The PGMOL are VARy sorry.....again- The VAR Thread II [R]

Someone make sure to remind that guy to never try to write any teleplays or novels involving espionage...
holy ffs... they couldn't (if they must text, ffs...) have a couple of code words??


wait now - maybe, we are being unfair and *backed* is his code word for *watched*

 

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...g-claims-referee-discussed-giving-yellow-card

The Football Association is investigaing allegations that the referee David Coote discussed giving a yellow card before a game.

The allegations centre on an exchange of messages before and after Coote refereed the Championship game between Leeds and West Brom in October 2019, in which he booked the Leeds defender Ezgjan Alioski.

The messages are said by the Sun to have been between Coote and a friend. According to the Sun, Coote sent a message after the game saying: “What a day yesterday. I hope you backed as discussed.”

Coote has denied wrongdoing. He was suspended by Professional Game Match Officials Ltd this month after he was shown making foul-mouthed comments about Jürgen Klopp and Liverpool. Two days later a clip allegedly showed him sniffing what appeared to be white powder.

Coote said in response to the yellow card allegations: “I strongly refute these false and defamatory allegations. Whatever issues I may have had in my personal life they have never affected my decision-making on the field. I have always held the integrity of the game in the highest regard, refereeing matches impartially and to the best of my ability.”

The Football Association said: “These are very serious allegations and we are investigating as a matter of urgency.”


PGMOL said: “The facts need to be established in light of these very serious allegations. We adopt a zero-tolerance approach to any breach of our integrity code of conduct, which is signed by all match officials on an annual basis. PGMOL board is committed to taking the appropriate action should any breach of that code be proven.

“David Coote remains suspended and subject to an ongoing disciplinary process by PGMOL, separate to the investigation into this matter which will be carried out independently by the FA. We will be making no further comment at this stage.”

Leeds said in a statement on Wednesday they were aware of the allegations and “respect and have full confidence in the FA, EFL and PGMOL regulations and processes”.

 

interesting ....

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/crl38k7n5deo

Trials of a low-cost alternative to the video assistant referee system, allowing managers two challenges per game, are to be extended.

Football's rule maker Ifab has been encouraged by results of early trials of the 'football video support' set-up at the Women's Under-17 World Cup in October.

It is designed for use in competitions where matches are covered by up to four cameras, rather than the huge multi-camera systems used in the major leagues.

That would include matches in the English Football League and National League.

Ifab - the International Football Association Board - has yet to decide where the trials, set to be launched next season, will be extended.

Its technical director and former English top-flight official David Elleray said it was likely to be "a smaller country" or somewhere like "league three in Italy".

Managers would be allowed to request a challenge, with the on-pitch referee then reviewing the incident in question on a pitchside monitor, with the material supplied by a video technician.

As with tennis and cricket, if a challenge is upheld, the manager would retain two challenges. If they lose, the challenge would be lost.

However, a hybrid system for the major leagues, with VAR used to determine decisions but a manager's challenge also introduced, has been ruled out.

 

I get what you're saying but 2 per game would be OK I think. beyond that might very easily get dicey.

 

In theory I like the idea. One of my major issues with the current implementation of VAR in the Prem is the randomness of when the ref is being sent to the monitor. Currently only the VAR official can do it, if we democratize it a little by allowing managers to request it as well it could make the whole process seem "more fair".

But I have absolutely no faith in the PGMOL to implement this in good faith. The now confirmed feelings of referee's towards managers, combined with the fact that almost every decision has a subjective element to it makes me doubt that it would make a difference. I think we would see refs going to monitor with the goal of finding any reason to not have to reverse their decision. Refs already see it as an embarrassment to have their decisions reversed when it's a mate asking for it, how they going to act when it's a manager who they think is a C**** doing it? We'd see what appear to be obvious mistakes not being overturned and then cleaned up later by their apologist's in the media. So basically it would be the same situation as we're in now with even more stops.

 

I believe it's expressly for the leagues/competitions without the resources/tech/infrastructure to have the full VAR...

But I guess if it goes really well, the prem members could vote it in? I wouldn't hold my breath for that... I don't think this makes any sense for a top-tier league, as I don't believe clubs want to be limited to 2 challenges. They probably just want the calls mostly right, hence the 19-1 vote last summer.

