Spurs and VAR

dudu

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
3,034
I'd say if he had gone down with the momentum of mina squashing his left leg then he'd have got the penalty but as soon as he stayed upright and leapt off his right foot he was never going to get that penalty, I think was you try and fall to the floor through your own force then you lose the penalty decision. We can talk about the refs doing their job properly but fact off the matter is Son wasn't brought to the ground based on the contact from the everton player. Whether he was impeded or not is debatable because he was able to move freely to jump to the ground.
Interesting take. Again, I can't understand if that were true, how Deulofeu's was given.
 

wrd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2014
Messages
5,261
Of course he was impeded. Sons error was trying to carry on and then dropping like a stone. He was prevented from playing by a foul. Therefore a free kick which is therefore a pen. Therefore a refereeing error. That’s why they will never let an ex player sit on the panel because the referees will be found out on their poor ability to understand the game.
I think this is the problem, I don't think he was particularly prevented from playing, he chose to stop playing:


He does the cruyff turn, he doesn't have close control off the ball but regardless of the contact, he isn't prevented from doing anything from the position he was in before Mina touches him to after. He was still in control of the situation where he was in balance enough to play the pass that's why I don't think it was a pen. He had just changed direction so wasn't moving at any speed where Mina has prevented him from accelerating or slowed him down.
 

Japhet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
9,556
I know he was, and there are quite a few other examples, difference they weren’t trained by clubs to do it, whereas they are nowadays at many.
Not sure about that. I vividly remember Tommy Docherty describing Mickey Thomas as 'a great little diver'.
 

wrd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2014
Messages
5,261
Interesting take. Again, I can't understand if that were true, how Deulofeu's was given.
Because two wrongs don't make a right, just because they gave a bad decision saturday doesn't mean they should consistently give bad decisions from then on. It's the same logic that Dermot is giving on ref watch with the terrible offside choices, he's saying well it's consistent therefore correct but the only consistency is that it's wrong.
 

Japhet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
9,556
Of course he was impeded. Sons error was trying to carry on and then dropping like a stone. He was prevented from playing by a foul. Therefore a free kick which is therefore a pen. Therefore a refereeing error. That’s why they will never let an ex player sit on the panel because the referees will be found out on their poor ability to understand the game.

What type of ex player though. Put a defender on there and they'd give nothing, but put a striker on there and a single hair out of place would be an instant spot kick.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
5,746
Im not convinced by that. Son clearly throws himself to floor.
The problem is it's very much chicken and egg. Because for years referees refuse to give a penalty unless you go down, players have got used to throwing themselves to the floor whenever they're fouled because otherwise they don't get any decisions.
 

LeParisien

Wrong about everything
Joined
Mar 5, 2018
Messages
1,384
VAR doesn’t do any filming, they take their feed from the broadcasters. Sky film at 50 frames per second, which to be honest should be good enough for deciding which frame should be used for offside
It shouldn’t. 50 frames per second means that there is 1/50 a second between each frame. This means 0.02s. If a limb or person is travelling quickly they can move up to 10m/s (feasibly quicker with a limb). This means up to 20cm moved between frames.

Does VAR demure if they are less than 20cm offside and the frame before they look inside? No. But they should do because they can have no confidence in their decision.
 

LeParisien

Wrong about everything
Joined
Mar 5, 2018
Messages
1,384
I feel that the defenders are tripping and falling diagonally to impede the strike(bloody hell even Allen Smith thinks it's a pen)r, this is not natural and it means that the attacker has to now go so much closer to the keeper to be free from that defender, or turn away from goal to even have a shot. You cant shoot when someone's body weight is leaning on you if you do it will be weak. I, like you, do not like the dive and don't want to see anyone do it even my team. But if he stays on his feet, how would he then get a shot off, he would have to go around the body delaying the shot and allowing the defenders to get closer to him or narrowed the angle so much that your chances of scoring decrease. Mina even does a couple of rolls towards son to make him evade him for good measure.

Lascelles
Mina
I cant believe The EPL are using a technological advance to go down to a ref's level when we should be using this to help refs. We already thought refs were shit, but the way Var is being used we now think both are shit. It makes me think the game is bent, they want us to get rid of this for them so we can use the shit refs again.

