|
|
Topic Originator: bigdonnie
Date: Mon 6 Nov 21:57
va r going crazy at tottenham 5 goals dissalowed 2 spurs players sent off big ange will be going nuts glad weve not got it in championship
donald mcneil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Mon 6 Nov 22:08
21 minutes combined extra time, mainly for VAR checks, says it all. The forensic analysis of every contentious issue is absolutely killing the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: nick_dafc1
Date: Mon 6 Nov 22:18
Quote:
bigdonnie, Mon 6 Nov 21:57
va r going crazy at tottenham 5 goals dissalowed 2 spurs players sent off big ange will be going nuts glad weve not got it in championship
I don`t think var made any bad decisions in this game. Enjoyable watch
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: d3monstrate
Date: Mon 6 Nov 22:54
If VAR come to the right decision, then it`s time well spent. Before VAR, every contentious issue had the same "forensic analysis" afterwards, and it was the poor quality of officiating was deemed to be killing the game... And its that that is still the case, not the VAR system.
As far as I see it, of all the decisions VAR interfere, it`s only the ones they get wrong you hear about, and rightly so as it shouldn`t be happening. But its not the system thats the problem, it`s the meatballs using it. I don`t have the figures, but I bet VAR intervention has got more decisions right than wrong
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Tue 7 Nov 09:10
VAR correctly got a second yellow card/sending off revoked and a penalty awarded to Hearts on Sunday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 7 Nov 10:58
I haven`t attended a match where VAR was operational and can`t imagine what it`s like waiting on the outcome of a referral. A lot of the fun of watching live football is the spontaneity of celebration when your team scores and that must be a loss at such games. I was speaking to a Hibs fan who was at the semi-final with Aberdeen on Saturday and he said he phoned his wife, who was watching the match on TV, to get some idea of what was going on while the officials reviewed the Hibs goal that was disallowed.
I see that over 20 minutes was added in last night`s Spurs-Chelsea game to compensate for the time lost carrying out VAR reviews. Shouldn`t there be a time limit set for each review, especially as they are only meant to correct `clear and obvious` errors?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: EastEndTales
Date: Tue 7 Nov 11:37
I`ve been once, here in Germany and went home thinking the score was 2 1 rather than 1 1.
Get it in the bin. Referee error is part of the game. I`d have goal line technology and leave it there. VAR isn`t fit for purpose.
Ep.17 of East End Tales is out now with Andrius Skerla
https://www.buzzsprout.com/1972630/15082607
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: JTH123
Date: Tue 7 Nov 11:50
Quote:
EastEndTales, Tue 7 Nov 11:37
I`ve been once, here in Germany and went home thinking the score was 2 1 rather than 1 1.
Get it in the bin. Referee error is part of the game. I`d have goal line technology and leave it there. VAR isn`t fit for purpose.
Same here. I was at PSG v Bayern last season and had no idea that a goal had been disallowed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: weemike
Date: Tue 7 Nov 12:54
They should do away with clear and obvious. The Var ref has more tools at his disposal to make the correct decisions. Let the ref manage the game but when he`s wrong or unsure refer to var or the linesman. If we are using Var then it should be used to determine all aspects of the game (incorrect throw-in-corners etc)
The Var ref should be able to over rule the ref or linesman at anytime.
No need to go to a screen etc.
Constant communication between them all at all times to ensure every decision is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 7 Nov 13:30
That wouldn`t address the two issues I raised in my post - the need to keep the fans informed about what`s going on and the need to shorten the time spent on VAR reviews. The next step would be to have matches refereed by robots!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: weemike
Date: Tue 7 Nov 13:37
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 7 Nov 13:30
That wouldn`t address the two issues I raised in my post - the need to keep the fans informed about what`s going on and the need to shorten the time spent on VAR reviews. The next step would be to have matches refereed by robots!
The ref would indicate to the players and fans what the decision is. The review time would be shorter as Var would say red card home team number 4. No need for a screen etc. Plays where the ref has said corner etc I imagine within 20 secs Var could say actually it`s a goal kick.
