How some referees, VAR and the Football Association disrespect Premiership players, while some VAR’s and the FA LIED!
Please note, the answers given to the ‘virtual interview’ questions in this exposé/article, are (by and large) in the ‘Public Domain’. See the TRUTH’s editorial page (the link to which can be found on the main contents page) for more.
In as much as VAR (Video Assistance Referees) are scheduled to be in use for the purpose of Assisting the match referee at premiership grounds from the start of the 2019 football season, the incompetence and corruption of and by both referees and VAR, where VAR was available the last two seasons (chiefly, FA Cup games), serve as a warning that VAR and referees will continue to disrespect the players, the very people for whom VAR exists.
Fact! Goal-line technology was introduced to confirm whether or not the whole of the football crossed the line. A benefit for those players who would otherwise have seen the goal not given.
Fact! VAR was introduced to establish certain things. A player who scored a goal being offside, something that resulted in two of England’s women’s goals being rightly ruled offside during the semi-final and 3rd place play-off during the Women’s world cup. Was a player fouled in the penalty box? If it was a defensive player who committed the foul, then, under Law 12 of the FA (Football Association), a penalty should be awarded. The problem with that; however, is, those responsible for the directive as to when VAR can be used, failed these three simple words: ‘All things considered’, while there was a notable inconsistency of VAR’s use during the recent Women’s World cup.
I would like to bring in Jonathan Pearce, the BBC’s main commentator for the Women’s World cup games, in particular, the second semi-final between Sweden and Netherlands.
Mr Pearce. During your match commentary you noticed two incidents overlooked by both the referee and VAR.
Jonathan Pearce: ‘That is correct’.
Before I get you to explain what you noticed, remembering that you didn’t, of course, have the luxury of VAR’s technology, did the referees in other matches wait for VAR to alert them to a possible penalty? Did the referee consult VAR themself over a possible penalty? Or did both occur?
Jonathan Pearce: ‘Very much, from what the viewer and I, myself, saw, it was both.’
Okay. The two incidents.
Jonathan Pearce: ‘The first was a clear corner to Sweden.’
And the second.
Jonathan Pearce: ‘A clear penalty to Sweden.’
The Netherlands scored the winning goal in extra time. However, irrespective of the result, had Sweden been awarded a corner, which underlines my point about when to use VAR, they may not have necessarily scored a goal while if Sweden had been awarded a penalty their chance of scoring what would have been the winning goal was denied them by both the referee and, moreover, VAR?
Jonathan Pearce: ‘Yes!’
Thank you for your help in that matter.
If VAR’s directive was – while on the evidence above, if it wasn’t, then it should have been – to alert the match referee that Sweden should have been awarded a corner – the ball being dead – then what, other than their monitors, were the Video Assistance Referees looking at? The same question also applies to the clear penalty that Sweden were denied, a penalty that, if they had scored it, would have resulted in Sweden competing with the USA for the Women’s World Cup trophy.
Another ‘all things considered’ point noted during the Women’s World Cup in the use of VAR, is the referee waiting until the ball is dead. A lot can happen in a short time, noted by the quickest goals scored at the start of each half. What if the ball goes dead as a result of the team that a VAR decision awards a penalty against scores a goal? The point being that, everything in between the foul occurring and the ball going dead is null and void. Here's irony for you. That actually happened in a 2019 Premier league game (see end of this exposé).
Before I get to how VAR should be used and who should instigate it for the benefit of the 22 players plus any substitutes (certainly not match referees as the yet to be revealed examples demonstrate), the following tweets were posted on Twitter:
World cup 2018: Tunisia V England. VAR = Very Absent Referees. They were too busy watching the game to notice 2 clear penalties on Harry Kane.
Serbia V Switzerland. Yet again, the match referee does not have the integrity to consult VAR. Solution: drop or sack referees who refuse to make use of VAR.
Spain V Morocco. And it's refreshing to see a referee with the integrity to cede to the player and consult VAR over Spain's 2nd goal.
As anyone who watched the 2018 FA Cup replay between Chelsea and Norwich City knows, Chelsea should have been awarded three penalties. Instead of that, the match referee contemptuously failed to make use of VAR and subsequently booked four Chelsea players including Pedro, who didn’t even appeal for a penalty (see questions accompanying photo above).
From that, one could easily conclude that the referee’s ego got the better of him and it goes without saying you’d be right. However, if VAR alerted him to the penalties, the match referee, by ignoring VAR, acted corruptly.
What, though, of VAR? If they failed to bring the penalties to the referee’s attention, in particular, the third one, that of Morata clearly having his shirt and shoulder pulled, then VAR also acted corruptly.
It is worth pointing out that, if a member of the public did what the Norwich player did to a police officer (pulled Morata’s shoulder), they would run the risk of being arrested for ‘Assaulting a police officer’.
Roll forward to the 2019 5th round FA Cup game between Manchester United and Chelsea. David Luiz, having had his shirt pulled and torn (see photo below) in the penalty area by a Manchester United player, appealed to the referee for a penalty, only for both the referee and VAR to corruptly dismiss his appeal.
Quite clearly, the TRUTH has the footage of the incident, to be able to take that snapshot from it!
Chris Smalling. You were in the penalty box when David Luiz’s shirt was pulled and subsequently torn. Which player was responsible for David Luiz’s shirt being torn?
Chris Smalling: ‘That would be me. I would be lying if I said otherwise.’
Indeed, you would.
Chris Smalling: ‘Millions of viewers saw me grab the Chelsea player’s shirt. Just not the referee or, for that matter, VAR.’ (Words to that effect).
One can only wonder what VAR was looking at when the incident occurred, especially following on from David Luiz’s justified reactionary appeal to the match referee.
To get an understanding of the VAR (Video ‘Assistant Referee’) involvement, as it should be, It is worth looking at the situation, pre VAR, and with the help of a FA (Football Association) spokesperson.
What is the title of the 2nd and 3rd match officials?
FA: ‘Referee assistant.’
And their job is?
FA: ‘To assist the referee.’
I see. Before I get to the finer points of what that entails, it is worth noting that ‘Assist Referee’ is one word short of VAR, while, despite one of the words not being 100% exact, the words are in the exact order (Video-Assist(ant)-referee).
In what ways and how do the touchline officials assist the referee?
FA: ‘They still use their flags to indicate incidents. A player offside, a foul being committed inside and outside the penalty box and a throw-in. They are also in communication with the match referee by earpieces at all times.
The last part also applies to VAR, does it not?
FA: ‘It does.’
Too right it does, only VAR, on the evidence of the first 9 week’s games shown on MOTD (Match of the day) and MOTD2, is less of an assistant to that of the 2nd and 3rd match officials!
It is also worth noting that: the FA, by doing nothing to rectify the incompetence of match referees, in particular, those who also refuse to use the pitch-side VAR monitors, something that, after 100 Premiership games, no match referee has bothered using, and the equally incompetent VARs, is equally incompetent and most certainly disrespectful of the players, coaches, managers and the 20 Premiership football clubs.
Taking all the above and other points not mentioned into consideration (see below for comments justifiably critical of VAR), this is how VAR should be used:
First and foremost, with respect to the players – respect being a two way street (Referees need to earn respect and not expect it to be given freely, in particular, when they make mistakes like those highlighted above) – it should be the player and not the referee who decides if VAR is to be used. Admittedly, and only so long as players continue to ‘cheat’, there being no other word for it, by committing fouls in the penalty area in the hope that they will get away with it, something that VAR is blind to in too many cases, shirt pulling, in particular, will there be hold ups to the game while VAR is consulted.
Naturally, and following on from the first point, not to wait until the ball goes dead before consulting VAR (Sweden V Netherlands, Women’s World Cup semi-final), something that took a huge chunk out of what little there was left of VAR’s integrity in week 27 (see below).
Any referee who fails to use the VAR monitor, ignores VAR, and, where possible, VAR fails to draw an incident to the referees attention, should be fined by the FA, just as the FA, who, in the past have set referees up as false Gods, fine managers and coaches who justifiably bring the incompetence of referees to the media’s and, moreover, the public’s attention. The incompetence occurs in public, sometimes watched by millions of SKY sport, BT Sport and BBC sport viewers, and so it goes without saying that, coaches and managers are well within their right to voice their concerns, especially since the FA, itself, is devoid of the integrity to publicly apologise to clubs on behalf of incompetent referees and VAR.
Question. Other than referees and, now, VAR, would the head of the FA, the head of any business, for that matter, commend (praise) an employee for acting incompetently?
The overriding point, one that no one has thus far considered, is this. At the end of the season, three teams, those who finish in positions 18, 19 and 20, will be relegated, resulting in a substantial loss of funding in the £millions (TV rights, for one) the following season. Notably, Gabby Logan, when presenting a midweek MOTD, revealed that the BBC pays £10 million for each game.
If there is a 1 point difference between the teams finishing 17 and 18 in the table, brought about by VAR failing (demonstrating incompetence) to alert the referee to a clear penalty, something that, according to MOTD is very much the case after week 9 of the season, for the team finishing 18th, then…
It’s very much the 2nd Women’s World Cup semi-final all over again. Especially if the game ends in a draw (robbing the team who should have been awarded a penalty the opportunity to claim ALL 3 points).
As an example of ongoing referee incompetence, during one of the final week’s of the 2018 season, Watford were awarded a free kick:
What happened next?
As soon as the ball was passed to a nearby Watford player, one of the Wolverhampton players [Square bracketed] tackled him and Wolverhampton scored a goal. Thankfully, the goal was ruled offside.
However, there is the big matter of referee incompetence.
Football Association. What are the rules regarding a direct free kick outside the penalty box?
FA: ‘Opposing players, those from the side that committed the foul, must be at least 10 yards away from the ball.’
Looking at the footage of the mentioned incident, and keeping in mind that players are 6 feet/2 yards tall, while the width of the two tone strips of grass in the photo are also marked off in 6 yard increments (widths), is there clear encroachment by the Wolverhampton player who tackled and dispossessed the Watford player?
FA: ‘Yes.’
Is the referee looking at the free kick?
FA: ‘Yes, the referee is looking at the free kick and saw what happened. He just ignored the encroachment by the Wolves player.’
What should have happened?
FA: ‘The referee should have ordered the free kick to be retaken and made sure that the opposing players were the obligatory 10 yards away from the ball.’
So, without a doubt, the referee and possibly his assistant (positioned near the edge of the lighter turf strip above the right red bracket) were incompetent in respect of the free kick rule?
FA: ‘Yes.’
As the TRUTH now deals with VAR for the 2019 Premier League season, I would like you, the FA, to look at this screenprint, which came from where?
FA: ‘the FA.com.’
Specifically, what law is that?
FA: ‘Law 12 of the Football Association’s laws on football.’
Question, and do try and pay attention, what with the Premier League season about to recommence in 5 days time, Wednesday June 17 2020. If any of the above offences occurred in the penalty area, what, according to the FA’s Law 12, should be the correct decision?
FA: ‘Under the laws of the game, specifically Law 12, a penalty kick should be awarded to the team suffering the incident as set out on the above screenprint.’
By and large, after 288 Premier League games this 2019 season, has VAR observed and applied the Laws above with their decisions, specifically, ‘clear and obvious’ penalties?
FA: ‘By and large, no.’
Right. So what you are saying is, in the majority of their decisions, VAR have been remiss when it comes to Law 12 and penalties?
FA: ‘Exactly that.’
I see. And what have you, the FA, done about it?
FA: ‘Nothing.’
It’s that moment again. ‘Doing nothing is taking part!’
In other words, by doing nothing, the FA are as guilty as incompetent VAR’s and incompetent match referess.
On that note, it’s worth iterating what Burke indicated:
“In order for EVIL to triumph the GOOD woman/man need do nothing!”
1/11/2020: In reviewing VAR’s decisions during the game between Spurs and Brighton, in particular, the lead up to Brighton’s equalizing goal, MOTD2 Presenter, Mark Chapman and his studio guests, Martin Keown and Peter Crouch, had this to say:
M Chapman: ‘And you both agree it’s a foul in the build up to Lamptey’s goal?’
M Keown: ‘Yeah, without doubt, and I think it was a, there were two incidents earlier in the game, Spurs player’s diving for fun, and I think this one went against them, because this is definitely a foul. Of more concerning is when the referee looks at it later he don’t, doesn’t then think it’s a foul. That’s a real mystery to me. Yes, he gets the ball, but that’s not what we should be looking at. Does he then take his opponent out? Yes he does and, again, VAR are obsessed with it and forget the rules of the game.'
NB. For rules, read LAWS, in particular, LAW 12 as set out above.
P Crouch: ‘Yes, it’s a foul for me. I think ah, anywhere, Sunday league, it’s a foul all day. It was nice to see the referee go over, look at the monitor and get the decision wrong again.’
In addition to one of the others bursting into laughter at Peter’s mordant comment the footage showing the referee returning to Spur’s captain, Harry Kane, with his incorrect decision was played, while Kane’s bemused expression says it all. Once again, player’s and a football club are being treated with, incompetence, disrespect and LIES!
M Chapman: ‘So far, this season, the referee’s have stuck with their original decision since going to the monitor.’
P Crouch: ‘It was surprising, I have to say, it was a definite foul.’
Thus spoke two former England players and on behalf of football players in general, since the FA continue to ignore the problem of VAR’s incompetence, contempt and LIES!
Oddly enough, it was the same match referee who presided over the FA Cup game between Chelsea and Norwich City as mentioned above and goes to prove, yet again, the eogotism of match referees when consulting the VAR monitor, only to, as Peter Crouch mentioned: ‘the referee go over, look at the monitor and get the decision wrong again.’
All things considered, it’s as if they are incapable of admitting they are WRONG!
On that note, and as a result of a similar tackle resulting in a red card for Palace’s Milivojevic the day before, I would yet again like to bring in the head of the Football Association.
In both cases, VAR not only notified the match referee but VAR suggested that the match referees for both tackles should review them on the pitchside monitors?
FA: ‘That is correct, especially when and if it is possible “violent conduct”.’
Having seen the two tackles in question, what is your, the head of the FA’s, response?
FA: ‘In the case of the one in the Tottenham Hotspur V Brighton & Hove Albion game, clearly, if the Brighton player’s foot had left the ground, much like that of the one by Crystal Palace’s Milivojevic, then it would have been a “violent conduct” tackle.’
That sounds as if a yellow card should have been awarded to the Brighton player and Brighton’s goal ruled out?
FA: ‘YES!’
On the type of tackles they were, specifically, sliding tackles, as anyone of a certain age who has followed football, and with a recollection of laws and directives introduced by you, the FA, knows, a directive was introduced to penalize players for sliding tackles. For what reason?
FA: ‘They could seriously injure a player.’
Phil Neville, as a Manchester United player, you were on the receiving end of one such sliding tackle during a Champion’s league cup game. How did the manager, Alex Ferguson, react?
Phil Neville: ‘He was most outraged.’
As we all were having seen it and yet, despite the career threatening injury that sliding tackles can cause, and the failure of the FA, match referees and now VAR to penalize what are now deemed ‘violent conduct’ tackles, you, the FA, approve of the type of tackle that could seriously injure a player’s career, whether it be for weeks, months or indefinitely?
FA: ‘Yes!’
Yes what?
FA: ‘We, the Football Association, by doing nothing to penalize and eradicate career threatening sliding tackles, approve of violent conduct type tackles and those that border on violent conduct, like the one during the Tottenham Hotspur V Brighton & Hove Albion game of November 1 2020.’
Yet again, doing nothing is taking part!
VAR Watch!
Oh dear. The first weekend of the new, 2019, Premiership season saw two incidents of incompetence and contempt by referee Andre Marriner and total neglect by VAR during Sunday’s game between Leicester City and Wolverhampton Wanderers. In all, 10 matches were spread over 4 days, Friday to Monday, with 5 matches on Saturday. That meant, in addition to the 4 match officials, there were several people per match looking at TV screens.
The first photo shows 4 people sat in front of VAR monitors (with two onlookers). The TRUTH’s caption for the two photographs is: Anthony Taylor. VAR one day (No 1 left of his head) and match referee the next!
You will, hopefully, notice the spray can used to mark out 10 yards for free kicks attached to his belt. When was the last time a match referee used that?
Moreover, during the live Premiership game: Bournemouth V Crystal Palace June 20 2020. Although numerous free kicks were awarded, one of which lead to Palace’s first goal, not once did the match referee use the white spray. It is, as Alex Neil commented (see FA cup 3rd round incidents below) ‘the difficulty you’ve always got with Premier League referees now is, they basically don’t make decisions anymore because of VAR.’ a fact that the referees have become LAZY.
This next image, from the Premier League’s own website, lists all the names of the match officials, including the two out of the four in the first photo above that are the VAR’s.
On 26th December 2019, 9 games were played. Of those, 6 kicked off at the same time, resulting in 12 VARs and two others (see above), making it 24 in all, while, come the end of the season, all 10 games will start at the same time on Sunday and will be presided over by 40 match officials and, moreover, 40 others, 20 of who will be VARs.
I have no idea how big Stockley Park, VAR’s headquarters, is, but it will need 10 rooms, each one dedicated to supporting 6 people, including the two onlookers seen and mentioned in the photo of Anthony Taylor VAR.
I just hope they have enough toilets for that amount of people (60 in all).
VAR could have been introduced the previous season, only not enough managers and coaches voted for it. Imagine what an even more total disaster and incompetence that would have been, if it had. If that was to allow the time for the 40 people including VARs to be properly trained, especially on previous evidence of incompetence, one has to ask these questions:
Who are these people and where did they come from? Certainly not former referees on the current showing, as demonstrated by the lack of those who either seemingly do not know the rules, have no respect for the rules, or turn a corrupt blind eye to all the incidents the TRUTH has gathered, while, if any of them are former referees and current match referees, as has been proven to be the case, they are a shining example of incompetency, not to mention corrupt, for failing to act unimpartially with regards to the match referee’s decision when the match referee gets it wrong and the laws and rules of the game, themself, laws drawn up by FIFA, UEFA or both, no less.
Question to the FA: Clearly, and from this footage, the VARs involved in the Leicester City game, despite ruling out a goal for Wolverhampton Wanderers, were either inadequately trained or looking elsewhere – not doing their job properly – when they failed to notice two clear penalties – one for each side?
Head of the FA: ‘Yes.’
As for Wolverhampton Wanderers disallowed goal, this is the FA’s ruling: ‘Any goal scored or created with the use of the hand or arm will be disallowed this PL season – even if it is accidental – under the Laws [that word again and said by the FA] of the Game.’ It will, of course, be interesting to see if that Law, along with all of the other Laws of the Game, is maintained 100%! And after 27 match weeks, it is anything but.
Match week 9. And the FA, in defending both the match referee and VAR for not ruling Manchester United’s goal out, actually LIED!
To understand this in full, the previous day Chris Wood had his goal against Leicester City ruled out because of an alleged trip on Jonny Evans – as with American football, where touchdowns are checked, goals are checked by VAR.
Quite clearly, United’s Victor Lindelof fouled Liverpool’s Divock Origi.
Head of the FA. Taking the previous day’s decision to disallow Chris Wood’s goal, then, by the letter of the law, since the Liverpool player was likewise tripped in the build up to the goal, a free kick should have been awarded to Liverpool, irrespective of what occurred thereafter, and, as a consequence, the goal ruled out?
Head of the FA: ‘Yes.’
The reason for that being?
Head of the FA: ‘As you rightly mentioned, and that is what VAR is there for, to confirm the integrity of the goal.’
In American football that would be classed as pass interference.
According to Match of the day 2 presenter, Mark Chapman, who, coincidentally, presents NFL this week on BBC2, this is what the FA said: ‘That is subjective’. The definition of subjective is: ‘Of or based on a person’s emotions or prejudices’.
Therefore, you, the FA, lied! Either that, or ‘subjective’ was a bad choice of words, which I very much doubt.
Head of the FA: ‘Yes.’
During the post-match discussion, Darren Fletcher made the point that match referee Martin Atkinson had his ‘own style’ of refereeing. On this occasion, his style clearly went outside the conduct of referees, while VAR was of no use whatsoever. It was also pointed out during Saturday’s broadcast of MOTD that no match referee has so far had the integrity to make use of the pitch-side monitors, something that the referees in both the men’s and women’s recent World cups were more than happy to do. That somewhat poses the question, ‘If they (match referees) are not going to use them, then what is the point of VAR for anything other than offside decisions?’ (A collection of comments that were made during the programme.)
Match weekend 25, and so far, other than during a 3rd round of the FA cup match and one Premier League match involving possible violent conduct, the pitch-side monitors remain unused while it’s very much a forgone conclusion that, if the referee’s had viewed that which VAR had corruptly turned a blind eye to, the match referee’s, acting impartially to VAR, would, under the laws of the game, have overruled those decisions for not awarding penalties by VAR.
On the matter of subjectiveness, VAR was proven to have acted subjectively when, on the Sunday of week 11, during Everton’s home match with Tottenham Hotspur, they advised match referee Martin Atkinson to change his initial yellow card to Heung-min Son to a straight red for his tackle on Everton’s Andre Gomes, despite the clear footage that showed Gomes took two steps before crumpling to the ground, reminiscent of an incident when, during an England game, Jamie Redknap landed awkwardly after jumping for the ball. On appeal, the panel overturned VAR’s decision, thereby confirming that VAR acted subjectively – based on the ‘emotional reaction’ of players and the crowd – and, furthermore, unimpartially (synonymous with corruptly and prejudicially).
To underline the FA’s resistance to make full use of VAR, even before the season started, the FA was rapped by EUFA for its decision to not enforce EUFA’s directive on penalties; in particular, that of goalkeeper movements as used in the Women’s World cup. Moreover, the penalty that knocked Scotland out of the Women’s World Cup would not have been retaken if a Premier League VAR was in charge.
After 120 matches, 10 weeks, the following item appeared in the Metro. Heralded by the paper as ‘The World’s most popular free newspaper’.
After 25 weeks and two rounds of the FA cup, and over twice as many games played, still with coaches and managers complaining about VAR and the match referee’s refusal to make use of the pitch-side monitor, I find Riley’s last point: ‘there will be a change if enough clubs call for greater use of screens’ hard to stomach let alone believe, while greater than zero is 1. The 1 occasion, so far, and that was to change a yellow card to red in week 23.
There now follows a collection of comments about VAR and match referees made by MOTD presenters, studio guests and commentators as well as players, managers and coaches of the teams involved.
West ham V Norwich: Comment by Gary Lineker. ‘I cannot understand how VAR have not seen this as a penalty. It’s extraordinary. This is exactly what it’s for? …The penalty, it seems like, it’s almost as though they [VAR] don’t want to overturn any decision.’ So what, then, is VAR’s purpose! Jermaine Jenas: ‘It’s a joke. It’s getting ridiculous…There’s all this talk about this threshold. It’s clear contact there. It’s a clear penalty. The ref’s not given it. Change it! Make the right decision. That’s what you [VAR] are there for!’
Crystal Palace V Aston Villa: Studio comment by Gary Lineker: ‘VAR could not overturn it [the referee’s decision] because, apparently, the referee has whistled.’ Note, this will be contradicted later on in a game between Southampton and Bournemouth, not mentioned among these comments as it was missed by MOTD. ‘That is the referee’s whistle we are told, although I don’t know how he gets it to his mouth that quickly, because his arms never seem to leave his side.’
Jermaine Jenas: ‘This, here, is one of the worst decisions I’ve seen in the Premier League by a referee that’s been given. Number 1, he’s booked him [Jack Grealish] for diving when he’s passed the ball to his own team-mate. I don’t know, I mean, granted, I know, VAR cannot get involved once he blows that whistle, alright. Why is it [VAR] even here? Why is it even here, if it can’t get involved?’
That just about sums up VAR’s lack of involvement, as will be noted with the other comments.
Gary’s response: ‘Because it was always about overturning the real howlers.’ Jermaine: ‘Correct. And that, is one of the biggest howlers you are likely to see, ever.’ Tim Cahill: ‘He had to play it on and after, let VAR decide.’ From what the TRUTH has seen from highlights of 29 weeks of games, there would be little chance, if any, of VAR countering the match referee’s decision.
Newcastle V Watford: On VAR’s failure to spot a ‘clear and obvious’ handball incident resulting in a goal being scored, Jermaine Jenas indicated ‘They (meaning VAR) must have had a day off!’ One of numerous occasions when that has clearly happened.
Arsenal V Spurs: Match commentator: ‘He [Spurs Ali] is being blocked off by Ceballos in a rugby tackle.’ On Arsenal’s Sokratis pushing Spurs Kane over: ’Oo, is that a penalty? Well, he [Sokratis] doesn’t get anything of the ball.’
Liverpool V Newcastle: Gary prompts Alan Shearer to comment on VAR’s failure to notice a ‘clear and obvious’ penalty for Liverpool. ‘Absolutely. Liverpool should have had a penalty, Lascelles on Matip…his arms are all over him, he’s got a clear header if he doesn’t pull him back there.’ Gary’s reply: ‘They [VAR] do seem reluctant to overturn –‘ Interrupted by Ian Wright: ‘Why would they [VAR] look at that and not say it’s a penalty, man?’ Gary: ‘Headlock’ Ian: ‘What do you need to see there? Why don’t he [the lazy referee] go across to the thing [VAR pitch-side monitor, which does not get used in a Premier League game until 18th Jan 2020, and only then for ‘serious foul play].It’s annoying. I’m annoyed with that.’ And he’s not alone in being annoyed as will be seen.
Sheffield United V Southampton: On Sheffield United’s manager not being happy with a decision, a handball, Ian said: ‘I think he’s right. I think the referee, here, I don’t think he’s got a good sight of that, but I can’t understand how that’s not gone to VAR. Surely that’s what it [VAR] is for.’ Gary’s reply: ‘Everything goes to VAR!’ Ian points out: ‘They [VAR] should have changed it.’
Burnley V Norwich: Gary: ‘Ashley Barnes, could probably had a penalty, wasn’t given, we thought that was one where VAR could have actually –‘ Alan Shearer exclaims: ‘Could!’ Gary continues: ‘Help the referee out [as in ‘assist’, that being what the ‘A’ in VAR stands for] after his mistake [‘clear and obvious’ to the studio but, for some unfathomable excuse, not VAR]. Tim Cahill: ‘Look at this. That’s a definite penalty. I’m sorry! VAR needs to step in and help [that word ‘assist’ again] the referee out. There’s contact! It’s blatant!'
Arsenal V Aston Villa: In a perfect example of contempt by the Premier League, this is what was said about the Premier League’s excuse regarding the handball decision against Arsenal’s No 5, Papastathopoulos, in the penalty area. Presenter M Chapman reads out statement from Premier League: ‘Not given by John Moss [referee]. Not overruled by VAR.’ D Murphy: ‘This is as blatant [VAR encouraging cheating, see below] as I’ve ever seen in a handball that’s not been overturned. I mean it’s. There’s an obvious movement. It’s eight yards away, which isn’t close [keep in mind that goalkeepers are 12 yards away from a static ball when facing a penalty, one driven at varied speed]. An obvious movement away from his body. It’s absolutely ridiculous how anybody [meaning VAR and, more to the point, the Premier League] could not see it’s a penalty.’ Alan Shearer: ‘I agree. I think he actually moves his arm out towards the ball…he’s actually leaning out there to push his arm towards it.
Bournemouth V West ham: Match commentator: ‘Cresswell on King, that’s a very good shout for a penalty!’ Once again, and it applies throughout, if the commentator can see it, while VAR has the same angles and possibly more, then VAR had to have also seen it and ignored it, or they were, as in the film ‘the Entity’, not doing their job by looking away, somewhere else.
Leicester V Burnley: Burnley’s manager on VAR’s incorrect decision to rule out Chris Wood’s goal: ‘The referee, today, made quite a big thing about if he should come over and use the screen [VAR pitch-side monitor], he would do, and we’ve had to tolerate that. He didn’t even use the screen…so, therefore, he’s got to come and have a look at that, and I’d be surprised if he gave it.’ It is ‘clear and obvious’ from VAR’s own replay and revue, that VAR got it totally WRONG!
Spurs V Watford: Match commentator’s comment on 2 incidents. 1) ‘Clear and obvious’ foul on Spurs’ Danny Rose by Watford’s Pereyra: ‘And is that a foul on Danny Rose? …VAR are obviously checking it and are happy.’ 2) Spurs’ Vertonghen, on Watford’s Deulofeu: ‘All, well, well, well. Deulofeu looks like he was caught by a sliding Vertonghen. To me, that foot has almost made like a shepherd’s crook and hooked the leg of Deulofeu. You do wonder what VAR is for, apart from offside decisions.’ Too true. You can say that again! Studio comments agree.
Gary: ‘Do you know what, VAR has not turned one penalty decision around in favour of the forward team this season, not one.’ The end of which is talked over by Alan Shearer, which demonstrates how irate he is: ‘This, I think is embarrassing [for VAR], because he [Vertonghen] has two, maybe three swipes at Deulofeu, here. That should be a definite! Definite! Penalty. There’s one [swipe], there’s the other one. I mean, after nine weeks of the Premier League, we all want VAR to work, but it’s not being used correctly!’ Finally, someone, at last, has the balls to say what everyone who has had to tolerate VAR’s incompetence, knows. ‘I cannot understand why on earth they [match referees] refuse to go to the referee revue area [meaning the pitch-side monitor]. What is the point of having pitch-side monitors if the referees are never going to use them?’ Also present is England’s women’s football manager, Phil Neville, who makes the point about them being used in the 2019 Women’s World Cup games. So, again, it seems that only the English Premier League, refuses, as Alan Shearer said, to use pitch-side monitors.
Manchester United V Liverpool: See interview above with the Football Association.
Brighton V Everton: Gary invites Martin Keown to comment on the holding of Everton’s No 7, Richarlison by Brighton’s No 22, Montoya in the penalty area. ‘Well, I mean I think this is incredibly harsh when you look at this [slow motion replay of the aforementioned incident], because if the referee is eventually going to give a penalty later in the game, I can’t see why that isn’t one as well. We want consistency.’ Consistency is one of the reasons why VAR was introduced, only it’s inconsistent at best. On the given penalty, Jermaine Jenas said: ‘There’s been some form of discussion about the amount they haven’t overturned and they’ve [VAR] got it wrong today. Weirdly enough, in trying to do the right thing, they’ve got it wrong, but, it’s [VAR] still not right. The fact that you’ve got the ability to kinda see something in slow motion so many times and still call it wrong is, a, still worrying for VAR. ’ Yeah, and everyone else it involves.
Burnley V Chelsea: Following the Burnley manager’s comment, Jermaine Jenas had this to say: ‘I feel like it’s unfair, personally. I think you can. Look, you can see where he’s [Burnley Manager] coming from, but I think when you break this down, and really have a look at it, you know, Hudson-Odoi is pushed in the back, here, essentially…the left arm of Lowton is on him for a while, he’s pushing him there in the back right now. When you’re dribbling at pace and you feel that it’s easy to not…’ Remainder talked over by Gary and Martin.
Manchester City V Aston Villa: Studio comment on offside missed by VAR. What made it all the more bizarre was, the match referee, while VAR were reviewing the footage, failed to convey to VAR what Man City’s David Silva said to him. Martin Keown: ‘But why the referee didn’t actually communicate that to VAR we’ll never know…Well, if they listened, it wouldn’t have counted!’
Arsenal V Crystal Palace: In stark contradiction to a previously mentioned incident (Burnley V Chelsea), VAR overturned the match referee’s yellow card for Palace’s Zaha for diving and awarded a penalty. Match commentator: ‘When Zaha tried to turn past Callum Chambers, Chambers’ leg does come out. And this weekend, we have seen, decisions overturned by VAR…Is this the weekend when VAR came of age?’
Next, and in stark contrast to VAR’s involvement in the Zaha penalty, Arsenal had a goal ruled out for a total farce by VAR! ‘Oh, goodness me, it’s been ruled out! Well, in one weekend I think we’ve gone from ‘clear and obvious’ to ‘clear as mud.’ Cutaway to pitch-side VAR monitor. ‘And there’s the monitors that are on every touchline in the Premier League. Was there not a case there for the referee to go across and have a look for himself?’
