[Albion] I’m now pro VAR - disgraceful officiating

[Simster]

Not all handballs are ‘blocked shots’ though. Blocking a cross is just as worthy of a penalty. Then there’s the completely different ones, like the Hendrick Burnley one - entirely deliberate act to scoop the ball away from Murray, but even though there was no real chance at that instance, it’s still a cast iron penalty. IMO.

I suppose I'm advocating a change in the rules. Unless the ref deems blocking a cross as preventing a clear goalscoring opportunity, I'd like him to be able to give a direct free kick inside the area. I agree with your examples of stone wall penalties as the rules stand

 

[darkwolf666]

Hackett was a decent ref in his day and his verdict is particularly damning. I just don't understand how we can make such a mess of using potentially such an excellent resource.

It should be used to clear up clear and obvious errors. It should be used to clear up offside decisions because there ought not to be any ambiguity there - you're either offside or you're not. And finally, VAR should be used to make penalty decisions, to which end FIFA really need to clear up what constitutes a handball and how it should be penalised. Personally I think unless a handball in the area blocks a shot that could feasibly end up with a goal, it should be a direct free kick inside the area.

Have you thought about the ramifications of what you suggest? Thinking of a recent example, where Lewis Dunk went to ground in the box and put his head in the way of the ball to prevent an opposition player getting it, he could instead have just picked the ball up, and given away a free kick! Also, as it wasn’t a clear goal scoring opportunity he couldn’t be shown a straight red.

Dunk, in the instance I quote wouldn’t have stopped a direct shot with his hands. Is that really what you want?

 

[madinthehead]

You know it's bad when the commentary team are stating their belief the referee is being one sided and "it's not an even playing field" with regards to no VAR in our match.

I watched with German commentary and they were also shocked by the number of incorrect decisions going Millwalls way

 

[Simster]

Have you thought about the ramifications of what you suggest? Thinking of a recent example, where Lewis Dunk went to ground in the box and put his head in the way of the ball to prevent an opposition player getting it, he could instead have just picked the ball up, and given away a free kick! Also, as it wasn’t a clear goal scoring opportunity he couldn’t be shown a straight red.

Dunk, in the instance I quote wouldn’t have stopped a direct shot with his hands. Is that really what you want?

Not fully thought it through, but that could easily be solved by adding the clause "deliberate handball = penalty", surely?

 

[darkwolf666]

Not fully thought it through, but that could easily be solved by adding the clause "deliberate handball = penalty", surely?

But that is exactly the current law... that you have been arguing against

 

[Simster]

But that is exactly the current law...

Is it? How on EARTH was that pen given against PSG then? There's absolutely no way that was a deliberate act when he turned his back on the ball!

 

[darkwolf666]

Is it? How on EARTH was that pen given against PSG then? There's absolutely no way that was a deliberate act when he turned his back on the ball!

Problem with that is interpretation, while he didn't deliberately put hand to ball the ref has to decide if the defender made himself bigger, by throwing his arms out. If we follow your route every defender will adopt the Peter Scmeichel star fish pose when defending a cross...

 

[Simster]

Problem with that is interpretation, while he didn't deliberately put hand to ball the ref has to decide if the defender made himself bigger, by throwing his arms out. If we follow your route every defender will adopt the Peter Scmeichel star fish pose when defending a cross...

Hmmm I see the issue of interpretation, but I'm not sure that's a fair example. Doing a star fish would surely be tantamount to attempting to gain an unfair advantage. But I don't see how jumping and turning your back on the ball with the ball hitting the hand can be deemed in any way as deliberate or attempting to prevent a goal using the hand...

 

[LamieRobertson]

Interesting that all three match officials on Sunday often work together

From the bbc website

Massey-Ellis and Kavanagh often work together as a team in Premier League matches, alongside assistant referee Dan Cook.

"The teamwork and friendship is great, I love the social side of refereeing," said Massey-Ellis.

"When the three of us do well together you just think how fantastic it is to be part of the team."

Hmmm

 

[GT49er]

Hackett was a decent ref in his day and his verdict is particularly damning. I just don't understand how we can make such a mess of using potentially such an excellent resource.

