Skip to content

VAR

11011121416

Comments

  • I am a referee so I don’t personally blame them too often.

    The ‘we’ is the collective of the football world - managers, fans who phone in or post on socials and media who obsess about refereeing decisions.

  • Strange that the worst applications of VAR in these championships have come when English referees have been in charge.

  • It's not the referees' fault! They're applying the laws of the game correctly

    What else were they supposed to do tonight? Do you think they got either of them wrong?

  • We are in full agreement then!

    I said when VAR was introduced it would be abysmal (I underestimated quite how bad it would be). I also said it's the fault of everyone who constantly whinges about refereeing decisions, the vast majority of which are correct

  • The thing is, VAR could get everything 100% correct in 15 seconds and it would still be a no from me. The spirit of the game has been sacrificed for the letter of the law. Hence the toe-offsides.

  • I agree 100% Shev, I'm just curious to see the justification for saying it was poorly applied by the English officials

  • Michael Oliver gesturing that Havertz played advantage for the last man tackle on another player out of Havertz’s sight was outrageously poor refereeing. And he didn’t retrospectively book the player, let alone send him off for a blatant professional foul with zero intent to play the ball. Awful English refs all tournament. Awful VAR.

  • I like the lady who explains all the mad rules on ITV. Like a refereeing encyclopaedia

  • One of the stars of the tournament for me.

  • Thing is, ALL referees have an encyclopedic knowledge of the laws of the game.

    Guess who hasn't? Everyone else

  • Football is played by human beings, the rules should applied only by human beings on the pitch within the game environment. All these VAR decisions delay the natural flow of football, Mr Shev has hit the nail on the head. As regards toe end offsides and point blank handballs where a defender cannot possibly get out of the way the current situation is ludicrous. The rules of football are continually being changed by those who have never played football at any competent level who have zero appreciation of how the game is played physically on a football pitch. Football involving AVR is a tough watch.

  • Christina Unkel has been superb. Calm, clear and precise explanations. I agree with the two distinguished gentlemen above.

  • I think 99% of people watching would think the handball decision against Denmark was wrong and Oliver had the option to ignore Attwell once he’d viewed the screen. I reluctantly aaccept that a toenail being offside is still offside but that kind of decision is not why VAR was invented. Neither of the original decisions made by Oliver were clear and obvious errors so I think Attwell is the problem.

  • Don't like VAR, nor the way handball is interpreted. However, Unkel(?) made it very clear that there wasn't an option for Oliver to not give the penalty once Attwell had shown the ball hit the hand given the way the law is written.

    It would be very informative to know who sits on the IFAB panel that decides the laws. They are the ones to blame, in this case, not the VAR or match officials.

  • Under the current handball laws that was, unfortunately, absolutely the correct decision as explained after the game by Christina Unkel.

    It is nonsensical to suggest that Michael Oliver should have ignored the replay and not given it.

    The handball law isn't fit for purpose. That's not the fault of the referees.

  • The thing is, VAR exists because people constantly moaned at referees, and it's not solved anything. Those same people now just moan at VAR decisions

  • At least now it's everybody moaning I guess. Except you know who.

  • If it’s true that Oliver had no choice but to go along with Attwell’s advice then what was the point of sending him to review the decision on screen? It was clearly stated when VAR was introduced that it wasn’t there to re-referee decisions so the final call has to be with the onfield official.

  • is it not “Ref, we think there has been a handball, please check it but you have to make the call”. The ref checked and had to give it. We could all see that the handball rule, daft that it is now, had to be applied.

    I suppose brilliant referring might have been to award the pen and apologise to the defender at the same time.

  • The players are well practiced and habitual cheats, brazenly so, the game encourages this; those who do not practice exaggeration or deceit lose out and those who do prosper. VAR has done nothing to curb this long standing trend and nor has posthumous review, I do not think there are any plans to remedy this situation either. With or without VAR it seems that the footballing world has accepted all this, so who gives a shit about one more drop in the ocean?

    Let’s just stick to tracking the ball so that we know whether it has gone out of play, matter or fact stuff. All the other is a matter of opinion and the most convincing acrobat and the squealiest roll about on the floor should win.

  • Yeah, the thing they have to quickly rule on at ifab or FIFA level isn't the technology, arm position, angle, or millimetres here and there it's intent.

    We could start by making the referee signal to players and the crowd that in his view a defender deliberately, or carelessly put his hand to the ball to stop an opposition attack or benefit their own, as you say it's difficult to tell and subjective and people will dangle an arm like they do with limbs on entering the penalty area but if you basically cave in and say anytime it hits someone's hand in x position it's no goal / penalty you end up with this farce, nobody agrees and you expand, not clear up the debate.

    It's no coincidence though that a couple of referees who seem to be no good at this in the Prem are no good at it in a tournament though, if the home nations have disproportionate input into IFAB as has been suggested we need to stop that right now.

  • https://www.theifab.com/organisation/

    What a ludicrous basis for an organisation.


  • So which of the following do you think should have happened?

    A) VAR reviewed it, saw that it should have been given as handball, but didn't tell the onfield ref?

    B) VAR recommended that the onfield referee review it, but he said no and just gave the goal?

    C) the onfield ref reviewed the replay, saw that it should have been given handball but awarded the goal anyway?


    VAR is an absolute crock of shite, and the current handball law is maybe even worse. But it's absolutely absurd to criticise officials for applying it correctly

  • Your post is confusing. The referee could not have awarded a goal as no goal had been scored. However, what could have happened is that VAR recommend he reviews the incident on screen. He does so and stands by his original decision not to award a penalty.

  • Ed_Ed_
    edited June 30

    So the refs should know the laws, know which of them are clearly insane, uphold the good laws and disregard the rest? That seems to be how the continental VAR people are doing it whereas the Brits for some reason seem to be observing all of the rules. A metaphor for a wider attitude to rules and regulations perhaps?

  • The referees job is to judge an incident against the laws of the game as they are written. It is not his job to judge the incident against what he thinks the laws should be.

    It is VARs job to show the referee what happened. It is not VARs job to judge the incident.

  • Yeah, sorry got that all wrong.

    But in your scenario, he's looked at the replay and seen that by the laws of the game he should award a penalty. And you're saying he shouldn't.

    I think your issue, and it's mine as well, is with the handball law. It's a joke.

    But referees can't ignore it and apply their own

  • I still believe the incident in question is open to interpretation. This is the most recent wording of the handball law by IFAB:

    • touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised

    It could be argued-and the majority of people seem to agree on this-that the position of the Denmark player's hand was indeed a consequence of, or justifiable by, his body movement. Let's just agree that the wording of the law, and VAR in general, has muddied waters that were far from clear in the first place.

  • Well, the qualified referees at the game, in the VAR studio and in the TV studio afterwards all agreed it was a penalty.

Sign In or Register to comment.