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

[Albion] VAR decision on Estupiñán goal



Brovion

In my defence, I was left unsupervised.
NSC Patron
Jul 6, 2003
19,863
Thank you for posting this. It needs to be stated over and over again.
The whole idea of VAR emerged because ALL certain fans and pundits could talk about was officiating decisions. And now the most vocal critics of VAR are the exact same fans and pundits that used to bang on about officiating decisions.
Actually I think I moan far more about decisions now than I ever did in the past. In the 'old days' when the pundits in the studio argued about whether it was a penalty or not (ex-forwards saying yes, ex-defenders saying no) the one thing they all agreed on was that the match officials had had to make a quick decision and, unlike the studio guests, they didn't have the benefit of multiple replays from different angles. As fans we knew that as well.

The thing that sticks in the craw (and certainly why I moan more) is they have all this technology - and yet we're still arguing abut decisions! Why was that penalty given / not given? Should he have been sent off? Leaving aside the line drawing for offside (a debate in its own right even when they do get it right) using VAR for subjective decisions and still getting them 'wrong' is what pisses people off.

The bottom line is people will always moan about officiating decisions whether there is VAR or not. The question is whether adding the VAR layer to the officiating process has improved the game or not. I say not, others obviously disagree.
 




Nobby

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2007
2,892
Actually I think I moan far more about decisions now than I ever did in the past. In the 'old days' when the pundits in the studio argued about whether it was a penalty or not (ex-forwards saying yes, ex-defenders saying no) the one thing they all agreed on was that the match officials had had to make a quick decision and, unlike the studio guests, they didn't have the benefit of multiple replays from different angles. As fans we knew that as well.

The thing that sticks in the craw (and certainly why I moan more) is they have all this technology - and yet we're still arguing abut decisions! Why was that penalty given / not given? Should he have been sent off? Leaving aside the line drawing for offside (a debate in its own right even when they do get it right) using VAR for subjective decisions and still getting them 'wrong' is what pisses people off.

The bottom line is people will always moan about officiating decisions whether there is VAR or not. The question is whether adding the VAR layer to the officiating process has improved the game or not. I say not, others obviously disagree.
It’s made attending a live match a lot worse - your first reaction was GOAL. Get in!!!!
Now it’s Goal - oh wait
We used to look for the links flag and that was it
Now you have to wait until the opposition kick off just to be sure
What a useless “innovation” it has been.
But also interesting that the Arsenal VAR gets sacked and the Albion VAR guy is just ticked off a bit.
One rule for them etc
Maybe that is why we have VAR
 


Nobby Cybergoat

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2021
8,622
The point that VAR shouldn't have been introduced because it ruins the spontaneous joy of a goal being scored is utterly valid, although that happened pre-VAR when fans (because they necessarily have blinkers on) failed to spot an offside flag, or didn't look at the ref who had blown the whistle for an infringement.
But disagree with 'so basically achieved very little'. If it's improved decision-making, it's necessarily achieve something. Whether that achievement is more important than the curtailment of joy is a different question entirely.
But this is a momentary glance. It doesn't detract at all from the moment of joy (there might be certain goals where you delay the celebration for half a second, but no more than that)

Remember also that pre VAR there was much less chance that the goal would be disallowed, so for an example if there was an offside or foul in the build up, it would be given there and then, so the whole circus of continuing play, when everyone knows it's going to be dragged back if it goes in wouldn't happen. This would be one of the many benefits of abolishing VAR.
 




Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
17,770
Fiveways
Actually I think I moan far more about decisions now than I ever did in the past. In the 'old days' when the pundits in the studio argued about whether it was a penalty or not (ex-forwards saying yes, ex-defenders saying no) the one thing they all agreed on was that the match officials had had to make a quick decision and, unlike the studio guests, they didn't have the benefit of multiple replays from different angles. As fans we knew that as well.

The thing that sticks in the craw (and certainly why I moan more) is they have all this technology - and yet we're still arguing abut decisions! Why was that penalty given / not given? Should he have been sent off? Leaving aside the line drawing for offside (a debate in its own right even when they do get it right) using VAR for subjective decisions and still getting them 'wrong' is what pisses people off.

