Gabriel
Serial whistler
I think you have just managed to phrase it better than anyone else did. This is my understanding (I haven't seen the 'foul' on Saka) but it sounds like it was a shocker.
Ars V Bou
- Thread starter Therealcjhill
- Start date
Kinsleyr
Member
I think you have said exactly what is currently wrong with the referee setup. It's a mess and I hope in the summer they can get together and sort it out as it's making it harder for the average referee when decsions like this are going wrong on a weekly basis.
The Premier league came out with not all contact is a foul and the threshold should be higher when it come to penalties yet clearly not the case in the VARs eyes when referees give penalties that are as soft as this.
Surely part of the VAR thinking should be has the attacker initiated the contact and if he think he has then he should send the ref to the screen, not the referee has not made an error because there is a slight touch on the attacker.
Surely part of the VAR thinking should be has the attacker initiated the contact and if he think he has then he should send the ref to the screen, not the referee has not made an error because there is a slight touch on the attacker.
Runner Ref
Active Member
VAR is never going to get involved because of the clear and obvious motion.
Scrap VAR and bring in the challenge based system.
Scrap VAR and bring in the challenge based system.
Gabriel
Serial whistler
I think this would be worse than the current system for reasons we have spoken about a lot in other discussions.
Runner Ref
Active Member
I'm still yet to see anyone come up with a justifiable reason why it wouldn't......
Gabriel
Serial whistler
Justifiable? Quite difficult. Common sense? Not a good idea IMHO.
Runner Ref
Active Member
What is difficult? You simply come up with a criteria of what can and can't be challenged by clubs, taking out the C&O wording. I think there's a very good chance that NFFC would have had at least 1 penalty vs Everton had they been able yo challenge, leaving the onfield referee to make the final decision. Just like I feel that there's a very good chance that the pen in today's game for Arsenal gets overturned if Coote gets another look at it.
I wouldn't use the term 'common sense' when you're trying to defend VAR, BTW!
Gabriel
Serial whistler
Trying to find a reason why it wouldn't work, which is what you said many can't do.
Well, at least it is consistent(ly rubbish)!
Runner Ref
Active Member
So if you can't come up with any justifiable reasons as to why it's a bad idea, how can you say wouldn't it work?
VAR has been a flop. And not necessarily just in England.
Last edited:
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Just scrap VAR. It’s s waste of time and money.
Maybe just VAR for the semi-automated offsides?
Runner Ref
Active Member
One of the many ways it could work. Clubs have an incredible amount of analysts, they could do it. They could even employ referees to fulfil tue role. Similar to Clattenburg, only they'll actually do something that doesn't involve whatever it was he did!
Either way, plenty of ways to at least give it a go. It has to be better than VAR.
I am actually shocked at some of the comments and views on this one.
I will start with the incidents as I see them on the highlights.
Clear red card on saka. High up and studs out. VAR should have asked the ref to look at that.
Penalty is an obviously penalty. The player is under no obligation to lift his leg over the keeper. It’s not “minimal” contact. Havertz didn’t initiate contact by moving his leg into the keepers path. The keeper slid and connected.
Disallowed goal for Bournemouth for a foul on keeper is one I don’t understand and in fact Bournemouth should have had a penalty.
I will start with the incidents as I see them on the highlights.
Clear red card on saka. High up and studs out. VAR should have asked the ref to look at that.
Penalty is an obviously penalty. The player is under no obligation to lift his leg over the keeper. It’s not “minimal” contact. Havertz didn’t initiate contact by moving his leg into the keepers path. The keeper slid and connected.
Disallowed goal for Bournemouth for a foul on keeper is one I don’t understand and in fact Bournemouth should have had a penalty.
Gabriel
Serial whistler
I can't. It's just my opinion. I'd rather have no VAR and no challenge system tbh. GLT is the only tech I think the game wants/needs.
So as a football fan and taking my red hat off for a minute, I sometimes agree with that statement and sometimes I don’t.
GLT is obvious and easy to accept.
Offside if it’s automated would be better, but I hate how assistants don’t flag for obvious offsides.
Now the tough part. I don’t want VAR to make calls on the slightest touch or no touch looking at it in super slow motion.
I want the refs to make decisions and not think that VAR will sort it out.
At the same time, I don’t want a hand of god goal standing. The problem then is what do we define as clear and obvious? Hand of god is low hanging fruit. Havertz penalty yesterday is not clear and obvious? What about the handball in the semi final? It’s just too subjective.
On balance, I would be happy to lose VAR for majority of decisions.
might be good work for the thousands of refs that eventually quit
A soft penalty is still a penalty, just like a soft boiled egg is still a boiled egg or a soft cheese is still a cheese. I'm really not getting the outrage here, the keeper has come out and got nowhere near the ball. There is nothing in law to say that attackers have to get away from a keeper that makes a careless challenge, or that they have to lift their leg off the ground to avoid it being caught. This isn't like one of the old Robert Pires style tricks where he dangled a leg out as he was running to initiate contact, the contact here has absolutely been caused by the keeper coming flying out.
Regardless of opinions on penalty or not though, it certainly isn't anything VAR can be recommending a review for.