Refereeing Inquiry NOW

[Flump]

In real life, I am immensely irritated by conspiracy theories. But when it comes to our referees behaviour, when the alternative is to become a "Coincidence Theorist"? The whole set up is fishy, too. The way VAR was introduced here, but *different* to how used in previous tournaments..just enough to allow subjectivity back in under a veneer of objectivity. The lack of accountability and so on.

I think part of the problem is no-one can quite agree on what they want from VAR. It started out taking forever drawing tiny lines on and watching 50 replays to get the "correct" decision as often as they could. But the crowd obviously hated that as it took too much of the flow out.

To combat this, they tried to dial it back a bit to "avoiding the howlers", and leaving it with the on-field call more. But my issue with that is that there is always going to be a line - but instead of having the line between right/wrong decision, the line is now between wrong-but-arguable/wrong-and-a-howler, and who can consistently draw that line? Raul's pen the other day for example, I think would have been given in the old days, but isn't under the new method.

The constant chopping and changing with this kind of thing, means that we can all think of examples of how we were hard done by with marginal decisions the old way, and can all think of examples of being hard done by the new way where wrong-but-not-a-howler decisions have gone against us.

Given how Rugby, Cricket and Tennis all managed good forms of VAR, I was initially in favour of it, but it's consistently awful in football, so they'd be better off scrapping it completely IMO.

 

[Contrarian]

Given how Rugby, Cricket and Tennis all managed good forms of VAR, I was initially in favour of it, but it's consistently awful in football, so they'd be better off scrapping it completely IMO.

The nature of those different sports is significant, too. VAR has really shown this in practice. The more you think about it, the more you see key differences between football and any other sport.

Cricket and Tennis are built around short bursts of play with pauses every few seconds. Football is, at leats in theory, a block of 45 minutes without a planned break. Baseball, American Football, Darts...athletics events, boxing...most sports have this burst of play followed by a break , built in. Which instantly provides a slot for VAR checks without stopping play, bcause it's alreayd stopped.

The other thing about football, it's quite strange, perhaps unique, is the rarity of the key event of the game - scoring goals. Not just us! Isn't the average around 2 goals per game at professional level? Most other team sports are built on a gradual point accumulation. Rugby for example and cricket, obvioously. This means that while it can happen in other sports (eg out/not out to crucial player in cricket) , its much more common for a single incident to decide a football match, than other team sports. And when that incident is basically down to VAR to decide...

Tifo did a mini-documentary showing how penalties were becoming key to matches now. There's fewer goals scored in open play (which gives even more control to decisions on penalties/free kicks/offsides), but many more penalties than ever before. Can't remember exact number, but they counted up "crucial" penalty decisions, those that gave a team the lead or an equaliser and it was a surprisingly high number of matches effectively decided by a penalty decision.

Seems to me then, that you either ensure you get those crucial decisions 100% correct every time, and with the subjectivity involved, I don't think that's ever possible. Or you lessen the impact of those crucial decisions, such as penalties. Basically, we could encourage more goals in open play. Which means scrapping millimetre offsides, for a start. Perhaps change the rule so that an attacker has to be entirely in front of the last defender, not just a toenail.

Similarly, red cards. Game changing decisions and should not be made at drop of a hat, or the hint of running aggressively. Talk of "orange cards" for disciplinary but non-violent offences has been around for years. All this is out there and discussed by more intelligent observers of the game. And largely ignored by those actually running it. Which is why I think they are happy with it as it is, which allows refs to effectively orchestrate matches.

<EDIT> Just remembered - another way to increase goals is to sort out the short timing on matches. 55 minutes and falling is rubbish. Around 75 mins of football used to be normal. Either add realistic injury time on, as in the World Cup, or stop the watch every second that the ball is out of play and have two 40 minute halves of actual football. None of this "2 mins for the first half, 3 mins if someone was down injured for 5 minutes" nonsense we see every week.

Heres' the key thing - whether our referees are blatantly biased, subtly biased or pure as cherubic angels, the current system allows them to influence match results, with no chance of being detected. No explanations are ever provided. There is no accountability. It is all behind cloised doors. Provided there are no actual brown paper envelopes or emails labelled "Instructions for the next Man U match", it can never get proved and is easily hand waved away.

If, in 10 years time, it emerges that 2020's referees really were verbally instructed through gentle hints to subtly help the Big 6, who would be surprised? I don't think enough is being done to ensure that there is no bias, basically. And while VAR is perfect for other sports, it was never a good fit for football.

 

[Sussex Wolf]

Has JL said anything along those lines? All I've seen is him saying we've had several bad decisions go against us, which is quite different, and unarguably correct.

There would be no way to objectively prove it based on this season, a sample size of what, 4-6 bad decisions is statistically almost meaningless, especially as I'm sure most clubs could point to at least 2-3 shockers against them.

HTF do you prove bias? All the ref has to say he was not biased against Wolves. Legal action against bias - are you bonkers? I'm biased against Man Utd, I'm biased against loud, young lads, I'm biased against loads of things; we all are but none of it is actionable unless of course you then break the law. Wolves need to concentrate on football and sticking the ball in the net.

Yes JL has said that there have been enough strange or poor decisions to “write a book” and he’s said that it’s more than the odd big decision.

As regards to “HTF” do you prove bias, you do it by looking at more than just the half dozen listed on social media and MolMix. Watch any game in recent weeks, and it’s evident that even minor decisions favour whichever team we’ve played. Most are not in themselves match changing, but taken as a whole they give an advantage to the opponents and as we know, margins are tight in this league.

So as I’ve said more than once already. You hire an independent and experienced analyst to assess the refs performances in all our games, compiling statistics of fouls and decisions given for and against. Then you look at the same refs performances in other games around the same time, and compare the decisions given - ie does the ref always given similar fouls the same way or is there a statistical bias when comparing similar incidents? You do this because different refs have different opinions and so you have to allow for this. You choose a similar time period to exclude changes in PGMOL guidance.

There are hundreds of decisions in every game, and if you assess half a dozen games over a few months, you’ll have plenty of data on which to build an objective assessment of potential bias.

It’s not rocket science, and it’s not much more than the post match analysis PGMOL already do, but don’t share outside of their organisation. So if the independent analysis suggests bias, then the club demands access to PGMOL’s own assessments, if they show similar bias, but no action is being taken, then they are either party to the bias or negligent in not taking action.

As I also said, if the independent analysis shows no bias, then JL should be shown the results and told to calm himself and the players down. Whatever the outcome, it’s a positive step forward.

 

[northnorfolkwolf]

Yes JL has said that there have been enough strange or poor decisions to “write a book” and he’s said that it’s more than the odd big decision.

As regards to “HTF” do you prove bias, you do it by looking at more than just the half dozen listed on social media and MolMix. Watch any game in recent weeks, and it’s evident that even minor decisions favour whichever team we’ve played. Most are not in themselves match changing, but taken as a whole they give an advantage to the opponents and as we know, margins are tight in this league.

So as I’ve said more than once already. You hire an independent and experienced analyst to assess the refs performances in all our games, compiling statistics of fouls and decisions given for and against. Then you look at the same refs performances in other games around the same time, and compare the decisions given - ie does the ref always given similar fouls the same way or is there a statistical bias when comparing similar incidents? You do this because different refs have different opinions and so you have to allow for this. You choose a similar time period to exclude changes in PGMOL guidance.

There are hundreds of decisions in every game, and if you assess half a dozen games over a few months, you’ll have plenty of data on which to build an objective assessment of potential bias.

It’s not rocket science, and it’s not much more than the post match analysis PGMOL already do, but don’t share outside of their organisation. So if the independent analysis suggests bias, then the club demands access to PGMOL’s own assessments, if they show similar bias, but no action is being taken, then they are either party to the bias or negligent in not taking action.

As I also said, if the independent analysis shows no bias, then JL should be shown the results and told to calm himself and the players down. Whatever the outcome, it’s a positive step forward.

Blimey, Ukraine, Israel, Russia/China, Climate change, the energy crisis, the cost of living crisis, bias against Wolves..................!!!

 

[Hanbury_Wolf]

Yes JL has said that there have been enough strange or poor decisions to “write a book” and he’s said that it’s more than the odd big decision.

As regards to “HTF” do you prove bias, you do it by looking at more than just the half dozen listed on social media and MolMix. Watch any game in recent weeks, and it’s evident that even minor decisions favour whichever team we’ve played. Most are not in themselves match changing, but taken as a whole they give an advantage to the opponents and as we know, margins are tight in this league.

So as I’ve said more than once already. You hire an independent and experienced analyst to assess the refs performances in all our games, compiling statistics of fouls and decisions given for and against. Then you look at the same refs performances in other games around the same time, and compare the decisions given - ie does the ref always given similar fouls the same way or is there a statistical bias when comparing similar incidents? You do this because different refs have different opinions and so you have to allow for this. You choose a similar time period to exclude changes in PGMOL guidance.

There are hundreds of decisions in every game, and if you assess half a dozen games over a few months, you’ll have plenty of data on which to build an objective assessment of potential bias.

It’s not rocket science, and it’s not much more than the post match analysis PGMOL already do, but don’t share outside of their organisation. So if the independent analysis suggests bias, then the club demands access to PGMOL’s own assessments, if they show similar bias, but no action is being taken, then they are either party to the bias or negligent in not taking action.

As I also said, if the independent analysis shows no bias, then JL should be shown the results and told to calm himself and the players down. Whatever the outcome, it’s a positive step forward.

I've read this twice and am struggling to understand it.

What would this independent be measuring?

There's so many different factors that could drive the results. We might be a more aggressive team with different instructions. We might have players who aren't as skillful at tackling. How do you categorise and compare two incidents in two separate games.

How could you possibly compare a refs performance in one game vs another and draw any conclusion on bias?

Subjectivity is getting in the way of doing anything here.

The only thing you could say is, a few big decisions have gone against us recently. It's not fair and I'm not even discounting corruption.

 

[Sussex Wolf]

I've read this twice and am struggling to understand it.

What would this independent be measuring?

There's so many different factors that could drive the results. We might be a more aggressive team with different instructions. We might have players who aren't as skillful at tackling. How do you categorise and compare two incidents in two separate games.

How could you possibly compare a refs performance in one game vs another and draw any conclusion on bias?

Subjectivity is getting in the way of doing anything here.

The only thing you could say is, a few big decisions have gone against us recently. It's not fair and I'm not even discounting corruption.

This is the kind of analysis that PGMOL already does after every game. It’s nothing new, it’s simply applying it to a specific team and not keeping the results secret within PGMOL.

 

[Sussex Wolf]

Blimey, Ukraine, Israel, Russia/China, Climate change, the energy crisis, the cost of living crisis, bias against Wolves..................!!!

As I have also said more times than I can remember. There is a difference between bias and conspiracy. If you can’t understand that, then don’t bother commenting. But I suspect you know that fine and instead it’s a pathetic comment intended to discredit a perfectly reasonable suggestion. You choose mate.

 

[WickedWolfie]

Blimey, Ukraine, Israel, Russia/China, Climate change, the energy crisis, the cost of living crisis, bias against Wolves..................!!!

Wow, how shocking, the football part of a forum dedicated to Wolves talking about..... Wolves.

Doubtless you would find streams talking about all of the other topics you mention lurking somewhere on the darkside.....

 

[SA Wolf]

A Sun 'study' that reckons we've been the beneficiaries of VAR to the tune of 2 points. I.E. without VAR, we would be 2 points worse off (although the table still shows us with 27 points). Make of it what you will!!!

Arsenal's lead cut, Man United and Liverpool tumble - How Prem table looks without VAR

Manchester United and Liverpool have been two of the Premier League’s biggest benefactors from VAR this season, the stats suggest. Love it or loathe it, the video assistant referee is here to…

talksport.com

 

[glorybox]

Feels like we're going round in circles! I agree about bad decisions. However, some teams get very few and others get them regularly.

As the analogy goes, sure, it's not rare to get 6 coin tosses in a row turn up "heads". But at some point, a wise person will want to check that the coin really is properly balanced before they stake anything important (like say, relegation) on the next one.

While we are denying there is any bias towards the Sky 6 (and similarly elite clubs in Europes big leagues), we can't move on to the next step, which is learning to cope with it. It's either inevitable or we do something about it? I see no other choices. The scientific method was developed precisely because humans tend to bring their own biases with them wherever they go. To get past opinion and into the reality. Similarly, we have a legal system to prevent justice being doled out on the whim of some all powerful noble. All of which is conveniently ignored in one of the most lucrative sports. Maybe that's why?

In real life, I am immensely irritated by conspiracy theories. But when it comes to our referees behaviour, when the alternative is to become a "Coincidence Theorist"? The whole set up is fishy, too. The way VAR was introduced here, but *different* to how used in previous tournaments..just enough to allow subjectivity back in under a veneer of objectivity. The lack of accountability and so on.

But if we don't acknowledge the bias is there, ignorance is bliss. We can be happy knowing that apples just fall down to the ground and not up because "that's just the way it is, theres' nothing special behind it". There's a gap for real studies investigating bias in football. But there are already those that have objevtively shown that certain teams get more injury time if they need it. Home bias has also been shown. None of it will improve if we have no will to fix it.

