And now an overturned penalty.
They've definitely lowered the threshold.
(I agree with the decision to overturn btw. But I'm not convinced it would have been overturned previously.)
The var thread
- Thread starter Libby
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
And now an overturned penalty.
They've definitely lowered the threshold.
(I agree with the decision to overturn btw. But I'm not convinced it would have been overturned previously.)
This is an extract from an article on the BBC site about how no-one can agree about VAR decisions 
. I'm shocked, didn't see that coming. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50196675
All anyone can agree on about VAR is that we can't agree on VAR.
"Perhaps the most bizarre incident on Saturday came when VAR seemed to disagree with the Premier League's goal accreditation panel during Manchester City's win over Aston Villa.
After a check for offside, City's second goal was awarded to Kevin de Bruyne because VAR said there was no clear replays that showed team-mate David Silva had touched the Belgian's cross en route to it hitting the back of the net.
VAR had said that if Silva had been shown to have touched the ball then it would have been ruled out for an offside against Raheem Sterling.
However, after full-time, the goal accreditation panel, a body independent of VAR, announced the goal had in fact been awarded to Silva, seemingly a contradiction of the decision made by VAR.
That call was made because the goal panel does not work to the same "clear and obvious" guideline as VAR - but further added to the confusion around the system.
Fans, pundits and managers don't seem to be able to agree on how VAR is used - maybe some issues in football will always remain a matter of opinion."
....................................................
So, instead of reducing controversial decisions it seems to be increasing them.
. I'm shocked, didn't see that coming. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50196675All anyone can agree on about VAR is that we can't agree on VAR.
"Perhaps the most bizarre incident on Saturday came when VAR seemed to disagree with the Premier League's goal accreditation panel during Manchester City's win over Aston Villa.
After a check for offside, City's second goal was awarded to Kevin de Bruyne because VAR said there was no clear replays that showed team-mate David Silva had touched the Belgian's cross en route to it hitting the back of the net.
VAR had said that if Silva had been shown to have touched the ball then it would have been ruled out for an offside against Raheem Sterling.
However, after full-time, the goal accreditation panel, a body independent of VAR, announced the goal had in fact been awarded to Silva, seemingly a contradiction of the decision made by VAR.
That call was made because the goal panel does not work to the same "clear and obvious" guideline as VAR - but further added to the confusion around the system.
Fans, pundits and managers don't seem to be able to agree on how VAR is used - maybe some issues in football will always remain a matter of opinion."
....................................................
So, instead of reducing controversial decisions it seems to be increasing them.
I have a question about the Bertrand red card.
As I understand it, in real-time play the referee CANNOT play advantage IF he sees a foul as a red card offence. I.e. the red card offence is seen before a goal is scored.
In Friday's example, the goal was seen before the red card.
Once VAR looks at Bertrand's tackle and decides it's a red card, should that not rule out any subsequent play? On the basis that play CANNOT continue after a red card incident?
As I understand it, in real-time play the referee CANNOT play advantage IF he sees a foul as a red card offence. I.e. the red card offence is seen before a goal is scored.
In Friday's example, the goal was seen before the red card.
Once VAR looks at Bertrand's tackle and decides it's a red card, should that not rule out any subsequent play? On the basis that play CANNOT continue after a red card incident?
If the ref had seen it as a red he would have stopped play straight away. But VAR awarded the red card so the goal was perfectly legitimate.
Thanks Tom
I suspected that was the case, but my question is WHY?
(Please don't just quote the rule at me again, I'm looking for a reason here too)
Why is it different if VAR gives the red card than if the referee gives it?
To give a comparison, if play had gone on and a goal had not been scored, e.g. ball goes out for a throw in, does play restart with a throw in or the freekick from the red card foul?
Surely it would restart with a throw in?
When a referee waves play on, only to go back and book a player later, the play doesn't restart with a FK (unless the referee believes no advantage was forthcoming, and wishes to bring the play back).
Agreed, but I'm talking about the specific case when it's a VAR red card rather than yellow card
Appreciated. But I don't see why it would lead to a different outcome.
For all we know, the referee was planning on going back to book Bertrand (I'm sure he did wave play on). But thought he'd just wait for the VAR review, in case that was the wrong colour. I don't see why changing the colour from yellow to red (or no colour to red) should really change how the game is restarted, had the goal not been scored.
But do I for the exact law here? No.
Two more overturned penalties today (both originally not given). And we're not even at HT.
Feels like the people in charge of var today were just filling in their football coupons.
Some real BS decisions. Clear and obvious is out the window.
Some real BS decisions. Clear and obvious is out the window.
Good to see VAR getting the important decisions right.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50196446
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50196446
Seemingly gone too far the other way now. That first United pen was a joke and bet it wouldn't have gone the other way.
Only recently caught up with the decisions in the Arsenal and Utd games. Individually, all four of them I think were fouls (ie three penalties and one disallowed goal). But none of them were howlers.
Whilst I do accept that the threshold seemed very high before, I was generally comfortable with that so as to avoid this sort of situation. If we're now overturning all decisions which the referees get wrong (as limited to the four categories - red card, penalty, goal, mistaken identity), then don't be surprised if an average of two overturned decisions per game becomes the norm now.
That is not to say that over the coming weeks or months they can't re-raise the threshold a bit more, but still less than before - maybe such that the Bertrand challenge is still a red on VAR, but neither of the Chambers challenges are fouls on VAR. Indeed, I hope they do. But that will still lead to more subjectivity - and more overturned decisions - than having the threshold where it was before (although for some, that won't be a bad thing. It is just my view that I only want VAR for the total howlers. I never want to see the Dacoure handballs or the Austin non-offsides get incorrectly called again,)
Whilst I do accept that the threshold seemed very high before, I was generally comfortable with that so as to avoid this sort of situation. If we're now overturning all decisions which the referees get wrong (as limited to the four categories - red card, penalty, goal, mistaken identity), then don't be surprised if an average of two overturned decisions per game becomes the norm now.
That is not to say that over the coming weeks or months they can't re-raise the threshold a bit more, but still less than before - maybe such that the Bertrand challenge is still a red on VAR, but neither of the Chambers challenges are fouls on VAR. Indeed, I hope they do. But that will still lead to more subjectivity - and more overturned decisions - than having the threshold where it was before (although for some, that won't be a bad thing. It is just my view that I only want VAR for the total howlers. I never want to see the Dacoure handballs or the Austin non-offsides get incorrectly called again,)
Haven't seen anyone mention (haven't really read the thread though) the Brighton penalty against Everton. That is the worst one I've seen so far thats been given.
Emphasis probably on I've seen as I've watched hardly any PL this year
Emphasis probably on I've seen as I've watched hardly any PL this year
One thing that VAR is eliminating is the many “accidental comings together”, where two players unintentionally make contact with each other.
Sometimes it just happens and they need to be ignored instead of being looked at in ultra slow motion in an attempt to determine which player should be penalised.
The penalty at the weekend when a player was clearly watching the ball and accidentally trod on the forward’s foot should have, IMO, been treated as the accident it was and ignored.
Sometimes it just happens and they need to be ignored instead of being looked at in ultra slow motion in an attempt to determine which player should be penalised.
The penalty at the weekend when a player was clearly watching the ball and accidentally trod on the forward’s foot should have, IMO, been treated as the accident it was and ignored.
The PL have said that all replays reviewed by the VAR are looked at in real time. No slow motion replays.
We, as the TV viewer, still get the slow motion replays as normal though. Which I think is where the confusion comes in. Whether there is thus an argument for BBC, SKY etc to ditch slow motion replays, so that viewers and pundits are debating the same thing that the VARs are debating, is a question. (Particularly for someone like Souness, who clearly has no idea how VAR is designed to work. Every Sunday he has to be either ask David Jones how VAR works, or makes an incorrect statement on how VAR works so has to be corrected by Jones.)
Interesting that on Soccer Saturday, Le Tiss (who was covering that Brighton game) was convinced it was a penalty - even before the VAR overturned it. Very much seems to the minority view.
Yeah this was the incident I was referring to in the Brighton Everton game, never a pen. It's been becoming a non contact sport for years and VAR is just the cherry on the cake unless refs can be trained to spot stuff like this in slow motion.