VAR What is it good for?

VAR What is it good for?


  • Total voters
    80

SocrManiac

Tommy Seebach’s mustache
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
8,707
Somers, CT
It’s a red. We’ve seen it given as such. I assume this got caught in a weird VAR area, like everything seems to. The ref made a decision, it isn’t a clear and obvious error, blah blah blah. Bullshit. Fix the call.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
22,667
Pittsburgh, PA
In the USA U-20 vs Mexico U-20 match, after a header and partial clearance in the box, a defender then picked up and dribbled the ball with his hand like a basketball because, we can only assume, he thought a whistle had blown, or surely must have blown, and either way there's no point in continuing the play. Not so, says the ref, ball was live. Penalty kick. The handball was clear as day, and just as clearly deliberate (albeit not cynical, as with Thiago Silva).

View: https://youtu.be/f6y_YFO4u00?t=350


Yellow was shown.
 
Last edited:

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
10,302
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that a handball, even a deliberate one, is only a red if it's a DOGSO. "[D]eliberately touch[ing] the ball with their hand/arm" makes the action a "handball offense" under FA Rule 12 (specifically 12.1), but those offenses are not automatic sending offs, those are just definitions of fouls. Rule 12.3 does defines it as a red card "denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)." So, just looking at the clip from the twitter link doesn't prove it's a red, only that it's a deliberate handling of the ball and thus a foul.

Here's the angle on VAR review. I don't think, with a defender roughly even with the play and more central to goal, with an angle to cut off the attack, that it's a DOGSO, and even if you want to argue that it should be, I certainly don't think it's clear and obvious error to say it's not a DOGSO:


It's a foul and a cynical one, so yellow is the right call there, but unless I'm getting the rules wrong or that defender doesn't negate the DOGSO analysis, I don't think it should have been a red.
 

Pesky Pole

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2001
2,568
Phoenixville, PA
The weekly VAR rundown from ESPN UK. The Saka offsides couldn’t be reviewed due to an uncalibrated Hawkeye camera. Certainly an interesting explanation there.

VAR Review
 

SocrManiac

Tommy Seebach’s mustache
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
8,707
Somers, CT
And they mention the Juventus one as a sort of weird comp.

He doesn’t love the Gabriel handball not getting called, either.

He usually twists himself in knots defending decisions as correct. Oliver had himself a nightmare. Or, by his standards, a good game:
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,521
Philadelphia
The weekly VAR rundown from ESPN UK. The Saka offsides couldn’t be reviewed due to an uncalibrated Hawkeye camera. Certainly an interesting explanation there.

VAR Review

My interpretation of that article was that this part of the pitch is effectively a "blind spot" for the Hawkeye system. I couldn't tell whether the cameras set up at the Emirates just happened to have this issue or whether it is this way in all PL stadiums.

Whatever the case, it seems like an obvious problem. If teams are playing high defensive lines, its going to be common to find wingers trying to play on the last shoulder and beat an offside trap from that portion of the pitch. I'm actually quite surprised its never come up before, which makes me wonder whether this was something specific to how Hawkeye has been implemented in that particular stadium.

Was Saka offside? It looks really close eyeballing things and seems like a situation in which everything is likely to depend on what particular frame VAR semi-arbitrarily decides Ben White kicked the ball, since Saka is moving rapidly toward the ball while the defender is stationary or perhaps even moving in the other direction.
 

SocrManiac

Tommy Seebach’s mustache
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
8,707
Somers, CT
My interpretation of that article was that this part of the pitch is effectively a "blind spot" for the Hawkeye system. I couldn't tell whether the cameras set up at the Emirates just happened to have this issue or whether it is this way in all PL stadiums.

Whatever the case, it seems like an obvious problem. If teams are playing high defensive lines, its going to be common to find wingers trying to play on the last shoulder and beat an offside trap from that portion of the pitch. I'm actually quite surprised its never come up before, which makes me wonder whether this was something specific to how Hawkeye has been implemented in that particular stadium.

