Love the VAR, if it was up to me I would get it to the PL ASAP
VAR - Not the hero we want, the one we need
- Thread starter Pavl3n
- Start date
Stadiums need to incorporate screens now to move with modern times. Then the replays can be shown on them when required so the fans are aware of whats being reviewed. Maybe even mic up the ref so everybody can hear him kinda like NFL / cricket review system.
It basically could / should all be done within 30 seconds
It basically could / should all be done within 30 seconds
Refs are terrible, glad it's here.
I'd only want the this to be implemented when a change needs to be made. I feel like the team should be able to celebrate and the refs upstairs will review it, if the decision needs to be reversed the ref can make that decision before kick off. I hated seeing the players run to the ref and make the tv signal, that should be stamped out straight away as I don't want people on the pitch calling for a review every two seconds.
I'm definitely against this.
Would make winning some games dependant on tactical use of the VAR token as opposed to the football itself.
I am for video replays, however I agree with others on here that there are still many issues for the system in it's current state.
Having to delay goal celebrations to wait in suspense for confirmation for example takes a lot of stock out the game. Imagine scoring a last minute winner vs Liverpool and being overwhelmed by emotion but then being promptly told to hold up while the footage is reviewed. It would kill a lot of the experience. This is a problem with the system, and not it's implementation in football though. Tennis fans will recall that Nadal challenged Federer's championship point at the Aussie Open this year and although the challenge was unsuccessful Fed had to delay his triumphant celebrations.
How do you overcome these problems? It's not easy because the video referees are already under pressure as they get put on the spot to quickly come to an agreement over the correct call. Putting a time limit on them would only intensify that pressure and increase the likelihood of error, thus defeating the purpose of video review. We only have a small sample size so far, but some goals and incidents will require a fair bit of assessment to try and formulate the best conclusion. Unfortunately although I think it's something referees will become quicker at with experience, there is no real viable alternative to shorten time significantly.
Regarding the initiation, I think two challenges per team is the best way. It's true that there will be a tactical element to it, but then teams already exploit time-wasting tactics as much as they can already anyway. Substitutions, being "injured" etc. are already abused. Two challenges each, I.E. 4 should be enough to cover all the major controversies in each game on most occasions. It will also make managers/captains think before using up a challenge instead of signalling every time the fans shout handball.
Having to delay goal celebrations to wait in suspense for confirmation for example takes a lot of stock out the game. Imagine scoring a last minute winner vs Liverpool and being overwhelmed by emotion but then being promptly told to hold up while the footage is reviewed. It would kill a lot of the experience. This is a problem with the system, and not it's implementation in football though. Tennis fans will recall that Nadal challenged Federer's championship point at the Aussie Open this year and although the challenge was unsuccessful Fed had to delay his triumphant celebrations.
How do you overcome these problems? It's not easy because the video referees are already under pressure as they get put on the spot to quickly come to an agreement over the correct call. Putting a time limit on them would only intensify that pressure and increase the likelihood of error, thus defeating the purpose of video review. We only have a small sample size so far, but some goals and incidents will require a fair bit of assessment to try and formulate the best conclusion. Unfortunately although I think it's something referees will become quicker at with experience, there is no real viable alternative to shorten time significantly.
Regarding the initiation, I think two challenges per team is the best way. It's true that there will be a tactical element to it, but then teams already exploit time-wasting tactics as much as they can already anyway. Substitutions, being "injured" etc. are already abused. Two challenges each, I.E. 4 should be enough to cover all the major controversies in each game on most occasions. It will also make managers/captains think before using up a challenge instead of signalling every time the fans shout handball.
Anyone watching the lions nz right now? Twice the ref has let play go on and spoke to the video ref to take a wee look at something he may have missed. In both occasions within 10 seconds the video ref said yes something missed. One resulted in a red card and the other a penalty
I'd also point out since I compared rugbys video system to footys that the referring is off a far higher standard than football.
They'll smooth out the implementation no doubt, but this is long overdue. Refereeing was abysmal last year, absolutely shocking. Sick of watching refs feck up the game with nonsensical decisions.
Really? Can you name 3 decisions last year that fecked up a game?
My issue isn't so much with the concept of VAR (though the implementation is a hurdle I find it difficult to believe will ever be successfully cleared) but this narrative of somehow the game being ruined by poor refereeing decisions.
Yes refs make poor decisions from time to time but it really isn't this epidemic of bad decisions ruining the game that people like to pretend it is. Out of all the PL games people watched last season, I bet that without taking to Google they'll struggle to name 2 or 3 instances of a poor refereeing decision.
Not keen on the idea of bad officiating being blown up into an ogre it frankly isn't in order to justify implementation of a system that with delays, has the potential to suck most of the emotion out of watching a game of football. Losing the ability to go apeshit after a 93rd minute winner because someone decided that the worst thing in the world was a bunch of bad refereeing decisions they can't even remember, for me isn't progress.
Last edited:
Manchester City v Chelsea. 'Altrincham fan' Anthony Taylor not sending off David Luiz.
Manchester City v Spurs. Walker not being sent off and City getting a penalty when 2-1 in front.
