VAR 2023-24

[SingYourHeartsOut]

I presume that because the penalty was given, it meant that it wouldn’t be deemed as simulation, even though it shouldn’t have been a penalty and the player dived. This is what VAR has done to the game.

Yes, thing is they went from

No VAR, ref gives pen, later found to be a dive = ban

To:

VAR. Ref gives a pen, VAR finds it to be a dive = no pen and yellow card.

They seem to have forgotten to cover:

VAR. Ref gives a pen, VAR says he's right, every other ref and their guide dogs can see it's a dive = no sanction

 

[Chuck Murray]

Demand the audio. LiVARpool has set the precedent. Demand the audio on this, on ManU and on Luton. ALL three of them.

And ask for the audio on last year's LiVARpool Cup travesty, when the ref prompted the lino to raise their flag after.

Until we do this, we will continue to be the panto victims for the next VAR snafu(s) ...

 

[Flump]

Demand the audio. LiVARpool has set the precedent. Demand the audio on this, on ManU and on Luton. ALL three of them.

And ask for the audio on last year's LiVARpool Cup travesty, when the ref prompted the lino to raise their flag after.

This: 5 minutes of "hmmm, doesn't quite meet the criteria of clear and obvious"

LiVARpool: "There's no replay??? Nothing we can do then other than stick with the decision"

 

[JadeWolf]

Demand the audio. LiVARpool has set the precedent. Demand the audio on this, on ManU and on Luton. ALL three of them.

And ask for the audio on last year's LiVARpool Cup travesty, when the ref prompted the lino to raise their flag after.

Until we do this, we will continue to be the panto victims for the next VAR snafu(s) ...

Yes!

 

[RosehillWolf]

If the worst did happen we should sue the **** of PGMOL for negligence. The five points ( so far ) robbed from us could be quite telling come May
Next time it happens. We should have the balls to walk off the pitch

 

[WinchWolf]

If the worst did happen we should sue the **** of PGMOL for negligence. The five points ( so far ) robbed from us could be quite telling come May
Next time it happens. We should have the balls to walk off the pitch

We should threaten to sue them for loss of income

 

[bigwolf]

I see our victim mentality is still alive and kicking.

 

[TheConcourse]

I see our victim mentality is still alive and kicking.

Presumably you’d recommend just sitting back and taking it?

 

[Darvo]

I see our victim mentality is still alive and kicking.

Do you think we have had a fair rub of the green?

 

[Scallywolf]

Yet again, no after match explanation from the referee or VAR about yet another injustice against us.

I just don’t get it, understand it, comprehend it or get my head around it, but why are referees not interviewed after matches to explain so many contentious decisions?

The advent of VAR has created so much controversy, without explanation, from the actual people making the decisions, either on the pitch or in a nice secluded room with nothing else to do other than uphold the rules of our great game.

Anrhony Taylor (referee) and Jarred Gillett (VAR) pick up their money and walk away to the next controversy without any explanation whatsoever being given for the decision on the penalty.

I just don’t understand why it is left to commentators, pundits and ex referees to try and fathom out and explain so many contentious decisions in so many matches.

I appreciate it is difficult being an onfield official in the modern game, but VAR is supposed to help them, but it is just the worst piece of technology in any sport imo. I’d rather have 2 referees in each half of the pitch, 4 linesmen (or assistants as they’re now called) and just bin VAR, which ain’t gonna happen!

If VAR is the future, then interviewing referees and VAR officials after matches should be as well!

 

[Wolf in the Lions' Den]

Probably saving the audio for the next edition of Match Officials Mic'd Up, which must be out soon (next week?). We'll have had more coverage on that than on MOTD so far this season!

 

[Horsham Wolf]

Ah, the same Jarred Gillett (on VAR), who gave Lemina a 2nd yellow for aggressive running. Now I understand.

 

[Chuck Murray]

I see our victim mentality is still alive and kicking.

So you are either (1) a certified masochist, or (2) just being a smug git/WUM. I'll let you clarify which for the rest of us.

It doesn't help your case when commentators who don't give a toss about Wolves are noticing the very obvious slant of these rulings.

 

[Hawkguy]

I know he had a poor game on Saturday but generally Anthony Taylor is one of the better referees in the league (not saying much I know!). Even he must be watching the highlights back and thinking “I wish they’d sent me to the screen”.

There was nothing wrong with him calling it a penalty at first. Many of us thought it was a penalty too. In real time, it definitely looked it. If there was no VAR, most of us would have accepted that.

