Mic'd up match officials on sky

[DuuuncanHadaPigeon]

I mean, cmon people, this is a complete shitshow!

After hearing that, for me it's not corruption just sheer incompetence, they are all idiots

 

[magicjuan]

They can't determine a result, but a ref and their distant controllers can look for every opportunity to favour the outcome for a given team. Maybe sometimes for a Sky brand to succeed, maybe sometimes to save money for Skybet after the maths have been done.

Exactly. It's just business controlling business.

 

[Runub]

It all just sounds like absolute chaos.

They're in such a rush to make a decision they end up just shouting and throwing information all over the place which means decisions take ages to be sorted and end up being wrong.

If they just stayed calm and took their time they end up getting to the right decision and probably taking not much longer than they do at the moment.

The City goal is just farcical.

The absolute panic having to make a decision caused. Absolutely ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is that it was an easy decision to make i.e. No goal. I would love to listen to one of those clips when they need to consider a complicated decision. These people are either corrupt or do not understand football.

 

[Bedfordblue]

It all just sounds like absolute chaos.

They're in such a rush to make a decision they end up just shouting and throwing information all over the place which means decisions take ages to be sorted and end up being wrong.

If they just stayed calm and took their time they end up getting to the right decision and probably taking not much longer than they do at the moment.

The City goal is just farcical.

My thoughts exactly, I expected the mob at Stockley Park to be way more detached from the ‘drama’ of what was going on.
They’re just too hyped up and can’t be thinking straight, just desperate to make the sort of call they would make on the pitch anyway, never mind having the presence and calmness of thought to actually apply the rules.

 

[mccole]

They went over and beyond to communicate how to cover up the most obvious mistakes like the United/Wolves and City/Fulham because they are a bigger draw.

The entire show was a joke designed and purposely produced to highlight just how they do it but we all know they won't as much as blink if the shoe was on the other foot.

Completely and utter corrupt designed to paint the Premier League narrative to get money for bigger fanbases hence why said clubs are on Sky/TNT/BBC.

Not one single clip of a mistake which got cleared by VAR because half the time they don't give a flying F.

Every game should have micd up and audio played on every decision in game time.

And don't get me started on the "time wasting" rule again have we had the genuine minutes added on all season

 

[mahermi1]

All should be broadcast over stadium tannoy. Would obliterate the very compelling theory that results are scripted. I dare them.

Yeah just imagine that at Anfield "zoom in, a bit more, definite pen and sending off" "err it's in Liverpools box, guv". "Offside, blow the 'kin whistle !" Cut, cut.

 

[Nightman]

Maybe this has already been mentioned...a mic'd ref was previously trialed back in the early/mid nineties (I think?). Didn't Tony Adams give it out to the ref (captured on sound), who was promptly booked for dissent and the tech was scrapped sharpish thereafter? Not quite my era, so may have the facts skewed somewhat.

But I'm pretty sure he told the ref to F off.

 

[Hinchcliffe's Corner]

DO IT

Be like watching a Go Pro attached to a dog, bouncing and slobber all over the place.

 

[DualityNSNO]

Be like watching a Go Pro attached to a dog, bouncing and slobber all over the place.

Actual PPV material instead of the match itself.

Also maybe play PickfordCam on the screens at the ground when the match is happening.

 

[wandyr79]

Wow, that was amazing and has highlighted the problem with refs in football. It is just chaos.

For the 15 billionth time, why can't they simply watch rugby and take the positives from that. In this instance, it is very simple.

The ball goes in the net.
The assistant either puts his flag up or doesn't, the on field refs confer, VAR is not talking at this time.
The refs put it to VAR to check the replays with a very concise question and on field decision. VAR still has not said a word.
VAR say OK, we are getting the best angles now, or clarifies the question.
They go through the angles and advise on what they are seeing, there is a simple discussion between 2 people and the decision is made.

If the wrong decision is still made, as it does happen in Rugby, then at least there has been an an attempt at an informed discussion. That was like a load of family on Christmas Day shouting over each other talking about different things.

Another issue is players coming over, just simply shoo them away, if they are talking with VAR. If VAR is not talking yet then simply advise the player (preferably the captain) on what they are checking, again concisely, '[Player], we are just checking to see if the player was interfering, he is definitely offside but we just need to check'. Player walks away and waits for the decision.

It really is not difficult. However, it is a massive switch in players and refs mentality towards these decisions and checks.

