Liverpool v Chelsea

[santa sangria]

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.

totally agree. Well said

 

[RustyRef]

I personally think it is being used for more than it was designed to be. It should be for where the referee is absolutely 100% wrong in his decision, for example the Henry handball against Ireland, or dare I say Maradona's hand of God or Attwell's phantom goal at Watford. It is reasonably rare that this happens, usually there is at least some element of subjectivity in it. The difference of course is with offside, the AR is right or wrong, there is no subjectivity, and the use of VAR for this has irked people. Including the broadcasters, who ironically used to draw lines to show that an AR had got a decision wrong by millimetres.

Perhaps changing clear and obvious, which is extremely subjective and will mean different things to different people, to 100% incorrect might improve it. There will still be rows when people think they should have had a penalty, but it would stop the clear injustices where the referee has just had a brain fart and got it completely and utterly wrong.

 

[Paul_10]

Perhaps changing clear and obvious, which is extremely subjective and will mean different things to different people, to 100% incorrect might improve it. There will still be rows when people think they should have had a penalty, but it would stop the clear injustices where the referee has just had a brain fart and got it completely and utterly wrong.

But then VAR will hardly be used then and FIFA will no doubt be saying its not worth the money for it!

I don't mind VAR personally, we all forget the times where VAR has bailed a referee out, its always the case we just remember the controversies and think of the negatives.

What I don't like though it does seem to of made some referees go with safe decisions especially with direct red cards. I don't think that was the case with Anthony Taylor here, he's not a referee that is afraid to show a red card when it's needed and I think the decision of yellow is right but it's borderline for sure. Its certainly not a clear and obvious error so as other posters have said, no need for VAR to be involved here.