Spurs and VAR

[Trotter]

That’s another huge issue. Why can’t these significant decisions be reviewed? If I’ve received 4 bookings this season, and get booked in error, then I receive a 1 match ban.
If it’s my 10th, I miss two games.
If it’s my second booking, but the first was an error, I get sent off.
It’s a(nother) huge flaw in the system, and again allows officials to carry on unscrutinised.
Ive said it before, PGMOL is in need of a total overhaul

So you want VAR to interfere and look at every possible cautionable offence ?
.Let's just extend the game from 2 hours with breaks to 3 hours

Madness

 

[mr ashley]

So you want VAR to interfere and look at every possible cautionable offence ?
.Let's just extend the game from 2 hours with breaks to 3 hours

Madness

Ok, well if you’re forcing me to make the binary decision between ALL yellow cards being reviewed as opposed to no yellow cards ever being reviewed ever, I guess I’ll plump for.... review them all.
But you and I both know that’s not what I said.

For clarity, I’m saying debatable yellow cards should be reviewed, allowing them to be rescinded (either instantaneously by VAR, or post game in a similar style to the way red cards get rescinded).

What’s the problem with how it takes to sort it out? You got somewhere else you’d rather be?

 

[Croftwoodspurs]

They would have reviewed it for being straight red, it was nowhere near worthy of a red card though. Look at the Ayew one in the week, that was similar, forearm to side of face, looking at player, but with a lot more force, that was not deemed a red card under review.
VAR is not telling a referee to caution a player for simulation for overturned penalty, referee decides based on the information that VAR has given him that he has been conned by a dive, and acts accordingly.

Whilst I agree it was a not a red, we have seen them giving for similar incidents in the pass.

If they have given advice to the ref on what incurred, makes me question why he then did not give a second yellow...

 

['O Zio]

So you want VAR to interfere and look at every possible cautionable offence ?
.Let's just extend the game from 2 hours with breaks to 3 hours

Madness

This is exactly why I've always said each team should just have 1 or 2 "challenges" per game, and if they correctly get their decision overturned they don't loose their challenge. People seem to be dead against this purely on the basis that it sounds too American, but it would fix a lot of issues with VAR and football in general in one fell swoop.

It would limit how many times VAR stopped the game. It would put an end to these ridiculous VAR reviews where some negligible infringement may or may not have been made - e.g. Sheffield would never have wasted a challenge on that Moira handball the other day, same would apply for these 1mm offside decisions. It would also help put an end to diving because teams would happily challenge a decision if they knew full well they haven't touched the guy.

The counter arguments I've heard are all so minor I think the benefits far outweigh them. It wouldn't please everyone I'm sure but it's got to the better than the shambles we have at the moment.

 

[mr ashley]

This is exactly why I've always said each team should just have 1 or 2 "challenges" per game, and if they correctly get their decision overturned they don't loose their challenge. People seem to be dead against this purely on the basis that it sounds too American, but it would fix a lot of issues with VAR and football in general in one fell swoop.

It would limit how many times VAR stopped the game. It would put an end to these ridiculous VAR reviews where some negligible infringement may or may not have been made - e.g. Sheffield would never have wasted a challenge on that Moira handball the other day, same would apply for these 1mm offside decisions. It would also help put an end to diving because teams would happily challenge a decision if they knew full well they haven't touched the guy.

The counter arguments I've heard are all so minor I think the benefits far outweigh them. It wouldn't please everyone I'm sure but it's got to the better than the shambles we have at the moment.

Cricket has also shown that this approach can be successful. It forces the challenging team to be more honest, and we’ve seen cricket teams waste their challenges on frivolous appeals. They’ve all eventually learnt from it.
To eliminate the obvious error, the video ref could, as a standard protocol, always review every goal for blatant offside and handball, in exactly the same way that cricket’s video umpire checks for a no ball. That should sit outside the teams appeal, leaving teams to appeal for penalties and freekicks, dives , yellow and red cards etc. Corners and throwins should be exempt.

It would rule out travesties, such as our goals v Sheff Utd and Leicester, and goals like the one at Villa where the keeper carried it over the line.
Sure, we’d have conceded against City away, and Sheff Utd at home, but let’s be honest they were fair goals too.

 

[punkisback]

Cricket has also shown that this approach can be successful. It forces the challenging team to be more honest, and we’ve seen cricket teams waste their challenges on frivolous appeals. They’ve all eventually learnt from it.
To eliminate the obvious error, the video ref could, as a standard protocol, always review every goal for blatant offside and handball, in exactly the same way that cricket’s video umpire checks for a no ball. That should sit outside the teams appeal, leaving teams to appeal for penalties and freekicks, dives , yellow and red cards etc. Corners and throwins should be exempt.

It would rule out travesties, such as our goals v Sheff Utd and Leicester, and goals like the one at Villa where the keeper carried it over the line.
Sure, we’d have conceded against City away, and Sheff Utd at home, but let’s be honest they were fair goals too.

If you leave it to the video ref to review as well as teams having appeals you'll still have the video ref overturning Son's offside. I think its either appeals or nothing.

 

[Trotter]

Whilst I agree it was a not a red, we have seen them giving for similar incidents in the pass.

If they have given advice to the ref on what incurred, makes me question why he then did not give a second yellow...

They don't give him advice though.
VAR just says to referee, Stop play we need to look at an incident, and then when they have done so. Check is over restart play or check is over we need you to award penalty/send off this player etc. They do not give him a running commentary of what has happened, and they only check straight red card offences (but do not advise if they feel something they were checking for a red was worthy of a yellow) penalty offences yes/no, mistaken identity and legitimacy of all goals.

We really should be making use of the Referee Review Area (referee looking at monitor), but again it is the clubs that did not want that, they didn't want their referees in effect being ordered to the touchline due to timing and potential/manager crowd influence (although I am sure they will vote differently on that for next season).

The way the Premier League have implemented it, basically totally undermines the referee, Jose was right the other night, the Referee of the game no longer has the whistle, he is just the Assistant Referee, the real referee is in Stockley Park watching a monitor. What we used to call linesmen are just assistants to the assistant referees, and apart from obvious offsides, are really only there for ball in and out of play now

 

[mr ashley]

If you leave it to the video ref to review as well as teams having appeals you'll still have the video ref overturning Son's offside. I think its either appeals or nothing.

Sorry, should have made it clear that I’m also advocating the laws being re-written in terms of handball and offside, going back to normal
Had been discussed in previous posts, but can see that wasn’t clear in my last post.

 

[mr ashley]

They don't give him advice though.
VAR just says to referee, Stop play we need to look at an incident, and then when they have done so. Check is over restart play or check is over we need you to award penalty/send off this player etc. They do not give him a running commentary of what has happened, and they only check straight red card offences (but do not advise if they feel something they were checking for a red was worthy of a yellow) penalty offences yes/no, mistaken identity and legitimacy of all goals.

We really should be making use of the Referee Review Area (referee looking at monitor), but again it is the clubs that did not want that, they didn't want their referees in effect being ordered to the touchline due to timing and potential/manager crowd influence (although I am sure they will vote differently on that for next season).

The way the Premier League have implemented it, basically totally undermines the referee, Jose was right the other night, the Referee of the game no longer has the whistle, he is just the Assistant Referee, the real referee is in Stockley Park watching a monitor. What we used to call linesmen are just assistants to the assistant referees, and apart from obvious offsides, are really only there for ball in and out of play now

This is all true and just shows how unduly complicated the PGMOL have made it, undermining the very officials that this was designed to help.
A simple system should be applied, whereby the video ref replaces the 4th official ( whose role has only ever been to oversee substitutions and manage the behaviour of protesting coaches.)

The video ref then watches the game in a room in the stands and can review play /decisions and alert the ref to any errors or concerns.
The lead ref then watches it back on the monitor, and the discussion between both officials is broadcast ( both over the tannoy and tv).

Teams could still have a couple of challenges potentially, but in all cases the conversation between officials would follow certain scripted questions such as:

1. Is there any reason why I can’t award a goal?
2. I’m concerned there was a dangerous challenge/ foul play, can we check that?
3. I’m going to award a penalty for that challenge, can we check that?

We’ve seen all other sports apply a successful review system, with effective protocols that virtually eliminate officiating errors. For football to have so many issues, despite both the financial clout and learning from the experience of other sports is both embarrassing and suspicious

 

[Trotter]

This is all true and just shows how unduly complicated the PGMOL have made it, undermining the very officials that this was designed to help.
A simple system should be applied, whereby the video ref replaces the 4th official ( whose role has only ever been to oversee substitutions and manage the behaviour of protesting coaches.)

The video ref then watches the game in a room in the stands and can review play /decisions and alert the ref to any errors or concerns.
The lead ref then watches it back on the monitor, and the discussion between both officials is broadcast ( both over the tannoy and tv).

Teams could still have a couple of challenges potentially, but in all cases the conversation between officials would follow certain scripted questions such as:

1. Is there any reason why I can’t award a goal?
2. I’m concerned there was a dangerous challenge/ foul play, can we check that?
3. I’m going to award a penalty for that challenge, can we check that?

We’ve seen all other sports apply a successful review system, with effective protocols that virtually eliminate officiating errors. For football to have so many issues, despite both the financial clout and learning from the experience of other sports is both embarrassing and suspicious

All very well, but the clubs were given various options for how they wanted the referees to use VAR in their League, including some of your suggestions.
The clubs (in error in my view) voted for the system we have now.

They were under the miscomprehension that this would have the smallest impact with the largest benefit (correct decisions) to their product.
The clubs position was they wanted better, more factual decisions.

PGMOL have introduced some poor protocols in running the system, but the overriding position is the clubs have the system they voted for, even if they did not necessarily understand the full implications of what they were voting for, and the pitfalls of it..
I am sure we will see changes to its application for next season, when the clubs meet at the end of season, and ask PGMOL to tweak certain things (although offsides by millimetres, and handball laws are areas where there really is no wriggle room without the laws being rewritten by IFAB). I am certain we will see monitor use next season.

 

[mr ashley]

All very well, but the clubs were given various options for how they wanted the referees to use VAR in their League, including some of your suggestions.
The clubs (in error in my view) voted for the system we have now.

They were under the miscomprehension that this would have the smallest impact with the largest benefit (correct decisions) to their product.
The clubs position was they wanted better, more factual decisions.

PGMOL have introduced some poor protocols in running the system, but the overriding position is the clubs have the system they voted for, even if they did not necessarily understand the full implications of what they were voting for, and the pitfalls of it..
I am sure we will see changes to its application for next season, when the clubs meet at the end of season, and ask PGMOL to tweak certain things (although offsides by millimetres, and handball laws are areas where there really is no wriggle room without the laws being rewritten by IFAB). I am certain we will see monitor use next season.

Sounds a bit brexity.
Fingers crossed, things improve. Scary how this version was put forward as the most workable approach.

 

[leelee]

VAR for offsides works well because there is no grey area. On other offences, referee should do what he's paid to do.

 

[mr ashley]

VAR for offsides works well because there is no grey area. On other offences, referee should do what he's paid to do.

Not sure I agree with you.
The current approach to identifying offside has almost eliminated the skill in staying onside or timing your run.
The new microscopic approach is skewed in favour of the defending team, when the laws and their application should always be in favour of the attacking team.
Handball is the same. As I understand it, handball is only awarded if the ball strikes the defenders arm in an unnatural position. But if it hits an attackers arm in any way, it’s immediately handball. It should either be the same for both, or the opposite.

 

[leelee]

Not sure I agree with you.
The current approach to identifying offside has almost eliminated the skill in staying onside or timing your run.
The new microscopic approach is skewed in favour of the defending team, when the laws and their application should always be in favour of the attacking team.
Handball is the same. As I understand it, handball is only awarded if the ball strikes the defenders arm in an unnatural position. But if it hits an attackers arm in any way, it’s immediately handball. It should either be the same for both, or the opposite.