Was Saka offside? It looks really close eyeballing things and seems like a situation in which everything is likely to depend on what particular frame VAR semi-arbitrarily decides Ben White kicked the ball, since Saka is moving rapidly toward the ball while the defender is stationary or perhaps even moving in the other direction.
I said it in the game thread, but I’ll repeat it here. If Saka is a yard offside, he isn’t gaining a material advantage on the play. It isn’t the difference between the goal being scored and not. That’s not why the law was written. If that yard gave him the leg up to win a 50/50 ball… Yeah, that’s offside.

You can’t write a law that encompasses this or doesn’t leave more grey area than we already have, so I get why we are where we are. All that said, I’m really okay with the decision.

Contrast that with the Juventus play earlier this year where they had two points taken from them by this same flaw… That I have a huge problem letting go.
 

deconstruction

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
3,665
Hanover NH
Most people, including the VAR review, are saying that the Jesus penalty was "soft."

But it's clearly a foul (Thiago kicks Jesus's ankle and doesn't get the ball), and it would be called so anywhere else on the pitch.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
22,667
Pittsburgh, PA
I said it in the game thread, but I’ll repeat it here. If Saka is a yard offside, he isn’t gaining a material advantage on the play. It isn’t the difference between the goal being scored and not. That’s not why the law was written. If that yard gave him the leg up to win a 50/50 ball… Yeah, that’s offside.

You can’t write a law that encompasses this or doesn’t leave more grey area than we already have, so I get why we are where we are. All that said, I’m really okay with the decision.

Contrast that with the Juventus play earlier this year where they had two points taken from them by this same flaw… That I have a huge problem letting go.
I think there ought to be a safe harbor for players who are marginally offside when the ball is kicked, but they're coming back to the ball (as Saka was), and as such are onside at the spot they receive it at.

I think the most frustrating offside calls are the ones where there's a corner kick played, or some other scramble within a few yards of goal, and there's an offside because of some shuffling of bodies. IMO the zone for offside should stop at the line made by the front of the 6-yard box; once the ball advances past that point without it being an offside violation, there can be no offside violation until it is cleared outside that zone.

The spirit of the offside rule is "let's prevent people from camping out by the opponent's goal, waiting for a long ball". That spirit is met by the test in the first note, and imo would be similarly upheld if we got rid of those near-endline calls with the second one. Let's eliminate the making of calls that don't have to be made to ensure game fairness.
 

Pesky Pole

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2001
2,568
Phoenixville, PA
Right now, offsides is still offsides no matter if they were running back or only had a 1 yard advantage. I'm all for changing that rule but it's just not the case right now. My main concern is whether the assistants know where the blind spots are. If the instructions are to keep your flag down and let VAR adjudicate, there is a problem with that strategy if VAR only works in certain parts of the field because of where the Hawkeye cameras are set up. I guess semi-automated offsides will fix this particular issue when it's implemented (World Cup first and maybe Premier League next season).
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,879

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,335
This is why replay is stupid. It slows the game down, ruins the "what you see is what you get" part of sports (how many times do we see a goal scores and then have to wait to see if it was really scored?) and it just changes what the humans involved in the process screw up.

Instead of arguing about whether the refs on the field called the touchdown catch or the goal or the charge properly, we argue about whether the reply official called it properly.
 

SocrManiac

Tommy Seebach’s mustache
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
8,707
Somers, CT
Replay is not stupid. The way FIFA has insisted on officiating 22 world class athletes on a massive patch of grass is stupid. The resulting constant errors then forced the introduction of replay, where the implementation was stupid.

It’s clear that the referees cannot police themselves, and it’s probably unfair to expect them to. It’s difficult to imagine any line of work where a professional would be comfortable having a peer watching over them, ready to fix their errors publicly. That peer is likely hyper aware of the potential of having the tables turned when roles are reversed.

The “clear and obvious” criteria is absurd. A call is either correct or it isn’t. That’s part of what has created this mess. Using that standard alongside an offside decision system that is almost completely arbitrary in its implementation just furthers the feelings of absurdity.

