VAR is great - we no longer complain about refereeing decisions

[WES]

we now complain about VAR decisions. :-\

And you no longer get to celebrate when the referee gives a goal. :-(

I hate VAR - get rid imo.

BTW, wuz we robbed by VAR yesterday? Can't be bothered looking at youtube.

[IUFG]

BTW, wuz we robbed by VAR yesterday? Can't be bothered looking at youtube.

:nod:

If someone can find the 'foul' by Chambers in there, let me know...

No complaints from Palace when Papa slammed it home.

[WES]

:nod:

If someone can find the 'foul' by Chambers in there, let me know...

No complaints from Palace when Papa slammed it home.

Zaha's pen/dive?

Sounds like it was entertaining anyway, maybe there is hope for Unai yet.

[IUFG]

Zaha's pen/dive?

Sounds like it was entertaining anyway, maybe there is hope for Unai yet.

more VAR craziness...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYw4rn_6Rzs

[Pokster]

Zaha's pen/dive?

Sounds like it was entertaining anyway, maybe there is hope for Unai yet.

Zaha's was a penalty, the goal should have stood as there wasn't a clear and obvious mistake in awarding the goal...

[IUFG]

Zaha's was a penalty, the goal should have stood as there wasn't a clear and obvious mistake in awarding the goal...

Chambers sticking his leg out at the moment...smh

Just like when Vardy went over Monorail's (?) leg at home a couple of years ago.

Chambers - Christ wept. If VAR is looking for the tiniest of touches or contact with hands then the game is well and truly fúcked.

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

Zaha's pen/dive?

Sounds like it was entertaining anyway, maybe there is hope for Unai yet.


Zaha's was a clear pen. Lost amongst all this is how **** that decision by the referee was. He was about 10 yards away from it.

[IUFG]

Zaha's was a clear pen. Lost amongst all this is how **** that decision by the referee was. He was about 10 yards away from it.

The ref was absolutely appalling. As is the general standard in the league nowadays.

That decision to award Gwendoozi a yellow at the end was shameful :hehe:

https://d3nfwcxd527z59.cloudfront.net/content/uploads/2019/10/27191238/Matteo-Guendouzi-Wilfried-Zaha-Arsenal-Crystal-Palace.jpg

[barrybueno]

we now complain about VAR decisions. :-\

And you no longer get to celebrate when the referee gives a goal. :-(

I hate VAR - get rid imo.

BTW, wuz we robbed by VAR yesterday? Can't be bothered looking at youtube.

It's the worst VAR decision so far by a fair bit imo, and that's really saying something as there have been some real shockers.

It's not VAR's fault btw, it still goes back to our crap refs and their refusal to use the pitchside monitor.

[barrybueno]

The ref was absolutely appalling. As is the general standard in the league nowadays.

That decision to award Gwendoozi a yellow at the end was shameful :hehe:

https://d3nfwcxd527z59.cloudfront.net/content/uploads/2019/10/27191238/Matteo-Guendouzi-Wilfried-Zaha-Arsenal-Crystal-Palace.jpg

He's been watching a lot of the rugby :hehe:

[Burney]

It's the worst VAR decision so far by a fair bit imo, and that's really saying something as there have been some real shockers.

It's not VAR's fault btw, it still goes back to our crap refs and their refusal to use the pitchside monitor.

So far, cricket has been the only game to arrive at a sensible way of using technology by putting appeals against decisions largely in the hands of the playing captains rather than in the hands of interfering and often arrogant officials. Have the same system in football imo - a limited number of referrals that are lost if they turn out to be wrong (thus disincentivising and penalising frivolous appeals).

[Billy Goat Sverige]

So far, cricket has been the only game to arrive at a sensible way of using technology by putting appeals against decisions largely in the hands of the playing captains rather than in the hands of interfering and often arrogant officials. Have the same system in football imo - a limited number of referrals that are lost if they turn out to be wrong (thus disincentivising and penalising frivolous appeals).

I sort of agree, but the trouble there is how would it stop what happened yesterday with Chambers? If the foul is not given and the Palace captain decides to use his challenge we’d have still had the wrong decision made by the imbecile watching the replays.

[PSRB]

we now complain about VAR decisions. :-\

And you no longer get to celebrate when the referee gives a goal. :-(

I hate VAR - get rid imo.

BTW, wuz we robbed by VAR yesterday? Can't be bothered looking at youtube.

How stupid was I thinking that VAR would actually help us? Refs still find a way to **** us over

[Burney]

I sort of agree, but the trouble there is how would it stop what happened yesterday with Chambers? If the foul is not given and the Palace captain decides to use his challenge we’d have still had the wrong decision made by the imbecile watching the replays.

Nobody's saying you won't still get questionable decisions, just that you will get fewer glaring errors. As in cricket, the on-field decision should be respected and only overturned if it's shown to be clearly wrong (ie not simply a matter of interpretation). As things stand, the problem is that refs are using VAR as a belt-and-braces thing that still leaves the decision in their hands - which is a clear conflict of interests.

[Tony C]

One difference is that in cricket the umpire gives his soft decision and the tV umpire has to find 100% conclusive proof it was wrong.

There’s been an interesting mix with some brilliant on field decisions...my biggest gripe are the super low catches where current technology cannot accurately show if the fingers got under the ball in time with blurring or distorting the picture. But this will change...

In football it seems the refs are so completely hopeless they are always wrong...maybe 20 years from now we’ll see a game with no refs and refereed solely through a soulless authoritarian VAR entity.

[PSRB]

One difference is that in cricket the umpire gives his soft decision and the tV umpire has to find 100% conclusive proof it was wrong.

There’s been an interesting mix with some brilliant on field decisions...my biggest gripe are the super low catches where current technology cannot accurately show if the fingers got under the ball in time with blurring or distorting the picture. But this will change...

In football it seems the refs are so completely hopeless they are always wrong...maybe 20 years from now we’ll see a game with no refs and refereed solely through a soulless authoritarian VAR entity.

Even in rugby, the ref says to the TMO whether he's giving a try or not. Still think our 1st disallowed try should have stood and the 2nd was bloody unlucky that it was spotted

[Burney]

One difference is that in cricket the umpire gives his soft decision and the tV umpire has to find 100% conclusive proof it was wrong.

There’s been an interesting mix with some brilliant on field decisions...my biggest gripe are the super low catches where current technology cannot accurately show if the fingers got under the ball in time with blurring or distorting the picture. But this will change...

In football it seems the refs are so completely hopeless they are always wrong...maybe 20 years from now we’ll see a game with no refs and refereed solely through a soulless authoritarian VAR entity.

I think that - uniquely - DRS in cricket has actually enhanced the game both by improving the overall standard of decisions and introducing a new tactical element into the playing of the game. TMO in rugby seems now to be interfering unnecessarily in the game to the extent of actively seeking to overturn on-field decisions (the disallowing of England's second disallowed try on Saturday being a prime example), while leaving VAR in the hands of on-field referees in football is simply an abortion and makes the game hugely worse.

[Burney]

Even in rugby, the ref says to the TMO whether he's giving a try or not. Still think our 1st disallowed try should have stood and the 2nd was bloody unlucky that it was spotted

There's no way the first one should have stood. It should have been ruled out on the pitch, in fact. Curry took out two players ahead of the ball. The second was a weird exercise in pedantry that disallowed a try that would have stood at any time previously in rugby history.

[Pat Vegas]

we now complain about VAR decisions. :-\

And you no longer get to celebrate when the referee gives a goal. :-(

I hate VAR - get rid imo.

BTW, wuz we robbed by VAR yesterday? Can't be bothered looking at youtube.

Oh I can still complaint about Refs, He was bloody awful yesterday. I think at one point he gave them about 7 free kicks in five minutes in the 2nd half.

[PSRB]

I thought the Kiwi had committed to the tackle prior to the pass, hence his own fault......Lawrence agreed

[Burney]

I thought the Kiwi had committed to the tackle prior to the pass, hence his own fault......Lawrence agreed

...and literally everyone else disagreed because Lawrence is a bit thick and only a slightly less biased commentator than Brian Moore. :hehe:

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

So far, cricket has been the only game to arrive at a sensible way of using technology by putting appeals against decisions largely in the hands of the playing captains rather than in the hands of interfering and often arrogant officials. Have the same system in football imo - a limited number of referrals that are lost if they turn out to be wrong (thus disincentivising and penalising frivolous appeals).

Yup.

And also have umpire's call.

Zaha's pen clearly wasn't umpire's call.

CC's foul, if there was one, clearly was.

You remember how it was. It took a couple of season's for everyone to accept the umpire's call concept, but now no-one moans when the ball clips the edge of the stumps.

In part cos you don't lose your review if it's umpire's call. That was the crucial change.

