8 hours ago, kiwi1691 said:

Have you not seen how poor the reffing is in the Premier League?

That's why I think VAR needs to be implemented, there's so many scenarios where 'clear and obvious mistakes' by refs ruin games, so if it eliminates at least some of that nonsense it's a good move in my eyes

I've been watching the rugby internationals over the last few weekends and they seem to have it down fine.  Any contentious decision is referred, the crowd are shown exactly what the VAR ref is watching and the crowd can hear what both the VAR ref and the on-field ref are saying at all times.  No snideness or slyness, and it takes a matter of seconds, with the clock stopped, so they get the full amount of actual play.

I truly cannot see why any football fan would be against getting the correct decisions made most of the time.   Would be a pleasant change from how it is now.

VAR needs to be in the Prem. It will be a bumpy ride getting it set up. However, the end product will be better. I can't wait to see the blunders that happen with its implementation.

So was that not VAR last season then?

1 hour ago, Alicja said:

So was that not VAR last season then?

Only in the cups I think.......sure they made a meal out of it.......but a Club like ours should embrace it. Way too often we get jacked in games where our rivals dont. It can only be good news to us Chels fans.....imo.

I  think the main problem was it was way too slow and took momentum out of the game.

34 minutes ago, Strider6003 said:

I  think the main problem was it was way too slow and took momentum out of the game.

For sure....absolutely no reason to take so long. You are in doubt? Look at replays.....not conclusive? You play on as you were.

On 21/11/2018 at 14:37, yorkleyblue said:

I've been watching the rugby internationals over the last few weekends and they seem to have it down fine.  Any contentious decision is referred, the crowd are shown exactly what the VAR ref is watching and the crowd can hear what both the VAR ref and the on-field ref are saying at all times.  No snideness or slyness, and it takes a matter of seconds, with the clock stopped, so they get the full amount of actual play.

I truly cannot see why any football fan would be against getting the correct decisions made most of the time.   Would be a pleasant change from how it is now.

I thought the FA were suppose to be getting advice from the RFU. Must be bad advice or they’re not listening to it. 

When VAR comes in clear rules need sorting out.  We've just experience two similar incidents handled completely differently in the Carabao Cup semi-final and final.

In the Semi-final:  Kane chases a ball, linesman flags for off-side, play continues, Kane goes down in clash with keeper.  VAR used to review which reverses off-side decision, and gives penalty.

In the final: Hazard chases a ball, linesman flags for off-side, play stopped despite Hazard being clear on goal. 

I'm not getting into which way either decision should have gone, but to me both 'off-side' decision were similar so I would have expected them to be treated the same way using VAR.  I am dubious about VAR, from watching matches on TV there are still so many decision that are not obvious despite numerous camera angles and even the pundits can't agree, it can only work if incidents are unambiguous and in those cases Ref's currently get most of them correct.  However, it is being introduced so we NEED consistency.

27 minutes ago, fester said:

When VAR comes in clear rules need sorting out.  We've just experience two similar incidents handled completely differently in the Carabao Cup semi-final and final.

In the Semi-final:  Kane chases a ball, linesman flags for off-side, play continues, Kane goes down in clash with keeper.  VAR used to review which reverses off-side decision, and gives penalty.

In the final: Hazard chases a ball, linesman flags for off-side, play stopped despite Hazard being clear on goal. 

I'm not getting into which way either decision should have gone, but to me both 'off-side' decision were similar so I would have expected them to be treated the same way using VAR.  I am dubious about VAR, from watching matches on TV there are still so many decision that are not obvious despite numerous camera angles and even the pundits can't agree, it can only work if incidents are unambiguous and in those cases Ref's currently get most of them correct.  However, it is being introduced so we NEED consistency.

Id rather we just binned it completely. I dont care about decisions being wrong. I do care about celebrating a goal and then being told it wasnt a goal because someone was half a toe offside. 

The way it was used in the semi final should be the way it’s done but then that would have benefitted us in the final. Also our lot don’t like playing to the whistle, they like to stop and moan at the ref so that would be bad!

22 minutes ago, Munkworth said:

The way it was used in the semi final should be the way it’s done but then that would have benefitted us in the final. Also our lot don’t like playing to the whistle, they like to stop and moan at the ref so that would be bad!

I agree with this, don't think it applies just to us though. One of the fundamental basics of football is "play to the whistle", Spurs did, and we didn't and we got punished for it.

I think there needs to be a blanket approach for VAR and that if it is a close call the linesman give the attacker the benefit of the doubt and then if need be you can go back and give the offside and disallow the goal. I also think alot of teams defenders will be guilty of standing still with their arms raised appealing for an offside, whilst play goes on and the attacking team score. 

2 minutes ago, drjonesy1994 said:

I agree with this, don't think it applies just to us though. One of the fundamental basics of football is "play to the whistle", Spurs did, and we didn't and we got punished for it.

I think Hazard stopped because the ref blew for the offside.

42 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

Id rather we just binned it completely. I dont care about decisions being wrong. I do care about celebrating a goal and then being told it wasnt a goal because someone was half a toe offside. 

A toe offside is not clear and obvious.

1 hour ago, fester said:

When VAR comes in clear rules need sorting out.  We've just experience two similar incidents handled completely differently in the Carabao Cup semi-final and final.

In the Semi-final:  Kane chases a ball, linesman flags for off-side, play continues, Kane goes down in clash with keeper.  VAR used to review which reverses off-side decision, and gives penalty.

