Wolves 0-0 Leicester: VAR Rinse & Repeat Verdict

[Tredman]

Even the Leicester fans joined in singing that.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Nah, Jota receives the ball from the corner (not offside for all the reasons you state plus the fact he would clearly be on from another pass). It's Neto who is off, following Jota's pass. However, we wouldn't have discussed this last season as its so fractional it can't be picked up by the naked eye at full speed.

This is what I posted on the GOT forum this morning in response to some pointing out the decision went against Neto:
"...However the blue line obscures where Jota's heel is, and Jota is the onside line (not the defender) as he received the ball direct from a corner, as we know. Decision still stinks, to me, for that reason..."

Also, the view that VAR looks at is 100% in line with the goal line, which is fine for checking whether the ball is fully over the goal line for the award of a goal or not, but, given that it is in line with the goal line, the angle is therefore skewed for giving an accurate ruling on offside several yards off the goal line. Take a look at the youtube vid I posted again, at 1:03 to see what I mean. What is interesting is that on occasions, Sky uses technology to swivel a frame to show it from a better (correct) angle - why hasn't VAR got the same?

I still think you guys were shafted on Friday night. Would a decision like that have gone against the Red Shite? Nah, just let Mane push the Norwich defender out of the way for the only goal of the game last night...

 

[The Bion]

I agree with the rest of it completely- just wanted to mention that the singing of “it’s not football any more” was picked up in all the match reports in the national papers.

And the BBC somehow manage to come up with this

the decision was greeted with derision by the home supporters who chanted 'What a load of rubbish' and 'Is it football anymore?'

If you don't want to report the swears then just leave them out, don't make things up

 

[PuntsWolf]

This is what I posted on the GOT forum this morning in response to some pointing out the decision went against Neto:
"...However the blue line obscures where Jota's heel is, and Jota is the onside line (not the defender) as he received the ball direct from a corner, as we know. Decision still stinks, to me, for that reason..."

Also, the view that VAR looks at is 100% in line with the goal line, which is fine for checking whether the ball is fully over the goal line for the award of a goal or not, but, given that it is in line with the goal line, the angle is therefore skewed for giving an accurate ruling on offside several yards off the goal line. Take a look at the youtube vid I posted again, at 1:03 to see what I mean. What is interesting is that on occasions, Sky uses technology to swivel a frame to show it from a better (correct) angle - why hasn't VAR got the same?

I still think you guys were shafted on Friday night. Would a decision like that have gone against the Red Shite? Nah, just let Mane push the Norwich defender out of the way for the only goal of the game last night...

The cameras are calibrated, the lines are always correct, doesn’t matter on the angle. How we are in February and people still don’t understand this I don’t know.

The issues are 1) it’s fucking tight and with the current frame rate it isn’t remotely able to deem a decision that tight 2) it’s a nonsense ruling decisions that tight as either way anyway 3) to use a trailing leg when he’s running the opposite direction and also have his entire body onside by a yard is also stupid 4) it’s takes them 2 minutes to do it.

The whole thing is bullshit. But there’s no conspiracy there’s no inaccuracies. We were not shafted by the ref, we were shafted by the shit rules.

 

[Lycan]

Would a decision like that have gone against the Red Shite? Nah, just let Mane push the Norwich defender out of the way for the only goal of the game last night...

Christ, it's no wonder why Liverpool fans call you lot the bitters.

 

[Charlie Wolf]

The cameras are calibrated, the lines are always correct, doesn’t matter on the angle. How we are in February and people still don’t understand this I don’t know.

The issues are 1) it’s fucking tight and with the current frame rate it isn’t remotely able to deem a decision that tight 2) it’s a nonsense ruling decisions that tight as either way anyway 3) to use a trailing leg when he’s running the opposite direction and also have his entire body onside by a yard is also stupid 4) it’s takes them 2 minutes to do it.

The whole thing is bullshit. But there’s no conspiracy there’s no inaccuracies. We were not shafted by the ref, we were shafted by the shit rules.

Recent radio interview suggested/ advised that the frame rate has potential tolerance of around 30cm for a player running (don’t ask what speed) so if we are to use this technology, simply dropping the line down of that width and any overlap with the line of the last man it’s onside. I.e. no clear daylight and not a clear and obvious error to deem it offside. Allow 15 second rule and no pissing about with fine margins. Refs assistants should be sharp enough to see an offside beyond this which then makes VAR irrelevant.