[Pokster]

I sort of agree, but the trouble there is how would it stop what happened yesterday with Chambers? If the foul is not given and the Palace captain decides to use his challenge we’d have still had the wrong decision made by the imbecile watching the replays.

the bloke making the decision has never reffed a PL game

[Tony C]

Yep 1st disallowed try was a fair call although...imo...

2nd one was Darren bent

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

So far, cricket has been the only game to arrive at a sensible way of using technology by putting appeals against decisions largely in the hands of the playing captains rather than in the hands of interfering and often arrogant officials. Have the same system in football imo - a limited number of referrals that are lost if they turn out to be wrong (thus disincentivising and penalising frivolous appeals).
a
nd it took 5 or 6 years to get it right. Remember how inconsistent it was early on?

[Burney]

a
nd it took 5 or 6 years to get it right. Remember how inconsistent it was early on?

There were anomalies, certainly - particularly as they tried to work out the hierarchy of decision-making. However, I think the structure of DRS was always sound, it was just the implementation that took time. With VAR, the priority seems to have been given to keeping the power in the hands of the on-field referee rather than arriving at correct and (more importantly) non-arbitrary decisions.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

a
nd it took 5 or 6 years to get it right. Remember how inconsistent it was early on?

But VAR could learn from DRS.

2 reviews. Umpire's call. (i.e. needs to be very clear proof to overturn original decision) Don't lose your review if it's umpires call.

And most importantly:

Have all the video and audio on the big screens in the stadium and over the pa so everyone in the ground knows exactly what is going on.

They could introduce all that by next week.

[Luis Anaconda]

But VAR could learn from DRS.

2 reviews. Umpire's call. (i.e. needs to be very clear proof to overturn original decision) Don't lose your review if it's umpires call.

And most importantly:

Have all the video and audio on the big screens in the stadium and over the pa so everyone in the ground knows exactly what is going on.

They could introduce all that by next week.
Been some French bloke who was talking about this years ago - the appeal system that is. Wonder what happened to him

[Luis Anaconda]

Oh I can still complaint about Refs, He was bloody awful yesterday. I think at one point he gave them about 7 free kicks in five minutes in the 2nd half.

There were two particular incidents. Auba was clattered in the back and nothing given - exact same challenge on the Palace player 10 seconds later free kick. Sokratis absolutely taken out charging down the wing and nothing given... you know the rest.

Still baffling that Martin Atkinson has taken charge of four of our ten games. Should mean we don't get him again this season but we will

[Burney]

But VAR could learn from DRS.

2 reviews. Umpire's call. (i.e. needs to be very clear proof to overturn original decision) Don't lose your review if it's umpires call.

And most importantly:

Have all the video and audio on the big screens in the stadium and over the pa so everyone in the ground knows exactly what is going on.

They could introduce all that by next week.

For what it's worth, I think there could still be reasonable tweaks to the DRS. For instance, on umpire's call, I think it should be possible to go back to the on-field umpire and ask him whether he would change his original call based on the video evidence. No requirement for him to do so, but having the option would just enable better, more informed decision-making.

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

There were anomalies, certainly - particularly as they tried to work out the hierarchy of decision-making. However, I think the structure of DRS was always sound, it was just the implementation that took time. With VAR, the priority seems to have been given to keeping the power in the hands of the on-field referee rather than arriving at correct and (more importantly) non-arbitrary decisions.

It was the same with VAR albeit that it was still on appeal from the on field captain / batsman.

Remember the initial issues were that the referred request went upstairs, the 3rd umpire would review and return details back to the on field umpire, who would then have the choice to stick with his original decision or change it. The 3rd umpire made no "recommendation" and the on field umpire still had the final say. How often did the battle with his own ego result in the wrong decision being made? Certainly more often than it probably should have imo.

Although the decision making process has not officially changed, it really has. It took a few iterations to get right. The 3rd umpire now makes a suggestion on how the decision should play out. The introduction of an umpire's call has been a significant improvement as it takes some of the 50/50 risk out of the review process.

[Luis Anaconda]

For what it's worth, I think there could still be reasonable tweaks to the DRS. For instance, on umpire's call, I think it should be possible to go back to the on-field umpire and ask him whether he would change his original call based on the video evidence. No requirement for him to do so, but having the option would just enable better, more informed decision-making.
I'd do away with umpire's call altogether. If it's hitting it's hitting etc

[Burney]

It was the same with VAR albeit that it was still on appeal from the on field captain / batsman.

