[Albion] VAR decision on Estupiñán goal

[Weststander]

The VAR official was under little pressure (as people have said with the Arsenal v Brentford fck up …. several incidents/phases to look at).

All sawdust for brains had to do was comprehensively produce and compare some coloured lines.

 

[Sheebo]

Goals change games.

If we’d scored then might have came out and attacked us more in the second half. Viera might have made a triple sub at half time.

The odds are they wouldn’t, but unless you have some kind of access to a parallel dimension where it counted then it’s impossible to say for sure.

Big advocate for that here too. Although really couldn’t see this happening Sat, but you just never know and never will know. If the goal had rightly been allowed and Solly had put us 2 up I’m sure that would have been it though. But can’t say for definite had the goal been allowed Sat we’d have won, so trying not to get too annoyed myself, although I am a tad still!

 

[Wardy's twin]

Big advocate for that here too. Although really couldn’t see this happening Sat, but you just never know and never will know. If the goal had rightly been allowed and Solly had put us 2 up I’m sure that would have been it though. But can’t say for definite had the goal been allowed Sat we’d have won, so trying not to get too annoyed myself, although I am a tad still!

Equally if we score then they open up earlier and we score a hatful. The guy ruled out a perfectly valid goal, and did so with the benefit of technology. I can understand and accept a ref making a mistake in real time but not after 3 mins of deliberation. the fundamental issue is var should not have been involved as there was not a clear and obvious mistake.

 

[Acker79]

Since this is the most recently active VAR error discussion...

A thought occurred to me that perhaps football benefitted, well, not benefitted per se, but it was better for football that the two big mistakes were opposites. Arsenal got a goal that should have been ruled out, we had a goal ruled out that should have been given.

If both had gone the same way , there would have been a risk that officials over compensated in the enxt run of games (e.g. if both games saw a goal erroneously ruled out - that they allowed offside goals to stand when they shouldn't out of fear of repeating the mistake, or conversely goals being chalked off in fear of wrongly allowing them to stand again).

(And knowing our luck, it would have gone against us again)

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

Equally if we score then they open up earlier and we score a hatful. The guy ruled out a perfectly valid goal, and did so with the benefit of technology. I can understand and accept a ref making a mistake in real time but not after 3 mins of deliberation. the fundamental issue is var should not have been involved as there was not a clear and obvious mistake.

Offsides are not subject to the clear and obvious test. They are always checked when a goal is scored.

From the PL website.

“Factual decisions, such as offside or if a foul was committed inside or outside the penalty area, will not be subject to the "clear and obvious error" test.”

Video Assistant Referees Explained | VAR | Premier League

For information on how Video Assistant Referees (VAR) will operate, including frequently asked questions and video explanations, visit the official website of the Premier League.

www.premierleague.com

 

[Seagull58]

That, and the camera angles at Selhurst Park are not fit for purpose when making tight offside calls.

All the decent stadiums have a camera in-line with the penalty box to show the view along the line of defence. At Selhurst they are making calls using a camera somewhere close to the halfway line, which definitely contributed to the VAR missing the last defender.

The location of the camera dud not contribute to the error. It was very clear to everyone except the **** drawing the line that it was the wrong defender.

 

[jcdenton08]

Offsides are not subject to the clear and obvious test. They are always checked when a goal is scored.

From the PL website.

“Factual decisions, such as offside or if a foul was committed inside or outside the penalty area, will not be subject to the "clear and obvious error" test.”

Video Assistant Referees Explained | VAR | Premier League

For information on how Video Assistant Referees (VAR) will operate, including frequently asked questions and video explanations, visit the official website of the Premier League.

www.premierleague.com

This should be a sticky really

 

[Wardy's twin]

Offsides are not subject to the clear and obvious test. They are always checked when a goal is scored.

From the PL website.

“Factual decisions, such as offside or if a foul was committed inside or outside the penalty area, will not be subject to the "clear and obvious error" test.”

Video Assistant Referees Explained | VAR | Premier League

For information on how Video Assistant Referees (VAR) will operate, including frequently asked questions and video explanations, visit the official website of the Premier League.

www.premierleague.com

ok thanks did not know that - maybe that's what's going wrong as i thought VAR was about correcting obvious mistakes.....

 

[Robinjakarta]

I cannot see how the 2 decisions yesterday against Brighton and Arsenal can be down to incompetence. Mason literally "forgot" to draw the lines and check for offside. Brooks literally "did not see" the other defender nearer the goal. It has to be deliberate, corrupt decision-making. We've had match-fixing in cricket, tennis and snooker, driven by Asian betting syndicates. It is the obvious reason for yesterday's "errors".

