Spurs and VAR

[yido_number1]

The law was to stop an unfair advantage. If they had any sense they would go back to that, a shoulder, a toe being offside doesn't give an advantage.

Anything less than 30cm should be considered onside, I would imagine that could be determined in less than 30 seconds.

You then have the same arguement of getting the tape measure out for the 30cm.

 

[buckley]

It seems its official that spurs were the worst treated by Var by losing 9 points more than they won it just confirms what we all know .
Add to that Man unt getting 20 penalties this season it just reinforces what we all thought I dont see it getting any better any sooner for us either my paranoia is working full on thank you very much VAR .

 

[Neon_Knight_]

Apparently we were 4th in the VAR winners column. Really didn’t feel that way...

The best stats from the strangest season

BBC Sport takes a dive into some of the more obscure stats from an English top-flight campaign like no other.

www.bbc.co.uk

A few huge problems with these VAR stats, which make them entirely worthless (for all teams, not just us):

1) The stats don't consider the percentage of VAR decisions that were correct / incorrect. Some teams will have proportionately experienced more correct / incorrect VAR decisions than others, which could potentially give a very different picture of which teams benefited / lost out most often.
Penalty decisions threw up the moist contraversy. VAR repeatedly failed to award for fouls when it appeared clear that there was enough contact to bring down someone sprinting at full speed, but did award when it appeared the attacking player initiated contact on purpose (leg unnaturally thrown out to the side).

2) The stats only include what was reviewed by VAR, not what wasn't.
Many incidents were overlooked entirely, each time causing one team to be let down by VAR team while another gained from the oversight. Some teams may have gotten away with countless oversights while others may have been penalised for almost every slight infringement. Some teams may have suffered more occasions than others where an opposition got away with overlooked infringements.
It was very inconsistent whether an infringement during the build up to a goal was reviewed and how far back the officials were willing to look.

3) On-field officials frequently opted not to flag / blow for perceived infringements, instead waiting for the VAR team to intervene for them.
If the linesman flags for an obvious offside against as the ball hits the back of the net, VAR will likely not have needed to review it, so there was no negative VAR ruling recorded against that attacking team nor positive VAR ruling for the defending team. In the same scenario on another occasion, the linesman could opt not to flag for offside (even though they think it was), and then VAR would need to review it and overrule, adding to the attacking teams negative VAR stat . In reality, VAR did not benefit or penalise either team in the second scenario - if VAR wasn't in use the linesman would have flagged and given the same outcome.
Some teams will have had more indecisive / cautious officials for more of their matches than others, leading to a higher number of superfluous VAR reviews.

4) 'Penalty awarded / overturned' won't factor in the many times that the ref didn't award a blatant penalty followed by VAR not overturning the decision as it "wasn't clear and obvious" (even though it really was). This will have happened to some teams more than others, so BBC's stats are not a true reflection of how many times a team benefited / lost out on penalty reviews.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

The stats are from OPTA, not the BBC.

The way they are written and visualised is quite confusing, with them using double negatives.

Also, things like Kane not being awarded two clear penalties is not shown under those stats. Nor is the red card Chelsea should have got.

Two? Do you mean during the entire season or since the restart?

Since the restart, the push by Bournemouth was clear and there was at least one other iffy challenge on Kane in another game.

I'm convinced there were three occasions within the 4-6 games of the season where Kane was brought down but the ref chose to let VAR intervene instead of blowing, only for VAR to opt not to overrule. Perhaps not all of them were clear fouls in real time, but slow motion replays replays clearly showed contact. The worst VAR blunder was obviously against Newcastle, when the retrospective explanation from VAR alluded to the fact that they saw it as a definite penalty but it "wasn't a clear and obvious error" by the on-field referee, so their rules didn't allow them to overrule.

