[Football] VAR whats worse waiting to celebrate a goal or going one down to an illegal goal?

[Napper]

There were at least 5 VAR checks in that game - each of the goals, the handball claim, and a check for a possible red card against Deeney for a stray elbow.

Did the big screens update for every decision ?

 

[Triggaaar]

No idea where it would be but bt showed it after the game. Joe Cole suggested VAR didn't overturn the decision for other reasons, one can only assume he meant they were going easy on her. I have no idea if that's true, but the new angle showed that it was a very weak claim for a penalty.

I've only managed to see angles from behind the keeper, and it's impossible to be sure either way. Maybe there was minimal contact followed by a dive. Maybe there was slight contact which actually was enough to take him down. Unless it was clearly a dive, they shouldn't really overturn the on-field decision. I sincerely hope they didn't choose not to overrule on the basis that the ref was a female, that would be so counter productive. There's nothing wrong with a ref getting a penalty decision wrong and then VAR overturning it, so there's no need for them to go easy on an official.

I imagine Joe Cole just doesn't understand the rules properly, and he's being sexist.

 

[Easy 10]

Did the big screens update for every decision ?

Not for the first two goals, there wasn't really anything to check for. They'd have been checked by VAR as a matter of course anyway without it going for a full review, but it wasn't a "big screen" jobbie.

The big screen update came on for the Murray handball penalty review (really feared the worst for that one)
The 3rd goal for a possible offside call (knew that it was fairly tight and would be reviewed, so goal celebrations put on hold)
And the possible Deeney red card (just saw two players land in a heap and had NO idea at the time what exactly they were looking at).

 

[Acker79]

No idea where it would be but bt showed it after the game. Joe Cole suggested VAR didn't overturn the decision for other reasons, one can only assume he meant they were going easy on her. I have no idea if that's true, but the new angle showed that it was a very weak claim for a penalty.

I've only managed to see angles from behind the keeper, and it's impossible to be sure either way. Maybe there was minimal contact followed by a dive. Maybe there was slight contact which actually was enough to take him down. Unless it was clearly a dive, they shouldn't really overturn the on-field decision. I sincerely hope they didn't choose not to overrule on the basis that the ref was a female, that would be so counter productive. There's nothing wrong with a ref getting a penalty decision wrong and then VAR overturning it, so there's no need for them to go easy on an official.

I imagine Joe Cole just doesn't understand the rules properly, and he's being sexist.

On BT sport they showed an angle that was from behind and to the left of the goal. Pretty good angle to see that after pushing the ball past the keeper, the two littlest fingers of the keeper's hands brushed the knee of the attacker. In Europe, it seems that contact is king. Quite a few years ago there was policy to not punish players for diving if there was any contact at all, however minimal. So it appears either refs are instructed to rule a foul with minimal contact, or VAR are instructed not to overrule if there is any contact.

It is tantalising as there was a chance that VAR could actually do some good and rectify the poor decision of the ref.

I'm pretty sure I predicted such a sentiment last week. Fans etc expected that having VAR would mean refs would look at the video and come to the same conclusion as the fans. That is not going to happen that often. Many of the game's laws are 'in the opinion of the referee'. If the ref thinks it's a foul, it is a foul. Doesn't matter what a panel of former players think, doesn't matter what thousands of fans think. VAR isn't changing that. VAR is essentially a live version of Dermot Gallagher's ref watch on a monday. It won't be 'would the VAR give that?' it will be 'can the VAR see why the ref gave it?

In the Premier League VAR is about ensuring what the ref bases their opinion on actually happened, if a prem ref made that call he would likely tell the VAR 'striker gets the ball first, keeper slides out doesn't stop before making contact with the striker' the VAR would look at the footage see that is what happened and say 'penalty stands'. He may think 'I wouldn't have given a penalty, not enough force for me' but as long as the ref saw what he thought he saw, the VAR shouldn't change the decision. I am sure we will get rumours and suggestions that the VAR has told a ref what he saw happened, but that he didn't agree with the call at some point, we already have people talking about the Burnley bench telling the fourth official to tell the ref to send off Vincelot, so it's probably inevitable, but I'm talking about how the process is intended to work, as presented by Neil Swarbuck (? retired prem ref who is advising the new refs) on the Debate.



