| Refereeing this weekend 10:31 - Aug 6 with 1678 views | PatfromPoole |
None of us are fans of VAR, I suspect.
However there were some appalling decisions in games over the weekend.
Thought our ref was too prone to dishing out yellow cards.
Particular sympathies for West Brom, who were denied 3 clear penalties yesterday when losing 2-1 at Blackburn. No wonder their manager got sent off.
I will be interested to read SFC Referee’s slant on this in his review of the weekend’s action. |  |
| |  |
| Refereeing this weekend on 11:30 - Aug 6 with 1602 views | Ifonly |
I was wondering if I noticed so many ref errors just because I took more interest in Championship games this weekend. Maybe not then.
I'm happy to play without VAR in the Championship (or PL) because it all averages out over a season. But I can see why it should continue to be used in major games like knockouts or world cup when one bad decision can change the result.
Hopefully it will evolve so that it goes back to the original ethos that errors have to be "clear and obvious". The VAR team can see replays instantly, so if it's not clear and obvious within 30 seconds, the game should go on. Stopping the game to draw subjective lines on a tv screen is just ridiculous. If they stuck to "clear and obvious" errors then VAR would work fine. |  | | |
| Refereeing this weekend on 13:49 - Aug 6 with 1540 views | SFC_Referee |
Ok but most of these card had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how good/bad the ref was, but simply what they’re now tidying up around dissent and time wasting. As I was watching that MOTD for the EFL last night on ITV, and it was the same in all the other games, and has been the same in my first few, as it’s exactly what we’ve been told to now do. And with VAR well I think it’s gonna make the match day experiences a lot better without it, definitely, but they’ll also be games where many will of wished we had it.
As they’re not allowing anywhere near the same levels of dissent as they previously have, meaning that even if players aren’t shouting right in the refs face and being blatantly dissentful, they can still be cautioned for dissent and have been told to let a lot less go. And it’s the exact same for time wasting and delaying the restart of play.
As I missed the first half of this game as I was refereeing myself, but for the second half I didn’t see anything exactly that amazing or poor from the ref and what they’re meant to be doing now. And even then, are with select group 2 refs now, so they’re gonna be worse than the prem ones.
But if it’s just the cards your on about, well you better get used to it as that’s what they’re changing for all levels of the pyramid now, if it’s something else then could you give further detail as I didn’t see too much wrong in the second half.
With the West Brom game though, yeah well I saw it on that highlights show, but they never deserved 3 pens, as the first is just a shoulder barge as seeing how footballs a contact sport, is never a pen. The second ones a debatable one, as the attackers looking for it all day long and as much as there’s contact, is that really enough for a pen, as even his yea yes didn’t appeal. Although the 3rd I will agree was a pen, and should’ve come with a red, but without VAR mistakes like this will happen at any level. But still there was only half as many pen shouts as you and West Brom fans are making out |  |
| |
| Refereeing this weekend on 13:55 - Aug 6 with 1535 views | SFC_Referee |
| Refereeing this weekend on 11:30 - Aug 6 by Ifonly |
I was wondering if I noticed so many ref errors just because I took more interest in Championship games this weekend. Maybe not then.
I'm happy to play without VAR in the Championship (or PL) because it all averages out over a season. But I can see why it should continue to be used in major games like knockouts or world cup when one bad decision can change the result.
Hopefully it will evolve so that it goes back to the original ethos that errors have to be "clear and obvious". The VAR team can see replays instantly, so if it's not clear and obvious within 30 seconds, the game should go on. Stopping the game to draw subjective lines on a tv screen is just ridiculous. If they stuck to "clear and obvious" errors then VAR would work fine. |
But the issue you get with that is what defines “clear and obvious”? As really all offsides are, as your either on or offside, and about the only debatable stuff is the intervening with play part, but for being in an offside position, well there’s always a right and a wrong, so if it wasn’t for the time it took, I don’t see it being any different to goal line tech, which no one has an issue with. But that’s exactly why they’re making these new cameras to be able to do it all just as quick as goal line tech.
But then outside of offsides, what is “clear and obvious”? As really the only stuff that is are the black and white stuff like offsides, ball in and out of play/the box, mistaken identity etc… but for all of handballs, pens, fouls, yellow/red cards etc… it always has been and always will be opinionated where you’ll never get everything agreeing as it’s all opinionated. So how would it work? | |
| |
| Refereeing this weekend on 13:55 - Aug 6 with 1536 views | PatfromPoole |
| Refereeing this weekend on 13:49 - Aug 6 by SFC_Referee |
Ok but most of these card had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how good/bad the ref was, but simply what they’re now tidying up around dissent and time wasting. As I was watching that MOTD for the EFL last night on ITV, and it was the same in all the other games, and has been the same in my first few, as it’s exactly what we’ve been told to now do. And with VAR well I think it’s gonna make the match day experiences a lot better without it, definitely, but they’ll also be games where many will of wished we had it.
As they’re not allowing anywhere near the same levels of dissent as they previously have, meaning that even if players aren’t shouting right in the refs face and being blatantly dissentful, they can still be cautioned for dissent and have been told to let a lot less go. And it’s the exact same for time wasting and delaying the restart of play.
