| This is mad… 14:20 - Nov 4 with 5676 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 The only cards that are rescinded are those directly resulted to the play, such as through DOGSO (Denying an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity), and not those issued for other disciplinary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 14:29 - Nov 4 with 4544 views | Illinoisblue |
Kafkaesque reasoning in that last paragraph. “It was decided that something should have happened but the people with the power to make it happen decided not to.” |  |
| |
| This is mad… on 14:32 - Nov 4 with 4480 views | ArnieM |
In a word then, Corrupt |  |
| |
| This is mad… on 14:34 - Nov 4 with 4458 views | CrayonKing |
I think this was why VAR bottled the penalty call. They knew they couldn’t overturn the red card, and knew how ridiculous it would make them look, so they took the easy option of screwing us over |  | | |
| This is mad… on 14:37 - Nov 4 with 4423 views | Chris_ITFC |
| This is mad… on 14:29 - Nov 4 by Illinoisblue |
Kafkaesque reasoning in that last paragraph. “It was decided that something should have happened but the people with the power to make it happen decided not to.” |
I can almost understand the logic - it’s an error, but not a clanger. Debatable.
But in what world does it serve any purpose to convene a panel to sit there and conclude that on a Monday morning?!
Literally the only outcomes are a) royally winding up the affected club and b) demonstrating how completely flawed the whole VAR system is. | | | |
| This is mad… on 14:37 - Nov 4 with 4419 views | BlueRaider |
I can remember a match in the 90's, I think it was Forest v Spurs that was abandoned part way through, everything was scrubbed from the records apart from the yellow cards, crazy |  |
| |
| This is mad… on 14:37 - Nov 4 with 4416 views | 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. | | | |
| This is mad… on 14:38 - Nov 4 with 4402 views | Chris_ITFC |
| This is mad… on 14:34 - Nov 4 by CrayonKing |
I think this was why VAR bottled the penalty call. They knew they couldn’t overturn the red card, and knew how ridiculous it would make them look, so they took the easy option of screwing us over |
True. Weirdly, a pen but still a red card might have caused an even more vociferous reaction due to the sheer stupidity of it! | | | |
| This is mad… on 14:48 - Nov 4 with 4253 views | itfc_statman |
| This is mad… on 14:32 - Nov 4 by ArnieM |
In a word then, Corrupt |
No, that's not what corruption is. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| This is mad… on 14:59 - Nov 4 with 4151 views | iamatractorboy |
That's absurd... so, if, rather than Phillips being booked, Leicester had gone up the other end and scored, but then we'd been given the pen, would Leicester's goal have stood? Well no of course not... so why should cards?! Insane. | | | |
| This is mad… on 14:59 - Nov 4 with 4153 views | 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). |  | | |
| This is mad… on 15:02 - Nov 4 with 4112 views | grow_our_own |
Ref had a poor view of Chaplin foul, which was influential in him not giving it. I think it was a pen, but not a stonewall. It was slightly in the grey area between shoulder-to-shoulder contact where both players are near possession-distance of the ball (which is fair), and being taken-out. Since Chaplin was much more likely to get ball having shifted it to his left, it was much more the latter.
But VAR rightly has a "high bar" now. So can argue it wasn't a "clear and obvious" error, hence VAR didn't overrule. But VAR assumed that ref didn't give pen while in good view of the incident, and almost certainly didn't factor this:
Even if not a "clear and obvious" error, when it is clear and obvious that the ref didn't have a good view, the onus is on VAR to lower the bar and take responsibility. I assume refs (Tim Robinson in Saturday's case) have ability to communicate with the VAR room. In which case, he should have been big enough to report his poor view to them. There was a natural stoppage following the Phillips incident for him to feed this back, and then VAR might have taken more responsibility. [Post edited 4 Nov 2024 17:04]
| | | |
| This is mad… on 15:02 - Nov 4 with 4101 views | iamatractorboy |
| This is mad… on 14:59 - Nov 4 by iamatractorboy |
That's absurd... so, if, rather than Phillips being booked, Leicester had gone up the other end and scored, but then we'd been given the pen, would Leicester's goal have stood? Well no of course not... so why should cards?! Insane. |
What if they'd gone up the other end and a Town player handled on the line and was sent off? Would that still stand? The more I think about it, the stupider it gets. | | | |
| This is mad… on 15:07 - Nov 4 with 4036 views | Guthrum |
| This is mad… on 14:32 - Nov 4 by ArnieM |
In a word then, Corrupt |
To paraphrase Robert Heinlein: "Never ascribe to malice what can better be explained by stupidity". The system can be cr@p without being corrupt. |  |
| |
| This is mad… on 15:35 - Nov 4 with 3833 views | stonojnr |
| 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). |
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 | | | |
| This is mad… on 15:38 - Nov 4 with 3819 views | SomethingBlue |
Yet VAR was delighted to intervene in a borderline call against Everton, which is omitted there but kind of binds ITFC's entire point together. | |
| |
| This is mad… on 15:43 - Nov 4 with 3750 views | sjg |
Don't see the issue with point 1? The game can't just be lawless from the time a foul is committed to the time the ball goes out of play | | | |
| This is mad… on 16:56 - Nov 4 with 3396 views | HighgateBlue |
| 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 |
Yes I agree. I think DRS works excellently in cricket, and I agree that there are major problems with VAR, one of which is the one you cite.
If I were a ref, I think I would chicken out of a lot of calls, and then if someone who is not standing on his own in front of 20,000-70,000 people with a bit more time and a lot more angles says I got one wrong, I think I'd be overly inclined to go and agree.
I think there are lots of reasons why no system in football can ever work as well as cricket. Maybe if it doesn't work well enough, it should be scrapped. It's a hard one. It would be interesting to know if there are any stats on whether VAR has reduced the number of mistakes, when judged by genuinely impartial and knowledgeable observers, but I doubt there are.
I do think, though, that most team's fans thinks that VAR never gives them anything, or certainly gives them far far less than they deserve. And that can't be correct.
I imagine part of what's going on with us is a run of bad ref/VAR luck.
Part of what is going on is, I think, that we generally have less possession than our opponents, generally concede more shots, generally have to work harder and hence get tireder towards the end of matches, and spend more time with the ball in our own area. All of that is going to result in more decisions by refs on "big" things, and more decisions will always mean more wrong decisions in absolute terms if not in relative terms. | | | |
| This is mad… on 17:00 - Nov 4 with 3368 views | Leaky |
| This is mad… on 14:34 - Nov 4 by CrayonKing |
I think this was why VAR bottled the penalty call. They knew they couldn’t overturn the red card, and knew how ridiculous it would make them look, so they took the easy option of screwing us over |
Was going to post the same |  | | |
| This is mad… on 17:00 - Nov 4 with 3362 views | Swansea_Blue |
| This is mad… on 14:37 - Nov 4 by Chris_ITFC |
I can almost understand the logic - it’s an error, but not a clanger. Debatable.
But in what world does it serve any purpose to convene a panel to sit there and conclude that on a Monday morning?!
Literally the only outcomes are a) royally winding up the affected club and b) demonstrating how completely flawed the whole VAR system is. |
I sounds like their rules for VAR are about as precise as the laws of the game. Everyone is now arguing over how clear and obvious it needs to be to be considered a clear an obvious error. it'd be funny if it wasn't us on the end of it. |  |
| |
| This is mad… on 17:00 - Nov 4 with 3363 views | farkenhell |
| This is mad… on 15:02 - Nov 4 by grow_our_own |
Ref had a poor view of Chaplin foul, which was influential in him not giving it. I think it was a pen, but not a stonewall. It was slightly in the grey area between shoulder-to-shoulder contact where both players are near possession-distance of the ball (which is fair), and being taken-out. Since Chaplin was much more likely to get ball having shifted it to his left, it was much more the latter.
But VAR rightly has a "high bar" now. So can argue it wasn't a "clear and obvious" error, hence VAR didn't overrule. But VAR assumed that ref didn't give pen while in good view of the incident, and almost certainly didn't factor this:
Even if not a "clear and obvious" error, when it is clear and obvious that the ref didn't have a good view, the onus is on VAR to lower the bar and take responsibility. I assume refs (Tim Robinson in Saturday's case) have ability to communicate with the VAR room. In which case, he should have been big enough to report his poor view to them. There was a natural stoppage following the Phillips incident for him to feed this back, and then VAR might have taken more responsibility. [Post edited 4 Nov 2024 17:04]
|
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. | | | |
| This is mad… on 17:04 - Nov 4 with 3325 views | PhilTWTD |
| This is mad… on 15:38 - Nov 4 by SomethingBlue |
Yet VAR was delighted to intervene in a borderline call against Everton, which is omitted there but kind of binds ITFC's entire point together. |
And against Brentford, of course. |  | | |
| This is mad… on 17:06 - Nov 4 with 3294 views | HighgateBlue |
| This is mad… on 15:43 - Nov 4 by sjg |
Don't see the issue with point 1? The game can't just be lawless from the time a foul is committed to the time the ball goes out of play |
Exactly. If you can receive a red card after the final whistle (you can), then why can't you get a yellow or red card for something unlawful which you do after a different whistle?
If you punch someone in the face whilst the ball is dead, you get a red card. Why should it be different if the ball is in play, but should not have been in play? And if you can get a card for punching someone, then you should be able to get a card for other kinds of violent conduct. If you can get a card for a violent foul, why not for unsporting behaviour, dissent, etc? I appreciate it's unfortunate that KP was ever in that situation, but he was, and has to be accountable.
We've had a really really bad run of luck. In quite the wrong games. Even our bad luck comes at a time when it's bad luck to get it at that time!!! Brentford and Leicester were both, on the balance of actual play, winnable. And officiating decisions did cost us. It's debatable whether we were truly 'robbed' or not, but they were both winnable, and we're extremely unlucky not to come out with 2, 3, 4 points at least.
And now we have games which are surely harder on paper and in actuality.
If we only get 0,1,2 points from the next 3 games, we're really dangling by a thread, and we'll need to pick up multiple wins from those next three: Palace, Bournemouth, Wolves. Those will be massive. After those, it's Newcastle, Arsenal, Chelsea and we're halfway. Gulp. | | | |
| This is mad… on 17:08 - Nov 4 with 3266 views | farkenhell |
| This is mad… on 16:56 - Nov 4 by HighgateBlue |
Yes I agree. I think DRS works excellently in cricket, and I agree that there are major problems with VAR, one of which is the one you cite.
If I were a ref, I think I would chicken out of a lot of calls, and then if someone who is not standing on his own in front of 20,000-70,000 people with a bit more time and a lot more angles says I got one wrong, I think I'd be overly inclined to go and agree.
I think there are lots of reasons why no system in football can ever work as well as cricket. Maybe if it doesn't work well enough, it should be scrapped. It's a hard one. It would be interesting to know if there are any stats on whether VAR has reduced the number of mistakes, when judged by genuinely impartial and knowledgeable observers, but I doubt there are.
I do think, though, that most team's fans thinks that VAR never gives them anything, or certainly gives them far far less than they deserve. And that can't be correct.
I imagine part of what's going on with us is a run of bad ref/VAR luck.
Part of what is going on is, I think, that we generally have less possession than our opponents, generally concede more shots, generally have to work harder and hence get tireder towards the end of matches, and spend more time with the ball in our own area. All of that is going to result in more decisions by refs on "big" things, and more decisions will always mean more wrong decisions in absolute terms if not in relative terms. |
I can sort of see where you are coming from, but your final paragraph is not reflective of last Saturday, where we were looking comfortable and in control until the penalty and sending off cock ups.
Ditto the contentious VAR decision in the Everton match. | | | |
| This is mad… on 17:08 - Nov 4 with 3265 views | ReusersTown |
Interesting... well actually flipping ridiculous. What was their statement on the Man City intervention in the very same game!? out of curiosity. Got a feeling it wasn't that VAR shouldn't have got involved! | | | |
| This is mad… on 17:10 - Nov 4 with 3238 views | ReusersTown |
| 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 isn't one decision though is it?! There's a body of evidence building of baffling decision, that have favoured the established teams. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
