Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 211 to 220 of 220

Thread: Wolves 0-0 Leicester: VAR Rinse & Repeat Verdict

  1. #211
    Quote Originally Posted by PuntsWolf View Post
    The cameras are calibrated, the lines are always correct, doesn’t matter on the angle. How we are in February and people still don’t understand this I don’t know.

    The issues are 1) it’s fucking tight and with the current frame rate it isn’t remotely able to deem a decision that tight 2) it’s a nonsense ruling decisions that tight as either way anyway 3) to use a trailing leg when he’s running the opposite direction and also have his entire body onside by a yard is also stupid 4) it’s takes them 2 minutes to do it.

    The whole thing is bullshit. But there’s no conspiracy there’s no inaccuracies. We were not shafted by the ref, we were shafted by the shit rules.
    The angle does matter. It is not in perfect line. Has the calibration allowed for perspective and foreshortening, as well as distance? Does the thickness of the lines applied come into play?

    I agree with your second and third paragraphs (the bullshit part anyway).

  2. #212
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Wolverhampton
    Posts
    8,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Blue 2 View Post
    The angle does matter. It is not in perfect line. Has the calibration allowed for perspective and foreshortening, as well as distance? Does the thickness of the lines applied come into play?

    I agree with your second and third paragraphs (the bullshit part anyway).
    Yes
    As usual, Wolves fans being fickle. - Waggy on the Wing

  3. #213
    Quote Originally Posted by Premier Quality View Post
    Can’t argue with that tbh. The disallowed Neto goal comes to mind...
    One of the best moments was in 1966, as a 15 year-old, heading into the city centre straight from school in my school uniform and getting the train out of Liverpool Lime Street to see the FA Cup 6th Round, second replay, at Molyneux against Man City. On the terraces at your ground then getting home around 3 in the morning. Must have been mad! But it was great being at Wembley in May and seeing us come from 2 down to beat Sheff Wd 3-2! Great times!

  4. #214
    Quote Originally Posted by PuntsWolf View Post
    Yes
    I did genuinely feel sorry for Wolves after seeing that. The way you've played this season, you deserve better. And then today, Spurs go and spawn a 90+3 winner...

  5. #215
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    16,512
    Quote Originally Posted by Deutsch Wolf View Post
    4) We played well
    5) We should have won regardless and it's our own fault we didn't
    6) I enjoyed the game
    7) I had a good afternoon/night, lovely to see people
    These 4 things for me.

    I thought it was a well entertaining game. 2 very evenly balanced teams, both of whom have decent managers, with decent talented squads. Both looking to impose themselves on the big 6, and appear to be doing so successfully.

    Nuno made changes, potentially with thursday & next weekend in mind.
    In spite of these changes, for the first 30-35 minutes I thought we played really well. Bossed the tempo, much of the passage of play, and were in better form than Leicester, who made a high number of misplaced passes, and balls out of play.

    Boly was great, Saiss immense, Jonny was absolutely brilliant. Neto had a fantastic game. Neves was superb. Jota looked better for me than he has done for most of the season - someone said earlier in the thread if he gets one, he'll proper kick on, and I'd agree with that. If he's been at 70% recently, he's now more at 85%. Doherty was very involved, Patricio was really good, and Dendoncker covered a fucking tonne of ground and kept maddison and barnes phenomenally quiet. Nothing quite fell for Raul.

    In reality, we lost a little momentum for 5-10 mins. Then had the madness of how the half finished.

    It took a little out the game, but for me in the 2nd half we were focussed, and continued to play good football.

    Leicester are third, having scored over 50 goals. We kept vardy, maddison and barnes (a strong front 3) exceptionally quiet.

    We didn't take our chances, Rauls header, and Donck had a great header right at the end of each half that should have been on target at least.

