To hate VAR or to hate the LOTG? That is the question [R]

The point is not the hearing of the dialogue , Sam but rather the VAR asking the ref to review the foul. Something which should have happened in the Pickford incident.

 

agreed speke. utter nonsense is what we're seeing.

 

Watching PSG - ManU off the DVR, only about 15 mins in:

Early pen is saved, but Navas was clearly off his line. Bruno buries the re-take. 1-0 United.

 

That was what you call. “WINNING a PK”

As was Messi’s.

 

...but if Salah did it, it would be called a dive.

 

Same with Mane...

 

I kinda like hearing the dialogue as well...maybe it's just cuz I like the Auzzie accent...

 

Madrid almost rescue a point at the death against Donetsk, however an attacker was clearly offside and affecting play right in front of keeper. VAR caught it, rightly taken away.

 

Oh, you're the one, then ....

 

“Offside is offside” say IFAB.

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/eng...ar-even-to-the-tightest-of-margins-ifab-chief

 

Use of monitor to change a yellow to a red in Fulham - Palace match!

Looks pretty fair to me, cleated up a calf with no play on the ball. Hard to complain about that one I think.

 

Three Liverpool games in a row with bad decisions ...... c'mon VAR .. keep the streak going.

Here's a hint to the stupider amongst the collective VAR refs - if it's not a foul, it follows that it is not a penalty, whether it is on the penalty box line or not.....

Clowns...

 

That does sound like a good change.

 

at least the PL are acknowledging there could be a better way. a small pinpoint of light at the end of an incredibly long dark tunnel, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

I dunno what's so hard about it. The VAR ref simply has to watch his monitor and if he see's something important the on field ref has missed or possibly got wrong then direct him to have a second look on the monitor.

 

There's nothing wrong with the idea, it's all about how it's defined. That solution in the Dutch league, which seems to do a pretty good job of defining and codifying the concept of "too close to call", sounds pretty good to me. It's still going to be reliant on the tech, and good refs, and fans will still complain... but I think it's likely much fewer fans would complain.

 

Yeah , I think they make things more difficult than it has to be with the restrictions they place on the VAR process eg, 'clear and obvious' .

Just tell the on field ref if there's something important he needs to have a second look at.

 

1) Put a chip in the ball and stop drawing lines.
2) "Get rid of the clear and obvious" rule and just have the ref look at the pitchside monitor.
3) Hire some competent officials.
4) Bring relegation to officiating - bottom three go down.
5) Add accuracy bonuses to officials' compensation.
6) Add a screwup clause to the scheduling - don't let Foote officiate a match in a team he's screwed through incompetence - when an official reaches 5 teams he can no longer officiate see rule 4.

 

Agree on all points.

The rules have to be considered infallible, at least until the next opportunity to fairly adjust/change them in a way that applies them equally to all participants. Everything else, however, cannot be considered infallible -- refs, tech, whatever. And if the rules were written correctly, they would even acknowledge that truth.

 

The hard part for me with VAR is that it is supposedly meant to help the on-field ref avoid mistakes...with the way they have the rules defined (according to my understanding and with Hobo's input) they (VAR) can't even look at some of the mistakes the on-field ref makes...

For example, because the on-field ref called a foul on Fab - VAR is only looking at "where the foul occurred" - which they deemed to be marginally on the line...and thus, "within" the penalty box...

However, the VAR clearly shows that Fab got the ball and then the SU player fell over him...but because they (VAR) is not looking at whether it was a foul or not, only where it occurred, the result is a penalty...

Same thing goes with the non-call in the ManU-Chel$ki game - because the ref did not make a call...and the play did not result in a goal...there is no "review" by the VAR...and thus, there is no penalty...but the replays clearly show McGuire putting Izpa... in a headlock - which should have resulted in a pen...but since there was no call made, the VAR has no ability to look at the non-call and make it correct...

So VAR is not helping at all with the on-field ref making the right call - because they are not allowed to...

 

Sometimes they are not allowed to, and other times the prem refs are just being stubborn... they're supposed to be using the monitors more for instance, and as bad as that Maguire headlock was you'd hope if they go to the monitor there, they give the pen. But with these guys, honestly who knows. Because of that I agree, as you suggest, that the uncertainty they've sewn into seemingly obvious calls these days is probably the worst part about the state of VAR/the laws/the game.

But there's nothing in the rules indicating that getting the ball in a challenge, or getting to the ball first, means it's a clean tackle. Fab went into the attacker's standing leg. Sure, it's subjective, but it's clearly within the rules to interpret that as a tackle as on the careless spectrum, somewhere.

Many of your points and overall sentiment I totally agree with, though.

 

Not sure if you saw the Soton Everton Game hobo. The soton player was obviously off just over the half way line, right in front of the AR. Gets a nice clear run then a shot on goal that was saved, punched clear out of the area, only for another soton player to run onto it and blast it into the goal.

Everyone watching saw the offside but they let the players play on for a couple of minutes until the goal.

My question for your opinion is; How long is that Offside call good for? What if the play had gone on for a few more (2,4,6, 10) minutes before he scored? Is he still offside? Have they set a time limit of when that offside call is void?

inquiring minds need to know.