Liverpool v Chelsea

[Big Cat]

Quite often in Sport (certainly in golf, in which I'm also a qualified official), the FOP sets the precedent for the Rules. We see this in football
WRT VAR, the precedent has unequivocally been set in that the VAR is Reffing the KMI's in the EPL. The OFR merely masks this fact
The PGMOL either needs to be told to stop it, otherwise the book will follow the precedent

In time, the natural trend seems to gravitate towards the VAR being in charge. Ultimately I'm fundamentally against this notion. Although I fancy the PGMOL Refs don't care, because VAR has massively extended their careers as Match Officials in some capacity (this has nought to do with what's good for the game however)

 

[JamesL]

VAR is Reffing the KMI's in the EPL. The OFR merely masks this fact

This is not strictly true. The referee has to first make a decision. A KMI only becomes one once that first decision is made. If the correct decision is made then VAR only performs a check. This is not them reffing the KMI. There are lots of checks throughout the game many of which we know nothing of. However if it falls into the 4 incident types (goal/penalty/Red card/missed incident) then it Will be checked and that check is more obvious as normally requires play to be held up.

And I know your counter arguments are that refs are leaning yellow or no pen knowing VAR will bail out if (in most cases) really wrong but that's user error as opposed to its intention.

To suggest that VAR is solely responsible FOR KMI is just inaccurate. I am not a fan but I am not as as averse to it as your comments suggests you are and I do wonder if your aversion jade's your views somewhat.

 

[Big Cat]

And I know your counter arguments are that refs are leaning yellow or no pen knowing VAR will bail out if (in most cases) really wrong but that's user error as opposed to its intention.

I'd argue that it's a precedent. The fact that it happens so often and all Refs are involved, suggests that it's not a 'user error'. Rather, it's based on employer instruction. It's wrong. I don't see how the PGMOL can issue such an instruction. Even if I'm wrong (a very infrequent occurrence, as you know!), the PGMOL are doing absolutely nothing to put a stop to it. The R's are shying away from KMI's and leaving it to VAR. The evidence for this is consistent and pretty clear. I don't see it as a 'conspiracy theory'

I don't think there's been a single OFR this season, from which the R has opposed the VAR. Often, they look unconvinced when inappropriately watching the slo-mo's, but they go with the VAR every time. The OFR is therefore disingenuous

 

[Big Cat]

This is not strictly true. The referee has to first make a decision. A KMI only becomes one once that first decision is made. If the correct decision is made then VAR only performs a check. This is not them reffing the KMI. There are lots of checks throughout the game many of which we know nothing of. However if it falls into the 4 incident types (goal/penalty/Red card/missed incident) then it Will be checked and that check is more obvious as normally requires play to be held up.

And I know your counter arguments are that refs are leaning yellow or no pen knowing VAR will bail out if (in most cases) really wrong but that's user error as opposed to its intention.

To suggest that VAR is solely responsible FOR KMI is just inaccurate. I am not a fan but I am not as as averse to it as your comments suggests you are and I do wonder if your aversion jade's your views somewhat.

Keep in mind, my Social Media RefChat views are typically black & white. I'm opinionated, but somewhat more balanced in 'real life'!
But I think my RefChat argument is compelling nonetheless

 

[JamesL]

I don't think there's been a single OFR this season, from which the R has opposed the VAR. Often, they look unconvinced when inappropriately watching the slo-mo's, but they go with the VAR every time. The OFR is therefore disingenuous

I don't really follow PL all that much now, fair few reasons but VAR being very high on my list... So might not be this season but didn't Kavabagh take about 5 second look at a monitor for and refuse VAR. Needle in a haystack I know.

The idea behind VAR is that only clearly and obviously wrong calls should be reviewed at monitor and therefore in reality there shouldn't ever really be a situation where the R disagrees because they should only be shown incorrect decisions?

