I also think so, but I’m a little bit in doubt. That’s why I also understand why VAR didn’t intervened.
Even though VAR didn’t stop the play I’m sure they assessed the situation and very fast concluded it wasn’t an obvious or clear fault.
Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion
- Thread starter Annihilate Now!
- Start date
Even though VAR didn’t stop the play I’m sure they assessed the situation and very fast concluded it wasn’t an obvious or clear fault.
The 'clear and obvious error' idea makes no sense anyway, if the referee fails to award a penalty for a foul in the box then it's a clear and obvious error.
Yeah the clear and obvious thing is nonsense.
They seem to have the ridiculous notion that the ref is somehow infallible or their authority gets undermined like when a player couldn't be retrospectively banned if the ref was too lenient and let someone away with a leg breaker as he'd 'seen it and taken action'.
People make mistakes and can't see everything in real time ffs.
I only saw this goal just now. So, he's off side when the ball is played forward, the defender takes it down and he tackles him after that. As far as I am aware and this might have changed, the offside is not valid once the defender or defending team plays the ball.
I think this goal should stand but I can see why Villa are annoyed, he's 20 yards off side when the ball is played and comes from behind Mings to get it. If he knows he's coming he puts his head behind it and sends it back down the pitch.
I think this goal should stand but I can see why Villa are annoyed, he's 20 yards off side when the ball is played and comes from behind Mings to get it. If he knows he's coming he puts his head behind it and sends it back down the pitch.
Mings didn't control the ball, he just chested it down but didn't touch his feet at all. The ball was robbed by Rodri right before Mings had the chance to control it with his feet. So whatever excuse these referee or English officials are trying to make, it was offside to me.
Very similar case happened in Juventus vs Napoli yesterday and it was called offside.
Very similar case happened in Juventus vs Napoli yesterday and it was called offside.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Think it’s more about VAR uncertainty, doubt or no consensus. VAR wasn’t 100% sure it was a penalty. I understand VAR because I’m not 100 % sure it was a penalty either. The difference between penalty/not penalty is not always like black or white.
If you look in the rulebook it's a foul, no two ways about it.
He looks behind himself at least twice so he knows Rodri is there, it's just shit defending at the end of the day
I had to watch the situation over again (several times). I’m willing to say it was a penalty, but I’m not sure. With other words: I can’t say it was a clear and obvious penalty.
How much contact was it? Especially considering Fred was in a very unatural an unbalanced position - which he created himself in the first place. Was it more contact than we usually allow? Would a “Fred in balance” have fallen?
A penalty would also been a subject to discussion, and many would have said it was a cheap one. Some situations are 50/50; everything isn’t clear and obvious, even with the handbook in my hand
The way they utilise the rulebook is random, and is often coloured by subconscious biases that's the problem. In short, any penalty decision could be discussed by anyone, and anyone thinking they are unsure of a decision supports the view that it's 'not clear and obvious', which means a decision can never be clear and obvious. It has to be rooted in the rulebook, you can't just go, well yeah theres the rule but I'm not sure - and because I'm not it's fine either way. VAR will never find consistency because at anytime they can wilfully ignore a foul and say not clear and obvious enough - until they think it's appropriately obvious and decide to intervene. There is no common denominator to explain why or when these decisions suddenly becomes 'obvious'. VAR is turning into a gimmick with just more of the same, the same disgruntled refs begrudgingly sitting in a room supporting the decisions made by another ref who does the same next week when they switch places. Nothing has changed except that it's more scrutiny on decisions and that is exposing the ambiguity found in the rules of the game, without anyone directing that towards anything useful.I had to watch the situation over again (several times). I’m willing to say it was a penalty, but I’m not sure. With other words: I can’t say it was a clear and obvious penalty.
How much contact was it? Especially considering Fred was in a very unatural an unbalanced position - which he created himself in the first place. Was it more contact than we usually allow? Would a “Fred in balance” have fallen?
A penalty would also been a subject to discussion, and many would have said it was a cheap one. Some situations are 50/50; everything isn’t clear and obvious, even with the handbook in my hand
I digress. That is either a free kick every game and a penalty everywhere, or never a foul and never a penalty anywhere. You can't have a game where you give freekicks for that foul all game to one team and not award a penalty for a similar foul the other way, which is what tends to happen. Lack of consistency.