I think there are some fantastic ideas out there (including this thread) on patches and fixes for this, but they don’t matter. Until FIFA and/or the FA concede that there are critical, crippling flaws in their implementation we won’t see any change and this thread will continue to grow every week.
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
10,302
The PGMOL has now admitted to the human error screwup in the Arsenal/Brentford game. In a rational system, anyone involved in that kind of mistake shouldn’t go anywhere near a replay system for a long time; over/under on when Lee Mason gets his next VAR assignment?
 

SocrManiac

Tommy Seebach’s mustache
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
8,707
Somers, CT
It’s his only job and as I recall he’s already been suspended for an egregious error this year… So he’ll miss zero games.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,879
It’s his only job and as I recall he’s already been suspended for an egregious error this year… So he’ll miss zero games.
Also, incidentally, involving Arsenal:

It is the second major VAR error involving Mason and Arsenal, with Gabriel Martinelli's disallowed goal at Manchester United, when the score was 0-0 in a game the Gunners lost 3-1, ruled by the independent assessment panel to be an incorrect intervention.
https://www.espn.com/soccer/english-premier-league/story/4875921/pgmol-admits-var-offside-errors-for-two-goals-brentford-vs-arsenal-brighton-vs-crystal-palace
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
22,667
Pittsburgh, PA
People hired for VAR roles should be entirely different people, and trained entirely differently, than on-field referees. It shouldn't be a revolving door. The skills required to manage players' tempers on-field, run 6+ miles up and down, and make calls in real time, overlap only superficially with those required to operate some image processing equipment and determine a fact while applying the rules. Yeah, you need to know the rules, cold... but that's about where the comparison stops.

Having them be separate career tracks would also alleviate SocrManiac's valid objections that VARs are in a position of needing to overturn the calls made by a peer, knowing the shoe could be on the other foot the next time.
 

candylandriots

unkempt
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 30, 2004
12,534
Berlin

the1andonly3003

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,536
3/4 Chicago, 1/4 Boston
appointment viewing:
MATCH OFFICIALS MIC’D UP SPECIAL STREAMING MONDAY, MAY 15, ON NBC SPORTS YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Match Officials Mic’d Up, a Premier League Productions special explaining refereeing decisions using previously unreleased audio between on-field officials and VAR team, will stream on the NBC Sports YouTube channel this Monday, May 15.
The ground-breaking special will feature the in-match audio of select plays from the 2022-23 Premier League season, played out and discussed by Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) Chief Refereeing Officer Howard Webb and former Premier League star Michael Owen.
TITLE CHASE DOUBLEHEADER THIS SUNDAY ON USA NETWORK AND TELEMUNDO - FIRST-PLACE MANCHESTER CITY VISIT EVERTON AT 9 A.M. ET, FOLLOWED BY SECOND-PLACE ARSENAL HOSTING BRIGHTON AT 11:30 A.M. ET - NBC Sports PressboxNBC Sports Pressbox (nbcsportsgrouppressbox.com)
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,479
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Always love resurrecting this thread.

So Mac Allister had his three game ban overturned by the FA’s independent tribunal - so justice was served (sort of)

But VAR did not intervene with the call - citing the initial red card was not a Clear and Obvious error. Which mean’s in the opinion of Paul Tierney - the main VAR official - it was a reasonable decision.

Now, it’s quite possible that 95% of the football universe thought it was a rubbish decision. So why would an experienced ref think otherwise?

Leaving out Tierney’s pretty obvious anti-Liverpool bias I think he was simply supporting the very young on field ref and using the “Clear and Obvious” as cover.

I don’t blame the initial call as , in real time - it looked worse than it was. But that’s what VAR is for.

So what is the point of “Clear and Obvious” ? There are dozens, if not hundreds of VAR calls that are overturned every year that involved examining the play in super slow Mo and found something - no matter how minuscule - they didn’t like and sent the on field ref back for a review- which is dutifully overturned 98% of the time.

What does it mean ?
The ref did not see what he thought he saw?
The ref saw l it correctly but interpreted incorrectly?
The ref saw it correctly and interpreted it correctly, but VAR interpreted incorrectly?
VAR hates (a long list of managers and clubs) and goes out of its way to put its thumb on the scale?


There is literally nothing Clear and Obvious about most of these overturned calls. PGMOL claims they don’t want VAR to re-referee the game. Which is laughable as we see it every single game.