As I missed the first half of this game as I was refereeing myself, but for the second half I didn’t see anything exactly that amazing or poor from the ref and what they’re meant to be doing now. And even then, are with select group 2 refs now, so they’re gonna be worse than the prem ones.
But if it’s just the cards your on about, well you better get used to it as that’s what they’re changing for all levels of the pyramid now, if it’s something else then could you give further detail as I didn’t see too much wrong in the second half.
With the West Brom game though, yeah well I saw it on that highlights show, but they never deserved 3 pens, as the first is just a shoulder barge as seeing how footballs a contact sport, is never a pen. The second ones a debatable one, as the attackers looking for it all day long and as much as there’s contact, is that really enough for a pen, as even his yea yes didn’t appeal. Although the 3rd I will agree was a pen, and should’ve come with a red, but without VAR mistakes like this will happen at any level. But still there was only half as many pen shouts as you and West Brom fans are making out |
We shall have to agree to disagree, sir.
Dissentful? | |
| |
| Refereeing this weekend on 14:00 - Aug 6 with 1522 views | SFC_Referee |
| Refereeing this weekend on 13:55 - Aug 6 by PatfromPoole |
We shall have to agree to disagree, sir.
Dissentful? |
Well like I said, you’ll be seeing it at all levels of the game for the rest of this season now, so it’s just something we’ve all gotta get used to. | |
| |
| Refereeing this weekend on 14:52 - Aug 6 with 1480 views | Ifonly |
| Refereeing this weekend on 13:55 - Aug 6 by SFC_Referee |
But the issue you get with that is what defines “clear and obvious”? As really all offsides are, as your either on or offside, and about the only debatable stuff is the intervening with play part, but for being in an offside position, well there’s always a right and a wrong, so if it wasn’t for the time it took, I don’t see it being any different to goal line tech, which no one has an issue with. But that’s exactly why they’re making these new cameras to be able to do it all just as quick as goal line tech.
But then outside of offsides, what is “clear and obvious”? As really the only stuff that is are the black and white stuff like offsides, ball in and out of play/the box, mistaken identity etc… but for all of handballs, pens, fouls, yellow/red cards etc… it always has been and always will be opinionated where you’ll never get everything agreeing as it’s all opinionated. So how would it work? |
"Clear and obvious" means stuff like:
- a player running in to the box is tripped, contact is obvious on the replay, but the ref couldn't see it in real time and runs away signalling "nothing doing"
- from a corner, a player is dragged down in the box but the ref can't see it because he can't see everything at once
- off the ball, a player has his shirt pulled to stop him running in to free space, unseen by the officials because they are all supposed to be looking at other things
I could go on, there are countless examples but few per game - which is exactly right - there should be few times where VAR intervenes. The times VAR should intervene are when the VAR ref has one look at it on the replay and thinks "I have no doubt that is a foul". Everything else should be left to the judgement of the officials on the pitch. | | | |
| Refereeing this weekend on 15:02 - Aug 6 with 1469 views | saintsfanbrock |
| Refereeing this weekend on 13:55 - Aug 6 by SFC_Referee |
But the issue you get with that is what defines “clear and obvious”? As really all offsides are, as your either on or offside, and about the only debatable stuff is the intervening with play part, but for being in an offside position, well there’s always a right and a wrong, so if it wasn’t for the time it took, I don’t see it being any different to goal line tech, which no one has an issue with. But that’s exactly why they’re making these new cameras to be able to do it all just as quick as goal line tech.
But then outside of offsides, what is “clear and obvious”? As really the only stuff that is are the black and white stuff like offsides, ball in and out of play/the box, mistaken identity etc… but for all of handballs, pens, fouls, yellow/red cards etc… it always has been and always will be opinionated where you’ll never get everything agreeing as it’s all opinionated. So how would it work? |
I really think offsides could be made a lot easier, a lot of the time for decisions seems to be working out the moment the ball was actually kicked, plus when they start drawing the lines you can see the football is nowhere near in contact with the passing players foot. Surely for premier league/international football we can afford a football with a sensor in it to pinpoint the moment it is kicked. Then it’s just a matter of lining up the moment on the player being passed to. I’m also a fan of the thick line theory and then offside decisions could be done in under a minute (the average celebration time). Fine some won’t be precise but neither is the tech so who cares | | | |
| Refereeing this weekend on 17:54 - Aug 6 with 1368 views | SFC_Referee |
| Refereeing this weekend on 14:52 - Aug 6 by Ifonly |
"Clear and obvious" means stuff like:
- a player running in to the box is tripped, contact is obvious on the replay, but the ref couldn't see it in real time and runs away signalling "nothing doing"
- from a corner, a player is dragged down in the box but the ref can't see it because he can't see everything at once
- off the ball, a player has his shirt pulled to stop him running in to free space, unseen by the officials because they are all supposed to be looking at other things
I could go on, there are countless examples but few per game - which is exactly right - there should be few times where VAR intervenes. The times VAR should intervene are when the VAR ref has one look at it on the replay and thinks "I have no doubt that is a foul". Everything else should be left to the judgement of the officials on the pitch. |
Ok but then what happens when you get a tiny/slight trip, where the forward went down easy? What happens when the players dragged down after also dragging an opponent, which is why he went down? Or when that shirt pull off of the ball was minimal where the player could’ve quite easily played on but stopped just to try and pressurise the ref into giving something?
