Match Day Thread 2017/18 Premier League, Cups & Euro Watch

Ok so lets forget solanke for a moment. Is it not the case hodgson should be thinking VAR might have got me a replay why didn't you at least use it there ref?

I mean he seems genuinely pleased his opponent scored and dumped him out of the cup.

 

I think that VAR in football (in this early stage) works in a different way to Rugby for example. In Rugby the ref makes an explicit and very public request with his hands for a TV replay and support. In football, there is supposed to be constant discrete 2 way communication between the Ref and the VAR ref. The VAR ref could tell the ref something even though he didn't explicitly request it. For example, Swarsbrick (as VAR ref) would have told the match ref as soon as the goal was scored that there was nothing untowards in that goal. The crowd would not have been any wiser and there is no stoppage of the play unless there was something untowards, not like Rugby where any TV check comes from a formal request by the ref and the play is stopped to view the incident.

 

I've read that they're not very happy with VAR in the Bundesliga because it is slowing things down too much.
That would be my fear of it, tbh.
I know we've had this argument before, but I prefer the game warts and all. In the long run I don't mind the officials getting marginal decisions wrong, and surely higher standards would prevent some of the glaring errors we see?
In the end, if it's a judgement call - who's to say the VAR ref is any less subjective than the on-pitch one?
I think there's also been some corruption allegations lobbed about in Germany as well, but I don't remember details.

 

Mate I honestly think having seen it in football they have completely buggered it up

They have enshrined as far as i can tell the idiom that the ref is the ultimate judge and has final word no matter what

I agree with you. Rugby is open and transparent. Ref asks a question and take the answer. Not running off to to screen then deciding he was right i nthe first place.

I think football needs to get out of its own hole and allow the mikes to be heard and be open.

The reality however in rugby is not everything is a stop.

If a guy tips another guy over and the ref gives a pen then its a decision about dangerous play. If you watch football and see a lad roll about like a flopping fish on the ground or treatment come on. i see no reason why the ref can't request a decision while he then goes and manages the player off the field on a stretcher or tells him to get the **** up.

Rugby.. did ball cross line.. did it get grounded. was there forward pass and only goes back 5 phases or something. Again takes only a bit of time and most of the time is if theres 10 lads in a pile trying to find an angle to review. surely football should take a fraction of the time with a clear.. "any reason i cannot award this goal" or please check if the ball was in play" type questions

then theres cricket. The review happens and umpire becomes a robot. The 3rd umpire does clear process and then tells umpire keep on field decision or change it. in this case of reviews the assumption is one team doesn't agree so umpire no longer has any say.

Football doesn't want anyone questioning its ****ty officials.

I prefer rugby's open transparent system where a limited number of things are checked. Lets face it drawing a box with your hands while a team is off celebrating a goal

the reality is while we say games flow:

1. celebrations of goals take 30-60 seconds min
2. injuries take time to get guys off field or stretcher on
3. bookings (i don't agree with looking at unless scandalously lenient) but red cards.. should be reviewed if ref wants to see how bad it is. like a triple threat type foul where is it an honest attmept or was the guy deliberately doing it etc etc.
4. pens: not every one. IMO ref should have option of YES, i don't know VAR or NO. as in he must be absolutely SURE its no, not i didn't see it. If nobody saw it and theres big appeal then VAR. bloody simple. If that occurs imo there shoudl only be one per game or something to stop silly buggers abusing it. cos they would




........................................ and i've rante don for 5 mins again.. sorry

 

Never understood why referees conversations during games are not made public, they're constantly talking to the 4th official and considering their are two other officials running the line why should the 4th official who's not directly involved in the game have a say on something he's further away from than the linesman on the dugout side or worse still the opposite side of the pitch.
If they've got nothing to hide their conversations during the game should be made public after it so there can be no allegations of bias either way.
The oldest and most old fashioned manager in the Prem was on the receiving end of a VAR decision last night that basically ended his clubs season, and he accepted the decision without hesitation, but had Hodgson been Mourinho the story would have been different and would have made today's football headlines completely different.

