Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
VAR - are you a fan?
Comments
-
Or would it be more simple than that? Simply go back to enforcing the laws of the game. The grappling, pulling and pushing is a recent thing that has somehow become acceptable.jimmymelrose said:
The answer seems obvious to me but when I’ve given it begore I get lol-ed.Elthamaddick said:was it a foul on the keeper.....probably (under the laws of the game), but it's very soft and his hands were made of popadom's
have Arsenal got away with this every week....yes, they've built their season on it
goal should've stood as the ref didn't see anything other than to give it. VAR spent far too long on it
there would be free kicks/pens from every single corner taken in every game if we are blowing up for that.
I don't know the answer to the corner issue and the pushing/pulling (Trossard wasn't even looking at the ball) but something has to change
In football, only a goalkeeper is allowed to use his hands and arms. The next part of the body an outfield player can use is his shoulder. Pushing another player with your shoulder or body is allowed. Any player using his hands or arms to push another player should receive an immediate yellow card. Any player using his hands to grasp at another player’s body, shirt, hair etc should receive an immediate red card. If that results in a couple of red cards and five yellow cards at one single set piece then so be it. Fifteen minutes into the first match, all players and managers will be screaming at each other to stop.
Just go back to the good old days (because from a footballing perspective they were much better).5 -
Thought this discussion was put to bed for a season without getting into the handball nonsense. Then I saw the Motherwell v Celtic 'incident'. The VAR team really excelled themselves in persuading the ref that the defender had got his hand to the ball when heading it 30 yards and off the pitch.
Saturday's Celtic v Hearts title decider is going to be juicy.1 -
"Three more video assistant referee errors have been confirmed by the Premier League's Key Match Incidents panel, taking the total this season to 23.
It is a 35% increase on last season, with 17 at the same stage in 2024-25, but lower than the 30 logged in 2023-24.
The panel has recorded three errors involving penalties, two of which should have been awarded for holding offences.
Everton, the only team not to get a VAR intervention in their favour this season, were wrongly denied a spot-kick against Manchester City.
David Moyes' side led 3-2 at Hill Dickinson Stadium when, on a corner, Bernardo Silva held back Toffees midfielder Merlin Rohl - unseen by referee Michael Oliver.
The VAR Paul Howard decided the holding had taken place before the corner was taken, so he could not intervene to award a penalty.
"If that doesn't get given as a penalty, then it's an absolute free-for-all from now on," Moyes said after the game.
All five members of the KMI panel agreed with Moyes, saying "there is a clear, sustained holding offence which continues as the corner is taken and the ball comes into play".
City equalised deep into stoppage time through Jeremy Doku to snatch a 3-3 draw.
It is the third time this season Everton should have been given a penalty through video review, the others being in a 1-0 home loss to Arsenal and a 2-1 defeat at West Ham.
The panel also voted 5-0 that a penalty awarded to Bournemouth in the 29th minute of their 3-0 home win over Crystal Palace should have been overturned.
Marcos Senesi went to ground claiming contact from goalkeeper Dean Henderson, and referee Rob Jones pointed to the spot. The VAR Peter Bankes decided to uphold the decision.
"Henderson drops the ball, reaches for it and Senesi goes down under very minimal contact from the goalkeeper," the panel said.
"The referee's call of a penalty was incorrect and that VAR should have intervened to recommend a review."
Hammers denied two penalties at Brentford
West Ham should have been given two spot-kicks in their 3-0 loss at Brentford - though one of the decisions was not considered to have reached the VAR threshold.
Keane Lewis-Potter held Tomas Soucek "in a clear non-footballing action which impacted the West Ham player's movement" and the panel unanimously felt the VAR Tony Harrington should have stepped in.
It was also felt referee Craig Pawson should have pointed to the spot in the 77th minute when Yehor Yarmolyuk slipped and brought down Pablo inside the area.
That was a split 3-2 vote for a spot-kick, but 4-1 against a VAR review.
In other judgements, the panel voted 4-1 that the VAR was correct not to intervene on the potential handball by Benjamin Sesko before the Manchester United striker scored against Liverpool.
