[Football] Article: How the Premier League can save the world from VAR

[Easy 10]

I knew on Sunday when Lascelles bundled into Kane and took his legs away without a penalty given that VAR had to make the right call and overturn the decision. No such decision was made thus making all of it a mockery. I'm out

Perceived as not enough of a "clear and obvious error" for the VAR to overturn the refs initial decision. All we've actually done is swap one subjective decision for another one, but at the same time shoe-horned in a whole new raft of rules, regulations and delays in order to accommodate it.

Its now becoming every bit as intrusive, inconsistent and annoying as I thought it would.

 

[Acker79]

I don't really get this whole 'we don't know what's going on!' claims. We do.

The balls gone in the goal, kick off pretty much as usual? The VAR checked the goal and it was obvious there were no issues, so it was confirmed quickly.

The balls gone in the goal, kick off is being delayed? The VAR is questioning something and wants to be sure. What are the options? There was an offside, a handball, a foul, or the ball went out of play. What was the goal? played along the ground - we can rule out handball. Clean through without a defender involved? We can rule out a foul. Through the middle? Not looking to see if it went out of play.

When it works well (which, admittedly, they have failed to do at the amex so far), the decision is displayed on the big screen - you get the freeze frame of the offside, the handball, the ball out of play or the foul. Often times this is paired with traditional gestures from the ref.

Commentators don't help. Their repeated 'I don't know what's going on' when they can apply simple deduction. It's like they want there to be controversy, or like they never wanted VAR and want to undermine it at every opportunity.



I would also reiterate what I've said before. VAR was never going to be about making the decisions the fans want to be made. It was about ensuring no factual errors, in line with the footballing authorities interpretation of the laws. They will continue to stick with their interpretation for 'in the opinion of the referee' laws, not the fans'.

 

[Easy 10]

I don't really get this whole 'we don't know what's going on!' claims. We do.

Did you know what was going on 1min 50 seconds after our "goal" v West Ham was being looked at again - just as the teams were about to kick off ? Because I didn't have a scooby. It had not even occurred to me that Burns left knee was offside when the initial free kick had been taken.

Still, it was all properly cleared up about seven and a half hours later when I saw it all replayed on MOTD. So alls well.

 

[ac gull]

And its not as if you had paid good money to attend a live sporting event either!!!

 

[drew]

Did you know what was going on 1min 50 seconds after our "goal" v West Ham was being looked at again - just as the teams were about to kick off ? Because I didn't have a scooby. It had not even occurred to me that Burns left knee was offside when the initial free kick had been taken.

Still, it was all properly cleared up about seven and a half hours later when I saw it all replayed on MOTD. So alls well.

You keep going on about Burns being offside when the kick was taken but standing in an offside position is not an offence. When the cross came over, it was going nowhere near where Burn was standing and there was a possibility that ball flicked off the head of the defender and then Burn chased it down.

The problem is the offside law and this ridiculous reference to second phase. Take Jesus's goal for City where Sterling was marginally offside but at the time the through ball was played to Sterling, Jesus was way offside but by the time Sterling passed to him he was back behind the ball. My view is that Jesus was offside and seeking to gain an advantage by being there so correct decision re the goal but it should be because Jesus was offside and Sterling's position was irrelevant.

Regarding other posters and VAR in general, I don't agree about daylight as exactly how much is that. I would rather see it based purely on the position of the feet, in other words an attacker can be leaning towards the goal and a defender the other way but the defenders foot is still in line or closer to the goal than the attacker's foot.

The revised hand ball rule is ludicrous. Should be the same for the defending team as for the attackers.

I never used to be in favour of VAR but thought it worked well in the 2018 world cup (not so much the women's event). However, the problem as I see it is not so much VAR but a combination of the fact that the standard of referees in this country has plummeted over recent years and that changes to rules have been ill considered. I fail to understand why it was beyond refs to award penalties at corners when defenders are pulling shirts or tackling people to the ground. Their ineptness has got us to this position. VAR is in it's early stages so for the time being I'm prepared to see how it goes. It will be tweaked.

