VAR thread

[dom9]

And he booked him too.

[Buzzo]

And he booked him too.

Almost guarantee the guy didn’t know it was an infringement. He hasn’t even made his debut but has given away a pen and been booked. Impressive.

[Exiled_red]

VAR is going nowhere unfortunately.

It will never get it right. Football and the incidents it makes decisions on are opinion based. There are very decisions that get universal agreement on. Even the bizarre things this season that VAR has caused uproar on has still had plenty of support from people. It's always going to be this way. Handball? Conclusive. Offside? Conclusive. Ball crossed the line? Conclusive. The rest is football. I knew it would go this way. It was ****ing obvious. Some guy stuck in a studio watching a replay once, twice, thousand times isn't going to get it right when there isn't a 'right' decision for 100% of people.

The only thing that can happen is it's improved on by letting us at home and in the ground know what they are discussing. Won't happen though.

I get that, I know that I have been a big critic of VAR but for much of the season the application has been fairly consistent, particularly in relation to penalties, when the referee hasn't given a penalty the bar has been set very high to overturn that, if anything some penalties that really should have been given haven't but any that have been have been nailed on, the one yesterday for Brighton penalty was way off that standard, and inconsistent with what has gone on all season. I don't think that awarding that was a questionable decision within the same guidlines, it's as though they were applying completely different guidelines.

[ChesterDave]

More VAR nonsense today, I'm interested in why the the Brighton penalty against Everton was given, it was a foul but the ref didn't give it at the time and VAR overturned it, but there have been a number of similar decisions this season that haven't been overturned, what was different about this one that allows it to be overturned?

The right decisions is surely what matters at the end of the day though? That the others were not is an error on those decisions. It shouldn't mean that decisions are not overturned because officials have failed to do so previously. It is almost as if it is protecting the ego of referees and not wishing to highlight during the game that they got something wrong.

Obviously it's crap for those teams that should have benefited and didn't but getting it right going forward should be the objective and for me that doesn't mean maintaining the standards for a decision that we started with. Its about adapting and tweaking. Now there is an argument that should only be done in the close season so things are at least consistent for the whole campaign but if things can be improved why not do it right away.

Something is either a foul or not. There is no grading beyond that other than intent or recklessness that can warrant a sanction in the way of a booking/red card. If the ref has not awarded a penalty but it is a foul surely that by definition makes it clear and obvious?

[Kenneth]

More VAR nonsense today, I'm interested in why the the Brighton penalty against Everton was given, it was a foul but the ref didn't give it at the time and VAR overturned it, but there have been a number of similar decisions this season that haven't been overturned, what was different about this one that allows it to be overturned?

It wasn't even a foul for me. If a striker is going to swing his foot out so that it is under a defenders foot who's running naturally, well that's his problem. VAR intervened and got it wrong imo.

[Exiled_red]

The right decisions is surely what matters at the end of the day though? That the others were not is an error on those decisions. It shouldn't mean that decisions are not overturned because officials have failed to do so previously. It is almost as if it is protecting the ego of referees and not wishing to highlight during the game that they got something wrong.

Obviously it's crap for those teams that should have benefited and didn't but getting it right going forward should be the objective and for me that doesn't mean maintaining the standards for a decision that we started with. Its about adapting and tweaking. Now there is an argument that should only be done in the close season so things are at least consistent for the whole campaign but if things can be improved why not do it right away.

Something is either a foul or not. There is no grading beyond that other than intent or recklessness that can warrant a sanction in the way of a booking/red card. If the ref has not awarded a penalty but it is a foul surely that by definition makes it clear and obvious?

Yes getting the decision right is important, but so is consistency, the question is does the award of the pen indicate a change in approach for VAR or was it that the person making the decision not following the guidelines.

Also I think that there is a difference between there being contact and it being a foul. Contact doesn't necessarily equal a foul, which is where the ambiguity comes in, if it did we'd get 4 or 5 pens a game.

[Exiled_red]

It wasn't even a foul for me. If a striker is going to swing his foot out so that it is under a defenders foot who's running naturally, well that's his problem. VAR intervened and got it wrong imo.

I think that if the ref sees it and it's outside the box, he probably gives a foul, if he sees it inside the box he doesn't give a foul, obviously being inside or outside the box shouldn't make a difference but the reality is that refs are much more likely to give a freekick than a pen for a soft foul. On the guidance of VAR this season there is no way that should be overturned, with the guidance of the last WC it would have been a pen, but we got way too many soft pens in that. The problem is the lack of consistency, and that showed in the Brighton Everton game, as if that one was given, Everton should have had one earlier.

