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.

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!

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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

That's ridiculous.

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.

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

Where is VAR?

I agree and, like Martin Samuel, i'm still to hear a good reason why not.

Quincy Abeyie wrote:

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 wrote:

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

Last but not least, Joanne.

VAR has made four mistakes so far during the Premier League season, referees' chief Mike Riley has admitted.

227 - Incidents checked by VAR
6 - On-field decisions changed
10 - Decisions that should have been overturned
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11807734/var-premier-league-referee-chief-mike-riley-admits-four-mistakes-this-season

... affected Watford's decision to sack head coach, Javi Gracia, after the draw at St James Park.
https://www.vbetnews.com/premier-league-referees-chief-admits-var-not-used-best-way-far/

Neymar: “Four guys who know nothing about football watch a slow-motion replay in front of the television. It was nothing! What can [Kimpembe] do with his hand while his back is turned? Go f*** yourselves!”
UEFA: 3 match ban for you, meu amigo!
https://www.goal.com/en/lists/top-10-most-controversial-var-decisions-in-football/fq67bxv45s521emlx8zd49s9t#1nqvme9tyt11q1wu7o4s5tzwb2

I thought Spurs were cheated here. Seriously, how are we doing VAR with a line? This is false precision. I’m surprised the teams aren’t bringing this issue up strongly. Or they think that the false precision affects them all randomly, so they’re fine with it?

No longer advantage to the attackers when in doubt. It's funny it happened to Spurs but the way VAR is being used its disgraceful

Don't forget Spurs lucked out with VAR at city in the CL.

a hair length in front is still in front.

If they let this one slide they would have to let others slide too.

How do you judge how little someone is in front so that he get's a free pass?

I think it was the article above where the technology isn't good enough to correct the margin of error when it's less than a certain distance.

Muswell Hill Gooner wrote:

USING the tight offside given against Raheem Sterling last weekend as an example, it can be shown how VAR has a margin of error that means officials sometimes cannot be certain 1 if someone is offside.

Imaging software showed Sterling to be 2.4cm offside ( just under an inch). Sterling was moving at about 14.5mph (23.4kph). Cameras used by VAR run at 50 frames per second. In the 0.02 secs between frames, he would move 13cm. If he was 2.4cm offside at Frame B that means he was 10.6cm onside at Frame A when the 2 ball was about to be played.

VAR has to use the frame which shows the ball has categorically been played but the exact ‘first point of contact’ is likely to have been between Frame A and Frame B. At an unknown point between those frames, Sterling went from 3 onside to offside.

VAR cannot have known for certain when the ball was played so there is a 13cm margin of error on a decision which ruled Sterling 2.4cm offside. It could be bigger than that too. The faster players move in opposite directions, the larger the margin of error.

The Mail on Sunday 18/08/2019
via https://www.pressreader.com/

The final decision depends on the referee so one of the strongest arguments in regards to issues being black or white is watered down as the below incidents could just as likely gone the opposite way so we are back to square one after wasting £589M on VAR technology.

Dalot’s ball clearly struck PSG’s Presnel Kimpembe in the box, though VAR was consulted to deem whether or not his movement to block the ball was deliberate (the ball was likely sailing high of the goal otherwise).

To the shock and fury of the PSG side (as well as Neymar, who had been watching from the stands), the referee awarded Man Utd the penalty – and Marcus Rashford dutifully converted in the dying minutes of stoppage time to send the Red Devils through to the last eight.

Senegal’s Ismaila Sarr’s cross looked to have struck Adlene Guedioura’s right arm. The referee overturned his decision, however, after consulting with VAR to review the incident, presumably on the basis that the handball was not deliberate.

..., falling to a 1-0 defeat to Algeria who were crowned champions of Africa.

https://www.goal.com/en/lists/top-10-most-controversial-var-decisions-in-football/fq67bxv45s521emlx8zd49s9t#1nqvme9tyt11q1wu7o4s5tzwb2

Largely irrelevant but it would be interesting to see, come end of the season, how many goals are disallowed by VAR versus how many it confirms.