VAR is the issue.

 

[Wolf316]

Frank Leboeuf tells it like it is

https://twitter.com/x/status/1719146985255579704

 

[Nige100]

I just don’t get the rationale for staying with the on field decision. I don’t blame the on field ref for giving it real time myself at home thought straight away it was a pen but one look at it and it was a clear and obvious error. The only rationale for not overturning it is that it wasn’t a clear and obvious error and we along with everyone I have heard that has seen it now know it was. We need to start hearing the VAR conversations. When Liverpool were wronged the other week we had the recording out by Monday tea time it’s now Tuesday why haven’t we heard it. Did Taylor as one of our perceived elite refs influence Gillet in not being sent to the screen? Did Gillet not once say I don’t think there is contact? WE NEED TO HEAR WHAT WAS DISCUSSED REAL TIME AND NOW.

 

[JamesWolves]

Ah, the same Jarred Gillett (on VAR), who gave Lemina a 2nd yellow for aggressive running. Now I understand.

Funny thing is, I was watching the Spurs game last monday, bunch of Spurs players did the exact same to the referee in that game. What happened ? ref told them to go away

 

[stever]

So you are either (1) a certified masochist, or (2) just being a smug git/WUM. I'll let you clarify which for the rest of us.

It doesn't help your case when commentators who don't give a toss about Wolves are noticing the very obvious slant of these rulings.

Probably Albion

 

[wolvesjoe]

VAR could easily be the instrument for more accurate refereeing. With a few tweaks, its potentially
an effective system. Without VAR, we just go back to refereeing bias and routine errors that are no longer
rectified.

Its the implementation, stupid, as the truck VAR sticker might have said.

Reduce the subjective element, by getting rid of the "clear and obvious" criterion, give
attackers the benefit of the doubt in offside decisions, and defenders the benefit of the
doubt in the penalty area, and regulate against any clear big team bias as the season
develops.

Those measures would go a long way towards a fairer and more unobtrusive system, (much
as it worked in the World Cup).

 

[maws]

Cricket has no issues telling umpires they got it wrong, why does football?

In both cricket and rugby we hear the video official talking, why don’t we in football?

Webb could save his reputation by just these 2 changes, as it is he looks the biggest idiot ever, he’s made it worse when it was seemingly impossible to make it worse!!

 

[Contrarian]

I see our victim mentality is still alive and kicking.

No it isn't. The definition of victim mentality is "Feeling that you are the victim when the EVIDENCE suggests that you aren't". When a neutral points out the evidence that 3 incorrect VAR decisions have been given against us already this season, then we are genuine victims of incorrect decisions. And the season is only 10 matches old! Standing up for yourself is not victim mentality. Liverpool were shouting for a replay after 1 incorrect decision. What are we doing?

That's all by the by anyway. The big issue is that VAR is failing badly and if it isn't us, it will be another team next week.

 

[Contrarian]

Cricket has no issues telling umpires they got it wrong, why does football?

In both cricket and rugby we hear the video official talking, why don’t we in football?

Webb could save his reputation by just these 2 changes, as it is he looks the biggest idiot ever, he’s made it worse when it was seemingly impossible to make it worse!!

What would be wrong with totally removing the "clear and obvious" clause? If we're going to be forced into VAR, and the ref makes an error over key decisions such as penalties, goals and red cards, then VAR should correct it every time. Otherwise, scrap it. Using it selectively is absurd.

 

[Contrarian]

VAR could easily be the instrument for more accurate refereeing. With a few tweaks, its potentially
an effective system. Without VAR, we just go back to refereeing bias and routine errors that are no longer
rectified.

Its the implementation, stupid, as the truck VAR sticker might have said.

Reduce the subjective element, by getting rid of the "clear and obvious" criterion, give
attackers the benefit of the doubt in offside decisions, and defenders the benefit of the
doubt in the penalty area, and regulate against any clear big team bias as the season
develops.

Those measures would go a long way towards a fairer and more unobtrusive system, (much
as it worked in the World Cup).

Exactly. Agree 100%. The fact they hedge and fudge and faff over it is fuel for the bias theorists. As the subjective element allows the bias. Actually encourages it. As we've seen , it's saved the Sky 6 on numerous occasions. And when it goes against them (which is rarer)- you never hear the end of it and they want the matches replayed!

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Cricket has no issues telling umpires they got it wrong, why does football?

In both cricket and rugby we hear the video official talking, why don’t we in football?

Webb could save his reputation by just these 2 changes, as it is he looks the biggest idiot ever, he’s made it worse when it was seemingly impossible to make it worse!!

Cricket have their equivalent of a 'clear and obvious error' with 'umpire's call' though.

I've always had my doubts about taking many lessons from these sports. Cricket is mostly about ball tracking, the 3rd umpire doesn't really have a lot to do but check through ultra-edge and ball tracking.

The communication in rugby is massively better and I think there are probably lessons to learn. However it's a very stop-start game, and the sin bin with players sitting out 10 minutes waiting for a red card decision is a very different one. Also I'm not at all convinced those borderline decisions are any less subjective or controversial. We'd no doubt have been fuming if we were New Zealand fans at that red.

They do need to find a way of stopping the failure to over-rule ones like the pen we didn't get at Old Trafford or the one Newcastle won. The Luton one isn't an officiating issue for me, it's an issue with the terrible mess they've made of the handball law


Also btw I wish people would stop banging on about the audio and the Liverpool one, we've heard all the audio from Man U and Luton. They didn't get any special treatment.

 

[maws]

Cricket have their equivalent of a 'clear and obvious error' with 'umpire's call' though.

I've always had my doubts about taking many lessons from these sports. Cricket is mostly about ball tracking, the 3rd umpire doesn't really have a lot to do but check through ultra-edge and ball tracking.

The communication in rugby is massively better and I think there are probably lessons to learn. However it's a very stop-start game, and the sin bin with players sitting out 10 minutes waiting for a red card decision is a very different one. Also I'm not at all convinced those borderline decisions are any less subjective or controversial. We'd no doubt have been fuming if we were New Zealand fans at that red.

They do need to find a way of stopping the failure to over-rule ones like the pen we didn't get at Old Trafford or the one Newcastle won. The Luton one isn't an officiating issue for me, it's an issue with the terrible mess they've made of the handball law


Also btw I wish people would stop banging on about the audio and the Liverpool one, we've heard all the audio from Man U and Luton. They didn't get any special treatment.

Run outs
Snicko
Catches carrying
4’s/6’s
Stumpings

It’s more than ball tracking! Loads of times umpires are over ruled, sorry cricket has got it well sussed, football could too. The other thing is they use ex players, football should encourage this too

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Run outs
Snicko
Catches carrying
4’s/6’s
Stumpings

It’s more than ball tracking! Loads of times umpires are over ruled, sorry cricket has got it well sussed, football could too. The other thing is they use ex players, football should encourage this too

Sorry, just don't think there's any comparison.

Snicko is ultra-edge, generally simple enough. Run outs, 4s and 6s and stumpings are just a freeze frames to look at. Catches carrying are generally not much clearer on video than live (sometimes less). None of those decisions are really subjective in the 'does Doc push Watkins hard enough to justify a penalty' sense. The point is (as I said often before VAR) that these decisions are good uses of technology because they are establishing facts, football decisions are often a subjective, the obvious equivalent to cricket being goal line technology, which nobody has an issue with.

 

[Wolf in the Lions' Den]

IFAB don't want to broadcast VAR audio live because it would be “too chaotic an experience”? Maybe try to make the process less chaotic then?

IFAB: VAR audio too 'chaotic' to broadcast live

The chief executive of IFAB has ruled out VAR audio being broadcast live in games, believing it would be "a chaotic experience."

www.espn.com

I do agree with the point around referee safety, but also, shouldn’t the impetus be on improving referee quality and training?

 

[maws]

Sorry, just don't think there's any comparison.

Snicko is ultra-edge, generally simple enough. Run outs, 4s and 6s and stumpings are just a freeze frames to look at. Catches carrying are generally not much clearer on video than live (sometimes less). None of those decisions are really subjective in the 'does Doc push Watkins hard enough to justify a penalty' sense. The point is (as I said often before VAR) that these decisions are good uses of technology because they are establishing facts, football decisions are often a subjective, the obvious equivalent to cricket being goal line technology, which nobody has an issue with.

So the video umpire does do more than you first suggested? You just think it’s easy although there’s still subjective ness as Sky are often debating them, they also take minutes? So can’t be that simple?

Personally keep the var and let the teams have a challenge l, just like cricket, and if it’s viewed by the infield referee so it’s not 2 takes on one play, no suggestions put in the refs ear by a guy in Stockley park, and encourage more ex players to referee.

There’s loads we can learn from cricket, the way cricket has learned from football by advertising, tv rights, even the ipl with its bidding is football esque

If football thinks it can’t learn from other sports then well……

 

[Werewolf of Wombourne]

The really disappointing thing is how quickly Saturday's incident has been forgotten by the football media. After Sunday afternoon's matches kicked off I haven't heard it mentioned once. The Liverpool incident was discussed at length for nearly a week. Howard Webb must breathe a sigh of relief when one of these VAR howlers happens to us or a club of our ilk, as he knows it will quickly be forgotten about by the radio and press so he doesn't have to do anything. The only reason the one against Man Utd got any traction was because it was against Man Utd and he couldn't get away with ignoring it.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

So the video umpire does do more than you first suggested? You just think it’s easy although there’s still subjective ness as Sky are often debating them, they also take minutes? So can’t be that simple?

Personally keep the var and let the teams have a challenge l, just like cricket, and if it’s viewed by the infield referee so it’s not 2 takes on one play, no suggestions put in the refs ear by a guy in Stockley park, and encourage more ex players to referee.

There’s loads we can learn from cricket, the way cricket has learned from football by advertising, tv rights, even the ipl with its bidding is football esque

If football thinks it can’t learn from other sports then well……

Yes mate, that's why I said 'mostly'.

How many examples can you give that take minutes? Usually it's the ball carrying for a catch, the truth is nobody really knows, most people accept that if you've got your fingers under the ball then it's a catch, then you see the ones where the fingers are spread and some grass touches the ball, etc, that's a debate and if it was football we'd probably talk about it forever, but it's cricket, so we just carry on. Partly of course because one catch generally doesn't decide a game, whereas one goal often does. The large majority of referrals are LBW though, and literally anyone could do that job, did he hit it, where did it pitch, where did it hit him, was it hitting the stumps? All decisions made by the technology, no debate - have you got an example of one with a long debate other than a catch?

I didn't say football can't learn anything, the chaos of some of these discussions is ridiculous compared with rugby. There are issues in rugby (not a sport I'm that up on I confess) but they do seem to have clearer protocols, for example in high tackles, what is the list of possible mitigations, but they are giving themselves 10 minutes of sinbin time to come to a decision, how does that translate to football?

 

[Contrarian]

There’s loads we can learn from cricket, the way cricket has learned from football by advertising, tv rights, even the ipl with its bidding is football esque

Cricket has learnt far more from football, else it would be dead. I loved cricket when I was young, but it does has a hgistory of being a snobbish sport, with elements (such as 3 day matches when most people are at work) designed to keep the riff raff (i.e. the lower 90% of the population) out. To an extent, cricket differentiated itself from football in many ways - test match series, tours, no knock out tournaments, counties as opposed to towns etc And the result was a slow death. Those things it's learnt from football have kept it alive. I really can't think of anything significant that football can learn from cricket?

If football thinks it can’t learn from other sports then well……

That's different to just copying something than works in another sport and assuming it can work in football. What can football learn from archery? Or cricket from canoeing?

Sports are different and a unique factor of football is that it is meant to be fast moving, free flowing , for a relatively short time - not 5 days, or even 3 hours. And the whole aim of the game - scoring goals - are rare and special moments. It's not like basketball, rugby, american football, shooting, baseball and cricket where a gradual point accumulation takes place over hours. And the point scoring processes if those sports often lend themselves to technology because they are objective incidents, similar to goal line technology. And as @SingYourHeartsOut says, nobody has any problem with that.

What sport has a nature similar enough to football and has solved the problem of the final result absolutely hinging on one or two critical , but subjective decisions?

Recently, I've been thinking that one solution would be to reduce the amount of these critical decisions. Though I think any ideas would be dismissed as too radical, though none as radical as having decisions made (or not made, who knows?) by a crew watching TV somewhere. Don't give yellow cards for disciplinary/dissent offences, for example. The reasong being that once you've done that, the next yellow, which gets a player sent off, has become a critical decision that has to be got right. And it nearly always causes arguments! Give players an orange card or something for non-fouling offences, then tot these up and give a match ban eventually. In an instant, that gets rid of one of the problems. I don't know the exact answer, but think we need to apply that kind of analysis of the game, to get to the core problem in general. So much of the game goes back 100 years, times were different and players were simply more sporting.

