VAR

[Sith Happens]

17 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

He did do something wrong though. He fouled the player. Even whether it was a yellow card or not, he still fouled him. This is illegal in the game of football and punishable with a free kick. 

Normally the consequences of this are not particularly serious, so the punishment is just a free kick and maybe a yellow card, but this time they were, and the punishment has to reflect that. 

You wouldn’t give everyone a red card for every foul, but players have to understand that it’s the risk they take, if they seriously injure a player trough their foul play, they’re going to get a penalty commensurate with the resultant injury. 

If it’s an accident that results from a fair challenge, then it is just that, an accident, completely unpreventable. But this wasn’t an accident, Son unfairly fouled him, setting off the sequence of events that caused him to be injured. He didn’t mean it, and he’s probably mortified, but he’s still going to get punished from it (and if he’s as good a bloke as people keep saying, then he’s probably glad of it, I’d feel awful if caused an injury like that and didn’t have to pay some sort of penance, but maybe that’s just the catholic in me). 

Thats the stance the PL seem to be taking although i don't agree. How you can show a yellow card then change your mind is beyond me.

So using this 'consequences' method of determining a punishment, what if the injury is not so obvious as it was in this incident? Tackle happens, yellow shown, player who was fouled goes off for treatment, unable to return and subsequently discovered to have an injury which will keep him out for several months?

Is the yellow retrospectively increased to a Red?

Or what happens if the tackle happens, the player fouled looks seriously injured so instead of a yellow ref gives a red because of  the 'consequences' then the fouled player comes back on the pitch a few mins later, does the ref go off down the tunnel to fetch the player he gave a red too because he only gave red because it looked like a bad injury?

In this circumstance i accept it was obvious it was a serious injury but very few are as visually obvious as this. Is this what we are saying if you foul someone and at some point following the incident if its discovered that the fouled player is going to be out for a significant time then its an instant red in retrospect?

 

[RandomAccessMemory]

15 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

Personally I think they should be encouraged to flag as they used to.

Then VAR should check it. If the VAR measured lines are within X distance (call it an inch) of each other; the linesmans flag or no flag stands. Otherwise its upheld/overturned as necessary.

Be much better imo.

I actually think I remember reading that the Premier League have told them to flag for clear offsides and not for tight calls, I think elsewhere they are encouraged to let the play go on and then flag afterwards.

Personally I think the second option, letting the play continue and then flagging afterwards is much more sensible and it is the Premier League way that is not working, as clear and tight are subjective, and what is the point in having VAR and then flagging before the ball has gone in the net, stopping the play and then finding out afterwards that it was actually onside and they've stopped a perfectly legitimate attacking move from potentially culminating in a goal?

At the beginning of the season there was a lot of talk about how many goals VAR was taking away compared to how many it was giving, the above doesn't help that.

[AndyinLiverpool]

2 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

I actually think I remember reading that the Premier League have told them to flag for clear offsides and not for tight calls, I think elsewhere they are encouraged to let the play go on and then flag afterwards.

Personally I think the second option, letting the play continue and then flagging afterwards is much more sensible and it is the Premier League way that is not working, as clear and tight are subjective, and what is the point in having VAR and then flagging before the ball has gone in the net, stopping the play and then finding out afterwards that it was actually onside and they've stopped a perfectly legitimate attacking move from potentially culminating in a goal?

At the beginning of the season there was a lot of talk about how many goals VAR was taking away compared to how many it was giving, the above doesn't help that.

It certainly gave Watford one on Saturday.

[Andicis]

1 hour ago, TigerTedd said:

He did do something wrong though. He fouled the player. Even whether it was a yellow card or not, he still fouled him. This is illegal in the game of football and punishable with a free kick. 

Normally the consequences of this are not particularly serious, so the punishment is just a free kick and maybe a yellow card, but this time they were, and the punishment has to reflect that. 

You wouldn’t give everyone a red card for every foul, but players have to understand that it’s the risk they take, if they seriously injure a player trough their foul play, they’re going to get a penalty commensurate with the resultant injury. 

If it’s an accident that results from a fair challenge, then it is just that, an accident, completely unpreventable. But this wasn’t an accident, Son unfairly fouled him, setting off the sequence of events that caused him to be injured. He didn’t mean it, and he’s probably mortified, but he’s still going to get punished from it (and if he’s as good a bloke as people keep saying, then he’s probably glad of it, I’d feel awful if caused an injury like that and didn’t have to pay some sort of penance, but maybe that’s just the catholic in me). 

Look at the foul in isolation. The other bits shouldn't matter. The foul in isolation is not a red card. The collision with Aurier was the bit that did the damage, why is Son being sent off? Yeah, it's punishable with a free kick. Nothing Son did is punishable with a red card, VAR should have seen it and overruled it. It's a ludicrous decision. Son didn't seriously injure anyone. Gomes collided with Aurier and landed badly. A booking and a free kick is more than sufficient. He does feel bad. But football decisions shouldn't be made on emotions, they should be made on the rules. And in the rules of the game, that's not a red. Which is why Atkinson and VAR is wrong, the foul is the only thing that should be looked at.