Agree with handball. But offside is offside, there are no arguments about the decision. Even if it better suits the defending team.

 

[wooderz]

Agree with handball. But offside is offside, there are no arguments about the decision. Even if it better suits the defending team.

You're correct, 100%.

However the spirit is lost. Offside was brought in to stop goal hanging. Being 0.1mm offside at the big toe is not goal hanging. We don't have laser vision, what we think is onside when in play turns out to be offside by a rats whisker.. that's not offside by the spirit and if we have to make a rule that says to be offside now it's by more than 6 inches or something then I think that's better.

This current black or white situation is just shit

 

[dirtyh]

You're correct, 100%.

However the spirit is lost. Offside was brought in to stop goal hanging. Being 0.1mm offside at the big toe is not goal hanging. We don't have laser vision, what we think is onside when in play turns out to be offside by a rats whisker.. that's not offside by the spirit and if we have to make a rule that says to be offside now it's by more than 6 inches or something then I think that's better.

This current black or white situation is just shit

doesn't help either that the officials are just utter shit also.

var - shit
officials - shitter
random interpretation by clueless morons - shittest.

not great really.

 

['O Zio]

VAR for offsides works well because there is no grey area. On other offences, referee should do what he's paid to do.

That's technically true but they've also openly admitted that the technology has something like a 30cm margin of error in terms of where the frame is stopped. Thats why all the fannying about to see whether the player's eyelashes may have been marginally offside is so ridiculous. They've admitted that there is a substantial margin of error but then continue to act as if there is none.

As someone said above, the spirit of the offside rule is to prevent goal hanging. These marginal calls where it's so tight that no advantage could possibly have been gained shouldn't be disallowed IMO because that's just not the reason why the rule exists in the first place.

 

[mr ashley]

You're correct, 100%.

However the spirit is lost. Offside was brought in to stop goal hanging. Being 0.1mm offside at the big toe is not goal hanging. We don't have laser vision, what we think is onside when in play turns out to be offside by a rats whisker.. that's not offside by the spirit and if we have to make a rule that says to be offside now it's by more than 6 inches or something then I think that's better.

This current black or white situation is just shit

The laws as they are now (or how they are applied) miss the point all too often.
Offside was to prevent goal-hanging, then they modified to address passages of play.
PGMOL then got excited about the degree of accuracy and we’ve ended up with this mess, where attackers are penalised despite not actually having an advantage
Handball was to prevent cheating (think maradona/Suarez), but also morphed to prevent defenders ‘making themselves big’ (think Terry blocking a shot).
Now players are penalised despite having no intent to play the ball with their arms
Both of these laws were fine, and worked well in practice. They could return, and VAR would work better automatically

 

[spud]

VAR for offsides works well because there is no grey area. On other offences, referee should do what he's paid to do.

You're kidding, right?

The moment when the ball was played is decided by the VAR. When the ball is played determines where the lines are placed and whether it was offside. A fraction of a second's difference in the timing of the VAR's choice is the difference between onside and offside.

If the technology decided all aspects of offside, including when the ball was played, I would agree with you. But it doesn't. As things stand it is as subject to human error as it ever was. So rather than there being no grey area, it is completely grey.

 

[thebenjamin]

I reckon the only way out of this mess is a cricket / tennis style appeal system. The match is refereed by the on pitch officials, but each team has let's say 2 appeals to use per match. So if you concede and you reckon the lino was wrong to keep his flag down, you can appeal it. If you're right, you keep the appeal, if not, you lose it. And VAR is only used when those appeals are enacted (apart from goal line tech).

This way, the sanctity of on field official refereeing the match is still there. You can't just frivolously use your appeals because you lose them if you get it wrong and you might need it later so it's not the absolute circus that it is now. And generally you can still celebrate a goal when your team scores, which you can't with the current system - which negates most of the point of attending live football in the first place.