VAR Vote

[Kes]

Not sure I'd quite say it is factual. Whether a KMI is correct or incorrect is still down to an element of opinion

That's just whataboutery.

The Luis Diaz goal wasn't deliberate cheating though was it?

 

[Big Cat]

I'd tend to agree.
I think it has to stay. At the very least, we're not seeing "Hand Of God" goals winning football matches etc.

I think Anthony Gordon pretty much hit the nail on the head as to how many are currently feeling about VAR. Around 55 seconds in ....

Yes, it's a very good example of a foul which the Ref would probably have given without Big Brother to fall back on, but it's also a foul that doesn't meet the criteria of a C&O mistake. It's also very likely an incident that the PGMOL will use to bolster their fictitious 96% stat. Whilst VAR improves the accuracy of KMD's, they've always been disingenuous with the stats (sometimes to an insulting degree, especially in the early days)

 

[Kes]

Yes, it's a very good example of a foul which the Ref would probably have given without Big Brother to fall back on, but it's also a foul that doesn't meet the criteria of a C&O mistake. It's also very likely an incident that the PGMOL will use to bolster their fictitious 96% stat. Whilst VAR improves the accuracy of KMD's, they've always been disingenuous with the stats (sometimes to an insulting degree, especially in the early days)

Don't agree.
Like Gordon said, it's gonna be very difficult to see that clip of his ankle in real time since there's also Casimero in the picture but the camera doesn't lie. It's a penalty, clear as day and so VAR should have come in. The mystery is why they didn't(?)

 

[Runner Ref]

That's just whataboutery.

The Luis Diaz goal wasn't deliberate cheating though was it?

Well, yes; saying KMI's are correct or aren't correct is whataboutery- therefore, hardly factual

Diaz goal wasn't cheating, no. No one said it was?

 

[Kes]

Diaz goal wasn't cheating, no. No one said it was?

You did.

You used it as an example quoting my "Hand Of God" (cheating) text.

 

[Big Cat]

Am I one of the most outspoken Members against VAR - YES, definitely
Do I think the vote will pass - NO, no chance whatsoever
Is VAR's main problem, the people behind it / running it - NO, we have the best man at the helm and we have some outstanding individuals who referee at the top level (VARs)
Do I want a permanent abolishment of all aspects of VAR - NO, I'm not stupid enough to not appreciate that we've moved on to the extent that we can't go back to where we were

Unfortunately, I think Wolves have put all their chips on the table with a 'motion' that won't be passed
They might have had more chance if their motion was more realistic.... like abolishing it for a year to work, but to keep it 'live-like' to focus on improvement, OR to keep SAOS and GLT with the intention of reviewing subjective aspects

Ultimately, Wolves deserve merit, they've been stiffed by VAR this season and it's good that they've massively raised the profile of the debate

 

[Runner Ref]

You did.

You used it as an example quoting my "Hand Of God" (cheating) text.

No, I was referring to the fact we still see very very clear and obvious errors with VAR in place. Doesn't matter whether the player was cheating or not, C&O errors are still slipping through the net.

 

[RefereeX]

Not sure I'd quite say it is factual. Whether a KMI is correct or incorrect is still down to an element of opinion

Some KMIs are fact based (offside, contact for foul inside/outside area etc), some are subjective. We get a higher percentage of fact based KMIs correct with VAR than we did without it. That much is factual.

I'm quite sure we also get a higher percentage of subjective KMIs correct with VAR, but as these decisions are subjective, they will always be disagreed with.

As I've said before, more is correct with VAR, but some football stakeholders expect to suddenly agree with every KMI. That will never happen.

 

[Big Cat]

Don't agree.
Like Gordon said, it's gonna be very difficult to see that clip of his ankle in real time since there's also Casimero in the picture but the camera doesn't lie. It's a penalty, clear as day and so VAR should have come in. The mystery is why they didn't(?)

The bar for intervention is up and down like a whore's nickers because the bar itself is subjective
I could assert the knickers never come down when the away side is on the attack at Old Trafford, but it's not a fan's forum FFS! So stop bating me!

 

[Russell Jones]

Fair, but again, it was ballsed up by a complete misunderstanding from the people implementing them as to what the point of doing this is.

Fans and managers don't want two immobile additional referees/ARs secretly boosting the correct decisions by a few %, they want actual evidence of useful intervention. Those AARs may have been incredibly useful to the ref (although I maintain they were on the wrong side of the goal!), but they don't get to visibly flag, which means they don't claim "credit" for anything, which means they don't fulfil the actual point of any changes like this, which should be boosting fan/manager confidence in officials.

It's the exact same reason why VAR decisions being made in a veil of secrecy was always going to be sub-optimal. For fans to feel any benefit from the process, they have to know what the process is and they have to see it working properly over and over.
Even the version we have now is self-defeating in that sense, because an artificially high proportion of controversial/wrong decisions make it onto the Webb show - it gives the impression that 75% of VAR decisions are wrong or deserving of some additional scrutiny, wheras if everything was on open comms, there would be a much better understanding of how they do actually get it right most of the time!

I agree that greater transparency is helpful. And extending the 'Webb' show to weekly for example, allowing for more decisions (good and not so good) to be featured, would allow people to hear first hand the input from the AARs, something which (almost) never previously happened. If you look at the list of concerns detailed by Wolves, pretty much all of them would be met by reverting to this previous system ... more immediacy to decisions, on field accountability, acceptance that the officials are doing their best with one look in real time and no tedious delays sucking the spontaneity and joy out of the game

 

[Runner Ref]

Some KMIs are fact based (offside, contact for foul inside/outside area etc), some are subjective. We get a higher percentage of fact based KMIs correct with VAR than we did without it. That much is factual.

