FA setting dangerous precedent

comment by Never Mind the Defending: Here’s Jü... (U3979)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Never Mind the Defending: Here’s Jü... (U3979)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by Never Mind the Defending: Here’s Jü... (U3979)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
People asked for referees to be accountable. It's a step in the right direction that they've been made accountable two weekends in a row after mistakes.

I think the United/Spurs handball was a penalty myself also but handballs are so subjective now with the wording, they're not going to open that can of worms. To be fair handballs will always have a massive amount of subjectivity as you can't give handballs for everything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The pressure put on the refs seem to have the opposite effect, VAR is scared to overturn on field, on field is hoping for a safety blanket

I’d like to scrap VAR aside from offside goal line stuff.

Give each coach one challenge a half, if he calls it all the officials huddle, watch the TV reach a conclusion.

If the manager throws his challenge away on something nonsensical then he’s held accountable when he can’t use it later in the game when it would’ve been useful.

Sorta hybrid model between US sports and Cricket which employ technology excellently
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah this one challenge thing is ridiculous in my opinion. You can have three decisions go against you in a game and you can only challenge the first one. VAR is fine. They need further training and experience and better, an independent group of referees at Stockley Park, whereby they don't have pressures of leasing the PGMOL and their mates.

Removal of 'clear and obvious' would also be a good step as it doesn't do what it was designed for, not having two referees with different opinions debating a decision. Instead it means decisions which aren't shocking decisions remain, with them hiding behind 'clear and obvious'. If the VAR thinks a subjective call is wrong, he asks the referee to look at the monitor and the match referee being the ultimate authority on the pitch makes his decision after viewing the replay. If VAR thinks it's a complete mistake, he tells him to reverse it. It's really simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One challenge, but you gain an additional challenge if the decision is overturned would solve your problem.

Just don’t use it frivolously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it wouldn't solve it at all. If you get one wrong and then two errors occur against you, you can't do anything about it.

Simply have a set number of 'challenges' doesn't work and is completely pointless anyhow. The tech is there so get it right no matter how many times an error occurs. No reason to limit how many times you get it right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Getting it wrong would mean you lose any future challenges yes. Stops the endless VAR checks that slow football down and ruin it for the fans.

Works in pretty much every sport where it’s tried. If you get it wrong and then potentially are unable to challenge a future decision that adds an interesting component to the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it may atop endless checks but increases incorrect decisions which is the complete opposite to what we want to achieve. It has already been shown to have barely added anything on to games. Nobody cares about what supposedly works in other sports. People want what works for football and adding American style drama to sport isn't really what football is about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahh there’s that good old fashioned xenophobia.

And you’ll always get incorrect decisions. No matter what happens unfortunately. AI refereeing maybe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody asked for 100% correct decisions which can never be the cae anyhow as multiple people can disagree over many decisions, so not all will agree on decisions being 100% correct. We're asking for increasing correct decisions, which your Americanisation of the game would take away.

There was no xenophobia. You've made that up but I'll ignore it as you often say silly things when you don't have anything to add to the actual topic.

comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 5 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by Never Mind the Defending: Here’s Jü... (U3979)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Never Mind the Defending: Here’s Jü... (U3979)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by Never Mind the Defending: Here’s Jü... (U3979)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
People asked for referees to be accountable. It's a step in the right direction that they've been made accountable two weekends in a row after mistakes.

I think the United/Spurs handball was a penalty myself also but handballs are so subjective now with the wording, they're not going to open that can of worms. To be fair handballs will always have a massive amount of subjectivity as you can't give handballs for everything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The pressure put on the refs seem to have the opposite effect, VAR is scared to overturn on field, on field is hoping for a safety blanket

I’d like to scrap VAR aside from offside goal line stuff.

Give each coach one challenge a half, if he calls it all the officials huddle, watch the TV reach a conclusion.

If the manager throws his challenge away on something nonsensical then he’s held accountable when he can’t use it later in the game when it would’ve been useful.

Sorta hybrid model between US sports and Cricket which employ technology excellently
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah this one challenge thing is ridiculous in my opinion. You can have three decisions go against you in a game and you can only challenge the first one. VAR is fine. They need further training and experience and better, an independent group of referees at Stockley Park, whereby they don't have pressures of leasing the PGMOL and their mates.

Removal of 'clear and obvious' would also be a good step as it doesn't do what it was designed for, not having two referees with different opinions debating a decision. Instead it means decisions which aren't shocking decisions remain, with them hiding behind 'clear and obvious'. If the VAR thinks a subjective call is wrong, he asks the referee to look at the monitor and the match referee being the ultimate authority on the pitch makes his decision after viewing the replay. If VAR thinks it's a complete mistake, he tells him to reverse it. It's really simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One challenge, but you gain an additional challenge if the decision is overturned would solve your problem.

Just don’t use it frivolously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it wouldn't solve it at all. If you get one wrong and then two errors occur against you, you can't do anything about it.

Simply have a set number of 'challenges' doesn't work and is completely pointless anyhow. The tech is there so get it right no matter how many times an error occurs. No reason to limit how many times you get it right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Getting it wrong would mean you lose any future challenges yes. Stops the endless VAR checks that slow football down and ruin it for the fans.

