Corrupt officiating

[maverick180]

"A point that seems to of been missed Antonio’s goal could not be seen from any angle whether it definitely came off his stomach or his arm, therefore should never have been disallowed However VAR made the decision to straight up disallow it Souceks goal definitely could be seen to strike his arm, that was the one that was the correct decision However, VAR called over the ref this time to make the decision Does nobody else find that highly suspicious? For me that is what someone would do who’s already made a bent decision and not trying to further put themself in the spotlight"

[zico]

As I said below on what part of those rules is that second penalty given? How does the Referee come to that decision? I cannot fathom it.

[maverick180]

"In regards to the 2nd penalty - Gordon isn’t playing the ball, he’s put his foot in front of Phillips, why isn’t a trip?????? For the 400th fucking time, these cunts are on the take to fix results WAKE UP"

[claret on my shirt]

"Its now our last 3 matches where VAR has fucked us, Burnley, Villa and today, not only did we have two joke VAR decisions against us today the ref also bottled it when Kudos was thru and lanky piece of shit Burn smashed him out the way with his shoulder. Sick of football and VAR bullshit"

[RootsRadical]

"First penalty today was offside, full stop. 2nd one is plain ludicrous. This has happened far too often to us this calendar year. Virtually every game we've either been denied goals or penalties or had penalties awarded against us. Either dubious 50/50s or blatant, none have gone for us."

[dealcanvey]

2nd one was no way a penalty. Sooner we get rid of var the better.

[Alfs]

It's plain silly to think it's institutionally corrupt. It's purely incompetence of the highest level.

[zico]

"When I first saw the 2nd pen I just thought Phillips tried to clear the ball and kicked Gordon's leg as Gordon pokes towards the ball from behind. When you look again Gordon doesn't make contact with the ball so you could argue he trips Phillips with a tackle from behind. In the rules it states - Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed • Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned • Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off Well it can't be reckless or using excessive force as Phillips wasn't cautioned or sent of and whilst you could argue ""careless"" he wasn't actually making a challenge so I can't actually see what rule the Referee is going by. This is why officials can't be questioned after the game because if they were they would probably make matters worse for themselves by not being able to quote the correct reason as to why they made a decision."

[maverick180]

Anyone still think it’s not corrupt This game alone has enough evidence

[Side of Ham]

To take away regional bias they need to find Collina type of character from abroad that is not up his own arse generally and not looking for attention to run VAR over here.

[Grumpster]

"Football was corrupt to an extent long before var came along, but anyone with half a brain cell knew that after its introduction all that was going to happen was that the same FA darlings who always got the majority of diabolical decisions were then also going to get the majority of the diabolical var decisions in their favour as well. Only have to see the clubs getting fucked over by FFP whilst others can happily spend a billion quid to see they'll always protect the cash cow clubs who make the FA the richest sporting body in the world of league football. I get the calls for it being incompetence more than corruption, but fuck me we all know for a fact our goal at the weekend is 100% given to a big 6 team and there are far too many outrageous decisions going against the shit teams like Forest (always when against an FA golden child team) for it not to be a bit crooked. Games long dead to me really, so thankfully the abysmal not needed technology doesn't wind me up as much as the poor souls who still go."

[Nutsin]

There needs to be a 3 panel crew reviewing VAR decisions to make sure it’s fair. The Ref we had when we played Sheffield Utd needs to be investigated. He was without a doubt corrupt.

[David L]

Jon Moss is on X: @HeresMossy even in his bio he's an arrogant wanker (''generally right'')

[Willtell]

The problem seems to me to be that ex-referees get the VAR job and so the VAR referee inevitably becomes judgemental and tries to improve the on-field referee's decisions. Perhaps the role is more suited to someone that deals in factual matters like an accountant. They would need to swat up on the VAR rules and just decide if the rules of VAR interventions apply before interfering...

[Willtell]

The problem seems to me to be that ex-referees get the VAR job and so the VAR referee inevitably becomes judgemental and tries to improve the on-field referee's decisions. Perhaps the role is more suited to someone that deals in factual matters like an accountant. They would need to swat up on the VAR rules and just decide if the rules of VAR interventions apply before interfering...

[Helmut Shown]

I understand that the little fat cսnt Jon Moss has been elbowed from the job of overseeing VAR as a result of the Villa debacle. He is going on to ‚Äúpursue other opportunities‚Äù. What seems to be the qualification for this job? Both him and his predecessor Mike Dean (both involved in scandalous decisions against West Ham) have been given the job and both for one reason or another have left. Who next? You may ask. Whoever it is it will be a northerner to ensure the results go the way of the big six teams to prevent a European super league.

