VAR - The Great Debate

[Holymoly]

After another weekend of appalling VAR decisions we need to talk.

Firstly I have a question. The VAR operatives in Stockley Park, what is the feed they are watching? I'm assuming they are watching multiple angles simultaneously? Are they listening to the in game commentary? My point is that anyone who has ever been to game, whether they are at the back of the stands or right on the pitch, tend to have a much better idea of what is going on compared to someone watching on TV. There's something about the 3D view over a 2D picture on the TV that allows you to see things. That's why the commentators often pick up things that those watching on TV initially miss.

Case in point, the VAR inactivity on our penalty shout at the end of the game against WHU. In the ground it was a clear handball, even the commentators called it. The referee missed it probably due to positioning and the linesman was probably watching through a mass of bodies. On the TV however, without the commentary, the handball wasn't immediately apparent. So the question is what alerts VAR to look at an event? If the commentary alerts them then they should be looking at it immediately. If however they have no audible queues then the decision to look at the event is delayed and by then the ball is way down the other end of the pitch and the easy decision is to indicate play on.

I have a solution to this. Take away the decision to use VAR, even offsides, and place it with the teams themselves. Give each team three challenges in a game. If they challenge and it is found to be wrong then they lose a life. If they are correct then it is retained. This gives referees far more encouragement to actually make decisions rather than abrogate that responsibility to VAR. It has the added result that if a goal is scored and it is subsequently found to have been offside the defending team only has themselves to blame for not challenging. It also has the benefit of meaning that a team can't arbitrarily keep stopping the game as eventually the challenges run out and they are at the mercy of the on field officials, like it should be.

Things can't continue the way they are as there will always be the accusation of bias.

[McCreadie]

41 minutes ago, Holymoly said:

After another weekend of appalling VAR decisions we need to talk.

Firstly I have a question. The VAR operatives in Stockley Park, what is the feed they are watching? I'm assuming they are watching multiple angles simultaneously? Are they listening to the in game commentary? My point is that anyone who has ever been to game, whether they are at the back of the stands or right on the pitch, tend to have a much better idea of what is going on compared to someone watching on TV. There's something about the 3D view over a 2D picture on the TV that allows you to see things. That's why the commentators often pick up things that those watching on TV initially miss.

Case in point, the VAR inactivity on our penalty shout at the end of the game against WHU. In the ground it was a clear handball, even the commentators called it. The referee missed it probably due to positioning and the linesman was probably watching through a mass of bodies. On the TV however, without the commentary, the handball wasn't immediately apparent. So the question is what alerts VAR to look at an event? If the commentary alerts them then they should be looking at it immediately. If however they have no audible queues then the decision to look at the event is delayed and by then the ball is way down the other end of the pitch and the easy decision is to indicate play on.

I have a solution to this. Take away the decision to use VAR, even offsides, and place it with the teams themselves. Give each team three challenges in a game. If they challenge and it is found to be wrong then they lose a life. If they are correct then it is retained. This gives referees far more encouragement to actually make decisions rather than abrogate that responsibility to VAR. It has the added result that if a goal is scored and it is subsequently found to have been offside the defending team only has themselves to blame for not challenging. It also has the benefit of meaning that a team can't arbitrarily keep stopping the game as eventually the challenges run out and they are at the mercy of the on field officials, like it should be.

Things can't continue the way they are as there will always be the accusation of bias.

That's a pretty good idea. Offside is the sticking point though. Because that should be 100% black and white (even though they are managing to mess that up too). And if you leave that to VAR, as is probably correct, then you retain the worst part of it, which is the fact that they have taken the celebration out of scoring a goal and destroyed the best thing about football.

[Mark Kelly]

Any situation where they involve "interpretation" by an official is where the accusations of bias arise.

Arsenal and whichever other side it was who had dodgy offsides against them got an apologetic phone call from Manchester United fanboi and PGMOL chief Howard Webb because supposedly , you are either onside or offside .