It gets doubly worse for VAR and the match referee when the incident is discussed in the studio. ‘We were told by the PGMOL that the VAR official made a subjective decision [as mentioned, based on a person’s emotions or prejudices] that Chambers tripped Milivojevic and affected his ability to clear the ball.’ Peter Crouch’s comment: ‘Well, I’ve seen it 406 times [to guffaws of laughter from Ian Wright and laughter from presenter Mark Chapman], and I can’t see anything ‘clear and obvious’ about that.’ As the footage plays in slow motion, comments come in from all three of them. Finally, it’s clear what happened. Chambers was, in fact, pushed by Palace’s Milivojevic and then Palace’s Gary Cahill, meaning that, VAR got it wrong, clear as mud, to quote the Match commentator, and the goal should have stood. On the pitch-side monitor yet again not being used, Peter Crouch said: ‘And that, that television screen, reminded me of my Burnley career last season.’ All three burst out laughing, while Ian Wright asks: ‘That’s how much used you were?’ More laughing. Peter Crouch: ‘Underused and very sad.’ Mark Chapman, bringing it back to the next serious point, said: ‘On the screen. And then we were told. The screen is there for when what the referee is told has happened doesn’t tally with what he thinks he’s seen. So, surely, in that situation, if he’s told there is a foul there, rather than just accept it, if you follow that [what the PGMOL said about the screen], he should then go and look at the screen!’ Peter Crouch: ‘He needs to go. We just don’t look at the screen in this country for some reason. In the Bundesliga, I think they use it like 40, 50 times the referee’s gone to look at the screen.’ In summing up VAR, Mark Chapman said: ‘This system completely ignores the lifeblood of the game, which is people who pay their money to go week in week out to watch football. They’re being treated like idiots.’
Norwich V Manchester United: Match commentator: ‘I ask the question again, why isn’t the referee on the field of play not looking at a monitor?’ Because he’s lazy! As will be noted from a comment following an FA Cup 3rd round game.
Everton V Spurs: Studio comments. Mark Chapman: ‘As far as the rest of the match was concerned, it was awful. And it felt like the people that are running how the game is being run at the moment have had this type of game coming to them, because it was spoilt and ruined through the use of technology.’ Martin Keown: ‘VAR it’s not making our game any better, at all.’ Kevin Kilbane said: ‘Today was a mess.’ Following an interesting discussion of match referee’s and VAR being undermined by one another and made a laughing stock when they swap places, Martin Keown said: ‘Go to the monitor yourself. Take responsibility…we’re given no respect at all!’ Here, here. No respect = disrespect, a word that is included in this article’s very title.
Leicester V Arsenal: Gary: ‘What did we think of the Soyuncu penalty shout, that VAR didn’t give?’ Danny Murphy: ‘Ridiculous! It’s a penalty. Apparently it wasn’t clear and obvious. If that’s not clear and obvious I don’t know what’s going on.’ Here, here, while I doubt anyone else knows, either. Jermaine Jenas: ‘I agree.’
Southampton V Everton: After Southampton’s Djenepo is ‘clothes-line’ tackled by Everton’s Mina, a tackle that is outlawed in American football (the US version of rugby), the commentator said: ‘That is the kind of challenge, which, outside of the penalty area, you would very likely see given as a foul.’ And that was very much the case in the 3rd round FA cup game between Sheffield United V Fylde mentioned below.
Spurs V Bournemouth: Commentator’s comment: ‘Solanke [Bournemouth player] takes a tumble in the penalty area… Solanke didn’t make a big deal out of it himself.’ That’s because there is little point in appealing to disrespectful referees and their incompetent Video assistants.
Southampton V Watford: VAR gets caught in a LIE with its corrupt excuse that it lost the definitive footage showing a clear and obvious handball by Southampton’s Djenepo from which a goal was immediately scored. Point of fact: How can VAR lose something it has got, keeping in mind that it has access to the same camera angles as the BBC – possibly even more?
Manchester City V Leicester: If the previous act of incompetence by VAR was not enough, they followed it up by failing to, not just notice Man City’s Fernandinho pull Leicester’s Vardy in the penaly box, thereby preventing a ‘clear and obvious’ goal scoring opportunity, but review the incident during the 15-minute half time break that immediately followed.
Newcastle V Everton: Following Keane’s (Everton) foul on Almiron (Newcastle) in the penalty box, the commentator said: ‘He got his shot away, he was being impeded as he did so. Now, if Almiron had gone down rather than get that shot in, it might well have been a penalty.’ Clearly, the impediment caused him to shoot fractionally wide of the post and so VAR should have awarded a penalty. Physical contact, especially with a part of the body other than a foot or a head is a foul under the laws of the game, only VAR is yet again absentminded as to that law.
FA Cup round 3.
Preston North End V Norwich: After the game, and despite VAR not being present, Preston’s manager, Alex Neil, had this significant point to make: ‘Both goals are clearly offside, but I think the difficulty you’ve always got with Premier League referees now is, they basically don’t make decisions anymore because of VAR.’ Meaning that, the referees have become LAZY.
Crystal Palace V Derby County: And, finally, a VAR pitch-side monitor gets used for the first time, but only for what VAR displays as ‘violent conduct’ on the stadium’s screen. Commentator’s comment: ‘Well, I think there will be many in the game who think it’s about time. Michael Oliver [match referee] is coming over to see for himself what he probably missed. At last, the monitor is being used!’ Palace’s manager: ‘Going over to the screen. People have been pushing for that.’ Don’t hold your breath, though, for any sweeping change! ‘An FA Cup match, which is of somewhat lesser importance than the Premier League matches.’
Studio comments: Stephen Warnok: ‘The referee’s in charge of the situation…I just think he gets a better feel for it.’
Everton V Brighton: Commentator’s comment following foul on Everton’s Walcott: ‘If Walcott falls to ground there, I think he gets the penalty.’ Don’t hold your breath. Studio comments of: Danny Murphy: 'I got really disappointed and frustrated with this…this was a perfect opportunity for the officials, or VAR, who were watching this over and over again to say, you got it wrong! It’s a pen’. Just because he didn’t go down, shouldn’t mean that they don’t give a penalty. Because all this does is any player watching this tonight going, he should have gone down.’ Meaning, he should have dived. Gary: ‘They [VAR] are encouraging players, not cheat, but make the advantage of a situation.’
Norwich V Bournemouth: Pitch-side VAR monitor is finally used for the first time in a Premier League match, but only for ‘serious foul play’.
Arsenal V Sheffield United: Studio comments: Gary: ‘Now VAR. We’ve been very kind to them so far. Did they miss one?’ Alan Shearer: ‘I think so.’ Gary: ‘It looked a blatant foul.’ Sheffield’s O’Connell on Arsenal’s Pepe. Alan Shearer: ‘He flicks his leg out there, and his knee catches him. I think that’s a penalty.’ Ian Wright: ‘If only they had VAR they’d be able to have a look at that, see it was a pen.’ To laughter from Gary and Alan. The referee did (have VAR) only he didn’t – make use of it yet again.