It should be more autonomous between all the officials with VAR having the ability to overrule Them all as they have all the tools
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Tue 7 Nov 16:26
I`m OK with the reviews taking however long they need to take to make the right decision. What they should do is broadcast the discussions to make them part of the game, rather than a pause in the game - like they do in rugby and cricket where I quite enjoy listen to the deliberations of the officials. I also liked how in the Women`s World Cup the referee was miked up to announce the decision to the crowd.
Clear and Obvious needs to go - it`s vague and causes uneccessary confusion.
I think we need a distinction between the `onfield decision` and `allowing play to go on because we think it can be check post hoc by VAR`. I really don`t think in the Newcastle Arsenal the officials consciously decided that the ball was in - i think they `played on` because they thought it could be checked by VAR later - but it couldn`t be. The refs should be informed what can be checked, and what can`t be checked before the match.
i`d also make sure we employ refs know the rules. Here`s the rules around striking players in the head..
In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.
it`s therefore incomprehensible that Bruno Guimaraes can deliberately strike jorginho on the head with his forearm and be seen not to be guilty of violent conduct. That`s a million times worse than the goal that was awarded to Newcastle (which also should have been disallowed because of the two handed push in the back)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: EastEndTales
Date: Tue 7 Nov 18:33
Like it or not, the ruling is still subjective in many cases. Give it to the referee. I don`t want to wait 5 minutes on a decision.
Ep.17 of East End Tales is out now with Andrius Skerla
https://www.buzzsprout.com/1972630/15082607
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: kelty_par
Date: Tue 7 Nov 19:13
"I really don`t think in the Newcastle Arsenal the officials consciously decided that the ball was in - i think they `played on` because they thought it could be checked by VAR later - but it couldn`t be."
That`s a really important point. Not so much about whether they can or can`t review because if there was a conclusive angle on the ball being out they`d have used it, as we saw in the Japan v Germany game at the World Cup. We`ve seen games though where VAR has been unavailable due to technical issues and weather and also not having conclusive angles - even more so in the Tesco Value version we have in Scotland where non Sky games only have 6 cameras. So the default in that case is "go with the original decision" since there isn`t any evidence to overturn but if the referees are being complacent and not giving decisions thinking that the VAR will overturn it anyway, them we run into problems. I`m sure that happened in cricket when they brought in Hawkeye - umpires didn`t give decisions knowing th4 technology would bail them out. In the end they brought in "Umpire`s call" so they still had to make a decision either way and a few umpires were relegated from being able to stand in teat matches.
Incidentally, for the folk wanting Goalline technology but nothing else - it appears that isn`t perfect either. Fiorentina were recently awarded a goal via GLT in the Europa League, with the ref pointing his watch to indicate the goal was good. VAR then intervened and the goal was chalked off because apparently the cameras used by both systems could have been fooled by some bodies on the goalline. There was no definitive angle so the goal was removed. Bonkers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Tue 7 Nov 19:47
No East End Tales. Some rules are subject to interpretation. That one isn`t. It`s crystal clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Socks
Date: Tue 7 Nov 20:14
Of course that rule is still subject to interpretation, and you`ve even quoted the reason why! There`s no objective way to decide whether contact is or isn`t negligable, so it must come down to someone`s interpretation. It`s also a subjective call as to whether the act is deliberate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tad Allagash
Date: Tue 7 Nov 20:18
Bandy wrote:
> No East End Tales. Some rules are subject to interpretation.
> That one isn`t. It`s crystal clear.
>
>
Well ‘deliberately’ and ‘negligible’ are pretty subjective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Stanza
Date: Tue 7 Nov 20:29
Quote:
Bandy, Tue 7 Nov 19:47
No East End Tales. Some rules are subject to interpretation. That one isn`t. It`s crystal clear.
The word "deliberate" implies a knowledge of what went on inside a player`s mind and what his/her intentions were. As that is impossible, it is therefore a matter of the referee interpreting the player`s actions.