As no matter what you define “clear and obvious” as, anything that’s not set in stone (like offsides for example) will always have a grey area where some will argue it is “clear and obvious”, whilst others will argue it’s not. So what do you do in those situations there? As when they start getting looked at repetitively, then that will be seen as your typical “clear and obvious” incident, yet those grey areas will require it to be less clear and will get more of them looked at, and so on… and you’ll get inconsistency as different refs see simukar incidents differently due to many aspects.
As unless you have a black and white definition of what “clear and obvious” is, which has no opinionated side to it whatsoever, then that phrase means bugger all as it’s opinionated and always up for debate, just the same as most of the incidents officials have to deal with. [Post edited 6 Aug 2023 17:55]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Refereeing this weekend on 17:56 - Aug 6 with 1361 views | SFC_Referee |
| Refereeing this weekend on 15:02 - Aug 6 by saintsfanbrock |
I really think offsides could be made a lot easier, a lot of the time for decisions seems to be working out the moment the ball was actually kicked, plus when they start drawing the lines you can see the football is nowhere near in contact with the passing players foot. Surely for premier league/international football we can afford a football with a sensor in it to pinpoint the moment it is kicked. Then it’s just a matter of lining up the moment on the player being passed to. I’m also a fan of the thick line theory and then offside decisions could be done in under a minute (the average celebration time). Fine some won’t be precise but neither is the tech so who cares |
Yeah well all that sorta stuff is what the PGMOL, IFAB, and many major footballing committees are looking into, but as to what and when they decide to do around these issues, I haven’t the foggiest clue! | |
| |
| Refereeing this weekend on 18:43 - Aug 6 with 1324 views | Ifonly |
| Refereeing this weekend on 17:54 - Aug 6 by SFC_Referee |
Ok but then what happens when you get a tiny/slight trip, where the forward went down easy? What happens when the players dragged down after also dragging an opponent, which is why he went down? Or when that shirt pull off of the ball was minimal where the player could’ve quite easily played on but stopped just to try and pressurise the ref into giving something?
As no matter what you define “clear and obvious” as, anything that’s not set in stone (like offsides for example) will always have a grey area where some will argue it is “clear and obvious”, whilst others will argue it’s not. So what do you do in those situations there? As when they start getting looked at repetitively, then that will be seen as your typical “clear and obvious” incident, yet those grey areas will require it to be less clear and will get more of them looked at, and so on… and you’ll get inconsistency as different refs see simukar incidents differently due to many aspects.
As unless you have a black and white definition of what “clear and obvious” is, which has no opinionated side to it whatsoever, then that phrase means bugger all as it’s opinionated and always up for debate, just the same as most of the incidents officials have to deal with. [Post edited 6 Aug 2023 17:55]
|
Same answer to all of your questions: if the VAR ref has no doubt that it's an error he calls it. If he has any doubt, he doesn't. "Clear and obvious" means clear and obvious to the VAR ref.
You're mindset seems to be stuck with how VAR is used now. They try and get every decision "right" Forget that. If there is any debate then it's not something VAR should intervene on. You just stick with the original decision, right or wrong. The incidents VAR should be dealing with are where the ref has made an obvious mistake because he didn't see something. That happens often when his vision is obscured, he's looking elsewhere, or "he blinked and he missed it".
You talk about "when they start getting looked at repetitively" but that's exactly what I'm saying shouldn't happen. That's the problem with VAR now. Anything that needs more than 2 looks is not clear and obvious so should not get called. Stay with the ref's decision. We've all seen Refs make obvious mistakes when all is needed is a quick look at VAR to clear it up. That's how it should be used. If they did that, it would work fine. We've also seen Refs stand at pitch side monitors and watch endless replays. That's the mindset you seem to be stuck with (maybe it's a ref thing?) but that's how it definitely shouldn't be used.
People slag off VAR justifiably because of the way refs use it. But they forget the good things it has brought. One of them is that it has drastically reduced the amount of diving we see. When VAR was first introduced, players were still diving and one replay would show they hadn't been touched. VAR has almost eliminated that. That's the type of thing it should be retained for and how it should be used. | | | |
| Refereeing this weekend on 19:06 - Aug 6 with 1311 views | SFC_Referee |
| Refereeing this weekend on 18:43 - Aug 6 by Ifonly |
Same answer to all of your questions: if the VAR ref has no doubt that it's an error he calls it. If he has any doubt, he doesn't. "Clear and obvious" means clear and obvious to the VAR ref.
You're mindset seems to be stuck with how VAR is used now. They try and get every decision "right" Forget that. If there is any debate then it's not something VAR should intervene on. You just stick with the original decision, right or wrong. The incidents VAR should be dealing with are where the ref has made an obvious mistake because he didn't see something. That happens often when his vision is obscured, he's looking elsewhere, or "he blinked and he missed it".
