VAR

[MARKakaJIM]

If they are a work colleague at the same level within the organisation then undermining them alters your working relationship and makes you reticent to do it. That's where we are at

Well they're too precious. I'd rather someone pointed out my mistake rather than let it slide for the sake of my pride, could be much bigger implications down the line otherwise. Same the other way around, I'd rather tell a colleague they're going about something the wrong way before it blows up in their face.

That's why I'd keep it as the same group alternating between on pitch activities and VAR duties, let them be on both sides of it and they should be more open to making/accepting the decisions on each other's behalf.

 

[VanWolfie]

The purpose of VAR is to safeguard the integrity of the competitive game. The way Mike Riley has used it is to protect the integrity of referees. To be effective, VAR needs to have a separate and distinct set of TV analysts (former referees, former players) who are not active referees. The active referees do their job in the middle, the video analysts do their job ensuring that nothing untoward or unfair happens because the ref in the middle cannot see everything. By using active referees to act as VAR analysts, we have a set-up in which active referees protect their colleagues, leading to the atrocious mess that VAR has become. If only the PGMOL would swallow their pride and talk to rugby officials and learn how they have done it for years. The active referee in the middle is always in conversation with the TMO (a non-active referee) who has complete freedom to point out anything that the referee might have missed. What often happens is that the active referee in the middle asks the TMO what was going on in a particular incident which they then watch together on the stadium screen as they converse about what decision is called for. It is a conversation between two people who are equals but fulfilling different roles. The referee also sometimes brings his Assistant referees into the discussion. Most times the discussion is quick and the decision definitive. Any serious difference, then the referee's on-field decision is upheld.

If this approach were adopted, Attwell's appalling decision to penalize Neto on Sunday would never have happened.

 

[Jinky]

Neither of which would have been affected by VAR, irrespective of who is operating it. One was a failure of a different technology, the other not part of the review system anywhere in the world

That’s my point. A simple tweak allowing the referee (or the VAR referee - doesn’t have to be the on-field ref) the ability to overrule clear and obvious errors - like the failure with Hawkeye in the Villa game etc - just makes everyone’s life so much easier. For the on field ref to be the one overruling the decision he’d need a second look, hence my suggestion of viewing it on a monitor.

Saying “VAR can’t get involved because of X” just makes no sense what so ever. That’s essentially my main point. How they decide to do it doesn’t bother me - but having a system in place that’s “not allowed to get involved” when there’s a clear and obvious error just makes no sense.

 

[Tony Towner]

That’s my point. A simple tweak allowing the referee (or the VAR referee - doesn’t have to be the on-field ref) the ability to overrule clear and obvious errors - like the failure with Hawkeye in the Villa game etc - just makes everyone’s life so much easier. For the on field ref to be the one overruling the decision he’d need a second look, hence my suggestion of viewing it on a monitor.

Saying “VAR can’t get involved because of X” just makes no sense what so ever. That’s essentially my main point. How they decide to do it doesn’t bother me - but having a system in place that’s “not allowed to get involved” when there’s a clear and obvious error just makes no sense.

I get you.

The Villa one I agree, it's a freak incident and the fact it wasn't overturned due to protocol damages the integrity of the game.

Not so sure on our free kick though, when do you review it, before it's taken? That'll be really stop start, Sunday's was a dive, but there's countless others where there is contact and it comes down to interpretation. After the goal? I have an integrity issue with that.

Which decisions do you say can be reviewed? Anywhere on the pitch? Again too stop start for me. Within 30 yards of the goal? Are you doing it for attacking fouls aswell then? What about an incorrectly given free kick just inside your own half that gets lumped into the box and a goal is scored off the second ball?

In summary I think that would damage the game more than help it. I would be in favour of a managers appeal though, one per game which you keep if successful. You just need to find a way to penalise those that use it frivolousy in the last few minutes of the game. Maybe an additional 2 minutes if the ref believes it was done to waste time.

 

[PuntsWolf]

Just like subs, an appeal shouldn’t be able to “waste time”. Kill flow of game possibly but shouldn’t actually take any seconds off the length of the game. Now I know it does, but that is more down to incompetent officiating than anything.

I can’t see how one appeal (which may have already been used) can affect the latter stage of the game more than subs, feigning injury, kicking the ball away, delaying taking goal kicks, FKs and throw ins.

 

[Dinowolf]

Good discussion this.

I have tried to find a good arbiter report on how VAR affected us this season. I know it's too late to make a difference to results etc. but hopefully the report would show the disparity for clubs, and how that should be 'smoothed' as a matter of priority.

