Topic: VAR! Video Assistant Referee & Shite Referees in General

[thejbs]

Now while this might be nice in theory, one has to remember that the average size of a comet is 10km. So unless Mr Webb was hiking in the Sahara when the comet struck, there's a good chance other people will be affected and possibly killed. Which would be sad obviously.

Comets are mostly ice and dust too. What we need is a small meteoroid that that mostly breaks up in the atsmosphere before becoming a tiny but singularly deadly meteorite. I remember reading that the chances of this are surprisingly high, like around 1 in 250,000.

[Ghost Town]

Meteoroids have previous for wiping out dinosaurs

So that's Everton fucked, then

[rob1966]

Webb, by all accounts, has done a great job in managing refs in MLS. This should be a clear upgrade has to be the hope.

Yeah, of course he will be

[rob1966]

I knew he was a copper but I did NOT know he was in SYP, is this fact?!

Howard Webb has returned to his former job with the police - but has no plans to quit refereeing. The decorated official, who took charge of the 2010 World Cup Final, has brought an end to the five-year sabbatical he was given to concentrate on refereeing.

Webb returned to the force, but there is no sense that this will act as an obstacle to his officiating, despite murmurings in some refereeing circles. He is obliged to work 10 hours a week with the South Yorkshire Police Force and he is being accommodated on a flexible basis to fit in with football commitments. Over the hectic Christmas period, for instance, Webb was granted full leave.

https://refereeingworld.blogspot.com/2014/01/webb-returned-to-police-force.html?m=1

[duvva 💅]

I see Mike Dean is to become a dedicated VAR official, whatever that is?

[thejbs]

I see Mike Dean is to become a dedicated VAR official, whatever that is?

I’d presume it means they’ve decided to retire refs from the pitch and use them as VARs. in theory, a good idea.

[JRed]

I’d presume it means they’ve decided to retire refs from the pitch and use them as VARs. in theory, a good idea.

Although in reality they will still be the corrupt/ incompetent biased pricks they have always been.

[ToneLa]

Qatar no, but I like the sound of this tech.

Watch them mess it up

https://www.engadget.com/fifa-approves-semi-automatic-offside-technology-word-cup-qatar-2022-213057911.html

The new system features 12 stadium cameras that will track the positioning of both the ball and each individual player, including 29 different data points on each player’s limbs and extremities. On top of that, a ball outfitted with a motion sensor will be used in each match, which will deliver live data on a player’s position at the time it's kicked.

FIFA believes that SOAT will help match officials make faster and more accurate decisions on offside calls. “VAR has already had a very positive impact on football and we can see that the number of major mistakes has already been dramatically reduced. We expect that semi-automated offside technology can take us a step further,” said FIFA Referees Committee Chairman Pierluigi Collina in a statement.

According to ESPN, the new system should cut the average time it takes to make a VAR offside decision from 70 seconds to 25 seconds. The old VAR system required manually drawing offside lines and calculating the kick point. FIFA officials claim that SOAT will automatically select both the offside line and kick point in seconds, using both data from the ball and limb-tracking data from the cameras. Human officials will then manually confirm each decision. After each decision is reached, a 3D animation will be displayed to spectators that visualizes the offside decision.

[RedG13]

https://twitter.com/AttackingThird/status/1544107147042213893 This red card was overturned omg

[Macphisto80]

Qatar no, but I like the sound of this tech.

Watch them mess it up

https://www.engadget.com/fifa-approves-semi-automatic-offside-technology-word-cup-qatar-2022-213057911.html

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ORyK17V5fBs

[oojason]

.
Glad it didn't cost us today - these VAR guys are meant to be professional referees or match officials, yes?


Alvarez goal on 70 mins (Foden kicked the ball out of GK Adrian's hands) - https://clip.dubz.co/v/q37ayz & https://twitter.com/itvfootball/status/1553434188459786240

GK Adrian with 2 hands on the ball (before having it kicked out of his hands) : https://twitter.com/LFC_FootyChat/status/1553482332304248832 (images)

[Funky_Gibbons]

I think the rule is the keeper needs to have the ball under control. Although Adrian had two hands on the ball I don’t think he ever had it under control. Seemed a fair goal to me.

