Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Dan Burn - shirt pull - VAR review
- Thread starter Mellotron
- Start date
That's how Neil Swarbrick (retired prem ref, now in charge of overseeing the new guys, and quite heavily involved in the implementation of VAR) described it on an episode of 'The Debate'. There are certain queries that are factual - offside, in or out the box, out of play or not, even the new version of handball is mostly factual (only area for wiggle room is handballs leading to penalties - even that has been whittled down to as factual as they can make 'arm away from the body'). Those are things the VAR can say 'it was in/out/handball/on/off'. For subjective decisions, the ref is supposed to tell the VAR what he thought he saw to come to his conclusion, and the var has to review the footage to see if the things the ref said happened, happened.
If it didn't, he can explain what happened and offer advice. The ref can then accept that advice and make a call based on it (as he would if a 4th official or lino is offering an opinion on something he might have missed), or ask to see the footage on the pitch side camera to judge for himself.
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/11777969/var-in-the-premier-league-the-ultimate-qa
Yes, Yes it is . . .I'm beginning to think PL refs are rugby rejects.
Da Man Clay
T'Blades
- Dec 16, 2004
- 16,254
That is not in any way shape or form a penalty. Each tugging at the other. If that is a penalty on VAR we might as well give up. There will be a dozen pens a game.
BensGrandad
New member
The rules as they stand say that pulling or tugging a shirt is a penalty, how would you propose they could reword the rules to show that sometimes it is a penalty and sometimes it isnt. Dependant on the amount of shirt that is pulled?
pastafarian
Well-known member
I wonder if there are rules are on wedgies.............actually please dont answer that.
SollysLeftFoot
New member
Oh really? that's interesting, because I feel like the ref should be the main man and VAR as a back up if he really cannot be sure and or corrects a clear and obvious error. Saturday was a clear and obvious error, lino really should have seen it; but my gripe is how long it took...as i keep mentioning
the right footed denilson
New member
And here is the problem
If the rules state that shirt pulling = foul, then clearly the rules are not being followed by the book.
If refs started giving fouls for every shirt pull or tug the game would be a farce.
So fans would rather only 'serious' shirt pulls were penalised.
But then there's that there problem.
Now we have VAR, either it's against it the rules or it isn't, surely?
(see the Man City 'goal' vs Spurs for an example of how some rules are going to be adhered to far too closely)
Isn't that kind of how it is? The benefit is that it makes it pointless asking the ref for a VAR check. Also, the ref doesn't have to run to check a display when var is needed.
I can't imagine anyone is pleased about how long that took, but I expect it was the first day in the office for the VAR team, with a new set of rules, and they didn't want to get it wrong.Saturday was a clear and obvious error, lino really should have seen it; but my gripe is how long it took...as i keep mentioning
Things could easily be improved for the fans at the game. To start with, get rid of 'Goal' on the screen, until VAR is done. I don't know if they check one thing at a time (check for offside, then check for handball etc. With cricket, they check for front foot no-ball, then they check ultra edge, then they go to ball tracking. Maybe they could tell us as soon as the offside has been checked? I don't know, let's hope it improves.
Hold fire - so have we established we're looking at the right challenge yet?
But it's not really VAR overruling you if you're the one calling for it to check something.
In reality, if they gave a penalty every single time a shirt was pulled, defenders would never pull a shirt again. They'd just remove that from their game or lose.
So is this the challenge mentioned in the OP?For those of you who didn't see it:
giveusfalmerplease
Well-known member
actually im more interested in Trossards goal which was ruled out by VAR. Now correct me if im wrong ( i know you will ) but not a single WH player called offside, nor did their manager so surely it should have stood?
) but not a single WH player called offside, nor did their manager so surely it should have stood?
The Wizard
Well-known member
- Jul 2, 2009
- 18,383
If that GIF is the one that’s not a foul IMO, it looks bad like that but both of them have their arms on each other can’t be giving penalties for that every game.
It's not cricket, where you have to ask the umpire 'how's that?'. Pre-VAR, the linesman would just put his flag up if they saw someone offside, the defenders don't need to put their hands up. They do put their hands up to put pressure on the linesman, but they don't need to.actually im more interested in Trossards goal which was ruled out by VAR. Now correct me if im wrong ( i know you will
actually im more interested in Trossards goal which was ruled out by VAR. Now correct me if im wrong ( i know you will
Rules don't only apply if players appeal when they're broken. As mentioned many times in many threads every goal is reviewed. If they spot an offside, whether the defending team called for it or not, the goal will be ruled out.
Albumen
Don't wait for me!
I'd prefer a system where the captain has one VAR challenge each half. The ref/linesman handle the rest.
I've explained elsewhere why I don't think this would work. Firstly, because on average teams let in less than 1 goal per half, you would always review the first goal scored against you each half. Secondly, where a captain is actually only trying to review referee mistakes, as opposed to reviewing all goals, the captain is often not in a good position to see a mistake was made. Players are rarely in the right place to see if they were offside or not.
It makes no sense to use it for offsides. They still can't stop play, just in case the attacking captain were to appeal it, so they play until there's a goal. If there's no goal (and it's then ruled offside), then the attacking captain wouldn't waste a review. If there is a goal, and it's ruled offside, he's going to review it unless it was obviously offside. And similarly, if it's a goal and not ruled out, the defending team would review it. Just all a joke.
Albumen
Don't wait for me!
I see what you're saying but the captain would just look a dick if it's obviously a goal.