Crazy inconsistent Referee & VAR Decisions

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

When Cambridge scored on Saturday, it took VAR an eternity before allowing the goal to stand. People were saying then they were looking for a reason to disallow it.

Anyway my basic argument is that if it takes 4 minutes to reach a decision then something is clearly seen as being wrong. Had it been at the other end would it have taken 4 minutes to reach a decision? And would the goal have been disallowed? The cynic in me says no to both questions.

Cambridge got a bit lucky I think as the player who got the ball first was offside but Shelvey was deemed to have played it. So, they went in favour of the lower team.

I would normally agree with the four minute thing but this was more complex. It was hard to tell whether Watkins had touched it and whether you agree or disagree, it's surely acceptable that they went to check the factual decision before moving on to the subjective one.

So it was two VAR checks in one really, these things happen. Ultimately though, they got the right decision and to me that still matters most.

I'd hate for Wolves to lose a massive match on a wrong decision just because people wanted a quick call.

 

[Wandering_Wolf93]

When Cambridge scored on Saturday, it took VAR an eternity before allowing the goal to stand. People were saying then they were looking for a reason to disallow it.

Anyway my basic argument is that if it takes 4 minutes to reach a decision then something is clearly seen as being wrong. Had it been at the other end would it have taken 4 minutes to reach a decision? And would the goal have been disallowed? The cynic in me says no to both questions.

I'd argue the Cambridge goal they were looking for a reason to allow it. Whilst tight the offside they were looking at was without doubt off. They then kept looking into whether Shelvey got a touch which made the a new phase and meant he was now onside.

It all comes down to the protocols, presumably they were back from the goal and incidents. So working back, 1. Did it hit ings hand? No. 2. Was ings offside from the konsa header? No. Viewing that they see how close Watkins was to making contact. So 3. Did Watkins get a touch and make ings offside? No. Play it all the way back from the initial delivery, right Ramsey clearly offside, and blocks cavani, right get the ref over to the screen, do you think he prevents cavani from clearing/affecting the play? Yes. Right offside then.

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

Do you really want to go back to 4 minute VAR reviews each goal? I can tell you that's hell for a fan in the stadium, VAR has been generally more subtle this season, but I fear this FA cup weekend is going to put us back two years if we have to spend 3 minutes 40 seconds to find a clear and obvious error lol..

Course I don't and I don't like it at the ground but I hate getting done by an incorrect call more.

This was a lengthy delay because they understandably checked the offside call first and it was incredibly tight. In hindsight, they should've checked Ramsey first but I can understand why they went with the factual decision first.

This isn't normal, it was complex and doesn't happen all the time, pleasingly. But I'm not keen on moaning when VAR has helped get the right decision at a crucial moment in the game.

 

[lobodelsur]

The integrity of the round was undermined by the partial use of a subjectively applied technology,

Its worse than that.
The integrity of the entire sport is being undermined by the use of a subjectively applied technology.

 

[topcat99]

I thought it was clear and obvious. I noticed it on the first replay, that an offside player had impeded a defender from the initial free kick. I'm not sure why they took so long to go through everything else and rule it out to be honest.

Fair enough. So if it was so clear, did it take nearly 3 minutes to come to that conclusion?

Edit: I have no horse in this race, I dislike both teams equally. But VAR needs sorting out.

 

[Frank Lincoln]

Course I don't and I don't like it at the ground but I hate getting done by an incorrect call more.

This was a lengthy delay because they understandably checked the offside call first and it was incredibly tight. In hindsight, they should've checked Ramsey first but I can understand why they went with the factual decision first.

This isn't normal, it was complex and doesn't happen all the time, pleasingly. But I'm not keen on moaning when VAR has helped get the right decision at a crucial moment in the game.

It wasn't complex at all in my opinion. VAR was brought in to eradicate the clear and obvious mistakes. They were the words of Mike Riley. Some would say the United player deliberately ran into the Villa player. Not sure that was the case, but the one thing is that there wasn't a clear and obvious mistake. Again though, the big problem is the amount of time taken, and being taken without any communication to the spectators. Surely they can put something on the screens so people have a clue what is happening. Or even better let people hear what the VAR official is saying to the referee.

VAR is not fit for purpose, and as @lobodelsur so eloquently put it, the integrity of the sport is being undermined.

 

[tamwolf]

Fair enough. So if it was so clear, did it take nearly 3 minutes to come to that conclusion?

Edit: I have no horse in this race, I dislike both teams equally. But VAR needs sorting out.

Technically the 'clear and obvious' is irrelevant to offside anyway. Clear and obvious is only relevant to subjective decisions. Offside is an objective decision.

The Villa player was offside. They obstructed a defender who was going to challenge for the ball. Therefore the player is offside.

I don't know why it took so long. I had given it offside in my head on the first viewing. Maybe they have a procedure of things they need to go through or the person on VAR just missed it initially and focused on the Ings offside / handball. Either way, the correct decision was reached, which is probably the most important thing once VAR is involved.

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

It wasn't complex at all in my opinion. VAR was brought in to eradicate the clear and obvious mistakes. They were the words of Mike Riley. Some would say the United player deliberately ran into the Villa player. Not sure that was the case, but the one thing is that there wasn't a clear and obvious mistake. Again though, the big problem is the amount of time taken, and being taken without any communication to the spectators. Surely they can put something on the screens so people have a clue what is happening. Or even better let people hear what the VAR official is saying to the referee.

VAR is not fit for purpose, and as @lobodelsur so eloquently put it, the integrity of the sport is being undermined.

I think it was clear and obvious. He's blocked him off deliberately from an offside position and is facing away from goal. Offside and a foul, it's an easy decision, in my opinion.

Agree they should do more in terms of letting fans in the stadium know, and I would push for conversations to be heard.

But then totally disagree about the integrity of the sport. I'm sure you'll have enough chances to moan rightly about VAR without trying to pick on an incident where they've helped get the right decision!

 

[lobodelsur]

But then totally disagree about the integrity of the sport. I'm sure you'll have enough chances to moan rightly about VAR without trying to pick on an incident where they've helped get the right decision!

The problem is not 'getting the right decision'. The problem is the complete lack of consistency in what is being looked at, what is being taken into consideration, how decisions are being arrived at etc etc. There are innumerable examples on this thread alone of similar situations generating different decisions even with the help of VAR. This is not 'getting the right decision' - it is generating even more controversy than in pre-VAR days and that cannot be good for the integrity of the game.

 

[Frank Lincoln]

I think it was clear and obvious. He's blocked him off deliberately from an offside position and is facing away from goal. Offside and a foul, it's an easy decision, in my opinion.

Agree they should do more in terms of letting fans in the stadium know, and I would push for conversations to be heard.

But then totally disagree about the integrity of the sport. I'm sure you'll have enough chances to moan rightly about VAR without trying to pick on an incident where they've helped get the right decision!

Thank you for your response.

I am not moaning about it, I thought we were discussing the issue. I have been consistent in my dislike of VAR from the beginning. It has taken the spontaneity and joy out of your team scoring a goal. And why should it take 4 minutes to spot a clear and obvious situation? It just didn't sit easily with me.

Also, and I have made this point previously, when goals are scored from set pieces, why doesn't VAR check the all in wrestling taking place in the penalty area? I would also suggest that had the incident occurred at the other end then the goal would have stood.

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

Thank you for your response.

I am not moaning about it, I thought we were discussing the issue. I have been consistent in my dislike of VAR from the beginning. It has taken the spontaneity and joy out of your team scoring a goal. And why should it take 4 minutes to spot a clear and obvious situation? It just didn't sit easily with me.

Also, and I have made this point previously, when goals are scored from set pieces, why doesn't VAR check the all in wrestling taking place in the penalty area? I would also suggest that had the incident occurred at the other end then the goal would have stood.

This was disallowed because of the offside player interfering with play so it's slightly different to standard wrestling from a corner.

Fair enough if you're against VAR anyway, don't disagree with your reasons, but this 3 and a half minute delay was relatively unusual so it's not something that should be used as a stick to beat it with because this happens occasionally.

 

[Fenrir_]

When Cambridge scored on Saturday, it took VAR an eternity before allowing the goal to stand. People were saying then they were looking for a reason to disallow it.

Anyway my basic argument is that if it takes 4 minutes to reach a decision then something is clearly seen as being wrong. Had it been at the other end would it have taken 4 minutes to reach a decision? And would the goal have been disallowed? The cynic in me says no to both questions.

Totally agree. Refer you back to that epic night, Wolves 3-2 Man City. Man City had a penalty appeal waved away by the ref, then three minutes of replays to eventually show that Dendoncker made slight contact with Mahrez's foot (and only because Mahrez tried to step across him at that), VAR awards a penalty. Same penalty box later in the game, Jota is clipped by Walker, a ten second check from one angle was all they needed apparently, no forensic analysis like Man City had

They absolutely choose what they want to get forensic on and what they're happy to just wave away. The blatant ones they can't get away with but if Man U score that goal last night, it doesn't get the same analysis and I doubt it gets chalked off

 

[lobodelsur]

Jut saw that the cost of operating VAR is 9,250 quid per match. I wonder how this is justified as the cameras are presumably a permanent fixture, the licence is paid in advance and I guess the VAR operators are paid no more than the standard refereeing fee ? Somebody's raking it in somewhere...

Chesterfield chief executive John Croot 'shocked' at VAR bill from Chelsea match

Spireites chief executive John Croot has told of his ‘shock’ at being billed for VAR in Chesterfield’s FA Cup match at Chelsea.

www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk

 

[bigbluewolf]

Jut saw that the cost of operating VAR is 9,250 quid per match. I wonder how this is justified as the cameras are presumably a permanent fixture, the licence is paid in advance and I guess the VAR operators are paid no more than the standard refereeing fee ? Somebody's raking it in somewhere...

Chesterfield chief executive John Croot 'shocked' at VAR bill from Chelsea match

Spireites chief executive John Croot has told of his ‘shock’ at being billed for VAR in Chesterfield’s FA Cup match at Chelsea.

www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk

£9250 for each team.

 

[derbyrameater]

Jut saw that the cost of operating VAR is 9,250 quid per match. I wonder how this is justified as the cameras are presumably a permanent fixture, the licence is paid in advance and I guess the VAR operators are paid no more than the standard refereeing fee ? Somebody's raking it in somewhere...

Chesterfield chief executive John Croot 'shocked' at VAR bill from Chelsea match

Spireites chief executive John Croot has told of his ‘shock’ at being billed for VAR in Chesterfield’s FA Cup match at Chelsea.

www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk

Good find, I bet it doesn’t get mentioned on motd.

 

[lobodelsur]

£9250 for each team.

According to the article (bottom para)
Its cost of £9,250 is a match expense, and is therefore shared equally by the competing clubs from gate receipts.”

 

[bigbluewolf]

According to the article (bottom para)
Its cost of £9,250 is a match expense, and is therefore shared equally by the competing clubs from gate receipts.”

I read somewhere that £9,250 was half the cost of VAR so maybe that particular article I read was wrong? The price is definitely ex-VAT.

It's certainly not value for money whatever the cost.

 

[ToastedWanderer]

Ah the old, "We found infringements that lost you the game, that'll be 9 grand please + vat.."

 

[lobodelsur]

I read somewhere that £9,250 was half the cost of VAR so maybe that particular article I read was wrong? The price is definitely ex-VAT.

It's certainly not value for money whatever the cost.

You may well be right. My article may have the details wrong. Either way, as you say, where on earth is the value ?

 

[Jay Jay de Wolf]

Low and behold Dean (Var) and Marriner (Ref) finally get it right to not award Spurs a penalty for Kepers good challenge on Moura

 

[Deleted member 8455jwf]

2 great VAR overturns in the game

 

[Sussex Wolf]

VAR really spoiling Spurs fun tonight! But in fairness, correcting three wrong onfield decisions.

 

[Sussex Wolf]

Low and behold Dean (Var) and Marriner (Ref) finally get it right to not award Spurs a penalty for Kepers good challenge on Moura

I know. How can they get it so wrong when it’s us playing? Maybe it’s because Dean is on the pitch, and he doesn’t trust a thing that prat Marriner says!

 

[Sammy Chungs Tracksuit]

Cambridge got a bit lucky I think as the player who got the ball first was offside but Shelvey was deemed to have played it. So, they went in favour of the lower team.

I would normally agree with the four minute thing but this was more complex. It was hard to tell whether Watkins had touched it and whether you agree or disagree, it's surely acceptable that they went to check the factual decision before moving on to the subjective one.

So it was two VAR checks in one really, these things happen. Ultimately though, they got the right decision and to me that still matters most.

I'd hate for Wolves to lose a massive match on a wrong decision just because people wanted a quick call.

4 minutes to check if a goal should be disallowed? What happened to the "Clear and Obvious" directive?
If it takes 4 minutes to check then they are ignoring "Clear and Obvious" and effectively breaking VAR rules.
VAR should be allow 1 minute max to rule out a goal or reach any other decision.