 

[yido_number1]

A few huge problems with these VAR stats, which make them entirely worthless (for all teams, not just us):

1) The stats don't consider the percentage of VAR decisions that were correct / incorrect. Some teams will have proportionately experienced more correct / incorrect VAR decisions than others, which could potentially give a very different picture of which teams benefited / lost out most often.
Penalty decisions threw up the moist contraversy. VAR repeatedly failed to award for fouls when it appeared clear that there was enough contact to bring down someone sprinting at full speed, but did award when it appeared the attacking player initiated contact on purpose (leg unnaturally thrown out to the side).

2) The stats only include what was reviewed by VAR, not what wasn't.
Many incidents were overlooked entirely, each time causing one team to be let down by VAR team while another gained from the oversight. Some teams may have gotten away with countless oversights while others may have been penalised for almost every slight infringement. Some teams may have suffered more occasions than others where an opposition got away with overlooked infringements.
It was very inconsistent whether an infringement during the build up to a goal was reviewed and how far back the officials were willing to look.

3) On-field officials frequently opted not to flag / blow for perceived infringements, instead waiting for the VAR team to intervene for them.
If the linesman flags for an obvious offside against as the ball hits the back of the net, VAR will likely not have needed to review it, so there was no negative VAR ruling recorded against that attacking team nor positive VAR ruling for the defending team. In the same scenario on another occasion, the linesman could opt not to flag for offside (even though they think it was), and then VAR would need to review it and overrule, adding to the attacking teams negative VAR stat . In reality, VAR did not benefit or penalise either team in the second scenario - if VAR wasn't in use the linesman would have flagged and given the same outcome.
Some teams will have had more indecisive / cautious officials for more of their matches than others, leading to a higher number of superfluous VAR reviews.

4) 'Penalty awarded / overturned' won't factor in the many times that the ref didn't award a blatant penalty followed by VAR not overturning the decision as it "wasn't clear and obvious" (even though it really was). This will have happened to some teams more than others, so BBC's stats are not a true reflection of how many times a team benefited / lost out on penalty reviews.

Southampton away Alli got fouled in the box and VAR didnt even look at it.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

Southampton away Alli got fouled in the box and VAR didnt even look at it.

Same foul on a Man Utd player and it probably would have been given every time

 

[Graham Minshall]

A few huge problems with these VAR stats, which make them entirely worthless (for all teams, not just us):

1) The stats don't consider the percentage of VAR decisions that were correct / incorrect. Some teams will have proportionately experienced more correct / incorrect VAR decisions than others, which could potentially give a very different picture of which teams benefited / lost out most often.
Penalty decisions threw up the moist contraversy. VAR repeatedly failed to award for fouls when it appeared clear that there was enough contact to bring down someone sprinting at full speed, but did award when it appeared the attacking player initiated contact on purpose (leg unnaturally thrown out to the side).

2) The stats only include what was reviewed by VAR, not what wasn't.
Many incidents were overlooked entirely, each time causing one team to be let down by VAR team while another gained from the oversight. Some teams may have gotten away with countless oversights while others may have been penalised for almost every slight infringement. Some teams may have suffered more occasions than others where an opposition got away with overlooked infringements.
It was very inconsistent whether an infringement during the build up to a goal was reviewed and how far back the officials were willing to look.

3) On-field officials frequently opted not to flag / blow for perceived infringements, instead waiting for the VAR team to intervene for them.
If the linesman flags for an obvious offside against as the ball hits the back of the net, VAR will likely not have needed to review it, so there was no negative VAR ruling recorded against that attacking team nor positive VAR ruling for the defending team. In the same scenario on another occasion, the linesman could opt not to flag for offside (even though they think it was), and then VAR would need to review it and overrule, adding to the attacking teams negative VAR stat . In reality, VAR did not benefit or penalise either team in the second scenario - if VAR wasn't in use the linesman would have flagged and given the same outcome.
Some teams will have had more indecisive / cautious officials for more of their matches than others, leading to a higher number of superfluous VAR reviews.

