[Football] Right then. After that demonstration... VAR? Yes or No?

[Perfidious Albion]

Whether a decision is proven technically " right or wrong" misses the point IMHO.
We are not discussing forensic science here, we are playing football. This is a game played by humans on grass often in cold wet conditions.

For a technician in a studio to apply a slide rule to a video and make a judgement that a players foot or elbow has just brought him offside is unreal compared to the conditions of play .
If it is not a clear , advantage gaining, offside or penalty area encroachment.... then play should continue.

 

[Deadly Danson]

Whether a decision is proven technically " right or wrong" misses the point IMHO.
We are not discussing forensic science here, we are playing football. This is a game played by humans on grass often in cold wet conditions.

For a technician in a studio to apply a slide rule to a video and make a judgement that a players foot or elbow has just brought him offside is unreal compared to the conditions of play .
If it is not a clear , advantage gaining, offside or penalty area encroachment.... then play should continue.

100% agree.

 

[CliveWalkerWingWizard]

I think the decision was right yesterday, but by maddison encroaching and scoring he gained Leicester another penalty. If he hadn’t scored play would have continued.

 

[Frankie]

My first comment on VAR (i think ) as i'd thought i'd wait to see what it actually brings to the game , my conclusion is it's actually harming the game itself and should be binned completely , goal line technology is fantastic and it's either right or wrong no arguments , but VAR has the human element of interpretation to consider and it looks like 12% of all VAR outcomes are still open for debate after a decision has been made , that's not good enough and also for one out of the 4 leagues to use it is a complete mishmash , it's 2 completely different games now in the English professional system , i admit i originally liked the idea of VAR but it simply isn't working all the time so until it's 100% correct what's the point of it at all .

 

[Creaky]

I think the decision was right yesterday, but by maddison encroaching and scoring he gained Leicester another penalty. If he hadn’t scored play would have continued.

Not sure it would have. Our players encroached in the penalty area and the penalty was saved - wouldn’t the decision be to retake the penalty?

 

[wellquickwoody]

My hope for VAR was that it works stop the endless discussion of refereeing decisions.

Its now worse than ever.

I was all for it but now...... In its current guise it needs to go.

Sent from my Redmi Note 7 using Tapatalk

VAR is shit, end.

The beauty of football is that it flows, with minimal stoppages and minimal input from the officials.

VAR is the opposite.

GET RID NOW.

 

[Easy 10]

Another quality Var call in the city game.

That was a beauty wasn't it ? Sterling was actually played on by two players, and I'm not even convinced the freeze-frame was stopped the instant it was headed forward. He looked onside in realtime, he looked onside on the replay but....no goal. Fortunately it made no difference to the outcome this time, but imagine the shitstorm if Chelsea had made it 2-2.

 

[Acker79]

Not sure it would have. Our players encroached in the penalty area and the penalty was saved - wouldn’t the decision be to retake the penalty?

It would depend. If Leicester miss the follow up (or ryan pulls off a double save) they gained no advantage from encroachment, and none of our encroaching players affected the outcome, so not retaken. Same if Ryan's save pushes it around the post and out for a corner.

If one of our encroaching players clears the saved penalty it gets retaken because we gained an advantage from the encroachment.

It seems harsh that both teams encroaching leads to a retake when only one team benefits from encroaching, but I suppose the other side of the argument is why should one team be penalised when both did it and both could have benefited from it?

 

[BensGrandad]

The VAR was correct on the encroachment for the disallowed penalty save goal but surely it should have been a free kick to us, not another penalty? The rules are flawed in this instance but VAR did it's job.

If the encroaching players had been Leicester players it would have been our free kick but as it was Burn and others from our side the kick had to correctly be retaken. I think that there was about 4 players encroaching but the foremost and most obvious was Burn. This law has always been in operation VAR just made it easier to be spotted.

 

[Acker79]

I've come to the realisation that VAR will never be fully embraced however it is implemented.
...

Wow, I must have been tired typing that, so may typos and dropped sentences. Trying to clean it up a bit...


1) Football fans are not one homogenous being with agreed philosophies. However it is implemented some fans will be upset. Give it to managers challenging and there's a concern over frivolous challenges to interrupt the flow of the game/take advantage to give players under the cosh a a breather. Review everything it's too much interruption. Review certain infringements, there will be inconsistencies. Either of those two requires the VAR to monitor the whole game and always spot infringements, and knowing an infringement occurred and not punishing it will always be a 'clear and obvious error', so things that we wouldn't care were missed or would prefer were missed for the flow of the game (including tight offsides) will always be picked up. Make the ref view the video so it's always "in the opinion of the referee", and "it's wasting time, let the guy in the studio make the call", if we let the guy in the studio make the call we're not playing by the laws of the game. The current half-way of asking the VAR to confirm the video shows the events that the ref based his opinion on happened and questionable decisions don't get reviewed the way they could be with the technology.

2) Football fans are biased and tribal, fans generally change their own view of the laws based on whether it is for or against their team. Diving is the worst crime in the world, unless it's our player, then there's an excuse for it; anticipating a foul, letting the ref know there was a foul, when you run that fast the slightest touch... So we'll rarely agree with any decision that doesn't go our way (yes there are exceptions, with fans that are bastions of fair play always accepting decisions that go against their team when they are correct).

3) Moreso than rugby or cricket, football reflects a society that rejects authority - we criticise speed cameras rather than drivers who speed, ticket wardens rather than people who park illegally (no, I'm not talking about those cowboy PCN types). We don't want the laws enforced properly. We want leeway, we want "common sense", we want refs to accept it's a man's game, a contact sport. If that's a foul then the games gone! etc.

4) There are rules that the footballing authorities want interpreted one way, and fans/players/etc want interpreted another way. Rather than acknowledge this difference of opinion, we believe the ref got it wrong, he just needs to look again. Then get irate when a second look, whether the ref himself or the VAR results in the decision standing. It will always stand because that's how the refs have been trained, instructed and paid to interpret them. Until we accept that difference of interpretation, we'll be complaining that the ref got it wrong, that VAR got it wrong, and if VAR is getting it wrong, what's the point in it?

 

[Acker79]

If the encroaching players had been Leicester players it would have been our free kick but as it was Burn and others from our side the kick had to correctly be retaken. I think that there was about 4 players encroaching but the foremost and most obvious was Burn.

That's not right. If it was just our players encroachment, then it had no impact and the goal would stand. The penalty was retaken because both teams encroached.

[tweet]1198280502802866177[/tweet]

 

[BensGrandad]

The retake was the correct decision irrespective of who encroached, some of whom were our players, with Burn being the most obvious, had it been just Leicester players it would have been our free kick.

 

[Pondicherry]

I am pretty sure the penalty re-take was the incorrect decision because of the following:

This is from the premier league explanation of VAR interventions:

The VAR can intervene in one of the following instances:

- A clear and obvious error by the on-field match officials relating to goalkeeper movement
- A double touch by the penalty-taker
- Feigning at the point of the kick by the taker
- Encroachment by players that has a direct impact on the outcome of the kick

In the circumstances of yesterdays game it can only intervene because of Maddison's involvement. It cant look at any of the defending players because they had no impact on the outcome of the kick. Maddison encroached. The penalty was saved initially. Should have been an indirect free kick to us.

 

[Whitechapel]

Every game I watch makes me feel more and more justified in my decision to boycott going to any game that has VAR.

 

[drew]

Not sure it would have. Our players encroached in the penalty area and the penalty was saved - wouldn’t the decision be to retake the penalty?

Only if the ref/linesman had seen the encroachment. Surely the VAR check was because a goal was scored. Had Maddison not scored then there would be no need for the VAR to check for encroachment as that is not in their remit. So it would have been for Dean to have called it and I doubt he would have.

 

[Acker79]

Surely the VAR check was because a goal was scored. Had Maddison not scored then there would be no need for the VAR to check for encroachment as that is not in their remit. So it would have been for Dean to have called it and I doubt he would have.

I'm not sure, because they are also tasked with reviewing any potential penalty decision - does a retake count as a potential penalty decision?

 

[Pondicherry]

I'm not sure, because they are also tasked with reviewing any potential penalty decision - does a retake count as a potential penalty decision?

VAR can only check for encroachment where the player impacts the play. See post 783.

 

[Captain Sensible]

If the encroaching players had been Leicester players it would have been our free kick but as it was Burn and others from our side the kick had to correctly be retaken. I think that there was about 4 players encroaching but the foremost and most obvious was Burn. This law has always been in operation VAR just made it easier to be spotted.

Maddison encroached too and scored. He was first to the ball and first to effect the game. It should depend on which team gains an advantage from the encroachment. In this case it was Leicester. We should have had a freekick and the pen should not be retaken.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Every game I watch makes me feel more and more justified in my decision to boycott going to any game that has VAR.

So you are not watching any PL games then. One wonders why you're commenting about BHA on NSC, given that you haven't seen yesterday's incident

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

That was a beauty wasn't it ? Sterling was actually played on by two players, and I'm not even convinced the freeze-frame was stopped the instant it was headed forward. He looked onside in realtime, he looked onside on the replay but....no goal. Fortunately it made no difference to the outcome this time, but imagine the shitstorm if Chelsea had made it 2-2.

Apologies about the twitter account linked....

https://twitter.com/hltco/status/1198568615378849792?s=21

But look at the shape of the ball in this freeze frame they used, it looks like a rugby ball, how can they use this?