Murray and Shearer on 5 Live spent all the time while the ref was looking at the handball VAR stating categorically for the listener why there wasn’t a cat in hell’s chance of the ref allowing the goal to stand, and then all of a sudden...
@Wycombe85 , imagine if a ref did that these days, "Oh they're both of mixed heritage, so I got them mixed up".
He'd be straight into the PC cells.
I still don't know if he actually thought both lads had done crimes, or he knew the first one he'd sent off was in error.
If it's the former, it's at least less infuriating then him knowing he'd made a mistake, and idiotically trying to correct it by putting us massively at a disadvantage.
Right up there with Sean Gregan not getting sent off/jailed for his assaults against Baird and Simpson. Or the lino bottling that obvious handball v Leicester.
1) book the wrong player then
2) someone shouts abuse at you (because you are a massive tw@t
3) oblivious to what you've done send the other guy off too.
Or maybe just be generally rubbish as a lower league ref because you can.
@Malone said: @glasshalffull , yes, goalline tech is unarguable - as it's instant. I'm not sure how much it costs, but I can't believe it costs that much to stop other divisions below the Premier league having it.
The obvious mistakes thing is again, more acceptable, but now it's panned out as being a bunch of faceless individuals watch every goal back, watch every pen and situation back, and are chipping away in the ref's ear.
Yet strangely, the ref still gets the final say, which is what delays it all, as he has to trot to a tv, watch for a min or 2, and then trot back.
Just have a feller sitting on the goal line. Nice and cheap. And for me if someone can't see it's over the line it's not a goal. For me football isn't about millimetres.
VAR is so far beyond useless in the Women’s World Cup that it’s actually ruining games. Utter fucking nonsense in the Australia Brazil game. If it’s ever used again after that farce then consider it as absolute proof that it only exists to line the pockets of some corrupt pricks at FIFA and that they’re going to keep forcing this bullshit on us until stadiums are empty and nobody is watching on TV. If I wanted to watch sport devoid of all humanity I’d watch fucking Formula 1.
And that person did not watch Australia against Brazil, in which a correct decision by the ref and assistant was overruled by VAR and Australia were given a winning goal that should never have been given. It's no longer possible to use the "it's more important to get the decision right" argument.
I know after very marginal decisions that might have escaped in the past people keep saying 'well, I suppose that's what it is there for...' with resignation but except for glaring mistakes it is killing the game for referees and the crowds I think.
I have major reservations about VAR. With the exception of offside-and even that is often debatable-all other decisions are subjective. One man’s clear foul is another man’s strong but fair tackle. It is causing long delays (Wycombe games might not be the last to finish next season!), compromising the moment of joy when a goal is scored and leading to confusion for players and spectators alike. I’m not a fan.
stopping officials missing blatant offsides is laudable...but disallowing some of the close calls where the advantage...if there is one...is so slight it's almost unnoticeable is a bit galling. Would they stop the game for four defenders hanging onto Bayo I wonder?
@glasshalffull No idea if you've had a chance to say that publicly, but if you do I think you should shout it from the rooftops. There seems to be a fear of speaking out amongst your peers and colleagues with a lot of use of "it'll take time to bed in" and "it can only improve" platitudes, but it's never going to get better for exactly the reasons you've outlined in your post. It's going to ruin the game.
It's making football at the top level unwatchable, it really is! It's extracting the joy from the game, you can't celebrate a goal anymore without the worry VAR is going to spot some minor infringement that no-one else noticed.
I’d like to hear Gary Neville holding forth on the topic with the kind of constructive passion he displayed in his diatribe about the changes needed to restore Manchester United to their former pre-eminence. And I’m not a “Man U” fan.
Have to say I disagree with you (and it would seem others) @glasshalffull. Of course all decisions are subjective but VAR allows the referees to see what actually really happened in order to make those critical subjective tight decisions rather than essentially guessing. It will hopefully also have the benefit of at least partially eliminating the diving that really was IMHO in danger of ruining the game.
