[Albion] Do you believe "VAR is biased shit"?

[Badger]

I don't think it's biased, but they need to sort out this kind of bullsh*t.

 

[Acker79]

Referees (some, if not all) have been biased in favour of the big cubs - unintentionally, subconsciously maybe, but nevertheless decisions do seem to frequently favour the big clubs. Same as some refereeing performances are definitely 'homers'.
These same referees are now sitting behind TV screens and making the decisions - s is it surprising that leopards don't change their spots? It's not down to VAR (shit though it is).

Have to agree, the same morons making moronic decisions on the pitch are the same ones sitting behind a screen making moronic decisions. I'm not referring to the offside decisions as they either off or on. It's the ones where it is subjective. Two examples, Walker not being sent off in the semi final may have affected the outcome of that game. The second was Arsenal v Villa when there was a handball in the box and Jon Moss didn't even review it. VAR should have been screaming in his ear that he needed to check it. He may still have come to the same (wrong) decision but the arrogance to ignore it beggars belief. I'm not sure but I might be right in thinking that in the first 6 rounds of games, there hasn't been one pitch side review. It stinks of the PGMOL dictating the application of the whole process.

Except the decisions the VAR makes are objective. They aren't sat in there watching the screen and making the same judgement calls the on-field ref makes, just with the advantage of replays. They don't get to say "I think that's a foul". They are limited to objective calls. It's why so few fouls or penalties are overturned, yet every other goal feels like it's being ruled out for offside. The guy with the screen is not using his judgement. He is looking at facts alone - is that player onside or offside. Is the player that was given the card the right one. Was that inside the box or out of it. Does the ref's description of that foul match what is on the screen (e.g. if the ref in our cup semi told the var he saw the contact between heads, but felt it was a pushing of the head forward into the opponent rather than a rear back and throw his head forward so didn't give a red, the VAR can't say 'but he still put his head in an opponents face with a bit of force, I think it's a red take another look' he has to look at the video, look to see there was no rearing back and throwing the head forward and say 'your decision stands'. These aren't really things where a bias (conscious or sub-conscious) can really be expressed by the VAR.

I think the problem is that because of those restrictions to objective facts for the VAR to work with, the subjective decisions the on-field ref makes are rarely challenged. So when the referee looks at almost identical situations, gives it one way, but not the other, as long as his description fits, it can't be overturned. For example, the ref might say 'Dunk leaves the ground, goes over the ball, which meant Stirling had to jump out of the way to avoid contact, I'm calling that dangerous play and giving a red' and the VAR will look at the video, see that dunk leaves the ground, goes over the ball, and doesn't collide with Stirling because he jumps out of the way. Decision stands. 10 minutes later he can see an almost identical situation, say 'Stirling is only just off the ground, he goes over the ball, but doesn't make contact with Burn who had time to move out of the way, so I'm calling it reckless and giving a yellow' and the VAR will look at video see Stirling leaves the ground, goes over the ball and no contact with Burn who jumped out of the way. Decision stands.

The bias, if it exists (and I suspect it does, subconsciously) is still in the onfield ref and the high bar set for overturning the ref's subjective calls means that bias can't be policed and compensated for by the VAR.

 

[HastingsSeagull]

In every sport it's shown to favour biggest teams and biggest star players. But it's fine, we just have to work harder to get there and it's nothing extreme, refs do it too anyway.

 

[Dick Head]

Just read, from an Albion fan sometimes of this parish, that VAR being "biased shit" is one of the reasons we are not better placed in the league.

This view surprised me. Presumably underpinning this comment is a view that VAR helps the big clubs and not the little clubs, although I'm struggling to think of a result-impacting VAR decision we've had against one of the big clubs we've played to date.

Is this a commonly-held view? Do you believe that VAR is "biased shit"?

Now you mention it...

 

[drew]

Except the decisions the VAR makes are objective. They aren't sat in there watching the screen and making the same judgement calls the on-field ref makes, just with the advantage of replays. They don't get to say "I think that's a foul". They are limited to objective calls. It's why so few fouls or penalties are overturned, yet every other goal feels like it's being ruled out for offside. The guy with the screen is not using his judgement. He is looking at facts alone - is that player onside or offside. Is the player that was given the card the right one. Was that inside the box or out of it. Does the ref's description of that foul match what is on the screen (e.g. if the ref in our cup semi told the var he saw the contact between heads, but felt it was a pushing of the head forward into the opponent rather than a rear back and throw his head forward so didn't give a red, the VAR can't say 'but he still put his head in an opponents face with a bit of force, I think it's a red take another look' he has to look at the video, look to see there was no rearing back and throwing the head forward and say 'your decision stands'. These aren't really things where a bias (conscious or sub-conscious) can really be expressed by the VAR.

