VAR decisions

Not a Watford VAR point, but it worked well in the Chelsea spurs game. How the ref didn’t initially give a foul against the keeper when he ludicrously smashed the striker was unbelievable. People talk about stonewall penalties - that was the definition. In real time it was 100% obvious, and every other watch just makes it clearer.

 

Capoue’s yellow wasn’t really harsh. He was warned early on for a foul, then got away with another strong one later which I expected him to be booked for. The time he actually got the card wasn’t for the severity of the challenge but rather the accumulation of fouls.

 

Not VAR . But the explanation to back up the referees decision on why McTomminy (sic) wasn’t sent off on BT sport was ludicrous. Every pundit agreed he should be sent off, but the referee expert came up with a convoluted reason (not in the rules) to back up the ref.

 

Get shot. Waste of money and yet to see it improve a game of football.

 

That penalty goal for Man City encapsulates everything wrong with VAR. twice.

 

If it helps the big sides, then it's a good thing and is justified beyond all doubt.

 

N

Not surprisingly only the ref reviewing the 2 decisions agreed with the VAR decision.

 

To be serious, it was an absolute shocking decision to give a penalty for that, and for it to be upheld is even more ludicrous. If there was ever an organisation who could get VAR so wrong I knew it would be English referees. Total incompetence even when it's clear on TV replays, they will still deny what they see, and back the official who made the call. Then Dermot Gallagher will confirm wrong is right on Ref Watch on Monday morning.

Even Gianni Infantino could not believe England did not use the pitch-side monitor. He said, in a recent interview, that he wasn't aware English referees were not using the monitors and said they should be and was quite annoyed that they weren't but I don't think he fully believed the interviewer when he said not once have they been used in the Premier League.

It's totally farcical that the monitors are not used.....EVER.

 

The on-field referee actually gave a goal kick and VAR overturned it, they didn't back him at all. Plus the defender clearly stood on Mahrez's foot, I'd personally argue he was running off the pitch but these days that's irrelevant. The encroachment was a bit of a mood killer, but as the rules stand that was also the correct decision. The main issue for me was why each event took 3 minutes to check.

But I agree, the monitors should be used.

 

I guess the point is, if that was a penalty we’ve been robbed of 6 penalties this season. As have most other teams. The sterling swallow dive is enough of a clue that the contact was minimal and not worthy of a penalty

 

It's embarrassing in itself that one of the worst referees in premier League history is even getting paid to comment on var decisions on the Amazon prime show, but having to listen to Dermot Gallagher incorrectly agree with every bad decision made by refs and Var is too much to bear. I mean, he obviously still has an agenda in what he says.

I actually have to switch off or leave the room when they go to him as he is so so so poor.

 

It was Mahrez, not Sterling. Easy assumption to make though, as Sterling is usually the cheating **** that does this.

 

Good point. Sorry Sterling, I have done a you disservice.

Although having seen the picture I take back my complaint. Last week someone touched my foot and both of legs did suddenly fling backwards from under the knee and I cried out with pain.

 

And here is the encroachment. It was one of the top three that encroached apparently. All obviously responding to the Man City player that jumped the gun.

 

What is the exact rule?

the keeper is mainly off his line, but has a foot on the line.

the defenders all have their bodies over the line, but not much else, it is difficult to see if their feet were (apart from one that didn’t clear it). And also at the point of the above picture the ball had already left Sterling’s foot.

The Man City player is miles in the box.

I now want every Watford attacking player to bomb into the box just before Deeney smashes it down the middle, and then pull back. The defenders will then naturally respond to our attackers, but then get to the ball should Deeney miss, and we get to retake. That is basically what happened (albeit not intentional) tonight.

 

The D counts as being in the box.

 

Good point, was he the one that cleared it?

I still stand by the point that pragmatically the Man City player doing the same caused it.

 

I think the encroachment rule has changed. It used to be that, if there was encroachment by both teams, the offences cancelled each other out and the result of the penalty kick would stand.

 

If it changed, it was a fair while ago. I just checked 15/16 laws of the game and it’s the same as now - if players from both sides commit an offence, the kick is retaken.

Yes.

 

Things like encroachment and marginal offsides are just low hanging fruit for VAR. The Pukki offside yesterday was just scandalous, I don’t believe we needed VAR to rule on offside decisions with literally Millimetres in it? I though the benefit of the the doubt went with the attacker? But now goals are getting chalked off due to minuscule margins that would be impossible to spot with the naked eye. Is that what VAR was introduced for?

