VAR Discussion thread

CSF · 05-12-2019 7:12pm

inforfun wrote: »

I guess we got our wires crossed then because for me VAR = the ref looking at the screen while i take it for you VAR = the system?

My interpretation when people speak about VAR has usually been like they’re talking about it like it’s a living entity of its own.

If we’re talking about the Video Assistant Referees being cr*p, I agree with you. But if we do away with them, who referees the games?

inforfun · 05-12-2019 8:17pm

Not sure if it would be really that much better but lately some people in The Netherlands have suggested to get retired refs in for the var.
Since there is an age restriction some very good referees were forced to quit because "too old"

I mean.. i would rather see a 59 year old Colina doing VAR than a 30 year old "new" referee.
And the better refs of the current ones on the pitch instead of behind a tv

CSF · 05-12-2019 9:49pm

inforfun wrote: »

Not sure if it would be really that much better but lately some people in The Netherlands have suggested to get retired refs in for the var.
Since there is an age restriction some very good referees were forced to quit because "too old"

I mean.. i would rather see a 59 year old Colina doing VAR than a 30 year old "new" referee.
And the better refs of the current ones on the pitch instead of behind a tv

Could work, ultimately you’re looking for people who aren’t going to be afraid to upset the onfield ref. No room for egos.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 06-12-2019 8:25am

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Let's be honest, its been a disaster.

Disagree, and last proved otherwise.

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

I'd get rid of it and try and improve refs.

They've tried doing that for decades. Hasn't worked.

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Even with VAR there's still debateable decisions

There will always be debatable decisions, it's a human making a judgement call. If you thought otherwise then that's on you. Video review has been in other sports (Rugby/Cricket/American Football) a lot longer, and they still have huge debatable decisions.

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

I liked the refs behind the goal, I'd go with that put tell them they've to play a part in the decision making, and not just stand there with sticks.....

They did play a part. They were radio'd up with the ref and spoke with him during the game. Collina covered that in a Sky Sports interview. But they still got huge decisions wrong and people complained about them.

Get rid of VAR, and you'll return to what we had. Instead of Chris Wilder whining like a baby, it'd be Steve Bruce b1tching about the linesman getting the call wrong.
VAR got the Luiz offside goal right, VAR got the Shelvey goal right. It was both linesmen that were wrong, and yet people are complaining about VAR.

fyfe79 · 06-12-2019 9:00am

inforfun wrote: »

The general idea in The Netherlands is that the VAR is there to make Ajax champions.
That an alternative (without var) league end result of last season has PSV as nr 1, doesnt help.

Personally what annoys me most is almost randomness with which situations are chosen to look back at.

Posted a clip here of a Feyenoord player who almost lost his shirt when he was held back in the opposition penalty area. Ref didnt do a thing, VAR neither.
A blind person saw what was happening.
Those things can not happen with all the cameras and angles they have available.

On Spanish tv they drop a few lines to make clear what can be and will not be reviewed before kick off.
Not a bad idea i think.

Apparently in Italy they were pissed off last season that it wasnt used and now they are pissed of because it is used and they are not happy wit hthe way it works.

There seems to be an inherent mistrust of VAR everywhere. In reality, it's a mistrust of referee's as they're the ones doing the reviewing and seemingly just backing up their mates' original call.

The idea that VAR was brought in to help a certain team seems a little far-fetched though. Since VAR backs up the referee's call a lot of the time, wouldn't it make more sense not to have it and just leave it to the referee's "dodgy" decision if you are trying to 'fix' a match or a league? All VAR seems to be doing is bringing a spotlight on the group of referee's and their decision making process... why would you want that highlighted if you're corrupt? It's easier to be corrupt in previous seasons where those in charge can just shrug their shoulders after a poor onfield decision and say "well, the referee's only human!".

Of course with Liverpool doing well this season, the narrative, from fans on other sites especially, is "LiVARpool" etc. Despite the fact that it was highlighted last week that Spurs have benefited the most from VAR (fairly random, eh?), and Liverpool would still be well ahead without it. VAR is being used as a stick to lessen Liverpool's achievement, even though the evidence isn't there. Opposition fans will only point out times when decisions go against their own team, or for an opponent... rarely the other way round.

osarusan · 06-12-2019 9:02am

TBH, anybody who actually thinks VAR is being used to benefit any particular team in any league has to be pretty f**king stupid.