Never made a howler? Our goalkeeper's error corrupt, too? Of course it isn't the obvious reason.

 

[Mo Gosfield]

Never made a howler? Our goalkeeper's error corrupt, too? Of course it isn't the obvious reason.

Likewise the three straightforward chances that Mac missed, that should have put us out of sight.

 

[Robinjakarta]

It goes without saying that Brooks and Mason should be fired for any confidence to be restored in this flawed system.

Of course they should. Gross incompetence. And of course they won't.

 

[GT49er]

Offsides are not subject to the clear and obvious test. They are always checked when a goal is scored.

From the PL website.

“Factual decisions, such as offside or if a foul was committed inside or outside the penalty area, will not be subject to the "clear and obvious error" test.”

Trouble is, it's about time they were! Plus a very strict time limit (not three minutes either!)

 

[Seagull on the Hill]

It will always make me laugh even if some don't get it. At one point in the 70s it was my Uncle who carried the board with the half time scores on it around the edge of the Goldstone pitch (before my time though). So there is some factor of it being an in joke within our family.

A pedant writes:
I have to correct you here, the board was used to convey the winning numbers of the Seagull lottery.
The half time scores were shown on lettered boards on the perimeter wall.

 

[Bodian]

A pedant writes:
I have to correct you here, the board was used to convey the winning numbers of the Seagull lottery.
The half time scores were shown on lettered boards on the perimeter wall.

1972

 

[Hotchilidog]

Struggling to get as excited as the rest of you about this issue.

I think VAR gets more right than it gets wrong, and corrects more on field decisions than it 'incorrects'; frankly it's not going away and I think it's worth having, even though it's not perfect.

Someone messed up, that has always happened when humans are involved, whether they are supported by technology or not. All we have to do is get on with our lives, support the albion and hope PGMOL learn from it and improve processes as a result.

The reason for my anger is that the officials on the field made the correct decision and they were overruled by a third party making a clearly incorrect decision. It's infuriating and people are right to be angry about. I'd like to think we all accept refs can make mistakes in real time, however in this instance the ref did not make a mistake, he got it right. Pervis scored a perfectly legitimate goal, it was correctly allowed by Michael Oliver and that correct decision was overturned by a person making an egregious error.

 

[Simster]

Offsides are not subject to the clear and obvious test. They are always checked when a goal is scored.

From the PL website.

“Factual decisions, such as offside or if a foul was committed inside or outside the penalty area, will not be subject to the "clear and obvious error" test.”

Video Assistant Referees Explained | VAR | Premier League

For information on how Video Assistant Referees (VAR) will operate, including frequently asked questions and video explanations, visit the official website of the Premier League.

www.premierleague.com

And that really is how it should be. I think people forget the sheer number of times a flag would incorrectly go up for offside thus preventing a really golden chance back in the day. People used to just shrug and accept it (especially commentators), even though it would have such a fundamental impact on the way a game was going!

If VAR was properly implemented by people who weren't morons, this particular aspect of VAR would be an absolute triumph.

 

[sir_gullahad]

Struggling to get as excited as the rest of you about this issue.

I think VAR gets more right than it gets wrong, and corrects more on field decisions than it 'incorrects'; frankly it's not going away and I think it's worth having, even though it's not perfect.

This astonishingly low bar for VAR "success" is not one I share. Especially considering you are replacing minutes of celebrations with nervous disquiet.

I do not think it can attain the required quality and speed of decision with the current system and terms of reference.

When in doubt, simplify. Get rid of it entirely or at the very least stop trying to work out where everyone's toenails/eyebrows are. If you can't overrule an on-field decision in reasonable time do nothing.

 

[JetsetJimbo]

I'll be curious to see if everyone's still so calm about this error at the end of the season when we miss out on Europe by two points and Palace escape relegation by one point.

I'm being flippant of course, but it's not a completely improbably scenario.

 

[Golfboy]

I cannot see how the 2 decisions yesterday against Brighton and Arsenal can be down to incompetence. Mason literally "forgot" to draw the lines and check for offside. Brooks literally "did not see" the other defender nearer the goal. It has to be deliberate, corrupt decision-making. We've had match-fixing in cricket, tennis and snooker, driven by Asian betting syndicates. It is the obvious reason for yesterday's "errors".

Wouldn’t Brighton still be in league two if it wasn’t for Asian betting syndicates?

 

[US Seagull]

Never made a howler? Our goalkeeper's error corrupt, too? Of course it isn't the obvious reason.

As they say, never attribute to malice (or corruption) what can be explained by incompetence.