**** VAR

[Ilkley claret]

So the arm does count? Thought it didn’t?

[Hibsclaret]

The Fulham one is so bad it’s ridiculous. The ref calls it a challenge when it wasn’t. I’m sure he’d seen the Fulham player do a pirouette with full control of the ball. How on earth is that a challenge? He then gets shown a slow mo of the foot contact but surely he hadn’t forgotten the action by then. The blokes in the middle or on VAR don’t understand the game.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Sure they will sort all the issues out at tomorrows team briefing after they’ve finished high fiving each other over all the controversy they’ve caused once again.

[roamingclaret]

I didn't mind so much seeing us lose 2-1 at OT to a brilliant Denis Law overhead kick in 1965. But after watching yesterday as the result was blatantly manipulated by VAR, I've no intention in setting foot in that sh*thole again.

[lakedistrictclaret]

anybody paying merson a wage should be prosecuted under the animals (scientific procedures) act (1986).

I’ve read Merson’s autobiography.

On away trips in a hotel, his idea of fun was to have a poo in the bed of one of his teammates.

Somehow, I don’t think he and I would have got on.

[fidelcastro]

I’ve read Merson’s autobiography.

On away trips in a hotel, his idea of fun was to have a poo in the bed of one of his teammates.

Somehow, I don’t think he and I would have got on.

Did he blame the alcoholism, the white powder or his gambling problems for that?

If he did it just because he thought it was funny, then he's beneath contempt.

[lakedistrictclaret]

Did he blame the alcoholism, the white powder or his gambling problems for that?

If he did it just because he thought it was funny, then he's beneath contempt.

It’s a few years since I read it, and I got rid of the book long ago, but as I recall he wasn’t blaming his demons, it was all just a laugh.

To be fair to him, he does appear to have got his act together these days.

[Goddy]

....back to VAR after the Metson divergence.....

Anyone who is saying 'offside is factual' is talking nonsense. Sorry to take this academic route but if you were making an assessment you'd have to take account of the variables (such as the accuracy of when you think a pass was made, the accuracy of the 'lines' used to measure where players are (inc camera angles etc) and so on.

There may well be examples where a call could be made that someone was 100% offside/onside but for close calls there should be a level of accuracy which is, say 90% (or whatever) likely to be offside/onside given the variables.If it isn't 10%, in my view, it should be the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking player.

For all these factors I'd much prefer just to have no VAR and accept that officials (like the rest of us) might just make mistakes.

PS the Fulham disallowed goal was just laughable but I expected nothing less from Rob Jones who, personally, I consider about the worst ref doing the rounds

[Ric_C]

Just seen Chelsea's penalty again and the Chelsea player handballs it first as well! If I was a Fulham fan I'd be raging

[RMutt]

It isn't captured by the camera now, there's a sensor in the ball that measures 500 times a second

The Premier League’s introduction to the new technology says there is not a chip in the ball?

[Goddy]

Apols for typos...Merson not Metson and 100% not 10%

[RMutt]

The whole VAR thing needs to be reassessed. If linesmen and referees are now changing their decision making because of VAR then the tail is wagging the dog.
I don’t know a single football supporter who is in favour of it.

[JimmyRobbo]

Just seen Chelsea's penalty again and the Chelsea player handballs it first as well! If I was a Fulham fan I'd be raging

Exactly how I was feeling when I saw it.

Sadly, our version of VAR just continues to give 2nd chances for the big clubs. The machine is massively in their favour.

[aggi]

The Premier League’s introduction to the new technology says there is not a chip in the ball?

So it does. I wonder why they've come up with their own version rather than the one that was already being used?

It claims that cameras are running at 100fps so more accurate than it used to be.

Still feels like something that should be much quicker and much less controversial

[ollieclarets8]

The whole VAR thing needs to be reassessed. If linesmen and referees are now changing their decision making because of VAR then the tail is wagging the dog.
I don’t know a single football supporter who is in favour of it.

It's the incompetent people using it, as opposed to the actual tool itself. Maybe they need to pause it for a season and wait until AI can have more control.

[RMutt]

It's the incompetent people using it, as opposed to the actual tool itself. Maybe they need to pause it for a season and wait until AI can have more control.

Agreed but referees and assistants will always know subconsciously that VAR is there in the background and will temper their decisions as a consequence. This was never supposed to be part of the remit.
I think it’s a failed experiment that needs to end.

