Outgoing Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp says he would vote to scrap video assistant referees (VAR) as officials "are not able to use the technology properly". "I don't think they're [the club] voting against VAR, I think they'll vote about how it gets used, because that's definitely not right," Klopp said. "In the way they do it, I would vote against it, because these people are not able to use it properly." https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cqln8zddll2o
He’s not the only manager who has been outspoken over the way the refs handle the TV system. VAR gets more press more commentary and more talk among supporters than the actual game of football played. We’re and other clubs are still talking about the way VAR has screwed them over. Points that affect championships, promotions and demotions. The game of VAR has almost become more important than the game of football.
Even when there is a no contest to the clear and obvious error they don't seem to want to state it to the ref clearly enough. As in "Oliver - you fvcking twerp - Jesus used his arm to push the ball past the defender.... have a look with your eyes open?" Then, the moron looks at it and is afraid to duly annoy the 60,000 horde and lets the goal stand. What if City had fvcked up after that - if that West Ham goal had been good and then they had allowed another?? Michael Oliver should not referee another premier league game. That decision was pure idiocy. Jesus ran into the ball with his arm in order to reach it as quickly as he could. If that isn't a handball there is no handball in football. Bloody clowns.
I'd change the language about it- dumb it down from its exalted heights of bullsh!t to this kind of logic: as in ---- If you can see it reasonably clearly with your multi-camera as a non-assault, assault, hand-ball, non-handball- then the on-field ref couldn't see that, as he would have seen what you now see. that's the proper way to look at a clear and obvious error. As a physician would in an operation - not as a psycho-analyst would in the middle of a therapy session.
That's not what "clear and obvious" means. Clear and obvious still applies, by design, to incredibly complex incidents in which there is no immediately apparent "clear" or "obvious" correct answer. That is intended. Because it has nothing to do with how "easy" a call should be to get right, or how "obvious" an incident looks to some people via replay footage. Rather it's about VAR intervention, and comparing a ref's stated position on an incident with the video footage to identify whether there is reason for VAR to believe that, based on that stated position, the ref did indeed miss something relevant to the call. So please stop saying things like "if it takes X time, then it's not obvious!"... because that is 100% irrelevant to the principle of "clear and obvious".
I've never seen the principle of clear and obvious explained by its designers as you seem to allude that it has been. All we've seen are the words as written. These then mangled to distort the functioning of the mind and the eyesight with regard to the obvious, (But that's another issue. One of waffle and warble. If you have some documentation of this directive about further meaning within the phrase "clear and obvious" than that which is already encapsulated within those words, by all means show us....) In this particularly ridiculous instance there is/was an immediate and clear and obvious answer. Your visual missing of it doesn't make it any less of a problem for the rest of the rational race of humans. Jesus used his arm to play the ball. His arm gave him an advantage of reaching the ball in the quickest manner possible. A slightly slower manner (getting his arm out of the way of his own trajectory) would have made it possible for him to reach the ball within the allowable rules of the game. Those are facts. Anyone looking at the pictures can see all this - so, all that we are left with to wonder about is whether Michael Oliver should check into a clinic for a brain scan, just to be sure there isn't something pressing onto some critical part of his optic system.
Klopp gets it right to the end. So for arguments sake lets pretend that the PGMOL is actually implementing VAR as well as they possibly can. But even if that is the case I think there is something about the amount of subjectivity in Football reffing, mixed with the extreme partisan nature of football fandom means that I am not VAR will ever really work, at least if we are talking about fouls.
LOL no there isn't. Do you know the attacking handball rules? Unless someone touches an attacker's arm and it almost immediately results in a goal, or unless you make your body bigger, or unless it's is a deliberate handball... it does not result in a violation of the rules. The only possible one of those which applies to Jesus is "deliberate handball", and there's not a TON more he can do to NOT "deliberately" handle the ball; his arm is tucked tight to his body, he's moving to arguably avoid getting runover or cleated or something... this is at best 50/50. Completely reasonable interpretation of the rules. No one knows what is clear to you, that's the problem... TO YOU, it's clear how PGMOL is like the Khmer Rouge or whatever other stupid bullshit you go on about. Your constant issue misunderstanding and talking over and around these things is very well-noted in this thread, and it is just that... your issue. Regardless, I just explained what clear and obvious means. As to actual understanding... sorry, but no one can do that for you. https://www.premierleague.com/news/1297392
[QUOTE="EruditeHobo, post: 42230181, member: 100330 The only possible one of those which applies to Jesus is "deliberate handball", and there's not a TON more he can do to NOT "deliberately" handle the ball; his arm is tucked tight to his body, he's moving to arguably avoid getting runover or cleated or something... this is at best 50/50. Completely reasonable interpretation of the rules. [/QUOTE] This may well be the downright stupidest, most ignorant (of football's formulated intent and existence) post, ever posted on this board. Listen, you utterly preposterous, pointless dissembler- Jesus does not have to get the ball in the fastest, most direct way possible. His life does not depend on it. He is playing a game. One with certain rules. He deliberately goes to it with the part of his body that he is not allowed to touch it with, knowing he is not allowed to touch it with that. He deliberately generates the top speed to get there as such. His choice to not risk breaking the rules was simple. Move his arm a bit. or his trajectory - this takes deliberation and time and loses him some of his split-second advantage, which he, unlike you, is probably keenly aware of. Those are all plain facts (except the last one - that's a guess). He could have chosen to not use his arm. Take it from me if you are in a wheelchair or something and have never tried to run at fast speeds. There is no necessity for his body to be going sideways behind his arm into a trajectory that will cause him to break the rules. These are all his choices. They also led to a goal. Oliver, also, was not in a position to be able to make the correct sighting in real-time. Completely reasonable interpretation of the rules. It's the most utterly absurd interpretation of a rule in anyone's long day's march into un-erudite light. If that had happened on the goal-line with the exact same momentum and positioning of the two players there is no way in hell Oliver would have made the same decision on the mandatory review. This is just another preposterous argument arising from your deep seated need to seemingly try at all costs (mostly to the harassment of regular sanity) to paint referee's worst idiocies in a better light.
that's a point akin to the more absurd positions about subjectivity being detailed in this thread. As I pointed out months back - just because a whole array of the spectrum of opinions can be technically attributed to the category of subjectivity, the category itself doesn't have meaning in an argument. Stating that something is objective just because 1 person in a thousand disagrees with practically everyone else's view is being deliberately disingenuous to the argument. The question that always comes up about that, is then where does one draw the line at the cut-off where subjectivity matters. And, the answer everyone knows is that you can't - but most people also know that they know the instances which are way way past the cut-off. And resorting to describing these occurrings as "subjective" is always flat out fakery of argument.
The category of "subjective" has meaning because the rules are literally designed to treat those incidents differently. As to the Jesus "handball"... again, while it is a subjective call there's absolutely nothing absurd about not giving "deliberate handball" for that play. Whine and bitch all you want about it, tear your hair out over it for all I care, just know these are almost never getting given with the current rules. And the fact that you can't point to a similar handball that VAR corrected should be compelling, but it's obvious you don't give a shit about the actual realities of the laws. It's just an attempt to drill through your skull that the way you tend to talk about these calls -- "objectivity", what is "right" and "wrong", what is or is not reasonable -- is pretty misguided. Again, if you care about the rules these things should matter. But it's pretty clear you don't care. So back on ignore.
Not if people don't understand how VAR is designed to work. You make improvement where you can; the automated stuff, the communication in real time to the stadium, and incoming/eventual rule tweaks to make "better" laws... perhaps that will all help. But apart from that, too many people care about their feelings about these incidents more than the rules that are necessary to define and rule on these incidents. So whatever the big fix is I certainly don't know.
I ask myself why I rarely have an issue with European cup games Var and also rarely in international games but I continually question both the refereeing and VAR decisions in the EPL.. The common denominator is VAR in all of those competitions so I really don't have an issue with VAR at all in principle. However ,I do not like the way the EPL/PGMOL implement var . I have concerns both with the standard of refereeing and also how they interpret the laws. I don't see VAR being voted out this season (but who knows if enough clubs are as p*ssed as Wolves are) but there needs to be changes to the way these games are refereed . Obviously its difficult to replace 40 odd refs over the summer but serious consideration should be made to bringing in new refs over the next few seasons. Also please make VAR a separate entity and not the same bunch who ref the games. Eliminate the 'boys club' impression thats out there since they seem hesitant to overrule their pals. Automate the offside asap . If nothing changes and we see another season like this one .....VAR will become a piece of history.
People in Spain and Italy have the same exact freakouts over "VAR", aka ref decisions. And CL refs just let Gabriel pick up the ball and re-take a kick!
yep, but the sad damn fact is PGMOL would never agree to this in a million years. it would be seen as a admissions that (a) they are crap and (b) there's validity to the "refs have bias for their childhood team".
Ah, remember the days when you went to work Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and the conversations were about the last weekends match. The goals, the good plays the highs and lows. Thursday, Friday and sometimes Saturday was for the coming match. The weekend you’d pay your 2 Bob to walk onto the Kop terraces. Not any more!!!!! Now the conversation is almost totally centered on VAR. 7 days a week and not just for your team. The pro var who see nothing wrong with it at all. Well maybe a couple of tweeks here and there. Anyone who doesn’t agree with them is a dumb as shit Luddite. Who doesn’t understand the protocols. How dare they question progress. Then the anti VAR and the game spoiling breaks as you wait to celebrate a goal and hope your players toe nails had been clipped. Or see a guy on a break and a couple of yards onside when the ball is played to him. Is called offside by the AR and backed up by a guy who possibly had to go for a piss just as his buddy called it! Any good calls are nullified by the one crap one for any team in the EPL. Most calls could be handled by the AR who can’t call until someone gets crippled. there is No middle ground, and I’ve been happy when after 5 minutes the goal against us is disallowed. (Oh wait, that’s not relevant!) Like I’ll go and get another beer while some guy watching TV sorts it out. But shit it’s not the game I’ve loved anymore.
So two statements can both be true. On one hand the refs have made some pretty horrendous decisions that have then been swept under the rug by blaming "subjectivity". If 90 people believe one thing about a call and 10 believe another, and the refs keep being in the 10 camp then there is clearly a problem. On the other hand we can recognize that football has a greater number of subjective calls then any other sport I am aware of. When I first started following English Football in the mid 90's I was approaching it from an American sports perspective so whenever I would see fouls I was trying to break them down using a set of criteria like we do with American sports. I still hear some American broadcasters and fans doing this. But eventually I realized that fouls in football are a little like porn, you know one when you see it. There are guidelines of course but no formal decision tree like other sports. And I think that's a good thing, but it makes it impossible to implement VAR, at least for fouls.
Uh, no. This is incorrect. Because there is NO problem in the above scenario if the 90 fans you're talking about don't understand the rules. Or I should say, the problem in that instance is not with the rules/refs. It's with the fans. Of all the more radical changes I've seen proposed -- scrap it altogether, bring in daylight offside calls, bring in manager challenges -- "VAR won't apply to fouls going forward" seems like one of the better ones, honestly. But it just doesn't seem plausible, certainly not likely. Clubs want this extra layer of examination, they understand (unlike many fans) that most of these calls are reasonable and with VAR these important calls get called more "right" more often. Wolves are an outlier, and everything else is PR. IMO.
That was kinda my point, for good or for bad, I say mostly for good, football is more tribal than any sport I know. Especially in England. So the reality is there really aren't any neutrals, broadly everyone has an interest in every game, whether it's to help your clubs position in the table, or just because your annoying brother in law supports one of them everyone has feelings. So the conclusion I have come to is the same you have, most fans aren't as bothered about the call being right, as much as the call "feeling right" which is colored by who they want the call the favor. So with that reality in mind it's much more efficient to just have one person in the middle making the calls as they see it live. Because you are never going to get them 100% right and even if you did the delays and indecision would make the game worse not better. I actually agree with you here. Nothing drives me crazier then people being paid to talk about football saying "why is it only a problem here? It's working in Europe". Every other country is having issues, including the Champions League. Anyone remember the handball against Newcastle? This isn't to let the PGMOL off the hook, this is supposed to be "the best league in the world" (TM Sky Sports) and not only have they implemented VAR poorly it seems to be getting worse every season as they chase their tails "fixing it" but this is not just an English problem.
In this case it's still with the refs. If 100 fans watch a match see a tackle and 90 think it's a foul while 10, including the ref, disagree that's still an issue with the reffing. Those 90 fans who think it's a foul have watched previous matches. Probably hundreds maybe thousands of previous matches. They have developed an eye for what is a foul and what isn't. It's not perfect, but they have a basic expectation that a certain tackle will be whistled. If it isn't called and almost everyone watching thinks it should one of two things happened. 1. The ref screwed up and should have called a foul 2. Almost every other ref that those fans watched screwed up when they called it a foul in previous matches. I know which is more likely, but hey maybe it's #2 And that Principal Skinner attitude that it's not us it's you is what I hate about the PGMOL. They have the cajones to say, "hey I know you think it's a foul, but you are going to have to ignore the 1,600 plus games you've watched and the 50,000 plus fouls you've seen called and just accept that we're right and your wrong". This coming from an organization that we know has a culture of covering for each other. Run by a man who worked for a police force that criminally covered for each other.
90 of these fans might have a rooting interest in a particular outcome, and their feelings might be trumping anything else required to judge any particular call. I'm not here to defend referees. I'm here to understand why these calls are made the way they are.
