VAR and the Premier League

[newbie]

I'm a season ticket holder at Cardiff, so not a tv watching dork, and Id still be watching them in the EPL if VAR had been in last season to spot a Chelsea goal 2 yards at least offside. Do i feel robbed, too fucking right. VAR ould have stopped the robbery.

should
would
could
?

If they drop Villa fans will say the same thing next season about the penalty VAR could would should have ruled out and the yellow card that could would should have been awarded. They'll have more justification too because we all saw the same replays as Stockley Park and pretty much no-one agrees with the penalty (& if they do it's for another thread ). Villa will lose millions, as Cardiff have, but not just through a refs instant poor decision but because a technology assisted formal review was manifestly wrong and has subsequently been disowned.

In any other walk of life that could would should lead to legal action and rectification, something I hope never gets into football. I hope that because I'm a romantic, but in reality Villa shareholders ought to consider testing the argument that the VAR decision was so poor it amounts to negligence.

 

[planetgeli]

By your own definition, VAR didn't cause the mistake. It did not "give rise to an action".

FFS this is remedial English.

To give rise to - to cause to happen

If the penalty had been overturned, the VAR would have caused that, given rise to it, because it's their decision, it is the final say.

As this didn't happen, VAR's decision gave rise to the penalty, caused the penalty to happen. The ref cannot be the cause of a VAR outcome. Which is why the headlines were not about referees, but VAR.

It's messing up the game by slowing it down and still getting really important things wrong. As it is, it's a farce. But like I said, it isn't going away.

 

[Lord Camomile]

FFS this is remedial English.

To give rise to - to cause to happen

If the penalty had been overturned, the VAR would have caused that, given rise to it, because it's their decision, it is the final say.

Yes, by acting, VAR would have caused something.

As this didn't happen, VAR's decision gave rise to the penalty, caused the penalty to happen. The ref cannot be the cause of a VAR outcome. Which is why the headlines were not about referees, but VAR.

Nnnnnnnnnope. By not acting, VAR didn't affect the outcome and therefore didn't cause it. Allowed to happen, maybe, but not cause.

It's messing up the game by slowing it down and still getting really important things wrong. As it is, it's a farce. But like I said, it isn't going away.

Would definitely agree it needs improving. Also, at some point it just comes down to preference. A lot of my mates also think it "slows the game down", and one in particular thinks it's ruining goals because players don't celebrate in case VAR rules it out, but personally I'm still in favour of something that improves the chances of the right decision being made. Just preferences.

 

[Maltin]

should
would
could
?

If they drop Villa fans will say the same thing next season about the penalty VAR could would should have ruled out and the yellow card that could would should have been awarded. They'll have more justification too because we all saw the same replays as Stockley Park and pretty much no-one agrees with the penalty (& if they do it's for another thread ). Villa will lose millions, as Cardiff have, but not just through a refs instant poor decision but because a technology assisted formal review was manifestly wrong and has subsequently been disowned.

In any other walk of life that could would should lead to legal action and rectification, something I hope never gets into football. I hope that because I'm a romantic, but in reality Villa shareholders ought to consider testing the argument that the VAR decision was so poor it amounts to negligence.

Yes, VAR hasn’t got rid of all the mistakes and, as it is controlled by humans, never will. It has also introduced possibly ludicrous, but potentially technically correct, decisions. Yes, the communication between on field ref and VAR and fans is woeful. Yes, the time they are spending on reviews is too long. But despite all the debate and issues it has caused, I think the criticism of the introduction of VAR is misplaced and I still think its introduction is for the best, leading to fewer mistakes, making it a fairer game and giving an advantage to more skillful players.

 

[1927]

It would improve if decisions were made at the ground, rather than many miles away, preferably by the referee, just let him take another look on the big screen.

in off sides it should only be used to over rule obvious errors, rather than the crazy situation wehave now where someone gets called for offside because their elbow was offside!

 

[The39thStep]

Yes, VAR hasn’t got rid of all the mistakes and, as it is controlled by humans, never will. It has also introduced possibly ludicrous, but potentially technically correct, decisions. Yes, the communication between on field ref and VAR and fans is woeful. Yes, the time they are spending on reviews is too long. But despite all the debate and issues it has caused, I think the criticism of the introduction of VAR is misplaced and I still think its introduction is for the best, leading to fewer mistakes, making it a fairer game and giving an advantage to more skillful players.

In what way does VAR give an advantage to the more skillful players ?

 

[Maltin]

In what way does VAR give an advantage to the more skillful players ?

Skillful players tend to get fouled more often. Many fouls of skillful players are made out of sight of the on field referee. The fact that players know they are more likely to be penalized for fouling someone as there is someone else watching on a video monitor should reduce the number of fouls. I’m sure those skillful at fouling find other ways to cheat but some of their ability is reduced.

 

[The39thStep]

Skillful players tend to get fouled more often. Many fouls of skillful players are made out of sight of the on field referee. The fact that players know they are more likely to be penalized for fouling someone as there is someone else watching on a video monitor should reduce the number of fouls. I’m sure those skillful at fouling find other ways to cheat but some of their ability is reduced.

VAR is for clear and obvious decisions, mainly used in reviewing penalties , off sides and yellow and red card incidents . It’s not used thank heavens to analyse every contact , shirt pull , and tackle .

 

[Maltin]

VAR is for clear and obvious decisions, mainly used in reviewing penalties , off sides and yellow and red card incidents . It’s not used thank heavens to analyse every contact , shirt pull , and tackle .

How are red card incidents not related to contact and tackles?