It should be used to clear up clear and obvious errors. It should be used to clear up offside decisions because there ought not to be any ambiguity there - you're either offside or you're not. And finally, VAR should be used to make penalty decisions, to which end FIFA really need to clear up what constitutes a handball and how it should be penalised. Personally I think unless a handball in the area blocks a shot that could feasibly end up with a goal, it should be a direct free kick inside the area.

No! It should be used to clear up clear and obvious errors (and off the ball things completely missed by the on-field officials) ONLY.

We do not want it used for every marginal offside decision, every penalty or every tackle. That would completely ruin the game; American football here we come! The on-field officials' decisions should be paramount unless there is a glaring error. And the final decision about whether to reverse an original decision should be entirely the on-field referee's - VAR to just point out errors so the ref can have a second look, and then decide; the VAR should not have any authority to over rule the on-field ref.

 

[Simster]

No! It should be used to clear up clear and obvious errors (and off the ball things completely missed by the on-field officials) ONLY.

We do not want it used for every marginal offside decision, every penalty or every tackle. That would completely ruin the game; American football here we come! The on-field officials' decisions should be paramount unless there is a glaring error. And the final decision about whether to reverse an original decision should be entirely the on-field referee's - VAR to just point out errors so the ref can have a second look, and then decide; the VAR should not have any authority to over rule the on-field ref.

I take your point about preventing constantly stopping and restarting to review, BUT I think that you've picked the wrong example there: I'd happily see every marginal offside decision reviewed, to be honest. The reason for this is that, as with goal line technology, it isn't open to interpretation - you're either offside or onside, no ifs and buts. Therefore why not just let the game run and review it afterwards? All through my childhood, I have been fed up with the flag going up for offside when the player is onside and then the commentators gloss over it like it was incidental. Absolute shite in a game like football where goals are a precious commodity.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Interesting that all three match officials on Sunday often work together

From the bbc website

Massey-Ellis and Kavanagh often work together as a team in Premier League matches, alongside assistant referee Dan Cook.

"The teamwork and friendship is great, I love the social side of refereeing," said Massey-Ellis.

"When the three of us do well together you just think how fantastic it is to be part of the team."

Hmmm

Now you've made me do a search for my Leicester thread. Here it is:

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?368392-West-Side-Linesman&highlight=Linesman

Guess who the official team was? That's right, Kavanagh, Massey-Ellis and Cook.

https://www.premierleague.com/news/915452

Four page thread confirming poor decisions all round. I was on the south west corner flag right at the front so had a bird's eye view of Cook's awfulnesss, and that's what I focussed on, despite the presence of Massey-Ellis. However, within a few posts of page one it is pointed out that she was guessing every offside decision.

Who wudda thunk it?

 

[GT49er]

I take your point about preventing constantly stopping and restarting to review, BUT I think that you've picked the wrong example there: I'd happily see every marginal offside decision reviewed, to be honest. The reason for this is that, as with goal line technology, it isn't open to interpretation - you're either offside or onside, no ifs and buts. Therefore why not just let the game run and review it afterwards? All through my childhood, I have been fed up with the flag going up for offside when the player is onside and then the commentators gloss over it like it was incidental. Absolute shite in a game like football where goals are a precious commodity.

A better solution, IMHO, would be to simplify the offside rule. Forget about first phase and second phase, and bring back (or start applying) the rule that said there had to be clear air between the attacker and the line of the nearest defender. Even better - and eminently sensible - would be to enshrine within the laws that the benefit of doubt would be with the attacker.

 

[Simster]

A better solution, IMHO, would be to simplify the offside rule. Forget about first phase and second phase, and bring back (or start applying) the rule that said there had to be clear air between the attacker and the line of the nearest defender. Even better - and eminently sensible - would be to enshrine within the laws that the benefit of doubt would be with the attacker.

It would still be offside or onside, we'd still be debating whether or not a player was onside, it's just that what constitutes offside will have changed. So I agree that your suggestion might improve the game, but ultimately doesn't add much to the VAR discussion and certainly shouldn't be applied instead of VAR which is what you're alluding to.