I find it a bit weird that someone can write a lengthy piece on VAR without underlining the major issue with it, the people behind it.
The concept of VAR is fine, the implementation and guidelines aren't.
So in essence, what we want is a system where the most egregious errors are reviewed and are possible to be corrected, while not having referees intervene in purely subjective calls and picking and choosing what to review.
For the 50th time. Introduce a challenge system. feck the nonsense of reviewing every goal, penalty, red card incident. Give teams two or three challenges that they can use when they feel utterly aggrieved by a decision or a non-decision. This forces the head official to the VAR screen for a review. Cut Stockley Park out of the picture and replace them with a video guy who just provides angles and offside lines, as to erase any "clear and obvious" threshold. If the team's challenge leads to a change in the decision, no matter how big or small, then the challenge is kept. If a team wants to challenge a throw-in and fails, and then don't have any challenges left by the time someone scores a goal with a Thierry Henry style handball, then tough shit.
Tell me, why is this a terrible idea? If a team makes a stupid VAR challenge in the 91st minute to waste time on a throw-in, the video review will take 40 seconds, and then the ref adds a minute and sends off the manager. And is that not better than what we have now?
For the 50th time. Introduce a challenge system. feck the nonsense of reviewing every goal, penalty, red card incident. Give teams two or three challenges that they can use when they feel utterly aggrieved by a decision or a non-decision. This forces the head official to the VAR screen for a review. Cut Stockley Park out of the picture and replace them with a video guy who just provides angles and offside lines, as to erase any "clear and obvious" threshold. If the team's challenge leads to a change in the decision, no matter how big or small, then the challenge is kept. If a team wants to challenge a throw-in and fails, and then don't have any challenges left by the time someone scores a goal with a Thierry Henry style handball, then tough shit.
Tell me, why is this a terrible idea? If a team makes a stupid VAR challenge in the 91st minute to waste time on a throw-in, the video review will take 40 seconds, and then the ref adds a minute and sends off the manager. And is that not better than what we have now?
Fred isn't in a very unatural and unbalanced position. He positions himself correctly to shield the ball with his body to "roll" the opponent the wrong way. Loftus Cheek is coming in from the wrong side and he needs to get the ball first, so Fred knows that if he shields Loftus away from the ball he can then control it with his right and shoot/pass without Loftus being able to press. It's a perfectly normal move, nothing strange about it. Loftus gets his timing wrong and he's nowhere near the ball when he takes out Freds left ankle, which is the only thing that causes Fred to lose his balance in a situation he has completely under control. If Loftus doesn't kick him, Fred controls the ball in a dangerous position. It's a penalty.I had to watch the situation over again (several times). I’m willing to say it was a penalty, but I’m not sure. With other words: I can’t say it was a clear and obvious penalty.
How much contact was it? Especially considering Fred was in a very unatural an unbalanced position - which he created himself in the first place. Was it more contact than we usually allow? Would a “Fred in balance” have fallen?
A penalty would also been a subject to discussion, and many would have said it was a cheap one. Some situations are 50/50; everything isn’t clear and obvious, even with the handbook in my hand
Unfortunately, Atkinson is as useless as always, as soon as he says the magic words that he saw the contact and didn't think it was enough, then VAR can't do anything. Compare it with the penalty that Welbeck got against Liverpool...
Because there's no logic to it. Teams will end up using their "share" of reviews on borderline situations and the match might be decided by a blatantly obvious situation that can no longer be checked.
So it'll be just like subs then, if you hold on to your subs you can make a sub if someone pulls a hamstring in the 80th minute, and if you've used them all then you have to finish the game with 10 players.
You'd be an idiot to waste challenges on throw-ins in the opponents' half and you'd learn after being shafted once.
Problems:
1) It would mean much more delay and disruption as we currently don't average anything near two or three full reviews per team every game, let alone even more if the challenge is kept if succesful. So you'd inarguably be slowing things down more and making the game more disjointed, which people would no doubt complain about given they already dislike delays.
2) You're by design introducing greater variance into the decision making process, which will inevitably also lead to greater variance in outcomes. Which means more inconsistency and what fans will call "unfairness". Also if you put a time limit on decisions to address issues 1, that variance massively increases. Assigning blame to the management staff for what they do/don't decide to challenge won't magic away the frustration at increased inconsistency in the way the rules of the game are applied.
