The VAR Thread

[luRRka]

Still seems complicated

Edit - to save opening on twitter to expand:

Players told @premierleague there were too many hand-balls last season. Players now advised by PL that not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence and they are not expected to move with their arms behind back or by their side like pogoing penguins (not an official description in the Laws). Handball Law is simplified. No hand-ball if: justifiable position or action; a clear change of trajectory when touched by, or deflected from, the same player; played by a team-mate; hits supporting arm when a player falls; or proximity. Handball still fairly complicated but this should prove an improvement.

 

[allatsea]

Still seems complicated

Edit - to save opening on twitter to expand:

Players told @premierleague there were too many hand-balls last season. Players now advised by PL that not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence and they are not expected to move with their arms behind back or by their side like pogoing penguins (not an official description in the Laws). Handball Law is simplified. No hand-ball if: justifiable position or action; a clear change of trajectory when touched by, or deflected from, the same player; played by a team-mate; hits supporting arm when a player falls; or proximity. Handball still fairly complicated but this should prove an improvement.

So, if I have understood this correctly, a team mate can cleverly push you towards the ball and so deflect it and it isn't a penalty/foul ?

 

[cwy21]

Just a wild thought but maybe use the same interpretations as the rest of the world instead of adjusting to what players want.

 

[Guernman]

There is still a lot that is very subjective. The question is, will VAR stay out of it if the on-field ref thinks it is a justifiable action, but the VAR disagrees?

I have always felt that with subjective rulings the ref needs to make the decision and he should only be shown additional footage if he specifically asks to see it. That would stop VAR re-referring games.

So, if a ref sees a handball incident and waves play on, that should be the end of it, if he felt it happened too fast or he wasn't entirely happy that he saw the incident well enough, then he can ask VAR to play it back to him pitch side. Then VAR becomes a tool he can choose to use, rather than a second or third subjective opinion forced upon him.

 

[cwy21]

I have always felt that with subjective rulings the ref needs to make the decision and he should only be shown additional footage if he specifically asks to see it. That would stop VAR re-referring games.

I'm stealing this quote from someone I know on a referee forum when he responded to someone making a similar argument.

But whole point of VAR was to fix mistakes where the referee got it wrong. And referees get things wrong when they are 100% convinced they are right. Witness the men's Olympic gold medal match--Abatti was sure and adamant there was no penalty and no holding offence. There's no way in a million years he would have voluntarily subjected himself to a VAR consultation at that juncture of the match given his perspective and what was on the line.

Referees are trained to make calls and to sell them. They are supposed to believe in the correctness of their call. Introducing a system that fundamentally relies on a referee being able to immediately introduce self-doubt into their own decision on the biggest calls in the game and to act on that doubt appropriately is a recipe for disaster and for getting even worse and more erratic outcomes than you get now

 

[aliyid]

Shocking that this is defended as not being a red card

 

[jackson]

Shocking that this is defended as not being a red card

Seriously has he ever disagreed with the ref's decision on there?

 

[tommo84]

Seriously has he ever disagreed with the ref's decision on there?

Tbf he disagreed with the decision to disallow the Bournemouth goal.

 

[Whazam]

Shocking that this is defended as not being a red card

Unbelievable reasoning there.

Why is he repeating what Joelinton's purpose was as a reason for only giving a yellow? And of course it look worse when the keeper is running, because that's makes it more dangerous... My god.

 

[Danners9]

Putting this here instead of the Spurs thread because it's broader than just yesterday's game.

I listened to this during the week:

The guest has written a book about the impact of VAR on the game. The definitions of the rules. The associated delays. Controversies. How it is changing the game to suit what is a flawed system.

In yesterday's game I can accept the laws of the game state something, but having seen the essay they wrote to explain it I am left wondering why... if you need that much text to explain handball, surely the handball interpretation is wrong. Couldn't the ref just blow his whistle at the time? why did they have to wait and wait, and then decide actually nah, he's not the one who scored so it's all cool. The handball, accidental or not, gave possession to the opposition who went on and scored. Just typing it out screams foul. And then the Dan Burn one. If you accept Joelinton was in a natural position, then Burn definitely was not. And it stopped a break. And he had been booked. That must meet the definition of a deliberate handball and therefore a yellow, meaning he's off.

Instead both are seemingly fine.

The podcast talks about frame rates and how it essentially has passed the decision making onto someone else instead of giving a proper, correct, outcome. They moulded the rules to suit the flaws, instead of minimising the flaws.

Interesting episode...

 

[Whazam]

Putting this here instead of the Spurs thread because it's broader than just yesterday's game.

I listened to this during the week:

The guest has written a book about the impact of VAR on the game. The definitions of the rules. The associated delays. Controversies. How it is changing the game to suit what is a flawed system.

In yesterday's game I can accept the laws of the game state something, but having seen the essay they wrote to explain it I am left wondering why... if you need that much text to explain handball, surely the handball interpretation is wrong. Couldn't the ref just blow his whistle at the time? why did they have to wait and wait, and then decide actually nah, he's not the one who scored so it's all cool. The handball, accidental or not, gave possession to the opposition who went on and scored. Just typing it out screams foul. And then the Dan Burn one. If you accept Joelinton was in a natural position, then Burn definitely was not. And it stopped a break. And he had been booked. That must meet the definition of a deliberate handball and therefore a yellow, meaning he's off.

Instead both are seemingly fine.

The podcast talks about frame rates and how it essentially has passed the decision making onto someone else instead of giving a proper, correct, outcome. They moulded the rules to suit the flaws, instead of minimising the flaws.

Interesting episode...

Was the goal yesterday actually ok according to the laws? I get the natural position, but I thought it was in there that you couldn't make yourself bigger with the help of your arms/hands? That's exactly what Joelinton is doing when lowering his gravity while not having his arm to his body. That part is very deliberate from him. I don't get at all.

 

[Danners9]

Was the goal yesterday actually ok according to the laws? I get the natural position, but I thought it was in there that you couldn't make yourself bigger with the help of your arms/hands? That's exactly what Joelinton is doing when lowering his gravity while not having his arm to his body. That part is very deliberate from him. I don't get at all.

Accidental handball is not a problem unless it's the player scoring, apparently. That's why Solanke vs Ipswich was chalked off and this wasn't. But It might as well have been Joelinton scoring because that handball takes half the Spurs team out and one pass later the ball is in the net. Why it's just not a regular handball I have no idea. Same as a player accidentally using his arm to control a ball he otherwise wouldn't be able to. It's a clear advantage using his hand.

The podcast goes into how VAR has changed the laws and changed the sport. And the guest, who is from an education background, goes into a way of comparing incidents to give a clearer guideline. The Thierry Henry vs Ireland handball is the example given most of the time for a handball VAR should give.

 

[Whazam]

Accidental handball is not a problem unless it's the player scoring, apparently. That's why Solanke vs Ipswich was chalked off and this wasn't. But It might as well have been Joelinton scoring because that handball takes half the Spurs team out and one pass later the ball is in the net. Why it's just not a regular handball I have no idea. Same as a player accidentally using his arm to control a ball he otherwise wouldn't be able to. It's a clear advantage using his hand.

The podcast goes into how VAR has changed the laws and changed the sport. And the guest, who is from an education background, goes into a way of comparing incidents to give a clearer guideline. The Thierry Henry vs Ireland handball is the example given most of the time for a handball VAR should give.

I think the focus on "accidental" and "intentional" is such a big part of the problem. Maybe 1 in 100 is as deliberate as Henry's. Almost all handballs are accidental or unintentional. And that forces the officials to base a lot of their decision-making on guessing.

Think it would be much better if the focus was more on if it was avoidable at all, and even more importantly, if it creates an advantage.

 

[spurmin]

 

[Danners9]

Here's a thread from the podcast host, journalist Rob Draper, discussing his view of VAR:

 

[aliyid]

I think the focus on "accidental" and "intentional" is such a big part of the problem. Maybe 1 in 100 is as deliberate as Henry's. Almost all handballs are accidental or unintentional. And that forces the officials to base a lot of their decision-making on guessing.

Think it would be much better if the focus was more on if it was avoidable at all, and even more importantly, if it creates an advantage.

This 100%, the focus shouldn’t be on if it’s an intentional action but if they gained an advantage.

Take yesterday’s incident, the handball is directly linked to them scoring the goal. Therefore it has to be pulled back.

The big question is how far back is too far when considering the advantage gained. They’re saying as the Newcastle handball wasn’t made by the scorer or assist-er then it was too far back (absolute bollocks IMO). I don’t think you can say a set number of passes but more ‘phase of play’. If the ball had recycled around outside the box again then it would be more questionable but this was direct (was fuming in the ground and I’m still livid about it being allowed)

 

[Hazelton]

I've always felt handball should be based on whether it affects the play or gives an unfair advantage. I think if the ball hits an arm but would have hit a thigh, rib, chest etc anyway then it's fine but if the arm is literally the only reason the ball stops, whether intentionally or not, that should be penalised IMO.

 

[TheBlueRooster]

I haven't trawled through all the comments but I always thought VAR was brought in for clear and obvious errors and if the ball had crossed the line for a goal. The second is no longer needed but to see if a player is a millimetre offside isn't clear and obvious, if it takes four or five minutes to decide when a linesman is supposed to see it in a split second. It should be for incidents that the referee has missed e.g violent conduct. All decisions should be down to referee to interpret the laws as he/she feels fit. In this situation did handball (accidentally or not)break up play leading to an attack? Yes it did, so a free kick awarded to the attacking team, no yellow card.

 

[dbspurs]

Having just watched ref watch i can conclude that Stephen Warnock is either an idiot or he hates Spurs. Deki apparently leaned into Gordon and it should have been a pen. All the other decisions in the game are correct apparently....

 

[TheBlueRooster]

Having just watched ref watch i can conclude that Stephen Warnock is either an idiot or he hates Spurs. Deki apparently leaned into Gordon and it should have been a pen. All the other decisions in the game are correct apparently....

He's an idiot, hope that helps, now off to watch Ref Watch to confirm.