By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
1, the foul on Vad leading up to their 2nd goal 2, the hand ball leading up to their 2nd goal 3, the would on Broady in their box 4, The pull back on Ali which should have been a foul and a possible red card
If there had been VAR last night... on 16:24 - Feb 21 by Keno
But what about
1, the foul on Vad leading up to their 2nd goal 2, the hand ball leading up to their 2nd goal 3, the would on Broady in their box 4, The pull back on Ali which should have been a foul and a possible red card
If there had been VAR last night... on 17:55 - Feb 21 by WestStanderLaLaLa
Sums up how pointless VAR and Stroud are. Life will be improved when both have been ditched.
Referees are human and make mistakes.
However, I still cannot understand how Stroud could not even give a free kick (let alone the obvious red card) for Loovens castrating McGoldrick and "see" a foul for the penalty last night.
If there had been VAR last night... on 16:23 - Feb 21 by homer_123
No angle I have seen suggests it's a clear and obvious penalty either.
it doesnt have to be clear & obvious, the ref just has to believe an offence that would have warranted a direct free kick happened, and if you replay that incident again anywhere else on the pitch, would you have been surprised if he'd given a direct freekick for it ?
none of the other freekicks he awarded have multiple threads about how wrong they were, so if the answer is no you wouldnt have been surprised to have seen him award a freekick for that anywhere else on the pitch, then really dont be surprised when he gives a penalty instead.
doesnt make it less or more correct a decision, it simply made it consistent.
0
If there had been VAR last night... on 22:07 - Feb 21 with 2154 views
If there had been VAR last night... on 19:04 - Feb 21 by Nthsuffolkblue
Referees are human and make mistakes.
However, I still cannot understand how Stroud could not even give a free kick (let alone the obvious red card) for Loovens castrating McGoldrick and "see" a foul for the penalty last night.
Plus he gave Aston Villa a penalty for a "foul" by Alan Judge on John McGinn , never was same as yesterday very soft to say the least .
1
If there had been VAR last night... on 22:41 - Feb 21 with 2074 views
If there had been VAR last night... on 16:24 - Feb 21 by Keno
But what about
1, the foul on Vad leading up to their 2nd goal 2, the hand ball leading up to their 2nd goal 3, the would on Broady in their box 4, The pull back on Ali which should have been a foul and a possible red card
I don't think it was a pen but absolutely not having Vlad should have had a foul. He's come flying into a load of bodies and made an absolute mess.
It also wasn't a pen on Broadhead in a million years.
We were very poor. But picked the right night to be efficient in front of goal. Was never a pen to them either as I say.
4
If there had been VAR last night... on 01:11 - Feb 22 with 1901 views
If there had been VAR last night... on 16:23 - Feb 21 by homer_123
No angle I have seen suggests it's a clear and obvious penalty either.
Agreed. But that's irrelevant to the question of whether the decision would have been overturned if VAR had applied.
The test for overturning a subjective decision like that is whether there was a "clear and obvious error". If it is considered, with the benefit of video footage, that the ref made a clear and obvious error, the decision would be overturned. If not, it wouldn't.
There is nothing in the rules about whether the offence or the penalty were clear and/or obvious.
For me, like most people, it looks very unlikely that there was a foul. It's therefore likely that the ref, in my opinion, made an error. However, whether that error is clear and obvious from video footage is a different question.
Where VAR adjudicates controversially on marginal calls, especially where it overturns refs' on-field decisions, there will always be people, pundits included, who will say "that's ridiculous, VAR was only supposed to have been brought in for clear and obvious errors". But when VAR refuses to overturn on the basis that it's not clear and/or obvious that the ref made an error, there will be other people who will grumble that a decision that was (in their view) erroneous was allowed to stand.
We know for certain that neither VAR nor any other formulation of the rules for video refereeing will stop arguments and debates between fans. For me VAR is only worth keeping if it appears to result in an appreciable number of calls being made correctly, and that number is sufficient to outweigh the disadvantage caused by the delay to the game, and any perceived loss of the soul of the game in favour of trial by computer.
I tend to agree, frustratedly, that VAR may well not have overturned the ref's decision, which I personally think was wrong. I genuinely don't know what one does about that. If you change the rule so that the VAR gets to check every penalty and can exercise its own judgment totally afresh about whether there was a foul, then you give total power to someone who has a 2D view of the incident and will often be watching in slow motion. 2D is sometimes fine but sometimes gives a false impression (see catches in cricket), and slow motion can make handballs for example look much more deliberate than they were. It would also probably mean longer delays, as the VAR's decision would be a total reassessment of the merits of the decision. So I'm not sure I'd change the formation of the rule's wording.
Having said all that, rugby union does pretty well with its use of video, as it does with all aspects of refereeing compared with football. Easier to avoid controversy when there are more scoring events per game I suppose (a single decision is less likely to be crucial to the outcome), and when the players are clearly vastly more respectful.
0
If there had been VAR last night... on 21:57 - Feb 22 with 1141 views
If there had been VAR last night... on 10:32 - Feb 22 by HighgateBlue
Agreed. But that's irrelevant to the question of whether the decision would have been overturned if VAR had applied.
The test for overturning a subjective decision like that is whether there was a "clear and obvious error". If it is considered, with the benefit of video footage, that the ref made a clear and obvious error, the decision would be overturned. If not, it wouldn't.
There is nothing in the rules about whether the offence or the penalty were clear and/or obvious.
For me, like most people, it looks very unlikely that there was a foul. It's therefore likely that the ref, in my opinion, made an error. However, whether that error is clear and obvious from video footage is a different question.
Where VAR adjudicates controversially on marginal calls, especially where it overturns refs' on-field decisions, there will always be people, pundits included, who will say "that's ridiculous, VAR was only supposed to have been brought in for clear and obvious errors". But when VAR refuses to overturn on the basis that it's not clear and/or obvious that the ref made an error, there will be other people who will grumble that a decision that was (in their view) erroneous was allowed to stand.
We know for certain that neither VAR nor any other formulation of the rules for video refereeing will stop arguments and debates between fans. For me VAR is only worth keeping if it appears to result in an appreciable number of calls being made correctly, and that number is sufficient to outweigh the disadvantage caused by the delay to the game, and any perceived loss of the soul of the game in favour of trial by computer.
I tend to agree, frustratedly, that VAR may well not have overturned the ref's decision, which I personally think was wrong. I genuinely don't know what one does about that. If you change the rule so that the VAR gets to check every penalty and can exercise its own judgment totally afresh about whether there was a foul, then you give total power to someone who has a 2D view of the incident and will often be watching in slow motion. 2D is sometimes fine but sometimes gives a false impression (see catches in cricket), and slow motion can make handballs for example look much more deliberate than they were. It would also probably mean longer delays, as the VAR's decision would be a total reassessment of the merits of the decision. So I'm not sure I'd change the formation of the rule's wording.
Having said all that, rugby union does pretty well with its use of video, as it does with all aspects of refereeing compared with football. Easier to avoid controversy when there are more scoring events per game I suppose (a single decision is less likely to be crucial to the outcome), and when the players are clearly vastly more respectful.
Steady on - respect custom and practice - enough of this reasoned argument stuff!
I approve of VAR. On the factual stuff it has corrected a lot of wrong calls by linesmen with very few errors such as when the operator realised they had got it wrong but can not correct it.
On the subjective stuff I would like to see them abandon the clear and obvious error straightjacket and allow the VAR team the freedom to invite the ref to review and consider whether he might have made an error (without the expectation that in 99% of cases he will have done). In other words let him check and confirm that he is comfortable with his initial decision. Such an approach should at least get rid of the more absurd decisions that undermine the whole VAR system
1
If there had been VAR last night... on 07:52 - Feb 23 with 944 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