The words "negligible force" require the referee to use judgment and interpretation (and possibly context). The referee may also have to judge if the reaction of the player who has been struck is genuinely in keeping with the amount of force used.
_________________
 Support Dunfermline Athletic Disabled Supporters` Club (DADSC) when you shop online with one of 8000 firms: https://www.easyfundraising.org.uk/causes/dadsc[
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Tue 7 Nov 20:39
OK - now watch the the video of Bruno hitting Jorginho on the head and tell me that the it`s
a) not deliberate.
b) negligible force.
It`s a red card in rugby. It`s a punch that`s banned in both boxing and MMA, for good reason.
There`s no chance you can look at that incident, and know that rule, and not conclude that it`s a clear red card offence. unless you are an incompetent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Paralex
Date: Tue 7 Nov 23:09
VAR or no VAR, decisions are still open to interpretation by the officials on the field and those operating the system. For instance if the tackle by the Celtic player tonight had been made by an Athletico Madrid player, one hundred percent, he wouldn`t have been sent off. You could see the fear in the referee`s eyes when he was asked to go to the screen. No way was he going to give anything less than a red.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Wed 8 Nov 06:36
Quote:
Paralex, Tue 7 Nov 23:09
VAR or no VAR, decisions are still open to interpretation by the officials on the field and those operating the system. For instance if the tackle by the Celtic player tonight had been made by an Athletico Madrid player, one hundred percent, he wouldn`t have been sent off. You could see the fear in the referee`s eyes when he was asked to go to the screen. No way was he going to give anything less than a red.
You could be accused of paranoia with your interpretation of that incident, Paralex. Admittedly, home teams usually get the benefit of the doubt, but you're imagining things if you saw fear in the ref`s eyes. 🙂
Not your average Sunday League player.
Post Edited (Wed 08 Nov 07:11)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Wed 8 Nov 09:21
This from Wayne Barnes :-
As well as his role as a referee, Barnes is also a lawyer and an advocate for officiating across all sports.
Barnes says football`s use of the video assistant referee (VAR) still has some work to do to emulate the success of the television match official (TMO) in rugby union.
"Football has only had VAR in play for two or three years so they are still in that evolutionary period," he said.
"Rugby has been using TMO for over 20 years so we have been able to work on it. It is work in progress for VAR.
"The one thing we learned from rugby league in rugby union was a way of involving the fans. I went to Brentford v West Ham last weekend and what was really noticeable was that I didn`t know something was being reviewed.
"After two or three minutes, as the crowd got a bit restless, it said video check over and the goal stood. I didn`t know what, or where or how until I watched highlights on Match of the Day.
"I still think there is still a way to go in rugby. You sit there at Twickenham and you might see the replays but you don`t hear what the referee is saying unless you`re watching on TV.
"There is definitely an element we can improve for the fan experience because we want people in the stadium and I think all sports can learn from each other."
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Wed 8 Nov 09:23
I can see why a red was given for Maeda - but again VAR manipulated the referee (like the did with the curtis jones sending off). They showed the still image that made the tackle look as bad as possible, but at full speed you can see Maeda attempts to pull out and that the contact is on the foot, not the shin. A yellow was fine - it wasn`t a clear and obvious errror (although I don`t know if that standard exists in the CL), so should have stayed a yellow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: TAFKA_Super_Petrie
Date: Wed 8 Nov 09:54
Should go back to just using goal line technology and bin the rest of it.
Only just watched the Newcastle v Arsenal incidents. Regardless of the issue with ball on the touchline how the hell was the challenge from Joelinton for the header not deeemed to be a foul....
---------------------------------------------------------------
"People always talk about Ronaldinho and magic, but I didn't see him today. I saw Henrik Larsson; that's where the magic was."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Wed 8 Nov 10:18
There was no excessive force from Maeda, he was not out of control, he didn`t lunge in. It wasn`t a straight leg.
