Southampton vs Manchester United

[es1]

I'm impressed that folks on here know exactly what the R saw . . .

The R did what he is supposed to do: make a call based on what he saw or didn't see. Here he believed there was no foul. It is not the R's job to second guess himself. The VAR is charged with recommending a review in the case of a clear error. The R will, in appropriate cases, share what he saw with the VAR. But if there was a clear error and the VAR did not recommend review, that is 100% a failure by the VAR.

As to ARs, no, that's not at all what ARs are doing. ARs are instructed to make calls exactly as they would have without VAR--the difference is they wait to raise the flag until an immediate scoring opportunity passes if it was a close decision. They get evaluated on their calls--if they raise the flag "just in case," they will get dinged for wrong calls.



This is not true. If the VAR sees a clear error--the standard for review--he is obligated to recommend an OFR to the R. Any signal the R made is totally irrelevant. VARs get evaluated on what they recommend to be sent down and have every incentive to do it properly. (And Rs who reject the recommendation to do an OFR will get evaluated on that decision, too.)


IMO, this is a horrible idea. VAR is not there to make the game perfect. It is there to fix clear errors. There has to be a call on the field. And what do we call as refs if we don't see a foul? Nothing. The same is true for us in our lower level games and for the pros doing the top flight games with VAR.

Why does there have to be a call on the field? Why can't it be I don't know, help me out?

 

[Anubis]

I'm impressed that folks on here know exactly what the R saw . . .

The R did what he is supposed to do: make a call based on what he saw or didn't see. Here he believed there was no foul. It is not the R's job to second guess himself. The VAR is charged with recommending a review in the case of a clear error. The R will, in appropriate cases, share what he saw with the VAR. But if there was a clear error and the VAR did not recommend review, that is 100% a failure by the VAR.

As to ARs, no, that's not at all what ARs are doing. ARs are instructed to make calls exactly as they would have without VAR--the difference is they wait to raise the flag until an immediate scoring opportunity passes if it was a close decision. They get evaluated on their calls--if they raise the flag "just in case," they will get dinged for wrong calls.



This is not true. If the VAR sees a clear error--the standard for review--he is obligated to recommend an OFR to the R. Any signal the R made is totally irrelevant. VARs get evaluated on what they recommend to be sent down and have every incentive to do it properly. (And Rs who reject the recommendation to do an OFR will get evaluated on that decision, too.)


IMO, this is a horrible idea. VAR is not there to make the game perfect. It is there to fix clear errors. There has to be a call on the field. And what do we call as refs if we don't see a foul? Nothing. The same is true for us in our lower level games and for the pros doing the top flight games with VAR.

impossible for ref to see, and thus, he cant say its not a foul
very different from saying, I never saw it,

two entirely different things

 

[socal lurker]

Why does there have to be a call on the field? Why can't it be I don't know, help me out?

Well, I suppose there could be anything. We could get rid of ARs entirely, hire some dude at minimum wage to stand on the field and convey decisions made entirely by the real officials in the TV truck. The question is what are we trying to accomplish with VAR? The dominant vision has been that the goal of video review is to correct clear errors with as little intrusion as possible into the traditional game. Refs saying, "Gee, I haven't a clue what happened, why don't you folks upstairs figure it out?" Is entirely at odds with that vision. That's why all the instructions to Rs and ARs have been (with the exception of GK encroachment) that they always make the call on the field. Where video is inconclusive, we rely on the call on the field--with no call on the field, there is nothing to rely on when video is inconclusive.

Were it my decision, I would still take the entire VAR process and throw it out the window. IMO, the delays and additional controversy are not worth the corrections that get made. I know that will never happen--genies don't go back into bottles. But I loathe expanding video from review for errors to initial calls. I stand by it being a horrible idea. The flow is one of best parts of soccer as a sport. The more we tinker with the flow, the more we damage the sport. (Not even American football or baseball, two of the slowest sports in terms of pace and flow, have gone down that road. Though, admittedly, baseball is experimenting with a computerized strike zone to call balls and strikes.)

 

[socal lurker]

impossible for ref to see, and thus, he cant say its not a foul
very different from saying, I never saw it,

two entirely different things

We so fundamentally disagree on basic concepts here that I see no point in prolonging the discussion.

