Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion

Moonwalker

Full Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
3,818
Sigh.. here I go.

The Luke Shaw decision is something that has been bothering me and something I have been sensing in the undercurrent of the VAR wave that hasn't been explored yet. I'm going to try to put it into words.

Lets first look at what happened: Luke shaw went for a 50-50 with the Burnley player, got some of the ball, and the ref who was in full view of it, did not deem it to be a foul.
Then he looks at it in slo-mo and thinks, "Hang on! I see studs coming to contact with leg. Therefore, it is a possible red card offense!".

There seems to be an assumption that looking at an incident in slow motion is necessary for the referee to make a decision. It seems sensible on the face of it. If you see something happening slowly, you have more time to process whats happening and parse through what actually happened with all the knowledge possible. HOWEVER, what seems to be never really discussed and factored into the VAR protocols is that there's a ton of very relevant information lost when we watch an incident like that in slow motion. Things like "momentum" and "speed of action" are very important in determining things like "excessive force" or "potential to cause injury". So when the referee looks at the slo-mo especially with the additional emphasis on the frame where the studs meet the leg, he basically had no choice under the rules but to say its a at least a possible red card offense. Whereas in real time, he saw that as soon as Shaw got the ball he pulled out of the challenge and while the studs did meet the leg, the potential to cause injury was not as extreme as it looks.

Note here that Shaw did NOT get a red card!

Why? Because the ref knows instinctively the tackle was not that dangerous and not worthy of a red. However, by the letter of the law it really should have been a red. (I have seen Shaka Hislop of ESPN FC, among others, argue just that).

So, what are the bigger implication of this?

I think all in all, Kevin Friend probably did the right thing. However, he's getting shit on by everybody for it both ways. And therefore, I think this is an unsustainable situation. Either we take this seriously and properly contextualize the use of slow motion replays on VAR, or we risk falling to the opposite extreme where over time literally any contact between studs on player regardless of context would be red card.

I dunno, maybe people think thats for the better, but I would argue it would make football a lot more methodical, and a lot less fun.

TLDR: slo-mo replays are paradoxically less accurate depictions of an incident and should be used with care in VAR
The implication here is that he only watches the slow motion, as if parachuted from Neverland or something, having experienced a total recall. Were that the only thing available to him, fears of information loss would be much more understandable.

What I would hope he actually does is to just use the slow motion as the supplement piece of the jigsaw in retention. He would have seen the incident in real time just a couple of minutes ago and surely still remembers things like speed and momentum. He then just adds the zoomed in, slow motion information, and then tries to reconstruct the incident in his head.
 

Ole's screen

Full Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Messages
926
Location
Right next to Ole’s seat
Supports
KC Chiefs
The implication here is that he only watches the slow motion, as if parachuted from Neverland or something, having experienced a total recall. Were that the only thing available to him, fears of information loss would be much more understandable.

What I would hope he actually does is to just use the slow motion as the supplement piece of the jigsaw in retention. He would have seen the incident in real time just a couple of minutes ago and surely still remembers things like speed and momentum. He then just adds the zoomed in, slow motion information, and then tries to reconstruct the incident in his head.
I did say that I thought Friend did the right thing in the end. And maybe you're right and this is not going to be an issue, and I hope you are. But I think unless as the idea of "slo-mo being inaccurate" catches on in the zeitgeist and normal discussion and while clowns like Jaime Redknapp can just say uncontested "You just wanna see consistency, you could see it given", then I fear we slide almost uncontested more and more into that territory.

Think how much more sanitized the game has become compared to 15 years ago already. It's gone from "two footers - straight red" to "studs showing - straight red" to "he got the ball but his follow through was a bit high - possible red". My point is that, nobody explicitly makes the point that just because there's contact - it's not wrong or illegal or dangerous or a foul. This is the reason why diving is such a big problem too, by the way - because refs give penalties when players go down and there's contact - often forgetting about the bigger picture as you say.

