Var.

Those in charge of it aren't getting any better. How they disallowed West Ham's goal for a foul on Mendy is beyond me. Also, forget that it was Villa, but how quick was that ref. to blow up for offside when they scored. They always seem to play on for ages after a contentioust incident but not this time. Had he allowed play to continue and then referred to VAR it would have shown, I think it was Coutinhou, that the player was not offside. It does beg the question, the bigger the club the more decisions they get. There was also an incident where Brentford were denied an obvious penalty v. Leeds. Also, Van Dyke should have seen a red card for his tackle.

The only decision that I did agree with was the foul by Willock on the Palace 'keeper, despite Shearer's protestations that it was a definite penalty.

I think that VAR is helpful to resolve contentious issues but unfortunately the system is being lambasted because of the people using it. On Wednesday in the West Ham/Spurs game the ref gave a penalty immediately for handball against Cresswell. It looked an obvious handball until the VAR intervened and it clearly showed that the ball had hit him the face before going onto his arm which meant no penalty under the current rules.

However, yesterday the decision by the VAR operator to award Chelsea a penalty was nothing short of scandalous. Yesterday's Coutinhou goal was a little more contentious because, although it proved that he was onside, the referee had blown his whistle and therefore the City goalkeeper didn't exert himself to make a save.

I think that VAR does have it's merit but the quality of interpreting the issues is very poor and needs improving.

The well paid idiots that "Review" VAR want their contracts terminated with no bonuses paid.
Higher some zoological apes and they will perform to a higher standard to the current crop of idiots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dubbag

The well paid idiots that "Review" VAR want their contracts terminated with no bonuses paid.
Higher some zoological apes and they will perform to a higher standard to the current crop of idiots.

---

Summed up nicely. I agreed with everything that Alan Shearer said on MOTD last night, the interpretation of the VAR ‘rules’ was outrageous; it sums up the standard to which refereeing has fallen. In all cases yesterday, having VAR was a waste of time, it would have been better not to have had it and to have relied on the original referees decisions. Scandalous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TipperaryBaggie

I think that VAR is helpful to resolve contentious issues but unfortunately the system is being lambasted because of the people using it. On Wednesday in the West Ham/Spurs game the ref gave a penalty immediately for handball against Cresswell. It looked an obvious handball until the VAR intervened and it clearly showed that the ball had hit him the face before going onto his arm which meant no penalty under the current rules.

However, yesterday the decision by the VAR operator to award Chelsea a penalty was nothing short of scandalous. Yesterday's Coutinhou goal was a little more contentious because, although it proved that he was onside, the referee had blown his whistle and therefore the City goalkeeper didn't exert himself to make a save.

I think that VAR does have it's merit but the quality of interpreting the issues is very poor and needs improving.

---

While agreeing with you Tips that the referee had blown his whistle and that perhaps some of the Chelsea players stopped, the point I was trying to make was that 99.9% of the time they allow the game to carry on until there is a stoppage of some kind but the referee! in this case, blew up immediately. Why?

VAR is a wonderful tool which is being ruined by the tools who are tasked to use it. Utter cockwombles.

VAR sucks. All you need is on important decisions for the ref to consult with his linesmen, but they don’t.