 

I agree. American football has a mike on button and the guy explains every call to crowd and tv.

Deffo its them saying right if we actually reffed you crazy bastards by the rules every game would finish 7 a side so we are always ducking and diving to get by... cos if we don't you'll savage is in the media and cost us our jobs.

I still think hodgson was delighted to be out of cup and the reality is no VAR was used. If we went out of cup to a slightly dodgy goal we'd all have wanted VAR to be used to at lest try stay in cup. Mourinho would deny a goal was ever scored

IMO if any top 6 club meekly left the cup when a 1% chance VAR might have kept them in was available then the fans shoudl rightly be up in arms. the difference between trying to win and trying to keep in prem?

 

If VAR would have been around at the birth of the Premier League and used without bias do you honestly think Utd wouldn't have suffered because of it more than most?

 

Still think feck it. Give each manager one challenge a half incorporating only the things they propose the VAR cover now. If manager is right he keeps challenge if wrong he loses it.

Maybe even only one a game.

Result.. ..

Managers can't use it to time waste

Limits game disruption

Doesn't make the ref a chicken

Still allows possibility of stopping a travesty of a decision from robbing a team.

Ref still gets final say if footage inconclusive.


As has been seen with different sports there's different versions. Football just has to figure out one that benefits them.

 

They did use var...

 

the report i read said it wasn't used and hodgson was calling it a genuine goal?

 

People said the same about goal line tech but that works well. I’m not saying var will be as good and smooth as that as it’s by as clear cut at times but I think given time they can make it works.

Its only used at key points and normally wen the ball is already dead so it wouldn’t be stopping the game live to go review it. I’m not sure on when or what can be done but I’d hope they moved away from the on field ref having to review as that would slow things down.

Refs should be big enough to know that if someone with 4 camera angles disagrees (and like cricket it needs to be a massive glaring error to disagree) then to go with their decision.

The margibal 50/50 calls should stay with on field ref like they do in cricket. That way you’re not undermining the current ref, instead just helping them with the obvious ones where they may have a poor angle on.

My only worry is it stops refs making tough calls during the game in the knowledge that they may get picked up by the var. still need to be brave to make the call they believe is right and who knows, being able to review everything and be both the on field ref and occasional the video refs during some games will help their knowledge and improve their performances.

 

One inread said that although he may not have signalled it and gone over to review, prob because the var in London has reviewed and told him it was alll good and no need to do anything.

Doesnt have to be a clear signal to the var and a pause, they can just talk to each their on ear piece?

 

Go on sky app - Roy assured by var goal.

He talks about it there were refs had a convo about it and confirms it all

 

thats the whole issue. they've made it unclear, unopen and very able to accuse it of double standards.

someone MIGHT say its ok or might not. Ref doesn't signal or direct review openly.

 

Does it matter? If the right decision was made who cares? Issue comes about if wrong decision is made and then the question needs to be why didn’t it go to Var or if it did, why was that decision up held.

This is wherre cricket is good in that it only overrules the obvious ones (in 99% of cases) abs anything marginal (clipping wickets) remains with original call.

I do think if fans aren’t going to see the rational during the game just a quick report after game to say these are the calls that went to var and these were the decisions made on them and reasons why. That way doesn’t slow things down having to explain to crowd and tv etc

 

Cricket isn't a continuously free-flowing game, though.

 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...letter-14131295.amp?__twitter_impression=true

 

Fat Joe is a warrior for the Everton cause.

 

I suppose most people would accept the warts but when these are massive tumours the size of oranges then I would say this needed sorting. Surely it can't be right that a goal is punched into the net at the last minute or the player dives and get a penalty. This could be massive. Elimination from the tournament, relegation, CL place etc.

It had to come in especially when the referees themselves admitted that they couldn't do their job properly any longer without the help of TV. How can it be right that the viewers and spectators can have the benefit of these replays when the most important decision maker can't?

 

Beggars belief, saint. Just how lucky are those twats?