My point may even be less about VAR and its technical application and more about the way the refs talk about it and the way it is covered by the media. For example, did you know the whole "clear and obvious" never even enters into the discussion during a VAR check? Yet everyone covering the game from the pundits to even former refs seem completely obsessed with it after every VAR referral.

PS: An additional point, How routinely do you now see a perfectly good tackle called a foul for basically no reason other than it looked dangerous? Two people flying towards each other with full intent to get there first will always look dangerous!
 
Last edited:

MikeKing

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2017
Messages
5,125
Supports
Bournemouth
Sigh.. here I go.

The Luke Shaw decision is something that has been bothering me and something I have been sensing in the undercurrent of the VAR wave that hasn't been explored yet. I'm going to try to put it into words.

Lets first look at what happened: Luke shaw went for a 50-50 with the Burnley player, got some of the ball, and the ref who was in full view of it, did not deem it to be a foul.
Then he looks at it in slo-mo and thinks, "Hang on! I see studs coming to contact with leg. Therefore, it is a possible red card offense!".

There seems to be an assumption that looking at an incident in slow motion is necessary for the referee to make a decision. It seems sensible on the face of it. If you see something happening slowly, you have more time to process whats happening and parse through what actually happened with all the knowledge possible. HOWEVER, what seems to be never really discussed and factored into the VAR protocols is that there's a ton of very relevant information lost when we watch an incident like that in slow motion. Things like "momentum" and "speed of action" are very important in determining things like "excessive force" or "potential to cause injury". So when the referee looks at the slo-mo especially with the additional emphasis on the frame where the studs meet the leg, he basically had no choice under the rules but to say its a at least a possible red card offense. Whereas in real time, he saw that as soon as Shaw got the ball he pulled out of the challenge and while the studs did meet the leg, the potential to cause injury was not as extreme as it looks.

Note here that Shaw did NOT get a red card!

Why? Because the ref knows instinctively the tackle was not that dangerous and not worthy of a red. However, by the letter of the law it really should have been a red. (I have seen Shaka Hislop of ESPN FC, among others, argue just that).

So, what are the bigger implication of this?

I think all in all, Kevin Friend probably did the right thing. However, he's getting shit on by everybody for it both ways. And therefore, I think this is an unsustainable situation. Either we take this seriously and properly contextualize the use of slow motion replays on VAR, or we risk falling to the opposite extreme where over time literally any contact between studs on player regardless of context would be red card.

I dunno, maybe people think thats for the better, but I would argue it would make football a lot more methodical, and a lot less fun.

TLDR: slo-mo replays are paradoxically less accurate depictions of an incident and should be used with care in VAR
The two main problems is the refs. Their training, their fitness and ability to apply rules.
The other problem is the rulebook itself, but much of this can be worked on by re-training refs or get new refs that can handle assistance of technology.

Football has developed a lot over the years, the Premier League too, never has there been so much money as now but sometimes you get the feeling that the overwhelming lack of changes in this singular department feels suspicious and makes the average viewer question the integrity of the league. I think we've all had those thoughts at some point, no matter which club you root for.

I think we're on the right track with VAR but it's the same refs sitting in the VAR room that is running around on the pitch doing what they've always done as they have been trained to make interesting decisions for the PL rather of managing the game with personal integrity to the profession and upholding the actual rules.

There should be people specialised to supervise and be in charge of all decisions made in the VAR-room. They should create a blueprint of clearly defined standards for how to deal with difficult situations and train the refs hard to know how to apply those standards to the bone when in doubt. It would clarify a lot of the mess VAR has revealed that exists in the rules, and create more consistency which is what we want. A rule may not be perfect, we all may not agree with it but as long as it's clearly defined and consistently applied we can deal with it.

