VAR (part 3965 !)

[kit]

The biggest gripe with the whole piece last might is that it really is subjective, there is enough mitigating factors for me that I really don't think its a red. He is not endangering the player, actually reading what the other player is doing and where he was going to take the ball away from him, he's gone in with zeeo force and it is never going to do serious harm.

I can accept that it can be interpreted differently but that is where it becomes a subjective decision because it seems like there's not many/any people saying its a stone wall red, it doesn't fit the threshold of a clear and obvious error. Dyche was spot on in his analysis when he pointed out that there was a foul on his player in the box, he acknowledged or implied it was soft on not a big shout but technically its a foul and if you are pulling up that red then you need to re-referree the entire game and every minor little touch or pull in the box simply must be a penalty or disallowed goal.

VAR isn't for four purpose though as it doesn't allow to overturn two yellows being a red, I think that it was the Newcastle player who got sent off for not even a foul, how does that work in improving the game.

In summary just get rid of VAR it doesn't improve the game at all, just makes it worse.

[W-S-M Seagull]

5 minutes ago, kit said:

The biggest gripe with the whole piece last might is that it really is subjective, there is enough mitigating factors for me that I really don't think its a red. He is not endangering the player, actually reading what the other player is doing and where he was going to take the ball away from him, he's gone in with zeeo force and it is never going to do serious harm.

I can accept that it can be interpreted differently but that is where it becomes a subjective decision because it seems like there's not many/any people saying its a stone wall red, it doesn't fit the threshold of a clear and obvious error. Dyche was spot on in his analysis when he pointed out that there was a foul on his player in the box, he acknowledged or implied it was soft on not a big shout but technically its a foul and if you are pulling up that red then you need to re-referree the entire game and every minor little touch or pull in the box simply must be a penalty or disallowed goal.

VAR isn't for four purpose though as it doesn't allow to overturn two yellows being a red, I think that it was the Newcastle player who got sent off for not even a foul, how does that work in improving the game.

In summary just get rid of VAR it doesn't improve the game at all, just makes it worse.

How is going in with your studs in the air not endangering an opponent? 

[kit]

1 minute ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

How is going in with your studs in the air not endangering an opponent? 

Because the player was never an course to make big contact with the studs.

It was controlled, with zero force and never in a million years a leg breaker. The guys not had to take any mitigating action to avoid the tackle. He's gone down trying to get the player sent off in which he has succeeded.

Read the actual tackle not and the fact that there are some studs in the air in a slow motion still. Nobody is looking at that and wincing when they see the tackle being made.

It is a subjective decision and not a clear and obvious error is the main point I am making, my secondary point is that I don't think its even a foul but I'm not really going argue the toss over it any more than that.

[W-S-M Seagull]

2 minutes ago, kit said:

Because the player was never an course to make big contact with the studs.

It was controlled, with zero force and never in a million years a leg breaker. The guys not had to take any mitigating action to avoid the tackle. He's gone down trying to get the player sent off in which he has succeeded.

Read the actual tackle not and the fact that there are some studs in the air in a slow motion still. Nobody is looking at that and wincing when they see the tackle being made.

It is a subjective decision and not a clear and obvious error is the main point I am making, my secondary point is that I don't think its even a foul but I'm not really going argue the toss over it any more than that.

But he did make contact, although slight. 

How it played out is irrelevant. The fact he had his studs in the air the offence of endangering an opponent according to the current laws. 

For example, you do not need to injure someone to be done for dangerous driving. The fact that dangerous driving could injure someone is the offence  itself. So in court, somebody wouldn't be able to use a defence of "yes I was driving dangerously, but I didn't injure anybody" 

[Maltshoveller]

14 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

He's clearly gone in with his studs showing which is clearly endangering an opponent. 

If he had snapped the fellas leg then every one would be saying red. The contact etc is irrelevant. The key word is endanger. 

You should be part of VAR

They also slow everything down to find the one picture where it looks bad 

[Maltshoveller]

What I don't get

It is the 3rd round of the FA Cup

Some games will have VAR some won't That is not right

Should be ALL games or None

 

[W-S-M Seagull]

7 minutes ago, Maltshoveller said:

What I don't get

It is the 3rd round of the FA Cup

Some games will have VAR some won't That is not right

Should be ALL games or None

 

Whilst I kinda agree with this on a fairness basis, if VAR wasn't used at a ground that has VAR and an incident occurred then people would be outraged that VAR wasn't used. 

[Maltshoveller]

7 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Whilst I kinda agree with this on a fairness basis, if VAR wasn't used at a ground that has VAR and an incident occurred then people would be outraged that VAR wasn't used. 

Not as outraged as they are with VAR

You can put up with a ref getting something wrong when he has a split second to see it and make up his mind

VAR takes an age They see things over and over in real team and slow mo Yet they still get loads wrong 

That is what people can't put up with

Edited January 5 by Maltshoveller

[downendcity]

Reading this thread, this game immediately came to mind when thinking about what is a dangerous tackle?

Think there are a few 'clear and obvious' errors among this lot.

Had VAR been around back then the ref would have spent 90 minutes consulting the pitchside tv replays and the VAR operators would have been on Valium!

[Cowshed]

2 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

But isn't this exactly what VAR is for? To be used when a ref makes an error?

VAR have obviously said to him "we think you have made an error here and recommend that you take another look" The ref has then had another look at it and then came to the conclusion that he has made an error. 

What needs to happen is that the conversations with the ref and VAR need to be broadcast and the ref should explain why he's changed his decision. I think we would then end up in a situation where there is much less outrage about decisions as people will have more context and understanding of decisions. 

The answer to your question is no. VAR is there to bring attention to clear and obvious error. 

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

55 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

How is going in with your studs in the air not endangering an opponent? 

Every time a player tackles their studs are in the air.  Perhaps they should outlaw tackling?

[Cowshed]

2 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Every time a player tackles their studs are in the air.  Perhaps they should outlaw tackling?

Everytime a player makes a tackle studs are not in the air, and tackling uses multiple surfaces. What refs consider are elements in the law like reckless, out of control etc. 

If this was a safety argument, most tackles carry risk to the opponent - Force is involved. Control measure = Bar all tackling? No, refs make the decisions based on their judgement of each tackles and challenges. This tackle in the opinion of the ref was not reckless etc, and that is where the decision should have stayed. There was no clear and obvious error, the ref made their subjective decision, one which reading the thread ex refs agreed with, and reading a refs forum current refs also agree with, VAR should not have been involved. 

 

[downendcity]

2 minutes ago, Maltshoveller said:

Not as outraged as they are with VAR

You can put up with a ref getting something wrong when he has a split second to see it and make up his mind

VAR takes an age They see things over and over in real team and slow mo Yet they still get loads wrong 

That is what people can't put up with

Prior to the introduction of VAR, I am certain that many saw that technology was the way to go in being able to avoid the inconsistencies and errors in refereeing.

Goal line technology seemed to reinforce that feeling, but it has a major advantage over VR in that it is completely objective, in that technology simply measures whether the ball was over the line a yes or no decision.

VAR is subjective and while before fans could criticise the "man in black" for making the wrong judgement call, when he had to do so in real time and from only one viewpoint ( and not usually the best one), I think the growing annoyance is that we now have a load of other people applying their own subjective judgements on a game incident. Not only that, but they can do so remote from the game and with the benefit of slo-mo replays ( in themselves the cause of different subjective judgements), multiple camera angles and the time for consideration not afforded to the on filed officials.

Despite all of these "advantages, their decisions still cause confusion and disagreement, because they are still subjective judgements.

The other issue is that VAR has also come into operation with increased interference with the laws of the game by administrators making them increasingly prescriptive, so that in the penalty area an unintentional "handball" by an attacker is penalised when a goal is scored ,whereas exactly the same handball by a defender is not. Similarly just how far back in the build up will VAR go to try and find some infringement to punish? 

I always thought that rugby's equivalent of VAR had the advantage over football because of the natural breaks in play. However, the last rugby wc final changed my view, as it seemed to me that their VAR operators were looking for every opportunity to become involved in the game - something that seems to be happing with VAR. It also showed up the subjectivity flaws in reviews, as the early sending off impacted the game big time, yet a similar offence by a South African later in the game did not receive the same punishment.

Unfortunately, the genie is now out of the bottle and my fear is that the application and influence of VAR will only get worse. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

5 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Everytime a player makes a tackle studs are not in the air, and tackling uses multiple surfaces. What refs consider are elements in the law like reckless, out of control etc. 

If this was a safety argument, most tackles carry risk to the opponent - Force is involved. Control measure = Bar all tackling? No, refs make the decisions based on their judgement of each tackles and challenges. This tackle in the opinion of the ref was not reckless etc, and that is where the decision should have stayed. There was no clear and obvious error, the ref made their subjective decision, one which reading the thread ex refs agreed with, and reading a refs forum current refs also agree with, VAR should not have been involved. 

 

It was the ref that overturned his own initial decision having viewed it again, not VAR. 

The ultimate opinion of the ref was that it was a red card offence. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

27 minutes ago, Maltshoveller said:

Not as outraged as they are with VAR

You can put up with a ref getting something wrong when he has a split second to see it and make up his mind

VAR takes an age They see things over and over in real team and slow mo Yet they still get loads wrong 

That is what people can't put up with

But that's an issue with how VAR is used and not a problem with VAR in itself. 

24 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

The answer to your question is no. VAR is there to bring attention to clear and obvious error. 

And in this case the ref took a second look and decided that he had made a mistake and that it was a red card offence. So therefore it meets the criteria. 

[MarcusX]

15 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Whilst you and the pundits are focusing on the later part of the law, its actually this bit he's been sent off for. 

"A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent"

He slid in with his foot up studs first which clearly endangers an opponent. 

The fact he wasn't seriously injured and that the contact was minimal is irrelevant. It's the fact he endangered the opponent which is what matters. 