No, Muswell, now we have subjectivity more involved because refs can actually exercise it. Before they'd be just as likely to not even see it in the first place.

VAR refs seem to not want to overrule the on-field ref's decisions. Luckily for us, the flag was so wrong that the on-field ref ignored it but when the ref is wrong the guys manning VAR seem very reluctant to overturn his poor call which defeats the purpose of VAR. They have the footage and the power to correct human error but instead cover for their mate.
https://www.clippituser.tv/c/qklwyd

Bold Tone wrote:

...

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.

Another example

This moment was an anti-climax for me as I had to wait for VAR confirmation.

That’s true. We really could’ve done with VAR ruining that moment for us.

I realise it's valid to bring up the fact that, without VAR, the ref could've cancelled due to the linesman's erroneous flag-waving so I suppose the diminished excitement is a fair price to pay. There are, however, other variables that VAR can but doesn't cure as this same ref, Kevin Friend, fucked up in the Villa game rendering VAR redundant for a similar goal.
https://www.expressandstar.com/sport/football/aston-villa/2019/09/02/former-referee-bobby-madley-kevin-friend-made-honest-decision-against-aston-villa/

Premier League clubs are pushing for a review into how Video Assistant Referee decisions are communicated to supporters inside the stadiums over fears it could see attendances fall.

Muswell Hill Gooner wrote:

...
VAR will be used for 'clear and obvious errors' in four areas: - Goals, penalties, straight red cards and mistaken identity.
...
Television: Viewers will be able to see what the video assistant referees watch, including an 'over the shoulder' angle of the officials in the studio. The VAR team will be announced in advance, as per the on-field refereeing group. Broadcasters will be keen matches do not extend too much over the regular 90 minutes, particularly Sky when it has double-headers, with matches kicking off at 14:00 and 16:00 BST.

Stadium: Information about a VAR check will appear on the big screens at the 18 grounds which are equipped with them ie 'Checking red card'. When a decision is overturned, a video of the incident will be shown when appropriate. At the two grounds which do not have screens - Anfield (Liverpool) and Old Trafford (Manchester United), announcements will be made via the scoreboard and PA.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49057675

While clubs unanimously voted for the technology to be introduced to the Premier League, and still support the VAR, there are grave concerns over how it is being implemented at stadiums.
...
The use of VAR has caused controversy in the Premier League this season.
"Within literally seconds we're getting complaints in the stadium from people that paid £30, £40, £50 or £60 to watch the game, saying, 'Look, I don't know what's going on'.

"I have no idea why that goal is disallowed, I can guess, and I'm trying to work it out. But half the people that guess thought it was a foul on the goalkeeper, the other half thought it was offside. That's not good.

"We immediately spoke to the Premier League and wrote to the Premier League and PGMOL (Professional Game Match Officials Board) and said we were supporters of VAR, we're still supporting VAR, but we must absolutely protect the in stadium experience.
..

"This is the lifeblood of our sport, broadcasters want full stadiums, we want full stadiums. We want those people in the stadiums to be treated fairly. To be treated fairly they must know what is going on and particularly on goals."

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league-clubs-push-for-var-changes-amid-discontent-from-fans-in-stadiums-a4257926.html

The one thing they need to look at is the clear and obvious error aspect. If they're only ever going to overrule the ref in circumstances that might present themselves once or twice a season then it's a waste of time checking and just makes ludicrous decisions all the more ludicrous.

That would be great as would VAR refs correcting mistakes by on-field refs.

The thing is what the fans in the stadium are asking for is simply what fans on TV and illegal streams already receive which is replay footage so they know the reason for the VAR decision.
edit:
This seems to be protection for poor quality on-field referees by the PGMOL, as far as I can make out.
https://www.efl.com/clubs-and-competitions/match-officials/pgmol/