Handball - VAR

[owls maniac]

2 hours ago, latemodelchild said:

That spurs one is ridiculous. Nothing Dier could have done about it, he's jumped up and his arm is in a natural position for that. I would honestly be telling my players to hit it at players arms if a shot isn't on. If you're at the byline, tight angle etc just have a go. 

 

It's not the refs, it's the rules they're having to enforce. Strangely everyone seems surprised by them. 

The rules are drawn up by ex refs. 
 

They’re ******** clueless. Bunch of nobodies trying to make it all about them. 

[legendaryswan]

This is madness,a guy with his back to the action gets hit on the arm and its a penalty?Wheres the intent?

Seriously this needs re thinking,people come to games to see goals,but the constant stopages for checks interupt the flow,and decisions like weve seen this weekend just make a mockery of what var was introduced for.

Cricket and Rugby are different in that there are natural stoppages or breaks in the flow,but Football is about building a momentum and keeping it flowing.

Mistakes were part of folklore but weve now gone WAY too far the other way,its not the game I used to watch and play,penalties after the final whistle?No thanks,the whistle is the final act

[edmontonowl]

17 hours ago, Bulgaria said:

I said it ages ago that players, especially the skillful ones are just going to try and aim for the arms of the defenders once in the penalty area.

 

It's a farce.

 

 

Which is what we used to do as kids playing in the park

[edmontonowl]

The Dier one was, well dire. Just shocking decision

 

 

Going back to the Man U one at the end............. corner comes in, Maguire heads it, ref blows the whistle as ball is cleared. Game over. Neither ref nor lino spotted the ball hitting Maupay's arms so they must have been satisfied everything was good. Then the Man U players appealed and chased the ref. Then the ref got a message it was going to VAR resulting in the pen.

 

My question is who or what prompted the VAR review? It wasn't the on-field officials so was it the Stockley Park crew? Or  was it players chasing the ref?

[0wl18]

6 hours ago, edmontonowl said:

The Dier one was, well dire. Just shocking decision

 

 

Going back to the Man U one at the end............. corner comes in, Maguire heads it, ref blows the whistle as ball is cleared. Game over. Neither ref nor lino spotted the ball hitting Maupay's arms so they must have been satisfied everything was good. Then the Man U players appealed and chased the ref. Then the ref got a message it was going to VAR resulting in the pen.

 

My question is who or what prompted the VAR review? It wasn't the on-field officials so was it the Stockley Park crew? Or  was it players chasing the ref?

The officials don’t prompt the VAR review as far as I’m aware. 
 

The United players reaction will have caused the VAR to have a look. Such a reaction only really occurs when an injustice has been done. The players get nothing out of behaving in such a way if there’s nothing in the decision.
 

For me, that was a clear and obvious error, definitely a penalty.

[Binky Griptite]

Deliberate handball - Penalty

 

Accidental handball - Indirect Free Kick

 

...yes, it brings personal opinion on intent back in to the thinking which is a minefield but it's got to be better than this.

 

We also need consistency in decision making inside and outside the box. The Brighton overturned penalty is a good example, it's given as a free kick anywhere else on the pitch yet overturned in the box, funnily enough Lewis Dunk (I think) got a yellow card about ten minutes later for a challenge which saw a fraction of the contact of Pogba on Connolly. Because it was outside the box you can't VAR it and because it was a yellow and not a red it can't be rescinded, yet on the totting up process he'll miss a game at some point as a result of that yellow.

[edmontonowl]

4 hours ago, 0wl18 said:

The officials don’t prompt the VAR review as far as I’m aware. 
 

The United players reaction will have caused the VAR to have a look. Such a reaction only really occurs when an injustice has been done. The players get nothing out of behaving in such a way if there’s nothing in the decision.
 

For me, that was a clear and obvious error, definitely a penalty.

 

Deffo a pen when yoi see it on replay.

 

But which officials saw it live. If they don't see it live, did it happen?

 

It's the same as a tree falling in the forest does it make a sound?

 

So if opponents appeal something they think happened does that mean the ref has to respond?

 

If that's the case surely VAR has taken the decision making away from officials and made them redundant.

[oldishowl]

Courtesy of MOTD last night

Appears we have been instructed to interpret the rules this way by FIFA and UEFA because they want the standard implementation of VAR. So it is all about VAR.

 

Was done this way in Spain and Italy last season.

Penalty count last season 

PL 19
Italy 58

Spain 65

Might have got Spain and Italy wrong way round but you can see where we are going.
 

So I would think it’s going to continue.

 

So my questions are 

What interpretation is being used in Championship and below with no VAR

What interpretation is being used for attackers handling the ball, is it still the ridiculous one from last season or has that changed.

 

Surely somebody should be clarifying all this for the fans 

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by oldishowl

[Ever the pessimist]

According to the BBC the new ruling is as follows. The Newcastle one yesterday looks like it’s not the law’s fault, but the referee interpretation.

[0wl18]

7 hours ago, edmontonowl said:

 

Deffo a pen when yoi see it on replay.

 

But which officials saw it live. If they don't see it live, did it happen?

 

It's the same as a tree falling in the forest does it make a sound?

 

So if opponents appeal something they think happened does that mean the ref has to respond?

 

If that's the case surely VAR has taken the decision making away from officials and made them redundant.

That’s the whole point of VAR. Officials miss a clear penalty. The cameras don’t. If the players reaction causes the VAR to review, so be it. The replays are available nearly instantaneous, the game isn’t stopped until the ball goes dead. Stockley park can be checking before the game is even stopped.

 

Referees are still officiating the game. VAR merely assists when for whatever’s reason they don’t get it right.
 

I understand your concerns and, agree VAR could be utilised differently. I’d rather see an appeals system.

[oldishowl]

18 minutes ago, 0wl18 said:

That’s the whole point of VAR. Officials miss a clear penalty. The cameras don’t. If the players reaction causes the VAR to review, so be it. The replays are available nearly instantaneous, the game isn’t stopped until the ball goes dead. Stockley park can be checking before the game is even stopped.

 

Referees are still officiating the game. VAR merely assists when for whatever’s reason they don’t get it right.
 

I understand your concerns and, agree VAR could be utilised differently. I’d rather see an appeals system.

 

What is an appeals system?

[Big Malc]

A recipe for disaster

[0wl18]

49 minutes ago, Big Malc said:

A recipe for disaster

Because it epically fails in every other sport doesn’t it?
 

Theres literally no reason an appeals system couldn’t be implemented in a similar fashion to how VAR currently works.

 

Each team has 1 appeal each. 
 

The manager is the only person who can appeal.

 

If an appeal is lodged, the manager must clearly state what offence is being looked at. 

 

The referee will review the decision on the touch line monitor at the next break in play.

 

If the appeal is successful the team keeps their review, if not, it’s lost. 
 

It brings VAR back in line with what the initial intention was. It was never a mechanism to perfect the game, it’s initial concept was to look for clear and obvious errors.
 

Let the managers decide what they feel are clear and obvious errors not the officials. That way the managers have to be accountable for their own poor appeals.
 

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by 0wl18

[edmontonowl]

I think that's a slippery slope in football. Allowing 1 now will soon morph into 2 or 3 or 4 as managers/club owners/sponsors and whoever else continue to tinker with the game and its rules.

 

The game today is not even close to what it used to be 20 years ago. Not much changed in over a 100 years and yet we've seen more change since the Millennium than in the previous century. We now have a bewildering law for handball and Lord knows what the offside rule is now. Even the linos aren't understanding that one.

 

On comparisons to other sports, rugby and cricket are somewhat more respectful of the game and its officials and don't have the vast array of cultural differences to contend with that you find in football where it's pretty much a free-for-all when ref's decisions are contested and appealed.

[0wl18]

How many clear errors are there in any given game? Very few. 

 

With regards to 1 turning into 2 or 3, how often has the number of reviews been changed in Cricket? Tennis? NFL? The next comeback tends to be ‘they’re not the beautiful game though’ or some other cliche. There’s an argument to start the appeals at 2, 1 per half I suppose.

 

I feel we’re on a far slipperier slope as things stand, with the ridiculous endeavour for perfection. Your second paragraph highlights the point perfectly.

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by 0wl18

[Kopparberg]

[Big Malc]

23 hours ago, 0wl18 said:

Because it epically fails in every other sport doesn’t it?
 

Theres literally no reason an appeals system couldn’t be implemented in a similar fashion to how VAR currently works.

 

Each team has 1 appeal each. 
 

The manager is the only person who can appeal.

 

If an appeal is lodged, the manager must clearly state what offence is being looked at. 

 

The referee will review the decision on the touch line monitor at the next break in play.

 

If the appeal is successful the team keeps their review, if not, it’s lost. 
 

It brings VAR back in line with what the initial intention was. It was never a mechanism to perfect the game, it’s initial concept was to look for clear and obvious errors.
 

Let the managers decide what they feel are clear and obvious errors not the officials. That way the managers have to be accountable for their own poor appeals.
 

 

Football isn’t every other sport.  Cricket and NFL, the main ones that utilise appeals, have natural breaks where appeals can be dealt with without halting the flow of a game too much.

 

And with cricket, the appeals often show a marginally incorrect decision that stays with the umpire.  We’re gonna see that with football are we?  When we’re looking for bootlace ends being offside and declaring that the right decision has been arrived at?

 

It’s time we stopped comparing football with other sports - it has its own ebbs and flows, every incident affects every incident that follows.  Arbitrarily picking one passage of play and correcting it ignores all the other passages that led up to that one.

 

On the whole, considering that at any one time there are 22 players and a multitude of coaching staff all actively trying to cheat every single second, the officials do a good job.  It’s time to stop looking for perfection and appreciate what we’ve got before it becomes even more of a mockery.

[Big Malc]

21 hours ago, 0wl18 said:

How many clear errors are there in any given game? Very few. 

 

With regards to 1 turning into 2 or 3, how often has the number of reviews been changed in Cricket? Tennis? NFL? The next comeback tends to be ‘they’re not the beautiful game though’ or some other cliche. There’s an argument to start the appeals at 2, 1 per half I suppose.

 

I feel we’re on a far slipperier slope as things stand, with the ridiculous endeavour for perfection. Your second paragraph highlights the point perfectly.

 

Completely agree.  Glad we’re agreed there’s no need for VAR.

[Binky Griptite]

"Gimmeyermoney Betting have today signed a two year deal to become the official sponsors of the VAR Review. The deal believed to be worth in excess of £120m a year has an option of a third year for an additional £150m however its believed the Premier League will seek alternate sponsors as they look to optimise the level of filthy money they receive from the commercialisation of another aspect of the onetime beautiful game."