All the force comes from the Madrid player in his follow through and I`d argue strongly that he kicked Maeda`s studs rather than Maeda studding him on the shin. Again, all the force comes from Madrid player and Maeda`s foot is exactly where you`d expect it to be to make a block in a 50/50 challenge he had to go for
It was a 50/50 ball that both players were entitled to go for. Short of puling out of the challenge altogether and saying " on you go mate", I honestly cant see what Maeda was supposed to do and I agree with Brendan Rodgers when he says that " the image that the referee viewed was not representative of the challenge".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Wed 8 Nov 10:34
That`s the one TAFKA.
Regardless of the ball out of play and the offside (I`ve seen some evidence, admittedly on Arsenal forums, that Gordon WAS ahead of the ball when it comes off Joelinton), I can accept that VAR couldn`t give a decisive answer on either of those.
How a two handed push in the back (well one hand on the back and one on the head) isn`t a foul is completely beyond me. Gary Neville said it wasn`t foul because Gabriel was `stooping to head the ball anyway`, which seems like bonkers logic to me...Oh, it`s OK to push people if they are stooping???
Joelinton also handles the ball into Gordon`s path, but that`s OK apparently because his arms were in a `natural position` (pushing Gabriel). I can see why Arteta is fuming.
FWIW, even as an Arsenal sympthasier, I would have had no complaints had Havertz seen red. He was lucky.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: fcda
Date: Wed 8 Nov 13:09
Quote:
Bandy, Wed 8 Nov 09:23
They showed the still image that made the tackle look as bad as possible, but at full speed you can see Maeda attempts to pull out and that the contact is on the foot, not the shin.
Maybe that`s the answer - VAR must initially show full speed replays from all angles and only show slow mo if the ref decides he wants more detail. That lets the ref make a judgment on force/speed before checking the contact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Paralex
Date: Wed 8 Nov 13:47
I doubt very much GG if I could get paranoid about Celtic (or Rangers for that matter, Dunfermline very likely). There was an incident before the Maeda one where a celtic player was booted on the back of the legs, with no attempt to play the ball. No yellow card was forthcoming. I am sure that fear would have played a massive part in the referees decision to change the yellow card for Maeda to red. The Atletico manager for instance looks like the leader of the Spanish equivalent of the Mafioso so think of the pressure involved if the ref had decided to go against the promptings of the VAR officials and refuse to give a red. I`m sure he would have visions of waking up with a dead horses head lying next to him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Wed 8 Nov 19:45
Quote:
Paralex, Wed 8 Nov 13:47
I doubt very much GG if I could get paranoid about Celtic (or Rangers for that matter, Dunfermline very likely). There was an incident before the Maeda one where a celtic player was booted on the back of the legs, with no attempt to play the ball. No yellow card was forthcoming. I am sure that fear would have played a massive part in the referees decision to change the yellow card for Maeda to red. The Atletico manager for instance looks like the leader of the Spanish equivalent of the Mafioso so think of the pressure involved if the ref had decided to go against the promptings of the VAR officials and refuse to give a red. I`m sure he would have visions of waking up with a dead horses head lying next to him.
I actually chose to watch the goals show on TNT rather than a specific game last night, so I didn`t see the incident you refer to.
You`re getting a bit carried away with the stereotypical allusions to the Mafia and the Godfather. Simeone is Argentinian, and Mario Hermoso is Spanish. No Mafia connections there. The ref was put under pressure by VAR. Very few stick to their original decision when they`re asked to take another look at the incident. There is an explicit implication that they`ve messed up and must change their original decision.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Wed 8 Nov 21:12
Rashford sending off. I give up.
Compounded with 2 comedy gold VAR penalties.
Pure comedy gold.
It’s farcical.
Post Edited (Wed 08 Nov 21:42)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Paralex
Date: Wed 8 Nov 22:03
Sorry GG, I was having a laugh about the Mafioso, not being at all serious and hoping you would also see the funny side of my remarks. Having had my two jabs yesterday and being in a bit of discomfort all day I was trying to raise my spirits with a kindly dig at the Latinos, which I knew you would appreciate. 🙂
But you would have to admit that Diego Simeone`s personna comes across with a slightly threatening aspect and had he been an actor would not have seemed out of place in the Al Pacino role.
