Jump to content
IGNORED

VAR a shambles -Shearer


Coupon

Recommended Posts

As someone who doesn’t even want goaline technology, I hope VAR continues to make the game a mockery.

Perhaps we can then get back to accepting that referees make mistakes and players make a lot more mistakes.

The current top level footballer is a cheat, no getting away from it, they will cheat for 90 minutes every weekend given the chance. It’s up to us supporters to blame them,and not the officials who are the only honest people on the pitch.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

The referee isn’t a joke, unfortunately the players are though. Referees give honest decisions, the players of Chelsea don’t know what honesty means.

I agree to a point that he wasn't helped by players diving but the Willian one is a shocking decision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Coupon said:

I have watched that video several times and come to the same conclusion as the Ref.  Willian sees the defenders leg, jumps over it, drops his back leg to ensure he is "tripped" to try to get a penalty.  this is clearly cheating and well done the Ref for spotting it (backed up by VAR).

Unfortunately Shearer is of the opinion "there was contact so he is entitled to go down", perhaps VAR will demonstrate that he doesn't know what he is talking about - that's why he calls it a shambles.

Not sure what you've watched, back leg has nothing to do with it.

Willian tried to jump the tackle but still got caught, though it looks like he could have stayed up and only went down once he noticed the ball had escaped him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing Shearer's comments prove is that he is a complete bell end.  What's shambolic, Alan, is that you are heftily paid by TV Licence payers for trotting out tired old cliches, thoughtless, reactionary tosh. 

If he wants to think about a shambles, he should try to remember his brief attempt at managing. 

There is nothing more tiresome than hearing idiot ex pros who've never refereed even an under 8s game seeing fit to criticise refs having watched about 8 different replays themselves.  Morons.Onto VAR, they will need a radical rethink on it.  It will soon change player behaviour. For example, a Chelsea player was narrowly offside in the first half, realised and just knocked the ball back to the keeper.  He should have squared to a team mate to knock into the net.  Then turn round and ask the Ref to check the offside decision.  Trouble with football is that it so utterly reactionary (just read some of the comments on this thread) that there is little chance of consensus being reached.

I thought the ref last night was excellent.  Great to see cheating whingers being removed from the pitch so quickly.  If all our refs adopted this attitude the players would soon reel themselves in and behave like men rather than petulant teenagers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s the problem when you try and con the referee, if you persistently dive in trying to win a penalty ( as the Chelsea players did)  then don’t be too surprised when he fails to award a genuine penalty, in his mind he thinks you’re trying to con him again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Super said:

I agree to a point that he wasn't helped by players diving but the Willian one is a shocking decision. 

Players like Willian reep what they sow, we know he dives a lot, so the officials will be aware of it as well.

If him and others played the game honestly, then he may well have been given a penalty, ( opinions still differ on if it was or not) but they don't.

It’s weird how football is fast becoming a tv sport, where replays of incidents are becoming more important than the actual result of the game!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

As someone who doesn’t even want goaline technology, I hope VAR continues to make the game a mockery.

Perhaps we can then get back to accepting that referees make mistakes and players make a lot more mistakes.

The current top level footballer is a cheat, no getting away from it, they will cheat for 90 minutes every weekend given the chance. It’s up to us supporters to blame them,and not the officials who are the only honest people on the pitch.

 

 

The FA have their four corner model of coaching which addresses technical, tactical, psychological and social aspects of football.

It also has a respect campaign.

Cheating, and that is what players are doing is part of neither. Ditch VAR and address what should be priorities (above) more robustly. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

Players like Willian reep what they sow, we know he dives a lot, so the officials will be aware of it as well.

If him and others played the game honestly, then he may well have been given a penalty, ( opinions still differ on if it was or not) but they don't.

It’s weird how football is fast becoming a tv sport, where replays of incidents are becoming more important than the actual result of the game!!

Agree with that mate, he can hardly moan when he doesn't get a decision. (have no likes left which Is why I replied!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m really struggling to see the arguments against VAR. Please help me out.

To summarise what I’ve read/heard:

”It will slow the game down” - Firstly, last night (which everyone seems to be complaining about) showed exactly the opposite. People are now actively complaining that the ref didn’t take time to consult a replay or anything. So the game carried on exactly as it would have done without VAR. The debate last night was simply about whether people thought it should have been a penalty - a debate people thought, apparently sadly, would disappear with VAR.

