Greenlizard0 Premier League Football Thread ** spoilers ** [28th - 30th September 2024]

[manic111]

Re how VAR works, VAR cannot get involved for simply disagreeing with the onfield call. They're only meant to intervene when the decision is clearly and obviously wrong and it's that phrase that results in some of the farcical decisions we see. A qualified official can spend 2 minutes looking at a decision with multiple replays and camera angles and still end up awarding the wrong decision, despite determining that it was the wrong decision, because in their opinion it wasn't quite wrong enough.

As Dale mentions in his article there were 26 incidents last season where the VAR didn't intervene when they should have and it's entirely down to this nonsensical 'clear and obvious' rule. It just confuses the situation and rather than allowing a qualified official to just make the right decision, they're instead having to decide whether the decision was clearly wrong enough, which is of course entirely subjective.

To my mind, the only way of doing it is to allow each side one incorrect challenge per half, plus VAR should deal with offsides and line calls. That way it's the teams who are deciding whether an alleged error is clear and obvious enough for them to risk using their challenge on.

 

[GarethSouthgate]

A cold one?

A pint to celebrate changing team?

 

[NF7-S]

Re how VAR works, VAR cannot get involved for simply disagreeing with the onfield call. They're only meant to intervene when the decision is clearly and obviously wrong and it's that phrase that results in some of the farcical decisions we see. A qualified official can spend 2 minutes looking at a decision with multiple replays and camera angles and still end up awarding the wrong decision, despite determining that it was the wrong decision, because in their opinion it wasn't quite wrong enough.

As Dale mentions in his article there were 26 incidents last season where the VAR didn't intervene when they should have and it's entirely down to this nonsensical 'clear and obvious' rule. It just confuses the situation and rather than allowing a qualified official to just make the right decision, they're instead having to decide whether the decision was clearly wrong enough, which is of course entirely subjective.

Personally I don't know why we don't go for the tennis approach, each manager get's 3 calls for VAR in a match/half kind of thing...would be perfect for these situations IMHO - also, while we're at it - a sin bin for kicking the ball away/blatant time wasting please.

 

[C Kent]

or just get rid of the 'clear and obvious error' malarky, apply the rules unilaterally and give the 4th official the ability to hand out yellow cards for timewasting - hell make them retroactive cards.

 

[NF7-S]

or just get rid of the 'clear and obvious error' malarky, apply the rules unilaterally and give the 4th official the ability to hand out yellow cards for timewasting - hell make them retroactive cards.

Only issue might be the time pausing...but then, why not let the game flow while ongoing checks are made and then punishment handed out? Only stops in play for pens, goals or disputed red cards?

 

[inogen]

Re how VAR works, VAR cannot get involved for simply disagreeing with the onfield call. They're only meant to intervene when the decision is clearly and obviously wrong and it's that phrase that results in some of the farcical decisions we see. A qualified official can spend 2 minutes looking at a decision with multiple replays and camera angles and still end up awarding the wrong decision, despite determining that it was the wrong decision, because in their opinion it wasn't quite wrong enough.

As Dale mentions in his article there were 26 incidents last season where the VAR didn't intervene when they should have and it's entirely down to this nonsensical 'clear and obvious' rule. It just confuses the situation and rather than allowing a qualified official to just make the right decision, they're instead having to decide whether the decision was clearly wrong enough, which is of course entirely subjective.

I've been banging this drum since VAR's inception. The "clear and obvious" thing is ridiculous. It comes from an attempt to by referees to protect the idea that a bad decision made in good faith is somehow less wrong and any challenge questions the integrity of the ref.

It's only referees and idiots with no critical thinking skills that parrot the "We don't want to see the game re-refereed" line. Yes we do. We want to see all the available tools being used, as other sports do, to attempt to reach a correct decision, and when "correct" is a matter of opinion, it should attempt to divide that opinion as equally as possible, not make the arbiter of "truth" one man who's seen something once and only from his POV. Nobody ever said they wanted VAR to do that that other than refs who never wanted it the first place.

The other problem it manifests is refs leaning on their VARs to help them make decisions that they don't have a clear view of, eg penalties that VARs then don't feel they have the authority to step in for. That's a proper crack. And the PGMOL making a mockery of the laws and their own guidance on them with their excuses on Monday morning and on that waste of time Mic'd up thing with Michael Owen where they try to gaslight everyone into agreeing that clearly bad decisions are okay if you look at them a certain way.