Yesterday if Australia had not won the game they would in all likelihood have been eliminated from the World Cup. Many of their team would never get the chance to play in one again. Yet the officials initially made what they subsequently believe to have been an error in disallowing the matchwinning goal. When we have ability to avoid those catastrophic errors, it seems perverse to me to say we shouldn't use it.
I'd use it slightly differently (let the video ref make the decision rather than the live ref go over to a screen) but I am pleased it is here to stay.
Fair enough Dev, it’s going to divide opinion among football fans as much as Brexit has divided the country. I’m not certain that it’s here to stay because, if it proves deeply unpopular there’s still the option to phase it out.
Can’t see it being introduced at our level in the foreseeable future as it’s far too expensive to install and operate so those defenders grabbing Bayo’s shirt are safe for a while yet!
There are still huge issues despite this being trialled in different forms for years now, it isn't getting better.
Refs (and particularly Lino's) are letting things go as VAR could pick it up later. Its not clear to paying fans in the stadium what is happening. There's no clarity around when it should be used. A subjective decision when slowed down and rewatched is still a subjective decision but now made under greater pressure. The best games were always the ones when you didn't really notice the ref whereas judged sports (Boxing, Ice things, Cricket) are far more ponderous and open to bias.
Games and tournaments really aren't settled on one decision that often.
I am hoping they are using John Williams's FA Cup goal at Col U as a test case. Might explain why the linesman didn't flag but would it have stood if they had looked at the advertising hoardings being carried around the Wycombe penalty area?
VAR gave penalties in the World Cup final and the Champions League final that wouldn't have been given in 99% of matches in the last 100 years. It has changed the game from fluid to a series of actions. That is wrong
@glasshalffull said:
I have major reservations about VAR. With the exception of offside-and even that is often debatable-all other decisions are subjective. One man’s clear foul is another man’s strong but fair tackle. It is causing long delays (Wycombe games might not be the last to finish next season!), compromising the moment of joy when a goal is scored and leading to confusion for players and spectators alike. I’m not a fan.
Agree with this.
I was at a game it was used at last year, where the opposition scored, their fans cheered. Then 30secs went, and the ref waddled over to do the VAR charade - the home fans all cheered.
The goal was then given, meaning both sides had had a completely unnecessary downer moment!
When we have ability to avoid those catastrophic errors, it seems perverse to me to say we shouldn't use it.
Here it was used to make a catastrophic error though. They watched it 20 times and then gave a goal that should never have stood.
@drcongo, giving that third Aussie goal was indeed a catastrophic error and seriously undermines the case for VAR. The long delay reviewing is bad enough but to then to completely cock it up is unacceptable. I was initially in favour of VAR but I am going off the idea fast.
One of football's charms is that the better team can be eaten by the inferior team, through good tactics, some good fortune, which you make yourself of course, and the odd bad decision or two. I am happy for the latter to continue, I don't need perfect refereeing decisions if it means we keep the drama of those intense few seconds of the ball crossing line and the following ecstasy, not worrying if the goal will stand. Those precious moments are why I keep spending a lot of time and money watching football.
Exactly this @Steve_Peart. Imagine being part of that Scotland squad, twice on the end of a wrong VAR decision and as good as out of the World Cup because of it. Pretty sure there’s been more wrong VAR decisions in this tournament than wrong referee decisions, the complete opposite of what it was supposed to do.
@Steve_Peart and particularly @drcongo , with the greatest respect, I think you have misunderstood what VAR is designed and capable of doing.
VAR allows referees to see what actually happened so that they can base their decisions on the facts of what actually happened rather than an impression of what may have happened. That is all.
VAR cannot interpret what happened. That is the referees job. VAR can tell the referee whether the ball hit a players hand. The referee has to decide whether that handball was "deliberate" under the new rules. VAR can tell a referee whether or not a player was offside. The referee has to decide whether or not that player was "interfering" under the new rules. VAR can tell a referee whether or not there was contact between a defender and forward. The referee must decide whether the contact now seen is enough to justify a foul.
it seems to me perverse to suggest getting rid of a system that allowed an erroneous decision in your opinion to be reviewed just because the referee having reviewed it stuck by the original decision. It seems to me even more perverse to suggest that football is such a poor spectacle that it needs wrong referring decisions to make it interesting.
There is more of an argument to ask whether the time delay to check important decision is a price worth paying to allow referees the opportunity to get more of those decisions right. That is a judgement call. My view is yes it is although as stated above I would get the video ref to just make the decision rather than make the pitch ref wander over to watch it on a screen. I fully understand that others may form a different judgement.
it seems to me perverse to suggest getting rid of a system that allowed an erroneous decision in your opinion to be reviewed just because the referee having reviewed it stuck by the original decision.
Oh, so you didn't see it, this is the opposite of what happened. The goal was not given in real time because the assistant ref correctly flagged for offside. After an interminable wait while the VAR judges watched to over and over, and then the ref did the same, the referee overruled the correct offside decision and gave the goal.
Or for Scotland, where a pen was awarded to England for handball when the ball was kicked from 3.6 yards at a players hand, which in real time took milliseconds and the player had precisely zero chance of moving her arm. When slowed down by the VAR judges it looks like she has plenty of chance to move, so they award the penalty. The correct decision was made by the ref at the time, if it wasn't even possible to see ball hit hand in real time, then there's also no way to move that hand out of the way.
Scotland then get no penalty awarded to them against Japan when a Japanese defender puts her arm across the Scottish attacker to guide the ball down to her feet. Two bad decisions made by the VAR judges have ended their World Cup.
When you don't actually watch any football, live or on TV, I can imagine it's much easier to be in favour of VAR. If it's so ineffectual and counter productive as to be producing a worse set of decisions, and it absolutely ruins the joy of scoring, then really, what is it for?
Oh, so you didn't see it, this is the opposite of what happened. The goal was not given in real time because the assistant ref correctly flagged for offside. After an interminable wait while the VAR judges watched to over and over, and then the ref did the same, the referee overruled the correct offside decision and gave the goal.
The referee judged that that the Australian player was not interfering with play when the brazilian player scored an own goal having watched the action to establish what happened. You may well feel that was a wrong judgement. Maybe it was. If so that is a referring judgement with full knowledge iof what happened and therefore a referee error not a VAR one. as I said VAR gives the referee information on what happened. She must form judgements about whether or not the laws were contravened.
Or for Scotland, where a pen was awarded to England for handball when the ball was kicked from 3.6 yards at a players hand, which in real time took milliseconds and the player had precisely zero chance of moving her arm. When slowed down by the VAR judges it looks like she has plenty of chance to move, so they award the penalty. The correct decision was made by the ref at the time, if it wasn't even possible to see ball hit hand in real time, then there's also no way to move that hand out of the way.
All VAR can do is show the referee what happened. it showed that the ball hit the hand and showed the referee the position the players arm was in and whether it was unnatural (as is the new rule). It is the referees decision whether therefore to interpret the handball as foul play or not based on the facts of what she saw rather than a fleeting interpretation. Frankly VAR or not, the handball law is a mess but that is another argument.
Scotland then get no penalty awarded to them against Japan when a Japanese defender puts her arm across the Scottish attacker to guide the ball down to her feet. Two bad decisions made by the VAR judges have ended their World Cup.
As I said above, the referee didn't see the handball as "deliberate" in real time nor did the VAR judges on review. Again you can disagree - that is a matter of judgement. VAR gave the opportunity for at least the decision to be reviewed. As i said above it is perverse to call for a system to be abandoned because it didn't overturn what you consider to be a wrong refereeing decision
When you don't actually watch any football, live or on TV, I can imagine it's much easier to be in favour of VAR. If it's so ineffectual and counter productive as to be producing a worse set of decisions, and it absolutely ruins the joy of scoring, then really, what is it for?
ignoring the rather silly personal comment, VAR was used at the last world cup correcting many injustices including the germany south Korea game, the senegal colombia game, Brazil Costa Rica game the final etc etc. Similarly it corrected errors in the recent nations league finals. It correctly put Tottenham into the champion league semis instead of Man City. it corrects injustices. Not all but some. As I said above some may judge that the correction of wrong decisions does not justify the time delay - that is a personal judgement. for me it does.
