Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Albion] The injustice against Liverpool



Kinky Gerbil

Im The Scatman
NSC Patron
Jul 16, 2003
58,789
hassocks
You do not speak for me.

Never wanted it. My worst fears have been realised, in fact its become even worse than I ever envisaged, the way it has been implemented is an absolute clusterf*ck (and thats not just based on this latest debacle). I'd bin it tomorrow.

I find watching games that do NOT have VAR such a welcome, refreshing holiday from it. When a goal is scored, its a goal. Lovely.
People ignoring what those against it said at the time it came out, was always going to be dreadful, it's 10x worse.

No amount of tweaking fixes it.

Try and speed it up and things like sat happen.
 






Guinness Boy

Tofu eating wokerati
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
Jul 23, 2003
37,338
Up and Coming Sunny Portslade
Yup.

All we've done is swap the on-field controversy over iffy decisions, to a load of off-field studio driven iffy (or downright WRONG) decisions, with the caveat that there really is no excuse for the decisions coming out of Shockly Park, when they have the opportunity to review from miultiple angles.

Yes it does correct some wrong calls, but at what cost ? As a spectacle the game has suffered massively. We lived happily without it for 120 years, so anyone who thinks we'd "all miss it if it was gone" now is talking absolute BOBBINS as far as I'm concerned. The EFL fans don't seem to be screaming for it, do they.
It does but let’s take a look at the last time we got something out of it, the penalties against AEK. Both times VAR didn’t actually correct the decision, but merely suggested the ref watch slomo action replays on a TV screen. The same replays that had led Mrs GB on our sofa (hours spent officiating at games zero, knowledge of laws sketchy) to conclude they were two stonewall penalties.
 




Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
62,400
Location Location
People ignoring what those against it said at the time it came out, was always going to be dreadful, it's 10x worse.

No amount of tweaking fixes it.

Try and speed it up and things like sat happen.
Indeed.

It was so clearly NOT just going to be used to correct the "clear and obvious" errors. I, and many others, said that once it was introduced it would be the thin edge of a stonking great wedge, and so it has proved. Its micro-managing so, so many calls. The onfield refs are now totally undermined, they're being talked out of their own decisions, often wrongly, and now look where we've arrived.

5 years on, and its getting worse not better. Shambles.
 






jessiejames

Never late in a V8
Jan 20, 2009
2,756
Brighton, United Kingdom
I completely disagree with your comments here. You can't compound one error (even if it is a f***ing huge error) by then completely ignoring the VAR protocols and going back and changing a decision even after play has re-started.

I think what this does show is that the whole VAR process is an absolute farce as it currently stands in this country. The concept of VAR is hugely flawed in that you are basically re-refereeing incidents and you've now lost "the referee's decision is final" concept. Just about the ONLY saving grace for VAR was that it could assist with matters of fact, ie was someone offside or not. However, there have now been multiple instances that have proven that VAR is not even competent to make judgements on those issues.

I think there is a case to be made for binning the whole shambles off until it can be implemented in a competent fashion.
The problem is nit the VAR concept, it works well, the reason for it being introduced was tbe fact that refs were making mistakes. It us those referee that were making the mistakes that are running VAR.
 








BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
18,194
I wonder what the stats show in terms of % of correct decisions pre and post VAR.

Instinctively it seems like the improvement isn't enough to outweigh the negative effect is has on the game.

I still see a place for technology in reffing but the first change has to be with the refs themselves. They need to be held accountable and explain their decisions both in real time and after the game.

The AFL over here has a match review panel where they go over incidents and decisions in the game that the umpires might have missed. I like the idea of similar, especially for diving and surrounding the ref. A retrospective match ban would soon stop both.
 


Iggle Piggle

Well-known member
Sep 3, 2010
5,948
There's been a lot of suggestion that they should have stopped the game when the error was spotted. I don't like that as a precedent. It's bad enough waiting in a stadium with no clue what's going on when these checks are going on (Man U away I could tell from twitter Rashford's cut back was out whilst no info given at OT) but at least when the "Check complete" is given at least you know it's over and we can either celebrate a goal or laugh at the opposition.

I really don't want to be a situation where there is always a fear that play could be bought back. You've got to draw the line somewhere. I maybe in the minority but believe that to be the lesser of 2 evils in this instance.
 




Wardy's twin

Well-known member
Oct 21, 2014
8,866
There's been a lot of suggestion that they should have stopped the game when the error was spotted. I don't like that as a precedent. It's bad enough waiting in a stadium with no clue what's going on when these checks are going on (Man U away I could tell from twitter Rashford's cut back was out whilst no info given at OT) but at least when the "Check complete" is given at least you know it's over and we can either celebrate a goal or laugh at the opposition.

I really don't want to be a situation where there is always a fear that play could be bought back. You've got to draw the line somewhere. I maybe in the minority but believe that to be the lesser of 2 evils in this instance.
But often the game is going on with VAR looking at it. If they think the ref may have made a mistake they then stop the game. In the Spurs case they clearly had made a mistake and should have stopped the game and could have done that within 15 secs a very short time considering some of the lengthy procrastinations.
 


upthealbion1970

bring on the trumpets....
NSC Patron
Jan 22, 2009
8,886
Woodingdean
IMG_7891.jpeg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: A1X


Wardy's twin

Well-known member
Oct 21, 2014
8,866
I think people are conflating rule changes and VAR which clearly is wrong.

People binning off VAR when its clearly some of the idiots using it that is the problem, takeaway VAR and you then just have poor quality refs making (often but not always) bad and seemingly biased mistakes.