 

Right. There's no reason to think much would happen any other way. So you flag for an incident you think is close or might go your way... and it's still the same people making the same call with the same justifications that fans (and sometimes evidently clubs and managers) don't give a shit about. And after the match the same people are still complaining about the call itself and the rule or this or that.

This is not a move that is in a prem club's interest, if they care about the "fairest" version of the game. To bring this into the prem, seems to me that would be mostly in the anti-VAR fan's interest... and honestly, what do clubs really care about that? Probably very little, at least if it's seen as in opposition to what they do view as best for them.

But apart from anti-VAR fans, this is also generally in the interest of clubs who, right now, are in leagues/competitions with no VAR -- this at least gets them a chance to overturn something "bad" or "wrong" that happened to them in a match, and from where they are now I'd imagine that must feel like progress.

 

Almost always subjectivity, so IME broadcasting VAR conversations like rugby/cricket would go a long way to building trust. I wonder why the referee association body won’t allow this?

That plus automated offside would appease the majority.

 

it'd be great to hear their explanation.

based on what we heard on the tape of the Diaz Spurs no-goal fiasco, I imagine one reason is the unbelievably casual way in which they communicate decisions. they talk to each other the way guys watching a game in a pub would chat. like I said at the time, if air traffic controllers were so inexact when they give pilots instructions we'd all be dead by now.

 

This is part of why I have no little faith in the PGMOL. They come from such a defensive and fearful position that it leaves the impression that they are hiding something.

They should open up the conversations during a VAR review. They would need to formalize the conversations but it could be done. Even just the final concluding statement "Penalty because..." or "no penalty because..." at least we know what was give and why. How many times have we had situations where a massive decision was made, and we're not even sure what it was for?

In addition I think refs should talk after the game. Not saying we stick a mic in their face as their walking off the pitch, or stick them in front of the whole press pack but a one on one interview 10-15 minutes after the match where they even get to preview the questions. It would make the refs human.

 

Announcements might help, for some. Semi-automated offsides might help a little more... at least that will (some of the time) make things take a little less time.

But if we've learned anything thing in 6 years it's that the overall issue is bigger than that -- some people do not like the magnifying glass VAR puts on the inherent (and inextricable) subjectivity in the laws, and that is not going away anytime soon. None of these tweaks address that. The only thing addressing that is removing VAR from the game.

 

Poor calls will always be poor calls. Officiating is terrible VAR or otherwise and that's what it will always be.

So at least you remove 2 of the 3 primary issues - trust and time. Also, part of the problem is the inherent priority for PGMOL - Is it to get the call right or follow the right proces? Unfortunately, it seems the latter is the priority

 

At least we understand the refs perspective. Some of the issue with the subjectivity is we don't even know what the ref saw or didn't see. At the moment we see a call that 80% of the football watching world thinks is wrong. Now at least we know the refs side of the story. Doesn't mean we have to agree but at least we know what they saw.

I also think it could address the issue of the culture of the PGMOL. Which seems a lot more focused on covering for each other* and making sure none of their mates are hung out to dry, over getting the decisions right. If everyone including the VAR knows the ref is going to have to explain it then we won't get a "I should have sent him over but I felt sorry for him" situations.

*what a shock an organization run by a man trained by the South Yorkshire Police would be focused on covering for his mates

 

The people relevant to this problem -- at least the problem of VAR dissatisfaction I'm talking about -- don't seem to care very much about "the ref's perspective" to me.

They already post breakdowns of refs talking to VAR, Webb has a show discussing the incidents and talking about the calls. This gets met with dismissal, by and large, "just covering for mates". They have panels of ex players ruling on these incidents, whether the call was correct and whether VAR by its rules should intervene, this is dismissed as well. Multi-year studies on the improvement in call "accuracy"? Doesn't matter, dismissed and challenged with open-ended questions with no real substance again and again. Journalists with access to ask these questions of PGMOL and publish weekly columns on VAR incidents explaining the process and history... he's a "ref shill" making excuses for VAR.

All that is before even getting to a pretty huge issue fueling a lot of this (again IMO)... what is the reason WHY "80% of the football watching world" thinks these calls are wrong? That's almost beside the point, quite often.

I honestly hope you are right.

We will see what it comes in, maybe that & SAOT will make a difference. I dunno, I'm quite blackpilled on this whole thing... the way lots of fans engage with the rules when supposedly trying to assess/understand incidents in real time is pretty crazy.

 

I'm mostly not talking about matchday fans, though... for them, in the moment, these announcements might be very welcome. Don't know how soon we can expect to see this in the prem.

 

automated offside - sure - but not necessary if they instead go with a rule change that makes off-side actually meaningful to some notion of spectator-ship. As I have said many times- daylight between the upper bodies (not including the arms and head) would solve this issue that leaves such a bad taste in the mouth so often.

 

While on the subject of the bloody ridiculous - did anyone see Chelsea's 4th goal last night?

If you reverse those players and that ball gets cleared off the line by a third (defender) player, that is a 99.99% penalty call every time. He absolutely kick-flattened the opposing player.

On what basis are the not calling that a foul that stops play - so no goal awarded after the moment of the foul? They really do love to crawl down into deep pedantic mouse-holes and forget about common rational obviousness.

 

Don't get your obsession with this.

The relative pace of the players, which way they are facing and their relative momentum at the time will have a much bigger impact on outcome than some notional few extra inches.

So drawing a line where the body parts actually are seems more practical than trying to measure airspace ........

 

I’m totally fine with what I’ve seen from the automation. Probably a few nitpicks from a rules perspective, but if you can determine offside within 10sec - I think it’s reasonable.

 

It wouldn't. Lots of people don't want someone kept onside by a sliver of their bootheel.

More importantly, it doesn't solve anything... it's been said here multiple times, this "daylight" change merely shifts the area of focus. Instead of toenails & upper shoulders we'd have the same kinds of complaints focused on heels and ankles.

 

I actually don't think offsides is a big issue at the moment, and the prem and PGMOL have done a good job of fixing that specific problem when it comes to VAR. The prem is much quicker with their flags then UEFA which I like. And the 10cm grace seems to have eliminated the toe nail offsides that we saw at the start. I can't remember the last time I saw a saw VAR call someone offsides that looked 100% onside on the replays, which was an issue with initial role out.

When you are lobbed softball questions from cherry picked scenarios weeks later in a stage managed production it very much feels that way.

Now there are a couple of things going on here. First I agree with you that nothing is going to shut up the discourse on social media. If that's your goal good luck jousting a windmill but it's never going to work, better to ignore the screen grab mafia. But that doesn't mean that the PGMOL being more transparent and allowing us to understand what is happening in real time, not three weeks later, won't build more confidence in the process.

Also I agree with you that most of this is subjective and comes down to "it's a foul because a ref says it's a foul". But all those fans that you dismiss as not being worthy of questioning a ref have watched hundreds if not thousands of football matches and have seen 10,000 of thousands of calls made or not made. While they don't have certification they do understand what is normally called a foul and what is normally not called a foul.

 

what "10cm grace" are you talking about Owian?

 

Being that it is largely a spectator sport, my feeling is that the average regular spectator doesn't like this measurement of millimeters/inches to see if the notional idea of gaining advantage by being behind the line of play has been met. I could be wrong about that but in speaking to people that hasn't been my impression. They don;t like it and would be happy enough with seeing an advantage that doesn't stretch to a hiding behind the play advantage.
So, my suggestion is to that extent - merely a workable solution to an issue that bugs many people.

Basically, if you make it that much of an advantage they (general fan/spectator) have a mental line of what they are willing to want to accept, well it seems visually fairer to the spectacle. It's something that the naked eye can actually try to see (whether it/the eye will still be more often wrong or not is irrelevant) - the point is that notionally, the eye can look to attempt to see an offside. With the present situation, the problem is that it cannot be done.

My guess is simply a theory, that most offside grumbling would stop if they made the rule the way I propose...... because what people have in mind when they think about offside (however it is written or can be legally wrangled as the intended word meaning as written) is frankly, the not-gaining of an unfair advantage upon the defence. And the spectators are likely to think that the slight advantage of gettig your torso accelerated away from the other torso is not an undue advantage that should be eliminated.

Do, I know this to be correct? Nope. But somebody (FiFa) could ask all interested someone's and see what the outcome is.