3) In your 91st minute example, the manager would already have achieved what he intended which is disrupting the game. Subs only take a few seconds and are also supposed result in more time added on, yet managers still see the benefit in using them in that way. It would be no different for VAR. Games ending in a mess of substitutions and var challenges wouldn't be uncommon and wouldn't be shrugged off by the people who complain about VAR already.
4) In a situation where it's a narrow score going into the final few minutes and both teams have all or nearly all their reviews, that 10 minutes will end up taking forever as both teams start desperately trying to snatch a key foul or penalty.
5) Everything is already reviewed as is. Which means all the decisions would remain as they are now, with all the same complaints following them. You wouldn't have addressed any of those issues, you would just have made them more impactful by tying the loss of a challenge to them. Taking the City offside or Fred penalty shout as an example, both ourselves and Burnley could have reasonably challenged those decisions in the belief they would be overturned based on similar outcomes in different games. In the Fred call in particular, they could point to almost identical fouls where a penalty was awarded. Yet the penalty still wouldn't be given here (because subjective calls will always be subjective and vary depending on the person making them) and now we'd be punished with the loss of a challenge on a decision we know a different ref will have awarded our way. Imagine the anger and accusations of bias. Ditto with handball calls, marginal offsides or anything else. All those problems stay the same.
Thank you! It’s something that’s very normal in football. Good post.Fred isn't in a very unatural and unbalanced position. He positions himself correctly to shield the ball with his body to "roll" the opponent the wrong way. Loftus Cheek is coming in from the wrong side and he needs to get the ball first, so Fred knows that if he shields Loftus away from the ball he can then control it with his right and shoot/pass without Loftus being able to press. It's a perfectly normal move, nothing strange about it. Loftus gets his timing wrong and he's nowhere near the ball when he takes out Freds left ankle, which is the only thing that causes Fred to lose his balance in a situation he has completely under control. If Loftus doesn't kick him, Fred controls the ball in a dangerous position. It's a penalty.
Unfortunately, Atkinson is as useless as always, as soon as he says the magic words that he saw the contact and didn't think it was enough, then VAR can't do anything. Compare it with the penalty that Welbeck got against Liverpool...
You're the only one talking about wasting a challenge on a throw-in. If it's x challenges per team and x challenges+1 mistakes happen, you're fecked.
The concept is totally not fine. It’s the fact of using video replays and trying to make decisions so black and white that is causing most issues and then subsequent rule changes to try and accommodate VAR.
Fair points all in all. I agree that there's lots of potential problems with general shithousery around challenges as the game is nearing its end. I disagree with the 'variance' bit though as the calls on the pitch will have all been made by the same referee according to the standard he wants to set for the game. If he doesn't give the Fred foul, then he doesn't deem that a foul in the context of this game and can reasonably not be expected to give a foul the other way for a similar incident, which is fair enough for the ref to do.
One of the big problems with this current system is that a dangerous free kick won by a dive, or a wrongly awarded 90th minute corner can be as significant as any other incident on the pitch and there's absolutely no legislation to deal with that. I mean, just a few weeks ago we conceded a goal from a corner that was wrongly given. Now I suppose that can be accepted as part of parcel of the game, and that's fair enough and I could live with that, but the challenge system would eliminate such grievances.
The other big problem that VAR has is that yes, everything is reviewed (or at least we're led to believe that everything happening inside the penalty box is, and everything that might constitute a red card, and if something might constitute a red card then everything that happened before that is also up for review), but they're not reviewing with a view to enforcing the laws of the game, ie "which is the correct decision here". Instead, they're judging whether the call on the pitch was 'slightly wrong', 'plain wrong', 'clearly wrong' or 'clearly and obviously wrong'. That is what makes a majority of the subjective calls take so much time and what causes the "full reviews" that you mention. Most checks would be fairly straightforward.
I remember when Nketiah was sent off for Arsenal for a stamp on a Leicester player I believe. The VAR spent two minutes dicking around with fifteen angles in order to ascertain whether the yellow card was 'clearly and obviously' wrong. After those two minutes he sent the referee to the monitor who went over, looked for five seconds and sent him off. Had he been sent to the monitor right away, the call would've been made in a fraction of the time that it did with VAR first having to decide how wrong the decision to give a yellow was.
