Matchday officials, VAR and accountability

[jdrobbo]

Ok, let me extend the question….

Had Kul’s double fisted punch resulted in Vydra being knocked out cold and then having to leave the pitch in a neck brace as a precaution, would the penalty have been given by VAR?

I’m pretty certain that had that been the case and dare I say it, had it come from a two fisted punch with less force, then the decision would have been different!!

[bfcjg]

Tony please could you ask is there a way to speed up the decisions ie no decision after say 20 seconds advantage to the attacking team, why not straight after the games the VAR panel explain decisions live on tv, it would be very interesting and better then the bland programmes we have now, why there's not enough retrospective punishment, and views on ex.pros being fast tracked as refs or at least on the VAR panel.

[Jakubclaret]

If Krul had got to the ball a fraction of a second before Vydra and Vydra had clattered into him knocking him over I think we can be very sure what the referee’s decision would have been.

I did say that would have been a foul had that scenario happened but it never did, sometimes you can feel hard done by by the disappointment & next day see things differently with more clarity & understand things better.

[martin_p]

I did say that would been a foul had that scenario happened but it never did, sometimes you can feel hard done by by the disappointment & next day see things differently with more clarity & understand things better.

The only thing to understand is did VAR look at it, there certainly didn’t seem to be a check, and if not why not. The rest is very clear, the referee got it badly wrong.

[boatshed bill]

The only thing to understand is did VAR look at it, there certainly didn’t seem to be a check, and if not why not. The rest is very clear, the referee got it badly wrong.

Web go back to this "clear and obvious error" thing.
Highly subject to interpretation.

[Jakubclaret]

The only thing to understand is did VAR look at it, there certainly didn’t seem to be a check, and if not why not. The rest is very clear, the referee got it badly wrong.

I think the exact thing the commentator said is that the fans don’t have the benefit of the monitors, if you can say that you can see better sat yards away than somebody sat in front of a screen with the benefit of pause & freeze frame & zoom fair dos you are a better man than me.

[martin_p]

Web go back to this "clear and obvious error" thing.
Highly subject to interpretation.

Friend thought Krul touched the ball giving a corner. The replays show he didn’t. How clear and obvious does it need to be?

[Conroy92]

Most obvious pen and red you'll see all season. Krul has literally double fisted Vydra's head after being beaten to it.
Considering the talks around removing heading at younger ages, for the seriousness around head injuries, I find it bizarre for this to be considered acceptable.

[Conroy92]

What do people think the decision would be if Wood reached a ball before Hanley and Hanley went two feet through the back of him. Likely a red and pen (unless Friends the ref again!). There is no difference, the player has been beaten to the ball in the box and has gone through the back of the attacker. I can accept people saying they might not give a red but it's a stone wall penalty.

[boatshed bill]

Friend thought Krul touched the ball giving a corner. The replays show he didn’t. How clear and obvious does it need to be?

I guess it all depends who's looking.

[martin_p]

I guess it all depends who's looking.

Not really, the pictures don’t show Krul getting a touch to the ball.

[boatshed bill]

Not really, the pictures don’t show Krul getting a touch to the ball.

Did VAR take a serious look at it?

[Bordeauxclaret]

No goals obviously but six subs and a lot of time wasting (which we do a lot away from home) but how on earth was 2 mins given????

[jdrobbo]

Did VAR take a serious look at it?

Did they ACTUALLY look at it at all?

[Jakubclaret]

You could have included that into another moaning thread.

[ElectroClaret]

Does it matter?
We wouldn't have scored if we played all night against 11 dustbins in yellow shirts.

[claptrappers_union]

Does it matter?
We wouldn't have scored if we played all night against 11 dustbins in yellow shirts.

That would’ve been a tougher opposition to be fair

[martin_p]

Did VAR take a serious look at it?

That’s a question I’ve asked above. It doesn’t seem like it which I find incredible.

[Rileybobs]

Even if Krul touched the ball, which he didn’t, it should still be a penalty because he punched an opposing player in the head. Would it have been a penalty had Hanley gone up for a header and punched Vydra in the head?