[Schmidt]

I think the rule is the keeper needs to have the ball under control. Although Adrian had two hands on the ball I don’t think he ever had it under control. Seemed a fair goal to me.

I think you're right about Adrian not being in control, however Foden kicks his arm and not the ball. I still think it's a foul.

[4pool]

I think the rule is the keeper needs to have the ball under control. Although Adrian had two hands on the ball I don’t think he ever had it under control. Seemed a fair goal to me.

The rule is:


A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:
• the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface
(e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands
or arms, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper
has made a save
• holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
• bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of
the ball with the hand(s).

[thejbs]

I didn’t have any issue with it. Thought it was never really under control. If it was us I’d have wanted that given. More concerned about some of the onfield decisions beyond VAR remit.

[Yorkykopite]

Meteoroids have previous for wiping out dinosaurs

That was actually haemorrhoids.

[Barneylfc∗]

I didn’t have any issue with it. Thought it was never really under control. If it was us I’d have wanted that given. More concerned about some of the onfield decisions beyond VAR remit.

Whether you have issues with it or not, the laws of the game state that it's a foul.

Both the 'referee' and useless c*nt in the VAR room think it's fine and clearly don't know the laws of the game.

Both useless c*nts clearly don't understand the handball law either given the useless c*nt Pawson didn't make the decision on the field, and the useless c*nt in the VAR room didn't have the balls to tell Pawson he's a useless c*nt for our penalty.

[RedG13]

.
Glad it didn't cost us today - these VAR guys are meant to be professional referees or match officials, yes?


Alvarez goal on 70 mins (Foden kicked the ball out of GK Adrian's hands) - https://clip.dubz.co/v/q37ayz & https://twitter.com/itvfootball/status/1553434188459786240

GK Adrian with 2 hands on the ball (before having it kicked out of his hands) : https://twitter.com/LFC_FootyChat/status/1553482332304248832 (images)

https://twitter.com/Jhdharrison1/status/1553829673733349379 From one of the top GK experts

[farawayred]

Whether you have issues with it or not, the laws of the game state that it's a foul.

Both the 'referee' and useless c*nt in the VAR room think it's fine and clearly don't know the laws of the game.

Both useless c*nts clearly don't understand the handball law either given the useless c*nt Pawson didn't make the decision on the field, and the useless c*nt in the VAR room didn't have the balls to tell Pawson he's a useless c*nt for our penalty.

The problem is that it's been decided that VAR is not going to rereferee the game. They are under no obligation to make the right call, but to check if the referee made the wrong call. Neither the referee, nor the linesman called a foul on Adrian (the ref should have, but he didn't). VAR must have check for offside, which the linesman gave. There was no offside, hence they gave the goal. Should that be how the game evolves? No. But they can't give a foul the referee didn't give.

[MH41]

The problem is that it's been decided that VAR is not going to rereferee the game. They are under no obligation to make the right call, but to check if the referee made the wrong call. Neither the referee, nor the linesman called a foul on Adrian (the ref should have, but he didn't). VAR must have check for offside, which the linesman gave. There was no offside, hence they gave the goal. Should that be how the game evolves? No. But they can't give a foul the referee didn't give.

Then why did they spend ANY time looking at the Ádrian incident ? Just look at the offside, and give the goal.
They clearly did spend quite a bit of time looking at it, so what was the purpose, if they can't change it?

[red_Mark1980]

The problem is that it's been decided that VAR is not going to rereferee the game. They are under no obligation to make the right call, but to check if the referee made the wrong call. Neither the referee, nor the linesman called a foul on Adrian (the ref should have, but he didn't). VAR must have check for offside, which the linesman gave. There was no offside, hence they gave the goal. Should that be how the game evolves? No. But they can't give a foul the referee didn't give.