Or we accept things are as they are, we are little old Wolves and we have to be on our best behaviour at all times. No complaining. No robust tackling, can't be giving away soft free kicks everywhere. No attackers hanging off the last defender, stay 6 feet onside, to be sure. Manager to remain seated at all times etc. It probably wouldn't be such a bad idea, to calm things down a bit!

Finally, if the things that happened to us (eg Liverpool cup tie, Lemina sending off) happened to Man U - I can guarantee the effects would be very very different. Sackings and inquiries at the PGMOL. Instant rule changes. That's just the way it is.

After all they changed the rules when Boly had the temerity to score against Man City.

 

[WickedWolfie]

Wow. If Mourinho is correct this referee sounds like he'd fit in well with PGMOL.....

Yahoo UK | News, email and search

The trusted source of all the latest breaking news, sports, finance, entertainment and lifestyle stories.

uk.yahoo.com

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Oh just an update. I contacted the FA, and wished them and Madley a lovely summer. And all of their colleagues. I would encourage Wolves fans, not to take out grievances against the FA. As they do have some leeway in discretion. And all complaining does it takes away their discretion and 'gets their backs up'. Must be difficult reffing a game, when people criticise them a lot. Even though they have VAR in one ear. Then in the other ear, every thing else. They have to make split second decisions. And the Wolves v Liverpool. It was actually offside. Nunes was walking from an offside position, and interfering with play.

2. Offside offence
Law 11 - Offside.

'A player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent's progress (e.g blocks the opponent) the offence should be penalised under Law 12.

Law 11 - Offside

IFAB Laws of the Game

www.thefa.com

Loved this ref's analysis of the video.

Apparently you can't tell even though when he draws the lines on Nunes is about 2 yards onside. You still can't tell when you zoom in, because Nunes isn't even in shot! Maybe Sa was offside, he's not in shot either!

I've come to terms with it. The lino got it wrong, I don't believe Madley gave the offside despite the gesture. The lino got it wrong and the VAR didn't have an angle to overrule. For those of us who hate VAR it's the sort of thing we need to live with, officials make mistakes. It's just that we were sold a dream of perfection. It didn't help that the laws are so stupid that Salah's clearly offside goal was deemed to correctly be given as not offside.

Maybe next season it will be better, I doubt it though.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

No, what it is, is because Nunes was is an offside position was interfering with play, even when the ball was played. It is still offside, because Nunes was in an offside position. He was running from an offside position before the ball was played. Like I said. I sent my love to the FA. I gave them my kindness. I wished them all a lovely summer, and I would encourage Wolves fans to do the same.

OK mate, I don't think he's off, but I agree with the sentiment, there's nothing we can do about it and moaning isn't helping.

 

[WickedWolfie]

No, what it is, is because Nunes was is an offside position was interfering with play, even when the ball was played. It is still offside, because Nunes was in an offside position. He was running from an offside position before the ball was played. Like I said. I sent my love to the FA. I gave them my kindness. I wished them all a lovely summer, and I would encourage Wolves fans to do the same.

Love the FA? That bunch of arrogant, complacent, incompetent idiots? Hahahahaha. They rate below WBA in the list of organisations that l would offer love to.

 

[Contrarian]

No, what it is, is because Nunes was is an offside position was interfering with play, even when the ball was played. It is still offside, because Nunes was in an offside position. He was running from an offside position before the ball was played. Like I said. I sent my love to the FA. I gave them my kindness. I wished them all a lovely summer, and I would encourage Wolves fans to do the same.

What I don't get, is that the corner taker must always be offside for a moment when he takes the corner kick? I always assume that because at that moment they are so far out wide, when the ball is in the centre, they are not interefering as they run back.

 

[Zico]

No, what it is, is because Nunes was is an offside position was interfering with play, even when the ball was played. It is still offside, because Nunes was in an offside position. He was running from an offside position before the ball was played. Like I said. I sent my love to the FA. I gave them my kindness. I wished them all a lovely summer, and I would encourage Wolves fans to do the same.

Nunes was onside when the ball was played. It doesn't matter where he was at any other time.

 

[KBWWFC]

Nunes was onside when the ball was played. It doesn't matter where he was at any other time.

This, it's the same flawed logic that Lineker was using when moaning about Jota's hat-trick vs Leicester.
He's onside when the ball is played. That's all that matters.

