VAR - puzzled

[Blackpool Wolf]

Just watched Saiss penalty again - how did VAR get involved -;ref had clear view - no clear and obvious error for me - sorry if covered elsewhere

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

Just watched Saiss penalty again - how did VAR get involved -;ref had clear view - no clear and obvious error for me - sorry if covered elsewhere

Doesn’t look a penalty to me but of course against a so called super league team you expect them given

Like you say the ref had a clear view obviously VAR must of overruled him. Looks like we’ve upset them again

 

[Oh Robbie Robie]

Well, they took long enough to find something... but I can say that had that been the other way around, it would have got a 2 second glance and play would have gone on. Most angles show there was nothing in it but the one angle was the judge and jury to convict Romain.

 

[John de Wolf's hairdryer]

The VAR operators see what they want to see, and don't see what they don't want to see. Cognitive bias, from the officials on the pitch and in Stockley Park, plays out in every EPL match, but is especially evident in matches involving the Sky Six sacred cows when playing the 'Other 14' clubs.

 

[arctic rime]

It stinks and it's corrupt

 

[TheConcourse]

I had 8 pints, was at the other side of the ground with bad eyesight. Immediately said penalty and haven’t changed my mind.

Beyond idiotic defending trying to win a physical battle with Lukaku. Just get rid of the ball.

 

[Frank Lincoln]

VAR has puzzled me since its inception. If I had my way it would be ditched today. I notice that the championship play off games will use VAR. To the four teams involved, welcome to our world!!

 

[JadeWolf]

It’s a top six penalty in my opinion. If that’s Rudiger on Raul at the other end, do we get a penalty, I doubt it.

 

[JR WAS KING]

I had 8 pints, was at the other side of the ground with bad eyesight. Immediately said penalty and haven’t changed my mind.

Beyond idiotic defending trying to win a physical battle with Lukaku. Just get rid of the ball.

I must admit, my first instinct was penalty.
Would we have been given it, I very much doubt it.

 

[TheConcourse]

I must admit, my first instinct was penalty.
Would we have been given it, I very much doubt it.

We wouldn’t get one if Rudiger smashed Jimenez on the back with a steel chair, Thiago Silva put him in a headlock before The Undertaker made his Chelsea debut and tombstone pile drived him into the penalty spot.

 

[sedgwolf1980]

It was a penalty, let’s be honest, but at the same time the OP is correct in that it wasnt a clear and obvious error from the ref.

 

[Eastern Wolf]

VAR is far from foolproof as we all know and to get unbiased results is almost impossible - unless the video refs are from some far away land that has no association or affiliation with English football and even English culture. Someone who is 100% unbiased and judges as he sees it no matter the team, player involved or consequences of the decision. In this day and age, only a robot would be so disengaged from the decision-making.

 

[Matt]

I thought it was very soft. They only care about “contact” though, however minor it is. If you touch someone it’s apparently acceptable for them to dive (cheat).

 

[SA Wolf]

I also thought penalty. Whether we would have been given it is a moot point, but it was dumb defending by Saiss. He tried to allow the ball to run out of play, which it never looked like doing. Then was not strong enough to hold off Lukaku and then raised his foot to make contact with Lukaku when he knew he was beaten. Enough to make Lukaku fall? I doubt it and he certainly exploited the situation.
I don't like VAR and if no VAR, play would have continued as Bankes didn't give the peno straight away, but when 'advised' to go to the screen, Bankes over-turned his original decision, which 99 times out of 100, refs do.
I don't subscribe to the ref bias, but without VAR, there is no penalty.

 

[epic]

The biggest problem (and there are many !!) with VAR is when and why Stockley Park step in. This veil of "clear and obvious" is just bull. There is either a foul or an offside missed by the officials - whether it is clear and obvious or not. An assistant referee missing an offside by a toe nail or a nose hair does not sit in that category - it is near impossible for a human eye to spot that. To be fair VAR worked correcrly at weekend because the officials were not giving the offside on the Chelsea "goal" from the corner. If VAR is looking for a reason to disallow goals with forensic intensity as I have outlined above then that is where VAR truly fails.
However if VAR gets a decision wrong and PGMOL apologise on the Monday that is acceptable then !!

 

[Sedgers]

It was never a penalty but has become a penalty in modern football. That's the difference. The idea that Saiss' play could floor a bull of a man like Lukaku is ludicrous yet modern fans lap it up. It's shameful and should be called out even when we do the same.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

I may have gently suggested at the time that if it was a clear and obvious error then it wouldn't have taken an age (on top of the ludicrous amount of time for the offside) to decide.

Having said that I think everyone there thought it was a foul, only which side of the line it was is dubious.

 

[jrpb-3]

It was a penalty, let’s be honest, but at the same time the OP is correct in that it wasnt a clear and obvious error from the ref.

this. Having seen the replays and the way Saiss move his leg back making contact then I think it was a penalty, but it took multiple replays from lots of angles to be able to see that and certainly other angles it looked like there was no contact or maybe if there was in wasn't in the box, so certainly not a clear and obvious error.

So really what is needed is clearer guidance on when and how VAR should be used. Difficult to feel too aggrieved in this case as the correct decision was reached, but what is needed is consistency in what VAR does and doesn't get involved in.

The other bit of the sequence that doesn't seem to have been looked at was what caused Saiss to go down in the first place i.e. was there a foul on him first ?, probably not but was part of the incident so should have been looked at in the review

 

[Frank Lincoln]

We wouldn’t get one if Rudiger smashed Jimenez on the back with a steel chair, Thiago Silva put him in a headlock before The Undertaker made his Chelsea debut and tombstone pile drived him into the penalty spot.

But Jimenez would have got a yellow card for simulation...

 

[FJRWolf]

Before Saiss bought him down, Lukaku clearly fouled Saiss beforehand....more of a foul that was given on Saiss.

 

[Ned]

It’s a penalty but it I’m not so eye it could be called clear and obvious. But we all know that VAR is just another safety net to ensure the biggest teams get to where Sky want them to get to in the league.

I don’t think it should be used to take away from how idiotic Saiss was and how poor he has been in 2022.

 

[JonahWolf]

this. Having seen the replays and the way Saiss move his leg back making contact then I think it was a penalty, but it took multiple replays from lots of angles to be able to see that and certainly other angles it looked like there was no contact or maybe if there was in wasn't in the box, so certainly not a clear and obvious error.

So really what is needed is clearer guidance on when and how VAR should be used. Difficult to feel too aggrieved in this case as the correct decision was reached, but what is needed is consistency in what VAR does and doesn't get involved in.

The other bit of the sequence that doesn't seem to have been looked at was what caused Saiss to go down in the first place i.e. was there a foul on him first ?, probably not but was part of the incident so should have been looked at in the review

That last bit for me.
I’m not convinced it was a penalty for me, as that contact was minimal, Lukaku made sure he fell over that leg, was starting to go down as soon as he saw it never mind felt it. But ok, if that’s the threshold for a foul, so be it. So….if there’s the threshold for a foul, was that not a barge in the back by Lukaku leading to the pen incident?

Neither or both should surely be the correct, consistent interpretation. Which means either way it shouldn’t be a pen.

 

[Hoganstolemywife]

I'm very much into bashing VAR at all possible junctures and I love a good conspiracy theory.

The Saiss penalty at the weekend struck me as one of the most blatant penalties I've seen. Proper stonewaller

 

[Wolfman jack]

Very noticeable how little var is used in european games. Also why does it take so flippin long??

 

[jrpb-3]

That last bit for me.
I’m not convinced it was a penalty for me, as that contact was minimal, Lukaku made sure he fell over that leg, was starting to go down as soon as he saw it never mind felt it. But ok, if that’s the threshold for a foul, so be it. So….if there’s the threshold for a foul, was that not a barge in the back by Lukaku leading to the pen incident?

Neither or both should surely be the correct, consistent interpretation. Which means either way it shouldn’t be a pen.

Agree that that penalties these days seem to be given with very minimal contact, but thats a separate issue, at least on that front things generally seem a bit more consistent. There is the issue of if the attacker initiates looks for the contact, and that was one area they were supposed to be looking at this season and not giving penalties for, can't really see I've seen any change in what is or isn't deemed a penalty in those situations.

 

[Slothmonkey]

For me Saiss was stupid and he had it under control before he decided to fall over. The fact that when he was on the floor he swung his leg towards Lukaku made me think straight away it would be given. The leg movement is the only reason I can think they got involved.

The worse use for me was on the Loftus-Cheek ruled out goal. It took then ages to look at it and make a decision from the angles we were shown. Then after they showed a replay from the opposite angle and it was obvious that the last touch was off Lukaku.

 

[WickedWolfie]

I had 8 pints, was at the other side of the ground with bad eyesight. Immediately said penalty and haven’t changed my mind.

Beyond idiotic defending trying to win a physical battle with Lukaku. Just get rid of the ball.

You are eminently, except being a bit lightweight on the alcohol front, qualified for PGMOL....

 

[Very Proud (AKA Still Proud)]

Was at the other end and immediately thought it was a pen. At slow speed it looks less of a pen but I thought it was in real time. Saiss panicked because he'd not seen the ball out and thrashed at it.

Re VAR, we all hate it for two reasons, it's used too much and takes too long but it's here to stay. The reason it seems better elsewhere is because its used to stop clear and obvious mistakes over here we have the obsession with being too forensic driven by the pundits obsession with dissecting every decision against the big six.

Unfortunately we're lumbered with it but I'd advocate two rules for its use:
1. If offsides are that minute you have to freeze frame and draw lines then its not obvious. (No lines and no freeze frame)
2. If there's a debate about a goal it has to be identified by the time the teams are ready to restart. (Can't see an offence in 30 seconds, goal stands)

Use it in real time as an extra pair of eyes for the officials not as a safety net. They are simply an extra lino looking at a screen and need to be able to make a call in the same time the other officials have. Basically if they can't abide by these rules they're not fit to officiate!

 

[Zico]

Was at the other end and immediately thought it was a pen. At slow speed it looks less of a pen but I thought it was in real time. Saiss panicked because he'd not seen the ball out and thrashed at it.

Re VAR, we all hate it for two reasons, it's used too much and takes too long but it's here to stay. The reason it seems better elsewhere is because its used to stop clear and obvious mistakes over here we have the obsession with being too forensic driven by the pundits obsession with dissecting every decision against the big six.

Unfortunately we're lumbered with it but I'd advocate two rules for its use:
1. If offsides are that minute you have to freeze frame and draw lines then its not obvious. (No lines and no freeze frame)
2. If there's a debate about a goal it has to be identified by the time the teams are ready to restart. (Can't see an offence in 30 seconds, goal stands)

Use it in real time as an extra pair of eyes for the officials not as a safety net. They are simply an extra lino looking at a screen and need to be able to make a call in the same time the other officials have. Basically if they can't abide by these rules they're not fit to officiate!

Unfortunately your last sentence says it all.

 

[Black Coffee]

It was soft in terms of contact especially with someone built like Lukaku going down so easily is cringeworthy but by the letter of the law it's a penalty and another brain dead tackle by the Moroccan Richard Stearman.

 

[Very Proud (AKA Still Proud)]

Unfortunately your last sentence says it all.

And herein lies the problem, instead of tackling the real issue of quality of match officials they use technology to compensate. Treat the cause not the symptom.

 

[Black Country Wanderer]

I said it was a penalty straight away,but when i watched the slow motion,i changed my mind
Yes Saiss caught him and nowadays its a foul,but if you look Lukaku is actually outside the box when he gets caught so a free kick on the edge should have been given
I dont see the point in the ref going to the monitor when told to by VAR, as you know he has to reverse his decision,VAR may as well just say its a pen straight away,ive not seen a ref yet go against them

 

[ewarwoowar]

i thought it looked like nothing but as has been stated he gave var something to look at regardless of how trivial,but it was Chelsea away so they were intent on finding justification to give it. I know this is fanciful and i say this most games,89th minute last game of the season,0-0 at anfield and livarpool need a point to clinch the title,would we get it?you can bet anything you like we would`nt

 

[glorybox]

this. Having seen the replays and the way Saiss move his leg back making contact then I think it was a penalty, but it took multiple replays from lots of angles to be able to see that and certainly other angles it looked like there was no contact or maybe if there was in wasn't in the box, so certainly not a clear and obvious error.

So really what is needed is clearer guidance on when and how VAR should be used. Difficult to feel too aggrieved in this case as the correct decision was reached, but what is needed is consistency in what VAR does and doesn't get involved in.

