Get rid of VAR NOW! We want our game back! (...or not, some are happy)

[redman5]

They just include situations where VAR har disagreed with the on-field ref's opinion, and then gone with what VAR ended up overturning to. That means that the Everton goal doesn't count, and neither does the Martial penalty against Palace.

It's basically "Which team has had the most clearly and obviously wrong calls against them by the refs (except offsides)?"

The Everton one from Sunday will be another in the pro-United column, because the linesman missed an obvious offside. Then everyone will go "look at how VAR is helping United" when without it, we would've been shafted on the pitch a number of times.

LiVARpool is dead. Long live ManVARchester United.

 

[sullydnl]

LiVARpool is dead. Long live ManVARchester United.

ManchestVAR United scans better.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

I thank VAR every day because it shows us how much we have been damaged previously by referees. Mike Dean, Atkinson, Clattenburg and the child referee Oliver, all of you feck off.

No. That would have been disallowed without VAR.

The AR would have made a decision. Because he was empowered.

As we operate, they went to VAR to adjudicate. Sensibly.

 

[Anustart89]

No. That would have been disallowed without VAR.

The AR would have made a decision. Because he was empowered.

As we operate, they went to VAR to adjudicate. Sensibly.

The assistant is supposed to raise his flag after the play ends if he thinks it’s offside. He didn’t do that this time, so without VAR we have to assume that he had made the decision not to raise his flag.

 

[arnie_ni]

Jumping back to the liverpool city var incident. Why wasnt it stopped for the ball hitting TAA arm? Was the rule you can handle it and score only implemented after this game?

They've stopped goals for a non goal scorer handling in the build up so that excuse doesnt wash anyway

 

[arnie_ni]

The assistant is supposed to raise his flag after the play ends if he thinks it’s offside. He didn’t do that this time, so without VAR we have to assume that he had made the decision not to raise his flag.

The ref spoke to him and to me it both seemed they agreed it was offside. The ref even pointed over as if he signalled offside himself after the discussions.

Ive seen it before in game before var were the linesman and ref spoke. The linesman clearly said he's offside and the ref made the call if he believed the player to be interfering or not. Im not sure the linesman can make the interfering call from a side on position

 

[arnie_ni]

I'm thinking that they shouldn't get rid of VAR but simplify it. The beauty of goal line technology is how simple it is.

Ditch Stockley Park and simply allow the referee to consult with the fourth official and a screen when he's not sure on a possible red card, penalty call, handball/foul leading to a goal or an offside. Maybe even introduce a 'challenge' system where managers have a limited number of appeals per game if they think a decision has gone against them.

Just do it like rugby.

If the ref misses something the tv guy says possible foul play and they watch it on the screen together and come to a decision.

If the ref is unsure he asks the tv guy and they watch it on the screen together and come to a decision.

All the while the tv audience hear it.

The ref should be able to turn on a tv mic when discussing var so the audience can here. Then just turn it of again after.

Its so simple to fix.

1. Ref views it himself and discusses with tv guy
2. Audience hears it

 

[Mb194dc]

VAR helping Spurs again?

Every single week, it's ridiculous...

 

[Annihilate Now!]

VAR helping Spurs again?

Every single week, it's ridiculous...

Didn't see all the game... How did it help them?

If anything Burnley's goal should have been ruled out under the dumb new handball rule

 

[Mb194dc]

Didn't see all the game... How did it help them?

If anything Burnley's goal should have been ruled out under the dumb new handball rule

Not the same phase, as ball out and back in, they had a look at that. Selective reviewing, just didn't even bother checking what looked a clear Burnley penalty. Standard.

Edit, Dyche agrees:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Anustart89]

That's why I keep saying there needs to be a challenge system for incidents like these, where they can pick and choose what gets looked at. That was a stonewall penalty for me, you can't just go straight through someone's back like that, surely? Less than a minute later, Moss gave them a free kick and a yellow for Sanchez for a much lighter push in the back.

 

[cyberman]

That's why I keep saying there needs to be a challenge system for incidents like these, where they can pick and choose what gets looked at. That was a stonewall penalty for me, you can't just go straight through someone's back like that, surely? Less than a minute later, Moss gave them a free kick and a yellow for Sanchez for a much lighter push in the back.

Why? The VAR would have looked at it anyway. What would a challenge do?

 

[Anustart89]

Why? The VAR would have looked at it anyway. What would a challenge do?

In my world, a challenge would force the referee on the pitch to go to the sideline monitor and have another look. In that case, he just needs to change his mind and is thus not bound by the clear and obvious criteria that is required when another referee overrules him (or recommends a change of decision).

How do you know it was looked at? Play just went on without any mention of a VAR check by the announcer, as I recall.

 

[cyberman]

In my world, a challenge would force the referee on the pitch to go to the sideline monitor and have another look. In that case, he just needs to change his mind and is thus not bound by the clear and obvious criteria that is required when another referee overrules him (or recommends a change of decision).

How do you know it was looked at? Play just went on without any mention of a VAR check by the announcer, as I recall.

All those instances are checked. I dont think a challenge does anything, its not as if theyll change their mind because a manager really thnks they should.
If the ref says he 100 percent saw it then it goes by the onfield decision. I just think Moss is that bad

 

[Anustart89]

All those instances are checked. I dont think a challenge does anything, its not as if theyll change their mind because a manager really thnks they should.
If the ref says he 100 percent saw it then it goes by the onfield decision. I just think Moss is that bad

I think that risk of public embarrassment would lead to more reversed decisions, to be honest. A challenge would also lower the threshold for a reversal from "clear and obvious" to "balance of probabilities", as a ref would only need to think that the new decision is more right. The problem with the PL's implementation of VAR is that refs won't give decisions because they have VAR to back them up and then VAR has an unreasonably high threshold to reverse that decision, so a lot of non-calls stand when the ref, given all angles of an incident, probably would've given the call in the first place.

If a ref sees a bad error on a monitor he's more likely to change his mind, because not reversing the decision will lead to questions as to why he's being stubborn now that he's seen all angles of an error he's made.

Agreed on Moss, shit ref. Problem is we don't have many better than him as they're all shades of awful, so I really think you have to embarrass them into making the right decisions.

See the Fred handball against Everton for example, he's just guessed that it hit his arm. Force him to watch it on the screen and that gets reversed, which could be very significant when it leads to a dangerous free kick. The strength of the challenge system is that it would apply to any incident on the pitch and not just penalty/offside. If you want to waste your challenge(s) on a throw in in the first half, fine, but the VAR check will take five seconds and you'll have no challenge later on when the ref invents a foul that you really disagree with.

 

[hmchan]

For me, VAR should never be introduced, at least not in this premature stage when there is a wide range of opinions in how to execute it. It is no surprise VAR causes so many controversies when there is no concensus in its implementation even among fans. Also, the issue of VAR is not limited to the Premier League, but also other competitions, so I think the problem comes from the system more than referees themselves.

 

[Rafaeldagold]

So with Burnley’s goal why did it stand? It hit their players hand in the build up..or does it not count if an opposing player clears it just before?

What’s the exact definition of ‘build up’ for a goal to be disallowed?

 

[MikeeMike]

You have to look at the images from when the shot is taken. To me it looks like De Gea has clear sight of the ball regardless of Sigurdsson’s position.

Him having to move out of the way is no different to a player walking back from an offside position and ignoring the ball so that another player can get

I’d be annoyed if that was given as offside against my team.

Still, Sigurdsson didn’t help the situation by just sitting there.

Ive been unbiased in my comments on this incident but just to say, if that was not given, what stops an attacker laying down in front of the keeper on free kicks (clearly in potential offside position). Even if keepers view is not impeded. Should that be allowed, as your view suggests it should?

 

[Anustart89]

So with Burnley’s goal why did it stand? It hit their players hand in the build up..or does it not count if an opposing player clears it just before?

What’s the exact definition of ‘build up’ for a goal to be disallowed?

It's a bit unclear. Clearance constitutes new phase of play. But then a couple of months ago van Dijk handballed it at the half-way line and two passes later Mané had scored. The PL then decided that it was too far back in the move. So handball -> pass -> assist apparently doesn't count either.

 

[montpelier]

What does anyone make of the Bournemouth goal?

Looks like not enough to overturn but probably is a push to me, that is sometimes not given. And there is time for Liverpool to defend the cross


I've gone right off the 2 tier system now but don't think the ref 2nd look idea will be straightforward either.

And I don't know about challenges, I can see teams messing about and you could even lose correct decisions, which I thought was what we wanted. Not Ireland are out of the WC because they had no challenges left or duff goals are standing because of a bottled challenge. We might as well go back to just having a useless ref.

 

[hmchan]

It's a bit unclear. Clearance constitutes new phase of play. But then a couple of months ago van Dijk handballed it at the half-way line and two passes later Mané had scored. The PL then decided that it was too far back in the move. So handball -> pass -> assist apparently doesn't count either.

The same also applies to offside. If a player is offside but the assistant keeps his flag down (encouraged to do so), after a few clearances the ball is in the back of the net, should the goal stand? Would this be unfair to the defensive side? There is no guideline on how long nor how far VAR can trace back to, which is quite controversial for me.

VAR is originally a good idea, but there are plenty of technical issues to be sorted out. Blindly believing VAR would bring fairer games is just naive. Before all doubts are cleared and the majority has a concensus, VAR should not be introduced prematurely.

 

[sullydnl]

The issue with giving each team three challenges is that in most games it would result in much more delay. It would make 5 or 6 reviews the standard in a 90min match, which isn't the case now. Yet at the same time it's not so many that a team couldn't have three genuine reviews rejected before getting screwed over on a fourth call, especially if they're allowed to challenge more minor incidents.

 

[montpelier]

Call me a monster though. I like how it does offside about as accurately as we can.

 

[montpelier]

And better player behaviour, I like that.

 

[Anustart89]

The issue with giving each team three challenges is that in most games it would result in much more delay. It would make 5 or 6 reviews the standard in a 90min match, which isn't the case now. Yet at the same time it's not so many that a team couldn't have three genuine reviews rejected before getting screwed over on a fourth call, especially if they're allowed to challenge more minor incidents.

First of all, nobody said three challenges each. If you're worried about time, give them two each and have it so that it's one per half so you only get one in the second half. That's you'd usually want to waste time anyway.

If it's a baseless appeal, ie something that's clear cut, it'll be over in five seconds (two minutes if Moss has to get his arse to the monitor, but he'll be gone soon) and no significant time will have been wasted. If it's an outrageous call, the time is lost to protests anyway. How long did it take for Gylfi to take that free kick after Fred's "handball"? It would've taken the same time for the ref to sprint to the monitor, see that it hit his knee and restart play with a drop ball, plus we would've had the right decision.

If teams challenge throw-ins and they get it right every time and get to keep their challenges, well that's not a criticism of the system, is it? It would shine a spotlight on refereeing incompetence if they call them wrongly that many times, right?

 

[sullydnl]

First of all, nobody said three challenges each. If you're worried about time, give them two each and have it so that it's one per half so you only get one in the second half. That's you'd usually want to waste time anyway.

If it's a baseless appeal, ie something that's clear cut, it'll be over in five seconds (two minutes if Moss has to get his arse to the monitor, but he'll be gone soon) and no significant time will have been wasted. If it's an outrageous call, the time is lost to protests anyway. How long did it take for Gylfi to take that free kick after Fred's "handball"? It would've taken the same time for the ref to sprint to the monitor, see that it hit his knee and restart play with a drop ball, plus we would've had the right decision.

If teams challenge throw-ins and they get it right every time and get to keep their challenges, well that's not a criticism of the system, is it? It would shine a spotlight on refereeing incompetence if they call them wrongly that many times, right?

Three challenges is usually what's suggested when this is brought up. Fewer than that would mean fewer delays but also far, far more chance of a team being screwed over by bad decisions. Which will then lead to a different variation of the "what's the point of VAR?" argument. It also means that decisions the ref gets "wrong" are even more contentious. Subjective calls will still exist, with a 50/50 referee interpretation now not only seeing a team on the wrong side of a decision but also potentially future decisions too. Presumably the "clear and obvious" stuff would be jettisoned under a challenge system, so marginal calls could then have an exaggerated impact on the course of a game.

Also, very few decisions would be over as quickly as you're suggesting. First a team would have to decide if they want to appeal, then communicate that to the referee. If the appealing team get to look at a replay before deciding whether to appeal, that's an extra delay. If they don't then there will be yet more bad calls and complaints. Plus few referees are going to take just five seconds to look at even a relatively straightforward decision, even more so when there's the extra pressure of a limited challenge being used. Also, there would inevitably be delays over arguments as to whether a team can appeal. If a clear offence happens in a different phase of play to a goal being scored (which can itself be a subjective call) is the team refused a challenge? Or is the challenge just rejected, to the now increased ire of the team who have just conceded a goal after a clear offence and become more vulnerable to further bad calls? Whatever way you set up the system, there will be protests and delays accompanying each challenge.

Plus major incidents (goals, red cards, penalties, etc.) are already being checked as is. So you'd effectively be increasing the risk of major incidents being missed (because there are no challenges left) for the sake of being able to check minor incidents instead, which hardly seems a sound trade-off. Especially when there's no real evidence that referees would suddenly be capable of making better decisions for fear of being embarrassed. The challenge system would also have inevitably introduced greater variance into the decision making process, which in turn would lead to yet more mistrust and accusations of bias.

Basically, I don't see enough of an upside.

 

[Zlatan 7]

There is no worse suggestion than to add ‘challenges’ to var calls. And only having so many challenges per game etc.

sully already wrote it better than what I can be bothered to

 

[hmchan]

The issue with giving each team three challenges is that in most games it would result in much more delay. It would make 5 or 6 reviews the standard in a 90min match, which isn't the case now. Yet at the same time it's not so many that a team couldn't have three genuine reviews rejected before getting screwed over on a fourth call, especially if they're allowed to challenge more minor incidents.

It is virtually nonpractical to let teams make challenges, and there are plenty of reasons why such system is not adopted. Football consists of more players, counterattacks, a larger variety of incidents, and fewer pauses than tennis. Challenges will inevitably interfere the play.

 

[Klopper76]

Ive been unbiased in my comments on this incident but just to say, if that was not given, what stops an attacker laying down in front of the keeper on free kicks (clearly in potential offside position). Even if keepers view is not impeded. Should that be allowed, as your view suggests it should?

Isn’t that kind of allowed when players stand in front of the goal keeper and try to distract him? It doesn’t happen often but I’ve seen it and it wasn’t classed as offside.

Maybe it would be now.

 

[Rado_N]

Absolute fecking joke of a system.

 

[ROFLUTION]

VAR sucks. At least it should cancel Fred's card so he doesnt have to be limited by a yellow card for half a match. Penalty could be given 50/50 imo

Had this happened to Salah, we all know itd be a pen

 

[Klopper76]

Blatant penalty missed there.

 

[top1whoisman]

Unbelievable refereeing yet again.

 

[justboy68]

That incident just now has unbelievably pissed me off. What the feck is the point if the morons in charge are not going to correct that.

It could be so hugely game changing too. Instead of probably getting a goal, we have a key midfielder on a booking.

 

[bucky]

That actually made me laugh. Utterly ridiculous.

 

[VorZakone]

Nah, that Fred moment wasn't a pen IMO. Not a clear dive either though, don't think the yellow was warranted.

 

[Pexbo]

VAR sucks. At least it should cancel Fred's card so he doesnt have to be limited by a yellow card for half a match. Penalty could be given 50/50 imo

Had this happened to Salah, we all know itd be a pen

If the yellow was rescinded it would have to be a penalty. It wasn’t a yellow card because he was tripped, in the area and he didn’t touch the ball.

Mike Dean’s colleagues were too scared of embarrassing him there. Or he had VAR in his ear and chose to ignore them.

 

[charlenefan]

Have they stopped using VAR secretly? Blatant pen

 

[DRM]

Oh but if somone's cock is offside my a nanometre then VAR will get involved but a blatent and obvious foul and penalty is ignored?! feck right off

 

[ROFLUTION]

Had he not given a yellow, I think VAR would have considered it as a penalty. Such is the conflict of VAR