Like the encroaching thing on penalties. Before VAR came along some refs used to make an effort to look at the keeper and some just didn't know about the rule or cared enough to ever pay attention to those situations. Nobody ever got in trouble for not enforcing those rules and it happened so rarely that it didn't effect the game for the viewer enough to create outrage, so there was no repercussions. That's an issue in itself that it takes public pressure for these guys to improve their product. With VAR they keep everything in the shallow end and the media sell stories about it and stupid pundits act like they know whats going on. Waiting on public perception instead of actively trying to improve just creates further complications when rules are changed or applied differently from week to week based on the expected public response or backlash. These inconsistencies takes away from the integrity of the game.

This is why it feels like a bias exist against United. United is on everyones lips. Everyone is clearly upset when United get results as proved by Klopp etc and various refereeing performances. They make an example out of United, not because of some conspiracy to not let us win, but simply because United creates the most loud responses so if they are to make a rule change or an example out of something, it usually always seem to happen when United is involved. People like Klopp and pundits they moan about it loudly, and no matter how ignorantly they come off it creates public pressure and when the league responds only to backlash instead of proactively looking to improve things on their own, it creates this effect. It really messes with my enjoyment of the game because if integrity in sports disappears there is no point, non at all besides arguing over who is cheating the worst or has the prettiest player etc.

The bias exist also for small clubs. It exist for every club in fact depending on the type of situation around the game, the different circumstances and may benefit a team one day and not the other day. Everyone who loves watching their PL team will feel hard done by, even a truly objective and calm fan will feel the impact of this from time to time and it sucks. It doesn't even itself out because football is about margins, it's also a point based game. You can get a goal removed for no reason against a rival, that might cost you 6 points effectively and you get a wrong penalty call against a bottom club when it's already 5-0 doesn't make a huge difference.

Sorry for the ranty post. To summarise VAR is great, it can be used to correct wrongs in a split second with the proper technological assets in place. The current application of it is reactionary, unremarkable and incredibly dodgy. I don't think VAR is ruining football but the application and media coverage ruins football for everyone. It takes away from the real problem which is the main reason that it sucks, and that is poor refereeing standards and lack of action to actively improve the refereeing department of the game despite the large sums of money already involved in the game and the league.

Start with creating blueprints for the most common situations and decisions in football and work from there until a guys in the VAR room and on the field can not only remember certain rules but also read a fecking guide on how to interpret specific repeated situations. Then supply them with technology to help them make the right decisions as quickly as possible. Laser readers across the pitch, chips in the boots and the ball. Monitor the game in real time and have a computer analyse it and use numbers to make split second decisions that will remain consistent every game for every team, no matter who's playing who or which country a player is coming from. They could easily stop diving by now even without technology if they only had a blueprint to define what constitutes diving and how it should be punished. Clearly they need to rig the players with sort of motion detectors and force reactors. 'I'm just saying random made up science words at this point, because frankly I'm not paid to come up with this shit. They have the money, figure it out already. It's not that hard, it really isn't.
 
Last edited:

Moonwalker

Full Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
3,818
I did say that I thought Friend did the right thing in the end. And maybe you're right and this is not going to be an issue, and I hope you are. But I think unless as the idea of "slo-mo being inaccurate" catches on in the zeitgeist and normal discussion and while clowns like Jaime Redknapp can just say uncontested "You just wanna see consistency, you could see it given", then I fear we slide almost uncontested more and more into that territory.

Think how much more sanitized the game has become compared to 15 years ago already. It's gone from "two footers - straight red" to "studs showing - straight red" to "he got the ball but his follow through was a bit high - possible red". My point is that, nobody explicitly makes the point that just because there's contact - it's not wrong or illegal or dangerous or a foul. This is the reason why diving is such a big problem too, by the way - because refs give penalties when players go down and there's contact - often forgetting about the bigger picture as you say.

My point may even be less about VAR and its technical application and more about the way the refs talk about it and the way it is covered by the media. For example, did you know the whole "clear and obvious" never even enters into the discussion during a VAR check? Yet everyone covering the game from the pundits to even former refs seem completely obsessed with it after every VAR referral.