That's not actually true is it? They look at incidents in the lead up.

They clearly checked the foul on Adrian and thought it was OK. The commentary team said so

[HomesickRed]

https://twitter.com/Jhdharrison1/status/1553829673733349379 From one of the top GK experts

Thing is, if Foden doesn't make that challenge, Adrian DOES have the ball under control because he has both hands on the ball first, and it is grounded.
That's the rule and lots of goals were chalked off last season for exactly the same reason. It should never have stood.

[4pool]

Thing is, if Foden doesn't make that challenge, Adrian DOES have the ball under control because he has both hands on the ball first, and it is grounded.
That's the rule and lots of goals were chalked off last season for exactly the same reason. It should never have stood.

the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface
(e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands
or arms, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper
has made a save

The shot hit Adrian, he dives to his right, gets both hands on the ball......and it's not a foul because it was a rebound/save immediately beforehand.

[Barneylfc∗]

The problem is that it's been decided that VAR is not going to rereferee the game. They are under no obligation to make the right call, but to check if the referee made the wrong call. Neither the referee, nor the linesman called a foul on Adrian (the ref should have, but he didn't). VAR must have check for offside, which the linesman gave. There was no offside, hence they gave the goal. Should that be how the game evolves? No. But they can't give a foul the referee didn't give.

Of course they can. That's the point of VAR. There's no difference in that than telling the ref he has missed a handball for a pen.

[Barneylfc∗]

Thing is, if Foden doesn't make that challenge, Adrian DOES have the ball under control because he has both hands on the ball first, and it is grounded.
That's the rule and lots of goals were chalked off last season for exactly the same reason. It should never have stood.

Firmino had a goal ruled out against the Mancs because van Dijk had the audacity to challenge De Gea and he was deemed to have it under control simply because his hands were touching the ball.

[Alan_X]

There are three parts separated by the word 'or':

the ball is between the hands

or

between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body)

or

by touching it with any part of the hands or arms, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save

The shot hit Adrian, he dives to his right, gets both hands on the ball......and it's not a foul because it was a rebound/save immediately beforehand.

The qualification relates to the third part.

The last one is for situations such as the goalie holding the ball in his outstretched hand for a goal kick.

[thaddeus]

There are three parts separated by the word 'or':

The qualification relates to the third part.

The last one is for situations such as the goalie holding the ball in his outstretched hand for a goal kick.

Thanks Alan.  That last one did sound a bit weird without context.

My feeling on the incident is if the assistant hadn't flagged for offside then the referee had a decision to make for the potential foul.  We'll of course never know what decision he would have made but it would have at least been actively thought through rather than the seemingly passive "it doesn't matter as it was offside".  If the referee blows for the foul then VAR wouldn't have overruled it and given the goal.

Watching it live I was adamant it was a foul - admittedly I'm biased - but equally sure VAR wouldn't call it.  "Clear and obvious error" is a phrase you can drive a coach and horses through!

[Agent99]

It still takes a fucking age. I do wish they were mic'd up then at least we know whats going on. The offside looked pretty clear that he was level so was the reason it took so long because they were also checking the foul on Adrian? At least if we can hear them we know they were checking both.

[Son of Spion]

It still takes a fucking age. I do wish they were mic'd up then at least we know whats going on. The offside looked pretty clear that he was level so was the reason it took so long because they were also checking the foul on Adrian? At least if we can hear them we know they were checking both.

It's bizarre that it took them so long to make decisions. Their goal was clearly onside, but should have been chalked off for a clear foul on Adrian. It should have taken seconds to sort that out.

Our penalty was so blatant. God only knows how Pawson missed it.

I agree it would be nice to hear what is being said. Even if it was just recorded so it can be reviewed later would be a help. At least we'd then know how they arrive at decisions, some of which defy all logic.

[driftinwest]

I couldn't believe how long var took over our penalty, if the ref missed it surely the assistant ref saw it or don't they make decisions anymore?  There was a time they'd hold their flag across their chest to indicate a penalty nowadays all they seem to do is flag if the ball is out or a last grasp wave for offside

[4pool]

And then there's ex-Ref's sticking their nose in:

Speaking exclusively to Football Insider ex-Premier League referee Keith Hackett believes the officials on the day got the decision wrong saying “I think it’s a tough call,

“What’s important this year is that the Premier League, through the PGMOL, in the close season have hopefully talked to match officials to get a more consistent understanding of what handball is and how they are going to punish it.

“In a way, the whole discussion centres around this making the body larger. We’ve also got to take into account that arm movement is linked to body movement when players are trying to get to the ball.

“What disappoints me is that there isn’t an emphasis in law and referee’s interpretation on the word deliberate. Can we say that handball was deliberate?"


Hackett then went on to say he believes Rodri's arm position was natural, therefore not a penalty “You want to see some movement, you want to see that body extension. For me, this appeared to be a natural play by the defender with no intention of handling the ball.

“I think the ball struck him, I don’t think his arm was out deliberately to stop the ball or in an unnatural position. Therefore, for me, I don’t support the decision of a handball.

“This coming season we’ve got to get a greater clarification and consistency on handball. On this one, I’m going with Craig Pawson’s initial decision. I think VAR has gone hunting.

“I think the penalty kick was harsh and this highlights the dilemma that referees have got until the guy at the top gives a very clear brief on what is going to be punished and what is not going to be punished.”

[Ghost Town]

And then there's ex-Ref's sticking their nose in:

Speaking exclusively to Football Insider ex-Premier League referee Keith Hackett believes the officials on the day got the decision wrong saying “I think it’s a tough call,

“What’s important this year is that the Premier League, through the PGMOL, in the close season have hopefully talked to match officials to get a more consistent understanding of what handball is and how they are going to punish it.

“In a way, the whole discussion centres around this making the body larger. We’ve also got to take into account that arm movement is linked to body movement when players are trying to get to the ball.

“What disappoints me is that there isn’t an emphasis in law and referee’s interpretation on the word deliberate. Can we say that handball was deliberate?"


Hackett then went on to say he believes Rodri's arm position was natural, therefore not a penalty “You want to see some movement, you want to see that body extension. For me, this appeared to be a natural play by the defender with no intention of handling the ball.

“I think the ball struck him, I don’t think his arm was out deliberately to stop the ball or in an unnatural position. Therefore, for me, I don’t support the decision of a handball.

“This coming season we’ve got to get a greater clarification and consistency on handball. On this one, I’m going with Craig Pawson’s initial decision. I think VAR has gone hunting.

“I think the penalty kick was harsh and this highlights the dilemma that referees have got until the guy at the top gives a very clear brief on what is going to be punished and what is not going to be punished.”

Bullshit from Hackett.

The idea of 'Deliberate' is...er...deliberately not found in the Laws of the Game because you see, Mr Hackett, referees are not mind readers and therefore will never be able to know if an action or foul is deliberate or not. That's why the Laws use external criteria to judge incidents - recklessness or liable to stop a goal illegally etc. Not intentions, which only the player can know. 

The people who first codified football were not fools. The fools came much later.

It was a penalty because the hand stopped and affected the path of the ball close to the goal-line and therefore in a goal-scoring situation. It doesn't matter if Darwin's header was "not going in" because someone else may have come in and touched the ball in. And it doesn't matter if there wasn't anyone sliding in on this occasion because next time there might be and a replica handball might prevent a clear goal. That's why such handballs are not allowed.

[thaddeus]

And then there's ex-Ref's sticking their nose in:

Speaking exclusively to Football Insider ex-Premier League referee Keith Hackett believes the officials on the day got the decision wrong saying “I think it’s a tough call,

“What’s important this year is that the Premier League, through the PGMOL, in the close season have hopefully talked to match officials to get a more consistent understanding of what handball is and how they are going to punish it.

“In a way, the whole discussion centres around this making the body larger. We’ve also got to take into account that arm movement is linked to body movement when players are trying to get to the ball.

