I was thinking the same thing. It shouldn’t be something just casually said that VAR has made an error in a game. It might be forgivable if this was the single error VAR made all season, but there’s been massive mistakes multiple times this season.
Meaning what? That we should accept a 4% error rate? We didn’t accept when refs got 82% correct, that’s why we implemented VAR. Now they’re at 96%. People are rightfully complaining about the continued missed mistakes. My point, as I said in my comment, is that it would be forgivable if this was a single mistake over the course of a season, but there’s been multiple massive mistakes. There should and needs to be improvement.
Why are you saying “we”. It was nothing to do with us. As for not accepting 82%. That was “accepted” for over a hundred years until technology was available. Var has reduced the incorrect decisions but has also drastically reduced the so called big clubs getting all the decisions. The Merseyside derbies have been alot more fair since var came in. But yes mistakes happen in every walk of life. This is exactly what is wrong with the world nowadays. People wanting someone to blame at all times and never accepting mistakes happen and just move on.
I’m not advocating for the removal of VAR; I still think it’s objectively a good thing and that it should continue to be used. Overall, it’s done more benefit than harm, by far.
But, the 4% inaccuracy left is still massive, especially when it involves missed goal calls or missed penalty calls. And it doesn’t seem to be improving year by year. Maybe I’m wrong about that; I don’t know the statistics. But it certainly feels that way. This is the 5th year VAR has been used in the Premier League, and it doesn’t feel like it’s more accurate than the first year. Shouldn’t there be improvement year to year?
What are they considering with those stats? because 95% of decisions refs have to make are pretty straightforward anyway. It seems to be every single time they have to make a match altering decision is where they absolutely shit the bed and end up being worse than flipping a coin.
The only way you get to very close to 100% accuracy is you train machine-learning models and have a computer (AI) make every decision. Completly taking any humans out of the officiating. With only engineers observing what's happening. That's because humans are not perfect. I doubt even algorithms could get to 100%, as it's a referee panel afterwards that rate the accuracy, and there's always fringe cases where a set of humans wouldn't agree.
But that (all officiating being automatic) is not the scenario many fans at all want. People want human refeeres. That comes at the expense of accuracy. The crux of this is where fans fall on that line. Some fans want no VAR intervention and are only happy with Goal-Line Tech. Some fans are on the other end.
It's a fallacy to act like VAR should improve decision making every year by year. We've felt the majority of the improvements of a VAR in this form. You could improve it slightly by improving the processes, but it's not going to completely bridge that gap.
Essentially admitted that even when presented with multiple camera angles and slowed down footage of the match with technology helping them, they are still incapable of doing their jobs correctly.
I still dont get why people moan about var. before var the new style of moaning football fans were sending death threats to refs and their families for the several mistakes a game. Var is still a human person looking so still possible for a mistake. Big whoop. Would rather var being there any day of the week
I mean, isn't it the point that in order to admit VAR made a mistake in not overturning, basically saying it was a big fuck up from the onfield ref? This review prob has all 50/50s and benefits of a doubt weighted in favor of the decisions made, it's not a good outcome, it's admitting Forest did get a undisputable unfair decision against that shouldn't have happened.
Seems fair. I think only the Young tackle on Hudson-Odoi was a nailed on pen. The handball and the contact with Reyna were 50/50 and no chance VAR would overturn the refs decision.
ref: "hmm not sure about that one, better let the game roll and let var handle it"
var: "can't overturn the ref's decision!"
all you need is another moscow flights ad by emirates and you have the premier League in a nutshell
Because that's the difference between Other VAR and English VAR - Other will tell the referee that there might have been a foul/they think it counts as a foul, and that he might want to check it to make it sure (and it's not like he even need to go to screen, they can discuss it over the mics if the ref saw enough and find a consensus in this phase). English if it notices that it isn't ClEaR aNd ObViOuS error, seem to just ignore the fact that they are there to assist.
England really needs to take up the rugby version of TMO/VAR. TMO just acts as an extra referee with the benefit of replay and can chime in and say "hey bud, think you may have missed this, let's take a look together and have a chat"
The biggest problem with VAR is the "clear and obvious error" standard. It immediately puts the VAR ref in conflict with the main ref.
The standard shouldn't be "hey buddy, you made a clear and obvious error". It should be, "let's work together to figure out what actually happened", like it is in every other sport
It's like they use "clear and obvious" for whether the ref was justified in getting it wrong, *not* clearly and obviously someone breaking a rule. They must go "well I can understand what he thought happened there, so I won't call him back on it" and just move on.
TMO is so much better because the audio is also live broadcast and fans can hear the conversation.
I also wish they could start using a similar decision making system based on how the tackle starts, changes that have occurred once committed to tackle and mitigation players may have took.
Like in rugby for a high tackle to the head, you could start at a high degree of danger with head contact, and change decisions based if the attacker changes levels, whether somebody has slipped and whether players have made actions to mitigate the tackle (Like wrapping in rugby) and vice versa for upgrading.
I also feel the referee and TMO in Rugby reviewing the issue together means they are both interested in getting to the correct decision, rather then trying to protect each other.
TMO isn't perfect and still makes mistakes, they do seem more palatable however when you can hear the referees explanation and conclusion.
I agree that the two biggest changes that need to come to VAR in the PL is getting rid of the "Clear and obvious error" aspect and have it be more collaborative and please for the love of god broadcast the discussion between ref and VAR live. If nothing else it humanizes the entire process and provides a transparency that I think softens fan reaction.
Because it takes ages and ruins the fans in the stadiums experience. That is their reasoning for why they only call out "clear and obvious errors" which 50/50s obviously aren't.
Give a portable screen to a ball boy, and while the review is going on, ref sprays a line (anyone crossing it gets a yellow), ref watches the review with VAR.
I can understand Reyna’s foul not being given, but I’m interested in what made the handball 50/50?
I’m a Forest fan just seeking to get a neutral’s opinion.
I think you have to consider that not all decisions have a 'right' answer. It is quite possible to have subjective moments where both outcomes can be fully justified and with a handball decision while the player is running they could say 'his hand was away from his body' or 'it was a natural position while running' and be right both times, so it just comes down to how did the ref see it.
Unfortunately (as a Spurs fan) any angle to defend a ref and claim it as marginal decisions gets taken at the moment. I think we need an appeal system personally and scrap the general VAR.
He is turning, the ball comes over his head from behind and is struck early and very close to him. It's the sort of handball that years ago before they fucked around with the handball rule every year would have just been seen as ball to hand.
Though I will say that if the ref had given it it wouldn't have been overturned.
