Don't mention the VAR: Page 2 - The Arsenal discussion community: One More in the Tolly

Don't mention the VAR

Bold Tone

Claudius wrote:
Let’s respond to Ilkay. I had a similar complaint at first, but let’s play a goal scenario.
The VAR will likely be reviewed when a ball has gone in. In the event that a ball is in and the defender has handled the ball, the referee will give advantage to the attacking team and award the goal. It does not make sense to pull play back and disadvantage the offensive team once they have scored.
So I think Ilkay is wrong there.
The rule is fine. It will take a while to adjust to because it ‘appears’ to go after every handball. What the rule in conjunction with VAR does is give us clarity. There can be no debate about situations like Koscielny handling the ball going forward. You handle, it’s disallowed. Let’s stay out of the murkiness of intent. In the end, it’s imperfect because it broadens the scope of punishment for the offensive team. But it’s cleaner for interpretation.

The rule ensures there is no infringement just before a goal or whether a red card/penalty is correct but murkiness remains as it does not correct foul play in earlier phases of build up play. Take Lacazette's goal against Burnley, for example. If he was marginally offside for the header that led to the corner and the ref missed it, VAR couldn't be called upon to correct it as it wasn't a goal. He then scores from the resultant corner and it's supposedly all good?

Don't get me wrong, i'm not against VAR but that's not to say we don't lose a bit as VAR would have ruined my best ever World Cup moment.

"It’s why I can’t accept that Tardelli moment should be technologically paused or interfered with while it’s approved from far, far away. It goes against everything I want out of football, sport and existence."
https://www.football365.com/news/var-debates-are-exhausting-wearying-and-totally-pointless

When all is said and done, VAR is here to stay and i'm sure will be tweaked over time to reduce it's imperfections.

Mirth

However, I'm not sure how this wasn't a pen:

Bold Tone

After the spurs game, i'm warming to VAR as Mike Dean's influence was reduced. As a few have already said it's just the time it takes for the decision to be made and as the video evidence clears everything up there's no point for the on-field ref to have another look as he is not going to see anything different. That should save a minute or two off the delay!

Clrnc

Why don't the refs just go to the screen to judge themselves? That was so clear

jones

Mirth wrote:
However, I'm not sure how this wasn't a pen:

Posted in the other thread already. Normally youd say unbelievable but this is par for the course for an organisation that would literally rather ruin the game than allow criticism of their own. Apparently the official explanation is the difference between the original call and the reviewed footage isn't grave enough 😆

QuincyAbeyie

So far the PL refs have been awful at using VAR. I knew we had terrible refs, but I kind of thought they'd recognize fouls when they watched them in slow motion replay on a screen.

Mirth

I'm actually glad that the refs no longer have an excuse, some of them just aren't fit to referee.

goon

In fairness to the refs it’s the guidance from the PL that’s the issue. They wanted to have a high threshold I assume to minimise the amount of time wasted by the match refs having to have a second look on subjective calls. I actually get the logic, but it looks like a farce when you have something where 8/10 would say it’s a pen and they still refuse to overturn it.

VAR itself is a can of worms, I don’t think it’s an easy thing to implement without a cost.

MuswellHillGooner

I agree and hope these grievances are addressed properly by a strong outside body (maybe the League Managers Association?) as i don't trust the FA or the Referees' Association to do much.
Turkeys voting for Christmas and all that!

MuswellHillGooner

As VAR is here to stay, the advantage gained by offenders in the "phases of play" interpretation needs to be looked at. Also it's scope may have to be widened to include more than "goals".
In the Liverpool vs Arsenal match, Aubameyang was played through and was clearly offside so had he scored, VAR would have disallowed it. He was tackled and a corner was given to Arsenal.
Now, if Arsenal scored from that corner, it wouldn't have been fair.

Klaus

It's true, but if the choice in situations like these is between conceding an offside goal because of the limits of the linesman – which is how it used to be – and conceding a corner because of the limits of VAR usage I would take the corner every time as the defending team.

It takes time to move players up the field to take a corner though. You'd think VAR would have been able to look at the situation meanwhile and then change the decision before it was taken. On my telly it only took five seconds to get a rerun that clearly showed Auba being offside. It's a little damning that video reviewing is still so much slower than tv broadcasting.

