News flash for you, game is already ruined without introduction of VAR. System with massive flaws can be worked on, on current system you can do feck all.
VAR - Not the hero we want, the one we need
- Thread starter Pavl3n
- Start date
News flash for you, game is already ruined without introduction of VAR. System with massive flaws can be worked on, on current system you can do feck all.
Yes, globally the game lies in ruins. Just below midget hockey in terms of popularity, I think. But don't quote me I might be overstating its appeal.
Which recent change has ruined the most popular sport? I must have missed it.
The sad truth that I think people need to wake up to, and eventually will, is that VAR isn't what they think in their head it is and is very unlikely ever to be. I think the issue is how long do we let the game have to endure a fundamentally flawed idea before people realise.
I get the appeal of a system that cuts out mistakes, takes next to no time at all, and produces results that even the ardent wind-up talk radio phone-in presenter can't play devils advocate on. Problem is I don't think that system is ever going to exist. The fact that we're already at the stage where simply questioning how it works is evidently seen as unhelpful obstructionism by some, isn't encouraging.
The idea seems to be that play will continue whilst the incidents are reviewed, but the idea that either thing (play or review of the incident) can take a significant period of time, or that anything of interest will happen in that period of play that could cause a problem if the play has to be pulled back, dismissed as "impossible". Not only does the set-up look shit, the thought behind it looks near non-existent
I get the appeal of a system that cuts out mistakes, takes next to no time at all, and produces results that even the ardent wind-up talk radio phone-in presenter can't play devils advocate on. Problem is I don't think that system is ever going to exist. The fact that we're already at the stage where simply questioning how it works is evidently seen as unhelpful obstructionism by some, isn't encouraging.
The idea seems to be that play will continue whilst the incidents are reviewed, but the idea that either thing (play or review of the incident) can take a significant period of time, or that anything of interest will happen in that period of play that could cause a problem if the play has to be pulled back, dismissed as "impossible". Not only does the set-up look shit, the thought behind it looks near non-existent
Last edited:
Just take the example from that Dutch game. If when the other team went forward, rather than scoring a player was brought down inside the area, a red card offence. Would the player who made the foul be sent off even though the player/team he fouled is effectively awarded absolutely nothing as that period of play no longer exists.
I know, a player fouling someone else in the area whilst there's a penalty incident currently undergoing review, is the definition of an "impossible" argument, but humour me. It would seem strange that an a team could suffer an infringement yet not receive any advantage from it and the other side lose a player for a period of the game that a minute or two later won't have existed. How can you be sent off for bringing down the last man in a period of play scrubbed from the record? And it doesn't have to be a bad foul, necessarily to injure someone. Imagine the outrage if someone pulls a hamstring running down the wing to whip in a cross only for it to be decided the last 2 minutes didn't actually happen.
The current plan/hope seems to be to let the game go on until the ball goes out of play or there's another incident, hope that it's done quickly, and prey nothing else happens requiring a decision to be made.
For me the ONLY way this can work, and even then I use the term 'work' loosely, is if every incident that requires review by the video assistant leads to the game being stopped dead until the decision is made.
I know, a player fouling someone else in the area whilst there's a penalty incident currently undergoing review, is the definition of an "impossible" argument, but humour me. It would seem strange that an a team could suffer an infringement yet not receive any advantage from it and the other side lose a player for a period of the game that a minute or two later won't have existed. How can you be sent off for bringing down the last man in a period of play scrubbed from the record? And it doesn't have to be a bad foul, necessarily to injure someone. Imagine the outrage if someone pulls a hamstring running down the wing to whip in a cross only for it to be decided the last 2 minutes didn't actually happen.
The current plan/hope seems to be to let the game go on until the ball goes out of play or there's another incident, hope that it's done quickly, and prey nothing else happens requiring a decision to be made.
For me the ONLY way this can work, and even then I use the term 'work' loosely, is if every incident that requires review by the video assistant leads to the game being stopped dead until the decision is made.
I actually think there is an easy way to solve this. Give 2 challenges per team / per match . And if challenge requested - the game is stopped. If not - play on. Where is the problem? Why should the referee even bother deciding when to use the VAR?
Won't it then be used tactically? Like the 88th minute substitution. Under the kosh a bit? Want to relieve the pressure? Play the one of both of the '2 challenges' card. Expect when smaller teams away at places like Old Trafford will, unless there's good cause to earlier on in the game, will use such a system to break up momentum of the bigger team if they're leading or holding onto a point during the last few minutes of games.
