VAR Decisions - PL 19/20 Season

[Rafaeldagold]

It's only the correct decision because they've specifically changed the rules to accommodate the introduction of VAR. Last season that goal would have stood even if the referee saw it come off Laporte's hand as it happened.

VAR as it is now is going to detract from football rather than add to it. I said it when they gave offside to Sterling last week and I said it when they let Aguero retake his penalty. It's sucking emotion and spontaneity out of the game. It's already at the point where I'm not celebrating goals with the same passion because I'm not sure if it's going to stand. When Jesus scored I was worried he was offside so didn't go crazy.

Exactly this. It’s just honestly so sad that we’re introducing something which detracts from the game & sucks emotion out of a game . That’s not progress for football.

I also felt the same about checking myself & not celebrating as much when Dan James scored the other week.

 

[duffer]

Exactly this. It’s just honestly so sad that we’re introducing something which detracts from the game & sucks emotion out of a game . That’s not progress for football.

I also felt the same about checking myself & not celebrating as much when Dan James scored the other week.

I personally think it adds emotion.

You also get to celebrate a goal twice!

 

[Anustart89]

I personally think it adds emotion.

You also get to celebrate a goal twice!

Plus Tottenham would not have celebrated as much if that shot from Jesus had just gone wide! It adds celebration!

 

[noodlehair]

I think its subjective call because you think its foul, but VAR ref didn't think it is, or at-least not enough for giving penalty.
I personally think VAR should not check in corners, or we will be in situation where in every game we will have penalty decision from corner, and more time wasting for checking every penalty incident.

The problem is it is used for corners so it then needs to be used for every incident that may be a penalty or foul. Otherwise, and there's no getting around this, the game IS quite often going to be decided by some bloke sitting in a room deciding who is going to win.

The handball rule is fine if that's what they want to be the rule, but if you change a decision because the rule says it's handball, you can't not change a decision because the rule says no holding or impeding someone from a corner but you decide that isn't as much of a rule as the handball one.

The issue is that VAR isn't being asked whether it was a penalty/handball. It is being asked whether the referee made a clear and obvious mistake in not awarding the penalty/handball.

In the case of the handball, that's a clear yes under the new rules. If it hit the player's hand, the referee made a clear and obvious error in not awarding a penalty. Handball in this instance is an objective call. Once VAR see it touch the hand, their decision is made for them.

That isn't the case in the Laporte incident as we know that referees allow a certain amount of pulling and dragging at set pieces. The fact that this is an area where referees show subjectivity and discretion makes it harder for it to meet the threshold VAR requires to overturn the referee's decision.

Well that's the line that is being given but in reality this is not what is happening is it?

The whole point of VAR is to get rid of inconsistency and mistakes, and we've seen in the Champions League, in other countries and in the World Cup, that it works very well if you want it to. The difference is that in these cases VAR intervenes when it thinks something has been missed. If it is not obvious the ref can look at it on a screen himself, but there is no picking and choosing which teams it applies to, which incidents, etc. It's a video assistant and it's used as one.

In England we seem to have somewhat deliberately missed the point, and want to allow a single person to dictate when they think it will be of help, by no other criteria than whether they feel like it or not. As if we WANT it to be controversial or to use it as a tool to manufacture situations in games.

We have had situations in England like the Liverpool vs West Brom cup game, where every time West BRom score, the game does not restart for 5 minutes while VAR man desperately searches for a reason to disallow the goal. Offside incidents like the Mata goal where it is disallowed because it might be offside and then a fumbling attempt to make it look offside appears half hour later. Or the Sterling one last week where it is shown not offside, and so the picture is moved forward slightly so it is offside, and it is disallowed. This is before you even get to the whole picking and choosing when to apply it nonsense. The Laporte incident yesterday in any other country would have at the very least been referred to the referee to look at, at which point he would have given a penalty because it was a fairly clear foul...the room for subjectiveness there was very little even for a Tottenham fan.

Every time it is used in England it is inconsistent and suspect. The only time I've seen it used inconsistently outside of England was during the world cup, in England games, because we had such a massive moan off about our players being held and fouled at corners and how it would be a "penalty every time" in the Premier League. Then when it does happen, in the Premier League, and we have VAR, it's just completely ignored...until next week in a differenct scenario when it wont be ignored, until later in the same game when it will be again.

