The Footie Thread

[Jimaroid]

When a decision has clearly been wrong, why not hold your hands up. I think managers, players, fans, would have more respect for that. The alternative is that you look and think 'really, you still think that was right ?'

I agree that’s the morally decent thing to do. Sadly it’s not the way it works when many millions are at stake. And that’s also the reason why I think it could head to an issue of liability and potential compensation. Ultimately these decisions will cost someone and when things get messy investors will look to recoup any way they can.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I disagree with the last comment in certain circumstances. Last second of the game and a goal is allowed or a penaty given incorrectly. That can directly correlate to the loss of one or 2 points that could be the difference between relegation or surviving. That is then admitted to being an error. Until that happens, it is a judgement call that can be defended as being your view or interpretation. Once you admit the mistake, that element is removed and you open yourself up to legal action.

Swap the situation to a car accident, the car in front brakes suddenly and you go into the back of it. You say nothing and the debate about whether it was poor braking or whether you were driving too close remains open. Result is that each insurance company probably covers their own claim. You see how different that is if one party says it was their fault. Suddenly their insurer invalidates the policy for an admission of guilt, the other insurer does not pay out as it is the fault of another driver and then it all ends up in court with personal liability for the costs. Admission of error can be a big thing, especially where tens of millions of pounds are involved.

I wonder, genuinely don't know, if anyone has successfully sued an official or body in a similar way in the past? There must surely be an acceptance that decisions are final and accepted by all parties involved. Equally, there is an acceptance that officials are human and error is part of sport. I hope that never changes but I do fully understand your fears, and those stated by others on this theme

 

[Neilds]

And here is one problem, refs are being told how to use VAR. Not putting it up as any form of ideal but in rugby the ref can apply the tools he has at his disposal how he wants. If he wants it on screen, he asks for it, if he would rather rely on his own judgement and ignore the video, he can. He specifies what he wants looked at and the video ref can give guidance but the final decision is with the ref having looked at what evidence he wants. The video is there to help the ref and not absolve him of having to make decisions.

Agree totally with what you are saying. The referee should be in charge of what VAR looks at and when. He should ask specific questions as they do in rugby and then make his own decision after clarifying the situation. What shouldn't happen , as happened in the rugby at the weekend, is the TV screen in the stadium shows a replay of an incident and then the referee decides he wants to have a further look after he let play carry on.

 

[fundy]

Agree totally with what you are saying. The referee should be in charge of what VAR looks at and when. He should ask specific questions as they do in rugby and then make his own decision after clarifying the situation. What shouldn't happen , as happened in the rugby at the weekend, is the TV screen in the stadium shows a replay of an incident and then the referee decides he wants to have a further look after he let play carry on.

so if the ref completely misses something VAR shouldnt look at it?

 

[GB72]

so if the ref completely misses something VAR shouldnt look at it?

Same as rugby, video ref can speak the ref about possible infringements but it is up to the ref if he wants to look at them. Final decision still stays with the ref but his team can advise him throughout.

Gap in my knowledge though, is it actual premiership refs looking at the footage at VAR as with rugby or, if not, what level of people are there.

 

[fundy]

Same as rugby, video ref can speak the ref about possible infringements but it is up to the ref if he wants to look at them. Final decision still stays with the ref but his team can advise him throughout.

Gap in my knowledge though, is it actual premiership refs looking at the footage at VAR as with rugby or, if not, what level of people are there.

cant agree with that at all, in football refs miss plenty completely and need to be told they are being looked at imo

sadly yes its more of the incompetent premier league refs looking at it

 

[Swango1980]

Same as rugby, video ref can speak the ref about possible infringements but it is up to the ref if he wants to look at them. Final decision still stays with the ref but his team can advise him throughout.

Gap in my knowledge though, is it actual premiership refs looking at the footage at VAR as with rugby or, if not, what level of people are there.

It would take a brave referee to ignore the VAR, after VAR feels there may be an infringement? That could appear as arrogant, given the VAR was able to view the incident from multiple angles, multiple speeds and multiple times.

 

[Foxholer]

..
I know a better VAR is coming but it's causing more issues than it solves in its current form.
...

I totally disagree!

 

[Deleted member 3432]

Each manager does 45 mins, job sorted as they don't miss anything

 

[greenone]

It would take a brave referee to ignore the VAR, after VAR feels there may be an infringement? That could appear as arrogant, given the VAR was able to view the incident from multiple angles, multiple speeds and multiple times.

It happens regularly in rugby. The TMO brings it to the referees attention. They look at it together and make a decision with the referee making the final decision. It also helps that the discussion can be heard by the audience both on TV and in the crowd if you have an earpiece.

 

[Jimaroid]

I totally disagree!

You're perfectly entitled to have a different (and wrong) opinion.

But at least say why?

 

[Foxholer]

...
Gap in my knowledge though, is it actual premiership refs looking at the footage at VAR as with rugby or, if not, what level of people are there.

Certainly was in the 'apology' case and I would expect they'd all be P'Ship rated refs.

