Standard of Referees (Sponsored by Steven Reid)

[Templeton]

What I do not understand is the way VAR is implanted in the Premier league.
In France the moment that a VAR call is made, the referee runs to the pitch side monitor and discusses the incident with the VAR officials while watching the video and a decision is made.
In our system the referee stands in the on the pitch and waits for the VAR officials to tell him what to do, and only calls him to the monitor to change his decision.

So French football copied the tried and tested method that Rugby Union have used for years, where they referee and VAR watch and go through the incident together and discuss what each is seeing. The only difference being in Rugby Union they use the stadium big screen rather than a pitch side monitor. I don't think anything shows the arrogance of the PGMOL and Premier League more than their ignorance to learn anything from sports that have been using these types of system for years.

 

[Rubics]

Scousers don’t have a big screen, if they risked it some scally would nick it! On that basis alone it’s a none starter!

 

[Larry Lansbury]

The current VAR system is bizarre and clearly doesn’t work. We don’t want long delays but do want correct decision. Ref can only watch the vital replays if VAR tells him to! Last few days heard comments from media ‘that would have been a Peno at start of season, but not now as bar has been raised’. I presume refs still visit clubs at start of season to explain new rules etc-so how the hell are then clubs/players suppose to manage changes mid way through season-ridiculous.

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

Can anyone say with any certainty that decisions on average have got better because of VAR?

I think they've got worse.

There were very few truly terrible decisions pre-VAR but now they're reasonably common place not because VAR technology is toss but because the refs have been encouraged to let the game flow with VAR picking up any truly terrible decisions, but then the VAR is encouraged not to overrule the initial decision both in the rules themselves and because of the hierarchy within the organisation. So you just get these moments which everyone knows needs action, including I suspect both the on-field ref and VAR, but they fail to do so because of the framework they're working in. I suspect the refs secretly hate it.

Then you've got the minutia decision making which VAR likes to ponder over for minutes on end and eventually comes to a random decision (I'm being kind here, I think these decisions usually favour certain clubs) that may or may not be right because the technology isn't as accurate as it needs to be to be fully accurate. This is no better than on-field refs making the decision and frankly if the decision is that difficult to tell then really should it be going to a second review in the first place?

I don't think VAR is terrible but our current implementation of it is. I would favour either binning it off entirely, or move to a system whereby a team gets 1 or 2 challenges a game and the on-field ref is mandated to go and look at it on the monitor when asked to. One or two replays, if it's not an obvious error and/or you can't tell from the replay then just carry on with original decision.

 

[Rubics]

I caught about 2 mins of talksport yesterday morning in somebody’s house. Jim white was shooting somebody down very forcefully that VAR had improved the correct decisions by a significant %, he was adamant that the stats back this up and wouldn’t accept that VAR had made things worse. Thats just not what I see week in week out, it’s far worse.

 

[Notcher]

Can anyone say with any certainty that decisions on average have got better because of VAR?

I think they've got worse.

There were very few truly terrible decisions pre-VAR but now they're reasonably common place not because VAR technology is toss but because the refs have been encouraged to let the game flow with VAR picking up any truly terrible decisions, but then the VAR is encouraged not to overrule the initial decision both in the rules themselves and because of the hierarchy within the organisation. So you just get these moments which everyone knows needs action, including I suspect both the on-field ref and VAR, but they fail to do so because of the framework they're working in. I suspect the refs secretly hate it.

Then you've got the minutia decision making which VAR likes to ponder over for minutes on end and eventually comes to a random decision (I'm being kind here, I think these decisions usually favour certain clubs) that may or may not be right because the technology isn't as accurate as it needs to be to be fully accurate. This is no better than on-field refs making the decision and frankly if the decision is that difficult to tell then really should it be going to a second review in the first place?

I don't think VAR is terrible but our current implementation of it is. I would favour either binning it off entirely, or move to a system whereby a team gets 1 or 2 challenges a game and the on-field ref is mandated to go and look at it on the monitor when asked to. One or two replays, if it's not an obvious error and/or you can't tell from the replay then just carry on with original decision.

What would massively help referees is for there to actually be 2 of them out on the pitch. We're asking non athlete blokes in their 40's to keep up with the pace of a Premier League game which gets faster year on year. I think even basketball has a couple of refs which is played on a small court. Simply have a ref in each half of the pitch, and as the ball crosses halfway control switches to the other ref.

Not only would this allow refs to keep up with the game, it will allow them to be positioned better and be closer to play. Another major benefit will be having refs far less fatigued and we all know fatigue plays a huge part in decision making

 

[Captain Sinister]

What would massively help referees is for there to actually be 2 of them out on the pitch. We're asking non athlete blokes in their 40's to keep up with the pace of a Premier League game which gets faster year on year. I think even basketball has a couple of refs which is played on a small court. Simple have a ref in each half of the pitch, and as the ball crosses halfway control switches to the other ref.

Not only would this allow refs to keep up with the game, it will allow them to be positioned and be closer to play. Another major benefit will be having refs far less fatigued and we all know fatigue plays a huge part in decision making

... and 4 linesmen.
...and no VAR.

 

[derbyshirered]

he didn’t get the ball and even if he did the tackle from behind is outlawed

 

[adam09]

There's no law saying you can't tackle from behind. Didn't Murillo make a goal saving tackle from behind a while back? Most tackles are fine if you play the ball and don't clatter the player.

VAR has made some things worse because they are watching in slow motion, things which happen extremely fast.

The Curtis Jones red card for Liverpool v Spurs for example. He's gone for a 50/50 and his foot his rolled around the ball into the Spurs player.

Completely innocuous, of course it could cause an injury but that's football. It's not like he's launched himself through the air into a tackle like the Brighton one v us, which was deemed only a yellow card.


What I don't understand is why an on field ref, if they aren't sure about a big decision, can't choose to go and watch a replay THEMSELVES. Sunday v example. Taylor says Young got the ball v CHO but he's not sure, so he asks the VAR director to line up a replay and at an appropriate time he halts the game and goes and has a look on the screen.

Surely that is better AND quicker. The VAR should only be there to pick up clear and obvious errors and something missed off the ball, not debate the on field refs decision.

 

[Robertson]

The challenge system works pretty well in the NFL because usually the challenges are based on some kind of objective ‘truth’: does the ball hit the ground or not? Does it cross a line or not? Does a players knee/elbow/arse hit the ground or not? Etc.

But you’re only allowed to challenge certain types of decision. In fact making the wrong sort of challenge will itself lead to a team being penalised.

One of the things you CANNOT challenge is “pass interference” (PI), which basically should be called when one player is preventing another catching a forward pass by holding/grabbing etc. So can be highly subjective, and is probably pretty close in spirit to the “there’s contact, but is it sufficient contact?” judgements you get for penalties in football.

Except! One season, following some particularly egregious game-changing PI calls made by the onfield refs in the playoffs it was decided that PI should be made “challengeable”, on a trial basis.

What happened? The refs kept on making dubious PI calls, and the coaches started challenging them. And after a short delay and a look at a few replays the VAR equivalent would back up the onfield decision made by the onfield refs, however obvious it was wrong. Every. Single. Time.

Of course, because you only get two challenges a match, and lose a time out if you lose a challenge, all the coaches with any sense eventually stopped using them for PI over the course of the season, and the league/refs concluded the trial showed that challenges for PI weren’t necessary, and scrapped it.

Which allows cynics to continue to call corruption within what, similar to football refs in the UK, is perceived to be a pretty amateurish old boys network type of organisation.

In summary, a challenge system isn’t necessarily the answer as long as the people implementing it remain an unaccountable clique.

 

[Robertson]

I caught about 2 mins of talksport yesterday morning in somebody’s house. Jim white was shooting somebody down very forcefully that VAR had improved the correct decisions by a significant %, he was adamant that the stats back this up and wouldn’t accept that VAR had made things worse. Thats just not what I see week in week out, it’s far worse.

Pretty much all the stats i’ve seen work on the initial flawed premise that VAR makes correct decisions all the time, so every time it overrules an onfield decision that by definition “improves” the overall percentage of correct decisions made.

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

What I don't understand is why an on field ref, if they aren't sure about a big decision, can't choose to go and watch a replay THEMSELVES. Sunday v example. Taylor says Young got the ball v CHO but he's not sure, so he asks the VAR director to line up a replay and at an appropriate time he halts the game and goes and has a look on the screen.

Surely that is better AND quicker. The VAR should only be there to pick up clear and obvious errors and something missed off the ball, not debate the on field refs decision.

Taylor was sure hence motioning that the ball was played. The refs have the ability to stop the game and ask VAR for review.

He was just egotistical to assume he couldn't be wrong, another issue with current refereeing standards.

 

[Cureboy]

Without going over this whole thread does anyone know how many points we've been screwed out of this season? One thing is for sure we'd be home and dry by now without these bent b*stards.

 

[Robertson]

Without going over this whole thread does anyone know how many points we've been screwed out of this season? One thing is for sure we'd be home and dry by now without these bent b*stards.

Impossible to say for sure isn’t it. Just as it’s impossible to be sure Huddersfield would have gone on to win the playoff final if one of their dives was given as a penalty.

At the very least a handful of draws i’d say. Putting us six clear with four to play. Ten clear, were it not for the four point penalty we received for being one of the ten premier league clubs to lose over £105m over the last three years.

 

[GOBIAS]

Can anyone say with any certainty that decisions on average have got better because of VAR?

I think they've got worse.

There were very few truly terrible decisions pre-VAR but now they're reasonably common place not because VAR technology is toss but because the refs have been encouraged to let the game flow with VAR picking up any truly terrible decisions, but then the VAR is encouraged not to overrule the initial decision both in the rules themselves and because of the hierarchy within the organisation. So you just get these moments which everyone knows needs action, including I suspect both the on-field ref and VAR, but they fail to do so because of the framework they're working in. I suspect the refs secretly hate it.

Then you've got the minutia decision making which VAR likes to ponder over for minutes on end and eventually comes to a random decision (I'm being kind here, I think these decisions usually favour certain clubs) that may or may not be right because the technology isn't as accurate as it needs to be to be fully accurate. This is no better than on-field refs making the decision and frankly if the decision is that difficult to tell then really should it be going to a second review in the first place?

I don't think VAR is terrible but our current implementation of it is. I would favour either binning it off entirely, or move to a system whereby a team gets 1 or 2 challenges a game and the on-field ref is mandated to go and look at it on the monitor when asked to. One or two replays, if it's not an obvious error and/or you can't tell from the replay then just carry on with original decision.

I think 2 or 3 challenges per game.

All goals watched again for offside as celebrations are happening but if they cant tell from the two replays and a freeze frame of the ball being released if a player is offside then that is it. Of their bodies look level they are onside. Check has to be concluded in 30 seconds so it doesn’t impact on the game.

Straight away that is an improvement.

The the rule makers just need to decide what is and isn’t handball, or offside, or what constitutes enough contact to be a penalty!!

 

[valspoodle]

If they want to improve VAR just ask any fan with a modicum of common sense.

Don't ask a referee because that has obviously failed bigtime.

Alternatively ask countries or sports where VAR (or it's cousins) works satisfactorily.

 

[Two Weeks Away]

What would massively help referees is for there to actually be 2 of them out on the pitch. We're asking non athlete blokes in their 40's to keep up with the pace of a Premier League game which gets faster year on year. I think even basketball has a couple of refs which is played on a small court. Simply have a ref in each half of the pitch, and as the ball crosses halfway control switches to the other ref.

Not only would this allow refs to keep up with the game, it will allow them to be positioned better and be closer to play. Another major benefit will be having refs far less fatigued and we all know fatigue plays a huge part in decision making

And a timekeeper as well

 

[dr_horse]

Can anyone say with any certainty that decisions on average have got better because of VAR?

I think they've got worse.

There were very few truly terrible decisions pre-VAR but now they're reasonably common place not because VAR technology is toss but because the refs have been encouraged to let the game flow with VAR picking up any truly terrible decisions, but then the VAR is encouraged not to overrule the initial decision both in the rules themselves and because of the hierarchy within the organisation. So you just get these moments which everyone knows needs action, including I suspect both the on-field ref and VAR, but they fail to do so because of the framework they're working in. I suspect the refs secretly hate it.

Then you've got the minutia decision making which VAR likes to ponder over for minutes on end and eventually comes to a random decision (I'm being kind here, I think these decisions usually favour certain clubs) that may or may not be right because the technology isn't as accurate as it needs to be to be fully accurate. This is no better than on-field refs making the decision and frankly if the decision is that difficult to tell then really should it be going to a second review in the first place?

I don't think VAR is terrible but our current implementation of it is. I would favour either binning it off entirely, or move to a system whereby a team gets 1 or 2 challenges a game and the on-field ref is mandated to go and look at it on the monitor when asked to. One or two replays, if it's not an obvious error and/or you can't tell from the replay then just carry on with original decision.

From 8th Feb:

The latest Premier League statistics show before VAR was introduced, 82 per cent of refereeing decisions were correct. Now, since VAR was introduced, 96 per cent of decisions are correct.

This season, the KMI panel has decided:

VAR has intervened correctly on 57 occasions.
There have been 20 VAR errors so far - but the Premier League says 17 of those have been a failure of VAR to intervene when the panel felt it should have done.

There have been three "wrong" decisions this season when VAR has intervened:

One of those errors was a factual mistake - when Luis Diaz's goal for Liverpool was disallowed against Tottenham, when the VAR failed to properly communicate their decision that Diaz was onside when he scored.

There have been two "subjective" errors when VAR intervened (and the panel felt it should not have done):

Sander Berge's goal against Nottingham Forest in September which would have put Burnley 2-1 up, but the panel felt that goal was incorrectly disallowed for handball after a VAR check.

Also in September - when Arsenal played Manchester United and Antony Taylor gave a penalty for Aaron Wan-Bissaka's foul on Kai Havertz, only for the penalty decision to be overturned because the VAR felt the contact was not sufficient to bring Havertz down.

Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk

 

[Captain Sinister]

Here's a paradox for you: players who don't fall don't get penalty decisions in their favour; players who dive histionically do.

 

[Lee]

From 8th Feb:

The latest Premier League statistics show before VAR was introduced, 82 per cent of refereeing decisions were correct. Now, since VAR was introduced, 96 per cent of decisions are correct.

This season, the KMI panel has decided:

VAR has intervened correctly on 57 occasions.
There have been 20 VAR errors so far - but the Premier League says 17 of those have been a failure of VAR to intervene when the panel felt it should have done.

There have been three "wrong" decisions this season when VAR has intervened:

One of those errors was a factual mistake - when Luis Diaz's goal for Liverpool was disallowed against Tottenham, when the VAR failed to properly communicate their decision that Diaz was onside when he scored.

There have been two "subjective" errors when VAR intervened (and the panel felt it should not have done):

Sander Berge's goal against Nottingham Forest in September which would have put Burnley 2-1 up, but the panel felt that goal was incorrectly disallowed for handball after a VAR check.

Also in September - when Arsenal played Manchester United and Antony Taylor gave a penalty for Aaron Wan-Bissaka's foul on Kai Havertz, only for the penalty decision to be overturned because the VAR felt the contact was not sufficient to bring Havertz down.

Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk

I'd like to see how many of them are ours and how many errors there now are for the season

 

[atrophy]

Would the handball, and tackle from behind by Ashley Young both have been deemed yellow cards if picked up by the ref?

 

[adamthered]

From 8th Feb:

The latest Premier League statistics show before VAR was introduced, 82 per cent of refereeing decisions were correct. Now, since VAR was introduced, 96 per cent of decisions are correct.

This season, the KMI panel has decided:

VAR has intervened correctly on 57 occasions.
There have been 20 VAR errors so far - but the Premier League says 17 of those have been a failure of VAR to intervene when the panel felt it should have done.

There have been three "wrong" decisions this season when VAR has intervened:

One of those errors was a factual mistake - when Luis Diaz's goal for Liverpool was disallowed against Tottenham, when the VAR failed to properly communicate their decision that Diaz was onside when he scored.

There have been two "subjective" errors when VAR intervened (and the panel felt it should not have done):

Sander Berge's goal against Nottingham Forest in September which would have put Burnley 2-1 up, but the panel felt that goal was incorrectly disallowed for handball after a VAR check.

Also in September - when Arsenal played Manchester United and Antony Taylor gave a penalty for Aaron Wan-Bissaka's foul on Kai Havertz, only for the penalty decision to be overturned because the VAR felt the contact was not sufficient to bring Havertz down.

Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk

That's us screwed then, can see it now "see Burnley should have had a goal Vs you, so therefore you've had an advantage. No case to answer"

 

[Lefkasman]

From 8th Feb:

The latest Premier League statistics show before VAR was introduced, 82 per cent of refereeing decisions were correct. Now, since VAR was introduced, 96 per cent of decisions are correct.

This season, the KMI panel has decided:

VAR has intervened correctly on 57 occasions.
There have been 20 VAR errors so far - but the Premier League says 17 of those have been a failure of VAR to intervene when the panel felt it should have done.

There have been three "wrong" decisions this season when VAR has intervened:

One of those errors was a factual mistake - when Luis Diaz's goal for Liverpool was disallowed against Tottenham, when the VAR failed to properly communicate their decision that Diaz was onside when he scored.

There have been two "subjective" errors when VAR intervened (and the panel felt it should not have done):

Sander Berge's goal against Nottingham Forest in September which would have put Burnley 2-1 up, but the panel felt that goal was incorrectly disallowed for handball after a VAR check.

Also in September - when Arsenal played Manchester United and Antony Taylor gave a penalty for Aaron Wan-Bissaka's foul on Kai Havertz, only for the penalty decision to be overturned because the VAR felt the contact was not sufficient to bring Havertz down.

Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk

Who's saying they were correct? They are being judge and jury on their own decisions. My guess is anyone rocking the boat too much won't be on that panel very long.

Sent from my 23124RA7EO using Tapatalk

 

[Strummer]

Here's a paradox for you: players who don't fall don't get penalty decisions in their favour; players who dive histionically do.

Jürgen Klinsmann likes this post.

 

[Flaggers]

Strangest goal ever? Reading's 'ghost goal' vs Watford in 2008

Reading were awarded one of the wildest goals in English football history in inexplicable circumstances vs Watford...

www.givemesport.com

The "ghost goal" - the "goal that never was" . . . . . .

I give you 3 guesses as to who the referee was.

You'll only need 1.

The guy's been a shambles since the start.