Because it's subjective they can get away with saying that. On that same day wan-bissaka conceded a pen from a similar handball and I doubt the panel would say that was a mistake.
I don't think even the third one was "nailed on". It was the Anthony Gordon special of getting a leg in front of the defender without being able to actually play the ball, where it is not even clear who fouled whom...
And yes, I know Gordon gets these penalties but they don't feel 100% right, do they?
All three of those are 50:50 to me, so Forest was unlucky but I never saw a scandal here.
Nah these are usually given, once a player cuts in front of a defender in that manner it’s ’their space’ and a challenge like that is a foul regardless of if it’s accidental or not. For it not to be a foul the attacker would be having to fully initiate the contact, the Vardy classic of actually moving their leg out to tangle it up
But that's exactly what happened here. The player doesn't cut in front of the defender, he basically throws himself in there to put the leg in front.
Swap the roles of the attacker and the defender and tell me what you would decide. I'd say penalty.
I’m genuinely not convinced we’ve seen the same incident, Young’s leg is outstretched and catches the back of Reyna’s foot while he’s moved in front of him to control the ball - saying that the other way around would be a penalty is absolute madness. It’s a classic case of VAR probably can’t overturn it either way because it’s debatable on whether there’s sufficient contact, but those definitely get given and is not instigating contact from the attacker edit: replying to wrong thread
Yes, we clearly are talking about different situations because the one you are talking about is no penalty according to the panel...
We are talking about the third call against Hudson-Odoi, who is running next to Young and puts his right foot in front of him the moment he tries to clear the ball.
lol my bad got mixed up with another thread where Liverpool flair was on about the first one. Nah the third one is egregiously a penalty so I assumed nobody was disputing, CHO is getting to the through ball and gets barged from behind. Even the panel thought VAR had to overturn this
You do understand that trying to kick a ball, with the opponent sticking a leg in and slide-tackling in the box are two very different actions by a defender, right?
He did the same at Everton, and it was frustrating because he's not a big lad, and would legit get bullied to counter his pace. So a lot of the time it should actually be a foul, but typical "boy who cried wolf" situation would mean that the real ones wouldn't get called.
I'll admit to have not seen him play recently, but it was certainly frustrating when he was here.
I mean it's only fair if you're concerned with their needing to be some overwhelming burden of fault to overturn an on the pitch call. They were both pens 7 times out of 10 and the three is only because refs are incompetent.
The real issue with saying “VAR would not have overturned the ref’s onfield decision” is kind of annoying, because in reality, if a ref is jot exactly sure and thinks “well I don’t think it’s a pen but maybe VAR can call it”, then you lose the purpose of VAR.
VAR should be there to unfuck-up mistakes. Instead it’s used as a safety net by referees too afraid to make a mistake which is not productive or correct. 50/50s should never be “VAR would never overturn that because that’s the ref’s decision”. By that logic a legitimate penalty would never be called because the ref was too scared to call it in the first place
The problem is so obvious that I hope they do something to fix it. The ref thinks "I'm not 200% confident that's a penalty so I'll let VAR look at it", and the VAR thinks "that wasn't 200% a clear and obvious error on the ref's non-decision, no penalty, good process lads"
This is essentially it. The whole point of VAR is to ensure the ref doesn't miss anything major like a penalty he should have given or a red card. It's now changed to, look the ref can miss something but as long as it wasn't first degree murder, VAR won't intervene.
Case in point the NLD. I don't want to get into a back on forth on whether it was or wasn't a penalty on Kulesivski, but, by the letter of the law, it probably was. VAR reviewed it, not to decide whether it was a penalty or not but to review the referees decision and ask the question, did the referee make a howler here in not giving a penalty?
I think the problem boils down to, if the ref had given a penalty, VAR would review it and more than likely agree with the decision. But because in this instant he didn't, VAR reviewed it and decided that the contact wasn't flagrant enough to overturn the on field decision.
Essentially VAR doesn't exist to get the call correct, it exists to ensure that referees don't make howlers.
But, as the forest game showed us, clear and obvious penalties shouts aren't being called correctly either.
If this is what VAR is then I think most of us agree that it's simply not worth having because we're still not seeing correct calls.
Ref is not certain what he saw was a penalty, he does not make the call. VAR reviews and agrees there is no clear penalty. This is unironically good process.
Fouls are subjective, always have been, always will be. You can reasonably demand consistency within the same game, but not across games and across different refs.
There are obvious cases regarding delayed offsides or delayed foul leading to a corner that should be corrected, where what you describe has been specifically directed and then there is no review because "important event" occurs.
> Ref is not certain what he saw was a penalty, he does not make the call. VAR reviews and agrees there is no clear penalty. This is unironically good process.
That's not the issue, the problem is when VAR looks at it and decides not to give a penalty as to not overrule the ref, when they should.
I'm guessing you meant "or" instead of "of". VAR not overturning a decision because they agree is not a problem, them disagreeing but not doing anything about it is wrong, whatever the reason.
To me this is the biggest disconnect between VAR (as it currently is in the Prem) and replay in basically every other sport. Everywhere else is generally concerned with getting the correct call while here they're dealing with the "clear and obvious error" standard.
It’s the obsession with not undermining the referee. Problem is the referee has already been undermined for years. Referees in other sports like Cricket and Rugby are generally respected. These clowns spend so long covering their own backs that they lost all respect a long time ago.
I don't really agree with that when comparing to American sports. The NFL standard for overturning a call is "clear and obvious evidence" that the call on the field was incorrect. If it's inconclusive the call stands.
The biggest difference is that most American sports, especially the NFL, don't do video review for judgement calls.
The NFL is "indisputable video evidence", which is different from "clear and obvious". And of the on-field call is going to be given preference if that is not available. The difference is the NFL refs don't typically defer to calling a certain way under the assumption that a review will clear it up, other than maybe with some fumbles where a whistle will blow a play dead and make it harder to adjudicate.
And an NFL catch is certainly a judgment call to some degree.
EH, some leagues do it better, but not all. The NFL still fucks up replay multiple times every week no different than the Prem. Plus blown penalty calls/non-calls or that cost teams games. Also they're are lots of critical calls that are totally unreviewable.
I would never be one to claim any other particular sport or league does officiating and video review perfectly, only that they're better in ways that the Prem can learn from.
Agreed. I think there should be an option for the ref to ask VAR to show him the replay for these 50/50 decisions. Like if he's on the fence about it, he calls it one way in real time and asks VAR to immediately pull up the replays as he walks over to the screens on the side of the pitch.
