VAR thread

[Exiled_red]

The problem is VAR has never been about getting the right decisions if it were we wouldn't have this version of it. It's about backing up the on field ref's decision that's why there is such limited scope for changing decisions.

I don't know the stats on this but I feel it's about ensuring the worst 1% of wrong decisions don't stand the other 99% of wrong decisions are deemed subjective.

Until VAR is about getting decisions right the **** show will continue.

[Buzzo]

It should be VAR says “that was a pen” and the ref (aka professional whistle blower) says “okay boss”.

Sticking with the onfield decision is fine when there are no visibly clear outcomes.

Again, taking Rugby as an example, it often happens exactly as you say. VAR (TMO) interiors the game and there is a conversation that we all get to listen to.

The TMO can strongly advise the ref as to what he should be looking at on screen. They sometimes have a professional conversation but typically land on the correct outcome collectively.

The words ‘what I am seeing is’ and ‘are we in agreement’ are often used.

Stop the clock whilst all this happens and take your time and I really don’t see why this is such hard work. Maybe because it is a bigger sport but there definitely feels like an outside bias in football, even in Rugby because of the professional handling of a decision, even when it goes against your team, it doesn’t tend to feel so bad. And by bad I mean corrupt.

(I reckon I’ve posted a variation of this about ten times in this thread )

[Buzzo]

The problem is VAR has never been about getting the right decisions if it were we wouldn't have this version of it. It's about backing up the on field ref's decision that's why there is such limited scope for changing decisions.

I don't know the stats on this but I feel it's about ensuring the worst 1% of wrong decisions don't stand the other 99% of wrong decisions are deemed subjective.

Until VAR is about getting decisions right the **** show will continue.

It comes across as if they are just playing at it. There is such an obvious way to mitigate error.

I’ve genuinely no idea why the Harry Kane tackle wasn’t reviewed other than protection of a national institution.

[Kenneth]

Sticking with the onfield decision is fine when there are no visibly clear outcomes.

Again, taking Rugby as an example, it often happens exactly as you say. VAR (TMO) interiors the game and there is a conversation that we all get to listen to.

The TMO can strongly advise the ref as to what he should be looking at on screen. They sometimes have a professional conversation but typically land on the correct outcome collectively.

The words ‘what I am seeing is’ and ‘are we in agreement’ are often used.

Stop the clock whilst all this happens and take your time and I really don’t see why this is such hard work. Maybe because it is a bigger sport but there definitely feels like an outside bias in football, even in Rugby because of the professional handling of a decision, even when it goes against your team, it doesn’t tend to feel so bad. And by bad I mean corrupt.

(I reckon I’ve posted a variation of this about ten times in this thread )

I just can’t fathom the need for one professional referee to ask another professional referee to look at a screen and decide. A professional referee has already looked at the replays, let him call it.

[Buzzo]

I just can’t fathom the need for one professional referee to ask another professional referee to look at a screen and decide. A professional referee has already looked at the replays, let him call it.

Yep. It’s only incompetence. Massively over complicating a pretty simple system. They should be working as a team to get to the best decision and that (as you say) does not give the infield presence final say. What’s the point otherwise.

Clarity (live audio) would help as it takes any crowd pressure out of the equation. Just being good at your job would also do this.

For the Kane one it would be (TMO) “we are seeing a wild, high out of control challenge that misses the ball, we think red card unless you can say otherwise”.

Then it’s up to the ref to agree or shine a light on his POV.

[Buzzo]

The system does have to cater for some marginal calls.

The problem is it is still getting absolute howlers wrong.

[S-RED]

In an odd why i think the refs would prefer that, as it gets them out of the controversial decision. Kane's yesterday for example could have been an VAR not having to make the decision with 30k people screaming at you because you sent a saint off..... it would be a decision purely given by the VAR numpty

[Buzzo]

It has to offer a layer of protection. That said they never even looked at the Kane one!

I actually think Robbos was a red as well, it is hard to argue a case that it wasnt. Or at least it would be if it was not for Kane not getting carded, which set a precedent (that wasnt followed) and a tone for the game.

[Kenneth]

In an odd why i think the refs would prefer that, as it gets them out of the controversial decision. Kane's yesterday for example could have been an VAR not having to make the decision with 30k people screaming at you because you sent a saint off..... it would be a decision purely given by the VAR numpty

It’s ego, they want to be centre stage and king of the pitch.

[RedReet]

It should not be 'clear & obvious', it should be 'Ref i think you have missed that'.

That way if there is a competent VAR official, he tells the ref what he missed, rather than thinking 'well i can't really overrule that as it is not 'clear & obvious'.

Still wouldn't be a guarantee that Kavanagh would have stopped smokin his pot to change the decision yesterday mind...

It's such as ridiculous ruling. VAR ref either agrees or disagrees with the decision. If he disagrees, then he should either tell the ref he was wrong or get him to check the monitor. In what universe was it deemed a good idea to rule that the var ref can review a decision, see it's a mistake, but not be allowed to intervene if he can understand why the ref made the mistake.

Who f*cking signed up to this ****?

[baitman]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/59726422

Alan Shearer: Standard of refereeing is 'not acceptable'

Alan Shearer urges head of referees Mike Riley to "take responsibility" for the level of refereeing decisions in recent Premier League matches.

Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp was unhappy that Tottenham forward Harry Kane was not shown a red card for a lunge on Andrew Robertson, while Robertson himself was dismissed after VAR check for a challenge in the second half of the teams' 2-2 draw.

Shearer is also frustrated by the "terrible" decision not to award Newcastle a penalty in their 4-0 defeat by Man City.

[Norbs]

This might be naive on my part but I don't think the VAR officials are corrupt or biased. I think that the rules around it's use are complicated and as a result applied inconsistently by people who are crap at their job, don't know the game and have no accountability.

VAR in it's current guise isn't fit for purpose. I have said for a while it would be beneficial for everyone if decisions were properly communicated, fans, players and everyone involved would understand the decisions and there would be some accountability as people could call into question the rationale for decisionsand this could be used to improve the system and training of officials.

Robertson rightly has to serve his ban, we as a club have to accept the result, but Tierney and Kavanagh don't face any consequences for the **** show that was their performance.

There's no corruption, that's tin hat stuff

[Kenneth]

I guess it depends what you mean by corruption. I don’t think anyone can seriously think that there’s a plan to benefit one team over another via referees, but the relevant authorities (including the PGMOL) releasing bull**** statements or changing guidance on the fly to cover up errors by refs and VARs is happening, and I’d say that might well fall under the definition of corruption.

[ChesterDave]

There's no corruption, that's tin hat stuff

As an organised plan across the organisation, or with individual refs?

[Buzzo]

I guess it depends what you mean by corruption. I don’t think anyone can seriously think that there’s a plan to benefit one team over another via referees, but the relevant authorities (including the PGMOL) releasing bull**** statements or changing guidance on the fly to cover up errors by refs and VARs is happening, and I’d say that might well fall under the definition of corruption.

That and the protection of Kane, definitely his status helped him yesterday. Pretty much every other player in the league gets a red for that.