I think the problem is that because of those restrictions to objective facts for the VAR to work with, the subjective decisions the on-field ref makes are rarely challenged. So when the referee looks at almost identical situations, gives it one way, but not the other, as long as his description fits, it can't be overturned. For example, the ref might say 'Dunk leaves the ground, goes over the ball, which meant Stirling had to jump out of the way to avoid contact, I'm calling that dangerous play and giving a red' and the VAR will look at the video, see that dunk leaves the ground, goes over the ball, and doesn't collide with Stirling because he jumps out of the way. Decision stands. 10 minutes later he can see an almost identical situation, say 'Stirling is only just off the ground, he goes over the ball, but doesn't make contact with Burn who had time to move out of the way, so I'm calling it reckless and giving a yellow' and the VAR will look at video see Stirling leaves the ground, goes over the ball and no contact with Burn who jumped out of the way. Decision stands.

The bias, if it exists (and I suspect it does, subconsciously) is still in the onfield ref and the high bar set for overturning the ref's subjective calls means that bias can't be policed and compensated for by the VAR.

Not sure you're right there. It is objective in terms of offside but everything else is subjective, ie was handball in the area ball to hand or vice versa, foul in the area etc. It is one refs opinion against another and at the moment there is a trend that the VAR is refusing to even suggest the onfield ref might have missed something.

 

[Arthur]

I don't think it's biased, but they need to sort out this kind of bullsh*t.

Exactly. It's supposed to assist the officials when they make clear and obvious mistakes. How can that be classed as a clear and obvious mistake? Why does the ruling differ for offside over penalties? VAR officials coming out and saying we would have supported the ref if he'd gone the other way (like at Arsenal Villa the other week) really doesn't help matters. If you are either offside or you aren't then its either a penalty or it isn't surely.

Get rid of it......it's shit!

 

[Badger]

Again, you have a problem with the offside law NOT VAR. He is offside as can be seen in the image.

No, my problem is not with the offside law. As [MENTION=314]Arthur[/MENTION] says, it's supposed to be for clear and obvious mistakes. In this instance it's not even 100% clear if he is offside. It's hard to determine if that's the exact frame when the ball left the other player's foot. Also, there's a little bit of guesswork going on in working out where to draw the lines from the player's armpits. It should be similar to "umpire's call" in cricket, where such a close decision is left as the decision which was made on the pitch.

 

[Acker79]

Not sure you're right there. It is objective in terms of offside but everything else is subjective, ie was handball in the area ball to hand or vice versa, foul in the area etc. It is one refs opinion against another and at the moment there is a trend that the VAR is refusing to even suggest the onfield ref might have missed something.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/11777969/var-in-the-premier-league-the-ultimate-qa

For objective things, the VAR can get involved.

For subjective things it is not one ref's opinion against another. It's (partly*) this misconception that is causing people a lot of frustration with the system. As explained in that link, the VAR asks the ref what he saw that led to him making the call he did. The VAR then makes an objective call about whether what the ref said happened did in fact happen. If it did, the onfield ref's interpretation of things stands. e.g. if the ref says 'he left the ground, doesn't make contact with the ball, and his trailing leg makes contact with the opponent's standing leg, so I think it was dangerous play and a red' the VAR has to look at the video and see: was the player off the ground, did he miss the ball, does his trailing leg make contact with the standing leg? If so, the ref's decision has to stand, even if the VAR thinks it's the sort of challenge he'd just give a yellow to. The VAR can't overrule him just because he disagrees - the basis for the onfield referee's decision has to be factually flawed.

The handball law was changed this season to remove a lot of the subjectivity, particularly when reviewing goals and penalties. It's why we get ridiculous decisions costing goals - it's not about whether the ref thinks there's intent, it's not about whether it was ball to arm or arm to ball, it's not even about whether an advantage was gained. It's about where the arm is in relation to the body, and whether there was any contact. From a defensive point of view intent, something that is a subjective call (without the ability to read minds, or honest players) has been removed in certain situations - is the arm away from the body, did it lead to the player gaining possession. Outside of the penalty box or a goal, handball isn't a reviewable decision.

Fouls fall under 'subjective things'. If the ref rules a foul and the video shows that what he says happened actually happened, the VAR can't disagree with the foul, that is, if the ref says he is awarding the foul because of holding, and asks the VAR if the foul continued into the box, the VAR can't turn around and say 'yeah, he was holding him, but, unlike you, I don't think he was holding him firmly enough for it to be a foul, so no penalty if you're going to award something it'll only be freekick' he has to take the ref's decision that the holding is a foul and make the objective call as to whether the holding continued into the box or not, regardless of if he thinks it's a tight enough grip to constitute a foul. (Yes, I know, it's a bad 'foul' to use, but it is the clearest at explaining what I mean).

(partly* - I think an equally large part of the frustration comes from refs, under instruction from their trainers and paymasters, interpret the rules in a particular way; the fans, pundits, players etc interpret them in another way. We expect having a replay system means they will look again and suddenly start interpreting the laws our way, but that is not going to happen any time soon).