[ChesterDave]

Yes getting the decision right is important, but so is consistency, the question is does the award of the pen indicate a change in approach for VAR or was it that the person making the decision not following the guidelines.

Also I think that there is a difference between there being contact and it being a foul. Contact doesn't necessarily equal a foul, which is where the ambiguity comes in, if it did we'd get 4 or 5 pens a game.

I agree contact does not mean a foul but the same pundits who are not getting moralistic about diving are the same ones that for years gone by have being uttering phrases such as 'entitled to go down' so its no winder people make the most of any contact. I don't think there would be discussions about the foul if it was given outside the box and Brighton scored directly from the resulting free kick. There would be some discussions if the penalty was awarded by the ref as to whether it was and I think the conclusion would be it is not obviously wrong to overturn.

I think comparisons with rugby that often crop up about VAR are misleading. I think the nature of offences in rugby make them much more black and white and that is where the problem of consistency comes in. The more human judgement required the more inconsistency there will be.

edit: I see you address the point about the location of the challenge in your next post. And that itself is a consistency problem.

[Exiled_red]

I agree contact does not mean a foul but the same pundits who are not getting moralistic about diving are the same ones that for years gone by have being uttering phrases such as 'entitled to go down' so its no winder people make the most of any contact. I don't think there would be discussions about the foul if it was given outside the box and Brighton scored directly from the resulting free kick. There would be some discussions if the penalty was awarded by the ref as to whether it was and I think the conclusion would be it is not obviously wrong to overturn.

I think comparisons with rugby that often crop up about VAR are misleading. I think the nature of offences in rugby make them much more black and white and that is where the problem of consistency comes in. The more human judgement required the more inconsistency there will be.

edit: I see you address the point about the location of the challenge in your next post. And that itself is a consistency problem.

I agree that there is an inconsistency about locations, as I say a ref is more likely to give a freekick than a penalty for the same 'soft' offence and while I don't agree with it I understand the reasoning (a penalty should really result in a goal, a freekick is much less likely to), that inconsistency has been in the game for years.

If VAR is supposed to be eliminating mistakes and getting more key decisions right (or perhaps I should say not clearly wrong ) there needs to be a consistency in how it is applied, as I have made clear previously I am not a fan of VAR, but it's use so far has been relatively consistent in it's approach to giving penalties that the ref on the pitch hasn't given, generally we have been complaining that it hasn't overturned the refs decision to award a penalty when many think it should have, I don't think we have seen an incident where VAR has changed the refs decision and given a controversial penalty. I have said for a while someone should be explaining these decisions to the fans (both in the stadium and on TV) because I would love to know why that one was overturned when dozens of others haven't been. Personally I think it was a mistake by the VAR official but we haven't been told anything which affects how teams play. For example we play Spurs today we could concede 4 penalties because Kane, Alli et al initiate contact with our defenders and throw themselves to the floor and VAR has decided any contact now equals a penalty.

Pundits have been mentioning the on pitch official looking at the video monitor and making the decision for consistency which would help but it takes longer to make the decision and it slows the game down.

[Exiled_red]

Sky saying Man Utd given 2 pens by VAR that weren't given by the official on the pitch, I've not seen either, but it's interesting...

[Zapater]

Sky saying Man Utd given 2 pens by VAR that weren't given by the official on the pitch, I've not seen either, but it's interesting...

The 2nd was a joke. If that's a pen, then the Sánchez one in the first half is definitely a pen. And there would be several penalties per game.

Actually thinking about it, the first one is ridiculous too. If anything James fouled the defender.

[ric.williams]

did vars remit change from last week?

[Exiled_red]

did vars remit change from last week?

It certainly seems like that, have there been 3 no pen decisions overturned in all the games played in the first 9 weeks of the season? because there have been 3 this weekend.

[Chris]

It certainly seems like that, have there been 3 no pen decisions overturned in all the games played in the first 9 weeks of the season? because there have been 3 this weekend.

Yeah it's like they flicked a switch and it's now the total opposite of what it was. ****ing weird. Absolute shambles. No surprise though that however VAR is used Man Utd continue to benefit.

[Slinky Skills]

Check this **** out ha ha ha!

[ame]https://twitter.com/FutbolBible/status/1188414113124421635[/ame]