Can you think of any other example though where a player has been sent off for winning all of the ball and taking none of the opponent? You routinely see yellows for it and you see reds where a player has won the ball initially before making contact with the player but I can't recall reds being given when a player hasn't even touched the other.
VAR and Refs | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
Slow-motion and freeze-frames have been a hindrance rather than a help ever since VAR was introduced. Five years down the line and they still haven't got that. Same applies for handballs. The refs aren't savvy enough to assess the entirely new body of evidence in a different way than they do in real-time action. They need re-educated.
I’m pretty sure Kompany got sent off for a tackle on Nani that Nani jumped over.
I agree with you. Neither are red card tackles, both could injure someone but so could lots of tackles as football is a contact sport. The difference is ridiculous though. Will Stephen Warnock be applying the same logic to this? Dermott Gallagher certainly won’t.
On the flip side I can see why BOTH were given as reds. I just don’t agree that they should but it’s not as if DCL wasn’t extremely high and potentially dangerous, clipping the player while going for the ball, whereas Casemiro actually tackled the ball and rolled into the player afterwards.
DCL is in full control of his body, No excessive force, ball won. Its not even a foul.
This is always going to be the case though, as we have different officials throughout the campaign, so refs and VARs will always see things slightly differently.
Mainly because the rules of football when it comes to serious foul play etc is so ambiguous and relies on the refs and VARs making a judgement of their own.
Feels like VAR decisions overshadow half the games that are played these days. It's a real shame for the sport
Totally agree with you and commented the same up the thread.
It should be scrapped.
So you’re there pretty much saying there’s no need for VAR unless there’s a genuine missed howler as every ref and Var will see things differently anyway.
It needs getting rid of with this minute subjective nit picking
They want Everton gone, 10 point deduction didn't work as expected. Just make sure they are screwed over by referees, that'll do it.
You also have instances where the same referees see things differently on the field and when on VAR from from one game to the next. Even sometimes in the same game just look at Oliver and his decision to send Dalot off. Another classic example is the Casemiro red last season, very similar tackles, same referee, on the Saturday it wasn't a red but on Sunday it was.
The way VAR is being used is the problem, not the fact that it exists. There is just no consistency and the criteria is so subjective that in one game you have 3 minutes spent looking for a toe nail offside and later on a clear penalty doesn't get reviewed. VAR was supposed to help referees, improve decision making and consistency. It really is just ruining the game as a spectator sport. It's actually a relief to watch or be at a game with no VAR, at least you know the referee only has one view and a fraction of a second to react so you can more easily forgive and forget bad decisions.
I'm in favour of binning VAR and have been for a while. Don't see how it can ever be improved to remove the subjectiveness. I'd rather just have it how it was pre VAR since the same level of shit calls exist now that existed then, only you don't have to deal with all the time wasting bs
Agree with a lot of this.
The rules of football should be made a lot more straightforward, not sure how, but less grey areas in the rules, and less reliance on personal opinion as to what excessive force is for example might help.
Winning all of the ball is a funny way of describing the situation.
Look. Udogie lunges in with both feet and is completely without control, the only reason he doesn’t take out Sterling is because Sterling sees what’s coming and pulls out. I have no understanding whatsoever how someone can take a look at the video of the situation and go «Oh, but he didn’t actually touch sterling». It’s completely coincedental and outside of Udugies control, if Sterling doesn’t see him flying in and proceeds to plant his foot he’s likely to be out for a long time. It’s the very definition of endangering the safety of an opponent imo.
I don’t think it has anything to do with subjectiveness, i think it has everything to do with the clear and obvious threshold and not accepting that everything happens quickly on the pitch and that it’s easy for the referee to miss things even though he’s «seen it». Remove the threshold for clear and obvious and decisions will be far less hit and miss
Games truly gone innit? You can dive with the grace of a chonky seal and get a penalty. You could also raise your foot without any force behind it and get a red card.
