VAR and Refs | General Discussion | Forest go into meltdown

[noodlehair]

The thing with the Forest statement is, that yeah it's childish, but it's also kind of childish to laugh at or dismiss it when literally everyone thinks the officiating is a shambles.

The state of the officiating, particularly with how VAR is used, is so bad and inconsistent, its quite natural and logical to suspect its on purpose, because the idea it KEEPS happening entirely by accident has become equally as farfetched.

Some of the decisions and inconsistencies are so bafflingly bad it's really difficult to explain them, particularly when there is no admission of fault/review into why its so bad, etc. If a system is THAT incompetent and isn't willing to try and improve itself, you have to start suspecting it's on purpose, and if it's having a negative impact on you, or you perceive it is, then you almost certainly will start thinking it's on purpose. This happens with people affected by any kind of authority where that authority fails to be consistent or act within its own rules.

It's not like Forest are even the first. Liverpool and Arsenal have already basically accused VAR of cheating against them this season, and used their social media to publicly insinuate as much. Liverpool even had Klopp demanding a game get replayed.


Also the second part if the problem is allowing former referees like Clattenberg to take up these almost celebrity like roles where they feed off controversial refereeing. So you're incentivising officials to cock things up for celebrity and entertainment value. How is a man who, in order to sell a few books, publicly admitted to deliberately refereeing a game wrongly which literally decided the league champions, fit to be an officiating consultant?

So what you're saying to the current officials is if you purposely make an arse of doing your job that will be beneficial to you in the future as opposed to doing it properly.

That would be like appointing Trump as an election vote counting consultant.

 

[Berbasbullet]

The Romero one? Yeah, that's a pen.

Fair enough then.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

No one saying this, but that Coventry goal should have stood (and we would have has no complaints losing that game 4-3). If that same call had gone against a United equalizer we would all have been livid.

Time for someone to actually make it so that you judge a player on or offside by where the feet are (not random body parts)... it sounds so simple, but it would fix 99% of the bogus offside calls.

Why should it have stood? It was offside.

Is offside determined by the level of underdog impacted or what league they’re in or “the magic of the cup”? No.

Id have the foot too but irrelevant as we mov to automated offsides next season?

 

[Forest Red]

He said "feck" and they fake laughed for 10s, what more analysis do you need !?

Very similar response by the usual suspects to Ivan Toneys cheating when he moving the ball and foam. Scoff scoff Chuckle Chuckle Chuckle.

 

[lex talionis]

Yeah but the point is there was no PMGOL apology. No pandering to United like the FA have done to Liverpool, Arsenal, etc. So in the current rules, that's not a handball, by their interpretation. Which means we should get an apology for the Coventry one, which we won't...

What in the current rules makes arms up not a handball? If that one is by rule (ok, law) not a handball then of course AWB should not have been called for a handball offense as well.

 

[Velvet Revolver]

I think the only solution to this is to show the VAR decision making in the big screen with the referee talking about the decision for everyone to see. Adds more credibility and accountability and reduces the air of ambiguity both inside and outside the stadium. Similar to what happens in Cricket and Tennis reviews.

 

[Jeppers7]

 

[Jeppers7]

I don't understand those saying AWB's isn't a penalty. Him bringing his arms back in doesn't negate that they were so wildly out in the first place.

If you're in the area with your arms out like you're on a surfboard then you're just asking for trouble.

"But Grealish" is not a valid defence.

hardly an unnatural position for his arms as the attacker plays the ball

 

[NotChatGPT]

Time for someone to actually make it so that you judge a player on or offside by where the feet are (not random body parts)... it sounds so simple, but it would fix 99% of the bogus offside calls.

It literally wont change a single thing about marginal decisions as you have the same fine margins just measured somewhere else. No idea why anyone would think there is a magical solution simply by moving the exact same line to a different position

 

[caid]

Refereeing has been a complete car crash this season. I cant blame Nottingham or anyone else who's said as much. Need new referee's because the current crowd are unspeakably shit. Whether its due to incompetence or corruption is irrelevant the solution is the same for both.

 

[autopilot]

It literally wont change a single thing about marginal decisions as you have the same fine margins just measured somewhere else. No idea why anyone would think there is a magical solution simply by moving the exact same line to a different position

I suppose since the feet are closer to the ground it would make the line-drawing a bit more exact compared to when they're drawing them from the shoulder because of the height difference. Wouldn't mind binning the whole thing though and let the assistant referees do their job.

 

[RedDevil@84]

Don't really understand the second hand embarassment about what Forest did. Refereeing has been shit. More and more teams should call it out. If Forest feel hard done by referee appointments, they need to tell their fans that they are taking it up.
I don't really understand the false pride in calling out the inconsistency and unfairness.

 

[adexkola]

It literally wont change a single thing about marginal decisions as you have the same fine margins just measured somewhere else. No idea why anyone would think there is a magical solution simply by moving the exact same line to a different position

This is not the gotcha argument so many think it is.

It won't change much about marginal decisions to move the line. Moving the line is aligning the technology with the spirit of the offside rule, which was originally created to prevent goal hanging. Now that we have become much better at figuring out lines and positions and shit, maybe the current position of the line is too punitive to attacking players who aren't goal hanging, and maybe the new standard should be clear daylight?

There will still be a marginal decision on whether there was actually daylight between the defender and the attacker, but those are much easier to accept either way, because we are already giving a lot of advantage to the attacker.

I'm not in favor of the idea, but only because attackers are advantaged enough in today's football and high defensive lines are great

 

[NotChatGPT]

This is not the gotcha argument so many think it is.

It won't change much about marginal decisions to move the line. Moving the line is aligning the technology with the spirit of the offside rule, which was originally created to prevent goal hanging. Now that we have become much better at figuring out lines and positions and shit, maybe the current position of the line is too punitive to attacking players who aren't goal hanging, and maybe the new standard should be clear daylight?

There will still be a marginal decision on whether there was actually daylight between the defender and the attacker, but those are much easier to accept either way, because we are already giving a lot of advantage to the attacker.

I'm not in favor of the idea, but only because attackers are advantaged enough in today's football and high defensive lines are great

It's two different arguments, moving the line to make offside decisions more acceptable to the viewer (like daylight between), accepting the margins remain the same, and arguing that measuring position of feet is going to change anything.

And as you say, either way we'll still be stuck with marginal decisions

 

[Sandikan]

WHats pathetic? The statement? or that it was done at all? Or the words used?

Someone using the club twitter to make insinuations that the Var operator is a rival supporter so is cheating.

 

[Oranges038]

I think the only solution to this is to show the VAR decision making in the big screen with the referee talking about the decision for everyone to see. Adds more credibility and accountability and reduces the air of ambiguity both inside and outside the stadium. Similar to what happens in Cricket and Tennis reviews.

Show it on the big screen and have a fan vote.

Obviously we'll so no bias, just like the referees show no bias.

 

[awop]

Someone using the club twitter to make insinuations that the Var operator is a rival supporter so is cheating.

Forest made a terrible mistake with that line because it gave people who have their heads in the sand the perfect tidbit to throw the whole statement away and ignore the legitimate sentiments behind it.
Every media person spent more time about the Luton thing than the actual horrendous mistakes that were made. Carragher at least talked about that part in the end but Neville was in full politician mode.

 

[Sylar]

Someone using the club twitter to make insinuations that the Var operator is a rival supporter so is cheating.

So you would have been fine if it was done outside of X / social media?

Regardless, if they actually did make that complaint pre match and it was ignored, then it's fair to add that line even if the statement could have been just as damning without that line

 

[The Purley King]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/clw0g501q0xo

Let’s see if they release the audio.
If not there will be huge questions as to why.
Well done forest I say. The whole situation needs to get unfecked asap.

 

[90 + 5min]

Don't really understand the second hand embarassment about what Forest did. Refereeing has been shit. More and more teams should call it out. If Forest feel hard done by referee appointments, they need to tell their fans that they are taking it up.
I don't really understand the false pride in calling out the inconsistency and unfairness.

From my point of view they have nothing to be embarassed of. Some would call it childlish. I think it is about protecting their club. They react. They want answers. 3 penalties being denied.

We should do the same. Or we should have done the same couple of times this year. Just with different text of course. Some of decisions we have been getting against us have been pathetic.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/clw0g501q0xo

Let’s see if they release the audio.
If not there will be huge questions as to why.
Well done forest I say. The whole situation needs to get unfecked asap.

Demand those tapes. It is not difficult to show. It should be done for every game so fans can hear what was being said. They should not be afraid of transparency because everyone wants just that. Transparency.

We should also demand few of those tapes. We lost to many points because of some bad decisions.

 

[Lexicon Red Devil]

What happens when Newcastle United fan Michael Oliver is refereeing a Man City game in a few years in a game that could swing the title toward either City or Newcastle?

Does he go with his heart and screw over his indirect employer, or does he simply continue to give City every decision going as he knows where his bread is buttered? Maybe he'll start getting gigs in Saudi instead of the UAE and this will make his his decision a lot easier.

Imagine being naive enough to think that the referees' integrity in this country is beyond question.

 

[RedRocket9908]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Malons]

It's two different arguments, moving the line to make offside decisions more acceptable to the viewer (like daylight between), accepting the margins remain the same, and arguing that measuring position of feet is going to change anything.

And as you say, either way we'll still be stuck with marginal decisions

It isn't the margins that bother people. It's the definitive decisions based on subjective guesswork, heavily influenced by - and susceptible to human error - defended as "factual".

Nobody minds human error but to be told that we need VAR to avoid human error on offsides then when it doesn't eliminate them we're told we have to accept human error, doesn't make sense.

Human error but with a long delay? Is that the actual benefit?

There's no way on earth the current method of adjudicating on marginal offsides can be accurate, so what is it for?

If you cannot tell by the human eye that someone is offside then it isn't a clear and obvious error and VAR should not be involved.

 

[NotChatGPT]

It isn't the margins that bother people. It's the definitive decisions based on subjective guesswork, heavily influenced by - and susceptible to human error - defended as "factual".

Nobody minds human error but to be told that we need VAR to avoid human error on offsides then when it doesn't eliminate them we're told we have to accept human error, doesn't make sense.

Human error but with a long delay? Is that the actual benefit?

There's no way on earth the current method of adjudicating on marginal offsides can be accurate, so what is it for?

If you cannot tell by the human eye that someone is offside then it isn't a clear and obvious error and VAR should not be involved.

So it's the margins.

The concept is easy, offside is binary, you're either onside or you're offside, so every decision is properly checked in relation to clear and obvious. They have specific guidelines which they follow in order, as accurately as the technology allows them, to determine if the decision is correct.

This means that there's a system in place that should result in teams being treated the same way, which is good. Sometimes a referee will still feck up, which is bad, but it's not something that frequently happens.

Now, if you introduce something like "human eye", then all you do is ensure more differential treatment. Some referees will instantly look at a situation and go "oh that's too close to tell, so feck it" and some referees will bring out the lines, then you'll end up with two close call situations in the same match where one, due to the angles, appears to be more onside/offside than the other so they are treated differently by the VAR even though they are just as marginal, then it'll turn out that one team had scored a goal that was offside while your onside goal got disallowed and the shitshow continues.

What will happen is that technology will continue to evolve, we'll get a semi-automated system and then higher accuracy and it'll overall be an improvement.

 

[big_jeffstar]

They should be sending the ref to the monitor a lot more than they actually do, we’re in this weird limbo with it, where VAR is terrified of undermining the ref, I still think there were complaints by the referee association for making refs look weak when it was first introduced, it was over ruling them every 5 minutes and they didn’t like it.
So now they always lead with whatever the refs immediate decision on the pitch is and find ways to justify it, which makes the entire system ultimately pointless

 

[Malons]

So it's the margins.

The concept is easy, offside is binary, you're either onside or you're offside, so every decision is properly checked in relation to clear and obvious. They have specific guidelines which they follow in order, as accurately as the technology allows them, to determine if the decision is correct.

This means that there's a system in place that should result in teams being treated the same way, which is good. Sometimes a referee will still feck up, which is bad, but it's not something that frequently happens.

Now, if you introduce something like "human eye", then all you do is ensure more differential treatment. Some referees will instantly look at a situation and go "oh that's too close to tell, so feck it" and some referees will bring out the lines, then you'll end up with two close call situations in the same match where one, due to the angles, appears to be more onside/offside than the other so they are treated differently by the VAR even though they are just as marginal, then it'll turn out that one team had scored a goal that was offside while your onside goal got disallowed and the shitshow continues.

What will happen is that technology will continue to evolve, we'll get a semi-automated system and then higher accuracy and it'll overall be an improvement.

Even automated, if someone's gentleman's area thrusting forward at the opportune moment that may cause a computer chip somewhere to become excited and determine at least one of the testicles, with which a perfectly legitimate goal can be scored, swung advance of the last defender the moment the ball was played - that also shouldn't be enough to rule out a goal.

The spirit and purpose of the rule has been lost with the introduction of video reviews.

The human eye is no worse or better a determiner than a human-drawn line overlapping over the feet of players. The idea a human looking at something is not good enough and could lead to inconsistencies, without acknowledging that a human looking at something is the entire basis for where the line is drawn to begin with, is contradictory.

A human looking at a screen is thwart with problems, so we've improved it by introducing virtual lines that will be drawn by a human looking at a screen?

Anal retentiveness combined with human guess work was not in the brochure when it came to selling the benefits of VAR

"Remember that really tight goal that was given against you that looked onside and nobody was really bothered about because it looked from every angle that the attacker timed his run perfectly? Give us seven minutes and we can now prove that with a lot of guesswork that his shoulder blade was a blurry pixel advance of the defender"
Oh yay. Thank God for VAR.

 

[NotChatGPT]

Even automated, if someone's gentleman's area thrusting forward at the opportune moment that may cause a computer chip somewhere to become excited and determine at least one of the testicles, with which a perfectly legitimate goal can be scored, swung advance of the last defender the moment the ball was played - that also shouldn't be enough to rule out a goal.

This doesn't change with your suggestion.

The spirit and purpose of the rule has been lost with the introduction of video reviews.

The spirit and purpose of the rule was lost years ago. People just pretend that "the benefit should go to the attacker", it never mattered. If the linesman thinks your offside, no matter how tight it actually is, based on a split second decision, he flags.

The human eye is no worse or better a determiner than a human-drawn line overlapping over the feet of players. The idea a human looking at something is not good enough and could lead to inconsistencies, without acknowledging that a human looking at something is the entire basis for where the line is drawn to begin with, is contradictory.

A human looking at a screen is thwart with problems, so we've improved it by introducing virtual lines that will be drawn by a human looking at a screen?

If you think making a decision based on two lines drawn from the closest body part is the same as judging offside/onside just from a picture, then it's easy to understand why you're so wrong.

Anal retentiveness combined with human guess work was not in the brochure when it came to selling the benefits of VAR

"Remember that really tight goal that was given against you that looked onside and nobody was really bothered about because it looked from every angle that the attacker timed his run perfectly? Give us seven minutes and we can now prove that with a lot of guesswork that his shoulder blade was a blurry pixel advance of the defender"
Oh yay. Thank God for VAR.

The vast majority is bothered about offside/onside decisions that looks dodgy. Like Garnacho against Arsenal or the disallowed goal against us in the FA cup semi-final, which got more attention than the penalty.

Again, literally nobody is suggesting that the current solution is without flaws, but what you're suggesting is making the offside decisions 100% subjective, which will only result in far worse decisions than we have now. You're suggesting that people will be satisified with wrong decision making because it's more in the spirit of the game, which is complete and utter lunacy. People are still bitter about offside decisions that cost us in semi-finals and finals years and years ago.

It's not good enough so lets make it much worse, said the engineers at boeing.

 

[SilentWitness]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

They should get a 9 point deduction.

 

[Matt Varnish]

It was always about margins, but we accepted it we had to, there was no slowmotion, no freeze frame, you just accepted what the lino did and got on with it.
Then along came pundits and TV got hold of technology, undits were employed, and the game started on a downward spiral, the likes of Sky and the BBC were drawing lines and analysing every incident undermining referee's.
It's not the ref's or the VAR you have to blame for these incidents, it's pundits like Clinton Morrison who can barely kick a ball who are to blame, and the idiots who gave them the technology.

 

[Forest Red]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

They should get a 9 point deduction.

I hope so - I’m done with this shit show circus. It would be good to burn it all to the ground on the way down though.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

I wish Forest had used their statement to go after the system of VAR, and how the technology is being used incompetently due to the daftness of the "high-bar"

I think they'd have had a lot more people on their side if they'd done that.

 

[SilentWitness]

I wish Forest had used their statement to go after the system of VAR, and how the technology is being used incompetently due to the daftness of the "high-bar"

I think they'd have had a lot more people on their side if they'd done that.

I agree. I have no issue with statements against poor refereeing and VAR. I wish we did it after some nonsense decisions this season. I think the tipping point is the integrity part. Remove that and I think pretty much everyone would agree.

 

[tomaldinho1]

I don't understand those saying AWB's isn't a penalty. Him bringing his arms back in doesn't negate that they were so wildly out in the first place.

If you're in the area with your arms out like you're on a surfboard then you're just asking for trouble.

"But Grealish" is not a valid defence.

It is a penalty if we’re saying any kind of ball to hand like that is a penalty, the issue is the inconsistency so it’s not that Grealish is a defence, it’s that in the same competition a worse handball (it was a direct shot) was not given. So logically you’d think they’d have a brain cell to remember only a day before what had happened and make a similar decision.

 

[Gabriel Djemba-Bebe]

I hope so - I’m done with this shit show circus. It would be good to burn it all to the ground on the way down though.

You hope you get another points deduction so that you're relegated? Because the referees in the Championship are superior? Whenever a PL ref has a howler, they get demoted to the Championship to test out their incompetency down there. You'll be releasing club statements every week

 

[Forest Red]

I agree. I have no issue with statements against poor refereeing and VAR. I wish we did it after some nonsense decisions this season. I think the tipping point is the integrity part. Remove that and I think pretty much everyone would agree.

Although I agree with you, it has started something that the FA and PGMOL may not be able to contain. Previous complaints about reffing and VAR decisions have got us nothing but a shrug and an apology. With 4 games to go, maybe it was time to go feck the tipping point, drop a grenade on it.

 

[Fitchett]

It's about time a club called out this absolute shambles of officiating. That said, of their three penalty shouts on Sunday, only the third one should have been given, Imo.

Far more contentious was the penalty for handball that United didn't get on Sunday. Much more of a handball than the one Coventry got. Both ignored by the media, so they can crow about a correct offside decision at the end.

 

[SilentWitness]

Although I agree with you, it has started something that the FA and PGMOL may not be able to contain. Previous complaints about reffing and VAR decisions have got us nothing but a shrug and an apology. With 4 games to go, maybe it was time to go feck the tipping point, drop a grenade on it.

That's fair, I can see why you've done it without necessarily agreeing with it.

 

[Forest Red]

You hope you get another points deduction so that you're relegated? Because the referees in the Championship are superior? Whenever a PL ref has a howler, they get demoted to the Championship to test out their incompetency down there. You'll be releasing club statements every week

The reffing in the Champ is just as bad as the Prem (actually the reffing this season is worse than anything we saw in the champ). The difference is that there is no VAR to double down on the errors. I can forgive human error but not what we currently have. Other then that, we’ve spend a couple of decades in the Champ, the league is more competitive, you get largely get ignored by the bellends in the media and MOTD etc. No state sponsored teams with unlimited funds. And there is no VAR ! As an overall package, yes I enjoyed the Champ more than the Prem.

 

[Doracle]

Although I agree with you, it has started something that the FA and PGMOL may not be able to contain. Previous complaints about reffing and VAR decisions have got us nothing but a shrug and an apology. With 4 games to go, maybe it was time to go feck the tipping point, drop a grenade on it.

It will be contained very easily. Forest will get a fine. Most people will agree that they deserved it for the ridiculously unprofessional statement. Nothing will change.

As has been said above, demanding changes to how VAR is implemented would be a lot more powerful than implying bias.