Post Edited (Wed 08 Nov 22:40)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Thu 9 Nov 16:37
Quote:
Paralex, Wed 8 Nov 22:03
Sorry GG, I was having a laugh about the Mafioso, not being at all serious and hoping you would also see the funny side of my remarks. Having had my two jabs yesterday and being in a bit of discomfort all day I was trying to raise my spirits with a kindly dig at the Latinos, which I knew you would appreciate. 🙂
But you would have to admit that Diego Simeone`s personna comes across with a slightly threatening aspect and had he been an actor would not have seemed out of place in the Al Pacino role.
No worries, Paralex. No apology necessary. I wasn`t offended in the least. I just gave your lug a wee tug for being a bit naughty. 😀
You`ve definitely got a thing about Simeone and it`s not a crush. 😉 The man is what a bairn calls his bum, but it`s calculated behaviour. If he keeps questioning the ref, he knows he may not get the decision once it`s been made, but he might get the next one.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Thu 9 Nov 18:41
From Aunty :-
The decision to award Newcastle United`s winning goal against Arsenal was correct, according to the Premier League`s Key Match Incidents panel.
The five-person panel, which includes three former players and/or coaches, decided there was insufficient evidence to overrule the on-field decision to award Anthony Gordon`s goal.
However, the panel ruled Arsenal`s Kai Havertz should have been sent off for his tackle on Sean Longstaff, while Bruno Guimaraes should also have been shown a red card for hitting Jorginho.
The panel, which also includes one representative each from the Premier League and PGMOL, reviews major incidents to assess whether the eventual rulings, including video assistant referee checks, were correct.
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Fri 10 Nov 08:01
The wording in the article is a bit misleading. What this `independent` panel (I`m not sure how it can be independent when someone from PGMOL sits on it) said was that the decision did not meet the `clear and obvious` threshold. They didn`t say the decision was correct. If the goal had been disallowed there`s chance that the decision to award a foul would meet the `clear and obvious` threshold either, so the panel would have also seemed that decision `correct`.
The mental gymnastics they`ve performed to justify its correctness are pretty impressive. The reasoning that they`ve given was that `Gabriel had already made a movement to play the ball before any contact was made`. I.e it`s fine to foul someone so long as they are moving
Absolutely bonkers. No wonder Arsenal are fuming.
Money talks, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Fri 10 Nov 13:19
Quote:
Bandy, Fri 10 Nov 08:01
The wording in the article is a bit misleading. What this `independent` panel (I`m not sure how it can be independent when someone from PGMOL sits on it) said was that the decision did not meet the `clear and obvious` threshold. They didn`t say the decision was correct. If the goal had been disallowed there`s chance that the decision to award a foul would meet the `clear and obvious` threshold either, so the panel would have also seemed that decision `correct`.
The mental gymnastics they`ve performed to justify its correctness are pretty impressive. The reasoning that they`ve given was that `Gabriel had already made a movement to play the ball before any contact was made`. I.e it`s fine to foul someone so long as they are moving
Absolutely bonkers. No wonder Arsenal are fuming.
Money talks, I guess.
Completely agree, Bandy, but I`m intrigued by your last sentence. Are you saying Newcastle`s money talks louder than Arsenal`s? 🤔😉
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Fri 10 Nov 13:48
Basically, yeah.
Some referees have been paid tidy sums by Newcastle`s owners to ref games in Saudi, whereas no referees have, to my knowledge, been employed/paid by Arsenal`s owners. Same goes for Man City, who`s owners have paid English refs to ref games in UAE.
Why would the refs bite the hand that feeds them? It`s an absolutely absurd conflict of interest.
There`s some weird `about faces` happening too. On Saturday, immediately after the game, Jamie Carragher said he `loved` Mikel Arteta`s post match interview. On Sunday he was highly critical of it. it`s very strange.
|
|
|
|
|
|