And don’t get me started with the fiction of the on field review. I think there were 4 instances last year where the ref told VAR to get stuffed - out of hundreds.
 

SocrManiac

Tommy Seebach’s mustache
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
8,707
Somers, CT
In my mind, the protocol should be to show a yellow card in this situation. If the incident requires it, the VAR official can recommend a review to check for red. By starting with the dismissal, the fog of clear and obvious makes it difficult to fix under the current rules.

All of that said, this implementation is designed to support the notion that the on-field referees get the majority of decisions right the first time. You know what? They do. We were looking to correct the 2% that have a massive impact on a game where the scoring is at a premium. VAR hasn’t done that.

Begin with the end in mind. The target should be correctly officiated games. We aren’t getting it. Incremental improvement on the current system isn't working. Tear the whole thing down and build something that can support correcting referee mistakes. Start by eliminating the self-audit of the same pool of guys on the pitch and in the room. That should be incredibly obvious at this point. It’s an old boys’ club and they aren’t policing each other.

Tierney practically deserves his own thread. Objective data supports that he shouldn’t be anywhere near Liverpool matches in any capacity, let alone doing a quarter of their games.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,521
Philadelphia
The "clear and obvious standard" is clearly and obviously a big part of the problem, but PGMOL doesn't seem to want to change it.

The goal should be to make the correct call based on the on-field ref and VAR both putting in their input regarding what that might be. A system that incentivizes the VAR to embrace a thought process like "Well it really doesn't look like the right call to me and I think the on field ref screwed this one up, but its not a slam dunk wrong call so I'll let it go" is never going to work.

The whole thing would be relatively simple to fix if PGMOL were not such a big part of the problem...

-No clear and obvious standard, no fear of re-refereeing the game. VAR's job is simply to help the on-field referee make the correct calls with respect to penalties, goals, and red cards. The VAR and the on-field ref are viewed as a team tasked with getting to the right decision in the end.
-All communications between on-field ref and VAR taped and released after the game.
-All goal, penalty, red card incidents in which the VAR takes a look are explained in the days after the match, with the VAR and on-field ref writing a short report explaining their reasoning.
-No punishment or judgement placed on any on-field ref for initially getting any call wrong, the game is hard to referee. Accountability for the VAR ref and on-field official if there is a repeated pattern of getting calls wrong even after reviews.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
43,679
AZ
I think these standards are really tough to apply in a one-size fits all model. If I wanted to review a call on the field, the first thing I want to know is what the ref thinks he saw and what his analysis was. If the ref says, "to be honest, I was screened, so I made the best decision I could because something had to be called," I'm not applying a clear and obvious standard. I'm using the video to make the best call I can, even if it's 51/49. If the ref says, "I saw it clear as day, studs were up, it was minimal contact, but he's been trouble all day and the fact that he didn't break a leg but could have isn't keeping me from red, sure maybe it's orange, but this has been a tough game to manage so that's why I did it," I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole. Same if he says, 'yeah, hand a bit away from the body, but given the course of play and how I've seen this defender play all game, he really wasn't unnaturally making himself bigger," that to me would be a true "clear and obvious" situation. If he says, "he got the ball first, so that's why I called a play on, but otherwise, it's a foul," then I'm not applying a "clear and obvious" standard. I'm making an objective judgment whether the defender got the ball and if not, there's no reason to defer to the call on the field. I can review that and see for myself, and if he didn't, it's a penalty.

I just think all of this is made in a vacuum, and the whole idea of giving deference to the call on the field only makes sense if you have the whole story about why the call on the field was made. This is actually a bigger deal in the NFL, where I truly think that in many of these situations, if you could call the ref over, he or she would honestly say, "I really don't have any idea, I couldn't see his feet and the ball at the same time, so I tried to make the best guess I could," there's no reason to defer to the on field call.

tl;dr -- without knowing why the ref called what he called and what he thought he say, video should simply make the best call it can based on everything it has, and the circumstances in which it believes it's truly in equipoise so that it has to defer to the "call on the field" should be almost zero.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,479
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
- for red cards I agree with SM - default yellow and let VAR upgrade to a Red if necessary

But as for the rest VAR’s responsibilities - the real issue the massive impact they have on a game

So - I’d replace the VAR review with a challenge system - you get one challenge per game - if your appeal results in the call being overturned you get your challenge back - otherwise it’s one and done.

