VAR- What is it good for.........

[Whitey Grandad]

5 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Absolutely no way we should be ditching var.

"Var gets some decisions wrong and we don't like it... so let's go back to a world where decisions were wrong all the time and huge errors were made on a game by game basis... it's okay really, we're happy gabbi's 3rd Wembley goal was incorrectly ruled out... the game flowed 🙄". 

Not to mention a plethora of other shocking decisions over the years that could have sent us down, Charlie austin's parklife rant, that doucoure hand of God goal for Watford etc. spring to mind. And those are just saints related. Which fan in the country doesn't remember our world Cup exit after lampard's goal was ruled not to have crossed the line vs Germany?

A refereeing error is a refereeing error, but choosing not to use technology that can help the refs is just idiotic.

The people asking for this are basically happy for us to lose the play off final due to a lack of var. The refs are the issue, not the technology. 

No, no and thrice no.

It ruins the very essence of the game.

Gabbiadini wasn’t offside but Bertrand was and could have been considered to be ‘interfering’. Of course we are all biased towards Saints but others more neutral might take a more balanced view. Charlie Austin is hardly likely to be independently objective either.

Lampard’s effort would have been picked up by Goal Line Technology which gives an immediate result and doesn’t slow down the game but even that is not infallible.

The refs are only an issue if you don’t agree with their decisions.

[Stud mark of doom]

8 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Absolutely no way we should be ditching var.

"Var gets some decisions wrong and we don't like it... so let's go back to a world where decisions were wrong all the time and huge errors were made on a game by game basis... it's okay really, we're happy gabbi's 3rd Wembley goal was incorrectly ruled out... the game flowed 🙄". 

Not to mention a plethora of other shocking decisions over the years that could have sent us down, Charlie austin's parklife rant, that doucoure hand of God goal for Watford etc. spring to mind. And those are just saints related. Which fan in the country doesn't remember our world Cup exit after lampard's goal was ruled not to have crossed the line vs Germany?

A refereeing error is a refereeing error, but choosing not to use technology that can help the refs is just idiotic.

The people asking for this are basically happy for us to lose the play off final due to a lack of var. The refs are the issue, not the technology. 

The thing is that there is the occasional howler - and you have rightly pointed out the worst one from a saints perspective. Horrendous. 
 

but I’m my opinion VAR ruins EVERY goal in every match. 
 

also 

McCalliog to stokes 

who’s onside

1-0

and Southampton go mad

wins himself a car and he’s already booked….

Hang on….

turns out those driving lessons may not have been necessary 

 

 

[Whitey Grandad]

4 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

The time limit stuff is genuinely one of the worst theories out there about VAR. For a start not all camera angles are instantly available (which coincidently played into our favour when Djenepo handballed on the way to a goal once, the angle that showed it wasn't available for the VAR in time) and secondly I really don't think what Stuart Attwell needs when he's trying to look at a screen is a timer going down and the ref on field in his ear "time's nearly up Stu, come on mate, make a decision". He's clueless enough as it is. 

Anyway, it always makes me laugh when people moan about it ruining peoples celebrations and taking away "the point of the game which is to score goals ffs!!". VAR gave and led to plenty of goals last season, almost as nearly as much as it took away if you include penalties it gave. 

There are plenty of decisions that need correcting, you only need to watch that awful highlights show last night to have seen that, it's worth it's weight in gold if it only corrects one of those. The use of it can be better but the concept is rightly here to stay and we'll be cursing not having it at some stage because being punished by something the referee couldn't see or got hideously wrong isn't good for anyone even if it is "just proper football mate!"

It’s video game football. Nothing like the true game it always used to be. Television is the problem and with that comes the influence of big money.

[Saint86]

10 minutes ago, Stud mark of doom said:

The thing is that there is the occasional howler - and you have rightly pointed out the worst one from a saints perspective. Horrendous. 
 

but I’m my opinion VAR ruins EVERY goal in every match. 
 

also 

McCalliog to stokes 

who’s onside

1-0

and Southampton go mad

wins himself a car and he’s already booked….

Hang on….

turns out those driving lessons may not have been necessary 

 

 

So change the rules or how it's applied. I personally just can't get on board with the particular viewpoint that, "they tried it, it was bad in that guise, and so the whole thing should go on the bin" 🤷‍♂️ - And I know that isn't everyone's stance. 

Edited 6 August, 2023 by Saint86

[Fabrice29]

10 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

It’s video game football. Nothing like the true game it always used to be. Television is the problem and with that comes the influence of big money.

Aww. Things have changed and you don't like it. Poor you. It's a shame everyone else, and you lets be honest, enjoy watching it on the god awful evil television. 

[Saint86]

15 hours ago, aintforever said:

To be fair, that looks similar to the one at the World Cup where one angle it looked miles over when it was in fact still in play.

As for VAR, it was refreshing yesterday not having it but I still think it’s a good thing for clubs our size in the Prem because it helps lessen the big club bias. In the Championship I think I prefer not to have it but there will be moaning when the absence of it goes against us. The one thing VAR has shown is the extent to which on field officials make the wrong call.

That ball is clearly over the line, the norwich player hasn't kicked it in that image yet which means it would have rolled further as well. But regardless, the view is square on looking along the line and it's out... The world Cup one (another great example of var being used to get a correct decision) was in when viewed square on from above / in plan. 

So that Norwich one is another example of what happens without var - already the points being decided by its absence and an avoidable ref error

😞

Edited 6 August, 2023 by Saint86

[Stud mark of doom]

I think I may have undercooked it. Perhaps it would be more like

 

mccalliog to stokes who may or may not be onside (the linesman has been told to keep his flag down and let play unfold)

Nice finish - but let’s see what VAR makes of it 

Very long wait

if only stokes had slightly shorter sleeves he would have won himself a car, and he’s already booked driving lessons

( as the lines are put up on the big screen virtually on top of one another) - and Southampton go mad 

 

 

 

[Whitey Grandad]

51 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

Aww. Things have changed and you don't like it. Poor you. It's a shame everyone else, and you lets be honest, enjoy watching it on the god awful evil television. 

I hate watching on television because it bears no relation to what is happening in real life out on the pitch. It is a two dimensional attempt at making entertainment. Don’t ever believe that what you see in a flat electronic screen is anywhere near the reality.

Oh, and I spent many years in television research and have several technical papers published on the subject.

[Whitey Grandad]

53 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

That ball is clearly over the line, the norwich player hasn't kicked it in that image yet which means it would have rolled further as well. But regardless, the view is square on looking along the line and it's out... The world Cup one (another great example of var being used to get a correct decision) was in when viewed square on from above / in plan. 

So that Norwich one is another example of what happens without var - already the points being decided by its absence and an avoidable ref error

😞

And on this point you are very wrong.

[Fabrice29]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I hate watching on television because it bears no relation to what is happening in real life out on the pitch. It is a two dimensional attempt at making entertainment. Don’t ever believe that what you see in a flat electronic screen is anywhere near the reality.

Oh, and I spent many years in television research and have several technical papers published on the subject.

Hi Matt, do you know the real score on Friday night at all?

[Whitey Grandad]

1 minute ago, Fabrice29 said:

Hi Matt, do you know the real score on Friday night at all?

Eh?

And who’s Matt?

[Saint86]

7 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

And on this point you are very wrong.

Sure whitey 🙄👍.

Penalty not given for Sunderland vs Ipswich today that should have been as well. Not going well for the bin var brigade. There really is no logic for having technology that affords refs a better chance to make correct and fair calls, and then just binning it off. I just hope saints can go through the season and not get screwed over in an important way. 

Edited 6 August, 2023 by Saint86

[Saint IQ]

Teams should be allowed 1 VAR review to use each half. Retained if the review shows the ref/lino mucked up. Like cricket but 1 review a half.

[Whitey Grandad]

13 hours ago, Saint86 said:

Sure whitey 🙄👍.

Penalty not given for Sunderland vs Ipswich today that should have been as well. Not going well for the bin var brigade. There really is no logic for having technology that affords refs a better chance to make correct and fair calls, and then just binning it off. I just hope saints can go through the season and not get screwed over in an important way. 

A penalty is “in the opinion of the referee”. Not in your opinion or mine. I watched that game and I saw nothing wrong with it. The referee actually on the pitch had a far better view than anyone who was watching it through a television camera.

[SotonianWill]

16 hours ago, Saint86 said:

Sure whitey 🙄👍.

Penalty not given for Sunderland vs Ipswich today that should have been as well. Not going well for the bin var brigade. There really is no logic for having technology that affords refs a better chance to make correct and fair calls, and then just binning it off. I just hope saints can go through the season and not get screwed over in an important way. 

Honestly unless it’s in games with everything on the line - cup finals, playoffs - I don’t think VAR should be introduced. I’d honestly take a normal game of football with a terrible ref call that I can moan about afterwards over an elongated VAR decisions that kills the atmosphere and will be moaned about anyways afterwards. Only people really screaming for VAR are television lickers and Sky Sports enthusiasts, match going fans are mostly against it. 

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, SotonianWill said:

Honestly unless it’s in games with everything on the line - cup finals, playoffs - I don’t think VAR should be introduced. I’d honestly take a normal game of football with a terrible ref call that I can moan about afterwards over an elongated VAR decisions that kills the atmosphere and will be moaned about anyways afterwards. Only people really screaming for VAR are television lickers and Sky Sports enthusiasts, match going fans are mostly against it. 

I’m with you on this. The TV companies go out of their way to court controversy. They are constantly trying to analyse every situation in order to generate arguments. They’ve paid a lot of money for the sport and they want to control it.

It’s not that long ago that most games had no cameras present. If you missed a goal you never saw it again.

[chiknsmack]

17 hours ago, SotonianWill said:

elongated VAR decisions

This is the problem with VAR, not VAR itself. Used for clear and obvious errors as intended (no drawing lines to decide if someone was offside by half an armpit) and it improves the game by eliminating obvious injustices. There's no reason every goal couldn't be checked by VAR in the time it takes the scoring team to celebrate and get back in position for the kickoff, and if an error can't be identified by then then it isn't "clear and obvious". So play on.

[Lymington Saint]

On 06/08/2023 at 10:32, Stud mark of doom said:

The thing is that there is the occasional howler - and you have rightly pointed out the worst one from a saints perspective. Horrendous. 
 

but I’m my opinion VAR ruins EVERY goal in every match. 
 

also 

McCalliog to stokes 

who’s onside

1-0

and Southampton go mad

wins himself a car and he’s already booked….

Hang on….

turns out those driving lessons may not have been necessary 

 

 

If we had VAR in 1976 then all it would have done is stop Tommy Docherty from moaning about an offside goal afterwards.  Bobby Stokes was a couple of yards onside, played on by Martin Buchan the United left back.  Had he stepped up in line with the centre-backs then it would have been offside.

Problem with VAR is not the use of technology but the way that it is managed.  Too often the VAR team seem to overrule the ref on marginal calls.  It should be limited to clear and obvious errors.  Seem to remember that VAR was managed really well at the last world cup, but this might have been something to do with Pierluigi Collina managing the overall process and everyone being scared of him.

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, Lymington Saint said:

If we had VAR in 1976 then all it would have done is stop Tommy Docherty from moaning about an offside goal afterwards.  Bobby Stokes was a couple of yards onside, played on by Martin Buchan the United left back.  Had he stepped up in line with the centre-backs then it would have been offside.

Problem with VAR is not the use of technology but the way that it is managed.  Too often the VAR team seem to overrule the ref on marginal calls.  It should be limited to clear and obvious errors.  Seem to remember that VAR was managed really well at the last world cup, but this might have been something to do with Pierluigi Collina managing the overall process and everyone being scared of him.

Agreed. A bit like umpires call in cricket. If it's really tight then you stick with the decision on the field which has the added bonus of not undermining the referee and giving more confidence to use his judgement rather than just letting play continue all the time and then using VAR as a crutch.

[ErwinK1961]

57 minutes ago, Lymington Saint said:

If we had VAR in 1976 then all it would have done is stop Tommy Docherty from moaning about an offside goal afterwards.  Bobby Stokes was a couple of yards onside, played on by Martin Buchan the United left back.  Had he stepped up in line with the centre-backs then it would have been offside.

Problem with VAR is not the use of technology but the way that it is managed.  Too often the VAR team seem to overrule the ref on marginal calls.  It should be limited to clear and obvious errors.  Seem to remember that VAR was managed really well at the last world cup, but this might have been something to do with Pierluigi Collina managing the overall process and everyone being scared of him.

Agreed. The issue I have is it’s not being used for clear and obvious errors, it’s being used for decisions that are still down to an officials opinion. This means there is still absolutely no consistency in decision making, which I thought VAR was meant to provide.

Two very similar incidents get referred to VAR and you can get two different outcomes. That’s madness.

So now we have the same issues as before, but with unnecessary lengthy breaks and sanitised celebrations.