Although I confess I am not a suppporter of VAR.
Failing to send of Luiz in the 29th minute against City for a block, ruined the game?
We have to kill the spontaneous emotion of football because of an unseen body-check?
I note you're not in favour of the system, but if these are the type of decisions being cited then we might as well start reviewing throw-ins.
We have to kill the spontaneous emotion of football because of an unseen body-check?
I note you're not in favour of the system, but if these are the type of decisions being cited then we might as well start reviewing throw-ins.
A player not getting sent off or a goal being given that shouldn't have can change the entire direction of a game. Last season we were screaming about refs pretty much every week, and I'm sick of it. I think this stuff about it ruining the game is absolute nonsense quite frankly, just like it was when people said it about goal line technology.
I guess people just love iconic fails to chuckle about later:
- Maradona's hand of God
- Henry screwing Ireland over
- Divemaster Rivaldo at the worldcup 2002
I understand that people want a smooth, errorless, perfect implementation of something new, but with new ideas it's hardly ever smooth and errorless.
Of course it needs finetuning, but in the end it's for the better.
And for the people against VAR there's still tens of little unchallenged mistakes during a match to be happy about.
- Maradona's hand of God
- Henry screwing Ireland over
- Divemaster Rivaldo at the worldcup 2002
I understand that people want a smooth, errorless, perfect implementation of something new, but with new ideas it's hardly ever smooth and errorless.
Of course it needs finetuning, but in the end it's for the better.
And for the people against VAR there's still tens of little unchallenged mistakes during a match to be happy about.
Goal line technology is completely different, it's instant and spontaneous.
Are you really going to be satisfied if football 'evolves' to a position where every time the ball hits the net the eruption of emotion is replaced by a muted, nervous 45 seconds - 2 minute wait?
Is that really a great trade off for all these awful refereeing decisions that there's loads of every week but you for some reason can't think of any right now to cite?
He asked for examples of 'poor refereeing decisions'. Aguero was clean through on goal until Luiz deliberately took him out, this was right in front of Taylor. City were denied a clear goal-scoring opportunity and Luiz escaped punishment. I would say that decision had a significant impact on the game and, if we are to have VRA, is exactly the type of decision that should be reviewed. However, I would rather Taylor had made the right decision initially.
Where do you get the idea that every goal goes through a VAR-moment?
And do you think VAR will stop people screaming about refs pretty much every week? Out of the 14 games in the Confederations Cup, 3 had wrong decisions that changed the game. In the club world cup things were even worse. When a ref gets it wrong even after the use of VAR in a game people actually care about the screaming will be bigger than ever.
Someone else already gave you several examples, I really have no interest in justifying myself to you.
The only time VAR is going to be relevant is in cases where there is uncertainty over whether an incident has been properly judged by the ref. This isn't every goal, and every tackle, it's something that might happen a couple of times a game. And yes, I'd rather have a few seconds delay and the right decision, than an explosion of celebration and a team robbed in the process. It will also help cut down on simulation I'd expect.
I'm nervous about that assumption. Especially when it comes to goals. I don't know how you have a system where someone watches a video from different angles to see if there was an infringement/offside in the build up, and make it take any less time than the time it takes for someone to watch a video from different angles to see if there was an infringement/offside in the build-up.
I'm not against some kind of VAR but if it's used its use should be limited and using it to determine if a goal should stand or not has the potential to be absolutely disastrous. Else as I said before, we might as well let the game play out and send all the fans home and then have video referees review everything after and then announce who won via a Tweet or text message and celebrate the accuracy and death of referees 'ruining' the game that way.
It is limited... It will only be used if there's a hint of wrong in the scoring of the goal. Like Henry robbing Ireland could have easily be overthrown with VAR.
There's a good chance divers will be punished more often than rewarded with a penalty. If that takes up a minute, I don't care, I can get so annoyed at some wrong matchdeciding decisions.
A referee on the field can not and will not ever make all the right shots and that is fine, but not when it comes to match deciding issues. And it is not something you can ask of him, but fans will absolute slaughter refs for it and players will corner refs, which is absolutely wrong.
They gave two examples, one was an unpunished bodycheck.
If you really want to claim bad refereeing decisions is "ruining' the game" and claim that you're screaming about it "every week", citing someone who cited an unseen body check in a match as evidence of this and refusing to even bring up one example of your own, is piss poor.
It's the UKIP argument
"I want to take back control and our laws?"
Which laws?
"The laws!"
Okay, but just name one
"I don't have to justify myself to you!"
I don't want football ruined for the same logic that gave us Brexit.
My concern would be with offsides. With most open-play goals at some point in the build up (often the final ball to the person who ends up putting it in the net) there's at least a question of offside. We see goals every week on every game on the telly; the ball goes in the net, the replay happens and it pauses at that moment where the commentator makes mention "he's just onside", or "it's tight but he's definitely on". If you add other infringements such as unseen body-checks, cheeky shirt tugs, climbing, and all the rest of it the only goals that aren't going to get reviewed are penalties.
Particularly goals scored from corners. I cant recall a single one without shirt-pulling, holding, climbing and all the rest of it happening somewhere in and around the area. If the standard of review is that there's something questionable about a goal then VAR will probably ensure we never witness a goal from a corner again.
