VAR 2023-24

[Monketron]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1724517559331147832

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1724517559331147832

Nothing about the Sheffield or Luton decisions then….

How the heck we always drop points to these clubs is beyond belief

 

[JadeWolf]

Nothing about the Sheffield or Luton decisions then….

How the heck we always drop points to these clubs is beyond belief

But for dodgy decisions we’d have 10 points from 12 against Luton, Sheff Utd, Everton and Bournemouth.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Nothing about the Sheffield or Luton decisions then….

How the heck we always drop points to these clubs is beyond belief

Did the Luton one last time didn't he? Apparently correct under the current interpretation of the law, according to him at least.

 

[Hoganstolemywife]

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.

Well said.

I actually understood the decision making process they went through. Defender didnt touch the ball. Clipped the man.

But, like you say, it's a preposterous decision when you take yourself out that rubric of "has a factual error been made"

 

[JamesWolves]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1724517559331147832

At what point is Gillet sacked ? Numerous errors this season, any other job he'd already been down the job centre by now.

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

Sorry but jjst get the replays on the big screen and sack of this clear and obvious error *******s. How can they come to that decision it’s a penalty . ****s

Howard Webb is a ****ing idiot

 

[jackdusty]

Well said.

I actually understood the decision making process they went through. Defender didnt touch the ball. Clipped the man.

But, like you say, it's a preposterous decision when you take yourself out that rubric of "has a factual error been made"

If there was a very very minimal clip from Hwang it is because Schar is falling as he is expecting contact the cheating diving ****.

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

If there was a very very minimal clip from Hwang it is because Schar is falling as he is expecting contact the cheating diving ****.

Schar expertly dived. Made that one angle make it look like contact was made.

Still they didn’t look into the sheff utd one. Interesting, did they think it was?

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

Schar expertly dived. Made that one angle make it look like contact was made.

Still they didn’t look into the sheff utd one. Interesting, did they think it was?

Suspect the Audio was a complete farce

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

Why was Taylor dropped and not the VAR?

How can they get this so wrong when you watch how it works in rugby ffs!!!!

 

[Ned]

Why was Taylor dropped and not the VAR?

How can they get this so wrong when you watch how it works in rugby ffs!!!!

They all needed dropping down.

Taylor was so adamant it was a penalty that you could tell his mates were looking for reasons to back him up. It would have been more constructive of them to look at the incident and decide why it wasn’t a penalty.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Bit odd, but I sort of see where we are.

As I said at the time, Taylor giving the pen live was fair enough.

As I also said, he didn't refuse to go to the screen, he totally relied on Gillet (and his assistant). Maybe he was demoted on the basis of his overall performance, but shouldn't have been on this incident.

Gillet has managed to convince himself that the minimal contact on the Schar, while not enough to bring him down, was enough to justify staying with the on field decision as the error wasn't obvious enough.

Webb thinks it is a clear error and therefore Taylor should have been sent to the screen. Indeed Gillet should have asked Taylor what he saw (I think this is where I would take the Rugby stuff on board) 'I think Hwang has swung through and taken his left leg', in which case Gillet should have said 'he didn't, go have a look'. So really, according to Webb at least, the protocol is right, but Gillet has interpreted the level of error for an overturn too high.

I'm not happy of course, but I don't see why it doesn't make sense.

 

[the 15th Wanderer]

What about the fact he's going down already? Hwang at worst brushes him if at all. No foul, no penalty book him for diving.
I can't see why they make it so difficult.

 

[Saltyjim]

Utterly frustrating to listen to. The big issue that VAR missed was that Schar was going to ground before there was any contact. At least they admitted it shouldn’t have been a penalty, but Webb does talk some twaddle.

 

[Sussex Wolf]

Bit odd, but I sort of see where we are.

As I said at the time, Taylor giving the pen live was fair enough.

As I also said, he didn't refuse to go to the screen, he totally relied on Gillet (and his assistant). Maybe he was demoted on the basis of his overall performance, but shouldn't have been on this incident.

