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

[Rood]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I agree with this. Based on last night’s game VAR spoils the atmosphere and the last thing PL football needs is even less of an atmosphere.

Totally agree - this is yet another move in football to cater for those watching on TV rather than the matchgoing fan

even after replays the pundits often disagree on big decisions - not worth all the hassle and cost IMO

 

[acnumber9]

Yeah, that would be the tricky bit. The tech would need to instantly tell the ref that a) there's been an offside and b) which player was offside. Which is basically what a linesman does anyway. The difference being that the decision about whether or not any player was offside at all would be 100% accurate.

So I imagine that in all the decisions when there's an element of doubt about players being active we'd still see the sideline discussion we get now (and in those scenarios, I could actually handle the ref seeing a video review, as the game is stopped anyway and offsides are never up for debate after seeing a replay)

In that scenario when is the play stopped? Is it stopped and reviewed when the technology says it is offside? If it’s stopped then and the player wasn’t interfering how do you re-start the play? Do you just keep playing until the next stoppage and then review it?

 

[11101]

The ref himself doesn’t see it though does he? He’s just listening to somebody giving their interpreatation of it. On last nights evidence anyway. And he most definitely wasn’t doing it for clear errors or big decisions. He stood over the ball after giving Chelsea a free kick for about 30 seconds talking to somebody for some reason before doing nothing. And then there was the pushing at the corner that he stopped to talk to somebody about and then the players without giving out any cards. It was shit.

On integrity it doesn’t really change anything. If a ref wants to influence a result he can still do it. As has been evidenced by somebody in Germany being sacked for questionable decision making.

Like i say, as expected they've cocked up the first iteration if it. It will get better.

Personally i think it should be reserved for all unclear game changing decisions. Offsides that lead to a goal, penalty calls, and red cards. Maybe in certain situations and with some limits the manager can call for a review of something.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

In that scenario when is the play stopped? Is it stopped and reviewed when the technology says it is offside? If it’s stopped then and the player wasn’t interfering how do you re-start the play? Do you just keep playing until the next stoppage and then review it?

I guess it only happens when there's a goal, so play is stopped anyway. Like I said, I see this as giving a bit more data for the quick chat between the ref and assistant referee that usually happens when there's some doubt about offside players being active when a goal is scored.

Basically, you're still relying on the judgement of the linesman (and the ref) to decide when players are aren't active and the tech would have to not only tell them that a player is offside but which player is offside. All of which they do in an instant anyway, by observing the situation, without the 100% certainty that tech could give re players (active or inactive) being in an offside position the instant the pass is played. Maybe some kind of head-up, AR display?!

 

[redshaw]

I like it for penalty wards like the Northern Ireland game. A quick look makes original decision wrong.

I think if a decision can't be made after watching 30 seconds of video then go by the original decision. Sometimes it's unclear and we don't want 5 minute delays

 

[sincher]

But surely ambiguity in decisions is still ok - can still be controversial if the ref decides something after watching a replay. Use it sparingly and make sure everyone can see what you are looking at and can hear the judgment made.

The fact that there will still be stuff where people disagree is fine!

 

[sincher]

I like it for penalty wards like the Northern Ireland game. A quick look makes original decision wrong.

I think if a decision can't be made after watching 30 seconds of video then go by the original decision. Sometimes it's unclear and we don't want 5 minute delays

Yes that's right, quick replay, if inconclusive, err on the side of the original decision. But I think important that crowd and tv audience are clear about what they are looking at when a replay is used and why.

 

[acnumber9]

I guess it only happens when there's a goal, so play is stopped anyway. Like I said, I see this as giving a bit more data for the quick chat between the ref and assistant referee that usually happens when there's some doubt about offside players being active when a goal is scored.

Basically, you're still relying on the judgement of the linesman (and the ref) to decide when players are aren't active and the tech would have to not only tell them that a player is offside but which player is offside. All of which they do in an instant anyway, by observing the situation, without the 100% certainty that tech could give re players (active or inactive) being in an offside position the instant the pass is played. Maybe some kind of head-up, AR display?!

That’s already part of VAR anyway though isn’t it? I thought you were both talking about a live system for all offsides.

