| This is mad… 14:20 - Nov 4 with 5698 views | Chris_ITFC |
1. Phillips would’ve still been sent off, even if VAR gave the penalty - completely ignoring that a) it literally never would’ve happened if the penalty had been given, and b) he was chasing around on the adrenaline of the crowd / injustice literally because the penalty hadn’t been given.
“If the penalty had been awarded through VAR then Phillips' second yellow card would have stood. The only cards that are rescinded are those directly resulted to the play, such as through DOGSO (Denying an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity), and not those issued for other disciplinary matters.”
2. A panel decided we SHOULD have been given a penalty against Man City, yet somehow also decided the VAR was RIGHT not to intervene. Feck me, the Premier League has tied itself in some right old knots handing the officiating to these bunch of pedantic bureaucrats.
“Against Man City at the start of the season, Ipswich were denied a penalty and the KMI Panel ruled that while it should have been awarded by the referee, the VAR was right not to get involved.”
https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/42054872/var-review-lisandro-martinez-col
|  |
| |  |
| This is mad… on 17:14 - Nov 4 with 973 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| This is mad… on 17:00 - Nov 4 by farkenhell |
According to Dermot Gallagher, who said that he has listened to the conversation between the referee and the VAR, Robinson told Atwell that he thought it wasn't a foul. Either Robinson saw the incident clearly and got the decision wrong, or he didn't see it clearly but failed to say that to Atwell, or he told Atwell that his view was obstructed but Atwell failed to tell him to take a second look.
Either way, an enormous cock up by Robinson and/or Atwell.
Don't know why your post has been downvoted btw. |
Probably because the poster thinks it wasn't stonewall, when in fact it was the stoniest of stone walls in the whole history of walls. |  |
| |
| This is mad… on 17:35 - Nov 4 with 931 views | farkenhell |
| This is mad… on 17:14 - Nov 4 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Probably because the poster thinks it wasn't stonewall, when in fact it was the stoniest of stone walls in the whole history of walls. |
I agree (with you)! |  | | |
| This is mad… on 17:39 - Nov 4 with 931 views | Dyland |
“Against Man City at the start of the season, Ipswich were denied a penalty and the KMI Panel ruled that while it should have been awarded by the referee, the VAR was right not to get involved.”
Don't know whether to laugh or explode all over again!
VAR is implemented in the most cretinous way, and the PGMOL double down every week. It's a joke. Incompetence and arrogance of the lowest order. |  |
| |
| This is mad… on 17:44 - Nov 4 with 918 views | Dyland |
| This is mad… on 14:59 - Nov 4 by HighgateBlue |
I don't like VAR. I think it takes the enjoyment out of the game, wastes time, doesn't get decisions right often enough, penalises offsides where no advantage has been gained by a random toe, and increases resentment.
However, when we get a decision in our favour by the referee (eg: that the foul was outside the box at Brentford, and not inside it), many fans then complain that VAR changed the decision, saying "surely VAR was only supposed to be for clear and obvious mistakes? How was that clear and obvious?"
The consequence of saying that VAR should only intervene when it's clear and obvious is that a ref will 'get away' with decisions that would not be considered correct by most people, but are not so wrong as to be clear and obviously wrong. I'm OK with that principle.
That's the principle that's being applied here.
The panel says that it would have made a different call than the ref, but that VAR was not wrong to let it stand. It is just an application of the "clear and obvious" principle that everyone shouts about whenever it suits their case.
If we were Leicester, and we saw Ipswich fans having a meltdown like this, we would either roll our eyes, or have a good old laugh at them.
Kieran's reaction is about right in my view. It's extremely frustrating that we have had a number of probably wrong calls go against us. But every club's fans think that the world is out to get them, and there is no possible way we can be objective about these decisions.
And rushing straight to "corrupt" when things don't go our way is very silly indeed (I appreciate you didn't do that). |
It's the apparent lack of accountability that galls, and never properly admitting the mistakes.
And it's not a conspiracy, nor is it corrupt per but the Prem is a brand that exists to make money by flogging TV rights etc. It is corporate protectionism and something is starting to stink. I hope I'm proved wrong over the season. | |
| |
| This is mad… on 17:45 - Nov 4 with 914 views | ibbleobble |
| This is mad… on 14:37 - Nov 4 by EsherBlueStu |
This is nuts!
So why get involved in our Everton and Brentford incidents?
The only conclusion can be - it depends who the decision is for. |
…or who is interpreting the rules. | | | |
| This is mad… on 17:57 - Nov 4 with 885 views | grow_our_own |
| This is mad… on 17:14 - Nov 4 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Probably because the poster thinks it wasn't stonewall, when in fact it was the stoniest of stone walls in the whole history of walls. |
I said on balance it was a pen, and VAR should have given it because the ref had a poor view. In exceptional circumstances, when the ref hasn't seen the incident, VAR should cease it's clear-and-obvious only stance, and instead make an on-balance call.
Body-to-body contact is never as clear cut as a trip or leg-to-leg. "It's a contact sport". If that was a Leicester player and VAR had overruled the ref (with clear view) and awarded them a pen, some from these parts would be saying VAR shouldn't get involved. [Post edited 4 Nov 2024 18:01]
| | | |
| This is mad… on 20:31 - Nov 4 with 814 views | olimar |
| This is mad… on 17:04 - Nov 4 by PhilTWTD |
And against Brentford, of course. |
I assumed the Brentford one was slightly different because the VAR agreed with the refs decision, it was a foul, but just not with the position of it.
Which was why they didn't call the ref to the screen to review it, but just seemingly told him and he accepted it.
But also appreciate that this is trying to find an angle on it to rationalise the decision. Because if it's just about a basic clear and obvious, then there's no reason to get involved (especially if they think the decision was correct!).
The very fact I'm trying to work this out and assume what they might/might not be thinking is in itself a reason why none of it is working, it's just getting in the way of the games themselves. | | | |
| This is mad… on 20:34 - Nov 4 with 810 views | PhilTWTD |
| This is mad… on 20:31 - Nov 4 by olimar |
I assumed the Brentford one was slightly different because the VAR agreed with the refs decision, it was a foul, but just not with the position of it.
Which was why they didn't call the ref to the screen to review it, but just seemingly told him and he accepted it.
But also appreciate that this is trying to find an angle on it to rationalise the decision. Because if it's just about a basic clear and obvious, then there's no reason to get involved (especially if they think the decision was correct!).
The very fact I'm trying to work this out and assume what they might/might not be thinking is in itself a reason why none of it is working, it's just getting in the way of the games themselves. |
Indeed, certainly wasn't a clear and obvious error as it's very debatable where the foul started. The challenge definitely started outside the area, as the referee initially judged. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| This is mad… on 20:59 - Nov 4 with 748 views | Reus30 |
I've seen a lot of dissing of the ref and VAR but why hasn't the lino clocked some heat too? No one obstructing his view surely?
I know that they are effectively useless because they wait for the ref to decide what's what normally but Christ almighty, the PGMOL is shambles. |  | | |
| This is mad… on 21:47 - Nov 4 with 691 views | Olcol |
| This is mad… on 17:10 - Nov 4 by ReusersTown |
It isn't one decision though is it?! There's a body of evidence building of baffling decision, that have favoured the established teams. |
Our game stats have been manipulated in every game where inexplicable Var interventions have occured. | | | |
| This is mad… on 22:46 - Nov 4 with 614 views | norfsufblue |
| This is mad… on 15:35 - Nov 4 by stonojnr |
The problem is, and we saw this last season when premier league officials turned up to games without VAR
Where is the incentive for them to become better at their job ? If they make a total clanger VAR digs them out, so they don't ref the game in hold on this is all on me to get right attitude, im responsible to get this right so id better make the effort to follow the game, it's a well worst case the fans will blame VAR for my mistakes if I get it wrong and we saw without VAR this quality of current refs were often paralysed by having to make the decisions themselves and often chose not to award anything.
I mean it was the meme last season how few penalties we had, though none of them were as contentious as Saturdays.
In cricket DRS doesn't mean umpires aren't expected to actually umpire the whole game to the same high standard expected of them. DRS is only used when there's a question mark on a decision that video evidence can help with decide.
VAR isn't used that way in the Premier league |
That's the model... cricket has perfected it... just give the managers 1 appeal per half... let the standing have another look and let him stand by his OWN review.... win an appeal and you keep it, lose and it's gone
Would then allow assessors to mark the official on all his decisions and perhaps they might start using a bit of common sense |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