 

[GraemeS]

I don't think there's been a single OFR this season, from which the R has opposed the VAR. Often, they look unconvinced when inappropriately watching the slo-mo's, but they go with the VAR every time. The OFR is therefore disingenuous

I actually saw Dale Johnson (everyone's favourite twitter VAR nerd) make this exact point this weekend. Typically 4-5 decisions a season are sent for OFR and rejected. Germany for example was on I think 2, which is where you would expect for this point in the season. The PL has had none this season, suggesting either a higher bar meaning only the really obvious ones are sent down, or referees are being told to go with it. Possibly a bit of both - we've all seen the high bar in action, but I remember seeing the referee who sent Robertson off a few weeks ago looked very unsure when he was sent to the monitor.

EDIT: Found it - it was buried in the middle of his weekly VAR thread:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1478018345668685825

 

[Big Cat]

I don't really follow PL all that much now, fair few reasons but VAR being very high on my list... So might not be this season but didn't Kavabagh take about 5 second look at a monitor for and refuse VAR. Needle in a haystack I know.

The idea behind VAR is that only clearly and obviously wrong calls should be reviewed at monitor and therefore in reality there shouldn't ever really be a situation where the R disagrees because they should only be shown incorrect decisions?

It very much annoys me, but what 'should' and what 'does' happen, are two entirely different things

 

[socal lurker]

And the referee being a final decider is a law of the game, any of which IFAB can change whenever they want. We already trust the VAR to make a call on offside without needing the referee to have any input whatsoever - so how do you square that with the law stating the referee needs to make the ultimate decision?

I already answered that in my post: it is subjective vs objective. (It's not true that we trust VAR to make OS decisions without the R; VAR determines OSP (an objective question of position) without an OFR, but any decision regarding involvement is subjective and requires an OFR.)

 

[RustyRef]

I still stick to the point that VAR only seems to be a complete shambles in England, not saying it is perfect in other countries but it doesn't seem to be anywhere near as much of a mess.

It has been claimed on another forum that Taylor, Atkinson, both ARs and VAR discussed the Mane challenge before the yellow card was shown, and that is coming from someone that appears to know Anthony Taylor personally. I've also heard commentators suggest the same on other cases. If that is true it is a complete breach of VAR protocol as they should only come in after a decision has been made.

 

[RefIADad]

I also came to post: arm as a tool or as a weapon?

It's quire clearly weapon for me and an easy red card on reply. In real time I hope to hod I'm catching that and showing a red card. That it was after 6 seconds has saved him. Mount also red for me.

And I also favour ditching VAR completely. Again, for me, in this game, that's two clear and obvious errors not dealt with. Instead we get the ridiculous delay on the Chelsea goal.

I only write what I'm going to write to illustrate why VAR is never going to be the savior for things like this. I'm not knocking your opinion at all as you will see below.

In my opinion, VAR worked exactly as intended in both the Mane and Mount cases. I personally had both as cautions (Mane's because the wrist/forearm was more of a tool and Mount's because force was not excessive), but would have had no issues at with reds for both incidents. But in any case, neither on field call was a clear and obvious error.

But there's the issue. You're a very reasonable and logical poster. I'd like to think I am as well. We have completely different opinions not only on whether the misconduct was correct, but also whether the application of VAR was correct. The issue is that we are dealing with subjective calls, which is always going to have a matter of opinion there. So because we are dealing with subjectivity with both the original call and VAR application, we have two layers of subjectivity instead of one.

I don't see how we move from the theoretical to the practical in a manner that is going to be satisfactory. That's not the fault of the referees themselves. That's a fault of the system that layers subjectivity on top of subjectivity.

 

[Big Cat]

The best version of VAR I've encountered is that employed by the Scottish Premier League. They've 'nailed it', for want of a better term

 

[socal lurker]

Knock it off. Video review is amazing. It is 99.9999999% accurate. It has ended dissent. Everyone is happy with reffing now. Unicorns and rainbows!