 

[noodlehair]

This post implies that VAR will always result in the correct decision and will be used in a consistent manner. As we've seen, that hasn't been the case so far.

Exactly.

Incorrect decisions are annoying but are mistakes and they rarely "ruin the game"...A video ref also doesn't "ruin the game"

What will ruin the game is giving someone the power to "subjectively" use a video ref to correct or not correct mistakes as they see fit. It's all a big laugh when it's Man City getting stung. Wait until United lose at Leicester because VAR man awards a penalty for Vardy being pulled slightly by the arm, then ignores Maguire being wrestled over at every set piece because it was a "subjective" call.In the past these things are mistakes. Now you're going to end up having to try and explain to yourself why they are happening on purpose.

THe point of a video ref is to take the human error/biased opinion out of decision making, not empower it.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

One great thing about the VAR controversy is how many people it's exposed as not knowing the rules. How can you complain about a system enforcing the rules if you don't even know the rules?

All this talk about elbows and fingernails being offside and last night's accidental handball etc. I don't like the new handball law, I think the accidental handball bit should only apply to the goalscorer himself, but I think VAR's doing what it says on the tin.

Not quite - as VAR marginal offsides have a margin for error

 

[POF]

The problem is it is used for corners so it then needs to be used for every incident that may be a penalty or foul. Otherwise, and there's no getting around this, the game IS quite often going to be decided by some bloke sitting in a room deciding who is going to win.

The handball rule is fine if that's what they want to be the rule, but if you change a decision because the rule says it's handball, you can't not change a decision because the rule says no holding or impeding someone from a corner but you decide that isn't as much of a rule as the handball one.



Well that's the line that is being given but in reality this is not what is happening is it?

The whole point of VAR is to get rid of inconsistency and mistakes, and we've seen in the Champions League, in other countries and in the World Cup, that it works very well if you want it to. The difference is that in these cases VAR intervenes when it thinks something has been missed. If it is not obvious the ref can look at it on a screen himself, but there is no picking and choosing which teams it applies to, which incidents, etc. It's a video assistant and it's used as one.

In England we seem to have somewhat deliberately missed the point, and want to allow a single person to dictate when they think it will be of help, by no other criteria than whether they feel like it or not. As if we WANT it to be controversial or to use it as a tool to manufacture situations in games.

We have had situations in England like the Liverpool vs West Brom cup game, where every time West BRom score, the game does not restart for 5 minutes while VAR man desperately searches for a reason to disallow the goal. Offside incidents like the Mata goal where it is disallowed because it might be offside and then a fumbling attempt to make it look offside appears half hour later. Or the Sterling one last week where it is shown not offside, and so the picture is moved forward slightly so it is offside, and it is disallowed. This is before you even get to the whole picking and choosing when to apply it nonsense. The Laporte incident yesterday in any other country would have at the very least been referred to the referee to look at, at which point he would have given a penalty because it was a fairly clear foul...the room for subjectiveness there was very little even for a Tottenham fan.

Every time it is used in England it is inconsistent and suspect. The only time I've seen it used inconsistently outside of England was during the world cup, in England games, because we had such a massive moan off about our players being held and fouled at corners and how it would be a "penalty every time" in the Premier League. Then when it does happen, in the Premier League, and we have VAR, it's just completely ignored...until next week in a differenct scenario when it wont be ignored, until later in the same game when it will be again.

There are certainly some worrying signs with it thus far. The Sterling offside at West Ham was just so tight that it shouldn't have been disallowed. The issue with that is that the technology can't be that perfect. It is impossible to tell with 100% certainty the exact moment the ball leaves the passing players' foot. If it's that close, there should be benefit of the doubt. Instead, everyone just pretends it is 100% correct every time.

The matters of opinion decisions are far more subjective and you can tell the EPL doesn't want any overruled decisions unless it's an absolute howler. Deulofeu vs Everton was a shocker though. The defender was nowhere near the ball, ref gave a corner yet "no clear and obvious error". Turns out Smalling would have been fine after all!

 

[sullydnl]

There are certainly some worrying signs with it thus far. The Sterling offside at West Ham was just so tight that it shouldn't have been disallowed. The issue with that is that the technology can't be that perfect. It is impossible to tell with 100% certainty the exact moment the ball leaves the passing players' foot. If it's that close, there should be benefit of the doubt. Instead, everyone just pretends it is 100% correct every time.