The other bit of the sequence that doesn't seem to have been looked at was what caused Saiss to go down in the first place i.e. was there a foul on him first ?, probably not but was part of the incident so should have been looked at in the review

Here's my take. What is Saiss supposed to do with his leg? It was already up in the air. Keep it there and Lukaku falls over it. Move it down and the motion looks like he's trying to trip Lukaku up. Clumsy yes but a foul? Not in my opinion.

 

[WolfLing]

It annoyed me that the VAR and the ref (on the pitch side monitor) were only looking at a video of the incident after Saiss was on the floor.

Yes, if you look at the video from that point onwards, clearly it's always going to be given as a penalty, as Saiss tripped Lukaku.

But Saiss was on the deck in the first place because he got a slight push from Lukaku.

View the incident as a whole and it's just six of one, half a dozen of the other.

 

[Jonzy54]

I think they got involved to ascertain whether it was in the box and yes it was a tangle of legs but then Saiss lifted up his foot(thou shall not pass)
I said at the time I guarantee if that was us it would have been ‘VAR have had a look and it’s no penalty’ all viewed and announced in no time at all.
Short of ditching the whole concept,which they won’t we just have to get on with it unfortunately.
Like buying lottery tickets where you have a better chance of winning the more you buy ,it would help if we got in the opposition box more often .9 penalties conceded and only 1 given speaks volumes .

 

[JuliusCaesar]

I swore I wouldn't set foot in any football ground to watch a game if VAR was being used. I have stuck to that pledge and will continue to do so. For the rest of my life if needed.

I could go on about the many variances of how VAR can lead to incorrect, game / season defining outcomes. For example, no VAR on things like incorrectly awarded corners, team scores from corner = 'legitimate' goal. But VAR will gladly get involved in looking for handballs or such in the lead up to a goal, accidental or otherwise.

But that's not the point.

VAR means you can never, properly, celebrate a goal at a game. Even goals that look totally legit sometimes get VAR'd. Watching the Championship game last night was refreshing. A late winner from Sunderland that their fans could properly celebrate without worrying if the ref is going to put his hand to his ear 60 seconds later.

It's made the sport of football magnitudes worse. I'm not paying my money to travel up and down the country to basically downgrade from celebrating a goal, the very essence of why we go to football, to provisionally celebrating a possible goal. Not doing it. Deal breaker.

The Saiss one was a penalty though. Just highlights further that the refs are terrible and are increasingly relying on the crutch that VAR provides. The Moutinho penalty against City ought to be enough for the entire sport to say, hey, this VAR thing seems to be hated by most fans and it doesn't even work properly.

 

[old wittonian]

I swore I wouldn't set foot in any football ground to watch a game if VAR was being used. I have stuck to that pledge and will continue to do so. For the rest of my life if needed.

I could go on about the many variances of how VAR can lead to incorrect, game / season defining outcomes. For example, no VAR on things like incorrectly awarded corners, team scores from corner = 'legitimate' goal. But VAR will gladly get involved in looking for handballs or such in the lead up to a goal, accidental or otherwise.

But that's not the point.

VAR means you can never, properly, celebrate a goal at a game. Even goals that look totally legit sometimes get VAR'd. Watching the Championship game last night was refreshing. A late winner from Sunderland that their fans could properly celebrate without worrying if the ref is going to put his hand to his ear 60 seconds later.

It's made the sport of football magnitudes worse. I'm not paying my money to travel up and down the country to basically downgrade from celebrating a goal, the very essence of why we go to football, to provisionally celebrating a possible goal. Not doing it. Deal breaker.

The Saiss one was a penalty though. Just highlights further that the refs are terrible and are increasingly relying on the crutch that VAR provides. The Moutinho penalty against City ought to be enough for the entire sport to say, hey, this VAR thing seems to be hated by most fans and it doesn't even work properly.

I read somewhere that the Championship play off games this season have VAR. Thin end of the wedge.

 

[Manic88]

VAR has puzzled me since its inception. If I had my way it would be ditched today. I notice that the championship play off games will use VAR. To the four teams involved, welcome to our world!!

Got to make sure Luton don’t get promoted somehow

 

[ewarwoowar]

i know this could be debated until the cows come home but if memory serves me when this was introduced i thought it was for clear and obvious errors?