 

[GraemeS]

Knock it off. Video review is amazing. It is 99.9999999% accurate. It has ended dissent. Everyone is happy with reffing now. Unicorns and rainbows!

Obviously that's not true. But people "forget" that they were unhappy with the old system as well!

People will pop up on TV and in papers and say things like "get rid of VAR, go back to the days where we just accepted the referees decision". When was that the case? I've been following football since the late 90's and I don't remember a single pundit or manager who just happily accepted referee mistakes.

It's simply not the case that everyone was happy with the system before and then IFAB forced VAR on us for no reason - and anyone who says they'll just accept referee decisions happily if we scrapped VAR is just lying. That's the problem with any calls to scrap VAR - they're based off managers, players and pundits lying.

 

[Big Cat]

Obviously that's not true. But people "forget" that they were unhappy with the old system as well!

People will pop up on TV and in papers and say things like "get rid of VAR, go back to the days where we just accepted the referees decision". When was that the case? I've been following football since the late 90's and I don't remember a single pundit or manager who just happily accepted referee mistakes.

It's simply not the case that everyone was happy with the system before and then IFAB forced VAR on us for no reason - and anyone who says they'll just accept referee decisions happily if we scrapped VAR is just lying. That's the problem with any calls to scrap VAR - they're based off managers, players and pundits lying.

Yeh, but it's a question of 'which is the lesser of two evils?' VAR or R
For me, the controversy that VAR generates, exceeds that which the Referee formerly was accountable for. Nobody could've predicted this. Trials of VAR were near enough non-existent, they introduced too many aspects of the protocol simultaneously; and they did this whilst smashing the game with lots of contradictory Law changes. And this was after a decade of steadfastly resisting the use of technology. In interests me as to why FIFA made such a sudden U-turn. It's not difficult to be cynical with regards to FIFA, so I'd assert their motivation was based on financial considerations rather than the good of the game. That's obviously a personal suspicion that I can't substantiate

 

[GraemeS]

Yeh, but it's a question of 'which is the lesser of two evils?' VAR or R
For me, the controversy that VAR generates, exceeds that which the Referee formerly was accountable for. Nobody could've predicted this. Trials of VAR were near enough non-existent, they introduced too many aspects of the protocol simultaneously; and they did this whilst smashing the game with lots of contradictory Law changes. And this was after a decade of steadfastly resisting the use of technology. In interests me as to why FIFA made such a sudden U-turn. It's not difficult to be cynical with regards to FIFA, so I'd assert their motivation was based on financial considerations rather than the good of the game. That's obviously a personal suspicion that I can't substantiate

It should be that question, but my point is it won't be. One of the undeniable reasons this system exists is because managers and players have moaned constantly over the course of decades about bad decisions and how poor referees are. It's literally their fault that this happened. So I've not got much interest in the same group of managers, pundits etc now moaning that they got what they wanted.

I think they made the "U-turn" because it was becoming clear that they were one of the few sports holding out. As I've said multiple times on this topic - Rugby, Hockey, NFL, Basketball, Tennis, Cricket, even relatively niche sports like Fencing and Badminton have all managed to put a functional review system in place, in a lot of cases actually adding to the spectacle. Football trying to hold out against the clear evidence of how a video review system has improved so many other sports was just luddite thinking.

It's wild to me that they then ignored all the evidence from all those other examples in favour of coming up with their own convoluted system, but that's a whole other question!