Ashbourne hoop · 06-12-2019 9:54am

CSF wrote: »

My interpretation when people speak about VAR has usually been like they’re talking about it like it’s a living entity of its own.

If we’re talking about the Video Assistant Referees being cr*p, I agree with you. But if we do away with them, who referees the games?[/QUOTE]

The actual ref on the pitch. We accept that they for the most part do a good job and that they sometimes get decisions wrong and we all move.

Ashbourne hoop · 06-12-2019 9:56am

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Disagree, and last proved otherwise.

They've tried doing that for decades. Hasn't worked.

There will always be debatable decisions, it's a human making a judgement call. If you thought otherwise then that's on you. Video review has been in other sports (Rugby/Cricket/American Football) a lot longer, and they still have huge debatable decisions.

They did play a part. They were radio'd up with the ref and spoke with him during the game. Collina covered that in a Sky Sports interview. But they still got huge decisions wrong and people complained about them.

Get rid of VAR, and you'll return to what we had. Instead of Chris Wilder whining like a baby, it'd be Steve Bruce b1tching about the linesman getting the call wrong.
VAR got the Luiz offside goal right, VAR got the Shelvey goal right. It was both linesmen that were wrong, and yet people are complaining about VAR.

I didn't think otherwise, and was why I was against it from the start.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 06-12-2019 9:58am

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

We accept that they for the most part do a good job and that they sometimes get decisions wrong and we all move.

The reason that VAR was brought in was because people/managers/fans didn't accept they were dong a good enough job.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 06-12-2019 10:01am

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

I didn't think otherwise, and was why I was against it from the start.

You knew that there would be debatable decisions, and that's why you were against it? Get rid of VAR, and you return to decisions (such as the two wrong calls by the linesmen last night) being even more debatable.

Ashbourne hoop · 06-12-2019 10:04am

munstermagic11 wrote: »

You knew that there would be debatable decisions, and that's why you were against it? Get rid of VAR, and you return to decisions (such as the two wrong calls by the linesmen last night) being even more debatable.

Mistakes are still happening with VAR, Vardy's peno not given was a shocker, it's just taking longer to reach the wrong decision.

super_furry · 06-12-2019 10:46am

That Shelvey goal was daft. If they keep this up they're going to have to stop linesmen from flagging for offside and then just judge it entirely on VAR.

irelandrover · 06-12-2019 10:52am

super_furry wrote: »

That Shelvey goal was daft. If they keep this up they're going to have to stop linesmen from flagging for offside and then just judge it entirely on VAR.

But that type of goal also happened pre-Var where a linesman flags but the ref overrules him.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 06-12-2019 10:54am

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Mistakes are still happening with VAR, Vardy's peno not given was a shocker, it's just taking longer to reach the wrong decision.

Which you said you expected.

For Vardy, VAR on Sunday got it right for Leicester/Iheanacho when the linesman got it wrong. VAR does need to improve, but going backwards isn't going to help at all.

Of course there will still be mistakes. It's still humans watching and making decisions. I only saw/heard people comment that VAR got the Chilwell dive right, then I was listening to the Football Weekly podcast and they all said it was a pen. Maybe it needs the ref to see the replay himself, and make the decision himself based on better/more angles. But it's never going to be perfect.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 06-12-2019 10:57am

irelandrover wrote: »

But that type of goal also happened pre-Var where a linesman flags but the ref overrules him.

Exactly, it's not offside unless the ref blows the whistle to stop play.
The criticism shouldn't be of VAR in that situation, it was the linesman who got a tight call wrong when he shouldn't have raised his flag (and the Sheffield United players for not playing to the whistle).

CSF · 06-12-2019 11:46am

munstermagic11 wrote: »

The reason that VAR was brought in was because people/managers/fans didn't accept they were dong a good enough job.

This is the issue. I think they are doing a cr*p job.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 06-12-2019 12:38pm

CSF wrote: »

This is the issue. I think they are doing a cr*p job.

It's tough being a ref/linesman. The game has become far quickly than it ever was. The game is more analyzed than ever with replays from multiple angles. There's no way that they can get it right on a consistent basis without help.