Remember the initial issues were that the referred request went upstairs, the 3rd umpire would review and return details back to the on field umpire, who would then have the choice to stick with his original decision or change it. The 3rd umpire made no "recommendation" and the on field umpire still had the final say. How often did the battle with his own ego result in the wrong decision being made? Certainly more often than it probably should have imo.

Although the decision making process has not officially changed, it really has. It took a few iterations to get right. The 3rd umpire now makes a suggestion on how the decision should play out. The introduction of an umpire's call has been a significant improvement as it takes some of the 50/50 risk out of the review process.

As I say, my main beef with VAR is it leaves the officials in total charge of what gets reviewed. I think that's the wrong way around. It should be a safety net for the teams to protect them against what they perceive to be really howlingly-bad decisions.

[Burney]

I'd do away with umpire's call altogether. If it's hitting it's hitting etc

I'm sympathetic to that argument, but the counter-argument is that it allows for a margin of error with the technology. However, when you see 90% of a ball smashing into a stump and it's given not out as Umpire's Call, I think it's valid to at least ask the umpire if would care to reconsider.

Overall, I'd say DRS's great contribution to the game has been in stopping batsmen kicking away spinners by just getting a long way up the pitch or outside off. Ball tracker has basically killed that stone dead.

[Ash]

I'm sympathetic to that argument, but the counter-argument is that it allows for a margin of error with the technology. However, when you see 90% of a ball smashing into a stump and it's given not out as Umpire's Call, I think it's valid to at least ask the umpire if would care to reconsider.


I thought that if 90% of the ball is hitting, it isn't umpire's call if he says not-out. 49% of the ball hitting would stay with the umpire, no?

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

As I say, my main beef with VAR is it leaves the officials in total charge of what gets reviewed. I think that's the wrong way around. It should be a safety net for the teams to protect them against what they perceive to be really howlingly-bad decisions.

We're agreeing on that point.

My point is that VAR is still in its infancy and will probably get worse before it gets better. DRS had a number of flaws early on and it had to evolve before it worked for the good of the game.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

For what it's worth, I think there could still be reasonable tweaks to the DRS. For instance, on umpire's call, I think it should be possible to go back to the on-field umpire and ask him whether he would change his original call based on the video evidence. No requirement for him to do so, but having the option would just enable better, more informed decision-making.

For what sort of dismissals? Umpire's call only really works on LBW, doesn't it?

Now, we already have exact yes or nos on no ball, pad not bat first, impact etc.

I don't want some umpire's overturning it when it clips top of off and some not.

And nothing else has umpire's call, does it?

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

I'd do away with umpire's call altogether. If it's hitting it's hitting etc

Some times I don't know if you're taking the pîss or not. You're the most factually obsessive sportshead on here, so you must know full well that the ball wasn't definitely going to hit where it's shown.

Simply that that is the mid-point of a range of probabilities.

{The DRS people wanted the probability wave shown, TV over-ruled to make it simple for Joe Public.}

So a ball projected to clip top of off that hits the pad right in front of the stumps has a much narrower range of being wrong than if hit on the front pad after a forward stride.

It's just like working out the margin of error at a given confidence level for various sample sizes. The bigger the sample, the lower the MoE and the more confident we can be.

And you also ignore the best thing about Umpire's Call - that you don't lose the review if it goes against you.

Now, where umpire's call starts at the middle of the ball, if you're 1mm wrong you don't lose your review.

But if it was a straight yes/no, you would.

I like that. I like being able to appeal what are obviously close decisions and no necessarily lose the review.

And it makes it so much more funny when Watto (or YJB) does it when absolutely plumb.

[Burney]

For what sort of dismissals? Umpire's call only really works on LBW, doesn't it?

Now, we already have exact yes or nos on no ball, pad not bat first, impact etc.

I don't want some umpire's overturning it when it clips top of off and some not.

And nothing else has umpire's call, does it?

Only on LBW, obvs. But I do think that in some cases, umpires should be given the option to make a second judgement and change their soft decision based on the evidence available. The dogmatic insistence on abiding by the on-field decision come what may isn't a terribly good idea.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

We're agreeing on that point.

My point is that VAR is still in its infancy and will probably get worse before it gets better. DRS had a number of flaws early on and it had to evolve before it worked for the good of the game.

I think we all know that, and are saying that they could learn from the mistakes DRS made and how they were overcome.