If you take away the artificially created threshold that says a mistake has to be 'clear and obvious', and instead put the main ref in front of a monitor, then he only has to decide whether it's 51% correct to overturn, and that makes for a much better application of the laws of the game and it makes it fairer for both teams as there's not an anonymous guy in a bus deciding what's clear and obvious. So, in my view, the only way to remove the 'clear and obvious' criterion is to make it so that the VAR operator isn't another referee from the same pool of referees who might want to support his friend, as they all tend to do, and instead have the main ref be responsible for the level he wants to set for the game that he's officiating. I understand that referees are different and apply different standards between games, but at least you'd get fairness in the context of the game being played right now.
Now, is a challenge system the best solution? Not sure. Is the system we have today the best one? Definitely not.
The Tyrone Mings elbow on Paul Pogba is something that sticks out with me as to the faultiness of the current system. We have a guy, nowhere near the ball, flying in and elbowing another player in the head in the penalty box, and it somehow ends up not being a penalty. Now, what could the possible scenarios be that lead to that conclusion?
1) It's allowed to fly into players with your elbow while attempting to get the ball but getting nowhere near it
2) It wasn't reviewed at all as a potential penalty or a red card incident
3) It's not allowed to fly into players with your elbow, it was reviewed, but the VAR who's under no pressure from players, managers or fans from his little tour bus hideaway just didn't fancy alerting the referee to it because he loves Graeme Souness and hates Paul Pogba
4) It is not a clear and obvious error to not give a foul for a flying elbow
As for 1), that's clearly not the case. As for 2), we're led to believe that everything is checked even if the graphics don't show up, so you'd reasonably believe that the VAR spent the two minute break reviewing the incident while Pogba was filmed, bleeding from his mouth. That leads to the conclusion that it's either 3 or 4 that is the case here, and the threshold to overturn a non-decision will have played into his mind. Also, it's much easier to play into pre-existing biases when there's nobody next to you demanding that you make the right decision. Had the ref been put in front of the monitor himself, he would've had to think that "I'm going to look stupid if I watch this and don't give a penalty as it's a clear violation", which would take away possible bias and instead make him focus on what the correct decision should be.
I’ve seen other pictures as well and I don’t agree.Fred isn't in a very unatural and unbalanced position. He positions himself correctly to shield the ball with his body to "roll" the opponent the wrong way. Loftus Cheek is coming in from the wrong side and he needs to get the ball first, so Fred knows that if he shields Loftus away from the ball he can then control it with his right and shoot/pass without Loftus being able to press. It's a perfectly normal move, nothing strange about it. Loftus gets his timing wrong and he's nowhere near the ball when he takes out Freds left ankle, which is the only thing that causes Fred to lose his balance in a situation he has completely under control. If Loftus doesn't kick him, Fred controls the ball in a dangerous position. It's a penalty.
Unfortunately, Atkinson is as useless as always, as soon as he says the magic words that he saw the contact and didn't think it was enough, then VAR can't do anything. Compare it with the penalty that Welbeck got against Liverpool...
If people don’t agree about a penalty it’s easy to conclude that the penalty wasn’t obvious and clear.
Most people are morons.
There's nothing wrong with Fred's balance until he gets kicked on the back of his ankle
Substitutions are limited for a reason, following the rules of football isn't.
Agree entirely and its also what pogue has been saying.
He took the ball in a challenge, he didnt receive it at all.
Video assistant referee. To assist the match ref. The technology and purpose isn't at fault. It's clear as day that the lack of transparency and inconsistent use makes VAR too subjective to match officials.
VAR is used during phases of play that involve a goal (offsides or not), whenever cards are given (mistaken identity or to rescind/to change a card), potential penalty infraction in the box (handball, foul, dive). Am I missing anything?
VAR confirms a decision or gives the on pitch ref a second look at an action in order to reverse their ruling. What doesn't help is that refs do not explain their rulings, especially when the decisions are subjective. NBA, NHL, NFL all have their refs announce over the PA or TV feed their rulings. Baseball is much more cut and dry...out, safe, HR, fair, foul, etc.
VAR is used during phases of play that involve a goal (offsides or not), whenever cards are given (mistaken identity or to rescind/to change a card), potential penalty infraction in the box (handball, foul, dive). Am I missing anything?
VAR confirms a decision or gives the on pitch ref a second look at an action in order to reverse their ruling. What doesn't help is that refs do not explain their rulings, especially when the decisions are subjective. NBA, NHL, NFL all have their refs announce over the PA or TV feed their rulings. Baseball is much more cut and dry...out, safe, HR, fair, foul, etc.
Why are they doing a VAR check in the Villa v Newcastle game? Surely that attempted clearance should reset offside if it's a deliberate action? That's what we were told after City's goal was allowed. Watkins has surely received the ball from the Newcastle defender then?
Thats exactly what happened, Watkins was in offside originally.
Thats a ridiculous rule though. Schar only slid in because Watkins was there. If he knew Watkins was offside all he had to do was leave it and let him tap it in for it to be disallowed.
I don't think he was, think he was behind the ball
Rewatched it, don't even think it was reviewed as far as Watkins's position goes, they just allowed it right away. But Watkins forces that sliced clearance, so if he's in an offside position then surely the law should be changed to make that an offence. Absolute bollocks that you can goal hang while offside and then just pounce on mistakes from players being stressed out by your presence. Surely a player can't be expected to know if a player is on or off and have that influence his decision whether he should clear the ball or deliberately let it go through to the attacker?
Agree that it is very confusing and they seem to apply it rather randomly.
Yup. And if Watkins is not there he just lets it roll across the box for a bloody throw in.
But at the same time, there is kind of a need for it. I mean, if Shar stops the ball turns around and passes it to Watkins, is it still offside ? Clearly, there are different phases of play , but the question is how to properly delimit them.
In general the rule is fine and (probably) necessary. And it has been in place for years without major controversy (that I can think of) up until this week, which suggests it doesn't generally lead to egregiously objectionable calls.
The problem with the Mings decision was that it seemed unfair that the act of controlling the ball counted as playing it even when he didn't really have it under control before he was challenged. But a defender trying to kick it clear but screwing it up seems much less so to me. I mean there's no way that wouldn't count as playing the ball.
The problem with the Mings decision was that it seemed unfair that the act of controlling the ball counted as playing it even when he didn't really have it under control before he was challenged. But a defender trying to kick it clear but screwing it up seems much less so to me. I mean there's no way that wouldn't count as playing the ball.
Surely you remember Kane and Lovren from 2018?
That decision went against Liverpool so is filed in my mind under "schadenfreude" rather than "controversy". But point taken.
Which would be weird as it looked extremely tight, so did warrant a line or two... Which makes me think they're just going of Schar resetting the play, which is crazy.
I really don't like goals being given for that tbh if it was. Schar just goes to clear but dosen't quite it get it right but it shouldn't be interpreted as deliberate to play a forward on as he's clearly trying to clear it out of the box.
Same if cross comes in and skims off the defenders head unless he's actually trying to play it back to the keeper.
As I said in match thread Ollie to me looked level with the ball when it was crossed in anyway.
Yes as then he's deliberately playing it back towards the keeper, a swiped clearence when he's sliding along the ground isn't that.
Think it needs to be looked at a bit like backpasses, not every occasion when ball hits a defenders foot and then goes back to the keeper who picks it up is deemed a backpass for example.
Klopp's comments may have been playing on refs' minds. Since then, we've had Maguire's goal ruled out and Fred's non-penalty - both stonewall.
Kevin Friend was the ref for Maguire's non-goal and the VAR for the Fred non-penalty. I don't know what's up with him but I hope Ole comes out on this in the pressers. It did not cost us in the Burnley and Fulham games but one day it will cost us points and coming out then post-match won't be effective, will just be seen as excuses. This season's title could be decided by 2 or 3 points and this can have a key impact.
Kevin Friend was the ref for Maguire's non-goal and the VAR for the Fred non-penalty. I don't know what's up with him but I hope Ole comes out on this in the pressers. It did not cost us in the Burnley and Fulham games but one day it will cost us points and coming out then post-match won't be effective, will just be seen as excuses. This season's title could be decided by 2 or 3 points and this can have a key impact.