 

[Camilo]

It's only a game, and the referees inevitable mistakes only serve to make it more interesting. It's the worst idea on the table right now - get rid. Goal line I just about get on board with (although watch Lampard's world cup goal not given was one of the best bits of TV in recent memory!), but that's as far as it should go.

They should have any missed cards/suspensions dealt with after the match by a panel of smart folk and be done with it. Or if they're determined to ruin football with video refereeing, have a tennis style "challenge" system, where the captain can ask for a decision to reviewed 3 times a match or something.

 

[sincher]

I don't get why people think it's a bad idea. I don't get it at all.

 

[acnumber9]

I don't get why people think it's a bad idea. I don't get it at all.

Football is a game that requires flow. More stoppages is not in the interest of the game. Nor is hanging around for a replay before you can properly celebrate a goal.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

That’s already part of VAR anyway though isn’t it? I thought you were both talking about a live system for all offsides.

I am. That would be the head up AR display bit. Linesman wears goggles which highlight every player offside every time the ball is played forward. Up to him/her to decide whether players active/inactive and flag accordingly.

The wee chat after a goal would be an opportunity for the ref to concur on active/inactive players. And yeah, that’s covered in current VAR approach. I’m definitely more comfortable with VAR to decide whether goals on/offside than I am when it comes to penalties. The stoppage of play after a goal suits VAR.

 

[acnumber9]

It's only a game, and the referees inevitable mistakes only serve to make it more interesting. It's the worst idea on the table right now - get rid. Goal line I just about get on board with (although watch Lampard's world cup goal not given was one of the best bits of TV in recent memory!), but that's as far as it should go.

They should have any missed cards/suspensions dealt with after the match by a panel of smart folk and be done with it. Or if they're determined to ruin football with video refereeing, have a tennis style "challenge" system, where the captain can ask for a decision to reviewed 3 times a match or something.

The challenge system would be open to abuse. It would be a great tactic for a team holding on to a lead just to break up play and momentum with nothing challenges.

 

[sincher]

Football is a game that requires flow. More stoppages is not in the interest of the game. Nor is hanging around for a replay before you can properly celebrate a goal.

That just comes down to getting the usage right though. Use sparingly, involve everyone watching in the decision, and I reckon it could only add to the game. Use too often, and/or fail to make it clear what you are watching again or why, and piss off the fans. Unfortunately early usage has been more the latter than the former.

 

[Scorpy]

Football is a game that requires flow. More stoppages is not in the interest of the game. Nor is hanging around for a replay before you can properly celebrate a goal.

Surely getting the decisions right is the thing that matters the most?

 

[sincher]

Surely getting the decisions right is the thing that matters the most?

Yeah especially the key ones. It will make the game better.

 

[Zlatattack]

Totally agree - this is yet another move in football to cater for those watching on TV rather than the matchgoing fan

even after replays the pundits often disagree on big decisions - not worth all the hassle and cost IMO

In cricket when a decision is being reviewed the big screens show what the umpire is seeing and announces the result. The crowd then cheer/jeer/whatever after the decision has been made. Football fans will have to learn to be patient. I'd much rather accurate officiating rather than drama and headlines about it.

It's only a game, and the referees inevitable mistakes only serve to make it more interesting. It's the worst idea on the table right now - get rid. Goal line I just about get on board with (although watch Lampard's world cup goal not given was one of the best bits of TV in recent memory!), but that's as far as it should go.

They should have any missed cards/suspensions dealt with after the match by a panel of smart folk and be done with it. Or if they're determined to ruin football with video refereeing, have a tennis style "challenge" system, where the captain can ask for a decision to reviewed 3 times a match or something.

The football being played should be the source of entertainment, not the rubbish referees.

 

[acnumber9]

I am. That would be the head up AR display bit. Linesman wears goggles which highlight every player offside every time the ball is played forward. Up to him/her to decide whether players active/inactive and flag accordingly.

The wee chat after a goal would be an opportunity for the ref to concur on active/inactive players. And yeah, that’s covered in current VAR approach. I’m definitely more comfortable with VAR to decide whether goals on/offside than I am when it comes to penalties. The stoppage of play after a goal suits VAR.

Does that kind of technology exist?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Does that kind of technology exist?

I’ve no idea!

I’m spitballing here. It’s just that offside lends itself to a technological solution because it’s so binary.

 

[crappycraperson]

I don't get why people think it's a bad idea. I don't get it at all.

Controversial decisions fuelling game atmosphere as an argument seems bizarre to me. This is a not a soap opera or wrestling match where audience reactions need to be driven by controversial twists and turns, fairness in a sport takes priority over any such non sense.
As far as stoppages go, people made the argument before goal line technology and it actually resulted in less stoppages since players now don't hang on about complaining to the ref for 2-3 minutes. Even with VAR, bar a couple of decisions, most won't take any more time than any normal kerfuffle between ref and players takes.

 

[africanspur]

The challenge system would be open to abuse. It would be a great tactic for a team holding on to a lead just to break up play and momentum with nothing challenges.

That's the same in tenni though surely? You could use the challenges stupidly if you want but then pretty quickly, you're out of challenges.

Imagine if you're Allardyce, at Old Trafford, holding onto a 1-0 lead. You're trying every possible way to slow down the flow of the game. Its the 90th minute and you've wasted your three challenges on frivolous crap that clearly wasn't worth challenging, only to slow down Man Utd's play.

Then Rashford drives into the box, dives and is given a penalty in the 93rd minute. It is clear to everyone other than the ref it was a dive. Allardyce is all out of challenges because he's an oaf who's wasted their three challenges.

Why and how exactly is that bad? It is your own fault if you waste the challenges.

 

[acnumber9]

That just comes down to getting the usage right though. Use sparingly, involve everyone watching in the decision, and I reckon it could only add to the game. Use too often, and/or fail to make it clear what you are watching again or why, and piss off the fans. Unfortunately early usage has been more the latter than the former.

But that’s the way it was always going to go. As soon as it’s introduced it will begin the complaining about it not being used when it’s available. How much controversy would there be if a referee doesn’t use it and gets a decision wrong? Human nature means they’ll come to depend upon it. It’s usage last night was ridiculous.

 

[acnumber9]

Surely getting the decisions right is the thing that matters the most?

More than entertainment? Not for me. Just wait until we start getting words from our sponsors while we’re waiting on these decisions.

 

[Decomposing In Paris]

People claiming that dodgy refereeing decisions bring more theatre to the game, are ignoring that good theatre is generally scripted.

I don't like it when players surround a ref after a decision, I'd rather that game changing decisions were right. If there's any doubt having reviewed it, give the original decision.

 

[africanspur]

Football is a game that requires flow. More stoppages is not in the interest of the game. Nor is hanging around for a replay before you can properly celebrate a goal.

Why would players hang around for a replay? They're going to celebrate regardless. And how is that different to now when a player might score a goal, run off to celebrate for a few seconds before he realises the linesman has flagged for offside? Only for him and his team to run across and argue with the linesman for a minute or two.

You score, celebrate. Someone puts in a challenge and it takes max what, 1 minute for a decision to be made.

 

[acnumber9]

That's the same in tenni though surely? You could use the challenges stupidly if you want but then pretty quickly, you're out of challenges.

Imagine if you're Allardyce, at Old Trafford, holding onto a 1-0 lead. You're trying every possible way to slow down the flow of the game. Its the 90th minute and you've wasted your three challenges on frivolous crap that clearly wasn't worth challenging, only to slow down Man Utd's play.

Then Rashford drives into the box, dives and is given a penalty in the 93rd minute. It is clear to everyone other than the ref it was a dive. Allardyce is all out of challenges because he's an oaf who's wasted their three challenges.

Why and how exactly is that bad? It is your own fault if you waste the challenges.

Well tennis isn’t a flowing game anyway so it doesn’t have any real impact on the other player.

Your example exposes another flaw for me. In that scenario what if Everton have been unfortunate enough to be on the end of 3 close calls and thought it worth the risk to challenge? They’d then be screwed by the fact that they had a number of tight decisions against them.

 

[acnumber9]

Why would players hang around for a replay? They're going to celebrate regardless. And how is that different to now when a player might score a goal, run off to celebrate for a few seconds before he realises the linesman has flagged for offside? Only for him and his team to run across and argue with the linesman for a minute or two.

You score, celebrate. Someone puts in a challenge and it takes max what, 1 minute for a decision to be made.