Also, with an offside goal incorrectly disallowed (i.e. Iheanacho’s) the time taken to sort it out pales in comparison to the annoyance people would feel to have a decent goal taken away from them. In Iheanacho’s case, it took a minute, and that was a marginal of marginal calls. I imagine others would be called quicker, and while some may take longer I doubt it would be any more of a stoppage than that caused by: most people celebrating having not noticed the offside flag, some players remonstrating with the referee, and the players finally getting back into position to restart from the free kick. We don’t mind about that.

“It will get rid of debatable decisions, which are part of the game” - Again, last night demonstrates this to be a non-issue. In fact, everyone debated the decision even more. I mean, look, even I’m writing some nonsense that no one cares about. People can’t be worried it will get rid of debatable decisions, and then criticise it when it creates a debatable decision (ignoring the fact that it actually didn’t, because the decision would have been the same without VAR).

“Every decision will be correct” - Aside from how bizarre I find this problem, it’s also not true. Once again, last night suggests otherwise, while your everyday, middle of the park fouls aren’t going to be referred, nor will the awarding of throw ins, or pretty much anything else that doesn’t result in a vital, game-changing moment (most of the time with a natural stoppage). I wouldn’t be able to count the number of times I’ve heard complaints along the lines of “well that wasn’t offside, so we should have equalised, which would have changed the game, it’s so unfair” (but with more colourful language)... I’m pretty sure we all want those decisions to be correct.

“We won’t be able to celebrate properly” - @Carey 6 mentions above about Korey’s goal, suggesting we’d have had to wait. For what? The assistant didn’t flag, he was correct, so there was no need to call anyone back for anything. Sure, the referee with the video would have been double checking, so I guess he doesn’t get to jump up and down in the office, but he’d have seen it was correct so wouldn’t have said anything to the on-pitch referee, and everything would’ve carried on precisely as it did. The on-pitch referee may have asked the video ref if it was correct... in which case he’d have asked the question quickly and quietly while we were all going mental, got the answer that it was fine, and carried on as normal. In fact, you seem to suggest we’d be waiting while Mourinho “challenged” it...which is precisely the system you advocate in your first paragraph... The system as it is would require no waiting for anything at all.

“We should respect the referee’s decision” - Yes. 100% we should. Which is why we shouldn’t be arguing over his decision last night to not stop play and look at the replay. The video ref presumably said something like “I can’t be completely certain to overrule you, it’s up to you if you want another look” and he decided not to. So respect his decision. I honestly cannot see how this will change with VAR. We should still respect their decisions, some people still won’t, and thus all this change people are worried about won’t exist.

 

Honestly, I don’t get it. Half the arguments are contradictory (“it slows the game down!” - “why didn’t he stop the game?!”) and the others are either based on “what might happen” instead of what actually happens, or a strange emotional connection to incorrect decisions (which will still exist anyway).

If I’ve missed something, please explain to me, because I want to understand. There are probably other arguments I’ve not addressed which may sway me. But at the moment I’m at a loss.

For instance, the issue I can see arising is if someone is flagged offside and therefore doesn’t take the shot, unlike Iheanacho... When this is proven to be the wrong decision, what do we do? Similarly, as @Davefevs alludes to, even if they do take the shot and score, could the defending side not argue that they’d stopped playing and could’ve saved/tackled?

However, even with this, it’s evidence that VAR isn’t perfect and might need tweaks, or further explanation, but it doesn’t make the game worse.

i.e. Without VAR: every incorrect offside decision stands, whether it disallows a perfectly legitimate goal or not.

With VAR: most incorrect offside decisions will be rectified, allowing legitimate goals where previously they wouldn’t have been, while the grey area I highlighted will - at worst - result in the situation we’ve always had.

 

Sorry, I realise people don’t like reading. Oops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think VAR could be good.

But it should be used just for players who may have dived.

If they have no booking.

The punishment has to be ...

A condom should be inflated and placed on their head with a big C written on it.

C stands for cheat and something else ...

The opposition can any time that C is in position foul him.

Shins, bollocks, head ... All fair game.

Its a free for the rest of the game.

