Forest have had enough

[Indy 3,307]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Yeah, I'm personally in favour of it, so long as we start calling out corruption in football for what it is, because you're right: This can only be corruption or staggering incompetence; in either case the referees are showing themselves to be unfit for the job.

I try not to be too critical of the on pitch officials as they do their choice at match speed, and sometimes they don’t have the best line of sight! VAR is there for that! As we agree two of those Forrest chances were definitely penalties and clear and obvious mistakes, I’m convinced had that been Manure both should have been overturned and awarded! You can call it corruption or favouritism but VAR interpretation must be made easy and clear! Additionally I agree that no official with allegiance with clubs directly or indirectly which could influence the choice of VAR should be there or you make it a three man panel with a majority vote. Might take more time but takes away the risk?

Edited April 22 by Indy

[Google Bot 3,298]

1 hour ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

What they expecting to hear? "Haha let's screw over Forest UP THE LUTON!"

I expect they want transparency to hear the decision process and reasoning for each of the situations.  From that i'd imagine if they were to go further they would then seek to further progress this with examples of similar decisions being given (i.e. lack of consistency) in other games and thus their legal team build evidence to see if there's a case to be had.

Fact that they notified PGMOL regarding Atwell being allowed to VAR the match is most likely a secondary matter, one which has pushed them over the edge on this subject.

[ricardo 7,395]

It's hard not to give merit to at least two of those three claims but that's just my honest subjective opinion.

[hogesar 9,709]

Let's just remember yet again that Mike Dean admitted to not doing his job in VAR to protect his mate on the field of play. That's just one example of someone who's admitted it. That's the level of incompetence that exists at the highest level of the game, and the solution is to respect these guys?

We then have the PGMOL letting a Luton fan unnecessarily be used in a game where there's a conflict of interest - Keith Hackett said previously under him that never would have happened - why leave yourself and your colleague that open to scrutiny?

 

[Google Bot 3,298]

Quite an interesting video on the matter, if you have an hour to kill:

 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,827]

2 hours ago, Indy said:

As we agree two of those Forrest chances were definitely penalties and clear and obvious mistakes

Which two? Only one was a penalty for me, and the pundits I've seen comment have been in general agreement that only the third claim was valid. 

Contact was minimal for the first one, and it was ball to hand from point blank range with the hand exactly where you'd expect it to be in the second.

[ricardo 7,395]

1 minute ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Which two? Only one was a penalty for me, and the pundits I've seen comment have been in general agreement that only the third claim was valid. 

Contact was minimal for the first one, and it was ball to hand from point blank range with the hand exactly where you'd expect it to be in the second.

So you endorse my view that it is purely subjective and different people have different views. I thought the handball might be debatable although we have seen similar given this season. The other two I would have given. Contact in both cases and would be given as a foul anywhere else on the pitch.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,827]

15 minutes ago, ricardo said:

So you endorse my view that it is purely subjective and different people have different views. 

Yup, I must've said that about five times in this thread alone.

[Indy 3,307]

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

Yup, I must've said that about five times in this thread alone.

Makes no odds as wasn’t given, but I disagree it wasn’t point blank and his arm motioned towards the ball in slowmo.

Of course it’s subjective and I bet you have a preference for the two teams involved here! I assume then you think Grealish handball was correct too? Boy ball to arm?

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,827]

36 minutes ago, Indy said:

Makes no odds as wasn’t given, but I disagree it wasn’t point blank and his arm motioned towards the ball in slowmo.

Of course it’s subjective and I bet you have a preference for the two teams involved here! I assume then you think Grealish handball was correct too? Boy ball to arm?

Everything looks worse in slow motion. In real time, there was a fraction of a second between the ball leaving Hudson-Odoi's foot and hitting Young's arm. 

Which Grealish handball are you referring to, sorry?

[Ulfotto 640]

Interesting if Atwell is a Luton fan surely a draw between Everton and Forest would have been a better result for Luton.

Edited April 22 by Ulfotto

[Indy 3,307]

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

Everything looks worse in slow motion. In real time, there was a fraction of a second between the ball leaving Hudson-Odoi's foot and hitting Young's arm. 

Which Grealish handball are you referring to, sorry?

Chelsea free kick, arm out the same deflected! 10 yards away his arm out to the side.

Youngs arm was away from his body, it stopped the ball getting into the attacker and his arms motion was towards the ball! It wasn’t deflect, so hand ball, you can say it would have been harsh but what is the law regarding handball?

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,827]

11 minutes ago, Indy said:

Chelsea free kick, arm out the same deflected! 10 yards away his arm out to the side.

Youngs arm was away from his body, it stopped the ball getting into the attacker and his arms motion was towards the ball! It wasn’t deflect, so hand ball, you can say it would have been harsh but what is the law regarding handball?

Ah, I didn't see that game and haven't even seen the highlights.

