15 Aug 2023 10:46:11
Hi Ed01,

Just wondering whether the 'clear and obvious error' threshold is actually a good or a bad thing in your mind? On the face of it seems sensible in order to limit the number of times VAR is used during a match, but in essence any intervention is overturning the onfield ref, which can limit how it's used quite a bit

For example on tight calls, it's almost never referred, but this is precisely when VAR can really help. In these cases I really like the rugby model, where the ref themselves can ask for VAR to help them out on a tight call, allowing them to consult the footage and a partner ref, and make a considered decision away from the best of the moment. It's also far more likely to result in better decisions without subconscious bias (eg. Natural reluctance to make a big call at a critical juncture) .

It would almost certainly help in situations like Man Utd penalty call on the weekend IMO, where I'm sure a review would have resulted in a more considered decision. Since when have keepers been given special privileges to clatter players after the ball has gone? If that was a midfield tackle that would have been a yellow.

{Ed001's Note - I think you are spot on. If it is a clear and obvious error, then it shouldn't require VAR to get an off field official to tell the referee to reconsider. Though last night it was blatantly obvious and still didn't get checked. I think you are right that the referee should be able to ask VAR for assistance.}

1.) 15 Aug 2023
15 Aug 2023 11:58:33
the referees are just incompetent. it's as simple as that. I've never liked the wording of Clear and obvious error. But putting that aside, it is purely incompetence that the VAR would look at that incident and not think that the ref made a clear and obvious error.

2.) 15 Aug 2023
15 Aug 2023 12:05:40
SGRed, I stopped caring about the whole Clear and Obvious schtick years ago. It doesn't mean a darn thing anymore. Why? Cos it was not set up to mean anything. It was set up for the incompetent refs to use as it suits them depending on what type of narrative they want to spout out to protect themselves after making absolute howlers. oh and notice they put in directives that refs cannot be challenged on their brazen incompetent decisions so esentially, all dissenters have been silenced. Talk about a dictatorship.

Look at the Chelsea handball and the Onana incident last night. They used the Clear and Obvious loophole to protect the ref and the VAR bloke for missing a blatant foul and a pen. Same with the handball by Jackson, IMO. The way you and Ed01 explained it is how things should work. Notice it isn't? That is by design, IMO.

3.) 15 Aug 2023
15 Aug 2023 12:36:19
Listen the penalty call denied to wolves was a mistake pure and simple from the onfield referee he shoul be taken to task over thay lower league officials would be marked down for it so why not him?

4.) 15 Aug 2023
15 Aug 2023 12:11:58
The irony of getting a penalty when you graze a players shin but nothing when a keeper tries to take your head off ?‍♂️.

5.) 15 Aug 2023
15 Aug 2023 12:13:02
Agree - it seems quite obvious that in football it is just being used to avoid the most obvious of ref mistakes, whereas in rugby it is also being used to improve the quality of the difficult yet critical decisions on which results can swing.

6.) 15 Aug 2023
15 Aug 2023 14:40:20
See that's the thing though - I get that refs and linesmen will miss things. I mean the speed of the game, players in the way, things look different when you see it at speed etc; the onfield officials will miss things, no bother

What gets me though is that the VAR official sees the same incidents, sees it slowed down etc - sees the exact same replays that all of us see and yet, inexplicably, manages to come to a completely different decision than what the millions watching at home have seen - how is that even possible?

I mean surely, the likes of Howard Webb should be sitting with these guys, watching the replays that he saw whilst on VAR duty and asking him how he reached the decision he did based on what he has seen? I mean, this should not be a complicated issue fs!

The annoying thing is that decisions like that happened almost every week last season. VAR 'decisions' were the most talked about thing in the game last season, you'd think that would have been addressed as a priority but here we are, week 1 of the season, and it looks like these kind of crazy calls will happen each and every week again.

7.) 15 Aug 2023
15 Aug 2023 15:14:31
The Jackson/ Chelsea handball wasn’t a handball. Was accidental and by his chest.

8.) 15 Aug 2023
15 Aug 2023 16:47:42
The clear and obvious error thing is a nonsense. VAR should be used to make sure the correct decision is made. That also should apply when incorrect decisions are made on goal kicks and corners, for example.

9.) 15 Aug 2023
15 Aug 2023 16:59:52
Referees in premier league have been shockingly bad for years now, but not giving wolves that penalty actually reeks of corruption. Ref should be dropped for the rest of the season, and VAR ref should be done for good.

10.) 15 Aug 2023
15 Aug 2023 15:47:14
Fuser, although I know what you are saying the Jackson handball was 100% a handball according to the current rules of the game. His hand was above shoulder height in an unnatural position. Well unnatural unless you’re an 8 year old girl trying to swipe a wasp from in front of your face.

This is the problem though isn’t it? There’s no consistency. Most of the time that’s a stonewall penalty in todays game. There are countless examples of it yet in that instance it wasn’t. Why?

The Utd one is plain corruption. There is no way in the world someone doesn’t give a foul for that unless it’s on purpose.

11.) 15 Aug 2023
15 Aug 2023 17:35:45
I wouldn't mind as much if Anthony Taylor apologised for the handball one.
If he came out and said "I'm sorry I missed Jackson's"

12.) 15 Aug 2023
15 Aug 2023 18:38:30
Didn’t think Jackson’s arm was above his shoulder tbf. All the pundits said it wasn’t a penalty.

{Ed025's Note - unless Jackson was auditioning for sooty it was a pen all day fuser, his hands were in an unnatural position for me mate..

13.) 15 Aug 2023
15 Aug 2023 18:02:16
Fuser, well that makes very little sense cos that’ wasn’t what VAR checked. They checked if the vmball hit the ball hit his hand intentionally. I did not hit his chest first and then on to his hand by all the replays I saw yesterday when I watched the incident back so that’s no. 1.

Interestingly, I saw a lot of Chelsea fans say this in a brazen bid to exonerate the incompetent Anthony Taylor, the same guy they claim hates Chelsea and wrote a petition to the PL to never have him ref their games after he made the right decision to send off Reece James and award a stone wall pen to us a couple of seasons back.

So when was Taylor against them? Was it when when he gave us the right decision or when he refused to give us a pen for the Jackson handball. I can’t tell thru the waffle they speak.

Also, the ball hit his hand off the Diaz flick when he knowingly raised them while jumping hence, in an unnatural position. Seriously, who jumps to defend a corner with his hands that faraway from his body? Man, come on.

14.) 15 Aug 2023
15 Aug 2023 20:50:42
Ed025, I know what you are saying.
I don't want to Sue but we shouldn't Sweep it under the carpet because his hand was in an unnatural position.

{Ed025's Note - love it Rigsby, i would agree with you mate but im nobodys puppet.. :)