Will VAR Change Football for the Better?
Discussion
Skyedriver said:
Just watched on the news this morning. Difficult call, did the guy back into him accidentally or deliberately?
Looks like the forward took a look at the keeper then went in to block him. I’m happy the goal stood, as keepers get too much protection, but there will be a lot of fouls given on both outfield and keepers today for far less contact. LF5335 said:
Skyedriver said:
Just watched on the news this morning. Difficult call, did the guy back into him accidentally or deliberately?
Looks like the forward took a look at the keeper then went in to block him. I’m happy the goal stood, as keepers get too much protection, but there will be a lot of fouls given on both outfield and keepers today for far less contact. Rumblestripe said:
I'd like to see the incident from behind the goal. It looks to me like the keeper has misjudged the flight of the ball and was not going to get to the ball so there was no foul. Difficult one for fans to call through tinted specs but as a neutral I think the ref got it right and VAR was right not to intervene.
I agree that the keeper wasn’t likely to get the ball, but does that stop it being a foul? I’m a neutral too and neither team seems well represented on here, so this is one where we can probably have a general discussion without bias. That might be why there’s no discussion though
LF5335 said:
Rumblestripe said:
I'd like to see the incident from behind the goal. It looks to me like the keeper has misjudged the flight of the ball and was not going to get to the ball so there was no foul. Difficult one for fans to call through tinted specs but as a neutral I think the ref got it right and VAR was right not to intervene.
I agree that the keeper wasn’t likely to get the ball, but does that stop it being a foul? 2 incidents from the Middlesborough Chelsea game on Tuesday, where there was no VAR. 20 seconds in, Boro player takes a shot, and is then taken out by the Chelsea defender trying to block the shot but not getting there in time. The pundits seemed to think no pen was the right decision, because he'd already got his shot off and the keeper saved in easily. Absolute crap. It was a foul, it was in the box, the ball was in play. That's a pen.
Later in the first half, Chelsea have a shot, keeper fumbles it, Palmer goes for the rebound and scoops the ball over the bar. As he scoops the ball up, the keeper trying to rectify his error and retrieve the ball, takes Palmer out. At the point of contact, the ball had not yet gone over the bar, it was still on it's way. Now the foul had no bearing on Palmer's rubbish shot, but it was a foul, in the area, with the ball in play. Again, should have been a pen.
LF5335 said:
Tycho said:
Apparently if one game in a round is not at a Prem ground so wouldn't be able to have VAR then it isn't used for any games in that round.
My issue with VAR isn't the tech but the stuff rules surrounding it. If the ref is wrong for a red or yellow card then overrule him. An incorrect yellow at the start of a game is as bad as a red imo. It causes the player to change their tactics and it's disruptive to the team as a red.
That can’t be true. There was no VAR at the Wigan Vs United match, but there was in the Palace vs Everton match. Any match at a PL ground will have VAR, any match not at a PL ground won’t have it. That’s a mish mash and nonsense. My issue with VAR isn't the tech but the stuff rules surrounding it. If the ref is wrong for a red or yellow card then overrule him. An incorrect yellow at the start of a game is as bad as a red imo. It causes the player to change their tactics and it's disruptive to the team as a red.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Absolutely not. The position of the ball, so long as it's still in play, has no bearing on whether it's a foul or not.
2 incidents from the Middlesborough Chelsea game on Tuesday, where there was no VAR. 20 seconds in, Boro player takes a shot, and is then taken out by the Chelsea defender trying to block the shot but not getting there in time. The pundits seemed to think no pen was the right decision, because he'd already got his shot off and the keeper saved in easily. Absolute crap. It was a foul, it was in the box, the ball was in play. That's a pen.
Later in the first half, Chelsea have a shot, keeper fumbles it, Palmer goes for the rebound and scoops the ball over the bar. As he scoops the ball up, the keeper trying to rectify his error and retrieve the ball, takes Palmer out. At the point of contact, the ball had not yet gone over the bar, it was still on it's way. Now the foul had no bearing on Palmer's rubbish shot, but it was a foul, in the area, with the ball in play. Again, should have been a pen.
I’m glad someone else saw the Palmer one and thought it was a penalty. I was a bit baffled at the lack of players jumping up and down about it. 2 incidents from the Middlesborough Chelsea game on Tuesday, where there was no VAR. 20 seconds in, Boro player takes a shot, and is then taken out by the Chelsea defender trying to block the shot but not getting there in time. The pundits seemed to think no pen was the right decision, because he'd already got his shot off and the keeper saved in easily. Absolute crap. It was a foul, it was in the box, the ball was in play. That's a pen.
Later in the first half, Chelsea have a shot, keeper fumbles it, Palmer goes for the rebound and scoops the ball over the bar. As he scoops the ball up, the keeper trying to rectify his error and retrieve the ball, takes Palmer out. At the point of contact, the ball had not yet gone over the bar, it was still on it's way. Now the foul had no bearing on Palmer's rubbish shot, but it was a foul, in the area, with the ball in play. Again, should have been a pen.
