VAR decisions

Since some are returning to the Spurs match, the goal should have been chalked off because of the push in Kabasele's back before it ever got near Ali.

 

I very much doubt it. No one saw anything wrong with what Pereyra did (apart from Scott, Madley and a couple of members of this forum). The thing is, a red card when it's against us, is not given to our opponent or players in other games, that's when it becomes frustrating or unfair.

If what Mapps or Kabs did, is punished the same way for absolutely everyone, yes including those gods at Arsenal, Chelsea, City etc, then there would not be an issue. It's when things are cherry-picked or the blind-eye rule is applied that makes it wrong.

Yes technically you can send off Mariappa for intention, but how often is that applied? Hardly ever, apart from when it involves us. This is when it becomes extremely unfair.

Pereyra gets sent off instantly, not even a blink of an eye from the ref. Yet, a couple of days later Lacazette does something even worse, and everyone is laughing about it saying that's it's never a red. Different standards are applied depending on who the player is and what team he plays for. This is where it's a big problem.

 

Agreed, but apparently they never even looked at that aspect...it was, after all, Our Lord of Kane.

 

I thought Mariappa was very unlucky as he clearly 100% pulled out of the challenge as he realised he was not going to get there & there was minimal if any contact.

 

Exactly. It was a mistake by Hooper which, because it cannot be reviewed by VAR or appealed, was irreversible. The 'intention' thing is commentator drivel. Mariappa wasn't sent off for having any intention to do anything, he was sent off because Angela Lansbury dived and Hooper fell for it.

 

It was stated on national radio that the Pereyra red card was reviewed. The Villa game did have a number of reviews, none of which went against us. They could easily of disallowed Sarr's goal for a foul on the halfway line and there was a possible red card for Delefeou and many round me felt we saw him do something and might be in trouble but again nothing.
The way VAR was used changed after the weekend we played Spurs when there were two awful decisions, one the Delefeou non penalty and the other I can't remember now. The issue was that nothing was being overturned and it seemed as though that was the instruction before that weekend. We've seen far more overturned since then. This obviously does not help with the games against Brighton, Newcastle and Spurs but you only have to listen to radio phone ins shows to know we are not alone in not getting the correct decisions. No idea who these people are you speak to that say, " you win some, you lose some" because most people I hear talk about VAR say it's not used correctly.

 

Although I believe it is a rule. If you intend to foul somebody but miss or they get out of the way it can still be classed as a foul. A sending off for a second yellow card should be reviewed by VAR

 

This is absolutely right. The foul on Deulofeu which wasn't given was without doubt the incident that changed the use of VAR, so you can't treat the incidents before that in the same way as the ones after. However what is also indisputable, and unforgivable, is the missing of the two handballs when Newcastle and Southampton scored.

 

I know what you're getting at. But the word 'intent' doesn't appear anywhere in the relevant bit of the rules. And it's a long section.

There's basically loads of recognisable ways to foul an opponent (kick, charge, jump at, push, tackle, trip...) that result in a free kick. Then there's three levels of punishment depending on how it happens. A 'careless' foul needs no further punishment. A 'reckless' tackle requires a yellow card. And a 'use of excessive force' is a sending off.

Hooper booked Mariappa for a reckless foul. ("Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned").

And recklessness is not the same as forming an intent.

 

It was well publicised at the time that NO on-field decisions had been overturned by VAR up to our game at Spurs (19 Oct). The very next weekend, and from then on, many were and have been subsequently. Our game v Chelsea was on Nov 2.

 

If it was stated on radio then that must be correct. It was stated in the Mail that it wasn't reviewed, which was equally questioned by you.

However, that's not really the point. There are two scenarios and neither play out well for the officials. If it was reviewed why was a farcical red card not overturned at the time (and please don't use Pererya walking down the tunnel as a reason, because it's not). If it wasn't reviewed then why not, as they were happy to review those incidents that benefited Tranmere. Again it looks like they are being selective in what they review. It's certainly open to criticism.

They should be made to explain themselves. Scott should explain why he saw that as a straight red card, three match ban offense and Madley should explain why he didn't review or did review and felt it was the correct thing to do in upholding such a ridiculous decision.

Had that been in the City v United match, there would be no end of debate and cries for the officials to explain themselves. Because it happened in the Watford v Tranmere match it gets instantly forgotten about.

 

You're probably correct but I have to say when Mariappa went in for that challenge it looked like a foul and and a yellow card from where I was sitting. VAR would have sorted that out quickly but for some reason it can't be used for a sending off involving two yellows. It has a massive impact on the game so should be used

 

No I didn't. Yesterday it was mentioned on TalkSport and Radio 5. I would trust Radio 5 over any newspaper if I'm honest

 

I said on here shortly afterwards my view was VAR couldn't overturn it at the time because it was not a clear and obvious error, but an appeal would likely be successful as an appeal is judged on different (much less strict) criteria than a VAR review. Nothing that's been said or happened since makes me think I'm wrong.

 

I totally agree that the should be made to explain his decision but they never will and whatever they do, Mike Riley will back their decision every time

 

But it was a clear and obvious error. Anyone with half a brain could see that, however, that probably excludes Andy Madley to be fair.

It just makes it a complete and utter nonsense. I'm not saying you're wrong about what you've said, so if you are correct then why should we lose a player for the rest of the match when the red card was wrong? He could have been sent off in the first minute, for arguments sake. You're saying VAR couldn't overturn it, but a review panel can? I can't believe there can be any truth in that, because it makes no sense at all. It means VAR is totally pointless, and I mean officially so.

