[Football] Do you think that there is a top six bias with VAR?

[Icy Gull]

Simple yes or no ( as well an “other” for the more pedantic amongst you )

“Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after you” springs to mind

Personally think there is a big six (more actually these days) bias from refs and therefore it follows there will be one from ref operated VAR

 

[macbeth]

Not so much a bias in terms of corruption, but I think refs and VAR officials do tend to bottle it sometimes when it comes to making big calls against top 6 teams, particularly when they're at home. VAR calls against top6 teams get waaayy more attention, yesterday being a prime example. Keown on MOTD said as much as the decision to not give a red for the SU player in our game was worse than the decision at Stamford Bridge, yet it's barely gotten a mention in the wider media. This must of course play on refs minds when they have to make these kind of calls

 

[doogie004]

100% yes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nixonator]

Yep, was always going to be the case which is why the calls for it to work the other way in favour of the smaller clubs were so ludicrous.

 

[Swansman]

As a vivid conspiracy theorist, I would like to say "yes", but I dont know.

On one hand, I think most refs are type of humans who are a tad bit obsessed with "justice" and "fairness" and that they wouldnt play along in some conspiracy to give the big clubs advantages - though obviously enough money can make almost anyone do almost anything.

On the other hand, the status (and therefore tv deals, overall marketing money and so on) of the Premier League depend a lot on the big clubs. If, very hypothetically, someone put a gun to the head of some PL executive and say: "Whats the best for Premier League, Leicester & Sheffield playing the Champions League or Manchester United and Tottenham/other London club?" - I think the answer would be quite obvious.

I dont know.

 

[Stat Brother]

It would need to improve 110% before we could see any conspiracy.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If, as I suspect, the refs are sabotaging VAR 'subconsciously' then there is a likelihood that their subconscious bias towards the Big Clubs comes into play over VAR too.

Personally (controversial perhaps) I would seek to minimise the influence of refs and relegate them to VAR functionaries, with more and more decisions being semi-automatic.

But this means simplifying the rules a bit too. I have banged on about Clear Blue Daylight till my arse rattles. Recently the other Arse (Wenger) has come out with the same mantra. I'd like to take credit but the chance of Wenger reading my posts and taking notes is on a par with Diana Doors giving me a soapy tit ****. But I digress.

Change some laws and (to misquote that racist coach), take the referees down a peg or two.

 

[Geoffbn2]

It's not just Var it's refs and lino's ( all perpetuated by TV companies who only want to talk about and talk up the top teams and "big" players) and if it happens to be a big names player or a regular England player then they can do no wrong and even the slightest tap by an opponent will draw a foul, The playing field is a bit more level in the lower leagues and you don't see as many bad decisions, yes mistakes but not as consistently as you do in the PL

 

[Nobby]

It would need to improve 110% before we could see any conspiracy.

THIS

It’s 100% shambolic, bit like Mike Dean, but with seemingly no bias as to who gets it worse.

 

[father_and_son]

So called 'big matches' (ie ones with a top6 club in) are seen, IMO, by refs as more significant and therefore they are reluctant to make decisions seen as contraversial (against the top6) for fear of being slated by fans (including those fans who work for media organisations).

Understandable, but unforgivable.

 

[thedonkeycentrehalf]

Given that last time I saw the table, we had benefited more than most teams from VAR decisions I'd say no.

 

[Creaky]

. . . . . .

But this means simplifying the rules a bit too. I have banged on about Clear Blue Daylight till my arse rattles. Recently the other Arse (Wenger) has come out with the same mantra. I'd like to take credit but the chance of Wenger reading my posts and taking notes is on a par with Diana Doors giving me a soapy tit ****. . . . . . .

I really don’t see how changing the offside rule like this would make any difference. All it would do is change the position of the blue and red lines! You’d still get the argument that the player is offside by just a millimetre, depends on which frame you look at etc.

 

[doogie004]

Given that last time I saw the table, we had benefited more than most teams from VAR decisions I'd say no.

Ask yourselves if any Brighton player had committed that foul that dunk had done on him on any top six team would it of been a red ? I think we all know the answer


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Murray 17]

Clear Blue Daylight till my arse rattles.

If, by this, you mean that there must be light between the attacker and defender, I completely agree. Offside was designed to stop 'goal-hanging', and having the tip of your boot offside is not goal-hanging.

I don't think there is a bias towards the top clubs, for 2 reasons.

Firstly, referees are assessed on their performances, so it is in their best interests to give the 'correct' decision.

Secondly, top clubs have better players, so have more possession and more attacking opportunities. Therefore, they are bound to get more free-kick etc.

The incident at Stamford Bridge yesterday, was top club v top club. I genuinely feel the VAR ref made what he thought, was the correct decision (I know he subsequently changed his mind, which backs up my belief that his decision was genuine).


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I really don’t see how changing the offside rule like this would make any difference. All it would do is change the position of the blue and red lines! You’d still get the argument that the player is offside by just a millimetre, depends on which frame you look at etc.

I think it would feel so much better if a player is called onside when his trailing foot overlaps the defender's stretching leg, rather than called offside because his outstretched leg is an inch further forward than the defender's shoulder. Call me pedantic. Actually, don't

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If, by this, you mean that there must be light between the attacker and defender, I completely agree. Offside was designed to stop 'goal-hanging', and having the tip of your boot offside is not goal-hanging.

I don't think there is a bias towards the top clubs, for 2 reasons.

Firstly, referees are assessed on their performances, so it is in their best interests to give the 'correct' decision.

Secondly, top clubs have better players, so have more possession and more attacking opportunities. Therefore, they are bound to get more free-kick etc.

The incident at Stamford Bridge yesterday, was top club v top club. I genuinely feel the VAR ref made what he thought, was the correct decision (I know he subsequently changed his mind, which backs up my belief that his decision was genuine).


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Yes. Yes I do

 

[AmexRuislip]

I have banged on about Clear Blue Daylight till my arse rattles. Recently the other Arse (Wenger) has come out with the same mantra. I'd like to take credit but the chance of Wenger reading my posts and taking notes is on a par with Diana Doors giving me a soapy tit ****

Is this a synopsis of what is showing at Favershams independent cinema tonight

 

[Creaky]

But how much light - is 1mm enough? Where has there to be clear light? Do arms count, armpit, big toe? - all the same arguments as there are now.

Personally I like the idea of giving the attacker the slight advantage that changing the offside rule would give but the idea that it would make VAR decisions on offside less controversial just doesn’t hold water.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

But how much light - is 1mm enough? Where has there to be clear light? Do arms count, armpit, big toe? - all the same arguments as there are now.

Personally I like the idea of giving the attacker the slight advantage that changing the offside rule would give but the idea that it would make VAR decisions on offside less controversial just doesn’t hold water.

Nothing is perfect, and striving for better is what humans do.

It would be better. You can see that.

If we are going to use machines to help us we need to have better rules. I think using machines to help us is a good thing. My suggestion is a better rule.

Or maybe we could trial no offside. There would be goal hanging, which is why the offside rule came in. With faster fitter players it may not destroy the game. Worth a try? Perhaps.

 

[Coldeanseagull]

The top six are better than the teams around them, so obviously they are going to be in an area of the pitch where decisions will be made by VAR more often than the lesser teams.