with VAR?
There is contact and it is a foul, albeit a soft one, it is a foul and that is the argument towards the penalty being given. But is it a "clear and obvious error"?
For me, no. The fact that the actual foul itself is being debated about being a penalty should be enough to say that this isn't a clear and obvious error. So has that been scrapped altogether? I think the referee's are under pressure when they go to the pitch-side monitor as they are under pressure to change their decision, as that is ultimately what that is there for given the fact of how many decisions have been changed when they have viewed the incidents across many games.
This isn't because it's Liverpool, it's not hard luck on Liverpool, trying to take as neutral a view as possible, it's not good for the game. VAR has just brought more inconsistency, where it otherwise shouldn't have.
You take inconsistent referee's, put inconsistent referee's in at Stockley Park on VAR patrol, you give inconsistent referee's a second chance to review their decision, which will only further evidence towards their inadequacy to officiate a game at the pace it should be, shows the referee are not well trained enough at situation analysis when reviewing decisions and decisions almost become inconclusive because they are viewing replays in slow motion. That isn't fair to me. If you're going to review the decision, you should review it at the speed the incident happens at, not slower. That's a consistent decision then. If they change their mind, fair play, if they don't, then they can't see it.
Ultimately we will never create the perfect game, but today has only further emphasised the wrong-doings on VAR and gives even more doubt upon the system. This is a viewpoint from somebody who actually still supports that VAR is good for the game in general as well, but today has given me a different view.
What are the rules...
posted on 28/11/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 24 minutes ago
Decisions are only meant to be overturned when it is a "clear and obvious error".
"There is contact and it is a foul ".
So there was a foul that wasn't given. That is a clear and obvious error.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VAR didn't exactly take long looking at it. And Attwell only needed to see one replay. I think that says it all in terms of clear and obvious
posted on 28/11/20
comment by Loco Liverpool (U18018)
posted 23 minutes ago
They should just take away the "clear and obvious" part, it's not consistently followed and VAR has already disrupted the flow of the game but it's here to stay so they may as well get the decisions right if they are stopping play for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with this. The clear and obvious thing was only there to save face for refs anyway. The point of VAR should be to make sure that decisions are correct, full stop. On this occasion, I thought it was a clear foul anyway though
posted on 28/11/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 41 minutes ago
A subjective decision that has caused much debate whether it is considered a "clear and obvious error". So it's not is it.
----------------
Not sure the VAR is basing his calls on public debate. He thought it was a clear and obvious error, and told the ref as much. The ref rewatched it and thought he made a clear and obvious error so changed the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But my point is the fact it has caused so much debate afterwards between professionals themselves, nevermind just ordinary folk like ourselves, so how can you view that as a clear and obvious error?
posted on 28/11/20
comment by merrysupersteve (monitoring the situation) (U1132)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Loco Liverpool (U18018)
posted 23 minutes ago
They should just take away the "clear and obvious" part, it's not consistently followed and VAR has already disrupted the flow of the game but it's here to stay so they may as well get the decisions right if they are stopping play for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with this. The clear and obvious thing was only there to save face for refs anyway. The point of VAR should be to make sure that decisions are correct, full stop. On this occasion, I thought it was a clear foul anyway though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if that's the case why have we seen so many decisions that are "wrong" because they weren't clear and obvious, the phrase is commonly used because that's what they refer to when looking at the decisions.
posted on 28/11/20
I would argue that VAR has brought more consistency because it has made offsides more black and white. The rules around offside (armpits etc) require to be changed, but the decions now are definitely more consistent.
posted on 28/11/20
90% of issues are that we don't agree with the decisions.
I am seeing subjective "guessing" or actually biased "manipulation" on offside calls. some seem to want to find an offside no matter what and move the lines about until they find one set up they like.
with hand ball and other issues its become so soft its no longer a contact sport in the box.
outside the box we have a virtual free for all though. and thats an issue.
posted on 28/11/20
football is still, despite all attempts from VAR to change things, a contact sport. therefore just because there is some contact it does not automatically follow that there is a foul.
today, both players were trying to kick a ball, welbeck trying to control the ball or pass it to a nearby player, robertson to clear it upfield, away from danger. hence the larger swing, and more force.
BOTH players are justified in going for the ball, and both players put their foot into the same area. so who's to decide that robertson kicked welbeck and not welbeck kicked robertson?
we've all seen how quickly players raise their arms to claim a throw in, corner or penalty, despite knowing full well the ball came off themselves, or one of their own players, or one of their team's just thrown themselves to the ground having felt the softest of nudges in the back. yet today, not one brighton player appealed for a penalty, even welbeck, who it seemed had to stop and think about things for a few seconds before belatedly chucking himself to the floor.
if even the attacking team, who never need any encouragement to claim for anything, don't believe there was enough contact for a foul in the penalty area, and the ref didn't until VAR forced him to relook, then it's quite plain that no clear and obvious error could possibly have occurred.
VAR was bought in to correct clear and obvious errors. it's quite clear that it's gone well beyond that remit, constantly trying to resolve offsides to the micrometre when the only real requirement is that a clear advantage is not gained.
it's now trying to impose itself on the actual running of a game, creating issues and making decisions where no players or on site referees see any reason for it.
the fact that VAR is itself responsible for the enforcement of some of the most clear and obvious errors just makes it's increasing acts of interference all the more ridiculous.
posted on 28/11/20
comment by 20th title coming soon. (U12879)
posted 13 minutes ago
football is still, despite all attempts from VAR to change things, a contact sport. therefore just because there is some contact it does not automatically follow that there is a foul.
today, both players were trying to kick a ball, welbeck trying to control the ball or pass it to a nearby player, robertson to clear it upfield, away from danger. hence the larger swing, and more force.
BOTH players are justified in going for the ball, and both players put their foot into the same area. so who's to decide that robertson kicked welbeck and not welbeck kicked robertson?
we've all seen how quickly players raise their arms to claim a throw in, corner or penalty, despite knowing full well the ball came off themselves, or one of their own players, or one of their team's just thrown themselves to the ground having felt the softest of nudges in the back. yet today, not one brighton player appealed for a penalty, even welbeck, who it seemed had to stop and think about things for a few seconds before belatedly chucking himself to the floor.
if even the attacking team, who never need any encouragement to claim for anything, don't believe there was enough contact for a foul in the penalty area, and the ref didn't until VAR forced him to relook, then it's quite plain that no clear and obvious error could possibly have occurred.
VAR was bought in to correct clear and obvious errors. it's quite clear that it's gone well beyond that remit, constantly trying to resolve offsides to the micrometre when the only real requirement is that a clear advantage is not gained.
it's now trying to impose itself on the actual running of a game, creating issues and making decisions where no players or on site referees see any reason for it.
the fact that VAR is itself responsible for the enforcement of some of the most clear and obvious errors just makes it's increasing acts of interference all the more ridiculous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whi is to decide who kicked whom? The referee, and he decided, quite correctly, Robertson kicked Welbeck.
You also resort to the fallacy that something cannot be a foul because players didn't appeal for it. Maybe they didn't see the incident.
"VAR was bought in to correct clear and obvious errors. it's quite clear that it's gone well beyond that remit, constantly trying to resolve offsides to the micrometre when the only real requirement is that a clear advantage is not gained."
There is literally no requirement for a clear advantage to have been gained for an offside offence to occur. Nor has there ever been such a requirement. You have just made this up to justify your dislike of VAR.
"it's now trying to impose itself on the actual running of a game, creating issues and making decisions where no players or on site referees see any reason for it."
VAR was literally brought in to help get decisions correct when referees might have missed it.
Most of your comments is nonsense.
posted on 29/11/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 13 hours, 9 minutes ago
comment by 20th title coming soon. (U12879)
posted 13 minutes ago
football is still, despite all attempts from VAR to change things, a contact sport. therefore just because there is some contact it does not automatically follow that there is a foul.
today, both players were trying to kick a ball, welbeck trying to control the ball or pass it to a nearby player, robertson to clear it upfield, away from danger. hence the larger swing, and more force.
BOTH players are justified in going for the ball, and both players put their foot into the same area. so who's to decide that robertson kicked welbeck and not welbeck kicked robertson?
we've all seen how quickly players raise their arms to claim a throw in, corner or penalty, despite knowing full well the ball came off themselves, or one of their own players, or one of their team's just thrown themselves to the ground having felt the softest of nudges in the back. yet today, not one brighton player appealed for a penalty, even welbeck, who it seemed had to stop and think about things for a few seconds before belatedly chucking himself to the floor.
if even the attacking team, who never need any encouragement to claim for anything, don't believe there was enough contact for a foul in the penalty area, and the ref didn't until VAR forced him to relook, then it's quite plain that no clear and obvious error could possibly have occurred.