I'd relegate VAR to a position of correcting howlers. Only allow it to reverse a goal for offside if the player is a clear yard offside, or if his whole body is offside perhaps (this wouldn't change the actual offside rule, just the scope for VAR to intervene). Allow it full rights to overturn a disallowed goal decision for offside as now, however. This solves a lot of the 'don't instantly celebrate a goal anymore' issue that has removed a lot of the magic from football as a spectator sport.
Handball is trickier. The nuclear option is simply not making handball a VAR-able offence except for 'professional handball' but again, having it as an exculpatory option only, to acquit a player who has penalised for a handball on the field but evidence can show it was a natural body movement within the current rules. Some form of middle ground that allows VAR 'prosecution' of handball only when it can be reasonably judged to have prevented an imminent goalscoring opportunity would be the ideal (e.g. right at the edge of the box packed with defenders, facing away from goal, is not that) but this possibly opens up too many new cans of worms.
I'm not sure what can be done about the violent/dangerous conduct red cards. The only way to prevent future Curtis Jones and Calvert-Lewin situations seems to be telling referees to change their approach. But the issuing of new guidelines on how to separate the trivial (but technically dangerous) to the genuinely dangerous is not a task I'd envy.
Handball is trickier. The nuclear option is simply not making handball a VAR-able offence except for 'professional handball' but again, having it as an exculpatory option only, to acquit a player who has penalised for a handball on the field but evidence can show it was a natural body movement within the current rules. Some form of middle ground that allows VAR 'prosecution' of handball only when it can be reasonably judged to have prevented an imminent goalscoring opportunity would be the ideal (e.g. right at the edge of the box packed with defenders, facing away from goal, is not that) but this possibly opens up too many new cans of worms.
I'm not sure what can be done about the violent/dangerous conduct red cards. The only way to prevent future Curtis Jones and Calvert-Lewin situations seems to be telling referees to change their approach. But the issuing of new guidelines on how to separate the trivial (but technically dangerous) to the genuinely dangerous is not a task I'd envy.
Ridiculous sending off. Surely force has to be taken into account if we're talking about dangerous play? There is barely any force in that challenge.
It's not VAR, it's the rules and the rule makers. They seem determined to make it a non contact sport. To reward the cheater.
The DCL decision, we all think it's a shocker but its probably the correct decision given the ridiculous rules put in place.
Not that VAR is always effiand correct.
But we need to get back a stage, to the rule makers, to sort the game out.
Problem is even though we as fans fund the whole thing, I doubt many of us know who even comes up with the rules.
The DCL decision, we all think it's a shocker but its probably the correct decision given the ridiculous rules put in place.
Not that VAR is always effiand correct.
But we need to get back a stage, to the rule makers, to sort the game out.
Problem is even though we as fans fund the whole thing, I doubt many of us know who even comes up with the rules.
No, it’s clearly not. Serious foul play requires that you endanger your opponent or use excessive force or brutality. DCL does neither.
How many examples do we need before we accept VAR is the problem? We see it time and time again with these harmless tackles that nobody thought anything of in real time: if you slow it down enough and freeze the picture, you can convince yourself there was a malicious intent.
By giving a shit decision in an FA Cup match? Not sure of the logic there.
The subjectivity of "Clear and obvious" is the biggest grey area there is.
That was more aimed at the previous PL games where they've had poor decisions going against them.
Also "in danger of injuring an opponent"
i.e. studs showing anywhere near a shin.
What's more likely, multiple officials are looking at tackles repeatedly and making the wrong decision. This happening pretty much every week. Whilst all us fans are correct every week.
Or they're making the correct decision according to the rubbish rule they've come up with?
Well, in this case the decision was clearly wrong so not sure what your point is?
Because technically, with his studs being shin high he is technically in danger of injuring an opponent.
I don't agree, the rule is rubbish. But at least two officials have watched it and agreed, according to the rule, its a red.
What would really help is some communication with fans. If they could tell us if the VAR decision was correct or not.
My claim would be that they would have never arrived at that conclusion if they weren’t allowed to slow and freeze the frame. Nobody watches that in real time, however many times, and thinks it’s a red.