    We've 2 clean sheets in a row. Traore and Moutinho are rested for the Europa league. Donck and Neto have kept up their match sharpness, and shown they can provide significant input into the team. We'll go into thursdays game confident. Win that (with a clean sheet) and we have a proper springboard for the next 4-5 weeks.
    On matchdays, my name is darlowolf

  6. #216
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    440
    I would like to point out that it is not the offside law that is at fault but a particular interpretation of that law that is only operative in games officiated by the PGMOL. IFAB (FIFA's law-making body) has made critical comments against the forensic nature of how VAR is being used in England and the PGMOL has agreed to change its interpretation of the offside and handball law for next season. I consider the delay a political one for Mike Riley to save face. The oft repeated reason for not changing it immediately is framed around consistency. But that makes no sense. If something is drastically wrong, then it should be changed immediately. Otherwise, we are arguing for things to be consistently wrong, which is particularly disastrous because the current interpretation violates Law 5 which states:
    "1. Each match is controlled by a referee who has full authority to enforce the Laws of the Game in connection with the match.2. Decisions will be made to the best of the referee's ability according to the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the referee, who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game." and about VAR says:

    "The assistance from the video assistant referee (VAR) will relate to using replay(s) of the incident. The referee will make the final decision which may be based solely on the information from the VAR and/or the referee reviewing the replay footage directly (‘on-field review’). Except for a ‘serious missed incident’, the referee (and where relevant other ‘on-field’ match officials) must always make a decision (including a decision not to penalise a potential offence); this decision does not change unless it is a ‘clear and obvious error’.

    The current VAR usage violates these provisions in Law 5. That was very clear on Friday when, in conversation with Coady, Mike Dean clearly mouthed into the TV camera at half time that he did not know why the offside was given, he was doing what he was told. My main point of criticism of VAR and the reason why I think the PGMOL have made such a hash of it is that they have taken away the authority of the on-field referee and given it to to the video ASSISTANT referee, which is a violation of Law 5. Should we, for consistency's sake, continue to violate Law 5? I think that argument makes no sense. It's like saying, because a referee did not produce a red card for a defender preventing a goal scoring attempt earlier in the game, he cannot give a red card for a violent assault by a different player. On the contrary, the referee is obligated to follow Law 5 and enforce the laws of the game in every aspect and situation.

    To repeat, rugby has found a way to do this. The TMO comes into play when requested by the on-field referee. If the on-field referee misses something that the TMO deems clear and obvious, then he alerts the on-field referee to the situation and asks him to look at it. The situation is then discussed but the final decision is made by the on-field referee. Where there is no clear resolution, then the on-field determination by the referee (who always states the on-field decision in such circumstances) stands.

    On Friday, Mike Dean's on-field decision was to award a goal. VAR wanted to bring something to his attention, i.e., possible offside, but there was no discussion. The decision to disallow the goal was made by VAR and that is fundamentally a violation of Law 5 which should be corrected immediately. My sense is it will be corrected for next season and we will also see a change in the PGMOL leadership. Currently, those refs who serve as VAR and are slavishly following the dictates of Mike Riley are akin to the Republican party members who support Trump for fear of retribution. To be a referee requires courage and conviction!

  7. #217
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    South Normanton
    Posts
    21,405
    Quote Originally Posted by VanWolfie View Post
    I would like to point out that it is not the offside law that is at fault but a particular interpretation of that law that is only operative in games officiated by the PGMOL. IFAB (FIFA's law-making body) has made critical comments against the forensic nature of how VAR is being used in England and the PGMOL has agreed to change its interpretation of the offside and handball law for next season. I consider the delay a political one for Mike Riley to save face. The oft repeated reason for not changing it immediately is framed around consistency. But that makes no sense. If something is drastically wrong, then it should be changed immediately. Otherwise, we are arguing for things to be consistently wrong, which is particularly disastrous because the current interpretation violates Law 5 which states:
    "1. Each match is controlled by a referee who has full authority to enforce the Laws of the Game in connection with the match.2. Decisions will be made to the best of the referee's ability according to the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the referee, who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game." and about VAR says:

    "The assistance from the video assistant referee (VAR) will relate to using replay(s) of the incident. The referee will make the final decision which may be based solely on the information from the VAR and/or the referee reviewing the replay footage directly (‘on-field review’). Except for a ‘serious missed incident’, the referee (and where relevant other ‘on-field’ match officials) must always make a decision (including a decision not to penalise a potential offence); this decision does not change unless it is a ‘clear and obvious error’.