And make VAR independent of course.

Or - just ditch the whole thing. I’d really like to go back to celebrating what I just saw - I have a fuzzy vague recollection of that and I liked it.
 

Pesky Pole

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2001
2,568
Phoenixville, PA
And Hatzidakis is scheduled to be the VAR assistant again this weekend in the Liverpool game. After missing the call (with Tierney) and the call being overturned on appeal. The same Hatzidakis that elbowed Andy Robertson last season. Really, we can’t maybe swap him to another game for at least a week?
 

the1andonly3003

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,536
3/4 Chicago, 1/4 Boston
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2023/08/24/mike-dean-anthony-taylor-video-assistant-referee-tottenham/

It’s Mike Dean, so there’s some salt involved. The guy thinks we’re there to see him and not the match he’s overseeing, so this attention-seeking behavior might be tainted a bit. That said, at least somebody is admitting what is blatantly obvious. Independent VAR has to be a thing.
favorite line:
Anthony, he is big and bald and ugly enough to know if he is going to the screen he is going to the screen for a reason.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
22,667
Pittsburgh, PA
The one that burns is Chris Richards for Palace. He got, not just the first touch, but also the second touch, of the ball. VAR called for an overturn and the ref declined - as the article said, it's the first time this season, and only the 10th time since VAR was implemented, that a ref declined to overturn after VAR summoned them for a review. And it likely cost Palace a point.
 

Zososoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2009
9,332
South of North
Those VAR reviews are interesting and helpful. I think they don't seem to value consistency enough week to week, but it does exhibit some new attempted transparency.

I also fervently believe that most reviews in all sports (with the exception of maybe in vs. out and ball placement) should only be shown to referees at real speed. When you slow things down it really messes with your perception of what happens.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,479
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Sigh …

As this is a general “state of Premier League officiating” rant, it sort of belongs here.

- The sacking / forced retirements / real retirements
of the EPL’s old guard referees was widely applauded prior to the season. Somehow refereeing has deteriorated markedly. Are we actually missing these guys?

- the crackdown on dissent - while admirable in intent has reached a ridiculous level with yellow cards being shown for basically talking back or making any public show of unhappiness with a call. Van Dyke got a suspension for swearing at the referee.

- if they want to crack down on dissent it would really help if they raised the quality of officiating. And to remove the obvious, demonstrable and factual bias of some referees (see https://tomkinstimes.substack.com/p/objective-data-liverpool-are-refereed) - and I’ve seen some examples of Arsenal being hard done by.

It kind of reminds me of my (long ago) school teacher internship where - faced with insubordination - I’d become more and more reactionary at each and every , quite reasonable questioning of my authority.

I digress

Yellow cards are a serious impediment to a player’s ability to compete and should not be used for such disciplinary actions - full stop IMO. Give them massive fines or some such. Introduce a special “behaviour yellow card” where , if you get two or more you get dinged a pile of cash.

- Second yellows should always be VAR reviewed - including a retrospective review of the first one. (Just save all yellow card decisions)

On to the Spurs/Liverpool debacle …

Jones’ red card - a neutral observer would have concluded it was, at worst an orange . The complaint is with the sham on field review. Last season 4/116 of field referrals resulted in the referee telling VAR to pound sand. We were told the on field ref would still be the final arbiter - he obviously (for whatever reason) isn’t. VAR has an enormous impact on the ref’s final choice - either visually - showing a still of Jones’s boot at the point of contact as he ran up to the monitor - rather than the whole sequence which exonerated him and revealing the accidental nature of the incident. Or simply being in his ear.

It exists as a PR stunt. I don’t watch enough football in the other big Euro leagues to form an opinion , but is this sham present in the Bundesliga or La Liga?


-We were told VAR would only overturn clear and obvious errors - why didn’t VAR intervene (stopping the game which they can and will do) when VAR itself made the most ridiculous of errors - telling the ref “check complete “ instead of Onside. I mean … really ?????

