Liverpool 3-1 Newcastle - Saturday 14th September, 2019

[DeadLinesman]

1 hour ago, Grizzly21 said:

Again, nobody is pinpointing blame to specifically the technology, but more the system. What good does saying "it's not the technologies fault" do when you consider you need a human to make it work?

But they are mate. All you read is VAR is fucking pointless. It really isn’t. It’s just that the officials are as useless as ever. Technology isn’t useless when used correctly. Had the ref given it (which he should have), no debate. Had the VAR team indicated he should look closer at it (which they should have), then we again wouldn’t debate it. VAR can only exist to show the referees what they’ve missed. They’re going to make less errors on the whole. However, I still think the time it takes to make the decision should be quicker.

[Mel81x+]

3 hours ago, DeadLinesman said:

Exactly. And that’s not VAR’s fault, but ridiculously inept officiating. I’ve long advocated referees having a debrief where they have to explain their decisions to the media.

This would clear the air up a lot about why the decisions come about the way they do. As it stands, the match-going and watching public just see a decision then decide what it should have or could have been. The point being debated about the Matip penalty to me is a penalty but we have no idea what the VAR team or the referee were thinking when it was being decided. Would be nice if they did a post-match brief like managers do to clear the air as this is all new ground and should come with some kind of media clarity.

[Cicero]

One of my biggest hopes with VAR is that it will exploit the absurd level officiating in England. Officials need to be held accountable for such poor decisions, and with VAR there shouldn’t be any excuse. 

[DeadLinesman]

4 minutes ago, Mel81x said:

This would clear the air up a lot about why the decisions come about the way they do. As it stands, the match-going and watching public just see a decision then decide what it should have or could have been. The point being debated about the Matip penalty to me is a penalty but we have no idea what the VAR team or the referee were thinking when it was being decided. Would be nice if they did a post-match brief like managers do to clear the air as this is all new ground and should come with some kind of media clarity.

Exactly. It could be much easier to get your head round a decision if the referee goes through the thought process. I’ve seen it in other sports and quite often on Rugby League, the refs are miced up so you here what they’re telling the players.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said:

But they are mate. All you read is VAR is fucking pointless. It really isn’t. It’s just that the officials are as useless as ever. Technology isn’t useless when used correctly. Had the ref given it (which he should have), no debate. Had the VAR team indicated he should look closer at it (which they should have), then we again wouldn’t debate it. VAR can only exist to show the referees what they’ve missed. They’re going to make less errors on the whole. However, I still think the time it takes to make the decision should be quicker.

That is actually a fair point.

I disagree on that it will improve because the people in charge of this sport are absolute puppets, but you’ve actually made me turn my head a bit.

[LFCMadLad]

VAR doesn't work without a competent referee. Considering we dont even have a competent referee on the pitch, I fail to see how VAR is ever going to work?

As i said before... VAR is just another human opinion. Waste of fucking time. 

Also not sure where this whistle comparison comes from? A whistle is there to start and stop a game, nothing else. It costs about 50p.

VAR is a multi million peice of kit designed to assist the referee in making critical decisions correctly, controlled by another referee. Wierd comparison.

Bag of wank. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

VAR doesn't work without a competent referee. Considering we dont even have a competent referee on the pitch, I fail to see how VAR is ever going to work?

As i said before... VAR is just another human opinion. Waste of fucking time. 

The big problem for me is that FIFA believes it’s fine as it is, and anyone in power who speaks against it will get fined or banned. So we’re just going to adjust sadly. The spectacle will never be the same.

[Dr. Gonzo]

4 hours ago, DeadLinesman said:

Exactly. And that’s not VAR’s fault, but ridiculously inept officiating. I’ve long advocated referees having a debrief where they have to explain their decisions to the media.

They should absolutely do that.

The FA will never let that happen though.

[DeadLinesman]

1 hour ago, LFCMadLad said:

Also not sure where this whistle comparison comes from? A whistle is there to start and stop a game, nothing else.

So a referee doesn’t blow his whistle for fouls? Or to indicate when set pieces can be taken? The point being, if a foul occurs and the referee doesn’t blow, it’s the fault of the ref, not the whistle. Just like a referee looking at a recording of the previous play and deciding against punishment, it’s not the fault of the video recording. However, it doesn’t suit your current rhetoric, so of course it’s a weird comparison.........

[Stan]

15 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said:

So a referee doesn’t blow his whistle for fouls? Or to indicate when set pieces can be taken? The point being, if a foul occurs and the referee doesn’t blow, it’s the fault of the ref, not the whistle. Just like a referee looking at a recording of the previous play and deciding against punishment, it’s not the fault of the video recording. However, it doesn’t suit your current rhetoric, so of course it’s a weird comparison.........

I thought it was such a simple analogy to follow as well

[Cicero]

He’ll state the whistle doesn’t delay the game for extended periods of time 

[LFCMadLad]

46 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said:

So a referee doesn’t blow his whistle for fouls?.

