Agreed.
VAR - Not the hero we want, the one we need
- Thread starter Pavl3n
- Start date
Agreed.
We already have Germany who've had this since the beginning of the season and it's drawn the same kind of criticism. Surely we should be looking to them rather than the solution of 'pretend the problems don't exist'.
Last edited:
Or look at other sports that have implemented VAR successfully and have embedded it into said sports without mass defections due to "lost interest" or "we couldn't celebrate that goal/point/touchdown properly".
Or we look at how it can work in football and actually address the unique challenges and issues raised by doing so rather than saying '...it works in other sports'. But that would involve actually looking at the issues and seeing if there's practical way to address them, not somehow pretending it's unreasonable that people are voicing concerns and 'solutions' that are utterly ridiculous...
So would the other people in the room be mute?
You completely lost me here.
The feck are you talking about?
Scenario 1: No VAR. Referee makes decision based on incomplete information. May be correct or incorrect. Higher probability of making wrong decision.
Scenario 2: VAR. Single person in room reviewing multiple angles. Delivers conclusive information to ref. Ref still makes final decision. Cuts down probability of making wrong decision. Takes some time to determine whether said evidence exists.
Scenario 3: VAR. Multiple people in room simultaneously reviewing multiple angles. Delivers conclusive information to ref, faster than single person could. Cuts down probability of ref making wrong decision. Cuts down on time it takes to make final decision on reaching out to ref. Still takes more time than scenario 1.
See above.
Or you could continue to moan about the implementation as it spreads in the sport and changes it, for better or worse.
For some reason we've decided that speaking about it non-stop on a forum is the best way to spend our time. Since we're doing that, I'm not sure why you think football would be immune to benchmarked standards from other sports regarding VAR, when it has readily implemented other sectors (commercialization, financing, etc)
You can have multiple people in the room without bickering. If there is clear disagreement, let the ref know that the video evidence is inconclusive.
Person 1: Penalty
Person 2: Not penalty
Person 3: Penalty
Person 4: Not penalty
Director: Ref, make the call. Video evidence inconclusive.
What the hell about that constitutes bickering?
I see so your suggestion of how to speed things up is rather than having one person give their opinion to the referee, you have several?
Are they all to talk at once, you know, for optimum speed?
Just think about what your saying. You're arguing that one person giving his opinion is going to take more time than 'multiple people' giving their opinion 'simultaneously'. You can only hear one person talk at any one time. Even if the people in the room give their opinion to the one bloke who talks to the ref that's still taking longer than just having one bloke decide and talk to the ref.
Your 'solutions' seem more bonkers and time consuming that the current situation where one of the biggest complaints is the time it takes for everything to happen.
"How do you shorten the time it takes for one person to watch footage on a screen, make a decision and feed his view back the referee?"
- You have multiple people watch footage on a screen, make a decision and feed it back to the referee simultaneously.
.....great. Although I'd suggest a misunderstanding of meaning of simultaneous if this proposal is being put forward as a suggestion to shorten the time it takes. It'll take 5 people the same amount of time to watch the replay of an incident as it does one person. Only difference is it'll take longer to collate 5 people's views. Again when the starting point of this suggestion is how we look it making the whole thing work quicker it's quite baffling this is where we are.
Fundamentally it's still X number of people looking at X seconds of footage. The time it takes will ALWAYS be how long it takes X number of people to look at X seconds of footage. Shortening that is simply not possible. Otherwise movies would go twice as quickly if you watched them with someone besides you. That's not how time works.
- You have multiple people watch footage on a screen, make a decision and feed it back to the referee simultaneously.
.....great. Although I'd suggest a misunderstanding of meaning of simultaneous if this proposal is being put forward as a suggestion to shorten the time it takes. It'll take 5 people the same amount of time to watch the replay of an incident as it does one person. Only difference is it'll take longer to collate 5 people's views. Again when the starting point of this suggestion is how we look it making the whole thing work quicker it's quite baffling this is where we are.
Fundamentally it's still X number of people looking at X seconds of footage. The time it takes will ALWAYS be how long it takes X number of people to look at X seconds of footage. Shortening that is simply not possible. Otherwise movies would go twice as quickly if you watched them with someone besides you. That's not how time works.
There are more effective ways to improve officiating. For example, with a bit of investment goal line technology can be translated to offside goals and out of play incidents. Yet there is an insistence on leaving everything down to the referee; when there is no interpretation required for Offside and out of play incidents.
It's almost as if the league specifically want wrong decisions; because it makes the league a bigger attraction.
Every time a goal is scored; there can be a review system in place; because there is a massive window (within the context of computations) because players are celebrating and resetting the game. The same can be for when the ball goes out for a goal kick or throw in where there is generally at least 10 seconds of break; which is more than enough for technology to have an influence.
