Shopping at via this link helps to support NSC

[Football] Anyone else enjoying the Euros super-speedy VAR reviews?

Welcome to North Stand Chat - the biggest and best Brighton & Hove Albion fan site.

Go on - join - you know you want to! (Pssst: you'll get fewer ads too!)



Gazwag

5 millionth post poster
Mar 4, 2004
29,418
Bexhill-on-Sea
Still don't like VAR but I think the standard of refereeing has been absolutely superb, I'm just starting to feel sad we only of one more game of this before we have to go back to the big team favouring refereeing dross of the PL
 

Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo

Why Did You Let It Bounce
Oct 4, 2003
8,892
I didn't think what happened was all that confusing to be honest, but the commentators did a woeful job of clearing it up, and just muddied the waters by getting it all wrong. Compounded by the idiot Peter Walton doing the same.

This is what happened:
- There was a challenge by an England player 6 yards outside the box to win the ball back. It could have gone either way whether any foul was committed.
- The ball broke into the box, where Kane reached it first and was caught by the Denmark player.
- The ref blew his whistle and pointed up the field, giving Denmark a free kick for the FIRST CHALLENGE.
- Because there was a potential case for a penalty, there was a VAR review.
- The first job of the VAR team was to look at that first challenge and decide if the ref made an obvious error. He hadn't - it was certainly a subjective call. And that would have been the end of the VAR review. they will not even have looked at the challenge on Kane. It becomes irrelevant (exactly like when someone gets hacked down in the box, but there is seen to be an offside in the build up).

The game restarts from where Kane went down in the box, therefore the free kick must have been given for Kane's challenge inside the box, either for a foul or the dive. If the ref had given the free kick for the challenge outside the area, which was also by Kane, then the game would have restarted there. Unfortunately the replays were still being shown when the game restarted but you can see in between the replays the ref signal the free kick (after the VAR check) and Kasper Schmeichel putting the ball down inside the penalty area for the free kick.
 

hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
All-powerful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
58,892
Chandlers Ford
The game restarts from where Kane went down in the box, therefore the free kick must have been given for Kane's challenge inside the box, either for a foul or the dive. If the ref had given the free kick for the challenge outside the area, which was also by Kane, then the game would have restarted there. Unfortunately the replays were still being shown when the game restarted but you can see in between the replays the ref signal the free kick (after the VAR check) and Kasper Schmeichel putting the ball down inside the penalty area for the free kick.

Put simply, they took it from the wrong place. Its only a few yards and nobody would have cared.

the free kick was not for a foul by Kane in the box.
 

Audax

Boing boing boing...
Aug 3, 2015
2,307
Uckfield
This.
Though have to say thought the Kane one was a pen and the Sterling one was a little soft.

I suspect in both cases, had the on-field ref ruled the other way around then VAR wouldn't have overturned either decision. Both, for me, were debatable - and therefore there was no "clear and obvious" error for the VAR to overturn.

In the Sterling case, they showed a replay from the VAR analysis that clearly showed the second Danish defender making hip-to-hip contact with Sterling, and that'll be why the VAR didn't overturn the pen decision. In the Kane case ... it's arguable whether Kane fouled the defender or the defender fouled Kane (or, indeed, whether it was a "racing incident" with neither player actually at fault). So again ... firmly believe that VAR ruled "no obvious" error and moved on.

On balance - I think England being given 1 penalty was probably the correct outcome, given that both for me were in the vicinity of being 50-50's.
 

Swansman

Pro-peace
May 13, 2019
21,363
Sweden
Perhaps what we have needed is recognition that a lot of decisions in football can only be subjective. The England penalty last night is a good example. In my view it was a dive. Others disagree. Doesn’t matter how many times we look at it that won’t change. By making decisions quickly there is understanding that VAR only has value for the factual/objective decision making. The PL should take this relative success further and mandate a 10 second time limit on all VAR reviews.

I thought it was a dive when I saw the first couple of replays, but later when the Swedish TV studio (I suppose they must have done the same over there?) showed exactly what VAR had seen, it suddenly looked a lot more justified.

Kane and Grealish could barely stand on their feet while they were on the pitch though, was a bit tiresome to see.
 

Jim in the West

Members
Sep 13, 2003
3,854
Way out West
I thought it was a dive when I saw the first couple of replays, but later when the Swedish TV studio (I suppose they must have done the same over there?) showed exactly what VAR had seen, it suddenly looked a lot more justified.

Kane and Grealish could barely stand on their feet while they were on the pitch though, was a bit tiresome to see.

I'm not normally one to defend Kane or Grealish. However, some of the challenges which resulted in free kicks were pretty strong, and mostly (imho) deserved free kicks - certainly all much worse than the foul on Sterling for the pen. There were a couple near the end on Kane which were dubious, but the defenders (esp Vestergaard) knew exactly what they were doing.
 


hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
All-powerful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
58,892
Chandlers Ford
I'm not normally one to defend Kane or Grealish. However, some of the challenges which resulted in free kicks were pretty strong, and mostly (imho) deserved free kicks - certainly all much worse than the foul on Sterling for the pen. There were a couple near the end on Kane which were dubious, but the defenders (esp Vestergaard) knew exactly what they were doing.

