Ratings & Reactions: West Ham v Villa

[The_Steve]

12 minutes ago, TRO said:

I find the subjective approach to " Minimal contact" fascinating.

It seemed as conclusive to me as the one they gave against Cash.....or none was penalties.

so it looks a bit like "minimal contact" says to us....heads you lose tails you lose.

I agree. The lack of consistency was evident - if that happens in the 2nd or 80th minute it’s a penalty for me. They gave this more explanation because it doesn’t undermine the ref who got the Cash wrong. If that’s a pen, the ref should give both. Kudus takes a big swing towards the ball and misses the ball. It’s 100% a foul. The lack of analysis about it is telling. West Ham went into the game with such hype because they are a London club. 

[TRO]

30 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

I agree. The lack of consistency was evident - if that happens in the 2nd or 80th minute it’s a penalty for me. They gave this more explanation because it doesn’t undermine the ref who got the Cash wrong. If that’s a pen, the ref should give both. Kudus takes a big swing towards the ball and misses the ball. It’s 100% a foul. The lack of analysis about it is telling. West Ham went into the game with such hype because they are a London club. 

I didn't want to start a thread on VAR, but I am not sure it's ever benefited us, other than Offside....Saturday certainly give food for thought.

My thoughts are, an element of bias is in every human, and refs are no exception, it may not be intentional bias, more latent bias, called "benefit of the doubt", but someone gets it, and subsequently someone doesn't.

When you involve more humans, more bias is likely to be in the mix, it's just a case of who is the dominant one.....and now it seems that will become less certain, on the evidence of Saturday.

If in a case as you say, they don't want to undermine the ref, that in itself is worrying, and it contradicts the very existence of VAR.....It should be driven by, what is the right decision or the best attempt at the right decision, not the effects on the referee's standing. That for me is counter productive.

I am sceptical, when more adjudicators are involved for the very reasons of the intrinsic nature of bias, because more not less is involved.

I can see a scenario this season, where they will flip flop between, using VAR or staying with the ref, and this could lead to more confusion and possible more allegations of bias....so who makes that decision? and in what circumstance?

I perfectly understand our game is littered with incidents, where refs have to use their power of discretion, and in certain games that may go against us, but the next game will have a different ref, and possibly different human traits etc.....it kind of evens itself out. I think maybe VAR prevents that happening, and thus increases not diminishes the opportunity for Bias.

 

Edited August 21 by TRO

[PaulC]

The approach they have this season shouid be better as things won't be looked at so forensically.by the VAR officials. Consistency is always going to be an issue even without VAR. But at least decisions will be made quicker and with the introduction of semi automatic offsides soon then things will be better.