I can't be bothered to check, but I think the law mentions the arm making the body unnaturally bigger (which Young didn't do, because the arm is exactly where it should've been because he isn't a penguin) and also taking into account distance from the ball. 

Too many penalties are given for handball, and a lot of them are in cases where the defender couldn't do much about it.

[Ulfotto 640]

It’s going back a bit but 

Interesting they were quite happy with the VAR was not over turned that day over the Toffolo penalty . In my opinion far clearer than the ones over the weekend

 

Edited April 22 by Ulfotto
Wrong YouTube clip

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,827]

4 minutes ago, Ulfotto said:

It’s going back a bit but

Interesting they were quite happy with the VAR was not over turned that day over the Toffolo penalty . In my opinion far clearer than the ones over the weekend

Controversial refereeing decisions only count when they go against you. Everyone knows this.

[ricardo 7,395]

If every foul was obvious we'd have nothing to talk about and you wouldn't need a ref.

[Hairy Canary 705]

2 minutes ago, ricardo said:

If every foul was obvious we'd have nothing to talk about and you wouldn't need a ref.

This is true. Trouble is because decisions are subjective having two refs actually makes things worse. 

[nutty nigel 7,555]

It's all part of the game for tv. Pundits and viewers love controversy, it adds to the entertainment. The fact that it totally wrecks the game for those in the stadiums rarely gets mentioned. And to be fair it's of little consequence as he who pays the piper calls the tune.

[Indy 3,307]

10 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

It's all part of the game for tv. Pundits and viewers love controversy, it adds to the entertainment. The fact that it totally wrecks the game for those in the stadiums rarely gets mentioned. And to be fair it's of little consequence as he who pays the piper calls the tune.

I agree and this is where clear and obvious is at the discretion of the VAR official!

I really think VAR should taken away for offside, it’s crap for that with those two lines and when the ball is adjudged to be moving forwards! Just let the officials judge it on the pitch!

I’m in agreement with others use the three challenge per half to the two managers, they can have an NFL style team viewing a live stream of the game and if it’s a clear and obvious mistake let the challenge it! But only for thing like penalty awards missed, off the ball incidents and clear cut mistakes, otherwise just get on with the game!

Every goal now is bought back to ensure there’s no foul in the build up! Dodgy offside or anything else! As you correctly say Nutty it kills the game, restrict the challenges to three per team or do away with it all together!

[Google Bot 3,298]

41 minutes ago, Indy said:

restrict the challenges to three per team or do away with it all together!

Or put a counter on the big screen and clubs have to outbid each other, after each bid there's a 5 second timer and when it expires the winner gets the decision.   It fits in with how the rest of the sport is built around money, and at least we're under no illusions then.

It'd make the champions league final more entertaining, at the least.

Edited April 23 by Google Bot

[littleyellowbirdie 2,565]

If Nottingham Forest are relegated by a margin of less than 3 points then they should take the PGMOL to court for damages on the grounds of this.

[hogesar 9,709]

15 hours ago, hogesar said:

Let's just remember yet again that Mike Dean admitted to not doing his job in VAR to protect his mate on the field of play. That's just one example of someone who's admitted it. That's the level of incompetence that exists at the highest level of the game, and the solution is to respect these guys?

We then have the PGMOL letting a Luton fan unnecessarily be used in a game where there's a conflict of interest - Keith Hackett said previously under him that never would have happened - why leave yourself and your colleague that open to scrutiny?

 

I reiterate, it's barely worth discussing merits when we know for a fact that the above happens. Or are we all naive enough to pretend it's only ever Mike Dean who's avoided doing his job in VAR? Just so happens the one ref who's ever done it is the one ref who's come out and spoke about it post career?

I get Forest's frustration which is similar to Wolves where they've had a pretty long list of poor VAR decisions invariably not in their favour against bigger clubs. 

Again, ref makes a mistake on the field you can accept it. 5 blokes having a jolly in a room full of screens and protecting their mates by not making a decision is far less acceptable.

[TheGunnShow 5,966]

Both the handball and offside rules are absolutely FUBAR as they currently stand and need to go back to earlier editions of said Laws, but I actually think VAR causes a different problem no-one seems to have mentioned yet, namely the proclivity to referee by freeze-frame instead of taking a holistic look at the incident again, especially when it comes to tackles and handballs.

In plenty of the times where a handball is given in the box due to the arm moving towards the ball it's been due to running or bracing/standing still rather than any remotely deliberate attempt to play the ball with the hand or arm. And in some tackling cases (the obvious one with us was Giannoulis against Bournemouth with the red card on Pearson) any tackle that's landed slightly over the ball has been instantly given as a red card even if it's just mistimed or the opponent knocked the ball away. For me, that's way too strict an application of law as it's instantly considering malice on what are often just committed challenges, so they're letting the micro overrule the macro in the application of VAR.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,565]

14 hours ago, Google Bot said:

Quite an interesting video on the matter, if you have an hour to kill:

 

 

3 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I reiterate, it's barely worth discussing merits when we know for a fact that the above happens. Or are we all naive enough to pretend it's only ever Mike Dean who's avoided doing his job in VAR? Just so happens the one ref who's ever done it is the one ref who's come out and spoke about it post career?