Last edited:
I'm all for VAR but I do agree with where you are going with this.
Goal is scored, player complains there was a foul in the buildup. Ref watches - no Foul but goal is offside by a fraction. Would the goal then be disallowed?
Or the opposite, player complains about offside, no offside but a foul in the build up.
I 'd like a system where the Ref at any point in the game can ask for video assistance, this would also apply to each team. The catch, is that you only have 2 or 3 'chances' so if the Captain complains about the decision and get's it wrong. They have 1 less attempt at VAR, while if the captain gets it right. They don't lose a chance.
And you often see players complain to the ref about something once their team has conceded. Now there's literally no incentive for the referee to refuse to throw it to the video ref. And knowing that will make post-goal protests even more vehement. Why would you not demand the goal is looked at again, even if as a player you suspect nothing untoward happened?
Only goals that won't be protested are the ones to which the opposition players announce "Fair play, chaps!" as one, and then smoke a pipe and twiddle with the ends of their voluptuous moustaches whilst waiting for play to begin.
Other than that this opens floodgates for the inevitability of pretty much every single goal being protested, reviewed and adjudicated on.
I think a starting position where instances where referees currently consult with their linesman on the decision (except for goals) could potentially be ones where extra assistance is given via some kind of video referee. But even then for me it's a long conversation about how and when.
In most cases, VAR will need to reach a decision within 5-6 seconds, tops, to avoid ruining the flow of the game
Imho, there are certain situations, such as offsides, where VAR should automatically review it immediately and communicate the result to the ref. Situations such as Portugal's disallowed goal against Mexico are unacceptable imho.
Imho, there are certain situations, such as offsides, where VAR should automatically review it immediately and communicate the result to the ref. Situations such as Portugal's disallowed goal against Mexico are unacceptable imho.
Portugal x Chile its an evidence that the VAR in football is bs because it only gives more power to the Fifa mafia to interfere in the games and choose their "favorites".
I its a penalty they want to concede they will call the VAR.
If its a penalty in favor of the "wrong side" they will ignore it..
The only way the VAR can work is if the coaches, not the referee, have a certain number of challenges to call, like in Volleyball.
I its a penalty they want to concede they will call the VAR.
If its a penalty in favor of the "wrong side" they will ignore it..
The only way the VAR can work is if the coaches, not the referee, have a certain number of challenges to call, like in Volleyball.
Can't they make it like cricket? If the incident is ambiguous, they should just go with the original referee's call, as it is in cricket for LBW decisions.
Sanitized.
Cleaned.
Robotic.
Meaningless.
Cleaned.
Robotic.
Meaningless.
Let the game continue. Simple as that.
1. Ball in the net? Then it goes for a kick-off.
The video special referees will decide and anounce it after the kick-off.
2. Diving? Ok. Let the referee give the penalty.
If the video referees find a little sissy diving, it is a red card for the little sissy.
3. Spitting? Punch while nobody is looking?
Rule him (her) out for the rest of the tournament if it is a cup and 1/4 of the games if it is a league.
Generally, feck cheaters.
1. Ball in the net? Then it goes for a kick-off.
The video special referees will decide and anounce it after the kick-off.
2. Diving? Ok. Let the referee give the penalty.
If the video referees find a little sissy diving, it is a red card for the little sissy.
3. Spitting? Punch while nobody is looking?
Rule him (her) out for the rest of the tournament if it is a cup and 1/4 of the games if it is a league.
Generally, feck cheaters.
I keep associating the thread title with vector autoregression.
"Beckham, into Sheringham and Solskjaer has....the ball in the net. Now the Bayern players are appealing for something. The referee appears to be communicating with the linesman on the far side. Bayern's players are still protesting. It looks as if the Bayern players feel there was some kind of infringement in the area. I couldn't see anything, but at this stage what do they have lose via appeal? The referee has a call to make now, if he brings in the video assistant. I think....yes, I think he is. What'll happen is that the last period of play from the corner will be reviewed and very shortly, we hope, we'll get a decision on whether the goal, which surely would be a winning goal, would stand. A reminder that the News at Ten will be with you following the climax of this match...."
Definitely would have seen that printed on t-shirts.
Definitely would have seen that printed on t-shirts.
Looks like it's here to stay.
Simply doesn't work
Bloody shambles.
It's no good having the tech when there's idiots using it. Why on earth is the referee allowed to watch it himself? Just leave it off field.
It's no good having the tech when there's idiots using it. Why on earth is the referee allowed to watch it himself? Just leave it off field.
A failed experiment so far. It only causes chaos.
If they can't get that elbow correct, then there's no point having it.
The system we've seen in this tournament doesn't work well enough, true. That isn't an argument against VAR in general though.
What's the point if the ref is going to pussy out anyway? That was a Red for Jara IMO, I've seen softer elbows in the UFC 
Takes way too long, the video referee should be able to make the decision and the main ref accepts it rather than the main referee going to see for himself.
Takes way too long, the video referee should be able to make the decision and the main ref accepts it rather than the main referee going to see for himself.