Welcome fans to another episode of teaching the stupid, including the vertically and visually challenged, and the obtuse and other sundry elements of bonkers society, a little about geometry and football (oh, and also about the measurement of OBJECTS IN MOTION via eyesight). First lesson: Let’s all agree that if you handle the ball when you could have reasonably not ran into it, pushed it, shoved it, jerked a hand at it, or swung your hand or arm into any unnecessary contact with it, then you have effected a rule-breaking notion that is (still quaintly) called a hand-ball. Well-This used to be the theory – before the modern analysis of the “meaning” of rules became (apparently) paramount - and not their utility. But, I digress, like an idiot hobo in a bumper car banging the car in front that is stuck to the outer perimeter. Funny image that one, eh... it lingers, like the bumping stink of bullsh!t ... If a goal is then scored from the advantage you gained when you thus handled it – I think we can (nearly) all agree that that is one of the purposes of the rule being there as infraction – so as not to allow control of ball advantages to be gained by hand or arm – consequently, if this is agreed, then it should not be allowed to be a major contributing factor to a ********ing goal. Well, at least agreed by everyone except Michael Oliver and Hobo. Both these numbskulls should go join Trump’s campaign team – as should anyone else who seems to want to immerse himself in the theatre of the absurd so much as this. #2. Curiously, moving back amongst the not so blind, there’s often been noticed a strong tendency amongst footballers (when initiating their motion to try and make contact with a football) that on those occasions when they figure that they can’t/won;t reach it with head, face, knee or chest, they often-times will attempt (believe it or not- yeah verily I tell you it be so) to touch the ball with their foot. Imagine that?? Bloody hell, like…. "Not a Ton of things he could do – said the fantastical idiotist mendacious drivel spoofing warbler … what a completely fvcking cretinous theory?? Did the person who wrote this ever run 2 or 3 steps in his fvcking eruditely-sedate lifetime? Is he (as I postulated before, perhaps wheel-chair bound??? unaware of the balancing abilities of the human body under the conditions of normal running motion?? FFS…. From the moment Jesus saw Ashley Young’s mistake, he could have simply chosen not to try his best to reach the ball with the part of him that would be closest to it, should he move in the shortest possible direction to intercept that ball. Or, maybe he couldn;t have - maybe he too is mentally illl.... A word about deliberateness here, insofar as it can mean anything to the play in a football game. Deliberately not choosing to do something is effectively choosing the opposite possibility when one knows it. If it could be construed that you could imagine both possibilities? Well, it can be bloody construed, Michael Oliver, you cretin. Any professional footballer can judge a football’s trajectory given that amount of time. A guy in a wheelchair – no, maybe. A guy locked inside Hobo’s insanity – also, likely no. A professional footballer – well, er, yes. Always. It’s not a court of law – and anyone not affected with a fantastically droopy eyelid, and who has ever ran more than 5 yards on two legs, will tell you that he did not “have to (with a lack of a ton of other options) run into that ball contact with his bloody upper arm.You utter idiots.... Can any other footballer see that Jesus could easily have chosen not to shove hs body into a hi-speed sideways running motion behind his arm. Anyone with half an eye open into their morning wakefulness?? Am I alone here, inhabiting H.G, Wells flippin country of the blind. Or am I just among the wilfully blind who can;t be arsed with these referees anymore...?? I’d love to watch Mickey Oliver refereeing a game of footie between the Marvel and DC super-heroes .. While Old Hulk was lumbering to clear a ball from danger, in flew Superman with his two-arms out ahead of him, punching both the Hulk and the ball into the goal. Oliver: “There’s wasn't a Ton he could do to stop himself handling it, you see. That’s just the way he flies. A very erudite person once told me this .... although to be honest, in the best refereeing tradition, I don't quite know what he means .... Here endeth the lesson – not that it will help much with the insanity of the truly Var-Deranged folks. But I do what I can……
Nobody mentioned you in that post - which is frankly, highly instructive here as to your bizarre, desperate mentality about this cr@p..... that was a post about the philosophical silliness of calling the obvious (or what has become very nearly obvious to everyone) not obvious, simply because it can be also uber-categorized as part of some larger philosophical categorization .... It is not a subjectivity valid argument to make to state that Roy Keane did not foul Alfe Haaland. And You and I both know this. It is an ignorant, anti-intellectual refuge in an argument. The difference is that I never state - it's subjective!!!!!!! when a sighting is gone off into the 80-100% obvious range. You - well, go ask a represaentative group of onlooker's and listen to them having a laugh ... Strange why you thought it (that post ) had something to do with you particularly. When I want to drive a stake through the idiot heart of you or any other blood-sucking Dracula-football destroyer - I'll do it directly ..., as I believe, I may have just done above, 1 post above.....