 

[b-rad]

Wow, that was amazing and has highlighted the problem with refs in football. It is just chaos.

For the 15 billionth time, why can't they simply watch rugby and take the positives from that. In this instance, it is very simple.

The ball goes in the net.
The assistant either puts his flag up or doesn't, the on field refs confer, VAR is not talking at this time.
The refs put it to VAR to check the replays with a very concise question and on field decision. VAR still has not said a word.
VAR say OK, we are getting the best angles now, or clarifies the question.
They go through the angles and advise on what they are seeing, there is a simple discussion between 2 people and the decision is made.

If the wrong decision is still made, as it does happen in Rugby, then at least there has been an an attempt at an informed discussion. That was like a load of family on Christmas Day shouting over each other talking about different things.

Another issue is players coming over, just simply shoo them away, if they are talking with VAR. If VAR is not talking yet then simply advise the player (preferably the captain) on what they are checking, again concisely, '[Player], we are just checking to see if the player was interfering, he is definitely offside but we just need to check'. Player walks away and waits for the decision.

It really is not difficult. However, it is a massive switch in players and refs mentality towards these decisions and checks.

Players know they can influence the referee's decision of whether something counts as interfering, so they will continue to hound the ref.
Even if the guy sat in the VAR room is supposed to be the one deciding on whether there was interference, you can bet the on-field ref can 'guide' the line of questioning to suit their own opinion - whether they have been influenced or not.

 

[degsy]

We will eventually reach the stage where all RS games (and contentious decisions) will be referred to a panel.

Panel will consist of Jamie Carragher, Stephen (with those big bins) and some other old Koppite has-been.

I thought it already was

 

[wandyr79]

Players know they can influence the referee's decision of whether something counts as interfering, so they will continue to hound the ref.
Even if the guy sat in the VAR room is supposed to be the one deciding on whether there was interference, you can bet the on-field ref can 'guide' the line of questioning to suit their own opinion - whether they have been influenced or not.

Influencing/corruption/etc. is another topic.

I am simply talking about the process, it would also be harder to 'influence' the decision as there would be a concise question. The clip in this thread is just a garbled mess with 3/4 people talking over each other.

I would also add that the ref should have an opinion, it is the on field decision. In rugby if the ref thinks it was a try then it would take conclusive proof to overturn and vice versa. That is not a problem, same in cricket with the umpires decision.

With regards to the players influence, it will take a massive shift in mentality from the refs to not allow themselves to be surrounded. Start handing out yellow cards and reactive bans and maybe that mentality will shift, this part will take a long time. The basics of a sensible, clear, concise discussion is not hard to implement though.

 

[perth_blue]

Influencing/corruption/etc. is another topic.

I am simply talking about the process, it would also be harder to 'influence' the decision as there would be a concise question. The clip in this thread is just a garbled mess with 3/4 people talking over each other.

I would also add that the ref should have an opinion, it is the on field decision. In rugby if the ref thinks it was a try then it would take conclusive proof to overturn and vice versa. That is not a problem, same in cricket with the umpires decision.

With regards to the players influence, it will take a massive shift in mentality from the refs to not allow themselves to be surrounded. Start handing out yellow cards and reactive bans and maybe that mentality will shift, this part will take a long time. The basics of a sensible, clear, concise discussion is not hard to implement though.

It will catch on pretty quick when those yellows equal bans.

 

[DuuuncanHadaPigeon]

Influencing/corruption/etc. is another topic.

I am simply talking about the process, it would also be harder to 'influence' the decision as there would be a concise question. The clip in this thread is just a garbled mess with 3/4 people talking over each other.

I would also add that the ref should have an opinion, it is the on field decision. In rugby if the ref thinks it was a try then it would take conclusive proof to overturn and vice versa. That is not a problem, same in cricket with the umpires decision.

With regards to the players influence, it will take a massive shift in mentality from the refs to not allow themselves to be surrounded. Start handing out yellow cards and reactive bans and maybe that mentality will shift, this part will take a long time. The basics of a sensible, clear, concise discussion is not hard to implement though.

Agreed.

I think a solution would be to say the on field ref has final say on any decision. If VAR think there has been an error, they say to him, we have looked at the replays and we think this should be a penalty, go have a look for yourself. It is then up to the on field ref to decide if he agrees or not. Use VAR as an aide for the ref, not some opaque arbitrary decision maker.