Will VAR Change Football for the Better?

[Melchett1905]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Melchett1905 said:

VAR will certainly change games/results.

I'm thinking back to Spurs v Chelsea a few weeks ago. Chelsea denied two penalties. The one on Hazard and Foyth pulling the Chelsea player from the corner. VAR would have given them.

If the first one had been given, the rest of the game from that point on would have been completely different so the second one wouldn't have occurred. It would have been a different game which we probably would have lost by a bigger margin, given we played so badly. Hazard might have picked up a career ending injury in the alternative game that would have been played.

Perhaps. We don't know for sure. But Chelsea could have got a 3-3 draw had VAR been in use, despite them playing really poorly. Or as you say, if the first pen had been given the game could have been totally different. Either way VAR would have change the game.

And given some of the bad decisions in Arsenal's favour this season (I'm thinking Lacazette handball v Palace plus another couple of incidents) and Arsenal would probably be a few points worse off this season.

Edited by Melchett1905 on Sunday 9th December 13:38

[jcremonini]

Melchett1905 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Melchett1905 said:

VAR will certainly change games/results.

I'm thinking back to Spurs v Chelsea a few weeks ago. Chelsea denied two penalties. The one on Hazard and Foyth pulling the Chelsea player from the corner. VAR would have given them.

If the first one had been given, the rest of the game from that point on would have been completely different so the second one wouldn't have occurred. It would have been a different game which we probably would have lost by a bigger margin, given we played so badly. Hazard might have picked up a career ending injury in the alternative game that would have been played.

Perhaps. We don't know for sure. But Chelsea could have got a 3-3 draw had VAR been in use, despite them playing really poorly. Or as you say, if the first pen had been given the game could have been totally different. Either way VAR would have change the game.

And given some of the bad decisions in Arsenal's favour this season (I'm thinking Lacazette handball v Palace plus another couple of incidents) and Arsenal would probably be a few points worse off this season.

Edited by Melchett1905 on Sunday 9th December 13:38

Not ‘could’ have been completely different, it’s ‘would’ have been completely different. Had the first penalty been given the sequence of events changes completely - for example the ball goes back to the middle to kick off as opposed to wherever the ball went when the referee didn’t give the penalty. You can’t say VAR would have given both penalties - only one of them may have been given.

I’m a fan of VAR but I do think there needs to be better use of ‘clear and obvious mistake’ by the referee. If someone has a toe offside then that’s not clear and obvious so VAR should go back to whatever the referee’s initial decision was. There still needs to be an element of referring to VAR decisions and I can’t help but think that, at the moment, it’s being used to make binary decisions.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

jcremonini said:

Not ‘could’ have been completely different, it’s ‘would’ have been completely different. Had the first penalty been given the sequence of events changes completely - for example the ball goes back to the middle to kick off as opposed to wherever the ball went when the referee didn’t give the penalty. You can’t say VAR would have given both penalties - only one of them may have been given.

Exactly. People just don't get it. Pundits forget this all the time, and say X team should have had 2 pens and the first goal in the first minute should have been disallowed for offside.

If the first goal is disallowed, the defending team get a free kick from the offside position rather than kicking off from the centre spot, and the rest of the game, all 89 mins, are different, so the penalties they should have had would never have even happened.

[Melchett1905]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

jcremonini said:

Not ‘could’ have been completely different, it’s ‘would’ have been completely different. Had the first penalty been given the sequence of events changes completely - for example the ball goes back to the middle to kick off as opposed to wherever the ball went when the referee didn’t give the penalty. You can’t say VAR would have given both penalties - only one of them may have been given.

Exactly. People just don't get it. Pundits forget this all the time, and say X team should have had 2 pens and the first goal in the first minute should have been disallowed for offside.

If the first goal is disallowed, the defending team get a free kick from the offside position rather than kicking off from the centre spot, and the rest of the game, all 89 mins, are different, so the penalties they should have had would never have even happened.

Well nobody knows for sure. So you have to take each incident as you see them.

[jcremonini]

Melchett1905 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

jcremonini said:

Not ‘could’ have been completely different, it’s ‘would’ have been completely different. Had the first penalty been given the sequence of events changes completely - for example the ball goes back to the middle to kick off as opposed to wherever the ball went when the referee didn’t give the penalty. You can’t say VAR would have given both penalties - only one of them may have been given.

Exactly. People just don't get it. Pundits forget this all the time, and say X team should have had 2 pens and the first goal in the first minute should have been disallowed for offside.

If the first goal is disallowed, the defending team get a free kick from the offside position rather than kicking off from the centre spot, and the rest of the game, all 89 mins, are different, so the penalties they should have had would never have even happened.

