All purpose football thread 2023/24 Season
- Thread starter Brian
- Start date
oldius
Manchester City, dogs, family and food.
It is difficult to know what to say about VAR when an incident like Jota's goes uncorrected. I would be surprised if any supporter, of any club including his own, did not think that was a clear dive and, therefore, a clear and obvious error. I have only seen the videos of the incident, and I am not aware of the thoughts of any pundits or referees.
tqineil
Ubi fides ibi lux et robur
In fairness, that's about the cost of Livramento, Harvey Barnes & Tonali or Isak, Botman and Gordon or even Guimares, Wood, Joelinton & Willock coming on as subs so injuries seem to be more significant for the Toon this season?
I was impressed with the LFC squad having at least seven players from the Academy last night
tqineil
Ubi fides ibi lux et robur
Dubravka admitted he caught him with his elbow but it was accidental, it was a pen though Jota should probably have stayed upright? Maybe he was thinking 'well if I can can booked then sent off when Udogie kicked himself' then why not go down when contacted?
oldius
Manchester City, dogs, family and food.
Just reading a post by a Liverpool fan on another forum describe it thus: 'Very disappointed with Jota and his obvious dive for a penalty'. The players will do it if the referee and VAR continue to condone it. When more talk in football is about refereeing incidents than the match, something is wrong.
tqineil
Ubi fides ibi lux et robur
agreed it was soft but you're clearly avoiding Dubravka's admission of contact.... no surprise there
This from The Athletic.... Dubravka catches Jota's ankle. Dubravka admits to catching Jota's ankle. Only Jota knows whether he was genuinely unbalanced or somehow — why? — happier to go down in front of an empty net. But either way it's NOT A DIVE and VAR was 100% right to not intervene. The end.
This from The Athletic.... Dubravka catches Jota's ankle. Dubravka admits to catching Jota's ankle. Only Jota knows whether he was genuinely unbalanced or somehow — why? — happier to go down in front of an empty net. But either way it's NOT A DIVE and VAR was 100% right to not intervene. The end.
oldius
Manchester City, dogs, family and food.
I simply quoted a Liverpool fan. I have watched the video several times and it absolutely looks like a dive, as the Liverpool fan said. I am surprised at your defence of it, I have to be honest.
When we say VAR do we mean just the technology, the technology and the operator/referees assistant or just the referees assistants?
What are the tolerances on the accuracy of the video cameras and processing equipment when one takes into account optical aberrations, camera angles, distance etc? It is so easy to forget how misleading camera shots can sometimes be.
For offside decisions we often only see a line drawn across the pitch but rarely do we see an accurate side by side picture of when the ball is actually kicked.
If we are going to keep VAR I am firmly on the side of those that believe if it takes an overly long time to reach a conclusion for offside decisions then it should not overrule the on-field decision because, by reason of it being beyond the tolerances of the equipment, it is not clear and obvious. What are the stated tolerances of the equipment; is it approx. 0.5m or just a few millemetres? Longer decision times for other types of offences are understandable in order that say multiple camera angles can be studied and compared.
VAR instead of being used, as originally intended, as an aid to the referee (the man who is and should be responsible for all decisions) is allowing the referee to bottle it and blame someone else. He has an on-field monitor but. when he refers to it. very rarely do we see him overrule a decision proposed by the faceless ones. He can be looking at an incident just feet away thus having a better view than any camera but still will not have the conviction to stand by his (or her) decision.
On balance I favour scrapping VAR, or a least greatly limiting it's powers of intervention, because of its obvious controversy, misuse, cost, unnecessary angst, disappointment and frustration to fans, players and staff but most importantly interfering with the natural flow of the game.
It was rumoured at the time that the VAR ref messed up the Diaz offside decision because he was watching the golf's Ryder Cup on another monitor. He is still employed as a referee. Figure that one out.
What are the tolerances on the accuracy of the video cameras and processing equipment when one takes into account optical aberrations, camera angles, distance etc? It is so easy to forget how misleading camera shots can sometimes be.
For offside decisions we often only see a line drawn across the pitch but rarely do we see an accurate side by side picture of when the ball is actually kicked.
If we are going to keep VAR I am firmly on the side of those that believe if it takes an overly long time to reach a conclusion for offside decisions then it should not overrule the on-field decision because, by reason of it being beyond the tolerances of the equipment, it is not clear and obvious. What are the stated tolerances of the equipment; is it approx. 0.5m or just a few millemetres? Longer decision times for other types of offences are understandable in order that say multiple camera angles can be studied and compared.
VAR instead of being used, as originally intended, as an aid to the referee (the man who is and should be responsible for all decisions) is allowing the referee to bottle it and blame someone else. He has an on-field monitor but. when he refers to it. very rarely do we see him overrule a decision proposed by the faceless ones. He can be looking at an incident just feet away thus having a better view than any camera but still will not have the conviction to stand by his (or her) decision.
On balance I favour scrapping VAR, or a least greatly limiting it's powers of intervention, because of its obvious controversy, misuse, cost, unnecessary angst, disappointment and frustration to fans, players and staff but most importantly interfering with the natural flow of the game.
It was rumoured at the time that the VAR ref messed up the Diaz offside decision because he was watching the golf's Ryder Cup on another monitor. He is still employed as a referee. Figure that one out.
Weekender
pfm Member
I understand the semi-automatic offside system is more accurate:
theathletic.com
I'd go to that and keep goal line tech and scrap the rest.
Premier League monitoring semi-automated offside tech ahead of next season
The Premier League will continue to monitor the use of semi-automated offside technology (SAOT) before making a call on whether to integrate it into the competition next season. The technology is used in the Champions League and Serie A, as well as at most recent men’s and women’s World Cups. It...
theathletic.com
I'd go to that and keep goal line tech and scrap the rest.
oldius
Manchester City, dogs, family and food.
I watched something recently that used that system - it was seamless.I understand the semi-automatic offside system is more accurate:
Premier League monitoring semi-automated offside tech ahead of next season
The Premier League will continue to monitor the use of semi-automated offside technology (SAOT) before making a call on whether to integrate it into the competition next season. The technology is used in the Champions League and Serie A, as well as at most recent men’s and women’s World Cups. It...
I'd go to that and keep goal line tech and scrap the rest.
Football is a contact sport. Have we now reached the stage where any contact whatsoever constitutes a foul?
I firmly believe that players are now being encouraged by pundits, press and commentators and coached by clubs and staff to instinctively go to ground as soon as they feel any contact whatsoever when within the penalty area. Clearly their behaviour differs greatly from other areas on the pitch.
Does this constitute cheating and unsporting behaviour? Yes
Are you surprised? No
All this is happening under the watchfull eye of the referees, authorities, fans, press etc.
Will anything change? Probably not.
Am I 'bovvered'? Not really ( I only wrote this because it is still raining and I'm bored)
tqineil
Ubi fides ibi lux et robur
a fan, wow!
Suppose a journalist and the goalie themselves aren't as credible - just accept it was soft and many players might have tried to stay on their feet, Jota didn't! The left ankle that was contacted 'went' the next time it touched the floor so the player certainly didn't make several strides forward as some have stated
oldius
Manchester City, dogs, family and food.
Why the first sentence? I am a bit confused.
Just in case you are suggesting he isn't a fan, he really, really is, and we have had many a locked-horn over the years.
tqineil
Ubi fides ibi lux et robur
A record xG in the EPL, 34 shots …. Good form
Last edited:
Weekender
pfm Member
Another appalling VAR decision last night in the Palace v Everton match...
Crystal Palace 0-0 Everton: Sean Dyche unhappy with decision to send off Dominic Calvert-Lewin - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67888790
Crystal Palace 0-0 Everton: Sean Dyche unhappy with decision to send off Dominic Calvert-Lewin - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67888790
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
We should remember that it is not a VAR decision, the decision is still with the Ref. If the decision is wrong, that’s on the ref.
Weekender
pfm Member
OK but VAR is meant to correct "clear and obvious errors"...
The Ref made the right decision on-field which was nowt.
He gets called to the screen so immediately assumes he's made a "clear and obvious error" and gives it. Without VAR the decision is correct. So decision is on VAR staff and the Ref for following them. Again. Refs are absolving themselves of apparent responsibility for decisions to VAR staff (in this case replaying innocuous challenges in slow motion and with still frames).
Everton appeal against Dominic Calvert-Lewin red card - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67892373