FA Cup Draw

[AllRoverAsia]

2 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I thought the decision was correct. The timing isnt ideal but it depends what matters the most, time or accuracy? You slag off refs in the Championship weekly and perhaps fairly but would be totally against the most obvious solution.

I could tolerate it if all such comings together were punished.

They are not. It is selective.

Nothing wrong with VAR just the human interference.

[bazza]

2 minutes ago, renrag said:

The goal was not disallowed for a foul, it must have been for offside because Oliver clearly raised his arm to indicate an indirect free kick. It should never have taken over 3 minutes to call offside

Do they still have the offence of "obstruction"? That used to be punished with an indirect free kick.

[AllRoverAsia]

27 minutes ago, bazza said:

VAR to me is a farce. Three and a half minutes to decide whether or not the goal stands. 

Also, Shearer was livid that in the FA Cup it is only used at Prem grounds and not throughout the whole competition. 

What a complete f**k up by the football authorities.

Can you imagine a game with VAR being referred by the likes of Stroud to name but one incompetent.

In a Cup competition I do agree that all or none should use it.

Edited January 10, 2022 by AllRoverAsia

[AllRoverAsia]

5 minutes ago, renrag said:

The goal was not disallowed for a foul, it must have been for offside because Oliver clearly raised his arm to indicate an indirect free kick. It should never have taken over 3 minutes to call offside

Who was offside? 

[Silas]

8 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I thought the decision was correct. The timing isnt ideal but it depends what matters the most, time or accuracy? 

No way I want that much time wasted microanalysing a fairly subjective incident. 

I could completely understand it if the defender had really barged the player, but the attacker ran into him.

It had taken long enough to establish Watkins hadn't touched the ball. Farce to then go back and get not one, but two, ref opinions on basically a non incident miles from the active ball. 

[bazza]

1 minute ago, Silas said:

No way I want that much time wasted microanalysing a fairly subjective incident. 

I could completely understand it if the defender had really barged the player, but the attacker ran into him.

It had taken long enough to establish Watkins hadn't touched the ball. Farce to then go back and get not one, but two, ref opinions on basically a non incident miles from the active ball. 

And that is what is wrong with VAR.

I've said this many times. All that is needed is a fifth official to be sitting with a screen and in communication with the referee to be able to tell him when he has got it badly wrong.

Otherwise the referee's decision is final, always.

[bazza]

VAR is horrible for all the fans. Every time. Horrible.

Scrap it.

[Silas]

5 minutes ago, bazza said:

I've said this many times. All that is needed is a fifth official to be sitting with a screen and in communication with the referee to be able to tell him when he has got it badly wrong.

Bit like Rugby Union then, just a bit of common sense and all that. If only.

On that note, loved the rugby last weekend, player knocked ball on scoring a try, ref "I need to go check that?", player just miserably shakes his head no. 👏👏

No wasting the fan's time. 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

21 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

Who was offside? 

Nobody. They disallowed it for a collision in back play.

[AllRoverAsia]

Just now, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Nobody. They disallowed it for a collision in back play.

Yes, that's what I thought. Thanks.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Just now, AllRoverAsia said:

Yes, that's what I thought. Thanks.

Best team lost. United are shapeless at the moment.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

10 minutes ago, renrag said:

Then why did he give an indirect free kick?

I don’t know mate but as far as I could see he penalised the Villa player for his involvement with Cavani in back play as the free kick was taken. Watkins didn’t touch the ball on it’s way through so Ings couldn’t be off side and Ings put the ball in with his thigh and not his hand.

[chaddyrovers]

1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

I thought the decision was correct. The timing isnt ideal but it depends what matters the most, time or accuracy? You slag off refs in the Championship weekly and perhaps fairly but would be totally against the most obvious solution.

Never a foul. Plus the ref was looking straight at the Incident and didn't give a foul. 

The timing is ridiculous. 

The standard of refs in the Championship is shocking and no improvement 

[47er]

1 hour ago, K-Hod said:

They’ve tried all kinds of managers and they’ve all ultimately failed, which says to me the problems run far deeper than the playing squad.

Cheers me up no end!

[AllRoverAsia]

11 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Never a foul. Plus the ref was looking straight at the Incident and didn't give a foul. 

The timing is ridiculous. 

The standard of refs in the Championship is shocking and no improvement 

This is the main point.

The guy watching the video, thwarted in denying the goal for offside, goes in search of any other reason and then puts the pressure back on the Ref, who has as you identify already seen and dismissed the collision incident, by asking him to relook. The Ref, as happens 90% of the time , panics and cops out. 

The Ref must be strong and go with his original decision that the collision did not influence the outcome and any reasonable thinking person would go with that.

This sort for bad decision making is what gives VAR a bad name.

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, Silas said:

No way I want that much time wasted microanalysing a fairly subjective incident. 

I could completely understand it if the defender had really barged the player, but the attacker ran into him.

It had taken long enough to establish Watkins hadn't touched the ball. Farce to then go back and get not one, but two, ref opinions on basically a non incident miles from the active ball. 

I am torn on it. Ultimately there is no argument that VAR does anything but increases the amount of correct decisions made, it gives the referees extra help. The question is whether that extra help and the improved accuracy of decisions is more important than the disruption of re-watching incidents, I think you can argue the toss either way.

Like anything, it relies upon the people using it and that will never be perfect. There are things like seeing players being ruled to be offside by a tiny margin, something that is difficult to avoid whilst keeping decisions as close to objective as possible. There is also linesmen keeping their flag down which again is unavoidable in trying to ensure that genuine goals arent ruled out by officiating mistakes. There is also the fact that much of football is subjective including the definition of a clear and obvious error.

Others seem keep to question the referees integrity as if VAR favours teams, I think that is a load of nonsense.if anything, a referee without the ability to re watch an incident could claim not to have seen things to favour teams should he wish. I think it is part of the tribal nature of us football fans to love to blame a referee.

15 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Never a foul. Plus the ref was looking straight at the Incident and didn't give a foul. 

The timing is ridiculous. 

The standard of refs in the Championship is shocking and no improvement 

The Villa player was offside and obstructed Cavani, therefore the decision was correct to disallow the goal in my view. It wasnt a foul in isolation but the Villa player did impede Cavani and therefore IMO was interfering with play.

Referees make mistakes, in this instance he utilised the VAR and for me disallowed a goal that would have otherwise wrongly stood. Youve got a perfect example of my earlier comments on how I judge VAR. I feel like VAR has helped the referee make the correct and fair decision as it should. That being said, the time taken and also the definition of clear and obvious error provokes people, often those who never wanted VAR in the first place. I hated the idea at first but I can see both sides.

True, and them having VAR would improve the accuracy of their decisions by giving them extra help. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it.

[Silas]

4 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

There is also the fact that much of football is subjective including the definition of a clear and obvious error...

...That being said, the time taken and also the definition of clear and obvious error provokes people...

That's where it's got lost somewhere along the way. It was supposedly brought in to stop absolute clangers. 

"Clear and obvious" howlers are recognizable almost instantly. 

Maradona's and Henry's handballs, wrong player sent off etc. Even look at Gamst's dodgy corner kick trick where he never actually touched it. That would be found out almost instantly by VAR.

Over 3 and half mins is a joke. I would like to put a time limit on it, maybe 60 secs, and if u don't see anything obvious in that, then the goal stands.

But I understand why that will never happen, puts video refs under pressure, technology could breakdown and then how does that effect the minute etc.

Just frustrating when they start checking 3/4 different things on a goal, that's not what ANY of us want, and I'm fairly confident saying that. 

[jim mk2]

4 minutes ago, Silas said:

Over 3 and half mins is a joke. I would like to put a time limit on it, maybe 60 secs, and if u don't see anything obvious in that, then the goal stands.

The obvious solution. Maybe less than 60 seconds. Players standing around and fans not knowing what's going on for that length of time is ridiculous.  

[roversfan99]

8 minutes ago, Silas said:

That's where it's got lost somewhere along the way. It was supposedly brought in to stop absolute clangers. 

"Clear and obvious" howlers are recognizable almost instantly. 

Maradona's and Henry's handballs, wrong player sent off etc. Even look at Gamst's dodgy corner kick trick where he never actually touched it. That would be found out almost instantly by VAR.

Over 3 and half mins is a joke. I would like to put a time limit on it, maybe 60 secs, and if u don't see anything obvious in that, then the goal stands.

But I understand why that will never happen, puts video refs under pressure, technology could breakdown and then how does that effect the minute etc.