Personally, I like the Rugby Union comparison, as I think they have it as fair as possible.

The report that I have used is that shown by ESPN on their site with this link

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/eng...sions-have-affected-every-premier-league-club

The individual incidents are listed and shows Wolves had 2 decisions in our favour and 7 against us, giving an overall -5.

 

[Dinowolf]

I split it over two entries as I felt it would be too cumbersome otherwise.

This is the Premier League table Net scores.

Brighton & Hove Albion +8
Manchester United +7
Crystal Palace +4
Burnley +3
Newcastle +3
Southampton +3
Liverpool +2
Leicester City +1
Tottenham Hotspur +1
Manchester City 0
Arsenal -1
Everton -1
AFC Bournemouth -2
Chelsea -2
Watford -2
Aston Villa -3
West Ham -4
Sheffield United -5
Wolves -5
Norwich City -7

Two teams have been very fortunate recipients of positive results, while three teams have been very unfortunate recipients of negative results.
My contention is that the system needs to change to 'smooth' out this table as much as possible.

 

[darlowolf64]

From the table you posted Dino, the important factor for me would be how many wrong decisions or millimetre offside decisions were given to/given against teams.

Yes teams may have gained 7 or 8 positive decisions but were they all the CORRECT decision?

I’d like to see that table adjusted for tight offsides that should have counted and blatant wrong calls

 

[Tony Towner]

That table doesn't take into account decisions VAR didn't overturn. Utds penalty at Villa being a recent example

 

[Dinowolf]

That table doesn't take into account decisions VAR didn't overturn. Utds penalty at Villa being a recent example

The penalty awarded against us in the Burnley game is another example. Deliberate handball? I don't think so.
No table is a silver bullet for everything, so you need to find one that deals with that particular issue.
I was trying to add to the discussion in a positive way and not be negative about what someone else has said.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Should be scrapped. Terrible idea. Terrible implementation.

 

[Dinowolf]

From the table you posted Dino, the important factor for me would be how many wrong decisions or millimetre offside decisions were given to/given against teams.

Yes teams may have gained 7 or 8 positive decisions but were they all the CORRECT decision?

I’d like to see that table adjusted for tight offsides that should have counted and blatant wrong calls

I haven't seen all the games so can't comment on whether the decisions were correct or not, and whether something is correct or not has been made subjective by the way VAR has been interpreted/used this season.

Of the games I've seen VAR has been used in a way I would say is not good for fans and not good for the game, and I would join in advocating the system used in Rugby.

 

[Dinowolf]

These are the decisions made involving Wolves included in the ESPN report.

Game: Leicester (A; Aug. 11)
Incident: Wolves goal for Leander Dendoncker disallowed for handball in build-up by Willy Boly, 51st minute - AGAINST

Game: Southampton (H; Oct. 19)
Incident: Raul Jimenez goal ruled out for offside against Patrick Cutrone, 42nd minute - AGAINST

Game: Man City (H; Dec. 27)
Incident: Penalty awarded (missed by Raheem Sterling) for foul on Riyad Mahrez by Leander Dendoncker, 21st minute - AGAINST
Incident: Missed City penalty retaken due to encroachment by Connor Coady . Retake scored by on rebound by Raheem Sterling, 25th minute - AGAINST

Game: Liverpool (A; Dec. 29)
Incident: Goal for Sadio Mane given after originally ruled out for handball by Adam Lallana, 42nd minute - AGAINST
Incident: Goal for Pedro Neto ruled out for offside in the build-up by Jonny, 45th minute - AGAINST

Game: Watford (A; Jan. 1)
Incident: Christian Kabasele sent off for professional foul after originally being booked, 68th minute - FOR


Game: Southampton (A; Jan. 18)
Incident: Penalty awarded (scored by Raul Jimenez) for foul on Jonny by Jack Stephens, 65th minute - FOR

Game: Leicester (A; Feb. 14)
Incident: Wolves goal for Willy Boly disallowed for offside in build-up by Pedro Neto, 44th minute - AGAINST

Decide for yourself whether these were 'correct' or not.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Leicester - correct (awful rule but it was followed correctly)
Southampton - correct, he was off
City pen - dive, incorrect
City retake - correct
Liverpool goal - probably correct but I'm still convinced the ref blew for handball and at that point VAR shouldn't be getting involved
Liverpool Neto goal - incorrect, no way was Jonny conclusively off
Watford red - correct
Southampton - correct
Leicester - incorrect, same as the goal at Anfield, the evidence was not there to suggest it was a clear error

 

[Kenny]