To get on my soap box for a moment...

There is a disconnect in football between the 'administrative' side and the 'performance' side.

The 'administrative' side are the authorities, FIFA, UEFA, the FA, IFAB, The Premier League. They run the game. They make the rules, they interpret the rules. They train, authorise and pay the referees. Without them what's the point in watching football? There's no league, no cups, no prize money for the players etc. It's just a kickaround in the park. They have decided what sort of game they want. They want one with goals, they want one with skill over physicality - it's easier to sell skill these days than it is violence. They want to protect themselves and their agencies from potential liabilities - lawsuits relating to player injuries, etc (however realistic that might be as a prospect). They want laws that are structured and based in emotional vacuums, are about fact and where opinion is introduced it is one person, unquestioned. The integrity of the competition requires such approach.

The performance side is the teams, the fans, the pundits etc. These are the people that play the game. People who maybe don't have the skill, but have a work rate and physicality that can compensate, and can perform this sort of football within the laws as they understand them. There are fans who want to see the skill, but also fans that want to see more physicality, it's easier to relate to someone who isn't the best, but can go toe to toe with the best using other (believed to be legal) means. They know what it's like to play to game and put these laws into practice. Without the performance side there's no competition, no league, no cups. Without them, the 'administrative side are a bunch of suits talking in the abstract. They want laws that are flexible, take account of feelings, and moments. The joy and the experience of watching/playing it requires such an approach.

In the middle are officials. They are employed by the administrative side, trained and instructed by the administrative side, they are paid by the administrative side. The job they do on the pitch is the job the administrative side want. It is probably impossible for the administrative side to look through every official game of football and review everyone of their decisions. It is probably difficult for them to do it for only 'big decisions', especially when you factor in that one of the administrative sides concerns is commerce and the drive to have the big brands selling the product (would they find it easy to rule against Man Utd if it could lead to them getting knocked out of a cup, or relegated from the prem?), so could they be trusted if they tried to review games. Instead they have delegated authority to referees, and to do that, certain laws are "in the opinion of the referee". If they start second guessing the ref, start going over games and changing decisions, what is the point in the laws of the game?

But refs are also a part of the performance side. They are the performance avatar of the administrative side, taking part in the performance side where the philosophy is one thing, while enforcing the laws the way they have been trained and are paid to enforce, in line with the philosophy of the administrative side. When we (the performance side, pundits, fans, players etc) criticise the ref for not enforcing the laws as we interpret them, the administrative side just shake their head and dismiss our complaints as us not understanding the laws of the game (if we criticised the lawmakers and their interpretations instead of the refs, maybe we'd go some way to realigning philosophies between the two sides).

In short, the administrative side think the laws should be one thing, the performance side thinks it should be something else. The professional game cannot exist without either side, so both sides think they are important and own the game and are 'right' in their interpretation. I don't know that in this situation there is a 'right' interpretation.

But, to bring it back to the topic at hand... Only one side trains, instructs, and pays the refs, so refs are always going to enforce the laws in line with how the administrative side want them enforced. So fans expecting VAR to make a difference to that are going to sorely disappointed.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

On BT sport they showed an angle that was from behind and to the left of the goal. Pretty good angle to see that after pushing the ball past the keeper, the two littlest fingers of the keeper's hands brushed the knee of the attacker. In Europe, it seems that contact is king. Quite a few years ago there was policy to not punish players for diving if there was any contact at all, however minimal. So it appears either refs are instructed to rule a foul with minimal contact, or VAR are instructed not to overrule if there is any contact.





I'm pretty sure I predicted such a sentiment last week. Fans etc expected that having VAR would mean refs would look at the video and come to the same conclusion as the fans. That is not going to happen that often. Many of the game's laws are 'in the opinion of the referee'. If the ref thinks it's a foul, it is a foul. Doesn't matter what a panel of former players think, doesn't matter what thousands of fans think. VAR isn't changing that. VAR is essentially a live version of Dermot Gallagher's ref watch on a monday. It won't be 'would the VAR give that?' it will be 'can the VAR see why the ref gave it?