Edit: forgot to mention - and it speaks to consistency - why did the side official flag for offside when they’ve been told to let marginal calls go - made even worse as it wasn’t even marginal as Diaz was a good metre onside? We’ve seen constant examples of plays that were ridiculously offside not being flagged and forcing serious injury risk. Note: this decision directly influenced the final call as , reportedly VAR’s England the call was a good goal.


(Those responsible for sacking the people who have been sacked have now been sacked)

- PGMOL -
Why does the biggest football league in the world have a private company running its officiating? This seems absurd. The EPL is a billion dollar business and they have to contract out a key element responsible for maintaining the credibility of that business?

-To whom is it accountable? And at what level of detail?

- Why are VAR officials the same ones as the on field guys ? This is an obvious conflict of interest (see Dean, Mike)

And, this isn’t a Liverpool fan sour grapes - while Jones’ red ruined the game - from a spectacle aspect - it ended up being an incredible game to watch. I was enormously proud of how the Reds played and the fluke result was relatively meaningless.
 
Last edited:

SocrManiac

Tommy Seebach’s mustache
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
8,707
Somers, CT
One of the biggest asks fans have for refereeing is consistency. It isn’t there.

PMGOL said it was going to crack down on player behavior toward officials. In the first few games, we saw it. I think it was a net positive. Liverpool picked up a few yellows, but it curbed the behavior. However, it’s tapering off already. Just yesterday…

71860

Brandishing a fake card is supposed to be a yellow card offense now. Having just embellished contact while on a yellow (a yellow card offense), Udogie shows the fake card (while already sitting on a yellow). He should have been dismissed, and might have been earlier in the season. Hooper ignored it and moved on.

it’s worth noting as well that Darren England officiated in KSA 48 hours prior to making a mockery of the EPL yesterday while PMGOL is making noises about workload concerns. Neat. Yeah, he’s been removed from duty this weekend, but he’s already had a material impact on the table. If he’s too tired because his side gig drained him, throw him to the curb.
 

SocrManiac

Tommy Seebach’s mustache
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
8,707
Somers, CT
The precedent has been set that even when the referee errors materially affect the outcome, it’s “oh well lol.”
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
43,679
AZ
Why can’t the game be protested and corrected?
How do you correct? You can never recreate. Spurs still could have won. My guess is the rule says that once play restarts, you are done. And if VAR were reliable, that seems like a good rule. Yesterday, if they had caught it in 5 minutes or something, maybe you fix, but my guess is the rule is clear.

In the NBA they correct three pointers well after the fact sometimes, and it seems to be kind of ok, though sometimes slightly unfair. That’s just one out of 100-120 points though. Soccer goals are huge. What if Spurs had subbed in an extra attacker?

It sucks. The answer is to fix VAR, not make more bad stuff that can have shitty unintended consequences to deal with the fact that VAR sucks.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,521
Philadelphia
The precedent has been set that even when the referee errors materially affect the outcome, it’s “oh well lol.”
That was basically everybody's attitude when Lee Mason simply forgot to draw the offside lines and cost Arsenal two points in a tight title race. I don't really see why it would be any different now.
 

fletcherpost

sosh's feckin' poet laureate
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,230
Glasgow, Scotland
I've watched most of the sports networks discussions on this over the last 24 hours. Clearly this is a tipping point moment. I liked the ESPN soccer pundits, including one ex ref all agreeing that when the error is so egregious, to hell with protocols, (in this case the game has restarted after the VAR fuck up for Diaz's goal/non goal). A breach of protocols is the lesser evil than not rectifying a huge error, that being not giving a goal that ought to stand.

They read out (on Sky Sports) the prococols that actually do allow the ref to stop the match and bring the game back...it's all to do with players violent conduct, abuse of referees, stuff like that - nothing at all covering Refs and VARs making huge errors. That has to change and i think it will.