[RammyClaret61]

That’s not correct. The AR thought Foster was offside, kept his flag down until Foster finished the chance, and then flagged. He did everything by the book and got an extremely marginal call correct.

********.. the law on flagging for offside was changed to accommodate VAR. basically the AR guessed Foster might’ve been offside. Let play continue and then flagged. Just so VAR could get involved and see what minuscule fraction it could find “offside”

In real football before there was VAR, my guess, yes a guess, is he would not have flagged because any offside was 1% at best, play on goal. No one would be complaining about an error by the AR.

[Rileybobs]

********.. the law on flagging for offside was changed to accommodate VAR. basically the AR guessed Foster might’ve been offside. Let play continue and then flagged. Just so VAR could get involved and see what minuscule fraction it could find “offside”

In real football before there was VAR, my guess, yes a guess, is he would not have flagged because any offside was 1% at best, play on goal. No one would be complaining about an error by the AR.

Well the AR thought Foster was offside and raised his flag. The technology then showed him to be correct.

In ‘real football before there was VAR’ he probably would have deemed the players level, given the attacker the benefit of the doubt, and kept his flag down. But that’s completely irrelevant because there is VAR, and being level isn’t a thing.

[Pickles]

Haven't read the whole thread but...

Tired of the Premier League. Just three fixtures in. Bored of the same theories and controversies. The money is distasteful but what really distances supporters is the incessant intent to turn the sport into some biased algorithmic virtual reality retrospective video game.

However, I'm one of the seemingly few who think VAR is a good idea. But only in theory. I'm positive about the principle of it but how it's implemented is inadequate at best, corrupt at worse. It could/should improve the game but it's too often too easy to see how it can be manipulated by human bias.

Burnley fans yesterday could predict pre-game with some confidence there'd be decisions made in Man United's favour. It isn't a conspiracy theory or sour grapes. It's an evidence-laden track record of skewed, inconsistent officiating influenced by the badge on the shirt and the size of the crowd. This situation involves VAR and it may be exasperated by VAR but it isn't created by VAR. The source of such frustration comes from vague laws which are so open to interpretation they pretty much rely on interpretation by officials who are unfit for purpose.

I'm the minority but I actually think the solution is more tech but with better laws. The standard of referees is so inadequate, I don't want them anywhere near the game. Put the robots fully in charge but improve the offside rule and the handball rule. Make the rules clearer, easier to follow and actually - perhaps controversially - more sterile. Parker yesterday used that word and I agree with him about the game feeling more sterile. But we should be at a stage where technology enables us to be more clinical, maybe that's a better word, when it comes to decisions. The fever, emotion and interpretation should come from the sport itself, not the laws and rules. At the moment, it's the other way around to the point the decisions are the headline makers.

Take the bias, emotion and ineptitude away.

[Rileybobs]

Haven't read the whole thread but...

Tired of the Premier League. Just three fixtures in. Bored of the same theories and controversies. The money is distasteful but what really distances supporters is the incessant intent to turn the sport into some biased algorithmic virtual reality retrospective video game.

However, I'm one of the seemingly few who think VAR is a good idea. But only in theory. I'm positive about the principle of it but how it's implemented is inadequate at best, corrupt at worse. It could/should improve the game but it's too often too easy to see how it can be manipulated by human bias.

Burnley fans yesterday could predict pre-game with some confidence there'd be decisions made in Man United's favour. It isn't a conspiracy theory or sour grapes. It's an evidence-laden track record of skewed, inconsistent officiating influenced by the badge on the shirt and the size of the crowd. This situation involves VAR and it may be exasperated by VAR but it isn't created by VAR. The source of such frustration comes from vague laws which are so open to interpretation they pretty much rely on interpretation by officials who are unfit for purpose.

I'm the minority but I actually think the solution is more tech but with better laws. The standard of referees is so inadequate, I don't want them anywhere near the game. Put the robots fully in charge but improve the offside rule and the handball rule. Make the rules clearer, easier to follow and actually - perhaps controversially - more sterile. Parker yesterday used that word and I agree with him about the game feeling more sterile. But we should be at a stage where technology enables us to be more clinical, maybe that's a better word, when it comes to decisions. The fever, emotion and interpretation should come from the sport itself, not the laws and rules. At the moment, it's the other way around to the point the decisions are the headline makers.