 

[nickjhs]

The VAR is for sit at home plastics , it is ruining the game for people actually there

Crap, there are plenty of on ground VAR fans. I either stay up late or wake up in the early hours to watch and trust me I frigging hate millimetre perfection of VAR decisions, disallowing a goal because someones little toe was the other side of an imaginary line is not what we wanted. The people who like VAR as we have it are pedantic perfectionists and they are on ground as well as in their armchairs.

 

[Easy 10]

You keep going on about Burns being offside when the kick was taken but standing in an offside position is not an offence. When the cross came over, it was going nowhere near where Burn was standing and there was a possibility that ball flicked off the head of the defender and then Burn chased it down.

Well sorry if I keep going on about it, but that IS the reason why Trossards "goal" was binned off. It just further highlights the ridiculous forensic levels VAR is going to in order to find a reason to disallow a goal.

They are constantly striving to make black-and-white micro-decisions in what is essentially a flowing game of chaos. It will NEVER work to anyones satisfaction. Its just pissing everyone off.

 

[Ernest]

Crap, there are plenty of on ground VAR fans. I either stay up late or wake up in the early hours to watch and trust me I frigging hate millimetre perfection of VAR decisions, disallowing a goal because someones little toe was the other side of an imaginary line is not what we wanted. The people who like VAR as we have it are pedantic perfectionists and they are on ground as well as in their armchairs.

Name them then

 

[Acker79]

I never used to be in favour of VAR but thought it worked well in the 2018 world cup (not so much the women's event). However, the problem as I see it is not so much VAR but a combination of the fact that the standard of referees in this country has plummeted over recent years and that changes to rules have been ill considered.

I genuinely don't think that's true, on two fronts:

1) the idea that refereeing was better in the past is that classic 'things were better when...' factor where people remember the past as better than it was, and the fact that their decisions weren't analysed nor were they questioned - I happened to catch a 'classic premier league encounter' on sky sports a while back. There was what I thought a good tackle. The ref gave a foul. The players lined up for the set piece. The commentator called the action, that is, he commented 'and the ref has awarded a foul'. They showed a couple of replays the few angles they have covered, and with, I think the third replay, it became clear it wasn't a foul. At that point, the commentator noted it might not be the right decision. Then they got on with the game. Compare that with a modern game, where the players immediately get in the ref's face because they have judge the incident themselves and think the ref is wrong, the commentators instinct isn't to call the action, it's to re-referee - it's not unusual for the ref to blow the whistle and award a foul and have Gary Neville respond 'No, no, no. That's never a foul he didn't touch him!' Then as the first 9 super-slow mo replays from every angle, show there was contact he continues defiantly tries to argue the contact wasn't enough, or that he was trying to get the ball, or something desperate to make sure the ref wrong, only accepting the ref's decision if there's no other way to question it. They'll get a former ref in the studio who explains why it is a foul, then they'll completely dismiss that explanation and continue on with their own interpretation, which brings me to the second front... Back then the players played football, the commentators called the action, the spectators watched. Nowadays, players play and referee, commentators call the action and referee, spectators watch the game and referee. All while ignoring that 'in the opinion of the referee' means that. It doesn't matter how the rest of us view it.

2) the referees aren't the problem. They are doing a great job of implementing the laws in the way they have been trained and instructed to implement them by their paymasters. The problem is that increasingly, the paymaster's interpretation of the laws is diverging from the fans' (and players/pundits/etc) interpretation. When we disagree with the officials, the issue isn't that the official has called it wrong, it's that our definition of what is the right call is not the same as the football authorities definition of the laws. I find it hard to draw an analogy. I've been watching a lot of cookery programmes recently, so keep going to food, albeit imperfectly... It's like going to a restaurant where the chef has been told by the restaurant owner he wants to sell banoffee pie with a biscuit base, if the chef isn't happy with that he can quit. If he doesn't do it that way, he'll get sacked. The chef makes a banoffee pie with a biscuit base because he wants to be a chef and this is the only game in town. You go to the restaurant and order a banofee pie and when it comes out, you are perplexed. You think banofee pie should have a pastry base. That's how it was originally intended, there was nothing wrong with the pie base, no need to change it. So you decide the chef is doesn't know what he's doing, can't cook, shouldn't be in the kitchen. The chef can cook, maybe if he had his own restaurant and could pick the things the way he wants to, he would make banofee pie with a pastry base, but he doesn't own the restaurant. Someone else does and that someone else is the one who pays him, and you know what, while the biscuit base may not be to your liking, it's actually a well made banoffee pie.