Though one underlying issue that everybody seems continually in denial about is the level of diving and play acting. If post-match video evidence was used to give out 3 match bans for diving... I think it remove a lot of the problem facing refs. The Newcastle penalty for example. I'd also look into fixing the number of soft penalties. Make the penalty area smaller, perhaps. We need to ask the question why, for example that incident against Newcastle, a player who is going nowhere, 20 yards out, gets his side a chance for a free shot at goal from 12 yards? It encourages diving and all manner of cheating in the penalty area, to turn a hopeless situation , into an almost certain goal. That's another big problem that is easier to fix by removing the opportunity, than spending hours debating slow motion footage and still no 2 people can agree on it.

This is long winded, but that last line is the thing with football. Is there a similar sport where every match has 50+ incidents that will not have even 70% consensus, let alone 100%?

 

[maws]

Cricket has learnt far more from football, else it would be dead. I loved cricket when I was young, but it does has a hgistory of being a snobbish sport, with elements (such as 3 day matches when most people are at work) designed to keep the riff raff (i.e. the lower 90% of the population) out. To an extent, cricket differentiated itself from football in many ways - test match series, tours, no knock out tournaments, counties as opposed to towns etc And the result was a slow death. Those things it's learnt from football have kept it alive. I really can't think of anything significant that football can learn from cricket?


That's different to just copying something than works in another sport and assuming it can work in football. What can football learn from archery? Or cricket from canoeing?

Sports are different and a unique factor of football is that it is meant to be fast moving, free flowing , for a relatively short time - not 5 days, or even 3 hours. And the whole aim of the game - scoring goals - are rare and special moments. It's not like basketball, rugby, american football, shooting, baseball and cricket where a gradual point accumulation takes place over hours. And the point scoring processes if those sports often lend themselves to technology because they are objective incidents, similar to goal line technology. And as @SingYourHeartsOut says, nobody has any problem with that.

What sport has a nature similar enough to football and has solved the problem of the final result absolutely hinging on one or two critical , but subjective decisions?

Recently, I've been thinking that one solution would be to reduce the amount of these critical decisions. Though I think any ideas would be dismissed as too radical, though none as radical as having decisions made (or not made, who knows?) by a crew watching TV somewhere. Don't give yellow cards for disciplinary/dissent offences, for example. The reasong being that once you've done that, the next yellow, which gets a player sent off, has become a critical decision that has to be got right. And it nearly always causes arguments! Give players an orange card or something for non-fouling offences, then tot these up and give a match ban eventually. In an instant, that gets rid of one of the problems. I don't know the exact answer, but think we need to apply that kind of analysis of the game, to get to the core problem in general. So much of the game goes back 100 years, times were different and players were simply more sporting.

Though one underlying issue that everybody seems continually in denial about is the level of diving and play acting. If post-match video evidence was used to give out 3 match bans for diving... I think it remove a lot of the problem facing refs. The Newcastle penalty for example. I'd also look into fixing the number of soft penalties. Make the penalty area smaller, perhaps. We need to ask the question why, for example that incident against Newcastle, a player who is going nowhere, 20 yards out, gets his side a chance for a free shot at goal from 12 yards? It encourages diving and all manner of cheating in the penalty area, to turn a hopeless situation , into an almost certain goal. That's another big problem that is easier to fix by removing the opportunity, than spending hours debating slow motion footage and still no 2 people can agree on it.

This is long winded, but that last line is the thing with football. Is there a similar sport where every match has 50+ incidents that will not have even 70% consensus, let alone 100%?

So you’d change the pitch to fix the refereeing issues? I’m not saying it’s easy and we all think we have answers, but there’s another problem, getting people to agree on any changes.

I watched my lad play last n oh ght, we were 4-1 down, he was taking a throw, and had no options. The referee was telling him to hurry up or he would book him. We were losing 4-1, in world was he time wasting? I’m at a loss how the ref got to this decision, we were attacking and eventually only lost 4-3 so it wasn’t damage limitation. It shows how refs got lost in the translation of the laws.

 

[Contrarian]

So you’d change the pitch to fix the refereeing issues? I’m not saying it’s easy and we all think we have answers, but there’s another problem, getting people to agree on any changes.

I watched my lad play last n oh ght, we were 4-1 down, he was taking a throw, and had no options. The referee was telling him to hurry up or he would book him. We were losing 4-1, in world was he time wasting? I’m at a loss how the ref got to this decision, we were attacking and eventually only lost 4-3 so it wasn’t damage limitation. It shows how refs got lost in the translation of the laws.

It used to be that changes were trialled for a season or two at lower levels. It was part of the ideal that the rules should be the same at every level. Seemed sensible enough to me. VAR is oviously a big exception to that , so that ideal must have been dumped at some point.

Somewhere along the way, it seems common sense had got lost in this dream of some perfectly objective set of rules that can be enforced by an AI - that will be the next step after VAR, mark my words! Some of the problems could perhaps be fixed just by undoing some of the recent changes, rather than keep layering more variations on them. The handball rule, for example. Or even the absurd amount of substitutions now allowed - which both wastes time and (probably more significantly) gives an advantage to clubs who can have £300m worth of players sat on their benches.

I'm not sure that agreement is needed on changes - so long as those with the money support them. Would be nice to have a fans referendum on VAR, but that won't happen. If they had a VAR vote in the Premier League, 6 or 7 would be "For" and the rest "Against". We know who they are.

 

[Bawtry Wolf]

The problem with EPL referees as opposed to other sports is that they don’t actually seem to have a clue about the game and the nuances of the game. Generally they seem to be on a power trip where they’re the centre of attention.

In cricket, invariably the umpires are ex players so understand the game. In Rugby there is a lot more complexity in the game but referees seem to be able to communicate, get the respect of the players and not be the centre of attention.

 

[WickedWolfie]

It used to be that changes were trialled for a season or two at lower levels. It was part of the ideal that the rules should be the same at every level. Seemed sensible enough to me. VAR is oviously a big exception to that , so that ideal must have been dumped at some point.

Somewhere along the way, it seems common sense had got lost in this dream of some perfectly objective set of rules that can be enforced by an AI - that will be the next step after VAR, mark my words! Some of the problems could perhaps be fixed just by undoing some of the recent changes, rather than keep layering more variations on them. The handball rule, for example. Or even the absurd amount of substitutions now allowed - which both wastes time and (probably more significantly) gives an advantage to clubs who can have £300m worth of players sat on their benches.

I'm not sure that agreement is needed on changes - so long as those with the money support them. Would be nice to have a fans referendum on VAR, but that won't happen. If they had a VAR vote in the Premier League, 6 or 7 would be "For" and the rest "Against". We know who they are.

The sheer cost and resources expended in VAR doubtless precluded trialling it at a lower level. The PL were late adopters though.

 

[epic]

Why are the VAR operators so loathe to tell the on field referee that they may have made a mistake ? Players, managers, fans and pundits would respect them more if a ref had the minerals to go over to a screen and then after watching it saying my initial decision is overturned for the correct one - it really is that simple. All the convoluted dialogue between the referee and VAR just muddies the waters - make it simple - "Ref we go with your on field decision" or "Ref we think your decision is wrong" - job done !!

 

[Northampton_wolf]

Why are the VAR operators so loathe to tell the on field referee that they may have made a mistake ? Players, managers, fans and pundits would respect them more if a ref had the minerals to go over to a screen and then after watching it saying my initial decision is overturned for the correct one - it really is that simple. All the convoluted dialogue between the referee and VAR just muddies the waters - make it simple - "Ref we go with your on field decision" or "Ref we think your decision is wrong" - job done !!

ridiculous take a look at rugby thats how it should be done

 

[lets all have a disco]

Why are the VAR operators so loathe to tell the on field referee that they may have made a mistake ? Players, managers, fans and pundits would respect them more if a ref had the minerals to go over to a screen and then after watching it saying my initial decision is overturned for the correct one - it really is that simple. All the convoluted dialogue between the referee and VAR just muddies the waters - make it simple - "Ref we go with your on field decision" or "Ref we think your decision is wrong" - job done !!

It's simple they don't want so many descisions being turned over by VAR .....it would make the refs look bad , so they stick together....

 

[DasWolf]

Why are the VAR operators so loathe to tell the on field referee that they may have made a mistake ?

For some reason the referees think having a mistake corrected when you had 200ms to spot something 30 yards away out the corner of your eye is shameful and humiliating. And because of this they don't want to "show up their mate" - this is pretty much literally what they say.

Sensible people everywhere else would generally go "that's a good spot thanks for catching it".

VAR is being used not to correct errors but to justify a referee's decision where possible. The farce last weekend was several minutes reviewing footage to try to find any contact to justify the penalty, so they could then hide behind "not clear and obvious".

 

[epic]

It's simple they don't want so many descisions being turned over by VAR .....it would make the refs look bad , so they stick together....

If that truly is the reason that is absolutely scandalous !! The officials are there purely to uphold the laws/rules and to see that the balance of fair play is maintained. Everybody makes mistakes but owning and rectifying those mistakes is a hurdle in football that the PGMOL. VAR and the on field officials seem to struggle overcoming and until that is addressed nothing will change.