Take the bias, emotion and ineptitude away.

I agree with most of this.

There is too much open to interpretation in the laws of the game, too much ambiguity. New laws introduce even more ambiguity (see the non-existent t-shirt line). A lot of decisions aren’t binary and will be viewed differently by two officials. I believe that is why the ‘clear and obvious error’ mandate was introduced. But the term ‘clear and obvious’ is ambiguous, so we’re not really getting anywhere.

The lawmakers have dug themselves a huge hole, and they’re trying to climb out of it with a spade.

[CoolClaret]

Haven't read the whole thread but...

Tired of the Premier League. Just three fixtures in. Bored of the same theories and controversies. The money is distasteful but what really distances supporters is the incessant intent to turn the sport into some biased algorithmic virtual reality retrospective video game.

However, I'm one of the seemingly few who think VAR is a good idea. But only in theory. I'm positive about the principle of it but how it's implemented is inadequate at best, corrupt at worse. It could/should improve the game but it's too often too easy to see how it can be manipulated by human bias.

Burnley fans yesterday could predict pre-game with some confidence there'd be decisions made in Man United's favour. It isn't a conspiracy theory or sour grapes. It's an evidence-laden track record of skewed, inconsistent officiating influenced by the badge on the shirt and the size of the crowd. This situation involves VAR and it may be exasperated by VAR but it isn't created by VAR. The source of such frustration comes from vague laws which are so open to interpretation they pretty much rely on interpretation by officials who are unfit for purpose.

I'm the minority but I actually think the solution is more tech but with better laws. The standard of referees is so inadequate, I don't want them anywhere near the game. Put the robots fully in charge but improve the offside rule and the handball rule. Make the rules clearer, easier to follow and actually - perhaps controversially - more sterile. Parker yesterday used that word and I agree with him about the game feeling more sterile. But we should be at a stage where technology enables us to be more clinical, maybe that's a better word, when it comes to decisions. The fever, emotion and interpretation should come from the sport itself, not the laws and rules. At the moment, it's the other way around to the point the decisions are the headline makers.

Take the bias, emotion and ineptitude away.

"The money is distasteful but what really distances supporters is the incessant intent to turn the sport into some biased algorithmic virtual reality retrospective video game"

Agreed with that!

As for the rest, I disagree - I think we're massively forgetting what officiating is meant to be. It's meant to be a bit imperfect, they're there primarily yes, to officiate the game, but to ensure the game remains a continuous, flowing spectacle.

We need to accept that we are humans and what makes sport so great is the imperfect flowing nature of it - with all that entails, heightened emotions etc. Decisions need to be made with the context and 'feel' of the game. Not done by an AI that has no understanding of what 'feel' is.

Trying to reduce it as though we're quantifying binary data for me is peak Mt.Stupid on the Dunning Kruger curve.

[BurnleyFC]

Merse is about as harmless as alcoholic coke addicts get.

Isn’t he on (whatever is it he actually does?) at Burnley Mechanics soon?

[Pickles]

"The money is distasteful but what really distances supporters is the incessant intent to turn the sport into some biased algorithmic virtual reality retrospective video game"

Agreed with that!

As for the rest, I disagree - I think we're massively forgetting what officiating is meant to be. It's meant to be a bit imperfect, they're there primarily yes, to officiate the game, but to ensure the game remains a continuous, flowing spectacle.

We need to accept that we are humans and what makes sport so great is the imperfect flowing nature of it - with all that entails, heightened emotions etc.

Trying to reduce it as though we're quantifying binary data for me is peak Mt.Stupid on the Dunning Kruger curve.

If VAR is going to be used - and let's face it, it's here to stay in some capacity - then the laws of the game need to be better. At the moment the two just knock heads because it's all so vague and ambiguous. VAR should iron out the inconsistencies but it can't do that because the laws of the game don't allow it to. The offside rule and handball rule change from game-to-game, as does what is a penalty and what isn't. There's too much money involved (a whole other debate) and too much emotion involved to rely on what I honestly think is either guesswork or bias.

[CoolClaret]

If VAR is going to be used - and let's face it, it's here to stay in some capacity - then the laws of the game need to be better. At the moment the two just knock heads because it's all so vague and ambiguous. VAR should iron out the inconsistencies but it can't do that because the laws of the game don't allow it to. The offside rule and handball rule change from game-to-game, as does what is a penalty and what isn't. There's too much money involved (a whole other debate) and too much emotion involved to rely on what I honestly think is either guesswork or bias.