Of course. He blows the whistle to stop play when a foul is committed, it alerts the players. He then blows again to re-start play. The whistle is only to stop and start play. 

Your comparison to VAR is way too simplistic. 

Anyway, as said by others, us anti VAR are just going to have to suck it up (keep saying that ).

[Guest]

The whistle comparison is stupid tbh, I think Phil left it good where it can be used to see what is wrong and modify it. However, like I said, with the puppets we have in charge of our sport, nothing will change. And we all know it.

[Dr. Gonzo]

It's not that stupid of a comparison. You blame the person, not the person's tools.

VAR is a tool that a person uses. I do think that seeing VAR's current implementation where just this season I've seen a penalty given when I don't see how a replay would allow for it being given, and then stonewall penalties like that just not given... that indicates it needs work. Because having a video replay and still coming to the incorrect decision is mental.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Cicero said:

One of my biggest hopes with VAR is that it will exploit the absurd level officiating in England. Officials need to be held accountable for such poor decisions, and with VAR there shouldn’t be any excuse. 

Mistakes get made in every league. Fans just have to high expectations of referees in my opinion.

[Cicero]

5 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Mistakes get made in every league. Fans just have to high expectations of referees in my opinion.

If a bad call is made, and an official has VAR as a resource, yet continues to go through with that bad call, he should be questioned as to why he made a call that went against the laws of the game. 

With VAR now, there isn’t any excuse. Human interpretation can be improved on. 

[DeadLinesman]

1 minute ago, Cicero said:

If a bad call is mad, and an official has VAR as a resource, yet continues to go through with that bad call, he should be questioned as to why he made a call that went against the laws of the game. 

With VAR now, there isn’t any excuse. Human interpretation can be improved on. 

This. Absolutely this. Current handball laws aren’t the fault of the VAR technology. Neither are shite decisions. People (not necessarily the forum) keep mentioning this ‘clear and obvious’, but I thought that had been dropped? Anyone know?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Cicero said:

If a bad call is made, and an official has VAR as a resource, yet continues to go through with that bad call, he should be questioned as to why he made a call that went against the laws of the game. 

With VAR now, there isn’t any excuse. Human interpretation can be improved on. 

They can't overturn it unless it is clear and obvious. They don't want the game to be stopped all the time. The Liverpool penalty claim wasn't clear and obvious. You say there is no excuse but when referees explain why certain decisions are made they make sense. I don't think really think fans know what they are talking about when it comes to why certain decisions are made.

[Stan]

1 minute ago, Gunnersauraus said:

The Liverpool penalty claim wasn't clear and obvious

It was. Matip clearly gets pulled down by the defender's hands which are round his neck.

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Stan said:

It was. Matip clearly gets pulled down by the defender's hands which are round his neck.

 

The referee on the commentary explained that it wasn't because they are both jossling for the ball. He said it was a penalty but below the var threshold. I trust trained referees over fans. 

[Stan]

Just now, Gunnersauraus said:

The referee on the commentary explained that it wasn't because they are both jossling for the ball. He said it was a penalty but below the var threshold. I trust trained referees over fans. 

Have you watched the incident though?

Matip barely jostles for it. He gets dragged down as he tries to get the header in. 

I know referees are reluctant to be over-reliant on VAR so the threshold is understandably high, but for me that meets it and then some. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Stan said:

Have you watched the incident though?

Matip barely jostles for it. He gets dragged down as he tries to get the header in. 

I know referees are reluctant to be over-reliant on VAR so the threshold is understandably high, but for me that meets it and then some. 

Yeah I watched the game. I think the threshold should be lower but at the moment it isn't. Personally I think there should be two thresholds. One for clear and obvious and one where it is likely the referee may change his mind if he views the monitor. 

[Harry]

Wow this is repetitive.

8 hours ago, DeadLinesman said:

Exactly. And that’s not VAR’s fault, but ridiculously inept officiating. I’ve long advocated referees having a debrief where they have to explain their decisions to the media.

This, or preferably even hearing the audio exchange between referees during the game. Full transparency. Trying to limit the exposure and opportunity for people to criticise the decision by not having the clear picture of what the referees thought process is just continues to undermine peoples faith in the system.

6 hours ago, Grizzly21 said:

But having a whistle without a human is pointless. It's the same concept with VAR. It needs a human to work. At least with the current technology available.

Again, nobody is pinpointing blame to specifically the technology, but more the system. What good does saying "it's not the technologies fault" do when you consider you need a human to make it work?

Ultimately this is technology being applied in a new way. In the same way Hawkeye (cricket) or the tennis challenge system were refined over time it must also be done to the VAR system. I can obviously be made better. Have 3 video refs and if all 3 agree on a decision then it becomes automatic overrule of the pitch referee. Post Match debrief or in game audio. Better definition of the requirements for decision reversal... All sorts of things that would improve the ability of the system to produce more consistent and Fair decisions.