Graham Poll: Son's penalty goal should have stood

[dagraham]

I don't see why we can't just have a fourth official able to alert the ref to a contentious issue. Then the on field ref has a look and makes a decision. For something like a sending off, the game is paused anyway.

 

[mightyspur]

Care to explain why they are such a bad idea?

It would be better than the total farce we have at the moment.

I don't disagree that the current implementation needs refining, but as you mentioned in your original post, football is not the same as tennis or cricket, where limited reviews make more sense (although even in cricket it can get farcical with reviews being used incorrectly and then lost and incidents occurring later that would have been overturned on a review)

My personal view with challenges is they will potentially be used even more so to break up the game and perhaps applied in an unsporting way. What if there is a strong penalty shout, but the referee waves it away. Whilst play continues the other team start to break quickly, the manager thinks, "I can stop this" and chucks in a review. The referee will have to stop the game, go to review. The other issue even if you get around that by allowing play to continue until it has been reviewed by the VAR is it creates even more confusion. You will also have incidents that potentially can't be reviewed simply because the manager has used all his up, that creates even more controversy. Take Lampards goal. Imagine Capello had used all his reviews and couldn't challenge it? There would be moaning and uproar, "we should allow 5 reviews... 6 reviews... they should have unlimited reviews etc."

In my mind there is a simple answer to the use of VAR.

1. All goals are reviewed quickly to confirm there are no obvious errors, such as offside in the build up. I'm not talking about the Llorente challenge. These occur in the background whilst players are celebrating and must be concluded within 1 min of the goal being scored, similar to how it was applied for Llorente's first goal. If nothing is obvious, the goal stands, no waiting about

2. The referee is able to call a review for a potential infringement after a goal or at any point if he wants to check something specifically, i.e. the Llorente challenge on the first disallowed goal (assuming the ref saw it), or an off the ball incident pointed out to him by one of the assistant referees. These should be displayed on a big screen with the crowd seeing what is being checked and comms between the Ref and VAR being heard on the TV. Again these should be answered ideally within 1 - 2 minutes and really the Ref should be looking at the TV screen discussing it with the VAR with the final decision coming down to the on field ref.

There really was no need to use VAR for the Trippier penalty. The ref should have called that correctly without VAR.

I would consider the option of the video ref being able to point out possible infringements to the ref on the field, but that would have to be looked at carefully as that would potentially created a scenario that is more stop start.

 

[arthurgrimsdell]

Challenges are a terrible idea.

There is nothing wrong with VAR, but there is a problem with the way it is currently implemented as demonstrated the other night. There is nothing wrong with reviewing every goal in the background. Players celebrate, that takes time. As long as the review is completed in 30 seconds to a minute to catch any 'clear and obvious' issues then it will work fine. Taking 2 mins + for a decision isn't helping.

It would also be beneficial if the crowd got to see what the video ref was reviewing and the TV was able to listen in on the decision making as they do in rugby. The hanging around not knowing what is going on is the frustrating thing for the players and fans and unfortunately a LOT of fans don't really know all the rules (despite what they may think) so are at a loss when it is reviewed / decisions are made.

They can make the VAR decisions an interesting part of the game and part of the entertainment, but as per usual football is trying to do things differently and being secretive about everything.

There is everything wrong with VAR in my view.
It has been brought in on the back of a media campaign, started if I recall by the preposterous Andy Gray (take a bow son) reviewing every little incident to the nth degree, and they still often get it wrong or disagree amongst themselves.
It is promoted as "modern technology", when all it is, is some unaccountable person watching the telly and giving his view based on his opinion. It is no more infallible than the on-pitch referee, as has been shown by the Rochdale match, the preposterous "confirmation" that the foul by Aguero in the League Cup Final, a clear push (even if it was against Arsenal), was not a foul, and the use of lines drawn on the TV picture pitch incorrectly, even after two attempts, to decide an offside in another recent match. Incidentally, the proponents of VAR still take the line that "at least it's getting the decisions right, even if it takes a long time", when it clearly isn't, and is ruining the match for spectators, officials, and players alike.
You appear to have bought into the clear lie that the review can be completed in 30 seconds to a minute, which events have been shown to be completely untrue, and in my opinion is far too long anyway.
On at least two occasions, the Rochdale match and a recent Liverpool match, the added time has been far less than the time lost due to reviewed incidents.
The term "Assistant" is a lie, at least in the FA version of VAR, for the simple reason that the Referee doesn't have the view that his "assistant" has, so the "assistant" invariably has the last word.
If technology is to be brought in, then in my view it should only be for events that technology can give a 100% unchallengeable view on, as in Tennis, when Hawkeye showing that the ball is in or out is accepted and is instantaneous.
If the technology is not infallible it should not be used at all, because we already have referees and assistants to make the decisions.
This use of technology could include extending goal line technology to encompass the whole circumference of the pitch, leaving the officials to decide who touched the ball last. It can be used to decide whether a player or players are in an offside position, leaving the officials to decide whether the players concerned are active. It can be used to show whether a player in an offside position is blocking a defender's view.
All this can be achieved instantaneously and transmitted to an earpiece used by the officials by means of pre-recorded verbal cues, using pitch-side cameras, geometry and software, and should not be beyond the wit of man.
VAR is going in completely the wrong direction, by invoking technology but in reality using human interference, and in my view is merely a sop to TV companies wanting a spectacle and more time for adverts. If anyone thinks that adverts while the decisions are made is not the next step, then I'd suggest they are very naïve. You only have to see how little of the live broadcast shows the ball when it is play, and how much is coaches chewing gum, spitting and ranting on the touchline, little boys crying in the stand learning that sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, fans doing the "Posnan", some C list celebrity talking to his mistress and other extraneous garbage, to know that TV companies are not interested in football so much as spectacle and controversy, otherwise they would have led Gary Neville away during the Carabao Cup Final to a darkened room and sedated him.

 

[Fowl!]

Once they get in the habit of reviewing the pushes, pulls, shirt pulls, climbing and treading on feet from every corner or attacking free kick then that is going to kill the game stone dead.

What happens if a goal is scored but ten instances of rule infringements are identified during the phase of play, 9 of which were by the defending team. Does the one offence from the attacking team lead to a disallowed goal?

And then surely using car is in itself an unfair advantage to the defence?

I think it has to go except as Lemon says, in limited specific instances at the discretion of the pitch officials.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

The problem isn’t reviewing every major incident, the problem is pausing the game whilst this happens.

VAR should just operate in the background and only intervene if it sees a clear error on a major incident - goal, pen, red card - then signal to the ref, who then stops the game and reverts to the decision of VAR.

The ref should no longer blow when a linesman raises his flag, but allow play to develop, knowing the offside will be checked immediately- this is quick and easy - it’s a line. And the decision of VAR on offsides can be instantaneous and would be better than good goals getting chalked off because of erroneous flags, which you can’t celebrate anyway.

 

[talbot64]

Hate VAR, will stop me watching matches and rely on MOTD, will save a few quid on the sky and BT package

 

[Rout-Ledge]

VAR should just operate in the background and only intervene if it sees a clear error on a major incident - goal, pen, red card - then signal to the ref, who then stops the game and reverts to the decision of VAR.

And then there is a discussion as to what constitutes a 'clear and obvious' error. This is supposedly how the system already operates, but that first goal being ruled out was anything but 'clear and obvious'. Many of these decisions are down to interpretation. Some incidents are truly unambiguous but drawing that line is not necessarily easy.

 

[bubble07]

So one ex ref says should have stood and 2 other ex refs said it was right to not stand. Wtf??

 

[dagraham]

I don't disagree that the current implementation needs refining, but as you mentioned in your original post, football is not the same as tennis or cricket, where limited reviews make more sense (although even in cricket it can get farcical with reviews being used incorrectly and then lost and incidents occurring later that would have been overturned on a review)

My personal view with challenges is they will potentially be used even more so to break up the game and perhaps applied in an unsporting way. What if there is a strong penalty shout, but the referee waves it away. Whilst play continues the other team start to break quickly, the manager thinks, "I can stop this" and chucks in a review. The referee will have to stop the game, go to review. The other issue even if you get around that by allowing play to continue until it has been reviewed by the VAR is it creates even more confusion. You will also have incidents that potentially can't be reviewed simply because the manager has used all his up, that creates even more controversy. Take Lampards goal. Imagine Capello had used all his reviews and couldn't challenge it? There would be moaning and uproar, "we should allow 5 reviews... 6 reviews... they should have unlimited reviews etc."

In my mind there is a simple answer to the use of VAR.

1. All goals are reviewed quickly to confirm there are no obvious errors, such as offside in the build up. I'm not talking about the Llorente challenge. These occur in the background whilst players are celebrating and must be concluded within 1 min of the goal being scored, similar to how it was applied for Llorente's first goal. If nothing is obvious, the goal stands, no waiting about

2. The referee is able to call a review for a potential infringement after a goal or at any point if he wants to check something specifically, i.e. the Llorente challenge on the first disallowed goal (assuming the ref saw it), or an off the ball incident pointed out to him by one of the assistant referees. These should be displayed on a big screen with the crowd seeing what is being checked and comms between the Ref and VAR being heard on the TV. Again these should be answered ideally within 1 - 2 minutes and really the Ref should be looking at the TV screen discussing it with the VAR with the final decision coming down to the on field ref.