But we can never quantify things such as tackles etc played at full intensity with stills and slow-mo replays. It's properly mental to even attempt to.

[Conroy92]

3 main points about VAR abd it's inconsistencies.

1) The whole premise of correcting decisions that affect the outcome of a game just isn't being implemented correctly.

United were given a free kick, incorrectly, that they scored from. Why is VAR not reviewing and disallowing the goal.

2) The clear and obvious error nonsense is exactly that. Some incidents we are shown ten replys of an incident that could be questionable for them to then start showing replys of different actions within the moves. It's not trying to correct clear and obvious errors. It's trying to find things which I take a problem with.

3) Referees are allowing VAR to make them look stupid. The whole on screen review is nonsense. As soon as they go over you know the outcome. Refs should be watching and going, no, I don't agree and go ing against VAR's decision. But they aren't. They are watching the same thing as us and sometimes overturning there own decisions. The thing that's changed is they no longer take the flack. VAR has enabled refs to make awful calls without any commupence, we blame VAR now and not them. But ultimately, they don't have to listen. VAR advises. We need to acknowledge that as bad as VAR is, cowardly referees are allowing it because we are now pointing the finger at that.

[Pickles]

But we can never quantify things such as tackles etc played at full intensity with stills and slow-mo replays. It's properly mental to even attempt to.

May as well sack the whole thing off and not have laws then. I'm being a bit silly admittedly but we should be striving for consistency instead of guess work and interpretation. The laws of the game are too flaky. From game to game no-one knows what an offside is, what a handball is and what a penalty is. VAR or no VAR - the rules need to be better. That's my whole point.

[CoolClaret]

May as well sack the whole thing off and not have laws then. I'm being a bit silly admittedly but we should be striving for consistency instead of guess work and interpretation. The laws of the game are too flaky. From game to game no-one knows what an offside is, what a handball is and what a penalty is. VAR or no VAR - the rules need to be better. That's my whole point.

I don't think the offside rule is flaky at all, perhaps some could be improved, I'm not arguing against that.

I'm arguing against this idea that we can reduce what will always be subjective decisions (was it a foul or wasn't it etc) in a dynamic sport into 1s and 0s.

It's just really daft and for me, losing sight of the wood for the trees.

[Pickles]

I'm arguing against this idea that we can reduce what will always be subjective decisions (was it a foul or wasn't it etc) in a dynamic sport into 1s and 0s.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the laws need to be improved to make it less subjective and more consistent. At the moment it is far too ambiguous. An exact incident will happen in two games and one goal will count and one won't. We'll definitely, without a shadow of a doubt, see a goal given which is more offside than Foster's was yesterday. And that's wrong and it doesn't need to be that way.

[Stayingup]

I haven't read through all of this thread but I wonder why the referee awarded the penalty against Anthony when - if it was a foul - it started - the shirt tug - outside the penalty area. Should the free kick have been given where the incident started?

[roamingclaret]

Scrap it. Everyone's had enough of it.
It's used solely to give the FA the league table they want...& to give 'pundits' something to discuss for hours on end during the week, as was witnessed yesterday at OT & Stamford Bridge.
It's ruining the game for the ordinary fans.

[claret wizard]

When Scott calls VAR “some fella in a box 200 miles away”, fella is not the word he means.

[Goody1975]

I haven't read through all of this thread but I wonder why the referee awarded the penalty against Anthony when - if it was a foul - it started - the shirt tug - outside the penalty area. Should the free kick have been given where the incident started?

No longer the case, if the pull continues into the box then it's a penalty.

I think the issue many have was that in slow motion it looks much worse, Amad's legs go to sleep (not for the first time) and that there were other incidents that didn't go our way.

Let's get this right, Anthony was stupid to do what he did and we'd be going mad if the incident happened at the other end and we didn't get a penalty.

[Stayingup]

No longer the case, if the pull continues into the box then it's a penalty.

I think the issue many have was that in slow motion it looks much worse, Amad's legs go to sleep (not for the first time) and that there were other incidents that didn't go our way.

Let's get this right, Anthony was stupid to do what he did and we'd be going mad if the incident happened at the other end and we didn't get a penalty.

Thanks for clearing that up. Yes Anthony made a mistake.