VAR was bought in to correct clear and obvious errors. it's quite clear that it's gone well beyond that remit, constantly trying to resolve offsides to the micrometre when the only real requirement is that a clear advantage is not gained.
it's now trying to impose itself on the actual running of a game, creating issues and making decisions where no players or on site referees see any reason for it.
the fact that VAR is itself responsible for the enforcement of some of the most clear and obvious errors just makes it's increasing acts of interference all the more ridiculous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whi is to decide who kicked whom? The referee, and he decided, quite correctly, Robertson kicked Welbeck.
You also resort to the fallacy that something cannot be a foul because players didn't appeal for it. Maybe they didn't see the incident.
"VAR was bought in to correct clear and obvious errors. it's quite clear that it's gone well beyond that remit, constantly trying to resolve offsides to the micrometre when the only real requirement is that a clear advantage is not gained."
There is literally no requirement for a clear advantage to have been gained for an offside offence to occur. Nor has there ever been such a requirement. You have just made this up to justify your dislike of VAR.
"it's now trying to impose itself on the actual running of a game, creating issues and making decisions where no players or on site referees see any reason for it."
VAR was literally brought in to help get decisions correct when referees might have missed it.
Most of your comments is nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes. and the ref didn't have any issue with the incident UNTIL var intervened. until then the ref's decision was it was a normal sporting incident and required no further action.
the players didn't see it? since when have they needed tso see it to appeal? there's appeals when players think there's any possibility of contact and yet not one of them appealed for anything. but now the player involved, and all 10 other players on his team 'didn't see it'? come on. get real. not one of them was looking towards the ball? and not the ref either? it's his bloody job to look at the ball, if he's not doing that then why's he even on the field.
if you look at the introduction of the original offside rule, the reason given, 'to stop goal hanging, and to prevent the attacking player gaining an unfair advantage'. the rules have been changed regularly since then, the big change was in 1990 by ifab, at the request of the scottish fa, to make the game more attack minded and to give the advantage to the attacking team. every change since then has been to reduce that effect.
i don't dislike VAR, i think if used and applied properly and consistently it can benefit the game. that means not trying to use it to judge decisions to a scale for which it doesn't and can't match at a technical level is wrong. i dislike it being applied using unclear rules, and to a scale for which it is neither designed, or capable, and with inconsistent decision making by it's operators.
var was literally bought in to correct 'clear and obvious' errors. this was neither clear or obvious, as evidenced by the disagreements between various refs, ex refs, players and ex players over the decision.
if it was so clear and obvious, VAR would have made the judgement, not asked the ref to review it.
it also seems like the refs have been ordered to change their decision if asked to review it, since by the law of averages, some of the original decisions would have been upheld by now otherwise.
posted on 29/11/20
You have added nothing except repeat claims that either don't make sense or you have no evidence for.
You say that the ref had no problem until VAR intervened as of this is some sort of evidence that the original decision was correct. You have absolutely no idea why the ref had no problem. It could be that he didn't see it clearly the first time and would have given the penalty of he had. Just a reminder that refs had no problem with Maradona's goal in 86 or the Roy Carroll incident against spurs but you would not be using that as a justification that those incidents were correct. VAR was brought in specifically for incidents that the ref misses.
Again, if players don't need to see an incident to claim for it then why aren't they running round appealing for the entire match? Or do they only appeal when they see an incident that might lead to a decision? So them not appealing is literally no evidence that a foul didn't occur.
Yes, and it was deemed that any player playing the ball from an offside position was gaining an advantage. At no point in the history of offside has there ever been a suggestion that some offside offer no advantage and so can be ignored. The base assumption is that being offside in itself and playing the ball is an advantage. The rules have changed over the years, and are currently the most friendly to attackers that they have ever been.
Your last paragraph is essentially you saying that you are better placed to decide why the ref came to the decision, and that this decision making was ot in error, than the ref who made the decision. If the ref allowed play-on because he didn't think that Robertson made contact with Welbeck (as an example) then he has made a clear and obvious error because there was definitely contact. Just because a decision is subjective and others might have a different interpretation does not mean that the ref didn't make an error in how he came to his original decision.
Also, you have no evidence that refs have been ordered to change their decisions if asked to review. You imply that no decisions have been upheld upon review despite it happening in the spurs v Brighton match. The law of averages would suggest that in this case there would be nowhere near as many upheld decisions as there would be overturned ones since the VAR will only recommend a review if there is a reasonable chance that the ref made an error. If the VAR think that the ref got the decision correct (so the decisions that would mostly be upheld) then they wouldn't suggest a review.