LimmerickLad said:
Don't get me started on allowing play to continue after a clear and obvious infringement i.e obvious offside, let the goalie try to make a save or defender a recovering tackle risking injury and then putting the flag up....wtf is that all about?.........as I said before VAR has changed fotball for the worse IMO but clearly other have differing opinions..?
LimmerickLad said:
LimmerickLad said:
Don't get me started on allowing play to continue after a clear and obvious infringement i.e obvious offside, let the goalie try to make a save or defender a recovering tackle risking injury and then putting the flag up....wtf is that all about?.........as I said before VAR has changed fotball for the worse IMO but clearly other have differing opinions..?
Dingu said:
LimmerickLad said:
LimmerickLad said:
Don't get me started on allowing play to continue after a clear and obvious infringement i.e obvious offside, let the goalie try to make a save or defender a recovering tackle risking injury and then putting the flag up....wtf is that all about?.........as I said before VAR has changed fotball for the worse IMO but clearly other have differing opinions..?
Thanks to Hackney on the Forest thread for mentioning this. If I may, I'll flesh it out a bit and add a link.
A top level game in Belgium is to be replayed after a "misapplication of the law" by VAR officials (pen should have been retaken for encroachment but wasn't)
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/jan/27/m...
Is this going to set a precedent? And at what level of error? Obviously the Liverpool disallowed goal Vs Tottenham would qualify. Would the rest of the "odd" decisions go down as subjective?
The West Ham // Sheffield Utd game would possibly qualify (lack of discussion on here - west Ham keeper conceded a pen for recieving an elbow in the face, then Bowen gets hauled to the ground in the 103rd minute and VAR doesn't even look at it - or clears it in record time).
Discussion on the west Ham thread on p394:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
I can't see this being the way forward. The PL would still be playing into June
(or more realistically , people would froth that "their" error wasn't perceived as egregious enough).
Maybe some sort of appeal system during the match? (Discussed before). Shouldn't be needed ( my original feelings I think, plus you are then re reffing the people rereffing the game ) - but it seems obvious that something has to be done...
A top level game in Belgium is to be replayed after a "misapplication of the law" by VAR officials (pen should have been retaken for encroachment but wasn't)
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/jan/27/m...
Is this going to set a precedent? And at what level of error? Obviously the Liverpool disallowed goal Vs Tottenham would qualify. Would the rest of the "odd" decisions go down as subjective?
The West Ham // Sheffield Utd game would possibly qualify (lack of discussion on here - west Ham keeper conceded a pen for recieving an elbow in the face, then Bowen gets hauled to the ground in the 103rd minute and VAR doesn't even look at it - or clears it in record time).
Discussion on the west Ham thread on p394:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
I can't see this being the way forward. The PL would still be playing into June
(or more realistically , people would froth that "their" error wasn't perceived as egregious enough). Maybe some sort of appeal system during the match? (Discussed before). Shouldn't be needed ( my original feelings I think, plus you are then re reffing the people rereffing the game
) - but it seems obvious that something has to be done...Go on then...I'll have another go
"Not handball because his arms are by his sides" (Fulham 0 Everton 0 - a game even the purists turned off after 20 minutes and thus missed the incident - should they have been in the position of being able to watch it, which sadly (or not ) - they weren't)
Bit of kick back against that, so it became "was accidental". (We await the audio )
Which is all well and good, but Onana's against City was accidental when the ball was booted at him from point blank range.
https://youtu.be/f3dqMy4P6-M?si=6a_7e7wri2F8Qkio
|https://thumbsnap.com/3sDKG1NV[/url]
Also this nugget from Michael Owen: (first real question of the series?
)
"The ball is going high high wide and handsome - does that have any bearing on the decision?" (Note the in game audio from - I think - the assistant ref "He's saved it")
Howard Webb "it's hard to tell in real time"
Err...that's why we have VAR!!! Interested in the answer to MO's question though...(evaded by HW)...I suspect "handball is handball, even if accidental ".
Which leads us nicely back to the Fulham player pictured...
Furthermore, I'd like a rule change. I don't want a penalty...it should be "goal given". Defender didn't mean to stop it on the line with his hand, it was going in without that intervention...take his hand away with the magic of technology (like Hawkeye in tennis)...just give the goal
Zero penalties given since the points deduction, or all season for that matter if you want to be slightly less conspiratorial...
Just because I'm paranoid, don't mean they're not after you I suppose? (Nod to Nirvana there)
Tldr; Give both or give neither. And some sort of official guidelines to that effect, using both incidents, explaining who got it right (and why), and who got it wrong (and why). But they both surely cannot be correct?
Thoughts?
