[Albion] Dan Burn - shirt pull - VAR review

[Green Cross Code Man]

I've mentioned many times I'm still on the fence on VAR. I'm just trying to provide an explanation.

No problem, I am only messing!

 

[Mellotron]

I thought both were holding, which, if I'm correct would be the answer.

The VAR doesn't look at the incident and ask 'would I give that?' he looks at and and asks 'can I see why the ref gave that, based on what he told me he saw?'. If the ref tells the VAR 'both were holding each other' the VAR can't look at and say 'yeah, but the west ham player was doing it worse than the brighton player so you should give a penalty', he has to say 'yep, both holding, can see why you made that decision, your decision stands'.

Interesting. Realistically though, there IS going to be some contact from Burn to their player if they're standing in such close proximity, so I think if one is the far worse offender in terms of who is holding who back from getting the ball, then that should be a penalty.

One of my concerns with VAR (which I am also on the fence about) is this potential nondecision/indecision from refs and linos is going to lead to a general shying away from such decisions being made - i.e. perhaps the ref would've given the pen if he didn't have VAR to fall back on.

 

[Chinman3000]

Didn't see the incident (and haven't seen it in any replays) but would Dan have actually got the ball if his shirt wasn't getting held?

As I wonder whether they will only penalise this, if the impeded player was 'active'.

 

[SussexSeahawk]

Seems to be pretty clear (and a good thing in my opinion) that fouls above the waist especially at set pieces are not going to be over-ruled by VAR. As we all know this kind of stuff happens at every set piece and am glad that they are not going into a forensic analysis of every incident.

If someone is tripped it's easy to see, but for these kind of things a judgement has to be made on the force and if you think offside is a minefield then it would be 10 times worse trying to determine at what point there is enough force for it to be an obvious penalty.

 

[the right footed denilson]

Might be sensible for the FA to release VAR reports after each game listing every decision that was considered for review, reviewed, and the thinking behind each decision based on the rules. Was it even reviewed?
Needs to be more transparency for everyone to get behind it.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Might be sensible for the FA to release VAR reports after each game listing every decision that was considered for review, reviewed, and the thinking behind each decision based on the rules.

Ha!! Funniest post I've read this weekend (and beyond). FA being clear to us? How was the moon whilst you were away?

 

[the right footed denilson]

...
One of my concerns with VAR (which I am also on the fence about) is this potential nondecision/indecision from refs and linos is going to lead to a general shying away from such decisions being made - i.e. perhaps the ref would've given the pen if he didn't have VAR to fall back on.

And therefore the resulting total inability of the ref to make (basic) decisions confidently and correctly, i.e first Ashes test.

 

[Triggaaar]

No wind up at all.

Burn's shirt was being pulled so hard that he was pretty much horizontal. The clearest pen you could ever see. So I'm completely baffled how they could go to VAR for it and deem it not a foul.

Therefore, pulling/wrestling in the box is completely allowed, it appears.

Perhaps the refs are letting things go, relying on VAR to call it if it was a foul. Meanwhile, the VAR officials are thinking 'that looks like a penalty, but the ref has seen it and thought it wasn't enough to warrant a penalty, and it's not a big enough error for us to overturn it'.

It's going to take some time until they get it working well.

 

[Triggaaar]

Has someone got a link to the shirt pulling?

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Perhaps the refs are letting things go, relying on VAR to call it if it was a foul. Meanwhile, the VAR officials are thinking 'that looks like a penalty, but the ref has seen it and thought it wasn't enough to warrant a penalty, and it's not a big enough error for us to overturn it'.

It's going to take some time until they get it working well.

They only seem to care about chalking goals off, not giving them.

 

[the right footed denilson]

Here's one (presumably not the one, as this is more shirt lifting that pulling- actually probably is as it's the last 'action' shot on Reuters)
Dan Burn is going to be getting this kind of thing all season.

 

[Triggaaar]

They only seem to care about chalking goals off, not giving them.

The opposite to the Women's WC. Maybe we're seeing an over-reaction against that, as that was pretty dreadful.

 

[SollysLeftFoot]

I think this comes down to the interpretation of usage, the ref decides when it's the appropriate 'phase of play'. It lacks clarification, who uses it and when. Does the VAR refs in the control decide when to use it, or the referee?

 

[Sussex Nomad]

The opposite to the Women's WC. Maybe we're seeing an over-reaction against that, as that was pretty dreadful.

Can't deny I didn't watch the woman thing. But VAR worked ok at the World Cup was it? It was a major mens tournament. It just seems like utter shit in the Prem.

 

[Triggaaar]

Can't deny I didn't watch the woman thing.

I didn't see much of it, but I think they were giving penalties whenever the ball got near a defenders hand.

But VAR worked ok at the World Cup was it? It was a major mens tournament.

I thought so.

It just seems like utter shit in the Prem.

When I read the new rules, I thought this should be an improvement on the men's WC, but it's looking like (and we're only 2 games in) they're not going to give penalties that should be given (as Acker said might be the case). But I haven't actually seen the footage of Burn's penalty claim, so I'll hold full judgement.

If it really is a disaster, they'll change it.

We also need to stop showing 'goal' on the big screens until after the VAR check is complete.

 

[Triggaaar]

I think this comes down to the interpretation of usage, the ref decides when it's the appropriate 'phase of play'. It lacks clarification, who uses it and when. Does the VAR refs in the control decide when to use it, or the referee?

The VAR refs in the control centre decide. I don't even think the ref is allowed to call for it. He gives decisions as best he can, and VAR corrects him when it's a howler (of 1mm offside).

 

[wealdgull]

For those of you who didn't see it:

 

[SeafordBHA]

For those of you who didn't see it:

I was reserving judgement until I had seen it again.

I at first thought it looked a stonewall pen. But looking at this replay it isn't a penalty at all, very little in it....

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

The opposite to the Women's WC. Maybe we're seeing an over-reaction against that, as that was pretty dreadful.

Beat me to it.

 

[Nobby]

Perhaps the refs are letting things go, relying on VAR to call it if it was a foul. Meanwhile, the VAR officials are thinking 'that looks like a penalty, but the ref has seen it and thought it wasn't enough to warrant a penalty, and it's not a big enough error for us to overturn it'.

It's going to take some time until they get it working well.

It will never work well. You have technology subject to human error each time