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Agreed. A bit like umpires call in cricket. If it's really tight then you stick with the decision on the field which has the added bonus of not undermining the referee and giving more confidence to use his judgement rather than just letting play continue all the time and then using VAR as a crutch.

Line decisions aren’t umpires call. 

[whelk]

4 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Line decisions aren’t umpires call. 

The sage speaks

[skintsaint]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66612570

Shows what a shambles it is really.

[Saint Keef]

Mike Dean is/was an egotistical wankstain within the game. Why on earth Sky are now employing this twat beggars fucking belief. By all means have an ex-referee to analyse decisions, but Mike Dean? Really?  

[Kenilworthy]

5 hours ago, Saint Keef said:

Mike Dean is/was an egotistical wankstain within the game. Why on earth Sky are now employing this twat beggars fucking belief. By all means have an ex-referee to analyse decisions, but Mike Dean? Really?  

So he was petrified at having to sit in the VAR chair. But I bet not as petrified as I was knowing he was sat in the VAR chair

[egg]

6 hours ago, skintsaint said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66612570

Shows what a shambles it is really.

He's not being honest. He starts by saying he "missed" the hair pull, but then goes on to say that he basically bottled sending his mate to review it. 

If they're gonna keep VAR, do it like rugby, and just focus on getting the right decision. 

[hypochondriac]

People should watch the interview. I think he comes accross rather well. 

[AlexLaw76]

6 hours ago, Saint Keef said:

Mike Dean is/was an egotistical wankstain within the game. Why on earth Sky are now employing this twat beggars fucking belief. By all means have an ex-referee to analyse decisions, but Mike Dean? Really?  

He gave a good interview to Simon Jordan...

Edit - I guess tdmickey3 has not watched it. Shame

Edited 25 August, 2023 by AlexLaw76

[egg]

21 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

People should watch the interview. I think he comes accross rather well. 

I'll take a look. What I did take from the BBC extract was the impact on his mental health. Going to work and knowing that you're likely to get pelted on social media, threats, etc, afterwards must be bloody awful. 

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

I'll take a look. What I did take from the BBC extract was the impact on his mental health. Going to work and knowing that you're likely to get pelted on social media, threats, etc, afterwards must be bloody awful. 

He also took time off after a death threat. To me, the clip reported on the BBC was more about justifying a decision he made after the event that he worded poorly 

[Nordic Saint]

10 hours ago, egg said:

He's not being honest. He starts by saying he "missed" the hair pull, but then goes on to say that he basically bottled sending his mate to review it. 

If they're gonna keep VAR, do it like rugby, and just focus on getting the right decision. 

Was Mike Dean ever honest or trustworthy? I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. Letting him stay on to influence the results of matches with his biased decisions for as long as he did was a disgrace, especially if you were a fan of Saints or Arsenal or one of the other teams he didn't like.

Edited 25 August, 2023 by Nordic Saint

[rallyboy]

Mike Dean did issue cards in unusual patterns that would be very difficult to predict if let's say, you liked to predict things against long odds.

One card in the whole game, and to a keeper, or none in an hour, then six in ten minutes, that sort of thing.

 

[Saint86]

On 08/08/2023 at 11:32, ErwinK1961 said:

Agreed. The issue I have is it’s not being used for clear and obvious errors, it’s being used for decisions that are still down to an officials opinion. This means there is still absolutely no consistency in decision making, which I thought VAR was meant to provide.

Two very similar incidents get referred to VAR and you can get two different outcomes. That’s madness.

So now we have the same issues as before, but with unnecessary lengthy breaks and sanitised celebrations.

The ladies world cup final penalty call vs spain was a really good example of this. They took ages looking at it via video assistant, and then the ref stood by the pitch side monitor for a few minutes to look at it about 10 times... They then overturned the onfield decision to give the penalty. Quite evidently, that wasn't a clear an obvious mistake as it took to long to look at it, and for decisions like that it really should be a quick 1min look, is it an error? Yes/No style job.

There are other instances where there are various issues that occur, such as potential offside, then maybe a handball etc. But even then it should be a couple of minutes top.

The refs have the tech and its good, but the ref's are poor. And thats the issue - its is beyond me how time and time again they keep getting dragged into looking into decisions in minute detail when that very clearly isn't the scope or how its meant to be applied. Just shove a damn time limit on it! But the mentality of putting VAR back in the box remains nonsense in my book, shouldn't even be on the table as a possible option.

[david in sweden]

On 05/08/2023 at 19:56, Whitey Grandad said:

And what’s wrong with that? It’s quite possible that part of the ball is over part of the line and anyway, VAR has never been used or intended for the ball in or out of play. 
 

It’s football. Just get on with the game.

but surely VAR would have a say if this move ended in a goal?

[david in sweden]

On 06/08/2023 at 12:38, Whitey Grandad said:

I hate watching on television because it bears no relation to what is happening in real life out on the pitch. It is a two dimensional attempt at making entertainment. Don’t ever believe that what you see in a flat electronic screen is anywhere near the reality.

Oh, and I spent many years in television research and have several technical papers published on the subject.

Disappointing from You Whitey.....does that mean that you don't care if it's a fair result, or not ?

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, david in sweden said:

Disappointing from You Whitey.....does that mean that you don't care if it's a fair result, or not ?

It’s a fair result if television has had no influence on the outcome. It would then be a pure sport.

[hypochondriac]

51 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

It’s a fair result if television has had no influence on the outcome. It would then be a pure sport.

Guess you despise hawkeye in tennis. 

[david in sweden]

54 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

It’s a fair result if television has had no influence on the outcome. It would then be a pure sport.

might have been a different outcome in the Ashes series without some technical help.....

[Whitey Grandad]

28 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Guess you despise hawkeye in tennis. 

What’s ‘tennis’?

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

What’s ‘tennis’?

So is it only football that you have a problem with technology or sport in general? 

[Whitey Grandad]

25 minutes ago, david in sweden said:

might have been a different outcome in the Ashes series without some technical help.....

It’s the rough edges that give the game its character and charm.

Football and cricket are fundamentally different. Cricket is sporadic but when I watch a game of football I like to get engrossed in it, to follow the ebb and flow, to marvel at the complex interplay between one team and the other, to see everything that is going on in the peripheries. Modern TV coverage doesn’t allow me to do this with its endless meaningless replays, usually whilst the ball is in play. With its regular shots of the managers or the crowd, endless analysis o& why somebody fell over, criticism of the referee from commentators who don’t even have a modest understanding of the Laws. 
 

I get more enjoyment from watching a game in my local park.

[Whitey Grandad]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

So is it only football that you have a problem with technology or sport in general? 

Football is the only real sport. The others are mere pastimes. I don’t see the need for technology in any of it.

[Turkish]

Hes admitted he got the Bednarek sending off wrong in the 9-0 at old Trafford. Obviously wouldn’t have changed to the result But would have stopped The humiliating scoreline

 

[Nordic Saint]

20 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Hes admitted he got the Bednarek sending off wrong in the 9-0 at old Trafford. Obviously wouldn’t have changed to the result But would have stopped The humiliating scoreline

 

"I went to the screen for something and I sent a player off, which was completely wrong"

That statement sums Mike Dean up. How was he allowed to get away with it for so long? 

[Whitey Grandad]

8 hours ago, Nordic Saint said:

"I went to the screen for something and I sent a player off, which was completely wrong"

That statement sums Mike Dean up. How was he allowed to get away with it for so long? 

He was also the official on VAR who thought that Bertrand had committed serious foul play against Leicester when nobody at the stadium or on the pitch thought he had.

[RedArmy]

On 25/08/2023 at 02:18, Saint Keef said:

Mike Dean is/was an egotistical wankstain within the game. Why on earth Sky are now employing this twat beggars fucking belief. By all means have an ex-referee to analyse decisions, but Mike Dean? Really?  

Just goes to show he really was, and still is, desperate to be famous. Him and Clattenburg, both wannabe celebrities, both knew how to maximise their screen time during a match and both massive cunts. 

[redkeith]

21 hours ago, Turkish said:

Hes admitted he got the Bednarek sending off wrong in the 9-0 at old Trafford. Obviously wouldn’t have changed to the result But would have stopped The humiliating scoreline

 

The man is a complete Charley hUNT

[Disco Stu]

He surely has to go down as the worst referee that league has ever seen?

Edited 26 August, 2023 by Disco Stu

[Turkish]

Looks like they haven’t got it perfectly in other sports. Rugby World Cup an England player sent off yesterday, today a virtually identical incident not even reviewed in RSA v Scotland. They are moaning now about the inconsistency 

[Lighthouse]

I’m watching the cricket, two NZ batsmen have been wrongly given out on field by decisions which were then reviewed. No controversy, no bias, no injustice. People only talk about the decisions video referees get wrong. We’re far better off having it than not.