Burnley V Leicester City: Studio comments following Burnley’s Ben Mee’s handball, ignored, as always, by VAR. Mark Chapman: ‘Not moving his hand towards the ball, but moving his body with his arm attached towards the ball.’ Jermaine Jenas: ‘I mean, this is a penalty in my opinion. He knows exactly what he’s doing, Ben Mee. He throws his arm at it [the ball].’
FA Cup round 4.
Newcastle V Oxford: Commentator’s comment: ‘Two big penalty shouts in quick succession, for Newcastle …and now Newcastle players will run to the referee. And VAR are having a look at this. No clear and obvious error.’ Sounds like an excuse by one referee (the VAR one) for another when it should be ‘clear and obvious’ infringement of the laws governing football.
Liverpool V Southampton: Gary: VAR, and just for a change, a couple of baffling decisions.’ Alan Shearer: ‘Yeah! Very baffling, Gary. Simon Hooper was the VAR referee today, and [nods his head in wonder], I thought there was two stonewall, certain! Penalties.’ Gary: ‘Clear and obvious?’ Alan: ‘Clear and obvious. One for Liverpool. He’s [Shane long] got two hands around his [Firmino] neck…What more does he [Long] have to do to give a penalty? He drags him down, [agreed by Gary] he’s gonna have a free header.’
Norwich V Liverpool: Commentator’s comment: ‘See how Norwich dealt with Virgil Van Dijk, here, hands on by Rupp [and Pukki] certainly blocked off. You can have all the VAR systems in the world, but if they are not prepared to act in offences like that, some things will never change.’
Aston Villa V Spurs: After Mark Chapman says to Jermaine Jenas and Martin Keown ‘You’re both in agreement that this was a penalty,’ Martin Keown said, about going to the monitor: ‘I understand the manager’s not happy, Dean Smith [Villa manager], because the referee doesn’t go to the monitor. I, as well, would like to see that happen.’ Wouldn’t we all, Martin.
Chelsea V Manchester United: Co-Commentator’s comment: ‘Awe, I tell you what, I wonder if VAR would have a look at that?’ The ‘that’ in question being United’s Maguire using his studded feet instead of his hands to push Chelsea’s Batshuayi in the abdomen.
Chelsea V Tottenham Hotspur: Studio comments of Lo Celso’s tackle on Chelsea’s captain, Azpilicueta. Gary: ‘Okay, PGMOL have admitted that VAR, “erred” [got wrong] in the decision not to give Lo Celso a red card, and I sense most of us would be in agreement.’ Martin Keown: ‘He’s virtually signed his leg, there, look at it. Almost best wishes. Michael Oliver’s been embarrassed by that.’ Meaning, he should have gone to the monitor (see FA Cup game Crystal Palace V Derby above) ‘For foul play now, that’s what they are supposed to do.’
Leicester City V Manchester City: Leicester’s manager: ‘You only need to look at the wall and the Man City guys. Everyone bar Kevin’s arm is down. I believe this was one of the reasons why VAR was, or certainly the opportunity to interpret that as a handball.’
Studio comment on penalties: Gary: ‘VAR. It was at its most baffling inconsistent best, dare I say here.’ You can say that again! (ed). ‘Either surely give two penalties or no penalties.’ [shakes his head in amazement]. Martin Keown: ‘Well, I agree, actually, Gary. De Bryune, here, the only thing he hasn’t done is catch it [the ball] for me.’
Burnley V Bournemouth: See directly below this.
End comments: Gary: ‘VAR, if it were a player would you drop it?’ Ian Wright: ‘Yeah, yeah and fine it.’ Fat chance of that ever happening. Martin Keown: ‘Sell it!’ Broad grin on his face. Gary: ‘It’s not had a great day has it, really?’ Ian Wright: ‘It’s very difficult to speak about it.’ Sombre tone of voice. Gary: ‘Yeah, why?’ Ian: ‘Because it makes too many people unhappy.’ Gary: ‘It does, actually.’ Ian: ‘Yeah, it does.’ Gary: ‘It kind of sucking the life out of the game.’
In all, up until the games were suspended because of the Coronavirus pandemic, the TRUTH logged over 130 incidents in the report sent to FIFA and UEFA (see below).
Match weekend 27, and after 260 Premiership matches, VAR had what MOTD pundit Martin Keown branded its worst nightmare and finally got its comeuppance as when and how to use it.
The incident in question was indicative of the 2nd Women’s world cup semi-final match as mentioned above. Burnley V Bournemouth was the key game of the four matches that came under serious scrutiny. Earlier in the programme (see Chelsea V Spurs above) the PGMOL admitted VAR had got a non-red card decision wrong! VAR then followed that up by not stopping the Burnley game in response to a hand-ball and penalty. As a result, play continued and Bournemouth scored a goal. With the ball dead, VAR reviewed the hand-ball against a Bournemouth player and awarded a penalty to Burnley. When reviewed by MOTD presenter Gary Lineker and his studio guests, it was ‘clear and obvious’ it wasn’t a penalty, as it came off the Bournemouth player’s shoulder. Under the laws of the game, the shoulder does not constitute hand-ball.
This is what two newspapers had to say:
The one consistent indication in most of the comments is, ‘If the commentator, MOTD presenters and studio guests etc can ‘see’, notice and make reference to a foul, in particular, in the 18 yard penalty box, then so can, inexcusably, VAR.
Furthermore, does a player have to be stretchered off after a foul in the penalty box, before VAR gives a penalty against the opposition team, in examples outlined above? And low and behold, the answer to that question came in week 28 (see Stop Press below).
All things considered, VAR is little more than an invitation for players to CHEAT! Cheat by using or moving a part of their arm to deflect a ball. Cheat by tripping a player on the pitch. Cheat by pushing a player off balance. Cheat by holding a player’s shirt. Cheat by grabbing a player’s arm, hand or body part. Cheat by the use of a part of their body to knock a player over. Cheat by wrestling with a player. And Cheat by pulling a player to the ground.
In all of those cases, the match referee, under the laws of the game, would, should award a free kick or penalty. As far as penalties go, not VAR. It’s as if, no sooner does a match referee sit in front of a VAR monitor at Stockley Park, all their knowledge and understanding of the laws of football diminish, thereby paving the way for players to Cheat, knowing full well that the chances of VAR awarding a penalty are as good as ZERO%. That to me, and no doubt millions of others, makes a total farce and mockery of what is said to be the best football league in Europe, only, and thanks in large part to VAR, it is little more than a JOKE!