Just frustrating when they start checking 3/4 different things on a goal, that's not what ANY of us want, and I'm fairly confident saying that. 

The problem is that even defining a clear and obvious error is subjective. If a ball flicks off a hand slightly in the build up, if a player was just a bit offside in the build up etc, we would with justification feel aggrieved if that went against us because it wouldnt be the correct call.

Once you start analysing the goal, you are then judging it on 2 parameters, legal and illegal, and anything that makes it the latee becomes clear and obvious. It would be really difficult for a ref to look back and watch a goal and see a slight offside/slight handball and even having seen that the goal according to the rules is illegal, give it anyway on account that it isnt blatant.

It is a difficult one, grey areas will always exist so the 2 options are no VAR, a more free flowing but ultimately inaccurate game or the opposite. 

I do appreciate your frustrations with the time taken but both with and VAR have frustrations and their own pros and cons. 

[roversfan99]

The one main focus of injustice is something that Shearer touched on. You cant have VAR at only some grounds within the same competition. You either have it if possible or if that isnt the case then you keep consistency and dont.

[chaddyrovers]

1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

The Villa player was offside and obstructed Cavani, therefore the decision was correct to disallow the goal in my view. It wasnt a foul in isolation but the Villa player did impede Cavani and therefore IMO was interfering with play.

I didn't it was a foul in the first place. Offside wasn't given VAR but on the pitch ref was asked to look at the foul. Ref on the pitch had a clear view of the foul and didn't get it. It wasn't a obvious mistake. 

[arbitro]

10 hours ago, bazza said:

Do they still have the offence of "obstruction"? That used to be punished with an indirect free kick.

Obstruction was removed from the laws quite a while ago and replaced by impeding. Obstruction was punished by an IDFK and impeding by a DFK.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

9 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I am torn on it. Ultimately there is no argument that VAR does anything but increases the amount of correct decisions made, it gives the referees extra help. The question is whether that extra help and the improved accuracy of decisions is more important than the disruption of re-watching incidents, I think you can argue the toss either way.

Like anything, it relies upon the people using it and that will never be perfect. There are things like seeing players being ruled to be offside by a tiny margin, something that is difficult to avoid whilst keeping decisions as close to objective as possible. There is also linesmen keeping their flag down which again is unavoidable in trying to ensure that genuine goals arent ruled out by officiating mistakes. There is also the fact that much of football is subjective including the definition of a clear and obvious error.

Others seem keep to question the referees integrity as if VAR favours teams, I think that is a load of nonsense.if anything, a referee without the ability to re watch an incident could claim not to have seen things to favour teams should he wish. I think it is part of the tribal nature of us football fans to love to blame a referee.

The Villa player was offside and obstructed Cavani, therefore the decision was correct to disallow the goal in my view. It wasnt a foul in isolation but the Villa player did impede Cavani and therefore IMO was interfering with play.

Referees make mistakes, in this instance he utilised the VAR and for me disallowed a goal that would have otherwise wrongly stood. Youve got a perfect example of my earlier comments on how I judge VAR. I feel like VAR has helped the referee make the correct and fair decision as it should. That being said, the time taken and also the definition of clear and obvious error provokes people, often those who never wanted VAR in the first place. I hated the idea at first but I can see both sides.

True, and them having VAR would improve the accuracy of their decisions by giving them extra help. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it.

Under the old rules the offside would have been immediately obvious.

[roversfan99]

7 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

I didn't it was a foul in the first place. Offside wasn't given VAR but on the pitch ref was asked to look at the foul. Ref on the pitch had a clear view of the foul and didn't get it. It wasn't a obvious mistake. 

I didnt think it was a foul necessarily, but an offside player was clearly interfering with play in my opinion. The referee has the final say even with the use of VAR which if he uses it correctly as he did last night (maybe should do it quicker but thats splitting hairs) then it benefits him.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

20 minutes ago, renrag said:

I don’t think it’s a matter of questioning a referee’s integrity. It’s a simple fact that some (I’m not saying last night) referees, will not cope with the pressures of a large home crowd as would others. I can think of at least two incidents at O T in the 90’s, when crowd pressure led to outrageous late decisions, by top referees, costing Rovers points.

We used to have a saying - “ You need to win at United to get a draw “.