VAR

maccavennie said:
2 absolutely scandalous decisions but nothing made of either of them because it's "just how it is" when it comes to either club getting decisions

My missus said the person on VAR at the rs match was the same person who made that massive balls up for them against Spurs. If true, no way he would have been changing any decision against them is there.
Click to expand...
Said this in the match thread.

It’s fair game and has been for years for refs to allow opposing players to punt ours around the pitch week in week out with no protection.

The foul on Lindstrom yesterday where he was literally booted in the air in full view of the ref yet five minutes later a softer foul was given is one of a long list of examples.

Few seasons ago we went nearly three years without an opposing player getting a red and similar time without getting a penalty.

The club needs to be more vocal on this as it’s no surprise the opposition will double up on any player we have with ability and lump them left right and centre without fear.

Fully expect the usual derby one sided fix to be in on Wednesday
 

JelavicBrate2 said:
It can be a good thing such as when we got penalty at Newcastle, when Young was wrestled to floor. However you look at ludicrous decisions like RS penalty and you think what's use is having VAR.
Click to expand...
The officials know they have to "assist" them to the title otherwise Arsenal will win it.

It was nip and tuck all the way until Salah's second goal hence the assist with the penalty.
 
Last edited:

Problem with VAR is its promotion is underpinned by two overlapping fallacies:

1. That, even with slow motion replays and lots of camera angles, referee decisions will ever be 100% agreed upon as being correct (numerous examples of this, the most recent for us being the Brighton handball); and

2. That even if decisions could be 100% correct (which they can't) the price worth paying for is to destroy one of the overwhelming appeals of watching football, being that the game flows quickly (and tangentially, that fans can celebrate a goal. Perversely we now have an entire genre of celebration around opposing goals being disallowed by VAR).

This also means that proponents of the view that "it's not the tech, it's the people using the tech" are incorrect. It's both. But only one of the problems - the delays - is actually solvable and that's solved by removing the tech.
 
The TMO system has worked well in rugby allowing the on field officials to be alerted to foul play that they could not have spotted as the game is going on. It seems that the ref, the Linesmen and the TMO are working together as a team to make the correct decisions. The way the crowd can listen in on the discussions adds a bit of drama and allows folks to understand how they come to the decisions the make.

Football adapted it probably seeing it have a good affect on rugby. The big differences are that the officials don`t seem to work together as a team. How many times do linesmen not seem to raise their flag when a foul seems to be committed right under their nose. The VAR seems to pick and choose what incidents they take a close look at, and you have no idea how they are coming to the decisions they make because you can`t listen to them talking about it.

Too many of the rules are subject to interpretation and until the powers that be do something to change this you will always have decisions that can go one way or the other.
 
Timbucktoo said:
The TMO system has worked well in rugby allowing the on field officials to be alerted to foul play that they could not have spotted as the game is going on. It seems that the ref, the Linesmen and the TMO are working together as a team to make the correct decisions. The way the crowd can listen in on the discussions adds a bit of drama and allows folks to understand how they come to the decisions the make.

Football adapted it probably seeing it have a good affect on rugby. The big differences are that the officials don`t seem to work together as a team. How many times do linesmen not seem to raise their flag when a foul seems to be committed right under their nose. The VAR seems to pick and choose what incidents they take a close look at, and you have no idea how they are coming to the decisions they make because you can`t listen to them talking about it.

Too many of the rules are subject to interpretation and until the powers that be do something to change this you will always have decisions that can go one way or the other.
Click to expand...
Realistically you're never going to have laws that aren't open to interpretation, unless you make it as straightforward as 'any contact at all is a foul' which I don't think anybody wants. I also think the 'I want to hear what the ref is saying' argument is a bit of a nonsense aswell personally, nobody really cares what the ref says if it doesn't line up with their viewpoint. I have no idea what benefit people think we get from hearing VAR saying 'I don't think there's enough contact to overturn your decision' in real time - we all know that's what's happening anyway don't we so I don't really get what difference hearing it would make.
 

Lanolin said:
Realistically you're never going to have laws that aren't open to interpretation, unless you make it as straightforward as 'any contact at all is a foul' which I don't think anybody wants. I also think the 'I want to hear what the ref is saying' argument is a bit of a nonsense aswell personally, nobody really cares what the ref says if it doesn't line up with their viewpoint. I have no idea what benefit people think we get from hearing VAR saying 'I don't think there's enough contact to overturn your decision' in real time - we all know that's what's happening anyway don't we so I don't really get what difference hearing it would make.
Click to expand...
Simply transparency.
 
Tony Hibbert's Wife said:
Problem with VAR is its promotion is underpinned by two overlapping fallacies:

1. That, even with slow motion replays and lots of camera angles, referee decisions will ever be 100% agreed upon as being correct (numerous examples of this, the most recent for us being the Brighton handball); and

2. That even if decisions could be 100% correct (which they can't) the price worth paying for is to destroy one of the overwhelming appeals of watching football, being that the game flows quickly (and tangentially, that fans can celebrate a goal. Perversely we now have an entire genre of celebration around opposing goals being disallowed by VAR).

This also means that proponents of the view that "it's not the tech, it's the people using the tech" are incorrect. It's both. But only one of the problems - the delays - is actually solvable and that's solved by removing the tech.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more with this post. People saying "its not the tech, its the people using it" drives me absolutely round the bend.

Of course its the people using it, we know that. That is what VAR inherently is......its the people using it. Without the people using it VAR is just a load of cameras recording stuff. There will always be differences between people on certain incidents, even between referees. Same as if I watch the game with mates or family. We have all been watching the game for 40 years and all have a decent understanding of it. That doesn't mean we don't sometimes watch a game and have an argument between ourselves....."that was a pen"......."not for me" etc etc.

This farce was the easiest thing in the world to predict. The only thing it guarantees is delays and as you say, spoiling of the moment. Would that be a price worth paying if we were happy that every single decision was ultimately correct? I'm not sure it would be tbh, but at least that would be a debate worth having. When we are in a state that we are now, endless delays (often for the pettiest of reasons) AND we are all still arguing, or feeling cheated after it anyway.....whats the point?? Undoubtedly the worst thing to ever happen to football, stick it in the bin.
 
Pootsy said:
Simply transparency.
Click to expand...
But I don't see what actual benefit that has. It isn't true transparency anyway because they'd know they were recorded and being heard, it's not like someone's going to say 'it's an absolute stonewaller mate but Everton isn't it so we're letting it slide', they're just going to say 'I don't think there's enough contact/he can't get his arm out of the way/it's six of one half a dozen of the other', and we can pretty much guess that's what they're saying regardless so I just don't see it as worthwhile. The truth is, what we want is the 'right' decision to be reached, nobody really cares what the justification is if that doesn't happen.
 
Lanolin said:
But I don't see what actual benefit that has. It isn't true transparency anyway because they'd know they were recorded and being heard, it's not like someone's going to say 'it's an absolute stonewaller mate but Everton isn't it so we're letting it slide', they're just going to say 'I don't think there's enough contact/he can't get his arm out of the way/it's six of one half a dozen of the other', and we can pretty much guess that's what they're saying regardless so I just don't see it as worthwhile. The truth is, what we want is the 'right' decision to be reached, nobody really cares what the justification is if that doesn't happen.
Click to expand...
100% but if they came out saying for yesterdays not given pen when Beto was trampled over, "Not enough Contact", would not be the soundbite given out, especially as they know they will give the 'big 6' clubs the penalty. In this way it potentially neutralises the 'grey area' that they have carved for themselves.
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top