Referee Assessor - Note To Jeff and Fosun

[martin120863]

It appears Forest are aggrieved with Referee / VAR decisions this season, hence the appointment of Mark Clattenburg as their own referee assessor.

I can only think that they are preparing a dossier in case they are relegated this season and need to produce 'qualified' evidence to support a legal case against PGMOL / Premier League / TV Company | collusion | corruption | cheating | incompetence | (choose the word you feel most aligned with).

Bearing in mind we will no doubt be targeted again next season by the VAR control system in cahoots with lousy referees with their snouts in the TV trough, should we appoint our own assessor in order to protect ourselves?

Interested to hear thoughts on this board on whether you think Jeff and Guo should follow Forest's lead and whether you think this might be a trend most clubs outside the favoured Sky Super 6 will soon follow?

Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before the precedent is set and the football establishment are required to face legal recourse.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

There is no protection, there is no chance of legal recourse.

 

[Monk]

See the forest points deduct thread - the issues of forest latest outburst 're poor var decisions is being debated as we speak

 

[martin120863]

There is no protection, there is no chance of legal recourse.

You a solicitor pal?

 

[Oldgold Wolfcub]

There is no protection, there is no chance of legal recourse.

And if we all believed this there would have been no Bosman ruling.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

And if we all believed this there would have been no Bosman ruling.

I'd suggest that there's a world of difference between a legal intervention in contract law and one in interpretation of the laws of football.

More importantly probably, what do we actually want? 5 years ago this conversation would have been about how refs make mistakes, so we need VAR to sort that out. Now people want to appeal decisions after the game has finished through some sort of legal process. It's mad, impractical and completely undesirable.

 

[Wolf316]

I'd suggest that there's a world of difference between a legal intervention in contract law and one in interpretation of the laws of football.

More importantly probably, what do we actually want? 5 years ago this conversation would have been about how refs make mistakes, so we need VAR to sort that out. Now people want to appeal decisions after the game has finished through some sort of legal process. It's mad, impractical and completely undesirable.

Competent unbiased refs would do for a start.

 

[Timberwolf]

At the end of the day, if 15 of the 20 Premier League clubs voted to get rid of VAR, it would be gone. The fact that it’s never on the Premier League meetings agenda should tell you all you need to know about the other Clubs’ attitude to VAR.

 

[Monketron]

There's only legal recourse if you can prove they made a mistake in their procedures or the referee applied a law/rule incorrectly. I think that happened in Europe this season where the ref applied the law wrong and a team managed to get a replay out of it. I want to say that was in the Belgium league?

But subjective calls are just that, subjective and you have no real hope of arguing against it.

 

[jackdusty]

At the end of the day, if 15 of the 20 Premier League clubs voted to get rid of VAR, it would be gone. The fact that it’s never on the Premier League meetings agenda should tell you all you need to know about the other Clubs’ attitude to VAR.

Is it because the TV companies want it as it adds extra "drama" for the subscribers and more talking points and it is they that keep the clubs afloat, you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

 

[Monketron]

Barcelona may take legal route over Yamal's 'phantom goal' at Real Madrid

Barcelona president Joan Laporta says he will not rule out taking legal action after Lamine Yamal's 'phantom goal' during El Clasico.

www.bbc.co.uk

Not just the UK where VAR is causing issues.

 

[NottsWolves]

Barcelona may take legal route over Yamal's 'phantom goal' at Real Madrid

Barcelona president Joan Laporta says he will not rule out taking legal action after Lamine Yamal's 'phantom goal' during El Clasico.

www.bbc.co.uk

Not just the UK where VAR is causing issues.

It’s not VAR that’s the issue it’s the useless ****s operating it!

Complete shambles the lot of them this season.

Overall every club has had something go against them, some more than others.

I have no issue with Forest raising their concerns but the manner they went about it was wrong. They have implied an individual is corrupt.

 

[SA Wolf]

It’s not VAR that’s the issue it’s the useless ****s operating it!

Complete shambles the lot of them this season.

Overall every club has had something go against them, some more than others.

I have no issue with Forest raising their concerns but the manner they went about it was wrong. They have implied an individual is corrupt.

It's both. Yes, the operators aka Video Assistant Referees are pretty-useless, but the whole VAR intervention has taken more from the game most of us grew up with and loved watching than it has given.
The whole system is flawed and needs removing before a 'fit for purpose' system can be introduced.

 

[groundhogwolf]

Nothing ever changes until someone steps forward, at this stage Forest have almost nothing to lose, the number decisions we have experienced since the introduction of VAR almost every season wouldn’t happen to a top 6 side, and if it did they wouldn’t accept it without challenge.

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

When they admit they got decisions wrong they need to award points after games in compensation to clubs. VAR should be stopping mistakes not increasing them??? I guess the increase means something shady is happening why else??

 

[old wittonian]

When they admit they got decisions wrong they need to award points after games in compensation to clubs. VAR should be stopping mistakes not increasing them??? I guess the increase means something shady is happening why else??

I just think it's incompetence on an industrial scale. Also covering up so as not to embarrass mates.

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

I just think it's incompetence on an industrial scale. Also covering up so as not to embarrass mates.

How can it get worse with technology that doesn’t add up.

 

[Contrarian]

It's both. Yes, the operators aka Video Assistant Referees are pretty-useless, but the whole VAR intervention has taken more from the game most of us grew up with and loved watching than it has given.
The whole system is flawed and needs removing before a 'fit for purpose' system can be introduced.

Exactly. VAR hinges on the objective truth of an incident being established through use of VAR. But as we see each week, it doesn't matter how many angles and replays you show, even the experts can't agree on many decisions. Take those 3 Notts Forest penalty incidents, for example. Show those to any number of refs at top level who didn't know the result, and you would get any number from 0 - 3 penalties awarded. There is no obective proof for many crucial incidents and for me, this is the myth that VAR has exposed. It's the nature of football in contrast to something like cricket.

So what is the point of VAR when you the subjectivity and inconsistency is more or less the same without it?

VAR is not some complicated Hadron collider that just needs skilled operators. It's video, something that was hardly new in the 1980's! The technology itself is a total red herring in this. It's the subjective nature of most incidents in a football match, where you will never get a 100% on them.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

How can it get worse with technology that doesn’t add up.

It doesn't get worse though does it? A bit like our outrage at VAR decisions were actually almost entirely outrage at VAR non-decisions. The real problem is that it feels worse because whereas we moaned by had to accept poor decisions from refs, now we have a system supposedly to sort them out, but it often doesn't, so everyone feels much more aggrieved.

 

[the genius]

Competent unbiased refs would do for a start.

Absolutely, the competence of those managing VAR operations is a critical factor in its success. The technology itself can only do so much; it ultimately relies on competent individuals to make accurate and fair decisions. Which we clearly don't have.

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

It doesn't get worse though does it? A bit like our outrage at VAR decisions were actually almost entirely outrage at VAR non-decisions. The real problem is that it feels worse because whereas we moaned by had to accept poor decisions from refs, now we have a system supposedly to sort them out, but it often doesn't, so everyone feels much more aggrieved.

True but doesn’t it feel like it’s almost always against us 90% of the time?

 

[jackdusty]

When they admit they got decisions wrong they need to award points after games in compensation to clubs. VAR should be stopping mistakes not increasing them??? I guess the increase means something shady is happening why else??

So we lose a game 1-0 to a wrong pen given against us in the first 5 minutes, you are saying we should get a point and the other team lose 2 points despite the fact we couldn't score in the following 90+ minutes..........okayyy

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

So we lose a game 1-0 to a wrong pen given against us in the first 5 minutes, you are saying we should get a point and the other team lose 2 points despite the fact we couldn't score in the following 90+ minutes..........okayyy

They want to develop the game how else can we right the wrongs of modern day technology

 

[Watfordfc]

Exactly. VAR hinges on the objective truth of an incident being established through use of VAR. But as we see each week, it doesn't matter how many angles and replays you show, even the experts can't agree on many decisions. Take those 3 Notts Forest penalty incidents, for example. Show those to any number of refs at top level who didn't know the result, and you would get any number from 0 - 3 penalties awarded. There is no obective proof for many crucial incidents and for me, this is the myth that VAR has exposed. It's the nature of football in contrast to something like cricket.

So what is the point of VAR when you the subjectivity and inconsistency is more or less the same without it?

VAR is not some complicated Hadron collider that just needs skilled operators. It's video, something that was hardly new in the 1980's! The technology itself is a total red herring in this. It's the subjective nature of most incidents in a football match, where you will never get a 100% on them.

People thought it would be like cricket and rugby where there are a lot of black and white decisions which generally can be sorted quickly and effectively.

As you say so many decisions are subjective in football and you are basically using VAR like a lottery depending on how somebody feels .

And the added ability of teams to appeal decisions (not sure they’d work in football though) or the on pitch ref to ask for another look rather than being told too and probably subconsciously feeling “oh dear I need to change this “

Not sure anyone in power really thought about it all really and just went the calls at time from managers well known for a bit of ref bashing and some in the media with their slow mo replays.

And also the clubs should have voted for automated offsides like everyone else in Europe and Internationally did .

 

[Dr Wolfenstein]

Is it because the TV companies want it as it adds extra "drama" for the subscribers and more talking points and it is they that keep the clubs afloat, you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

'And now a word from our sponsors/advertisers while Stockley Park ponder that possible offside for 5 minutes.'

 

[wolfslair]

People thought it would be like cricket and rugby where there are a lot of black and white decisions which generally can be sorted quickly and effectively.

As you say so many decisions are subjective in football and you are basically using VAR like a lottery depending on how somebody feels .

And the added ability of teams to appeal decisions (not sure they’d work in football though) or the on pitch ref to ask for another look rather than being told too and probably subconsciously feeling “oh dear I need to change this “

Not sure anyone in power really thought about it all really and just went the calls at time from managers well known for a bit of ref bashing and some in the media with their slow mo replays.

And also the clubs should have voted for automated offsides like everyone else in Europe and Internationally did .

People forget that the officials in rugby and cricket are made to be accountable for their actions!! They are also in the most cases well trained and in the case of rugby they are allowed and encouraged to speak to the media if they feel it will help them explain why a mistake in the eyes of the public was made.

Wayne Barnes does this to great effect, many talk openly to the media and podcasts about mistakes and owning up to them!! One even went on the rugby pod to explain what he thought he saw, but instead of trying to hide behind wording of the law which he could have easily done, he said I made a mistake, I am sorry, I have to work harder on my positioning next time, not an excuse it wasn’t good enough.”

World rugby on their YouTube page have Nigel Owen’s, whether you love him or hate him will talk about good and bad decisions made by the officials and has even said, “they need to do better, that isn’t good enough and a match result was massively changed by it.” With a decision at the World Cup. he has even said “I don’t know how the referee has made that decision, he is going to be very disappointed in himself and to be honest he should be, that is a bad decision to make”

Rugby officials will say they made mistakes and own up to them! They are even brave enough as men to front up THEMSELVES in media…..

Football wouldn’t dare put that on ANY official channel the control…..

 

[Watfordfc]

People forget that the officials in rugby and cricket are made to be accountable for their actions!! They are also in the most cases well trained and in the case of rugby they are allowed and encouraged to speak to the media if they feel it will help them explain why a mistake in the eyes of the public was made.

Wayne Barnes does this to great effect, many talk openly to the media and podcasts about mistakes and owning up to them!! One even went on the rugby pod to explain what he thought he saw, but instead of trying to hide behind wording of the law which he could have easily done, he said I made a mistake, I am sorry, I have to work harder on my positioning next time, not an excuse it wasn’t good enough.”

