I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories, but I make an exception here. There's clearly someone involved in the PL's implementation of VAR who wants it to fail, and they're skewing the experiment to help it fail.
I can't think of another explanation for them looking at a system that (broadly speaking) works in the US, works in Germany and worked in the WWC. The only problem for them is that they've made their fiddling of the experiment too obvious, so there's now a serious campaign in place to "give VAR a proper go" and get rid of the borderline illegal modifications that the FA have made to the system. If they'd done it properly and it had faile,d they might have been able to argue to get rid of it. By doing it wrong, they'll now at least have to do it properly before they can justify getting rid
Considering Mark Halsey has a huge chip on his shoulder about PGMOL I'd take what he says with a pinch of salt.
He made a similar claim in his book, but it all comes across as him having a chip on his shoulder because he didn't like the head shed at PGMOL when Mike Riley took over, and The FA because he didn't get an FA Cup final.
Did they sue him and get him to retract his lies then? If it’s lies then why wouldn’t they? That’s quite defamatory!
Or he could be telling the truth?? Is that something he would make up?? and say out loud??Why bother? He's just a bitter man taking snide swipes at his former employers, to go through the courts over a tweet would be giving it more media attention, when it was forgotten a couple of weeks later.
If he set up a website dedicated to accusing PGMOL of match fixing, or was gobbing off about it in the papers every week then they probably would.
Or he could be telling the truth?? Is that something he would make up?? and say out loud??
The IFAB already went through a period of years of experiments with VAR, after which they reviewed the evidence and then issued formal instructions for a uniform approach. Why should they do that again, just because the PGMOL/EPL have decided to ignore these formal instructions?Radical left field idea here...
FA does it one way (no monitors, minutiae)
DFB et al do use monitors etc.
IFAB reviews the evidence garnered from these different methods and approaches at end of the season. Then issues formal instructions for a uniform approach next season.
The IFAB already went through a period of years of experiments with VAR, after which they reviewed the evidence and then issued formal instructions for a uniform approach. Why should they do that again, just because the PGMOL/EPL have decided to ignore these formal instructions?
Clear and obvious wasn't the point under discussion, @Tealeaf 's post and my reply were solely and exclusively about the use of pitchside monitors.I hear you but my answer...
... because clear and obvious is not clear or obvious, reviews take too long, the fan experience is poor and pitchside review is a bad concept that referees are not well-enough trained for.
We all sign contracts with employers that are essentially gagging clauses on lots of stuff whilst in their employment. Many a time when people leave jobs they whistleblow on stuff that happens behind closed doors, look at Trumps presidency.... MH's silence in employment was totally expected IMO, his blabbing since maybe wasn't!!! That doesn't mean he's lying though now!!If he cares so much why didn't he say something at the time?
Why wait until years and years after he had retired and then only mention it in a tweet?
If there was any truth in this why wouldn't the club's be doing something about it? Having you star striker miss 4 games because the referee was pressured into lying about whether they saw an offence or not is a huge deal, and could cost club's millions, especially if that striker not playing means you loose some important games which ultimately affect you position in the league.
It's not like the club's don't have the money.
I suspect he was told something, and there's been a misunderstanding, perhaps due to poor choice of words, and he's just run with it. And because it fits in with his anti PGMOL agenda he hasn't questioned it.
Surely if it was true there'd be more than enough disgruntled former top flight referees who'd be more than happy to go public about it and make some money from tv appearances.
And it doesn't mean he's not. So.....we're back where we started.We all sign contracts with employers that are essentially gagging clauses on lots of stuff whilst in their employment. Many a time when people leave jobs they whistleblow on stuff that happens behind closed doors, look at Trumps presidency.... MH's silence in employment was totally expected IMO, his blabbing since maybe wasn't!!! That doesn't mean he's lying though now!!
The football clubs agreeing is key, PGMOL is not an independent organisation, it is funded by the Premier League, EFL, and The FA.Today's referees can't employ their own style and ideas if they wish to progress. Nowhere is this more evident than in the EPL in which they all have to perform in unison. The MH article portrays this, just like the non-use of OFR does
The PGMOL have shown they can do what they like (assuming the football clubs agree). I don't understand it, but denial is naivety
ThisToday's referees can't employ their own style and ideas if they wish to progress. Nowhere is this more evident than in the EPL in which they all have to perform in unison. The MH article portrays this, just like the non-use of OFR does
The PGMOL have shown they can do what they like (assuming the football clubs agree). I don't understand it, but denial is naivety