Please don’t shoot me I’m just another bloke who detests VAR and it has no room in our game in its current form, but fear it’s here to stay. Just trying to make some sense of it all and offer a suggestion

On another VAR point and the offside rule, where we are all experts, but are we the first ever team to be penalised offside for a backward pass to one of our players? Has anyone seen of any other examples?

 

[PuntsWolf]

Doesn’t need lines at all. Just needs eyes, just like the linesman uses.

Lines overlapping and you’re still going to end up with the same situation just reversed. If he looks offside, he’s offside

 

[Charlie Wolf]

Doesn’t need lines at all. Just needs eyes, just like the linesman uses.

Lines overlapping and you’re still going to end up with the same situation just reversed. If he looks offside, he’s offside

Of course your right, we don’t need lines but fear we’re gonna be stuck with them, just trying to make some common sense from this shambles

 

[Old Blue 2]

Christ, it's no wonder why Liverpool fans call you lot the bitters.

Not bitter at all. Seen my team win Leagues, cups and a European trophy.

Cast your mind back to some of the decisions they have had in their favour this season...

 

[Premier Quality]

Not bitter at all. Seen my team win Leagues, cups and a European trophy.

Cast your mind back to some of the decisions they have had in their favour this season...

Can’t argue with that tbh. The disallowed Neto goal comes to mind...

 

[Old Blue 2]

The cameras are calibrated, the lines are always correct, doesn’t matter on the angle. How we are in February and people still don’t understand this I don’t know.

The issues are 1) it’s fucking tight and with the current frame rate it isn’t remotely able to deem a decision that tight 2) it’s a nonsense ruling decisions that tight as either way anyway 3) to use a trailing leg when he’s running the opposite direction and also have his entire body onside by a yard is also stupid 4) it’s takes them 2 minutes to do it.

The whole thing is bullshit. But there’s no conspiracy there’s no inaccuracies. We were not shafted by the ref, we were shafted by the shit rules.

The angle does matter. It is not in perfect line. Has the calibration allowed for perspective and foreshortening, as well as distance? Does the thickness of the lines applied come into play?

I agree with your second and third paragraphs (the bullshit part anyway).

 

[PuntsWolf]

The angle does matter. It is not in perfect line. Has the calibration allowed for perspective and foreshortening, as well as distance? Does the thickness of the lines applied come into play?

I agree with your second and third paragraphs (the bullshit part anyway).

Yes

 

[Old Blue 2]

Can’t argue with that tbh. The disallowed Neto goal comes to mind...

One of the best moments was in 1966, as a 15 year-old, heading into the city centre straight from school in my school uniform and getting the train out of Liverpool Lime Street to see the FA Cup 6th Round, second replay, at Molyneux against Man City. On the terraces at your ground then getting home around 3 in the morning. Must have been mad! But it was great being at Wembley in May and seeing us come from 2 down to beat Sheff Wd 3-2! Great times!

 

[Old Blue 2]

Yes

I did genuinely feel sorry for Wolves after seeing that. The way you've played this season, you deserve better. And then today, Spurs go and spawn a 90+3 winner...

 

[lemonjelly]

4) We played well
5) We should have won regardless and it's our own fault we didn't
6) I enjoyed the game
7) I had a good afternoon/night, lovely to see people

These 4 things for me.

I thought it was a well entertaining game. 2 very evenly balanced teams, both of whom have decent managers, with decent talented squads. Both looking to impose themselves on the big 6, and appear to be doing so successfully.

Nuno made changes, potentially with thursday & next weekend in mind.
In spite of these changes, for the first 30-35 minutes I thought we played really well. Bossed the tempo, much of the passage of play, and were in better form than Leicester, who made a high number of misplaced passes, and balls out of play.

Boly was great, Saiss immense, Jonny was absolutely brilliant. Neto had a fantastic game. Neves was superb. Jota looked better for me than he has done for most of the season - someone said earlier in the thread if he gets one, he'll proper kick on, and I'd agree with that. If he's been at 70% recently, he's now more at 85%. Doherty was very involved, Patricio was really good, and Dendoncker covered a fucking tonne of ground and kept maddison and barnes phenomenally quiet. Nothing quite fell for Raul.

In reality, we lost a little momentum for 5-10 mins. Then had the madness of how the half finished.

It took a little out the game, but for me in the 2nd half we were focussed, and continued to play good football.

Leicester are third, having scored over 50 goals. We kept vardy, maddison and barnes (a strong front 3) exceptionally quiet.

We didn't take our chances, Rauls header, and Donck had a great header right at the end of each half that should have been on target at least.

We've 2 clean sheets in a row. Traore and Moutinho are rested for the Europa league. Donck and Neto have kept up their match sharpness, and shown they can provide significant input into the team. We'll go into thursdays game confident. Win that (with a clean sheet) and we have a proper springboard for the next 4-5 weeks.

 

[VanWolfie]

I would like to point out that it is not the offside law that is at fault but a particular interpretation of that law that is only operative in games officiated by the PGMOL. IFAB (FIFA's law-making body) has made critical comments against the forensic nature of how VAR is being used in England and the PGMOL has agreed to change its interpretation of the offside and handball law for next season. I consider the delay a political one for Mike Riley to save face. The oft repeated reason for not changing it immediately is framed around consistency. But that makes no sense. If something is drastically wrong, then it should be changed immediately. Otherwise, we are arguing for things to be consistently wrong, which is particularly disastrous because the current interpretation violates Law 5 which states:
"1. Each match is controlled by a referee who has full authority to enforce the Laws of the Game in connection with the match.2. Decisions will be made to the best of the referee's ability according to the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the referee, who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game." and about VAR says:

"The assistance from the video assistant referee (VAR) will relate to using replay(s) of the incident. The referee will make the final decision which may be based solely on the information from the VAR and/or the referee reviewing the replay footage directly (‘on-field review’). Except for a ‘serious missed incident’, the referee (and where relevant other ‘on-field’ match officials) must always make a decision (including a decision not to penalise a potential offence); this decision does not change unless it is a ‘clear and obvious error’.

The current VAR usage violates these provisions in Law 5. That was very clear on Friday when, in conversation with Coady, Mike Dean clearly mouthed into the TV camera at half time that he did not know why the offside was given, he was doing what he was told. My main point of criticism of VAR and the reason why I think the PGMOL have made such a hash of it is that they have taken away the authority of the on-field referee and given it to to the video ASSISTANT referee, which is a violation of Law 5. Should we, for consistency's sake, continue to violate Law 5? I think that argument makes no sense. It's like saying, because a referee did not produce a red card for a defender preventing a goal scoring attempt earlier in the game, he cannot give a red card for a violent assault by a different player. On the contrary, the referee is obligated to follow Law 5 and enforce the laws of the game in every aspect and situation.

To repeat, rugby has found a way to do this. The TMO comes into play when requested by the on-field referee. If the on-field referee misses something that the TMO deems clear and obvious, then he alerts the on-field referee to the situation and asks him to look at it. The situation is then discussed but the final decision is made by the on-field referee. Where there is no clear resolution, then the on-field determination by the referee (who always states the on-field decision in such circumstances) stands.

On Friday, Mike Dean's on-field decision was to award a goal. VAR wanted to bring something to his attention, i.e., possible offside, but there was no discussion. The decision to disallow the goal was made by VAR and that is fundamentally a violation of Law 5 which should be corrected immediately. My sense is it will be corrected for next season and we will also see a change in the PGMOL leadership. Currently, those refs who serve as VAR and are slavishly following the dictates of Mike Riley are akin to the Republican party members who support Trump for fear of retribution. To be a referee requires courage and conviction!

 

[MARKakaJIM]

I would like to point out that it is not the offside law that is at fault but a particular interpretation of that law that is only operative in games officiated by the PGMOL. IFAB (FIFA's law-making body) has made critical comments against the forensic nature of how VAR is being used in England and the PGMOL has agreed to change its interpretation of the offside and handball law for next season. I consider the delay a political one for Mike Riley to save face. The oft repeated reason for not changing it immediately is framed around consistency. But that makes no sense. If something is drastically wrong, then it should be changed immediately. Otherwise, we are arguing for things to be consistently wrong, which is particularly disastrous because the current interpretation violates Law 5 which states:
"1. Each match is controlled by a referee who has full authority to enforce the Laws of the Game in connection with the match.2. Decisions will be made to the best of the referee's ability according to the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the referee, who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game." and about VAR says:

"The assistance from the video assistant referee (VAR) will relate to using replay(s) of the incident. The referee will make the final decision which may be based solely on the information from the VAR and/or the referee reviewing the replay footage directly (‘on-field review’). Except for a ‘serious missed incident’, the referee (and where relevant other ‘on-field’ match officials) must always make a decision (including a decision not to penalise a potential offence); this decision does not change unless it is a ‘clear and obvious error’.