A lot of pundits; ex pros and journos are calling for a release of the audio tapes, from the booth in Stockley Park. I didn't know audio existed. Rebecca Lowe and the two Robbies did a ten minute bit going over the supposed step by step sequence of events that would lead to such a fuck up and the conclusion is that one component of the human error is someone wasn't actually watching the fucking screen to know exactly what they were checking for, given that the assistant ref was on the side with a flag up signalling for offside. There's four people in the VAR booth, and no one showed any competence. That's really hard to get your head round for mere fans, never mind journalists and those directly connected to a football club, like players, coaches and the like.

And this has to be a huge concern for everyone who loves the game regardless of who you support. I try not to get up nor down about football, cos i need to look after my mental health, but i found myself not wanting to watch a ball being kicked at all today. I lost a lot of love for football these last 24 hours. But i'm somewhat cheered up by the nature and force of the language being used by pundits, presenters and ex refs.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,879
What I have discovered from VAR is that the standard of refereeing (at least in England) has likely been much worse than we'd previously believed. A lot of refereeing errors in the pre-VAR era got brushed under the rug with the "it's a difficult job, fast-moving game, split-second decision, etc." But no, we are actually learning that most of these guys are incompetent idiots who can't handle basic tasks or applications of straightforward rules and protocols. If these guys keep making basic errors when they actually have time to think it through and talk it over, they must be even worse when they don't.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
22,667
Pittsburgh, PA
Suffice to say with respect to MJY's rant that I quite agree about consistency, reviewability, etc - but fully disagree on dissent. That is one of the few things that US sports get right and football doesn't, is insisting that players show respect for the game by showing respect for the officials. The culture of swarming the ref and whining about the smallest thing (all the time) is an ugly artifact of how many leagues choose to officiate, and it's stupid. If anything they ought to be more stringent than it is, not less. In theory, the captain is the only one who can complain to the ref, God help them if they decide to take that seriously.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,479
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Suffice to say with respect to MJY's rant that I quite agree about consistency, reviewability, etc - but fully disagree on dissent. That is one of the few things that US sports get right and football doesn't, is insisting that players show respect for the game by showing respect for the officials. The culture of swarming the ref and whining about the smallest thing (all the time) is an ugly artifact of how many leagues choose to officiate, and it's stupid. If anything they ought to be more stringent than it is, not less. In theory, the captain is the only one who can complain to the ref, God help them if they decide to take that seriously.
I agree about the swarming for what it’s worth

But baseball doesn’t force you to play with 8 men in the field when some player gets kicked out for disputing an umpiring ball/strike call. Baseball, hockey, football , basketball - none of them apply similar draconian penalties on teams for player dissent. Punish the player and not the team.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,356
How do you correct? You can never recreate. Spurs still could have won. My guess is the rule says that once play restarts, you are done. And if VAR were reliable, that seems like a good rule. Yesterday, if they had caught it in 5 minutes or something, maybe you fix, but my guess is the rule is clear.
They apparently caught it in under 10 seconds. As a Spurs fan *of course* I would have been like WTF???? but in the end the right call is the right call. There has to be a line somewhere. I don't think 10 seconds would've have crossed that line. That said, the talk of a replay behind closed doors? I mean, come on. I get that's 90% for their fans (and Klopp).

VAR, at least as currently run, sucks. But now that Liverpool is upset it's suddenly a big deal? Did they release that statement after Jota kicked Skipp in the head last year, then scored the winner? Or after the stupid handball call in the UCL Finals?
 

SocrManiac

Tommy Seebach’s mustache
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
8,707
Somers, CT
The focus on yesterday is because it's the latest in a series of gaffes that should have been easily avoidable. To cap it off, it was embarrassingly simple and very likely allowed one team to leapfrog another in the table.

This is the problem:




The majority of these very likely materially changed the outcome of the match. In the Everton/City example, it changed the title race. And these are just the ones they're willing to own. There have been many other instances where they've been able to justify awful calls by nuance or subjectivity that can allow them to make a claim, even of it's utterly bogus to anybody watching.

Spurs fans love to bring up the Skipp incident while conveniently forgetting he should have been sent off earlier. VAR sucked twice there, so I guess it evens out? The handball call was so egregious it got the law changed, but the officials get the benefit of hiding behind "it was the correct call."