VAR 2023-24

What's the betting we get shafted again this weekend?

Panel for the 2nd week running says we've been ****ed over, but it'll continue. Absolute mess.
 
Lobo de Ouro said:
Can you please explain to us all the justification behind your thinking? As it seems to be the same thinking that VAR often use - "yeah, it was wrong... but not wrong enough"... seems to be the rationale. I just can't understand that pov.

The "other problem" is actually that VAR didn't check for offside, so blinded by the contact or no contact question.
Click to expand...
But that doesn't make sense for VAR because they don't call things other times (like the Sasa incident). By the book, non-legal contact is a penalty. But the problem with VAR is that if they let something minimal like this stand, then there should be about 37 penalties per game.

I also don't think VAR can check for offside unless it leads to a goal, which this didn't. It lead to a penalty. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's how it works.
 
Last edited:
wolvesjoe said:
That's a highly contradictory initial statement. It was a penalty at Sheffield, but that threshold for a penalty would lead to numerous penalties!!! The game is already being deformed by too low a threshold for penalties, and you think it should be extended to include even softer decisions??
Click to expand...
If I had my choice, there would be no penalty kicks unless the foul was a yellow or red card in the box (deliberate handballs would be in line with a yellow). Everything other type of foul would be moved to the closest point outside of the box for a free kick.

I've always had a hard time with the though process that playing hard can lead to a penalty in a "contact sport."
 
lobodelsur said:
This is now getting truly Kafka-esque. Man makes mistake. Other man tells him vehemently that he's made a mistake. Panel agrees mistake was made. Controlling body fines and bans man who pointed out mistake had been made.
Click to expand...

Honestly . Madness

Give us the point from last Saturday we are due you mugs
 
Hawkguy said:
But that doesn't make sense for VAR because they don't call things other times (like the Sasa incident). By the book, non-legal contact is a penalty. But the problem with VAR is that if they let something minimal like this stand, then there should be about 37 penalties per game.

I also don't think VAR can check for offside unless it leads to a goal, which this didn't. It lead to a penalty. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's how it works.
Click to expand...

If there are 37 infringements in the box throughout a game, then there should be 37 penalties.

VAR should have been checking for offside, and would not have given the penalty if they had spotted it. They didn't even look.
 
So yet another admission they got it wrong,whats that now 4/5/6 times?
2 weeks in a row its cost us points
If we somehow go down by a point will they reinstate us?
Thought not lol
 
JadeWolf said:
So no Matt Hobbs at Molineux on Saturday. Maybe we should all wear Matt Hobbs masks? It wound up the petty Villa fans when we wore Mendes masks.
Click to expand...

Well there’s an easy chant for Saturday. There’s only one Matt Hobbs.
 
Frank Lincoln said:
Webb will come out this morning saying how VAR worked as it should last night. He and his cronies have no idea of how this monstrosity has ruined football.

Was VAR brought in to examine every incident in a game, I think not. Postecoglou was correct in what he said after the game. He said he would rather be watching football than standing around waiting for VAR decisions. He also said that the way things are going every decision will be forensically checked. Do we really want to go down that road?
Click to expand...
All we wanted before was simple offside and goal line tech. Not this BS
 
Lobo de Ouro said:
If there are 37 infringements in the box throughout a game, then there should be 37 penalties.

VAR should have been checking for offside, and would not have given the penalty if they had spotted it. They didn't even look.
Click to expand...

Never noticed the offside before! Have just froze the highlights at the incident and he defo looks off!

I have seen them check pens for offside so shows again they simply did not check.

Laughable.
 
SingYourHeartsOut said:
This is what I wrote about yesterday, and I hope is the centre of the conversation O'Neil had with Webb. It surely is untenable to have a ref give a pen, a VAR say it's not a clear error and then a PGMOL panel to unanimously decide the decision was wrong. I don't think it's a solution and I don't like VAR at all, but at least as another step, they need to acknowledge that the bar for overturning decisions is now too high.
Click to expand...
Suggests that PGMOL and all of its officials are not fit for purpose.
 
thommo1984 said:
“…although Joelinton does have his hands on Gabriel, there isn’t enough to award a foul as Gabriel had made an action to play the ball before any contact”

Fouls don’t count after you’ve made an action to play the ball now then. Good to know.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the latest edition of make it up as they go along to cover their arses :mad: .
 
Lobo de Ouro said:
If there are 37 infringements in the box throughout a game, then there should be 37 penalties.

VAR should have been checking for offside, and would not have given the penalty if they had spotted it. They didn't even look.
Click to expand...
Why should VAR have been checking for offside? I'm pretty sure, like I said, that it CAN'T be reviewed. Offsides can be reviewed on goal scoring plays. This wasn't a goal-scoring play (the play that proceeded it was).

Unless I'm misunderstanding the rules... which if I am, please point me to the direction to find that?

And there should many penalties in most games, by the book.. they're just never called (thankfully). Almost every single corner kick has enough non-legal contact for penalties they're just never called, which makes it infuriating when weak penalties like this are called.
 
Hawkguy said:
Why should VAR have been checking for offside? I'm pretty sure, like I said, that it CAN'T be reviewed. Offsides can be reviewed on goal scoring plays. This wasn't a goal-scoring play (the play that proceeded it was).

Unless I'm misunderstanding the rules... which if I am, please point me to the direction to find that?

And there should many penalties in most games, by the book.. they're just never called (thankfully). Almost every single corner kick has enough non-legal contact for penalties they're just never called, which makes it infuriating when weak penalties like this are called.
Click to expand...
I think they can. A penalty is similar to a goal. They can look into anything immediately prior to a goal / penalty / red card that would negate it.
 
I wonder if William hill will start betting on which team gets ****ed over by VAR each weekend..
 
Howard Webb’s TV show is on now. Started with the Newcastle goal against Arsenal.
 
Hwang v Newcastle after the break. Take it they’re not showing the Sheffield Utd penalty.
 
Utterly baffling. So the Hwang penalty was a clear error according to Webb. But he doesn’t explain why the VAR got it wrong or why it was Taylor infield who was dropped and not the VAR.
 
JadeWolf said:
Utterly baffling. So the Hwang penalty was a clear error according to Webb. But he doesn’t explain why the VAR got it wrong or why it was Taylor infield who was dropped and not the VAR.
Click to expand...

Taylor either overuled VAR and/or refused to go to the monitor.

Even now Webb is telling half truths which is exactly the reason he'll never ever sort it out.

The first and only instinct is to protect each other rather than getting to the correct and just decisions.
 
Starsky said:
Taylor either overuled VAR and/or refused to go to the monitor.

Even now Webb is telling half truths which is exactly the reason he'll never ever sort it out.
Click to expand...
Neither of those. The VAR said check complete it’s a penalty.
 
Very strange as to how they come to the outcome.

No mistake as there is contact.

I.e. there is a touch, after he’s halfway down.

****ing ridiculous.
 
NottsWolves said:
I’m no longer baffled by it, it’s quite simple they make it up as they go along.

They haven’t a clue.
Click to expand...
Can’t get my head round it. The VAR was clueless. He went “there’s no contact on the left leg, let’s check the right leg, yep no contact there. Check complete, penalty.”
 
JadeWolf said:
Utterly baffling. So the Hwang penalty was a clear error according to Webb. But he doesn’t explain why the VAR got it wrong or why it was Taylor infield who was dropped and not the VAR.
Click to expand...
They get absolutely obsessed in the detail and in the process miss the obvious bigger picture.

Ages flicking through frames to see whether there’s “contact” between any of the four legs without any consideration as to whether Schar was actually brought down or playing for it.

While they approach it this way nothing will be fixed. It needs someone sensible to say, “hold on a minute, we’re not really giving a penalty for that are we?” I don’t think ex-players as VAR is the answer but it really needs some other common sense influence.
 
Padraig said:
They get absolutely obsessed in the detail and in the process miss the obvious bigger picture.

Ages flicking through frames to see whether there’s “contact” between any of the four legs without any consideration as to whether Schar was actually brought down or playing for it.
Click to expand...

Which I think partially stems from not wanting to tread on the refs toes.

Can we justify this as it ‘looks’ as though there is contact?
 
Chriswwfc said:
Which I think partially stems from not wanting to tread on the refs toes.

Can we justify this as it ‘looks’ as though there is contact?
Click to expand...
The definitive angle Gillett went with for deciding there was contact was from the back of the South Bank - the worst of the lot. Ridiculous.
 
When does someone ask Webb what redress a club like Wolves has for repeated VAR-related failures???
 
That was embarrassing by Webb. It's really concerning.

He constantly used language that fluffed around the fact a mistake was made. 'We didn't quite get' to where we wanted and all other sort of rubbish.

As for the actual decision, it genuinely adds to the corruption fears, I can't believe they aired it.

Gillett ruled that Hwang had NOT fouled Schar's left leg initially. He then went on to check if there was a foul on his right leg. After deciding that wasn't, he appears to see that his left leg WAS now fouled, and he decided to give it.

It's incompetence of the highest order, at best.

The assistant VAR was also useless. Just said 'agreed' and 'Yes'. No input whatsoever.

Webb also said we would ask this changes moving forward, yet it was not mentioned we had the same thing go against us a week later.

Honestly, this is staggering. They looked to see if Hwang fouled Schar's left foot. They said NO.
They looked to see if Hwang fouled Schar's right foot. They said NO.
They then, on the last replay, decided he HAD fouled his left leg, despite clearing it in the first place.



As an aside, the only reason it may not be corruption is Gillett was also shown to be useless in the Fulham vs Man United incident.

He was happy to be let McTominay's goal count. It took Sian Massey to intervene to say 'what about number 5' (Maguire), even though it was obvious.
 
Well that cleared everything up… What a load of old codswallop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom