Nottingham Forest tweet

[CoolClaret]

"It's about time someone said it.

Unless anyone has proof that a referee or assistant referee is or has been involved in deliberate corruption then nobody has any place daring suggest it.

A f*****g easy and growing out for supporters that is driving numbers of refs down, that is used as an excuse for underperforming teams and organisations and is a growing cancer in the sport.

So I invite any supporter or legal firm to do one thing. Provide examples and proof of corruption against your club, put up or shut up. Because the constant erosion of the standing of officials has created a dearth of talent and numbers, which in turn leaves us with arguably a poor pool to pick from.

But corrupt? Do me a f******g favour.

Just one ref, and one example of corruption that you'd be willing to fund in a court of law.

Being a poor ref and being a corrupt ref are worlds apart and it's now the f*****g accepted go to excuse of clubs who have plenty of money and plenty of games to get their sh*t together."

Stan Collymore.
Not someone I thought I'd be giving a standing ovation.

He's been pretty spot on about the state of the game recently.

A lot of the older pros that were involved in punditry seem to be fed up with it - I know I am.

Think Ian Wright is giving it up at the end of the season for these reasons, or at least taking a bit of a step back. It's exhausting, like a bloody circus.

[Casper2]

None of those 3 incidents are penalties.

The last one was a stonewall penalty

[Darnhill Claret]

I think you'd have a few disagreeing with that opinion.

[Darnhill Claret]

Sorry I was replying to the post that said none of the three were penalties.

[dsr]

None of those 3 incidents are penalties.

I agree. Gary Neville (if it was him, I think I recognised the voice) said the first should have been a penalty because there was contact, the second should have been a penalty because he moved his arm towards the ball after it was kicked from half a yard away, and the third should have been a penalty because the defender didn't make contact with the ball.

Neither one nor three are free kick offences, and two is impossible to do deliberately because reflexes don't work fast enough. So if there are no rational reasons to give penalties, then they aren't penalties.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Just seen them on MOTD just before bed.

Claim 1 - not a pen, Webb explained this months ago, but some refs give them in error like Atwell against us
Claim 2 - not a pen, hand was natural
Claim 3 - penalty, error by Taylor, no ball contact, but the silly “clear and obvious” that has done us half a dozen times, most latterly against BHA, has stopped Atwell calling Taylor to the screen, because all the refs seem to apply that as “if so clear and so obvious that Stevie Wonder would give it”.

So Forest a bit unlucky, but no more than we have had multiple times, no corruption, Clattenberg surely has to resign from Forest role after insulting his old pals in that way? Hard to see Forest getting many decisions in the closing games now tbh. Refs must be really naffed off.

[bumba]

"It's about time someone said it.

Unless anyone has proof that a referee or assistant referee is or has been involved in deliberate corruption then nobody has any place daring suggest it.

A f*****g easy and growing out for supporters that is driving numbers of refs down, that is used as an excuse for underperforming teams and organisations and is a growing cancer in the sport.

So I invite any supporter or legal firm to do one thing. Provide examples and proof of corruption against your club, put up or shut up. Because the constant erosion of the standing of officials has created a dearth of talent and numbers, which in turn leaves us with arguably a poor pool to pick from.

But corrupt? Do me a f******g favour.

Just one ref, and one example of corruption that you'd be willing to fund in a court of law.

Being a poor ref and being a corrupt ref are worlds apart and it's now the f*****g accepted go to excuse of clubs who have plenty of money and plenty of games to get their sh*t together."

Stan Collymore.
Not someone I thought I'd be giving a standing ovation.

It probably all stems from ex referee Mark Halsey claiming that referees do make decisions that are swayed and always have

[pushpinpussy]

all could have been given. all could not have been given. that football. move on. it will be like this forever.

[jojomk1]

They could have all been given - similar incidents in the past have

For me the whole "us, them (protecting their own)" scenario could be alleviated if former pro players were part of the VAR teams - certainly give a bit more credence to the outcomes

Problem being, pro players quite often don't want to be involved as they know (from close up) how difficult it is to take a clear objective view when "one of their own" is also involved

How many former players turn to refereeing once they retire from the game - hardly any, as they know how difficult the job is

VAR is ok when you can draw "straight lines" deciding when players are offside or an incident has occured in or out of the penalty area

On decisions such as those yesterday the ref should be "advised" to go to the screen - he/she has made the original decision and should be given the opportunity to review it themselves (and technology helps to review from all angles which the ref did not see at the time of the incident.)