 

[Foxholer]

You're perfectly entitled to have a different (and wrong) opinion.

But at least say why?

Because, to me, it's NOT causing more issues than it solves. It's solving far more issues than it's causing! Aka, there was no need to explain!
Every referall to the on-field screen has resulted in a correction - so all 'solved' by VAR! The glitch under discussion would have been a glitch without VAR anyway - so not one 'caused' by VAR, even though VAR didn't solve it!

 

[GB72]

It would take a brave referee to ignore the VAR, after VAR feels there may be an infringement? That could appear as arrogant, given the VAR was able to view the incident from multiple angles, multiple speeds and multiple times.

Sorry, did not mean totally ignore it. You will, from time to time, get the video ref in rugby report an incident to the ref and the ref to respond that he saw the incident clearly and had decided no action needed. I suppose that the big difference I see is that the decision is very much always on the pitch and with the ref in rugby and the video is a tool to use as they see fit. Sometimes it seems in football like VAR is reffing the match and the ref is merely communicating what it sees rather than being involved in the process. The standard of refereeing will only get worse the more they can deflect personal responsibilty on to technology. That said, with the investments made, VAR is here to stay and I guess it is down to football to work out how to use it best

 

[clubchamp98]

This may be the thing I sort of disagree with. Technically, the VAR ref is only likely to ask the ref to check the screen if they "know" he made the incorrect decision, not if they are on the fence and may be leaning one side of it. That is with all the camera angles and speeds they can watch the incident with. So, the probability is that the onfield ref will have to reverse nearly every original decision they made, when called to the screen. If they don't, they are saying the VAR was wrong, and it brings into question why the VAR even thought it was an obvious error in the first place.

The key question is, why do the VAR refs NOT seek a review for some of the most obvious mistakes, like the City handball? Was it a poor technicality set out, such as the shirt sleeve debate? Or, did he just have a nightmare, and other VAR refs would have asked for the review?

I still often wonder if the review could simply be initiated by the team management, where they get one or 2 reviews a half (although offside could still be permanently judged by VAR)? I appreciate they might use it to their advantage at times, to waste time at end of a game? Maybe things can be done to mitigate that, or just accept it. At least it gives some power back to the football teams, rather than having to rely on the 3rd party refs not making mistakes or being able to spot them

I think when a full stadium of people all screaming for a pen plus every Everton player giving it a good shout.
The ref had time to go and have a look for himself without VAR telling him to while they looked at it.
Can’t remember if the ball went out of play or not.
Not sure if that’s in the rules, but his view was obstructed by another player but VAR ref no excuse.
Lampard was right he was the only one who thought it was not handball.

 

[clubchamp98]

I agree that’s the morally decent thing to do. Sadly it’s not the way it works when many millions are at stake. And that’s also the reason why I think it could head to an issue of liability and potential compensation. Ultimately these decisions will cost someone and when things get messy investors will look to recoup any way they can.

If that happens though we will not have any refs.
Who would put themselves through that.
They would need insurance against liability.

 

[Jimaroid]

Because, to me, it's NOT causing more issues than it solves. It's solving far more issues than it's causing! Aka, here was no need to explain!

I think you're just taking the contrary view for the sake of wanting an argument.

But I can give a reason why I stand by what I said: Everton might be 6 points and 5 places in the league better off without VAR.

Apart from that biased view, in general I think it's been badly implemented. The technology is immature, the refereeing staff are poor, the laws of the game have been showed to be out of sync with what is being reviewed, inexplicable decisions keep being made, and emotionally it's wrecking the fast paced spirit of football in stadiums and on television.

And another thing. Despite some correct decisions, we still see blatant shirt pulling, holding in the area, foul throws and cynical fouls in every single match that could (and should?) be easily caught by VAR but they are ignored, unchallenged and unpunished. The standard of refereeing has not improved at all, I'd say it's gotten worse, as the decisions are becoming more baffling every week. It is a massively flawed technology in search of a problem and should be binned.

 

[GB72]

Herein lies a major point. Technology has not, as far as I know, been applied to a game as fast paced and continuous as football. Where it works there is a slower pace and more natural breaks. Maybe the answer is that some sports are simply not suited to video reffing.

 

[Swango1980]

I think when a full stadium of people all screaming for a pen plus every Everton player giving it a good shout.
The ref had time to go and have a look for himself without VAR telling him to while they looked at it.
Can’t remember if the ball went out of play or not.
Not sure if that’s in the rules, but his view was obstructed by another player but VAR ref no excuse.
Lampard was right he was the only one who thought it was not handball.

OK, I know I'm a telly clapper, but I do watch the games with the volume up. If a referee was to decide whether or not to check VAR based on fan and player reaction, they'd be at the monitor dozens of times per game. Especially when players and fans realise they can pressure a ref to review something.

 

[nickjdavis]

so if the ref completely misses something VAR shouldnt look at it?

or in Mike Deans case...if the referee is so far up his own arse with his own sense of self importance that he cant possibly ever make a mistake and will never refer a decision to VAR.