VAR 2023-24

[SingYourHeartsOut]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1752372413440864528

Saw a bit in the women's game though, utterly pointless. Everyone knows what the decision is from what happens, they just said 'foul on x, penalty awarded' that sort of stuff, as if you couldn't work that out. 'No foul by Onana', 'handball by Gomes' foul by Hwang/Silva' how much better would you have felt?

 

[Watfordfc]

Not sure announcing what the decision is will make much difference unless they let fans hear the real time communication?

 

[Oliwolf44]

Writing this as a football fan. the rules and referees are completely and utterly clueless and they are encouraging diving. When you get penalties like we did tonight is it any wonder why players throw themselves. Its a lottery if its given or not. Tonight we won said lottery.
Lets put the corruption argument to bed (if there was one) its pure incompetence.
We go mad when its against us so its only fair its called out when shoes on the other foot.
The game has gone completely mad and the refs are the worst they have ever been. any contact is now a pen.... or is it? nobody knows!
every time there is a pen it feels like the end of golden balls with Jasper Carrot, will var split or will var steal?! Who cares! its completely random! dont bother applying logic!

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

We get that pen, but not the foul by onanA

Mad

 

[SA Wolf]

In real time the feather touch on Neto looked like a peno, but refs and officials get more time now with VAR and are able to look at incidences for light-years (or so it seems) and still get the basics wrong. Not a penalty on Neto with VAR.
**** VAR!

 

[Very Proud (AKA Still Proud)]

Given the rub of the green we’re getting right now with VAR (decisions being fairly/correctly given rather than awarded against us), am I the only one thinking, there’s been a sit down at PGMOL and they’ve realised they need to do something about it.

Their motivation will have been to avoid the level of criticism they’ve been universally getting from the media over decisions against us. Though Paddy Power did pick up on the Onana challenge last week.

Does feel like there’s a shift to swing decisions back in our favour.

 

[Frank Lincoln]

Given the rub of the green we’re getting right now with VAR (decisions being fairly/correctly given rather than awarded against us), am I the only one thinking, there’s been a sit down at PGMOL and they’ve realised they need to do something about it.

Their motivation will have been to avoid the level of criticism they’ve been universally getting from the media over decisions against us. Though Paddy Power did pick up on the Onana challenge last week.

Does feel like there’s a shift to swing decisions back in our favour.

I think you are correct. Penalties in successive games tells its own story, particularly as the one against Manchester United should not have been given.

Personally, I don’t think it should be a case of making up for previous mistakes. VAR needs to be fair to all teams, all the time.

 

[old wittonian]

I think you are correct. Penalties in successive games tells its own story, particularly as the one against Manchester United should not have been given.

Personally, I don’t think it should be a case of making up for previous mistakes. VAR needs to be fair to all teams, all the time.

Or we've had competent officials.

 

[Ned]

Or we've had competent officials.

Not really, the penalty against Utd was never a penalty.

 

[Plovdiv Wolf]

VAR kind of late

 

[Very Proud (AKA Still Proud)]

I think you are correct. Penalties in successive games tells its own story, particularly as the one against Manchester United should not have been given.

Personally, I don’t think it should be a case of making up for previous mistakes. VAR needs to be fair to all teams, all the time.

I think Webb and his mates sat down, and he said "Look we're getting a lot of stick about the decisions we're giving against Wolves, it's not just their management and fans, it's across lots of media, TV, radio, social media, they've all picked up on it and we're getting slaughtered. We need to start to balance this out and give them the benefit of the doubt."

I truly think they thought the could ride out the storm because it's just little old Wolves and not one of the big boys, but to be fair across the country the opinion has been pretty unanimous and we were getting shafted by PGMOL and VAR and they couldn't ignore it.

 

[Wolferoo]

But nothing has actually been 'evened up.'
The United decision was an onfield decision. VAR reviewed it and determined there was no need to overturn the onfield decision.
Where we have been wronged is the Onnana penalty in the first game where it should have been given onfield and frankly which VAR did not do its job when reviewing. Similarly, at Luton, if the ref did not see the deflection onto the arm, VAR certainly did and there should have overturned as a clear and obvious error.
All that happened against United was that we got given a soft penalty. In fact, United then went on to score from a throw-in to win the game when we probably should have had a free-kick instead of it being a throw. Two in-game decisions which evened themselves out.

 

[SA Wolf]

I think you are correct. Penalties in successive games tells its own story, particularly as the one against Manchester United should not have been given.

