VAR and Refs | General Discussion | Forest go into meltdown

Doracle

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
3,018
Dermot:

Forest 1: no penalty. There’s contact but it’s insufficient to give a penalty. Pundits - both say penalty.

Forest 2: would have been very harsh to be given, running in a natural position. Pundits - natural for arms to be there, no penalty.

Forest 3: this is a penalty. Young doesn’t play the ball and gets caught wrong side. Should have gone to the screen. Pundits - 100% penalty.
 

Hughes35

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Messages
2,606
Pexbo said:
Why just feet when you can score with your head amongst other things? I don’t see how arbitrarily choosing feet helps anything.

2. Agree with this although I think 3 is too many. I think it should also be very defined in scope. The contesting team has to say exactly the reason they are contesting the decision, and maybe they could give multiple reasons if they think more than one infringement took place. That way you reduce the chance of teams using the contest as pot luck that something happened.
Click to expand...
Just feet because it takes away arguments about where your arm starts / stops. Seeing players being offside by an arbitrary line under the armpit is a bit ridiculous. Doing it by feet makes the whole thing cleaner.

Oh 100%. The challenge needs to be specific... We want you to look at that throw in that just happened as it looked like it bounced off the opponent, or we believe their number 5 handballed it in the penalty area etc etc. I think 3 is a good number for an entire game of football. You get an extra challenge if the game goes to extra time in a cup.
 

Hughes35

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Messages
2,606
justsomebloke said:
There's something to be said for this. I've never understood how having a hand on the wrong side of the defender is supposed to give you an unfair advantage. I've seen the challenge system in the NHL, and it seems to work well there at least.
Click to expand...
It would be great entertainment, force the on field refs to make the calls and not just be passive. It would also add an extra element to being a captain. Somebody like Bruno would likely use all his challenges in the first 15 minutes whereas some captains would be good at making the right calls at the right times.
 

NotChatGPT

Brownfinger
Joined
Jul 3, 2023
Messages
582
Doracle said:
Dermot:

Forest 1: no penalty. There’s contact but it’s insufficient to give a penalty. Pundits - both say penalty.

Forest 2: would have been very harsh to be given, running in a natural position. Pundits - natural for arms to be there, no penalty.

Forest 3: this is a penalty. Young doesn’t play the ball and gets caught wrong side. Should have gone to the screen. Pundits - 100% penalty.
Click to expand...
Running with arms in natural position, jesus.

This is Young a second before the ball hits is arm as the ball is crossed over him.

 

Pexbo

Winner of the 'I'm not reading that' medal.
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
68,746
Location
Brizzle
Supports
Big Days
Hughes35 said:
It would be great entertainment, force the on field refs to make the calls and not just be passive. It would also add an extra element to being a captain. Somebody like Bruno would likely use all his challenges in the first 15 minutes whereas some captains would be good at making the right calls at the right times.
Click to expand...
Not only would the on field ref have to make the call, they would have to justify it to the captains. That bit should be mic’d up so everyone can hear it.
 

Berbasbullet

Too Boring For A Funny Tagline
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
20,304
NotChatGPT said:
Running with arms in natural position, jesus.

This is Young a second before the ball hits is arm as the ball is crossed over him.

Click to expand...
He’s clearly just trying to scare a flock of birds away? How is that unnatural?
 

NotChatGPT

Brownfinger
Joined
Jul 3, 2023
Messages
582
Hughes35 said:
It would be great entertainment, force the on field refs to make the calls and not just be passive. It would also add an extra element to being a captain. Somebody like Bruno would likely use all his challenges in the first 15 minutes whereas some captains would be good at making the right calls at the right times.
Click to expand...
It would also be great entertainment if you introduced three corners = a penalty.

Or 15 throws in on the oppositions half resulting in a freekick on the edge of the box

Or how about if you maintain over 60% possession for over 45 minutes you get a penalty.

It would be entertaining, but fecking stupid.
 

Annihilate Now!

...or later, I'm not fussy
Scout
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
49,957
Location
W.Yorks

Even Dermott can't defend the third one, its such a blatant pen I don't know how they missed it.
 

Hughes35

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Messages
2,606
NotChatGPT said:
It would also be great entertainment if you introduced three corners = a penalty.

Or 15 throws in on the oppositions half resulting in a freekick on the edge of the box

Or how about if you maintain over 60% possession for over 45 minutes you get a penalty.

It would be entertaining, but fecking stupid.
Click to expand...
Which part of my suggestion would be stupid?
 

Hughes35

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Messages
2,606
Pexbo said:
Not only would the on field ref have to make the call, they would have to justify it to the captains. That bit should be mic’d up so everyone can hear it.
Click to expand...
Agree with that too. It would also then in turn force the players to talk to the ref with respect as anything obscene would be picked up as it happens.
 

NotChatGPT

Brownfinger
Joined
Jul 3, 2023
Messages
582
Hughes35 said:
Which part of my suggestion would be stupid?
Click to expand...
Everything.

Introducing a challenge system with a set amount of "tries" would be an utter farce.

All you have to do is get rid of "clear and obvious" and turn VAR into a system that fully collaborates with the referee on the pitch for the big decisions, you get rid of a meaningless threshold that prevents fairness.
 

