What's new

Spurs and VAR

easley91

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2011
18,721
53,768
Something occurred to me after VAR went back to give the penalty. If it was closer to half time and the ball doesn't go out or there isn't a stoppage for another foul, is the penalty still given? Also, if we had scored in that period it would have been overturned. I think there needs to be a set time limit before they move on, because that one was ridiculously long. Yes it was a penalty, but surely Dean was told and could then just blow his whistle and give it rather than letting play go for another few minutes?
 

buttons

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2005
2,945
3,861
Something occurred to me after VAR went back to give the penalty. If it was closer to half time and the ball doesn't go out or there isn't a stoppage for another foul, is the penalty still given? Also, if we had scored in that period it would have been overturned. I think there needs to be a set time limit before they move on, because that one was ridiculously long. Yes it was a penalty, but surely Dean was told and could then just blow his whistle and give it rather than letting play go for another few minutes?

I think play should be stopped immediately or at the next turnover of play perhaps.

On the radio yesterday they were saying about an incident in Germany where the ref blew for half time and then had to get the players back out the dressing rooms for a penalty he hadn’t given! Crazy!
 

buttons

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2005
2,945
3,861
The thing is, that the PL seem to be the only league which I've seen apply VAR in that way. It goes against IFAB's recommendations who have always insisted clear and obvious applies to offsides too.

The whole point of VAR is to help the officials not make silly mistakes. Now VAR has many issues and I'm not a fan, however, by taking the decision out of the hands of the referee you are completely confusing who is running the game. Who is the authority. While completely undermining what should be consistent decisions within the context of a game at least.

Different referees may have different ideas of what constitutes, say a red card. Let the ref himself decide if he made a clear and obvious error. Because the issue is there is no consensus what clear and obvious actually means, and different VAR teams seem to have wildly different interpretations of what that means.

I didn't know that VAR could be worse than in the CL but in the PL we have managed it. I now actually look forward to European games because I know the VAR will be much more logical.

The PL in caring way too much about interruptions to the game have kind of missed the point here. Interruptions are annoying, very annoying. But it doesn't actually really matter how long the interruption is. In either case it breaks the flow of the game and changes the experience of football. Currently in the PL VAR has still interrupted the game quite frequently, and unlike in the CL where you can at least watch the ref move to the screen to re-look and can at least gage how serious the check will be, the PL gives the fans nothing.

If VAR as a project is to continue there are two options. Either, show the fans at the ground the footage. Or get the ref to mike up and explain his decision when reviewing the tape. Simple as that. These options will help an incredible amount to improve the experience and cut down on the chaos.

The number one thing that needs to happen though, is give power back to the ref. If you really cant do that then take away more power from the ref, and basically just ref the game on the screen and the man on the pitch becomes just someone to follow those instructions. The latter option would make a mockery of the sport but they are doing so anyway.

agree completely. I think the on pitch refs are over relying on VAR and have seen their ability to ref a game reduced significantly.

The only way I can see to ‘let the ref ref’ is to bring in an appeals system like in cricket, where each team can challenge one decision per half and the ref otherwise refs as normal.

In the city game for example we could’ve appealed the Sterling challenge, or City could’ve appealed the second pen. Either appeal may have been unsuccessful but it might at least stop the refs
 

yido_number1

He'll always be magic
Jun 8, 2004
8,646
16,809
Something occurred to me after VAR went back to give the penalty. If it was closer to half time and the ball doesn't go out or there isn't a stoppage for another foul, is the penalty still given? Also, if we had scored in that period it would have been overturned. I think there needs to be a set time limit before they move on, because that one was ridiculously long. Yes it was a penalty, but surely Dean was told and could then just blow his whistle and give it rather than letting play go for another few minutes?
To be fair we played on whilst they reviewed the incident. As soon as they determined it was a penalty they brought it back. Would rather that than stop the play when you could be breaking and scoring a legitimate goal. It also if not given would have meant there was less of an enforced break in play. I think they actually stopped the game to award the penalty when Ederson had the ball in his hands.
 

ardiles

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2006
13,228
40,308
To be fair we played on whilst they reviewed the incident. As soon as they determined it was a penalty they brought it back. Would rather that than stop the play when you could be breaking and scoring a legitimate goal. It also if not given would have meant there was less of an enforced break in play. I think they actually stopped the game to award the penalty when Ederson had the ball in his hands.

What I’d like to know if, between the time the (Aurier’s) tackle was made and the time the penalty decision was made, if a player did a rash tackle on another (worthy of a red card), would that player then be sent off ?
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2012
38,247
104,143
What I’d like to know if, between the time the (Aurier’s) tackle was made and the time the penalty decision was made, if a player did a rash tackle on another (worthy of a red card), would that player then be sent off ?

Guess so, VAR would also review it in the same instance.

I don't know why it takes so long though.
 

ardiles

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2006
13,228
40,308
Guess so, VAR would also review it in the same instance.

I don't know why it takes so long though.

But that seems a grey area because if a goal was scored during that same period, it would be ruled out.
 

BringBack_leGin

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2004
27,719
54,929
If VAR takes longer than 30 seconds, then the original decision isn’t clearly and obviously wrong.

30s time limit from the moment of the incident, then move on.
 

@WHL

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2016
197
364
To be fair we played on whilst they reviewed the incident. As soon as they determined it was a penalty they brought it back. Would rather that than stop the play when you could be breaking and scoring a legitimate goal. It also if not given would have meant there was less of an enforced break in play. I think they actually stopped the game to award the penalty when Ederson had the ball in his hands.
Ok so watching SSN and what ever wank ref they had in there said southamptons penalty couldn’t be given as too much time has passed and that phase of play was over, but ours goes on for almost 2 mins to be pulled back. And it was a stonewall pen
 

yido_number1

He'll always be magic
Jun 8, 2004
8,646
16,809
If VAR takes longer than 30 seconds, then the original decision isn’t clearly and obviously wrong.

30s time limit from the moment of the incident, then move on.

Sounds great in an ideal world but more often than not you need about 3 angles to show if there was contact or not. Especially with the ones like Lloris that are inconclusive from most angles. A foul should be a foul and if you need time to determine the right decision then go for it. Something might not be clear and obvious from 3 out of 4 angles and yet the fourth may make it very obvious.
 

chrissivad

Staff
May 20, 2005
51,646
58,072
But that seems a grey area because if a goal was scored during that same period, it would be ruled out.

I don't see it as a grey area.
You can get sent off at any time, no matter if the ball is in play or not.

If you make a challange that deserves a red, then it's a red.
 

Dillspur

Well-Known Member
May 18, 2004
3,747
9,926
If VAR takes longer than 30 seconds, then the original decision isn’t clearly and obviously wrong.

30s time limit from the moment of the incident, then move on.

There's really no way to tell how long it took them to make that decision, I have a feeling they probably made it within 20-30 seconds but because they won't do anything until there's a break in play people seem to think it took them 2 minutes.

If it did take them that long then I agree it wasn't clear and obvious so shouldn't have been given.

They need to scrap the "break in play rule" there's so much that could happen, goals scored, serious foul play. I think I had heard that there's no protocol in place if a player gets sent off in that time before the ball goes out and VAR intervening.
 

yido_number1

He'll always be magic
Jun 8, 2004
8,646
16,809
There's really no way to tell how long it took them to make that decision, I have a feeling they probably made it within 20-30 seconds but because they won't do anything until there's a break in play people seem to think it took them 2 minutes.

If it did take them that long then I agree it wasn't clear and obvious so shouldn't have been given.

They need to scrap the "break in play rule" there's so much that could happen, goals scored, serious foul play. I think I had heard that there's no protocol in place if a player gets sent off in that time before the ball goes out and VAR intervening.
You need to play to a break or the decision being made depending on which comes first. Imagine the uproar if play is stopped as you are in a clear break after a clean tackle in your own box. Better to play on until the decision is made.
 

SirNiNyHotspur

23 Years of Property, Concerts, Karts & Losing
Apr 27, 2004
3,125
6,743
They need to have a team that specializes just in VAR, refs that are only trained in that so they're not having a different ref in every match making the calls, if they haveclose teams/training they can rotate they can figure between them closer standards, I think it's only way they'll get consistency other wise it's a crapshot based off whichever numptys turn it is to do his take on things.
 

Spurslove

Well-Known Member
Jul 6, 2012
6,627
9,281
If VAR takes longer than 30 seconds, then the original decision isn’t clearly and obviously wrong.

30s time limit from the moment of the incident, then move on.


...is the right answer. (y)

Over TWO MINUTES yesterday which was bloody ridiculous. Fuck VAR, it really is ruining the game it's supposed to be helping.

And another thing. If the idiot in the VAR office watched that disgusting tackle on Dele by Sterling in slow motion, and saw his foot just above the ankle go into a horseshoe shape, and decided there was no serious foul committed and therefore no red card was due, he should be absolutely ashamed of himself and VAR is a sick joke being incompetently administered by half wits.

Mike Dean had an excuse to only award a yellow because he saw it in real time and he clearly got it wrong, but the VAR can slow it down and freeze frame the impact. That tackle could easily have broken Dele's ankle, and then you get all these so-called 'experts' and studio pundits telling us a yellow was the right call, and Stertlling 'isn't that kind of player' as if that meant anything!

What utter bollocks that is.

SCRAP VAR AND START AGAIN AND SACK ALL THE PUNDITS. CLUELESS TWERPS. FOOTBALL CAN DO WITHOUT THEIR NONSENSE AND SO COULD WE ALL. (There, I've said it).

.
 

ardiles

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2006
13,228
40,308
...is the right answer. (y)

Over TWO MINUTES yesterday which was bloody ridiculous. Fuck VAR, it really is ruining the game it's supposed to be helping.

And another thing. If the idiot in the VAR office watched that disgusting tackle on Dele by Sterling in slow motion, and saw his foot just above the ankle go into a horseshoe shape, and decided there was no serious foul committed and therefore no red card was due, he should be absolutely ashamed of himself and VAR is a sick joke being incompetently administered by half wits.

Mike Dean had an excuse to only award a yellow because he saw it in real time and he clearly got it wrong, but the VAR can slow it down and freeze frame the impact. That tackle could easily have broken Dele's ankle, and then you get all these so-called 'experts' and studio pundits telling us a yellow was the right call, and Stertlling 'isn't that kind of player' as if that meant anything!

What utter bollocks that is.

SCRAP VAR AND START AGAIN AND SACK ALL THE PUNDITS. CLUELESS TWERPS. FOOTBALL CAN DO WITHOUT THEIR NONSENSE AND SO COULD WE ALL. (There, I've said it).

.

VAR is not the problem. The people looking at the monitors are.

VAR has been more successful in other leagues.
 

Croftwoodspurs

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2012
357
648
I believe that VAR could work if they adopted a better solution at.reviewing... In the world cup they had a panel of judges reviewing and had a team of around 10 watching the game... So it was made up of more than one person view and got more correct decision.. Here it's just one person view. Doing mind the tight offside as at least that is reasonable consistent..

If they review a bad tackle as a red card the the on field ref show automatically review on the side monitor.

I some time think they listen to what the the commentators are saying.. More often or not they seem to follow what they say...

Believe we have been on the end of some bad reviews in relation to teams not getting a red card...

Got away with some on penalties, then had some blatant ones not given at the beginning which are now being reviewed and overturned...
 

LeSoupeKitchen

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2011
3,102
7,621
There's really no way to tell how long it took them to make that decision, I have a feeling they probably made it within 20-30 seconds but because they won't do anything until there's a break in play people seem to think it took them 2 minutes.

If it did take them that long then I agree it wasn't clear and obvious so shouldn't have been given.

They need to scrap the "break in play rule" there's so much that could happen, goals scored, serious foul play. I think I had heard that there's no protocol in place if a player gets sent off in that time before the ball goes out and VAR intervening.

PGMOL: "The VAR then determined that Aurier had tripped Aguero and when the ball was in a neutral area the VAR recommended that the referee stop play and award the penalty"

I'm totally confused about the whole break in play business or ball being in a neutral area. I cant think of any hypothetical where this makes sense. If they asked Dean to go and review it himself then fair enough but they just gave him the decision.
 
Last edited:

SirNiNyHotspur

23 Years of Property, Concerts, Karts & Losing
Apr 27, 2004
3,125
6,743
PGMOL: "The VAR then determined that Aurier had tripped Aguero and when the ball was in a neutral area the VAR recommended that the referee stop play and award the penalty"

I'm totally confused about the whole break in play business or ball being in a neutral area. I cant think if any hypothetical where this makes sense. If they asked Dean to go and review it himself then fair enough but they just gave him the decision.
Haha, yep that makes zero sense, as if a goal was scored it would have been overruled by this decision anyway, totally idiotic.
 
Top