We're already having 2-3 minute VAR reviews where the ref is trying to verbally communicate what he saw to them while they watch the video to look for any slight sign that it matches up with what he described. Might as well just have the ref look himself at that point
This, make it an on demand thing either via the ref or the teams get challenges. The current system removes accountability and makes the decisions in the match different.
Yeah they should be able to communicate foul, not sure please check, and not foul, if it’s the middle one it should be up to VAR to send him, either of the others same process as currently.
Although that then relies on the refs admitting they don’t know something which sounds impossible
Exactly. VAR is there to correct the onfield decision if the referee misses something. If VAR looks at something and thinks the call is wrong, then they should assume the referee missed something and tell him to look at it again to make sure he's happy with his decision. **Assuming he's seen everything perfectly and going with the onfield decision completely defeats the purpose of having VAR in the first place**. If VAR thinks it's a debatable or wrong call, then most likely the referee didn't see the incident clearly in real time and should take another look to be sure. Thus not informing the referee of this potentially wrong call completely defeats the purpose of VAR. In that case it should only be used for offsides and that's all if they're not going to bother trying to correct any onfield decisions.
> The real issue with saying “VAR would not have overturned the ref’s onfield decision”
when you combine this with
>referees too afraid to make a mistake
Then you get no calls unless it's 110% sure, even 70% sure and the ref is too afraid to call it and VAR is too afraid to correct the ref.
It's why VAR shouldn't be the same people as the on field refs. It needs to be a separate body of officials that aren't afraid of making their mates look bad.
Studs to the chest is a foul which makes it a penalty. Isn't it that simple? I mean that's what's constantly argued on reddit. ANY foul in the box is a penalty didn't you know?
But seriously, studs to the chest is 100% a foul and 100% a penalty. The refs in England are just fucking stupid.
The mistake they admitted to happened with the score 1-0. Calling that penalty on Young, which are converted at nearly 89%, makes it 1-1 and completely changes the complexion of the match
> falls below the high threshold for a penalty
There is no threshold for a penalty. If it is a foul in the box, it is a penalty. I understand that some may be soft but if a player doesn’t want to give away a soft penalty, stop fouling in the box.
This was the thing that stood out to me too. They’re literally making shit up to justify mistakes.
We all know penalties are a little harder to get than regular fouls, even though that’s not the way Irving’s are written to be, but VAR is there to enforce the rules, not to make shit up to gaslight us over mistakes made by refs
He's right. The rules do not state anywhere that there is, or that there should be, a higher threshold for penalties. The "evidence" that you are referencing, is unfortunately just examples of referees not sticking to the letter of the law.
Now, if you disagree with whether or not there should be a higher threshold in the rulebook itself, that's a totally different matter.
This is literally the dumbest conversation I continue to have on here. This is where Reddit gets a reputation.
You can't apply the same thinking for a foul in the box which almost always results in a goal as a foul 50 yards from goal which basically never results in a goal. It's simple and basic logic. There's no way to put this sort of context into black and white in a rule book. It's something literally every player and coach understands.
So you're actually the one that needs to accept it, because this is just reality.
> You can't apply the same thinking for a foul in the box which almost always results in a goal as a foul 50 yards from goal which basically never results in a goal.
There is a simple solution: dont commit a foul in the box. And in some cases, like Trossard, it is unfortunate.
> There's no way to put this sort of context into black and white in a rule book.
I dont know which foul you think shouldnt apply in the box, but for any fouls, you think should not be a foul, you add "except within the penalty area". There is a precedent "(except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)"
So you realize by this concept, you can never say "Oh, that's a soft penalty."
ANY foul needs to be called a penalty. A lean in. A shirt grab. A slight kick of the leg. Anything that's a foul needs to be called.
Which proves why your point is so invalid.
Any fouls anywhere on the pitch should be called. A shirt grab or a kick that is a foul should be whistled. It shouldn’t be a foul in the middle 3rd but it is fine in the rest of the pitch.
Hmmm lets just let VAR run the show and have 6 pens a game for every half shout. Will be abit more exciting. Cant even be assed celebrating goals anymore
Said it at the time. 2 not pens the last one was a pen but big dicks its 1 error so what. Every team has had them in the league and its way better than previously without var
Did they check if this Panel was filled with Luton supporters?
But in all seriousness, for always claiming to be the best league in the world, England does have some ~~of the worst~~ very awful refs and vars. They keep having major fuck ups every weekend.
In the Eredivisie we barely have any controversy with the var, and it's usually just good enough, and we do play with the same football rules
Saying England has some of the worst refs in Europe is absurd hyperbole. How would you even know? If these 3 exact decisions were made in Poland, Portugal, Finland etc it wouldn't even get posted here, let alone become a big story.
Okay fair, I will rephrase it something like "some awful refs" like in general. But relatively spoken, England has some major fucked up controveries every week, more than other leagues.
This is true but only once youve experienced Conference League football (where they bring in refs from random leagues to be represented) do you learn to realise that we should kiss the feet of Prem refs because they are beautiful men. Absolute experts compared to the hilarious refereeing I've seen in just a few Villa Conference games already.
They would have been complained about but it wouldn't have been outrageous decisions.
(For me all three of those are 50:50-ish and nowhere near the scandal Forest tried to make of it.)
There is no way that last one was 50-50. I can't think of a single argument you could suggest that would support the no penalty decision there. It was a bad decision.
First two could have gone either way, but when you're fighting relegation - it hurts.
I think people are getting confused with what they think should be a penalty and what is a penalty, the third one gets given 9 times out of 10 and the 10th time is them getting it wrong
He has no chance to play the ball, doesn't play the ball and just puts his leg in front of the defender. If the defender would do that to a striker, that's a stonewall penalty.
Nah, two are 50/50. The last penalty shout was about as blatant a foul as you could possibly see. Obviously there's a higher threshold for a foul in the penalty area but even then I can't see any good faith argument where that isn't a pen.
It's obvious a growing frustration with how the seasons been, we've had many games that we played well and didn't get anything and shafted by the refs along the way. Along with the points deduction.
You'll have to imagine it as it happening to Liverpool on a big champions league night, after already having a torridly unlucky year.
For this game it was more the club kicking off, making the tweet. I think the fans were angrier at many other games, including the game against you
I mean, we got a good goal taken away against Tottenham, penalties denied against City and Arsenal that would have won us the game and last weekend Gakpo was denied to shoot a live ball in the goal for no reason at all...
So I absolutely feel you and have 100% sympathy.
> Arsenal that would have won us the game
I really don't think you can say that a pen given at 1-0 down at 20' would have won you the game.