I believe this will help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RedYoshi said:

 

“It will get rid of debatable decisions, which are part of the game” - Again, last night demonstrates this to be a non-issue. In fact, everyone debated the decision even more. I mean, look, even I’m writing some nonsense that no one cares about. People can’t be worried it will get rid of debatable decisions, and then criticise it when it creates a debatable decision (ignoring the fact that it actually didn’t, because the decision would have been the same without VAR).

“Every decision will be correct” - Aside from how bizarre I find this problem, it’s also not true. Once again, last night suggests otherwise, while your everyday, middle of the park fouls aren’t going to be referred, nor will the awarding of throw ins, or pretty much anything else that doesn’t result in a vital, game-changing moment (most of the time with a natural stoppage). I wouldn’t be able to count the number of times I’ve heard complaints along the lines of “well that wasn’t offside, so we should have equalised, which would have changed the game, it’s so unfair” (but with more colourful language)... I’m pretty sure we all want those decisions to be correct.

These are the things I like least about the idea of using technology to police the rules, but you're right. They apply more to the idea of using technology in general, rather than to VAR in particular, which if anything reduces clarity by adding another layer on top of the referee.

That said, if VAR doesn't remove or reduce debatable decisions, or improve the veracity of them, then what is it for?

Although it can be frustrating when a decision goes against one's team, especially when it's shown to be incorrect, it's part of the game, and so is the whataboutery that follows. "We'd have won if the ref had given that penalty" is no different to "We'd have won if our striker hadn't missed that open goal." I don't want 100% accuracy from a ref any more than I do from a striker. It would be boring and pointless.

One of the things that has frustrated me most about the use of video technology in sport was watching a rugby union game during the last world cup (I think it was England so I had some interest in the result but that's by the by): a try was scored that involved some wonderful play but it was ruled out for some minor infringement in the build up. Great play went unrewarded because of some minor misdemeanour. That might be the right thing, but it's not what I want to see. I don't want to see cheating, and that's why we have referees, but I also don't want to see great play go unrewarded because some guy with a TV screen saw some trivial offense in the build up. A counter argument to this is that if the ref had seen the offence we'd never have seen the great play at all, so as a spectator I'm arguably better off seeing the great play than not, but that just doesn't work for me.

I think the logical arguments for VAR are quite reasonable but sometimes logical arguments aren't what's needed or wanted. Football is supposed to be a game and it's supposed to be fun. People are taking it far too seriously and this argument is a symptom of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Dan, I do understand your view better now - some good points well made. And I do understand some of the worries... I’m just not sure that the evidence thus far supports those worries.

28 minutes ago, BCFC_Dan said:

That said, if VAR doesn't remove or reduce debatable decisions, or improve the veracity of them, then what is it for?

Remove? No it won’t. But I do think that it will reduce them. For instance, out of two decisions (Iheanacho’s goal, and Willian’s dive/penalty claim), neither would have been awarded without VAR. With it, we see one goal given correctly, and a debate ensue about the other. My point being that, it not quite being utterly perfect isn’t the same as it being bad.

I guess to flip the “what is it for?” question, I would ask “why not?” if it’s not resulting in worse decisions.

28 minutes ago, BCFC_Dan said:

"We'd have won if the ref had given that penalty" is no different to "We'd have won if our striker hadn't missed that open goal." I don't want 100% accuracy from a ref any more than I do from a striker. It would be boring and pointless.

Hmm. I guess this just comes down to opinion. For me, the referees are there to facilitate the game as opposed to being part of the game itself. They have become part of the game, sure, but they’re not inherent, hence why we can have a kick about with friends without giving one of us a whistle. Indeed (and I could be wrong) I don’t believe referees were part of the original rules.

Ultimately, a perfect game would be one in which all the players would be honest, and thus not need a referee. They’d say things like “yep, I tripped him, that’s a penalty, sorry guys”. Missing an open goal is an inherent part of the game - a referee not quite being able to see a foul properly, and the players not being honest enough to admit it, isn’t inherent, to me.

But as I say, this is more of an opinion, so I get it, even if I disagree. ;)

28 minutes ago, BCFC_Dan said:

Football is supposed to be a game and it's supposed to be fun. People are taking it far too seriously and this argument is a symptom of that.

Completely agree with this. Games are definitely taken too seriously. But if we were to ignore the rules of games, simply for “fun”, they lose their fun...if that makes sense haha.

I suppose I find that fun to be lessened more by someone saying “yeah, that’s the rule, but let’s just not apply that rule right now”, than using simple technology to double check everything’s been done fairly. “Fairness = fun” for me, I guess.

But as I said, I agree. I just see the arguments against something as being more symbolic of “taking it far too seriously” than just letting it happen and seeing where it goes.

Thanks though, I appreciate the response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, BCFC_Dan said:

One of the things that has frustrated me most about the use of video technology in sport was watching a rugby union game during the last world cup (I think it was England so I had some interest in the result but that's by the by): a try was scored that involved some wonderful play but it was ruled out for some minor infringement in the build up. Great play went unrewarded because of some minor misdemeanour. That might be the right thing, but it's not what I want to see. I don't want to see cheating, and that's why we have referees, but I also don't want to see great play go unrewarded because some guy with a TV screen saw some trivial offense in the build up. A counter argument to this is that if the ref had seen the offence we'd never have seen the great play at all, so as a spectator I'm arguably better off seeing the great play than not, but that just doesn't work for me.

Sorry, forgot this bit...

Completely understand where you’re coming from on this, and again it’s a much more emotive debate so I’m not gonna weigh in one way or the other, but in terms of VAR - from what I understand - they’re not gonna look back at the entire build up, just any clear things (e.g. offside) as the goal is scored, or whatever.

Basically, the hope is that your example above wouldn’t happen in football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view is quite simple. Ha, as if!

Whether we are talking VAR or GLT, I believe both are an improvement, although neither are foolproof.

GLT - Just think about Frank Lampard's goal against Germany in the 2010 World Cup or even Geoff Hurst's in 1966. GLT would have clarified the FL goal, but I have seen 'footage' of the GH goal that 'confirms' the ball did cross the line, didn't cross and was even on the line - the latter goal providing bar talk for more decades.

So. Is GLT infallible? Watch the following clip and try to make your own mind up before 20 seconds - you will probably need to click on the YouTube link. 

 

VAR - This would have clarified the infamous Thierry Henri handball and, more recently and pertinently, Pedro's dive last night, had it been required, but, based on the comments on various match reports and even on this forum, there are widely differing views as to whether the later 'dive' by Willian was indeed a dive or a foul. The referee and, presumably, the panel adjudicator decided VAR was not required; Willian was booked for diving and the match continued with no delay. Gary Lineker and his MotD panel found the VAR decision risible, but who was right?

Seems quite simple to me.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VAR was used last season in the MLS.  Atlanta United both benefited and were hurt from it.  One occasion, a cross was headed back to the keeper by a Toronto defender.  Some Atlanta players raised their arms and the video review was called for.  Few fans saw anything wrong, but the video clearly showed use of the hand.  So we were awarded a penalty.  The other occasion I remember, our keeper came out and tackled the opposition striker outside the box when he was clean through .  Nothing was awarded, but the video review was called for showed that he was clearly fouled. A red card was shown and a free kick given.  At first I didn't like it, but it adds a little interest on those controversial key decisions.  Goals and red cards.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Portland Bill said:

The referee isn’t a joke, unfortunately the players are though. Referees give honest decisions, the players of Chelsea don’t know what honesty means.

Trouble is a lot of referees think we go to watch them make controversial decisions and all about them . look at Mike Dean for instance anything to cause a riot 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched an A league game two weeks ago where the VAR was implemented.

In the 8th minute, Wellington Pheonix had a guy through on goal who was taken out just outside the box and the referee gave a yellow.

3/4 minutes later, under pressure from the players and crowd, the referee finally decides to review the footage and ultimately changes the decision to a red card. 

My first thought was a red but actually having watched the replays on the screen within the stadium, I changed my mind and thought it was a yellow as it appeared the player made a fair attempt for the ball.

 

Later in the same game, a goal was wrongly given offside and the referee couldn't/didn't go to the VAR even though the entire stadium could clearly see on the screen it was about 2 miles onside. :blink:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Ignoring VAR for a moment. 

I guess the definition of a penalty is a foul / infringement that happens in the box. That’s clear. 

