The Footie Thread

[Deleted member 1740]

Remember that, as per the doc I quoted earlier, VAR is only used in certain situations...
What incidents does the VAR check?
VAR will be used only for “clear and obvious errors” or “serious missed incidents” in four match-changing situations: goals; penalty decisions; direct red-card incidents; and mistaken identity.

Was the incident one of those?

Ask @Swango1980 , it seems he wants VAR to check everything the ref gives ??

 

[Swango1980]

Ask @Swango1980 , it seems he wants VAR to check everything the ref gives ??

Bit of a childish remark there really.

But, as one of its jobs is to check penalty incidents, then on the Gordon incident, where there was a claim of a penalty, then yes, I'd expect VAR to have a look.

 

[Foxholer]

...

But, as one of its jobs is to check penalty incidents, then on the Gordon incident, where there was a claim of a penalty, then yes, I'd expect VAR to have a look.

Then it probably did, and determined NOT to be a “clear and obvious error” or “serious missed incident”! In other words...that the Ref was right!
Of course, and perhaps somewhat unfortunately, there don't appear to be stats on the number of those.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Bit of a childish remark there really.

But, as one of its jobs is to check penalty incidents, then on the Gordon incident, where there was a claim of a penalty, then yes, I'd expect VAR to have a look.

Er no.

You want refs who are in good enough positions to judge, to have their decisions checked.

It’s my understanding that as the game is being played, the VAR is in direct communication with the on field ref. I would assume that yesterday’s non foul was communicated and that’s why Atwell never halted play.

 

[Jimaroid]

Still applicable I believe. June 2020, so 2nd season of applicability. I'm happy if you can find and point to a more up-to-date one, but am certain the same text will apply to VAR referrals.

Given the criteria for 'referral' to RRA, I would expect/hope that was the case!

Considering that since the start of the 20-21 season FIFA and IFAB are in control of VAR I'm surprised the Premier League still tries to say anything of its own about VAR, that is all.

On the second point, if the final decision is the referee's do you think we should have seen a VAR overturn rejected by a referee in the 21-22 season by now? Given that many incidents are subjective it seems highly significant that we haven't.

 

[Foxholer]

...
On the second point, if the final decision is the referee's do you think we should have seen a VAR overturn rejected by a referee in the 21-22 season by now? Given that many incidents are subjective it seems highly significant that we haven't.

Re-read (2nd part of) post 26539!
Or 26535!

In simple terms...No!
Do the terms “clear and obvious errors” or “serious missed incidents” leave any room for doubt?

And, as I've mentioned/implied several times before....We don't get stats of VAR checks where there's agreement with Ref's ruling - so that 'taints' the process somewhat.

FWIW...I do wish Ref HAD rejected the 'upgrade' of Dawson card yesterday (or VAR decided it was only a Yellow !) I'm certain we'd have scraped a point!

 

[greenone]

Considering that since the start of the 20-21 season FIFA and IFAB are in control of VAR I'm surprised the Premier League still tries to say anything of its own about VAR, that is all.

On the second point, if the final decision is the referee's do you think we should have seen a VAR overturn rejected by a referee in the 21-22 season by now? Given that many incidents are subjective it seems highly significant that we haven't.

Nothing unusual about it, just look at when someone is charged by the FA, when was the last time someone was found to be not guilty?

 

[Swango1980]

Then it probably did, and determined NOT to be a “clear and obvious error” or “serious missed incident”! In other words...that the Ref was right!
Of course, and perhaps somewhat unfortunately, there don't appear to be stats on the number of those.

That goes back to my very original point. It was nothing to do with whether anyone thinks it was a penalty or not. The point I was making was that the ref never gave VAR the chance to look at it. The ball went out of play immediately, and Liverpool put the ball back in play immediately after that.

 

[Swango1980]

Er no.

You want refs who are in good enough positions to judge, to have their decisions checked.

It’s my understanding that as the game is being played, the VAR is in direct communication with the on field ref. I would assume that yesterday’s non foul was communicated and that’s why Atwell never halted play.

See my previous point. There was no time for this to happen, hence why I raised the point in the first place.

 

[Jimaroid]

Do the terms “clear and obvious errors” or “serious missed incidents” leave any room for doubt?

Yes of course they do. There is massive disparity on what "clear and obvious" means subjectively. Two referees can and do disagree over the exact same incident all the time. Why is the VAR always right this season? It's not because they've put better referees in Stockley! It must be something else, so what is it?

 

[Swango1980]

Yes of course they do. There is massive disparity on what "clear and obvious" means subjectively. Two referees can and do disagree over the exact same incident all the time. Why is the VAR always right this season? It's not because they've put better referees in Stockley! It must be something else, so what is it?

I think the quote was Foxholer, not myself, in case you are looking for his reply.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

See my previous point. There was no time for this to happen, hence why I raised the point in the first place.

There was 15 seconds between the incident and the restart of play.

More than enough time.

 

[Swango1980]

There was 15 seconds between the incident and the restart of play.

More than enough time.

Haha, of course it is (given how long we have seen many VAR reviews take in the past). Especially for an incident in which all 3 Sky pundits agreed it should have been a penalty, Carragher calling it a stone wall penalty. Fair enough if you want to disagree, like the ref did in the heat of the moment. But, personally, I do not see 15 seconds long enough for VAR to review it. Why?

• How long does it take the VAR to react that there may be an incident to review at all? A second or 2?
• How long before they can set up the video, to play it from the start?
• How long before they view that video in normal speed and slow motion?
• How long before they look at the video of other angles?

A lot to do in 15 seconds.

 

[Foxholer]

That goes back to my very original point. It was nothing to do with whether anyone thinks it was a penalty or not. The point I was making was that the ref never gave VAR the chance to look at it. The ball went out of play immediately, and Liverpool put the ball back in play immediately after that.

I'm pretty certain there'll be protocols and facilities to cover that - as it's one of the obvious areas where 'issues' could and do arise.
Edit. 15 seconds is tight, but exponentially more than the on-field Ref has and their 'get/got-it-right' percentage is very high!

 

[Jensen]

Conte's system doesn't allow for an Eriksen though. That's why he has Bentancur, who's meant to provide that sort of creativity but from a deeper position.

I know which one I’d prefer, and it’s more pleasing on the eye !!

 

[Jimaroid]

I think the quote was Foxholer, not myself, in case you are looking for his reply.

No idea how that happened, I've edited it now.

 

[DanFST]

@DanFST - still valid ?

Gladly, will get that sorted

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Haha, of course it is (given how long we have seen many VAR reviews take in the past). Especially for an incident in which all 3 Sky pundits agreed it should have been a penalty, Carragher calling it a stone wall penalty. Fair enough if you want to disagree, like the ref did in the heat of the moment. But, personally, I do not see 15 seconds long enough for VAR to review it. Why?

• How long does it take the VAR to react that there may be an incident to review at all? A second or 2?
• How long before they can set up the video, to play it from the start?
• How long before they view that video in normal speed and slow motion?
• How long before they look at the video of other angles?

A lot to do in 15 seconds.

15 seconds is enough for the VAR to tell the onfield ref to halt play. ?

 

[Swango1980]

15 seconds is enough for the VAR to tell the onfield ref to halt play. ?

Well then, I'm guessing the VAR chap was asleep at the time of the incident.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Well then, I'm guessing the VAR chap was asleep at the time of the incident.

Or he looked at the incident, he thought as a professional arbiter of the laws of the the game it wasnt a foul.