Wait, what? The London VAR team? So all VAR decisions, regardless of where the game is being played, will come from some refs sitting watching the game on TV in London? That surely can't be right?I honestly have no idea where you're going with all your talk of popularity, growth. Football isn't going anywhere. It's like saying the iPhone 1 was a massive hit, no need to improve it leave it as it is.
You're saying "The change could be for better or worse and is still to be determined.". Ok then let's see if your opinion has changed in any way at the end of next season or the following one if we account for a season for the referees & players to get used to it.
But that's the actual purpose of the system. It's designed to do this one thing and it's doing it. Turn it around, do you think the current system is "good for the game" ? Or are you going to harp back about "we need to improve the referees" ?
I still don't understand how you can put your little belly feelings above what's right for the game, the players and the hundreds of people working hard all year long to achieve their goals.
Would you have gone face to face to any Spurs player or staff member on Wednesday night, to tell them about how great the flow of the game was just after they were knocked out to an offside goal ? (I would have loved to btw but would probably have left with fewer teeths)
Improving the system to reduce the time it takes to review, judge and deliver the decision will alleviate some of your concern. And that's what everyone should be talking about instead of wasting time trying to resist the change.
And talking about improving the system, i just came upon a tweet about a segment on bein with Keys and Gray. They're saying that Mike Riley will not let the referee have a check on a pitch-side monitor. He will only have the VAR decision given to him by the London VAR Team and wil have to apply it.
Add that to last season's rule that staff can have a tablet to check the video and you're basically creating a toxic environment for no reason.
It's like they want it to fail and/or create controversy.
VAR - Not the hero we want, the one we need
- Thread starter Pavl3n
- Start date
I think they're using the WC model where the VAR was in Moscow throughout the tournament or am i talking rubbish ? I tried looking how it works for other leagues:
France: Team in a van in the stadium, Germany: team based in Cologne, Liga: team based in Madrid, Serie A: ???
The issue is that the PL would be the only one stripping the ref off the possibility of having a look himself.
They have to be making this one up, surely -
.Still the Official top-knobs know more than us, innit?
#EnglandRuinsVAR
It was a very tight offside a long time back in the build up- I doubt any Spurs fan would have even known it was offside so doubtful they’d be that upset-but of course we have to have outrage with everything now.I honestly have no idea where you're going with all your talk of popularity, growth. Football isn't going anywhere. It's like saying the iPhone 1 was a massive hit, no need to improve it leave it as it is.
You're saying "The change could be for better or worse and is still to be determined.". Ok then let's see if your opinion has changed in any way at the end of next season or the following one if we account for a season for the referees & players to get used to it.
But that's the actual purpose of the system. It's designed to do this one thing and it's doing it. Turn it around, do you think the current system is "good for the game" ? Or are you going to harp back about "we need to improve the referees" ?
I still don't understand how you can put your little belly feelings above what's right for the game, the players and the hundreds of people working hard all year long to achieve their goals.
Would you have gone face to face to any Spurs player or staff member on Wednesday night, to tell them about how great the flow of the game was just after they were knocked out to an offside goal ? (I would have loved to btw but would probably have left with fewer teeths
Improving the system to reduce the time it takes to review, judge and deliver the decision will alleviate some of your concern. And that's what everyone should be talking about instead of wasting time trying to resist the change.
And talking about improving the system, i just came upon a tweet about a segment on bein with Keys and Gray. They're saying that Mike Riley will not let the referee have a check on a pitch-side monitor. He will only have the VAR decision given to him by the London VAR Team and wil have to apply it.
Add that to last season's rule that staff can have a tablet to check the video and you're basically creating a toxic environment for no reason.
It's like they want it to fail and/or create controversy.
I don’t know what ‘belly feelings mean?’ Anyway it’s sport, it’s for enjoyment & the love of the game. So quite frankly I don’t care how hard they work- that’s the game. Do you then think if someone scores from a throw in taken in the wrong place we should replay the game? Aw bless them they’ve worked so hard!
VAR won’t get quicker- as literally it’s someone else looking at a replay. If anything it will be more stoppages with more incidents looked at. Please explain how var can ever get quicker?
If you wanted to play devil's advocate you could make an argument saying that if the game was officiated with VAR with fairness being no 1 then the game would've been even more popular because the 'villains' of the game who cheat their way to success might drive people away from the sport.
I mean, how many non-football fans look at Neymar and the likes and think "yeah, that's my guy"?
More than those who look at him and say "what a fanny, how is he not carried off the pitch by both teams?"?
I don't think so, but that's just like my opinion, man.
VAR isn’t going to change players rolling around on the floor at slightest contact. In fact it’ll probably increase that as they can have a slight brush off someone, fall over & have VAR look at it in slow motion & award a pen. There will be more pens given for less contact now with VAR- great for Neymar
You mean like Neymar in the WC? Where he did exactly that and had the penalty chalked off? I've not seen many such incidents since VAR came in, have you?
Yea I don’t think it will create more of it, and I think the major risk is that it will remove too much of it. Remove too much of the dark element and the focus of the story becomes too narrow, as in who wins and who loses.
That’s irrelevant to the claim made, which was that “after a few years it has become an annoyance”.
Which is blantantly untrue.
It’s not irrelevant at all to the claim ‘var isn’t good for football ‘
Also I know some nfl fans hate video replays anyway
Absolutely, if my club missed out on the biggest club competition semi-final on a referee mistake i would not be "that upset", i'd give myself a scratch maybe a yawn and go on with my day. Aren't you the one talking about losing emotion ?
You don't care about the feelings of the actual actors of the game you love and yet you act like the defender of the game's values ? Weird. You keep trying to extrapolate everything based on absolutely nothing. "Same sex marriage ? What's next ? Marrying your dog ?"
At least @ForestRGoinUp says that he doesn't know if it will be a good thing or not; you seem to know the future and already have the answers. Good for you but if you don't mind i'll stay in the present time, watch it unfold and then make my own opinion.
It's been shown that VAR reduced play-acting, and players arguing with the referees but that would fall in the "Stats, stats, stats..." category and you don't want to hear none of that.
Meanwhile the rest of the country is celebrating the NFL deciding to add pass interference to the list of things eligible for video review.
I think we can agree, the “it’s an annoyance” bit was plucked right out of thin air (not by you, mind you) to attempt to make a point.
Back to this...
I was asked to “quantify” VAR’s impact on the leagues it has been implemented in already. So, yes. Stats.
Come on , bud. Goodell and the league have been looking for ways to shorten game time as well as "flat air" time for more than a decade. Replay review has been a major part of that. in fact (fact not belly feelings) he shortened review times from 90 to 60 seconds. Tell me, oh mighty NFL honk, would he do that for no reason?
Go read some stuff, spend some time forming a better opinion and come on back when you're ready to put up a fight here.
You realize this plan was put in place after the 2016 season, right?
Again, this past year the league added pass interference to the replay review list with all by 1 NFL team voting for the rule change, and that’s just because of decorum, because the Bengals have always voted against instant replay.
So 2 years ago they shortened the review time, meaning they made it more efficient - improved it even - by just having the official use a Surface tablet to review the play instead of taking the time to run across the field to the video hood, and this past year the list of things open to review has grown.
Sounds to me like the NFL values instant replay and is constantly looking for ways to improve it because it is good for the game.
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but that has to be the most stupid thing I've ever seen written. The whole purpose of VAR is to make sure important, game changing decisions are correct, none of this romanticism crap just because that's the way it's always been.
Change like this is good so, sorry dinosaurs, I truly hope it's here to stay.
Ok so if it’s all about accuracy can you please respond to the second paragraph which you’ve conviniently not responded to.
If it’s all about accuracy let’s review everything shall we?
I love how pro var people say those against it are dinosaurs haha. Technology is great in lots of areas of life- Doesn’t mean it’s suitable for football..
I suspect it’s becyase it’s a shiny new toy and want to look cool . Rather than look & see if the costy/benefit is worth it.
The 'romanticism crap' or the 'way it's always been' is the reason you're a fan today.
Tell me there is no risk in letting ignorance like that dictate where the sport goes from here...wow.
If you could read properly, you would see I said it's to make potentially game changing decisions correct, not whether Little johnny was the one the ball came off on the half-way line.
Of course technology is good for football, VAR and goal-line technology are making games more accurate which, despite it's detractors, IS a good thing.
So? Just because it''s always been that way still doesn't make it right. What risk? Why is using technology to get a decision right a risk? Surely it's a fundamental of any sport that decisions should be correct?
Game changing decisions could be literally anything. There was the game recently with Ajax - great goal scored but went to review as they were checking if the ball was 1mm out near the half way line 5 mins before. Maybe that came off little Jonny .
I never said goal line technology was bad. I’m all for that- it’s instant & not debatable.
VAR isn’t & causes as many problems as it solves.
I mean what I've been trying to say, and not sure how it can be denied, is that sports are fundamentally built on sets of people making decisions, decisions that can be right or wrong. Wrong decisions play as big a role as right decisions. Always have, that's the formula.
What instant replay is attempting to do is to make one of those sets of people (the officials) always right. That is a fundamental change to the sport. My opinion is that it will lead to a less entertaining product.
It's not exactly the same of course, but arguing for it is akin to saying the good guy should always come out on top in films and TV, which is boring.
You realize the rules of football are constantly changing, including completely game changing stuff like the back pass rule and offside?
There isn't really a way it's always been, it's constantly evolving.
I'm saying this about the general direction of travel of football & it includes the widening gap between the Oil Clubs & the more minnowy clubs they play. And harps back to my claim about possibly over-favouring attackers & now VAR about to get stuck in as well.
1 - it's all making it harder for the less good teams, to defend particularly
2 - just a wild & whacky prediction - there's going to be a 14-0 or 16-0 really silly scoreline at some point, when circumstances combine, red card, couple of penalties whatever
Last edited:
When did I mention the rules? I said that the sport is fundamentally built on the sets of professionals making decisions - right or wrong. And then I said this is an attempt to keep some of those decisions from ever being wrong. Never mentioned rules...
Anti-VAR people remind me of people who don't "want" the Police but will call the cops like scared teenagers whenever there's trouble or when looking for justice.
Pro-VAR people remind me of people who want everyone ticketed for speeding if they go past the limit at all. Except they don’t really want that and are just too thick to realize.
Yeah, I guess you prefer the good old days when the TV replays showed a blatant handball or penalty but the referee failed to see it.
The Pro VARs have discovered God & want everyone else to believe.
That's a fair point,
.We're gonna sell VAR to Sentinelese!
Between seeking for an improvement that won't still make football mistake free and keeping it as is ? Long live VAR
OK, if I really went for this I could assemble an argument that would say you are only replacing one lottery with another lottery.
Say a 5 star lottery like it is now being replaced with a 2-3 star lottery let's say. A reasonable improvement.
That star improvement has costs for me, I recognise the improvement - eliminate whopper errors, improved player behaviour probably, being the major ones.
Major costs: a more broken-up game (it's got far too faffy already - if you can't play get off the fecking pitch (I just wanted to say that,
) and time wasting substitutions in the last 10 minutes. They can go, as well.And then how the game gets played with VAR in place, less good teams rely on the 'dark arts' I'm afraid. And getting lucky. I sense that some of you aren't bothered about that, which I think is a shame, but fair enough, I don't have a strong argument against it.
As for implementation, I think the Utd PSG penalty works quite well - someone says to the ref, there is something we've all missed here, & the VAR sorts it out. I also think the referee ought to be able to ask for help. Both of these things, and it has to be a 2 way operation. I think it also rules out the challenge idea - which will eventually result in a 'whopper' being missed, thereby defeating the whole object if you want it done properly.
I still say ALL goals ought to get checked, penalties & as I've said this accursed offside rule, without casually dismissing as too old anything over 10 seconds old. I think this is difficult. For example, I might want the offside (it's a turnover of possession) - I'm definitely not getting that so I want it for goals which happen in the same passge of play - these can be quite long, it's starting to get over complicated. So I'm getting a fairer game for everything except offsides.
Even just the above stuff is quite a lot of checking. Is anyone going to say, you don't have to check everything? That rather eats away at the 2 star lottery improvement we just theoretically established.
However, if you don't do it for offside I personally start to dislike VAR again. Based mainly on my hatred of the randomness of the current offside/onside situation rather than VAR. Illogical possibly I suppose.
So, let's have an imaginary game that has a score of 2-2 at halftime & has had 2 penalty appeals as well. A proper thriller.
2 minutes apiece for each VAR, the time is added back, so that's another 12 minutes, it's not the same 12 minutes obviously. 2 minutes of standard additional time, because of the goals. And I think that's a half of football lasting 71 minutes. But's it's fair-ish. More than it was before.
They would be my general objections, packaged up as semi-ridiculously but not totally outrageously as I could manage. Obviously it's not all the time. But defending is going to get terribly difficult for the less good sides. But again, I'm sensing that a lot of you aren't bothered about this. Which I don't agree with, but is a valid point of view.
I suspect we're just going to say ''any VAR is better than no VAR'' - which is clearly not the case I don't think.
Why wouldn't we be bothered by this ? We're not that good anyway. A balance has to be found between checking for every single incident and the most controversial/important ones. At least something is being attempted to bring a little more fairness to games. I'm all for that, what will happen in the future is anybody's guessOK, if I really went for this I could assemble an argument that would say you are only replacing one lottery with another lottery.
Say a 5 star lottery like it is now being replaced with a 2-3 star lottery let's say. A reasonable improvement.
That star improvement has costs for me, I recognise the improvement - eliminate whopper errors, improved player behaviour probably, being the major ones.
Major costs: a more broken-up game (it's got far too faffy already - if you can't play get off the fecking pitch (I just wanted to say that,
And then how the game gets played with VAR in place, less good teams rely on the 'dark arts' I'm afraid. And getting lucky. I sense that some of you aren't bothered about that, which I think is a shame, but fair enough, I don't have a strong argument against it.
As for implementation, I think the Utd PSG penalty works quite well - someone says to the ref, there is something we've all missed here, & the VAR sorts it out. I also think the referee ought to be able to ask for help. Both of these things, and it has to be a 2 way operation. I think it also rules out the challenge idea - which will eventually result in a 'whopper' being missed, thereby defeating the whole object if you want it done properly.
I still say ALL goals ought to get checked, penalties & as I've said this accursed offside rule, without casually dismissing as too old anything over 10 seconds old. I think this is difficult. For example, I might want the offside (it's a turnover of possession) - I'm definitely not getting that so I want it for goals which happen in the same passge of play - these can be quite long, it's starting to get over complicated. So I'm getting a fairer game for everything except offsides.
Even just the above stuff is quite a lot of checking. Is anyone going to say, you don't have to check everything? That rather eats away at the 2 star lottery improvement we just theoretically established.
However, if you don't do it for offside I personally start to dislike VAR again. Based mainly on my hatred of the randomness of the current offside/onside situation rather than VAR. Illogical possibly I suppose.
So, let's have an imaginary game that has a score of 2-2 at halftime & has had 2 penalty appeals as well. A proper thriller.
2 minutes apiece for each VAR, the time is added back, so that's another 12 minutes, it's not the same 12 minutes obviously. 2 minutes of standard additional time, because of the goals. And I think that's a half of football lasting 71 minutes. But's it's fair-ish. More than it was before.
They would be my general objections, packaged up as semi-ridiculously but not totally outrageously as I could manage. Obviously it's not all the time. But defending is going to get terribly difficult for the less good sides. But again, I'm sensing that a lot of you aren't bothered about this. Which I don't agree with, but is a valid point of view.
I suspect we're just going to say ''any VAR is better than no VAR'' - which is clearly not the case I don't think.
I wasn't snarking. I thought the appeal of more attacking action & goals would supersede. And it's the same at both ends for the three times, Bitcrap FC get up there.
It will be more difficult to get away with shit defending (holding shirts and arms etc) that the ref might miss today but that will be the same for all teams, the difference is that smaller teams usually defend more often than big teams so they will most likely get punished more for it because of that. Although I don't know how good of an argument it is to claim that it's unfair against small teams because they can't break the rules as often as the big teams anymore.
On the other hand we all know that big teams have always had 50/50 decisions go their way much more often compared to small teams, be it penalties or yellow/red cards. Pretty much every time an away player falls in the box at Old Trafford, Allianz Arena, Camp Nou etc and the ref waives play on everyone always says how impossible it is for small teams to get penalties away from home to big teams, how unfair it is and that the refs doesn't want to get in the way of the big teams, and it's all true imo. That might not go away 100% even with VAR but it will definitely make it a whole lot better.
It will take few seasons until the VAR is fully tested and used. It will be a trial-error implementation.
The bad part of the VAR birth is that there are no guidelines / directives / rules set from UEFA to create a base of standard way to use the VAR, and from there implement and keep making improvements.
Instead of that, UEFA have kept themselves at margin as nothing has to do with them, despite being the associations who are responsible for the sport and making a minimalist use of the VAR on the european cup games, which are not contributing much.
And instead of having uniform rule set / guidelines, we are experiencing a series of experimental implementations all over the world where every country makes it their own way.
What could had been a joint experience made by several leagues where they could share the "bugs", difficulties, exploits, ways to improve and other statistics, had become a "race" to the gold to see "if it works".
This is causing a lot of entropy in the VAR system worldwide.
The bad part of the VAR birth is that there are no guidelines / directives / rules set from UEFA to create a base of standard way to use the VAR, and from there implement and keep making improvements.
Instead of that, UEFA have kept themselves at margin as nothing has to do with them, despite being the associations who are responsible for the sport and making a minimalist use of the VAR on the european cup games, which are not contributing much.
And instead of having uniform rule set / guidelines, we are experiencing a series of experimental implementations all over the world where every country makes it their own way.
What could had been a joint experience made by several leagues where they could share the "bugs", difficulties, exploits, ways to improve and other statistics, had become a "race" to the gold to see "if it works".
This is causing a lot of entropy in the VAR system worldwide.
This scenario is an exageration though, even if VAR checks every goal, most goals have nothing suspicious about them and are instantly given by the ref.
Just watching Dortmund v Schalke where a shot hits a defenders arm in a seemingly natural position.
I dont like VAR, but if its gonna be implemented at least dont let it be a lot of penalties like this, or like how it was used in the World Cup for hand balls.
Anyone knows if this new rule about a natural zone around the body will help with this?
I dont like VAR, but if its gonna be implemented at least dont let it be a lot of penalties like this, or like how it was used in the World Cup for hand balls.
Anyone knows if this new rule about a natural zone around the body will help with this?
Is there any video (gif?) of that handball, saw it mentioned in Bundesliga thread as well.