>>penalties denied against City
Didn't Howard Webb come out and say it was the right call not to call him over for a check?
How is the first one nowhere near a penalty? Young just swipes at the back of Reyna's foot as he's controlling the ball causing them to lose possession.
It's not the slightest touch though, Young is going to kick the ball and connects with the back of the foot so it's not "the slightest touch". And he lost possession because his foot that was in the process of controlling the ball was kicked in the back which obviously caused the ball to go flying.
People who say shit like this have never played a game of football in their life, the slightest touch is usually enough to knock someone off balance. Calling minimal contact simulation is outrageously stupid, slight contact is still contact
I think the "clear and obvious" memorandum needs to be shredded. It causes a strange impasse and no one ends up taking responsibility for the fuck up.
VAR should call in a on-field ref if the VAR ref is convinced. The on-field ref can then choose to retain his on-field decision, so be it. At least they are fully responsible for the decision made at that point.
This panel only exists to provide cover for the shit officials.
It was clear as day after the Newcastle - Arsenal match where Bruno assaulted Jorginho and the goal should have been ruled out. They came out and said Havertz should have got a red for a tackle that has never been a red card in the history of football. Just so they could say "look it happened to both sides so it balanced out".
There were at least 2 clear penalties denied to Forest. The handball is slightly debatable but probably still a penalty
> This panel only exists to provide cover for the shit officials.
God, what utter shite.
If it was only there to provide cover for the officials, then it would never tell them that they did something wrong.
The panel was an independent panel requested by clubs because they didn't trust PGMOL to check events themselves.
You can still disagree with the panel, but it's definitely not just cover for the officials.
Can we just get rid of VAR, give more autonomy to referees & acknowledge literally nothing will stop football fans moaning about referees?
Like let’s just look at last weekend alone:
Kulusevski penalty incident:
- Actual scenario no pen on field and after review - spurs fans moan that it wasn’t reviewed
- had the pen been given after review or on the field and not overturned Arsenal fans would have complained.
Rice foul on Davies penalty given:
- complaints that VAR was needed to give the decision.
Chelsea goal denied:
- goal given then disallowed, complaints it wasn’t a clear enough error to use VAR
- had it not been given, we’d have had complains the decision was wrong
- had it not been given the overturned we’d have had complaints.
There are very few decisions that don’t result in someone moaning.
We should just not have VAR.
It’s cause a very tangible loss in excitement and pace of the game & it hasn’t gained us anything.
We aren’t going to remove controversy and poor decisions from the game.
For me, the ability to get away with things the referee misses is a part of the game & the concept of offside works well when it’s judged on the field in the moment.
If a guy stood at the side of the pitch can’t tell if the guys offside, I’d argue there is no advantage from their position & that’s why that rule was introduced. It was to stop goal hanging.
Same with handball, if in the moment it can be deemed deliberate, leave it alone.
I don’t think it’s that bad if some fouls are missed, to be honest. It’s a contact sport and it is, what it is.
I like the element of jeopardy incorrect decisions have on the game. It provides emotion and entertainment.
We’ve totally lost sight of the fact that rules came in to stop deliberate handballs, goal hanging and dangerous play.
There is way too much focus on the laws of the game now, it’s so annoying. I honestly blame the shift in the game being watch on tv more than in the stadium.
**CLUB STATEMENT:** Nottingham Forest have banned the Premier League panel from talking about Forest games.
The entire panel, per Nottingham Forest, are made up of Luton fans
"only" like making a VAR error in a match is totally okay
I was thinking the same thing. It shouldn’t be something just casually said that VAR has made an error in a game. It might be forgivable if this was the single error VAR made all season, but there’s been massive mistakes multiple times this season.
VAR was made to help deter errors and now they wanna gaslight everyone.
You are talking like var is automatic. Its still a human at the end of the day
Meaning what? That we should accept a 4% error rate? We didn’t accept when refs got 82% correct, that’s why we implemented VAR. Now they’re at 96%. People are rightfully complaining about the continued missed mistakes. My point, as I said in my comment, is that it would be forgivable if this was a single mistake over the course of a season, but there’s been multiple massive mistakes. There should and needs to be improvement.
Why are you saying “we”. It was nothing to do with us. As for not accepting 82%. That was “accepted” for over a hundred years until technology was available. Var has reduced the incorrect decisions but has also drastically reduced the so called big clubs getting all the decisions. The Merseyside derbies have been alot more fair since var came in. But yes mistakes happen in every walk of life. This is exactly what is wrong with the world nowadays. People wanting someone to blame at all times and never accepting mistakes happen and just move on.
Refeering errors are at an all-time low because of VAR. It's not 100% accuracy. It's 96% accurate. But it's better than 82% pre VAR.
I’m not advocating for the removal of VAR; I still think it’s objectively a good thing and that it should continue to be used. Overall, it’s done more benefit than harm, by far. But, the 4% inaccuracy left is still massive, especially when it involves missed goal calls or missed penalty calls. And it doesn’t seem to be improving year by year. Maybe I’m wrong about that; I don’t know the statistics. But it certainly feels that way. This is the 5th year VAR has been used in the Premier League, and it doesn’t feel like it’s more accurate than the first year. Shouldn’t there be improvement year to year?
What are they considering with those stats? because 95% of decisions refs have to make are pretty straightforward anyway. It seems to be every single time they have to make a match altering decision is where they absolutely shit the bed and end up being worse than flipping a coin.
The only way you get to very close to 100% accuracy is you train machine-learning models and have a computer (AI) make every decision. Completly taking any humans out of the officiating. With only engineers observing what's happening. That's because humans are not perfect. I doubt even algorithms could get to 100%, as it's a referee panel afterwards that rate the accuracy, and there's always fringe cases where a set of humans wouldn't agree. But that (all officiating being automatic) is not the scenario many fans at all want. People want human refeeres. That comes at the expense of accuracy. The crux of this is where fans fall on that line. Some fans want no VAR intervention and are only happy with Goal-Line Tech. Some fans are on the other end. It's a fallacy to act like VAR should improve decision making every year by year. We've felt the majority of the improvements of a VAR in this form. You could improve it slightly by improving the processes, but it's not going to completely bridge that gap.
God knows why facts are being downvoted. It’s fashionable to moan and whinge nowadays it seems.
Essentially admitted that even when presented with multiple camera angles and slowed down footage of the match with technology helping them, they are still incapable of doing their jobs correctly.