It wasn't reckless, it wasn't aggressive, it was a bog standard trip. Not a red.

[TigerTedd]

double post

[Ghost of Clough]

 

[Ghost of Clough]

Another week, another shocking VAR decision. Check out the disallowed goal in the Spurs Sheff Utd game ?‍♂️

[Sith Happens]

2 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Another week, another shocking VAR decision. Check out the disallowed goal in the Spurs Sheff Utd game ?‍♂️

That is a shocker.

If i wasn't so trusting in the football authorities i would think pound notes are being exchanged.

 

[Millenniumram]

I mean that Sheffield United disallowed goal is just total incompetence by the bloke inside the VAR room. The images blantantly show that he’s onside, how anyone can see that and call him off is beyond me. Don’t blame the technology, blame the people using it and the way it’s being used. The precision they’re doing things at is ridiculous- and there’s only one thing gonna come when you’ve got the incompetent English refs on the pitch being given information by the incompetent English refs off the pitch- incompetent decisions. 

[BondJovi]

Offside can never be as precise as goal line technology. Why are we trying to judge it down to mms? Do the lines drawn factor in any margin for error? 

If a linesman couldn't make the call then advantage to the attacker. Taking over 3 mins to decide a mm is just inept. Why not just say, there is a 5 cm margin for error and all offsides are based on the furthest forward foot of the attacker. 

All that has happened is that no one talks about refs much, we just talk more about var. It could be a very useful tool, sadly it is being operated by tools.

 

[RadioactiveWaste]

Is it time to humanely drive VAR into the desert, force it to dig it's own grave then shoot it in the head?

 

[maxjam]

 

[nottingram]

With VAR in its current state I hope we don’t get promoted.

Refereeing mistakes I can live with. ‘Mistakes’ like those for Liverpool’s first goal today would leave me wondering quite what the motives are of those using them

[Sith Happens]

3 minutes ago, nottingram said:

With VAR in its current state I hope we don’t get promoted.

Refereeing mistakes I can live with. ‘Mistakes’ like those for Liverpool’s first goal today would leave me wondering quite what the motives are of those using them

I am surprised it wasn't looked at, it was for me a clear handball, however very much looked to me that the ricochet which caused him to handball it was actually a handball from the City player.

[AndyinLiverpool]

4 hours ago, maxjam said:

 

Are these the same people that want referees to come out after a game to talk about their decisions?

[nottingram]

34 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

I am surprised it wasn't looked at, it was for me a clear handball, however very much looked to me that the ricochet which caused him to handball it was actually a handball from the City player.

I suspect that may be it. However they can’t give that explanation because then the game should’ve been stopped when Trent handballed, as that would’ve been advantage over and therefore Liverpool’s free kick.

There is just a ridiculous lack of consistency even within games let alone across the whole division. The official line today is that Trent’s arm was not in an unnatural position (it was). Okay fine but then what about Dele Alli’s last week against Everton where his hand was outstretched above his head?

That’s before we even get started on giving players offside because their toenail is offside and they forgot to cut them last night

[Sith Happens]

3 minutes ago, nottingram said:

I suspect that may be it. However they can’t give that explanation because then the game should’ve been stopped when Trent handballed, as that would’ve been advantage over and therefore Liverpool’s free kick.

There is just a ridiculous lack of consistency even within games let alone across the whole division. The official line today is that Trent’s arm was not in an unnatural position (it was). Okay fine but then what about Dele Alli’s last week against Everton where his hand was outstretched above his head?

That’s before we even get started on giving players offside because their toenail is offside and they forgot to cut them last night

Yes they are very inconsistent.  Some of the decisions are bizarre 

[G STAR RAM]

Not seen the game only reading what people have said, arent all moves leading to goals supposed to be reviewed?

I thought whether handball was intentional or not no longer mattered?

Does anyone even know the rules anymore (officials included)?

VAR needs scrapping before they ruin the game.

Did have to laugh at the Sky Sport clip up above though. They have done nothing but criticise officials for the last 20 years to the point where this technology was required.

[AndyinLiverpool]

16 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Not seen the game only reading what people have said, arent all moves leading to goals supposed to be reviewed?

I thought whether handball was intentional or not no longer mattered?

Does anyone even know the rules anymore (officials included)?

VAR needs scrapping before they ruin the game.

Did have to laugh at the Sky Sport clip up above though. They have done nothing but criticise officials for the last 20 years to the point where this technology was required.

The technology isn't required.

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

The technology isn't required.

Agreed. Another step closer to destroying the game for the paying spectator. Who cares though as long as it gives the armchair Sky generation something to talk about.

I've cancelled my Sky Sports subscription. Want nothing more to do with this circus. Only seen one live Premier League game this season and I dont miss it one bit.