The softest free kick of the night was that which Denmark scored from. Given for Shaw holding his hands loosely around Christianssen's waist, before the )first) free kick came in.
 

sheebo

Members
Jul 13, 2003
25,425
I didn't think what happened was all that confusing to be honest, but the commentators did a woeful job of clearing it up, and just muddied the waters by getting it all wrong. Compounded by the idiot Peter Walton doing the same.

This is what happened:
- There was a challenge by an England player 6 yards outside the box to win the ball back. It could have gone either way whether any foul was committed.
- The ball broke into the box, where Kane reached it first and was caught by the Denmark player.
- The ref blew his whistle and pointed up the field, giving Denmark a free kick for the FIRST CHALLENGE.
- Because there was a potential case for a penalty, there was a VAR review.
- The first job of the VAR team was to look at that first challenge and decide if the ref made an obvious error. He hadn't - it was certainly a subjective call. And that would have been the end of the VAR review. they will not even have looked at the challenge on Kane. It becomes irrelevant (exactly like when someone gets hacked down in the box, but there is seen to be an offside in the build up).

The game restarts from where Kane went down in the box, therefore the free kick must have been given for Kane's challenge inside the box, either for a foul or the dive. If the ref had given the free kick for the challenge outside the area, which was also by Kane, then the game would have restarted there. Unfortunately the replays were still being shown when the game restarted but you can see in between the replays the ref signal the free kick (after the VAR check) and Kasper Schmeichel putting the ball down inside the penalty area for the free kick.

Put simply, they took it from the wrong place. Its only a few yards and nobody would have cared.

the free kick was not for a foul by Kane in the box.

Having watched it again 10 times I don’t agreed at all. It’s what the beeb comms suggested. It’s not a foul by Kane regardless, but he let it play on a long time until kane is fouled in the area - not an instant free kick given - WHY?! If it’s a foul to the defensive team you surely blow straight up. Then the free kick was taken from more than a few yards away if he had given a foul against kane.

Ok another note, watch the Denmark wall for their goal. They’re meant to be a metre or something away from the England wall with the new rules. As the kicker is about to run up they shuffle in front and closer to the England wall and one even breaks away before it’s kicked. It should have been disallowed. That and the fact both were very soft free kicks - especially mounts where his arm accidentally brushed their guy. Thank god we won.
 

Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
Oct 8, 2003
40,646
Faversham
I didn't think what happened was all that confusing to be honest, but the commentators did a woeful job of clearing it up, and just muddied the waters by getting it all wrong. Compounded by the idiot Peter Walton doing the same.

This is what happened:
- There was a challenge by an England player 6 yards outside the box to win the ball back. It could have gone either way whether any foul was committed.
- The ball broke into the box, where Kane reached it first and was caught by the Denmark player.
- The ref blew his whistle and pointed up the field, giving Denmark a free kick for the FIRST CHALLENGE.
- Because there was a potential case for a penalty, there was a VAR review.
- The first job of the VAR team was to look at that first challenge and decide if the ref made an obvious error. He hadn't - it was certainly a subjective call. And that would have been the end of the VAR review. they will not even have looked at the challenge on Kane. It becomes irrelevant (exactly like when someone gets hacked down in the box, but there is seen to be an offside in the build up).

Precisely. VAR is great. Some officials are twats. Some pundits are twats.

I stick by my 20 second rule - if VAR can't decide in 20 seconds then just leave it to what the ref thought.

The trouble with this is that the present rubric has been designed to keep the final decision with the ref so VAR won't call back play unless the error is egregious. And there remains a Sargasso sea where the ref makes an initial decision and VAR ponders whether the error (if it is an error) was clear and obvious, meaning VAR is still sanctioning incorrect decisions by not intervening. But even to me, a VAR fan, better this than 3 minutes of pontification.

One rule change - make it clear blue daylight since being offside by the width of a cock just doesn't 'feel' right.

One thing that is certain is that VAR is here to stay. An excuse for some to turn their back on the EPL and go back to 'real' football in the lower leagues, Perhaps.

Tara, then.
 

Sorrel

Members
Jul 5, 2003
2,598
Back in East Sussex
It shows (to me) that VAR can work. The emphasis has to be on the ref's decision and whether there is an obvious error. If there is not, the decision stands.

Same for offside: was it given on the pitch? If not, is it obviously wrong? If not, the decision stays as it was.

Much quicker to do the above, no need for obsessions with offside lines, penalty decisions and goals only get overturned if there's an obvious problem and referees gain a bit more status for their decisions. All would be great if the FA could do that.
 

Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Top