There really was no need to use VAR for the Trippier penalty. The ref should have called that correctly without VAR.

I would consider the option of the video ref being able to point out possible infringements to the ref on the field, but that would have to be looked at carefully as that would potentially created a scenario that is more stop start.

You make some good points about the challenges and to be honest I don’t want any of it. I’m just thinking of a way to limit the amount of times it’s used as I fear a constant second guessing of the onfield officials decision.

Let the ref get on with it unless he’s unsure of something and HE wants further clarification through video technology.

 

[beats1]

I personally dont like these type of penalties and dont think they should stand, they are an unfair advantage imo

If it happened to us, I would be pissed off. At the end of the day you have a major advantage in the first place by having a free shot on goal with the keeper not allowed to jump off the line, this is an unnecessary advantage

Also the penalty should have been retaken because of the encroachment

 

[Lemon]

I'm not being funny, but if this is right, should we not ask for a replay?

 

[Rout-Ledge]

So one ex ref says should have stood and 2 other ex refs said it was right to not stand. Wtf??

It's almost as if the rules are....poorly drafted!

 

[kungfugrip]

In Italy where they are using VAR in the league this year, it has been called the 'death of football'.

 

[Nocando]

Interesting that Chris Foy said something different to G Poll, and if G Poll is right meant that Foy didn't even understand the rule. I think VAR just highlights that even between referees there is an element of judgement and interpretation, with a VAR decision over rulling the ref. It needs to be re thought so that the ref is still in conotrol and makes the decisions.

 

[Danners9]

In Italy where they are using VAR in the league this year, it has been called the 'death of football'.

Mainz fans agree: https://twitter.com/ftamsut/status/968945625659297792

 

[Damian99]

It's almost as if the rules are....poorly drafted!

By permitting "feinting" during the run up and not at the end of it, that's exactly what they are.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

And then there is a discussion as to what constitutes a 'clear and obvious' error. This is supposedly how the system already operates, but that first goal being ruled out was anything but 'clear and obvious'. Many of these decisions are down to interpretation. Some incidents are truly unambiguous but drawing that line is not necessarily easy.

Ok, but I'd rather have a considered interpretation based on someone spending a few seconds looking at it from a couple of angles, than a spurious interpretation from a ref who's had a fraction of that time and only a glimpse from one (sometimes inhibited angle).

I don't think VAR is ever going to eradicate human error completely, but it's hopefully going to reduce it drastically and also prevent players from cheating (and I don't just mean diving) - because they know it will get seen.

It's the delivery that needs working on. But this is in it's infancy. It took a hundred years to stop the back pass rule, change offside etc etc.

 

[worcestersauce]

The problem isn’t reviewing every major incident, the problem is pausing the game whilst this happens.

VAR should just operate in the background and only intervene if it sees a clear error on a major incident - goal, pen, red card - then signal to the ref, who then stops the game and reverts to the decision of VAR.

The ref should no longer blow when a linesman raises his flag, but allow play to develop, knowing the offside will be checked immediately- this is quick and easy - it’s a line. And the decision of VAR on offsides can be instantaneous and would be better than good goals getting chalked off because of erroneous flags, which you can’t celebrate anyway.

Why bother with the linesman at all in that case? If what he says counts for nothing because it var is the decider why not just let var call offsides anyway? Did it go off for a throw in leading up to the goal or a goal kick? No need for a linesman just let var call it!
It's a can of worms.

 

[Dillspur]

Challenges are a terrible idea.

There is nothing wrong with VAR, but there is a problem with the way it is currently implemented as demonstrated the other night. There is nothing wrong with reviewing every goal in the background. Players celebrate, that takes time. As long as the review is completed in 30 seconds to a minute to catch any 'clear and obvious' issues then it will work fine. Taking 2 mins + for a decision isn't helping.

It would also be beneficial if the crowd got to see what the video ref was reviewing and the TV was able to listen in on the decision making as they do in rugby. The hanging around not knowing what is going on is the frustrating thing for the players and fans and unfortunately a LOT of fans don't really know all the rules (despite what they may think) so are at a loss when it is reviewed / decisions are made.

They can make the VAR decisions an interesting part of the game and part of the entertainment, but as per usual football is trying to do things differently and being secretive about everything.

The problem is, if every goal is reviewed then you won't get fans or teams celebrating, they'll just be hanging around waiting for the decision, by the time the decision is made the moment will be lost. I didn't see it before but I do now, I don't want VAR I'd rather have the mistakes, it's going to absolutely kill the atmosphere

 

[cozzo]

I am sure that I have seen similar penalties, by the likes of Ronaldo and Neymar recently?