 

[QuaverRef]

impossible for ref to see, and thus, he cant say its not a foul
very different from saying, I never saw it,

two entirely different things

But you’ve said he should give it and let VAR make the decision which is not in any way what it is there for

 

[es1]

Well, I suppose there could be anything. We could get rid of ARs entirely, hire some dude at minimum wage to stand on the field and convey decisions made entirely by the real officials in the TV truck. The question is what are we trying to accomplish with VAR? The dominant vision has been that the goal of video review is to correct clear errors with as little intrusion as possible into the traditional game. Refs saying, "Gee, I haven't a clue what happened, why don't you folks upstairs figure it out?" Is entirely at odds with that vision. That's why all the instructions to Rs and ARs have been (with the exception of GK encroachment) that they always make the call on the field. Where video is inconclusive, we rely on the call on the field--with no call on the field, there is nothing to rely on when video is inconclusive.

Were it my decision, I would still take the entire VAR process and throw it out the window. IMO, the delays and additional controversy are not worth the corrections that get made. I know that will never happen--genies don't go back into bottles. But I loathe expanding video from review for errors to initial calls. I stand by it being a horrible idea. The flow is one of best parts of soccer as a sport. The more we tinker with the flow, the more we damage the sport. (Not even American football or baseball, two of the slowest sports in terms of pace and flow, have gone down that road. Though, admittedly, baseball is experimenting with a computerized strike zone to call balls and strikes.)

It's nothing to do with the flow at all, whatever happens var will look at the incident, play doesn't have to be stopped. You go from 2 potential on field outcomes (it is or isnt) to 3 (I don't know). I really don't see how that changes much.

 

[Tealeaf]

I know that will never happen--genies don't go back into bottles.

I thought they came out of lamps?

Edit: I’m sorry; I’ve had a rotten day and I’m trying to lift my own spirits. Snickering at my own jokes is helping.

 

[Anubis]

We so fundamentally disagree on basic concepts here that I see no point in prolonging the discussion.

indeed, you asked how anyone can tell what the ref saw,and I backed up my claim of, nothing

happy to move on

 

[RustyRef]

indeed, you asked how anyone can tell what the ref saw,and I backed up my claim of, nothing

happy to move on

Thanks Ciley, we'll move on

 

[bloovee]

Agree, anyone continuing with the "my team woz robbed" line will be having a rest. Disappear off to a fan's forum if that is the route you want to take.

Hmmm....

If it was just that, I'd have posted last week about this strange episode (you know City have got a case when Gary Neville thinks it was odd refereeing):

'I'm not having that': Gary Neville annoyed with what referee did to Lloris during Tottenham game yesterday

Gary Neville was not happy with referee Anthony Taylor when he failed to book Tottenham Hotspur defender Japhet Tanganga in the first half against Manchester City.

tbrfootball.com

(Actually, I couldn't believe it, a referee delaying the game for best part of a minute to call across a captain to talk to his player rather than caution the player, after what looked like a previous warning. It just looked ridiculous - even if the player didn't commit another foul afterwards!)

It's consistency that's the issue, and it doesn't matter which team is on the receiving end. It's also, dare I say, about some contributors who always seem to find some way to agree with the ref and VAR (even with the stonewall penalty for Saka). If that's not a foul worth deeming a clear and obvious mistake, how is this deemed a clear and obvious mistake? https://www.clippituser.tv/c/prqrnr

(Just for balance, I do spend time on the main City fans' forum explaining refereeing decisions that mean we woz not robbed.)

 

[Joshref]

(Just for balance, I do spend time on the main City fans' forum explaining refereeing decisions that mean we woz not robbed.)

And yet you spend so much time on here acting like there’s a conspiracy. You hijakced is thread, you hijakced another one (can’t remember that one) and you hijacked the EFL Cup Final one to claim there was a conspiracy against City just leave it.

Anyway back to everything that has been said. The Saka one was stonewall for me and I’m surprised it wasn’t given by VAR. As for the Bruno one, whilst I initially thought it was a foul I can see why it wasn’t given. It’s the type of foul we’re used to seeing in the Prem, a defending player goes down in his own half from a soft challenge and the foul is given.

However in a Sunday League game, or even a League One/Two game to be honest, the player won’t get a free kick, they’ll just get told to be stronger on the ball. So whilst we’re used to seeing those fouls in the Prem, are they really fouls. Certainly not enough of a foul to warrant a VAR overrule. So as a United fan whilst it’s gutting, I do understand it.