 

It also assumes the technology is sufficiently accurate to rule out goals by mere millimetres, which I doubt.

 

Of course not. You could play out that scenario a thousand times and no linesman would flag Pukki offside. Also, in any previous seasons TV pundits looking at the freeze frame of the pass to him would confirm that Pukki was comfortably onside.
VAR is a nonsense on offsides and must be changed.

 

But how do you decide how much offside is enough? Personally I'd start by only considering feet. Stop all this shoulder nonsense. Pukki's feet were well onside yesterday and I believe it was via his feet, not his shoulder, that he propelled himself forward to collect the ball.

Secondly, have a 'clear daylight' law where the attacker is only offside if the heel of his back foot is ahead of the toe of the defender's front foot. That would give an advantage to the attacker around what 'level' means and, although there'd still be marginal decisions, all those goals that are currently being ruled out for marginal offside would be allowed.

 

Was thinking the same sort of thing. But in my version each forward has to carry a pigeon. Each defender carries a cat, if theres daylight between the pigeon and the cats, its offside. If the pigeons underarm(underwing) is visible its onside. I think this should be clearer than what we use right now.

It would also create the phrase putting the pigeon among the cats, which would level the cat/pigeon balance a little I feel.

 

I’m surprised this wasn’t thought of before!

 

First time commenting on this subject.

Hate VAR it's changed the dynamic & fabric of the game for the worse IMO. Causes more overall problems than the marginal benefits it might provide currently.

The only way I can ever see it working is if it's totally run by AI, instant decisions that are visible within 1 second, with at least 99% success rate in terms of it's accuracy. Then I would support it.

 

Too many goals are being disallowed for marginal offsides. If you cannot see an obvious offside within seconds of review, then the goal should stand. The current format of VAR is killing the game. It's just dreadful.

I know it's supposed to be a fact and offside is offside, but too many decisions are being called over the thinnest of margins. There has to be an area of level is onside and it's too close to call, so the benefit has to go to the attacking side. VAR is killing football.

It was wrong to disallow that Pukki goal for Norwich against Spurs yesterday and this is a clear example of things they need to change.

• By default, if a review takes longer than 30 seconds to decide then the on-field referee's decision has to stand, because it cannot be a clear and obvious decision.
• 'Accidental' handball has to be allowed when scoring a goal. Accidental handballs are not penalised for defenders for penalties so it has to be the same for attackers.
• Strikers cannot climb over a defender in order to score. We saw Maguire do it on Cathcart. Luckily Foster saved it, but even though it's already in the rules, referees do not apply it. They have to blow for infringement, just as they do when anyone gets close to a keeper.
• Second yellow cards have to be reviewed by VAR. It's ridiculous that a game changing moment cannot be reviewed. Also a ban for 2 yellow cards you should be able to appeal against.
• Referees should use the pitch-side monitor.

These are obvious things that should be introduced...….will they? Of course they won't because they all make sense.

 

I’m out game yesterday it was used very well. No penalty for them. The ref said no originally and there was no glaring error in that so decision stands. Our penalty. Fairly simple one but don’t mind the check being done. Delefeou red card. Bit clumsy from where I was sitting and ref thought the same. Again no clear error so decision stands. And finally the third goal. The possible foul on Grealish. It’s debatable whether it’s a foul or not so quite rightly it stays with original decision. the fact they all went in our favour helps but I felt yesterday was a good example of how it should work.
The Pukki offside goal is a joke though. How is a forward who is running the defensive line supposed to chuck if his shoulder is offside. I’m with Cleyhorn. Feet only for offside and there needs to be a bit of give in the decision and none of this offside by a toenail rubbish. The whole foot needs to be offside nothing less

 

This is the biggest problem. Sure, VAR is exposing issues with the offside law and I hope IFAB reflect on that before 20/21. But in the meantime either Hawkeye need to sell the capability of the technology much more, and prove to players, managers and fans it can be accurate to the necessary degree. Or come up with a way to show the margin of error on the image when the VAR is adjudicating offsides.

 

They have to get back to spirit of giving benefit of doubt to attacker. I’d have rule:

- offside line is final part of defender body (including hands. No judgements)
- this is compared to foremost striker foot.
- if any part of foot is in line with offside line then onside

 

This has been doing the rounds on social media from Australia:

https://twitter.com/mrjakehumphrey/status/1210593921333682178?s=21

Post-match interview with the match referee talking through 3 VAR decisions. They seem to be light years ahead of us over there on this. Not everyone will agree - especially with the handball for the third - but at least an explanation is provided.