VAR - The Great Debate

[chara]

@Sciatika...wise words as ever.

[east lower]

10 hours ago, Ham said:

That wasn't even the worst decision against Forest in that game.

So, for that disgraceful performance - you’d expect some sort of chastisement or penalty? That’d be fair and reasonable wouldn’t it?

But no, Taylor is refereeing and Atwell is the VAR for the Dortmund vs PSG Champions League semi-final. They’re on £10-£15k a time for this game!

It’s hard to comprehend the incestuous nature of officiating and the footballing authorities.

[Sciatika]

To me, the key problem is the lack of transparency. By being more transparent, the players and fans become more aware of how the referee and VAR interpret the rules and, for the fans, fill the gap while decisions are being made. It also makes it harder for the officials to decide based on 'feels' and get away with them. The release of audio has illustrated this very well in some respects. I would like it to go further. We should be able to hear the discussion about an incident at the time. We also need to be forgiving about referees and assistants getting it wrong. Contrary to popular opinion, they are human. If they get it wrong, admit to it, learn from it and move on.

Having said that, I also think that referees should be allowed to give the benefit of the doubt in their decision-making. If they and their assistants cannot tell in real-time whether a player is offside, they should give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker and only use VAR as a last resort. I think fans would accept goals scored when a player in the buildup is marginally offside over the long delays and decisions based on toenail length that we currently have. I am not against technology, which is cost-effective and does not interfere with the game. Goal-line technology is a good example. It's relatively cheap and has a good track record of successful decisions and does not affect the flow.

[paulw66]

3 hours ago, Sciatika said:

To me, the key problem is the lack of transparency. By being more transparent, the players and fans become more aware of how the referee and VAR interpret the rules and, for the fans, fill the gap while decisions are being made. It also makes it harder for the officials to decide based on 'feels' and get away with them. The release of audio has illustrated this very well in some respects. I would like it to go further. We should be able to hear the discussion about an incident at the time. We also need to be forgiving about referees and assistants getting it wrong. Contrary to popular opinion, they are human. If they get it wrong, admit to it, learn from it and move on.

Having said that, I also think that referees should be allowed to give the benefit of the doubt in their decision-making. If they and their assistants cannot tell in real-time whether a player is offside, they should give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker and only use VAR as a last resort. I think fans would accept goals scored when a player in the buildup is marginally offside over the long delays and decisions based on toenail length that we currently have. I am not against technology, which is cost-effective and does not interfere with the game. Goal-line technology is a good example. It's relatively cheap and has a good track record of successful decisions and does not affect the flow.

On the offsides, if someone wants to complain that they goal they conceded was 6 inches offside, they can take a run and jump

imagine Pre VAR someone in a post game interview complaining that the reason they lost was because of that; you'd get laughed at. 

[Sciatika]

Surprise, surprise. Arsenal was having difficulty getting a goal against Bournemouth. They were given a soft penalty, with Havertz leaving a leg in so he could fall over. VAR gave the penalty eliminating the risk that the title race might not go to the end of the season, undermining the broadcaster's revenue stream. Same old, same old.

[east lower]

Interesting developments as regards Wolves tabling a motion (or something like that) to get a vote on getting rid of VAR.

All the 'establishment' now coming together to say 'Nay', but! Or, it'll demean the PL offering 

A number of ex-players who do punditry (but not the Neville's or Garragher's) saying things like 'Good', 'Yes, Please' - Match-going fans in the majority don't want it - but TV Companies and authorities do. So is it about the game or is it about cash?

I think the answer to that question becomes clearer as time goes by.

 

[paulw66]

2 minutes ago, east lower said:

Interesting developments as regards Wolves tabling a motion (or something like that) to get a vote on getting rid of VAR.

All the 'establishment' now coming together to say 'Nay', but! Or, it'll demean the PL offering 

A number of ex-players who do punditry (but not the Neville's or Garragher's) saying things like 'Good', 'Yes, Please' - Match-going fans in the majority don't want it - but TV Companies and authorities do. So is it about the game or is it about cash?

