A&H

Villa v Blades

Sheffields Finest said:
View attachment 4344
You cant say that they haven't tested it in that EXACT position!!!!
Click to expand...

But they are saying not with a goalkeeper in that exact position as well.

Bobby Madley has also come out and said that they couldn't have used VAR as GLT is a factual decision. I suspect that approach will be reviewed now, the sad fact is that technology, even that as good as Hawkeye, will fail from time to time and you need a human fall back. That human fall back here is easy, let VAR get involved.
 
The Referee Store
RustyRef said:
But they are saying not with a goalkeeper in that exact position as well.

Bobby Madley has also come out and said that they couldn't have used VAR as GLT is a factual decision. I suspect that approach will be reviewed now, the sad fact is that technology, even that as good as Hawkeye, will fail from time to time and you need a human fall back. That human fall back here is easy, let VAR get involved.
Click to expand...
Is BMs claim in the VAR protocol?
 
Big Cat said:
Is BMs claim in the VAR protocol?
Click to expand...

If I heard things right on the NBC broadcast in the United States (admittedly, I might have missed it because I was also working while having the game on), then they said that VAR could review this. However, I would be more inclined to believe a referee than TV analysts.

I just don't understand how, if the technology is there and it can identify that the call on the field (whether through eyesight or GLT) was a clear and obvious error, that VAR could not advise that there is an error. If the goal is to get the call right and reverse errors, then the crew should be able to use VAR for misses like this. I would still like to see what the AR saw - I still think it's wasn't as easy to see the ball from his vantage point as some on this thread are implying. I know that, when I've had to rule on plays like this, I have to be 100% sure I clearly saw the entire ball cross the entire goal line before giving the goal. This is why I'm not burying the on-field crew for this one unless I see a view that the AR should have clearly seen the ball cross the line and didn't need to rely on GLT.
 
RefIADad said:
If I heard things right on the NBC broadcast in the United States (admittedly, I might have missed it because I was also working while having the game on), then they said that VAR could review this. However, I would be more inclined to believe a referee than TV analysts.

I just don't understand how, if the technology is there and it can identify that the call on the field (whether through eyesight or GLT) was a clear and obvious error, that VAR could not advise that there is an error. If the goal is to get the call right and reverse errors, then the crew should be able to use VAR for misses like this. I would still like to see what the AR saw - I still think it's wasn't as easy to see the ball from his vantage point as some on this thread are implying. I know that, when I've had to rule on plays like this, I have to be 100% sure I clearly saw the entire ball cross the entire goal line before giving the goal. This is why I'm not burying the on-field crew for this one unless I see a view that the AR should have clearly seen the ball cross the line and didn't need to rely on GLT.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Goal/No goal is in VAR's jurisdiction and they should really have caught this one. It's not just limited to calling handballs or millimeter offsides
 
If your sitting in your living room surrounded by flame, yet the fire alarm aint gone off, do you wait for the gadget to tell you that there is a fire?
Or driving the car down the road, losing control, you stop, get out , flat tyre, yet the TPS light aint come on your dash, do you keep driving, cos, no warning light means no flat?
No

so, when you see a football cross the line, under the bar, between the posts, yet your watch aint beeped, its a goal, or, at very least, worth a chat
Get the right call!

as Sheff Utd manager is saying, if a pubic hair can be ruled offside 10 mins after the event, then, a goal when valid should be awarded, even if they are still looking at it now!

having the use of tech is not a substitute to the officials duties, rather, its an assistance to them.
 
RustyRef said:
But they are saying not with a goalkeeper in that exact position as well.

Bobby Madley has also come out and said that they couldn't have used VAR as GLT is a factual decision. I suspect that approach will be reviewed now, the sad fact is that technology, even that as good as Hawkeye, will fail from time to time and you need a human fall back. That human fall back here is easy, let VAR get involved.
Click to expand...
But that is not a human fall back. It is human/technology combined fall back. And the fallback technology has proven to be far worse than the original technology which failed.

In either case i think human should never be a fallback for technology. It should be the other way around. And that was the issues here. Although close, because of the ball's proximity to the post it should have been obvious the ball has crossed the line and for the referee not to have to fall back on the technology.
 
I remember saying, when they first announced they were going to use the Hawk-Eye system for GLT, that there would be those rare times when the view of the ball would be sufficiently blocked that cameras would be unable to tell if the ball had crossed the line or not. Which is why I always thought a sensor-based technology such as the Cairos system would be preferable.

As I understood from what was written at the time, the Premier League (and others) preferred a camera-based system as it would look better on TV replays and big screens in a stadium. So they chose a media-friendly system over an apparently more technically accurate one.

Having said that, as the still posted earlier by @Sheffields Finest shows, there was at least one angle from which it was clearly discernible that the ball was well over the line and I thought Hawk-Eye was supposed to have cameras looking from all kinds of different angles so as to avoid precisely the situation that we have just seen.
 
RustyRef said:
Bobby Madley has also come out and said that they couldn't have used VAR as GLT is a factual decision. I suspect that approach will be reviewed now, the sad fact is that technology, even that as good as Hawkeye, will fail from time to time and you need a human fall back. That human fall back here is easy, let VAR get involved.
Click to expand...
There nothing in the VAR section of the laws that says VAR cannot look at a goal/no goal decision when there is GLT available.