[RMutt]

Lots of people around us surprised today at that speed at which the decisions relating to possible use of var or not were made.

[boatshed bill]

That’s a question I’ve asked above. It doesn’t seem like it which I find incredible.

I don't begin to know the parameters, but it suggests to me that the off-pitch decision makers didn't see it as a clear and obvious (I hate this terminology) error by the ref.

[jdrobbo]

Has anyone seen a super slow-mo? Is there the slightest chance that Krul actually did brush the ball?

[Jakubclaret]

Has anyone seen a super slow-mo? Is there the slightest chance that Krul actually did brush the ball?

Why bother with all the technology when you’ve got a pair of eyes hundreds of yards away to depend upon.

[Rileybobs]

Does it matter?
We wouldn't have scored if we played all night against 11 dustbins in yellow shirts.

You may be right, and in fact we may have been sucker punched by Norwich, but that doesn’t make the referee’s inconsistent timekeeping right does it?

[martin_p]

Why bother with all the technology when you’ve got a pair of eyes hundreds of yards away to depend upon.

I’m not sure what your point is but the argument is that they should be making proper use of the technology. At best someone has given this a cursory glance and I haven’t seen a replay that shows Krul touching the ball.

[TheFamilyCat]

Made all the more frustrating seeing Martin Atkinson called over to look at the monitor and overturn two of his decisions in the Chelsea game.

[Jakubclaret]

I’m not sure what your point is but the argument is that they should be making proper use of the technology. At best someone has given this a cursory glance and I haven’t seen a replay that shows Krul touching the ball.

Maybe somebody already has but nobody’s informed Martin p on the beehole forum, a thread as been started questioning the officiating & then doubts are emerging that krul could have touched the ball? Bit late in the day.

[martin_p]

Maybe somebody already has but nobody’s informed Martin p on the beehole forum, a thread as been started questioning the officiating & then doubts are emerging that krul could have touched the ball? Bit late in the day.

If I could make sense of your post I’d respond.

[Jakubclaret]

If I could make sense of your post I’d respond.

Please don’t bother.

[RingoMcCartney]

If I could make sense of your post I’d respond.

Bit late for that. You've responded!

[Andreshotboots]

No goals obviously but six subs and a lot of time wasting (which we do a lot away from home) but how on earth was 2 mins given????

Yeah we’d have scored 4 if we’d have been have given a big longer..

[martin_p]

No goals obviously but six subs and a lot of time wasting (which we do a lot away from home) but how on earth was 2 mins given????

There were 5 subs in the second half and one of those was a double sub, so 2 minutes can be justified. However he hasn’t added on a single second for all the warnings he gave Krul for time wasting.

[Bordeauxclaret]

There were 5 subs in the second half and one of those was a double sub, so 2 minutes can be justified. However he hasn’t added on a single second for all the warnings he gave Krul for time wasting.

Exactly. What was he telling the keeper every time he was obviously time wasting?

[Bordeauxclaret]

You could have included that into another moaning thread.

Oh Jakub

[Bordeauxclaret]

Yeah we’d have scored 4 if we’d have been have given a big longer..

Maybe 3 but good point. I’m with you.

[Zlatan]

I always time the stoppage time from 90 minutes and there’s was 2 minutes 50 played today. Thing is, over a minute of the injury time after 90 minutes was taken up with an injury, so the ref also got that wrong too

[Bordeauxclaret]

I always time the stoppage time from 90 minutes and there’s was 2 minutes 50 played today. Thing is, over a minute of the injury time after 90 minutes was taken up with an injury, so the ref also got that wrong too

But apart from that……

[Silkyskills1]

It was his final insult. His last chance to say 'look at me, I'm in charge'. An appalling performance from presumably one of our finest. With people like him.at the helm the game is going further backwards than I already thought it was. His grinning at the chanting towards him summed up the his imbecilic persona. A truly despicable character to be put in charge of a live performance in front of thousands of honest, paying customers.

[Bordeauxclaret]

I always time the stoppage time from 90 minutes and there’s was 2 minutes 50 played today. Thing is, over a minute of the injury time after 90 minutes was taken up with an injury, so the ref also got that wrong too

I lost count of the times he told their keeper to hurry up. Very strange alround.

[Sheedyclaret]

Could of played for another 2 hours we weren't scoring

[Stacky_claret]

Because rightly or wrongly the interpretation is that it wasn’t intentional despite catching vydra, krul had his eyes firmly fixed on the ball & yes he was late, had vydra made contact with krul first it would have been a foul the goalkeeper got the benefit of the doubt. If we was on say 6 to 8 pts already would such a big deal been made of this no, it’s disappointing because the support expected 3pts against 1 of the worst teams at home.

It cannot be interpreted that it was not intentional he was attempting to deliberately punch the ball clear
The non intentional rule can surely only be applied to a hand ball

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Referees thrive these days of getting themselves in the limelight. They know there is a cushy number in the tv studios waiting for them.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Could of played for another 2 hours we weren't scoring

Do you think he based it on that?

[JohnMac]

I'm sure VAR checks should be displayed on the big screen, e. g. Checking possible *'' '' '' * and don't remember a single incident appearing yesterday.

[CaptJohn]

And this is why I so much prefer Rugby Union. The incident in question is replayed on the big screens and you can hear the ref and VAR official actually discussing their interpretations before they reach a decision. So much more transparent and fair plus the refs don't take any crap from the players. Backchat to a ref and they march you 10 metres further up the field to take the penalty. I'd love that in football.

[Claret]

I'm in a meeting on Monday morning with Mike Riley on VAR - I was wondering if any of you had any questions.

There are dozens of things that can be done to improve VAR (including getting rid of it) but Can you ask if it will be possible to get rid of not flagging for offside when an attacker is offside and the linesman is virtually certain of it? As it stands, the current approach allows play to continue that will eventually count for nothing, goal celebrations to begin that will eventually be curtailed and possibly needless injuries to players. The assistant will almost always be right. There’s just no need for this nonsense that caters for just a tiny number of wrong decisions that could chalk off a goal.

[Zlatan]

I'm in a meeting on Monday morning with Mike Riley on VAR - I was wondering if any of you had any questions.

Please could you ask at what frame rate VAR operates at, and as such what is the error of margin when you consider opposing players could be travelling a net speed of approx 18 m/s (9m/s in opposing directions).

At that net speed the margin of errors are below (if my calcs are right!):

50fps - 36cm
100fps - 18cm
200fps - 9cm
400fps - 4.5cm

Given that limb speed is also a factor (leg can be moving at a higher speed than the body relative to the ground) why are the lines that appear to be used corresponding to approx 2cm (difficult to judge) how can they expect accurate results for offside?

Perhaps a Sky documentary to explain how it all works… including the mathematical explanations.

Secondly, if a player is punched clearly in the head by an opponent, why is that not an instant red card (and penalty if inside the box)?

Good luck CT

[jdrobbo]

I’m a goalkeeper and I don’t think I’ve ever hit anyone in the head. However, I don’t think that was a red card offence. There was no deliberate intent there: it was a clear attempt to punch the ball, BUT he messed up and punched (fouled) our man. It was 100% a foul.

[Ric_C]

Bad day at the office yesterday. But everyone can agree we are getting zero luck and decisions so far this season. We probably should be on around 7-8 points by now with the rub of the green.

As for the time wasting. Krul must have wasted 20-30 seconds every goal kick. Plus Friend seemed to take an absolute age over any free kick near the box. Should have been 5 mins plus easy.

Crazy display by all officials yesterday and is testing my patience with var.

Can you imagine if Pope did that to Ronaldo at old Trafford? You can guarantee the outcome.

[Rileybobs]

I’m a goalkeeper and I don’t think I’ve ever hit anyone in the head. However, I don’t think that was a red card offence. There was no deliberate intent there: it was a clear attempt to punch the ball, BUT he messed up and punched (fouled) our man. It was 100% a foul.

Serious foul play is a sending off offence, it’s black and white - intent is irrelevant. Serious foul play is defined as;

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Yesterday James Ward-Prowse was sent off for serious foul play, following a VAR review and the referee checking the monitor. He also didn’t set out to intentionally harm his opponent but he endangered the safety of his opponent.