Personally, I don’t think it should be a case of making up for previous mistakes. VAR needs to be fair to all teams, all the time.

Agree that the one against Yernited wasn't a penalty, once slowed down, but in 'real time', it looked a penalty, so can see why the ref gave it. VAR didn't see enough for it to be overturned as a clear and obvious error.
However, I don't think 'penalties in successive games tells its own story' if you are implying that somehow PGMOL are making up for past mistakes. I think the reason that we've had successive penalties is that we've attacked more with pace and had more players in the opposition box. Spend longer in their box, running at defenders at pace seems to indicate to me that there will be more errors by the defenders resulting in more goals and penos. 7 goals in 2 matches including two penalties seems more telling imho.

 

[Wolf in the Lions' Den]

If they were consciously trying to even things up, you might think they'd have gone for the incident with Onana on Max (I think?), which looked similar to the Onana on Saša at Old Trafford. There seemed to be some comments on Twitter about this at the time but I haven't seen anything definitive explaining why that shouldn't be a penalty / wasn't a mistake. Maybe I missed something that one looked a lot worse than the soft one on Pedro.

https://twitter.com/paddypower/status/1753168728143896591?s=20

About 80% of Paddy Power's tweets about our matches are about VAR injustice these days, in line with the comment further up the thread about how widely accepted the unfairness/'bad luck' Wolves have had from VAR this season (and before, obvs) has been.

 

[Padraig]

They have backed themselves into a corner after the Jota dive. They now can’t overturn anything where there was “contact”, however minimal, including the Neto one.

 

[Queensland Wolf]

The current problems with VAR sorted in three stages.

1. Re write laws to take away ambiguity

2. Automate as far as possible VAR decisions

3. VAR decisions unable to be solved quickly become at the discretion of refs

This will work. The ambiguity in our laws and interpretations are the evil monsters in this.

 

[Zico]

The current problems with VAR sorted in three stages.

1. Re write laws to take away ambiguity

2. Automate as far as possible VAR decisions

3. VAR decisions unable to be solved quickly become at the discretion of refs

This will work. The ambiguity in our laws and interpretations are the evil monsters in this.

I can do it in one stage:

1. Bin it.

 

[Queensland Wolf]

I can do it in one stage:

1. Bin it.

I would love that but too much money invested in it to bin it. It’s the rules we need to get right not the technology. Referees find them hard to implement consistently and VAR just puts badly written rules under a microscope. Cricket resolved a LBW issue when they addressed the front foot rule

 

[Wolf in the Lions' Den]

VAR having too much impact on fans' enjoyment (shocker!) but our Gary (and Cole Palmer) are helping to offset it, according to Tony Scholes, PL Chief Football Officer!

On a positive note, TS rightly points to the “incredible quality of football and quality of entertainment” with “3.2 goals per match” and the emergence of home-grown talent amongst players (Cole Palmer) and managers (Gary O’Neil). Average match time up 3min 31sec to 101min 41sec. Effective playing time up 3min 31sec to 58:28.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1755351662909153532

 

[Frank Lincoln]

VAR having too much impact on fans' enjoyment (shocker!) but our Gary (and Cole Palmer) are helping to offset it, according to Tony Scholes, PL Chief Football Officer!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1755351662909153532

I would suggest they would improve the game by scrapping VAR.

Yes I know, it’s wishful thinking.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

VAR having too much impact on fans' enjoyment (shocker!) but our Gary (and Cole Palmer) are helping to offset it, according to Tony Scholes, PL Chief Football Officer!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1755351662909153532

Where do they get this figure that fans like it from. Who are they talking about, not fans actually in the ground surely? Not fans of the actual teams playing? Just 'fans' in general as people who watch football on TV?

 

[Sussex Wolf]

Well the Premier League think VAR is doing a fine job, and apparently think a majority of fans agree!

VAR: Premier League claims 96 per cent of referee decisions are correct - so what is future of technology in football?

The Premier League claim the “majority” of supporters are in favour of VAR and the technology has led to a 14 per cent increase in correct decisions; Sky Sports senior reporter Rob Dorsett sits down with Tony Scholes to discuss VAR’s performance and ideas for improvement

www.skysports.com

 

[WW1963]

I think Webb and his mates sat down, and he said "Look we're getting a lot of stick about the decisions we're giving against Wolves, it's not just their management and fans, it's across lots of media, TV, radio, social media, they've all picked up on it and we're getting slaughtered. We need to start to balance this out and give them the benefit of the doubt."