The current VAR usage violates these provisions in Law 5. That was very clear on Friday when, in conversation with Coady, Mike Dean clearly mouthed into the TV camera at half time that he did not know why the offside was given, he was doing what he was told. My main point of criticism of VAR and the reason why I think the PGMOL have made such a hash of it is that they have taken away the authority of the on-field referee and given it to to the video ASSISTANT referee, which is a violation of Law 5. Should we, for consistency's sake, continue to violate Law 5? I think that argument makes no sense. It's like saying, because a referee did not produce a red card for a defender preventing a goal scoring attempt earlier in the game, he cannot give a red card for a violent assault by a different player. On the contrary, the referee is obligated to follow Law 5 and enforce the laws of the game in every aspect and situation.

To repeat, rugby has found a way to do this. The TMO comes into play when requested by the on-field referee. If the on-field referee misses something that the TMO deems clear and obvious, then he alerts the on-field referee to the situation and asks him to look at it. The situation is then discussed but the final decision is made by the on-field referee. Where there is no clear resolution, then the on-field determination by the referee (who always states the on-field decision in such circumstances) stands.

On Friday, Mike Dean's on-field decision was to award a goal. VAR wanted to bring something to his attention, i.e., possible offside, but there was no discussion. The decision to disallow the goal was made by VAR and that is fundamentally a violation of Law 5 which should be corrected immediately. My sense is it will be corrected for next season and we will also see a change in the PGMOL leadership. Currently, those refs who serve as VAR and are slavishly following the dictates of Mike Riley are akin to the Republican party members who support Trump for fear of retribution. To be a referee requires courage and conviction!

I don't entirely agree with your interpretation, whether consciously or not you've selectively quoted part of Law 5 and based your argument on that. You've underlined the bit you deemed to be key, the on field referee making the final decision, but that sentence continues to say that the decision may be based solely on information from VAR and that's essentially how it played out on Friday. Though if Dean genuinely couldn't answer Coady's question it seems he may have just been told to disallow it rather than it being explained properly that Neto had been caught offside for the return pass and for him to make the final call that the goal should be ruled out by an offside in the build up.

Personally I've no issue with on field officials being overruled, the VAR has more resources at their disposal to make the correct decision on review but at the moment there's a lack of transparency because they don't communicate the VAR decision making well, particularly within stadia. It should be quicker for them to review the decisions remotely without the on field referee needing to be involved looking at replays himself but again they've ballsed that up with the overly precise way they're trying to rule everything. They should limit the time VAR can take to review incidents and then display the critical clip that lead to the decision so there is transparency as to how the verdict is reached.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

I would like to point out that it is not the offside law that is at fault but a particular interpretation of that law that is only operative in games officiated by the PGMOL. IFAB (FIFA's law-making body) has made critical comments against the forensic nature of how VAR is being used in England and the PGMOL has agreed to change its interpretation of the offside and handball law for next season. I consider the delay a political one for Mike Riley to save face. The oft repeated reason for not changing it immediately is framed around consistency. But that makes no sense. If something is drastically wrong, then it should be changed immediately. Otherwise, we are arguing for things to be consistently wrong, which is particularly disastrous because the current interpretation violates Law 5 which states:
"1. Each match is controlled by a referee who has full authority to enforce the Laws of the Game in connection with the match.2. Decisions will be made to the best of the referee's ability according to the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the referee, who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game." and about VAR says:

"The assistance from the video assistant referee (VAR) will relate to using replay(s) of the incident. The referee will make the final decision which may be based solely on the information from the VAR and/or the referee reviewing the replay footage directly (‘on-field review’). Except for a ‘serious missed incident’, the referee (and where relevant other ‘on-field’ match officials) must always make a decision (including a decision not to penalise a potential offence); this decision does not change unless it is a ‘clear and obvious error’.

