[Football] "It's not VAR, it's the people running it"

[Swansman]

Anyone who makes 70k a year on here is likely to be asked to explain their feck ups though

Possible.

I do wonder however why refs should be forced to do post-game interviews and explain their decisions when no one apart from the odd manager needs to do that?

Shouldn't we demand the same from players then? "Moises Caicedo, in the 4th minute your pass went to the opponent. Explain your reasoning behind that pass."
"And then two minutes later, you could have made a run which would have opened up space for another player. Explain why you didn't".

 

[Swansman]

Just as a matter of interest how many games with VAR in place have you attended

Zero, not been abroad other than Denmark since Covid started, and the Swedish fans don't want VAR so we haven't got it in Allsvenskan.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Possible.

I do wonder however why refs should be forced to do post-game interviews and explain their decisions when no one apart from the odd manager needs to do that?

Shouldn't we demand the same from players then? "Moises Caicedo, in the 4th minute your pass went to the opponent. Explain your reasoning behind that pass."
"And then two minutes later, you could have made a run which would have opened up space for another player. Explain why you didn't".

The odd manager? Hmmm

 

[Swansman]

The odd manager? Hmmm

Yeah. Sometimes, once in a while, they are asked to explain their decisions rather than tell them "their feelings about the game" or about a decision by the ref etc.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Zero, not been abroad other than Denmark since Covid started, and the Swedish fans don't want VAR so we haven't got it in Allsvenskan.

I thought not….when you say the Swedish fans didn’t want it…so the decision was based on public opinion?

 

[Icy Gull]

Possible.

I do wonder however why refs should be forced to do post-game interviews and explain their decisions when no one apart from the odd manager needs to do that?

Shouldn't we demand the same from players then? "Moises Caicedo, in the 4th minute your pass went to the opponent. Explain your reasoning behind that pass."
"And then two minutes later, you could have made a run which would have opened up space for another player. Explain why you didn't".

As said loads of times, VAR should be tweaked to follow the TMO in rugby. As the ref is miked up everyone can hear the ref’s decision and his conversation with the TMO. I see very very few controversial complete feck up decisons in rugby because of it

It would mean things being shown on the big screen as it’s being discussed though. Maybe football fans are considered too dickheadish to be able to do this though

The clock would also need to be stopped, another thing I believe should happen in football during breaks in play.

 

[BadFish]

Possible.

I do wonder however why refs should be forced to do post-game interviews and explain their decisions when no one apart from the odd manager needs to do that?

Shouldn't we demand the same from players then? "Moises Caicedo, in the 4th minute your pass went to the opponent. Explain your reasoning behind that pass."
"And then two minutes later, you could have made a run which would have opened up space for another player. Explain why you didn't".

You don't think Caicedo's decisions are replayed to him along with suggestions of what he should have done? Might not be to the press but this review process is certainly in place to make the players better.

My question is why would you need ot force the refs to do this? I don't get why they are not asking for this to happen? This kind of transparency would surely mean that they are better undestood and more respected.

If this is the best answer that refs can give

"So why did you make that decision?"
"I thought it was correct"

It would be an insight into why the standard of reffing is not good enough.

Watching Dermont Gallagher discussing why refs made different decisions is something i find informative. Imagine if this was the actual ref not someone trying not to drop his mates in it.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Slink off into the sunset? They recieve hate and death threats against themselves and their families while making £70k a year (which is less than some people here).

Post-game interviews with refs would probably not be very interesting.
"So why did you make that decision?"
"I thought it was correct"

To which the follow up question would be “why did you think it was correct”….that’s a big assumption you make …surely how interesting would depend on the parameters of the interview.
Maybe it’s VAR peeps that should be interviewed?

 

[Swansman]

I thought not….when you say the Swedish fans didn’t want it…so the decision was based on public opinion

Every club in Sweden is owned by the members of the club, so if the members don't want it, the clubs don't want it, and the clubs vote on those matters and are pretty much forced to do what their members say as otherwise the board will be voted off in the annual members meetings in the clubs.

 

[Milano]

Every club in Sweden is owned by the members of the club, so if the members don't want it, the clubs don't want it, and the clubs vote on those matters and are pretty much forced to do what their members say as otherwise the board will be voted off in the annual members meetings in the clubs.

That is far too fair an ownership model for the EPL. Although without the foreign ownership money laundering the EPL would look a lot different.

 

[Swansman]

You don't think Caicedo's decisions are replayed to him along with suggestions of what he should have done? Might not be to the press but this review process is certainly in place to make the players better.

My question is why would you need ot force the refs to do this? I don't get why they are not asking for this to happen? This kind of transparency would surely mean that they are better undestood and more respected.

If this is the best answer that refs can give

"So why did you make that decision?"
"I thought it was correct"

It would be an insight into why the standard of reffing is not good enough.

Watching Dermont Gallagher discussing why refs made different decisions is something i find informative. Imagine if this was the actual ref not someone trying not to drop his mates in it.

Yes, and equally each ref performance is reviewed by supervisors and they get advise on how to do things better.

As for why they are not asking for it to happen... perhaps not many of them are media whores who likes to speak on TV with millions of people watching. Perhaps they just want to ref the game. Perhaps it could all get very awkward very quickly with the FA appointing those best at explaining themselves rather than those making the least number of mistakes for the big games.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Assuming you don’t watch much European football ?