I truly think they thought the could ride out the storm because it's just little old Wolves and not one of the big boys, but to be fair across the country the opinion has been pretty unanimous and we were getting shafted by PGMOL and VAR and they couldn't ignore it.

There's an element of truth in that at the very least. EVERYBODY was talking about our treatment, memes were going up all over social media - from fans of other clubs.

I've been banging on about unbalanced treatment since VAR was first introduced. Only when Onana did a mad one did the United, Villa and Liverpool fans at work finally accept that I wasn't just another biased fan.

After that, we got done time and again. It was, you could say, clear and obvious.

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

VAR having too much impact on fans' enjoyment (shocker!) but our Gary (and Cole Palmer) are helping to offset it, according to Tony Scholes, PL Chief Football Officer!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1755351662909153532

Change jt

30 seconds time limit. Videos at full speed

Ref reviews on big screen at ground

 

[arctic rime]

Well the Premier League think VAR is doing a fine job, and apparently think a majority of fans agree!

VAR: Premier League claims 96 per cent of referee decisions are correct - so what is future of technology in football?

The Premier League claim the “majority” of supporters are in favour of VAR and the technology has led to a 14 per cent increase in correct decisions; Sky Sports senior reporter Rob Dorsett sits down with Tony Scholes to discuss VAR’s performance and ideas for improvement

www.skysports.com

Lies damn lies

 

[JadeWolf]

This is the worry for me, they have a very specific way of deciding what is and isn’t an error. So far this season we’ve only had 3 errors against us, whereas I think we had 4 in the same match away at Fulham. They just spin everything to make it sound like it just needs tweaks when the whole thing is rotten and corrupt.

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

View attachment 40355

This is the worry for me, they have a very specific way of deciding what is and isn’t an error. So far this season we’ve only had 3 errors against us, whereas I think we had 4 in the same match away at Fulham. They just spin everything to make it sound like it just needs tweaks when the whole thing is rotten and corrupt.

Our errors are also refereeing errors though, rather than VAR itself

 

[JadeWolf]

Our errors are also refereeing errors though, rather than VAR itself

Fair point but isn’t the whole purpose of VAR to correct referee errors, so in effect a referee error that isn’t corrected is also a VAR error?

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Fair point but isn’t the whole purpose of VAR to correct referee errors, so in effect a referee error that isn’t corrected is also a VAR error?

You'd imagine the failure to overturn a mistake by the onfield ref is covered by 'missed by VAR', but as you say it's all very subjective. Was the headbut on Kilman an oversight, not in their world where it's 'minimal contact'. I presume they're counting what they consider to be 'clear and obvious' mistakes but what's obvious (apart from the fact it's still a mess and ruins the game for fans in the ground).

 

[WickedWolfie]

Well the Premier League think VAR is doing a fine job, and apparently think a majority of fans agree!

VAR: Premier League claims 96 per cent of referee decisions are correct - so what is future of technology in football?

The Premier League claim the “majority” of supporters are in favour of VAR and the technology has led to a 14 per cent increase in correct decisions; Sky Sports senior reporter Rob Dorsett sits down with Tony Scholes to discuss VAR’s performance and ideas for improvement

www.skysports.com

Pardon me (with two statistics-related degrees) being cynical but it's amazing how carefully choosing the wording of a survey can yield the results that you want......

 

[Spitfire]

Pardon me (with two statistics-related degrees) being cynical but it's amazing how carefully choosing the wording of a survey can yield the results that you want......

I'd like to know how they arrived at 82% correct decisions pre VAR. I swear they'd been telling us for years that correct refereeing decisions were in the low 90's.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

I'd like to know how they arrived at 82% correct decisions pre VAR. I swear they'd been telling us for years that correct refereeing decisions were in the low 90's.

Yes, I mean this is all decisions (including the ones where they decide not to award a free kick) but in 2018 they were claiming to be 98% accurate. Also 98% accurate on offsides - imagine all the rubbish we've suffered for the sake of possibly correcting 2% of offside calls. Not sure if they claimed figures for 'key decisions'.

Referee myth-busting: How many decisions do officials get right?

Its a little bit like me advising Lionel Messi on how he can improve his performance and where he went wrong.

www.skysports.com

 

[Lincoln-Wolves86]

If VAR is staying, which it will, personally I think they have to:

• Remove the ‘clear and obvious’ element. Makes no sense to me. Things are either fouls or they’re not.

• Remove the video monitors. Or keep them and let the ref use them for all decisions (too timely). I don’t get why they’re used for some incidents and not others, too inconsistent.