In the Premier League VAR is about ensuring what the ref bases their opinion on actually happened, if a prem ref made that call he would likely tell the VAR 'striker gets the ball first, keeper slides out doesn't stop before making contact with the striker' the VAR would look at the footage see that is what happened and say 'penalty stands'. He may think 'I wouldn't have given a penalty, not enough force for me' but as long as the ref saw what he thought he saw, the VAR shouldn't change the decision. I am sure we will get rumours and suggestions that the VAR has told a ref what he saw happened, but that he didn't agree with the call at some point, we already have people talking about the Burnley bench telling the fourth official to tell the ref to send off Vincelot, so it's probably inevitable, but I'm talking about how the process is intended to work, as presented by Neil Swarbuck (? retired prem ref who is advising the new refs) on the Debate.



To get on my soap box for a moment...

There is a disconnect in football between the 'administrative' side and the 'performance' side.

The 'administrative' side are the authorities, FIFA, UEFA, the FA, IFAB, The Premier League. They run the game. They make the rules, they interpret the rules. They train, authorise and pay the referees. Without them what's the point in watching football? There's no league, no cups, no prize money for the players etc. It's just a kickaround in the park. They have decided what sort of game they want. They want one with goals, they want one with skill over physicality - it's easier to sell skill these days than it is violence. They want to protect themselves and their agencies from potential liabilities - lawsuits relating to player injuries, etc (however realistic that might be as a prospect). They want laws that are structured and based in emotional vacuums, are about fact and where opinion is introduced it is one person, unquestioned. The integrity of the competition requires such approach.

The performance side is the teams, the fans, the pundits etc. These are the people that play the game. People who maybe don't have the skill, but have a work rate and physicality that can compensate, and can perform this sort of football within the laws as they understand them. There are fans who want to see the skill, but also fans that want to see more physicality, it's easier to relate to someone who isn't the best, but can go toe to toe with the best using other (believed to be legal) means. They know what it's like to play to game and put these laws into practice. Without the performance side there's no competition, no league, no cups. Without them, the 'administrative side are a bunch of suits talking in the abstract. They want laws that are flexible, take account of feelings, and moments. The joy and the experience of watching/playing it requires such an approach.

In the middle are officials. They are employed by the administrative side, trained and instructed by the administrative side, they are paid by the administrative side. The job they do on the pitch is the job the administrative side want. It is probably impossible for the administrative side to look through every official game of football and review everyone of their decisions. It is probably difficult for them to do it for only 'big decisions', especially when you factor in that one of the administrative sides concerns is commerce and the drive to have the big brands selling the product (would they find it easy to rule against Man Utd if it could lead to them getting knocked out of a cup, or relegated from the prem?), so could they be trusted if they tried to review games. Instead they have delegated authority to referees, and to do that, certain laws are "in the opinion of the referee". If they start second guessing the ref, start going over games and changing decisions, what is the point in the laws of the game?

But refs are also a part of the performance side. They are the performance avatar of the administrative side, taking part in the performance side where the philosophy is one thing, while enforcing the laws the way they have been trained and are paid to enforce, in line with the philosophy of the administrative side. When we (the performance side, pundits, fans, players etc) criticise the ref for not enforcing the laws as we interpret them, the administrative side just shake their head and dismiss our complaints as us not understanding the laws of the game (if we criticised the lawmakers and their interpretations instead of the refs, maybe we'd go some way to realigning philosophies between the two sides).

In short, the administrative side think the laws should be one thing, the performance side thinks it should be something else. The professional game cannot exist without either side, so both sides think they are important and own the game and are 'right' in their interpretation. I don't know that in this situation there is a 'right' interpretation.

But, to bring it back to the topic at hand... Only one side trains, instructs, and pays the refs, so refs are always going to enforce the laws in line with how the administrative side want them enforced. So fans expecting VAR to make a difference to that are going to sorely disappointed.

Excellent stuff.

 

[Triggaaar]

So it appears either refs are instructed to rule a foul with minimal contact, or VAR are instructed not to overrule if there is any contact.

It can't be the former. Contact doesn't mean a foul.

I'm pretty sure I predicted such a sentiment last week. Fans etc expected that having VAR would mean refs would look at the video and come to the same conclusion as the fans.

Indeed you did. It seems some didn't take note.

