• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute?

VAR

MARKakaJIM

Contrary Mary
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Messages
22,432
Reaction score
357
If they are a work colleague at the same level within the organisation then undermining them alters your working relationship and makes you reticent to do it. That's where we are at
Well they're too precious. I'd rather someone pointed out my mistake rather than let it slide for the sake of my pride, could be much bigger implications down the line otherwise. Same the other way around, I'd rather tell a colleague they're going about something the wrong way before it blows up in their face.

That's why I'd keep it as the same group alternating between on pitch activities and VAR duties, let them be on both sides of it and they should be more open to making/accepting the decisions on each other's behalf.
 

VanWolfie

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2010
Messages
492
Reaction score
24
The purpose of VAR is to safeguard the integrity of the competitive game. The way Mike Riley has used it is to protect the integrity of referees. To be effective, VAR needs to have a separate and distinct set of TV analysts (former referees, former players) who are not active referees. The active referees do their job in the middle, the video analysts do their job ensuring that nothing untoward or unfair happens because the ref in the middle cannot see everything. By using active referees to act as VAR analysts, we have a set-up in which active referees protect their colleagues, leading to the atrocious mess that VAR has become. If only the PGMOL would swallow their pride and talk to rugby officials and learn how they have done it for years. The active referee in the middle is always in conversation with the TMO (a non-active referee) who has complete freedom to point out anything that the referee might have missed. What often happens is that the active referee in the middle asks the TMO what was going on in a particular incident which they then watch together on the stadium screen as they converse about what decision is called for. It is a conversation between two people who are equals but fulfilling different roles. The referee also sometimes brings his Assistant referees into the discussion. Most times the discussion is quick and the decision definitive. Any serious difference, then the referee's on-field decision is upheld.

If this approach were adopted, Attwell's appalling decision to penalize Neto on Sunday would never have happened.
 

Jinky

Has better things to do and a life. Also a total a
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
28,037
Reaction score
645
Neither of which would have been affected by VAR, irrespective of who is operating it. One was a failure of a different technology, the other not part of the review system anywhere in the world

That’s my point. A simple tweak allowing the referee (or the VAR referee - doesn’t have to be the on-field ref) the ability to overrule clear and obvious errors - like the failure with Hawkeye in the Villa game etc - just makes everyone’s life so much easier. For the on field ref to be the one overruling the decision he’d need a second look, hence my suggestion of viewing it on a monitor.

Saying “VAR can’t get involved because of X” just makes no sense what so ever. That’s essentially my main point. How they decide to do it doesn’t bother me - but having a system in place that’s “not allowed to get involved” when there’s a clear and obvious error just makes no sense.
 

Tony Towner

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
21,219
Reaction score
1,138
That’s my point. A simple tweak allowing the referee (or the VAR referee - doesn’t have to be the on-field ref) the ability to overrule clear and obvious errors - like the failure with Hawkeye in the Villa game etc - just makes everyone’s life so much easier. For the on field ref to be the one overruling the decision he’d need a second look, hence my suggestion of viewing it on a monitor.

Saying “VAR can’t get involved because of X” just makes no sense what so ever. That’s essentially my main point. How they decide to do it doesn’t bother me - but having a system in place that’s “not allowed to get involved” when there’s a clear and obvious error just makes no sense.
I get you.

The Villa one I agree, it's a freak incident and the fact it wasn't overturned due to protocol damages the integrity of the game.

Not so sure on our free kick though, when do you review it, before it's taken? That'll be really stop start, Sunday's was a dive, but there's countless others where there is contact and it comes down to interpretation. After the goal? I have an integrity issue with that.

Which decisions do you say can be reviewed? Anywhere on the pitch? Again too stop start for me. Within 30 yards of the goal? Are you doing it for attacking fouls aswell then? What about an incorrectly given free kick just inside your own half that gets lumped into the box and a goal is scored off the second ball?

In summary I think that would damage the game more than help it. I would be in favour of a managers appeal though, one per game which you keep if successful. You just need to find a way to penalise those that use it frivolousy in the last few minutes of the game. Maybe an additional 2 minutes if the ref believes it was done to waste time.
 

PuntsWolf

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
9,792
Reaction score
681
Just like subs, an appeal shouldn’t be able to “waste time”. Kill flow of game possibly but shouldn’t actually take any seconds off the length of the game. Now I know it does, but that is more down to incompetent officiating than anything.

I can’t see how one appeal (which may have already been used) can affect the latter stage of the game more than subs, feigning injury, kicking the ball away, delaying taking goal kicks, FKs and throw ins.
 

Dinowolf

Active member
Joined
May 12, 2012
Messages
8,494
Reaction score
23
Good discussion this.

I have tried to find a good arbiter report on how VAR affected us this season. I know it's too late to make a difference to results etc. but hopefully the report would show the disparity for clubs, and how that should be 'smoothed' as a matter of priority.

Personally, I like the Rugby Union comparison, as I think they have it as fair as possible.

The report that I have used is that shown by ESPN on their site with this link

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/eng...sions-have-affected-every-premier-league-club

The individual incidents are listed and shows Wolves had 2 decisions in our favour and 7 against us, giving an overall -5.
 

Dinowolf

Active member
Joined
May 12, 2012
Messages
8,494
Reaction score
23
I split it over two entries as I felt it would be too cumbersome otherwise.

This is the Premier League table Net scores.

Brighton & Hove Albion +8
Manchester United +7
Crystal Palace +4
Burnley +3
Newcastle +3
Southampton +3
Liverpool +2
Leicester City +1
Tottenham Hotspur +1
Manchester City 0
Arsenal -1
Everton -1
AFC Bournemouth -2
Chelsea -2
Watford -2
Aston Villa -3
West Ham -4
Sheffield United -5
Wolves -5
Norwich City -7

Two teams have been very fortunate recipients of positive