VAR

[Drog]

Couple of points regarding that WB.
1. Shirts like Villa's are quite good for assessing the difference between arm and shoulder. The ball hit the sky blue of the Villa shirt which is the sleeve and not the claret which covers the body!
Some would say that is an open and shut case but tbf I wouldn't have given it as I believe it has to be the biceps on the upper arm and not the deltoid (shoulder) muscle to constitute hand ball. Take a horizontal line from the armpit and the line follows the bottom end of the deltoid and the top of the bicep and that should be the deciding line between shoulder and arm. not the top of the shoulder for sure! As I say these rules just need qualifying.

2. Here's the kicker though in this example. It would have been a pen without VAR as Ref Michael Oliver had already made his decision to give it. So .
the pen would have stood.

3. A team in Claret an blue and managed by Dean Smith looking likely to be going down? Who cares?

Incidentally what was the issue between Vardy and Reina? Vardy wasn't half giving Reina the verbals after he'd scored that pen.

 

[Wilpshire Blue]

Watch it again at 1:33 on here. It hits his shoulder.
How that is deliberate handball is beyond me.
Ref gives a penalty and VAR is supposed to be there to correct errors but, as with most cases, he / she fails.

Leicester 4-0 Aston Villa: Harvey Barnes and Jamie Vardy score two apiece

Leicester returned to form in a spectacular style with a 4-0 thrashing of Aston Villa at the King Power Stadium that keeps Dean Smith's side in the relegation zone.

www.skysports.com

 

[Drog]

I've watched it loads and managed to stop it at precisely at the moment of contact and see below the ball clearly hit's the sky blue part of the shirt / sleeve and not the claret part of the shirt. It's getting pedantic but if you do the same exercise you will see the same. (Prob a good argument for a club like Villa / Arsenal etc to re-design their shirts and lower the seam.)
Current strip


1980 version.........


Oliver gave the penalty immediately and would have drawn all sorts of criticism by people with access to slo mo IF he hadn't given it as would the chap deciding by VAR. Would you have overruled Oliver when you could clearly see the ball hitting the sleeve and not touching the body of the shirt as Ming's falsely claimed?
As I say the definition of arm and shoulder needs to be based on a lateral line from the armpit as does this design of shirt. Get that right and in situations like this VAR would represent a massive improvement.



btw WB....... Ever thought this is a weird debate between us? I bloody hate IT and you have an IT based business?!?

 

[Wilpshire Blue]

Ha - never thought of it like that - do you want a job??

I'm not against the technology, I'm against the VAR (which is a person, who currently seems to be doing no better than a ref used to do in real time, without stopping the game and looking from every angle available).

And I still don't think that's deliberate handball.

 

[Drog]

Deliberate being a contentious issue of it's own. In my book every hand ball must be deliberate to be punished.

Anyway whilst we are discussing the rules how come Curtis Davies wasn't also sent off for raising his arms and attacking Buckley just before Buckley was red carded? I bet his teammates have said in the dressing room that he should have been sent off for his dreadful first touch that made his second a tackle.
Personally imo it wasn't a sending off but rather a yellow. Buckley's foot could not have been lower, it was a single footed challenge and just a split second late from being a perfect ball winning tackle after a dreadful touch by Davis had effectively made it a 50:50. In situations like those where Davis could see Buckley coming in he would have been better advised not to try to leather it but rather to 'nick it away'. Probably the speed of the challenge influenced the ref but being quick is not an offence is it?
If I was Mowbray and could be sure someone who has actually played the game to a decent level was on the panel I'd challenge that.

 

[Wilpshire Blue]

Another VAR screw-up last night at West Ham.
VAR can't see a ball clearly over the line for Sheff United a week or so back but it can take nearly 4 minutes to decide a bloke laid out on the ground has blocked the view of a goalie who was standing up, when the ball went in the opposite corner.

David Moyes 'losing faith' with VAR after another decision goes against West Ham

Moyes angry despite West Hams victory over Chelsea: Im beginning to lose complete faith in it. I dont want to whinge about decisions but thats what I am doing now, Moyes says of VAR

www.skysports.com

 

[Drog]

1. VAR isn't responsible for goal line decisions is it? That is down to goal line technology by Hawk Eye. Besides until the Sheff Utd cock up it's been responsible for giving correct judgements and has been immensely popular ....... apart of course from the latter day 'luddites' amongst us.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...l-innovation-referee-microphone-a8618306.html

2. The offside verdict was correct. VAR technology revealed clearly that the player was in an off side position when the ball was last played. Whether he was interfering or not is down to a. the letter of the law and b. the person interpreting it. . VAR is just a tech tool which helps the officials make correct decisions but that does not guarantee they use it properly, they can only work to the rules of the game.

Just think if we'd had VAR in Mexico 1986 and Hawk Eye in South Africa 2010 we might now have won 3 World Cups! I doubt anyone can argue that the two biggest decisions in English football over the past two decades were completely, utterley and totally wrong..

 

[Wilpshire Blue]

1. With the Sheff United "goal", the VAR officials accepted that the rules allowed them to check goals but they decided not to

2. It was obvious part of the body of the guy laid out on the floor was in an offside position - so why did it take just shy of 4 minutes to make up their minds? VAR is not "just a tech tool", VAR stands for Video Asisstant Referee and is the person given the tech tools to help out the on-field ref.