World rugby on their YouTube page have Nigel Owen’s, whether you love him or hate him will talk about good and bad decisions made by the officials and has even said, “they need to do better, that isn’t good enough and a match result was massively changed by it.” With a decision at the World Cup. he has even said “I don’t know how the referee has made that decision, he is going to be very disappointed in himself and to be honest he should be, that is a bad decision to make”

Rugby officials will say they made mistakes and own up to them! They are even brave enough as men to front up THEMSELVES in media…..

Football wouldn’t dare put that on ANY official channel the control…..

Until they are retired it seems and then they seem to disagree between themselves.

 

[fleck1]

People forget that the officials in rugby and cricket are made to be accountable for their actions!! They are also in the most cases well trained and in the case of rugby they are allowed and encouraged to speak to the media if they feel it will help them explain why a mistake in the eyes of the public was made.

Wayne Barnes does this to great effect, many talk openly to the media and podcasts about mistakes and owning up to them!! One even went on the rugby pod to explain what he thought he saw, but instead of trying to hide behind wording of the law which he could have easily done, he said I made a mistake, I am sorry, I have to work harder on my positioning next time, not an excuse it wasn’t good enough.”

World rugby on their YouTube page have Nigel Owen’s, whether you love him or hate him will talk about good and bad decisions made by the officials and has even said, “they need to do better, that isn’t good enough and a match result was massively changed by it.” With a decision at the World Cup. he has even said “I don’t know how the referee has made that decision, he is going to be very disappointed in himself and to be honest he should be, that is a bad decision to make”

Rugby officials will say they made mistakes and own up to them! They are even brave enough as men to front up THEMSELVES in media…..

Football wouldn’t dare put that on ANY official channel the control…..

The transparency in Rugby helps, you can openly hear the conversation between the referee and video match official. You may not agree with the decision but you know how it was reached, they communicate throughout the game and its worked perfectly fine for a number of years. VAR seems to have 3,4,5 people having an input and from some of the recordings just seems chaotic, you also cant make the subjective black and white which VAR seems to want to. Allow in game common sense, somethings are footballing incidents handballs, tackles etc they just aren't black and white decisions.

 

[wolfslair]

The transparency in Rugby helps, you can openly hear the conversation between the referee and video match official. You may not agree with the decision but you know how it was reached, they communicate throughout the game and its worked perfectly fine for a number of years. VAR seems to have 3,4,5 people having an input and from some of the recordings just seems chaotic, you also cant make the subjective black and white which VAR seems to want to. Allow in game common sense, somethings are footballing incidents handballs, tackles etc they just aren't black and white decisions.

Also the amount of times the on field ref goes
“nope, sorry I don’t agree, sticking with my onfield decision as it was a rugby incident”
When the TMO shows something they have seen and slowed down not showing the reality of the incident.

They are guided to only use the slow mo really to gauge point of contact to the head or point of impact with the floor on tip tackles, ALONGSIDE full speed to look at force and the mitigation.

The referees in rugby on the whole seem more intelligent and want the match to flow and not many try to make it about them…… unlike football

 

[Jefe]

There's only legal recourse if you can prove they made a mistake in their procedures or the referee applied a law/rule incorrectly. I think that happened in Europe this season where the ref applied the law wrong and a team managed to get a replay out of it. I want to say that was in the Belgium league?

I would suggest Coventry have a case then, given that they drew the leading edge of the blue at the tip of Wan-Bissaka's foot (with the chunk of the line going over his foot) but did not do the same for Haji Wright.

 

[Contrarian]

People thought it would be like cricket and rugby where there are a lot of black and white decisions which generally can be sorted quickly and effectively.

As you say so many decisions are subjective in football and you are basically using VAR like a lottery depending on how somebody feels .

And the added ability of teams to appeal decisions (not sure they’d work in football though) or the on pitch ref to ask for another look rather than being told too and probably subconsciously feeling “oh dear I need to change this “

Not sure anyone in power really thought about it all really and just went the calls at time from managers well known for a bit of ref bashing and some in the media with their slow mo replays.