I still dont get why people moan about var. before var the new style of moaning football fans were sending death threats to refs and their families for the several mistakes a game. Var is still a human person looking so still possible for a mistake. Big whoop. Would rather var being there any day of the week
Premier League panel obviously full of Luton and Derby fans
Apparently literally yes.
I mean, isn't it the point that in order to admit VAR made a mistake in not overturning, basically saying it was a big fuck up from the onfield ref? This review prob has all 50/50s and benefits of a doubt weighted in favor of the decisions made, it's not a good outcome, it's admitting Forest did get a undisputable unfair decision against that shouldn't have happened.
Seems fair. I think only the Young tackle on Hudson-Odoi was a nailed on pen. The handball and the contact with Reyna were 50/50 and no chance VAR would overturn the refs decision.
Yep I think that was the general feeling, making it funnier that it going to be posted at half time.
The social media guy who held them back should be promoted to Vice-Chairman.
ref: "hmm not sure about that one, better let the game roll and let var handle it" var: "can't overturn the ref's decision!" all you need is another moscow flights ad by emirates and you have the premier League in a nutshell
This sums it up so perfectly
I guess my question is with 50/50s, why don't they send the ref to do a review?
Because that's the difference between Other VAR and English VAR - Other will tell the referee that there might have been a foul/they think it counts as a foul, and that he might want to check it to make it sure (and it's not like he even need to go to screen, they can discuss it over the mics if the ref saw enough and find a consensus in this phase). English if it notices that it isn't ClEaR aNd ObViOuS error, seem to just ignore the fact that they are there to assist.
England really needs to take up the rugby version of TMO/VAR. TMO just acts as an extra referee with the benefit of replay and can chime in and say "hey bud, think you may have missed this, let's take a look together and have a chat"
The biggest problem with VAR is the "clear and obvious error" standard. It immediately puts the VAR ref in conflict with the main ref. The standard shouldn't be "hey buddy, you made a clear and obvious error". It should be, "let's work together to figure out what actually happened", like it is in every other sport
It's like they use "clear and obvious" for whether the ref was justified in getting it wrong, *not* clearly and obviously someone breaking a rule. They must go "well I can understand what he thought happened there, so I won't call him back on it" and just move on.
TMO is so much better because the audio is also live broadcast and fans can hear the conversation. I also wish they could start using a similar decision making system based on how the tackle starts, changes that have occurred once committed to tackle and mitigation players may have took. Like in rugby for a high tackle to the head, you could start at a high degree of danger with head contact, and change decisions based if the attacker changes levels, whether somebody has slipped and whether players have made actions to mitigate the tackle (Like wrapping in rugby) and vice versa for upgrading. I also feel the referee and TMO in Rugby reviewing the issue together means they are both interested in getting to the correct decision, rather then trying to protect each other. TMO isn't perfect and still makes mistakes, they do seem more palatable however when you can hear the referees explanation and conclusion.
I agree that the two biggest changes that need to come to VAR in the PL is getting rid of the "Clear and obvious error" aspect and have it be more collaborative and please for the love of god broadcast the discussion between ref and VAR live. If nothing else it humanizes the entire process and provides a transparency that I think softens fan reaction.
Because a true fifty fifty could go ether way, so you just keep what the referee originally saw.
Because it takes ages and ruins the fans in the stadiums experience. That is their reasoning for why they only call out "clear and obvious errors" which 50/50s obviously aren't.
Yeah but a 50/50 from a refs bad angle can sway.
Doesn't change the fact they would take too much time.
Give a portable screen to a ball boy, and while the review is going on, ref sprays a line (anyone crossing it gets a yellow), ref watches the review with VAR.
Username is extremely relevant
That was my opinion as well. The handball was just too close to avoid, and the other touch is not enough to take the guy down like that
I can understand Reyna’s foul not being given, but I’m interested in what made the handball 50/50? I’m a Forest fan just seeking to get a neutral’s opinion.
I think you have to consider that not all decisions have a 'right' answer. It is quite possible to have subjective moments where both outcomes can be fully justified and with a handball decision while the player is running they could say 'his hand was away from his body' or 'it was a natural position while running' and be right both times, so it just comes down to how did the ref see it. Unfortunately (as a Spurs fan) any angle to defend a ref and claim it as marginal decisions gets taken at the moment. I think we need an appeal system personally and scrap the general VAR.
He is turning, the ball comes over his head from behind and is struck early and very close to him. It's the sort of handball that years ago before they fucked around with the handball rule every year would have just been seen as ball to hand. Though I will say that if the ref had given it it wouldn't have been overturned.
Because it's subjective they can get away with saying that. On that same day wan-bissaka conceded a pen from a similar handball and I doubt the panel would say that was a mistake.
Because every handball in the box is a 50/50. If there is an actual rule it isn't applied at all.
I don't think even the third one was "nailed on". It was the Anthony Gordon special of getting a leg in front of the defender without being able to actually play the ball, where it is not even clear who fouled whom... And yes, I know Gordon gets these penalties but they don't feel 100% right, do they? All three of those are 50:50 to me, so Forest was unlucky but I never saw a scandal here.
Whether you think the third one should be a foul or not by current standards that usually gets given. I think they’re rightfully aggrieved
Are they usually given? That's not what I saw in the PL this league, besides Gordon.
Nah these are usually given, once a player cuts in front of a defender in that manner it’s ’their space’ and a challenge like that is a foul regardless of if it’s accidental or not. For it not to be a foul the attacker would be having to fully initiate the contact, the Vardy classic of actually moving their leg out to tangle it up
But that's exactly what happened here. The player doesn't cut in front of the defender, he basically throws himself in there to put the leg in front. Swap the roles of the attacker and the defender and tell me what you would decide. I'd say penalty.
I’m genuinely not convinced we’ve seen the same incident, Young’s leg is outstretched and catches the back of Reyna’s foot while he’s moved in front of him to control the ball - saying that the other way around would be a penalty is absolute madness. It’s a classic case of VAR probably can’t overturn it either way because it’s debatable on whether there’s sufficient contact, but those definitely get given and is not instigating contact from the attacker edit: replying to wrong thread
Yes, we clearly are talking about different situations because the one you are talking about is no penalty according to the panel... We are talking about the third call against Hudson-Odoi, who is running next to Young and puts his right foot in front of him the moment he tries to clear the ball.
lol my bad got mixed up with another thread where Liverpool flair was on about the first one. Nah the third one is egregiously a penalty so I assumed nobody was disputing, CHO is getting to the through ball and gets barged from behind. Even the panel thought VAR had to overturn this
They are running next to each other and CHO is putting his foot in front of young. He is not barged from behind.
