A&H

VAR Part 456

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PinnerPaul

RefChat Addict
Bear with me...…….

We had a discussion in the summer after I heard from Anthony Taylor at a RA forum that the PL were NOT planning to have referees look at pitchside monitors to review (As in WWC) but were taking 'advice' from VAR alone and making decision based on that.

Only seen highlights so just checking that PL are indeed ignoring what others said were the IFAB 'rules' and not getting refs to check footage before making a decision?
 
A&H International
not sure there's been a decision yet which would need the ref looking at the monitor, they've all been 'matter of fact' decisions

you'll see it used when VAR gives or overturns a penalty or red card decision or foul in the build up to a goal
 
es1 said:
not sure there's been a decision yet which would need the ref looking at the monitor, they've all been 'matter of fact' decisions

you'll see it used when VAR gives or overturns a penalty or red card decision or foul in the build up to a goal
Click to expand...

There WAS a red card check in one game I believe - only shown very briefly on MOTD - decision was no red, but they didn't show if on field ref checked that or not- hence my question.

Also in WWC the England goal disallowed for handball WAS checked by on field ref - Wolves goal disallowed for handball at the weekend wasn't - hence why I think PL are NOT using monitors.
 
es1 said:
not sure there's been a decision yet which would need the ref looking at the monitor, they've all been 'matter of fact' decisions

you'll see it used when VAR gives or overturns a penalty or red card decision or foul in the build up to a goal
Click to expand...
The Wolves goal, disallowed for accidental HB (which wasn't that 100% clear)
 
PinnerPaul said:
Bear with me...…….

We had a discussion in the summer after I heard from Anthony Taylor at a RA forum that the PL were NOT planning to have referees look at pitchside monitors to review (As in WWC) but were taking 'advice' from VAR alone and making decision based on that.

Only seen highlights so just checking that PL are indeed ignoring what others said were the IFAB 'rules' and not getting refs to check footage before making a decision?
Click to expand...
Right with you on this one Pinner
The VAR protocol has been implemented 'loosely' from Day 1
It's very naive of the Law worshippers to think the PGMOL can't 'tweak' things with the required sledgehammer
The impact of VAR over the weekend has been markedly reduced, although fans twiddling their thumbs for 90s gawping at some big screen might disagree. I'm hopeful the PGMOL will understand the effect of this and further speed the process up
 
Because they were told to by Collina/IFAB I guess - which is my point.

Also as I said there was a foul red card/no red card that was looked at, but I don't know if on field ref reviewed it or not?
 
Big Cat said:
Right with you on this one Pinner
The VAR protocol has been implemented 'loosely' from Day 1
It's very naive of the Law worshippers to think the PGMOL can't 'tweak' things with the required sledgehammer
The impact of VAR over the weekend has been markedly reduced, although fans twiddling their thumbs for 90s gawping at some big screen might disagree. I'm hopeful the PGMOL will understand the effect of this and further speed the process up
Click to expand...

The problem is that there is only so much they can do to speed up the process.

90 seconds to review an incident from multiple angles, and at multiples speeds isn't that bad.

It will get faster as referees get more experience with it, but probably not much.

Rugby and cricket are very experienced with the use of VAR type stuff, but they still take a few seconds to come to a decision. It would probably be better if instead of a monitor off of the side of the pitch they just reviewed incidents on the stadiums main screen. But reserve the offfield review for venues where a big screen is not available.
 
My conclusion, was that VAR was less intrusive over the weekend than would be expected. However, of those spectators who were at games (including 5 Live), all I've heard is irritation relating to twiddling of thumbs whilst unknown incidents are being reviewed with outcomes that are not understood. I agreed with Mark Halsey speaking on the radio when he commented that VAR was only meant to be for C&O howlers. Somewhere along 'the line', we've ended up studying the microscopic detail of Sterling's armpit; and that is not in the spirit of what VAR should be about
 
RustyRef said:
It was 100% clear it hit his arm. Might have been unclear whether he knew anything about it, but that is irrelevant, a goal was scored so it has to be penalised regardless of intent.
Click to expand...
I agree. Correct decision, R, AR, AAR, AAAR, all had no choice but to disallow it. However, fans at the ground had no clue why there was a review or why it was disallowed. What kinda entertainment is that? Whether the goal 'should' have been disallowed, is another story of course
 
How many times does it have to be said, clear and obvious does not apply to offsides. You are onside or offside, unless it is bang on level which hardly ever happens. Get used to it as that is how they will be doing it in all VAR games, whether that is in England, Europe, or anywhere else.

For other potential offences they have to look at it to decide if the referee's decision was even possibly wrong, let alone obviously wrong. That might take a bit of time, but to be honest I really don't care if it means the right decisions are reached.

Plus, as you rightly said, it wasn't very intrusive at the weekend, especially when compared to other leagues and competitions. I think PGMOL have got it right in trying to keep it low key and not using the pitch side monitors unless they absolutely have to.
 
Big Cat said:
I agree. Correct decision, R, AR, AAR, AAAR, all had no choice but to disallow it. However, fans at the ground had no clue why there was a review or why it was disallowed. What kinda entertainment is that? Whether the goal 'should' have been disallowed, is another story of course
Click to expand...

I thought they were putting a message on the big screens, or announcing over the PA system where there were no screens, things like "VAR review - offside" or "VAR review - potential handball". I certainly saw that on a few games over the weekend.
 
RustyRef said:
I thought they were putting a message on the big screens, or announcing over the PA system where there were no screens, things like "VAR review - offside" or "VAR review - potential handball". I certainly saw that on a few games over the weekend.
Click to expand...
By the sounds of it, the big screen messages were not well received. Such as 'red card review' or ['goal review', 'goal' or 'no goal']
With regards to the Wolves 'no goal', fans were completely in the dark as to why it was reviewed and disallowed

I'm confident the PGMOL will (at least) understand these issues and it is early days as far as the EPL is concerned
 
RustyRef said:
How many times does it have to be said, clear and obvious does not apply to offsides.
Click to expand...
Zero times (as far as I'm concerned). It doesn't mean I have to agree with it, especially once the Sterling thing exposed the stupidity of it
 
Big Cat said:
Zero times (as far as I'm concerned). It doesn't mean I have to agree with it, especially once the Sterling thing exposed the stupidity of it
Click to expand...

People might not agree with it, but still see an offside VAR decision and then say it wasn't clear and obvious. Which is totally and utterly irrelevant, a bit like saying your tax return was only two hours late, you'll still get the same fine as you would if it was two days late.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JH
Twitter is an absolute MESS when fans talk about VAR, everything they say is wrong or uninformed. Peter Walton the other day said 'protecting yourself' will not be punished by handball if your arms are within the line of your body - why do ex-refs continue to muddy the waters with their ill-thought explanations?
 
RustyRef said:
People might not agree with it, but still see an offside VAR decision and then say it wasn't clear and obvious. Which is totally and utterly irrelevant, a bit like saying your tax return was only two hours late, you'll still get the same fine as you would if it was two days late.
Click to expand...
Mark Halsey (5 live drivetiime) spoke about the 'spirit of VAR' and how many thought it was solely intended to stop those howlers which have a huge impact on the game. The Sterling review purportedly (by the Guardian) had a sapping effect on the stadium atmosphere which far outweighed the gains conveyed from a decision based on something indeterminable. It's this level of forensics which brings the C&O thing back to the fore, because the two are so far in opposition to one another that the latter is conspicuous
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top