“What disappoints me is that there isn’t an emphasis in law and referee’s interpretation on the word deliberate. Can we say that handball was deliberate?"


Hackett then went on to say he believes Rodri's arm position was natural, therefore not a penalty “You want to see some movement, you want to see that body extension. For me, this appeared to be a natural play by the defender with no intention of handling the ball.

“I think the ball struck him, I don’t think his arm was out deliberately to stop the ball or in an unnatural position. Therefore, for me, I don’t support the decision of a handball.

“This coming season we’ve got to get a greater clarification and consistency on handball. On this one, I’m going with Craig Pawson’s initial decision. I think VAR has gone hunting.

“I think the penalty kick was harsh and this highlights the dilemma that referees have got until the guy at the top gives a very clear brief on what is going to be punished and what is not going to be punished.”

Was Hackett living under a stone for the past decade?  The whole "was it deliberate?" argument was done away with as nobody ever knows if it was deliberate except the player that handballed and, with the best will in the world, they're not going to go to the ref with a confession.  It's just introducing another immeasurable element to the decision making.

Making the body bigger is also open to interpretation but it's at least measurable.

Anyway, seeing a Uruguayan playing up-front for Liverpool and frantically appealing for a handball was a nice flashback!

[lamonti]

I think the rule is the keeper needs to have the ball under control. Although Adrian had two hands on the ball I don’t think he ever had it under control. Seemed a fair goal to me.

(Unbelievable how opaquely the laws are written.)

This is from the Twitter VAR nerd Dale Johnson
https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1554069359307505667?s=20&t=UHHXuTg47rhvP6wiTZW-ug

By his interpretation, because it's a rebound from a keeper's spill (unlike the Schmeichel incident last December) having it under control is not the issue, the issue is whether there's a foul on Adrián. (At least I think that's what he means.)

In my opinion, there clearly is a foul, but I also think that referees are hard on players who are a bit crap, e.g. Adrián, who is well-known to be a bit of a disaster. You get punished for spilling a shot inside your own six-yard box. It's like how Xhaka gets sent off for every rough tackle where other players with less bad reputations get away with it: it fits the pre-conceived narrative. To add to that narrative factor, Adrián probably would've gotten away with it if he'd have rolled around and pretended he was really hurt, or pretended it was a head injury.

From my point of view, it's a clear foul on Adrián, but Adrián has to do better to avoid getting in that situation and not leaving it in the hands of the refs who are shite. Mind you, he's our third choice keeper, so I don't expect much more and thought he did OK in the rest of the game. Scott Carson is City's third choice keeper and their second choice keeper (Steffen) wasn't much cop either in the FA Cup semi-final.

Also the linesman shouldn't be flagging in that situation having spent the last two seasons not flagging anything even when it was clearly offside. When they flag now, players will expect that it's not even close to being onside. (I think this is a cock-up rather than a change in procedure though.)

[thejbs]

While I have no problem with the City goal (I do get why some do), it's ridiculous to even question our penalty.  If the header was goal-bound, into an empty net, there would be no conversation.  Just weird that 'it wasn't going in' is a narrative, despite that meaning nothing in the rules of the game.

[Avens]

(Unbelievable how opaquely the laws are written.)

This is from the Twitter VAR nerd Dale Johnson
https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1554069359307505667?s=20&t=UHHXuTg47rhvP6wiTZW-ug

By his interpretation, because it's a rebound from a keeper's spill (unlike the Schmeichel incident last December) having it under control is not the issue, the issue is whether there's a foul on Adrián. (At least I think that's what he means.)

In my opinion, there clearly is a foul, but I also think that referees are hard on players who are a bit crap, e.g. Adrián, who is well-known to be a bit of a disaster. You get punished for spilling a shot inside your own six-yard box. It's like how Xhaka gets sent off for every rough tackle where other players with less bad reputations get away with it: it fits the pre-conceived narrative. To add to that narrative factor, Adrián probably would've gotten away with it if he'd have rolled around and pretended he was really hurt, or pretended it was a head injury.

From my point of view, it's a clear foul on Adrián, but Adrián has to do better to avoid getting in that situation and not leaving it in the hands of the refs who are shite. Mind you, he's our third choice keeper, so I don't expect much more and thought he did OK in the rest of the game. Scott Carson is City's third choice keeper and their second choice keeper (Steffen) wasn't much cop either in the FA Cup semi-final.

Also the linesman shouldn't be flagging in that situation having spent the last two seasons not flagging anything even when it was clearly offside. When they flag now, players will expect that it's not even close to being onside. (I think this is a cock-up rather than a change in procedure though.)

Probably not the thread for this discussion but I've seen this said a fair bit since the weekend and I think it's ridiculous. It was a point blank save, an excellent save, that led to the ball being where it was and it was pretty quick reactions from Adrian that gave him the opportunity to even be "fouled" - at what point should he have done better?

[lamonti]

Probably not the thread for this discussion but I've seen this said a fair bit since the weekend and I think it's ridiculous. It was a point blank save, an excellent save, that led to the ball being where it was and it was pretty quick reactions from Adrian that gave him the opportunity to even be "fouled" - at what point should he have done better?

Agree to disagree. He palmed it into his own six yard area twice in the game. He should at least get it away from goal. If Alisson did that you wouldn't be happy. To be honest I don't expect much more. I was happy to see him clearing balls off the pitch, it's safe there. He was bad in 20/21, and I didn't expect him to get better out of the team while getting two years older. Like I said he's a solid number 3 who gets on well with the squad and I thought overall he had a decent game.

[Golyo]

Agree to disagree. He palmed it into his own six yard area twice in the game. He should at least get it away from goal. If Alisson did that you wouldn't be happy. To be honest I don't expect much more. I was happy to see him clearing balls off the pitch, it's safe there. He was bad in 20/21, and I didn't expect him to get better out of the team while getting two years older. Like I said he's a solid number 3 who gets on well with the squad and I thought overall he had a decent game.

You clearly have an agenda against Adrián. When questioned what he did wrong about the goal he conceded, you just don't answer but blame him for 20/21. You are a joke.

[Dull Tools]

(Unbelievable how opaquely the laws are written.)

This is from the Twitter VAR nerd Dale Johnson
https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1554069359307505667?s=20&t=UHHXuTg47rhvP6wiTZW-ug

By his interpretation, because it's a rebound from a keeper's spill (unlike the Schmeichel incident last December) having it under control is not the issue, the issue is whether there's a foul on Adrián. (At least I think that's what he means.)

In my opinion, there clearly is a foul, but I also think that referees are hard on players who are a bit crap, e.g. Adrián, who is well-known to be a bit of a disaster. You get punished for spilling a shot inside your own six-yard box. It's like how Xhaka gets sent off for every rough tackle where other players with less bad reputations get away with it: it fits the pre-conceived narrative. To add to that narrative factor, Adrián probably would've gotten away with it if he'd have rolled around and pretended he was really hurt, or pretended it was a head injury.

From my point of view, it's a clear foul on Adrián, but Adrián has to do better to avoid getting in that situation and not leaving it in the hands of the refs who are shite. Mind you, he's our third choice keeper, so I don't expect much more and thought he did OK in the rest of the game. Scott Carson is City's third choice keeper and their second choice keeper (Steffen) wasn't much cop either in the FA Cup semi-final.

Also the linesman shouldn't be flagging in that situation having spent the last two seasons not flagging anything even when it was clearly offside. When they flag now, players will expect that it's not even close to being onside. (I think this is a cock-up rather than a change in procedure though.)

If Foden hasn't touched the ball then it is a clear foul on Adrian. Either way it should be a foul.

I agree that all our team stopped when the flag went up. They do really need to clarify that.

[El Lobo]

It shouldnt have stood clearly, but I dont think its outrageous to say Adrian maybe should have done a little better with the initial shot. I know it was close range but it was pretty soft and straight at him.