Qwiss! wrote:
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.

yeah i understand that before VAR because no sense in antagonizing the home crowd when you can't reverse the decision. but with VAR being in effect they should show replays.

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.

13 days later

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/

8 days later

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.

4 days later
5 days later

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/

7 days later

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/

Does the delay take away any of the joy before you can properly celebrate?

His answer to this question is obvious to anyone who enjoys the emotional high of that moment.

Like Bosscielny said, I'd take a slight delay over losing the game. A little less excitement is a very cheap price to pay compared to the stinging disappointment if the goal hadn't been allowed and we had dropped three points.

People will settle down eventually. This tech is only changing about 5% of goal decisions, so once we are past the initial shock, we should lose some of the celebration anxiety.
And, like the Klaus, I prefer this version of the world.

I already addressed that point back in August so felt no need to reply.

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.


https://www.wired.co.uk/article/var-football-world-cup

Illuminating article and nothing to complain about but, in practice, I would prefer the VAR team to always overrule the on-field referee for all "clear and obvious errors" as it was in the ref's prerogative to decide not to consult VAR in the Man Utd game and there would've been nothing we could do about it.
This week, for example, Iceland got screwed in the Bosnia match as the VAR team did not correct the on-field ref on a penalty decision.

The hesitation when it comes to overruling the ref or at least telling him to come take a look at the monitor is getting ridiculous. They're not even using VAR.

It hasn't gone without hiccups elsewhere but nowhere in Europe has the usage of VAR been this ridiculously poor. Who could've foreseen that giving technology to a bunch of self governing imbecile dinosaurs would lead to this result

I really think The FAs are taking a protective but self-defeating stance on referees. They are probably not over-ruling the referees to avoid undermining the. They possibly want to ensure their authority remains absolute beforethe playets as much as possible. How much respect will a fallible referee get?

I don't know if any sport that uses video technology has got it right as such - perhaps the US sports but the cost of that is the extended game time. I think in just about every case the original intent was to correct 'clear and obvious' errors, but in almost every case they then become slaves to the technology in making determinations that are not clear or obvious and are beyond human capability to determine. Then there are the inconsistencies regarding the use of the technology or referrals whereby the match officials can make decisions whether to use it or not, and there are inconsistencies between different games/officials and even in the same game.

That are interpreting clear and obvious to ridiculous level

And not once in 80 games have we seen a ref go to the monitor. Just remove it if you don't intend to use it

Mike Riley, manager of the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL), defending referees after the first month of use in the Premier League, said VAR had only corrected four mistakes.

VAR in the Premier League
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

For me, these figures are meaningless as clear errors not acted upon are not counted as mistakes.

8 days later


Hopefully, the pressure forces the Premier League to grow a pair and do what they are supposed to do and correct every mistake that is referred to them. The arbitrary "higher" bar that the PGMOL group hide behind should be removed.

I think everyone knows the reason and one of the replies explicitly stated it.

Klopp summed it up perfectly which I also mentioned before in the thread.

“The process [allows] the ref to make the decision or not because they have VAR. The ref thinks: ‘Let it run – we have VAR.’ But then VAR says it can’t be overruled because it was not clear. How can he say it’s not a foul? I was 100% sure. I said, ‘Wow.’ I was not angry, I was surprised. I think everyone can agree it was a foul but with VAR it is not a clear foul. That is the situation.

It is supposed to clear up errors but now it has cause the ref to make more errors than ever.

In a league with jokers like Sterling Kane Alli Son Trashford Willian Salah and Mane we top this table

An absolute fucking disgrace and I hope Riley Dean Atkinson suffer from debilitating diarrhoea for the rest of their miserable lives

19 days later

Premier League match officials would be in favour of replays of VAR incidents being shown on screens in the stadium to improve the experience for supporters by giving them a much better understanding of the review process and the reason why the game is being held up.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/mar/01/var-controversy-premier-league-vote-stoke-peter-coates-steve-parish

I wonder why they changed their minds. :brow:

VAR chief Neil Swarbrick marks new system as 'seven out of 10' despite criticism

"I'm really pleased, honestly, with how we have started out,"
"I'm comfortable with where we are but there's no doubt there's room for improvement. It's a work in progress,"

Referees' chief Mike Riley is expected to give an update on how the introduction of VAR has gone in a briefing to all 20 top-flight clubs at a meeting in central London on Thursday.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/50380641

I don't think there's anything wrong with VAR. The people using it on the other hand..