 

Even more unacceptable is the reasoning given for the handballs not being spotted....at Newcastle, Pawson states he ‘had not viewed that camera angle’, whilst at Soton it was because they ‘did not want to wait for the requisite angle to be made available so as not to delay the game too long’. Whilst the next day they spent about 3 mins reviewing a quite obvious incident in a ‘big club’ match. It seems the VAR ‘bar’ is set dependent on how ‘important’ the ream involved is.
I’m not sure I buy into HB1’s specific anti-Watford theory, but I definitely agree with him that VAR, far from militating against the apparent pro-‘big club’ predilections prevalent amongst most officials, is actively reinforcing it.
It is, per se, bringing the EPL competition itself into disrepute.

 

I didn't think it was a red card either. I didn't see anything in it at the time and the replays confirmed it for me.

The thing is, the previous game you argued quite strongly against the decision of the VAR (Hooper) to overrule the the referee (Madley) and say Kabasele had denied a clear goalscoring opportunity and so should be sent off. You felt it should be left the referee to judge.

Yet basically the same process would have had to be followed by Madley to overrule Scott against Tranmere. It would need Madley to re-referee the incident by watching replays and reach a judgement of it himself. So is that what we want VAR doing or not? Letting Scott watch it himself on the pitchside screen is the obvious middle way but up until Oliver did it on Sunday that was deemed a no go for whatever stupid reason.

Anyway, to explain my position, I didn't think it was a 'clear and obvious error' because there was contact from Pereyra to Tranmere bloke after the ball had gone. The rest is up to Scott's judgement of the incident. And by the rules of VAR - botched PGMOL implementation aside - that's not what the system is there to get into. Its supposed to deal with the facts. So if the video showed the Tranmere bloke kick Pereyra, or a dive, then VAR could step in.

But an appeal is totally different. It is a literal re-refereeing of the incident from scratch. Footage sent to three ex-refs who are asked if they'd give a red card for it. If all three say no, it's rescinded. And I always felt we'd have a good chance with that.

 

Doesn't even need to be unanimous to succeed on appeal, Son's was rescinded on a majority decision.

Are you sure they're all ex refs? I thought it was a mix of ex officials and ex pros. For some reason I've got it in my head that Danny Murphy was in the pool of people the panel was selected from a while back.

 

You could be right about the panel members. I could gave sworn I read in the past it had to be a unanimous decision, though I see it's reported the Son one wasn't. Maybe that's changed.

 

@hornetboy1 will like this table.

https://www.givemesport.com/1536769...look-if-every-refereeing-decision-was-correct

We would be in 9th place if every decision had been made correctly apparently.

 

You are correct. It backs up everything I’ve been saying all season. We are 7 points down because of incorrect VAR decisions and the table backs that up.

 

I know some people find slagging off refs tiresome but this really highlights how poor and unaccountable refs are. I always saw the whole point of VAR as to eliminate bad calls to make the actual table look like this one. There really needs to be some kind of accountability for referees - some sort of weekly review panel or something .

On the other hand, we probably wouldn't have got Pearson if we weren't languishing at the bottom of the table for so long, so that is a huge silver lining for us as it's forced the team to buck up their ideas.

 

No hb1. It doesn't back up "everything you've been saying all season" which is that we should be in double figures better off points wise. Seven points better off equates to what I've been saying.

Neither does it equate to us being sinned against more than any other team seeing as the Gooners are suggested to be two points worse off than even us.

This study has this thing attached to it called objectivity which is alien to you. But make it up as you go along why don't you?

 

I knew that would get under your claw. I've been saying for a long time about the handball goals costing us 7 points, and you've denied it every time I've said it. Now you're suddenly agreeing because it's in a table. Love it.

For reference check #782, which will dispel your deliberate misinformation.

 

Also see #894. How does that saying go? "Lies, damn lies and quotes from Cleyhorn"

 

I don't have a post number count on this phone. No hb1. Disingenuous as per. The handballs have cost us five points. The table considers a number of other parameters which aren't fully specified. Hence their seven points.

In addition, the tally gives the top six as having lost out on seven points and the other 14 as having gained five across the piece. Which gives the lie to VAR 'favouring the top six'.

 

Their 7 points tallies with mine. You just hate that and it makes me laugh as I know you're fuming and can't wait to get to a laptop to frantically try to find some evidence to support your claim. It's always the same with you. You're always sniping away but always fall flat on your face in the end. This is the latest such example. You forget, people can check on you, so you shouldn't make up things just to try and put someone else down. You're not alone though, as there are sadly quite a few people like you on this forum. I think you need to phone for some allies to help you with this one.

 

Just give it up hb1. You make a good point around us having been 'hard done by' and then lay it on with a yellow trowel called 'exagerration'. It was ever thus. You just can't get past your blinkered bias and then when an objective study comes along which broadly agrees with you (but not your numbers), because it isn't clouded by rampant subjectivity, you resort to lies.

What have you got to say about the Gooners misfortune? And that this study suggests VAR is hindering the big six relative to the other fourteen rather than the other way around.

I've no intention in re-visiting your back catalogue. I know what you've been saying. Have you ever considered politics? They're adept at answering questions other than the ones that are actually being asked as well.

 

#782 & #894 will reveal the truth. You can call me a liar all you like. People will very quickly see through you.

 

I thought all these decisions happened in injury time?