VAR and the Premier League

[Zapp Brannigan]

Atrocious decision

Correct decision, arrived at correctly by correct application of VAR.

Atrocious rule. The "simplification" of handball to rule out any goal that has had a hand involved, no matter how accidental, is stupid stupid stupid. That goal should stand, no question, but it shouldn't be criticism levelled at either the ref on the pitch or the VAR official.

 

[two sheds]

Commentators keep banging on about the hand being in an unnatural position determines whether it's a penalty or not. Is that not true?

 

[The39thStep]

Commentators keep banging on about the hand being in an unnatural position determines whether it's a penalty or not. Is that not true?

This was written in September last year but its an interesting read about how in this case IFAB lays down the law and then how The EPL interpret it

The handball farce: How did we get here? - Football365

The handball farce is the fault of the Premier League, not IFAB. How did we get here?

www.football365.com

 

[two sheds]

Interesting, ta. But still an atrocious decision although as you say a correct decision - an atrociously correct decision You have to wonder whether the people in the FA who decided it have every actually played football.

So ignore commentators who talk about hands in unnatural positions which I do have to say actually sounds very dodgy

 

[The39thStep]

Interesting, ta. But still an atrocious decision although as you say a correct decision - an atrociously correct decision You have to wonder whether the people in the FA who decided it have every actually played football.

So ignore commentators who talk about hands in unnatural positions which I do have to say actually sounds very dodgy

Unless its the CL or Europa League

 

[The39thStep]

As if by magic ...........

Note the

Ifab confirmed the change on Friday, saying it was because of the "interpretation of handball incidents" not being applied consistently.

Handball rule changed as football's law makers Ifab confirms new accidental ruling

Accidental handball leading to a goal-scoring chance or goal for a team-mate will no longer be penalised say football's law makers.

www.bbc.com

 

[two sheds]

Just came here to post that - is it binding on the FA?

 

[The39thStep]

Just came here to post that - is it binding on the FA?

I think so as it doesn’t leave any room for interpretation.

 

[two sheds]

Good

 

[planetgeli]

I think so as it doesn’t leave any room for interpretation.

Can't tell if being ironic?

Accidental not open to interpretation?

If only they'd thought of this before.

 

[The39thStep]

Can't tell if being ironic?

Accidental not open to interpretation?

If only they'd thought of this before.

All it does is to restore/ emphasise that there has to be perceived intent

 

[two sheds]

Good use of VAR Burnley v Arsenal with the Burnley defender's red card and penalty turned round. Decidedly hit shoulder.

 

[planetgeli]

Haven't seen it but everyone saying Man City (yeah who gives a shit, but) denied blatant penalty. Went to VAR. Foden penalised for staying on his feet.

E2A VAR explanation - "The on-field referee felt that Alex McCarthy got a slight touch on the ball, and VAR couldn't see anything to disprove that."

Which isn't the same as saying "we saw him touch the ball".

You can't disprove a feeling. And a penalty shouldn't be given on a feeling.

#lawyers4penalties

 

[two sheds]

They wuz robbed - would have been 6-2 if it weren't for that

 

[two sheds]

My god this sounds like such a stupid idea

Former Premier League referees call for VAR discussions to be made public

It is hoped the move would improve the understanding of decisions and enhance accountability

www.independent.co.uk

letting the plebs know what's going on? Madness It goes against everything the FA believes in.

 

[cybershot]

Disallowed last night for offside.

 

[Argonia]

Correct decision in the John Stones sending off versus Villa, upgraded from a yellow card to a red. Perfect example of why VAR exists.

 

[Argonia]

Correct decisiom just now in the Newcastle v Man City game on the Joelinton penalty/ Took a while but got there in the end

 

[two sheds]

2 all eh?

 

[editor]

Correct decision in the John Stones sending off versus Villa, upgraded from a yellow card to a red. Perfect example of why VAR exists.

Apart from all the ridiculous 'offsides' based on the millimetres of body parts.

 

[editor]

Impressive that Newcastle managed 3 goals, tbf.

 

[two sheds]

THAT WAS NEVER FUKKIN OFFSIDE






sorry, just practicing

 

[planetgeli]

Correct decisiom just now in the Newcastle v Man City game on the Joelinton penalty/ Took a while but got there in the end

Not on the commentary I listened to. Neil Lennon said it looked like a penalty from one angle, but not from another.

So that's not 'clear and obvious'. And it took 5 minutes ffs.

Football is (or was) a fast-paced game that entails human error from both players and officials. That is what we love about it. That is what gives us debate. VAR is getting away with a lot with there being no fans in stadiums. The over-fascination with 'correct decisions' (which turn out to not even be correct decisions some of the time) is killing the game. It's not a game of geometry. It's our sport.

Except it isn't anymore.

 

[Argonia]

I see your point but I think on balance I quite like it. I sense I might be in a minority though.

 

[two sheds]

I still don't understand why it works so well and quickly with rugby and so slowly with football. I think the ringside monitor for the ref is a mistake for a start. Must take an extra minute for the ref to get over there, work out what's going on and get back plus the several replays. Rugby the 3rd refs normally examine it in the background and let the ref know the decision don't they?

Problems with the handball in the penalty area and millimetre offsides with someone's nose in front are down to the rules but there's always going to be millimetre differences. You don't get the same problem with offsides and forward passes in rugby but they don't show the parallel lines. Presumably the 3rd refs see the parallel lines but they're not shown to us plebs.

 

[The39thStep]

Not on the commentary I listened to. Neil Lennon said it looked like a penalty from one angle, but not from another.

So that's not 'clear and obvious'. And it took 5 minutes ffs.

Football is (or was) a fast-paced game that entails human error from both players and officials. That is what we love about it. That is what gives us debate. VAR is getting away with a lot with there being no fans in stadiums. The over-fascination with 'correct decisions' (which turn out to not even be correct decisions some of the time) is killing the game. It's not a game of geometry. It's our sport.

Except it isn't anymore.

It fits in with the covid lockdown version of football , no nuisance or noise from fans in the stadium to interrupt a TV product designed to at best add a talking point of endless tv replays and var , at worst to relegate/ or refocus the game on ‘correct decisions’ rather than the tactics and flow of the game. It’s a sanitised version for in which the real theatre is measuring lines .
I very much doubt that it would still be with us in its present form if fans had been in the stadium .

 

[Argonia]

Because of hooliganism Thatcher wanted no fans at grounds and everything relayed via TV. She would be loving what's happened this season.

 

[Zapp Brannigan]

I still don't understand why it works so well and quickly with rugby and so slowly with football. I think the ringside monitor for the ref is a mistake for a start. Must take an extra minute for the ref to get over there, work out what's going on and get back plus the several replays. Rugby the 3rd refs normally examine it in the background and let the ref know the decision don't they?

Problems with the handball in the penalty area and millimetre offsides with someone's nose in front are down to the rules but there's always going to be millimetre differences. You don't get the same problem with offsides and forward passes in rugby but they don't show the parallel lines. Presumably the 3rd refs see the parallel lines but they're not shown to us plebs.

It's just baffling to the average fan. Leeds vs Spurs, they showed the replay and froze the frame allegedly when the ball was played, but the image wasn't totally clear. Then they drew some lines and showed them artificially thick (for "clarity"), and there's seemingly no doubt about it - Kane was onside.

Flag up, goal disallowed. If the tv officials have different pictures, show them or show none at all. And for fucks sake stop applying 1mm decisions to something that is not 1mm accurate, if it's shown within e.g. 15cm then stick with the on field decision. Let the lino run the line and use VAR as it was intended, to overturn howlers.

 

[editor]

The fans say NO.

The results of our fan consultation on VAR are in, and they make for interesting reading: more than four out of ten fans say they will attend fewer games in future due to the effect VAR is having on the game.

In what was the largest survey of its kind on VAR, the more than 33,000 supporters polled were almost unanimous in their opinion – 95% of those who had experienced VAR in-stadium and 94% who had watched matches on TV said that VAR had made watching football less enjoyable.

Other key stats from the survey include:

• Around half of those who responded had experienced VAR in-stadium (55%)
• Just over three quarters of fans (77%) were of the opinion that referees needed to take the time to more clearly explain VAR decisions to those in the stadium
• A similar proportion (78%) agreed that other sports are better suited to the use of video referees/umpires than football is.
• Two thirds of fans (63%) are not in favour of using VAR in competitions where it won’t be used in every game, such as in the FA Cup or EFL Cup in lower league grounds.
• Only 13% of fans believe that VAR has improved the overall accuracy of refereeing decisions
• Just 4% of fans think VAR has had a positive impact on the team they support, 78% think it’s been more negative.

Survey: Fans say they will attend fewer games because of VAR - Football Supporters' Association

The results of our fan consultation on VAR are in, and they make for interesting reading: more than four out of ten fans say they will attend fewer games in future due to the effect VAR is having on the game.

thefsa.org.uk

 

[Favelado]

The fans say NO.



Other key stats from the survey include:

• Around half of those who responded had experienced VAR in-stadium (55%)
• Just over three quarters of fans (77%) were of the opinion that referees needed to take the time to more clearly explain VAR decisions to those in the stadium
• A similar proportion (78%) agreed that other sports are better suited to the use of video referees/umpires than football is.
• Two thirds of fans (63%) are not in favour of using VAR in competitions where it won’t be used in every game, such as in the FA Cup or EFL Cup in lower league grounds.
• Only 13% of fans believe that VAR has improved the overall accuracy of refereeing decisions
• Just 4% of fans think VAR has had a positive impact on the team they support, 78% think it’s been more negative.

Survey: Fans say they will attend fewer games because of VAR - Football Supporters' Association

The results of our fan consultation on VAR are in, and they make for interesting reading: more than four out of ten fans say they will attend fewer games in future due to the effect VAR is having on the game.

thefsa.org.uk

The problem is that fans in the stadium are outnumbered by TV fans, and they are much more divided on the issue. I know some TV fans who like VAR. I detest it.