I'm quite sure we also get a higher percentage of subjective KMIs correct with VAR, but as these decisions are subjective, they will always be disagreed with.

As I've said before, more is correct with VAR, but some football stakeholders expect to suddenly agree with every KMI. That will never happen.

Still don't quite agree.

We're assuming the offsides with VAR are correct, but the drawing of the lines has never been perfected and even disputed (granted this will hopefully be rectified with next seasons changes). We then have the offsides on whether the person in an offside position has or hasn't interfered.

I completely agree with the last statement, though. I never wanted VAR for this specific reason.

 

[Kes]

No, I was referring to the fact we still see very very clear and obvious errors with VAR in place. Doesn't matter whether the player was cheating or not, C&O errors are still slipping through the net.

Any "errors" (apart from Darren England's one) are generally down to the subjectivity applied by the human eye ie the VAR officials but the camera doesn't ever lie. It's far better to have that option to review stuff than to go back to what you're advocating and just hope that the on field officials:

a. See it

and

b. Interpret it correctly (in accordance with the LOTG).

 

[David G]

Yes, it's a very good example of a foul which the Ref would probably have given without Big Brother to fall back on, but it's also a foul that doesn't meet the criteria of a C&O mistake. It's also very likely an incident that the PGMOL will use to bolster their fictitious 96% stat. Whilst VAR improves the accuracy of KMD's, they've always been disingenuous with the stats (sometimes to an insulting degree, especially in the early days)

Not a fictitious stat, so I am not sure why you think it is & I doubt that the Referee would have seen/given it in real time without VAR, but I agree that for VAR it wasn’t a clear & obvious error. I also think there has been improvements during the season especially since the tolerance for handball had been heightened.

 

[Runner Ref]

Any "errors" (apart from Darren England's one) are generally down to the subjectivity applied by the human eye ie the VAR officials but the camera doesn't ever lie. It's far better to have that option to review stuff than to go back to what you're advocating and just hope that the on field officials:

a. See it

and

b. Interpret it correctly (in accordance with the LOTG).

The fact that HW still has to contact clubs to apologise would suggest it still isn't working.

But for option b. VAR then needs to interpret it correctly. Something they seemingly aren't on a too frequent basis.

It's one thing for onfield referee to get it wrong. But for VAR to then double down on the error is exactly why there seems to be more negativity against officials than ever.

 

[Kes]

Not a fictitious stat, so I am not sure why you think it is & I doubt that the Referee would have seen/given it in real time without VAR, but I agree that for VAR it wasn’t a clear & obvious error. I also think there has been improvements during the season especially since the tolerance for handball had been heightened.

I'm no VAR guru (far from it) so please explain how careless contact in the penalty area for which the referee doesn't award a penalty isn't considered a clear and obvious error" ??

 

[David G]

I'm no VAR guru (far from it) so please explain how careless contact in the penalty area for which the referee doesn't award a penalty isn't considered a clear and obvious error" ??

One reason could be that a defender also made clear contact with the ball. If you could see from the first time you saw the incident that you identified that the other defender made contact down the back of Gordon’s ankle then you have better eye sight than me & the Referee on the day from his position.

 

[Kes]

The fact that HW still has to contact clubs to apologise would suggest it still isn't working.

But for option b. VAR then needs to interpret it correctly. Something they seemingly aren't on a too frequent basis.

It's one thing for onfield referee to get it wrong. But for VAR to then double down on the error is exactly why there seems to be more negativity against officials than ever.

That's just as I alluded to earlier but lends no weight to your argument that we're better off with VAR gone.

As someone has already pointed out, HW has to apologise occasionally owing to errors in the process which is let's face it, still in need of tweaking. This is borne out of an assumption that because we now have cameras, every decision made is gonna be 100% correct.

HW would be apologising a damned sight more often if it was left to just the 3 on field with one fleeting look at an incident. How do you think the notion of VAR (and why) was first conceived? Was it because the camera showed that referees were always spot on?

Sure, just get rid of VAR and let's go back to how it was. Except we'll STILL have tv cameras that don't lie. ...

 

[Kes]

One reason could be that a defender also made clear contact with the ball. If you could see from the first time you saw the incident that you identified that the other defender made contact down the back of Gordon’s ankle then you have better eye sight than me & the Referee on the day from his position.

I see.
So, VAR only get just the one replay of it as well then do they?

 

[David G]

That's just as I alluded to earlier but lends no weight to your argument that we're better off with VAR gone.

As someone has already pointed out, HW has to apologise occasionally owing to errors in the process which is let's face it, still in need of tweaking. This is borne out of an assumption that because we now have cameras, every decision made is gonna be 100% correct.

HW would be apologising a damned sight more often if it was left to just the 3 on field with one fleeting look at an incident. How do you think the notion of VAR (and why) was first conceived? Was it because the camera showed that referees were always spot on?

Sure, just get rid of VAR and let's go back to how it was. Except we'll STILL have tv cameras that don't lie. ...

If anyone thought that VAR was going to make all decisions 100% accurate then that was never going to happen, because many are subjective, but I am happy to accept that the official stat from 82% correct (without VAR) to 96% (with VAR) feels about right & getting better. Just need to continue to improve the stat, the timing and ground experience, then it could be largely accepted. However, it’s fair enough that Wolves have brought the issue to a head for a vote and although 14 out of 20 votes are required to get rid, I suspect it will be tight. However, VAR offsides will still happen I believe.

 

[David G]

I see.
So, VAR only get just the one replay of it as well then do they?

Not at all, we all know that there are many replays from different angles as well as slow motion. Was there an error, yes I believe there was. Was there a clear and obvious error made by the Referee at the time of the decision he made for the reasons he did. No, I don’t believe there was.