 

[SheldonWolf]

Can somebody correct me or otherwise but……

At a free kick I thought the ball had to roll a full “circumference of the ball” at the first touch?

If so, why was the first man United goal allowed to stand today? It clearly does not roll a full circumference after the first back heel.

 

[bigbluewolf]

Can somebody correct me or otherwise but……

At a free kick I thought the ball had to roll a full “circumference of the ball” at the first touch?

If so, why was the first man United goal allowed to stand today? It clearly does not roll a full circumference after the first back heel.

I think that ruling was scrapped a few years ago.

 

[SheldonWolf]

I think that ruling was scrapped a few years ago.

In which case makes sense…….

That many bloody rule changes you struggle to keep up with everything.

Correct me if I’m wrong tho but a “full circumference” used to be a thing ? Or did I imagine it…….?

 

[Frank Lincoln]

In which case makes sense…….

That many bloody rule changes you struggle to keep up with everything.

Correct me if I’m wrong tho but a “full circumference” used to be a thing ? Or did I imagine it…….?

It used to be yes, and from any dead ball situation.

 

[Frank Lincoln]

VAR, or lack of it, strikes again. Surely there was an offside situation in the build up to Manchester Uniteds goal against West Ham. Had that been at the other end, there would have been a lengthy VAR check and the goal would have been disallowed.

It just isn't good enough. Presuming we are stuck with this awful VAR, then it must at the very least be applied consistently.

 

[Hot Fuss]

VAR, or lack of it, strikes again. Surely there was an offside situation in the build up to Manchester Uniteds goal against West Ham. Had that been at the other end, there would have been a lengthy VAR check and the goal would have been disallowed.

It just isn't good enough. Presuming we are stuck with this awful VAR, then it must at the very least be applied consistently.

It was checked. It was onside.

 

[Frank Lincoln]

It was checked. It was onside.

I thought it was offside, as did a few other people. It was very marginal, and I have no problem with goals being allowed to stand in those situations, but we have seen very similar ones chalked off. As a matter of interest, how long did the check take?

 

[Big Saft Kid]

It was checked. It was onside.

But it appears they are selective in what they allow us to see. Adama's was an extremely tight call, as was the Man U goal. Whether it looks offside or not in such cases often depends on which frame you stop the camera at. Plus the speed of the decision in Utd's case looked suspicious. Last kick off the match, 70,000 celebrating. Hmmm....

 

[glorybox]

But it appears they are selective in what they allow us to see. Adama's was an extremely tight call, as was the Man U goal. Whether it looks offside or not in such cases often depends on which frame you stop the camera at. Plus the speed of the decision in Utd's case looked suspicious. Last kick off the match, 70,000 celebrating. Hmmm....

Absolutely spot on. And once you factor in the position of limbs, and body shape/angle of both players it becomes all rather subjective again unfortunately.

 

[JadeWolf]

Watching the two decisions back to back the Utd one looks more offside than Traore’s. I know people say offside is offside but I think with VAR that doesn’t work because it’s so dependent on the camera angle and when they stop the replay.

 

[dizzydonut]

It’s where you freeze the frame. Also I believe only 50 frames per second so never can be accurate at full speed. At traores pace there are over 5cm of margin to consider (although he wasn’t up to speed at the time).

 

[Saltyjim]

Just glad that Adama's one didn't cost us any points. Was very tight and all depended on when the pic was frozen.
At least VAR got the red card rescinded. Terrible on field decision.

 

[Frank Lincoln]

Just glad that Adama's one didn't cost us any points. Was very tight and all depended on when the pic was frozen.
At least VAR got the red card rescinded. Terrible on field decision.

It is the inconsistency with it that I do not like. Apart from marginal offsides, why were Newcastle United not awarded a penalty yesterday at Elland Road. It was a clear foul, the referee didn't give it, and VAR supported the referees decision. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Hoganstolemywife]

Is the 6 second rule still a thing for keepers?

 

[Jonzy54]

Is the 6 second rule still a thing for keepers?

In law yes but I can’t remember how many years ago I saw one given .In one match earlier this season the keeper held on to the ball for 24 seconds and not a word from the referee or any action taken .

 

[Dr Wolfenstein]

With VAR there doesn't seem to be such a thing as ''level with the defender'' anymore.