[Mike Oxsaw]

"ATHammer 6:52 Wed Mar 20 I hear what you're saying. 30 seconds is well long enough for a money-earning ad and modern TV technology will allow a seamless catch-up if a game restarts before the ad is finished. Football has long ceased to be the main event from a revenue generating point-of-view, it's just a dynamic billboard onto which adverts can be plastered. Some broadcaster even shrink the game picture so that an ad can be placed alongside, so the demand is clearly there from those paying the piper."

[nychammer]

"The whole premise of VAR is that it should be black and white decision making. Take Antonio’s goal. VAR could just as easily not have gone looking to rule it out and likely nobody would have said a word. They could, as others have said on another day have “taken the view” that they had not been able to see the ball clearly strike an arm from any angle and allowed the goal and nobody would have called it unfair , So, It is still too much room for interpretation and the leaving decisions to the whim of referees without there being any recompense for a dodgy decision, and that’s where it falls down"

[marty feldman]

It's incompetence. Instead of corruption. In the main I suspect. Still isn't good either way coming at the recieving end of it all . .

[ludo21]

I mentioned a while back in this thread that if VAR highlights a potential issue the on field ref should just go to the monitor and review it himself (without some 4th official giving him verbal while he is doing it). Would save the ridiculous situation where the ref ends up doing that anyway on Sunday having wasted 5 minutes of everyones time.

[boleyn8420]

"There's a very simple way to solve this VAR problem and I am surprised no one has thought of it before. At the start of every game each team is given scratch cards. A scratch card is then given to the ref as soon as it goes past 30 seconds on VAR. The scratch card just says yes or no, the ref selects one box and whichever one he has scratched, he gives. Then we can get on with the game, its a goal or its not. I know pure genius. Thank me later."

[ATHammer]

"Mike Oxsaw 12:57 Wed Mar 20 What don't I get? The topic is the officiating of which VAR is a major part. You are talking commerciality which VAR could be a part of but, as with the game itself, VAR is not fit for purpose due to the ineptitude of those operating it. For VAR to be effective commercially it would need to meet the TV execs desire for predictability of timescale. It does not, the timescale is indeterminate, largely due to the boys with toys fucking around with slow motion and 3d models. I get that, commercially, 45 minutes is too long for the average TV exec. The hot weather drinks break will in all probability be introduced throughout the season so that we can ""step away"" for an ad break. The opportunities here, for a sponsored activity in that break (as they have in basketball and ice hockey) must be very tempting to the likes of Brady to generate cash at the ground as well as the TV ad revenue. As for VAR this could, if time bound to 2 minutes easily allow a ""step away"" opportunity for TV ads as well as being beneficial to the game, the average ad takes 90 seconds, cynically the restart of the game could be dictated by the end of the ad, even that would be better than the 5 minute plus fiasco at the Villa game. This sort of break happens in the NFL and Baseball, the variable being a bad injury. My point was, and remains, that I believe the officiating to be poor, not corrupt. I believe the officiating could be easily improved by limiting the remote official input and simplifying the laws. I do not doubt that VAR breaks could be exploited commercially and being time bound they would become very attractive to TV execs. At the moment it does not improve the game, simply imposing one opinion on another; negatively affects the spectacle of the live game; and creates a lull in the atmosphere which does not help the TV. Neither does VAR provide the opportunity to step away for commercial advantage as the timescale is too unpredictable. I think I understand both the issues around officiating and the opportunities for commercial exploitation. I also understand that they are separate."

[zebthecat]

"Compare and contrast with the Six Nations non try by Scotland at the end of the match vs. France. The former was ruled as not a try and held up on the field and, despite the footage shownig it was probably a try, they did not have camera angle to prove it so it was not a ""clear and obvious error"". The post and other bodies obscured the footage so it definitely does not pass that same test that is meant to be the VAR rule as well.. Incompetence rather than corruption."

[Any Old Iron]

I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can claim that either ‘goal’ was handball. To take nearly six minutes to disallow a goal can only mean that VAR is struggling to find an infraction. Therefore the original decision of ‘goal’ must stand. Anyway I have been vehemently against VAR since it was first proposed but It’s turned out even worse than I imagined. It baffles me why there isn’t a strong groundswell of opinion to dump it.

[Jasnik]

THey re so incompetent it tends towards corruption.

[Mike Oxsaw]

"ATHammer 8:24 Tue Mar 19 You really don't get it. The whole point is to engineer breaks in the flow of the game into which adverts can be inserted. It's not happened yet, but it will, probably before the World Cup after next; they're playing the long game here. It will start with the commentators announcing the next events they are showing, then ""sponsored by""'s will creep in, then full-on give-us-your-fucking-money ads. The only saving grace is that the authorities are fighting back against betting & gambling - in game adverts yo ""just log on during the break using your app"", for that would have been an absolute cash-cow, but for the wrong people."