this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Main
139 readers
3 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It was a clear and obvious error and VAR should have shown it to the ref to make his own mind on it.
It couldn’t have been more clear and obvious to me. Off the ground, uncontrolled, two footed. You don’t even need to know anything else, contact is a moot point, it’s a red if it ticks them boxes.
The Pogba v Keita challenge that was corrected was less clear and obvious (although still clear and obvious) than that challenge, and that was reviewed.
They’re talking out of their arse as usual. They hide behind this “clear and obvious” line far too much. It’s becoming hollow now.
I still don’t understand this whole clear and obvious error requirement. If the ref misses something, then VAR should intervene and inform the referee to relook at the incident. If he deems his original decision correct, then we move on.
The fact that it’s an error but VAR doesn’t see it as clear and obvious and opts not to direct the ref to the monitor is so weird.
So stop the game for every potential nothing foul at midfield? Or every time a common foul is called when it’s a borderline yellow? As it is, some people are already on the side of VAR being too intrusive and killing game flow, while others want it to intervene more often. You can see how it’s tricky to find the right balance.
It's crazy to me that the ref wasn't sent to the monitor for the Joelinton foul on Gabriel. Seems like they do it very rarely now. If you only send the ref to look when it's clear and obvious, then what's the point of sending the ref?
You are completely wrong. If your approach was adopted you’d have extraordinary amounts of VAR stoppages way above what we already have now. Imagine every VAR review the ref has to go to the screen and deliberate after the time VAR has taken to decide he’s missed it and get the footage and explanation ready.
You’re describing an approach that kills football as a sport.
I think we’d be better with a review system, honestly. Give teams a chance to challenge decisions whenever they like (limited to a number of incorrect challenges) and have no VAR pro activity at all.
The ref may have said to VAR he saw the challenge and whatever and whatever and feels it's okay. In which case it's not clear AND obvious error. If the ref said he didn't see whatever whatever in his explication then it's clear and obvious he has missed something.
It is because I don’t know if ya’ll remember but when VAR started, we had a fuck ton of people here complaining about how long it took and saying it should only show obvious errors.
So that’s what they implemented.
That's not true. They had this clear and obvious line from the first moment VAR was introduced in England. No other league made a meal of "preserving the sanctity of on-field refs" but this stupid league did.
VAR worked perfectly well in the Bundesliga. Just like you said. Then suddenly this new requirement comes from PL which is absolutely dumb.
The only explanation for me is match fixing.
Was with you in the first half, completely lost me in the second.
I'd be shocked if this was match fixing. I think the most likely outcome is the old "don't attribute to Malice what can be explained via incompetency". The UK VAR team have come in with grand plans to improve the system, and they just don't work.
Maybe we should get rid of referees entirely. Just have a virtual ref, whose whistle is blown via a noise in the ground?
I think the argument is, you need to just let the referee, referee the game.
Yeah you didn’t get a man sent off from an off the ball incident, not the end of the world. These things happen in football.
I'd rather not even require the on field ref to go review his own decision, just have VAR tell him the correct one because it had 6 different angles to check.
Should this have been a red then
no foul given
I think yes
you are aware that one player goes in with both feet off the ground studs up legs extended? thats textbook red. could have nkethia seen a red here? maybe, but there is still a really really really really big difference between trying to go for the ball with one leg like nkethia and going for the ball with a two leg flying tackle. you cant be this stupid surely to not understand that. they are not comparable situations at all.
It’s so they don’t call the ref over to review every little foul or incident and keep the game flowing.
Thank you. The ref is still (should be) the authority on the field for the flow of the game. VAR should only get involved when it’s a completely obvious mistake (ie offsides, ref completely missed a head butt). Refs do not always get it right, but VAR doesn’t either. People in this sub want the game to stop everytime there’s a potential disagreement? F that, respect the authority of the expert on the field and let them play the game.
You don't need an arbitrary rule for that though since it's already covered by the goal or red or pen clause in VAR. So VAR can only step in with important match decisions in the first place.
You are missing a key issue in your comment. The introduction of VAR has impacted how refs call games. We see this clearly with offsides - they generally let the play continue because they know VAR will make the definitive call. It's not that hard to imagine that refs are also hesitant to call other things or less likely to give red cards because they expect that VAR will let them know if they need to change it. Except VAR isn't telling them because their bar for "clear and obvious" is hard to gauge and ever moving.
If you have the whole panel saying that Bruno's elbow was a red but half saying it wasn't "clear and obvious", then how you define "clear and obvious" is an issue. Especially because it was "clear and obvious" to review Havertz tackle... but then again it wasn't so obvious because the ref on the field didn't deem it was a red... so how is that obvious when the ref on the field disagrees?
Ah, good to know. So how's that working out for them, the 'keep the game flowing' bit?
(I get what you're saying, it would be even worse if they pored over every decision like that. But then they'd also - WE HOPE - let fewer things like this slide)
They need to bin off the ref going to the screen as it's just performative bollocks that 99% of the time means he's changing the decision. So just tell him to change the decision and save us some time.
I don't understand why they're not simply always connected via comms like the linesman. Something dubious happens and the ref could say "can you quickly check if it's a corner or a goal kick?" "It's looking like a corner" "thanks mate" or "I'd need to check in detail the view I have didn't show it too well".
Sure, keep lengthy reviews for the important cases, but there's zero reason to not just have the video ref be part of comms full time and able to provide his inpute from the two/three feeds he can constantly check in real time. And in this sort of situation it would be as simple as saying "there's a elbow to the neck, did you see it properly?" and the ref can say "I had a good view of it and thought it was nothing" or "Make a full review."
No need to stop flow of game for VAR to "evaluate". The linesman don't stop the flow of game to communicate a foul, they see a foul they wave their flag, the ref makes the call or not. The way it has been implemented is beyond silly.
Have you heard the refs audios? That shit is already too busy, I imagine adding a couple more people would make it too hard to get.
This!!! People are going to be so mad when 5 years from now VAR Review is sponsored by Kia and we get pictures-in-picture commercials during the game.
Very little in football is objective. If the ref gives a yellow for something and VAR thinks it's midway between yellow and red, should the ref look at it?
What I don't think most people understand is how shit VAR is in the stadium. You're sitting there in the cold with no idea what's going on for minutes on end. On Monday it completely ruined the flow of the game (and potentially the time they spent standing around in the cold cost Micky Van de Ven his hamstring). It's OK at home when you have the commentators telling you what VAR is doing and you can see the replays. But in the stadium there's just a screen that says "VAR check: penalty" and then nothing for 3 minutes.
You can't even see the screen where I sit. You're stuck there absolutely clueless about what's going on until some poor bastard in the next stand can use hand signals to get the broad strokes across.
The biggest issue I have with clear and obvious is that it adds further subjectivity to the decision making process, when in reality VAR should be looking to reduce subjectivity and make refereeing more subjective, standardised and consistent throughout the league.
Their logic would be valid if the VAR didn't have any means to ask the ref why they made the decision they made and could only go by their own perception. Just talk to each other, people!