"Not handball because his arms are by his sides" (Fulham 0 Everton 0 - a game even the purists turned off after 20 minutes and thus missed the incident - should they have been in the position of being able to watch it, which sadly (or not
) - they weren't)Bit of kick back against that, so it became "was accidental". (We await the audio
)Which is all well and good, but Onana's against City was accidental when the ball was booted at him from point blank range.
https://youtu.be/f3dqMy4P6-M?si=6a_7e7wri2F8Qkio
|https://thumbsnap.com/3sDKG1NV[/url]Also this nugget from Michael Owen: (first real question of the series?
)"The ball is going high high wide and handsome - does that have any bearing on the decision?" (Note the in game audio from - I think - the assistant ref "He's saved it")
Howard Webb "it's hard to tell in real time"
Err...that's why we have VAR!!! Interested in the answer to MO's question though...(evaded by HW)...I suspect "handball is handball, even if accidental ".
Which leads us nicely back to the Fulham player pictured...
Furthermore, I'd like a rule change. I don't want a penalty...it should be "goal given". Defender didn't mean to stop it on the line with his hand, it was going in without that intervention...take his hand away with the magic of technology (like Hawkeye in tennis)...just give the goal
Zero penalties given since the points deduction, or all season for that matter if you want to be slightly less conspiratorial...
Just because I'm paranoid, don't mean they're not after you I suppose? (Nod to Nirvana there)
Tldr; Give both or give neither. And some sort of official guidelines to that effect, using both incidents, explaining who got it right (and why), and who got it wrong (and why). But they both surely cannot be correct?
Thoughts?Edited by johnboy1975 on Friday 2nd February 08:44
johnboy1975 said:
Which is all well and good, but Onana's against City was accidental when the ball was booted at him from point blank range.
The ref wasn't going to give it until the City players got round him and reminded him where his paychecks come from. The Onana one shouldn't have been given as his hand was in a natural position, he got the ball blasted at him and it was also going into row z. IMO a pen should be given if the defending team gets an advantage and that would simplify it so much. Sometimes a pen against you would be harsh but it would be easier to define.Edited by johnboy1975 on Friday 2nd February 08:44
LF5335 said:
Gallagher vs Liverpool had fairly significant contact but not given. Not sure if it was either in my view. However, compared to the Wolves one last night where contact was as minimal as it could be then the failure to give Gallagher’s begs a question or ten.
Haven't seen the Wolves one yet but I saw the Gallagher one. I think that's one of those where the onfield decision is not overruled. If you can't say after watching the replay that van Djik initiated the contact or maybe Gallagher dived/stumbled so rightly they didn't interfere. Again though watching that game, the period it takes to confirm a goal is a real drama killer.FFS we watch this for entertainment.
Thought I'd look into the stats that were posted on SkySports about VAR, as I've been loving the fact VAR isn't present in the lower leagues. To me it makes the game better.
So here are 2 links from SkySports that show the percentages of before and after.
The first link states that in 2018 (2017-2018 season) the referees were "In total, refs make around five errors per game, meaning they are right 98 per cent of the time.", which is a rediculous high standandard.
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11096/1080...
Now SkySports are saying that since VAR was introduced in 2019-2020 season that "he latest Premier League statistics show before VAR was introduced, 82 per cent of refereeing decisions were correct. Now, since VAR was introduced, 96 per cent of decisions are correct.", which would lead to believe that during the 2018-2019 season the standard dropped. Also suggests that since VAR the standard of refereeing has dropped and they are useless.
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/1306...
So the big question, has VAR changed football for the better? No it hasn't. It's not better than what it were before 2018, proven by the stats SkySports have put out. What has happened is the standard of refereeing is that low, it's raised it to a better than but still not as good.
In conclusion the PGMOL need to get better referees and get rid of VAR. All we need is goal line technology as this is clear cut.
So here are 2 links from SkySports that show the percentages of before and after.
The first link states that in 2018 (2017-2018 season) the referees were "In total, refs make around five errors per game, meaning they are right 98 per cent of the time.", which is a rediculous high standandard.
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11096/1080...
Now SkySports are saying that since VAR was introduced in 2019-2020 season that "he latest Premier League statistics show before VAR was introduced, 82 per cent of refereeing decisions were correct. Now, since VAR was introduced, 96 per cent of decisions are correct.", which would lead to believe that during the 2018-2019 season the standard dropped. Also suggests that since VAR the standard of refereeing has dropped and they are useless.
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/1306...
So the big question, has VAR changed football for the better? No it hasn't. It's not better than what it were before 2018, proven by the stats SkySports have put out. What has happened is the standard of refereeing is that low, it's raised it to a better than but still not as good.
In conclusion the PGMOL need to get better referees and get rid of VAR. All we need is goal line technology as this is clear cut.
Adam. said:
Or are refs not giving decisions as they know they have VAR as back up?
If they missed a KMD - Key Match Decision in real time, and VAR sent them to the screen, and they gave the decision, the referee would be marked accordingly in their observation report.And unless it was an extremely difficult decision, maybe one they weren't expected to see (player running across their path at the moment of offence for example), it wouldn't be pleasant for the referee post match.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff