When they looked at something which happened just before the ball went dead like the Maitland-Niles penalty, but it felt weird with the Fabregas one when play continued for a while after the actual incident.
On balance I’m not a fan.
Printable View
When they looked at something which happened just before the ball went dead like the Maitland-Niles penalty, but it felt weird with the Fabregas one when play continued for a while after the actual incident.
On balance I’m not a fan.
it'll end up like rugby where the referee ends up referring 3/4 of all tries to the VAR.
It is also time to have open time keeping for the match imo. When VAR is instigated the clock should stop. That will save the ridicules c.10 minutes of added time at the end of 90 mins.
Didn't have the sound for the game - do they have the screen at the side of the pitch like they do in the Bundesliga. Find it very odd that Atkinson didn't look at it for our pen - which clearly was a pen. We should be able to hear what the VAR is saying a la cricket and rugby. The secrecy is ridiculous
Nope, no screen or communication relayed to the fans at the match, which is poor and needs to be sorted. I assumed on the telly we were seeing the same replays the 4th official was but maybe not.
This is my issue, I assume our penalty wasn't given as there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it and that decision was made quickly (sticking with the on field decision, if you will), whereas the Chelsea one they seemed to be looking for any way to reverse the decision!
The phrase 'overturning obvious errors' worries me. I am tempted to think they mean that, for instance, the penalty given at West Brom wouldn't be overturned as technically it did hit a hand. This would be pretty farcical and would perhaps have pushed wenger over the edge......
That's what happened over here - don't see why it isn't. Really don't get the point of it - the VAR must be reluctant to overturn onfield refs decisions (as they are going to be in that position at other times); onfield ref doesn't get a chance to review the incident. Have no problem with Atkinson not giving the pen last night as he couldn't be 100 per cent certain sure given the pace it happened at but on replay it was surely a pen
But a referee going to the VAR when he's uncertain doesn't help us with the main problem, which is referees being certain they're right when they're absolutely wrong. It seems clear to me that there has to be an appeals process available to the teams a la cricket.
No different to players being certain they're right when they're absolutely wrong, I think. The principle that the game must go on ought to be paramount, regardless of right or wrong. All we've done is encourage toddler-like tantruming, if that's a word, and a refusal to accept adjudication #NotMyUmpire
It has helped with lbw and nicks in cricket, also run outs. For some reason it has led to umpires not bothering to check for no balls anymore, which is a bit weird. It may also have made the standard of umpiring slightly worse.
THe one where Malan was given out after a huge inside edge. Leaving aside the fact that he should have challenged it I was watching it live and was stunned the umpire gave out. My initial reaction was it wasn't out in a million years- hit him outside the line, he's moving and there was something wrong with it- which turned out to be a massive inside edge. I still cant quite believe he gave it out.
I agree entirely Burney.
Football is way too open to poor decisions being made because of human error. Every goal should be reviewed to help eliminate things like incorrect offside decisions (for and against) and unspotted fouls that definitely interfere with play. However, I don't think that it should be left solely to the referee on the pitch to make a final decision though.
Third umpire was useless yesterday....
https://youtu.be/Ftm-nS4GJgM
I'd agree that the standard of on-field umpiring has fallen dramatically, but would argue that that is because umpires are not being held to account for making poor on-field decisions. I'd argue that if your decisions are getting regularly overturned, you need to be kicked off the international umpire's panel and replaced with someone better. You'd soon see on-field decisions improving again.
The Malan thing is bizarre. Sure, it was a terrible decision, but I can remember worse from the days before DRS. However, I've played cricket for 35 years and never in all that time have I even feathered one and not known it (I mean I've stood there swearing blind I didn't hit it when I knew I did, obviously, but that's different :-D ). That someone can smash the ball into his pad like that and not know he's done it enough to challenge the decision is simply astonishing to me.
In short, Malan was out there because he was a thick cünt.
It's a silly thing done in a silly way. But, if you must, then get the video umpire and his on-field colleagues to be in constant conference with each other, independent of baying from the players. If any of them notice anything, they should make their decision which is then relayed to everybody else through the on-field official-in-charge.
Mind you, what's interesting about that decision is that from schoolboy level on, you're actually coached to run between the fielder and the stumps to increase the chances of the ball hitting you rather than the stumps on a tight run. It's basic stuff that's drilled into you like grounding your bat or backing up a throw.
Given that, you could argue that batsmen could be given out every time the ball hits them from a throw. :shrug:
Again, players bear no responsibility for the right decision being made. They are, by definition, wholly biased and are only interested in getting what they can.
A referee has no allegiance other than to the truth. To stick to your decision when you are clearly wrong is the act of a ****