Well nobody knows for sure. So you have to take each incident as you see them.

LOL - You don't get this do you ?

[Melchett1905]

jcremonini said:

Melchett1905 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

jcremonini said:

Not ‘could’ have been completely different, it’s ‘would’ have been completely different. Had the first penalty been given the sequence of events changes completely - for example the ball goes back to the middle to kick off as opposed to wherever the ball went when the referee didn’t give the penalty. You can’t say VAR would have given both penalties - only one of them may have been given.

Exactly. People just don't get it. Pundits forget this all the time, and say X team should have had 2 pens and the first goal in the first minute should have been disallowed for offside.

If the first goal is disallowed, the defending team get a free kick from the offside position rather than kicking off from the centre spot, and the rest of the game, all 89 mins, are different, so the penalties they should have had would never have even happened.

Well nobody knows for sure. So you have to take each incident as you see them.

LOL - You don't get this do you ?

YEP. As explained above.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Melchett1905 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

jcremonini said:

Not ‘could’ have been completely different, it’s ‘would’ have been completely different. Had the first penalty been given the sequence of events changes completely - for example the ball goes back to the middle to kick off as opposed to wherever the ball went when the referee didn’t give the penalty. You can’t say VAR would have given both penalties - only one of them may have been given.

Exactly. People just don't get it. Pundits forget this all the time, and say X team should have had 2 pens and the first goal in the first minute should have been disallowed for offside.

If the first goal is disallowed, the defending team get a free kick from the offside position rather than kicking off from the centre spot, and the rest of the game, all 89 mins, are different, so the penalties they should have had would never have even happened.

Well nobody knows for sure.

Yes we do. Team A get a throw in in the first minute. If the player taking it had thrown it to player X instead of player Y, the remaining 89 minutes would have been entirely different. A completely different game.

[jcremonini]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Melchett1905 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

jcremonini said:

Not ‘could’ have been completely different, it’s ‘would’ have been completely different. Had the first penalty been given the sequence of events changes completely - for example the ball goes back to the middle to kick off as opposed to wherever the ball went when the referee didn’t give the penalty. You can’t say VAR would have given both penalties - only one of them may have been given.

Exactly. People just don't get it. Pundits forget this all the time, and say X team should have had 2 pens and the first goal in the first minute should have been disallowed for offside.

If the first goal is disallowed, the defending team get a free kick from the offside position rather than kicking off from the centre spot, and the rest of the game, all 89 mins, are different, so the penalties they should have had would never have even happened.

Well nobody knows for sure.

Yes we do. Team A get a throw in in the first minute. If the player taking it had thrown it to player X instead of player Y, the remaining 89 minutes would have been entirely different. A completely different game.

Perhaps, as this is a car forum, we can use a car based analogy

Say I got into my car and half a mile down the road I narrowly avoided a head-on. I continued driving and 10 minutes later I narrowly avoided another head-on. Have I:

a) Avoided two accidents or
b) Twice avoided an accident.

Your average football pundit talks like it is a), but It can't possibly be because if I had hit the first car there is no way I could have continued on to meet the second. It's the same as the difference between not giving the first penalty (which led to a sequence of events leading up to the second incident) and giving it which would completely change the sequence of events which meant that there was absolutely no way the second penalty incident would have arisen.

[Melchett1905]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Melchett1905 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

jcremonini said:

Not ‘could’ have been completely different, it’s ‘would’ have been completely different. Had the first penalty been given the sequence of events changes completely - for example the ball goes back to the middle to kick off as opposed to wherever the ball went when the referee didn’t give the penalty. You can’t say VAR would have given both penalties - only one of them may have been given.

Exactly. People just don't get it. Pundits forget this all the time, and say X team should have had 2 pens and the first goal in the first minute should have been disallowed for offside.

If the first goal is disallowed, the defending team get a free kick from the offside position rather than kicking off from the centre spot, and the rest of the game, all 89 mins, are different, so the penalties they should have had would never have even happened.

Well nobody knows for sure.

Yes we do. Team A get a throw in in the first minute. If the player taking it had thrown it to player X instead of player Y, the remaining 89 minutes would have been entirely different. A completely different game.

So you're saying if Atkinson had awarded that penalty on Hazard, Foyth wouldn't have pulled the Chelsea player at the corner? And you know that for certain?

[jcremonini]

Melchett1905 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Melchett1905 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

jcremonini said:

Not ‘could’ have been completely different, it’s ‘would’ have been completely different. Had the first penalty been given the sequence of events changes completely - for example the ball goes back to the middle to kick off as opposed to wherever the ball went when the referee didn’t give the penalty. You can’t say VAR would have given both penalties - only one of them may have been given.