We got nothing because handball is due to interpretation from referees groomed to have an anti Chelsea bias.

We have been routinely cheated for years in the Premier League , we've seen our players booked for offences waved away by the officials when the opposition carry them out , we've seen legitimate penalty's given then the offending club apologised to afterwards leading to yet more PGMOL bias against us.

Our games are refereed differently to every other game , we are held accountable to every breach of the law possible when everyone else gets the benefit of the doubt.

The PGMOL are bent . 

Mark Halsey ex referee has admitted as much since retiring.

Even this weekend we've seen two of our offside goals immediately ruled offside , no debate whatsoever, immediate. 

Meanwhile the West Ham goal was poured over in forensic detail for ages and I'm sure many thought it was just in case they could not confirm the decision but find a way of letting the goal stand whilst weaseling it away afterwards.

VAR is a joke because those operating it are jokers.

Any loophole that can be exploited by interpretation should be closed forthwith.

We were robbed of a legitimate penalty at the weekend without a shadow of a doubt in my mind , everyone who wasn't associated with VAR and the PGMOL agrees.

And when Danny Murphy who never has a good word to say about Chelsea is up in arms you know something is up.

[Bison]

Absolutely hilarious that both Arsenal and Brighton got an apology from the PGMOL. They accept mistakes were made and will review both incidents. I am sure this will result in both teams being given a favourable decision in their favour soon to 'balance things out'.

Nothing for us though. Never a penalty, boss. It was so obvious it took 10 seconds for the VAR to rule it out completely.

The same VAR ref spent four minutes reviewing a blatant West Ham offside. Everybody looking at the image could see Rice was offside so why did it take so long? Seems to me he really wanted to give that goal and, try as he might, the offside was just too blatant.

[Mark Kelly]

[CarefreeMuratcan]

I think the solution is to change the system to be like it is in cricket and tennis, where the on field captain makes the decision to appeal and you lose your right to appeal if you refer to VAR and the on field decision was right (with a margin of error for offside calls, so you don't lose your appeal in certain tight cases, like the way it works with LBW in cricket).

Introduces a tactical element to it too. I suppose in football it could be that you get 1 appeal per half and a 3rd appeal in games that go to Extra Time. But reiterating again, that if you use an appeal and the on field decision was wrong, then you retain that appeal. Meaning that you can be in the 2nd half with 2 appeals in hand or extra time with 3 appeals in hand, if you go through the game not losing them. 

I think if this kind of system is used, then the VAR decisions will be better quality in theory because they will in theory be fewer than they are now, they will be more comprehensive. Take our handball call the other day. If we ask for that in the appeal system, I think they decide it is a penalty, because then they have to start actively looking at it, and the camera in the stadium and on the TV broadcast will look at it in detail and the match will be paused. The way it went under the current system, it was down to the referees and VAR discretion, and they quickly moved on from it as they didn't have a good look at it. 

Funnily enough this system probably sees us 1-0 up early on at Anfield in the recent game, because Liverpool probably don't appeal the goal, either because nobody thought it was offside or because they thought it wasn't worth the risk of losing an appeal in the first half. 

[Bob Singleton]

John Brooks (who was VAR for the Palace v Brighton game on Saturday) has been removed as VAR from tonight's Merseyside derby.

Talk in various papers that Lee Mason might be sacked. Certainly all refs, assistants and VAR people are being called to a meeting tomorrow by Howard Webb

Edited February 13, 2023 by Bob Singleton
Typo

[flllerywhereru2]

1 minute ago, Bob Singleton said:

John Brooks (who was VAR for the Palace v Brighton game on Saturday) has been removed as VAR from tonight's Merseyside derby.

Talk in various papers that Lee Mason might be sacked. Certainly all refs, assistants and VAR people are being called to a meeting tomorrow by Howard Webb

Perhaps they are finally realising that there is huge inconsistency in the way that the games are being reffed/VAR ed. As Chelsea fans we tend to feel that we get the rough end of the deal and in the case of the sort of decision where the ref decides like saturday we may well be right. But seeing the inconsitency re the offsides I think that is just luck of the  draw though you do notice they spend longer checking if you score against liverpool /United but thenm three quarters of refs are from the north west so thats probably the reason.

[Mark Kelly]

Did we get an apology phone call when Mike Dean ruled that snapping Cucerella's head back by his hair  at a corner Spurs equalised from was a legitimate attempt to win the ball?

[CarefreeMuratcan]

2 minutes ago, flllerywhereru2 said:

Perhaps they are finally realising that there is huge inconsistency in the way that the games are being reffed/VAR ed. As Chelsea fans we tend to feel that we get the rough end of the deal and in the case of the sort of decision where the ref decides like saturday we may well be right. But seeing the inconsitency re the offsides I think that is just luck of the  draw though you do notice they spend longer checking if you score against liverpool /United but thenm three quarters of refs are from the north west so thats probably the reason.

Offsides will be sorted from next season, when the Semi Automated Offside Technology is introduced (as used in the World Cup, Champions League and Serie A). 

[My Blood Is Blue]

I like the idea of teams being given a certain amount of 'challenges' as done with other sports, however, my main issue with it is that I don't think 3 a match is enough because so often referees get decisions wrong (sometimes through being inept and occasionally human error), I also think it would allow refs not to make those big match-defining decisions as they'll await the 'challenge' from the team.

Refereeing is a tough job, but the point of VAR was to help referees out (or so they told us) and to stop the clear and obvious mistakes, however, it is being used, IMO, to help manipulate games and decisions even more so than they used to be and until that is rectified and the referees are held to account much more by an independent body, it's not going to happen.

What would also help, would have the refs mic'd up like they are in rugby and to allow us to hear the discussion between the ref and VAR. 

[flllerywhereru2]

1 hour ago, CarefreeMuratcan said:

Offsides will be sorted from next season, when the Semi Automated Offside Technology is introduced (as used in the World Cup, Champions League and Serie A). 

Ah, i didnt realise that, had always had the feeling the european games were better from a Ref/VAR point of view that must be part of it.

[flllerywhereru2]

35 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

I like the idea of teams being given a certain amount of 'challenges' as done with other sports, however, my main issue with it is that I don't think 3 a match is enough because so often referees get decisions wrong (sometimes through being inept and occasionally human error), I also think it would allow refs not to make those big match-defining decisions as they'll await the 'challenge' from the team.

Refereeing is a tough job, but the point of VAR was to help referees out (or so they told us) and to stop the clear and obvious mistakes, however, it is being used, IMO, to help manipulate games and decisions even more so than they used to be and until that is rectified and the referees are held to account much more by an independent body, it's not going to happen.

What would also help, would have the refs mic'd up like they are in rugby and to allow us to hear the discussion between the ref and VAR. 

That's exactly my feeling that VAR is scripting games like a TV show-well the use of it is-and i fear that is only partly due to the unconcious bias of the english officials. There is an awful lot of money in the english game, so much that the likes of far east spread betting or results to order cannot be ruled out.

That said the fact that the majority of officials hail from the North/North west is an unhealthy influence too-note how quickly a goal/decision is given for a North West team against how quickly a goal is given/how thoroughly it is checked for a goal against.

 

Ask yourself if Chelsea players made the challenges from the recent Brighton v Liverpool match would there be no red cards? of course the answer is no

[RDCW]

2 hours ago, Holymoly said:

After another weekend of appalling VAR decisions we need to talk.

Firstly I have a question. The VAR operatives in Stockley Park, what is the feed they are watching? I'm assuming they are watching multiple angles simultaneously? Are they listening to the in game commentary? My point is that anyone who has ever been to game, whether they are at the back of the stands or right on the pitch, tend to have a much better idea of what is going on compared to someone watching on TV. There's something about the 3D view over a 2D picture on the TV that allows you to see things. That's why the commentators often pick up things that those watching on TV initially miss.

Case in point, the VAR inactivity on our penalty shout at the end of the game against WHU. In the ground it was a clear handball, even the commentators called it. The referee missed it probably due to positioning and the linesman was probably watching through a mass of bodies. On the TV however, without the commentary, the handball wasn't immediately apparent. So the question is what alerts VAR to look at an event? If the commentary alerts them then they should be looking at it immediately. If however they have no audible queues then the decision to look at the event is delayed and by then the ball is way down the other end of the pitch and the easy decision is to indicate play on.

I have a solution to this. Take away the decision to use VAR, even offsides, and place it with the teams themselves. Give each team three challenges in a game. If they challenge and it is found to be wrong then they lose a life. If they are correct then it is retained. This gives referees far more encouragement to actually make decisions rather than abrogate that responsibility to VAR. It has the added result that if a goal is scored and it is subsequently found to have been offside the defending team only has themselves to blame for not challenging. It also has the benefit of meaning that a team can't arbitrarily keep stopping the game as eventually the challenges run out and they are at the mercy of the on field officials, like it should be.

Things can't continue the way they are as there will always be the accusation of bias.

That's an excellent post, Holymoly. You make great points about the perspective and the drivers of VAR, and I like your suggestion about a team review of decisions; I'd probably put the appeal decision in the hands of the coaching team rather than the on-pitch players though.

[Bison]

1 hour ago, Mark Kelly said:

Did we get an apology phone call when Mike Dean ruled that snapping Cucerella's head back by his hair  at a corner Spurs equalised from was a legitimate attempt to win the ball?

Don't you remember Mike Dean's ridiculous article for the Daily Mail following that incident? No apology. In fact, to further rub salt into the wound, he used the article to highlight what he thought were other good decisions he made in the game. Like letting Richarlison stand in an offside position and block Mendy's sight because:

Quote

The question was whether Richarlison was interfering from an offside position. When Hojbjerg’s shot was struck, Chelsea goalkeeper Edouard Mendy had a view of the ball for me. His line of vision wasn’t clearly blocked, so it was onside and 1-1.

It's corruption in plain sight.

[flllerywhereru2]

30 minutes ago, Bison said:

Don't you remember Mike Dean's ridiculous article for the Daily Mail following that incident? No apology. In fact, to further rub salt into the wound, he used the article to highlight what he thought were other good decisions he made in the game. Like letting Richarlison stand in an offside position and block Mendy's sight because:

It's corruption in plain sight.

Of course the media will have you believe that everyone gets it go against them now and again and that officials are human etc but if you look at this incident-Taylor and his men behind a screen had already ignored a probable foul in the build up and then decided here that Richarlison was not interfering with play. They then compounded the damage by refusing to consider chelseas protests about a hairpull prior to the corner that led to spurs equaliser. Just one of those decisions is annoying but ''can happen''  two ''can happen'' once in a blue moon. but once you get to three something is clearly wrong with the mindset of the officials-they cannot be officiating with a clear mind. A similar example were the three dreadful challenges in the recent Brighton V Liverpool match.

[Sciatika]

3 hours ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

What would also help, would have the refs mic'd up like they are in rugby and to allow us to hear the discussion between the ref and VAR. 

Agree with this. The best antidote to poor decision-making is transparency.

Also, we need reinforcement of the rules about players surrounding the ref. Most PL refs are homers, and that exacerbates it. Refs should be encouraged to dish out a few cards.

Edited February 13, 2023 by Sciatika

[CarefreeMuratcan]

1 hour ago, Bison said:

Don't you remember Mike Dean's ridiculous article for the Daily Mail following that incident? No apology. In fact, to further rub salt into the wound, he used the article to highlight what he thought were other good decisions he made in the game. Like letting Richarlison stand in an offside position and block Mendy's sight because:

It's corruption in plain sight.

Regardless of whether or not you interpret the offside player as blocking the keeper's view or not, they should just make these situations black and white offside if the player is offside. 

[Mark Kelly]

4 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

Agree with this. The best antidote to poor decision-making is transparency.

Also, we need reinforcement of the rules about players surrounding the ref. Most PL refs are homers, and that exacerbates it. Refs should be encouraged to dish out a few cards.

Transparency is exactly what the PGMOL don't want .

They want to be able to make decisions clouded by obfuscation .

[Mark Kelly]

Just now, CarefreeMuratcan said:

Regardless of whether or not you interpret the offside player as blocking the keeper's view or not, they should just make these situations black and white offside if the player is offside. 

He's blocking the keepers view , Mendy is having to lean to his left and in doing so is off balance , only Mike Dean and his pals at the PGMOL would think otherwise .

[flllerywhereru2]

26 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

He's blocking the keepers view , Mendy is having to lean to his left and in doing so is off balance , only Mike Dean and his pals at the PGMOL would think otherwise .

Perhaps that none of them have played football to any level or perhaps at all is a factor here too. I often think that watching some of the tackles that are punished and ones that arent. Good example at the weekend-Mudryk is clobbered with a reducer by the west ham fullback not just once but twice (no foul let alone a card), few minutes later Badiashile expertly hooks the ball from antonio and gets yellow as the ref doesnt recognise the skill in what he did

[Mark Kelly]

You know how anyone who plays football games on games consoles constantly complain that the games are scripted?

That's what the PGMOL are doing .

[Bob Singleton]

2 hours ago, Sciatika said:

Agree with this. The best antidote to poor decision-making is transparency.

Also, we need reinforcement of the rules about players surrounding the ref. Most PL refs are homers, and that exacerbates it. Refs should be encouraged to dish out a few cards.

You didn't watch other games this weekend then? Lemina got a second yellow for being the third player to run up to the ref in the Southampton v Wolves game, whilst Ruben Dias got a yellow for being the third City player to run complaining to the ref after a foul on de Bruyne (which the ref had already given)

 

[chara]

2 hours ago, Mark Kelly said:

He's blocking the keepers view , Mendy is having to lean to his left and in doing so is off balance , only Mike Dean and his pals at the PGMOL would think otherwise .

Anyone in the area is part of a keeper's "awareness" and is "interfering with the play".

Hardly a "black art" but blocking the keeper's view, or being "In his way"...is something that happens at all levels...yet another example of the PGMOL working (?) at video game level.

Appeals question?....not really for it..too limited imho...even a cursory look at any game let alone a Chelsea one will show more than 3 worthwhile appeal incidents per team.

Before VAR you could leave a game aggrieved at decisions but could begrudgingly accept that the Ref only had one chance and one view of an incident and only a linesman to look to for help..and of course the same limitations applied to the lino. 

Now with VAR and time the errors should be minimal and only offside decisions, due to the ability now to show fractional off or in positions, take inordinately long to come to a decision.

In short the "Officials" need to do their jobs properly as a support function in the game..not as the controllers of results and "statistics' as suggested by "what's 'is face".

 

[RDCW]

1 hour ago, chara said:

Anyone in the area is part of a keeper's "awareness" and is "interfering with the play".

Hardly a "black art" but blocking the keeper's view, or being "In his way"...is something that happens at all levels...yet another example of the PGMOL working (?) at video game level.

Appeals question?....not really for it..too limited imho...even a cursory look at any game let alone a Chelsea one will show more than 3 worthwhile appeal incidents per team.

Before VAR you could leave a game aggrieved at decisions but could begrudgingly accept that the Ref only had one chance and one view of an incident and only a linesman to look to for help..and of course the same limitations applied to the lino. 

Now with VAR and time the errors should be minimal and only offside decisions, due to the ability now to show fractional off or in positions, take inordinately long to come to a decision.

In short the "Officials" need to do their jobs properly as a support function in the game..not as the controllers of results and "statistics' as suggested by "what's 'is face".

 

The point is, if your appeal is successful then it is retained; as long as your appeals continue to be successful you can have as many appeals as you want.