@ReturnToSenda said:
Have to say VAR has been used brilliantly at the Euros (it's barely been noticeable that it's even there). Almost as if we've overcomplicated and made a right meal of it over here.
Probably not seen as much as others but did see the dissallowed France goal last night and the one against Wales at the weekend. Both were quick correct VAR decisions but equally both just looked offside with the naked eye. I think linesmen are told not to flag marginal decisions but maybe someone can correct me if I am wrong.
I do think both goals would have still be disallowed without VAR as the linesman would have flagged and all we are now getting is some justification of VAR based on letting it get some freebie decisions right.
Still got a big problem with letting fans celebrate goals that aren't goals and then seeing the other side celebrate when it gets overturned. That is a manufactured reaction and is not 'great drama'.
Finally in the games I have seen VAR seems very underused on grabbing and shirt pulling at corners. Any idea why as it seemed a big thing at the last World Cup
Agree with all of this. As for the question at the end, I think they just realised it was ruining the spectacle.
Seconded the praise for @Right_in_the_Middle’s post. In a pre-VAR world that would have been flagged immediately and play would have stopped. Instead we saw some brilliant skill by Mbappe to score a ‘goal’, and as a spectator I feel cheated that it has been taken away from me (I would imagine he feels worse). Would much preferred that never happened.
With regards to @ReturnToSenda’s original point though I must admit VAR is being better managed than we seem to over here. Genuinely feels (at the moment) that it is only looking to change decisions for clear and obvious errors.
On a separate (but connected) point I think ITV deserve credit for having regular input from a qualified ref. It’s a little bit anodyne at the moment but I like the idea
On a separate (but connected) point I think ITV deserve credit for having regular input from a qualified ref. It’s a little bit anodyne at the moment but I like the idea
ESPN are using Mark Clattenburg in the same way. He was just making the point that VAR is being used much more efficiently in the EUROs than in the PL.
The standard of officiating in general has been superb as well - and they've been told not to take any nonsense in terms of players going down too easily, which is reassuring to see.
Well, he's there to do just that. And in one match, the co-commentator was taking issue with him about the 'wording' of a foul, and saying that surely that word used in the laws should mean a red. Walton calmly pointed out what the words actually mean, in relation to the colour of the card, and the co-commentator got back into his box with a meek thank-you for Walton's clarification.
If he hadn't 'pointed out the bleeding obvious' then the rant would've continued and a proportion of the viewing public would've been misinformed on a matter of law by a co-commentator who was just plain wrong. Some things are 'opinion' (did the foul match the description in the laws?) and some are fact (that description = that colour card).
@Chris yes - the co-commentator believed that the description 'reckless' should = red card, and Walton explained the relative meanings of 'careless' (foul but no card), reckless (yellow) and 'using excessive force' (red)
If anyone didn't see it, the ref went over to the monitor, watched a frame by frame view of a free kick that hit the wall, stopping at the point that the ball allegedly hit the hand of someone in the wall, even though...
The hand / forearm was behind the ball on the view the ref had, so you couldn't see it
If it did hit his hand, then his hand was on the back of his team mate, so he didn't affect anything at all because it would have hit the other guy's back
If the ref had bothered going forward a few frames, you could see the hand and forearm not on the back of the teammate, but between them.
I liked the split screen we then got to watch, with a view of a referee looking at a screen on one, and a smaller version of exactly the same thing in the corner.
@ReturnToSenda said:
Hasn't raising your arm in the wall always been handball?
Depends when you started watching football
In this case his arm was on his teammate's shoulder and the ball hit it. I suppose by the letter of the law it was a correct decision but it was not raised in such a way to prevent a goal scoring opportunity. A harsh decision I thought so I'm glad the pen was missed.
@ReturnToSenda said:
Hasn't raising your arm in the wall always been handball?
Depends when you started watching football
In this case his arm was on his teammate's shoulder and the ball hit it. I suppose by the letter of the law it was a correct decision but it was not raised in such a way to prevent a goal scoring opportunity. A harsh decision I thought so I'm glad the pen was missed.
So, no, don't think that would have been a handball a few years back. Did he deliberately handle the ball (move hands towards the ball) to gain an advantage would have been the question. I guess it's all a lot quicker now and people could be positioning themselves to block if that was allowed.
I think we were always on a hiding to nothing once slow motion replays came in many years ago, as the fans at home could see things the referee could not, and the sense of outrage grew out of proportion to what it would be in the ground.
Unfortunately, the gradual knock-on effect of "catching the referees up to the fans" has resulted in Zapruder film-style analysis of every single notable incident, so that we are debating toenail and armpit offsides and celebrations are muted as the wait for the VAR check commences.
Though VAR is used with more common sense on the continent, there is not a bin deep enough or dark enough for it to be tossed into, in my opinion.
If it is here to stay there needs to be a massive overhaul of the offside law. A knee, hand or foot extended slightly beyond the defender is not goal-hanging in my book...
@Wendoverman said:
If it is here to stay there needs to be a massive overhaul of the offside law. A knee, hand or foot extended slightly beyond the defender is not goal-hanging in my book...
Thicker lines are apparently the Prems solution for next season, can't imagine it making too much difference.
@Wendoverman said:
If it is here to stay there needs to be a massive overhaul of the offside law. A knee, hand or foot extended slightly beyond the defender is not goal-hanging in my book...
Ah, but a toenail, now that's a different matter altogether! ?
@ReturnToSenda, except in the example cited above I'd argue there is no way to know if the "linesman" would have flagged had he known there was a different (Dutch) VAR policy in place. Because he didn't flag in the UK, doesn't necessarily mean he wouldn't have in the Netherlands.
Whatever happened to "clear and obvious". The genie is out of the bottle; there's no way he's going back in without a fight!
Comments
@Right_in_the_Middle well put.
Agree with all of this. As for the question at the end, I think they just realised it was ruining the spectacle.
Seconded the praise for @Right_in_the_Middle’s post. In a pre-VAR world that would have been flagged immediately and play would have stopped. Instead we saw some brilliant skill by Mbappe to score a ‘goal’, and as a spectator I feel cheated that it has been taken away from me (I would imagine he feels worse). Would much preferred that never happened.
With regards to @ReturnToSenda’s original point though I must admit VAR is being better managed than we seem to over here. Genuinely feels (at the moment) that it is only looking to change decisions for clear and obvious errors.
On a separate (but connected) point I think ITV deserve credit for having regular input from a qualified ref. It’s a little bit anodyne at the moment but I like the idea
ESPN are using Mark Clattenburg in the same way. He was just making the point that VAR is being used much more efficiently in the EUROs than in the PL.
The standard of officiating in general has been superb as well - and they've been told not to take any nonsense in terms of players going down too easily, which is reassuring to see.
I'm not opposed to having an ex-referee on hand, but Peter Walton doesn't half state the bleeding obvious.
Well, he's there to do just that. And in one match, the co-commentator was taking issue with him about the 'wording' of a foul, and saying that surely that word used in the laws should mean a red. Walton calmly pointed out what the words actually mean, in relation to the colour of the card, and the co-commentator got back into his box with a meek thank-you for Walton's clarification.
If he hadn't 'pointed out the bleeding obvious' then the rant would've continued and a proportion of the viewing public would've been misinformed on a matter of law by a co-commentator who was just plain wrong. Some things are 'opinion' (did the foul match the description in the laws?) and some are fact (that description = that colour card).
I just don't think I've ever heard him disagree with a decision in all the time he's been doing it for BT and now ITV.
@LeedsBlue was it ‘reckless’?
@Chris yes - the co-commentator believed that the description 'reckless' should = red card, and Walton explained the relative meanings of 'careless' (foul but no card), reckless (yellow) and 'using excessive force' (red)
That's an absolute fucking nonsense that is.
(not you @LeedsBlue, the handball penalty just given in the Ukraine / North Macedonia game)
Hasn't raising your arm in the wall always been handball?
If anyone didn't see it, the ref went over to the monitor, watched a frame by frame view of a free kick that hit the wall, stopping at the point that the ball allegedly hit the hand of someone in the wall, even though...
Pen was missed anyway.
I liked the ITV referee saying '...the referee will go and look at the screen now...' as the referee ran up to look at a screen though.
I liked the split screen we then got to watch, with a view of a referee looking at a screen on one, and a smaller version of exactly the same thing in the corner.
Depends when you started watching football
In this case his arm was on his teammate's shoulder and the ball hit it. I suppose by the letter of the law it was a correct decision but it was not raised in such a way to prevent a goal scoring opportunity. A harsh decision I thought so I'm glad the pen was missed.
Yeah, I'm not saying I agree with the decision in this case, I just thought the law had been like that for as long as I could remember.
*agree with the decision / agree with that law overall
So, no, don't think that would have been a handball a few years back. Did he deliberately handle the ball (move hands towards the ball) to gain an advantage would have been the question. I guess it's all a lot quicker now and people could be positioning themselves to block if that was allowed.
I think we were always on a hiding to nothing once slow motion replays came in many years ago, as the fans at home could see things the referee could not, and the sense of outrage grew out of proportion to what it would be in the ground.
Unfortunately, the gradual knock-on effect of "catching the referees up to the fans" has resulted in Zapruder film-style analysis of every single notable incident, so that we are debating toenail and armpit offsides and celebrations are muted as the wait for the VAR check commences.
Though VAR is used with more common sense on the continent, there is not a bin deep enough or dark enough for it to be tossed into, in my opinion.
Back, and to the left
If it is here to stay there needs to be a massive overhaul of the offside law. A knee, hand or foot extended slightly beyond the defender is not goal-hanging in my book...
Thicker lines are apparently the Prems solution for next season, can't imagine it making too much difference.
Ah, but a toenail, now that's a different matter altogether! ?
Relaxing the offside rule would be a recipe for disaster, but I think the Dutch method is a decent solution.
@ReturnToSenda, except in the example cited above I'd argue there is no way to know if the "linesman" would have flagged had he known there was a different (Dutch) VAR policy in place. Because he didn't flag in the UK, doesn't necessarily mean he wouldn't have in the Netherlands.
Whatever happened to "clear and obvious". The genie is out of the bottle; there's no way he's going back in without a fight!
Thicker lines are a good, simple idea - which I'm sure we'll still manage to fuck up.
Getting rid of VAR completely is a simple idea, and the best by miles