VAR Thread

[3times]

Rugby has the thing pretty much bang on. The refs can ask the TMO to look at something while the game continues then bring it back if need be, they will also discuss the possible outcomes with the ref (who also includes the touch judges). In cases where the ref has made a decision ie try, they will be looking for a good reason to change it. The thing that does it for me is that its showed on the big screen and you can hear the conversation so, you may not agree with the decision but at least you know the refs thoughts.

Any back chat moves the penalty (see free kick) forward 10 metres or can lean to the decision being reversed, no one but the captain can speak to the ref (although see more instances of other players getting involved recently).

The refs are also more approachable and will explain any decision to players (and mostly admit if they get it wrong), unlike football refs who think they are above everyone and just whistle & point.

Ultimately though the standard of officiating in rugby is generally far higher than football - see the ridiculous 24 sec wait for the offside flag in the wolves/chelski game.

[Albie Beck]

the only way I can see this changing is to get the on the pitch official to the monitor more often, cut the clear and obvious bull**** and have the VAR official say you might want to look at this to make sure you've seen everything we have, if they're still happy with the original decision then carry on fine, but the decision should be made by the on the pitch official.

I can’t recall one instance of a ref going to a monitor and sticking with his original decision.
That in itself is illogical.

There's a narrative that VARs are reluctant to send the on-field ref to the monitor because "there's a presumption that they have got it wrong". That does often seem to be the case. Refs should instead be encouraged to discuss the VAR's viewpoint against their own feelings and thus hopefully come to the correct decision, not one that is arrived at based on damaged ego.

[Ironing Board]

Rugby has the thing pretty much bang on. The refs can ask the TMO to look at something while the game continues then bring it back if need be, they will also discuss the possible outcomes with the ref (who also includes the touch judges).

Difference is, smart people tend to be involved in rugby. Your more, erm, challenged officials tend to be drawn to football!

[mickthekeeper]

Rugby has the thing pretty much bang on. The refs can ask the TMO to look at something while the game continues then bring it back if need be, they will also discuss the possible outcomes with the ref (who also includes the touch judges). In cases where the ref has made a decision ie try, they will be looking for a good reason to change it. The thing that does it for me is that its showed on the big screen and you can hear the conversation so, you may not agree with the decision but at least you know the refs thoughts.

Any back chat moves the penalty (see free kick) forward 10 metres or can lean to the decision being reversed, no one but the captain can speak to the ref (although see more instances of other players getting involved recently).

The refs are also more approachable and will explain any decision to players (and mostly admit if they get it wrong), unlike football refs who think they are above everyone and just whistle & point.

Ultimately though the standard of officiating in rugby is generally far higher than football - see the ridiculous 24 sec wait for the offside flag in the wolves/chelski game.

I read an article a while back about how differently fans in the ground are treated than those at home (or something like that). One point that I remember is about time added on and how, watching at home, the game clock continues, but in the stadium it stops at 90 minutes and you are left to your own devices to know how long is left.

Your point about the rugby referee watching on the big screen with sound played through the ground, reminded me of this and the way in which VAR seems to be a big secret and only once the decision is made will the fans in the ground find find out the result.

Why not remove the stupid VAR screen that only the referee can see, enhancing the “it’s a secret, fans are too thick to understand what’s going on” and get any replays played on the big screen - maybe not having the referee mic’ed up just yet - it also removes the feeling that by going to the small screen the ref has somehow ****ed up, thereby removing that stigma?

The point about involving the assistants is also a good point, but aren’t rugby assistants referees at the same level in their own right - so in the 6 nations they will referee one game but be an assistant in another, therefore they’re all of the same level and experience? (Could be wrong there). However, in football, you either referee or run the line at a certain point, so is there an arrogance (very likely) with the referee that involving a lesser referee into the thought process undermines them? I’d call bull**** personally as you get multiple views.

It’s what annoys me at times with an assistant not giving a foul right in front of them - from experience, the match referee will give their instructions before the game - what they want the assistant to do and not do in certain situations - if the match instructions are to let the referee give all fouls unless they aren’t looking (for example), then the assistant wouldn’t be flagging for a foul right in front of them - it undermines the assistant and opens them for criticism when in fact they’re only following the referee’s instructions.

(Don’t get me started on the stupid “wait and see” instructions for the offside)

[mickthekeeper]

Difference is, smart people tend to be involved in rugby. Your more, erm, challenged officials tend to be drawn to football!

Got to disagree with this generalisation - the football assistant is a level 3 referee whilst the rugby touch judge is the same level as the rugby referee (I believe) - I think it is more arrogance about their status and ability than intelligence with the football referee. They simply don’t want to be told by a so-called lesser referee that they’re wrong.

[Ironing Board]

Got to disagree with this generalisation - the football assistant is a level 3 referee whilst the rugby touch judge is the same level as the rugby referee (I believe) - I think it is more arrogance about their status and ability than intelligence with the football referee. They simply don’t want to be told by a so-called lesser referee that they’re wrong.

True, ego plays a big part. The rugby guys all seem much more down to earth than our cavalcade of bald primadonnas!