If they, then stand by their original thoughts they take the consequences

[RicardoMontalban]

They could have all been given - similar incidents in the past have

For me the whole "us, them (protecting their own)" scenario could be alleviated if former pro players were part of the VAR teams - certainly give a bit more credence to the outcomes

Problem being, pro players quite often don't want to be involved as they know (from close up) how difficult it is to take a clear objective view when "one of their own" is also involved

How many former players turn to refereeing once they retire from the game - hardly any, as they know how difficult the job is

VAR is ok when you can draw "straight lines" deciding when players are offside or an incident has occured in or out of the penalty area

On decisions such as those yesterday the ref should be "advised" to go to the screen - he/she has made the original decision and should be given the opportunity to review it themselves (and technology helps to review from all angles which the ref did not see at the time of the incident.)

If they, then stand by their original thoughts they take the consequences

I suppose another argument against the VAR office being staffed by ex-pros is the TV studios already are, and every week and every decision you still get differing views (and some absolute tosh), that I really don’t think that’s the panacea either.

VAR (certainly as our PGMOL see it) tries to add certainty and absolutism to decisions that are still often subjective, and that’ll never work.

[Herts Clarets]

One of the main reasons footballers don't turn to refereeing after retirement is the eye watering salaries they are paid. Many Premier league players will earn in a week what a referee earns in a year. They have no need to work, particularly in a role that will pay them 1/52 of their pre retirement salary.

[Acting Claret]

Tell me that Man City, Arsenal and Liverpool don’t get all three of those decisions. That’s the problem.

[jojomk1]

One of the main reasons footballers don't turn to refereeing after retirement is the eye watering salaries they are paid. Many Premier league players will earn in a week what a referee earns in a year. They have no need to work, particularly in a role that will pay them 1/52 of their pre retirement salary.

League 1 or League 2 players are nowhere near that rich after stopping playing the game

They don't want the pressure of making such decisions or the personal abuse that refs have to put up with

[Dyched]

They could have all been given - similar incidents in the past have

For me the whole "us, them (protecting their own)" scenario could be alleviated if former pro players were part of the VAR teams - certainly give a bit more credence to the outcomes

Problem being, pro players quite often don't want to be involved as they know (from close up) how difficult it is to take a clear objective view when "one of their own" is also involved

How many former players turn to refereeing once they retire from the game - hardly any, as they know how difficult the job is

VAR is ok when you can draw "straight lines" deciding when players are offside or an incident has occured in or out of the penalty area

On decisions such as those yesterday the ref should be "advised" to go to the screen - he/she has made the original decision and should be given the opportunity to review it themselves (and technology helps to review from all angles which the ref did not see at the time of the incident.)

If they, then stand by their original thoughts they take the consequences

Not sure ex pros would work.


For me, simplify the system.

There’s no one on VAR. Just the ref that can check. Each team has 2 checks per half. If a check is made and the ref overturns the decision that team still has 2 check remaining. If not the team has 1 remaining. No check can last longer than 20 seconds. If it does the original on field decision remains.

[claptrappers_union]

Chelsea are GIVEN penalties. Teams like Forest can buy one

[distortiondave]

So Forest a bit unlucky, but no more than we have had multiple times, no corruption, Clattenberg surely has to resign from Forest role after insulting his old pals in that way? Hard to see Forest getting many decisions in the closing games now tbh. Refs must be really naffed off.

That would be an example of corruption. More likely is the opposite effect, positive corruption if you will, where they get the next half dozen 50/50 shouts so we can all be told that it evens itself out.

[NewClaret]

Not sure ex pros would work.


For me, simplify the system.

There’s no one on VAR. Just the ref that can check. Each team has 2 checks per half. If a check is made and the ref overturns the decision that team still has 2 check remaining. If not the team has 1 remaining. No check can last longer than 20 seconds. If it does the original on field decision remains.

I agree with this. Keeps the ref accountable and gives the teams responsibility over deciding what is a ‘clear and obvious error’.

It would need captains to decide which decisions are reviewed. Only point is you’d have to agree how long a team had to request the review as the captain might not always have the best view so maybe managers would be a better bet. But I’d probably limit the review to one and keep it if a decision is overturned to keep the challenges precious and to an absolute minimum. Plus real time replays only.

[NewClaret]

That would be an example of corruption. More likely is the opposite effect, positive corruption if you will, where they get the next half dozen 50/50 shouts so we can all be told that it evens itself out.

Have to say, that’s how it feels to me - they’ll get everything now they’ve shone a light on it and the good guys like us who don’t say a peep will be shat on from VAR towers.

[Coeus]

Forest were not denied goals. We were.

[quoonbeatz]

The last one was a stonewall penalty

Nah, just two players going for the same ball. The sort of collision that happens 20 times a game and not worthy of a penalty.

[JimmyRobbo]

The last one was a stonewall penalty

Agreed.

The 1st 2 were soft but we've seen them given.

I'm no fan of VAR. I think the system is rigged to give 2nd chances to the fancied clubs. I don't think refs are biased. I just think pressure is applied from many sources (attending fans, famous characters (managers) with influence, big owners, powerful sponsors, positive media coverage, famous fans commenting, prominent ex players, etc) which adds up to accepting the consensus - ie. Arsenal, Liverpool, Man U, Man C, etc are likely to have been fouled, etc.

Not Collymore's biggest fan but his comments posted earlier are spot on.

Forest look absolutely stupid for their silly tweet. The ex-referee employed by them commenting they were 3 stonewall penalties now undermines any validity to his opinions, too.

[CrosspoolClarets]

That would be an example of corruption. More likely is the opposite effect, positive corruption if you will, where they get the next half dozen 50/50 shouts so we can all be told that it evens itself out.

Not really, it is all subconscious bias. A bit like the teacher at school who tries to be fair but cannot help themself giving the pain in the arse kid a tougher time. I don’t think refs can bring themself to give Forest a decision, the way they moan, throw themselves over theatrically, put out tweets like this.

[Rileybobs]

I don’t see the clamour for ex-pro’s, they often don’t know the laws. I don’t know the answer to the poor quality of referees in this country, but as far as VAR is concerned, it should be manned by specialist video referee’s, not the on-field ref’s mate who’s being given a rest-day. Being a VAR requires a completely different skill set.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Just seen the Coventry “winner”.

The truth is, VAR is an abomination, and most issues stem from that. How wrong and heartbreaking for the CCFC fans to celebrate the greatest ever comeback then have it snatched away, after the officials had given the goal. Offside was never meant to be judged by a toenail, the freezeframe can never be so accurate.

So regarding Forest, it happens to us all. VAR just gives 2 chances for the big dubs to get decisions.

[Colburn_Claret]

I don’t see the clamour for ex-pro’s, they often don’t know the laws. I don’t know the answer to the poor quality of referees in this country, but as far as VAR is concerned, it should be manned by specialist video referee’s, not the on-field ref’s mate who’s being given a rest-day. Being a VAR requires a completely different skill set.

The only reasoning I can come up with is referees feel compelled to make a decision.
If they aren't sure they should just wave play on, and explain afterwards they didn't get a clear view.
Today they aren't sure, so they make a guess, and if the guess is wrong they look muppets.
Incidents can always be subjective, but unless you are 100% sure of your call, just let the game flow.

[Herts Clarets]

The still that I saw from the disallowed goal for Coventry, the ball was blurred at the point of the freeze frame, suggesting it was in motion so had already been played. I guess one frame back and the ball hadn't been played, so the ball moves faster than the frames can refresh, bringing more doubt into the judgements on VAR....

[quoonbeatz]

Just seen the Coventry “winner”.

The truth is, VAR is an abomination, and most issues stem from that. How wrong and heartbreaking for the CCFC fans to celebrate the greatest ever comeback then have it snatched away, after the officials had given the goal. Offside was never meant to be judged by a toenail, the freezeframe can never be so accurate.

So regarding Forest, it happens to us all. VAR just gives 2 chances for the big dubs to get decisions.

To be fair, they shouldn't have been in the position to get a winner as that 'handball' is never a penalty for the equaliser.

[Jakubclaret]

Every time they get a decision go against them they complain. When a shocker of a decision went in their favour against us their manager at the time Steve Cooper thought it was good.

Their official twitter can't be doing that.

"Every time they get a decision go against they complain" now that does sound familiar.

[aggi]

A few journalists who cover Olympiacos say this is pretty mild compared to some of the statements from Olympiacos about refs.

[ClaretTony]

A few journalists who cover Olympiacos say this is pretty mild compared to some of the statements from Olympiacos about refs.

I didn't think Olympiacos made statements about referees, I thought they just sorted them out on the day.

[aggi]

They had some harsh words for Mark Clatternburg a few years back, I wonder where he ended up:

https://www.olympiacos.org/en/2020/09/0 ... release-2/

[LincsWoldsClaret]

Working well for Forest - coverage all over the media - all piling up the pressure for their appeal

[NottsClaret]

The still that I saw from the disallowed goal for Coventry, the ball was blurred at the point of the freeze frame, suggesting it was in motion so had already been played. I guess one frame back and the ball hadn't been played, so the ball moves faster than the frames can refresh, bringing more doubt into the judgements on VAR....

It's been done a couple of times by video / science nerds at university. Mostly went over my head but they explained in some detail why the offside system used by the VAR isn't accurate enough to rely on with tight calls. They genuinely are guessing a bit with those lines.

And offside is the only bit that's supposed to work, everything else is subjective anyway. Well worth ruining the sport for.

[pureclaret]

For me now I dont see how the PML can give any appeal without some club then being upset, as I feel they may get points back as an indirect result of the bad days ref against Everton. That may well be the final nail to see us down.
If the PML were being fair they should apply the other 2 points dedcuction for bringing the reffereeing into such a question of curuption.

[Spijed]

And offside is the only bit that's supposed to work, everything else is subjective anyway. Well worth ruining the sport for.

Is that the case though regarding offside?

I thought players "interfering" with play is still subjective, such as blocking the eyeline of the goalkeeper, or when a player without the ball is offside, and distracts the defenders.

[Woonderbah]

There's too much money sloshing around in football to rely on grainy low definition images with obscure camera angles.. either do it properly or do away with it before the farce of league tables being decided upon in court. It's ruining the game we all love.

[ŽižkovClaret]

Should have a separate pool of VAR officials, freeing up "active"| refs to work on the pitch. You could recruit the best recent retired refs from around the world to sit in Stockley Park, with no bias as far as showing their old mate/colleague up.

Im baffled why they insist on it being one pool of refs for pitch or VAR duty

[Sgt. Pepper]

Weirdly VAR reflects wider societal attitudes.
That every situation has a definitive right or wrong, and that everything is black and white is an unusual modern attitude that has seeped into most areas of life.
It's the same reason that we have a more polarised/divisive society in general.
People seem to have lost the ability to accept a more nuanced view of most things, and they automatically assume that their own opinion is completely beyond question.
Given that the technology is incapable of actually giving correct decisions on tight offsides, and that many other offences require a degree of subjectivity to judge, VAR will never do anything but clear up absolute howlers from the ref.
It will however make people more frustrated, as they were told that there would no longer be any wrong decisions. How's that going?
Given that it ruins the flow of the game, and takes the joy out of goals etc. it is hard to see VAR as anything but incredibly detrimental to the game.

[martin_p]

It's been done a couple of times by video / science nerds at university. Mostly went over my head but they explained in some detail why the offside system used by the VAR isn't accurate enough to rely on with tight calls. They genuinely are guessing a bit with those lines.

And offside is the only bit that's supposed to work, everything else is subjective anyway. Well worth ruining the sport for.

Trouble is VAR seems to have over stepped its original remit. ‘Clear and obvious error’ doesn’t seem to be a thing anymore. If it was just used for decisions where the officials have clearly not seen what has happened like a player half a yard offside, or a pull back when a player is through on goal, then it’d be fine.

[aggi]

It's been done a couple of times by video / science nerds at university. Mostly went over my head but they explained in some detail why the offside system used by the VAR isn't accurate enough to rely on with tight calls. They genuinely are guessing a bit with those lines.

And offside is the only bit that's supposed to work, everything else is subjective anyway. Well worth ruining the sport for.

Basically the issue is that the cameras just aren't fast enough to give an accurate picture. If cameras are recording at 50 frames per second and a player is flat out sprinting they're going to cover ~ 6 inches between frames. If you choose the wrong frame for when the ball is kicked (or if it's between frames) then you're still just taking a guess as to whether they're offside.

I believe the plan is to bring in semi automated offsides next season which uses a sensor in the ball to measure the point of it being kicked to get a more accurate data point there

[Poulton-le-Claret]

Beeb reporting Forest did not ask for the VAR to be changed:

BBC News - Nottingham Forest did not ask for VAR official to be changed - BBC Sport
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/ar ... w0g501q0xo

[Darnhill Claret]

VAR has decided from the outset that clear and obvious does not apply to offside in the same way as goal-line technology. It has to be judged as offside or onside. They have not made any allowance for a desperately tight decision so there will always be dissenting voices.

Even in horse racing camera work, there is still an outcome of a dead-heat.

In football as we already have a problem determining when the pass actually took place there will never be an agreed outcome. It all depends on when they freeze frame the pass and that itself has often been dubious. Often the two players concerned are not in the same shot. This situation needs to be addressed.

[Darnhill Claret]

Aggi types quicker than me and probably thinks quicker too.

[clarethomer]

The fundamental issue with VAR is that the expectation is that fans expect it to work and correct errors.

The reality is that the laws of the game are subjective rather than objective and that it's an unfair expectation for us fans to have.

Given that there is subjectivity and it appears to be unclear when VAR is/isn't involved or where it is expected to intervene, it's taken the old frustration and post match debate of the ref making an error, to more confusion and uncertainty than ever before.

I genuinely do not see the benefit this brings to the game. I can't see anything VAR is delivering that we can say has improved the game.

All I see is more fan frustration, slowing the game down and the reflections of a match has now become more about VAR than the game itself.

just automate offsides and where the ball has left the field or not together with goal line technology and as someone has said, make it a manager/captain call to check a decision with a limited amount per game/half.

We have overcomplicated something and made the game worse as a result.

[alboclaret]

Not sure ex pros would work.


For me, simplify the system.

There’s no one on VAR. Just the ref that can check. Each team has 2 checks per half. If a check is made and the ref overturns the decision that team still has 2 check remaining. If not the team has 1 remaining. No check can last longer than 20 seconds. If it does the original on field decision remains.

Like your proposal but logistically wouldn't work for a 20 second review and the amount on shenanigans trying to sway the reff before looking at the screen woukd be unbelievable. Var was suposed to take the pressure off reffs a little this woukd make it far more intense.

The 2 checks would not stop a obvious error missed if a team had run out.

[Conroysleftfoot]

The fundamental issue with VAR is that the expectation is that fans expect it to work and correct errors.

The reality is that the laws of the game are subjective rather than objective and that it's an unfair expectation for us fans to have.

Given that there is subjectivity and it appears to be unclear when VAR is/isn't involved or where it is expected to intervene, it's taken the old frustration and post match debate of the ref making an error, to more confusion and uncertainty than ever before.

I genuinely do not see the benefit this brings to the game. I can't see anything VAR is delivering that we can say has improved the

All I see is more fan frustration, slowing the game down and the reflections of a match has now become more about VAR than the game itself.

just automate offsides and where the ball has left the field or not together with goal line technology and as someone has said, make it a manager/captain call to check a decision with a limited amount per game/half.

We have overcomplicated something and made the game worse as a result.

Pretty good summing up

[beddie]

Slightly O/T. Did you notice anything different about Dyche yesterday?

[Rick_Muller]

As discussed previously on this thread, using VAR for offside is insane due to the errors of judgement caused by framerate issues and I have said that from it's conception.

As a wider issue with VAR though, I have again always maintained that the technology is and would be useful for situations relating to fouls and eliminated cheating etc, I'd even go as far to say that the cameras could (and IMO should) be used for retrospective action where players have dived to win a penalty etc.

With this in mind though, I also think that the whole use of VAR during a game needs review and I'd suggest the following.

For offside, the on field ref could have the option to review the footage, if the on field officials think a mistake was made. That's it, no lines, just a one off real time review for the officials to see and check if it was clear and obvious. I would also suggest that it should be taken with a view to favour the attacking player, as the rules actually state. Or just use the semi automated system that appears to work well.

For serious foul play, again the on field officials can review and decide on the day. However, the incident can be submitted for review after the game for any possible retrospective action over and above the on field decision.

For any uncertainty about penalties the on field officials should have the facility to review the footage and decide for themselves, again any instances of diving etc could result in a retrospective ban/fine for the player involved.

Basically, I'd get shot of the whole VAR room away from the ground and let the on field officials have the facility to review things as they wish to come to their own conclusions (as and officiating team - including the 4th official).

When VAR came in, we all thought ( well at least I did!) that it would help eliminate the cheating aspect of the game. What it appears to have done is create a whole new level of analysis that is ruining the sport.

[Goddy]

I know it's been mentioned on here a few times but I don't see why football couldn't take a leaf out of how TMO reviews take place in rugby.

There's a clear conversation between the ref, the TMO operator AND (quite often) the linesmen. They clearly go through a well-defined process and come to an agreement. Last Saturday (between Leicester and Northampton) the TMO challenged the ref's view to the extent that the ref was convinced by the TMO, after a discussion....and ended up with a man being sent off!! OK - it took a bit longer but jeez, some of these footie VAR decisions take what seems like forever, and we never have a realistic explanation as to how an outcome has come about.

If we do have to have VAR, then, please let's have something which is transparent and clearly involves a discussion between the officials to come up with a decision which (whether we agree with the decision or not) seems to have some sort of logical explanation.

[burnmark]

Slightly O/T. Did you notice anything different about Dyche yesterday?

He was in his pre-season friendly attire - training kit and tracksuit.