Yup. 100%.
I don't think any fan or pundit would but I think a ref might because that's how they are now with these silly rules.
If its an error shouldn't the red be chalked off?
It'd be really interesting to know what's prompted them to look at it again. How exactly it works. Did they see it in rral time and decide to look closer? Or were they fed a slow mo and decided after that.
Has the standard of officiating ever been worse? I know the introduction of VAR has shone a spotlight on it but I can never remember it being this bad. Every single week there’s multiple shite decisions that leave you scratching your head thinking how the feck did they come to that conclusion.
That's a joke. He's barely moving when the minimal contact occurs. If that's a red there'd be a ridiculous amount of reds every game. Are they apealing it?
An abomination of a red card. Its round ffs.
Yeah thought this was bizarre, since when has studs into the boot been a red card? Again there wasn't really that much force either.
My issue with the slow mo red card decisions is pretty high.
But the flip side of this is that many referees are getting free passes for horrible control of the matches because the focus is on VAR.
I’m sure this happens to a lot of teams… but I’m watching our game against Luton back and Mengi alone had 6 instances caught on film where he just mauled the back of a players leg with his studs. The TV coverage were asking where the fouls and the cards were. But it seemed like the higher priority was evening out the match for the home team hatters.
We had 3 players with blood just running down the back of their legs through their socks by the end of the game, and Mengi didn’t even get a yellow til like the 75 minute.
But all they could talk about was the officiating was good because VAR didn’t seem to have any glaring errors …
But the flip side of this is that many referees are getting free passes for horrible control of the matches because the focus is on VAR.
I’m sure this happens to a lot of teams… but I’m watching our game against Luton back and Mengi alone had 6 instances caught on film where he just mauled the back of a players leg with his studs. The TV coverage were asking where the fouls and the cards were. But it seemed like the higher priority was evening out the match for the home team hatters.
We had 3 players with blood just running down the back of their legs through their socks by the end of the game, and Mengi didn’t even get a yellow til like the 75 minute.
But all they could talk about was the officiating was good because VAR didn’t seem to have any glaring errors …
You cannot use slowed down footage in criminal trials as psychologically people are more likely to believe actions were deliberate.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/shortcuts/2016/aug/02/how-slow-motion-video-footage-misleads-juries
They should be reviewed in slow motion by an independent technical official to confirm "contact" but footage shown to decision makers should be real time to avoid this bias.
Technically bumping into someone and bruising them is injuring them. Where do you want it to end. It was clearly not serious foul play
You've misunderstood me. I don't think it should be a red. Not even a foul.
I'm wondering is it a VAR mistake like we all think or actually, are the refs correctly applying the silly rule.
i.e. the real problem isn't VAR, it's the rules. Or at least the culture they have around those rules.
https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/is-var-being-used-in-the-fa-cup-third-round-yes-for-some-teams-and-no-for-others/a96502933.html
Only being used at PL grounds in the Cup
Either only use it a Wembley like the League Cup or don't use it at all
Only being used at PL grounds in the Cup
Either only use it a Wembley like the League Cup or don't use it at all
I don't really share the issue some have with it being used in grounds that can use it, and not in grounds that can't. Should they not let the bigger grounds use things like under soil heating in the early rounds as it gives them an unfair opportunity of getting the match on, and in better condition, than those in the same round who can't afford it?https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/is-var-being-used-in-the-fa-cup-third-round-yes-for-some-teams-and-no-for-others/a96502933.html
Only being used at PL grounds in the Cup
Either only use it a Wembley like the League Cup or don't use it at all
It's not like it actually gives any of the teams any unfair advantage in matches where VAR is used - whether VAR is used in one match and not another isn't an 'advantage' to either set of teams given the jury is still very much out on whether VAR improves or worsens the game (given the amount of complaints about it wherever VAR is used, then you could well say that if any are 'benefitting' it's those who get to play without it! Unless there's actually an admission now that playing with VAR is better, in which case why all the negativity towards it all the time?)