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

VAR - Love or Hate?


  • Total voters
    1,026

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
16,407
VAR needs competent refs to use it. So why not just have these competent refs on the field ?
We have and theyre only human.
Theyve needed help since the game got faster.
Imagine asking a ref to keep up with Rashford or be in position for a Pogba 60 yard through ball..
 

blue blue

Full Member
Joined
May 23, 2016
Messages
823
Supports
chelsea
1) There are many decisions they can't correct in a few seconds, no matter how competent they are.

2) I'm not sure having the referee go to the sideline takes any more passion/fun/intensity out of the game than having the ref & players mill around while VAR is making its decision.

3) As for being pointless, it isn't. It prevents a situation where one person's arguably valid subjective call overrules another person's arguably valid subjective call, it provides more clarity to fans as to where responsibility for overturning an incident lies and adds an additional layer of scrutiny for subjective calls.
1) Is this because its not clear and obvious? If so the refs decision stands. Why are we waiting for two minutes?
2) Any delay interrupts the game.
3)I don't think the fans in the stadium want more clarity about who made the decision. I want the match officials to make the decision. If they aren't sure they can look at the screen themselves but we need to move away from human error as best we can.

The goal line technology is great and everybody agrees with it because there isn't a human element. We can do the same with offside decisions by putting sensors on players backs and in the ball.
 

tomaldinho1

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
4,276
1) There are many decisions they can't correct in a few seconds, no matter how competent they are.

2) I'm not sure having the referee go to the sideline takes any more passion/fun/intensity out of the game than having the ref & players mill around while VAR is making its decision.

3) As for being pointless, it isn't. It prevents a situation where one person's arguably valid subjective call overrules another person's arguably valid subjective call, it provides more clarity to fans as to where responsibility for overturning an incident lies and adds an additional layer of scrutiny for subjective calls.
  1. I can't think of a single decision that couldn't be made in less than a minute. Even something complex like Son's red card - you can make the decision quite quickly on that. If the club wants to appeal afterwards, that's fine. I assume most of us on here have been playing/watching football for most of our lives and generally I'd say most decisions are quite simple to call once a couple of camera angles have been seen. The exception to this is handball because of the current stupid wording of the rule.
  2. That point is irrelevant assuming the above takes place. If all decisions are made efficiently, there is no real delay.
  3. I meant more the actual time it takes for the whole process of signalling, then running over, then looking, then running back, then making a decision. How I see it, is if VAR intervenes the ref is told the decision in his ear, stops play and signals the VAR sign and we go back for the free kick or whatever whilst the replay is shown on the screen. There would still be some contentious calls but I think there's be far less dead time on the pitch. As a byproduct it might also improve the amount of abuse a ref gets on the pitch given he's not being asked to watch a video and make a split second decision himself, it's being done by someone removed from the game and (hopefully) completely without bias. It takes pressure off the ref on the field.
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
6,820
Location
Germany
It is hard to officiate top-class football matches. The pace of the game is breathtaking and it is easy to miss incidents as the ball and players zoom around the pitch. Getting things right in an instant is tough. It is more simple afterwards.

Proceeds to write anti VAR article.. I mean.. really?

I agree that since the introduction of VAR there are certain rules that need clarifications/updates and that it won't always satisfy every side, but the conclusion is mind-boggling to me, he's basically saying that the grown up thing to do would be to scrap VAR and somehow happily accept the refereeing mistakes that would return. Why would that be more mature than learning to accept the judgements referees make with the help of replays? Especially since often the problems aren't that the actual VAR guided calls are wrong, but that people, especially pundits, don't actually know the laws and guidelines of the game and just angrily spout uninformed opinions.
See people complaining about Chelsea's 5-4 being VAR'd, when (after this summer's rule changes) the referees have absolutely no leeway in that situation. Or Kamara creating conspiracy theories with his moronic paper test which plenty of gullible people lap up.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
20,216
1) Is this because its not clear and obvious? If so the refs decision stands. Why are we waiting for two minutes?
2) Any delay interrupts the game.
3)I don't think the fans in the stadium want more clarity about who made the decision. I want the match officials to make the decision. If they aren't sure they can look at the screen themselves but we need to move away from human error as best we can.

The goal line technology is great and everybody agrees with it because there isn't a human element. We can do the same with offside decisions by putting sensors on players backs and in the ball.
1) I'm not entirely sure "clear and obvious" is the same as "immediately apparent". In some instances it could take several camera angles (and more than a few seconds) to correctly ascertain what happened, at which point the fact that the referee made a mistake is itself clear and obvious. Handball being an obvious example. Even if it isn't initially clear that there was contact with the hand, once you determine there was then the referee has made a clear error in allowing a goal to stand.

2) Not sure what your point is but yes, obviously.

3) I think one of the big issues with VAR (as opposed to the TMO in rugby, say) is the lack of clarity. Anything that improves that will help. Though that's just one of several reasons use of the sideline monitors is recommended.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
20,216
  1. I can't think of a single decision that couldn't be made in less than a minute. Even something complex like Son's red card - you can make the decision quite quickly on that. If the club wants to appeal afterwards, that's fine. I assume most of us on here have been playing/watching football for most of our lives and generally I'd say most decisions are quite simple to call once a couple of camera angles have been seen. The exception to this is handball because of the current stupid wording of the rule.
  2. That point is irrelevant assuming the above takes place. If all decisions are made efficiently, there is no real delay.
  3. I meant more the actual time it takes for the whole process of signalling, then running over, then looking, then running back, then making a decision. How I see it, is if VAR intervenes the ref is told the decision in his ear, stops play and signals the VAR sign and we go back for the free kick or whatever whilst the replay is shown on the screen. There would still be some contentious calls but I think there's be far less dead time on the pitch. As a byproduct it might also improve the amount of abuse a ref gets on the pitch given he's not being asked to watch a video and make a split second decision himself, it's being done by someone removed from the game and (hopefully) completely without bias. It takes pressure off the ref on the field.
1) I can think of several as the VAR will sometimes have to consider more than one incident at the same time. For example, imagine there's a corner and a striker is potentially fouled in the box. The VAR would obviously have to decide whether the referee has made a mistake in not awarding a penalty. However, imagine if there was also potentially a foul by a different attacking player on a defender at the same time, as can easily happen during the pulling and dragging at corners. If the attacker fouled the defender before or at the same time as the foul on the striker then the penalty shouldn't be given. So VAR now has to decide on two potential fouls, as well as determining which came first, before the penalty can be awarded.

3) Putting such extreme focus on reducing dead time on the pitch is one of the mistakes the PL made in their approach. VAR inevitably means there will be delays, there's no getting away from that. Obviously it's right to try and reduce those delays by as much as it is possible to while also maintaining a VAR system at an acceptable standard. I'm sure not having the referee go to the sideline does indeed save some time. However that time saved undermines VAR's ability to be effective. This is why the Bundesliga reverted to the use of sideline monitors and it's also why the PL will inevitably do the same once their experiment also fails. The priority has to be getting VAR to function first, then reducing delays. Prioritising the latter just leaves everyone unhappy, including those who want VAR.
 
Last edited:

Jev

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
5,141
Location
Denmark
Have to bump this after Sheffield's disallowed goal. We need to get rid of this. Now.
 

Jev

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
5,141
Location
Denmark
Or, just do it properly and not give offside when it’s on.
Yeah, I'm not against using it in some form but the way it's used in the Premier League right now ... I'm honestly amazed that anyone could support it.
 

El Zoido

Full Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
7,172
Location
UK
It just goes to show how bad our refs are that the VAR officials continually make the wrong decisions even after watching a video of it.
 

Rafaeldagold

Full Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2015
Messages
1,277
Have to bump this after Sheffield's disallowed goal. We need to get rid of this. Now.
No don’t you know that if VAR is bad you can’t criticise it . You just need to accept its shite apparently & it’ll turn around.. just because.
 

Greck

Full Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
3,279
These refs are just too old fashioned to know how to use technology. Better start grooming younger ones who can. It's like when old engineers had to learn to use modern Autocad software and were clueless. Obsolete
 

Annihilate Now!

...or later, I'm not fussy
Scout
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
35,780
Location
W.Yorks
If you can't tell something is offside after 10 seconds, then it's not offside... Simple really
 

tob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
907
Have to bump this after Sheffield's disallowed goal. We need to get rid of this. Now.
I don't want to get rid of VAR, but these close call decisions needs to stop. Are the lines perfectly straight? The angle? Is the frame really stoped at the right moment? Too many questions.
 

Greck

Full Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
3,279
Feels like the prem is intentionally botching it
We're always behind. The last big league to embrace every revolutionary addition to football in the last 10 years. We still thought passing out from the back was a gimmick till just recently
 

Rafaeldagold

Full Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2015
Messages
1,277
I don't want to get rid of VAR, but these close call decisions needs to stop. Are the lines perfectly straight? The angle? Is the frame really stoped at the right moment? Too many questions.
VAR will always have this problem I’m afraid. This is the downside if you want to keep it in the game
 

hobbers

Full Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
7,651
VAR is just a sick fecking joke now.

It's almost like they're giving it a season of "how to make VAR look as absolutely horrendous as possible" to then get rid of it forever.

But meh, who cares. This is just appalling. Time after time after time.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
20,216
If you don't like calls that tight, the offside rule has to change.

As per the current technology, he was offside. That's as accurate a call as it is possible for them to make and many, many times more accurate than a linesman making the call with the naked eye, which also results in borderline decisions.
 

Nou_Camp99

Full Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
1,504
People who like VAR are the kind of people who like NFL or pretend to like it. It's fecking shite and has ruined the game. We aren't even getting it right with it so go back to before and at least we don't have the long delays.
 

NinjaFletch

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
17,773
If you don't like calls that tight, the offside rule has to change.

As per the current technology, he was offside. That's as accurate a call as it is possible for them to make.

Looks pretty clear to me that they've drawn the line in the wrong place.

Above anything, it's patently absurd to use hand drawn lines to judge offside down to nano millimetres.
 

AlwaysRed66

Full Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2016
Messages
1,800
If you can't tell something is offside after 10 seconds, then it's not offside... Simple really
That is true of all these decisions. If the only way you can see something is a foul of slowly going through incident frame by frame then it isn't. It should be clear cut mistakes that should be changed.
 

Mb194dc

Full Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2015
Messages
1,542
Supports
Chelsea
Have to bump this after Sheffield's disallowed goal. We need to get rid of this. Now.
Need to sack Riley and use VAR same as everyone else. Works fine in other leagues.

Really simple...
 

el3mel

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2016
Messages
29,098
Location
Egypt
What's the fecking point of this if it's still making ridiculous calls like we have been seeing for now ?

Its application in England has been a disaster. Weird it was applied pretty efficiently in World Cup and so.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
20,216

Looks pretty clear to me that they've drawn the line in the wrong place.

Above anything, it's patently absurd to use hand drawn lines to judge offside down to nano millimetres.
For a start you're using the wrong image. If the lines aren't blue and red it isn't the one they made the call on.

Second, you have to bear in mind the perspective of the camera you're looking at it from and how that translates onto a 2D image. They have multiple cameras, you don't.

Thirdly, they base their decision on 3D imaging software, not hand drawn lines.
 

tob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
907
VAR will always have this problem I’m afraid. This is the downside if you want to keep it in the game
It won't be a problem if they choose to rule out these close calls. If the linesman doesn't flag for offside, and when it's as close as this one - you don't change the original decision.
 

The Firestarter

Full Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
9,410
They are making a mess of it in the PL. Either create an accurate depth maps and respective 3D models with multiple cameras as Hawkeye in tennis, or use the current state to detect obvious linesman errors which still would be much better than what was before. Instead they are trying to achieve accuracy that is way beyond the employed technology and making the PL as a product unwatchable.
 

Bobski

Full Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
3,311
Goals ruled out for big toes being offside, really not what most people wanted it used for but once you let the genie out of the bottle there will always be the question of why it is not being used and it alters the dynamics of the game in a significant manner.

Technically it might be offside, the same way some of these incredibly soft pens with minimal contact are fouls but there have always been areas of the rules with ambiguous interpretation. Fouls were routinely awarded outside the box for incidents that would never be a pen inside, nothing in the rules to define a difference but it has long been an accepted part of the game.