You talk about "when they start getting looked at repetitively" but that's exactly what I'm saying shouldn't happen. That's the problem with VAR now. Anything that needs more than 2 looks is not clear and obvious so should not get called. Stay with the ref's decision. We've all seen Refs make obvious mistakes when all is needed is a quick look at VAR to clear it up. That's how it should be used. If they did that, it would work fine. We've also seen Refs stand at pitch side monitors and watch endless replays. That's the mindset you seem to be stuck with (maybe it's a ref thing?) but that's how it definitely shouldn't be used.
People slag off VAR justifiably because of the way refs use it. But they forget the good things it has brought. One of them is that it has drastically reduced the amount of diving we see. When VAR was first introduced, players were still diving and one replay would show they hadn't been touched. VAR has almost eliminated that. That's the type of thing it should be retained for and how it should be used. |
Ok but that’s the point, most of the time what the VAR official gets involved in is what they see as clear and obvious, it’s just that not many others do. But as there is no textbook definition for either side of the debate, neither side is in the right nor wrong as no matter what you do there will always be a grey area. And for what your saying about not seeing the clearest, well about the only way I’ve ever thought that could be solved is if the ref goes there themselves and doesn’t have a VAR official telling him what to do, meaning that he’d only go over to see the incidents he didn’t see the clearest. But even then you’d get an issue as players and teams would pressurise officials into going over to the monitor for any major decision, even for blatant ones they did get correct.
And it’s similar for the set amount of replays, as sometimes they have to sit there and watch a few as the new angles haven’t come in yet, meaning that it’s only when they get those better clearer angles that they can act. And even then they have to check that much these days for any major incident, that they just can’t do it in a few viewings. As it’s got nothing much to do with having a mindset, but rather understanding everything they have to go through and check.
But look I get what your saying, but your always going to have mixed opinions meaning that there’s going to be inconsistency around VAR. Like as we’ve seen on this thread with me disagreeing with Pat around the 3 pen shouts for West Brom in their game yesterday, meaning that under your guidelines it wouldn’t be seen as clear and obvious, but there’s still some blatant “mistakes” that people disagree on. As no matter what you do, unless VAR is only used for the black and white decisions, there will always be issues, controversies and inconsistencies whilst it’s being used, as there just isn’t any perfect solutions otherwise they’d of been used by now. But in my view they’re all outweighed by all of what it does right [Post edited 6 Aug 2023 19:08]
| |
| |
| Refereeing this weekend on 19:59 - Aug 6 with 1273 views | Ifonly |
| Refereeing this weekend on 19:06 - Aug 6 by SFC_Referee |
Ok but that’s the point, most of the time what the VAR official gets involved in is what they see as clear and obvious, it’s just that not many others do. But as there is no textbook definition for either side of the debate, neither side is in the right nor wrong as no matter what you do there will always be a grey area. And for what your saying about not seeing the clearest, well about the only way I’ve ever thought that could be solved is if the ref goes there themselves and doesn’t have a VAR official telling him what to do, meaning that he’d only go over to see the incidents he didn’t see the clearest. But even then you’d get an issue as players and teams would pressurise officials into going over to the monitor for any major decision, even for blatant ones they did get correct.
And it’s similar for the set amount of replays, as sometimes they have to sit there and watch a few as the new angles haven’t come in yet, meaning that it’s only when they get those better clearer angles that they can act. And even then they have to check that much these days for any major incident, that they just can’t do it in a few viewings. As it’s got nothing much to do with having a mindset, but rather understanding everything they have to go through and check.
But look I get what your saying, but your always going to have mixed opinions meaning that there’s going to be inconsistency around VAR. Like as we’ve seen on this thread with me disagreeing with Pat around the 3 pen shouts for West Brom in their game yesterday, meaning that under your guidelines it wouldn’t be seen as clear and obvious, but there’s still some blatant “mistakes” that people disagree on. As no matter what you do, unless VAR is only used for the black and white decisions, there will always be issues, controversies and inconsistencies whilst it’s being used, as there just isn’t any perfect solutions otherwise they’d of been used by now. But in my view they’re all outweighed by all of what it does right [Post edited 6 Aug 2023 19:08]
|
"most of the time what the VAR official gets involved in is what they see as clear and obvious"
That's not true. Watching live games on TV, I would say the majority are NOT clear and obvious. As for the controversial ones that get aired on MOTD, probably 90% of them are not clear and obvious. In my system, if a VAR ref repeatedly refers issues that can not be judged in a few seconds then they are not a good judge of what is clear and obvious and should not be asked back.
"even then they have to check that much these days for any major incident, that they just can’t do it in a few viewings. As it’s got nothing much to do with having a mindset, but rather understanding everything they have to go through and check."
Can't you see: that's the problem I'm talking about and it's got everything to do with the mindset. Did they have that amount of time to consider when the incident happened in real time? Of course not. Why should they take a different approach to judging events on VAR? One or two quick reviews, then is it OBVIOUS that the initial decision was wrong? If not, carry on.
"there just isn’t any perfect solutions otherwise they’d of been used by now"
Obviously there isn't a perfect solution, but equally obviously if there were, it doesn't follow that they would have used it by now. There are many better alternatives to what they are doing now, including what I'm advocating here, which has never been tried. They're just stuck in the mindset that it has to be done the way they're doing it. | | | |
| Refereeing this weekend on 21:22 - Aug 6 with 1229 views | SFC_Referee |
| Refereeing this weekend on 19:59 - Aug 6 by Ifonly |
"most of the time what the VAR official gets involved in is what they see as clear and obvious"
That's not true. Watching live games on TV, I would say the majority are NOT clear and obvious. As for the controversial ones that get aired on MOTD, probably 90% of them are not clear and obvious. In my system, if a VAR ref repeatedly refers issues that can not be judged in a few seconds then they are not a good judge of what is clear and obvious and should not be asked back.
"even then they have to check that much these days for any major incident, that they just can’t do it in a few viewings. As it’s got nothing much to do with having a mindset, but rather understanding everything they have to go through and check."
Can't you see: that's the problem I'm talking about and it's got everything to do with the mindset. Did they have that amount of time to consider when the incident happened in real time? Of course not. Why should they take a different approach to judging events on VAR? One or two quick reviews, then is it OBVIOUS that the initial decision was wrong? If not, carry on.
"there just isn’t any perfect solutions otherwise they’d of been used by now"
Obviously there isn't a perfect solution, but equally obviously if there were, it doesn't follow that they would have used it by now. There are many better alternatives to what they are doing now, including what I'm advocating here, which has never been tried. They're just stuck in the mindset that it has to be done the way they're doing it. |
Ok but there is quite a major debate, as according to many like myself, all offsides are clear and obvious as there’s just one correct answer, yet many others I know disagree there and go on about how close or far the offsides were (but I don’t agree with that as your then just giving a set leeway to attackers which will lead to even more issues). On MOTD there were countless incidents were the pundits disagreed with one another over stuff, but then also many where they did agree, but what they agreed on many watching didn’t. And therefore how can you differentiate between which of those were clear and obvious and which were not, there was almost always a split? And if there’s a debate then it’s not clear and obvious, yet there were many that were debated which I’m sure many of us on here thought we’re blatant, but due to these incidents all being opinionated it couldn’t work like that. And that’s all excluding the delays the VAR get for new angles and footage leading to many of the delays we perceive as just them being indecisive
Ok but they have to check for all possible issues otherwise it’ll just get highlighted by the media on the likes of MOTD and some will see it as obvious, even though it wasn’t in the first viewing for them. As I remember a fair few incidents last season that seemed blatant when watching it the first time, but only after watching it again a second or 3rd time could I see of where an issue was with that incident, some of which was baffling as to how people missed it in the first place. As these days they’ve gotta check every offside (which like I said before is kinda obvious as all decisions with them are simply right or wrong) so that it doesn’t happen, and the other major part to having VAR was so that refs felt a lot less pressured into making decisions with just one look so quickly like they do when they’re out on the pitch. So removing that does remove a major part of why VAR was introduced.
And sorry but there’s just no major differences in alternatives for the better of the game (from the getting it correct side of view, not the fan experience that is), as VAR is there for the TV audience and the main thing the players, owners, sponsors etc… care about is the correct outcome. Not what us fans want or would prefer, meaning that VAR has and will always take its time so that it’s more likely to do so, as speeding up the process may be better for us fans experience, but it’ll just lead to more controversies, problems and criticism, due to the fact that it will miss a lot more and the vagueness of “clear and obvious” will lead to even more debate over why VAR didn’t get involved, not only whether or not the concluded deviousness was correct or not.
But look a genuine question, but the 3 pen shouts in the West Brom game yesterday, if you were in VAR which would you intervene for and which wouldn’t you? Aka which do you see as clear and obvious and which do you not. | |
| |
| Refereeing this weekend on 21:32 - Aug 6 with 1212 views | Bison |
| Refereeing this weekend on 15:02 - Aug 6 by saintsfanbrock |
I really think offsides could be made a lot easier, a lot of the time for decisions seems to be working out the moment the ball was actually kicked, plus when they start drawing the lines you can see the football is nowhere near in contact with the passing players foot. Surely for premier league/international football we can afford a football with a sensor in it to pinpoint the moment it is kicked. Then it’s just a matter of lining up the moment on the player being passed to. I’m also a fan of the thick line theory and then offside decisions could be done in under a minute (the average celebration time). Fine some won’t be precise but neither is the tech so who cares |
The used an Adidas one in the World Cup , it will be in Premier League very soon I expect , maybe dependant on Sponsorship ?
"Connected ball technology comes to Al Rihla for sport’s biggest stage, providing the VAR team with precise ball data in real time to support fast and accurate offside calls
A new adidas Suspension System will allow for the most time-precise motion sensor to ever be used inside a World Cup Official Match Ball, tracking every touch of the game at a rate of 500 times per second
The 500Hz inertial measurement unit (IMU) motion sensor inside the ball will enable the collection of very accurate ball movement data and transmission to Video Match Officials within seconds throughout the tournament
adidas announces that the Official Match Ball of the FIFA World Cup™ 2022 will feature new connected ball technology, which will be used to enhance the VAR system by providing an unprecedented level of data and information to match officials for making faster and more accurate decisions on the biggest stage of all." |  |
| |
| Refereeing this weekend on 09:06 - Aug 7 with 1105 views | Ifonly |
| Refereeing this weekend on 21:22 - Aug 6 by SFC_Referee |
Ok but there is quite a major debate, as according to many like myself, all offsides are clear and obvious as there’s just one correct answer, yet many others I know disagree there and go on about how close or far the offsides were (but I don’t agree with that as your then just giving a set leeway to attackers which will lead to even more issues). On MOTD there were countless incidents were the pundits disagreed with one another over stuff, but then also many where they did agree, but what they agreed on many watching didn’t. And therefore how can you differentiate between which of those were clear and obvious and which were not, there was almost always a split? And if there’s a debate then it’s not clear and obvious, yet there were many that were debated which I’m sure many of us on here thought we’re blatant, but due to these incidents all being opinionated it couldn’t work like that. And that’s all excluding the delays the VAR get for new angles and footage leading to many of the delays we perceive as just them being indecisive
Ok but they have to check for all possible issues otherwise it’ll just get highlighted by the media on the likes of MOTD and some will see it as obvious, even though it wasn’t in the first viewing for them. As I remember a fair few incidents last season that seemed blatant when watching it the first time, but only after watching it again a second or 3rd time could I see of where an issue was with that incident, some of which was baffling as to how people missed it in the first place. As these days they’ve gotta check every offside (which like I said before is kinda obvious as all decisions with them are simply right or wrong) so that it doesn’t happen, and the other major part to having VAR was so that refs felt a lot less pressured into making decisions with just one look so quickly like they do when they’re out on the pitch. So removing that does remove a major part of why VAR was introduced.
And sorry but there’s just no major differences in alternatives for the better of the game (from the getting it correct side of view, not the fan experience that is), as VAR is there for the TV audience and the main thing the players, owners, sponsors etc… care about is the correct outcome. Not what us fans want or would prefer, meaning that VAR has and will always take its time so that it’s more likely to do so, as speeding up the process may be better for us fans experience, but it’ll just lead to more controversies, problems and criticism, due to the fact that it will miss a lot more and the vagueness of “clear and obvious” will lead to even more debate over why VAR didn’t get involved, not only whether or not the concluded deviousness was correct or not.
But look a genuine question, but the 3 pen shouts in the West Brom game yesterday, if you were in VAR which would you intervene for and which wouldn’t you? Aka which do you see as clear and obvious and which do you not. |
West Brom penalty shouts: none of them were clear and obvious errors. The first could be said to be shoulders, the second one the guy is possibly trying to buy a penalty and went down a bit too easy, the third the arm was tucked in close to the body in a natural position.
The second one was the best penalty shout (the guy was genuinely clipped and then maybe tried to make it obvious to the ref because there's no VAR), the others less so. But in all 3 cases there is an element of doubt. You can see why the ref made the decision he did. There wasn't a glaring error or something he couldn't see. In none of these cases could the VAR ref say to himself: "if I showed this slow-mo replay to the on-pitch ref, I'm 99% confident he'll change his decision". So in my system, none of them would have been referred by VAR. If the ref had given 3 penalties that decision should also have stood without VAR intervention.
If it had been a PL game under current VAR practice, the second and the third would have been referred by VAR and probably given as penalties. That's the difference between what I'm talking about and what currently happens. In my system, you're not looking for the "correct" answer every time. VAR intervention would be rare. Only glaring errors would be called out, so you wouldn't call out this "handball" in the West Brom game but you would call out, for example the "hand of God" handball or the one by Thierry Henry in the game against Ireland if you remember that one.
That would mean that major injustices were stopped, but the game would also flow without hold-ups and fans could celebrate a goal when it's scored. | | | |
| Refereeing this weekend on 10:17 - Aug 7 with 1082 views | SFC_Referee |
| Refereeing this weekend on 09:06 - Aug 7 by Ifonly |
West Brom penalty shouts: none of them were clear and obvious errors. The first could be said to be shoulders, the second one the guy is possibly trying to buy a penalty and went down a bit too easy, the third the arm was tucked in close to the body in a natural position.
The second one was the best penalty shout (the guy was genuinely clipped and then maybe tried to make it obvious to the ref because there's no VAR), the others less so. But in all 3 cases there is an element of doubt. You can see why the ref made the decision he did. There wasn't a glaring error or something he couldn't see. In none of these cases could the VAR ref say to himself: "if I showed this slow-mo replay to the on-pitch ref, I'm 99% confident he'll change his decision". So in my system, none of them would have been referred by VAR. If the ref had given 3 penalties that decision should also have stood without VAR intervention.