The bottom line is people will always moan about officiating decisions whether there is VAR or not. The question is whether adding the VAR layer to the officiating process has improved the game or not. I say not, others obviously disagree.
Yes, but you're not the standard fan, and make all sorts of good decisions :smile:
 




dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Mar 27, 2013
55,516
Burgess Hill
It’s made attending a live match a lot worse - your first reaction was GOAL. Get in!!!!
Now it’s Goal - oh wait
We used to look for the links flag and that was it
Now you have to wait until the opposition kick off just to be sure
What a useless “innovation” it has been.
But also interesting that the Arsenal VAR gets sacked and the Albion VAR guy is just ticked off a bit.
One rule for them etc
Maybe that is why we have VAR
Yep, it’s sucking the life out of watching games live. After every goal now you basically look at the ref to see if he’s stood still, hand to ear …….
 


Guy Fawkes

The voice of treason
Sep 29, 2007
8,295
It’s made attending a live match a lot worse - your first reaction was GOAL. Get in!!!!
Now it’s Goal - oh wait
We used to look for the links flag and that was it
Now you have to wait until the opposition kick off just to be sure
What a useless “innovation” it has been.
But also interesting that the Arsenal VAR gets sacked and the Albion VAR guy is just ticked off a bit.
One rule for them etc
Maybe that is why we have VAR
You may have a point if the Arsenal game was the only instance where mason messed up big time recently, however he was on VAR in our Liverpool game and failed to alert the ref to the red card that should have been issued to the Liverpool player for the challenge on Ferguson.

Continually making basic errors whilst having the technology available to them to eradicate them is likely the reason why he went, not because of the mistake in the Arseanl game.

Brooks make a mistake with the Estu[inan goal, but as far as i know, there haven't been any other recent errors like that that he was responsible for, and had there been a series of them like for Mason, then it wouldn't surprise me if he would have gone too
 


Guy Fawkes

The voice of treason
Sep 29, 2007
8,295
I think the main thing that should be happening, but isn't is that VAR is meant to be used to spot clear and obvious errors, things missed by the referee (like penalties, red cards, etc) but the use of it in this country is too forensic and not how it was meant to be used. (not sure any other country use it as forensically as we do)

For me, things like offside, it should be that they were clearly offside but it was missed, not toenail on his left foot was slightly offside

I heard during the commentary of the Arsenal Man City game, that normally things are only looked at if the ref asks VAR to look, (which means that the ref is unsure and wants a second opinion?) so will likely only happen if a team kick up a lot of fuss about an incident (like claims for a penalty or red card) prompting him to get the VAR team to look at it. So if there was something that should have been given and there isn't the fuss made, the ref waves it away and VAR also ignores it, meaning teams like Man City, and co who all swarm the officials are more likely to get a beneficial incident reviewed than teams like ourselves who accept the decision and get on with the game. However if something is completely missed by the officials, they too are likely to miss it as they are likely not to act without the ref asking first (that all depends on whether the commentators claims are correct about how it is used).

The other issue i have with how it is used here is that often they will only show one angle to the ref when they are watching on the screen, (and it wouldn't surprise me if the VAR official is explaining what they thik happened and what the ref should do as you can often see them holding the ear piece as they review it) but often when other views are shown, the outcome is often different. (so an angle shown may look like a penalty, and another may show the defender was there first and cleanly got the ball 1st and the attacker then collided with the defender. If they only show the 1st angle, then the ref is going to give a penalty)
 




Nobby

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2007
2,892
You may have a point if the Arsenal game was the only instance where mason messed up big time recently, however he was on VAR in our Liverpool game and failed to alert the ref to the red card that should have been issued to the Liverpool player for the challenge on Ferguson.

Continually making basic errors whilst having the technology available to them to eradicate them is likely the reason why he went, not because of the mistake in the Arseanl game.

Brooks make a mistake with the Estu[inan goal, but as far as i know, there haven't been any other recent errors like that that he was responsible for, and had there been a series of them like for Mason, then it wouldn't surprise me if he would have gone too
You're probably right - Mason has been useless for ever and a day - probably since he started.
However, I still believe that Brooks should have been given a final warning - maybe he has - in any other walk of life, gross negligence can be a sacking offence.
 


Bodian

Well-known member
May 3, 2012
14,209
Cumbria
You're probably right - Mason has been useless for ever and a day - probably since he started.
However, I still believe that Brooks should have been given a final warning - maybe he has - in any other walk of life, gross negligence can be a sacking offence.
I suspect he has been given some sort of warning. I also suspect that he'll never make the same mistake again.
 


Nobby

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2007
2,892
I suspect he has been given some sort of warning. I also suspect that he'll never make the same mistake again.
No but others probably will and unless it’s top 6 they will get away with it
Still bloody fuming. Winning away in the EPL is just so difficult and when you get idiots like these it becomes impossible
Sorry for ranting mate
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here