[Football] "It's not VAR, it's the people running it"

[US Seagull]

Ref was deciding if mwepu had impacted play not whether he was offside

Right, which is subjective call. And if it's subjective then how can it be a clear and obvious error?

The ref gave the goal. Nobody on the Leicester side seemed to object. I don't see the basis for overturning.

 

[Bodian]

Right, which is subjective call. And if it's subjective then how can it be a clear and obvious error?

The ref gave the goal. Nobody on the Leicester side seemed to object. I don't see the basis for overturning.

Yes - good point.

 

[SUIYHP]

Wasnt the whole point of VAR to try and reduce errors? It has objectively failed in that regard. With changes introduced maybe one day it will work itself out, but as it exists VAR frankly isnt fit for purpose. Absolutely shambolic decision that disallowed arguably a goal of the season contender for all the wrong reasons.

 

[BHAFC132]

Ref went to monitor and thought **** you lot behind the screen, probably laughing inside at his power trip

 

[TugWilson]

VAR is a bloody joke and a bad one at that , easy fix imho , use Ex players who know the game and can read a situation

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

https://www.skysports.com/football/...-controversial-calls-at-chelsea-and-newcastle

‘VAR: Referees' body PGMOL acknowledges controversial calls at Chelsea and Newcastle as mistakes’

We are so lucky that VAR has brought scientific precision to refereeing decision making. And what’s four and a half minutes to make a decision anyway ?

 

[South Stand Bonfire]

Yep, four and a half minutes to make a bloody decision in a football match !!

I’ve cheered up now though….

Or even 4.5 minutes NOT to make a decision and then refer the ref to go and watch a bit of TV !!

 

[Bold Seagull]

There was one done a while back and there was no correlation. Big teams are not favoured.

The team who had most benefited was ...Brighton & Hove Albion.

That was just a general list not specifically v top 6.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Right, which is subjective call. And if it's subjective then how can it be a clear and obvious error?

The ref gave the goal. Nobody on the Leicester side seemed to object. I don't see the basis for overturning.

I was in S1G next to the Leicester fans - some of them were even applauding the goal after seeing it on the big screen again!! Astonishing g it was chalked off, truly astonishing.

 

[Bozza]

The ref gave the goal. Nobody on the Leicester side seemed to object.

Whilst our lads were still celebrating and before we knew VAR was getting involved, Maddison had spoken to the ref and pointed back towards their goal. At the time I did wonder if he was making an enquiry as to whether Mwepu's attempted overhead was dangerous play or similar. I certainly thought he was trying to find an objection of sorts, although it certainly wouldn't have been offside.

 

[drew]

If it was offside then the var muppet should have simply said offside. What is the referee doing reviewing it? It’s a failure if the system and the morons operating it.

Whilst I accept that it was offside, I agree that there was no need for the ref to review it. The point was that you commit an offside offence is you are in an offside position and you play or attempt to play a ball near you. The video ref can clearly see Mwepu attempt to play the ball so no need for the pitch ref to have a look.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Or even 4.5 minutes NOT to make a decision and then refer the ref to go and watch a bit of TV !!

Why stop at the ref? Why not get the linos over to have a look too? It is supposed to be their job after all. They could all take a vote or settle the matter by means of a game of stone scissors paper or something

 

[peterward]

VAR would improve massively if the refs could be heard when they are looking at something and the thought process.

Rather than this total nonsense of the VAR official trying to be the main ref of the game, football should just do what cricket and tennis does. Give each team X number of reviews. maybe 2 per game.

Then leave it to the onfield ref, if you think theres a cock up, team gets limited number of chances to review.

 

[Easy 10]

Rather than this total nonsense of the VAR official trying to be the main ref of the game, football should just do what cricket and tennis does. Give each team X number of reviews. maybe 2 per game.]

Then leave it to the onfield ref, if you think theres a cock team gets limited number of chances to review.

Unlike cricket and tennis, goals are a match-defining rarity. Its not just an individual wicket or point - its a GOAL. You might not even see one all afternoon.

Literally EVERY goal would be challenged on the offchance of some old bollocks. Foul throw. Some tap on the ankle. A dirty look. Give any coach a slight offchance of getting a goal binned, and you can 100% guarantee they will take it.

Goals are too valuable not to be challenged. Your idea would not improve anything. It would exacerbate it.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

The BBC and NBC post match analysis both say the ref disallowed the goal not for the offside position per se, but Mwepu’s off side position interfering with the subsequent clearance. I disagree with this, Mwepu didn’t touch the ball and in my view didn’t interfere with the clearance.

Don’t always agree, but spot on. To me it is a different phase of play as well.

 

[trueblue]

"It's not VAR, it's the people running it"

A decision, right or wrong, that takes 4+ minutes is not a useful part of the game.

Totally agree. The Intention of VAR was to address absolute howlers. By definition, those are obvious immediately. Certainly in the first couple of viewings. Referees are looking for ways to disallow goals that absolutely nobody else in the ground has an issue with. Come on, use a bit of common sense.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Don’t always agree, but spot on. To me it is a different phase of play as well.

Yup. The defender got a good clearance on the ball, so wasn’t interfered with, and that should have been the end of it.

 

[peterward]

Unlike cricket and tennis, goals are a match-defining rarity. Its not just an individual wicket or point - its a GOAL. You might not even see one all afternoon.

Literally EVERY goal would be challenged on the offchance of some old bollocks. Foul throw. Some tap on the ankle. A dirty look. Give any coach a slight offchance of getting a goal binned, and you can 100% guarantee they will take it.

Goals are too valuable not to be challenged. Your idea would not improve anything. It would exacerbate it.

Maybe...... but with only a couple of reviews, maybe even just one per team, main benefit is it would remove the VAR official bellend who is cocking up the game and over ruling good goals or putting pressure on refs to over rule sound decisions that are most certainly not (clear and obvious errors)

In cricket for instance, in Stokes mega Ashes innings at headingly, Australia couldve won the ashes as he was out plum LBW with a couple to go for the win, they used/wasted all their reviews, so tough titties.

If it was a limited amount, very small, maybe even one, you may get teams acting like chancers on the first goal scored or conceeded, but that will be their lot if they get a perfectly valid bad decision against them.

It would remove the VAR wannbe refs from ruining the games, which they are and would give the teams a very limited right of review..... right now it happens all the time, with every incident, one team waves arms around, shouts at ref and VAR reviews it.

By curtailing this to a limited number and binning off the VAR offical from interjecting at every decision, except when challenged once or twice per game versus onfield decision, I dont imagine that being worse that the random shitshow we so often get today.

Not that anything will change anyway!

 

[DJ NOBO]

Right, which is subjective call. And if it's subjective then how can it be a clear and obvious error?

The ref gave the goal. Nobody on the Leicester side seemed to object. I don't see the basis for overturning.

It’s impossible to defend the “clear and obvious error “ aspect of var.
If it’s set in stone it has never really been applied.
I do think they did - clumsily - get to the right decision in the end today .

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Kinda. Watch the England vs Argentina quarter-final from 1966...

If it is "unacceptable", how did you watch this sport for like 50 years before VAR was introduced?

Through gritted teeth.