They want to protect themselves and their agencies from potential liabilities - lawsuits relating to player injuries, etc (however realistic that might be as a prospect).

Eh?

There are fans who want to see the skill, but also fans that want to see more physicality, it's easier to relate to someone who isn't the best, but can go toe to toe with the best using other (believed to be legal) means.

It's not physicality we want to see, we just don't want to see diving.

But, to bring it back to the topic at hand... Only one side trains, instructs, and pays the refs, so refs are always going to enforce the laws in line with how the administrative side want them enforced. So fans expecting VAR to make a difference to that are going to sorely disappointed.

It's not quite that one-sided. Goal line technology and VAR have come in, not because the refs wanted help, but because the fans didn't like the shit decisions. The main one I can think of was Lampard's non goal in the World Cup. Sepp Tw@tter commented on it, and said they'd look at bringing in technology to help. As for who pays the refs - the fans ultimately pay for everything.

 

[Whoislloydy]

They should measure the offside from the feet not the shoulder. This would definitely make it fairer.

What if it is a diving header? He could be 6ft offside but as long as his feet are behind the last man?

 

[symyjym]

What if it is a diving header? He could be 6ft offside but as long as his feet are behind the last man?

That wouldn't happen unless the player heading the ball went for the diving header at the exact moment the ball left the foot of the player passing or crossing it. He would have to dive before the ball got to him basically.

 

[Acker79]

It can't be the former. Contact doesn't mean a foul.

It shouldn't. It doesn't to me and my reading of the laws of the game. And generally it doesn't in the premier league. But in Europe? When even the slightest contact meant it couldn't be a dive, it suggests a certain attitude from the European authorities that doesn't, for me, put it beyond the realms of possibility refs in European competitions have been advised contact can[/] mean a foul. I hope they haven't, I'd like to think it was the latter, but was noting an alternative possibility.

Eh?

In an ever increasingly litigious society, in a time where there is a desire to push 'soccer' into countries like USA - where people sue at the drop of the hat, I wouldn't be surprised if the idea of being held accountable for 'unsafe working environments' hadn't crossed the mind of some of the people on 'the administrative' side. I don't think a lawsuit against the footballing authorities after an injury (or worse) in a game is likely, but I would be surprised if no one had considered the possibility while discussing possible rule changes or simply the approach/philosophy of the governing bodies.

It's not physicality we want to see, we just don't want to see diving.

We all want different things, my little missive was generalising a bit, granted. There will be exceptions, but that comment was about the popular sentiments expressed such as 'well, if that's a foul, the game is gone!' and 'it's a contact sport!' and 'It's a man's game!', 'if you can't do that (tackle from behind, grab shirts at corners, slide in out of control taking everything and getting just a touch of the ball, etc), how are you supposed to defend?!'

It's not quite that one-sided. Goal line technology and VAR have come in, not because the refs wanted help, but because the fans didn't like the shit decisions. The main one I can think of was Lampard's non goal in the World Cup. Sepp Tw@tter commented on it, and said they'd look at bringing in technology to help.

To clarify, my last post was more directed at the rules that were 'in the opinion of the referee', and philosophy, rather than factual decisions (did the ball cross the line, in or outside the box, on or offside, etc) I saw plenty of people on sky sports saying the refs did want help (jounralist on sunday supplement, the pundits etc). Yeah, Sepp came out to support technology, when a freak occurrence happened with a massive cost, in front of the whole world in their flagship competition. It threatened the reputation of his competition in a way no referee error had in the past. He wasn't (I don't believe) doing it because he was listening to the fans complaints, but because the integrity of his competition was questioned. And even then it was initially limited to goal-line technology rather than VAR. And when VAR was brought in, it's in the style it is now - protect the ref's authority rather than making the decisions fans want.

As for who pays the refs - the fans ultimately pay for everything.

Not really. The only way it comes down to fans is by following the money all the way back; sure the majority of money comes from sponsorship, as El Pres shows every year, the money from media and sponsorships dwarfs ticket sales. And that's from companies who sell products to shops, then we buy the products from the shops. So it's our money. But why stop there? You only have the money because your employer gives you money, so really, our employers are paying the referees. But then where do your employers get the money from... and so it goes.