VAR

[ultra]

In addition, the "interfering with play" option is totally subjective and therefore inconsistent.

If I was a cynic I would say that the decision depends on the badge ...

 

[windymiller]

I see Webb has wheeled himself out on tv following the uproar over that lot yesterday, but this bit is interesting…

“Slot compared the decision to the one that went in favour of Manchester City last season when John Stones headed in a late winner at Wolves despite Bernardo Silva standing in a similar position in front of goalkeeper Jose Sa.

Webb said: "There's a clear difference here in that the ball goes directly over Sa's head and doesn't go over the head of Silva. He is in an offside position, importantly he moves away from the flight of the ball.”

So explain to me how the goal against Spurs was different again Mr Webb.

Make it up as they go along….

Refs and bizzies, of which Webb has been both, make things up to suit their own narrative and never admit when they're wrong.

 

[MACCA75]

I see Webb has wheeled himself out on tv following the uproar over that lot yesterday, but this bit is interesting…

“Slot compared the decision to the one that went in favour of Manchester City last season when John Stones headed in a late winner at Wolves despite Bernardo Silva standing in a similar position in front of goalkeeper Jose Sa.

Webb said: "There's a clear difference here in that the ball goes directly over Sa's head and doesn't go over the head of Silva. He is in an offside position, importantly he moves away from the flight of the ball.”

So explain to me how the goal against Spurs was different again Mr Webb.

Make it up as they go along….

Playing devils advocate here - Ndiaye was in direct contact with the keeper at the moment the ball was headed - whereas Silva had moved himself away by that point.

Now there is no way Vicario was saving that anyway, but common sense doesn’t seem to apply. That was the significant difference though.

 

[Lanolin]

In addition, the "interfering with play" option is totally subjective and therefore inconsistent.

If I was a cynic I would say that the decision depends on the badge ...

All the laws are subjective to some degree and that's part of the problem we'll always have with refereeing. We all say we want consistency but realistically it's actually easier said than done because there is some degree of subjectivity and interpretation in pretty much every decision they make. That's not a defence of referees, there's a minimum level you expect and I think the standard I've seen at Goodison this year has been woeful, but I don't think it helps when we dig out examples of different things from different games and question why different people didn't come up with the exact same decision about them, that's just always going to be how it works.

 

[Blast_of_Cannock]

VAR should be used for just the black or white decisions. Offside or not, has the ball crossed the line. The subjective calls should be left to the referee's initial decision. If the ref gets it wrong then it's tough titty. The game went on for years without the need for technology, and IMO was all the better for it.
But then, I'm thick, so what do I know

 

[ToffeeTim]

Just make the rules simpler. If you are offside inside the 6 yard area then it's offside regardless, because that should be the keeper's area. Even if you don't get close to the ball, it's definitely a distraction.

 

[windymiller]

VAR should be used for just the black or white decisions. Offside or not, has the ball crossed the line. The subjective calls should be left to the referee's initial decision. If the ref gets it wrong then it's tough titty. The game went on for years without the need for technology, and IMO was all the better for it.
But then, I'm thick, so what do I know

I was all for VAR when they launched it and I was horribly wrong. My mistake, I think, was that I thought with multiple camera angles and slow motion even our most idiotic referees wouldn't be able to mess it up. However, I clearly underestimated their capacity for incompetence. The crazy thing to me is what they consider "clear and obvious". My view is that if they are not sure then the on field decision should stand, a bit like umpires call in cricket, but that requires them to have a normal ego because what in fact happens is that they feel like they have to provide a definitive decision, even if it is a wrong one.

I'm now at the stage where I would keep the goal line technology and the automated offside decisions and get rid of everything else (basically anything that requires one of our human refs to actually decide an outcome).

 

[Lanolin]

I was all for VAR when they launched it and I was horribly wrong. My mistake, I think, was that I thought with multiple camera angles and slow motion even our most idiotic referees wouldn't be able to mess it up. However, I clearly underestimated their capacity for incompetence. The crazy thing to me is what they consider "clear and obvious". My view is that if they are not sure then the on field decision should stand, a bit like umpires call in cricket, but that requires them to have a normal ego because what in fact happens is that they feel like they have to provide a definitive decision, even if it is a wrong one.

I'm now at the stage where I would keep the goal line technology and the automated offside decisions and get rid of everything else (basically anything that requires one of our human refs to actually decide an outcome).

This is what I don't really understand about it. I initially assumed when it came in that VAR would look at a decision and just say yeah it's fine or effectively overrule the ref by saying no you've missed something clear and obvious you need to change that decision. This ridiculous rigmarole of VAR basically saying 'hmm we're not sure about this, you've not given a pen, we think maybe it is a pen but we're not totally sure, why don't you come and watch half a dozen replays of it and see what you think?' is just pointless.

 

[MACCA75]

Yeah ‘clear and obvious’ has gone out of the window. They look back at goals now, and the build up to them actively looking for a reason to disallow it.

It needs binning and it’s a shame only Wolves voted to do so.

 

[Benicetoourboys]

Yeah ‘clear and obvious’ has gone out of the window. They look back at goals now, and the build up to them actively looking for a reason to disallow it.

It needs binning and it’s a shame only Wolves voted to do so.

Can't wait to disallow goals by nit picking can they?

This is why I hope Wolves stay up, they had the courage to try & get rid of VAR.

 

[Seathestars]

It's spoiled the game, you can't even celebrate a goal like a madman.

 

[pfim]

I must admit I wouldn't have been happy if we had a goal disallowed like Liverpool's yesterday. For me it was more like the Sigurdsson one against United than O'Brien last week, it's like a technicality rather than a proper issue. Hilarious seeing it happen to them though.

Yeah, not unhappy with the result. But that should be a goal.

And I'm not sure the VAR erred there. The assistant has to show some discretion, there's no way he's in a position to determine if he was in the keeper's line of sight. Once he calls it, I think it's pretty tough to overturn.

 

[carolinablue232]

I don't remember much media uproar when Dom's winner against United was chalked off because Sig was laying on the ground supposedly "impeding" de Gea. Now pool get their arse handed to them and all anyone can talk about is someone ducking out of the way. At least in this instance he was actually in the way for a second.