Gillet has managed to convince himself that the minimal contact on the Schar, while not enough to bring him down, was enough to justify staying with the on field decision as the error wasn't obvious enough.

Webb thinks it is a clear error and therefore Taylor should have been sent to the screen. Indeed Gillet should have asked Taylor what he saw (I think this is where I would take the Rugby stuff on board) 'I think Hwang has swung through and taken his left leg', in which case Gillet should have said 'he didn't, go have a look'. So really, according to Webb at least, the protocol is right, but Gillet has interpreted the level of error for an overturn too high.

I'm not happy of course, but I don't see why it doesn't make sense.

Then what doesn’t make sense is why Gillet wasn’t punished but seemingly Taylor was.

Watching that, yet again Webb is making up an excuse for why they made a mistake, and once again promising they’ve learnt from it. Funny they didn’t learn the lesson the following week, when a near identical mistake was made.

But every month, there is at least one mistake that penalises Wolves, and at least one acknowledgement of error from Webb. When are we going to be on the beneficial side of these errors? When hell freezes over.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Then what doesn’t make sense is why Gillet wasn’t punished but seemingly Taylor was.

Watching that, yet again Webb is making up an excuse for why they made a mistake, and once again promising they’ve learnt from it. Funny they didn’t learn the lesson the following week, when a near identical mistake was made.

But every month, there is at least one mistake that penalises Wolves, and at least one acknowledgement of error from Webb. When are we going to be on the beneficial side of these errors? When hell freezes over.

Well I find myself playing devil's advocate a bit here, but what I'd suggest is.
Taylor was demoted for his overall performance, not just this incident.
No idea why Gillet wasn't demoted.
They'll learn lessons and discuss over time, not week to week, it was a bit mad that the Sheff U one was so similar!
We have had 3 bad decisions and one law we don't like. That's very unlucky. We might be the unluckiest, but also we don't notice the other teams as much. I mean the Mix might actually break if we had one like Liverpool at Spurs.

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

Bit odd, but I sort of see where we are.

As I said at the time, Taylor giving the pen live was fair enough.

As I also said, he didn't refuse to go to the screen, he totally relied on Gillet (and his assistant). Maybe he was demoted on the basis of his overall performance, but shouldn't have been on this incident.

Gillet has managed to convince himself that the minimal contact on the Schar, while not enough to bring him down, was enough to justify staying with the on field decision as the error wasn't obvious enough.

Webb thinks it is a clear error and therefore Taylor should have been sent to the screen. Indeed Gillet should have asked Taylor what he saw (I think this is where I would take the Rugby stuff on board) 'I think Hwang has swung through and taken his left leg', in which case Gillet should have said 'he didn't, go have a look'. So really, according to Webb at least, the protocol is right, but Gillet has interpreted the level of error for an overturn too high.

I'm not happy of course, but I don't see why it doesn't make sense.

The bit that didn't make sense was this IMO.

He was looking for a foul on Schar's left leg. He cleared that (with support from the AVAR).

He then started looking for a foul on Schar's right leg. Hwang wasn't close at all to his right leg, so he obviously cleared that (with support from the AVAR).

Yet, he then decided at the last minute that he wanted to go back to the left leg, and claimed the contact was now sufficient to stick with the decision.

It was just seconds after deciding the left leg was not impeded with.

This is hard to grasp for me. Firstly, it looks like he is searching for a reason to give a penalty, which is not how it should be, and then he has openly stated that the left leg was not a foul, realised the right leg wasn't a foul, and then gone back.


Also, with your last point, Taylor DID say why he gave the penalty.

After the initial decision he said 'he didn't kick the ball' twice, and then he said 'he kicked the man'. So, the reasoning was there, Taylor made it clear he gave the penalty because he thought Hwang had kicked Schar.

So I didn't understand Webb's point here. Taylor communicated why the decision was made (and it was obvious anyway, tbf).

