• FalcomanToTheRescue@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Thank you. The ref is still (should be) the authority on the field for the flow of the game. VAR should only get involved when it’s a completely obvious mistake (ie offsides, ref completely missed a head butt). Refs do not always get it right, but VAR doesn’t either. People in this sub want the game to stop everytime there’s a potential disagreement? F that, respect the authority of the expert on the field and let them play the game.

    • 879190747@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t need an arbitrary rule for that though since it’s already covered by the goal or red or pen clause in VAR. So VAR can only step in with important match decisions in the first place.

    • 1to14to4@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You are missing a key issue in your comment. The introduction of VAR has impacted how refs call games. We see this clearly with offsides - they generally let the play continue because they know VAR will make the definitive call. It’s not that hard to imagine that refs are also hesitant to call other things or less likely to give red cards because they expect that VAR will let them know if they need to change it. Except VAR isn’t telling them because their bar for “clear and obvious” is hard to gauge and ever moving.

      If you have the whole panel saying that Bruno’s elbow was a red but half saying it wasn’t “clear and obvious”, then how you define “clear and obvious” is an issue. Especially because it was “clear and obvious” to review Havertz tackle… but then again it wasn’t so obvious because the ref on the field didn’t deem it was a red… so how is that obvious when the ref on the field disagrees?