 

[Big Cat]

One of the undeniable reasons this system exists is because managers and players have moaned constantly over the course of decades about bad decisions and how poor referees are

I'm not convinced this is was the primary motivation. I'd be confident that the u-turn was based on financial considerations. Nothing else matters WRT the governance of football. Even now, when most folk are anti-VAR, it will stay in place for sure... because the 'money men' at the Clubs are terrified of wrong decisions and because organisations like the EPL/PGMOL are too heavily invested in the VAR pathway. So, even going forward, the future won't be determined by the 'good of the game'

 

[GraemeS]

I'm not convinced this is was the primary motivation. I'd be confident that the u-turn was based on financial considerations. Nothing else matters WRT the governance of football. Even now, when most folk are anti-VAR, it will stay in place for sure... because the 'money men' at the Clubs are terrified of wrong decisions and because organisations like the EPL/PGMOL are too heavily invested in the VAR pathway. So, even going forward, the future won't be determined by the 'good of the game'

The two aren't disconnected. Sky pay billion for the rights to show the PL, then put pundits on screen who moan about refereeing decisions. They show managers moaning about decisions and then carry out "analysis" that "proves" the manager was right. And if Sky are unhappy about something, and the same is repeated hundreds of times around the world on hundreds of different channels, responding to those complaints ends up being the smart financial decision as well.

 

[Big Cat]

The two aren't disconnected. Sky pay billion for the rights to show the PL, then put pundits on screen who moan about refereeing decisions. They show managers moaning about decisions and then carry out "analysis" that "proves" the manager was right. And if Sky are unhappy about something, and the same is repeated hundreds of times around the world on hundreds of different channels, responding to those complaints ends up being the smart financial decision as well.

Yes, the media in general probably love VAR. They'll financially benefit from the perpetual post mortems, normally at the expense of the reputation of our Community. Yet the PGMOL (who are at the core of all the attention/criticism) ironically don't care because VAR has meant growth for them, both in terms of the number of employees (SG1 Referees) and the Referees have had a right result because their careers have just been extended indefinitely. None of which has anything to do with 'what's good for the game'

 

[GraemeS]

Yes, the media in general probably love VAR. They'll financially benefit from the perpetual post mortems, normally at the expense of the reputation of our Community. Yet the PGMOL (who are at the core of all the attention/criticism) ironically don't care because VAR has meant growth for them, both in terms of the number of employees (SG1 Referees) and the Referees have had a right result because their careers have just been extended indefinitely. None of which has anything to do with 'what's good for the game'

But you're deliberately using a nebulous term there. What is "the game" that we are all supposed to be working towards improving?

If a decision comes down to a choice between making referees lives easier or improving consistency, which of those is best for "the game"? Or PL vs grassroots? Or spectacle vs player safety? I can make a case that all 6 of those things I've mentioned are important, plus probably hundreds of other factors - they're all part of "the game" and any decision will benefit some aspects and detract from others.

Your opinion on what is best for "the game", while perfectly valid, is just an opinion. You slate people making decision with finances in mind, but Sky have spent 30 years pumping billions into the sport, some (admittedly far too little) of which has trickled down the pyramid. Is the game better or worse off for that money? It can't be a straightforward question.

 

[Big Cat]

But you're deliberately using a nebulous term there. What is "the game" that we are all supposed to be working towards improving?

If a decision comes down to a choice between making referees lives easier or improving consistency, which of those is best for "the game"? Or PL vs grassroots? Or spectacle vs player safety? I can make a case that all 6 of those things I've mentioned are important, plus probably hundreds of other factors - they're all part of "the game" and any decision will benefit some aspects and detract from others.

Your opinion on what is best for "the game", while perfectly valid, is just an opinion. You slate people making decision with finances in mind, but Sky have spent 30 years pumping billions into the sport, some (admittedly far too little) of which has trickled down the pyramid. Is the game better or worse off for that money? It can't be a straightforward question.

Admittedly, a complex debate, when accounting for the much broader picture. Overall however, the (my) notion is that the game is largely driven by finance/commerce and this has detrimentally impacted the elite game (on balance). There are negative societal impacts of this, although football and society mirror one another in many respects
The grass roots 11-a-side game has shrivelled in terms of participation, otherwise it's been left to stay largely unchanged
Anyway, beyond the scope of this forum. VAR is within scope and is just one aspect of the overall detriment to the modern game because it detracts from many essences of sport for the wrong reasons (IMO)