VAR now encouraging diving

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

Another ludicrously, laughably embarrassing decision by those at Stockley Park during the Man City Saints game.

Foden gets back up after a challenge by McCarthy to try and continue the attack (and presumably assumes if nothing comes of it that VAR will rightly award a pen), attack comes to nothing and VAR decide no penalty. 

If you haven’t seen it, give it a watch and let me know what you think... McCarthy clearly takes Foden out, clear contact on his foot.

The fact Foden got straight back up seems to be the reason VAR didn’t then award the pen even though it was such a clear foul.

So the moral of the story to all young and aspiring footballers...if you get touched go down and make sure you stay down...whatever you do, don’t try and actually carry on playing football.

Everyone looking forward to (potentially) having to put up with all that nonsense again?

[alex_ncfc 648]

Ah so he "didn't accept the contact" then as Martin Tyler would say 🙄

I dread VAR - we were screwed over by it last time in games and we will be again.

[FenwayFrank 2,457]

It’s encouraging players to do a Lacazette, Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrggghhh !!!!!!!

[Mackrel829 21]

11 minutes ago, FenwayFrank said:

It’s encouraging players to do a Lacazette, Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrggghhh !!!!!!!

That was genuinely embarrassing. How you can be a grown man and behave like that is beyond me.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

No spectators has certainly enabled us to hear things we wouldn't normally.

Thats why it makes me laugh when commentators and pundits overuse the word brave.

Bert Trautmann was brave. Ken Nethercott was brave. This lot aint.

Edited March 10, 2021 by keelansgrandad

[dylanisabaddog 4,874]

The Foden incident was awful. How anyone can look at that and decide it wasn't a penalty is beyond me. The only real question was whether it was a red card or not. 

As others have said before, it's not the technology that's the problem, it's the people looking at the pictures. 

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

Yes to be clear about my OP, it’s not VAR that’s the problem, it’s the numpties watching the replays and still making the wrong decision that are the problem.

VAR did it’s job which is to show a replay, a replay of McCarthy clearly making contact with Fodens foot causing him to fall over in the penalty area. All the officials need to do is use their eyes to then make the correct decision.

What was more bizarre was Hinchcliffe on co commentary trying to back up the ridiculous decision the officials had made, claiming McCarthy doesn’t touch Foden!?

[Branston Pickle 3,638]

Don’t know if anyone saw Dortmund v Seville last night?  Var was used very well: Dortmund scored a goal which was disallowed by var for a push - but they also checked for a penalty in an earlier play, which was given.

It’s not var that is the problem, it is the complete idiots running (and ruining) it at Stockley Park.

[sgncfc 1,223]

Referees are a different breed of men. It happens in every sport and at every level. They see things others don't and miss things others see. Someone should probably ask why; sounds like a worthy PhD study.

[hogesar 9,618]

It makes me shudder at the thought of it. After so long away I'll just be delighted to be back at football so it probably won't seem so bad but I fully remember not being able to celebrate a goal properly. Pukki against Spurs just completely ruined it for me.

Now this one isn't getting as much attention as it should even though it is all over social media, simply because it didn't impact the result.

But its simply not good enough and every single person involved in the VAR room watching that should be sacked on the spot for incompetence. Its incomprehensible and mind numbingly painful to watch awful quality referees being 'helped' by a system which is then decided by even worse referees. 

I'm not close to a Man City fan. But that sort of decision makes me angry, because its the exact sort of thing you can see happening to us next season should we get promoted.

[horsefly 4,287]

9 hours ago, Fiery Zac said:

Another ludicrously, laughably embarrassing decision by those at Stockley Park during the Man City Saints game.

Foden gets back up after a challenge by McCarthy to try and continue the attack (and presumably assumes if nothing comes of it that VAR will rightly award a pen), attack comes to nothing and VAR decide no penalty. 

If you haven’t seen it, give it a watch and let me know what you think... McCarthy clearly takes Foden out, clear contact on his foot.

The fact Foden got straight back up seems to be the reason VAR didn’t then award the pen even though it was such a clear foul.

So the moral of the story to all young and aspiring footballers...if you get touched go down and make sure you stay down...whatever you do, don’t try and actually carry on playing football.

Everyone looking forward to (potentially) having to put up with all that nonsense again?

Spot on FZ! VAR could be used to benefit  the game but has so often been used to its detriment because of a weird understanding of VAR's nature that seems to infect its application in English football. This is an excellent example of how VAR could be used to encourage players to stay on their feet and avoid diving by ensuring that a player who has been genuinely fouled will have 2 opportunities to score (from continuing open play, and from a subsequent penalty if open play is not rewarded). At the moment players are "encouraged" to gamble on getting a penalty by diving or going down at the slightest touch; VAR could be used to render this gamble detrimental to the interests of the player/team concerned. 