But was is the definition of of a foul / infringement?  That is where it falls down and becomes subjective. 

The use of ‘contact’ as the determiner is wrong, or else you can’t have any contact full stop. It therefore has to be the interpretation by the official.  Plus you also have the added issue of the attacking player dragging a leg to force contact   I think you will often be able to tell this as it tends to happen after the player has started the motion of falling over, i.e. they’re already on their way down. 

I think in the laws of the game the relevant offence for the Willian case would be where the defender "in a manner considered by the referee to be...careless...trips an opponent." (Law 12).

I'm not aware that "trip" is defined in the Laws themselves, although I'm sure there are guidelines given to referees. A common sense interpretation of this, though, would be that the reason that Willian went to ground was because (perhaps primarily because) of the defender's actions. Which would mean that if you think that Willian sought the contact, the defender hasn't tripped him - he's tripped himself, effectively - again, only a common sense interpretation.

As it happens, seeing this one from two different angles I came to two different conclusions about whether Willian was really tripped. So as others on here have said, that suggests (IMO) it's at least not a blatant mistake by the ref.

Now if VAR could be used to overturn free kicks where the attacker is on his way down before there is any contact (which to my mind would mean he hasn't really been tripped - even if he would have been had he stayed upright a little longer) then I'd be all for it. But I don't think it's being used in those circumstances unless there's a penalty (I wonder if it would be used if the free kick resulted in a goal).

Just to be clear: I haven't digested the Laws of the game, and have spent very little of my life studying them, honest. But a thread on here a few weeks ago prompted me to download them out of curiosity, and this VAR debate piqued my interest. I also learned what would happen if Frankie Fielding took a corner for us and then, without any other player touching the ball, FF handled it in his own penalty area. I kid you not, there is a section in the Laws on this - about GKs in general, not FF in particular!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Nobody is 'entitled to go down' it is a bullshit term from people who are protecting their part of the Murdoch gravy train, SKY pretty much run football now and it is evident how far they are prepared to go when none of the highlights on youtube contain the 2 said incidents.

 

This is my view and it further encourages cheating which is already endemic within the game and getting worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, lager loud said:

'm not aware that "trip" is defined in the Laws themselves, although I'm sure there are guidelines given to referees. A common sense interpretation of this, though, would be that the reason that Willian went to ground was because (perhaps primarily because) of the defender's actions. Which would mean that if you think that Willian sought the contact, the defender hasn't tripped him - he's tripped himself, effectively - again, only a common sense interpretation.

 

This is how I saw it, Willian sought the trip therefore in my book the Ref was right - controversial I know as everyone sees it differently as previous entries to this thread bear out.  Hopefully if players realise they are being scrutinised more closely it may go some way to stamping out this form of cheating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Coupon said:

This is how I saw it, Willian sought the trip therefore in my book the Ref was right - controversial I know as everyone sees it differently as previous entries to this thread bear out.  Hopefully if players realise they are being scrutinised more closely it may go some way to stamping out this form of cheating.

With you on that, he wasn’t brought down, he sought a contact and dived. 

Now, if I want to watch actors performing amateur theatrics I go to a theatre. If I want to watch footballers play a game of football I go to a football stadium. 

While no fan of VAR, if it stops our game becoming a non contact sport, I’ll go with it. Better still though for VAR to be abandoned and some simple guidance issued over what constitutes physical contact that warrants a foul.

Pleased that the divers and cheats may finally being called to book. Well done that ref.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article from the Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/01/18/var-should-have-overturned-willians-yellow-diving-could-have/

They don't say that the penalty should have been awarded, just that it might have been. Which may mean that the question of whether Willian sought the contact is relevant. I think the question of diving doesn't arise if there's contact: there was certainly some guidance a few seasons ago that refs shouldn't give yellow cards for diving if there was contact. Not saying I agree with that, but it may explain the conclusion.

But the fact that the VAR apparently thought there was no contact surprised me:

Despite watching the incident 10 times, including from the decisive angle, Jones failed to slow down his own footage to the same speed and was, therefore, under the misapprehension no contact had been made and Willian had dived.

I watched the videos a couple of times this morning, before I was fully awake, and I was in no doubt that there was some contact.   No such thing as foolproof technology: there's always a better fool somewhere!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...