR not offside call for the goal annoyed me more. Why was the line drawn a split second before the Chelsea player kicked the ball instead of when he actually touched it when it could be argued Giroud was offside by a hairs breadth. Ordinarily i wouldn't care, as it was the right call, but compare that to Pukki's disallowed goal. If you want to judge these calls by the letter of the law and if a player is offside by a mm fine, but who decides what exact moment the offside call is made.Is it when the ball is first touched or after it leaves the players foot? Is the technology advanced enough to detect the moment there is space between the passing players boot and the ball? If not there is significant margin for error there. 

 

I'm complaining about incredibly small margins and minute fractions of seconds here.But if the call was made a third of a second earlier on the Pukki goal he would have been level or onside. To me it always looked like the call was made for that goal a fraction too late, likewise the one today felt slightly too early. Is there a rule or guideline for this or is it really just up to some officials discretion? 

 

Think we have seen that the call can be subjective and with that a goal can be offside when another VAR ref may have given the attacker the benefit. However, we were playing the media darlings when Pukki was put through onside so...……...

[Surfer 1,547]

Just have VAR review it and if they think it is offside / handball / foul play have them ask the on-field ref to take a second look on his pitch side monitor. Like happened at Carrow Road with Ben Godfrey. At least then we’d know who to be upset with, this remote refereeing lark is a joke. 

Edited February 22, 2020 by Surfer

[GenerationA47 747]

^ yep Surfer said it. Surely the best option now & always was

[Canary dwarf 221]

La celso disgraceful stamp which could have caused serious injury ,shocking that he didn't go ,var needs work .otbc

[Canary Wundaboy 1,358]

Just seen it on motd. Utterly indefensible. How Godfrey got sent off after a pitch side review but Le Celso stays on the pitch after that is just....it’s one rule for them, one for us. Absolute joke.

[lake district canary 4,531]

Not really complaining but Bournemouth were shafted by VAR good and proper. Unbelievable decisions. 

[Spillay 179]

And to think that Glenn Hoddle actually defended Le Celso saying "he had nowhere else to put his foot, its the right decision".. no bias to Spurs there Im sure....

[Nuff Said 5,089]

14 hours ago, Surfer said:

Just have VAR review it and if they think it is offside / handball / foul play have them ask the on-field ref to take a second look on his pitch side monitor. Like happened at Carrow Road with Ben Godfrey. At least then we’d know who to be upset with, this remote refereeing lark is a joke. 

This. A bit like umpire’s call in cricket - if the VAR official thinks the ref has it wrong, the ref should review it via the pitch side monitor while Stockley Park explain why they think it’s the incorrect decision. If the ref agrees with them, fine, if not, the original decision stands. Means the ref is always ultimately responsible.