In the final: Hazard chases a ball, linesman flags for off-side, play stopped despite Hazard being clear on goal. 

I'm not getting into which way either decision should have gone, but to me both 'off-side' decision were similar so I would have expected them to be treated the same way using VAR.  I am dubious about VAR, from watching matches on TV there are still so many decision that are not obvious despite numerous camera angles and even the pundits can't agree, it can only work if incidents are unambiguous and in those cases Ref's currently get most of them correct.  However, it is being introduced so we NEED consistency.

Yup that crossed my mind as soon as the whistle went.

How can they let Kane go on when Hazard can’t? He most likely would have scored from there.

F*cking bullsh*t if you ask me, can’t have one rule for one game and different for another.

What would happen if Hazard took a shot anyway and scored? Would VAR come into play?

20 minutes ago, fester said:

I think Hazard stopped because the ref blew for the offside.

Well, the official has to realize that it is a close call and that the play needs to continue and if Hazard scores, let VAR review it and overturn or allow the goal. Instead the linesman raises his flag and it kills the play and nothing can be done. I think that's also an issue is that its used here and there and the referees aren't used to allowing play to continue. We saw in the World Cup that close offsides calls where allowed to play out because they knew that if it was offsides VAR would/should catch it.

13 minutes ago, coco said:

A toe offside is not clear and obvious.

Think we saw that with Aguero's no goal in the final. If that was given as a goal in the run of play, it would've stood up in review as not clear and obvious to overturn. Bc it was damn damn tight

50 minutes ago, fester said:

I think Hazard stopped because the ref blew for the offside.

Sorry, i meant in the context of the Spurs game. Kane played on, we didn't 

Agree with @fester can’t have the same situation dealt with in a different way and get punished both times.

I have always said that I like the idea of VAR, I just don't trust the officials to use it properly. I actually think VAR has highlighted how poor the officials are rather than help them out. Even with VAR, they are still making wrong decisions. The decision on Sunday was basic, keep the flag down until play is disrupted. If Hazard scores, then raise your flag if you thought he was offside and VAR can check to see if the linesman was correct.

On 26/02/2019 at 20:34, Scott Harris said:

I have always said that I like the idea of VAR, I just don't trust the officials to use it properly. I actually think VAR has highlighted how poor the officials are rather than help them out. Even with VAR, they are still making wrong decisions. The decision on Sunday was basic, keep the flag down until play is disrupted. If Hazard scores, then raise your flag if you thought he was offside and VAR can check to see if the linesman was correct.

This is the problem, I don’t think it’s being used correctly. I just heard Dermont Gallagher on sky sports saying that the penalty on Rodri, because the referee didn’t think it wasn’t a penalty that VAR can’t intervene. Probably similar to the handball yesterday by Leicester on the edge of the box. Surely the whole point in VAR is that it can pick the things the referee misses up and get the decision right? That was a clear penalty and the referee should have been made aware of that.

 

As for the new handball rule, my understanding was that it’s supposed to be to avoid events like Sanchez goal for Arsenal where he literally hit the ball over the line with his hand.

6 hours ago, EdinburghBlue said:

This is the problem, I don’t think it’s being used correctly. I just heard Dermont Gallagher on sky sports saying that the penalty on Rodri, because the referee didn’t think it wasn’t a penalty that VAR can’t intervene. Probably similar to the handball yesterday by Leicester on the edge of the box. Surely the whole point in VAR is that it can pick the things the referee misses up and get the decision right? That was a clear penalty and the referee should have been made aware of that.

 

As for the new handball rule, my understanding was that it’s supposed to be to avoid events like Sanchez goal for Arsenal where he literally hit the ball over the line with his hand.

 

It’s not ‘because the referee didn’t think it was a penalty’, it’s that the referees decision ( not to award one) was not a clear and obvious error. So it can intervene ( if Gallagher said what you think he did then he should learn the rules ). Similar with the handball - the referee probably saw it but decided it did not meet the law to be deemed deliberate . The VAR panel would have reviewed it and may well form the opinion that, actually, had they been there they would have given it but that is still not a clear and obvious error. I was at the game and have not seen the highlights. It’s still a good argument though - why was City’s goal disallowed when , in reality, it could never be argued it was ‘obvious’ ( Sanchez’s was) . The rules seem to sway to the defensive teams side when it should be neutral at best and, arguably, be on the side of the attacking team.

What did annoy me yesterday was the ref’s lack of understanding about the substitution rule change and the player should go off at the nearest point.

42 minutes ago, Crem said:

What did annoy me yesterday was the ref’s lack of understanding about the substitution rule change and the player should go off at the nearest point.

I think we can cut the ref a bit of slack yesterday. It was his first PL match, he wasn’t expecting to have to referee and the rule is new. He had a decent game considering. 

1 hour ago, Crem said:

 

It’s not ‘because the referee didn’t think it was a penalty’, it’s that the referees decision ( not to award one) was not a clear and obvious error. So it can intervene ( if Gallagher said what you think he did then he should learn the rules ). 

Sorry mate, but anyone with a pair of eyes can see that it is a blatant penalty on Rodri, he was hauled to the ground by the neck. It’s as clear & obvious a penalty as you can get. It’s basically saying that all the decisions that went against us with Overbo wouldn’t be reviewed because the referee didn’t give it in the first instance. I’ll try and dig it out but I am adamant that’s what he said. VAR can’t intervene if the referee doesn’t give the original decision.

Players playing away from home aren’t expected to walk past home support for fear of abuse or objects being thrown