If it had been a PL game under current VAR practice, the second and the third would have been referred by VAR and probably given as penalties. That's the difference between what I'm talking about and what currently happens. In my system, you're not looking for the "correct" answer every time. VAR intervention would be rare. Only glaring errors would be called out, so you wouldn't call out this "handball" in the West Brom game but you would call out, for example the "hand of God" handball or the one by Thierry Henry in the game against Ireland if you remember that one.
That would mean that major injustices were stopped, but the game would also flow without hold-ups and fans could celebrate a goal when it's scored. |
Ok well that’s just shows my point, as for the 1st and 2nd I do agree with pretty much all of what your saying, but the 3rd West Brom pen, it is a blatant handball as his hand is sticking out a bit and therefore a penalty and red should be given.
But I’m sure that your not the only one who wouldn’t get involved for this penalty, but as myself and Pat have said, we both think it’s a pen and a pretty clear one, so we would intervene for this. And that incident there is just a perfect example of one where you’re always going to get mixed opinions over what’s “clear and obvious” and what’s not, no matter what you do. | |
| |
| Refereeing this weekend on 10:50 - Aug 7 with 1070 views | kingolaf |
I’m glad they’re doing something about time wasting at last.
It was awful last season. Now you’ve got managers who encouraged it moaning about extra time.
Good. Cheaters. | | | |
| Refereeing this weekend on 11:15 - Aug 7 with 1069 views | Ifonly |
| Refereeing this weekend on 10:17 - Aug 7 by SFC_Referee |
Ok well that’s just shows my point, as for the 1st and 2nd I do agree with pretty much all of what your saying, but the 3rd West Brom pen, it is a blatant handball as his hand is sticking out a bit and therefore a penalty and red should be given.
But I’m sure that your not the only one who wouldn’t get involved for this penalty, but as myself and Pat have said, we both think it’s a pen and a pretty clear one, so we would intervene for this. And that incident there is just a perfect example of one where you’re always going to get mixed opinions over what’s “clear and obvious” and what’s not, no matter what you do. |
I don't know how many times I'd have to make this point but I'll try once more. It doesn't matter that you think it's a penalty or even a "pretty clear" one. If you read my comment, I too said that, in the PL today, VAR would intervene and probably give a penalty. The point I'm trying to get you to understand is that in the system I'm talking about, "pretty clear" is irrelevant. The requirement is not "pretty clear and pretty obvious". The requirement is an unqualified "clear and obvious". That means absolutely clear and obvious.
The issue is whether it's a clear and obvious error by the referee and the answer is no because there is an element of doubt. The incident could reasonably be argued either way. The fact that "his hand is sticking out a bit" is obviously not decisive. I gave you some examples of what a clear and obvious handball is. Those are cases beyond all reasonable doubt. Can you really not understand the difference? I bet you 99% of football fans can.
As I said previously, in my system VAR refs would not be asked back if they repeatedly referred incidents where there was an element of doubt. I think you'd be one that wasn't asked back because you're stuck in the mindset of how it's done in the PL today and it's that mindset that's the problem. | | | |
| Refereeing this weekend on 12:50 - Aug 7 with 1027 views | saint901 |
I was at the Reading v Peterborough match and saw it totally ruined by the ref.
He handed out 6 or 7 yellows to Reading, four to the Posh and one to each manager.
There was not a bad foul in the entire game.
Most of the cards were a mystery to the players and the crowd.
The only ones I could fathom were one to each team for kicking the ball away after a decision and even then I suspect the players were committed to the kick before the whistle was blown.
Perhaps the only good thing I learned was that Saints could probably beat both of them. | | | |
| Refereeing this weekend on 12:51 - Aug 7 with 1026 views | SFC_Referee |
| Refereeing this weekend on 11:15 - Aug 7 by Ifonly |
I don't know how many times I'd have to make this point but I'll try once more. It doesn't matter that you think it's a penalty or even a "pretty clear" one. If you read my comment, I too said that, in the PL today, VAR would intervene and probably give a penalty. The point I'm trying to get you to understand is that in the system I'm talking about, "pretty clear" is irrelevant. The requirement is not "pretty clear and pretty obvious". The requirement is an unqualified "clear and obvious". That means absolutely clear and obvious.
The issue is whether it's a clear and obvious error by the referee and the answer is no because there is an element of doubt. The incident could reasonably be argued either way. The fact that "his hand is sticking out a bit" is obviously not decisive. I gave you some examples of what a clear and obvious handball is. Those are cases beyond all reasonable doubt. Can you really not understand the difference? I bet you 99% of football fans can.
As I said previously, in my system VAR refs would not be asked back if they repeatedly referred incidents where there was an element of doubt. I think you'd be one that wasn't asked back because you're stuck in the mindset of how it's done in the PL today and it's that mindset that's the problem. |
Ok and I don’t know how many times I’ve gotta say this, but you’re going to get mixed opinions over what classifies as that. As that handball, was a “clear and obvious” mistake, which is why many West Brom fans as well as others like myself and Pat, are all in agreement that it’s a pen, and if any of us were doing VAR, would be sending the ref to the monitor all day long to review that incident. Whilst a few like yourself differ there thinking that it’s not clear enough to be a “clear and obvious” mistake, and therefore wouldn’t send the ref to the monitor.