 

[maws]

You can hear Gillet trying to back Taylor up all the way it’s embarrassing

 

[WickedWolfie]

VAR must challenge on-field referees more - Webb

Video assistant referees are asked to be more proactive in challenging officials following a series of controversial decisions.

www.bbc.co.uk

Whoopie ****ing do! Same old complacent *******s by same old frauds.

 

[old wittonian]

The bit that didn't make sense was this IMO.

He was looking for a foul on Schar's left leg. He cleared that (with support from the AVAR).

He then started looking for a foul on Schar's right leg. Hwang wasn't close at all to his right leg, so he obviously cleared that (with support from the AVAR).

Yet, he then decided at the last minute that he wanted to go back to the left leg, and claimed the contact was now sufficient to stick with the decision.

It was just seconds after deciding the left leg was not impeded with.

This is hard to grasp for me. Firstly, it looks like he is searching for a reason to give a penalty, which is not how it should be, and then he has openly stated that the left leg was not a foul, realised the right leg wasn't a foul, and then gone back.


Also, with your last point, Taylor DID say why he gave the penalty.

After the initial decision he said 'he didn't kick the ball' twice, and then he said 'he kicked the man'. So, the reasoning was there, Taylor made it clear he gave the penalty because he thought Hwang had kicked Schar.

So I didn't understand Webb's point here. Taylor communicated why the decision was made (and it was obvious anyway, tbf).

It seems to indicate Gillet is incompetent.

 

[DJMolineux]

The question in these matters should not be, did the referee make a clear error. The question should be was it a penalty. That’s what Var is there for, to answer that question. By using the referee decision as the start point it opens the door to the referees protecting their colleagues by not changing their decision.

Mike Dean admitted on sky that when he was the Var Ref he didn’t want to change a decision because ‘his mate’ (his words not mine) was having a tough game. If that isn’t corruption what is? The Var process does not need referees protecting their friends, it needs honest people that understand football who are quite independent of the match referee.

 

[maws]

The VAR and AVAR sound like they’re both agreeing with each other on everything, it’s blatant there’s instructions from Webb to not make the ref look a **** by overturning him. It stinks, will we hear the audio for blades too? Or Luton? Of course not, only heard Newcastle and United because the other teams are high profile

Premier league corrupt as ****

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

The bit that didn't make sense was this IMO.

He was looking for a foul on Schar's left leg. He cleared that (with support from the AVAR).

He then started looking for a foul on Schar's right leg. Hwang wasn't close at all to his right leg, so he obviously cleared that (with support from the AVAR).

Yet, he then decided at the last minute that he wanted to go back to the left leg, and claimed the contact was now sufficient to stick with the decision.

It was just seconds after deciding the left leg was not impeded with.

This is hard to grasp for me. Firstly, it looks like he is searching for a reason to give a penalty, which is not how it should be, and then he has openly stated that the left leg was not a foul, realised the right leg wasn't a foul, and then gone back.


Also, with your last point, Taylor DID say why he gave the penalty.

After the initial decision he said 'he didn't kick the ball' twice, and then he said 'he kicked the man'. So, the reasoning was there, Taylor made it clear he gave the penalty because he thought Hwang had kicked Schar.

So I didn't understand Webb's point here. Taylor communicated why the decision was made (and it was obvious anyway, tbf).

Yes, fair points. It's really hard to know if there was any contact at all, never mind enough to bring Schar down. That's where the problem is though, as soon as there's any contact they decide it's a question of interpretation and stick with the onfield ref as it's deemed not a clear error. You could (just about) believe that Hwang missed the ball and kicked Schar, even though he barely touched him and certainly didn't bring him down.