Longshanks

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
1,784
Hughes35 said:
The most frustrating this is that most the answers are so obvious.

1. Make offside just for feet only. (Semi automated offside like WC).
2. Get rid of the video referee and make it so that each captain has 3 challenges... If challenged the ON FIELD ref goes to a pitch side monitor (Or even better yet a big screen so the crowd can see). The get a set number of replays from different angles and speeds and then they make a decision.

Is it perfect - No
Is it better - Yes
Is it fair - Yes
Is it entertaining - yes
is it quick - Yes

It's so obvious but you just know they will add layer upon layer of new laws, new reviews, new job roles etc and make it even worse.
Click to expand...
Offside should be done from the basis of, has the linesman made an obvious error. Anything that is around level possibly just on/just off. Just gets left with the linesman decision. Anything where the linesman has clearly made an error then gets overturned. No lines or anything like that. The technology simply isn't accurate enough to give us reliable calls for very tight offsides.

Agree about giving captains/managers challenges. But it should be two referees compleatly disconnected from game who don't know what decision the onfield ref has made or who has made the challenge. They see the incident couple of times from couple of different angles then get 30 secs to make a decision. If they both go against the on field refs decision than the decision gets overturned. My worry about using just the ref and pitchside monitor is the affect of being bias towards original decision and being influenced by the crowd/players/managers.
 

Doracle

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
3,018
You can tell it’s a bad weekend for VAR when Dermot essentially says three decisions were wrong (Grealish, AWB and the third Young one).
 

Hughes35

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Messages
2,606
NotChatGPT said:
Everything.

Introducing a challenge system with a set amount of "tries" would be an utter farce.

All you have to do is get rid of "clear and obvious" and turn VAR into a system that fully collaborates with the referee on the pitch for the big decisions, you get rid of a meaningless threshold that prevents fairness.
Click to expand...
Surely you don't actually think there is a way to make VAR work with remote refs?

Not sure why you think a challenge system wouldn't work. It works in loads of sports without any issue.
 

NotChatGPT

Brownfinger
Joined
Jul 3, 2023
Messages
582
Longshanks said:
Offside should be done from the basis of, has the linesman made an obvious error. Anything that is around level possibly just on/just off. Just gets left with the linesman decision. Anything where the linesman has clearly made an error then gets overturned. No lines or anything like that. The technology simply isn't accurate enough to give us reliable calls for very tight offsides.

Agree about giving captains/managers challenges. But it should be two referees compleatly disconnected from game who don't know what decision the onfield ref has made or who has made the challenge. They see the incident couple of times from couple of different angles then get 30 secs to make a decision. If they both go against the on field refs decision than the decision gets overturned. My worry about using just the ref and pitchside monitor is the affect of being bias towards original decision and being influenced by the crowd/players/managers.
Click to expand...
That is the basis offsides are done from now. It's binary.

The technology is accurate enough to give more reliable calls than the linesmen.

I honestly have no idea whatsoever why people are so desperate to make this even worse than it is. You'd essentially have to create a new boundary for when the VAR gets involved for tight offside, then you start arguing if it was tight enough compared to what happened in a different match and so on and so on.
 

NotChatGPT

Brownfinger
Joined
Jul 3, 2023
Messages
582
Hughes35 said:
Surely you don't actually think there is a way to make VAR work with remote refs?

Not sure why you think a challenge system wouldn't work. It works in loads of sports without any issue.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't VAR work with remote refs?

Just because it works in an unrelated sport it doesn't mean it's going to work in football.
 

Hughes35

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Messages
2,606
Longshanks said:
Offside should be done from the basis of, has the linesman made an obvious error. Anything that is around level possibly just on/just off. Just gets left with the linesman decision. Anything where the linesman has clearly made an error then gets overturned. No lines or anything like that. The technology simply isn't accurate enough to give us reliable calls for very tight offsides.

Agree about giving captains/managers challenges. But it should be two referees compleatly disconnected from game who don't know what decision the onfield ref has made or who has made the challenge. They see the incident couple of times from couple of different angles then get 30 secs to make a decision. If they both go against the on field refs decision than the decision gets overturned. My worry about using just the ref and pitchside monitor is the affect of being bias towards original decision and being influenced by the crowd/players/managers.
Click to expand...
I kind of agree with the challenges being remote. The one thing that makes me uncomfortable about it is that by removing these decisions from the on field ref it makes them become passive and just give nothing, then wait to be corrected by somebody else. I prefer them to have the final say. I still think your suggestion is a million times better than the current setup though.

Offside for me is different. If you do it right then it's fact not opinion. I've no issue with offside being called for 0.00001mm if that's a fact. I think this level of accuracy can be reached with the Semi automated offside if we just use feet.
 

Flying high

Full Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2015
Messages
1,742
Doracle said:
All agreed AWB one shouldn’t be a penalty.
Click to expand...
It can't be a penalty if VAR have looked at the Grealish one and decided that's not a pen, when it was more of an offence.

This whole business of not wanting to re-referee the game has to end. Either it's an offence or it isn't. It shouldn't matter what the ref called.
 

Flying high

Full Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2015
Messages
1,742
NotChatGPT said:
That is the basis offsides are done from now. It's binary.

The technology is accurate enough to give more reliable calls than the linesmen.

I honestly have no idea whatsoever why people are so desperate to make this even worse than it is. You'd essentially have to create a new boundary for when the VAR gets involved for tight offside, then you start arguing if it was tight enough compared to what happened in a different match and so on and so on.
Click to expand...
Exactly. There will always be a line whatever rule is applied.
 

Pexbo

Winner of the 'I'm not reading that' medal.
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
68,746
Location
Brizzle
Supports
Big Days
RedRocket9908 said:
Click to expand...
I think you can, personally. If Forest specifically requested that he was replaced before the match, citing conflict of interest, and he proceeds to rule against them with 3 contentious decisions they have every right to be furious.
 

Hughes35

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Messages
2,606
NotChatGPT said:
Why wouldn't VAR work with remote refs?

Just because it works in an unrelated sport it doesn't mean it's going to work in football.
Click to expand...
For all the reasons we see currently. They've too much time to slow down and find issues, it takes too long as there are too many communication channels, it means the on field ref becomes passive and just waits to be corrected by his remote safety net etc etc. It just doesn't work in my opinion.

Just because it works in an unrelated sport it doesn't mean it's going to work in football. - Well no, but it suggests it could and probably would.
 

SilentWitness

ShoelessWitness
Staff
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
30,647
Supports
Everton
Pexbo said:
I think you can, personally. If Forest specifically requested that he was replaced before the match, citing conflict of interest, and he proceeds to rule against them with 3 contentious decisions they have every right to be furious.
Click to expand...
I think it all depends on the proof of conflict of interest which I don't believe there is yet.
 

Jeppers7

Pogfamily Mafia
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
7,435
How is the media debate around the offside? I could see it was offside as soon as I saw the replay anyway…but other than the Liverpool offside which was a different issue, when has the media ever questioned an offside? We had the Garnacho one that was actually arguable and also one a few years back where the lines were drawn by a four year old.

Imagine if these calls went the other way….We were losing 3-2 in the last minute of injury time and get THAT penalty and have that goal disallowed for offside.

Absolutely no chance that the conversation is the same, that’s not right.
 

NotChatGPT

Brownfinger
Joined
Jul 3, 2023
Messages
582
Hughes35 said:
For all the reasons we see currently. They've too much time to slow down and find issues, it takes too long as there are too many communication channels, it means the on field ref becomes passive and just waits to be corrected by his remote safety net etc etc. It just doesn't work in my opinion.

Just because it works in an unrelated sport it doesn't mean it's going to work in football. - Well no, but it suggests it could and probably would.
Click to expand...
It takes time because it's being considered up against the almighty "clear and obvious" threshold. The very same threshold that results in random decisions for similar offences based on whatever the referee on the pitch decided. We've just had a weekend with three handball situations, where the two most obvious incidents resulted in "play on" and the least one resulted in a penalty, with VAR not getting involved due to "clear and obvious"

Nor do i understand how you're worried about things being slowed down, when you're arguing that we should introduce a challenging system.

It suggests nothing really. A challenging system in football would be fundamentally unfair on every level there is.
 

Doracle

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
3,018
SilentWitness said:
I think it all depends on the proof of conflict of interest which I don't believe there is yet.
Click to expand...
I’d be astonished if he isn’t a Luton fan given Forest’s statement. It should be easy enough to check by looking at whether he’s been involved in any Luton games this season anyway. The whole point is that PGMOL wouldn’t necessarily regard this as a situation where a conflict existed.
 

POF

Full Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
3,798
Shinjch said:
The media coverage this morning has just proved again how much easier it is for these incompetent officials to give decisions against United than it is for them to point in United's favour. Hardly see anything about the handballs in the FA cup games and outrage over a correct offside call that went in United's favour.
Click to expand...
Absolutely this. Getting the decision correct is nowhere near the top of the priority list when it comes to media reporting of these decisions.

I think that's what makes VAR unsuccessful in English football. Everyone who watches or reports on football has a clear acknowledged agenda which allows them to argue that black is white and have hoardes supporting that view no matter how ridiculous it is.

You can generally predict which pundits will agree or disagree with a decision based on what team they used to play for or which player committed the alleged offence rather than the merits of the decision itself.

As a result, refs will make the decision which is less likely to get them destroyed in the media, being called cheats and called to be sacked.

It was actually better without VAR because it made it easier to believe that an incorrect decision was just human error.
 

Gator Nate

Full Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
2,156
Location
Orlando, FL
SilentWitness said:
Conflict of interest though doesn't equal cheating and that statement to me implies that Forest are saying cheating has taken place.
Click to expand...
Then why are there laws and policies against conflict of interest? That statement is daft.

And so what if they are saying it? The PGMOL either has to say, "Yeah, they're right," or "No, we just have incompetent refs." Penalizing Forest for that only proves them right. Everyone is watching, everyone knows, and PGMOL just keeps driving respect for themselves into the ground. It's laughable at this point. But Forest had already complained about the situation pre-match.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.