Now I want banoffee pie.

I fail to understand why it was beyond refs to award penalties at corners when defenders are pulling shirts or tackling people to the ground. Their ineptness has got us to this position. VAR is in it's early stages so for the time being I'm prepared to see how it goes. It will be tweaked.

They tried that a few seasons back. They got slaughtered for it, "it was ruining the game", "it was making defending impossible". And they quickly eased up on it. This was an article from early that season
https://www.skysports.com/football/...wn-on-penalty-box-fouls-in-the-premier-league the criticism (some of it was due to inconsistency, but there was also a lot about 'ruining the art of defending' etc) led to them easing up on it.

 

[nickjhs]

Name them then

You're funny.

Here is a thought how about you proving it is only the sit at home fans.

 

[Acker79]

Did you know what was going on 1min 50 seconds after our "goal" v West Ham was being looked at again - just as the teams were about to kick off ? Because I didn't have a scooby. It had not even occurred to me that Burns left knee was offside when the initial free kick had been taken.

Still, it was all properly cleared up about seven and a half hours later when I saw it all replayed on MOTD. So alls well.

As I said before, as there had been a delay I deduced that they were checking for an infringement of some kind - based on what I'd seen I assumed it was querying had the ball gone out before Burn got to it, was there an offside or a foul? Didn't really matter what specific offence it is, doesn't change that we have to wait for the decision to come in before they can kick off, and if it is overturned they'll tell us. Then I saw the offside flash up on the screen (albeit not staying up as long as I'd've liked) to confirm which of them it was.

 

[Easy 10]

As I said before, as there had been a delay I deduced that they were checking for an infringement of some kind - based on what I'd seen I assumed it was querying had the ball gone out before Burn got to it, was there an offside or a foul? Didn't really matter what specific offence it is, doesn't change that we have to wait for the decision to come in before they can kick off, and if it is overturned they'll tell us. Then I saw the offside flash up on the screen (albeit not staying up as long as I'd've liked) to confirm which of them it was.

Well hang on, lets get this right - the actual delay you refer to didn't happen until a full 1min 50 seconds had elapsed after we'd "scored". Nothing up on the screens. No finger in the ear. Ryan had made a 100 yard charge to join in the celebrations, and was now back on his goal-line. The celebrations were just about subsiding in the stands. Teams back in their own halves, ball on the centre spot, about to kick off for the restarts....and THEN - "VAR - Goal Review" on the big TV.

You might be happy enough to hold fire on a goal celebration until a couple of minutes later, once the safety of the other team actually kicking off the restart confirms it. But I thought it was utter shithouse. And it confirmed EVERYTHING I feared about this system being introduced. Its all coming home to roost, with all its glorious joy-sapping flaws.

 

[Nixonator]

The pro VAR'ers thinning out.

Many of us saw this circus act coming a mile off.

 

[Albion my Albion]

I won’t lie, I’m pretty proud of this piece.

Here’s my take, as a previous VAR enthusiast, on what the use of Video Technology is doing to football, and what the PL can do about it.



Read HERE: https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/content.php?823-How-the-Premier-League-can-save-the-world-from-VAR

I hope you enjoy, let’s hear your thoughts.

It's never ever been a "free-flowing" game. Linos have always called back goals that fans have celebrated with offside calls. Wrong. Simply wrong!

 

[drew]

Well sorry if I keep going on about it, but that IS the reason why Trossards "goal" was binned off. It just further highlights the ridiculous forensic levels VAR is going to in order to find a reason to disallow a goal.

They are constantly striving to make black-and-white micro-decisions in what is essentially a flowing game of chaos. It will NEVER work to anyones satisfaction. Its just pissing everyone off.

Sorry, should have been clearer. The linesman did not need to flag for offside just because he was standing in an offside position (and neither, under current guidelines, should he). In theory, if the lino thought he had been offside once the ball hit the net he should have signalled then and that is one of the problems because he didn't, either because he didn't spot it or he chose to leave it to the VAR to decide.

 

[drew]

I genuinely don't think that's true, on two fronts:

1) the idea that refereeing was better in the past is that classic 'things were better when...' factor where people remember the past as better than it was, and the fact that their decisions weren't analysed nor were they questioned - I happened to catch a 'classic premier league encounter' on sky sports a while back. There was what I thought a good tackle. The ref gave a foul. The players lined up for the set piece. The commentator called the action, that is, he commented 'and the ref has awarded a foul'. They showed a couple of replays the few angles they have covered, and with, I think the third replay, it became clear it wasn't a foul. At that point, the commentator noted it might not be the right decision. Then they got on with the game. Compare that with a modern game, where the players immediately get in the ref's face because they have judge the incident themselves and think the ref is wrong, the commentators instinct isn't to call the action, it's to re-referee - it's not unusual for the ref to blow the whistle and award a foul and have Gary Neville respond 'No, no, no. That's never a foul he didn't touch him!' Then as the first 9 super-slow mo replays from every angle, show there was contact he continues defiantly tries to argue the contact wasn't enough, or that he was trying to get the ball, or something desperate to make sure the ref wrong, only accepting the ref's decision if there's no other way to question it. They'll get a former ref in the studio who explains why it is a foul, then they'll completely dismiss that explanation and continue on with their own interpretation, which brings me to the second front... Back then the players played football, the commentators called the action, the spectators watched. Nowadays, players play and referee, commentators call the action and referee, spectators watch the game and referee. All while ignoring that 'in the opinion of the referee' means that. It doesn't matter how the rest of us view it.

2) the referees aren't the problem. They are doing a great job of implementing the laws in the way they have been trained and instructed to implement them by their paymasters. The problem is that increasingly, the paymaster's interpretation of the laws is diverging from the fans' (and players/pundits/etc) interpretation. When we disagree with the officials, the issue isn't that the official has called it wrong, it's that our definition of what is the right call is not the same as the football authorities definition of the laws. I find it hard to draw an analogy. I've been watching a lot of cookery programmes recently, so keep going to food, albeit imperfectly... It's like going to a restaurant where the chef has been told by the restaurant owner he wants to sell banoffee pie with a biscuit base, if the chef isn't happy with that he can quit. If he doesn't do it that way, he'll get sacked. The chef makes a banoffee pie with a biscuit base because he wants to be a chef and this is the only game in town. You go to the restaurant and order a banofee pie and when it comes out, you are perplexed. You think banofee pie should have a pastry base. That's how it was originally intended, there was nothing wrong with the pie base, no need to change it. So you decide the chef is doesn't know what he's doing, can't cook, shouldn't be in the kitchen. The chef can cook, maybe if he had his own restaurant and could pick the things the way he wants to, he would make banofee pie with a pastry base, but he doesn't own the restaurant. Someone else does and that someone else is the one who pays him, and you know what, while the biscuit base may not be to your liking, it's actually a well made banoffee pie.

Now I want banoffee pie.



They tried that a few seasons back. They got slaughtered for it, "it was ruining the game", "it was making defending impossible". And they quickly eased up on it. This was an article from early that season
https://www.skysports.com/football/...wn-on-penalty-box-fouls-in-the-premier-league the criticism (some of it was due to inconsistency, but there was also a lot about 'ruining the art of defending' etc) led to them easing up on it.

Firstly, the article you refer to seems to me to be more highlighting the inconsistency of the application of the rule and how that was causing consternation amongst teams. Consistency has been a big a issue for a number of years. Any comment about it ruining the art of defending is garbage as pulling shirts or grappling someone to the ground is not allowed in the rules!!!

With regard to standards, I'm talking about over the last 5 or 6 years, not going back to the 1970s when refs weren't under scrutiny.

 

[Acker79]

Well hang on, lets get this right - the actual delay you refer to didn't happen until a full 1min 50 seconds had elapsed after we'd "scored". Nothing up on the screens. No finger in the ear. Ryan had made a 100 yard charge to join in the celebrations, and was now back on his goal-line. The celebrations were just about subsiding in the stands. Teams back in their own halves, ball on the centre spot, about to kick off for the restarts....and THEN - "VAR - Goal Review" on the big TV.

You might be happy enough to hold fire on a goal celebration until a couple of minutes later, once the safety of the other team actually kicking off the restart confirms it. But I thought it was utter shithouse. And it confirmed EVERYTHING I feared about this system being introduced. Its all coming home to roost, with all its glorious joy-sapping flaws.

I didn't think this would need to be spelt out like this: I didn't hold fire on my goal celebration. I celebrated with everyone else. No one is claiming at that point they were thinking, 'hang on what's going on?', so it should be obvious my reply wasn't referring to that immediate moment. Especially as my initial post gave two scenarios, one where kick off is taken, one where it is delayed.

Yes. 1m50s later, when we still hadn't kicked off, when the celebrations are dying down as we wait for kick off, when some people are claiming they 'didn't know what was going on' - that was the point when I thought 'they must be looking at something on VAR, since it has been made abundantly clear in the build up to this season, and with the first weekend's action that every goal will be reviewed - if it is taking this long there must be something they've seen and want to double, triple, quadruple check - maybe an offside, maybe the ball went out of play before Burn crossed it. But the ref isn't letting them kick off (and he did put his finger to his ear several times), so the review must still be ongoing'. My biggest assumption was that the video display was screwed up - it should have been shown the review was happening sooner, but people shouldn't need it to deduce that when the kick off is being held up after a goal and there's no injuries or substitutions, the VAR check is looking at something it thinks might be cause for cancelling the goal.

Firstly, the article you refer to seems to me to be more highlighting the inconsistency of the application of the rule and how that was causing consternation amongst teams. Consistency has been a big a issue for a number of years. Any comment about it ruining the art of defending is garbage as pulling shirts or grappling someone to the ground is not allowed in the rules!!!

With regard to standards, I'm talking about over the last 5 or 6 years, not going back to the 1970s when refs weren't under scrutiny.

Firstly, yes. I pointed out myself that the article focused on the inconsistency of the application of the rule.
I agree, apparently the eye rolling tone with which I wrote 'ruining the art of defending' didn't translate very well. I never like that argument, either, but it's one of the ones that was made, along with just general nonsense about ruining the game, 9 penalties a game and everyone sent off, etc. I'm with you, I'd like to see it punished. But half the fans want it clamped down on, half the fans think it's part of the game. When they tried to please the half that want it clamped down on, the half that want it bitched and moaned, and coupled with the inconsistency, managed to get it stopped. If the arguments had been 'I can't see why it's not given here. That should be a foul like it was in the man city game' instead of 'they're not applying it consistently they might as well not both applying it' maybe they would have persisted, but that emphasis was there at the start of the season, but pushed out.

I'm not talking about going back that far, either - there are no 'classic premier league encounters' from the 70s. I may have overstated the simplicity of the technology for dramatic effect.

 

[Jaxie]

I genuinely don't think that's true, on two fronts:

1) the idea that refereeing was better in the past is that classic 'things were better when...' factor where people remember the past as better than it was, and the fact that their decisions weren't analysed nor were they questioned - I happened to catch a 'classic premier league encounter' on sky sports a while back. There was what I thought a good tackle. The ref gave a foul. The players lined up for the set piece. The commentator called the action, that is, he commented 'and the ref has awarded a foul'. They showed a couple of replays the few angles they have covered, and with, I think the third replay, it became clear it wasn't a foul. At that point, the commentator noted it might not be the right decision. Then they got on with the game. Compare that with a modern game, where the players immediately get in the ref's face because they have judge the incident themselves and think the ref is wrong, the commentators instinct isn't to call the action, it's to re-referee - it's not unusual for the ref to blow the whistle and award a foul and have Gary Neville respond 'No, no, no. That's never a foul he didn't touch him!' Then as the first 9 super-slow mo replays from every angle, show there was contact he continues defiantly tries to argue the contact wasn't enough, or that he was trying to get the ball, or something desperate to make sure the ref wrong, only accepting the ref's decision if there's no other way to question it. They'll get a former ref in the studio who explains why it is a foul, then they'll completely dismiss that explanation and continue on with their own interpretation, which brings me to the second front... Back then the players played football, the commentators called the action, the spectators watched. Nowadays, players play and referee, commentators call the action and referee, spectators watch the game and referee. All while ignoring that 'in the opinion of the referee' means that. It doesn't matter how the rest of us view it.

2) the referees aren't the problem. They are doing a great job of implementing the laws in the way they have been trained and instructed to implement them by their paymasters. The problem is that increasingly, the paymaster's interpretation of the laws is diverging from the fans' (and players/pundits/etc) interpretation. When we disagree with the officials, the issue isn't that the official has called it wrong, it's that our definition of what is the right call is not the same as the football authorities definition of the laws. I find it hard to draw an analogy. I've been watching a lot of cookery programmes recently, so keep going to food, albeit imperfectly... It's like going to a restaurant where the chef has been told by the restaurant owner he wants to sell banoffee pie with a biscuit base, if the chef isn't happy with that he can quit. If he doesn't do it that way, he'll get sacked. The chef makes a banoffee pie with a biscuit base because he wants to be a chef and this is the only game in town. You go to the restaurant and order a banofee pie and when it comes out, you are perplexed. You think banofee pie should have a pastry base. That's how it was originally intended, there was nothing wrong with the pie base, no need to change it. So you decide the chef is doesn't know what he's doing, can't cook, shouldn't be in the kitchen. The chef can cook, maybe if he had his own restaurant and could pick the things the way he wants to, he would make banofee pie with a pastry base, but he doesn't own the restaurant. Someone else does and that someone else is the one who pays him, and you know what, while the biscuit base may not be to your liking, it's actually a well made banoffee pie.

Now I want banoffee pie.



They tried that a few seasons back. They got slaughtered for it, "it was ruining the game", "it was making defending impossible". And they quickly eased up on it. This was an article from early that season
https://www.skysports.com/football/...wn-on-penalty-box-fouls-in-the-premier-league the criticism (some of it was due to inconsistency, but there was also a lot about 'ruining the art of defending' etc) led to them easing up on it.

Well said.

 

[FannieMac]

The way VAR is being used is what's so shit about it for me.

Use VAR for this.
* A player gets punched / kicked / dirty red card tackle, and the officials miss it
* A BLATANT handball. None of this shit like we saw in the Man City game
* Obvious off-sides where the goal scrorer is 10 yards off and somehow the linesman misses it

Dont use VAR for :
* Marginal off-sides. Nobody cares. This ruins the elation for all fans. this is 99% of the issue with VAR for me.
* Slight (doesn't change the direction of the ball) accidental handball that leads to a goal. Nobody cares. This is more to do with the laws of the game than VAR per se though

 

[The Tactician]

https://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/17913273.albion-ask-premier-league-give-fans-fair-deal-var/

Really interesting piece in the Argus today, on how the Albion are trying to lobby the Premier League to make changes to VAR in order to help improve the issues around fan experience. Of course, surely there is only one way to completely rescue fans from what has become a soul-sucking enterprise...