As an aside, the standard of the football on offer in this tournament seems to be significantly ahead of the last major womans tournament - in particular the standard of goalkeeping. Not sure to be honest that the standard of refereeing in the woman's game has progressed at the same rate.
@DevC said: Not all but some. As I said above some may judge that the correction of wrong decisions does not justify the time delay - that is a personal judgement. for me it does.
For those of us that actually attend matches and put our hands in our pockets, the time delay reduces the enjoyment of the game. I accept it is probably an advantage to armchair watchers such as yourself, in that the delay enables you to put the kettle on or have a comfort break without missing the real action.
Comments
Murray and Shearer on 5 Live spent all the time while the ref was looking at the handball VAR stating categorically for the listener why there wasn’t a cat in hell’s chance of the ref allowing the goal to stand, and then all of a sudden...
@Wycombe85 , imagine if a ref did that these days, "Oh they're both of mixed heritage, so I got them mixed up".
He'd be straight into the PC cells.
I still don't know if he actually thought both lads had done crimes, or he knew the first one he'd sent off was in error.
If it's the former, it's at least less infuriating then him knowing he'd made a mistake, and idiotically trying to correct it by putting us massively at a disadvantage.
Right up there with Sean Gregan not getting sent off/jailed for his assaults against Baird and Simpson. Or the lino bottling that obvious handball v Leicester.
I think that one was
1) book the wrong player then
2) someone shouts abuse at you (because you are a massive tw@t
3) oblivious to what you've done send the other guy off too.
Or maybe just be generally rubbish as a lower league ref because you can.
*Weekly reminder there are no pc cells ?
Just have a feller sitting on the goal line. Nice and cheap. And for me if someone can't see it's over the line it's not a goal. For me football isn't about millimetres.
Sex was for my ex girlfriend. Weirdly there was a fella sitting on the goal line as well
VAR is so far beyond useless in the Women’s World Cup that it’s actually ruining games. Utter fucking nonsense in the Australia Brazil game. If it’s ever used again after that farce then consider it as absolute proof that it only exists to line the pockets of some corrupt pricks at FIFA and that they’re going to keep forcing this bullshit on us until stadiums are empty and nobody is watching on TV. If I wanted to watch sport devoid of all humanity I’d watch fucking Formula 1.
Couldn't agree more @drcongo even the most cynical timeswasting in the game can't match that farce for sucking the life out of a game.
And I know someone will say "it's more important to get the decision right". And that someone is dead inside.
And that person did not watch Australia against Brazil, in which a correct decision by the ref and assistant was overruled by VAR and Australia were given a winning goal that should never have been given. It's no longer possible to use the "it's more important to get the decision right" argument.
I know after very marginal decisions that might have escaped in the past people keep saying 'well, I suppose that's what it is there for...' with resignation but except for glaring mistakes it is killing the game for referees and the crowds I think.
I have major reservations about VAR. With the exception of offside-and even that is often debatable-all other decisions are subjective. One man’s clear foul is another man’s strong but fair tackle. It is causing long delays (Wycombe games might not be the last to finish next season!), compromising the moment of joy when a goal is scored and leading to confusion for players and spectators alike. I’m not a fan.
stopping officials missing blatant offsides is laudable...but disallowing some of the close calls where the advantage...if there is one...is so slight it's almost unnoticeable is a bit galling. Would they stop the game for four defenders hanging onto Bayo I wonder?
@glasshalffull No idea if you've had a chance to say that publicly, but if you do I think you should shout it from the rooftops. There seems to be a fear of speaking out amongst your peers and colleagues with a lot of use of "it'll take time to bed in" and "it can only improve" platitudes, but it's never going to get better for exactly the reasons you've outlined in your post. It's going to ruin the game.
It's making football at the top level unwatchable, it really is! It's extracting the joy from the game, you can't celebrate a goal anymore without the worry VAR is going to spot some minor infringement that no-one else noticed.
I’d like to hear Gary Neville holding forth on the topic with the kind of constructive passion he displayed in his diatribe about the changes needed to restore Manchester United to their former pre-eminence. And I’m not a “Man U” fan.
Have to say I disagree with you (and it would seem others) @glasshalffull. Of course all decisions are subjective but VAR allows the referees to see what actually really happened in order to make those critical subjective tight decisions rather than essentially guessing. It will hopefully also have the benefit of at least partially eliminating the diving that really was IMHO in danger of ruining the game.
Yesterday if Australia had not won the game they would in all likelihood have been eliminated from the World Cup. Many of their team would never get the chance to play in one again. Yet the officials initially made what they subsequently believe to have been an error in disallowing the matchwinning goal. When we have ability to avoid those catastrophic errors, it seems perverse to me to say we shouldn't use it.
I'd use it slightly differently (let the video ref make the decision rather than the live ref go over to a screen) but I am pleased it is here to stay.
Fair enough Dev, it’s going to divide opinion among football fans as much as Brexit has divided the country. I’m not certain that it’s here to stay because, if it proves deeply unpopular there’s still the option to phase it out.
Can’t see it being introduced at our level in the foreseeable future as it’s far too expensive to install and operate so those defenders grabbing Bayo’s shirt are safe for a while yet!
The passion and the joy of football is being lost as rules on handball and flagging offside are tweaked to fit the black and white nature of VAR.
I hate it.
There are still huge issues despite this being trialled in different forms for years now, it isn't getting better.
Refs (and particularly Lino's) are letting things go as VAR could pick it up later. Its not clear to paying fans in the stadium what is happening. There's no clarity around when it should be used. A subjective decision when slowed down and rewatched is still a subjective decision but now made under greater pressure. The best games were always the ones when you didn't really notice the ref whereas judged sports (Boxing, Ice things, Cricket) are far more ponderous and open to bias.
Games and tournaments really aren't settled on one decision that often.
Just imagine if VAR had been there for Ainsworth's "goals" against Col U and Shrewsbury.
Here it was used to make a catastrophic error though. They watched it 20 times and then gave a goal that should never have stood.
I am hoping they are using John Williams's FA Cup goal at Col U as a test case. Might explain why the linesman didn't flag but would it have stood if they had looked at the advertising hoardings being carried around the Wycombe penalty area?
VAR gave penalties in the World Cup final and the Champions League final that wouldn't have been given in 99% of matches in the last 100 years. It has changed the game from fluid to a series of actions. That is wrong
Agree with this.
I was at a game it was used at last year, where the opposition scored, their fans cheered. Then 30secs went, and the ref waddled over to do the VAR charade - the home fans all cheered.
The goal was then given, meaning both sides had had a completely unnecessary downer moment!
@drcongo, giving that third Aussie goal was indeed a catastrophic error and seriously undermines the case for VAR. The long delay reviewing is bad enough but to then to completely cock it up is unacceptable. I was initially in favour of VAR but I am going off the idea fast.
One of football's charms is that the better team can be eaten by the inferior team, through good tactics, some good fortune, which you make yourself of course, and the odd bad decision or two. I am happy for the latter to continue, I don't need perfect refereeing decisions if it means we keep the drama of those intense few seconds of the ball crossing line and the following ecstasy, not worrying if the goal will stand. Those precious moments are why I keep spending a lot of time and money watching football.
Exactly this @Steve_Peart. Imagine being part of that Scotland squad, twice on the end of a wrong VAR decision and as good as out of the World Cup because of it. Pretty sure there’s been more wrong VAR decisions in this tournament than wrong referee decisions, the complete opposite of what it was supposed to do.
@Steve_Peart and particularly @drcongo , with the greatest respect, I think you have misunderstood what VAR is designed and capable of doing.
VAR allows referees to see what actually happened so that they can base their decisions on the facts of what actually happened rather than an impression of what may have happened. That is all.