[OFT]

What we need is doubleVAR. Another bunch of incompetents reviewing the disputed views of the first lot.

A sort of Var Var Disputin

[1966]

Football has been around for over 150 years and the rules haven't changed that much in all that time. It remains a simple game because the rules are simple. When did all that change? Why can't intelligent people with incredible technology at their disposal make it work? We are no further forward than when fat Frank scored against Germany in the 2010 WC. In fact things have become worse. It's tedious, it's boring, it's not difficult to get right. It's spoiling football and making it even harder to stay in love with the game when so much nonsense is created to get in the way of the actual enjoyment of fair sporting contest. If it wasn't for being cursed to follow this cursed club I would have stopped watching years ago.

[LeonRivers]

Why can't intelligent people with incredible technology at their disposal make it work?

Has this even been tested?

[Tristan Shout]

Cost us again today, how can the ref look at a foul 2 yards outside the box and give a penalty??

[wolf359]

Cost us again today, how can the ref look at a foul 2 yards outside the box and give a penalty??

I'm more worried about some of our fans, I was called out on the match thread for saying the foul was clearly outside the box, not sure what people are watching.

However how the ref can decide it was a pen with multiple angles and slo-mo in beyond me, though if it was a free-kick it was probably a red card. so...

[Vic_Watson]

Cost us again today, how can the ref look at a foul 2 yards outside the box and give a penalty??

Pretty simple really. Dawson fouled him outside the box, the S'ton player kept going so ref waited to see what unfolded. What unfolded was Dawson falling over and taking the player out. Pen. Double jeopardy saved him a red card.

[Diogenes]

I'm more worried about some of our fans, I was called out on the match thread for saying the foul was clearly outside the box, not sure what people are watching.

However how the ref can decide it was a pen with multiple angles and slo-mo in beyond me, though if it was a free-kick it was probably a red card. so...

I think you will find that the first contact by Dawson could be construed as a foul however the attacking player was still progressing forward in control of the ball and therefore would be allowed to play on. Therefore the 2nd contact in the area was deemed the only decision to be made (unless no advantage was gained in which case the Referee could call it bck to the first foul.) Indeed, we and Dawson were quite fortunate as if he had called it back it was a Red Card.

[Albie Beck]

I think you will find that the first contact by Dawson could be construed as a foul however the attacking player was still progressing forward in control of the ball and therefore would be allowed to play on. Therefore the 2nd contact in the area was deemed the only decision to be made (unless no advantage was gained in which case the Referee could call it bck to the first foul.) Indeed, we and Dawson were quite fortunate as if he had called it back it was a Red Card.

Nothing like it. They were both going down still outside the area. As they cross the line Borja lurches towards Dawson and they both go over in a tangle. Friend only looked at the angle from side-on when he went to the screen. If he'd looked at the reverse angle (from behind the goal line) he'd have seen Borja's movement towards Dawson.

[Diogenes]

Nothing like it. They were both going down still outside the area. As they cross the line Borja lurches towards Dawson and they both go over in a tangle. Friend only looked at the angle from side-on when he went to the screen. If he'd looked at the reverse angle (from behind the goal line) he'd have seen Borja's movement towards Dawson.

Nah, sorry Albie penalty all day long for me and if it hadnt been given for us I would be fuming. Diop got caught ball watching and left Dawson with not too many choices. To be fair to Dawson he did everything he could to get away halting his man in a 'professional' manner, but ultimately failed.

[Albie Beck]

Fair enough - we'll have to disagree.

[Cuenca 'ammer]

on reflection I think the "continuation of the foul" is what caused Friend to award the pen.

although I think he fell rather than continued the foul.

[mickthekeeper]

I think they should do away with the small screen and show it all on the big screen in the stadium.

Going to the small screen implies they’ve made a mistake and therefore should change their original decision - in itself creating pressure to change their mind.

That being said, no accounting for piss poor officiating followed up by piss poor VAR.

As somebody said, VAR is fine, it’s the idiots on the field and the chumps at Stockley Park that are ****ing it up

[mickthekeeper]

on reflection I think the "continuation of the foul" is what caused Friend to award the pen.

although I think he fell rather than continued the foul.

Immediately after the penalty had been scored, we see a camera angle that clearly shows Dawson had originally fouled the player about 3-4 yards outside the box and it was this foul that knocked both of them off balance. Dawson hits the ground first and his momentum brings down an already falling player.

This is the only time we see this angle and I’m convinced if Friend had seen it he would have given the free kick outside the box - it might have resulted in a red card though.

Most of the replays Friend saw were only of when the players were in the box - almost like they had immediately decided they were looking at the penalty rather than any foul in the build up

It was another poor decision and I expect to see some sort of confirmation that it was wrong at some point during the week

[Gerblatz]

As far as I’m concerned another incompetent or bent VAR /refereeing collusion has cost us today. I have watched the incident 11 times and my initial thoughts were confirmed.

The initial foul occurred clearly out side the box - the continuity and momentum of that contact carried both into the box where they was both already falling into.
Not a penalty, yes a foul outside the box - once again we are robbed.