England World Cup Squad

[Deleted Cyber]

All this opposition for a system which is still on trial. As for killing football, that's hyperbolic nonsense. The same type of $#@! has been espoused for years about goalline tech, the back pass rule, substitutions and the offside rule.

It's just people's resistance to change. Whether you think it the decision was tight or wrong in the game the argument that the referee did not get it wrong according to the rules is a good thing. Missing handball's, goals not going in and blatant dives are all going to be eventually eliminated by VAR and that can only be a good thing, unless people think cheating to win is a good thing.

I am not resistant to change. I am also no technophobe. I also agree that elimination of what amounts to cheating is a good thing. But, if you are using the standard that saw last nights penalty awarded, then you will get 4/5 penalties per game. The whole thing is to remove the shocker or even the poor decision. The either way call , which this was as the ref awarded a corner, should stick with the original decision unless clear and obvious. For it to be clear and obvious it must be clear and obvious at normal speed. Here is an example of the sort of thing VAR should , in my view , sort. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43472827

Last nights pena;ty is causing great debate. By the letter of the law it is a foul. However before VAR these were rarely given. Now with VAR they will be given with far more regularity. Vis a vis this will change football in a way none of your aforementioned changes did. Its changed cricket fundementally. And cricket has umpires call.

 

[Johnny75]

I am not resistant to change. I am also no technophobe. I also agree that elimination of what amounts to cheating is a good thing. But, if you are using the standard that saw last nights penalty awarded, then you will get 4/5 penalties per game. The whole thing is to remove the shocker or even the poor decision. The either way call , which this was as the ref awarded a corner, should stick with the original decision unless clear and obvious. For it to be clear and obvious it must be clear and obvious at normal speed. Here is an example of the sort of thing VAR should , in my view , sort. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43472827

Last nights pena;ty is causing great debate. By the letter of the law it is a foul. However before VAR these were rarely given. Now with VAR they will be given with far more regularity. Vis a vis this will change football in a way none of your aforementioned changes did. Its changed cricket fundementally. And cricket has umpires call.

Everything else you've written is how you want the law and tech to be reported, the bit in bold proves the ref correct. People can argue but it is a foul.

All of the previous changes affected the game, particularly the offside rule, probably moreso than any other.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Everything else you've written is how you want the law and tech to be reported, the bit in bold proves the ref correct. People can argue but it is a foul.

All of the previous changes affected the game, particularly the offside rule, probably moreso than any other.

But thats the point Johnny. The grey of interpretation has now been removed completely with this VAR if "Clear and Obvious" is not the standrad. Last nights really is not clear and obvious by any stretch of the imagination. Especially in real time. It it had not been given not a soul would have complained. There may be some who say that it "could" have been given, but "could have been given" is quite different from "clear and obvious".
By the letter of the law the shirt holding at corners and set pieces is a foul once the ball is in play. That would mean 10 penalties a match . Granted it may be good to eliminate it from the game.

 

[b3h]

In other news, how tall was that ref!

 

[Johnny75]

But thats the point Johnny. The grey of interpretation has now been removed completely with this VAR if "Clear and Obvious" is not the standrad. Last nights really is not clear and obvious by any stretch of the imagination. Especially in real time. It it had not been given not a soul would have complained. There may be some who say that it "could" have been given, but "could have been given" is quite different from "clear and obvious".
By the letter of the law the shirt holding at corners and set pieces is a foul once the ball is in play. That would mean 10 penalties a match . Granted it may be good to eliminate it from the game.

It was clear and obvious to the ref.

 

[Carrotdude]

But in cricket and NFL “clear and obvious” is because you can’t actually tell whether the ball hit the floor, ball crossed the plane etc. So you have to guess. So they don’t guess, they go with the ruling on field.

The ref watched the video, and deemed treading on his foot a penalty. There is no debate there. You could see clearly what happened. The ref felt that was a penalty so gave it. Your issue isn’t with VAR, it’s with the ruling itself.

The decision was also made pretty quick. Didn’t seem long and I’m pretty sure the player was still on the floor getting treatment.

I wasn’t talking about this specific decision as I didn’t see it I was just talking about what VAR should be for in general. What you describe is fine imo, ref gives it and there’s no obvious reason to overturn on review so it stays even if some people would argue it’s a bad decision.

 

[Banjo]

I think the difference between football and, say, rugby when it comes to VAR is there is a lot more subjectivity in football when it comes to infringements. In rugby, the video ref might notice, say, a late tackle which the ref missed because he was following the ball and the ref will review and the majority of people in the ground (irrespective of allegiance) will usually agree with the ref's conclusion.

In football, no one ever agrees on whether a foul is a foul because (1) foul play in football is filled with grey areas, meaning a lot of the decision-making is subjective and (2) most football fans tend to be spectacularly one-eyed when it comes to their own team. That's why football fans blame referees when things don't go their way more than rugby fans do.

In the ref's subjective opinion, the challenge last night was a foul. People don't like the fact that he made that decision. People are annoyed that he wouldn't have made what they consider to be a wrong decision if it wasn't for VAR. In my view, this isn't VAR's fault, it's just the same old story of football fans disagreeing with the referee's interpretation. I accept that the VAR referral system in football isn't working and no one ever seems to have a clue what's going on. Part of the issue is that football refs aren't mic'd up, which leaves TV audiences completely in the dark. Presumably a mic on a football ref would mean that no football would be broadcastable before the watershed because of the oiks who play the game swearing in the refs' face all the time (why that's not a yellow card offence, I've no idea).

 

[The Bear]

NFL's system is great as it's a more black and white sport to officiate. There are still grey areas in it though, like what constitutes a fair catch, control of the football, etc.

I'm not sure why they are trying to make VAR the be all and end all in every key decision though. Referees just see it as an easy get out after making an initial decision.

 

[nimrod]

can't say i agree with cyber either.

if VAR meant a ref changes his thoughts from no penalty to penalty or from onside to offside (goal/no goal), you can't get a more clear and obvious error in his eyes than that.
the point is, it's his call, not Cyber's on the wolves forum or anyone else's.
personally i did think his decision is fundamentally wrong and does highlight a problem with how VAR can be applied by a referee.
for me there's a context to the contact. the big picture is that the forward has lost control of the ball and is falling anyway.
incidental contact that's accidental and doesn't change that big picture shouldn't enable a decision that does change that big picture.
if the guy had control and was lining up a shot, it would be different. if there was a deliberate attempt to chop him, it would be different.
so I don't believe you can simply referee based on a still frame, you have to look at the total context of what's happened. that's why for me it's a bad decision.

 

[PuntsWolf]

By the letter of the law the shirt holding at corners and set pieces is a foul once the ball is in play. That would mean 10 penalties a match . Granted it may be good to eliminate it from the game.

Well you’ve said yourself. These things should be penalties but aren’t. Hopefully being scrutinised by a camera removes people doing these things. Then you won’t get “4 or 5 penalties a game”.

If they actually had the balls to use retrospective action correctly they could eliminate a lot of problems. Allow red cards to be rescinded. Allow yellow cards to be upgraded if the ref was too lenient (like the assaults on Jota this season, the fact Wheater and Roberts only got Yellows for those horror shoes is a joke, particularly as Wheaters was premeditated. Allow a player booked for diving to be banned if proven afterward. Retract a wrongly issued card for diving.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Well you’ve said yourself. These things should be penalties but aren’t. Hopefully being scrutinised by a camera removes people doing these things. Then you won’t get “4 or 5 penalties a game”.

If they actually had the balls to use retrospective action correctly they could eliminate a lot of problems. Allow red cards to be rescinded. Allow yellow cards to be upgraded if the ref was too lenient (like the assaults on Jota this season, the fact Wheater and Roberts only got Yellows for those horror shoes is a joke, particularly as Wheaters was premeditated. Allow a player booked for diving to be banned if proven afterward. Retract a wrongly issued card for diving.

I actually agree with you in that I think it will discourage a lot of things. But for people to say it wont fundementally change football doesnt sit well with me. It will change it , a helluva lot IMHO

 

[PuntsWolf]

Not sure what you mean by that. What constitutes a fair catch is simple enough, the punt returner waves his arms and if he gets hit it's a penalty - and I'm pretty sure that's not reviewable anyway.

He means reception rather than waving for a fair catch. They’ve changed the rule on receptions the other day.

So the Jesse James catch for the steelers which was ruled not a catch as the ball was grounded when he reached for the line would now be a catch and a TD as the process of reaching for the line is now deemed having control.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

I have had a think about this. I still think the right decision was finally reached. It is a foul by Tarkowski, even though Chiesa did everything he could to a) draw the contact, and b) make sure it was seen. However, and this is where I am slightly bothered, the referee clearly signalled for a corner at first blush. What was the catalyst for him looking at the screen to make his final decision? If it was off his own bat as he wasn't as sure as he wanted to be, but signalling corner meant play would stop for him to check, then all well and good. If it was a word in his ear from some bloke in a van watching the TV feed, I really, REALLY don't feel comfortable with that as process.

In other thoughts, I reckon England actually did okay last night. There are clear deficiencies to work on, but it struck me as a fairly positive night overall.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

That is the process, Mr VAR gets in his ear and says 'there's an incident'.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

I figured it was. As I say, I'm not really sure I am comfortable with that. Man in Van is more useful surely for someone who thumps an opposition player behind the ref's back and things like that, rare as they are.

I still say that the best way is to go down the rugby union route. That clearly works, and is communicated to both those in the ground and watching on the box. Use of VAR isn't the issue - communication of the use is.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

I have had a think about this. I still think the right decision was finally reached. It is a foul by Tarkowski, even though Chiesa did everything he could to a) draw the contact, and b) make sure it was seen. However, and this is where I am slightly bothered, the referee clearly signalled for a corner at first blush. What was the catalyst for him looking at the screen to make his final decision? If it was off his own bat as he wasn't as sure as he wanted to be, but signalling corner meant play would stop for him to check, then all well and good. If it was a word in his ear from some bloke in a van watching the TV feed, I really, REALLY don't feel comfortable with that as process.

In other thoughts, I reckon England actually did okay last night. There are clear deficiencies to work on, but it struck me as a fairly positive night overall.

With this post you and I are much closer than last night on this

 

[b3h]

I didn't realise it was Mr VAR who started the process, I thought it was the ref. I'm not comfortable with that.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

I didn't realise it was Mr VAR who started the process, I thought it was the ref. I'm not comfortable with that.

Agreed. It begs the question about Stones, holding earlier too. That fitted into the same category of could have been given.

 

[Johnny75]

I didn't realise it was Mr VAR who started the process, I thought it was the ref. I'm not comfortable with that.

Why? It happens in rugby and other sports.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Usually in rugby the ref asks the VAR to check something. The time when the word in the ear is the other way round is serious foul play that the ref may have missed. Not on whether it is a penalty or not, we are talking dangerous entry into a ruck or things like gouging.