It noted that the majority of the panel deemed "there was no conclusive evidence of a handball".
The VAR red card for Sunderland's Dan Ballard for pulling on the hair of Tolu Arokodare was also supported 4-1."
23!
What's the point?
The only acceptable error was the penalty awarded to Bournemouth
1 -
0 -
I was hoping that VAR would stop the bigger clubs, getting the majority of the decisions given in their favour.
This week has proven that not to be the case.2 -
Yes, too many bad decisions before it was brought in, it much better0
-
I think it needs to evolve. It has to be used only where there is a clear error or something is missed not about opinion. I hate it when the ref is asked to look at a screen. It puts too much pressure on them to overturn their decision. Which 99% of the time, they do. I always say this, but the football authorities need to understand that it is impossible to be perfect but you can correct clear errors. When they understand that, we will have a system that works.
With the West Ham goal against Arsenal, and I have no love for Arsenal, but there were two clear fouls on their keeper. Indeed, had there been no VAR the ref might have given a foul but with VAR they can hold off. Having said that, I think with VAR, Hull's recent goal against us would not be given as Kaminski was clearly fouled by McBurnie.1 -
From yesterday's Mirror.
If you think VAR has been particularly torturous of late, then wait until the World Cup kicks off where corners and second yellow cards are being added to the VAR system’s remit. Throw in the hydration breaks and some games might not end on the day they began.3 -
But all the Arsenal haters are shouting about Rice's foul in the build up? Why doesn't VAR cover that?MuttleyCAFC said:I think it needs to evolve. It has to be used only where there is a clear error or something is missed not about opinion. I hate it when the ref is asked to look at a screen. It puts too much pressure on them to overturn their decision. Which 99% of the time, they do. I always say this, but the football authorities need to understand that it is impossible to be perfect but you can correct clear errors. When they understand that, we will have a system that works.
With the West Ham goal against Arsenal, and I have no love for Arsenal, but there were two clear fouls on their keeper. Indeed, had there been no VAR the ref might have given a foul but with VAR they can hold off. Having said that, I think with VAR, Hull's recent goal against us would not be given as Kaminski was clearly fouled by McBurnie.
That's the problem. Like I have said all along, VAR should be used for every decision or none at all. If "getting the big calls right" is sooooo important then getting the little ones right is too, as goals are scored from wrongly awarded corners, free kicks in the centre circle and throw ins...
So, as Raith has pointed out, at the world cup they are going to be getting closer to that with corners going to the tele man. But surely that is still not enough for the die hard "everything must be right" brigade, is it?
Of course it's utter nonsense to use VAR for everything, I am perfectly aware of that, but I cannot see the logic of those who insist it be used for some situations and not others? Why is there suddenly not "so much riding on it" when it's a throw in involved rather than a foul? Using it for corners but not throw ins makes even more of a farce.
I am so glad the EFL clubs said no. Even though we know there are times when we have fallen foul of poor decisions.
If you are unable to accept that shit happens, find another sport to watch.
None of this is aimed at you personally Mutts, it is just a response to your second paragraph.
7 -
I think completely the opposite!MuttleyCAFC said:I think it needs to evolve. It has to be used only where there is a clear error or something is missed not about opinion. I hate it when the ref is asked to look at a screen. It puts too much pressure on them to overturn their decision. Which 99% of the time, they do. I always say this, but the football authorities need to understand that it is impossible to be perfect but you can correct clear errors. When they understand that, we will have a system that works.
With the West Ham goal against Arsenal, and I have no love for Arsenal, but there were two clear fouls on their keeper. Indeed, had there been no VAR the ref might have given a foul but with VAR they can hold off. Having said that, I think with VAR, Hull's recent goal against us would not be given as Kaminski was clearly fouled by McBurnie.
var should just be extra video official(s) who can advise the ref like the linos do. No need for replays or long pontification to catch the ridiculous errors we want to eliminate..1 -
Sponsored links:
-
Algarveaddick said:
But all the Arsenal haters are shouting about Rice's foul in the build up? Why doesn't VAR cover that?MuttleyCAFC said:I think it needs to evolve. It has to be used only where there is a clear error or something is missed not about opinion. I hate it when the ref is asked to look at a screen. It puts too much pressure on them to overturn their decision. Which 99% of the time, they do. I always say this, but the football authorities need to understand that it is impossible to be perfect but you can correct clear errors. When they understand that, we will have a system that works.
With the West Ham goal against Arsenal, and I have no love for Arsenal, but there were two clear fouls on their keeper. Indeed, had there been no VAR the ref might have given a foul but with VAR they can hold off. Having said that, I think with VAR, Hull's recent goal against us would not be given as Kaminski was clearly fouled by McBurnie.
That's the problem. Like I have said all along, VAR should be used for every decision or none at all. If "getting the big calls right" is sooooo important then getting the little ones right is too, as goals are scored from wrongly awarded corners, free kicks in the centre circle and throw ins...
So, as Raith has pointed out, at the world cup they are going to be getting closer to that with corners going to the tele man. But surely that is still not enough for the die hard "everything must be right" brigade, is it?
Of course it's utter nonsense to use VAR for everything, I am perfectly aware of that, but I cannot see the logic of those who insist it be used for some situations and not others? Why is there suddenly not "so much riding on it" when it's a throw in involved rather than a foul? Using it for corners but not throw ins makes even more of a farce.
I am so glad the EFL clubs said no. Even though we know there are times when we have fallen foul of poor decisions.
If you are unable to accept that shit happens, find another sport to watch.
None of this is aimed at you personally Mutts, it is just a response to your second paragraph.
This post is absolutely spot on. The reason VAR was brought in was because players, managers, supporters, media etc simply can't accept that decisions go against you sometimes. Sometimes a decision goes for you, sometimes against and that has been the same for as long as football has been played competitively.
The whole obsession with 'corruption' nowadays is pathetic. Every time a decision goes against a club you have elements of the fan base screaming 'corruption' and that the authorities are somehow against their specific team. It seems a lot more prevelant nowadays and whether that's just the modern world or linked to VAR could be debated.
The thing is, there is no corruption at least in English football.. Referees are human beings and just like players and managers can make mistakes whether that's at the time of the decision or through VAR. If people genuinely feel the game is 'corrupt' then what is the point? You may as well give up at that point. The only thing stupider than saying the game is corrupt is those same fans continuing to pay their money to go to games they apparently know are corrupted.
Life is about opinions of course but how anyone can't see that VAR is literally destroying the game is beyond me. As has been pointed out it isn't going away and will only get worse as it gets rolled out for more and more decisions. Perhaps I am old fashioned but I much prefer watching EFL and lower league games now, perhaps that's because we have spent the last decade plus in the lower leagues so I have become accustomed to it.
There are bigger things in life to be concerned about it course, but my kids are only very young and it genuinely saddens me to think they will probably only know football with VAR. It has taken all the emotion out of the game, you don't know when to celebrate, spend forever sat around waiting for a decision, have no idea what is going to be examined and what isn't. I would bin it off tomorrow if it were down to me but it is here to stay.
5 -
Another beauty of a fuck up in the Man U v Forest game.
When even Gary Neville is saying a pro-Man U decision is terrible, that tells you everything you need to know.
If, as has been suggested by many people, they limited VAR to, say, 20 seconds, they would have disallowed that and nobody would’ve complained, because it was a clear handball.0 -
Well that’s an absolute shocker but not the fault of VAR this time.
Mbuemo handball, if the ref thinks that’s accidental, then I give up. The only way he was able to control the ball was with the assistance of his arm.
0 -
I agree with a lot of this, including the judgement that the referees are not corrupt. However, I would add in a small footnote which is that I do believe referees are influenced by the size of a club.Notts_Addick said:Algarveaddick said:
But all the Arsenal haters are shouting about Rice's foul in the build up? Why doesn't VAR cover that?MuttleyCAFC said:I think it needs to evolve. It has to be used only where there is a clear error or something is missed not about opinion. I hate it when the ref is asked to look at a screen. It puts too much pressure on them to overturn their decision. Which 99% of the time, they do. I always say this, but the football authorities need to understand that it is impossible to be perfect but you can correct clear errors. When they understand that, we will have a system that works.
With the West Ham goal against Arsenal, and I have no love for Arsenal, but there were two clear fouls on their keeper. Indeed, had there been no VAR the ref might have given a foul but with VAR they can hold off. Having said that, I think with VAR, Hull's recent goal against us would not be given as Kaminski was clearly fouled by McBurnie.
That's the problem. Like I have said all along, VAR should be used for every decision or none at all. If "getting the big calls right" is sooooo important then getting the little ones right is too, as goals are scored from wrongly awarded corners, free kicks in the centre circle and throw ins...
So, as Raith has pointed out, at the world cup they are going to be getting closer to that with corners going to the tele man. But surely that is still not enough for the die hard "everything must be right" brigade, is it?
Of course it's utter nonsense to use VAR for everything, I am perfectly aware of that, but I cannot see the logic of those who insist it be used for some situations and not others? Why is there suddenly not "so much riding on it" when it's a throw in involved rather than a foul? Using it for corners but not throw ins makes even more of a farce.
I am so glad the EFL clubs said no. Even though we know there are times when we have fallen foul of poor decisions.
If you are unable to accept that shit happens, find another sport to watch.
None of this is aimed at you personally Mutts, it is just a response to your second paragraph.
This post is absolutely spot on. The reason VAR was brought in was because players, managers, supporters, media etc simply can't accept that decisions go against you sometimes. Sometimes a decision goes for you, sometimes against and that has been the same for as long as football has been played competitively.
The whole obsession with 'corruption' nowadays is pathetic. Every time a decision goes against a club you have elements of the fan base screaming 'corruption' and that the authorities are somehow against their specific team. It seems a lot more prevelant nowadays and whether that's just the modern world or linked to VAR could be debated.
The thing is, there is no corruption at least in English football.. Referees are human beings and just like players and managers can make mistakes whether that's at the time of the decision or through VAR. If people genuinely feel the game is 'corrupt' then what is the point? You may as well give up at that point. The only thing stupider than saying the game is corrupt is those same fans continuing to pay their money to go to games they apparently know are corrupted.
Life is about opinions of course but how anyone can't see that VAR is literally destroying the game is beyond me. As has been pointed out it isn't going away and will only get worse as it gets rolled out for more and more decisions. Perhaps I am old fashioned but I much prefer watching EFL and lower league games now, perhaps that's because we have spent the last decade plus in the lower leagues so I have become accustomed to it.
There are bigger things in life to be concerned about it course, but my kids are only very young and it genuinely saddens me to think they will probably only know football with VAR. It has taken all the emotion out of the game, you don't know when to celebrate, spend forever sat around waiting for a decision, have no idea what is going to be examined and what isn't. I would bin it off tomorrow if it were down to me but it is here to stay.I say this because, (and this is sometimes talked about openly, with commentators saying things like “the ref has done well to keep his cards in his pocket for a game of this importance”), the importance of a game or the size of the clubs involved should have no bearing on decisions, but the fact is, they do.It’s not a dishonest ref to blame, it’s a subconscious bias. One could argue that VAR could actually help to address this because the VAR operators are miles away and not subject to the atmosphere and pressure of the stadium, but of course they send anything controversial back to the on field ref and the problem is, if anything, exacerbated because now the ref knows he’s in danger of pissing this massive crowd off with a decision that’s not clear cut. Again, I have to stress, I don’t think it’s dishonest refereeing. I think it’s unintentional, caused by pressure.
At the end of the day, my view is that VAR hasn’t helped the game. There are still countless incidents being argued over between knowledgable fans, pundits, ex-pros and even referees every single week. When people were first pitched VAR it was framed as a system that will eliminate absolute howlers. Why it’s changed, I don’t know, but the only real positive impact I’ve seen from technology is the goal line tech. And that’s not even VAR, it’s just a buzzer in the ref’s ear.