Exactly. People just don't get it. Pundits forget this all the time, and say X team should have had 2 pens and the first goal in the first minute should have been disallowed for offside.

If the first goal is disallowed, the defending team get a free kick from the offside position rather than kicking off from the centre spot, and the rest of the game, all 89 mins, are different, so the penalties they should have had would never have even happened.

Well nobody knows for sure.

Yes we do. Team A get a throw in in the first minute. If the player taking it had thrown it to player X instead of player Y, the remaining 89 minutes would have been entirely different. A completely different game.

So you're saying if Atkinson had awarded that penalty on Hazard, Foyth wouldn't have pulled the Chelsea player at the corner? And you know that for certain?

Yes. That is precisely what is being said. Think about it. If the ref had awarded the first penalty then the ball would be on the penalty spot (as opposed to where it was just after the ref said no). So the sequence of events that follows could not possibly have been the same and the Foyth incident could not possibly have taken place.

This is pretty basic chaos theory stuff. If you believe it could have taken place then I'm not sure what else to add.

[Melchett1905]

jcremonini said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Melchett1905 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

jcremonini said:

Not ‘could’ have been completely different, it’s ‘would’ have been completely different. Had the first penalty been given the sequence of events changes completely - for example the ball goes back to the middle to kick off as opposed to wherever the ball went when the referee didn’t give the penalty. You can’t say VAR would have given both penalties - only one of them may have been given.

Exactly. People just don't get it. Pundits forget this all the time, and say X team should have had 2 pens and the first goal in the first minute should have been disallowed for offside.

If the first goal is disallowed, the defending team get a free kick from the offside position rather than kicking off from the centre spot, and the rest of the game, all 89 mins, are different, so the penalties they should have had would never have even happened.

Well nobody knows for sure.

Yes we do. Team A get a throw in in the first minute. If the player taking it had thrown it to player X instead of player Y, the remaining 89 minutes would have been entirely different. A completely different game.

Perhaps, as this is a car forum, we can use a car based analogy

Say I got into my car and half a mile down the road I narrowly avoided a head-on. I continued driving and 10 minutes later I narrowly avoided another head-on. Have I:

a) Avoided two accidents or
b) Twice avoided an accident.

Your average football pundit talks like it is a), but It can't possibly be because if I had hit the first car there is no way I could have continued on to meet the second. It's the same as the difference between not giving the first penalty (which led to a sequence of events leading up to the second incident) and giving it which would completely change the sequence of events which meant that there was absolutely no way the second penalty incident would have arisen.

If Atkinson gave the penalty like he should have for the challenge on Hazard, it doesn't automatically mean that Chelsea wouldn't have got a corner at some point for the rest of the 1st half and entire 2nd half and it doesn't mean that Foyth wouldn't have pulled a Chelsea's players shirt at some point from a corner. Especially when this is a fairly common scenario and some players are more guilty of others of doing this.

So as I say, you have to take incident on it's own merit.

[jcremonini]

Melchett1905 said:

jcremonini said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Melchett1905 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

jcremonini said:

Not ‘could’ have been completely different, it’s ‘would’ have been completely different. Had the first penalty been given the sequence of events changes completely - for example the ball goes back to the middle to kick off as opposed to wherever the ball went when the referee didn’t give the penalty. You can’t say VAR would have given both penalties - only one of them may have been given.

Exactly. People just don't get it. Pundits forget this all the time, and say X team should have had 2 pens and the first goal in the first minute should have been disallowed for offside.

If the first goal is disallowed, the defending team get a free kick from the offside position rather than kicking off from the centre spot, and the rest of the game, all 89 mins, are different, so the penalties they should have had would never have even happened.

Well nobody knows for sure.

Yes we do. Team A get a throw in in the first minute. If the player taking it had thrown it to player X instead of player Y, the remaining 89 minutes would have been entirely different. A completely different game.

Perhaps, as this is a car forum, we can use a car based analogy

Say I got into my car and half a mile down the road I narrowly avoided a head-on. I continued driving and 10 minutes later I narrowly avoided another head-on. Have I:

a) Avoided two accidents or
b) Twice avoided an accident.

Your average football pundit talks like it is a), but It can't possibly be because if I had hit the first car there is no way I could have continued on to meet the second. It's the same as the difference between not giving the first penalty (which led to a sequence of events leading up to the second incident) and giving it which would completely change the sequence of events which meant that there was absolutely no way the second penalty incident would have arisen.

If Atkinson gave the penalty like he should have for the challenge on Hazard, it doesn't automatically mean that Chelsea wouldn't have got a corner at some point for the rest of the 1st half and entire 2nd half and it doesn't mean that Foyth wouldn't have pulled a Chelsea's players shirt at some point from a corner. Especially when this is a fairly common scenario and some players are more guilty of others of doing this.

So as I say, you have to take incident on it's own merit.

Your argument is moot though. The fact is the shirt pulling incident as it was would NOT have occured (this is not up for 'could' have) so any argument that another shirt pulling incident may have occurred is as valid as suggesting Hazard could have pulled Foyth's shirt in the opposition penalty area which would have been a penalty to Man City. Indeed, had the penalty been awarded Hazard may have pulled a hamstring celebrating and been substituted immediately afterwards.

So, no, you can't judge the incidents on their own merit when one only followed as a result of the other.

[Melchett1905]

But we don't know one way or the other, unless you have a crystal ball?

[jcremonini]

Melchett1905 said:

But we don't know one way or the other, unless you have a crystal ball?

I know the chances of the shirt being pulled are exactly the same as any other event you wish to think may have happened ( Hazard pulling a hamstring/Hazard telling the ref to f-off and getting sent off/Foyth pulling a hamstring/ Foyth telling the ref to f-off.....). The simple fact is the incident, as it was and at the moment it took place would not have happened so arguing Chelsea should have had two penalties is absolutely not valid.


Please tell me you understand this...

Edited by jcremonini on Monday 10th December 15:27

[Melchett1905]

jcremonini said:

Melchett1905 said:

But we don't know one way or the other, unless you have a crystal ball?

I know the chances of the shirt being pulled are exactly the same as any other event you wish to think may have happened ( Hazard pulling a hamstring/Hazard telling the ref to f-off and getting sent off/Foyth pulling a hamstring/ Foyth telling the ref to f-off.....). The simple fact is the incident, as it was and at the moment it took place would not have happened so arguing Chelsea should have had two penalties is absolutely not valid.


Please tell me you understand this...

Edited by jcremonini on Monday 10th December 15:27

Incident 1 on Hazard should have been a penalty
Incident 2 with Foyth pulling the Chelsea players shirt should have been a penalty.

Both incidences in their own right should have resulted in a spot kick. That's a fact. The rest is purely conjecture as nobody knows for sure whether incident 2 would have happened had incident 1 been given.

[jcremonini]

Melchett1905 said:

jcremonini said:

Melchett1905 said:

But we don't know one way or the other, unless you have a crystal ball?

I know the chances of the shirt being pulled are exactly the same as any other event you wish to think may have happened ( Hazard pulling a hamstring/Hazard telling the ref to f-off and getting sent off/Foyth pulling a hamstring/ Foyth telling the ref to f-off.....). The simple fact is the incident, as it was and at the moment it took place would not have happened so arguing Chelsea should have had two penalties is absolutely not valid.


Please tell me you understand this...

Edited by jcremonini on Monday 10th December 15:27

Incident 1 on Hazard should have been a penalty
Incident 2 with Foyth pulling the Chelsea players shirt should have been a penalty.

Both incidences in their own right should have resulted in a spot kick. That's a fact. The rest is purely conjecture as nobody knows for sure whether incident 2 would have happened had incident 1 been given.

I give up.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Melchett1905 said:

nobody knows for sure whether incident 2 would have happened had incident 1 been given.

We all know for sure apart from you...it wouldn't have happened.

Yes, we may have got another corner at some point, as yes, he may have tugged a shirt at that corner and given away a pen. Or he might have got sent off for pushing the ref when he gave the first pen. Or Hazard may have hit the post from the pen and Spurs might have scored from the rebound. Or Hazard might have scored the pen, slipped when celebrating, broken his leg and never played again. He could have slipped, banged his head, died, and the game have been abandoned. And because it finished early, you got up to do something else, and also died as a result.

All kinds of stuff might have happened, apart from what did happen. That definitely wouldn't have happened.

[Driver101]

This is very in-depth ifs, buts and maybes.

[Melchett1905]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Melchett1905 said:

nobody knows for sure whether incident 2 would have happened had incident 1 been given.

We all know for sure apart from you...it wouldn't have happened.

Yes, we may have got another corner at some point, as yes, he may have tugged a shirt at that corner and given away a pen. Or he might have got sent off for pushing the ref when he gave the first pen. Or Hazard may have hit the post from the pen and Spurs might have scored from the rebound. Or Hazard might have scored the pen, slipped when celebrating, broken his leg and never played again. He could have slipped, banged his head, died, and the game have been abandoned. And because it finished early, you got up to do something else, and also died as a result.

All kinds of stuff might have happened, apart from what did happen. That definitely wouldn't have happened.

Exactly. So we don't know either way which is what I'm saying.

[mikal83]

Walcott clearly offside, both linesman and ref missed it. 1-2 for Watford would have been massive for them