Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
VAR - are you a fan?
Comments
-
Thanks for your interesting and thoughtful response. The only comment I shall make is that I did not give an opinion on whether or not I thought the goal should have been allowed/disallowed. I was simply trying to make the point that the decision was open to opinion and therefore the decision was not "blatantly" wrong. Thanks once again.lordromford said:@PeterGage
I generally read your posts on refereeing decisions with interest because you often illustrate a referee’s point of view, which can be illuminating.
I also appreciate that refereeing is a thankless task and referees are often damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
However, one thing that the addition of ex-referees to the teams of pundits on the tv has illustrated for me, is that teams of officials are literally that - a team. There is a huge reluctance for ex-refs to criticise refereeing decisions. I do understand why: These are people who are colleagues and peers. Often I imagine they are friends too. But the verbal gymnastics the likes of Dermot Gallagher and Howard Webb go through to avoid making direct criticisms is just not helpful.
The thing is, criticism should be constructive and useful. It’s ok to criticise a referee’s decision, but you can also clarify the difficulties in getting those decisions right.
Thats the thing with the Mbeumo decision. It was blatantly wrong. I’ve seen no real disagreement about that from anyone other than blinkered Man U fans and (no disrespect meant) referees and ex referees who are unwilling to criticise a peer too harshly. I know you mentioned the decision being subjective, but subjectivity and common sense are not mutually exclusive. By your logic, no decision can be blatantly wrong because if the decision was made, there must be a valid reason for that.
People make mistakes. Sometimes mistakes are absolute howlers. That’s ok. Everyone has made howlers in their life. Regardless of how he read the situation at the time, that ref had an absolute shocker with that decision. But that’s it. It’s over and we move on. I’m sure he’ll be perfectly ok next time he referees a match.The fact is, despite this ref making a huge mistake, the target of most people’s annoyance is with the VAR system, not the referees themselves. People understand that humans are flawed. So it’s frustrating when referees and ex-referees, (with an understandable air of authority), tell us that we’re wrong to frame an error as ‘blatant’ or similar.
Sometimes a decision is just wrong.That’s life.1 -
Your very last sentence does not coincide with the law (number 12). It clearly states that a goal is disallowed if scored DIRECT from the handball, even if the ref thought the handball was not deliberate.Thereafter a goal scored in the circumstances we are talking about is allowed if the ball struck the hand, which in the refs opinion, was in a natural position. That part of the law points out that the unnatural or natural position can vary, depending on a number of movements by the player concerned. In other words there is no single hand to ball scenario that fits all situations.MuttleyCAFC said:I think the handball law has years of confusion built into it. I know when I was managing quite a few years ago and the ref gave a penalty when one of my players tried to hoof a ball clear with nobody near him and sliced it and it went up and hit his hand. I questioned the ref in relation to intent as Messi couldn't have performed such a skill and he told me he understood what I was saying. He told me he understood and sympathised with what I was saying but he had recently received guidance that such a thing was a penalty. This has been going on for years as the football authorities wanted consistent decisions rather than let the ref decide intent. This was never going to work.
As for the Man Utd goal, I thought that as the handball directly led to a goal, then it gave an advantage to Man Utd and shouldn't have been given which the authorities have pretty much confirmed, even though I can appreciate the player may not have had intent. Anyway, it is a mess and could easily be simplified rather this constant search for perfection that will never happen and we even have a difference in interpretation in this country to abroad which is ridiculous.
I don't think that incident was anything to do with VAR. The ref saw it hit his hand in open play and decided it was unintentional. But didn't interpret the unintentional handball led to the goal which is the error.1 -
But the referees are a key component of VAR, so it's impossible to separate them, humans will indeed always make mistakes, which is exactly why VAR is a joke, it simply can't solve the problem it claims to solve.lordromford said:the target of most people’s annoyance is with the VAR system, not the referees themselves.
Get rid, asap.3 -
Regardless of intent, if it hadn't hit his hand it would have been a throw in to Forest. How can anybody prejudge intent? Having your hand by your side doesn't take away that it controlled a ball that was otherwise away from him.1
-
I stand corrected. Why have the authorities come out and said it was a mistake then? Serious question. Surely nobody could be sure there was intent and the ref was not necessarily wrong to feel there wasn't. That merely exposes the law to be stupid. It should consist of two lines and one should involve the ref's view of intent (which is quite simple in that did he/she believe the player meant it or not which would cover making yourself big for a potential block) and secondly if no intent, did the adavantage of a goal eminate from it. Missing out the word directly. That would solve something that has been baffling those in the game for years. In fact law number 12 suggests the ref was not wrong. Yes, another ref may have decided there was intent but that is football. This creates a problem for referees as there seems to be a situation where assuming intent is the easy way out, given the criticism the ref has received. It is the same as asking the ref to look at a screen. It is suggesting their original decision was wrong and there is more pressure to change the decision. That is something the ref in that game should be commended for IMO as 99% of these decisions get changed.PeterGage said:
Your very last sentence does not coincide with the law (number 12). It clearly states that a goal is disallowed if scored DIRECT from the handball, even if the ref thought the handball was not deliberate.Thereafter a goal scored in the circumstances we are talking about is allowed if the ball struck the hand, which in the refs opinion, was in a natural position. That part of the law points out that the unnatural or natural position can vary, depending on a number of movements by the player concerned. In other words there is no single hand to ball scenario that fits all situations.MuttleyCAFC said:I think the handball law has years of confusion built into it. I know when I was managing quite a few years ago and the ref gave a penalty when one of my players tried to hoof a ball clear with nobody near him and sliced it and it went up and hit his hand. I questioned the ref in relation to intent as Messi couldn't have performed such a skill and he told me he understood what I was saying. He told me he understood and sympathised with what I was saying but he had recently received guidance that such a thing was a penalty. This has been going on for years as the football authorities wanted consistent decisions rather than let the ref decide intent. This was never going to work.