I would. 0-0 at Old Trafford, managing Bournemouth. Home team piling on the pressure. Instruct a player to go to ground, eat up a bit of time and break up the play whilst ref and video assistant review it for a minute or so. If I've two challenges with and I can break up the last 5 or so minutes more effectively and for longer than saving my subs and making late changes, potentially, why the hell not?
Nah if it happens at all it has to be based on incidents the referee thinks justifies it, not to suit the opposition managers who may well often have ulterior motives beyond justice for a particular incident.
Wouldn't in that case the diver get 2 match ban? If so - than that is some price to pay for just interrupting the match.
Also I am not so sure how good of an idea it would be for you as, a Bournemouth manager, at Old Trafford, at 88th minute, to stop the game. You would give the opportunity for Mourinho to gather the team and give instructions how to use the remaining time. i don't see how this "time out" is so good only for the defending team.
(I am assuming time lost for VAR is precisely compensated as added time )
You can instruct a player who jumps with another player to go down. Hard to say someone dived. Or at least, not difficult to imagine a scenario where someone can manufacture a coming together where it's reasonable to request the situation is reviewed. I'd have big fear 'manager's choice' system will too often be used for time-wasting.
Dutch crowd are very understanding about the whole thing. Sure there's a few boos but most appear to be taking it in good jest. That won't happen in England. The ref will get shit for the rest of the game if he were to disallow a goal like that.
Last edited:
How about not wanting the game ruined by the ham-fisted insistence on retaining the current regime with its massive flaws with no other explanation for doing so other than a bizarre faith that it's been that way for years.
Games, competitions and careers can be decided on the outcome of a referee's decision. Surely we want to give them every tool available to make sure their decision is as close to 100% correct as is humanly possible.
Nobody is saying VAR in its current guise is flawless. Of course there's going to be teething problems, but it's a step in the right direction.
The game has had to put up with ham-fisted decisions from time to time for the past 150 years or whatever it is.
We might find them annoying, frustrating and at times gut-wrenchingly devstating - but any conclusion it's led to the game overall being 'ruined' would be dismissed by any sensible person as utter nonsense.
I'd also question the 'teething problems' conclusion.
VAR is always going to be a system where someone has to stop and take time to review an incident where the correct decision might not be quickly evident. On what basis are you assuming that this will ever change, beyond anticipating the invention of a decision machine that can review incidents of subjectivity and conclude beyond reasonable doubt what the correct course of action would be in next to no time at all?
Because there really isn't ever going to be a machine that can adjudicate whether something is a penalty or not within a 99.97% accuracy. It'll be a guy, looking at a screen with various angles that may or may not contradict each other, in a situation that may or may not take a long time to reach a conclusion on, if a conclusion can be reached at all. That's what it is mate. It isn't a 'teething problem'.
Besides all that if you took every goal and looked at every incident leading up to that goal and declared that a video referee can look at every incident (slight shirt tug earlier on in the movement, suggestion of offside with the cross, suspicion of climbing, whether an incident earlier on was really ball-to-hand and not hand-to-ball) then many goals that stand today will be ruled out. Ignoring every other argument for the time being, a situation where every goal has to jump through hoops to prove that it stands legitimately and that there were no infringements or incidents at any point in the period of play that meant that the game should have been stopped 10 seconds, 45 seconds, 3 minutes (etc) earlier, seems the definition of absolute shite to me.
Short of goals that are scored within seconds of the restart, there's probably any number of 50/50 calls, or review-worthy decisions in the lead up to the majority of goals scored.
We might find them annoying, frustrating and at times gut-wrenchingly devstating - but any conclusion it's led to the game overall being 'ruined' would be dismissed by any sensible person as utter nonsense.
I'd also question the 'teething problems' conclusion.
VAR is always going to be a system where someone has to stop and take time to review an incident where the correct decision might not be quickly evident. On what basis are you assuming that this will ever change, beyond anticipating the invention of a decision machine that can review incidents of subjectivity and conclude beyond reasonable doubt what the correct course of action would be in next to no time at all?
Because there really isn't ever going to be a machine that can adjudicate whether something is a penalty or not within a 99.97% accuracy. It'll be a guy, looking at a screen with various angles that may or may not contradict each other, in a situation that may or may not take a long time to reach a conclusion on, if a conclusion can be reached at all. That's what it is mate. It isn't a 'teething problem'.
Besides all that if you took every goal and looked at every incident leading up to that goal and declared that a video referee can look at every incident (slight shirt tug earlier on in the movement, suggestion of offside with the cross, suspicion of climbing, whether an incident earlier on was really ball-to-hand and not hand-to-ball) then many goals that stand today will be ruled out. Ignoring every other argument for the time being, a situation where every goal has to jump through hoops to prove that it stands legitimately and that there were no infringements or incidents at any point in the period of play that meant that the game should have been stopped 10 seconds, 45 seconds, 3 minutes (etc) earlier, seems the definition of absolute shite to me.
Short of goals that are scored within seconds of the restart, there's probably any number of 50/50 calls, or review-worthy decisions in the lead up to the majority of goals scored.
Last edited:
Sure, it will always take time to make a decision because it's being reviewed, but through trial and error they can work out how best to implement it - so that big chunks of the match don't get pulled back to reverse an earlier incorrect decision like in that Dutch match.
I remember that bloody game. Had a bet that all six players would be substituted, but they fooled around on and on and on, and I believe it was Silva, there by the line, waiting to get in as a final sub. Never happened.
I'd be comfortable with VAR when the referee has already made the call to stop the game.
E.g:
- penalty decision
- offence that referee determines might be worthy a straight red.
In both instances the referee has stopped the game and can use the VAR with his linesman and if both/either are inconclusive and/or contradictory he can make an assessment based on that advice and what he originally saw.
That'd I'd be fine with.
"There's been a goal and now before the players reel away in celebration, and the fans cheer there is now a couple of minutes of pause whilst the video assistant reviews all of the incidents that led up to the goal to see where there is cause to chalk it off" - I wouldn't be. And I really do think 'teething problems' is a bit of a cop out response, with the greatest of respect.
E.g:
- penalty decision
- offence that referee determines might be worthy a straight red.
In both instances the referee has stopped the game and can use the VAR with his linesman and if both/either are inconclusive and/or contradictory he can make an assessment based on that advice and what he originally saw.
That'd I'd be fine with.
"There's been a goal and now before the players reel away in celebration, and the fans cheer there is now a couple of minutes of pause whilst the video assistant reviews all of the incidents that led up to the goal to see where there is cause to chalk it off" - I wouldn't be. And I really do think 'teething problems' is a bit of a cop out response, with the greatest of respect.
If you just had the video ref up watching over the incident as play was going on, it would have been pulled back for the penalty a good minute before it was eventually given. This on-field review system is trash.
This. Just have the video ref as the highest authority. They did this in the German Super Cup final last weekend. IIRC the on-field ref didn't have a look on the screen. Both Bayern goals where scrutinized by the video ref (one for off-side, one for hand ball). It took aproximately 15 seconds longer for the game to kick of again. The delay was minimal. What would have happend in the dutch game case I don't know. Currently FIFA is letting different leagues test different implementations of VAR. We will probably see many weird and stupid situation, but a suitable implementation should emerge in the medium term. I find this a sensible approach.
@Oscie : Your main concern seems to be regarding time between decision and incident. I think, this question is critical indeed, since idealy the flow of the game shouldn't be disturbed significantly. But let me ask a counter question: How many games per saison should be decided by refereeing errors or cheating? Where is your limit? In case the answer is that refereeing errors don't decide the league, because no one benefits/ looses out significantly on average, how about cup competitions?
Well my belief is that there really aren't that many incidents of games being ruined by referee decisions. Of course it happens but I thin we've got ourselves into a situation where the derision of the state of affairs has become more prominent than what it's intended to deride ever was. We have to really think carefully if we want to change the game so fundamentally to avoid occasional decisions that most people can't really name more than 3 before they get to 'Henry's handball.'
It's not to dismiss bad calls, particularly high profile ones. But I think we're looking for a solution to a problem that's nowhere near as big as we think it is and it's a rabbit holes with so many pitfalls. There are ways a VAR can be used that doesn't negatively impact on the game but doing it for goals or for any incident where the play hasn't already naturally stopped will always be found somehow unworkable and unwelcome, in my view.
VAR to assist the referee to avoid penalty's being awarded incorrectly (or not awarded incorrectly) players being sent off unfairly etc could be brilliant. My worry is that you have situations where a team scores a goal and nobody's sure for a minute or two whether they can celebrate and the response from some is: "That's brilliant!".
Sorry but for me that reality would never be brilliant. It'd always be shit.
Last edited:
How it will work out in the future, we can't know yet. This is all I found regrading data.
https://www.google.de/amp/s/www.spo...uer-den-videobeweis-verlaeuft-erfolgreich.amp
Report from the first offline VAR tests (video ref was watching live, but did not communicate with ref) in the Bundesligas first half of last Saison:
"There have been 44 clear errors ( meaning wrong calls on goals and red cards) off which 33 have been resolved."
I guess this means the other eleven went unnoticed. It also means there were 44 important mistakes in 153 games.
"The time needed was between 10 and 40 seconds."
While not instantaneous this is not 5 minutes. It is also within the time teams normal "discuss" decisions with the ref.
I find the number of game changing errors rather high. I also find the time needed acceptable, especially since this was a test run mainly to teach the video refs. They probably will become better and faster at it. So time is not the big issue. This doesn't mean will will not see some surreal situations this coming season.
My main issue with VAR is that it might lead to biased decision making by the refs. While an offside call wrongly not given can be corrected by VAR, an offside call given wrongly can't be corrected completely. I guess this will influence the refs, leading to more wrong decisions by the ref.
https://www.google.de/amp/s/www.spo...uer-den-videobeweis-verlaeuft-erfolgreich.amp
Report from the first offline VAR tests (video ref was watching live, but did not communicate with ref) in the Bundesligas first half of last Saison:
"There have been 44 clear errors ( meaning wrong calls on goals and red cards) off which 33 have been resolved."
I guess this means the other eleven went unnoticed. It also means there were 44 important mistakes in 153 games.
"The time needed was between 10 and 40 seconds."
While not instantaneous this is not 5 minutes. It is also within the time teams normal "discuss" decisions with the ref.
I find the number of game changing errors rather high. I also find the time needed acceptable, especially since this was a test run mainly to teach the video refs. They probably will become better and faster at it. So time is not the big issue. This doesn't mean will will not see some surreal situations this coming season.
My main issue with VAR is that it might lead to biased decision making by the refs. While an offside call wrongly not given can be corrected by VAR, an offside call given wrongly can't be corrected completely. I guess this will influence the refs, leading to more wrong decisions by the ref.
If I look at the wahretabelle of the Bundesliga - a homepage in which people from various clubs judge about referee decisions - in the recent season Augsburg would have been in the relegation match and not Hamburg.
In 15/16 Hertha BSC would be 4th - not Gladbach - and Stuttgart would not have gone down in 2nd Bundesliga but Frankfurt - whereas Hoffenheim would have been in the relegation matches against the 3rd of the 2nd league instead of Frankfurt.
Referee mistakes matter - even if VAR might not be able to cover everything that goes wrong.
In 15/16 Hertha BSC would be 4th - not Gladbach - and Stuttgart would not have gone down in 2nd Bundesliga but Frankfurt - whereas Hoffenheim would have been in the relegation matches against the 3rd of the 2nd league instead of Frankfurt.
Referee mistakes matter - even if VAR might not be able to cover everything that goes wrong.
Only just seen this, happened a few days ago. I'm all for using video replays, but it still doesn't guard against incompetent refs failing to apply common sense.
I think this is a sensible solution for now. So just use VAR for the really critical stuff (say define it as 2nd yellows, reds, penalties, offside goals), and only when the referee deems it is needed and stops play.
I think with the increasing pace of the game, too much responsibility is falling on naked eyes, and we need a slightly fairer system. For those that says it ruins the spectacle of the game due to the delay; I think a slightly delayed good decision is better than a fast bad decision.
What the hell is Kaka doing there?
https://streamable.com ltg0z
can't post the link
/ between m and l
thoughts?
took 20 sec, not longer than players swarming the ref after such situations.
well done
can't post the link
/ between m and l
thoughts?
took 20 sec, not longer than players swarming the ref after such situations.
well done
The problem is that for every 20 second example where it seems to not cause much of an issue there seems to be a 2 minute example where it's a complete mess. Whatever we think of the technology and its use why is something so obviously in the "teething problems" stage of its development, being sanctioned for use in such high profile games? To me it makes no sense. Why have the trials not been more comprehensive. I'm profoundly uncomfortable with the highest level of the game being used in a "feck, let's see if it works" way like this.
There seems to be those who have a hardon for the technology for technology's sake and people are so keen to use a shiny new toy practically zero extensive groundwork has been done on this. The whole thing seems rushed. You shouldn't be introducing anything to the game at the very top level if people have to laud examples of it working. Alone that to me is problematic; the idea that something is introduced and then people have to find examples of it not looking like a complete fecking shitstorm and then using that example as proof that it was right to be introduced.