I’d love VAR to be binned off, but I can’t see it because those with all the money want it to stay.4 -
It’s had a shocker of a week … Celtic twice now Man Utd today .. time for it to go .
1 -
My thoughts exactly lordromford, due to subconcious bias the bigger clubs still get a majority of the decisions in their favour.3
-
Isn't that when VAR is supposed to step in and correct the "clear and obvious error"?raytreacy said:
Terrible decision by the referee.Macronate said:Well that’s an absolute shocker but not the fault of VAR this time.
Mbuemo handball, if the ref thinks that’s accidental, then I give up. The only way he was able to control the ball was with the assistance of his arm.0 -
Another one in the Palace game. Not the worst decision because Kelleher did make contact with him, not the ball, but the way the Palace player dragged his foot to buy the foul was pretty obvious to me. I would have denied the penalty for that, but that may be because it’s Palace. 😂
The whole situation wasn’t helped by the fact the ref initially gave a corner when clearly no Brentford player touched the ball.
2 -
Surely handball by Soucek (sp)0
-
Sponsored links:
-
I think what happened yesterday was the ref saw it hit his arm but deemed it unintentional. Then when shown the footage he saw what he had already seen. I think it should have been a free kick to Forest but I do like that the ref made a decision on intent which doesn't happen enough.0
-
I take your point, but the trouble is, pretty much all handballs are unintentional. Unless you’re deliberately saving a certain goal like Shaun Bartlett did against Spurs in 2004, players don’t really intend to handle the ball, it’s just they’ve reacted instinctively or been unlucky or both.MuttleyCAFC said:I think what happened yesterday was the ref saw it hit his arm but deemed it unintentional. Then when shown the footage he saw what he had already seen. I think it should have been a free kick to Forest but I do like that the ref made a decision on intent which doesn't happen enough.
Mbeumo didn’t mean to control it with his hand, but he absolutely did control it and got an advantage from it.
The talking points that have been discussed about handballs in games this year have generally been about proximity or “natural position”, but there was none of that here.
People won’t mind these decisions being made if the thresholds for what is or isn’t legal are clear. But it really does seem like they change these thresholds all the time without telling people!1 -
Dermot Gallagher on ref watch said a penalty should have been given.0
-
The referee was to focused on "natural" position of the arm.
He forgot about basic handball as we all used to know it.
You cannot deliberately or instinctively bring the ball under control with your hand or arm even if it is in a natural position!0 -
You can't mean this because it's nonsense.stevexreeve said:The referee was to focused on "natural" position of the arm.
He forgot about basic handball as we all used to know it.
You cannot deliberately or instinctively bring the ball under control with your hand or arm even if it is in a natural position!
You definitely can bring the ball under control with your hand or arm.0 -
This inconsistency about hand ball by both refs and VAR is getting ridiculous. The ref stands his ground over the Man Utd 'handball' (well he is at Old Trafford) because he believes the player couldn't do anything else to avoid the ball. I get his argument that the ball played the arm and I wish that was how other hand balls were judged but they aren't, and haven't been all this season, and so the ref is in the wrong.
Then you see West Ham's Soucek giving the ball a slight dig with his elbow (a clear case of arm to ball in the box) and VAR says no handball. WTF.2 -
There was a very simple law in place for years which was that handball had to be deliberate to be an offence. That may have had it's nuances but it was a damn sight better than the position we appear to have ended up in now.
The issue is there are so many variations now of what handball is/isn't that I don't think anyone, including referees, knows what the definition is.
Change it back to deliberate handball with a caveat that any handball will be penalised if it leads to a clear goal scoring opportunity or denies one and I do think things would be so much easier.3 -
It is now official that God also hates VAR.
One of his representatives on earth was the speaker on Thought For The Day on Radio Four this morning, and managed an excellent takedown of VAR based on the principles of his faith.
0 -
PGMO have come out and said it was a mistake to award the United goal yesterday, a stark difference from Scotland where the VAR boss and SFA just want to divert from the decision last week.1