The goal-line tech has been a huge success. It's over the line or not.

VAR offside calls are nearly always right. They probably need to work on it a bit more, get the lines more aligned and hopefully make a decision quicker.

The other VAR stuff has probably been more right than wrong. They do need to work on it and get a decision made quicker, but it's still someone making a judgement call, which is going to vary from person to person (which is why they are trying to make some decision more black or white, to reduce interpretation).

It's only been live for 4 months. It needs at least a full season, with some off season tweaks, before it can be fully judged. Going back to just the ref making a call, in a game that has changed so much, isn't a recipe for success.

CSF · 06-12-2019 1:17pm

munstermagic11 wrote: »

It's tough being a ref/linesman. The game has become far quickly than it ever was. The game is more analyzed than ever with replays from multiple angles. There's no way that they can get it right on a consistent basis without help.

The goal-line tech has been a huge success. It's over the line or not.

VAR offside calls are nearly always right. They probably need to work on it a bit more, get the lines more aligned and hopefully make a decision quicker.

The other VAR stuff has probably been more right than wrong. They do need to work on it and get a decision made quicker, but it's still someone making a judgement call, which is going to vary from person to person (which is why they are trying to make some decision more black or white, to reduce interpretation).

It's only been live for 4 months. It needs at least a full season, with some off season tweaks, before it can be fully judged. Going back to just the ref making a call, in a game that has changed so much, isn't a recipe for success.

Agree with the bulk of that for sure

LuckyLloyd · 06-12-2019 1:48pm

osarusan wrote: »

I think that after the 2018 world cup people were generally cautiously optimistic about it.

Is there similar discussion of it in other leagues that use it, or is the EPL implementing it in such a way that it's worse, or creating more controversy?

The EPL - rather than piggy backing on the UEFA / FIFA system and their lessons learned, etc - have implemented a bespoke version of it. Their system is worse and it is a nonsense to think they would have a better system. It’s classic EPL / English exceptionalism, nothing more.

y0ssar1an22 · 06-12-2019 2:03pm

I think doing away with lines people is the way forward. With var, their role is redundant.

You shouldn't have a case where sometimes the ref overrules the flag, sometimes the ref defers to the flag but play on just in case. Ambiguity around the rules is what leads to inconsistency

.G. · 06-12-2019 6:48pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The EPL - rather than piggy backing on the UEFA / FIFA system and their lessons learned, etc - have implemented a bespoke version of it. Their system is worse and it is a nonsense to think they would have a better system. It’s classic EPL / English exceptionalism, nothing more.

When they introduced it in the Bundesliga the told the refs not to use the monitors and told the linesmen to flag for offside and leave it up to the ref to whistle or not, players to play to the whistle. Which is exactly how the Premier league have implemented it.

The abandoned that after one season and went with normal protocol like we see in the Champions league. I hate the way they use offside in the Champions league, you have defenders busting a gut and risking injury to defend situations that were clearly offside but the lino didn't flag cos he's told not to.

I like VAR, it'll improve but offside is the one area they really need to sort out, either change the rules or change how its implemented.

.G. · 06-12-2019 6:49pm

Anyone on twitter, @dalejohnsonESPN is a really good follow for VAR stuff, explains why all contentious decisions have been made each gameweek, like the Vardy one this week and why the VAR couldn't overturn it.

CSF · 06-12-2019 8:06pm

.G. wrote: »

Anyone on twitter, @dalejohnsonESPN is a really good follow for VAR stuff, explains why all contentious decisions have been made each gameweek, like the Vardy one this week and why the VAR couldn't overturn it.

Yeah, the Vardy logic they’re working off is nonsense though. Who gives a sh*te what the ref is telling you he saw. That’s why we have cameras to tell you it was a foul instead.

.G. · 06-12-2019 9:23pm

CSF wrote: »

Yeah, the Vardy logic they’re working off is nonsense though. Who gives a sh*te what the ref is telling you he saw. That’s why we have cameras to tell you it was a foul instead.

Because the ref on the pitch is the one who was given the game, any decision should be based on what he saw, thats how they've implemented it. It's the implementation that needs to change. And will, like anything you'd assume (hope) they learn from stuff like this.

CSF · 06-12-2019 9:46pm

.G. wrote: »

Because the ref on the pitch is the one who was given the game, any decision should be based on what he saw, thats how they've implemented it. It's the implementation that needs to change. And will, like anything you'd assume (hope) they learn from stuff like this.

But if what he saw, isn't the correct decision, the guys with the video footage should be able to reverse his decision. This is the whole benefit of VAR. The person with video footage available to them's call should be final.

I get that people say that many refereeing decisions are subjective, but I haven't seen anyone so far, other than that referee decide that this was a dive instead of a penalty.

We're that invested in the institution of the on-field referee that we won't even reverse their decisions, even when pretty much any reasonable person would determine them to be wrong?

.G. · 06-12-2019 9:59pm

Like I said, thats the current implementation of it. We all hope it changes but that's what it is right now. They asked what he saw and didn't see enough in what the video showed to be able to dispute it enough to overturn it and therefore couldn't recind the yellow for a dive either. It's 100% sh!te but thats why it happened the way it did, its not the techs fault, its the PGMOL's fault cos they set the rules about how the tech is used. That and the lads making the original decision on the pitch, and those reviewing it in the booth, bar one or two, aren't very good!

CSF · 06-12-2019 10:09pm

.G. wrote: »

Like I said, thats the current implementation of it. We all hope it changes but that's what it is right now. They asked what he saw and didn't see enough in what the video showed to be able to dispute it enough to overturn it and therefore couldn't recind the yellow for a dive either. It's 100% sh!te but thats why it happened the way it did, its not the techs fault, its the PGMOL's fault cos they set the rules about how the tech is used. That and the lads making the original decision on the pitch, and those reviewing it in the booth, bar one or two, aren't very good!

I know how it works, just saying that the logic is nonsense.

osarusan · 07-12-2019 1:01am

How do they go about defining a 'clear and obvious error'? What's the standard for something being clear and obvious?

CSF · 07-12-2019 1:20am

osarusan wrote: »

How do they go about defining a 'clear and obvious error'? What's the standard for something being clear and obvious?

I get the idea of how that term would operate but it just doesn’t sync with the world where nearly everything that isn’t almost a leg breaker gets treated like it’s a subjective decision.

dfx- · 07-12-2019 1:56am

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

The actual ref on the pitch. We accept that they for the most part do a good job and that they sometimes get decisions wrong and we all move.

That's a bold strategy, no-one will go for it..

osarusan · 07-12-2019 1:10pm

CSF wrote: »

I get the idea of how that term would operate but it just doesn’t sync with the world where nearly everything that isn’t almost a leg breaker gets treated like it’s a subjective decision.

I wonder could it be a situation where there are say 5 refs in a VAR room, and for a subjective incident, they all independently vote on what they think the correct decision is, and if it is 5-0, or even 4-1, in favour of a particular decision, then that is what the decision will be, and if the ref had originally made a different one, such a margin in votes represents a clear and obvious error.

Whereas as if it is only 3-2, or, of course, if a majority end up agreeing with the ref's original decision, then it will not be overturned.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 07-12-2019 2:49pm

osarusan wrote: »

I wonder could it be a situation where there are say 5 refs in a VAR room, and for a subjective incident, they all independently vote on what they think the correct decision is, and if it is 5-0, or even 4-1, in favour of a particular decision, then that is what the decision will be, and if the ref had originally made a different one, such a margin in votes represents a clear and obvious error.

Whereas as if it is only 3-2, or, of course, if a majority end up agreeing with the ref's original decision, then it will not be overturned.

Where can you get 6 (5 VAR and 1 on the pitch) competent refs per game? They don't have the numbers for 1 per game.

Ashbourne hoop · 09-12-2019 10:36am

osarusan wrote: »

I wonder could it be a situation where there are say 5 refs in a VAR room, and for a subjective incident, they all independently vote on what they think the correct decision is, and if it is 5-0, or even 4-1, in favour of a particular decision, then that is what the decision will be, and if the ref had originally made a different one, such a margin in votes represents a clear and obvious error.

Whereas as if it is only 3-2, or, of course, if a majority end up agreeing with the ref's original decision, then it will not be overturned.

That'll really speed up the process....awful idea

8-10 · 09-12-2019 10:56am

osarusan wrote: »

I wonder could it be a situation where there are say 5 refs in a VAR room, and for a subjective incident, they all independently vote on what they think the correct decision is, and if it is 5-0, or even 4-1, in favour of a particular decision, then that is what the decision will be, and if the ref had originally made a different one, such a margin in votes represents a clear and obvious error.

Whereas as if it is only 3-2, or, of course, if a majority end up agreeing with the ref's original decision, then it will not be overturned.

I don't know why this 'clear and obvious error' even needs to be a thing?

Show the replay, VAR official reviews it as if no decision has already been made. VAR official makes the correct judgement based on the footage. Gets relayed to the referee to enact the decision. Whether that is the same or the opposite of the ruling on the pitch is completely immaterial.

Just make the right call on the VAR footage. That's all. Stop worrying about hurting referees' feelings.

You're giving a qualified referee in the VAR room footage of an incident. They are more than qualified to make that decision on their own and without concern for the judgement of another person who didn't have access to the same footage.

If it gets referred to VAR, that official's decision should be objective and final.

ArmaniJeanss · 09-12-2019 12:27pm

8-10 wrote: »

I don't know why this 'clear and obvious error' even needs to be a thing?

Look at what the likes of the NFL or MLB does.

Show the replay, VAR official reviews it as if no decision has already been made. VAR official makes the correct judgement based on the footage. Gets relayed to the referee to enact the decision. Whether that is the same or the opposite of the ruling on the pitch is completely immaterial.

You are wrong there - For lots of these decisions in NFL, it works the same as VAR. The original decision is what they stick with it unless, as the commentators put it, 'there is enough to overturn it'. The original decision is still hugely important.

Kermit.de.frog · 09-12-2019 12:41pm

The ref running over to the screen thing to have a look is not needed and is just theater.

In other sports the decision is made and relayed, simple as that.

No need for extra time wasting.

gucci · 09-12-2019 12:58pm

osarusan wrote: »

I wonder could it be a situation where there are say 5 refs in a VAR room, and for a subjective incident, they all independently vote on what they think the correct decision is, and if it is 5-0, or even 4-1, in favour of a particular decision, then that is what the decision will be, and if the ref had originally made a different one, such a margin in votes represents a clear and obvious error.

Whereas as if it is only 3-2, or, of course, if a majority end up agreeing with the ref's original decision, then it will not be overturned.

do you think they could get an X-Factor style dramatic pause and announcement "and the decision is...……………..OVERTURNED"

8-10 · 09-12-2019 1:29pm

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

You are wrong there - For lots of these decisions in NFL, it works the same as VAR. The original decision is what they stick with it unless, as the commentators put it, 'there is enough to overturn it'. The original decision is still hugely important.

Fair enough I don't watch much of it, ignore that part my point was ignore the original decision

dfx- · 09-12-2019 1:44pm

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

You are wrong there - For lots of these decisions in NFL, it works the same as VAR. The original decision is what they stick with it unless, as the commentators put it, 'there is enough to overturn it'. The original decision is still hugely important.

The NFL terminology is the decision is confirmed or the decision stands. One means they were right and the other is 'right enough'.

Cricket also favours the original decision to the extent that you don't even lose your review if it is fails based on the umpire's original decision. They also get 'soft decisions' for disputed catches and runouts to guide the third umpire whether there is enough evidence to overturn it.

Football has some sort of fear and cynicism of the original decision in real time.

osarusan · 09-12-2019 1:45pm

8-10 wrote: »

I don't know why this 'clear and obvious error' even needs to be a thing?

Show the replay, VAR official reviews it as if no decision has already been made. VAR official makes the correct judgement based on the footage. Gets relayed to the referee to enact the decision. Whether that is the same or the opposite of the ruling on the pitch is completely immaterial.

Just make the right call on the VAR footage. That's all. Stop worrying about hurting referees' feelings.

You're giving a qualified referee in the VAR room footage of an incident. They are more than qualified to make that decision on their own and without concern for the judgement of another person who didn't have access to the same footage.

If it gets referred to VAR, that official's decision should be objective and final.

I don't have a problem with getting rid of the 'clear and obvious error' part, but that is what is there now.

So it's not just a case of review the footage and make a decision, because the question is not simply 'Should this be a red card/penalty or not?', the question is 'Did the referee make a clear and obvious error about this penalty/red card'?

