VARcical Decision

I agree with that ^^

Just have a 'standby' buzz/light, then a 'green' = carry on, good call, or 'amber' = go look at the screen, you've missed something, 'red' = you ****ed up mate, change the decision now or we'll release the crowd on you.
 
Last edited:
It's sounds a bit chaotic but rhe ref can't hear what the var and avar refs are saying apparently until they confirm theres a check ongoing, so 46 seconds on the clip above is when the ref can hear anything
 
Last edited:
omnomnom said:
How are they supposed to know why the referee has given a decision if there isnt a conversation?
Click to expand...
If the ref gives/does not give a foul in the box.. i'm not sure it should matter why.. the VAR look at it.. and decide if a foul took place. Why should it make a difference if the ref says, I think he tripped his left foot.. when in fact on video evidence he tripped his right foot?

I think that's part of the problem, the ref is saying what he thinks, which may well influence the VAR officials, and it really shouldn't.
 
SimonRigga said:
If the ref gives/does not give a foul in the box.. i'm not sure it should matter why.. the VAR look at it.. and decide if a foul took place. Why should it make a difference if the ref says, I think he tripped his left foot.. when in fact on video evidence he tripped his right foot?

I think that's part of the problem, the ref is saying what he thinks, which may well influence the VAR officials, and it really shouldn't.
Click to expand...
So it isnt re-refereed.
 
Isn't that what VAR is doing?? re-refereeing?

Guy goes down in the pen area.. ref says he saw the incident and thinks no pen... VAR takes a look at the incident and sees/thinks that a foul has taken place.. how is that not re-refereeing?
 
No, at least that is not the intention. It matters why the ref has made a decision so they can determine whether he's made a clear mistake. For instance, in the Arsenal penalty appeal vs Utd, the ref tells VAR that Wan Bissaka tripped Martinelli so as soon as the VAR can see that he doesn't, he's free to overrule the decision. Has their been minimal contact then VAR wouldn't be able to overrule the decision even if it wasn't a penalty. At least this is how its meant to work.
 
ryu said:
It's like the officials got a different education. Mike Dean stated live on Sky Sports the Ake goal should never have been given.

They are going to have to resort to the referee going to the screen for every goal, penalty, red card decision that is contentious (which will cost a lot more time but should probably be a higher priority than these crazy 10 minutes extra time introduced this season).
and/or they are going to have to have a team of 3 or 5 VAR officials that vote for/against each decision with a majority winner. It's become quite the farcical.
Click to expand...

And yet, other sports seem to be able to do relatively easily.
 
BaZ87 said:
No, at least that is not the intention. It matters why the ref has made a decision so they can determine whether he's made a clear mistake. For instance, in the Arsenal penalty appeal vs Utd, the ref tells VAR that Wan Bissaka tripped Martinelli so as soon as the VAR can see that he doesn't, he's free to overrule the decision. Has their been minimal contact then VAR wouldn't be able to overrule the decision even if it wasn't a penalty. At least this is how its meant to work.
Click to expand...

Which is part of the problem.

The refs are more concerned with their authority and being the men in charge that they're completely missing their primary function which is to apply the laws of game correctly and fairly.

No other sport I can think of has this "clear and obvious" caveat in their application of technology aids. Everyone else is just trying to get to the right decisions.
 
Last edited:
BaZ87 said:
No, at least that is not the intention. It matters why the ref has made a decision so they can determine whether he's made a clear mistake. For instance, in the Arsenal penalty appeal vs Utd, the ref tells VAR that Wan Bissaka tripped Martinelli so as soon as the VAR can see that he doesn't, he's free to overrule the decision. Has their been minimal contact then VAR wouldn't be able to overrule the decision even if it wasn't a penalty. At least this is how its meant to work.
Click to expand...
So the ref gives a pen, and says to var, Martinelli was tripped.. var takes a look and he wasn't tripped.. but Wan Bissaka has used his arm to push Martinelli over, which the ref had NOT seen..

are you saying VAR should say no penalty? as it wasn't a trip.. ? i.e. if the ref doesn't get the correct reason, then the decision should'nt stand even if it was the correct decision for a different reason?

and if not then they very much are re-refereeing.. even if they say they aren't..

btw the are "you" saying.. is not are you personally saying whats right or wrong.. it's are you saying that's what var is supposed to do? because i'm unsure what their function is at the moment.
 
Last edited:
SimonRigga said:
So the ref gives a pen, and says to var, Martinelli was tripped.. var takes a look and he wasn't tripped.. but Wan Bissaka has used his arm to push Martinelli over, which the ref had NOT seen..

are you saying VAR should say no penalty? as it wasn't a trip.. ? i.e. if the ref doesn't get the correct reason, then the decision should'nt stand even if it was the correct decision for a different reason?

and if not then they very much are re-refereeing.. even if they say they aren't..

btw the are "you" saying.. is not are you personally saying whats right or wrong.. it's are you saying that's what var is supposed to do? because i'm unsure what their function is at the moment.
Click to expand...
No, if the push was considered a clear error then they can. The key is the ref hasn't seen the push. If the ref has seen it but decided the defender was just holding the forward off then even though the decision may have been wrong, VAR shouldn't get involved.

When they talk about re-refereeing, it doesn't mean they can't make decisions based on incidents the official hasn't seen. They just can't (or at least shouldn't) intervene in incidents where the official has seen the challenge and their explanation is plausible. The ref's explanation has to be completely wrong before VAR can get involved and once they do, they can look at all other possible infringements.
 
inogen said:
Which is part of the problem.

The refs are more concerned with their authority and being the men in charge that they're completely missing their primary function which is to apply the laws of game correctly and fairly.

No other sport I can think of has this "clear and obvious" caveat in their application of technology aids. Everyone else is just trying to get to the right decisions.
Click to expand...
I agree and wrote as much in an earlier post. The whole clear and obvious line only causes confusion and clear and obvious errors aren't being corrected because VAR's are too concerned whether it was clearly and obviously wrong enough.
 
BaZ87 said:
I agree and wrote as much in an earlier post. The whole clear and obvious line only causes confusion and clear and obvious errors aren't being corrected because VAR's are too concerned whether it was clearly and obviously wrong enough.
Click to expand...

and it’s also clear and obvious from the audio that the ref is shouting what he thinks he saw as the VARs are reviewing, which makes the whole thing an exercise in confirmation bias.

the on field ref should just be thinking of themselves as a quick answer for the simple stuff. anything important or contentious they should really be shutting the FU whilst the VARs take a look at what‘s happened. They should expect to be corrected frequently.

wont happen here with Webb in charge though.
 
Today’s VAR **** up with the Diaz goal is exactly why VAR is so far away from being fit for purpose.

In its current format, all it does is move the possibility of human error up a layer to the VAR officials, who far too often show that they are really aren’t aware of what their job is, how it should be done and what the rules are that they are meant to be enforcing.

It doesn’t really do what it was bought in for.
 
**** me, this is either simply incredible or complete and utter ******s. Dale Johnson has a full explanation of the decision:
The PGMOL claim that the VAR believed the onfield decision was a goal, not offside and said "check complete" to indicate goal. IF that was the case then why the **** didn't the VAR get back on the radio and correct the mistake once he realised the ref wasn't giving the goal?
 
BaZ87 said:
**** me, this is either simply incredible or complete and utter ******s. Dale Johnson has a full explanation of the decision:
The PGMOL claim that the VAR believed the onfield decision was a goal, not offside and said "check complete" to indicate goal. IF that was the case then why the **** didn't the VAR get back on the radio and correct the mistake once he realised the ref wasn't giving the goal?
Click to expand...
Because its ******** that's why, they are desperatly scrabbling for excuses
 
Last edited:
Thats outrageous.

That is the worst officiated games i have ever seen. The foul by Salah when through on goal was disgusting and even that is minor considering. wow.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom