Premier League Match Thread: Burnley Vs Nottingham Forest, sponsored by the Book of Job

For completeness, the other examples are;

Game: Tottenham (H; Dec. 15)
Incident: Anthony Elanga goal disallowed for offside, 58 minutes - AGAINST
Incident: Yves Bissouma sent off for serious foul play with challenge on Ryan Yates, 69 minutes - FOR

Lost 2-0 so gained nothing from the red card - had our disallowed goal stood it would have made it 1-1. Can't remember whether I agreed with VAR on our disallowed goal, but this set of examples shows VAR only intervened in four of our games.

Not when:
Boly pushed over away to Man U (penalty)

Rice handball at Arsenal (penalty)

Awoniyi fouled by Dubravka home to Newcastle (penalty)

Yates hauled down home to Everton (penalty)

Williams clipped v West Ham (penalty)

At least two at Everton
 
chandos9 said:
But I suppose could be said to have made Forest safe......... According to this, Forest are in nett profit from VAR: https://www.espn.co.uk/football/sto...-decisions-affect-premier-league-club-2023-24

But that does not suit the general narrative, so despite the fact that they have been studying it, it is probably wrong.
Click to expand...

It doesn't mean anything unless you presume that decisions where VAR intervenes are generally wrong.

All it means is that Wolves have had six incidents where the referee originally ruled in their favour- incorrectly- or scored goals that were then found to be ineligible.

In our case it just demonstrates where referees have made a wrong decision and been corrected. The only lucky one I can think of is Berge.

It doesn't cover where VAR has incorrectly failed to intervene
 
Last edited:
And as Pope has also pointed out, VAR failed to alert the ref to Omabamidele being thrown to the ground in the home game v Liverpool, seconds before he stopped the game and then gave the ball back to Liverpool incorrectly.

I make that around eight clear cut penalties VAR didn't even try to give us after refs missed them. Might have given us 8 extra points or so.

Williams v West Ham was the only one that didn't cost us, and as it came at 1-0 and we didn't make it two until stoppage time, it could easily have cost us.
 
LynxRed said:
These VAR benefit things - if the ref gives you every onfield decision then VAR can only work against you. If you don't get any onfield decisions then VAR can only work for you. It's really a piss poor representation of how officiating has been for a team and means less than nothing.
Click to expand...
Expect an announcement from PGMOL declaring that these are now the official stats for VAR.
 
LynxRed said:
These VAR benefit things - if the ref gives you every onfield decision then VAR can only work against you. If you don't get any onfield decisions then VAR can only work for you. It's really a piss poor representation of how officiating has been for a team and means less than nothing.
Click to expand...
You, Pebble and Pope have all made interesting points. Presumably this means that Forest ought to support the Wolves proposal, if self interest is the criterion.
 
chandos9 said:
You, Pebble and Pope have all made interesting points. Presumably this means that Forest ought to support the Wolves proposal, if self interest is the criterion.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't mean and you would not have said that if you understood the point.

It means that Forest have been getting incorrect decisions that were not on our favour from the referee that have then been corrected, whereas Wolves have been getting incorrect ones in their favour that have then been corrected.

In our case, the problem has been the sheer scale of poor decisions going against us on the field and the fact that VAR has failed to intervene in the majority of them. This +4 is just four of the 19 or 20 that should have been corrected.

Either way, Forest will be keeping their powder firmly dry and saying nothing until after tomorrow, as there is already suspicion that the PGMOL has punished us and the incentive for them to find a way to help remove a vote against them is there.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
No, it doesn't mean and you would not have said that if you understood the point.

It means that Forest have been getting incorrect decisions that were not on our favour from the referee that have then been corrected, whereas Wolves have been getting incorrect ones in their favour that have then been corrected.

In our case, the problem has been the sheer scale of poor decisions going against us on the field and the fact that VAR has failed to intervene in the majority of them. This +4 is just four of the 19 or 20 that should have been corrected.

Either way, Forest will be keeping their powder firmly dry and saying nothing until after tomorrow, as there is already suspicion that the PGMOL has punished us and the incentive for them to find a way to help remove a vote against them is there.
Click to expand...
You do realise that PGMOL do not run the Premier League?
 
chandos9 said:
You do realise that PGMOL do not run the Premier League?
Click to expand...
No, they do not. They run the referees, who are the ones that award red cards and penalties across all the matches, including Burnley Vs Nottingham Forest and Luton Vs Fulham.

Of all the Premier League teams who have a vote on VAR at the AGM, only two clubs have a possibility of being removed from that voting based on whatever happens in their games tomorrow - of which referees can play a significant part.
 
I see Stuart Attwell has been rewarded for his flawless season by being appointed the VAR for the Arsenal title deciding game
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Usually it is only in government where poor performance is so heavily rewarded
Click to expand...
The thing is, Atwell has always been conspicuously useless, and his continuation in the job and his promotion has always been a mystery. This is why I keep ribbing you about your ideas that this poor refereeing is a conspiracy. It is not; as per Occam's Razor, the simple explanation is that there is lots of poor refereeing and Forest have been unluckily on the rough end of it. The point that you made earlier in this thread, that PGMOL are in some way going to try to referee games differently so as to effect a 12- goal difference relegation, is bordering on the absurd.
 
chandos9 said:
The thing is, Atwell has always been conspicuously useless, and his continuation in the job and his promotion has always been a mystery. This is why I keep ribbing you about your ideas that this poor refereeing is a conspiracy. It is not; as per Occam's Razor, the simple explanation is that there is lots of poor refereeing and Forest have been unluckily on the rough end of it. The point that you made earlier in this thread, that PGMOL are in some way going to try to referee games differently so as to effect a 12- goal difference relegation, is bordering on the absurd.
Click to expand...
Unlikely to happen, certainly.

But I have had a feeling all season that both the PL and PGMOL have tried "nudging" certain things this season

Relegation race would have been over weeks ago otherwise.

We've had some real shockers. The ref at Old Trafford literally changed the result; an incorrect red card, an abomination of a penalty and a set piece goal of questionable legality ignored.

But generally it sort of evened out as it did last season.

Then suddenly, late December we couldn't get a decision anywhere and had some diabolical ones against.

That started roughly the time that the PL would have been preparing to charge us.

By and large, it lasted until we had the four points deducted, after which things settled a bit- Everton aside.

That feels quite coincidental to me.

We should be on about 4-5 penalties for the season, which would be average. Blades, the lowest scorers by a mile, have five, Luton four. Look at us
View attachment 73303
This isn't for want of chances.

There are absolutely other explanations. Nuno's view of cowardice and cameraderie is a compelling one that I have a lot of agreement with.

But the Premier League has tried to to relegate us this season, there is no question of that.

And I take note of Clattenberg's resignation, where he stated that his role had made things worse. I reflect on what he means by that. I didn't assume he was talking about Gary Neville's antics
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Unlikely to happen, certainly.

But I have had a feeling all season that both the PL and PGMOL have tried "nudging" certain things this season

Relegation race would have been over weeks ago otherwise.

We've had some real shockers. The ref at Old Trafford literally changed the result; an incorrect red card, an abomination of a penalty and a set piece goal of questionable legality ignored.

But generally it sort of evened out as it did last season.

Then suddenly, late December we couldn't get a decision anywhere and had some diabolical ones against.

That started roughly the time that the PL would have been preparing to charge us.

By and large, it lasted until we had the four points deducted, after which things settled a bit- Everton aside.

That feels quite coincidental to me.

We should be on about 4-5 penalties for the season, which would be average. Blades, the lowest scorers by a mile, have five, Luton four. Look at us
View attachment 73303
This isn't for want of chances.

There are absolutely other explanations. Nuno's view of cowardice and cameraderie is a compelling one that I have a lot of agreement with.

But the Premier League has tried to to relegate us this season, there is no question of that.

And I take note of Clattenberg's resignation, where he stated that his role had made things worse. I reflect on what he means by that. I didn't assume he was talking about Gary Neville's antics
Click to expand...
The trouble with that explanation is that having a club relegated by a contentious points deduction, imposed for rules that we have all discussed have flaws in them and are to be revised / abandoned next season, would be the worst outcome for the Premier League. It would mire the league in all sorts of legal proceedings and public vilification. If anything, if there were such nudging going on, the Premier League would want it in Nottingham Forest's favour, so that the Premier League could be seen to have acted by taking the proceedings, enforcing the rules and seeing off the regulator, but that relegation had been decided on the pitch.

I think that the above is much more likely than some of the more elaborate conspiracy theories on here. But the trouble when people get conspiracy ideas in their heads is that there is little prospect of disproving that with evidence or counter- argument. Nevertheless, FWIW, what I think by Clattenberg's resignation comments are not that it had made decisions worse, but the public reputation of Nottingham Forest worse when they moaned about decisions and tried to rely on a "refereeing consultant's" opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.