Instead the authorities decide to implement the most intrusive and referee dependent system, almost as if they want problems to arise.
It's almost as if the league specifically want wrong decisions; because it makes the league a bigger attraction.
Every time a goal is scored; there can be a review system in place; because there is a massive window (within the context of computations) because players are celebrating and resetting the game. The same can be for when the ball goes out for a goal kick or throw in where there is generally at least 10 seconds of break; which is more than enough for technology to have an influence.
Instead the authorities decide to implement the most intrusive and referee dependent system, almost as if they want problems to arise.
Whilst true, do we really want each goal to have to pass a second hurdle of a video verification test? Ruled out because 30 seconds earlier there was holding on the halfway-line that could have been given, the handball the referee missed by the opposite corner flag, shirt pulling that raises questions so best be on the safe side and rule it out? Just think of how may goals direct from corners would be ruled out. Aren't many of them that are scored without some kind of questionable jostling in the box that someone with the responsibility of reviewing the footage couldn't find reason to chalk off for one reason or another
Ignoring the technical arguments I'm not terribly enamoured with a future where each time a goal is scored it's then reviewed thoroughly to see if everything about it was legitimate and above board. Especially when you consider that currently if an offside flag goes up it stops dead the attack, whether given correctly or not. There's no ability to review that. Once you're one-on-one with the keeper and the flag goes up you're not getting that chance back again.
A future where this becomes the norm:
"And the ball is in the net, all eyes now on the referee who'll be getting information from the video assistant to see if everything should stand. This usually takes around 30-70 seconds, depending on how much there is to review. A reminder that Charlton Athletic vs Southend United from League 2 is coming up tomorrow afternoon from 5pm on Sky Football...more information can be found on SkySports.com. And it's Super Sunday this weekend with Newcastle playing host to West Ham....and we're just waiting for confirmation.....and...yes, the goal stands, it's United 1, City 0. A relieved round of applause breaks out at Old Trafford as confirmation the goal was above board, via the video assistant referee"
...isn't a future I want.
Last edited:
I'm not really sure why you seemed to create this slope argument when I never advocated as such. Maybe you misunderstood my post, or just fixated on one sentence and missed the context.
Offside and out of play incidents are not debatable; and the review system I was talking about would deal with those incidents; that are cut and dry. There are countless off side goals scored every season; and quite often you'll get a wrong corner or goal kick given; sometimes these wrongfully given corners lead to goals.
There is no rule; that introducing technology for black and white rules; necessitates technology for grey areas in football. Grey areas in football can be left to officials.
The line I quoted wasn't at all out of context with that entire paragraph, which was:
"Every time a goal is scored; there can be a review system in place; because there is a massive window (within the context of computations) because players are celebrating and resetting the game. The same can be for when the ball goes out for a goal kick or throw in where there is generally at least 10 seconds of break; which is more than enough for technology to have an influence."
In what sense did I miss the context of the post? You can't say that after every goal there is an opportunity to review it because people are celebrating and the game restarting and then suggest that my reply saying I'm not too keen on the idea we take an opportunity to review it after every goal is somehow taking what you've said out of context.
Well it seems you ignored the first paragraph, as well as the post that I specifically clarified the context that you just quoted
Just to make it more clear, the review system I was talking about would only review black and white decisions; so at the moment refs only have access to goal line technology. The review system would give them access to this technology extended to offside goals and out of play incidents.
I am not advocating for reviewing incidents which are open to interpretation; only incidents which are black and white (like the ball crossing a line, or a player being past the furthest defender).
Well it seems you ignored the first paragraph, as well as the post that I specifically clarified the context that you just quoted
The first paragraph was "There are more effective ways to improve officiating. For example, with a bit of investment goal line technology can be translated to offside goals and out of play incidents. Yet there is an insistence on leaving everything down to the referee; when there is no interpretation required for Offside and out of play incidents."
And had absolutely nothing to do with the point I was responding to which was the point you made about being able to review goals because there's a natural pause in play.
If you said: "I hate eggs. And jam is shit"
And my response was: "I disagree I like jam"
..I'm not taking what you say out of context because I didn't mention your views on eggs. That's not what context is. The first paragraph (and subsequent line) of your post I quoted and responded to had absolutely nothing to do with anything.
I've clarified what I said again, and I'll do it one last time. The review system would be for decisions that are not open to interpretation. Which would catch offside goals, as well as goals where the ball went out of play in the same phase of play.
I do not want every type incident to be reviewed after a goal; only offside and out of play, because I agree with what you've said. There are too many things open to interpretation to apply reviewing to everything. Offside and out of play incidents are quick and easy decisions which will not interrupt the game; just like goal line technology is now.
@Oscie I think I've posted before about a speed/accuracy curve. VAR will no doubt make things a little more annoying with regards to the flow of the game. The question is how much of that we want to trade off for better decisions, and where that optimal point is. Is there one? I admit I don't know the answer to that. If there isn't, I'll be the first to call for it's repeal.
There's my olive branch
There's my olive branch
The original proposition was that having more people review the footage will mean it'll be quicker.
1 person watching a 60 second clip takes 60 seconds.
5 people watching a 60 second clip still takes 60 seconds. You don't divide the 60 seconds by 5 and suddenly it takes 5 people 12 seconds to watch something that lasts a minute. It's fine if you think that's what should happen. Having a panel look live at the footage isn't a stupid idea, but in the context of trying to present that as a solution to the complaint that some are unhappy about how long it takes, it's ridiculous.
1 person watching a 60 second clip takes 60 seconds.
5 people watching a 60 second clip still takes 60 seconds. You don't divide the 60 seconds by 5 and suddenly it takes 5 people 12 seconds to watch something that lasts a minute. It's fine if you think that's what should happen. Having a panel look live at the footage isn't a stupid idea, but in the context of trying to present that as a solution to the complaint that some are unhappy about how long it takes, it's ridiculous.
There should be a learning curve, in terms of what things they will look at, what to drop etc... I may be wrong, but you would always expect to see improvements from the first usage.
Last edited by a moderator:
He's spot on on the first part. It solves a problem people have been whipped up into thinking exists. It's quite something that people seem to have convinced themselves that their lives as football fans has been nothing but an endless string of misery and pain as a direct result of egregious refereeing decisions over the years. Aside from the obvious ones (Henry's handball is often cited) I find then when challenged people who've been fans for decades really can't think of more than a very tiny number incidents where there was an outrageous miscarriage of justice that they feel video technology would have prevented from happening.
Not the same as saying bad refereeing decisions don't happen and just because we happen not to recall what they are doesn't change the fact they happened. But for me it is maybe an indicator that we're inflating the problems we think this solves.
Besides everything else, is there really a satisfactory way for even determining when it'd be used quite apart from looking at what impact using it will have. If it's entirely at the referee's discretion then as we've already seen it'll be used simply to avoid making a decision. Authorities can instruct a referee that it's only to be used for big important issues but it'll still be down to the referee to decide on the day what happens. There are lots of things the referees are instructed to do but don't actually apply the letter of the law on. When he gets 8 players screaming in his face that their side should be awarded the throw-in and not the opposition then the temptation to ask the guy who can give the definitive answer is going to be irresistible. Once players know referees have the ability to ask for video recall whether it should be a freekick midway inside their own half or not they well relentlessly put pressure on him to do so.
The other popular suggestion seems to be a series of challenges. 3 per half, or whatever the suggestion is. That's fine if there's a penalty incident that a manager wants to be reviewed, but what if there isn't? It's the 85th minute and Bournemouth are holding out 0-0 at Old Trafford and there hasn't been a incident in the game where Howe has had cause to use his 3 challenges. In that scenario they'll just be used to run down the clock. Instruct players to go down dramatically at the slightest contact, insist upon video review to which he is entitled to ask for. Each time will probably run down more time and sap the momentum away from the home team's push to get a winner in the final few minutes more effectively late time-wasting substitutions.
The other popular suggestion seems to be a series of challenges. 3 per half, or whatever the suggestion is. That's fine if there's a penalty incident that a manager wants to be reviewed, but what if there isn't? It's the 85th minute and Bournemouth are holding out 0-0 at Old Trafford and there hasn't been a incident in the game where Howe has had cause to use his 3 challenges. In that scenario they'll just be used to run down the clock. Instruct players to go down dramatically at the slightest contact, insist upon video review to which he is entitled to ask for. Each time will probably run down more time and sap the momentum away from the home team's push to get a winner in the final few minutes more effectively late time-wasting substitutions.
(Sorry didnt read the whole thread) -
You get 4 substitutions a game instead of 3. If you use one of your VAR calls frivolously or your call is not upheld - you lose a sub slot and can now only make the standard 3.
You get 4 substitutions a game instead of 3. If you use one of your VAR calls frivolously or your call is not upheld - you lose a sub slot and can now only make the standard 3.
For me it's the reward ratio that sucks. Fundamental nature of the game has to be heavily impacted and an additional delay occurred (even if subsequently a way of minimising this is somehow found)in order find a potentially inconclusive way of avoiding those very occasional season-defining refereeing errors.
I don't think the reality or consequence has been considered anywhere near as deeply as it should and instead has been drowned out by the giddy squeals and excitement at the new toy.
I don't think the reality or consequence has been considered anywhere near as deeply as it should and instead has been drowned out by the giddy squeals and excitement at the new toy.
He's nailed nothing but the art of incoherent fluff.
That was actually pretty quick.
In Bundesliga and especially Seria A decisions have taken as long as five minutes to be reached.
I do not think Southampton would agree that it is useless. They would have won 3 points if VAR was available. Referees are becoming useless and Wenger is right. It is a disgrace to call themselves professionals and make so much mistakes.
Presumably Wenger considers himself a mere amateur at his own job then if the definition of a professional is someone who doesn't make mistakes. It's shocking what happen to Southampton but I still don't think the fundamental change in how the game works, and what it is from a spectators point of view, is worth it just to avoid these kind of mistakes.
How many times is there a suggestion of offside in a goal scored from open play? How many times is there a hint of shenanigans in the box when a goal is scored direct from a corner? Do we really want the ecstasy of a 91st derby winner replaced with a nervous wait for a couple of minutes whilst the video referee reviews the possible offside, an early shirt pulling incident and whether the advancing defender actually handled the ball 45 seconds early in the build-up, before the goal is announced to a smattering of relieved applause?
People really have to think about what the reality of this system is going to be. At the moment all people tend to see is the idea it'll eliminate mistakes and think it's great but without meaning to sound arrogant but I genuinely don't think many people have actually given thought to what this is actually going to end up looking like and doing to the game.
"Beckham, into Sheringham and Solskjaer has....put the ball in the net. It would be a dramatic finish if this goal is allowed to stand. The Bayern bench are frantically signalling they want to use their video replay challenge and understandably so. What happens now is the referee is in communication with the video assistant, who is Gianluca Portcho who is presently sat in a television studio 40 miles away from here tonight..."
Sorry, I don't care how egregious a Watford goal in January is, accuracy is not worth the fundamental kick in the balls to the passion of the game it'll lead to.
Last edited:
As has been pointed out numerous times, it works far, far better in a sport like American football where the average continuous 'playtime' is like 10 seconds and stoppages are constant anyway. Video reviews do not disrupt the flow of the game then because there is no flow of the game.
I agree that it's not really worth it. It simply makes the games shittier to watch and in the end that should be the most important thing. The 'it's a vast business and lots of money depend on correct decisions' angle is quite disheartening; it should still be fun. That's why it became such a big business, after all.
Exactly. If we lose a CL final to a ball that's illegally thrown into the net then nobody's going to pretend we won't feel like shit. But do we really want a remedy to that to be each time the ball hits the net we've got time to nip out for a fag before coming back in at the conclusion of the 3 minute video review process to determine whether it's to be allowed to stand or not.
However else video technology is used, it shouldn't be as a verification tool for goals. Where the game has already stopped, so the referee thinks something is potentially a red card offence, then I guess there's no harm in asking for it to be reviewed. But even then it's only going to be the view of another bloke whose opinion is going to be based on the limited number of angles of the incident he's able to see.
The "passion" side of things that keeps getting mentioned, I find it funny. Like I'm gonna enjoy more getting shafted by a ref than an attempt at getting a call right. It's never an issue unless one is directly concerned.
Equal parts funny and bewildering to me.
Just reallowed a wrongly disallowed goal for Ihavenachos for Leicester. Good stuff.
Let's hope there is a further intervention to correct the decision not to send off Jamie Vardy for being annoying.
Let's hope there is a further intervention to correct the decision not to send off Jamie Vardy for being annoying.
It clearly wasn’t wrongly offside as shown when they showed the replay that The VAR was assessed on with the lines across the pitch.
He was clearly onside so the VAR did the right thing. The assistant ref initially disallowed the goal for offside but because it was close it was referred by the ref. If you saw something else I question your eyesight or maybe agenda.
Unfortunately the VAR did not correct the Vardy indecision from the ref.
Maybe you should question your own eye sight, agenda or reading level and re read what I wrote which agrees that the VAR got it right in response to somebody who said it had got it wrong.
Er no mate. I said it corrected a wrongly disallowed goal. Try reading it again.
Haha. Maybe I should get my eye sight tested after all.
You need your own VAR system
Anyway this shows it can really help. Only took around 30 seconds to uphold a perfectly good goal that would otherwise not have stood. Surely this has to be a good thing.
Hope it is fully adopted in the PL soon.
great for the game i think
Wait, so hold on here... what if the Defenders and Goalie alike see the Assistant raise the flag and stop playing, striker goes onto score... VAR interjects and deems the Assistant was wrong... do they give the goal when everybody has clearly stopped playing?
i mean in the video shown, the assistant raised the flag way too late anyway and was obviously wrong but the above scenario has happened many times before.
i mean in the video shown, the assistant raised the flag way too late anyway and was obviously wrong but the above scenario has happened many times before.