Bold Tone

As someone who has an unhealthy distrust of refs, i agree with this

Muswell Hill Gooner wrote:
... The only reason i can think of is them trying to save the embarrassment of egotistical refs like Mike Dean who may be butt-hurt when the video shows them to be blind/biased/wrong!

I came across the below article about implementation of VAR in a local paper which ties in with the above point that i feel is the elephant in the room. I think the FA is worried that the golden goose that the Premiership is cannot be associated with incompetence/corruption.

"Politically motivated in order not to embarrass match officials, the bar to overturn a decision has been set high, but nevertheless subjectively, and its poor implementation is making a farce of a review system that can work well.
In cricket, umpires are not protected if they are found to make a wrong decision, although they have a marginal error filter under "umpires call" which works well.
I think for VAR to be allowed to work without politically motivated intervention by the governing bodies something similar to "umpires call" will need to be brought into VAR.
At the moment its not working for me. Yesterday's game against Norwich and the decision by VAR not to award a penalty for a clear foul on Azpi was a joke and provides strong evidence that the governing bodies have simply got VAR wrong"

For reference, the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS or DRS) is a technology-based system used in cricket to assist the match officials with their decision-making. The components in UDRS are:

Television replays, including slow motion.
Hawk-Eye, Eagle Eye, or Virtual Eye: ball-tracking technology that plots the trajectory of a bowling delivery that has been interrupted by the batsman/batswoman, often by the pad, and can predict whether it would have hit the stumps.
Snickometer or Ultra-edge (Hawk-Eye's version): directional microphones to detect small sounds made as the ball hits the bat or pad. The use of the original Snickometer was superseded by Real Time Snicko in 2013.
Hot Spot: Infra-red imaging system that shows where the ball has been in contact with bat or pad. Improved cameras were introduced for the 2012 season.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umpire_Decision_Review_System

Edit: note the years this technology was implemented (even earlier for American sports).

MuswellHillGooner

This was the weekend when Italian football fans received their full introduction to the video assistant referee. It is fair to say that not everyone gets it just yet. There was confusion enough before a ball had even been kicked about whether it should be referred to as il VAR or la VAR – taking a masculine or feminine definite article. 😆

Overall, the VAR contributed to referees getting more decisions right on the opening weekend than they otherwise might. The lingering concern is whether the process remains too disruptive to the flow of the game. It took 97 seconds for Maresca to award Cagliari’s penalty against Juventus, during which both sets of players were left milling around, looking bemused.

The pause to review Miranda’s penalty-area challenge on Simeone at San Siro dragged on even longer and [size=medium]at present it feels as if not enough information is being given to fans.[/size] Unlike at a rugby game, for instance, where supporters can listen in on conversations between match referees and video assistants via the stadium PA, audiences at the weekend got nothing more than the match official miming a TV screen to explain the break in the play.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2017/aug/21/serie-a-opening-weekend-good-advert-video-assistant-referee

Meatwad

they have to let people in the stadium know what's going on. at the very least show them the same replays the officials are watching.

Bold Tone

It's such a small thing with a lot more positives than negatives and i cannot think of a good enough reason as to why they bowed to what could only have been the referees' union.

mentalvortex

How did the VAR ref not spot that this is a blatant dive and overturn the penalty call ?

QuincyAbeyie

😆 That's ridiculous.

Qwiss

Meatwad wrote:
they have to let people in the stadium know what's going on. at the very least show them the same replays the officials are watching.

They never show replays of incidents at the stadium. Goals and chances yeah but if theres an offside or a controversial tackle, disallowed goal, etc its all left out.

Bold Tone

mentalvortex wrote:
How did the VAR ref not spot that this is a blatant dive and overturn the penalty call?

It seems most sites have deleted the video.
https://www.football-italia.net/143334/montella-i-cannot-accept-var-decision

Edit:
Although the two referees have not been punished with the usual one or two match suspension, they have been downgraded and won’t be the main referees in any of the next Serie A games.
https://www.calciomercato.com/en/news/referee-and-assistant-of-juventus-milan-punished-after-controver-73890

MuswellHillGooner

Where is VAR?

« Previous Page Next Page »