Question about VAR.

[Rjk]

But yes. VAR should only be used for incidents where 99 people out of 100 wood agree. Eg Henry handball v Ireland. Or suarez handball v Ghana. Or Zidane headbut in WC final. Those kind of things and that's it.

That's what it was for but now it's just a mess. Makes celebrating anything very difficult as plenty of goals and penalties disallowed now.

it should be an appeals system like in cricket- each team gets 2 appeals per game

[poc]

it should be an appeals system like in cricket- each team gets 2 appeals per game

the system in cricket is far from perfect though

[Rjk]

the system in cricket is far from perfect though

it works a lot better than football though

same with tennis isn't it too?

[Loramski]

That was my argument exactly, I've not seen Match of the Day, but, from what I saw, Sky just went by the one angle Anthony Taylor was told to take a look at in their post match discussion - taking the cricket analogy further, it was the like the third umpire giving an LBW based on an ordinary replay of the appeal without bothering to use the other technology available to them.

There's an article here covering the VAR incidents from the weekend, including the Havertz one. It has some input from the Premier League and match officials so isn't entirely independent.

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/stor...akanji-offside

Looks like the decision was overturned because VAR thought Havertz had moved his leg into Wan-Bissaka but that's so marginal to me (the still the article uses to 'prove' this does exactly the opposite). I don't get why Havertz would do that anyway as he had a free run in on goal, if he'd wanted a penalty then surely he would've just fallen over Wan-Bissaka's leg when he stuck it right in front of him a split second before?

I was thinking of the Simpson incident at QPR last season. Does nothing wrong at all, stays goal side of Armstrong as he chases an overhit pass that he had no chance of reaching. But when Armstrong falls over, Simpson gets a red card and concedes a penalty. Wan-Bissaka sticks a leg in front of Havertz as he's running through on goal, then brings him down with his knee but gets away with both. It's a funny old game.

[Pedro de la Rosa]

it works a lot better than football though

same with tennis isn't it too?

No decisions in tennis or cricket are subjective. Almost every decision in football is subjective. VAR won’t work because of this. Also, it doesn’t help the law makers are ruining the games with their awful handball and offside rules

[the other bob wilson]

There's an article here covering the VAR incidents from the weekend, including the Havertz one. It has some input from the Premier League and match officials so isn't entirely independent.

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/stor...akanji-offside

Looks like the decision was overturned because VAR thought Havertz had moved his leg into Wan-Bissaka but that's so marginal to me (the still the article uses to 'prove' this does exactly the opposite). I don't get why Havertz would do that anyway as he had a free run in on goal, if he'd wanted a penalty then surely he would've just fallen over Wan-Bissaka's leg when he stuck it right in front of him a split second before?

I was thinking of the Simpson incident at QPR last season. Does nothing wrong at all, stays goal side of Armstrong as he chases an overhit pass that he had no chance of reaching. But when Armstrong falls over, Simpson gets a red card and concedes a penalty. Wan-Bissaka sticks a leg in front of Havertz as he's running through on goal, then brings him down with his knee but gets away with both. It's a funny old game.

Not a word to explain my original point in that link though. I’ve can’t remember one incident before where the referee is shown one angle of the incident at the exclusion of everything else and despite other shots making the decision to overturn look far more arguable, the one where it looks least a penalty holds sway over everything else.

The word “subjective” appears quite often in this thread and the justification of the VAR decision in the link comes over as completely subjective and nuanced to me and yet it’s supposed to be the justification for a decision that was deemed “a clear and obvious” error

[PontBlue]

I've no idea why only one angle was shown. Surely VAR can line up all angles and timecodes so the different angles can be viewed simultaneously and the on pitch ref decide which angles he wants to see and how often.

Also who are these Assistant VAR's mentioned in yesterday's Beeb article such as Adam Nunn? Are they Ref's or techies? https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66724505

There was also a Sky game, last season I think, where there was a VAR review and towards the end of the Sky broadcast and about 45 minutes after the end of the game another angle of the incident was found and shown by Sky.

Surely the broadcast and VAR have access to the same footage.

[Loramski]

Not a word to explain my original point in that link though. I’ve can’t remember one incident before where the referee is shown one angle of the incident at the exclusion of everything else and despite other shots making the decision to overturn look far more arguable, the one where it looks least a penalty holds sway over everything else.

The word “subjective” appears quite often in this thread and the justification of the VAR decision in the link comes over as completely subjective and nuanced to me and yet it’s supposed to be the justification for a decision that was deemed “a clear and obvious” error

I agree completely. Here's the conversation between the ref and VAR with Howard Webb commenting afterwards, its off the Match Officials mic'd up programme that comes up in Pont Blue's post.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJN_xHOpm88

It's interesting. I think VAR makes a subjective call on the contact way too early and pretty much makes up the ref's mind for him. I still can't see it's clear and obvious that Wan-Bissaka doesn't foul Havertz, or that the contact is 'really, really minimal'. Going at that pace only a slight touch could bring you down anyway, it's why ankle taps are effective in rugby (as someone says in the comments underneath). Wan-Bissaka doesn't complain and none of the United players confront Havertz when the penalty's given but VAR seems determined to overturn it.

I'm surprised Howard Webb is so happy with it but with Michael Owen as the host there's no chance of any difficult questions being asked. Surely it wouldn't have hurt even him to ask why the ref was only shown one angle of the incident.