Game: Leicester (A; Aug. 11)
Incident: Wolves goal for Leander Dendoncker disallowed for handball in build-up by Willy Boly, 51st minute - AGAINST - Correct but that is the shit rule and only VAR could spot it

Game: Southampton (H; Oct. 19)
Incident: Raul Jimenez goal ruled out for offside against Patrick Cutrone, 42nd minute - AGAINST - Correct

Game: Man City (H; Dec. 27)
Incident: Penalty awarded (missed by Raheem Sterling) for foul on Riyad Mahrez by Leander Dendoncker, 21st minute - AGAINST - Bollocks
Incident: Missed City penalty retaken due to encroachment by Connor Coady . Retake scored by on rebound by Raheem Sterling, 25th minute - AGAINST - Correct but shouldn't have been a penalty

Game: Liverpool (A; Dec. 29)
Incident: Goal for Sadio Mane given after originally ruled out for handball by Adam Lallana, 42nd minute - AGAINST - Thought the official line was no whistle was blown for anything (even though there was). VAR spent way too much time covering themselves for something on this goal but it was probably a goal, but they made a right mess of it via their communication

Incident: Goal for Pedro Neto ruled out for offside in the build-up by Jonny, 45th minute - AGAINST Techincally correct but I will never agree to ruling out goals for a stud being offside and nearly 3 minutes spent trying to find it


Game: Watford (A; Jan. 1)
Incident: Christian Kabasele sent off for professional foul after originally being booked, 68th minute - FOR - Thought he was sent off and VAR just checked to see if it was a red. Either way, correct


Game: Southampton (A; Jan. 18)
Incident: Penalty awarded (scored by Raul Jimenez) for foul on Jonny by Jack Stephens, 65th minute - FOR - Correct

Game: Leicester (A; Feb. 14)
Incident: Wolves goal for Willy Boly disallowed for offside in build-up by Pedro Neto, 44th minute - AGAINST - Same as the Neto goal v Liverpool

 

[PuntsWolf]

Based on laws agreed at start of season:

These are the decisions made involving Wolves included in the ESPN report.

Game: Leicester (A; Aug. 11)
Incident: Wolves goal for Leander Dendoncker disallowed for handball in build-up by Willy Boly, 51st minute - AGAINST
CORRECT

Game: Southampton (H; Oct. 19)
Incident: Raul Jimenez goal ruled out for offside against Patrick Cutrone, 42nd minute - AGAINST
CORRECT

Game: Man City (H; Dec. 27)
Incident: Penalty awarded (missed by Raheem Sterling) for foul on Riyad Mahrez by Leander Dendoncker, 21st minute -
DONT THINK IT IS. SEEN THEM GIVEN

Incident: Missed City penalty retaken due to encroachment by Connor Coady . Retake scored by on rebound by Raheem Sterling, 25th minute - AGAINST
CORRECT

Game: Liverpool (A; Dec. 29)
Incident: Goal for Sadio Mane given after originally ruled out for handball by Adam Lallana, 42nd minute - AGAINST
CORRECT
Incident: Goal for Pedro Neto ruled out for offside in the build-up by Jonny, 45th minute - AGAINST
CORRECT

Game: Watford (A; Jan. 1)
Incident: Christian Kabasele sent off for professional foul after originally being booked, 68th minute - FOR
CORRECT


Game: Southampton (A; Jan. 18)
Incident: Penalty awarded (scored by Raul Jimenez) for foul on Jonny by Jack Stephens, 65th minute - FOR
CORRECT

Game: Leicester (A; Feb. 14)
Incident: Wolves goal for Willy Boly disallowed for offside in build-up by Pedro Neto, 44th minute - AGAINST
CORRECT

Decide for yourself whether these were 'correct' or not.

 

[Tony Towner]

With the exception of the Mahrez dive all of the other decisions were correct within the boundaries which PGMOL chose to use/latest interpretation of the law

The handball rule is a joke as is the toenail offside, but we've just been unfortunate that we've scored a couple of them. Cutrone was comfortably offside vs Southampton

 

[GLASGOWOLF]

My issue with the retake penalty was there are 5 people encroaching 3 City 2 Wolves. It should not matter a damn who touches the ball.

 

[Kenny]

My issue with the retake penalty was there are 5 people encroaching 3 City 2 Wolves. It should not matter a damn who touches the ball.

Doesn't matter is 1 or 5 people are in the area though. Coady was 1 of them and therefore he is deemed to have gained an advantage in being able to clear the ball.

 

[James]

Didn’t Van Dijk handle the ball before hoofing the ball up to Lallana.