Now, what's interesting is that in the "full" VAR protocol that was published back in 2017, it said that reviewable decisions included:
‘goal/no goal’ decision (where there is no GLT)
Click to expand...

However by the time the VAR section made it into the Laws of the Game document, the phrase "where there is no GLT" had been removed, which as far as I'm concerned, would seem to indicate that a goal/no goal decision can be looked at by VAR, even when GLT is in use.
 
Rather than enhance refereeing standards, it's just another VAR incident which magnifies scrutiny on the officials and perpetuates our prominence in the media in a wholly negative light
Not verified this, but Sky Sports claim VAR had 1 minute 7 seconds to act on this. It's embarrassing for all of us
 
On another subject, anyone cautioning Luiz for SPA in the second game, rather than dismissing for DOGSO
Also Ederson's action's could've had dire consequences for Garcia. Some unwritten rule that he couldn't be sanctioned for wiping out his own man (PIADM)?
 
Last edited:
Peter Grove said:
I remember saying, when they first announced they were going to use the Hawk-Eye system for GLT, that there would be those rare times when the view of the ball would be sufficiently blocked that cameras would be unable to tell if the ball had crossed the line or not. Which is why I always thought a sensor-based technology such as the Cairos system would be preferable.

As I understood from what was written at the time, the Premier League (and others) preferred a camera-based system as it would look better on TV replays and big screens in a stadium. So they chose a media-friendly system over an apparently more technically accurate one.

Having said that, as the still posted earlier by @Sheffields Finest shows, there was at least one angle from which it was clearly discernible that the ball was well over the line and I thought Hawk-Eye was supposed to have cameras looking from all kinds of different angles so as to avoid precisely the situation that we have just seen.
Click to expand...
Given that cameras give a 2D picture of a 3D incident, I suspect the system is set up to need at least 2 images. Even if they had access to the angle we've seen, without a 2nd (probably 3rd) angle, the system can't triangulate a 3D picture, so would likely be programmed not to signal.
 
Big Cat said:
On another subject, anyone cautioning Luiz for SPA in the second game, rather than dismissing for DOGSO
Click to expand...

Taylor’s response to Luiz’s mild protest said it all. He gave the “pull” gesture and said either “pull” or “hold”. I couldn’t quite tell which one. It was a DOGSO for me, so the pull/hold makes it red by law.
 
RustyRef said:
Given at one point he was pushing the ball onto the back of the post it had to have been over the line. Plus the lack of a goal line decision view like we normally get speaks volumes.

I think the officials may have known it was in, but there isn't really a lot they can do unless they are 110% sure it was over. If they overruled the tech and gave a goal only for it to be proven it hadn't gone in they'd be in serious trouble.
Click to expand...

Surely VAR could see it WAS over?!
 
RustyRef said:
But they are saying not with a goalkeeper in that exact position as well.

Bobby Madley has also come out and said that they couldn't have used VAR as GLT is a factual decision. I suspect that approach will be reviewed now, the sad fact is that technology, even that as good as Hawkeye, will fail from time to time and you need a human fall back. That human fall back here is easy, let VAR get involved.
Click to expand...

Don't see the logic there - VAR offside decisions are factual decisions aren't they? So is mistaken identity - so not buying that argument.
 
RefIADad said:
Taylor’s response to Luiz’s mild protest said it all. He gave the “pull” gesture and said either “pull” or “hold”. I couldn’t quite tell which one. It was a DOGSO for me, so the pull/hold makes it red by law.
Click to expand...
To me, he said "DOGSO, Pull" whilst simulating the pulling action.

Agree with you, it ticked all the boxes for DOGSO, direction, distance, control, number of defenders. As it was not a challenge for the ball, it's a red.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
The failure of 4 on field officials, 2 off field with multiple camera replays ( who have no bother identifying public hair when its offside) and what turns out to be 7 cameras from Hawkyeye, to award the whole reason of competing in football, to score a goal.
Click to expand...
VAR yes, I can’t see why they’ve not given it - they really should be.
However, it would take a HUGE call for any of the 4 on-field officials to go against the technology which has never yet failed. How would they explain it if the technology showed half a millimetre of the ball hadn’t crossed the line?
 
Last edited:
PinnerPaul said:
Surely VAR could see it WAS over?!
Click to expand...

I was talking about the on-pitch officials, not VAR. We will only know whether VAR saw it but felt they couldn't get involved if PGMOL make a statement and I'm not sure I can see that happening.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Imo the pre kick off spectacle was required by the association(s), whether or not the participants were willing
Being shoe horned into a procedure you might not wish to partake in, but are forced to for fear of being ostracised diminishes the intention of the entire event!
Now, for example, take a random, John McGinn, his belief might well have been NOT to take to the floor but he is duty bound to comply, thus suffocating his own belief!
an entire role reversal of the intended message!
Click to expand...

I'm playing catch up here, but if this gets taken off topic it will be closed and offenders will be banned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top