Of course, there is more to that last point, the one about assistant referees sitting in front of a VAR monitor etc, and it is both worrying and an insult for the game, and it is this:
In making incorrect decisions, scores of them as noted in the TRUTH’s VAR report, VAR, under FIFA’s rules and the laws of the game, actually LIED!
They LIED to the match referee, they LIED to the player who was fouled or had a shot blocked by an opposing player’s arm. They LIED to the coach or manger of the club who should have been awarded a penalty along with the Football club itself. Moreover, though, they, VAR, LIED to the thousands of ticket paying fans in the stadium as well as the millions of viewers who watch a televised game or the match highlights on MOTD and MOTD2.
Ultimately, though, VAR, where the LIE affected the score, actually corrupted the game’s outcome and result, a point the TRUTH warned of and made at the start of this exposé.
It is also worth pointing out the ‘clear and obvious’ fact that, if the TRUTH were to interview all of the players who were seen cheating in the 130+ incidents, each of those cheats would, as per the Chris Smalling interview above, be lying if they denied they cheated as seen in the MOTD and MOTD2 highlights footage.
In all cases, the TRUTH has retained High Quality DVD recordings of all incidents mentioned, along with numerous other acts of incompetency by both referees and VAR’s, acts that can rob a team of points for the 2019 Premiership games, in addition to those shown on both MOTD and MOTD2, while not forgetting the FA Cup.
It goes without saying that, if the TRUTH was to show all of the incidents in which VAR failed to give a penalty to UEFA and FIFA, without a shadow of a doubt, and under the laws of the game, laws that, as the TRUTH has pointed out, are ignored by Referees, their assistants, the Football Association and, where noted, match commentators and MOTD studio presenters and guests, UEFA and FIFA would clearly have expected VAR to award a penalty, wouldn’t they?
In conclusion, and it’s not rocket science, the FA, by failing to pull both match referees and their assistants – including VAR (video ‘assistant referee(s)’) – into line for failing to apply the laws of the game, impartially, have conspired with match referees and their assistants to subjugate (suppress) players, something that began with and included booking players who, having scored a goal, crucial or not, either removed their shirt, got too close to the crowd when celebrating, or both, along with the Respect rule, something that, as the TRUTH pointed out in the headline of this very damning article, ‘referees, VAR and the Football Association disrespect Premiership players’, resulting in, as one commentator mentioned (see above), players who are fouled in the penalty area not bothering to appeal for a penalty, since there is little point in doing so.
Furthermore, to quote one professional football player: ‘Decisions by bad referees are killing the game.’ (referees include VAR).
In many respects, what with ‘clothes line’ tackles, sliding tackles and back passes being acceptable by being ignored by the referee and his assistants, it’s indicative of the rules in the film ‘Rollerball’ starring James Cann. In order to urge his character to retire from the game, the rules are slowly eroded, so much so that, in the end it’s a ‘Last man standing’ violent competition.
Stop Press! Week 28 saw Liverpool’s Virgil Van Dijk foul Watford’s Deulofeu on the edge of Liverpool’s penalty box and be stretchered off. After 11 more seconds of the highlights the match referee awarded a free kick in favour of Watford for a similar foul. Despite the ‘AR’ of VAR meaning Assistant referee, only the two touchline Assistant referees, both of who missed the serious foul on Deulofeu, can bring fouls to the match referee’s attention, which is totally wrong. More so in light of Deulofeu’s serious injury.
Taking both those points into consideration, Rollerball and Watford’s Deulofeu needing to be stretchered off, it’s abundantly clear that, until such a time as a player actually dies from a tackle, something that has happened before, referee’s, their assistants, in particular, VAR (Video Assistant Referee) and, moreover, the Football Association, will continue to treat players with both contempt and disrespect, thereby putting the careers and lives of players at risk.
The only excuse, rather than reason, the TRUTH can possibly see for the FA’s failure and or refusal to pull both match referees and their assistants, moreover, VAR, into line, is that the FA fears they will/could go on strike. Meaning that, it’s referees, their assistants and VAR who are running the game (‘Ruining’ it, more like, to paraphrase MOTD presenter Mark Chapman’s comment of Everton V Spurs above) and not, repeat NOT the Football Association.
Ultimately, most Premier League referees, the FA (Football Association) and, moreover, VAR, are all guilty of bringing the game into disrepute, while the only way to resolve the issue is for the Football Association to produce a training video for match referees, their on-field assistants and, moreover, VAR, as to which parts of the arm constitutes handball and the type of tackles, holds, etc that should be regarded as a foul.
Final thoughts. Having read through and edited this article, in all cases of VAR’s incompetence, it is as if they are covering up the referee’s mistakes, despite the fact that the mistakes are being exposed, week in week out, on BT Sport, Sky Sport, the BBC and, as recent as Christmas, amazon Prime.
In addition to the above, it is worth pointing out, mentioning the following remark (assumption) by a MOTD commentator during one of the final games of the 2018 season: “If he does that next season, VAR will award a penalty!” Like I said, it’s an assumption, and, by and large, a totally misplaced one considering the 130+ incidents that the TRUTH logged.
In view of the conspiracy (five people needed to make it a conspiracy according to Nicholas Cage’s character in the conspiracy drama ‘Snake Eyes’) and corruption outlined above, the TRUTH sent a copy of this article along with DVD’s containing the incidents outlined in a much detailed report, to both EUFA and FIFA. It will be interesting to see, in view of EUFA having rapped the FA for its decision on ‘fast movers’ (see above), whether EUFA takes the necessary step(s) to investigate the FA’s complicity etc.
Update: May 21 2020. It’s been over a month (30 days) since the TRUTH sent its evidence to both FIFA and EUFA, plenty of time for them to read the article, the full report and view almost 2 hours/120 minutes of video evidence. By now, you would expect one or both of them to make a public statement. The fact that they haven’t rather suggests the following:
1) They failed to take the TRUTH’s findings seriously.
2) They have equal contempt for players, football clubs and everyone who loves football.
Note, for those reading this informative news magazine, who've yet to come across it, there is this: 'Doing nothing is taking part!' which is another way of saying:
“In order for EVIL to triumph the GOOD woman/man need do nothing!”
Footnote: Having published this 26 years update of the original printed TRUTH from and since 1994 to the internet, the TRUTH has contacted, by e-mail, one or more of those named in this article. Specifically, BBC sport and the Football Association.
NB. In the case of the latter, they, unlike the TRUTH (see below) appear to have something to hide by not disclosing their e-mail address!
