Extra Time on Extra Time Hating Bastards v Exhibition Building Loving, Shandy Drinking Fannies

[sammynb 3342]

2 hours ago, Rayvin said:

 

Agree but I just mean that without it, those decisions go against us. I know it got it right rather than doing us a favour, but that's the point really. 3 decisions which it turned around for us to get a justified outcome, that we otherwise wouldn't have had.

 

But Rayvin, that's the thing, any and everything that is VAR relates should be 100% correct otherwise what is the point of having someone review the situation from multiple angles with normal and super slo-mo sources?

It's a joke that we even need to go, "oh but it got three decisions right for us" - that's not how it works, it has to get every decision right for us and every other team it is officiating upon.

Anyway it appears that even the referee's association knows it is fucked - doesn't help for the points lost but maybe Lee Mason is out of a job.

Quote

Referees’ body effectively admits controversial VAR decisions were wrong

PGMOL, the referees’ body, has effectively admitted the respective VAR decisions to disallow goals at Chelsea and Newcastle on Saturday were wrong and promised to “fully co-operate” with a Premier League review of the incidents.

The Professional Game Match Officials’ Board took the rare step of “acknowledging” the specific controversies in a statement on Sunday, and accepted the Premier League’s request for an additional investigation.

VAR decisions in all affected matches are already reviewed by a five-strong independent panel comprising representatives of the Premier League and the PGMOL as well as three former players, with their findings sent to the clubs concerned. So it is significant that PGMOL has taken the extra step after Saturday’s action, with West Ham denied a late equaliser against Chelsea at Stamford Bridge, while Newcastle drew 0-0 with Crystal Palace after a Tyrick Mitchell own goal was ruled out at St James’ Park.

 

 

“PGMOL acknowledge the incidents to disallow the goals in the Chelsea v West Ham and Newcastle v Crystal Palace fixtures,” read a statement. “We will fully co-operate and collaborate with the Premier League and their request to review these two particular incidents, using the outcome as part of the ongoing assessment of weekly performances and the development of our match officials going forward.”

Both decisions were heavily criticised, with David Moyes, the West Ham manager, branding VAR official Jarred Gillett unfit for duty after confronting referee Andy Madley. Maxwel Cornet’s strike was cancelled out after a VAR review, with Jarrod Bowen deemed to have fouled Edouard Mendy as he attempted to reach a ball which was spilled by the goalkeeper.

“I’m amazed that VAR sent the referee for him to see it,” said a furious Moyes. “But I thought even if he goes to the TV there’s no way he’s overturning this, because this is a goal. It was a ridiculously bad decision.

 

“I’d question VAR today as much as the referee. But the referee should have stuck to his own guns. The sad thing is this is the level of the weak refereeing at the moment.

“Look, ultimately, I make loads of mistakes, referees can make loads of mistakes. But I would hope if the referee made a mistake, that’s why it’s corrected by VAR. But if you’re saying today that the referee’s mistake was corrected by VAR, I’m saying I do not see that in a million years. And I’m actually more embarrassed for the guy who did the VAR than I am even for the referee.”

Newcastle manager Eddie Howe was more measured in his reaction to seeing Mitchell’s own goal overturned. Referee Michael Salisbury ruled it out for a foul by Joe Willock on goalkeeper Vicente Guaita. “I didn’t think it should have been disallowed, personally, I thought it was a foul or a push on Joe Willock in the build-up to the ball coming in,” said Howe.

“Joe’s momentum is fixed at that point from his opponent, it then carries him into the goalkeeper. But without that push, there’s no way that Joe would have gone in with that force, so for me it’s not a foul. If anything, it’s a penalty if it’s not a goal, so I was very surprised with the outcome.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/sep/04/premier-league-request-review-of-controversial-var-decisions

 

[toonotl 2916]

Yep. If they're not getting it right 99.9% of the time, then the VAR system is fundamentally broken. There is no excuse for these errors.  This decision was universally seen to be an error. In football, where fringe opinions and attention whores are everywhere, that level of condemnation is almost unheard of.

 

Lee Mason should never be involved in football ever again. The level of incompetence is such that he simply cannot be placed above suspicion of deliberate wrongdoing now and going forward. And, if someone wants to be so polite as to preclude the possibility of corruption, then the level of incompetence is sufficient to have him dismissed. It is inexcusable.

 

Also, I think I can speak on behalf everyone when I say an apology means absolutely nothing. Apologies from people who can't be trusted have no meaning as an apology is usually tantamount to a commitment to avoid making the same mistake in the future and/or providing retribution in the present.

 

How about we replay the match? That's closer to fulfilling the provisos of an actual apology. 

[Rayvin 5151]

I still don't think we're quite arguing the same thing here. In terms of outcomes, you're saying you want to go back to a system that would have seen us unfairly penalised 3 times already this season, with the argument being what, this is somehow more consistent and balanced out?

 

VAR needs to be operated correctly, and should not be subject to errors. Totally agree. It's being mishandled in its application clearly. But that's the same issue we have without it, rules being mishandled by human error.

 

So this is what I'm struggling with I guess, I get (and share) the fury over the decision, but how can we argue that the alternative would be an improvement? It makes no sense. The correct argument to have is to demand higher standards for the use of it.

[NJS 4355]

5 minutes ago, toonotl said:

How about we replay the match? That's closer to fulfilling the provisos of an actual apology. 

I'm a fatalist after too many years of watching us but nothing in the universe would prevent us losing that match if it was replayed. 

 

Even if they awarded us two extra points "on paper" they'd find another way to rescind them later. 

[OTF 7215]

The VAR system is not broken, the referees using the VAR system are broken. It's like they feel they have to leave an imprint on every game, make their existence known. Both situations cited they had no reason at all to interject.

 

They haven't even said sorry or confirmed that the decisions were wrong above, "acknowledge the incidents" is the most cowardly politician style response possible. Unfortunately these are not alone, they just happen to be the most obvious and blatant fuck ups. It's kind of good that they happened so closely because there's at least a chance that they do now take some punitive action against those involved as well as some steps to reduce the chance of more incorrect interference in the future.

[Holden McGroin 6457]

The referees union (or whoever) need to come out and publicly state that refs don't need to change their decision if they are sent to the monitor. They are under so much pressure to change as they think they've made a mistake.

[OTF 7215]

1 hour ago, Holden McGroin said:

The referees union (or whoever) need to come out and publicly state that refs don't need to change their decision if they are sent to the monitor. They are under so much pressure to change as they think they've made a mistake.

 

It's pretty simple though; if someone who is employed to help you has had ample time in a quiet focussed environment to review countless replays of multiple angles on an incident and determines that you made a clear and obvious error it goes without saying that instead of looking at the monitor in the middle of a noisy stadium objectively you're looking to see what you got wrong.

 

The VAR should be the one yo make the ruling IF it's clear and obvious as they're in an environment to review. If the VAR can't clearly determine something based off the replays then the on-field decision should be upheld. This includes not only when the footage is unclear but also when there is interpretation of the rules required and it's not clear - e.g. excessive force, some handball decisions (natural position) and the like.

[Craig 6670]

The issue with that is that when VAR was first implemented that's exactly what happened - the decisions were all being made in Stockley Park and it removed the perceived view that in football the (on-field) referee's decision should be final. 

Personally I think VAR should be completely independent of PGMOL and there needs to be more transparency on what's going on. Why not make the referee discussions audible as they do in rugby and then everyone is fully aware of what is going on.

 

[Tom 14011]

Yeh that's a great shout Craig.

 

I haven't been to many games since VAR came in. However when there's a check happening you're utterly clueless in the crowd. 
 

People end up cheering for nothing & then end up being wrong. You seldom see the replays being checked. 
 

It's a nightmare. Stick the VAR refs in the stand, MIC them up and put the replays on the big screens or ditch it altogether.

[wykikitoon 19807]

7 minutes ago, Craig said:

The issue with that is that when VAR was first implemented that's exactly what happened - the decisions were all being made in Stockley Park and it removed the perceived view that in football the (on-field) referee's decision should be final. 

Personally I think VAR should be completely independent of PGMOL and there needs to be more transparency on what's going on. Why not make the referee discussions audible as they do in rugby and then everyone is fully aware of what is going on.

 

 

I think letting people listen in on the conversation would go a long way.

[Dr Gloom 21760]

2 minutes ago, Craig said:

The issue with that is that when VAR was first implemented that's exactly what happened - the decisions were all being made in Stockley Park and it removed the perceived view that in football the (on-field) referee's decision should be final. 

Personally I think VAR should be completely independent of PGMOL and there needs to be more transparency on what's going on. Why not make the referee discussions audible as they do in rugby and then everyone is fully aware of what is going on.

 

 

agreed. hearing what they're saying would make it less opaque.

 

i'd also introduce three challenges for each team - a bit like the DRS in cricket. If a captain/manager feels aggrieved about a decision, they have three chances to send it upstairs and if they're proved wrong they burn a review, if they're right they keep it. stop letting dickheads like lee mason dictate what happens.

 

technology should remain in place for less subjective decisions such as goal line clearances and offsides, though the way they review offsides needs to be looked at too. it should be an obvious offside - not an armpit or a hand ffs. the benefit of the doubt should be with the attacker. it was ridiculous that isak's feet were onside for his second against liverpool but it was chalked off because of his arms. 

[Craig 6670]

3 minutes ago, Tom said:

Yeh that's a great shout Craig.

 

I haven't been to many games since VAR came in. However when there's a check happening you're utterly clueless in the crowd. 
 

People end up cheering for nothing & then end up being wrong. You seldom see the replays being checked. 
 

It's a nightmare. Stick the VAR refs in the stand, MIC them up and put the replays on the big screens or ditch it altogether.

 

I don't think that'd be a conducive step. Imagine if that had been the case at Anfield last Wednesday for our offside call and the VAR was in the stands? The home influence would be telling. I do think they should be 'on site' though - have him watching the match from the referee's room. 

I also think they referee team should be subject to obligatory post-match media duties in the same manner the team managers are. We hear next to fuck all and then they wonder why there is such vitriol towards them. A good proportion of anger & frustration stems from a lack of adequate communication. 

Lee Mason needs to be explaining his rationale for invoking a review. Instead we get silence.

[Holden McGroin 6457]

The 3 challenges would just slow play down and encourage teams that are under the cosh to take the piss.

 

I'd rather go back to when the only technology is on the goal line. There is nothing worse than celebrating a goal then having it chalked off. I'd take the injustices.

Edited September 5, 2022 by Holden McGroin

[wykikitoon 19807]

Offside is probably one of the most contentious decisions at the moment I would say.  That needs sorting out. 

[Holden McGroin 6457]

Im not even sure how accurate offsides are.
 

They have to get the moment to the absolute split second that the ball is hit (or released) and then have the same view/perspective the linesman has. Some of these are so minor that I don't think they are 100% accurate with technology.

[David Kelly 1217]

I think the argument about taking the decision out of the onfield referee's hands a flawed.  In cricket they've realised that sometimes umpires make mistakes because not every decision is easy from the view they have.  Apparently umpires were initially not happy that it highlighted their mistakes but they soon got over it when they realised they weren't punished for making errors that were in many instances unavoidable.  The same would be the case in football.

Of course this wouldn't have helped us in any way on Saturday because clearly Mason thought it was more likely than not that the ref made an error with his orginal decision.  So if the decision had been left up to Mason he'd have come to the wrong conclusion either way.  Which is no surprise after seeing his refereeing for years.

[Howay 12496]

They should just scrap the fucking thing. I thought it would be a heap of shit before it was brought in and it’s honestly worse than I even thought. They’re not really getting much more correct using it than without it, even the ones being shown as examples of it correcting something can often be the ref or linesmen not making decisions knowing VAR will review. There’s no way the % of decisions they’re getting correct over just allowing the on field ref to referee it is worth this fucking hassle. 

Edited September 5, 2022 by Howay

[Holden McGroin 6457]

I'd love to see mic'ed up refs and broadcast the conversations they have the VAR official though.

[wykikitoon 19807]

I honestly thought that VAR would be used similar to the Video ref in RL.  Someone scores a goal and they're not sure if there's an issue (offside, foul by attacker etc) and its then checked. Similar to the other area's of play where a possible ref is awarded.  But it's not been used like that.

 

They should mic up the ref's and video ref and it would make things a lot more transparent and fans etc would understand it a lot more.

[NJS 4355]

A mic for Saturday's would have gone something like:

 

"Willock collides with the keeper which prevents him from saving it - foul, no goal" 

 

If they didn't consider the push on Willock then they wouldn't have mentioned it - unless there's a second viewer to debate/argue. 

[Craig 6670]

1 hour ago, wykikitoon said:

I honestly thought that VAR would be used similar to the Video ref in RL.  Someone scores a goal and they're not sure if there's an issue (offside, foul by attacker etc) and its then checked. Similar to the other area's of play where a possible ref is awarded.  But it's not been used like that.

 

They should mic up the ref's and video ref and it would make things a lot more transparent and fans etc would understand it a lot more.

 

 

[PaddockLad 16992]

22 minutes ago, Craig said:

 

 

Highly selective, rugby union pays lip service to respecting referees. Refs used to be able to take the ball forward 10 yards if you as much as breathed in the refs direction after he’d made a decision . That doesn’t happen now because the game is reffed from a van, same as football….of course there are differences in approach but at least football refs are still paid to decide how long the game lasts for. Not that they get that right every time either…

[wykikitoon 19807]

the NRL ref's don't take any shit.  The Ref's in SL are as fucking useless as the Refs in the Prem.  However the video ref situation is still miles better and they are still a hell of a lot more respected than in football.

[Craig 6670]

I was highlighting less about the style of refereeing and more about the transparency it creates. As was alluded to, half the issue with the anger & frustration generated is down to having absolutely no idea what is going on nor what their rationale for decision making is. I think the officials use that lack of transparency to hide behind a barrier. Removing that barrier would, IMO expose then which in turn, would lead to better informed decision making on their part. 

As it stands they are totally unanswerable and unaccountable for their actions which is appalling. 

[trophyshy 7066]

7 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

 That doesn’t happen now because the game is reffed from a van

 

If only.