VAR - Not the hero we want, the one we need

[sullydnl]

What's the point if the ref is going to pussy out anyway? That was a Red for Jara IMO, I've seen softer elbows in the UFC
Takes way too long, the video referee should be able to make the decision and the main ref accepts it rather than the main referee going to see for himself.

100%. I don't think the referee should even have input to the decision given he's getting crowded by players and staff on the sideline. If it goes to the video assistant, the video assistant makes the call as per the rules and relays that to the referee. Less delay, better decisions.

 

[Oscie]

The system we've seen in this tournament doesn't work well enough, true. That isn't an argument against VAR in general though.

No but it is an argument against the apparent prevailing narrative that we apply it immediately and then expect some how it will work itself out eventually

 

[sullydnl]

No but it is an argument against the apparent prevailing narrative that we apply it immediately and then expect some how it will work itself out eventually

Definitely. It needs to be thought out a lot more than it apparently has been. There are seperate but related issues that play into it too, like the crowding of the ref by players/staff and the inability to hear what the referee is saying.

 

[Adam-Utd]

VAR is fine if used correctly, but this tournament has shown it needs fine tuning.

Still though it relies on referees to make the correct decision, and unfortunately the refs are making big mistakes even with the ability of a replay.

I'm sure eventually it'll be smooth as silk but they need to go away and get a few things sorted before it's ready.

 

[Suedesi]

VAR worked. The serbian ref was a pussy and a disgrace.

 

[acnumber9]

100%. I don't think the referee should even have input to the decision given he's getting crowded by players and staff on the sideline. If it goes to the video assistant, the video assistant makes the call as per the rules and relays that to the referee. Less delay, better decisions.

Then you have zero consistency in decisions at all. Two different people will apply the rules differently.

 

[sullydnl]

Then you have zero consistency in decisions at all. Two different people will apply the rules differently.

So? Any inconsistency already exists given different referees will interpret things in different ways. The decisions would just be made by someone removed from the fray and with the benefit of watching the incident repeatedly from different angles.

The red card decision today was as easy a call as many that get made using vt in rugby with little fuss.

 

[gaucho_10]

Crap system. They should give each team one challenge in each half, make it a tactical addition to the game.

 

[Oscie]

The whole thing seems destined to result in fewer goals. Even under the proposals that some have put forward where they are suggesting that each team has a certain number of challenges per match there'll be used 99% of the time on goals. I don't really want football to be where every single goal has to pass a second hurdle of video review where everything from possibility of shirt pulling off side to infringement earlier on in the process of play can result in a goal being disallowed.

The incentive is there to appeal against every single goal. Why would you not? Your team has just gone one nil down there's nothing evidently wrong with the goal that's been scored but who knows why not chance your arm and hope the video replay shows a tug of the shirt or something reasonably innocuous earlier on in the passage of play

 

[acnumber9]

So? Any inconsistency already exists given different referees will interpret things in different ways. The decisions would just be made by someone removed from the fray and with the benefit of watching the incident repeatedly from different angles.

The red card decision today was as easy a call as many that get made using vt in rugby with little fuss.

It's not exactly a fair way to ref a game. A different standard could be applied to the same kind of decisions dependant on whether you were the lucky enough to have yours spotted by the soft ref. It's not really solving a problem if it just creates another.

 

[Sylar]

Its the first iteration and needs ironing out, but overall in the long term I think its the right way to go about it.

Just need to cut out some of the stuff:
-time taken could and should be cut significantly if the 4th or 5th official watches it, tells the ref and that decision is final (would take about 10-15 seconds max)
-Teams have one challenge per half (will stop players always crowding refs and doing the square motion to check the tv)
-Maybe even have the ref mic'd to explain the outcome so the crowd in the stadium as well as at home know why the decision has been made.

 

[sullydnl]

It's not exactly a fair way to ref a game. A different standard could be applied to the same kind of decisions dependant on whether you were the lucky enough to have yours spotted by the soft ref. It's not really solving a problem if it just creates another.

Different standards are already applied from game to game though. It's not creating a new problem, it's just continuing a problem that will always exist irrespective of whether we have VAR or not. That isn't something VAR can or is even supposed to resolve.

 

[acnumber9]

Different standards are already applied from game to game though. It's not creating a new problem, it's just continuing a problem that will always exist irrespective of whether we have VAR or not. That isn't something VAR can or is even supposed to resolve.

Yeah but at least in the one game it's the same person making the decision. What you have here is two different people who may apply the rules differently.

 

[sewey89]

The two pro-VAR arguments are "it won't take very long to make a decision" and "every decision will be correct".

Both were made a mockery of in the game tonight.

Implementation needs a huge overhaul. It simply doesn't work in the current format.

 

[sullydnl]

Yeah but at least in the one game it's the same person making the decision. What you have here is two different people who may apply the rules differently.

In reality a referee without VAR will already often trust the decision his assistants make. There's no difference here except the video assistant being in a far better position to make a correct decision.

I don't see any issue at all with more than one person making decisions, especially if the standard of decision making increases as a result.

 

[acnumber9]

In reality a referee without VAR will already often trust the decision his assistants make. There's no difference here except the video assistant being in a far better position to make a correct decision.

I don't see any issue at all with more than one person making decisions, especially if the standard of decision making increases as a result.

Offsides aside it's rare a linesman makes any decisions that really affect the game. That wouldn't be the case with your proposal. And the ref always has the right to overrule if they feel the linesman is wrong about even that.

 

[sullydnl]

The two pro-VAR arguments are "it won't take very long to make a decision" and "every decision will be correct".

Both were made a mockery of in the game tonight.

Implementation needs a huge overhaul. It simply doesn't work in the current format.

"Every decision will be correct" isn't an argument of any supporter of VAR who understands how sport works. "Better decisions will be made" is. You're never going to have perfection though, no matter what version of the system you implement.

 

[sullydnl]

Offsides aside it's rare a linesman makes any decisions that really affect the game. That wouldn't be the case with your proposal. And the ref always has the right to overrule if they feel the linesman is wrong about even that.

Again, I don't see the problem with the referee not making every single decision. A video assistant would obviously be in a position to make a better call so why have the referee overrule him?

 

[Big Ben Foster]

Tinfoil theory: FIFA intentionally botched the VAR implementation so they'd have a good excuse to not use it going forward.

 

[acnumber9]

Again, I don't see the problem with the referee not making every single decision. A video assistant would obviously be in a position to make a better call so why have the referee overrule him?

They would lose any control of the game if any decision they make can just be overruled. The big problem with it comes with when it's used. Who decides what is important enough to have the video ref make the decision? If the video ref is making the calls then is the guy on the pitch just there to relay the message?

 

[sullydnl]

They would lose any control of the game if any decision they make can just be overruled. The big problem with it comes with when it's used. Who decides what is important enough to have the video ref make the decision? If the video ref is making the calls then is the guy on the pitch just there to relay the message?

Why would shared responsibility be a problem in football but not rugby? The influence of vt doesn't undermine the referee in that sport even though these issues should be shared by both.

 

[Oscie]

I don't see how these issues can be ironed out, in all honesty. They seem to be destined to be part and parcel of the package and football has to decide if it's worth it or not. At the end of the day someone has to review footage and sometimes what happens in footage isn't going to be immediately clear the first, second, third or fourth time of viewing.

Unless the plan is to invent a human who can simultaneously watch 4 different angles of the same incident in a nano-second then I can't really see on what basis people are claiming these issues will be ironed out.

It isn't this magic bullet that people hoped it would be. It's been used in a handful of games and thrown up nearly as many problems. I really can't be arsed with 360 incidents a season if it's in the PL.

 

[acnumber9]

Why would shared responsibility be a problem in football but not rugby? The influence of vt doesn't undermine the referee in that sport even though these issues should be shared by both.

I don't watch rugby so I couldn't tell you. Are the calls that are made in rugby often as contentious as they are in football? Who decides whether to use the video and who has last say? I googled video ref rugby and this was one of the top entries.

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-leag...-ref-in-rugby-league-has-reached-a-crossroads

Is it really all singing, all dancing?

 

[sullydnl]

I don't see how these issues can be ironed out, in all honesty. They seem to be destined to be part and parcel of the package and football has to decide if it's worth it or not. At the end of the day someone has to review footage and sometimes what happens in footage isn't going to be immediately clear the first, second, third or fourth time of viewing.

Unless the plan is to invent a human who can simultaneously watch 4 different angles of the same incident in a nano-second then I can't really see on what basis people are claiming these issues will be ironed out.

They can certainly be improved on though. There's no reason for the referee to have watch the video himself on the sideline, for example. Having someone else relay the decision to him would have immediately sped up today's incident.

 

[Oscie]

They can certainly be improved on though. There's no reason for the referee to have watch the video himself on the sideline, for example. Having someone else relay the decision to him would have immediately sped up today's incident.

There could be. If the video official isn't sure, it make sense for there to be a second opinion and for that opinion to be the referees. Already the referee communicates with the linesman when he gives a decision, doesn't purely take his word for it. See it all the time, linesman spots something, referee goes and has a chat, they discuss it and referee makes a judgement call.

Always thought the video replay idea was a horrible, horrible fit for football.

We've all grown up where for an hour and ten minutes on Saturday night TV there's 4 or 5 incidents a game where two people watch the same footage and come to two different conclusions. Few instances are clear cut. Even those that are, they might'd be immediately clear cut, depending on what angles you see first. In the main video technology seems incompatible with football because most of the time it's a question of judgement, not fact:

Did he get more of the ball than the man?
Was it ball to hand?
Could he have stayed on his feet?

I find it ludicrous that anyone thinks one bloke with one angle can make a decision and have it be definitive whilst also simultaneously taking absolutely no time at all to do it.

 

[sullydnl]

I don't watch rugby so I couldn't tell you. Are the calls that are made in rugby often as contentious as they are in football? Who decides whether to use the video and who has last say? I googled video ref rugby and this was one of the top entries.

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-leag...-ref-in-rugby-league-has-reached-a-crossroads

Is it really all singing, all dancing?

The referee makes the call to bring in the TMO. The referee is officially the final decision maker but in effect follows the TMO's lead. Which would be great in football too if you could stop players/staff from crowding the referee and putting undue pressure on him.

Rugby is a very different sport to football but an incident like today's is no more contentious than yellow/red card incidents in rugby.

Is it all-singing all-dancing? No. It has resulted in a far higher standard of officiating though.

There could be. If the video official isn't sure, it make sense for there to be a second opinion and for that opinion to be the referees. Already the referee communicates with the linesman when he gives a decision, doesn't purely take his word for it. See it all the time, linesman spots something, referee goes and has a chat, they discuss it and referee makes a judgement call.

Always thought the video replay idea was a horrible, horrible fit for football.

We've all grown up where for an hour and ten minutes on Saturday night TV there's 4 or 5 incidents a game where two people watch the same footage and come to two different conclusions. Few instances are clear cut. Even those that are, they might'd be immediately clear cut, depending on what angles you see first. In the main video technology seems incompatible with football because most of the time it's a question of judgement, not fact:

Did he get more of the ball than the man?
Was it ball to hand?
Could he have stayed on his feet?

I find it ludicrous that anyone thinks one bloke with one angle can make a decision and have it be definitive whilst also simultaneously taking absolutely no time at all to do it.

There are many incidents in rugby that aren't clear cut either. It doesn't change the fact that someone with vt is in a better position to make a good decision than someone without it. VAR doesn't promise to remove all subjectivity, just to provide better conditions for those subjective decisions to be made.

As for the bold: Nobody says it will take no time at all, just that the level of disruption can be reduced from what we've seen in this tournament and that it will be worth it given it will inevitably result in a higher (though not perfect) standard of decision-making. Far less ludicrous than expecting one bloke to make definitive decisions using just the naked eye.

 

[sewey89]

"Every decision will be correct" isn't an argument of any supporter of VAR who understands how sport works. "Better decisions will be made" is. You're never going to have perfection though, no matter what version of the system you implement.

If it's going to be brought in permanently, then i'd want a 99% success rate. If you're stopping the game to make a decision, then you need to get the correct decision, IMO.

How that one yesterday was concluded to be a yellow card, I have absolutely no idea.

 

[Oscie]

In fairness to the system, punishable offences often aren't matters of fact but matters of opinion. Most of the time anyway. Therein lies the problem. It's more often than not a judgement call that I think some people labour under the misapprehension will suddenly become crystallised if someone watches it on video. Two people could see the same incident and come to two different conclusions. In fact they often do as anyone who's watched any football punditry on TV, or frankly discussed football with anyone ever, will attest.

Calls often aren't 'did the ball cross the line?', which only has one of two answers.

My view is you can't use it as the definitive arbitrator of judgement call decisions, and I don't want it used as a way to effectively check the fine-print of a goal in order to find some reason to disallow it ("Yes the ball did cross the line, but if you notice 59 seconds earlier the full back who delivered the cross actually lost possession and regained it illegally by clearly tugging the shirt of the opposition player, which the referee didn't see, therefore -disallowed").


I can't think of a positive.

 

[Trizy]

They should just do it like rugby and let a third party make the decision. Similar to BT? And Howard Webb. It's too slow at the moment.

Also what kinda decision was that elbow? Clear red all day.

 

[Parry Gallister]

I want VAR to be a thing, but before being impletemented it needs to improve. If it's implemented like this, it will kill the sport. The fact that so many top leagues have accepted to use it already is unbelievable and I wouldn't be surprised if next season after a couple of weeks most fans will turn against it.

I'll quote a post from the Confederations Cup since it's exactly how I feel:



The problem with the current implementation isn't in the goals that are ruled out offside. It's the correct goals that are the problem because if this is implemented like this you won't be able to celebrate goals anymore. Neutrals are looking at it and thinking it's fair and it works great but when your team is involved you will absolutely hate it as everytime the balls goes in you'll have doubts on the back of your mind and you won't be able to celebrate your team scoring a goal until a minute later. The ectasy of celebrating a goal completely disappears if the decision takes that long. Until they can reduce the time of the decisions from 1 minute to 2 or 3 seconds, VAR should not be used to review goals.

After this, there's also two other problems: as we saw in Club World Cup or in the U20 World Cup, it will not be completely accurate. The controversy in the game will be smaller, but it won't go extinct. When the ref messes up even after VAR there will be even more outrage. And the other problem is that the ref is the one deciding when to use the technology, which will mean there will be times where he'll make the wrong decision and not call it (tonight Cameroon should have been 1-0 up against Chile for example) and times where he'll call it too many times when he really shouldn't, slowing the pace of the game down.

In my opinion, VAR should be used for penalties and red cards. For reviewing goals, until they manage to reduce it to 2 or 3 seconds it should not be used. I also think before implementing it in the big leagues they should at least experiment the tennis challenge system with some kind of rules to prevent time wasting. VAR is a good idea and I'm all for having a fairer sport but the fact it's being implemented as soon as next season in many top leagues without barely any experimentation or improvements is a disgrace and it will end with most fans turning against it

.

Yep, hard to argue against it in principle (I don't want it but accept I'm a luddite) but it's not there yet in the current format, should be rolling it out for cards only until the speed is there.

 

[ArmandTamzarian]

Tinfoil theory: FIFA intentionally botched the VAR implementation so they'd have a good excuse to not use it going forward.

I gotta admit that thought did enter my mind and if Blatter was still in charge It would have more weight but Infantino has been pushing for this pretty hard. It's just a case of this being the first time its been used so it needs a little tweaking & ironing out and good old human error has played a part too.

 

[SteveTheRed]

VAR is a good idea badly implemented at this moment. But FIFA and the top organisations need to accept that the level of refereeing is subpar for how big the sport of football is!

That elbow decision last night summed it up. How does it become a yellow card?

 

[OnlyTwoDaSilvas]

I do think there needs to be a video referee, and not just video replays available for the on-field referee. That makes the process sluggish. The former appears to be how the majority of other sports operate where VAR is used. A video referee can start reviewing the footage immediately after it's happened. The referee has to wave away protests, get himself to the side of the pitch and then review it. He makes a decision and then continues to be crowded. You've lost minutes.

VAR is necessary IMO, but not as it is being used now. In Rugby League, the referee makes the call on the field based on what he saw, and then he signals the video referee. It is up to the video referee to find something conclusive to overturn it. And you can hear the RL referees as they are mic'd up, so you know what is happening. They often admit that they have great doubt over their own decision, or they feel their view was impeded, but based on all they could see, as well as their instinct, they've made that particular call. If the video ref sees nothing conclusive on the contrary of the on-field decision, then the on-field decision stands. It's quick and it's become so ingrained in to the game that you can't imagine it without it. It works.

This implementation definitely doesn't work and is rather laughable. There just has to be someone between the referee and the VAR.

It could very easily be "I've made this decision. I'm not sure. Over to you". "You're wrong. He's smashed him in the face. Send him off". Red card. Done. Easy. It's a world away from that right now.

 

[El cangrejo]

Refs on the field should only exist to enforce the video ref's decisions. Letting them have the final call was always going to be a daft idea.

 

[El cangrejo]

I don't see how these issues can be ironed out, in all honesty. They seem to be destined to be part and parcel of the package and football has to decide if it's worth it or not. At the end of the day someone has to review footage and sometimes what happens in footage isn't going to be immediately clear the first, second, third or fourth time of viewing.

In which case it's a marginal call and the original decision stands. It's not complicated.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Refs on the field should only exist to enforce the video ref's decisions. Letting them have the final call was always going to be a daft idea.

Exactly

There should be a Video Referee that gives the referee his opinion of an incident.

The refs take advice from the linesmen and make decisions based on their calls, so not sure why he can't do the same from a video ref.

 

[evil_geko]

Of course it needs tuning, did anyone really expect it to be perfect right from the start? It will only get better once everyone gets accustomed to it.

This is a big step in the right direction.

 

[SteveTheRed]

Of course it needs tuning, did anyone really expect it to be perfect right from the start? It will only get better once everyone gets accustomed to it.

This is a big step in the right direction.

Agree, of course it will need tuning. The trouble being when are they going to get accustomed to it, the confederation cup was a great example and I think if you were going to mark it...it's come out 5/10 could do better. There is no way based on the evidence from this tournament that it is ready for the world cup next year. In it's current state, I 100% don't want it at the world cup.

 

[zee.robs]

I was very pro VAR pre ConFedCup. However, VAR wasn't a great success in the tournament. I only watched the German games vs. Cameroon and the Chile final. In both games VAR decisions took too long. Furthermore, there was the big blunder in the GER CAM game, with the ref missing that he booked the wrong player initially. Also he got it right in the end. Furthermore, the ref was pressured into watching a replay by the Chile players towards the end. In general the whole VAR process was not optimal nor was it transparent. This may have been because it was implemented badly, because the refs were prepared badly or because the refs were generally substandard.


Honestly I don’t know whether VAR will be a success in the future and how it should be implemented. A lot of ideas were mentioned to change how VAR should work (external ref making the final call, one or two calls for VAR per team, putting the communication between ref and external refs on speaker for more transparency, giving the ref easier access to the video via a handheld device, etc).


What I don't get, is why FIFA tested this in the ConFedCup. What FIFA should do in my opinion before showcasing it at the world cup is testing various implementations in confined environments and comparing it to how it should work. They should chose some leagues with sufficient infrastructure (like the second leagues in the UEFA Top 6 countries) and check how the different implementations pan out regarding decision making, disruption of the flow of the game and other objectives which haven’t even been discussed (costs, fan acceptance, increase/decrease in interest/value). The testing has to be done over an extended period of time of at least one season, since we haven’t even looked at mid to long term trends yet. Will refs get better using VAR? What will players or coaches do to cheat/game VAR? Will refs change their decision-making (don’t call close offside situations) because they can undo some wrong calls (offside not called wrongly) but can’t undo others (offside called wrongly)? Until different implementations haven’t been tested and compared we can only speculate how each of them would pan out.


If FIFA is really into VAR, presenting such substandard implementation isn’t doing them any good, however.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Yeah but at least in the one game it's the same person making the decision. What you have here is two different people who may apply the rules differently.

Your point is underrated. One mans 50/50 is another mans excessive force.

A red could take a light view of a few challenges as he's there, controlling the game.

55th minute, questionable call, a ref in a room with slow motion replays decrees a red card is needed. Despite it being softer than the challenges that went unpunished.

It's a stupid system. Unnecessary and will cause more issues than it resolves. That much is clear already.