 

[Peter Ward]

We’d have won that in 90 with VAR. Poorest officials this season by a marathon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have been shocked this season by the poor quality of refereeing/ officiating in the Premier League. Notwithstanding the complete Shyster and his ineptitude and bias, it always seems to be either the home team and / or the top six that get the benefit of poor decision making and its becoming tempting to wonder if its not just poor judgement.

 

[GT49er]

It would still be offside or onside, we'd still be debating whether or not a player was onside, it's just that what constitutes offside will have changed. So I agree that your suggestion might improve the game, but ultimately doesn't add much to the VAR discussion and certainly shouldn't be applied instead of VAR which is what you're alluding to.

Opinions, innit.

The VAR could still give the ref a heads-up if there was a clear error, but if, only after running it through slowly 10 times, with stills, it appears to the VAR that the attacker's left eyelashes were just visible in front of the defender, don't bother!

 

[Easy 10]

My objection to referees being able to refer to VAR would be that before long every referee would be referring every goal for a second opinion, just in case - all cards and tackles too - and VAR would then actually become the nightmare we all fear, games going on for ages, always waiting to see if we could cheer a goal, etc.

The way VAR is SUPPOSED to work, is that the on-field ref makes all his decisions and calls as he normally would, and only gets alerted by the VAR if he has made a clear and obvious error. He cannot refer to VAR if he's unsure on a call, or wants assistance, he just refs the game as he normally would. So on that basis, I think the theory is sound.

Where its currently falling down is that VAR is getting involved in marginal calls. Hackett is right, the fact that the red at Wolves was downgraded to a yellow by the VAR was a total nonsense. The ref had made a sound call with that decision, it wasn't a clear and obvious error, so VAR should not have even got involved.

This was all entirely predictable. Once you open the door to technology, the tendency will be to have more and more reviews on the "big" decisions to check if it can be considered right or wrong, often regardless of whether it was 'clear and obvious'. If thats what some people want then fine, we're stuck with it now. But it will lead to a more fragmented game, with added delays, and an element of spontanaity removed whenever there's a goal. We'll get to a point (if we haven't already) of the ref saying to the VAR "is there any reason to disallow this goal ?" a-la rugby, for tries.

BTW, I've been reading your comments and pretty much agreeing with everything you've said on the subject.

 

[Bean]

How anyone can be against VAR is beyond me. It removes (for the most part) match defining errors that can cost teams games, and could have cost us a place in the semis on Sunday. Some calls (like the offside for our third goal on Sunday) are simply too quick to call correctly and and can go literally any way. The decision using VAR is of course still a human judgement but with the benefit of replays and slow motion, so it is much more likely to be correct. How can anyone be against this?

 

[Easy 10]

How anyone can be against VAR is beyond me. It removes (for the most part) match defining errors that can cost teams games, and could have cost us a place in the semis on Sunday. Some calls (like the offside for our third goal on Sunday) are simply too quick to call correctly and and can go literally any way. The decision using VAR is of course still a human judgement but with the benefit of replays and slow motion, so it is much more likely to be correct. How can anyone be against this?

Ask a PSG fan if they're in favour of VAR, after what happened to them in the dying seconds of that United game. You can still get royally screwed by a duff VAR call on a marginal decision.

It'll get some stuff right, but not everything, because it'll still always boil down to human interpretation. Sometimes you'll fall on the wrong side of it, sometimes on the right. Isn't that what we always had before VAR anyway ?

What you gain in the chance to get more correct decisions, you pay for with sometimes multiple delays with the ref standing around with his finger in his ear, and the crowd not always knowing whats being reviewed or why. VAR reviews on goals particularly suck, as all the celebrations go on hold until the ref eventually points to the centre-circle.

It'll change the game massively, but not all of it in a good way.

 

[Brian Munich]

No! It should be used to clear up clear and obvious errors (and off the ball things completely missed by the on-field officials) ONLY.

We do not want it used for every marginal offside decision, every penalty or every tackle. That would completely ruin the game; American football here we come! The on-field officials' decisions should be paramount unless there is a glaring error. And the final decision about whether to reverse an original decision should be entirely the on-field referee's - VAR to just point out errors so the ref can have a second look, and then decide; the VAR should not have any authority to over rule the on-field ref.

There is no such thing as marginal offside. It’s either onside or offside with no subjectivity - same as ball over the line or not.