The key thing for me is that this decision is all about the wish to stick with the onfield ref unless he's blatantly wrong, and that bar has moved too high. Well that or they're all being paid by the PIF.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

The VAR and AVAR sound like they’re both agreeing with each other on everything, it’s blatant there’s instructions from Webb to not make the ref look a **** by overturning him. It stinks, will we hear the audio for blades too? Or Luton? Of course not, only heard Newcastle and United because the other teams are high profile

Premier league corrupt as ****

They've played the Luton one previously.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

The question in these matters should not be, did the referee make a clear error. The question should be was it a penalty. That’s what Var is there for, to answer that question. By using the referee decision as the start point it opens the door to the referees protecting their colleagues by not changing their decision.

Mike Dean admitted on sky that when he was the Var Ref he didn’t want to change a decision because ‘his mate’ (his words not mine) was having a tough game. If that isn’t corruption what is? The Var process does not need referees protecting their friends, it needs honest people that understand football who are quite independent of the match referee.

Literally not allowed to do this under IFAB rules though, so you'd have to take it up with them, not the PL or PGMOL.

3. The original decision given by the referee will not be changed unless the video review clearly shows that the decision was a ‘clear and obvious error’.

 

[Super NES]

The operation of VAR is a complete and utterly shambles.

From the Maguire offside where the VAR doesn't even consider Maguires impact whatsoever until the AVAR steps in, to our decision where he is literally convinced its not a penalty until suddenly realising there was minimal contact which the Newcastle player was looking for - there's zero consistency being applied in the decision making thought process. Add in the subjectivity around what is clear and obvious and it's now anybodys guess as to how the rules will be interpretated.

Go back to using the technology for goal line decisions, use semi automated VAR for offsides and for any other decision which goes to VAR, give them 20 seconds at Stockley Park to decide on each element being brought into question.

If we are not going to go to a review approach, for each decision which goes to VAR, if its blindingly obvious that the ref has made an error / been conned overturn the decision; if its inconclusive within that 20 second timeframe tell the ref to look at the screen and the same images just reviewed by VAR without any additional commentary input so that they can make the final call; and if its clear they have made the right call tell them to stick with it. And release the audio to both clubs immediately after the game. Let's at least get some consistency as to how these decisions are being made.

 

[Ned]

Webb doesn’t want the VAR officials to re-referee games, which is fine, but why have VAR at all if that’s the case? You’re just allowing more human error than necessary into things when the technology was presumably brought in to limit it.

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

Yes, fair points. It's really hard to know if there was any contact at all, never mind enough to bring Schar down. That's where the problem is though, as soon as there's any contact they decide it's a question of interpretation and stick with the onfield ref as it's deemed not a clear error. You could (just about) believe that Hwang missed the ball and kicked Schar, even though he barely touched him and certainly didn't bring him down.

The key thing for me is that this decision is all about the wish to stick with the onfield ref unless he's blatantly wrong, and that bar has moved too high. Well that or they're all being paid by the PIF.

There's the briefest of touches, but it certainly wasn't a penalty - hence the apology and 5-0 votes from the panel.

I agree that they wish to stick with the onfield ref, but I still find the audio we heard tonight baffling.

I was expecting a (relatively) quick process where Gillett had (wrongly) decided that Hwang's slight touch was enough to decide it shouldn't be overturned.

As it turns out, he actually followed a process quite sensibly.

He decided the left leg wasn't fouled.
He decided the right leg wasn't fouled.

It was all so far, so good. Yet, he inexplicably then went back to the left leg, that had been ticked off so to speak.

So, I'm not saying it is corrupt, but it should prompt further questioning from us behind the scenes.

I would also request the Sheffield United audio. If PGMOL have decided to release that, who knows how bad that can be?

 

[wolvesjoe]

They do all seem quite stupid.

Stories don't add up, but they plod on with the bull****.

 

[Chuck Murray]

At this point, I don't care for explanations or apologies. Most of us on here know well enough that whenever the standards change in the future, they will be interpreted against us. We will never, ever see when "these things even out", it's a laugh, and it's at Wolves' expense.

As I'd predicted before it was implemented, VAR is ruining football. If there was a noble purpose in it conceptually at the outset, that has long ago been overrun by PGMOL's needs to solidify the Sky Six, and to cover for the mistakes of its membership, above all else ...

Taken from a behind-the-scenes meeting of PGMOL earlier this season ...

 

[JadeWolf]

The operation of VAR is a complete and utterly shambles.

From the Maguire offside where the VAR doesn't even consider Maguires impact whatsoever until the AVAR steps in, to our decision where he is literally convinced its not a penalty until suddenly realising there was minimal contact which the Newcastle player was looking for - there's zero consistency being applied in the decision making thought process. Add in the subjectivity around what is clear and obvious and it's now anybodys guess as to how the rules will be interpretated.

Go back to using the technology for goal line decisions, use semi automated VAR for offsides and for any other decision which goes to VAR, give them 20 seconds at Stockley Park to decide on each element being brought into question.

If we are not going to go to a review approach, for each decision which goes to VAR, if its blindingly obvious that the ref has made an error / been conned overturn the decision; if its inconclusive within that 20 second timeframe tell the ref to look at the screen and the same images just reviewed by VAR without any additional commentary input so that they can make the final call; and if its clear they have made the right call tell them to stick with it. And release the audio to both clubs immediately after the game. Let's at least get some consistency as to how these decisions are being made.

It’s mad that the Maguire offside and the Hwang penalty were the same VAR- Gerard Gillet. It certainly points to more than just incompetence when someone seemingly skilled, trained and qualified can get it so wrong. Twice.

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

Get it on the big ****ing screen

 

[TheConcourse]

For them to sit there and consider all the factors would take 3-5 minutes per decision.

VAR doesn’t work with football. Pineapple on pizza.

What is the point of the assistant VAR?

“Totally agree, totally agree.” Bloody hell. You totally agree that there’s contact?

Just a bunch of mates throwing nicknames around trying to validate their decisions and being protected by ridiculous irrelevant terms like ‘high bar’, intervention point and clear & obvious.

None of which makes any sense. Take your ****ty little screens and **** off.

 

[yateleywolf]

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.

Taylor wasn't dropped he was always meant to ref that game in the Championship . Looked a pen to me on first sight I blame VAR and AVAR for the mistake.

 

[MattH]

Love the fact that Webb is talking about revising procedures so that VAR speaks to ref and sends them to the monitor more as if they're still running this as a trial. YOU'VE HAD FOUR YEARS TO GET THIS RIGHT YOU CLOWNS, AND YOU'RE STILL TRYING TO DECIDE HOW THE BASICS WORK. Pure incompetence from people who know they've got cushy jobs.

 

[Ned]

Taylor wasn't dropped he was always meant to ref that game in the Championship . Looked a pen to me on first sight I blame VAR and AVAR for the mistake.

The official line was what you said but it was his first game down there since 2018 and it came the week after that game and that decision? That’s a huge coincidence.

 

[Ned]

I still feel these mic’d up shows are a massive waste of time. All these serve as is a platform for Howard Webb to try coming across as transparent and that he’s really pushing for positive change. He’s basically reading from Politicians for Dummies.

 

[Watfordfc]

I still feel these mic’d up shows are a massive waste of time. All these serve as is a platform for Howard Webb to try coming across as transparent and that he’s really pushing for positive change. He’s basically reading from Politicians for Dummies.

Careful Micheal Owen will be after you..

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1724546162982535328

Surely he cannot be surprised the Metis and fans are critical ?

 

[Fenrir_]

I'm not saying ex-players is definitely the way to go but ex-players would immediately spot that Schar is trying to buy the penalty and be more focused on that than was there/wasn't there minimal contact to back up the ref. He'd just be "I'm telling you, that's a dive"

I've decided... two officials and two ex-pros on VAR, every decision gets 30s to be made and vote goes to the majority, in the case of a tie it stays with the on-field decision

Yes it's ****, but it's better than what we currently have. Could even have the Countdown clock and music running while they made the decision!