This rush to war, excuse me...VAR, must be stopped. Until we can see if it actually works instead of dumping it in football's lap in what currently seems to be a vague but hopeful expectation that one day it might be okay. You don't release an experimental drug onto the market and justify it by pointing to examples where people haven't died as a consequence of taking it. That seems to be precisely what many at the top level of football seem to be doing with this.
There seems to be those who have a hardon for the technology for technology's sake and people are so keen to use a shiny new toy practically zero extensive groundwork has been done on this. The whole thing seems rushed. You shouldn't be introducing anything to the game at the very top level if people have to laud examples of it working. Alone that to me is problematic; the idea that something is introduced and then people have to find examples of it not looking like a complete fecking shitstorm and then using that example as proof that it was right to be introduced.
This rush to war, excuse me...VAR, must be stopped. Until we can see if it actually works instead of dumping it in football's lap in what currently seems to be a vague but hopeful expectation that one day it might be okay. You don't release an experimental drug onto the market and justify it by pointing to examples where people haven't died as a consequence of taking it. That seems to be precisely what many at the top level of football seem to be doing with this.
Last edited:
Germans use a different method apparently which was practiced for months and is always this short.
Haha. You have a very strong opinion about VAR and written lots of lengthy posts about it too. I guess this means you have have thought and read about it a lot. I therefore find it weird that you haven't noticed that VAR is on trial currently. Maybe you could elaborate on where it should be tested, if not in leagues with the necessary infrastructure like cameras and referees.
Last edited:
I would elaborate but surely the idea that you don't trial something that may or may not end up being a complete fecking disaster in top-level football, is common sense?
A trial should be experimenting at low-levels, ironing out problems, going back to the drawing board a few times and seeing if it's possible to devise a system that works and doesn't look like a shit storm. A trial shouldn't be 'feck it, let's see if it works and if it doesn't? Ahh, it's only football innit?'
That's maybe how McDonald's trials public reaction to a new sandwich. But for me there are far too many evident and cited examples of problems for it to be at the stage where top-level leagues in Europe are willing to burden themselves with it for an entire season. Any new system that's at the "....but there are examples where it isn't a pile of donkey shite..." stage, isn't something you introduce or 'trial' at the top level.
Last edited:
So you want VAR tested at child games with mobile phone cams?
No I want VAR that looks like someone's actually thought about how it's going to work beyond "let's hope it works".
Excitement about the possibilities of the technology has evidently got way ahead of itself where we're in a situation where something is being used at the top-level of the game before any serious discussion seems to be taking place as to how or what the implications of it are going to be.
And there is something slightly evangelical to elements of the debate being had in public about VAR. It seems as if some have settled on the position that what should be central to the debate isn't the practicalities of how it would work or pouring through various scenarios and questioning its use (pro and con) within them, but instead focusing on the fact that some people don't seem to have 'faith' in it.
BEHOLD: VAR!
How will it work
IT WILL BE WONDERFUL!
Um...okay, but here you have an example of..
I SAID BEHOLD!!!
I hear you, but shouldn't we discuss if...
BEHOLD!!!!!
Last edited:
So it should not be tested then?
Another link:
My question is, what would have happened if Bayer had scored from that counter? Or if anything happened before the ball went out of play, like a red card worthy challenge or even a penalty on the other end?
My question is, what would have happened if Bayer had scored from that counter? Or if anything happened before the ball went out of play, like a red card worthy challenge or even a penalty on the other end?
There is nothing to be tested about VAR, it's the easiest thing in the world. It's way to simple for being a total failure.
maybe something like that:
Although i think that the dutch version takes way to long, the german one where they tell the referee what happens is the quicker and better choice.
maybe something like that:
Although i think that the dutch version takes way to long, the german one where they tell the referee what happens is the quicker and better choice.
I wonder what would have happened with the penaly if the Feyenoord goal wasn't ruled out for offside. Nothing? Or do they still take the penalty? How far back does it go then? I hope they do have these answers and aren't making it up as they go along.
Worked quite fine and fast in Bundesliga, but very very slow in Italy (Inter match). Not sure what happened, ref stood there for a few minutes, and then himself went to check the video...? (small screen on bet365 - no audio)
I think it's a great addition to the game in Bundesliga. There are still some issues to iron out, but it already makes the game fairer without disturbing the flow too much.
Anyone who's refereed a semi-competitive match knows it's an impossible job, let alone at the highest level when the speed of play is the insanely quick, the players are experienced in simulating, and you've got the entire crowd and players yelling at you all the time. VAR still can be ironed out with timing (or add a lot more stoppage time) but those who don't want it are basically saying they don't mind key wrong decisions.