Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Football] What is the point of the pitch side monitor VAR check?



Mustafa II

Well-known member
Oct 14, 2022
1,240
Hove
What is the referee going to see that those useless bastards in the VAR room can't??

They spend 10 minutes in a quiet room unsupervised and still can't reach a decision.... So the logical next step is apparently to make a narcisstic ref take a dramatic walk towards 10s of thousands of fans and make a decision in seconds on a whim, or alternatively play God and determine the outcome of games.

I just don't understand it .
 

Coldeanseagull

Opinionated
Mar 13, 2013
7,599
Coldean
Var did exactly what it was designed for.
'Craig, I think you made a ricket...have a look'
Admittedly, their penalty could have not been given, you can see why it was, but to award a penalty for the ball hitting a players face? :shrug:
 

Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Nov 15, 2008
31,689
Brighton
Five years on and you ask this? This is VAR 101. Intro to VAR. It's the basics.

The ref isn't going over because VAR can't make up their mind. He goes over because they have made up their mind and they think he got it wrong. He goes over because officially he has to make the decision. It's why it is so rare to see the ref go over and stick to his original decision.

It's absolutely performative. We allow the referee to make calls based on advice of assistants who will see things he can't. We've seen them chat things over and change their minds, so there is a degree of performance to it. But it is about the ref seeing the incident again so we can say he made the decision, rather than VAR (who just advise him to take a second look because they know he got it wrong first time).
 
Last edited:


drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
22,945
Burgess Hill
Var did exactly what it was designed for.
'Craig, I think you made a ricket...have a look'
Admittedly, their penalty could have not been given, you can see why it was, but to award a penalty for the ball hitting a players face? :shrug:
If VAR can clearly see it hasn't hit his hand there is no need for the ref to go to the monitor.
 

Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Nov 15, 2008
31,689
Brighton
If VAR can clearly see it hasn't hit his hand there is no need for the ref to go to the monitor.
Except the referee had awarded a penalty, so he had to go to see he made a mistake.

Edit to add:
On the radio Warren spotted it was given.
In other threads on this, others have said the video feed showed the referee giving it.
 

Uh_huh_him

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2011
10,431
Var did exactly what it was designed for.
'Craig, I think you made a ricket...have a look'
Admittedly, their penalty could have not been given, you can see why it was, but to award a penalty for the ball hitting a players face? :shrug:
yes agreed, but why send the ref to the monitor?
The OP's point still stands.

Pawson you've been a twunt (again) No penalty.
Why take another 90 seconds out of the game for him to view multiple angles showing why he was totally wrong?
 


Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Nov 15, 2008
31,689
Brighton
yes agreed, but why send the ref to the monitor?
The OP's point still stands.

Pawson you've been a twunt (again) No penalty.
Why take another 90 seconds out of the game for him to view multiple angles showing why he was totally wrong?
He gave the albion penalty. That's why he had to go look again.
 

Uh_huh_him

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2011
10,431
He gave the albion penalty. That's why he had to go look again.
Yeah - but it's pointless isn't it?
He was wrong.
When he gives a goal and it's offside he doesn't get called back to the monitor.
So why do it when he's given a pen for hand ball, when it didn't touch the players hand/arm?
 

Terry Connor

Active member
Oct 21, 2022
101
He guessed that the ball hit his hand. Given that he didn't see it hit his hand he should have given a corner and let VAR intervene if required. We would have had a corner at least.Failure of process not just of judgement.

I agreewiththeOP. Going to the screen is pointless, just wastesmore time.
 


Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Nov 15, 2008
31,689
Brighton
Yeah - but it's pointless isn't it?
He was wrong.
When he gives a goal and it's offside he doesn't get called back to the monitor.
So why do it when he's given a pen for hand ball, when it didn't touch the players hand/arm?
It is effectively pointless, because logically the reason it isn't an offence is because there is no contact between the ball and his arm/hand.

However, when it comes to handball (in a non-goalscoring situation) it is, officially, a subjective call and refs have to review all subjective calls (the ref is judging intent, naturalness of the arm position etc - when a goal is scored it's just about the objective call of contact between the ball and the hand/arm).
 

drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
22,945
Burgess Hill
Except the referee had awarded a penalty, so he had to go to see he made a mistake.

Edit to add:
On the radio Warren spotted it was given.
In other threads on this, others have said the video feed showed the referee giving it.
No he didn't. If it was clearly not handball he is not required to check.
 

timbha

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
9,764
Sussex
Except the referee had awarded a penalty, so he had to go to see he made a mistake.

Edit to add:
On the radio Warren spotted it was given.
In other threads on this, others have said the video feed showed the referee giving it.
I was pretty p’eed off with WA. He was adamant it was a penalty, not because the ref gave it, but because he saw it. He went on and on about it being a pen and then when it was checked and cancelled he quickly changed his mind. He had left me in the belief that it was a 100% pen because WA had seen the handball and it would be a formality for VAR to confirm.

He’s there to be our eyes.

He is off my Xmas card list 😀
 


Birdie Boy

Well-known member
Jun 17, 2011
4,089
It is so they can show you whatever angle suits their case, not this one. Occasionally, very occasionally, they actually have said no f*** that, I was actually right.
 

Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Nov 15, 2008
31,689
Brighton
No he didn't. If it was clearly not handball he is not required to check.
That applies when a goal is scored. A goal scorer is not allowed to have his arm touch the ball at all. Any contact is an offence regardless of supposed intent, or the naturalness of the arm position, or the closeness of the ball. It is an objective call, and VAR can intevene on objective calls without the ref reviewing.

Handballs not involving a goal are subjective calls based on the above. All subjective calls have to be reviewed by the referee. As Colwell didn't score a goal, his supposed handball was a subjective call and that requires the ref to review. As stupid as it is when anyone watching the video can see there is no contact between the ball and the hand/arm.
 

Mustafa II

Well-known member
Oct 14, 2022
1,240
Hove
It is so they can show you whatever angle suits their case, not this one. Occasionally, very occasionally, they actually have said no f*** that, I was actually right.

If the referee is actually right against two 'experts' in a room, who have access to 40 odd camera angles on their demand, and the luxury of taking as long as they need to make a decision without the pressure of fans or players... then that would make an absolute mockery of the whole system for me.

I would expect the VAR team to be right against the referee 100% of the time... and, should that be the case, scrap this stupid running up to a screen bollocks... rule it - explain why - and show the fans the decisive replay. Main ref doesn't need to get involved once VAR are making a decision - in fact, it is dangerous to allow him to.
 


WhingForPresident

.
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Feb 23, 2009
15,942
Marlborough
The check for the 'penalty' against Colwill was incredibly pointless. Just needed someone in his ear to say: 'yeah, you've f***ed up there Craig, just give the corner'.
 

Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Oct 8, 2003
48,727
Faversham
Five years on and you ask this? This is VAR 101. Intro to VAR. It's the basics.

The ref isn't going over because VAR can't make up their mind. He goes over because they have made up their mind and they think he got it wrong. He goes over because officially he has to make the decision. It's why it is so rare to see the ref go over and stick to his original decision.

It's absolutely performative. We allow the referee to make calls based on advice of assistance who will see things he can't. We've seen them chat things over and change their minds, so there is a degree of performance to it. But it is about the ref seeing the incident again so we can say he made the decision, rather than VAR (who just advise him to take a second look because they know he got it wrong first time).
How dare you come on here and talk absolute sense?
 

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills


Top