VAR cannot interpret what happened. That is the referees job. VAR can tell the referee whether the ball hit a players hand. The referee has to decide whether that handball was "deliberate" under the new rules. VAR can tell a referee whether or not a player was offside. The referee has to decide whether or not that player was "interfering" under the new rules. VAR can tell a referee whether or not there was contact between a defender and forward. The referee must decide whether the contact now seen is enough to justify a foul.
it seems to me perverse to suggest getting rid of a system that allowed an erroneous decision in your opinion to be reviewed just because the referee having reviewed it stuck by the original decision. It seems to me even more perverse to suggest that football is such a poor spectacle that it needs wrong referring decisions to make it interesting.
There is more of an argument to ask whether the time delay to check important decision is a price worth paying to allow referees the opportunity to get more of those decisions right. That is a judgement call. My view is yes it is although as stated above I would get the video ref to just make the decision rather than make the pitch ref wander over to watch it on a screen. I fully understand that others may form a different judgement.
Oh, so you didn't see it, this is the opposite of what happened. The goal was not given in real time because the assistant ref correctly flagged for offside. After an interminable wait while the VAR judges watched to over and over, and then the ref did the same, the referee overruled the correct offside decision and gave the goal.
Or for Scotland, where a pen was awarded to England for handball when the ball was kicked from 3.6 yards at a players hand, which in real time took milliseconds and the player had precisely zero chance of moving her arm. When slowed down by the VAR judges it looks like she has plenty of chance to move, so they award the penalty. The correct decision was made by the ref at the time, if it wasn't even possible to see ball hit hand in real time, then there's also no way to move that hand out of the way.
Scotland then get no penalty awarded to them against Japan when a Japanese defender puts her arm across the Scottish attacker to guide the ball down to her feet. Two bad decisions made by the VAR judges have ended their World Cup.
When you don't actually watch any football, live or on TV, I can imagine it's much easier to be in favour of VAR. If it's so ineffectual and counter productive as to be producing a worse set of decisions, and it absolutely ruins the joy of scoring, then really, what is it for?
In your first example> @drcongo said:
Not sure where you form that conclusion from????
The referee judged that that the Australian player was not interfering with play when the brazilian player scored an own goal having watched the action to establish what happened. You may well feel that was a wrong judgement. Maybe it was. If so that is a referring judgement with full knowledge iof what happened and therefore a referee error not a VAR one. as I said VAR gives the referee information on what happened. She must form judgements about whether or not the laws were contravened.
All VAR can do is show the referee what happened. it showed that the ball hit the hand and showed the referee the position the players arm was in and whether it was unnatural (as is the new rule). It is the referees decision whether therefore to interpret the handball as foul play or not based on the facts of what she saw rather than a fleeting interpretation. Frankly VAR or not, the handball law is a mess but that is another argument.
As I said above, the referee didn't see the handball as "deliberate" in real time nor did the VAR judges on review. Again you can disagree - that is a matter of judgement. VAR gave the opportunity for at least the decision to be reviewed. As i said above it is perverse to call for a system to be abandoned because it didn't overturn what you consider to be a wrong refereeing decision
>
ignoring the rather silly personal comment, VAR was used at the last world cup correcting many injustices including the germany south Korea game, the senegal colombia game, Brazil Costa Rica game the final etc etc. Similarly it corrected errors in the recent nations league finals. It correctly put Tottenham into the champion league semis instead of Man City. it corrects injustices. Not all but some. As I said above some may judge that the correction of wrong decisions does not justify the time delay - that is a personal judgement. for me it does.
As an aside, the standard of the football on offer in this tournament seems to be significantly ahead of the last major womans tournament - in particular the standard of goalkeeping. Not sure to be honest that the standard of refereeing in the woman's game has progressed at the same rate.
For those of us that actually attend matches and put our hands in our pockets, the time delay reduces the enjoyment of the game. I accept it is probably an advantage to armchair watchers such as yourself, in that the delay enables you to put the kettle on or have a comfort break without missing the real action.
Dev's back