Would they though? What about the fans? You’re going to be sitting around waiting for a call to be made. Has there not already been examples of this when they used it in the summer?

The difference is the decision is made instantly. You don’t have this uncertainty for every goal scored. In future what you’ll get is a goal being scored and then people looking back for fouls etc in the build up. Every goal will be waiting for confirmation. That doesn’t happen now.

 

[africanspur]

Well tennis isn’t a flowing game anyway so it doesn’t have any real impact on the other player.

Your example exposes another flaw for me. In that scenario what if Everton have been unfortunate enough to be on the end of 3 close calls and thought it worth the risk to challenge? They’d then be screwed by the fact that they had a number of tight decisions against them.

That isn't another flaw. This system isn't going to be perfect, jesus, football and its refs aren't perfect when football boards are half full of abuse for the ref after every single draw or loss. If they were at the end of 3 close calls and then lost, then that's it. Its tough. VAR isn't supposed to be a perfect silver bullet for all of football's problems, it is supposed to be a way for the decisions to be improved upon. The problem is that people are trying to find any little fault in it and are talking about how what if x situation happened or y happened?

Well currently, Everton may be on the wrong end of all 3 of those decisions and then might be robbed by a dive last minute too. So how is that better?

 

[R'hllor]

For VAR to spoil atmosphere, you have to have it on the first place.

 

[africanspur]

Would they though? What about the fans? You’re going to be sitting around waiting for a call to be made. Has there not already been examples of this when they used it in the summer?

The difference is the decision is made instantly. You don’t have this uncertainty for every goal scored. In future what you’ll get is a goal being scored and then people looking back for fouls etc in the build up. Every goal will be waiting for confirmation. That doesn’t happen now.

Not really, fans will celebrate regardless. I'm not going to sit around waiting for a video or a ref to tell me I can celebrate if Spurs score, I'm gonna jump up and shout. If it is then deemed after that the goal isn't given, then so be it.

And I don't know why people have to jump to this hyperbole. It won't be the case for every goal at all. It will be the case for clearly contentious goals. If someone puts in a long range shot, a great counter attack with no hint of offside, a great passing move, a penalty, free kick, header from a cross etc etc, there won't need to be confirmation.

Some people seem to be making out that VAR means we'll be stopping play every 20 seconds to go and have a look at the screen.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

That's the same in tenni though surely? You could use the challenges stupidly if you want but then pretty quickly, you're out of challenges.

Imagine if you're Allardyce, at Old Trafford, holding onto a 1-0 lead. You're trying every possible way to slow down the flow of the game. Its the 90th minute and you've wasted your three challenges on frivolous crap that clearly wasn't worth challenging, only to slow down Man Utd's play.

Then Rashford drives into the box, dives and is given a penalty in the 93rd minute. It is clear to everyone other than the ref it was a dive. Allardyce is all out of challenges because he's an oaf who's wasted their three challenges.

Why and how exactly is that bad? It is your own fault if you waste the challenges.

How about if there haven't been any contentious decisions throughout the game but a manager decides use up all three challenge in the closing minutes, purely to waste time? That would be fecking infuriating.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

The challenges thing only works in sports like tennis (with no time limit) or hockey (with a visible clock that stops with every stop in play) They would need to completely change the way the time is measured in football matches for it to work.

 

[acnumber9]

That isn't another flaw. This system isn't going to be perfect, jesus, football and its refs aren't perfect when football boards are half full of abuse for the ref after every single draw or loss. If they were at the end of 3 close calls and then lost, then that's it. Its tough. VAR isn't supposed to be a perfect silver bullet for all of football's problems, it is supposed to be a way for the decisions to be improved upon. The problem is that people are trying to find any little fault in it and are talking about how what if x situation happened or y happened?

Well currently, Everton may be on the wrong end of all 3 of those decisions and then might be robbed by a dive last minute too. So how is that better?

I think for it to be worthwhile then it pretty much needs to be. I was against it before it was being trialled and I don’t think the results have been impressive. You disagree and that’s great for you.

Because currently it wouldn’t be technology used based on who’s been fortunate enough to not have tight decisions made. Imagine Everton have had lots of tight decisions and lost them all and then have a goal disallowed that should’ve been given. Utd have been fortunate enough not to have any tight decisions and go up the other end and have a goal disallowed that they then challenge and succeed in having it overturned. How would that be fair?

 

[africanspur]

How about if there haven't been any contentious decisions throughout the game but a manager decides use up all three challenge in the closing minutes, purely to waste time? That would be fecking infuriating.

That would be fecking infuriating for sure.

Then again, currently (and I'm sure as a Man Utd fan you'll have the same thoughts), I find it infuriating when Spurs are down or drawing and trying to score a late goal and the other team slows everything down. The keeper is bouncing the ball for a minute every time he picks up the ball. They change throw in takers 2-3 times. Someone gets subbed off and suddenly they have the world's worst cramp when you know if the tables were turned, they'd be rushing off the pitch. Suddenly every challenge is an excruciating one which requires the medical team before the player miraculously recovers after a couple of minutes on the floor.

Its already a part of football. A part which the authorities have shown little inclination to tackle, with some clubs starting to time waste from the beginning of the match if they're lucky enough to go up against a top 6 club early on.

So what's the big difference. Its the nature of the sport and the people in it.

I don't see that as a great reason to try to improve some decision making though.

 

[acnumber9]

Not really, fans will celebrate regardless. I'm not going to sit around waiting for a video or a ref to tell me I can celebrate if Spurs score, I'm gonna jump up and shout. If it is then deemed after that the goal isn't given, then so be it.

And I don't know why people have to jump to this hyperbole. It won't be the case for every goal at all. It will be the case for clearly contentious goals. If someone puts in a long range shot, a great counter attack with no hint of offside, a great passing move, a penalty, free kick, header from a cross etc etc, there won't need to be confirmation.

Some people seem to be making out that VAR means we'll be stopping play every 20 seconds to go and have a look at the screen.

You’re making your assumptions based on how you think it will be implimented though. Last nights evidence suggests that won’t be the case. If a goal is scored why wouldn’t they check back to see if there’s been a foul in the build up? Has that not already happened?

 

[BusbyMalone]

Let's give this technology some time before we flippantly dismiss it.

It's about time football embraces the technology that's available to them. Crazy to think that the biggest sport in the world was so far behind (still is) when it came to accepting this sort of technology.

I'll take fairness and the elimination of errors (well, not quite the total elimination of errors) over a little bit of atmosphere that may be generated for a minute or two from a controversial call.

The more it's used and implemented, the better it will be. Hopefully.

 

[settembrini]

It's the way forward and should have come in a long time ago. Shocking how slow football has been to embrace technology compared to other sports.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

That would be fecking infuriating for sure.

Then again, currently (and I'm sure as a Man Utd fan you'll have the same thoughts), I find it infuriating when Spurs are down or drawing and trying to score a late goal and the other team slows everything down. The keeper is bouncing the ball for a minute every time he picks up the ball. They change throw in takers 2-3 times. Someone gets subbed off and suddenly they have the world's worst cramp when you know if the tables were turned, they'd be rushing off the pitch. Suddenly every challenge is an excruciating one which requires the medical team before the player miraculously recovers after a couple of minutes on the floor.

Its already a part of football. A part which the authorities have shown little inclination to tackle, with some clubs starting to time waste from the beginning of the match if they're lucky enough to go up against a top 6 club early on.

So what's the big difference. Its the nature of the sport and the people in it.

I don't see that as a great reason to try to improve some decision making though.

All time-wasting is infuriating, so we should be taking steps to make it more difficult, not give managers another time-wasting card up their sleeve. Three cards, to be precise!

FWIW, I've thought for a while that football would benefit from changing time-keeping to the way it's done in hockey. Fans and players can see when the clock is stopped so there's no anxiety around people seen to be wasting time and everyone knows exactly when the game will end. If that happened then, sure, I'd be ok with a challenges system.

 

[adexkola]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I agree with this. Based on last night’s game VAR spoils the atmosphere and the last thing PL football needs is even less of an atmosphere.

That tweet is some Luddite bullshit.

 

[James Peril]

They should definitely stop the clock evey time VAR is used. Easy as that, it takes away a lot of the arguments against it. Flow and momentum can still be lost of course, but not time.