Works in pretty much every sport where it’s tried. If you get it wrong and then potentially are unable to challenge a future decision that adds an interesting component to the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it may atop endless checks but increases incorrect decisions which is the complete opposite to what we want to achieve. It has already been shown to have barely added anything on to games. Nobody cares about what supposedly works in other sports. People want what works for football and adding American style drama to sport isn't really what football is about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahh there’s that good old fashioned xenophobia.

And you’ll always get incorrect decisions. No matter what happens unfortunately. AI refereeing maybe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody asked for 100% correct decisions which can never be the cae anyhow as multiple people can disagree over many decisions, so not all will agree on decisions being 100% correct. We're asking for increasing correct decisions, which your Americanisation of the game would take away.

There was no xenophobia. You've made that up but I'll ignore it as you often say silly things when you don't have anything to add to the actual topic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Xenophobia I’m beginning to think Fred is a bot. His posts are getting more troll like by the day. Surely an actual person can’t actually think the stuff he constantly posts?

comment by Never Mind the Defending: Here’s Jürgen Klopp’s Liverpool (U3979)
posted 6 hours, 55 minutes ago
Just broadcast the conversation between VAR and the referee. That would solve so many of the issues
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This would solve a lot of problems, but the numbered challenges idea is absolute hogwash.

comment by Never Mind the Defending: Here’s Jürgen Klopp’s Liverpool (U3979)
posted 7 hours, 10 minutes ago
Just broadcast the conversation between VAR and the referee. That would solve so many of the issues
----------------------------------------------------------------------

They already do this in top-flight rugby. And all it does is slow the game down and raise even more issues.

I find it odd that anything can be over turned on Appeal.

Ref makes a call on the pitch, VAR reviews it. That's w opinions given and the second kne with the benefit of replays etc. If they then get it wrong then a third opinion is just that...another opinion. Why should that opinion be judged as correct against 2 others.

The big factor in that though js the 'high bar' for VAR to Iover rule. This seems to be preventing us from getting the right decision simply because VAR will.not step in if it isn't a clanger. This is compounded by the fact that if the ref goes to the monitor ithe decision is being over turned. It makes the call to take the ref to the monitor very weighty, so VAR is more reluctant to do it. So even if there is doubt with the decision VAR leaves it with the ref which implies they agree.

It needs to be a more open discussion based process to help the decision making. The ref should be able to request VAR on tough decisions to make a decision and not just be called to it by VAR.

The whole process needs changing, they need to stop trying to protect the ref but embrace the fact its a tough job and allow him all the help he needs when he wants it.

It’s not really a precedent if they’ve been overturning red cards on appeal for years. Not like they’ve just brought it on this season .

For me they need to totally change the way its used.

Rather than a safety net that picks up big errors, it should be a tool that the ref can call on to make a decision.

So the Mac Allister one, he could give an immediate on field decision but refer himself to the screen to view it, with an open mic to another ref or 2 to reach a judgement. If he finds reason to change his mind he can do so or not.

This takes the pressure off the usual situation where he is called to the screen he will inevitably turn it over.

It would see more time wasted to VAR but that's part of the game now anyway.

For me the problem is they are trying too hard to protect the refs authority, and this approach helps that as he's just using it as a tool to help himself in what may be a difficult or important decision.

The other thing is that when a ref sees an incident he makes a judgement. So for the Son penalty vs Brentford he was well placed but didn't give it, not enough contact with consequence VAR had a different view and the moment he is called to the screen the ref is effectively having VARs view imposed on him.

I think it should be self referring from the ref and teams having 1 or 2 appeals themselves.

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 28 minutes ago

I find it odd that anything can be over turned on Appeal.

Ref makes a call on the pitch, VAR reviews it. That's w opinions given and the second kne with the benefit of replays etc. If they then get it wrong then a third opinion is just that...another opinion. Why should that opinion be judged as correct against 2 others.
=====
If that's the case then how does the judicial appeals system work?

comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 28 minutes ago

I find it odd that anything can be over turned on Appeal.

Ref makes a call on the pitch, VAR reviews it. That's w opinions given and the second kne with the benefit of replays etc. If they then get it wrong then a third opinion is just that...another opinion. Why should that opinion be judged as correct against 2 others.
=====
If that's the case then how does the judicial appeals system work?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

We are talking about relatively simple matters here...was it a high foot, was it dangerous, was it outside the law.

Judicial appeals are usually far more complicated legal matters with more significant consequences. The 2 processes are miles apart and their purpose and processes are incomparable


The point I was trying to make, badly though was that if two levels of officiating get it wrong then there are issues with those processes if a 3rd level needs to over rule the other 2.

For Mac Allister I don't think it was such bad decision requiring an over rule from the FA. The foul ticked a lot of boxes If the players leg was planted it may have been snapped by the challenge. The minimal outcome of that challenge made it looked soft but ultimately it was dangerous. Still soft but Soft shouldn't be over ruled. Rank awful should be over ruled.

They're not the same of course, but I am talking about the concept of appeal, which at the very core is the same for all appeal systems. Ultimately, all appeal systems rely on the same core principles. Your argument runs contrary to that concept and principles and if you are correct then we must question the entire notion of any appeals process.

Furthermore, events can be emotional, heated and things happen fast in the moment, no time to think. Nothing wrong with having a calm look back at events after things have calmed down. Always provides more clarity and better decision making as opposed to locking yourself out of a sober review in favour of a rushed and time limited decision.