And also the clubs should have voted for automated offsides like everyone else in Europe and Internationally did .

Totally agree. If anything, VAR has shown how subjective the rules were all along.

I don't follow Rugby, though I know people who are obsessed with it, play it, watch it etc. And they are often complaining about VAR in rugby, too. It's had it's own VAR controversies, hasn't it? The other thing with rugby is that it's rules are way more numerous and complex than football. The nature of the game being basically 30 people mud wrestling in public (in my opinion!) means that there has to be a ton of details defining what contact is a foul and what isn't.

I do wonder if this is the route football will go down if we insist on objective correctness for every decision. Subjective opinion on whether contact is a foul or not, who initiated contact etc just isn't good enough. We're already seeing it with the handball rule, which used to be as simple as only a foul if deliberate handball, now has regularly changing definitions. Because none of them actually work, of course.

Those who follow rugby often say that they don't understand many of the decisions given. Because the rules have become so intricate as well as the difficulty in seeing what's going on. Football is going the same route. As I mentioned above, to get VAR working to 100% correctness could require much more detail in the rules. Angles of points of contact, force of impact, height off the ground and so on, can all be measured and I think this is where the current direction takes us.

Better refs and more of them, is what we really need.

 

[Watfordfc]

Totally agree. If anything, VAR has shown how subjective the rules were all along.

I don't follow Rugby, though I know people who are obsessed with it, play it, watch it etc. And they are often complaining about VAR in rugby, too. It's had it's own VAR controversies, hasn't it? The other thing with rugby is that it's rules are way more numerous and complex than football. The nature of the game being basically 30 people mud wrestling in public (in my opinion!) means that there has to be a ton of details defining what contact is a foul and what isn't.

I do wonder if this is the route football will go down if we insist on objective correctness for every decision. Subjective opinion on whether contact is a foul or not, who initiated contact etc just isn't good enough. We're already seeing it with the handball rule, which used to be as simple as only a foul if deliberate handball, now has regularly changing definitions. Because none of them actually work, of course.

Those who follow rugby often say that they don't understand many of the decisions given. Because the rules have become so intricate as well as the difficulty in seeing what's going on. Football is going the same route. As I mentioned above, to get VAR working to 100% correctness could require much more detail in the rules. Angles of points of contact, force of impact, height off the ground and so on, can all be measured and I think this is where the current direction takes us.

Better refs and more of them, is what we really need.

I think there is the odd complaint but they aren’t very high profile as obviously rugby isn’t as well followed and they all get told to “respect the decision “ which probably happens with a few lips reluctantly sealed teeth gritted !

Particularly by fans and pundits in Internationals.

Someone got sent off in the WC cup final by TMO but that didn’t really cause a stir like if that was the football version .


I do think questions have to be asked about why decisions are so varied and because we don’t hear what get said except occasionally through audio which sounds more like a bunch of school kids shouting over each other in the play ground there is obviously suspicion and confusion.

It’s obvious the system hasn’t improved anything and actually made worse with everyone more frustrated than ever .

 

[old wittonian]

I think there is the odd complaint but they aren’t very high profile as obviously rugby isn’t as well followed and they all get told to “respect the decision “ which probably happens with a few lips reluctantly sealed teeth gritted !

Particularly by fans and pundits in Internationals.

Someone got sent off in the WC cup final by TMO but that didn’t really cause a stir like if that was the football version .


I do think questions have to be asked about why decisions are so varied and because we don’t hear what get said except occasionally through audio which sounds more like a bunch of school kids shouting over each other in the play ground there is obviously suspicion and confusion.

It’s obvious the system hasn’t improved anything and actually made worse with everyone more frustrated than ever .

So you think mud wrestling takes place on the rock hard, sun drenched, grounds in South Africa?
You clearly have no idea of the technical skill involved in the front row or selling a dummy in the backs..
I could go on but I won't.