 

[Burford T Justice]

No, when they take the corner, they are not 'on field' in play. A corner kick, isn't an 'on field' kick. It's a set piece. So as soon as the game is in motion, if someone is running from an offside position, and plays the ball. When the ball is played. Even if no players are offside then. Because Nunes was 'interfering with the run of play'. It technically is offside. Because he was interfering with play. It doesn't matter if he wasn't in an offside position when the ball was played. He was running from an offside position, and he touched the ball. If he had not touched the ball, it wouldn't have been given.

He wasn't offside as he wasn't in an offside position when Hwang touched the ball resetting the phase of play. Where he ran from up until the point of Hwang's touch is completely irrelevant

 

[Fenrir_]

Oh just an update. I contacted the FA, and wished them and Madley a lovely summer. And all of their colleagues. I would encourage Wolves fans, not to take out grievances against the FA. As they do have some leeway in discretion. And all complaining does it takes away their discretion and 'gets their backs up'. Must be difficult reffing a game, when people criticise them a lot. Even though they have VAR in one ear. Then in the other ear, every thing else. They have to make split second decisions. And the Wolves v Liverpool. It was actually offside. Nunes was walking from an offside position, and interfering with play.

2. Offside offence
Law 11 - Offside.

'A player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent's progress (e.g blocks the opponent) the offence should be penalised under Law 12.

Law 11 - Offside

IFAB Laws of the Game

www.thefa.com

You can't be offside for running back from an offside position before the ball is played, the moment of decision is when the ball is played, and when the ball is 'played' to Nunes he's clearly back onside

They absolutely ****ed it up

 

[Rhoswolf]

You can't be offside for running back from an offside position before the ball is played, the moment of decision is when the ball is played, and when the ball is 'played' to Nunes he's clearly back onside

They absolutely ****ed it up

Exactly, indisputable.

 

[waggys left foot]

Referees make mistakes always have and always will

The VAR officials only ask the referee to look at the monitor when the refs mistake is "clear and obvious"-problem is to us who are 100percent committed to our team "clear and obvious " means something different to us compared to the VAR officials .


It's a subjective term


There are things they could change -not least so we could hear the conversation between the ref and VAR -like cricket or rugby

It will come but perhaps when other countries do it (there is a campaign to do it in France)

My impression is refereeing conspiracies are common in some countries -Spain ,Italy , Africa and South America

Referee in Afcon chaos was suspended over corruption allegations three years ago

THE referee at the centre of the chaos at the Africa Cup of Nations was suspended over corruption allegations three years ago. Janny Sikazwe blew for full-time after 85 minutes of Mali’s clas…

www.thesun.co.uk

Barcelona face corruption charges over payments

Barcelona face charges of corruption over payments to Jose Maria Enriquez Negreira, a former vice-president of Spain's referees' committee.

www.bbc.co.uk

That said an inquiry would clear the air

 

[Contrarian]

Referees make mistakes always have and always will

The VAR officials only ask the referee to look at the monitor when the refs mistake is "clear and obvious"-problem is to us who are 100percent committed to our team "clear and obvious " means something different to us compared to the VAR officials .

There are things they could change -not least so we could hear the conversation between the ref and VAR -like cricket or rugby

It will come but perhaps when other countries do it (there is a campaign to do it in France)

My impression is refereeing conspiracies are common in some countries -Spain ,Italy , Africa and South America

Barcelona face corruption charges over payments

Barcelona face charges of corruption over payments to Jose Maria Enriquez Negreira, a former vice-president of Spain's referees' committee.

www.bbc.co.uk

It will be really awkward when we hear them say things like: "Yes, I know it looked like there was no contact, and the double-axel pirouette with roll and somersault did look somewhat exagerrated, but I know Harry well and he's as honest as the day is long. There must be some contact the VAR is missing. Penalty to Spurs. "

 

[Zico]

No, when they take the corner, they are not 'on field' in play. A corner kick, isn't an 'on field' kick. It's a set piece. So as soon as the game is in motion, if someone is running from an offside position, and plays the ball. When the ball is played. Even if no players are offside then. Because Nunes was 'interfering with the run of play'. It technically is offside. Because he was interfering with play. It doesn't matter if he wasn't in an offside position when the ball was played. He was running from an offside position, and he touched the ball. If he had not touched the ball, it wouldn't have been given.

You're entirely wrong, it's when the ball is played that matters.