I get Forest's frustration which is similar to Wolves where they've had a pretty long list of poor VAR decisions invariably not in their favour against bigger clubs. 

Again, ref makes a mistake on the field you can accept it. 5 blokes having a jolly in a room full of screens and protecting their mates by not making a decision is far less acceptable.

I think you have to call it what it looks like, which is a conspiracy of silence with the media complicit.

I suppose the media itself has its nose in the trough and doesn't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, hence why they all plough into clubs that complain.

[Google Bot 3,298]

11 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I suppose the media itself has its nose in the trough and doesn't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, hence why they all plough into clubs that complain.

We saw this with Sky pundits and the whole ESL debacle too, they were concerned about their relevance in the game which is what made them speak up.  If they were part of the deal it would've been a completely different reaction.

[Jim Smith 2,325]

17 hours ago, Google Bot said:

I expect they want transparency to hear the decision process and reasoning for each of the situations.  From that i'd imagine if they were to go further they would then seek to further progress this with examples of similar decisions being given (i.e. lack of consistency) in other games and thus their legal team build evidence to see if there's a case to be had.

Fact that they notified PGMOL regarding Atwell being allowed to VAR the match is most likely a secondary matter, one which has pushed them over the edge on this subject.

Yes I’d imagine they want to hear the discussion and for the third incident in particular it should have been clear and simple. The ref should be asked why he didn’t give the penalty and when he said (as apparently he signalled) that he thought the player got the ball VAR should have intervened to inform him that was not the case and therefore he should take another look at it on the monitor. If that process did not happen, something went badly wrong. 

[Jim Smith 2,325]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

Both the handball and offside rules are absolutely FUBAR as they currently stand and need to go back to earlier editions of said Laws, but I actually think VAR causes a different problem no-one seems to have mentioned yet, namely the proclivity to referee by freeze-frame instead of taking a holistic look at the incident again, especially when it comes to tackles and handballs.

In plenty of the times where a handball is given in the box due to the arm moving towards the ball it's been due to running or bracing/standing still rather than any remotely deliberate attempt to play the ball with the hand or arm. And in some tackling cases (the obvious one with us was Giannoulis against Bournemouth with the red card on Pearson) any tackle that's landed slightly over the ball has been instantly given as a red card even if it's just mistimed or the opponent knocked the ball away. For me, that's way too strict an application of law as it's instantly considering malice on what are often just committed challenges, so they're letting the micro overrule the macro in the application of VAR.

Agree with this. I think the way the VAR ref chooses the most damning replay then plays it on the screen to the on field official repeatedly in super slow mo has a huge influence and almost inevitably results in the on field official reversing his decision not just making it again with fresh eyes. All challenges look worse in super slow motion. 

[Chichcan 148]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

If Nottingham Forest are relegated by a margin of less than 3 points then they should take the PGMOL to court for damages on the grounds of this.

Sadly they probably will

I see Barcelona are threatening to go to court to reverse a VAR decision against Real

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/apr/23/barcelona-threaten-legal-action-over-phantom-goal-in-defeat-to-real-madrid

This has the potential to totally kill the game if we're not careful 

Already you can't celebrate a goal if VAR is around for a few minutes. Imagine if the outcome of big games isn't known for months until it's gone through the courts. 

If Barcelona, Forest or whoever win a legal case like this they will pop up everywhere - and be another massive factor favouring the rich clubs 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,565]

6 minutes ago, Chichcan said:

Sadly they probably will

I see Barcelona are threatening to go to court to reverse a VAR decision against Real

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/apr/23/barcelona-threaten-legal-action-over-phantom-goal-in-defeat-to-real-madrid

This has the potential to totally kill the game if we're not careful 

Already you can't celebrate a goal if VAR is around for a few minutes. Imagine if the outcome of big games isn't known for months until it's gone through the courts. 

If Barcelona, Forest or whoever win a legal case like this they will pop up everywhere - and be another massive factor favouring the rich clubs 

If Forest win a case like this then it's a wake-up call to the authorities to get their house in order rather than burying it under the carpet. You can't make the stakes so high financially for individual clubs and then be sloppy about the rules, the consistency of the application, and the integrity of the application.

Then again, maybe it's just a reflection that the financial inequality in football has already largely killed the game.

Edited April 23 by littleyellowbirdie

[A Load of Squit 5,197]

Sean Dyche making NFFC heads explode.