PS: An additional point, How routinely do you now see a perfectly good tackle called a foul for basically no reason other than it looked dangerous? Two people flying towards each other with full intent to get there first will always look dangerous!
I'm not privy to Stockley Park discussions and have no idea how often those exact words are used. It's a very broad term and can mean a lot of different things to different people. I suspect they'll have an operational definition of clear and obvious though, filled with a bit more exact descriptive content.

The media are goading the malcontents with this syntagm as a symbol of broken promises, because why not? It creates drama, it's good television and it's good for clicks too.
 

Withnail

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
29,333
Location
The Arena of the Unwell
Watching MOTD and the contact for the WBA penalty looked outside the box and. the Gibbs incident looked like it should have been handball and a pen to Wolves to me. He raises his hands in front of him towards the ball. It's not an exactly a natural position for your arms.


Also Neves got an arm in the face for WBAs second which was probably ok but is a bit of a farce when compared to Maguire's disallowed goal. Their second pen also looked a bit soft but they didn't really show a decent replay.

Strangely, none of the contentious decisions were discussed or any replays shown after the highlights.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,350
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Interesting point about VAR clusterfeck in our game. Cavani got injured in the foul by Robbie Brady. He was off the pitch getting treated as a result and we had to defend the freekick from Shaw’s foul without one our best headers of the ball. Because of an injury from a cynical, dangerous foul that VAR deemed never to have happened.
 
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
13,122
Interesting point about VAR clusterfeck in our game. Cavani got injured in the foul by Robbie Brady. He was off the pitch getting treated as a result and we had to defend the freekick from Shaw’s foul without one our best headers of the ball. Because of an injury from a cynical, dangerous foul that VAR deemed never to have happened.
it’s going to happen with an offside at some point as well.

am all for not raising the flag, but sometimes it’s so bloody obvious, and both teams have to carry on - there will be incidents of serious injuries as a result of this ridiculous approach.

I suppose VAR didn’t consider it dangerous, as it it was dangerous play, he could still have received a red card?
 

Moonwalker

Full Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
3,818
Several individuals (referees) didn’t deem it dangerous play, otherwise there was nothing preventing them from sending him off. So nothing to do with the var clusterfeck in our game.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,350
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Several individuals (referees) didn’t deem it dangerous play, otherwise there was nothing preventing them from sending him off. So nothing to do with the var clusterfeck in our game.
Without VAR, play stops for the Shaw foul. Or play continues and the foul on Cavani is appropriately dealt with.

It’s only now we have VAR we have these weird situations where players can get hurt in a nasty tackle worthy of a booking that we have to pretend didn’t happen. That never happened before. Even more surreal when said player can’t defend the free-kick which led to the ref having to ignore the foul that injured them.
 

Moonwalker

Full Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
3,818
Without VAR, play stops for the Shaw foul. Or play continues and the foul on Cavani is appropriately dealt with.

It’s only now we have VAR we have these weird situations where players can get hurt in a nasty tackle worthy of a booking that we have to pretend didn’t happen. That never happened before. Even more surreal when said player can’t defend the free-kick which led to the ref having to ignore the foul that injured them.
Without VAR play doesn't stop for the Shaw foul, don't need to be speculative about that as that's what actually happened. Undoing the injury is just not something VAR can do. It can (correctly) award the Shaw foul, as it did, and then there's the second opportunity for someone to look at the nasty foul on Cavani. Were it deemed dangerous there was nothing preventing the referee from either sending the defender off or giving him a yellow card, but he didn't do it, and not because he was forced to think of it as something that didn't happen, but because he didn't think it was a dangerous foul.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,350
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Without VAR play doesn't stop for the Shaw foul, don't need to be speculative about that as that's what actually happened. Undoing the injury is just not something VAR can do. It can (correctly) award the Shaw foul, as it did, and then there's the second opportunity for someone to look at the nasty foul on Cavani. Were it deemed dangerous there was nothing preventing the referee from either sending the defender off or giving him a yellow card, but he didn't do it, and not because he was forced to think of it as something that didn't happen, but because he didn't think it was a dangerous foul.
Nope. That’s not true.
 

Stactix

Full Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
1,788
I hate games like that, where the ref is very lenient with fouls.
Liverpool should of had half a dozen more bookings, got what 1?
Fabinho should of been off, yellow for the smack in the face and then the yellow he got in the second half.

How Thiago managed to avoid a yellow when he had multiple chances too.
 

Moonwalker

Full Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
3,818
It’s in this thread higher up. Part of the explanation released by Stockley Park to try and clear up the weekly Var-related irritation and confusion.
I'm sorry, I just can't seem to find that. Are you talking about the Dale Johnson tweet? Because that one very evidently states the opposite.
 

Moonwalker

Full Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
3,818
Yes. Read the whole thread.
I did.

The referee books Shaw because in a VAR review all disciplinary action should be taken. Even though it was not a red card review, Friend could still have sent Shaw off. Options open to Friend were: 1) Shaw red / yellow / nothing & Burnley FK 2) Brady red / yellow & Man Utd FK

The Brady card was cancelled because anything after the Shaw tackle 'no longer happened'. This applies only to denying a goalscoring opportunity or stopping an attack. Cards stand for serious foul play, reckless challenge, dissent, violent conduct, unsporting behaviour, etc.
 

visiting villain

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 4, 2021
Messages
82
Supports
Aston Villa
it’s going to happen with an offside at some point as well.

am all for not raising the flag, but sometimes it’s so bloody obvious, and both teams have to carry on - there will be incidents of serious injuries as a result of this ridiculous approach.
I came here to post this exact same thing. It's ridiculous for obvious offsides to not be flagged until the end of the passage of play. Happened several times in this game. a VVD type injury feels like it will be inevitable
 

BD

technologically challenged barbie doll
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
23,052
Biggest load of shite going.
 

PoTMS

Full Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
16,215
What's the point of VAR then? That's one of the easiest decisions you'll ever have to make.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,350
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Can a passing VAR advocate please explain why our game vs Burnley stopped for 6 minutes to decide how badly Luke Shaw had fouled someone in an incident where no goal was scored yet didn’t spend a second looking at the most obvious offside in the history of offsides before City scored a goal vs Villa tonight?
 

RashyForPM

New Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2020
Messages
3,183
Really hope these English refs are embarrassed again for Euro 2021 and aren’t selected. Disgraceful call after disgraceful call.
 

bosnian_red

Worst scout to ever exist
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
57,585
Location
Canada
Thats an insanely bad decision. Don't understand it. Clearly the refs don't know what the feck they're doing, or sometimes (often times) ignore the rules for pure game narrative. Which is basically match fixing just because of their feeling during the game.
 

thebelfastboy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
868
Location
Belfast
Without sounding scouse/rawkish I honestly don't know anymore if that's sheer incompetence or corrupt.

Pure horseshit decision making.
 

SadlerMUFC

Thinks for himself
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
5,746
Location
Niagara Falls, Canada
Thats an insanely bad decision. Don't understand it. Clearly the refs don't know what the feck they're doing, or sometimes (often times) ignore the rules for pure game narrative. Which is basically match fixing just because of their feeling during the game.
The new offside law says that if a player intentionally plays the ball that it negates the offside, but I don't think they were thinking about players coming in from behind defenders who are trying to control the ball. As far as I'm concerned Rodrigo was involved in the play prior and during the control of the ball and that should be offside. Either way, the offside law has to be looked at. How that can be deemed onside and not an advantage to the attacker but a player with a toe nail ahead of play can be considered an advantage and offside just seems backwards to me...
 

PoTMS

Full Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
16,215
Only reason why that wasn't ruled out by VAR is because it would be an admittance that one of their refs doesn't understand the rules of football properly.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
37,331
Na
Not offside imo. Weve seen it with defenders who have a striker miles offside behind him, go to play the ball, miss it and that action leaves striker onside.
Kane v Liverpool a few years ago comes to mind
 

FootballHQ

Full Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
18,139
Supports
Aston Villa
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Premier league statement after the game "We had a bet on Man. City to win to nil."