This season they have shown themselves to be inept and incapable of undertaking the role and using the technology available.
They seem to selectively decide when to intervene, they give offsides because someone's big toe is marginally past the last defender, when their objective is to correct "clear and obvious mistakes" that the on-field ref should have seen or couldn't see due to obstruction.
if you need 4 minutes to replay from every possible angle then it isn't clear and obvious and the on-field decision should stand.

The technology (apart from that one Hawkeye cock-up that should have been overruled) is fine - the VAR is far from fine and should be consigned to the bin of failed experiments or radically overhauled.

Geoff Hurst might be glad there was no Hawkeye in 66

 

[Drog]

I know. I was going to mention it but by winning by two clear goals in 66 I didn't think it was relevant.

 

[Wilpshire Blue]

I know. I was going to mention it but by winning by two clear goals in 66 I didn't think it was relevant.

Aye but at the time it was 2-2 and a key moment.

 

[Drog]

Never in doubt!

 

[Wilpshire Blue]

The VAR eejits strike again tonight.
Just plain idiotic

Tottenham: Jamie Redknapp slams VAR decision to rule out equaliser at Sheffield United

Tottenham beaten at Sheffield United after controversial call

www.skysports.com

 

[Drog]

Similar incident with Man City's 5th goal chalked out. Just imagine if that goal had mattered??? The camera doesn't lie but it's the interpretation that needs to improve. Personally I've always maintained that handball HAS to be intentional but the rules must now state every handball has to be penalised.

 

[Wilpshire Blue]

How many more cock-ups before it's thrown out?

VAR: Premier League confirms wrong penalty decisions in all Thursday games

Incorrect penalty decisions were made by the video assistant referee in all three of Thursday's games, the Premier League tells BBC Match of the Day.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[davebirch]

Was thinking the same thing WB.
Has anyone got any faith in this system?

 

[Old Darwen Blue]

Was thinking the same thing WB.
Has anyone got any faith in this system?

Theno does.

 

[Drog]

Indeed so. And I'm right too. VAR is virtually 100% accurate, it's the people interpreting it who are variable (see below).
I've only seen the Bournmouth v Spurs incident but if WB had his way and VAR was banned it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference. Tierney didn't give it he wouldn't if there was no VAR. You can't have your cake and eat it you know.
Personally speaking I agree with Tierney and don't think it was enough for a pen as 1. kane went down a little too easily. 2. I don't believe it was intentional as King was watching the ball the whole time. Oh! and 3. King is an ex Rover.

However tbf VAR also chalked off two Bournemouth goals, the second of which was really hard luck as the ball was going in the net whether it flicked off King's hand or not. Again I believe 'intentional' is not given enough credence. Odds on at least one of those goals would have stood without VAR because I doubt the officials would have seen the ball brush Kings arm.

For decades we have had the benefit of tv slo mo replays, so much so that we have got over used to them too. Every Saturday night until VAR we have complained about refereeing decisions despite the poor old ref only having one full speed version to judge upon. We've seen the dark arts practised time and again when the BIG clubs are concerned and have been rightly indignant. Now we have taken a massive step forward in getting correct decisions and the big boys having to toe the line and some people still moan.

Tell you what the ONLY way fwd for you Tech luddites is to do away with slo mo replays all round. No VAR, no SLO MO on the telly just real time action where the referees decision is final and we don't have a chance to dissect the action and criticise the Ref after the match. How do you fancy that and how much would you trust your own judgement to get it right every time?

 

[Wilpshire Blue]

You are still confusing the technology with the pillocks using it Drog

 

[Old Darwen Blue]

Indeed so. And I'm right too. VAR is virtually 100% accurate, it's the people interpreting it who are variable (see below).
I've only seen the Bournmouth v Spurs incident but if WB had his way and VAR was banned it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference. Tierney didn't give it he wouldn't if there was no VAR. You can't have your cake and eat it you know.
Personally speaking I agree with Tierney and don't think it was enough for a pen as 1. kane went down a little too easily. 2. I don't believe it was intentional as King was watching the ball the whole time. Oh! and 3. King is an ex Rover.

However tbf VAR also chalked off two Bournemouth goals, the second of which was really hard luck as the ball was going in the net whether it flicked off King's hand or not. Again I believe 'intentional' is not given enough credence. Odds on at least one of those goals would have stood without VAR because I doubt the officials would have seen the ball brush Kings arm.

For decades we have had the benefit of tv slo mo replays, so much so that we have got over used to them too. Every Saturday night we have complained about refereeing decisions despite until VAR the poor old ref only having one full speed version to judge upon. We've seen the dark arts practised time and again when the BIG clubs are concerned and have been rightly indignant. Now we have taken a massive step forward in getting correct decisions and the big boys having to toe the line and some people still moan.
Tell you what the ONLY way fwd for you Tech luddites is to do away with slo mo replays all round. No VAR, no SLO MO on the telly just real time action where the referees decision is final and we don't have a chance to dissect the action and criticise the Ref after the match. How do you fancy that?

That will do for me.

 

[AllRoverAsia]

Similar incident with Man City's 5th goal chalked out. Just imagine if that goal had mattered??? The camera doesn't lie but it's the interpretation that needs to improve. Personally I've always maintained that handball HAS to be intentional but the rules must now state every handball has to be penalised.

Made up by men in suits who have never kicked a round ball.