So at the moment, 'clear and obvious error' is a part of it, and needs to be defined/explained. It hasn't been defined/explained so far I think....like everything else about the process.

osarusan · 09-12-2019 1:48pm

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

That'll really speed up the process....awful idea

I actually think it would speed up the process.

No discussion, just play the replays, and ask a question: "Do you think this is a penalty/red card?" then the 5 refs cast private Yes/No votes and you check the tally. If it's 5-0 or 4-1, that constitutes a 'clear and obvious' penalty/red card, and if the ref's decision was different, he made a clear and obvious mistake. So the decision is confirmed or overturned, then relay that to the on-field ref.

I'm not talking about public votes and flashing lights in the VAR room, just more than one ref there to make a decision.

8-10 · 09-12-2019 2:59pm

osarusan wrote: »

So at the moment, 'clear and obvious error' is a part of it, and needs to be defined/explained. It hasn't been defined/explained so far I think....like everything else about the process.

I'm saying it needs to be dropped (or drop VAR altogether)

It's not like it's set in stone for the season, they've introduced VAR within a season to competitions (happened last year was it CL knockouts?)

Nothings stopping them from getting rid of clear and obvious or getting rid full stop.

tanko · 15-12-2019 12:52am

Three or four Sheffield United players encroached into the penalty area before Grealish took his penalty kick.
Why was it not taken again?

j8wk2feszrnpao · 15-12-2019 1:59am

tanko wrote: »

Three or four Sheffield United players encroached into the penalty area before Grealish took his penalty kick.
Why was it not taken again?

The Sky Sports replay on YouTube shows maybe one, slightly. And the one that hooked it away after it hit the crossbar didn’t encroach.
VAR seemed to get all decisions right today, including the awarding of the Villa pen in the 1st place. It was crucial for Bournemouth after the linesman got the offside wrong.

Agent Coulson · 15-12-2019 2:39am

tanko wrote: »

Three or four Sheffield United players encroached into the penalty area before Grealish took his penalty kick.
Why was it not taken again?

No consistency at all with it’s a joke shop now.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 15-12-2019 3:09pm

Here's the still from the Sky Sports clip.
Remember, the ref didn't choose to have it retaken either, so remove VAR and it's still not retaken. VAR got the decision right to give the pen when the officials didn't. So you'd have to praise VAR in this case, unless of course you just have it in for VAR and are single minded with rational long gone from your mindset (in which case you'd just b1tch and moan that VAR got involved or ruled over such a slight infringement).

tanko · 15-12-2019 3:30pm

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Here's the still from the Sky Sports clip.
Remember, the ref didn't choose to have it retaken either, so remove VAR and it's still not retaken. VAR got the decision right to give the pen when the officials didn't. So you'd have to praise VAR in this case, unless of course you just have it in for VAR and are single minded with rational long gone from your mindset (in which case you'd just b1tch and moan that VAR got involved or ruled over such a slight infringement).

No, i don't have it in for VAR, i think it it is a great idea if used properly and applied consistently. I don't see how asking a question is bitching and moaning.
As for the "slight infringement", does it make a difference how far inside the penalty area a player encroaches whether or not the kick is taken again??
I notice your graphic doesn't show the players the far side of the area, at least two of them were inside the penalty area when the kick was taken iirc.

martingriff · 15-12-2019 3:36pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The ref running over to the screen thing to have a look is not needed and is just theater.

In other sports the decision is made and relayed, simple as that.

No need for extra time wasting.

It happens in other sports also. Rugby it happens they do not run over to the side and NFL is happens also

CSF · 15-12-2019 3:42pm

martingriff wrote: »

It happens in other sports also. Rugby it happens they do not run over to the side and NFL is happens also

You are correct. But when I talk to non-NFL fans about NFL, the delays are the kinds of things they reference.

Corholio · 15-12-2019 3:50pm

Hadn't even seen that pic of the penalty kick and the players encroaching. Sheff Utd completely deserved to win but they have to get these things right. There's no such thing as a 'slight infringement', it either is or it isn't. Giving it once or twice and not giving it other times, especially when they have a chance to view it multiple times, is not getting it right.

VAR Discussion thread

Comments