And yeah well for that incident as soon as I saw the front on angle, I’ve got no doubt of what I’d be giving if I’m in the middle for that game, yet some like yourself by the sounds of things would, and again this is where the whole point around grey areas and it all being opinionated comes into affect. As his hand sticking out “a bit” does make a major difference, as under the LOTG that’s the difference between it being a handball offence and one not being one, and therefore what follows when it is one.
As it’s a clear handball in my opinion, simple as, and I’ve just asked a few colleagues of mine there opinions of whether it was clear mistake, and outta the 5 I’ve asked 4 of the 5 are in agreement. But that again just highlights that for most of us, we’d all give it in VAR, yet not everyone would as 1 didn’t see it as clear and obvious. As there’s nothing I don’t get about what your saying, it’s just you can’t seem to understand or except that your still going to get many VAR decisions that some will see as “clear and obvious” whilst others won’t, with this incident being a perfect example of one. And that’s exactly why your system wouldn’t work, as I knew that was a pen as soon as I saw the behind the goal angle, yet this sorta incident where yourself and one of my mates wouldn’t see it as clear and obvious, would lead to you sacking 5 of 7 (or even 6 of 8 if you include pat) for this incident alone, as I think 99% of football fans can realise that there’s always debates over what’s clear and obvious and what’s not.
But look there’s no point in continuing this discussion as there is no perfect answer to VAR, and I’ve heard all sorts of suggestions in the past, and even spoken to top refs over a few, but for every suggestion there’s always pros as well as cons, and yours certainly has many of both. | |
| |
| Refereeing this weekend on 12:58 - Aug 7 with 1020 views | saint901 |
Part of the problem is that VAR is not doing what it was supposed to do, i.e pick up on errors made by the on field ref. Instead it's being used as a second referee (or fifth if you count all the officials).
The on field ref is probably terrified of having a decision referred to VAR because he knows that if he is called to watch the incident again in slow motion, he is almost certainly going to reverse his original decision. (Look at the "penalty" in the England game today)>
I really would copy cricket here and say that VAR can be used only when one of the captains asks for a review and that they have only on review per half. | | | |
| Refereeing this weekend on 13:07 - Aug 7 with 1006 views | SFC_Referee |
| Refereeing this weekend on 12:50 - Aug 7 by saint901 |
I was at the Reading v Peterborough match and saw it totally ruined by the ref.
He handed out 6 or 7 yellows to Reading, four to the Posh and one to each manager.
There was not a bad foul in the entire game.
Most of the cards were a mystery to the players and the crowd.
The only ones I could fathom were one to each team for kicking the ball away after a decision and even then I suspect the players were committed to the kick before the whistle was blown.
Perhaps the only good thing I learned was that Saints could probably beat both of them. |
Could I ask what those cards were for then? Because the only two main areas us refs have been told to “tidy up on” is dissent and time wasting, but outside of that, all other areas should be the same as they previously were | |
| |
| Refereeing this weekend on 13:18 - Aug 7 with 998 views | SFC_Referee |
| Refereeing this weekend on 12:58 - Aug 7 by saint901 |
Part of the problem is that VAR is not doing what it was supposed to do, i.e pick up on errors made by the on field ref. Instead it's being used as a second referee (or fifth if you count all the officials).
The on field ref is probably terrified of having a decision referred to VAR because he knows that if he is called to watch the incident again in slow motion, he is almost certainly going to reverse his original decision. (Look at the "penalty" in the England game today)>
I really would copy cricket here and say that VAR can be used only when one of the captains asks for a review and that they have only on review per half. |
Yeah I definitely agree with you on the part around it almost having a second ref on the middle, and that when they ask the onfield one to review the incident, that refs straight away thinking that his colleagues obviously thought they’ve messed up otherwise they wouldn’t of sent them to the monitor.
But for the suggested cricket like approach, I get the idea behind it, it’s just what happens for the offsides, ball in and out of play, and other black and white incidents where there’s no opinions whatsoever? As really I think if you did your tactic then VAR would have to be automatically checking those stuff, but it just having the appeals for the more opinionated decisions like the incidents in the West Brom game. But even then my only worry with that would be that without that actual official there that knows what he’s on about, telling the central ref of what was wrong with the original call, the ref may automatically wave away the appeals and therefore not take the VAR cricket like appeal seriously as he’ll just see them as the usual annoying appeals, meaning that he’ll go to the monitor already knowing that he won’t be overturning his original decision. | |
| |
| Refereeing this weekend on 15:10 - Aug 7 with 944 views | saint901 |
| Refereeing this weekend on 13:07 - Aug 7 by SFC_Referee |
Could I ask what those cards were for then? Because the only two main areas us refs have been told to “tidy up on” is dissent and time wasting, but outside of that, all other areas should be the same as they previously were |
You can ask, but I don't know.
In one instance, there was a 50/50, whistle went, free kick to Posh but their player booked whilst still rolling around on the floor.
Posh keeper warned three times for time wasting and not booked.
The players were badly let down by erratic refereeing and they didn't know what would be a foul, what was not. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