The matters of opinion decisions are far more subjective and you can tell the EPL doesn't want any overruled decisions unless it's an absolute howler. Deulofeu vs Everton was a shocker though. The defender was nowhere near the ball, ref gave a corner yet "no clear and obvious error". Turns out Smalling would have been fine after all!

Minor point but it's the moment it first touches the passing player's foot that counts. Or rather the first frame in which that's the case.

 

[POF]

Minor point but it's the moment it first touches the passing player's foot that counts. Or rather the first frame in which that's the case.

I didn't know that and it probably makes it clearer. It's still impossible for it to be 100% accurate though.

 

[sullydnl]

I didn't know that and it probably makes it clearer. It's still impossible for it to be 100% accurate though.

I know the VAR is given three frames to look at and selects the first in which contact is made, so I guess the degree of accuracy simply comes down frame rate per second? In which case this is something you could expect to improve as VAR tech advances.

Plus we are used to using similar tech in other areas of life without insisting on an impossible degree of accuracy. Speed cameras aren't 100% accurate either, for example, yet they're happily used to enforce the actual law.

 

[POF]

I know the VAR is given three frames to look at and selects the first in which contact is made, so I guess the degree of accuracy simply comes down frame rate per second? In which case this is something you could expect to improve as VAR tech advances.

Plus we are used to using similar tech in other areas of life without insisting on an impossible degree of accuracy. Speed cameras aren't 100% accurate either, for example, yet they're happily used to enforce the actual law.

But you won't get done for doing 61kmph in a 60kmph zone on a speed camera because it's not 100% accurate. Similarly, the hawkeye technology in cricket has the "umpires call" benefit of the doubt because they know it's not 100% accurate.

There's nothing wrong with it not being 100% accurate, as long as that is acknowledged and the rules are applied accordingly.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Minor point but it's the moment it first touches the passing player's foot that counts. Or rather the first frame in which that's the case.

Is that right? Have you seen that written down somewhere? Because it makes no sense. What if the “passer” kills the ball with his first touch, pauses for a moment, then flicks it forward with his next movement? Surely it can’t actually be considered a pass until after the ball leaves his foot?

 

[sullydnl]

Is that right? Have you seen that written down somewhere? Because it makes no sense. What if the “passer” kills the ball with his first touch, pauses for a moment, then flicks it forward with his next movement? Surely it can’t actually be considered a pass until after the ball leaves his foot?

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

In the case you describe the offside would be called from the first frame of the "next movement" in which his foot makes contact with the ball. As opposed to any of the subsequent frames in which his foot would still be in contact with the ball, or the first frame in which it has left his foot.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

In the case you describe the offside would be called from the first frame of the "next movement" in which his foot makes contact with the ball. As opposed to any of the subsequent frames in which his foot would still be in contact with the ball, or the first frame in which it has left his foot.

Ah. Ok. Thanks. At least it’s a clear definition.

Still think there’s a BIG margin of error which - as it stands - seems to favour defenders. The exact opposite to how they’ve been trying to tweak the offside rule in recent years.

 

[Viral United]

The problem is it is used for corners so it then needs to be used for every incident that may be a penalty or foul. Otherwise, and there's no getting around this, the game IS quite often going to be decided by some bloke sitting in a room deciding who is going to win.

The handball rule is fine if that's what they want to be the rule, but if you change a decision because the rule says it's handball, you can't not change a decision because the rule says no holding or impeding someone from a corner but you decide that isn't as much of a rule as the handball one.

Isn't at that point subjective of rule come in to play?
For Handball if ball touch your hand its handball there is not if or buts in there,
but in Holding, you need to sure there is enough of that, because there are so many players goes down easily for gaining foul advantage. and that's make it subjective rule.
You think there is enough holding of player and should be penalty but game official think that's not enough holding and should not be penalty.

I understand want you want to say, you want every wrong decision to be corrected, but its not how VAR works. VAR help to make more correct decision, but 100% accuracy will never going to achieve. There will be subjective call and there will be wrong subjective call.
Even applying technology for 22 years in Cricket its not 100% perfect.
Just because VAR can't give you all wrong decision it doesn't means VAR is useless.

Think about this way,
Without VAR there was 2 wrong decision in game,
With VAR there was 1 wrong decision in game as VAR corrected other one.
Its still good thing to have than previous system.
City was unlucky to be wrong side of both decision.

 

[#07]

I am still peeved about the refereeing in the United game yesterday: what is the point of VAR if it's allowing a player to be booked for getting kicked in the knee?

 

[Amar__]

Well you gotta say it's pretty useless if they don't want to use it properly and not give penalty for things like this.

 

[Mrs Smoker]

Or that Ederson foul. Indeed, the use in England is...weird.

 

[Ridge Racer]

The use of VAR in England so far has been shockingly bad. Wonder if they're trying to boycott it knowingly "eh, it doesn't work, let's get rid of VAR".

 

[Amar__]

The use of VAR in England so far has been shockingly bad. Wonder if they're trying to boycott it knowingly "eh, it doesn't work, let's get rid of VAR".

Yeah, it pretty much looks like boycott from the officials at this point.

 

[giorno]

The thing is, if english clubs were run by normal people the reaction from them should be "let's get new refs who won't do their job while drunk" rather than "VAR doesn't work"

 

[ROFLUTION]

The thing is, if english clubs were run by normal people the reaction from them should be "let's get new refs who won't do their job while drunk" rather than "VAR doesn't work"

The thing is, the current refs are supposedly the best available in the country. Imagine what the next refs in line will be then.

 

[BarcaSpurs]

Absolute fecking shambles. One thing if it means getting all decisions right but all the messing around just to get fecking clear as day decisions wrong still is just embarrassing.

 

[Random Task]

Spurs were robbed just like we were yesterday.

Making the wrong call when you have the benefit of video technology at your disposal is inexcusable.

The refs need to be made accountable.

 

[Alexit]

VAR MOTM again. This is going to be an even longer season because of this nonsense.

 

[BobbyManc]

Things VAR has intervened in: Sterling (apparently) being a centimetre offside, encroachment in the penalty area by Rice which had no influence on the outcome, a ball to hand against Laporte, a Brighton goal disallowed for a tight offside.

Things it hasn't intervened in: blatant penalty after a foul on Silva, blatant penalty after Martial is impeded in the box, blatant penalty after Kane is tripped, pretty clear penalty for a foul on Rodri.

That's just off the top of my head. Right now, in it current guise, VAR is nothing short of an abomination and has added feck all to the game while detracting from the experience and arguably only exacerbating inconsistency with refereeing decisions. Do people remember the stoppage for a possible red card in yesterday's Liverpool game? From the first glance at the replay it was manifestly obvious it was never a red card but VAR insisted on holding up a corner for a good two minutes before making its mind up.

 

[48 hours]

Some VAR clips from the weekend

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[48 hours]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Sandikan]

Things VAR has intervened in: Sterling (apparently) being a centimetre offside, encroachment in the penalty area by Rice which had no influence on the outcome, a ball to hand against Laporte, a Brighton goal disallowed for a tight offside.

Things it hasn't intervened in: blatant penalty after a foul on Silva, blatant penalty after Martial is impeded in the box, blatant penalty after Kane is tripped, pretty clear penalty for a foul on Rodri.

That's just off the top of my head. Right now, in it current guise, VAR is nothing short of an abomination and has added feck all to the game while detracting from the experience and arguably only exacerbating inconsistency with refereeing decisions. Do people remember the stoppage for a possible red card in yesterday's Liverpool game? From the first glance at the replay it was manifestly obvious it was never a red card but VAR insisted on holding up a corner for a good two minutes before making its mind up.

There was a "red card review" at Old Trafford v Chelsea the other week too.

I think it was Abraham had fouled someone, a foul that the ref wasn't even bothered about stopping play for until our player refused to get up.
Then they decided it was a "red card review", put that on the screen, while the ref was obviously just telling Abraham it was just a booking, and play quickly carried on.

Very bizarre.
Presumably the gnomes in some random tv studio were the ones who called that? Can't have been the ref as he was relaxed about even stopping play!

 

[48 hours]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Adam-Utd]

The use of VAR in England so far has been shockingly bad. Wonder if they're trying to boycott it knowingly "eh, it doesn't work, let's get rid of VAR".

Not a bad shout that.

It genuinely feels like they’ve all banded together and said no matter what don’t use the VAR to over rule us and make us look stupid.

Some of these have been blatantly obvious (martial and silva) and Kane’s was pretty clearly a foul but I guess you can say the defender tripped and it was accidental.

They keep using this “ clear and obvious” as an excuse, but where does that stop? They can use that for every decision no matter how blatent. I guess we all just move on and forget the errors? Crazy.

 

[Red14Devil9]

Kane was fouled in the penalty area and he should get a penalty.

Silva was fouled in the penalty area and he should get a penalty.

Martial was fouled in the penalty area and he should get a penalty.

Three easy decisions for VAR and all were wrong. I don't think that we should blame VAR as the system, but the people that use this VAR in England. It's also weird that VAR didn't oppose referee's decision in either case.

 

[BobbyManc]

These decisions also suggest that even if a player dives for a penalty which gets awarded, VAR will not overturn it. So cheating will be rewarded. Because if blatant fouls are not enough to warrant overturning a non-decision, then surely a similar 'standard' or 'burden' has to apply to the opposite. Thus, a player who dives, so long as it's a reasonable dive and a player was in close proximity to him, will not have his penalty overturned. It's ludicrous.

 

[BobbyManc]

Not a bad shout that.

It genuinely feels like they’ve all banded together and said no matter what don’t use the VAR to over rule us and make us look stupid.

Some of these have been blatantly obvious (martial and silva) and Kane’s was pretty clearly a foul but I guess you can say the defender tripped and it was accidental.

They keep using this “ clear and obvious” as an excuse, but where does that stop? They can use that for every decision no matter how blatent. I guess we all just move on and forget the errors? Crazy.

That's irrelevant though, really. I mean Kane's was probably the least blatant of the three because he did seem to play for it and move his foot towards Lascelles to ensure there was contact but it was a penalty regardless. The Martial and Silva ones are even more obvious. As soon as you see the replay you know it should be a penalty. It's literally only a matter of time before a penalty is awarded for a decision that is less obvious than the three examples we've had already.

 

[Sandikan]

The Martial one is very strange not to give. Can only think it's the weird tendency of refs to allow any sort of brutalisation of a player as fair game as long as he gets a shot off!

For some reason I remember Ashley Cole utterly kung fu-ing in on one of ours years back and getting no punishment, as we got a shot off!

 

[bleedred]

These decisions also suggest that even if a player dives for a penalty which gets awarded, VAR will not overturn it. So cheating will be rewarded. Because if blatant fouls are not enough to warrant overturning a non-decision, then surely a similar 'standard' or 'burden' has to apply to the opposite. Thus, a player who dives, so long as it's a reasonable dive and a player was in close proximity to him, will not have his penalty overturned. It's ludicrous.

Yeah, it’s hard to recollect a single decision given by the ref that has been overturned by the VAR in the 30 games so far, apart from the goal checks. Is there any really?

 

[awop]

There's been some huge mistakes this weekend but am i alone in thinking the Kane one is right ? Looks like a Rooney penalty to me, throwing his legs and being voluntarily weak on his feet to try and get the decision. David Silva's is a penalty as is Martial.

 

[sewey89]

There's been some huge mistakes this weekend but am i alone in thinking the Kane one is right ? Looks like a Rooney penalty to me, throwing his legs and being voluntarily weak on his feet to try and get the decision. David Silva's is a penalty as is Martial.

I don’t think the Kane one is a pen either.

Or at least, I don’t think it should’ve been overturned.

It was marginal and could’ve gone either way. There’s not enough in it to say that Mike Dean made a ‘clear and obvious error’.

They’ve made it very clear that they’re not going to re-referee the game. They’ll overturn decisions when it’s 100% the wrong decision.

The James one wouldn’t have been looked at. They look at goals, penalties and red cards. (I think I might be missing something else that they look at)

 

[roseguy64]

I don’t think the Kane one is a pen either.

Or at least, I don’t think it should’ve been overturned.

It was marginal and could’ve gone either way. There’s not enough in it to say that Mike Dean made a ‘clear and obvious error’.

They’ve made it very clear that they’re not going to re-referee the game. They’ll overturn decisions when it’s 100% the wrong decision.

The James one wouldn’t have been looked at. They look at goals, penalties and red cards. (I think I might be missing something else that they look at)

Mistaken identity is the other

 

[SteveW]

There's been some huge mistakes this weekend but am i alone in thinking the Kane one is right ? Looks like a Rooney penalty to me, throwing his legs and being voluntarily weak on his feet to try and get the decision. David Silva's is a penalty as is Martial.

He turned his run away from the ball in order to fall over lascelles. Correct decision.

Edit: he actually ran past the ball to try and get the pen.