Agree VAR decisions should be quick, if you don't see it in 15-30 secs then its not a clear and obvious mistake. Personally would prefer VAR actually did more e.g. pick up corners given as free kicks, correct yellow cards etc. Given most of these incidents are around dead ball situations it would not interfere the flow (assuming we limit decision time to 15 secs).

VAR is just a technology which if used correctly should help the game same as goal-line technology.
 




Silverhatch

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2009
4,680
Preston Park
I think people are conflating rule changes and VAR which clearly is wrong.

People binning off VAR when its clearly some of the idiots using it that is the problem, takeaway VAR and you then just have poor quality refs making (often but not always) bad and seemingly biased mistakes.

Agree VAR decisions should be quick, if you don't see it in 15-30 secs then its not a clear and obvious mistake. Personally would prefer VAR actually did more e.g. pick up corners given as free kicks, correct yellow cards etc. Given most of these incidents are around dead ball situations it would not interfere the flow (assuming we limit decision time to 15 secs).

VAR is just a technology which if used correctly should help the game same as goal-line technology.
VAR is not a technology. It’s broadcast cameras with operators drawing lines on a screen. A technology requires dedicated cameras, sensors & software (with machine learning) and real-time99% infallible reporting. When this happens and humans are removed from the analysis it’s a technology.
 


Seagull58

In the Algarve
Jan 31, 2012
8,485
Vilamoura, Portugal
Match fixing involving UK footballers has been alleged on more than one occasion over the decades, and there was a scandal in the early 1960s in which some players were actually imprisoned and banned. Hence the strict rules about players betting on matches. Barcelona have been charged with working with a corrupt referee over a number of years, yes. Pre-VAR of course. If he's working on his own, he has a chance of getting away with it. But with VAR? No, IMO.

Let's stick with the subject in hand -- EPL and VAR.

Just talk me through how a conspiracy might work with a group of several people. Remember, any bribery conspiracy would have to include the on-field referee and officials (because they are all wired up), the 3 VAR officials and the team of TV techs who supply the pictures. So a minimum of around 10 people. I'm not asking for evidence here because we both know there is none. So let's be hypothetical. Just give me a scenario where this team of officials and backroom staff are in cahoots with a betting syndicate. How would that work when the personnel involved change every week? In your opinion, how much will each get paid to put at risk not just all their careers, but also leave them open to prosecution and very likely prison? Not only that, but the EPL itself would be destroyed so factor that in too. How much? £5m per person? £10m? Who would pay sums like this to stop the officials and VAR team to prevent Mitoma being given a penalty? If they're already paying millions in bribes, how much would the syndicate actually have to wager on that penalty not being given? Do you think this might arouse suspicions in the automated betting industry monitoring that goes on? In fact, what sort of bet might be made? That Brighton don't get a penalty in the game? Are bets like that offered? And how could the syndicate and officials be certain that a real 100% stonewall penalty for a handball on the goal line wouldn't occur? Or a terrible red card offence in the box? How could the conspirators fail to give that penalty without giving themselves away?

I'm not trying to trick you. I'm just genuinely interested in seeing some sort of plausible scenario that would enable a VAR conspiracy to take place at enormous risk to all those involved.

I'm just putting out another possibility that seems more likely to me: that instead of a big conspiracy, the VAR systems, technology and procedures are imperfect, and that the people operating and managing VAR are also imperfect. In fact, probably the wrong people, full stop, as has been discussed.

Over to you.
It doesn't need an army of people. It needs one or two. You don't need the techies providing the pictures on board. You're not bribing the team. You're bribing the officials. There are hundreds of millions, even billions, staked on the Asian betting markets every day. There are bets about penalties corners, throw ins, yellow cards, red cards on offer on all major games e.g. EPL games.
It won't be infallible. Sometimes they can't engineer the result for various reasons. That doesn't mean you eliminate the possibility.
You are looking for reasons to discount the possibility but you are not finding them.
 


Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
62,400
Location Location
I think people are conflating rule changes and VAR which clearly is wrong.

People binning off VAR when its clearly some of the idiots using it that is the problem, takeaway VAR and you then just have poor quality refs making (often but not always) bad and seemingly biased mistakes.

Agree VAR decisions should be quick, if you don't see it in 15-30 secs then its not a clear and obvious mistake. Personally would prefer VAR actually did more e.g. pick up corners given as free kicks, correct yellow cards etc. Given most of these incidents are around dead ball situations it would not interfere the flow (assuming we limit decision time to 15 secs).

VAR is just a technology which if used correctly should help the game same as goal-line technology.
Yep, thats what we need. MORE VAR interference.

I'm sure that would improve things.
 


Seagull58

In the Algarve
Jan 31, 2012
8,485
Vilamoura, Portugal
VAR is not a technology. It’s broadcast cameras with operators drawing lines on a screen. A technology requires dedicated cameras, sensors & software (with machine learning) and real-time99% infallible reporting. When this happens and humans are removed from the analysis it’s a technology.
No, that's automation
 




beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,013
VAR is not a technology. It’s broadcast cameras with operators drawing lines on a screen. A technology requires dedicated cameras, sensors & software (with machine learning) and real-time99% infallible reporting. When this happens and humans are removed from the analysis it’s a technology.
yep, VAR has been fundementally oversold when many think its some clever technology. we've just seen how fallible it is, just moves poor decisions off field to a chap in front of a monitor.

that said, a lot of problems also come from continuous tweeking of handball and offside changes. it's as if in response to cameras they change the rules, then when officials get their subjective calls using video replay wrong, double up with more changes.
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here