• Put a time limit on decisions. If you can’t tell in the real time footage after 2 looks then you stick with the refs on pitch decision.

 

[Frank Lincoln]

I'd like to know how they arrived at 82% correct decisions pre VAR. I swear they'd been telling us for years that correct refereeing decisions were in the low 90's.

They did, but to try to make VAR look good they have adjusted the figures.

You couldn’t make it up!

 

[Spitfire]

Yes, I mean this is all decisions (including the ones where they decide not to award a free kick) but in 2018 they were claiming to be 98% accurate. Also 98% accurate on offsides - imagine all the rubbish we've suffered for the sake of possibly correcting 2% of offside calls. Not sure if they claimed figures for 'key decisions'.

Referee myth-busting: How many decisions do officials get right?

Its a little bit like me advising Lionel Messi on how he can improve his performance and where he went wrong.

www.skysports.com

They did, but to try to make VAR look good they have adjusted the figures.

You couldn’t make it up!

Glad it wasn’t just me then. Thought my memory was playing tricks.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

If VAR is staying, which it will, personally I think they have to:

• Remove the ‘clear and obvious’ element. Makes no sense to me. Things are either fouls or they’re not.

• Remove the video monitors. Or keep them and let the ref use them for all decisions (too timely). I don’t get why they’re used for some incidents and not others, too inconsistent.

• Put a time limit on decisions. If you can’t tell in the real time footage after 2 looks then you stick with the refs on pitch decision.

OK, because
They don't have to - it could be binned and it would be if actual football fans decided it.

• If you remove 'clear and obvious' then you'll have way more overturns and it may as well be reffed remotely.
• The monitors are used for matters of judgement, not fact. It's pointless though as the ref has already been told he's made an obvious error. If you follow your argument though he'll be popping over there every goal to see what he thinks.
• What are you going to do when they look twice, can't decide and it turns out later that it's clear from a 3rd angle?

The real point is they've had several years to fix it and they've failed, believing it's just another tweak away from working is a fantasy. Even if it was some nirvarna, it's still all just wrong in principle. Ball hits net, check lino and ref, go mental. Literally the whole point!

 

[Lincoln-Wolves86]

OK, because
They don't have to - it could be binned and it would be if actual football fans decided it.

• If you remove 'clear and obvious' then you'll have way more overturns and it may as well be reffed remotely.
• The monitors are used for matters of judgement, not fact. It's pointless though as the ref has already been told he's made an obvious error. If you follow your argument though he'll be popping over there every goal to see what he thinks.
• What are you going to do when they look twice, can't decide and it turns out later that it's clear from a 3rd angle?

The real point is they've had several years to fix it and they've failed, believing it's just another tweak away from working is a fantasy. Even if it was some nirvarna, it's still all just wrong in principle. Ball hits net, check lino and ref, go mental. Literally the whole point!

I don’t want them to use the monitor for every decision! I want to remove them. The keep option was not serious. It couldn’t happen, my point is it’s either all or nothing.

Clear and obvious isn’t always applied and it leads to a huge amount of inconsistency. Too subjective.

What do you mean what am I going to do when they find a 3rd angle. It happens not anywsy, with 10 angles. What’s the difference? Atleast we’ll all know we’re on the same page, they couldn’t see the very minimal contact in a few looks, done.

 

[lostwolf]

If VAR is staying, which it will, personally I think they have to:

• Remove the ‘clear and obvious’ element. Makes no sense to me. Things are either fouls or they’re not.

• Remove the video monitors. Or keep them and let the ref use them for all decisions (too timely). I don’t get why they’re used for some incidents and not others, too inconsistent.

• Put a time limit on decisions. If you can’t tell in the real time footage after 2 looks then you stick with the refs on pitch decision.

'Which it will' if everyone accepts that as a given. Personally, I think there's a bit of momentum here, and the possibility that we could eventually see it, rightfully, binned off.

 

[Lincoln-Wolves86]

'Which it will' if everyone accepts that as a given. Personally, I think there's a bit of momentum here, and the possibility that we could eventually see it, rightfully, binned off.

As much as I’d love thst to be the case, they won’t scrap it. They’d have to admit they got it wrong, write off millions. Cannot see it happening unfortunately.

Watched games at championship and below and it was such a refreshing experience not having var.

 

[Noweimannnocry]

As much as I’d love that to be the case, they won’t scrap it. They’d have to admit they got it wrong, write off millions. Cannot see it happening unfortunately.

Watched games at championship and below and it was such a refreshing experience not having var.

Very true