Maybe cast your mind back to both the mens and womens euros …. Decisions made quicker and certainly less mistakes than use of it in this country.

It’s the people using it … technology can never be at fault when no decisions are automated apart from goal line technology.

I watch lots of Serie A and La Liga and I don't recall blatantly bad decisions like the West Ham and Newcastle ones yesterday. It seems to me that they make better VAR decisions.

They are your opinions and that’s fair enough. I wondered where the data was to back them up though. I think that is more reasonable than just liking the post.

 

[drew]

Slink off into the sunset? They recieve hate and death threats against themselves and their families while making £70k a year (which is less than some people here).

Post-game interviews with refs would probably not be very interesting.
"So why did you make that decision?"
"I thought it was correct"

Up to the interviewer to ask the right questions. They don't deserve death threats but, in my opinion, they do deserve the flack they get. Explain themselves as managers and players do then I'd change my view.

 

[drew]

Possible.

I do wonder however why refs should be forced to do post-game interviews and explain their decisions when no one apart from the odd manager needs to do that?

Shouldn't we demand the same from players then? "Moises Caicedo, in the 4th minute your pass went to the opponent. Explain your reasoning behind that pass."
"And then two minutes later, you could have made a run which would have opened up space for another player. Explain why you didn't".

Reason is transparency. As for the odd manager, I think you'll find they are contractually obliged to give post match interviews. Why not the same for those making key decisions on the pitch and who are earning substantial salaries off the back of the success of the EPL?

Your second paragraph is just daft.

 

[drew]

Yes, and equally each ref performance is reviewed by supervisors and they get advise on how to do things better.

As for why they are not asking for it to happen... perhaps not many of them are media whores who likes to speak on TV with millions of people watching. Perhaps they just want to ref the game. Perhaps it could all get very awkward very quickly with the FA appointing those best at explaining themselves rather than those making the least number of mistakes for the big games.

And where do you get your information as to how the PGMOL operate post match?

 

[Swansman]

Reason is transparency. As for the odd manager, I think you'll find they are contractually obliged to give post match interviews. Why not the same for those making key decisions on the pitch and who are earning substantial salaries off the back of the success of the EPL?

Yeah and any manager also earn ten or more times more than the refs and obviously that means you can ask them for more.

Lots of people who make key decisions on the pitch - namely the players - don't do interviews post-games. Usually it is just one or two blokes, and usually not the ones who made bad mistakes or got sent off. I've very rarely seen interviewers ask for players to explain their mistakes, so why would refs?

I don't think it would change much, if anything. People wouldn't be "more understanding" other than for like five minutes, until they're entangled in their emotions again.

Ecuadorian author Jorge Enrique Adoum once wrote about his return to Quito in the late 60s. He went to watch his favorite club SD Aucas, and was shocked to see that the fans on the stadium had a minute of silence and showed their support for the referee, who had lost his mother the day before. "Things have really changed", he thought. Fifteen minutes into the game, the ref ruled out Aucas goal for offside, and a bloke standing next to Adoum immediately yelled "you motherless son of a whore!" to the ref. Everything back to normal.

And thats how it would be with refs doing interviews I think, couple of minutes of "improved understanding" and then back to normal. Few would really listen - people rarely do.

 

[Swansman]

And where do you get your information as to how the PGMOL operate post match?

https://www.premierleague.com/referees

- There is a robust system for measuring Select Group performance over the season. Each Premier League match is evaluated by a former senior referee who scrutinises every decision using the match footage and event data to measure the officials’ technical performance. Former players and managers (Match Delegates) assess the accuracy and consistency of decision-making and their management of the match.

 

[drew]

https://www.premierleague.com/referees

- There is a robust system for measuring Select Group performance over the season. Each Premier League match is evaluated by a former senior referee who scrutinises every decision using the match footage and event data to measure the officials’ technical performance. Former players and managers (Match Delegates) assess the accuracy and consistency of decision-making and their management of the match.

Thanks. Begs the question as to why they aren't open about their views?

 

[dazzer6666]

Even the Womens Championship has an assessor at every game who meets the ref team after the match

 

[drew]

Yeah and any manager also earn ten or more times more than the refs and obviously that means you can ask them for more.

Lots of people who make key decisions on the pitch - namely the players - don't do interviews post-games. Usually it is just one or two blokes, and usually not the ones who made bad mistakes or got sent off. I've very rarely seen interviewers ask for players to explain their mistakes, so why would refs?

I don't think it would change much, if anything. People wouldn't be "more understanding" other than for like five minutes, until they're entangled in their emotions again.

Ecuadorian author Jorge Enrique Adoum once wrote about his return to Quito in the late 60s. He went to watch his favorite club SD Aucas, and was shocked to see that the fans on the stadium had a minute of silence and showed their support for the referee, who had lost his mother the day before. "Things have really changed", he thought. Fifteen minutes into the game, the ref ruled out Aucas goal for offside, and a bloke standing next to Adoum immediately yelled "you motherless son of a whore!" to the ref. Everything back to normal.

And thats how it would be with refs doing interviews I think, couple of minutes of "improved understanding" and then back to normal. Few would really listen - people rarely do.

Think the players are obliged to do interviews but it's the choice of the broadcaster who they put in front of the cameras. There are usually in excess of 22 players involved but only one ref!