    The current VAR usage violates these provisions in Law 5. That was very clear on Friday when, in conversation with Coady, Mike Dean clearly mouthed into the TV camera at half time that he did not know why the offside was given, he was doing what he was told. My main point of criticism of VAR and the reason why I think the PGMOL have made such a hash of it is that they have taken away the authority of the on-field referee and given it to to the video ASSISTANT referee, which is a violation of Law 5. Should we, for consistency's sake, continue to violate Law 5? I think that argument makes no sense. It's like saying, because a referee did not produce a red card for a defender preventing a goal scoring attempt earlier in the game, he cannot give a red card for a violent assault by a different player. On the contrary, the referee is obligated to follow Law 5 and enforce the laws of the game in every aspect and situation.

    To repeat, rugby has found a way to do this. The TMO comes into play when requested by the on-field referee. If the on-field referee misses something that the TMO deems clear and obvious, then he alerts the on-field referee to the situation and asks him to look at it. The situation is then discussed but the final decision is made by the on-field referee. Where there is no clear resolution, then the on-field determination by the referee (who always states the on-field decision in such circumstances) stands.

    On Friday, Mike Dean's on-field decision was to award a goal. VAR wanted to bring something to his attention, i.e., possible offside, but there was no discussion. The decision to disallow the goal was made by VAR and that is fundamentally a violation of Law 5 which should be corrected immediately. My sense is it will be corrected for next season and we will also see a change in the PGMOL leadership. Currently, those refs who serve as VAR and are slavishly following the dictates of Mike Riley are akin to the Republican party members who support Trump for fear of retribution. To be a referee requires courage and conviction!
    I don't entirely agree with your interpretation, whether consciously or not you've selectively quoted part of Law 5 and based your argument on that. You've underlined the bit you deemed to be key, the on field referee making the final decision, but that sentence continues to say that the decision may be based solely on information from VAR and that's essentially how it played out on Friday. Though if Dean genuinely couldn't answer Coady's question it seems he may have just been told to disallow it rather than it being explained properly that Neto had been caught offside for the return pass and for him to make the final call that the goal should be ruled out by an offside in the build up.

    Personally I've no issue with on field officials being overruled, the VAR has more resources at their disposal to make the correct decision on review but at the moment there's a lack of transparency because they don't communicate the VAR decision making well, particularly within stadia. It should be quicker for them to review the decisions remotely without the on field referee needing to be involved looking at replays himself but again they've ballsed that up with the overly precise way they're trying to rule everything. They should limit the time VAR can take to review incidents and then display the critical clip that lead to the decision so there is transparency as to how the verdict is reached.
    If you see a Possum, try to kill it, 'kay, it's not a pet.

  8. #218
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mondas and Telos
    Posts
    13,912
    Quote Originally Posted by VanWolfie View Post
    I would like to point out that it is not the offside law that is at fault but a particular interpretation of that law that is only operative in games officiated by the PGMOL. IFAB (FIFA's law-making body) has made critical comments against the forensic nature of how VAR is being used in England and the PGMOL has agreed to change its interpretation of the offside and handball law for next season. I consider the delay a political one for Mike Riley to save face. The oft repeated reason for not changing it immediately is framed around consistency. But that makes no sense. If something is drastically wrong, then it should be changed immediately. Otherwise, we are arguing for things to be consistently wrong, which is particularly disastrous because the current interpretation violates Law 5 which states:
    "1. Each match is controlled by a referee who has full authority to enforce the Laws of the Game in connection with the match.2. Decisions will be made to the best of the referee's ability according to the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the referee, who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game." and about VAR says:

    "The assistance from the video assistant referee (VAR) will relate to using replay(s) of the incident. The referee will make the final decision which may be based solely on the information from the VAR and/or the referee reviewing the replay footage directly (‘on-field review’). Except for a ‘serious missed incident’, the referee (and where relevant other ‘on-field’ match officials) must always make a decision (including a decision not to penalise a potential offence); this decision does not change unless it is a ‘clear and obvious error’.

    The current VAR usage violates these provisions in Law 5. That was very clear on Friday when, in conversation with Coady, Mike Dean clearly mouthed into the TV camera at half time that he did not know why the offside was given, he was doing what he was told. My main point of criticism of VAR and the reason why I think the PGMOL have made such a hash of it is that they have taken away the authority of the on-field referee and given it to to the video ASSISTANT referee, which is a violation of Law 5. Should we, for consistency's sake, continue to violate Law 5? I think that argument makes no sense. It's like saying, because a referee did not produce a red card for a defender preventing a goal scoring attempt earlier in the game, he cannot give a red card for a violent assault by a different player. On the contrary, the referee is obligated to follow Law 5 and enforce the laws of the game in every aspect and situation.

    To repeat, rugby has found a way to do this. The TMO comes into play when requested by the on-field referee. If the on-field referee misses something that the TMO deems clear and obvious, then he alerts the on-field referee to the situation and asks him to look at it. The situation is then discussed but the final decision is made by the on-field referee. Where there is no clear resolution, then the on-field determination by the referee (who always states the on-field decision in such circumstances) stands.

    On Friday, Mike Dean's on-field decision was to award a goal. VAR wanted to bring something to his attention, i.e., possible offside, but there was no discussion. The decision to disallow the goal was made by VAR and that is fundamentally a violation of Law 5 which should be corrected immediately. My sense is it will be corrected for next season and we will also see a change in the PGMOL leadership. Currently, those refs who serve as VAR and are slavishly following the dictates of Mike Riley are akin to the Republican party members who support Trump for fear of retribution. To be a referee requires courage and conviction!
    Eloquent and accurate.
    if your path means you walk through hell then walk as if you own the place.

  9. #219
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by MARKakaJIM View Post
    I don't entirely agree with your interpretation, whether consciously or not you've selectively quoted part of Law 5 and based your argument on that. You've underlined the bit you deemed to be key, the on field referee making the final decision, but that sentence continues to say that the decision may be based solely on information from VAR and that's essentially how it played out on Friday. Though if Dean genuinely couldn't answer Coady's question it seems he may have just been told to disallow it rather than it being explained properly that Neto had been caught offside for the return pass and for him to make the final call that the goal should be ruled out by an offside in the build up.

    Personally I've no issue with on field officials being overruled, the VAR has more resources at their disposal to make the correct decision on review but at the moment there's a lack of transparency because they don't communicate the VAR decision making well, particularly within stadia. It should be quicker for them to review the decisions remotely without the on field referee needing to be involved looking at replays himself but again they've ballsed that up with the overly precise way they're trying to rule everything. They should limit the time VAR can take to review incidents and then display the critical clip that lead to the decision so there is transparency as to how the verdict is reached.
    Let me say at the outset that I am a big supporter of VAR because I want to see correct decisions but not stupid ones that may be technically (and dubiously) correct but not in keeping with the spirit of the game that is referenced in Law 5. I can see where you are coming from in your position but I believe you are highlighting the interpretation that PGMOL is using to justify using VAR to overrule on-field referees. If you look closely at the continuation of the sentence on which you base your position, it says: "Except for a ‘serious missed incident’, the referee (and where relevant other ‘on-field’ match officials) must always make a decision (including a decision not to penalise a potential offence); this decision does not change unless it is a ‘clear and obvious error’." Even if the "serious missed incident" is an offside, the Law states that it is the referee or other on-field match officials MUST ALWAYS make a decision. So what happened on Friday night did not comply with the law as it currently reads if Mike Dean did not make the decision to disallow the goal. If, as he intimated to Coady, that he did what he was told, then my strong position is that it did not follow the dictates of Law 5. But my larger and more significant point is that this is but a mere example of why I think VAR has been introduced into the Premier League in a manner that disregards Law 5 and the "spirit of the game". Hence, I am calling for a change in how VAR is understood and used. It has been successfully implemented in other leagues and serves its purpose of eradicating wrong calls and injustices but the current forensic approach recommended by Mike Riley has become a disaster and needs to be changed quickly. I don't think that will happen without a change in the leadership of PGMOL. My hope is that we can have an implementation of VAR in the Premier League that serves the purpose for which it was intended.

  10. #220
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    341
    Excellent points VanWolfie very well articulated.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 262
    Last Post: 17th August 2019, 08:57 AM
  2. Replies: 125
    Last Post: 25th January 2019, 03:01 PM
  3. Leicester 2 v Wolves 0: The Verdict Thread
    By Boozad in forum Wolves
    Replies: 204
    Last Post: 21st August 2018, 08:38 PM
  4. Leicester 2 v 1 Wolves: The Verdict Thread
    By Boozad in forum The Matchday Archive
    Replies: 160
    Last Post: 3rd February 2013, 08:18 PM
  5. Wolves 2 - 1 Leicester: The Verdict Thread
    By Stan Hullis in forum The Matchday Archive
    Replies: 195
    Last Post: 19th September 2012, 10:42 AM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •