The pitchside screen

[Cirrus_Minor]

Can someone please remember to turn this on before the next home game.

[claptrappers_union]

Which is the pitchside screen?

[claptrappers_union]

I bet you mean the VAR monitor.

So the referee went to it early, VAR was checking an offside before the foul and the ref was waiting for the images.

[daveisaclaret]

Would have thought a bit of common sense could have been applied, if the screen wasn't working the VAR could have just told him it was a blatant penalty/red card instead of waiting around.

[Cirrus_Minor]

The one that the ref couldn't fire up to see the penalty

[Bosscat]

The screen was on we could see it from the Longside upper ... problem was Stockley Park was watching Ceebeebies as usual

[jdrobbo]

They had to do the offside check (which was very close) before the screen went live. Let’s just all calm down

[Rileybobs]

Would have thought a bit of common sense could have been applied, if the screen wasn't working the VAR could have just told him it was a blatant penalty/red card instead of waiting around.

The problem is the whole sending the ref to the monitor is just a charade to enable him to save face. Everyone knew as soon as the ref was sent to the monitor that a penalty would be awarded.

[claptrappers_union]

So was the images eventually coming onto the screen the reason for the big cheer before the penalty was awarded?

[CaramelClaret]

If they were checking an offside, why did they get the ref to stop play and go to the screen?

[Goobs]

So was the images eventually coming onto the screen the reason for the big cheer before the penalty was awarded?

Yes he was stood there looking at the purple VAR screen for a fair while. When it showed the pitch is when everyone cheered.

[claptrappers_union]

The ball would've gone out of play, and VAR would've instructed him to delay the restart, and they were checking for a foul.

After determining it was a foul, they would be instructed the ref to go to the screen. But then they started checking the offside in the buildup, which might've taken longer than expected probably.

[Goobs]

The longer it stayed purple the more I was expecting them to say that due to technical difficulties VAR couldn't be used.

[wilks_bfc]

So was the images eventually coming onto the screen the reason for the big cheer before the penalty was awarded?

Yes. We could see from the JMU that the screen wasn’t on then the cheer went up when you could see the green of the pitch on it

[JohnMac]

This is what happens when someone changes the wi-fi password.

[dougcollins]

Yes he was stood there looking at the purple VAR screen for a fair while. When it showed the pitch is when everyone cheered.

I was in the JHL gents. There was the initial cheer (ah, the picture’s arrived) and a minute later, a much more substantial cheer - he’s given us the penalty.

[Cirrus_Minor]

If they were still checking for offside then why did they send him to the screen?

[Rileybobs]

The ball would've gone out of play, and VAR would've instructed him to delay the restart, and they were checking for a foul.

After determining it was a foul, they would be instructed the ref to go to the screen. But then they started checking the offside in the buildup, which might've taken longer than expected probably.

The strange thing was the ball didn’t go out of play, the referee stopped play to go to the monitor.

[helmclaret]

Yeah I thought that was strange.

[Dark Cloud]

It wasn't working for our "penalty" which in fairness to the ref, who was otherwise dreadful, wasn't his fault. It was an absolute disgrace tbf. It eventually worked and it eventually showed the correct decision!

[dsr]

Just to clarify.

1. The VAR official looked at the foul and decided it was a penalty, and was so confident that he advised the ref to stop play.
2. The ref then went to the screen to have a look for himself, as is normal.
3. The VAR man looked at the offside, which took a long time. The ref isn't involved in that decision. (Though why they blank his screen, I do not know. What harm can it do to let him look?)
4. After the VAR man decided it was onside, they switched on the ref's screen so he could look at the foul.

Nothing failed apart from perhaps the VAR protocol.

[bfcjg]

Cut to the chase, the " officials " were watching a bluey.

[LincsWoldsClaret]

Next time, turn it off and turn it on again

[what_no_pies]

Here's the not even really tight onside they spent forever trying to work out.

Absolute shambles these lot.

Then the fact the ref doesn't recognise it was an obvious foul in the first place.

Think he reffed that with his eyes closed.

[pureclaret]

It was still showig adverts for VAR

[dougcollins]

Just to clarify.


3. The VAR man looked at the offside, which took a long time. The ref isn't involved in that decision. (Though why they blank his screen, I do not know. What harm can it do to let him look?)

That's exactly what I thought.

[IanMcL]

If the ref was Aby good at all, it would just have been an instant pen.

[Vegas Claret]

they should just run Specsavers adverts on it whilst they aren't showing replays

[Commy]

They told Sky that they were checking for offside so couldn't have the screen on but Mike Dean didn't believe it.

[CryerBFC]

If the ref was Aby good at all, it would just have been an instant pen.

My initial reaction was, how’s he not seen it.

The more I think about it, I feel the Prem refs don’t give these decisions as they often want their mates on VAR to back them up, or in taking an age to look at the offside, they look for a reason to not give it as opposed to giving it.

It’s frustrating as VAR could be a great addition, we’ve just got morons operating it.

[superdimitri]

I was sitting watching them review the offside laughing to myself hysterically. It was like they were trying everything they could to get our player offside so they didn't have to revert the refs decision on the penalty.

If it was a closer call, no doubt it would have been given offside, even if one players toe was slightly off.

[agreenwood]

What is the contingency for the technology not working and how the ref not having access to the images? Does the decision fall to the VAR official?

[Guppyspotter]

I suspect the problem was that there was a presumption that there would be no need to review any infield decisions that might benefit us. The screen was therefore turned off to save electricity.

[bobinho]

Would have thought a bit of common sense could have been applied, if the screen wasn't working the VAR could have just told him it was a blatant penalty/red card instead of waiting around.

Yep, no reason they couldn’t have done this…. They do it for the rest of the decisions, so why not?

[what_no_pies]

I was sitting watching them review the offside laughing to myself hysterically. It was like they were trying everything they could to get our player offside so they didn't have to revert the refs decision on the penalty.

If it was a closer call, no doubt it would have been given offside, even if one players toe was slightly off.

I'm not supporting the shower and I think I sort of understand your sentiment but you've just effectively used the suggestion 'the'd have given offside if it was offside' as a stick to beat them with.

[claptrappers_union]

The pitchside monitor was working correctly.

The communication between VAR and the supporters inside the stadium is dreadful. Supporters don't know when an incident is being checked; they don't know when a restart is being delayed, they don't know what the checks are for.

When information is sent to be displayed on the big screens, the check is already complete, and play is back underway.

VAR is the worst thing that ever happened to this sport and PGMOL need to learn that the game doesn't belong to them.

[dsr]

What is the contingency for the technology not working and how the ref not having access to the images? Does the decision fall to the VAR official?

Good question. Is the ref allowed to give a penalty on the say-so of the VAR man, if he hasn't seen the pictures? He could have done when it started - in fact, the ref wasn't given the option, he had to do what the VAR man said.

[Stproc]

I didn’t go on Saturday, I’ve had enough of VAR & the PL. I watched the game ‘elsewhere’ & it took me 3 secs to see that he was onside & possibly upto 2 secs to see the obvious foul.
VAR then needed 5 minutes to give what any half-blind referee should be giving. It was blatant, clear & obvious yet he didn’t give it. This is what VAR has done to refereeing - they abscond from decision making.

[claptrappers_union]

What is the contingency for the technology not working, and how the ref not having access to the images? Does the decision fall to the VAR official?

I'd imagine it'll be on VAR officials. Though if both images and communication went down completely I'd imagine the game would continue without VAR.

If the VAR isn't working, the club are contacted by Hawkeye and is instructed display images on the big screens that VAR is ‘not available’. These are files that are part of the big screens library and don't come from Stockey Park.

[IanMcL]

My initial reaction was, how’s he not seen it.

The more I think about it, I feel the Prem refs don’t give these decisions as they often want their mates on VAR to back them up, or in taking an age to look at the offside, they look for a reason to not give it as opposed to giving it.

It’s frustrating as VAR could be a great addition, we’ve just got morons operating it.

20000 people saw it.
If you can't sort offside in 30 seconds, it should be inside. Players with big noses are being picked on!

[ClaretTony]

20000 people saw it.
If you can't sort offside in 30 seconds, it should be inside. Players with big noses are being picked on!

I don't believe the offside check theory - four defenders (including the goalkeeper) were playing Vitinho onside. It would have taken one look to confirm that. AND they would not have advised the referee to go to the monitor if they were still checking for offside.

[IanMcL]

I don't believe the offside check theory - four defenders (including the goalkeeper) were playing Vitinho onside. It would have taken one look to confirm that. AND they would not have advised the referee to go to the monitor if they were still checking for offside.

Especially whole the ball was still in play!

Makes the refs blindness even more serious.

[claptrappers_union]

I don't believe the offside check theory - four defenders (including the goalkeeper) were playing Vitinho onside. It would have taken one look to confirm that. AND they would not have advised the referee to go to the monitor if they were still checking for offside.

So, first of all, they would have deemed the foul worthy of a check and delayed the restart of the game if the ball went out of play.

Then they would've checked the APP (Attacking Phase of Play) - was there any fouls, handballs in the build up etc

Then an offside, I've not seen the full build up to the goal, so I'm not sure if it was Vitinho's position or not. But they called the ref over while they were checking something else and he had to stand there like a lemon with his finger in his ear to make it look like he was listening to someone.

[ClaretTony]

So, first of all, they would have deemed the foul worthy of a check and delayed the restart of the game if the ball went out of play.

Then they would've checked the APP (Attacking Phase of Play) - was there any fouls, handballs in the build up etc

Then an offside, I've not seen the full build up to the goal, so I'm not sure if it was Vitinho's position or not. But they called the ref over while they were checking something else and he had to stand there like a lemon with his finger in his ear to make it look like he was listening to someone.

It was embarrassing how long they had him stood there with nothing to see. I remain convinced that no one could have spent so long checking for an offside.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I was sitting watching them review the offside laughing to myself hysterically. It was like they were trying everything they could to get our player offside so they didn't have to revert the refs decision on the penalty.

If it was a closer call, no doubt it would have been given offside, even if one players toe was slightly off.

Nail on head.

Comes across as trying for ages to find a way to prevent a red card and a penalty in the 4th minute. It was a stonewaller, a blatant error by Reguillon, Frank agreed, and should have been checked in 20 seconds because the onside was clear. That it took over 4 minutes suggests bias (not against us, a desire to not be seen to be ruining a game so early).

They got the right outcome, to stop us being robbed yet again by officials, so we should be thankful, but the process and clandestine nature is dodgy as hell and people need to see live feeds of their deliberations, which need to be forced to be quick.

[claptrappers_union]

It was embarrassing how long they had him stood there with nothing to see. I remain convinced that no one could have spent so long checking for an offside.

This is why it's shambolic; as supporters, we should kept informed of the process.

[MDWat]

The ball hadn’t gone out of play had it? He stopped the game with the ball still in play. I assumed on that basis they must have already checked the offside?

[claptrappers_union]

I'm unsure about that; I've not seen the incident back. Typically, they delay the restart as the ball goes out of play, but I think on this occasion, he halted play when the goalkeeper collected the ball because it had been in play for some time.

Maybe referees are allowed to halt play at appropriate points if he is advised to delay.

[ClaretTony]

This is why it's shambolic; as supporters, we should kept informed of the process.

Supporters in the ground are always the last to know

[ClaretTony]

The ball hadn’t gone out of play had it? He stopped the game with the ball still in play. I assumed on that basis they must have already checked the offside?

The ball was close to the Longside touchline when he stopped it from what I recall