VAR has evolved….

[astro 378]

…into another tool for the corrupt EPL to keep its showbiz ratings high.

I mean, what’s the point of it if you are not going to use it fairly. Yesterday’s Chelsea/Spurs game is a typical example. Blatant fouls in the immediate build up to both goals. 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/62544520

[Branston Pickle 3,742]

I was under the impression that for the first the guy got the ball, and that’s what the ref indicated.  

[stratton canary 138]

What about the guy who got pulled to the ground by his hair,  the ref was looking straight at it,  👀

[astro 378]

1 hour ago, Branston Pickle said:

I was under the impression that for the first the guy got the ball, and that’s what the ref indicated.  

It’s possible you are right with that one, it’s not slowed down enough on the video to be certain though. However there is no argument with the second one is there? 

[astro 378]

1 minute ago, stratton canary said:

What about the guy who got pulled to the ground by his hair,  the ref was looking straight at it,  👀

Yes, he must have ‘seen’ it, even if he was looking beyond it, because it was right in front of him. And VAR must have seen it, so why wasn’t the goal ruled out? 

[All the Germans 1,085]

Wasn't it that from the start (in some people's opinion)?

[hogesar 9,818]

Yeah VAR is basically a way of maintaining entertainment in big matches for the viewers paying subscriptions all over the world.

[Branston Pickle 3,742]

Thing is, no one can say that the decisions favoured the big side when they both are.  I didn’t think the first was a foul, I’m not totally 100% on the second, it probably was but I’m a bit meh - it’s Chelsea.

[Google Bot 3,390]

Of course, everyone would be talking about it if that happened to us.  There's the biggest issue, most of this **** gets swept under the carpet.

[Ulfotto 664]

Stay on field unless it is a total howler the exception being decisions can be consistently applied so offside.

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Unless it has changed, I remember the rule changing that even if you got the ball, a tackle from behind that led to the player falling was considered a foul. Of course it is debatable where is behind etc and that rule may have changed.

I think the player was genuinely trying to get the ball and that is what may have persuaded VAR that even the smallest of touches justified the tackle.

The constant changing of the offside law is absolutely stupid. It was simple. Less than two men was quite clear no matter where on the pitch. Now it is absolutely open to interpretation. Rules and Laws should be as rigid as possible. But the quest for goals and entertainment coupled with the money involved and the growth of cheating has driven the authorities to pander to the top teams' wishes.

So the second incident is clearly offside no matter what the keeper can see. Its clearly interfering with play. So even if he had been standing by the corner flag, it would provide consistency which surely something we hear after every match. And to bring consistency they have made it more inconsistent.

[astro 378]

34 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Thing is, no one can say that the decisions favoured the big side when they both are.  I didn’t think the first was a foul, I’m not totally 100% on the second, it probably was but I’m a bit meh - it’s Chelsea.

😂😂😂 I know what you mean, but it’s supposed to be impartial! Meh’s are not allowed! 😂😂

[TheRock 171]

3 hours ago, astro said:

…into another tool for the corrupt EPL to keep its showbiz ratings high.

I mean, what’s the point of it if you are not going to use it fairly. Yesterday’s Chelsea/Spurs game is a typical example. Blatant fouls in the immediate build up to both goals. 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/62544520

I felt sorry for Chelsea yesterday, I think they were robbed through inconsistent refereeing for two areas.

 

1.) The reasoning to allow Tottenham's first goal needs to be clarified, as the below guidance is the only clarity given for obstruction of a goalkeeper's line of sight.

This is what IFAB say for the "goalkeeper vision obstruction": This certainly falls into the first scenario above, and not the second. Therefore the goal should have been disallowed.

There was a counter arguement that the Chelsea defender was also obstructing the ball from the goalkeeper, so the goalkeeper would have not seen the ball regardless - this is an insignificant counterclaim as it is not mentioned whatsover in the laws of the game, therefore there is no reason to expunge Richardlison of being penalised for offside.

 

 

2.) Romello should have seen red for pulling Cucurella down to the ground by his hair. There isn't an exhaustive list of whats VC and what isnt VC, but wording of Violent conduct in the rules as follows:

"Violent Conduct: An action, which is not a challenge for the ball, which uses or attempts to use
excessive force or brutality against an opponent or when a player deliberately
strikes someone on the head or face unless the force used is negligible"

Chelsea surely will write to the EPL & Referees' Association and ask for clarity for this, and argue that Romello should get a retrospective ban if the Referee's report / VAR did not see or mention the incident. 

 

 

 

The claim of a foul on Harvertz is a matter of Referee's discresion, sometimes given sometimes not so i have disregarded that one. It may well have been too far back in the phases of play to pull back.

 

Edited August 15, 2022 by TheRock

[astro 378]

@TheRock agree with all of that. The ref should have blown straightaway for the hair pulling incident as it was right in front of him and in his line of sight. He choose to ignore it, and so did VAR. The latter was supposed to make these decisions a thing of the past. As someone above pointed out, because these decisions only affect one club at a time, they simply get swept under the carpet and the whole corrupt juggernaut runs right on over it!

[TheRock 171]

15 minutes ago, astro said:

@TheRock agree with all of that. The ref should have blown straightaway for the hair pulling incident as it was right in front of him and in his line of sight. He choose to ignore it, and so did VAR. The latter was supposed to make these decisions a thing of the past. As someone above pointed out, because these decisions only affect one club at a time, they simply get swept under the carpet and the whole corrupt juggernaut runs right on over it!

Very true, I bet most referees would consider hair pulling a VC offence. However, violent conduct only mentions using brute force, Spitting, Hitting, Headbutting, raising hands with execcisve force...

 

Maybe IFAB need to add an exhaustive list of what is / is not Violent Conduct (even though its very much common sense....!) ), a bit like Rugby, MMA or Boxing, to include cynical items too:

Hair-pulling, scratching, nipping, fishhooking, inappropriate gropping (g3nit4l / aey-nus grabbing) etc. should should surely be added to that glossary of the term.

 

Edited August 15, 2022 by TheRock

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,905]

Both calls were right, weren't they?

For the first goal, the missed 'foul' was ages before the goal and Chelsea regained possession between the tackle and the goal. 

The hair pull was the previous corner, not the one from which Spurs scored. In that case, it had nothing to do with the goal as the ball had gone out of play and the match had restarted, although admittedly it could easily have been given as a red card.

Chelsea can consider themselves unlucky on both counts but I'm not sure VAR could realistically overturn the first one, and they definitely couldn't do anything about the second.

[astro 378]

10 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Both calls were right, weren't they?

For the first goal, the missed 'foul' was ages before the goal and Chelsea regained possession between the tackle and the goal. 

The hair pull was the previous corner, not the one from which Spurs scored. In that case, it had nothing to do with the goal as the ball had gone out of play and the match had restarted, although admittedly it could easily have been given as a red card.

Chelsea can consider themselves unlucky on both counts but I'm not sure VAR could realistically overturn the first one, and they definitely couldn't do anything about the second.

Yeah, my bad as I thought the second offence occurred during the scoring of the second spurs goal, but it should still have been spotted and a red card issued. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,614]

In my view, football should use the challenge system that they use in tennis. 

Each manager has a total of three challenges for the game. If a challenge is upheld, they have three challenges remaining, but if the decision goes against then they lose a challenge. If they get to zero then they can't challenge any more during the game. 

It just seems to me that it would finish up a lot more balanced than the inconsistent usage that seems to happen purely at the referee's discretion. 

[glory.win or die. 270]

6 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

Thing is, no one can say that the decisions favoured the big side when they both are.  I didn’t think the first was a foul, I’m not totally 100% on the second, it probably was but I’m a bit meh - it’s Chelsea.

I didn't think the first was a foul although there's an argument offside Richarlison is in GK line of sight.

Even though it would most likely benefit us this season ie aarons pen shout v Wigan, thank god we don't have VAR 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,905]

35 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

In my view, football should use the challenge system that they use in tennis. 

Each manager has a total of three challenges for the game. If a challenge is upheld, they have three challenges remaining, but if the decision goes against then they lose a challenge. If they get to zero then they can't challenge any more during the game. 

It just seems to me that it would finish up a lot more balanced than the inconsistent usage that seems to happen purely at the referee's discretion. 

The problem with that is you'll see regular occurrences of teams challenging and VAR will take no action, so the team loses the challenge and have the decision go against them, when many people will think it should've been overturned. That would cause even more arguments and accusations of bias than there are now.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,614]

7 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

The problem with that is you'll see regular occurrences of teams challenging and VAR will take no action, so the team loses the challenge and have the decision go against them, when many people will think it should've been overturned. That would cause even more arguments and accusations of bias than there are now.

That's the reason for having three lives. It works very well in tennis; there's no reason why it shouldn't in football. 

Edited August 15, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,905]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That's the reason for having three lives. It works very well in tennis; there's no reason why it shouldn't in football. 

But in tennis, decisions are matter of fact: either the ball was in or the ball was out. 

In football, few decisions are matter of fact. You've basically got offsides and whether the ball crossed the line. Most incidents, including the two Chelsea-Spurs ones yesterday, are a matter of opinion and the VAR obviously checked them at the time. Had they been challenged by Chelsea instead of being reviewed as they are now, what makes you think the VAR would've made a different decision?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,614]

5 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

But in tennis, decisions are matter of fact: either the ball was in or the ball was out. 

In football, few decisions are matter of fact. You've basically got offsides and whether the ball crossed the line. Most incidents, including the two Chelsea-Spurs ones yesterday, are a matter of opinion and the VAR obviously checked them at the time. Had they been challenged by Chelsea instead of being reviewed as they are now, what makes you think the VAR would've made a different decision?

The point of VAR is to make sure that a decision is made with absolutely all details of the incident known, where a live referee isn't necessarily aware of everything about the incident. Bad decisions due to poor interpretation of the rules can still happen, but then at least you cut straight to a conversation about flaws in the rules instead of flaws in the refereeing itself. 

As it stands, the referee being the sole arbiter of whether they even look at VAR is an additional layer of inconsistency that would be removed by a challenge system. 

Edited August 15, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,157]

Surreal viewing at times, I've never known Chelsea to not get extreme bias from the refs whether they're playing us or any other club when I've watched them. They always surround the referee getting in his face putting immense pressure on them, they always seem to employ manager who will hammer officials post match if it doesn't go 100% there way and their ex owner was a shady individual and had some dodgy connections so it made sense why refs were always intimidated into giving them everything all the time. I quite enjoyed seeing them get done over for once, I found it quite cathartic even if the decisions that went against them were wrong. Hope they're all seething still today, serves them right. 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,905]

16 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The point of VAR is to make sure that a decision is made with absolutely all details of the incident known, where a live referee isn't necessarily aware of everything about the incident. Bad decisions due to poor interpretation of the rules can still happen, but then at least you cut straight to a conversation about flaws in the rules instead of flaws in the refereeing itself. 

As it stands, the referee being the sole arbiter of whether they even look at VAR is an additional layer of inconsistency that would be removed by a challenge system. 

As it stands, it's down to the VAR to review all decisions. There are two assistant VARs if I'm not mistaken, so it's extremely unlikely that any decision is missed, it's just that they decide not to take action in the vast majority of cases.

I do not see why the decisions they reach would be any different with a challenge system, unless they would feel under more pressure to take action when a challenge has been called, and I think that would make things worse and lead to even more accusations of bias or favouring the 'big' teams.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,614]

10 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

As it stands, it's down to the VAR to review all decisions. There are two assistant VARs if I'm not mistaken, so it's extremely unlikely that any decision is missed, it's just that they decide not to take action in the vast majority of cases.

I do not see why the decisions they reach would be any different with a challenge system, unless they would feel under more pressure to take action when a challenge has been called, and I think that would make things worse and lead to even more accusations of bias or favouring the 'big' teams.

The current rules only allow overrule for 'clear and obvious errors' for goals, penalties, red cards, and mistaken identity. As it stands, VAR can only overrule the referee if the referee has really made an obvious error. A challenge system could be operated as more of an independent review that can overrule on finer distinctions. 

It also has the advantage that not every goal would have to have VAR review, since managers would be reluctant to waste challenges on what they thought were obvious goals. 

Anyway, just a thought; something to try given that the existing system is obviously not remotely fit for purpose. 

[TheRock 171]

On 15/08/2022 at 11:36, astro said:

@TheRock agree with all of that. The ref should have blown straightaway for the hair pulling incident as it was right in front of him and in his line of sight. He choose to ignore it, and so did VAR. The latter was supposed to make these decisions a thing of the past. As someone above pointed out, because these decisions only affect one club at a time, they simply get swept under the carpet and the whole corrupt juggernaut runs right on over it!

 

ICYMI yesterday: Mike Dean effectively admits that he as VMO of the VAR for that match got it wrong, and it was a Violent Conduct offence worthy of a red card:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/62596652

[Greavsy 2,475]

14 minutes ago, TheRock said:

 

ICYMI yesterday: Mike Dean effectively admits that he as VMO of the VAR for that match got it wrong, and it was a Violent Conduct offence worthy of a red card:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/62596652

VAR was meant to get rid of all that, and over ruling referees when they make incorrect decisions, ie an genuine error.   

If it makes the same mistakes then what it the point of having it and the disruption it causes? 

[Capt. Pants 4,330]

Dean isn't saying he should have over over-ruled the ref only that he should have asked him to check the pitch side monitor. 

VAR seems slightly better at the moment and at least the decisions aren't following the money. 

I'm more disappointed by the standard of refereeing in the Championship. Absolutely atrocious, and if anything, stinks of corruption against us getting promoted again.

      

[wr4sb 34]

 

On 15/08/2022 at 11:24, TheRock said:

This is what IFAB say for the "goalkeeper vision obstruction": This certainly falls into the first scenario above, and not the second. Therefore the goal should have been disallowed.

I would contend that in the picture used the attacker is in the peripheral vision of the goalkeeper and so can be seen as a distraction. I think if you are beyond the last defender you should be offside regardless of where you are. 

On 15/08/2022 at 11:52, TheRock said:

Very true, I bet most referees would consider hair pulling a VC offence. However, violent conduct only mentions using brute force, Spitting, Hitting, Headbutting, raising hands with execcisve force...

As to this list, Mr Suarez must feel hard done by. Biting seems to be allowed unless it is classed as brute force... 😬

Just more examples of rules being less than clear so open to interpretation.