I suspect what happened last night was an example of what I described as, " a weird understanding of VAR's nature that seems to infect its application in English football". The evidence suggests that the FA have been obsessively introducing more and more discreet criteria in the application of VAR in the belief that this will increase its accuracy and reduce its controversy. This is a totally wrong-headed understanding of how rules work. I would be very suprised if it were not the case last night that the VAR officials blindly applied a "rule/criteria" that said if a player continues his play despite being tripped he shall be deemed as not being fouled (or something like that). A similar thing has happened to the handball rule this season where a defender is punished by the ridiculous criteria that any contact with an arm is punished irrespective of its accidental nature or the fact that it offered no advantage to the defending team whatsoever. The fact is that the application of any rule can only be determined within the context of practice, and that application will always be determined by the goods of that practice that the rule has been introduced to achieve. I think that's why fans get so angry at the counter-intuitive nature of so many VAR decisions that are made which seem to destroy the very thing the rules are supposed to support (footballing excellence).

In short, there is no way out of the fact that the application of a rule will always require interpretation. VAR is nothing more and nothing less than an opportunity to watch an instant replay in slow motion. All it does is offer officials an opportunity to review the original decision made; it is a second opportunity to interpret the rule concerned, not an opportunity to absolve the officials of responsibility of making a decision. 

[canarydan23 4,060]

Who's going to be the first with the hot take that VAR officials are under a lot of pressure and people criticising them just don't understand and shouldn't be allowed near grassroots football?

That was a joke of a decision last night, but not in the least bit surprising. Letting refs and the PGMOL run VAR meant it was doomed from the start.

[Van wink 2,994]

One of the worst aspects of getting promotion, being unable to fully and spontaneosly celebrate a goal.

[Trevor Hockey's Beard 526]

It seems to me that VAR needs an equivalent of Cricket's "Umpire's Call", whereby a marginal decision is left with the referee's original decision, and where offside is decided using a "corridor of uncertainty" - so that a lot of the ridiculous decisions would not have been made.

As repeated endlessly, VAR was meant to help referee games, not ruin them. Maybe the people implementing VAR hate football - they certainly give that impression. 

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

9 minutes ago, Trevor Hockey's Beard said:

It seems to me that VAR needs an equivalent of Cricket's "Umpire's Call", whereby a marginal decision is left with the referee's original decision, and where offside is decided using a "corridor of uncertainty" - so that a lot of the ridiculous decisions would not have been made.

As repeated endlessly, VAR was meant to help referee games, not ruin them. Maybe the people implementing VAR hate football - they certainly give that impression. 

I agree with that for offside calls as there is simply no way of knowing definitively if someone is offside or not (with current technology being used).

But that doesn’t help with decisions like last night. A blindingly clear error from the referee then inexplicably backed up by those running VAR.

As was said earlier in the thread, this type of decision makes me angry because if that’s the level of officiating we’ve got to in the PL, then I dread next season, being robbed of more points like last season.

[Canary Wundaboy 1,358]

They can't decide what they want VAR to be. Is the point of VAR to get the right decision to the detriment of all else (see application of offside decisions), in which case it should have been a pen, clear as day. They seem to be trying to constantly reconcile the reality of VAR with also trying to protect the on-pitch ref, which is totally ****-about-face but what else would you expect from PGMOL in this country?

[Nuff Said 5,089]

2 hours ago, Trevor Hockey's Beard said:

It seems to me that VAR needs an equivalent of Cricket's "Umpire's Call", whereby a marginal decision is left with the referee's original decision, and where offside is decided using a "corridor of uncertainty" - so that a lot of the ridiculous decisions would not have been made.

As repeated endlessly, VAR was meant to help referee games, not ruin them. Maybe the people implementing VAR hate football - they certainly give that impression. 

I've seen this suggested so many times, and said it myself. It seems so blindingly obvious that this would go a very long way to resolving 95% of the problems that it's completely baffling why it isn't implemented.

[HazzaJet 252]

All the decisions should be reviewed by the on-pitch ref himself, not an extra official watching the game - if a decision is changed by VAR, it would have been the other way round if the VAR and on-pitch ref were in alternate roles. The manager should have 1-3 decisions (not sure how many exactly) that he wants reviewed through the game.

[horsefly 4,287]

In the case of off-side calls I would have all VAR decisions based on a maximum of 3 replays at normal speeds only, and with no lines on the screen. If they can't determine from that that the decision of the ref needs overturning then it falls within an acceptable margin of error and stands as originally called.

[Mason 47 1,373]

VAR should never make a decision for a ref, but we see it constantly. It's literally the embodiment of bad workmen blaming decent tools.

 Until the PGMOL is accountable to the public it will remain the same way.

[AJ 1,218]

Unfortunately this just confirms what has been the case for years, you don't get pens unless you go to ground. It absolutely shouldn't be that way, but sadly it is. A few log rolls and he'd have got a nailed on pen, guaranteed. 