On the face of it, can absolutely understand why many people are arguing this shouldn't be a red. Most of us who have played (and even if you havnet tbh) know what DCLs intention is there, to ensure he retains the ball, so he's gone over it to "catch" it.

There's a fine line between Reckless (defined as "when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned")

and the definition of Serious Foul Play: A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

You could argue either case for this incident really - though easier to say the red is harsh because impact is minimal but you can also make a case that it's a challenge that could "endanger the safety of the opponent"

The fact is his studs are up, shin height, though not excessive force. Is it potentially dangerous? Yes IMO.

By the letter of the law it could be a yellow because it seems very definition of "acting with disregard to the danger or consequence" though little contact was made.

And all of that said, if there was no VAR and that happened and no foul given by the ref most people wouldn't even question it in real time.

[MarcusX]

14 hours ago, The Bard said:

No

 There was **** all force. 

There doesn't need to be

[East Londoner]

1 hour ago, Maltshoveller said:

What I don't get

It is the 3rd round of the FA Cup

Some games will have VAR some won't That is not right

Should be ALL games or None

 

What’s even more absurd is Sundays game will have VAR but if it goes to a replay there won’t be 

[Cowshed]

36 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

 

And in this case the ref took a second look and decided that he had made a mistake and that it was a red card offence. So therefore it meets the criteria. 

Here is an expert ex ref.

There was no clear and obvious error, and If there is no clear and obvious error the non existent clear and obvious error should not be reviewed. VAR is not there to micro referee decisions, that is not its role. 

14 hours ago, Lavington Robin said:

Interesting reply from Roy Hodgson and also Keith Hackett.
 

 

 

[Markthehorn]

17 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Here is an expert ex ref.

There was no clear and obvious error, and If there is no clear and obvious error the non existent clear and obvious error should not be reviewed. VAR is not there to micro referee decisions, that is not its role. 

 

Tbf Keith Hackett does seem to have a chip on his shoulder regarding current officiating or is trying to appease the fans !

[Sheltons Army]

3 minutes ago, Markthehorn said:

Tbf Keith Hackett does seem to have a chip on his shoulder regarding current officiating or is trying to appease the fans !

Absolutely , hasn’t he ever

Bitter is the word I think 

[Cowshed]

7 minutes ago, Markthehorn said:

Tbf Keith Hackett does seem to have a chip on his shoulder regarding current officiating or is trying to appease the fans !

 

Yes Mr Hackett has been critical of how VAR is being used. Where is the clear and obvious error for VAR to intervene?

The Everton player should be attempting to ruin an opponent there to receive a red. He is not. 

[Maltshoveller]

1 hour ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

But that's an issue with how VAR is used and not a problem with VAR in itself. 

And in this case the ref took a second look and decided that he had made a mistake and that it was a red card offence. So therefore it meets the criteria. 

But he spent over 50 seconds looking at the monitor before deciding 

Which shows it was not a clear mistake in the first place 

So VAR should not have got involved 

[Markthehorn]

1 hour ago, Cowshed said:

 

Yes Mr Hackett has been critical of how VAR is being used. Where is the clear and obvious error for VAR to intervene?

The Everton player should be attempting to ruin an opponent there to receive a red. He is not. 

Agree on that and other poor decisions but he does seem to call out everything as wrong.

[Super]

4 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

It was the ref that overturned his own initial decision having viewed it again, not VAR. 

The ultimate opinion of the ref was that it was a red card offence. 

That's complete nonsense. They are basically told to reverse the decision.

Edited January 5 by Super

[Markthehorn]

15 minutes ago, Super said:

That's complete nonsense. They are basically told to reverse the decision.

Or certainly put under pressure to do so /feel they are . 

[Alex_BCFC]

As I always say, they should scrap it. But they will persist. 

[Markthehorn]

Only 2 FA cup games in and another red card .

https://streamin.me/v/22b7d9b9

Looks like a nasty one .

Brentford lad had to go off too .

[Laner]

Sure it's been covered elsewhere, but as we're at a Prem ground on Sunday does that mean we'll have VAR?

Edited January 5 by Laner
Asked question I found the answer for

[W-S-M Seagull]

12 hours ago, MarcusX said:

There doesn't need to be

I think people are overlooking the or in the law. 

11 hours ago, Cowshed said:

 

Yes Mr Hackett has been critical of how VAR is being used. Where is the clear and obvious error for VAR to intervene?

The Everton player should be attempting to ruin an opponent there to receive a red. He is not. 

Without having the audio available I can only guess. But it's pretty simple isn't it? The VAR obviously considered it to be a red offence where as in real time the ref didn't. So that's where the clear and obvious error has occurred. If a ref has missed a red card offence, then thats a clear and obvious error isn't it? 

7 hours ago, Super said:

That's complete nonsense. They are basically told to reverse the decision.

What's nonsense is that I provided a video which shows the process but still you won't believe that's the process. 

Edited January 6 by W-S-M Seagull