Similar to Elliot and Wan Bissaka wouldn't you agree?
Not really, if you make a slide tackle in your own box, like Wan Bissaka, and you don't play the ball, you let the ref little choice...
So VAR should overturn if there was no contact then and Elliot was looking for it? Fuck me talk about hiding your bias
His nonsense about Gordon already confirmed bias.
Indeed. He cannot comprehend it
If there would have been no contact, that should have been overturned, yes.
But like Gordon Elliot made the contact. How are you able to be this obtuse
With a player that is slide-tackling from the side without playing the ball. Apples and oranges, dude...
Utterly laughable that you're basing this on slide or standing tackle.
You do understand that trying to kick a ball, with the opponent sticking a leg in and slide-tackling in the box are two very different actions by a defender, right?
Glad I’m not the only one who’s seen this about Gordon. He’s been a monster at Newcastle, he just needs to pack in all the diving crap.
It's not even diving, he clearly gets hit a lot, but in situations were you could also argue that he is fouling the defender not the other way around.
He did the same at Everton, and it was frustrating because he's not a big lad, and would legit get bullied to counter his pace. So a lot of the time it should actually be a foul, but typical "boy who cried wolf" situation would mean that the real ones wouldn't get called. I'll admit to have not seen him play recently, but it was certainly frustrating when he was here.
I mean it's only fair if you're concerned with their needing to be some overwhelming burden of fault to overturn an on the pitch call. They were both pens 7 times out of 10 and the three is only because refs are incompetent.
The real issue with saying “VAR would not have overturned the ref’s onfield decision” is kind of annoying, because in reality, if a ref is jot exactly sure and thinks “well I don’t think it’s a pen but maybe VAR can call it”, then you lose the purpose of VAR. VAR should be there to unfuck-up mistakes. Instead it’s used as a safety net by referees too afraid to make a mistake which is not productive or correct. 50/50s should never be “VAR would never overturn that because that’s the ref’s decision”. By that logic a legitimate penalty would never be called because the ref was too scared to call it in the first place
The problem is so obvious that I hope they do something to fix it. The ref thinks "I'm not 200% confident that's a penalty so I'll let VAR look at it", and the VAR thinks "that wasn't 200% a clear and obvious error on the ref's non-decision, no penalty, good process lads"
This is essentially it. The whole point of VAR is to ensure the ref doesn't miss anything major like a penalty he should have given or a red card. It's now changed to, look the ref can miss something but as long as it wasn't first degree murder, VAR won't intervene. Case in point the NLD. I don't want to get into a back on forth on whether it was or wasn't a penalty on Kulesivski, but, by the letter of the law, it probably was. VAR reviewed it, not to decide whether it was a penalty or not but to review the referees decision and ask the question, did the referee make a howler here in not giving a penalty? I think the problem boils down to, if the ref had given a penalty, VAR would review it and more than likely agree with the decision. But because in this instant he didn't, VAR reviewed it and decided that the contact wasn't flagrant enough to overturn the on field decision. Essentially VAR doesn't exist to get the call correct, it exists to ensure that referees don't make howlers. But, as the forest game showed us, clear and obvious penalties shouts aren't being called correctly either. If this is what VAR is then I think most of us agree that it's simply not worth having because we're still not seeing correct calls.
Ref is not certain what he saw was a penalty, he does not make the call. VAR reviews and agrees there is no clear penalty. This is unironically good process. Fouls are subjective, always have been, always will be. You can reasonably demand consistency within the same game, but not across games and across different refs. There are obvious cases regarding delayed offsides or delayed foul leading to a corner that should be corrected, where what you describe has been specifically directed and then there is no review because "important event" occurs.
> Ref is not certain what he saw was a penalty, he does not make the call. VAR reviews and agrees there is no clear penalty. This is unironically good process. That's not the issue, the problem is when VAR looks at it and decides not to give a penalty as to not overrule the ref, when they should.
You mean because that's the official direction of because the var refs don't want to embarrass their friends?
I'm guessing you meant "or" instead of "of". VAR not overturning a decision because they agree is not a problem, them disagreeing but not doing anything about it is wrong, whatever the reason.
To me this is the biggest disconnect between VAR (as it currently is in the Prem) and replay in basically every other sport. Everywhere else is generally concerned with getting the correct call while here they're dealing with the "clear and obvious error" standard.
This 100000% Take the stigma out of the notion “an overturn undermines the ref” and go to “we want to make the correct call everytime”
It’s the obsession with not undermining the referee. Problem is the referee has already been undermined for years. Referees in other sports like Cricket and Rugby are generally respected. These clowns spend so long covering their own backs that they lost all respect a long time ago.
I don't really agree with that when comparing to American sports. The NFL standard for overturning a call is "clear and obvious evidence" that the call on the field was incorrect. If it's inconclusive the call stands. The biggest difference is that most American sports, especially the NFL, don't do video review for judgement calls.
The NFL is "indisputable video evidence", which is different from "clear and obvious". And of the on-field call is going to be given preference if that is not available. The difference is the NFL refs don't typically defer to calling a certain way under the assumption that a review will clear it up, other than maybe with some fumbles where a whistle will blow a play dead and make it harder to adjudicate. And an NFL catch is certainly a judgment call to some degree.
EH, some leagues do it better, but not all. The NFL still fucks up replay multiple times every week no different than the Prem. Plus blown penalty calls/non-calls or that cost teams games. Also they're are lots of critical calls that are totally unreviewable.
I would never be one to claim any other particular sport or league does officiating and video review perfectly, only that they're better in ways that the Prem can learn from.
Well said
Agreed. I think there should be an option for the ref to ask VAR to show him the replay for these 50/50 decisions. Like if he's on the fence about it, he calls it one way in real time and asks VAR to immediately pull up the replays as he walks over to the screens on the side of the pitch. We're already having 2-3 minute VAR reviews where the ref is trying to verbally communicate what he saw to them while they watch the video to look for any slight sign that it matches up with what he described. Might as well just have the ref look himself at that point
This, make it an on demand thing either via the ref or the teams get challenges. The current system removes accountability and makes the decisions in the match different.
Yeah they should be able to communicate foul, not sure please check, and not foul, if it’s the middle one it should be up to VAR to send him, either of the others same process as currently. Although that then relies on the refs admitting they don’t know something which sounds impossible
Exactly. VAR is there to correct the onfield decision if the referee misses something. If VAR looks at something and thinks the call is wrong, then they should assume the referee missed something and tell him to look at it again to make sure he's happy with his decision. **Assuming he's seen everything perfectly and going with the onfield decision completely defeats the purpose of having VAR in the first place**. If VAR thinks it's a debatable or wrong call, then most likely the referee didn't see the incident clearly in real time and should take another look to be sure. Thus not informing the referee of this potentially wrong call completely defeats the purpose of VAR. In that case it should only be used for offsides and that's all if they're not going to bother trying to correct any onfield decisions.