[Foxy2600 297]

For the life of me I can't understand why an Offside Decision is based on the law, 'Gaining an advantage'. Yet a clear and obvious corner kick that the referee gives as a Goal Kick is apparently not worthy of VAR intervention. And Stockley Park is able to agonise over whether a glancing blow BALL hitting a defenders elbow when he's facing the wrong way but his arms are 'CONSIDERED' in an un-natural position (what like attached to the shoulders?).

If we go up we'll get screwed by VAR. Its all the betting companies that wanted it. The fans wanted goal line technology and impartial and competent officials. Like if Clattenburg or Dean have a bad game and clearly favour the opposition they are scrutinised by he FA and have a few weeks off in EFL2 to think about their conduct.

[Haus 259]

VAR could work for offside but you'd have to change the rules to accommodate the technology.  

For example - only the feet count for offside.  

A chip in the boot and one in the ball and its measurable. 

Its all way too vague for the technology to handle at the moment, technology only works when its black and white.

[Newtopia 517]

Sadly VAR has not worked like I hoped.   The issue with diving is that actually that needs to become an offence which is retrospectively reviewed by VAR and punished heavily.

The other problem is that contact is a interpreted differently in the penalty box than elsewhere on the pitch, and some players use this hugely to their advantage.  Harry Kane is the best I have seen, he is an absolute monster around most of the pitch physically competing for every ball.  Inside the area he will go over dramatically with the slightest contact, and with contact which when applied by him would be fine, but is a foul when done by the defender.

I was hoping it would just be used to cut out cheating and clear mistakes, sadly it has affected the momentum of the entire match, and made the game non contact inside the penalty area.  In defence of it, there are less incorrect decisions made, but I question whether it has improved the experience for those of us who watch and play football.  trying to explain to kids why contact punished with a penalty when it occurs in the penalty area, but absolutely fine, as long as it is reasonable amount, around the pitch is difficult.

[1902 1,167]

VAR was and always has been a consistently pointless addition to the game. Mainly because footballs rules are so subject to interpretation that human error can't be stripped out of it with a hundred replays. If you watch MOTD in the seasons before VAR, you will see hundreds of discussions about how technology would resolve errors, but also hundreds of discussions were pundits argue that "for me it's not a penalty" versus another arguing the contrary. This is despite being able to replay incidents over and over.

Honestly, one of the major issues was that it tried to replicate cricket and tennis. Two sports where the rules are less open to interpretation and far more clear cut. A catch is a catch, LBW is LBW (especially with Hawkeye), a serve is out or it is in. This denies the difference between the sports themselves. 

Rugby has a similar issue of perception to football, for example Scotland's red card against Wales looked harsh to me, just because despite contact with the head the Welsh player was in motion, and I couldn't see how a player could clear out a ruck and avoid that when already committed to a movement. The video referee disagreed with me, fair enough, but it highlights the problems of sports where two humans are in motion and in contact versus those that don't have this issue.

[The Real Buh 3,423]

The refs in this country

Aren't

Good

Enough

thats the bottom line. 

[First Wazzock 902]

1 hour ago, 1902 said:

VAR was and always has been a consistently pointless addition to the game. Mainly because footballs rules are so subject to interpretation that human error can't be stripped out of it with a hundred replays. If you watch MOTD in the seasons before VAR, you will see hundreds of discussions about how technology would resolve errors, but also hundreds of discussions were pundits argue that "for me it's not a penalty" versus another arguing the contrary. This is despite being able to replay incidents over and over.

Honestly, one of the major issues was that it tried to replicate cricket and tennis. Two sports where the rules are less open to interpretation and far more clear cut. A catch is a catch, LBW is LBW (especially with Hawkeye), a serve is out or it is in. This denies the difference between the sports themselves. 

Rugby has a similar issue of perception to football, for example Scotland's red card against Wales looked harsh to me, just because despite contact with the head the Welsh player was in motion, and I couldn't see how a player could clear out a ruck and avoid that when already committed to a movement. The video referee disagreed with me, fair enough, but it highlights the problems of sports where two humans are in motion and in contact versus those that don't have this issue.

You are so right.

It all comes down to interpretation. A foul is committed, one Ref gives a Red card, another might give a Yellow and a third nothing at all except a free kick - so who is right and who is wrong? The difficulty is trying to get the Refs to all interpret the incident in the same way. the constant tinkering with the rules and the blatant cheating by the players is just clouding the waters.

Looking at VAR, my take is this, we are now getting offside decisions which appear to be perfectly correct (although that's another topic altogether!), but they are not in the spirit of how the game should be played - in my opinion. When you are getting marginal decisions where a players hand is in an offside position, why is that being given? You can't score with your hand can you!

Decisions are being given that are so marginal that even with perfect vision the assistants couldn't possibly be expected to see them. And that is something we would generally accept, it may be very close or even wrong but that has always been part of the game.

As I said right at the start, the decisions are made based on the opinion of the Referee, it's just that we don't always agree with the short, fat blind, useless twonk.