The current VAR usage violates these provisions in Law 5. That was very clear on Friday when, in conversation with Coady, Mike Dean clearly mouthed into the TV camera at half time that he did not know why the offside was given, he was doing what he was told. My main point of criticism of VAR and the reason why I think the PGMOL have made such a hash of it is that they have taken away the authority of the on-field referee and given it to to the video ASSISTANT referee, which is a violation of Law 5. Should we, for consistency's sake, continue to violate Law 5? I think that argument makes no sense. It's like saying, because a referee did not produce a red card for a defender preventing a goal scoring attempt earlier in the game, he cannot give a red card for a violent assault by a different player. On the contrary, the referee is obligated to follow Law 5 and enforce the laws of the game in every aspect and situation.

To repeat, rugby has found a way to do this. The TMO comes into play when requested by the on-field referee. If the on-field referee misses something that the TMO deems clear and obvious, then he alerts the on-field referee to the situation and asks him to look at it. The situation is then discussed but the final decision is made by the on-field referee. Where there is no clear resolution, then the on-field determination by the referee (who always states the on-field decision in such circumstances) stands.

On Friday, Mike Dean's on-field decision was to award a goal. VAR wanted to bring something to his attention, i.e., possible offside, but there was no discussion. The decision to disallow the goal was made by VAR and that is fundamentally a violation of Law 5 which should be corrected immediately. My sense is it will be corrected for next season and we will also see a change in the PGMOL leadership. Currently, those refs who serve as VAR and are slavishly following the dictates of Mike Riley are akin to the Republican party members who support Trump for fear of retribution. To be a referee requires courage and conviction!

Eloquent and accurate.

 

[VanWolfie]

I don't entirely agree with your interpretation, whether consciously or not you've selectively quoted part of Law 5 and based your argument on that. You've underlined the bit you deemed to be key, the on field referee making the final decision, but that sentence continues to say that the decision may be based solely on information from VAR and that's essentially how it played out on Friday. Though if Dean genuinely couldn't answer Coady's question it seems he may have just been told to disallow it rather than it being explained properly that Neto had been caught offside for the return pass and for him to make the final call that the goal should be ruled out by an offside in the build up.

Personally I've no issue with on field officials being overruled, the VAR has more resources at their disposal to make the correct decision on review but at the moment there's a lack of transparency because they don't communicate the VAR decision making well, particularly within stadia. It should be quicker for them to review the decisions remotely without the on field referee needing to be involved looking at replays himself but again they've ballsed that up with the overly precise way they're trying to rule everything. They should limit the time VAR can take to review incidents and then display the critical clip that lead to the decision so there is transparency as to how the verdict is reached.

Let me say at the outset that I am a big supporter of VAR because I want to see correct decisions but not stupid ones that may be technically (and dubiously) correct but not in keeping with the spirit of the game that is referenced in Law 5. I can see where you are coming from in your position but I believe you are highlighting the interpretation that PGMOL is using to justify using VAR to overrule on-field referees. If you look closely at the continuation of the sentence on which you base your position, it says: "Except for a ‘serious missed incident’, the referee (and where relevant other ‘on-field’ match officials) must always make a decision (including a decision not to penalise a potential offence); this decision does not change unless it is a ‘clear and obvious error’." Even if the "serious missed incident" is an offside, the Law states that it is the referee or other on-field match officials MUST ALWAYS make a decision. So what happened on Friday night did not comply with the law as it currently reads if Mike Dean did not make the decision to disallow the goal. If, as he intimated to Coady, that he did what he was told, then my strong position is that it did not follow the dictates of Law 5. But my larger and more significant point is that this is but a mere example of why I think VAR has been introduced into the Premier League in a manner that disregards Law 5 and the "spirit of the game". Hence, I am calling for a change in how VAR is understood and used. It has been successfully implemented in other leagues and serves its purpose of eradicating wrong calls and injustices but the current forensic approach recommended by Mike Riley has become a disaster and needs to be changed quickly. I don't think that will happen without a change in the leadership of PGMOL. My hope is that we can have an implementation of VAR in the Premier League that serves the purpose for which it was intended.

 

[WolfmanOz]

Excellent points VanWolfie very well articulated.