 

[The39thStep]

How are red card incidents not related to contact and tackles?

They are however red card decisions are reviewed by VAR , every contact and tackle isn’t .Not sure how this advances your theory about VAR and skillfull players tbh

 

[strung out]

Skillful players tend to get fouled more often. Many fouls of skillful players are made out of sight of the on field referee. The fact that players know they are more likely to be penalized for fouling someone as there is someone else watching on a video monitor should reduce the number of fouls. I’m sure those skillful at fouling find other ways to cheat but some of their ability is reduced.

Fouling isn't cheating you dork.

 

[two sheds]

Fouling isn't cheating you dork.

What team do you support again?

 

[Maltin]

They are however red card decisions are reviewed by VAR , every contact and tackle isn’t .Not sure how this advances your theory about VAR and skillfull players tbh

So if player X punches player Y out of the referees and assistant referees sight, would you expect VAR to intervene or not? If it does intervene, do you agree that VAR might reduce the number of “off the ball” incidents? Do you not agree that opposition players are more likely to target the better players on the opposition team by fair means or foul?

 

[Lord Camomile]

in off sides it should only be used to over rule obvious errors, rather than the crazy situation wehave now where someone gets called for offside because their elbow was offside!

The trouble with offside is, wherever you draw the line, there'll always be marginal cases. Has to be a metre of daylight between defender and striker? Well here's this one that looks like it might be 0.98m, could be 1.03m. Get the ruler out!

It's got to be their torso? Well here's this one where it might just be their shoulder, might be their chest. There's always going to be close calls with offside.

Fouling isn't cheating you dork.

It's literally against the rules. Otherwise why would they penalise it, you daft apeth

 

[butchersapron]

On top of being shit it's redirecting bile and hatred onto the process rather than the ref and opposing fans. Ruining more than the game.

 

[strung out]

The trouble with offside is, wherever you draw the line, there'll always be marginal cases. Has to be a metre of daylight between defender and striker? Well here's this one that looks like it might be 0.98m, could be 1.03m. Get the ruler out!

It's got to be their torso? Well here's this one where it might just be their shoulder, might be their chest. There's always going to be close calls with offside.
It's literally against the rules. Otherwise why would they penalise it, you daft apeth

Drug taking is cheating, bribing the ref is cheating, faking an injury is cheating. Fouling another player is part of the game.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Drug taking is cheating, bribing the ref is cheating, faking an injury is cheating. Fouling another player is part of the game.

I honestly don't understand how people make that distinction. You're not allowed to do it, it's against the rules of the game. If you do it knowingly, you're cheating. If you do it accidentally... well, it's unfortunate, but it's still cheating.

 

[strung out]

I honestly don't understand how people make that distinction. You're not allowed to do it, it's against the rules of the game. If you do it knowingly, you're cheating. If you do it accidentally... well, it's unfortunate, but it's still cheating.

You're basically calling every single player to ever play the game a cheat.

 

[two sheds]

I honestly don't understand how people make that distinction. You're not allowed to do it, it's against the rules of the game. If you do it knowingly, you're cheating. If you do it accidentally... well, it's unfortunate, but it's still cheating.

Nah, if you do it accidentally it's not cheating - only if you do it knowingly. Mind you, still quite likely calling everyone who's played a cheat, basically because of the speed and complexity of the game.

Eta: and pressure to win.

Drug taking is cheating, bribing the ref is cheating, faking an injury is cheating. Fouling another player is part of the game.

Remind me never to play poker with you.

 

[butchersapron]

Some of us have clearly been watching a very different game and for very different reasons. It's quite scary.

 

[Lord Camomile]

You're basically calling every single player to ever play the game a cheat.

Nah, if you do it accidentally it's not cheating - only if you do it knowingly. Mind you, still quite likely calling everyone who's played a cheat, basically because of the speed and complexity of the game.

In that sense? Yeah, we've all done it, knowingly and accidentally. Doesn't stop it being cheating

 

[strung out]

I honestly don't understand how people make that distinction. You're not allowed to do it, it's against the rules of the game. If you do it knowingly, you're cheating. If you do it accidentally... well, it's unfortunate, but it's still cheating.

I'm assuming you call anyone who lands on your property in monopoly a cheat as well.

 

[Lord Camomile]

I'm assuming you call anyone who lands on your property in monopoly a cheat as well.

Far as I know, that's not against the rules, is it?

 

[strung out]

Far as I know, that's not against the rules, is it?

An offence has been committed, which is punishable with a penalty.

 

[Lord Camomile]

An offence has been committed, which is punishable with a penalty.

Is it against the rules?

 

[strung out]

Is it against the rules?

Where in the rules of football does it say you're not allowed to foul a player?

 

[Lord Camomile]

Where in the rules of football does it say you're not allowed to foul a player?

Law 12

 

[strung out]

Law 12

Yeah, I've just been reading that. Doesn't say anywhere that you're not allowed to foul a player.

 

[Lord Camomile]

For what it's worth, I do make the distinction between a clumsy challenge and a deliberate foul. By the letter of the law it's still cheating, but even I don't think they're exactly the same thing.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Yeah, I've just been reading that. Doesn't say anywhere that you're not allowed to foul a player.

Ok, so I guess we're going to have to define terms. What are you calling a foul? Because I would say each of these constitutes a foul:

• charges
• jumps at
• kicks or attempts to kick
• pushes
• strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
• tackles or challenges
• trips or attempts to trip

Or are you going with, "it doesn't literally say 'these things are not allowed'", simply "if these offences happen, you are penalised"? Hence your weird Monopoly example?