4) 'Penalty awarded / overturned' won't factor in the many times that the ref didn't award a blatant penalty followed by VAR not overturning the decision as it "wasn't clear and obvious" (even though it really was). This will have happened to some teams more than others, so BBC's stats are not a true reflection of how many times a team benefited / lost out on penalty reviews.

I have to say from the off That I was in favour of VAR being bought in, but, the mess that has been made of it, I don’t think anyone could have envisaged that.

The problem I see with VAR in football as opposed to other sports where it is used,(tennis, cricket rugby etc) is it’s used for definitive calls, where you can see a mistake has been made, or in crickets case where the margin for error is give to the on field umpires decision. In football, apart from offside and goal line technology, there is’nt any definition of what constitutes contact, handball or violent play, it’s all someones opinion, so if two people are viewing the same incident they could come up with different opinions.

The problem with having no definition of the rules or not factoring in cause and effect of an incident, let’s look at 2 penalties given against Spurs this season, first, Pogba’s, a lovely piece of skill from Pogba and he’s in the penalty area, he then initiates contact by trying to hold Dier off, he then starts to lose balance when Dier doesn’t back off, Dier then tries to brush Pogba’s arm away and Pogba goes down, now was there enough contact from Dier to cause Pogba to go down or did Pogba Cause the incident by making contact first? was there enough contact to make either player go down, seeing the incident in real-time you can see why the penalty was given but VAR job should have been to question the decision and ask the ref to view it again!

Now to the next penalty, Aurier’s foul against Man City, a more straight forward decision, particularly in real time, but Mike Dean didn’t give it, so it was viewed by the VAR official it was viewed several times, what you see in the slow motion replay is Aguero plant his right leg, lower his body weight to give himself a strong base to hold Aurier off, then Aurier tries to get his foot in to kick the ball away but makes contact with the outside of Aguero’s leg, what happens nex? Aguero is launched into the air 4foot away rolls around and stays down for over a minute, did Aurier’s contact really cause that to happen or was Aguero trying to get a penalty, 2 minutes later VAR give a penalty, had Mike Dean been asked to review it (given his reaction to the penalty given to Arsenal Sunday) I’m not sure he would have changed his decision.

In conclusion, in my opinion there needs to be a review of what contact is, what is the cause and effect of that contact and does it warrant a foul, there needs to be more dialogue between the ref and the VAR official and what has actually taken place.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

I have to say from the off That I was in favour of VAR being bought in, but, the mess that has been made of it, I don’t think anyone could have envisaged that.

The problem I see with VAR in football as opposed to other sports where it is used,(tennis, cricket rugby etc) is it’s used for definitive calls, where you can see a mistake has been made, or in crickets case where the margin for error is give to the on field umpires decision. In football, apart from offside and goal line technology, there is’nt any definition of what constitutes contact, handball or violent play, it’s all someones opinion, so if two people are viewing the same incident they could come up with different opinions.

The problem with having no definition of the rules or not factoring in cause and effect of an incident, let’s look at 2 penalties given against Spurs this season, first, Pogba’s, a lovely piece of skill from Pogba and he’s in the penalty area, he then initiates contact by trying to hold Dier off, he then starts to lose balance when Dier doesn’t back off, Dier then tries to brush Pogba’s arm away and Pogba goes down, now was there enough contact from Dier to cause Pogba to go down or did Pogba Cause the incident by making contact first? was there enough contact to make either player go down, seeing the incident in real-time you can see why the penalty was given but VAR job should have been to question the decision and ask the ref to view it again!

Now to the next penalty, Aurier’s foul against Man City, a more straight forward decision, particularly in real time, but Mike Dean didn’t give it, so it was viewed by the VAR official it was viewed several times, what you see in the slow motion replay is Aguero plant his right leg, lower his body weight to give himself a strong base to hold Aurier off, then Aurier tries to get his foot in to kick the ball away but makes contact with the outside of Aguero’s leg, what happens nex? Aguero is launched into the air 4foot away rolls around and stays down for over a minute, did Aurier’s contact really cause that to happen or was Aguero trying to get a penalty, 2 minutes later VAR give a penalty, had Mike Dean been asked to review it (given his reaction to the penalty given to Arsenal Sunday) I’m not sure he would have changed his decision.

