Got to say. Watching the game last night, the VAR did it's job. Not sure what Sarri can be upset with (apart from how toothless Chelsea are in the final third), and can't see why Poch is upset to have won in that manner.
Personally feel it's a lot better to have the VAR make the call and advise the referee, as opposed to having the ref running over to a screen on the side of the pitch. Means decisions happen a lot quicker.
Two improvements would be to have the VAR in the stadium rather than off-site, and have the ref and the VAR mic'd up so that we a clear idea of what they are discussing.
Sarri has said this morning that the Chelsea camera set up shows Kane's head and knee were offside!!! Lol
Got to say. Watching the game last night, the VAR did it's job. Not sure what Sarri can be upset with (apart from how toothless Chelsea are in the final third), and can't see why Poch is upset to have won in that manner.
Personally feel it's a lot better to have the VAR make the call and advise the referee, as opposed to having the ref running over to a screen on the side of the pitch. Means decisions happen a lot quicker.
Two improvements would be to have the VAR in the stadium rather than off-site, and have the ref and the VAR mic'd up so that we a clear idea of what they are discussing.
Having the var and ref mic'd is something I've been saying all along. What irritated me is this is supposed to be a trial period, which is exactly the time to try things like that, yet all they are doing is the same thing over and over and addressing none of the legitimate critisisms.
I mean why even call it a trial if they are just going to keep it EXACTLY the same, and ignore the flaws?
Got to say. Watching the game last night, the VAR did it's job. Not sure what Sarri can be upset with (apart from how toothless Chelsea are in the final third), and can't see why Poch is upset to have won in that manner.
Personally feel it's a lot better to have the VAR make the call and advise the referee, as opposed to having the ref running over to a screen on the side of the pitch. Means decisions happen a lot quicker.
Two improvements would be to have the VAR in the stadium rather than off-site, and have the ref and the VAR mic'd up so that we a clear idea of what they are discussing.
Sarri has said this morning that the Chelsea camera set up shows Kane's head and knee were offside!!! Lol
Have seen this angle, and contrary to what I said earlier I agree with him. Kane was offside. Upon reflection it seems odd for the VAR to be judging an offside decision using a camera angle from the corner as opposed to looking across the pitch.
I’m still unsure how it’s going to work on a busy Saturday.
How many VAR refs are needed for each game, and where will they come from?
You can’t have a central VAR ref panel for multiple matches as things could happen at the same time in multiple matches.
In Rugby Union there is one TMO who's at the stadium with a screen in front of them that has the functionality to review decisions, so I'm not sure why you need more than one VAR. Which would mean if you had a full fixture list you'd only need 10 qualified VARs.
For context all Rugby Premiership games have a TMO present (and there is up to a maximum of six games going on concurrently).
I’m still unsure how it’s going to work on a busy Saturday.
How many VAR refs are needed for each game, and where will they come from?
You can’t have a central VAR ref panel for multiple matches as things could happen at the same time in multiple matches.
In Rugby Union there is one TMO who's at the stadium with a screen in front of them that has the functionality to review decisions, so I'm not sure why you need more than one VAR. Which would mean if you had a full fixture list you'd only need 10 qualified VARs.
For context all Rugby Premiership games have a TMO present (and there is up to a maximum of six games going on concurrently).
I’m going off of the World Cup where they had 5 VAR refs for each match.
I don’t understand why VAR isn’t used like tennis or even cricket where it is up to the team to query. If they query and are wrong, they lose the appeal. This would ensure it is not overused, especially if teams only get one appeal game or possibly two. There could be an additional rule attached:
If a team makes three consecutive wrong appeals (in three games), they lose the appeal in their next match (this would stop spurious appeals in the last few minutes of a game).
I think this would work. Yes, there could still be wrong decisions if a team misuses their appeal, but that would be their fault. It should help eradicate terrible decisions.
There is an issue that there is a question of interpretation on some decisions, so for anything like that, the match referee should decide with consultation with the video referee, who should have no power to question. Otherwise VAR appeals could be like requesting a second opinion, when it should always be a matter of fact.
I hate the way the current offside rule is interpreted. His elbow was offside? Give it a rest.
They should identify two reference points and compares just those, nothing else. I'd say it should be the feet. If the attackers back foot is behind the defenders front foot then they're onside, only if both feet are goal-side is the player offside. Eventually you could have transmitters or reflectors on the boots which would allow accurate positioning and VAR could have indicators onscreen at all times showing if each players is currently on or offside.
I hate the way the current offside rule is interpreted. His elbow was offside? Give it a rest.
They should identify two reference points and compares just those, nothing else. I'd say it should be the feet. If the attackers back foot is behind the defenders front foot then they're onside, only if both feet are goal-side is the player offside. Eventually you could have transmitters or reflectors on the boots which would allow accurate positioning and VAR could have indicators onscreen at all times showing if each players is currently on or offside.
Certainly needs to be cleared up in this respect... My opinion is that it should be the same rule as the ball
i.e. for it to be a corner / goal / whatever then the ball has to be fully over the line - For a player to be offside then they need to be fully beyond the Defender to be pulled up... There are too many rules these days which seem to go against the attackers yet Football is supposed to be a form of entertainment so try and ensure we get more goals a game
I hate the way the current offside rule is interpreted. His elbow was offside? Give it a rest.
They should identify two reference points and compares just those, nothing else. I'd say it should be the feet. If the attackers back foot is behind the defenders front foot then they're onside, only if both feet are goal-side is the player offside. Eventually you could have transmitters or reflectors on the boots which would allow accurate positioning and VAR could have indicators onscreen at all times showing if each players is currently on or offside.
Watching specifically for the feet seems quite difficult for a linesman on a Sunday morning after a few beers the night before!
Maybe change the basic laws to suit TV and VAR - but this is what we all feared!
I hate the way the current offside rule is interpreted. His elbow was offside? Give it a rest.
They should identify two reference points and compares just those, nothing else. I'd say it should be the feet. If the attackers back foot is behind the defenders front foot then they're onside, only if both feet are goal-side is the player offside. Eventually you could have transmitters or reflectors on the boots which would allow accurate positioning and VAR could have indicators onscreen at all times showing if each players is currently on or offside.
Watching specifically for the feet seems quite difficult for a linesman on a Sunday morning after a few beers the night before!
Maybe change the basic laws to suit TV and VAR - but this is what we all feared!
No more difficult than telling if a players elbow or arse was offside. Sunday league offsides are a mixture of guesswork, wishful thinking and sometimes outright cheating anyway. Assuming the teams are wearing different coloured socks then it should be simple enough for any lines man to judge, certainly no more difficult than the currently highly subjective rules.
Anyone see the Fulham penalty vs Oldham? They VAR'ed and the epnalty award stood. It was a comical dive. So it seems that there is still room for human error (AKA refs closing ranks on a dodgy decision)
There was contact.
The Fulham player sold the contact (which should be irrelevant to the VAR) but there was contact, thus a penalty was the right decision.
What gets me is the inconsistent use. In the FA Cup the other weekend, Man Utd were given a penalty through VAR. In the same competition and because Bloomfield Rd does not have a VAR facility, Arsenal got away with 2 goals which VAR would have disallowed. I think this gives teams that can support VAR an added advantage. I get that all Prem grounds will support VAR and that's OK but when lower league teams are involved it should be a level playing field and no VAR should be used.
Anyone see the Fulham penalty vs Oldham? They VAR'ed and the epnalty award stood. It was a comical dive. So it seems that there is still room for human error (AKA refs closing ranks on a dodgy decision)
There was contact.
The Fulham player sold the contact (which should be irrelevant to the VAR) but there was contact, thus a penalty was the right decision.
So any contact is a foul now? if you feel contact and dive, it's still a dive.
Anyone see the Fulham penalty vs Oldham? They VAR'ed and the epnalty award stood. It was a comical dive. So it seems that there is still room for human error (AKA refs closing ranks on a dodgy decision)
There was contact.
The Fulham player sold the contact (which should be irrelevant to the VAR) but there was contact, thus a penalty was the right decision.
So any contact is a foul now? if you feel contact and dive, it's still a dive.
There are examples where contact is initiated by the attacker, for example sticking a leg out to catch the standing leg of a defender, and therefore wouldn’t be a penalty but in most cases, yes.
Here’s the sequence of events as I see it:
- Fulham player has the ball in the box - Oldham player tries to tackle with a wild swipe - Oldham player completely misses the ball - Oldham player catches Fulham player’s foot - Fulham player is impeded from realistically retaining possession by the action of the Oldham player - Penalty awarded
He could’ve put on a tutu and performed Swan Lake but the reaction is irrelevant to the decision to award a pen. Just makes the attacker look a bit silly.
What gets me is the inconsistent use. In the FA Cup the other weekend, Man Utd were given a penalty through VAR. In the same competition and because Bloomfield Rd does not have a VAR facility, Arsenal got away with 2 goals which VAR would have disallowed. I think this gives teams that can support VAR an added advantage. I get that all Prem grounds will support VAR and that's OK but when lower league teams are involved it should be a level playing field and no VAR should be used.
Trouble is they claimed this weekend would be another chance to test VAR hence why some FA Cup games had the facility to use it whilst others did not - As you say though it takes away the level playing field; Man Utd may not have advanced because that first penalty against Reading wasnt being given until VAR said otherwise
Ultimately if it were being tested then all third round games should have had it
Else it creates confussion amongst the players too (hence why Morata was appealling for VAR in his game)
VAR to be used for the 1st time in league one on Saturday.
Last season in the semi final of League Cup between Man City and Bristol City VAR wasnt used at The Etihad as it couldnt be used for the 2nd leg at Ashton Gate.
This year however VAR is in operatiom tonight and will be used for Burton v Gillingham at the weekend to test it ahead of the 2nd leg in Burton
^ Important to note that no in game decisions will be made, there’ll just be putting VAR through it’s paces in the background. Goal line technology will also be tested at the same time.
^ Important to note that no in game decisions will be made, there’ll just be putting VAR through it’s paces in the background. Goal line technology will also be tested at the same time.
Disagree. His hand was in an unnatural position, therefore a penalty. With the other incident, Steven Taylor actually elbowed the defender in the jaw and then dived. You can't see the elbowing in this clip. Will see if I can find it elsewhere.
For me this turns out to be the main problem with VAR.
When the ref and linesmen make a contentious decision, you may not agree but (usually) you accept that they only saw it once and can't be blamed for sometimes getting it "wrong".
With VAR there is that nagging sense of injustice and disbelief that there is no consistency in the laws even after studying incidents over and over again!
Vaguely reminded of the "handball" in the world cup final. How can that possibly have been handball while this one wasn't. Are the laws of the game different in the World Cup?
Comments
I mean why even call it a trial if they are just going to keep it EXACTLY the same, and ignore the flaws?
How many VAR refs are needed for each game, and where will they come from?
You can’t have a central VAR ref panel for multiple matches as things could happen at the same time in multiple matches.
So individual VARS at the grounds with another central VAR for the difficult ones!
For context all Rugby Premiership games have a TMO present (and there is up to a maximum of six games going on concurrently).
If a team makes three consecutive wrong appeals (in three games), they lose the appeal in their next match (this would stop spurious appeals in the last few minutes of a game).
I think this would work. Yes, there could still be wrong decisions if a team misuses their appeal, but that would be their fault. It should help eradicate terrible decisions.
There is an issue that there is a question of interpretation on some decisions, so for anything like that, the match referee should decide with consultation with the video referee, who should have no power to question. Otherwise VAR appeals could be like requesting a second opinion, when it should always be a matter of fact.
They should identify two reference points and compares just those, nothing else. I'd say it should be the feet. If the attackers back foot is behind the defenders front foot then they're onside, only if both feet are goal-side is the player offside. Eventually you could have transmitters or reflectors on the boots which would allow accurate positioning and VAR could have indicators onscreen at all times showing if each players is currently on or offside.
i.e. for it to be a corner / goal / whatever then the ball has to be fully over the line - For a player to be offside then they need to be fully beyond the Defender to be pulled up... There are too many rules these days which seem to go against the attackers yet Football is supposed to be a form of entertainment so try and ensure we get more goals a game
Maybe change the basic laws to suit TV and VAR - but this is what we all feared!
The Fulham player sold the contact (which should be irrelevant to the VAR) but there was contact, thus a penalty was the right decision.
Here’s the sequence of events as I see it:
- Fulham player has the ball in the box
- Oldham player tries to tackle with a wild swipe
- Oldham player completely misses the ball
- Oldham player catches Fulham player’s foot
- Fulham player is impeded from realistically retaining possession by the action of the Oldham player
- Penalty awarded
He could’ve put on a tutu and performed Swan Lake but the reaction is irrelevant to the decision to award a pen. Just makes the attacker look a bit silly.
Ultimately if it were being tested then all third round games should have had it
Else it creates confussion amongst the players too (hence why Morata was appealling for VAR in his game)
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11668/11602100/mauricio-pochettino-unhappy-with-var-use-and-says-work-needs-to-be-done
On Chelsea picture the ball has already left the Spurs players foot hence why Kanes position is different.
The correct picture is VARs where the ball has hit his foot and kane is clearly onside
In fact, either case is wrong. If the ball is still touching the foot it is too early. If it has left the foot it's too late!
I don't think the video system runs with enough frames/per second to establish the exact moment the ball leaves the foot!
Clearly the benefit of the doubt must be with the attacker because no one will ever establish whether he was actually offside!
But surely after a linesman has put his flag up and distracted everyone....
Last season in the semi final of League Cup between Man City and Bristol City VAR wasnt used at The Etihad as it couldnt be used for the 2nd leg at Ashton Gate.
This year however VAR is in operatiom tonight and will be used for Burton v Gillingham at the weekend to test it ahead of the 2nd leg in Burton
More details on this link
https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/burton/historic-var-trial-set-burton-2405078
0.27 blatant handball by Wellington Phoenix player. VAR doesn’t award penalty.
3.41 blatant dive by Wellington Phoenix player. VAR awards penalty.
Not sure what they were watching on the screen.
Second one was a foul despite the theatrics that followed. Simple enough for me: penalty stands.
First one I would have given but can see why it wasn’t. The ball deflected unexpectedly onto the hand.
His hand was in an unnatural position, therefore a penalty.
With the other incident, Steven Taylor actually elbowed the defender in the jaw and then dived. You can't see the elbowing in this clip. Will see if I can find it elsewhere.
When the ref and linesmen make a contentious decision, you may not agree but (usually) you accept that they only saw it once and can't be blamed for sometimes getting it "wrong".
With VAR there is that nagging sense of injustice and disbelief that there is no consistency in the laws even after studying incidents over and over again!
Vaguely reminded of the "handball" in the world cup final. How can that possibly have been handball while this one wasn't. Are the laws of the game different in the World Cup?
Incident 1:
Incident 2:
Mind boggling.