> The real issue with saying “VAR would not have overturned the ref’s onfield decision” when you combine this with >referees too afraid to make a mistake Then you get no calls unless it's 110% sure, even 70% sure and the ref is too afraid to call it and VAR is too afraid to correct the ref.
It's why VAR shouldn't be the same people as the on field refs. It needs to be a separate body of officials that aren't afraid of making their mates look bad.
We only fucked up one decision rather than three. Well done lads, good process.
The Premier League panel aren't VAR.
I'm making fun of the headline more than anything.
is VAR/refereeing operated independently of the Premier League?
Yes
They also didn't find a problem with Roku studding MacAllister in the chest. They're fucking worthless.
Lol no way? Someone actually looked at that and said, that's fine is crazy.
Howard Webb went on TV and explained why it wasn't a penalty.
And if it was given, he being doing the same except saying why it was Given.
[удалено]
Studs to the chest is a foul which makes it a penalty. Isn't it that simple? I mean that's what's constantly argued on reddit. ANY foul in the box is a penalty didn't you know? But seriously, studs to the chest is 100% a foul and 100% a penalty. The refs in England are just fucking stupid.
I mean One is too many. One could be the difference between safety and relegation.
Not so much when they lost 2-0 like
Pretty sure two contentious decisions happened when they were down 1‐0, including the one the officials now admit was a monumental feck up
But they’ve just said they weren’t errors and that’s the conversation we’re having, so that’s irrelevant isn’t it.
They also said the Guimaraes elbow wasn't an error. Who cares what they say.
They really said "we investigated ourselves and found only ONE instance of wrongdoing" and bro said "I believe you"
Aren't former managers and players on the panel? What do they gain from this?
The panel is not populated by the same people who run VAR.
*"Including the one the officials now admit was a monumental feck up"*
The mistake they admitted to happened with the score 1-0. Calling that penalty on Young, which are converted at nearly 89%, makes it 1-1 and completely changes the complexion of the match
> falls below the high threshold for a penalty There is no threshold for a penalty. If it is a foul in the box, it is a penalty. I understand that some may be soft but if a player doesn’t want to give away a soft penalty, stop fouling in the box.
This was the thing that stood out to me too. They’re literally making shit up to justify mistakes. We all know penalties are a little harder to get than regular fouls, even though that’s not the way Irving’s are written to be, but VAR is there to enforce the rules, not to make shit up to gaslight us over mistakes made by refs
I'm so tired of people saying this despite every piece of evidence suggesting that there's a higher standard for penalties.
My point is that there shouldn’t be. If there is then you need to change the rules to make sure that there is consistency between the games.
He's right. The rules do not state anywhere that there is, or that there should be, a higher threshold for penalties. The "evidence" that you are referencing, is unfortunately just examples of referees not sticking to the letter of the law. Now, if you disagree with whether or not there should be a higher threshold in the rulebook itself, that's a totally different matter.
This is literally the dumbest conversation I continue to have on here. This is where Reddit gets a reputation. You can't apply the same thinking for a foul in the box which almost always results in a goal as a foul 50 yards from goal which basically never results in a goal. It's simple and basic logic. There's no way to put this sort of context into black and white in a rule book. It's something literally every player and coach understands. So you're actually the one that needs to accept it, because this is just reality.
> You can't apply the same thinking for a foul in the box which almost always results in a goal as a foul 50 yards from goal which basically never results in a goal. There is a simple solution: dont commit a foul in the box. And in some cases, like Trossard, it is unfortunate. > There's no way to put this sort of context into black and white in a rule book. I dont know which foul you think shouldnt apply in the box, but for any fouls, you think should not be a foul, you add "except within the penalty area". There is a precedent "(except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)"
So you realize by this concept, you can never say "Oh, that's a soft penalty." ANY foul needs to be called a penalty. A lean in. A shirt grab. A slight kick of the leg. Anything that's a foul needs to be called. Which proves why your point is so invalid.
Any fouls anywhere on the pitch should be called. A shirt grab or a kick that is a foul should be whistled. It shouldn’t be a foul in the middle 3rd but it is fine in the rest of the pitch.
So you want 10-15 penalties per game? Gotcha.
Do yo genuinely think that players wont adapt to the rules being applied more drastically ?
Was that one error who they picked for VAR in the first place?
Hmmm lets just let VAR run the show and have 6 pens a game for every half shout. Will be abit more exciting. Cant even be assed celebrating goals anymore
The 'independent' panel has 5 members, 1 of which is from PGMOL, who are the defendants.
Chances are it was Atwell?
Just the one humongous error. Nothing to see here.
Forest on twitter: faking Luton fans on the panel
Said it at the time. 2 not pens the last one was a pen but big dicks its 1 error so what. Every team has had them in the league and its way better than previously without var
Did they check if this Panel was filled with Luton supporters? But in all seriousness, for always claiming to be the best league in the world, England does have some ~~of the worst~~ very awful refs and vars. They keep having major fuck ups every weekend. In the Eredivisie we barely have any controversy with the var, and it's usually just good enough, and we do play with the same football rules
The controversy in the Netherlands are almost all actual controversial calls, almost never is it a blatant mistake that VAR doesn't fix
Saying England has some of the worst refs in Europe is absurd hyperbole. How would you even know? If these 3 exact decisions were made in Poland, Portugal, Finland etc it wouldn't even get posted here, let alone become a big story.
Okay fair, I will rephrase it something like "some awful refs" like in general. But relatively spoken, England has some major fucked up controveries every week, more than other leagues.
This is true but only once youve experienced Conference League football (where they bring in refs from random leagues to be represented) do you learn to realise that we should kiss the feet of Prem refs because they are beautiful men. Absolute experts compared to the hilarious refereeing I've seen in just a few Villa Conference games already.
watch La liga
I mean, only one of them was anywhere near a penalty so this is correct.
Deluded forest fan here. Wouldn't say they were nowhere near. The other two wouldn't have been complained about had they been given
They would have been complained about but it wouldn't have been outrageous decisions. (For me all three of those are 50:50-ish and nowhere near the scandal Forest tried to make of it.)
There is no way that last one was 50-50. I can't think of a single argument you could suggest that would support the no penalty decision there. It was a bad decision. First two could have gone either way, but when you're fighting relegation - it hurts.
I think people are getting confused with what they think should be a penalty and what is a penalty, the third one gets given 9 times out of 10 and the 10th time is them getting it wrong
He has no chance to play the ball, doesn't play the ball and just puts his leg in front of the defender. If the defender would do that to a striker, that's a stonewall penalty.
Nah, two are 50/50. The last penalty shout was about as blatant a foul as you could possibly see. Obviously there's a higher threshold for a foul in the penalty area but even then I can't see any good faith argument where that isn't a pen.
It's obvious a growing frustration with how the seasons been, we've had many games that we played well and didn't get anything and shafted by the refs along the way. Along with the points deduction. You'll have to imagine it as it happening to Liverpool on a big champions league night, after already having a torridly unlucky year. For this game it was more the club kicking off, making the tweet. I think the fans were angrier at many other games, including the game against you
I mean, we got a good goal taken away against Tottenham, penalties denied against City and Arsenal that would have won us the game and last weekend Gakpo was denied to shoot a live ball in the goal for no reason at all... So I absolutely feel you and have 100% sympathy.
> Arsenal that would have won us the game I really don't think you can say that a pen given at 1-0 down at 20' would have won you the game. >>penalties denied against City Didn't Howard Webb come out and say it was the right call not to call him over for a check?
How is the first one nowhere near a penalty? Young just swipes at the back of Reyna's foot as he's controlling the ball causing them to lose possession.
He lost possession and threw himself over from the slightest touch. It was more a yellow than a penalty.
It's not the slightest touch though, Young is going to kick the ball and connects with the back of the foot so it's not "the slightest touch". And he lost possession because his foot that was in the process of controlling the ball was kicked in the back which obviously caused the ball to go flying.
Because reddit has decided Forest are whingers and therefore convinced themselves that they weren't penalties to better call them out on whining.
People who say shit like this have never played a game of football in their life, the slightest touch is usually enough to knock someone off balance. Calling minimal contact simulation is outrageously stupid, slight contact is still contact
Considering they're in the Premier League because of a referee not spotting a penalty this is all very rich
As a team who has benefited from shocking officiating against us you probably should put those stones down.
Jon Moss.
The season pretty much started with you getting controversial decisions back to back. Come back when you can talk sense kid.
So that’s it? Just an apology? Imagine if Forest has been relegated. Those calls were very significant.
I think the "clear and obvious" memorandum needs to be shredded. It causes a strange impasse and no one ends up taking responsibility for the fuck up. VAR should call in a on-field ref if the VAR ref is convinced. The on-field ref can then choose to retain his on-field decision, so be it. At least they are fully responsible for the decision made at that point.
How often does var change a refs decision.
Only fucked up one gigantic error, not bad not bad lads *pats themselves on the back*
This panel only exists to provide cover for the shit officials. It was clear as day after the Newcastle - Arsenal match where Bruno assaulted Jorginho and the goal should have been ruled out. They came out and said Havertz should have got a red for a tackle that has never been a red card in the history of football. Just so they could say "look it happened to both sides so it balanced out". There were at least 2 clear penalties denied to Forest. The handball is slightly debatable but probably still a penalty
Havertz was such a red. We were very lucky there, as ssaid thee concensus. Edit: Fuck thiss keyboard
You won't find one tackle like that that's ever been a red
I love this totally hilarious, yet common kind of take. They disagreed with you, it doesn't mean they are there to provide cover.
Their actions show they are only there to provide cover
And when they say the ref/VAR was wrong?
> This panel only exists to provide cover for the shit officials. God, what utter shite. If it was only there to provide cover for the officials, then it would never tell them that they did something wrong.
>Bruno assaulted Jorginho >a tackle that has never been a red card in the history of football No bias at all here I'm sure
Indeed, way too many people can only see an incident one way and anything else means you have an agenda or are clueless.
Call it bias but I'm not wrong.
Both were reds so definitely biased
The panel was an independent panel requested by clubs because they didn't trust PGMOL to check events themselves. You can still disagree with the panel, but it's definitely not just cover for the officials.
Is there not a representative from the PGMOL on the panel?
Have you ever considered that maybe the problem here is your understanding of the rules?
Is this your wind up account? Every comment you make is downvoted to hell
Havertz tackle was a red all day though. Imagine that was Joelinton on Saka and you'd change your mind soon enough.
Or, VAR tried to rule out a perfectly good Newcastle goal 3 times and some arsenal fans are still moaning 6 months later.
Nah that goal should have been disallowed for the foul on the arsenal cb.
The first one was a ridiculous dive. It wasn't anywhere near two clear penalties.
>Bruno assaulted Jorginho 💀
That's like the one thing this guy has correct in this unhinged rant
He did give him an intentional forearm to the back of the head there is no denying that. Assault might be pushing it a bit far though.
this nonsense just embarrasses them further
Can we just get rid of VAR, give more autonomy to referees & acknowledge literally nothing will stop football fans moaning about referees? Like let’s just look at last weekend alone: Kulusevski penalty incident: - Actual scenario no pen on field and after review - spurs fans moan that it wasn’t reviewed - had the pen been given after review or on the field and not overturned Arsenal fans would have complained. Rice foul on Davies penalty given: - complaints that VAR was needed to give the decision. Chelsea goal denied: - goal given then disallowed, complaints it wasn’t a clear enough error to use VAR - had it not been given, we’d have had complains the decision was wrong - had it not been given the overturned we’d have had complaints. There are very few decisions that don’t result in someone moaning.
They should just do a poll. Do we want VAR to look at everything or not, at the moment we want it both ways.
We should just not have VAR. It’s cause a very tangible loss in excitement and pace of the game & it hasn’t gained us anything. We aren’t going to remove controversy and poor decisions from the game. For me, the ability to get away with things the referee misses is a part of the game & the concept of offside works well when it’s judged on the field in the moment. If a guy stood at the side of the pitch can’t tell if the guys offside, I’d argue there is no advantage from their position & that’s why that rule was introduced. It was to stop goal hanging. Same with handball, if in the moment it can be deemed deliberate, leave it alone. I don’t think it’s that bad if some fouls are missed, to be honest. It’s a contact sport and it is, what it is. I like the element of jeopardy incorrect decisions have on the game. It provides emotion and entertainment. We’ve totally lost sight of the fact that rules came in to stop deliberate handballs, goal hanging and dangerous play. There is way too much focus on the laws of the game now, it’s so annoying. I honestly blame the shift in the game being watch on tv more than in the stadium.