In conclusion, in my opinion there needs to be a review of what contact is, what is the cause and effect of that contact and does it warrant a foul, there needs to be more dialogue between the ref and the VAR official and what has actually taken place.

The issue is definitely with the application of the technology, not the technology itself.

Pogba threw his left leg out sideways to initiate contact with Dier's foot/leg, as he passed him. I assumed the penalty was awarded for that lower body contact, not the upper body contact.
Had Pogba held Dier off like that on the halfway line, it would have been more likely to have been deemed a foul - I hate the inconsistency in what's allowed in the penalty area vs. middle of the pitch.

VAR may have made the right call on the Aurier penalty (I only have a vague recollection of it), but it certainly wasn't as clear and obvious as when Newcastle's keeper brought Kane down in August. The VAR Team was too cautious about overruling the on-field ref for penalties in the first 2-3 months of the season. This gradually improved, but still is far from perfect.
If the VAR Team feels they need to review an incident, or the ref asks them to, decision should then be based on what actually happened rather than whether or not the ref should have seen it without a review. This would then be consistent with the VAR application for off-sides and handballs that lead to goal scoring opportunities.

 

[ralphs bald spot]

I think that we have now tried VAR and it was rubbish - for next season we should play all games with no holds barred like my nephew does on FIFA

No more debating was there contact because no VAR and all referees made redundant - for those old enough the East London Sunday League had the foresight to develop this in the 80's

 

[buckley]

It has been said that Var just seems to not want to go against a ref and generally this is true except if its Man Unt or Liverpool then they are quite happy to overrule the ref . The only problem with Var is those that make the decisions in the VAR room they are so inconsistent .
I dont remember the exact games but the Bournmouth Kane incident the VAR people backed the ref there was a later game in the week where a less obvious penalty decision again with a similar push but nowhere near as obvious and the Var people overturned the ref who gave
" no goal " as I say it is so inconsistent . Perhaps if the VAR people were made to explain their decisions after a match they may not be so
Blaise about making decisions .

 

[FibreOpticJesus]

It has been said that Var just seems to not want to go against a ref and generally this is true except if its Man Unt or Liverpool then they are quite happy to overrule the ref . The only problem with Var is those that make the decisions in the VAR room they are so inconsistent .
I dont remember the exact games but the Bournmouth Kane incident the VAR people backed the ref there was a later game in the week where a less obvious penalty decision again with a similar push but nowhere near as obvious and the Var people overturned the ref who gave
" no goal " as I say it is so inconsistent . Perhaps if the VAR people were made to explain their decisions after a match they may not be so
Blaise about making decisions .

Just look at the Man U penalty against Dier. Then look at the pen decision for Kane. Absolutely biased.

 

[spud]

Just look at the Man U penalty against Dier. Then look at the pen decision for Kane. Absolutely biased.

I wouldn't necessarily say they're biased. But they are certainly inconsistent from game to game (which is one of he things that the VAR was supposed to, but has signally failed to, improve) and you also have to question their competence.

 

[FibreOpticJesus]

I wouldn't necessarily say they're biased. But they are certainly inconsistent from game to game (which is one of he things that the VAR was supposed to, but has signally failed to, improve) and you also have to question their competence.

To many decisions go the way of the so called top four. Has been so for many years. Var has not changed it. It’s institutionalised biased.

 

[SandroClegane]

It has been said that Var just seems to not want to go against a ref and generally this is true except if its Man Unt or Liverpool then they are quite happy to overrule the ref . The only problem with Var is those that make the decisions in the VAR room they are so inconsistent .
I dont remember the exact games but the Bournmouth Kane incident the VAR people backed the ref there was a later game in the week where a less obvious penalty decision again with a similar push but nowhere near as obvious and the Var people overturned the ref who gave
" no goal " as I say it is so inconsistent . Perhaps if the VAR people were made to explain their decisions after a match they may not be so
Blaise about making decisions .

MLS has been using the audio between the head official and the VAR in the return to play tournament they've been doing and it's been pretty fascinating to hear:

 

[cabinfever]

I hate VAR!!!!! I hate everything about it and I hate what it’s done to the game!!

There, I’ve said it.

 

[mr ashley]

MLS has been using the audio between the head official and the VAR in the return to play tournament they've been doing and it's been pretty fascinating to hear:

So simple, so effective.
Would love to hear Jon moss in a similar conversation.
Need a universal term for ‘kick point’ though. Come on America…

 

[Trotter]

It seems its official that spurs were the worst treated by Var by losing 9 points more than they won it just confirms what we all know .
Add to that Man unt getting 20 penalties this season it just reinforces what we all thought I dont see it getting any better any sooner for us either my paranoia is working full on thank you very much VAR .

What are you going on about.
Spurs were the best (not the worst) treated by VAR, and without it would have finished 10th. We actually gained a net 7 points not lost 9 points by it
We gained the MOST points of any team due to its decisions.
So let's just lose the everyone is against us complex, because they certainly aren't, it actually confirms the complete opposite of what you thought you knew.

The real truth is fans want every decision, however trivial given for them, believe every decision against them is a total travesty irrelevant how nailed on the decision was, and only remember the ones that didn't fit into those criteria, and conveniently forget all the ones that did.

For every Kane should have had a penalty against Bournemouth which VAR didn't give, there are the conveniently forgotten Lamela foul against Man City, or Vertonghen against Watford which VAR didn't give for example, but overall we benefitted from VAR more than any team over the season.

What the Premier League table looks like without VAR

FOOTBALL LAB: The introduction of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) has had a profound effect on not only the game but the spectacle. Things may never be the same again.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Premier League Table Without VAR: Chelsea Would Have Been Above Man Utd - Kuulpeeps - Ghana Campus News and Lifestyle Site by Students

Video Assistant Referee (VAR) has undoubtedly had an impact on fans’ emotions over the course of the 2019/20 Premier League season, as it has also decided the final outcome of a lot of games during the season. Analysis by Express Sport has revealed how the table would look if the extra official...

kuulpeeps.com

 

[Saoirse]

So simple, so effective.
Would love to hear Jon moss in a similar conversation.
Need a universal term for ‘kick point’ though. Come on America…

The audio's good, but we really don't want or need the refs going to the monitor for calls like that which are both objective and obvious

 

[SandroClegane]

The audio's good, but we really don't want or need the refs going to the monitor for calls like that which are both objective and obvious

If the officials did it for every VAR call and knew it was broadcast around the country, you don't think it would be an effective method of holding them accountable? Of course this one is obvious but so was Kane getting fouled against Bournemouth. Would've loved to heard the discussion around that, or the Dier foul on Pogba. Nowhere to hide.

 

[buckley]

The study I saw was not did Var give you a goal or penalty / did VAR deny you a goal or a penalty ? this is what you are looking at .
The study I read was how many goals were given that should not have been and how many goals that were denied that should have stood penalties should you have had compared to penalties that were wrongly given and in this study VAR was not getting involved when it should have done and this is where we come out worse off Just to mention the deli incident and several Kane incidents where Var should have got involved but ignored what happened completely .It is not just about what VAR got right or wrong and this is what your stance comes from .
It is about where VAR should have got involved and did not as in the Sheff Unt player that should have been red carded but VAR chose to ignore completely .Perhaps if we wear red shirts it might help improve their vision .
The study I saw picked up on all the VAR decisions that the ref ignored but should have been noticed by VAR but chose to ignore completely
There are a multitude of incidents that I have been left bemused why VAR chose to ignore certain fouls and penalty appeals
I except your figures but I am looking at another set of figures and we were the team that came off worse because VAR chose to ignore the incident .