Following the most recent Luis Diaz twist, a pundit advised Liverpool to “stop paying” for VAR.

 

After the Liverpool offside controversy, Premier League teams were instructed to “stop paying” for VAR.

Former West Ham striker Frank McAvennie expresses his disbelief that referees are being paid to make “stupid” errors in the VAR room in an exclusive interview with Football Insider.

When Liverpool played Tottenham last weekend, a goal by Luis Diaz was incorrectly disallowed due to a misunderstanding between the VAR and on-field officials.

The Reds went on to lose the game 2-1 after a late winner for Spurs, with the wrongly disallowed goal proving even more costly.

PGMOL have since released the audio from the incident where the VAR Darren England mistakenly believed that the onfield decision had been to award the goal and told referee Simon Hooper that the check had been completed.

The refereeing body admitted that the officials got the decision wrong and the goal should have stood.

McAvennie couldn’t believe the incompetence of the referees.

“It is ridiculous but it is never going to change,” he told Football Insider.

“It is just going to get worse until somebody stops it. The teams will stop paying for it if these things keep happening. Once they stop paying for it then it will not happen.

“Why would you pay for two idiots sitting somewhere not watching the game to get decisions right? That is what they are paid for.

“I keep saying put ex-pros in there and that would have sorted it, they would not have let them start the game again.

Why are you paying two referees to do it when it was the producer who pointed out the mistake? It is just stupid.

Read Next:

Liverpool forward Luis Diaz saw his goal ruled out during last weekend’s Premier League loss at Tottenham Hotspur.

Paul Merson and Mike Dean were this afternoon involved in a heated debate live on television over Luis Diaz’s disallowed goal during Liverpool’s defeat by Tottenham Hotspur.

Although one week on from this incident, the conversation over VAR and how costly mistakes are continuing to be made is not going anywhere.

 

Following their 2-1 loss in the capital, Liverpool quickly issued a statement in which they demanded explanations for how Diaz’s goal could have possible been disallowed.

Since then, numerous Premier League managers have expressed their outrage at the scenario when asked about it.

Asked to provide his view on where VAR goes from here and how it can improve, ex-Premier League referee Mike Dean told Sky Sports News: “It’s an ongoing process.

They always have stuff emailed to go through, certain clips where they have to press a button of offside or onside.

They are always doing online training. They have been in again this week doing certain things to try and get the

communication better.

“The way forward? I don’t know. Do you get ex-players in? For me, no. If you go and get players in, half of them don’t know the laws of the game as you can tell by what you’ve [Merson] just said about restarting the game for the sake of it.

Former Arsenal midfielder Merson was incensed by Dean’s remark and was even instructed to cool down in the Sky studio. Merson responded: “For the sake of it? What do you mean, just for fun? You are playing one of the biggest games, Liverpool against Tottenham, and you are saying, “For the sake of it.”

Stop playing since there is no law and no one will be hurt! You all are terrified and saying, “I’m going to get in trouble.” After stopping the game, consider the situation. Seriously! As usual, no one has played the game.

Then Dean snapped, saying, “It’s the law, mate. The law is that. The legislation cannot be altered. simply put. I’m maintaining my composure since I am aware that you cannot change.

Once the referee has given the all-clear for play to resume, the IFAB (International Football Association Board) rules on VAR indicate that play cannot be resumed in a situation like Diaz’s goal.

According to Rule 10, “If play has stopped and been restarted, the referee may not undertake a ‘review’ except for a case of mistaken identity or for a potential sending-off offence relating to violent conduct, spitting, biting or extremely offensive, insulting and/or abusive action(s).”