I think the answer to that question becomes clearer as time goes by.

 

I agree with all of the points that they have raised. If it is to stay, it needs a compete overhaul.

Needs to be much quicker, and used far less frequently 

[Bert19]

4 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

I agree with all of the points that they have raised. If it is to stay, it needs a compete overhaul.

Needs to be much quicker, and used far less frequently 

Agreed.  The technology isn't the issue - it's the way it is being used that is a big problem. 

I keep going back to it, but it's been SO much better when it's used in the CL.  Clearer guidelines, more consistent application of rules, more space for Refs to actually use the tool to their benefit

[paulw66]

The trouble with the "scrap it" argument is that it will take one game, one refereeing mistake and there will be uproar.

[flllerywhereru2]

So in the delight of two away wins in a row we managed to overcome quite a few decisions/non decisions and still manage to take three points. 

At Forest there was a clear penalty in the build up to Gustos late chance, not even looked at.

At Brighton, penalty decision overturned despite the Brighton player going through Cucurella to get the ball, a clear elbow by Lamptey warranted only a yellow yet Mudryk had to go off with concusion.  Yet another Jackson goal ruled out in marginal circumstances and James reacting to one of several late challenges (no complaints as long as lamptey went too) and VAR is straight on it with a red.

Luckily we are now getting stronger as a team and negate the misuse of the VAR, but the bias is still there. Getting rid of VAR won't get rid of the bias but at least it wont be on two fronts.

 

 

 

[east lower]

7 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

I agree with all of the points that they have raised. If it is to stay, it needs a compete overhaul.

Needs to be much quicker, and used far less frequently 

Anything that's fully automated and doesn't rely on subjective human opinion, is fine. For example look at the James sending off. In today's game and with the rules he deserved to be sent off. 

But, do people recall Romero kicking out at one of our players in exactly the same way at our away game with them  earlier in the season and NOT getting sent-off. That's why it's no good. If it's to be used it has to be consistent 100% and fast. As soon as you involve opinions, it won't be.

[flllerywhereru2]

5 minutes ago, Bert19 said:

Agreed.  The technology isn't the issue - it's the way it is being used that is a big problem. 

I keep going back to it, but it's been SO much better when it's used in the CL.  Clearer guidelines, more consistent application of rules, more space for Refs to actually use the tool to their benefit

Having been to champions league matches (mens and recently ladies) and dutch league games i can say that the use of VAR is strikingly different to the use in the premier league. On the continent, it is used only when necessary and you dont get the great pantomime of the referee strollling chest puffed out to the screen and then spending 3 to four minutes checking. You hardly notice it's prescence to be honest and as a spectator sport it is much better. I went to dortmund v chelsea and hardly noticed the VAR it is slicker and not used to create a narrative. In the premier league it feels like a made for TV drama with the officials and VAR narrators of the manufactured drama. I think the game suffers for it and so does the integrity. It needs to either be canned or the use of it massively simplified and marginalised.

[east lower]

8 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

The trouble with the "scrap it" argument is that it will take one game, one refereeing mistake and there will be uproar.

Wasn't there always before VAR, there still is and always will be? - It's just how it is. When it was first muted, it was going to be used for cases of mistaken identity. VAR in itself has become the monster.

They roll out stats to support VAR, apparently it's improved decision making by about 6% - How the heck do they judge that, with offsides for one example?

I swear that first Villa goal on Monday night looked two feet onside, but it got disallowed - too much guesswork still going on, such as which picture frame do we use for when the ball was kicked? When we are taking in terms of inches that a players' foot is offside then it matters.

[Mark Kelly]

4 minutes ago, east lower said:

Anything that's fully automated and doesn't rely on subjective human opinion, is fine. For example look at the James sending off. In today's game and with the rules he deserved to be sent off. 

But, do people recall Romero kicking out at one of our players in exactly the same way at our away game with them  earlier in the season and NOT getting sent-off. That's why it's no good. If it's to be used it has to be consistent 100% and fast. As soon as you involve opinions, it won't be.

In fairness Romero "isn't that kind of player" ,

Cough . 

[east lower]

26 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

In fairness Romero "isn't that kind of player" ,

Cough . 

He wasn’t when he ‘avoided’  tackling Foden on Tuesday!!

Double cough

Edited May 16 by east lower

[Backbiter]

1 hour ago, east lower said:

Anything that's fully automated and doesn't rely on subjective human opinion, is fine. For example look at the James sending off. In today's game and with the rules he deserved to be sent off. 

But, do people recall Romero kicking out at one of our players in exactly the same way at our away game with them  earlier in the season and NOT getting sent-off. That's why it's no good. If it's to be used it has to be consistent 100% and fast. As soon as you involve opinions, it won't be.

That is exactly the problem. The two incidents were identical: petulant kick-out by players on the ground. You could add in  Maguire kicking Bats in the nads. All went to VAR, all were clear straight red card offences, but strangely the two kicks out at our players were not seen as such.

Throw in the unpenalised violent hair pull by Romero and the non-red for Lamptey last night and you might cynically ask what is going on with VAR and Chelsea.

[Mark Kelly]

2 minutes ago, Backbiter said:

Throw in the unpenalised violent hair pull by Romero and the non-red for Lamptey last night and you might cynically ask what is going on with VAR and Chelsea.

Two incidents in the same game with the same referee and Var operatives but the outcome was different , it was bias , whether unconscious or purposeful and they should be shamed in the media for it .

Until the human element is eradicated it will be what it has become , open to interpretation of an agenda to suit the whims of the broadcasters who pay top dollar for an exciting open league.

I cannot see beyond the fact that its a narrative and we're all being had .  

[chrisb]

I’m sure Jimmy Sommerville’s brother will clear up all the ambiguity on Ref Watch.

[chrisb]

What do other PL clubs think?

Liverpool are among the clubs that would not support scrapping VAR, Sky Sports News understands.

[chrisb]

Just now, chrisb said:

What do other PL clubs think?

Liverpool are among the clubs that would not support scrapping VAR, Sky Sports News understands.

Hold the back page! The club that has benefited the most from VAR decisions doesn’t want it scrapped.
Well f*ck me with a fish fork, I am surprised.

[east lower]

12 minutes ago, chrisb said:

What do other PL clubs think?

Liverpool are among the clubs that would not support scrapping VAR, Sky Sports News understands.

Quelle surprise!!!

Even when they do get a wrong decision, it swings the other way for the remainder of the season - And do they and their media friends, ever not let everyone know how badly ‘wronged’ they were.

BBC Sport website are running a public poll to keep or scrap VAR. Simple Yes/No vote - 4:1 ratio to get rid thus far.

Edited May 16 by east lower

[Sciatika]

No doubt, their fans' websites will post tables of what would have happened had VAR not been used, which inevitably leads to them winning all the available trophies. The derangement is strong with LFC fans.

Edited May 16 by Sciatika

[Backbiter]

 

Regarding tables of how VAR affects each club, I've long argued that these are incredibly misleading as they do not give the full picture.

Here's an example from the latest ESPN VAR table:

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/38196464/how-var-decisions-affect-premier-league-club-2023-24

It all appears fairly even-handed in this list, but if you dig a little deeper you notice a few things:

Quote

Overturns: 18
Leading to goals for: 5
Disallowed goals for: 6
Leading to goals against: 0
Disallowed goals against: 2
Net goal score: +1
Subjective decisions for: 5
Subjective decisions against: 5
Net subjective score: 0
Penalties for / against: 4 / 1
Red cards for / against: 2 / 1

Quote

Game: Tottenham (A; Nov. 6)
Incident: Raheem Sterling goal disallowed for handball, 21 minutes - AGAINST
Incident: Penalty awarded (scored by Cole Palmer) for a foul on Enzo Fernández by Cristian Romero (who was sent off), 27 minutes - FOR

So according to them, in that game one VAR decision went against us and one for us. 

That ignores the fact that VAR did not tell the ref to review the kick-out by Romero on Colwill that should have seen him sent off ( before he finally got himself sent off a few minutes later).

It also ignores the goal by Caicedo that VAR ruled out immediately before the penalty. I've previously posted the audio/ video of that decision, which beggars belief.

Quote

Game: Brighton (H; Nov. 6)
Incident: Penalty awarded (scored by Enzo Fernández) for a foul on Mykhailo Mudryk by James Milner, 63 minutes - FOR
Incident: Penalty cancelled, no handball by Levi Colwill, 90+11 minutes - FOR

That ignores the fact that the VAR review for the Milner foul somehow overlooked a blatant red card as Milner made no attempt to play the ball, so the 'double jeopardy' rule should not have applied.

 

Quote

Game: Aston Villa (A; April 27)
Incident: Nicolas Jackson goal ruled out for offside, 16 minutes - FOR
Incident: Robin Olsen own goal disallowed for a foul in the buildup by Benoit Badiashile on Diego Carlos, 90+5 minutes - FOR

Errr. WTAF? ESPN have recorded the Badiashile shove that led to our winning goal at Villa being chalked off as a decision FOR us????

Quote

Game: Brighton (A; May 15)
Incident: Penalty cancelled, no foul by Facundo Buonanotte on Marc Cucurella, 17 minutes - AGAINST
Incident: Reece James sent off for violent conduct on João Pedro, 88 minutes - AGAINST

How about VAR looking at the Lamptey assault on Mudryk and not recommending a review, a decision that went AGAINST us? Scandalous non-interventions are not even logged, as in the Milner and Romero incidents I mentioned above. 

 

The article does include this ranking, which makes things pretty clear, even without the omissions and errors I pointed out above:

Quote

VAR - MOST AGAINST

 

Chelsea 10

Sheff United 8

Aston Villa 7

Crystal Palace 7

Manchester United 7

West Ham 7

Wolves 7

AFC Bournemouth 6

Liverpool 6

Tottenham 6

Arsenal 5

Brighton & Hove Albion 5

Newcastle 5

Brentford 4

Burnley 4

Everton 4

Luton 4

Fulham 2

Nottm Forest 1

Manchester City 0

 

Edited May 17 by Backbiter

[martin1905]

VAR was the most stupid thing imaginable. 

Having a system where one man runs a game and makes decisions , in the heat of the moment, without being able to analyse it and look at multiple replays from different angles. Sure he will make mistakes, he's a human being.

Imagine replacing that system so literally every single call is looked at by two other individuals with the benefit of slow motion replays and multiple camera angles. 

My two big gripes with it was always, you can't make decisions in real time but then look at them in slow motion, from different angles, multiple times. What the ref thought may have been a foul, or penalty, or red card may well look different from a different angle or slowed down but so what, the decisions are made based on what he thought at the time and yes he will get some wrong.

Secondly you've now got three peoples opinions and come on, how on earth is that supposed to help anyone?

The only thing any technology should be used for is things that are a matter of fact, was the foul in the penalty box or just outside ? Was the ball over the line? Anything that is based on opinions should not go to VAR.

As for offside, in today's world how far away are we from being able to implement some sort of hawk eye type system so it works like it does in a computer game, they must have the technology? Doesn't matter if its a 6 inches or a mm, get the technology right and doesn't matter what it looks like to the naked eye on replays, it's factual. Offside or not. Simple. Until then offsides should remain the decision of the lino.

They should have bought in hawk eye then bought in VAR for things like fouls inside or outside of the box and continued to develop the technology over a number of years then actually tested it until it was ready to be used and foolproof. 

Instead they went balls deep into a system that hadn't been tested properly and has been proven, beyond doubt not to be fit for purpose.

 

 

[east lower]

Even Mr Gallagher on the 'Dear Dermot' session on Sky Sports News this morning says the decision made in not giving a penalty for the foul on Sterling was incorrect and should have been a penalty.

For more than one, so called 'Elite-Level' referees not to give a penalty smacks of something else less than honest and frank refereeing, with other agenda's in play. 

Another reason to get rid of any non-technical based systems.