Why not let the ref see the action again on the screen and we hear what they are saying like in Rugby, that way the fans are still aware of what is going on and are part of the process. The way they they are working at the moment it feels like they are superior and get to make a final call in private between 2 parties, it's so stupid.
But he infringed Son. It slowed his momentum and opportunities to attack. Anywhere else on the pitch it’s a free kick. Sons actions And many others are forced by poor referees.
Looking at the video there I think it probably was a penalty - I’m not a hundred percent sure though. If it’s a penalty it’s not for the contact, it’s because he makes no attempt to play the ball and only tries to impede Son.

Son still dives. Maybe - and I would love t see this kind of thing - you give a pen and a yellow card for simulation.
 

MK Yid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
428
It shouldn’t. 50 frames per second means that there is 1/50 a second between each frame. This means 0.02s. If a limb or person is travelling quickly they can move up to 10m/s (feasibly quicker with a limb). This means up to 20cm moved between frames.

Does VAR demure if they are less than 20cm offside and the frame before they look inside? No. But they should do because they can have no confidence in their decision.
Agreed if we want absolute perfection, but whatever is used is still numerous times better than a “best guess” from 80 yards away like we have had previously.
I am happy with taking best shot available (but none of this 3D stuff) some will go for, some against, but no howlers, and Sky and other providers will hopefully evolve to faster technology down the line.
 
Last edited:

dudu

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
3,034
Because two wrongs don't make a right, just because they gave a bad decision saturday doesn't mean they should consistently give bad decisions from then on. It's the same logic that Dermot is giving on ref watch with the terrible offside choices, he's saying well it's consistent therefore correct but the only consistency is that it's wrong.
Fair points - whatever the decision might be it needs to be consistent. @MK Yid - see how hard it is for a fan - two incidents that are so similar yet two completely different decisions. If there is a 'law' that can explain why one was given and one wasn't then it should be explained to the fans. The onus shouldn't have to be on us to go look it up and work out how it has been interpreted.
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
27,575
Agreed if we want absolute perfection, but whatever is used is still numerous times better than a “best guess” from 80 yards away like we have had previously.
I am happy with taking best shot available (but none of this 3D stuff) some will go for, some against, but no howlers, and Sky and other providers will hopefully evolve to faster technology down the line.
VAR has only been in action for a few months but we've had more controversy at this point with VAR as opposed to when we had no technology.

At least with best guesses you can allow for human errors and have some understanding that the ref got it wrong because he couldn't see the incident.

We shouldn't be having this many errors week in week out, we should be at least by now seeing some consistency.
 

MK Yid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
428
Fair points - whatever the decision might be it needs to be consistent. @MK Yid - see how hard it is for a fan - two incidents that are so similar yet two completely different decisions. If there is a 'law' that can explain why one was given and one wasn't then it should be explained to the fans. The onus shouldn't have to be on us to go look it up and work out how it has been interpreted.
I don’t recall the Delofelu one. Is there a link ?
Also whilst I agree with wrd’s assessment of the Son incident, I disagree with his assessment of the inconsistency of the offside law, I think it has been applied very consistently, maybe the law needs adapting for VAR usage, but that is not an issue with how it is being ruled.
 

wrd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2014
Messages
5,261
Fair points - whatever the decision might be it needs to be consistent. @MK Yid - see how hard it is for a fan - two incidents that are so similar yet two completely different decisions. If there is a 'law' that can explain why one was given and one wasn't then it should be explained to the fans. The onus shouldn't have to be on us to go look it up and work out how it has been interpreted.
Well the refs can hide between two things, one is that fans don't understand the rules, two is that it's a refs interpretation of the rule. Neither for me are good enough reasons for the inconsistency of officiating. A lot of fans do understand the rules and even more would if the game was governed consistency and the rules shouldn't be as such that you can have two consistent actions which yield two different results of officiating because of intepretation. That to me shows either the rule isn't good enough, or the people enforcing them are not good enough.

We regularly see this with old Dermot and his ref watch.
 

wrd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2014
Messages
5,261
I don’t recall the Delofelu one. Is there a link ?
Also whilst I agree with wrd’s assessment of the Son incident, I disagree with his assessment of the inconsistency of the offside law, I think it has been applied very consistently, maybe the law needs adapting for VAR usage, but that is not an issue with how it is being ruled.
I didn't say it was inconsistent, I said they were applying it consistently and the way they're doing it is wrong.
 

LeParisien

Wrong about everything
Joined
Mar 5, 2018
Messages
1,384
Agreed if we want absolute perfection, but whatever is used is still numerous times better than a “best guess” from 80 yards away like we have had previously.
I am happy with taking best shot available (but none of this 3D stuff) some will go for, some against, but no howlers, and Sky and other providers will hopefully evolve to faster technology down the line.
If the frame before the one that would be used is onside, then the player should be ruled onside. That gives margin of appreciation to attacking side in a very small number of cases without incorrectly ruling out good goals.
 

MK Yid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
428
Thanks.
I don’t think they are comparable situations at all to be honest.
 

rez9000

Worried about Tromboning
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
8,038
The sad thing is that VAR is working precisely as it is designed to, which is not how we would want it to.

It is a validation tool. We all want it to be an invalidation tool. We want it to overturn bad decisions, but that's not how it's being implemented. That's how it should be implemented, but it isn't currently.

VAR is not there to make sure a call is correct. It is there to correct 'clear and obvious errors' by the ref. It is there to ensure that a referee has interpreted the laws of the game correctly. The problem with that is that what constitutes a 'clear and obvious' error is itself an interpretation and subject to interpretation.

Let's take a recent example. Under the rules of the game as they are currently laid down, Dele's handball in the box on Sunday should have been a penalty. The law states that any contact with the ball by a hand, even accidental, is a penalty - see the penalty given against us in the CL Final last season.

The VAR replay wasn't done in order to check whether Dele's hand had made contact with the ball. It was to check whether the referee made a 'clear and obvious error' in not awarding the penalty. When VAR review, the referee is asked to explain his decision to them. They then consider that before making their own call. So, say, for instance, Atkinson told VAR that he didn't see Dele's hand make contact with the ball, then even if VAR shows that it did, his decision to not award the penalty would not be deemed as a 'clear and obvious error' and so his decision would be validated.

So, the reason it wasn't given was that Atkinson interpreted the law in his head and decided it wasn't a penalty. VAR then checked his interpretation against the video replay. They did not check the video replay and make a decision in isolation. They were looking to see if Atkinson had made a 'clear and obvious error'. VAR decided that Atkinson had not made a clear and obvious error in denying the penalty and therefore didn't overturn his decision.

That's the prism that VAR has to be viewed through - not that it is there to ensure every call is correct. It should be used like that, but it isn't being used like that. VAR is not there to help the game, the players and most especially not the fans - it is there to be used by referees and only for their benefit. Until that changes, we will continue to see the same controversies, the same ridiculous calls, etc, etc.

One of the problems with officiating is that it is entirely opaque - there is no accountability, there is no transparency. Why else do they hide what is said from the fans during VAR checks? This is just another example of the mendacity at the heart of football officiating - referees are held up as final arbiters, treated as untouchables who can do as they please and are indemnified from being criticised. Fine, if they could demonstrate that they made decisions well enough consistently enough to be considered experts. But they're not - they're terrible, they make horrendous mistakes and then they are protected from any official criticism. Anyone who speaks out is punished.

And that makes VAR in its current implementation inherently suspect and therefore expecting it to be a balance to the paucity of quality in refereeing is pointless - it's not there to make things better; it is there to help insulate referees from being scrutinised.

VAR should be a system by which a correct decision should be given, but that's not how it's being used currently. Expecting anything else is pointless.
 

MK Yid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
428
By the letter of the law, how are they different?
One, the Delefeou one, is a trip/kick (a swinging leg), which stopped opponent playing ball, the other is a small coming together (nothing much more than shoulder to shoulder contact) which did not affect opponent.
 
Last edited:
Top