As for the Man Utd goal, I thought that as the handball directly led to a goal, then it gave an advantage to Man Utd and shouldn't have been given which the authorities have pretty much confirmed, even though I can appreciate the player may not have had intent. Anyway, it is a mess and could easily be simplified rather this constant search for perfection that will never happen and we even have a difference in interpretation in this country to abroad which is ridiculous.
I don't think that incident was anything to do with VAR. The ref saw it hit his hand in open play and decided it was unintentional. But didn't interpret the unintentional handball led to the goal which is the error.0 -
Fair.PeterGage said:
Thanks for your interesting and thoughtful response. The only comment I shall make is that I did not give an opinion on whether or not I thought the goal should have been allowed/disallowed. I was simply trying to make the point that the decision was open to opinion and therefore the decision was not "blatantly" wrong. Thanks once again.lordromford said:@PeterGage
I generally read your posts on refereeing decisions with interest because you often illustrate a referee’s point of view, which can be illuminating.
I also appreciate that refereeing is a thankless task and referees are often damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
However, one thing that the addition of ex-referees to the teams of pundits on the tv has illustrated for me, is that teams of officials are literally that - a team. There is a huge reluctance for ex-refs to criticise refereeing decisions. I do understand why: These are people who are colleagues and peers. Often I imagine they are friends too. But the verbal gymnastics the likes of Dermot Gallagher and Howard Webb go through to avoid making direct criticisms is just not helpful.
The thing is, criticism should be constructive and useful. It’s ok to criticise a referee’s decision, but you can also clarify the difficulties in getting those decisions right.
Thats the thing with the Mbeumo decision. It was blatantly wrong. I’ve seen no real disagreement about that from anyone other than blinkered Man U fans and (no disrespect meant) referees and ex referees who are unwilling to criticise a peer too harshly. I know you mentioned the decision being subjective, but subjectivity and common sense are not mutually exclusive. By your logic, no decision can be blatantly wrong because if the decision was made, there must be a valid reason for that.
People make mistakes. Sometimes mistakes are absolute howlers. That’s ok. Everyone has made howlers in their life. Regardless of how he read the situation at the time, that ref had an absolute shocker with that decision. But that’s it. It’s over and we move on. I’m sure he’ll be perfectly ok next time he referees a match.The fact is, despite this ref making a huge mistake, the target of most people’s annoyance is with the VAR system, not the referees themselves. People understand that humans are flawed. So it’s frustrating when referees and ex-referees, (with an understandable air of authority), tell us that we’re wrong to frame an error as ‘blatant’ or similar.
Sometimes a decision is just wrong.That’s life.
Thanks @PeterGage
👍🏼1 -
It's not just the Premier League where video technology is a bone of contention.
In Australia a video review system is in place for goal-line decisions (although in Aussie Rules there's more to look at in that a goal can only be scored via a kick - i.e. below the knee - from the attacking team, any defensive touch or ball hitting the post results in a behind (1 point) instead of a 6-point goal) and there was another bit of controversy on Friday night which led to a marvellous post-match rant from one of the commentators, respected AFL broadcaster Gerard Whateley:
Speaking on Fox Footy, Whateley fumed at the sport’s ongoing failure to resolve incorrect decisions despite multiple iterations of the score review system, questioning the value of technology in umpiring.“This is the best imaginable example of why technology in sport is the worship of a false God,” he said.“It can’t correct the howler. How many times do we have to see it? It doesn’t correct the howler.“It will never correct the howler properly in the AFL, and it’s why I’ve urged the sport from day one, do not go down this path.”He continued: “The humans at play here botched this something horrible.“It’s the goal umpire’s responsibility to go, ‘I got tipped over, I’m sending this to the ARC. It’s the fail safe!’“The field umpire should have seen the goal umpire get knocked over and gone, ‘We have a fail safe!’“Technology in sport is an ass, and it has been proven over, and over, and over.“We fumble around, let’s put this rule in, no let’s take that rule out.“How many more examples do we need to say it doesn’t work?“We don’t correct the howler, the humans bugger it up, the technology’s no good.Just leave it, get rid of it, it doesn’t work.
“It will never work It will never correct the howler.
“The whole system doesn’t work.
“It’s just embarrassing.”
😀
I hate to think what he'd have to say about some the VAR decisions this year.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/get-rid-of-it-whateley-launches-into-alltime-score-review-rant-after-horrible-blunder/news-story/96c016455f59ebdb87cd4ccd491896820 -
Interesting to note that both the penalty shouts in the Arsenal game weren't referred to VAR. I think the ref got both wrong.0
-
They were reviewedGisappointed said:Interesting to note that both the penalty shouts in the Arsenal game weren't referred to VAR. I think the ref got both wrong.1 -
Well everything is technically reviewed. I assume he means the ref wasn’t invited to look at them.1
-
Sponsored links:
-
https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/no-more-delayed-flag-fifa-184235235.html
The delayed offside flag could almost become a thing of the past after Fifa unveiled new technology to be used at the 2026 World Cup.
Fifa will introduce advanced semi-automated offside for video assistant referees (VAR) which should make decisions faster and mean an assistant can raise the flag rather than wait for a move to play out.
A real-time audio alert will be sent to the assistant if a player is more than 10cm offside.
Previous versions of the technology tested at the Club World Cup and the Intercontinental Cup only notified the officials if a player was greater than 50cm offside.
0 -
Not by the ref who would have to have been over-ruled by VAR.Rothko said:
They were reviewedGisappointed said:Interesting to note that both the penalty shouts in the Arsenal game weren't referred to VAR. I think the ref got both wrong.0
