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

adexkola said:
That tweet is some Luddite bullshit.
Click to expand...

It's a nonsense tweet.

I'd take fairness and the possibility of eliminating as many errors as we can, over a few seconds of a crowd shouting because a pen wasn't given. We need to give this technology a chance before dismissing it at the first opportunity.
 
Couldn't the ref just wear a gopro and constantly play the game back to himself back to himself back to himself?
 
sincher said:
I don't get why people think it's a bad idea. I don't get it at all.
Click to expand...
Same. The only problem is the way the system is implemented and used throughout the games.

The whole point of referees is to insure a fair play and an equal opportunity for both teams in games. It's become more than obvious that the game is progressing too fast and referees are no longer able to follow every little detail going on the pitch.

Another argument is that the money involved in football is a few times more than ever before, so it's completely understandable that owners and investors would like their investments to be protected by a fair system.
 
You can't have both ways, either stop moaning about wrong decision, or use technology.
VAR might not solution for all problem, but once it apply they can improve based on experience.
 
Im in favor of doing it only after a goal happens to check for offsides.

Stopping the flow of the game in every challenge inside the box is the beggining of the end of football, this is not an american sport and the flow is super important.

But I have a conspiracy on this : they are doing it the wrong way on purpose, so fifa can just dismiss it
 
Zlatattack said:
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.
Click to expand...

Cricket has natural breaks in the game and no time limit anyway so it doesnt impact the flow of the match like it does in football. Plus there are no TV screens for spectators at many football grounds, even Old Trafford has none so the matchgoing fan will just be sat there twiddling their thumbs waiting for play to resume

There will still be drama and headlines - many decision are still down to interpretation and people debate big issues even after seeing many replays
 
It might work in scenarios that are straight forward and clear cut but there seems to be a rather obvious flaw in the system for incidents that don't fall within that remit.

Also if every time the ball goes in the net instead of the crowd going nuts there's a pensive 30 second wait to see if the referee will be told anything that will rule it out then it'll be worse than having to put up with the odd piece of bad officiating now.
 
acnumber9 said:
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.
Click to expand...

In the NFL, if a touchdown is scored, no one waits for the replay to celebrate. Is anyone actually in the crowd after the goal is scored, saying, "let's wait for VAR"?
 
acnumber9 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, it'd have to be implemented properly obviously. I don't think it's an awful idea in principle though.
 
Zlatattack said:
The football being played should be the source of entertainment, not the rubbish referees.
Click to expand...

I don't agree - poor refereeing (which is far less common than poor footballing to be fair) only adds to the entertainment.
 
If accuracy triumphs all then why not have a referee review all the incidents after a game and decide upon what should be the outcome of the match in the hours after the final whistle?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Plus football is (I think?) unique in that you can watch umpteen replays of contentious decisions and still end up with differences of opinion about the correct decision. Very different to, say, tennis or cricket.
Click to expand...

This. In Portugal, the complaining of fans/pundits/etc toward referees didn't diminish one bit (might have even increased, duw to the line "not even with VAR").

I don't think it has made their work easier. It doesn't make fans feel the game is more fair (it will never happen it's the nature of the sport). It has corrected a few bad decisions throughout the league, but, in my opinion, not enough to compensate for the intrusion it causes in the flow of the game.
 
Watched the match last night, and think the 30 second breaks whereby the ref got feedback was a little slow, but believe this will speed up over time when its used more and more.

At the end of the day, football is a multi-billion pound business, whereby a club can live or die by a wrong decision at the business end of the season, so for me, it seems logical that these decisions are correct. Imagine a club getting promoted or relegated off the back of a wrong decision.
 
Arruda said:
This. In Portugal, the complaining of fans/pundits/etc toward referees didn't diminish one bit (might have even increased, duw to the line "not even with VAR").

I don't think it has made their work easier. It doesn't make fans feel the game is more fair (it will never happen it's the nature of the sport). It has corrected a few bad decisions throughout the league, but, in my opinion, not enough to compensate for the intrusion it causes in the flow of the game.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I’d imagine the sense of injustice is even worse when you’re team’s on the wrong end of a controversial decision in the post-VAR era. So we have ongoing controversy and upset and a spectacle that’s getting closer and closer to the shitty stop-start, nacho eating, additional pitchside entertainment needing, bollox that the Americans call sport.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Plus football is (I think?) unique in that you can watch umpteen replays of contentious decisions and still end up with differences of opinion about the correct decision. Very different to, say, tennis or cricket.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely not unique in this. We argue what a catch is in the NFL every weekend.

The sooner football fans let go of this feeling at football's perceived uniqueness, the sooner the sport can catch up with the modern world.
 
Waiting for the ball to go and then going back to the decision is the biggest load of shit. Either stop the game immediately or play on.
 
VAR has the potential to be a good addition to the game but it's far more important for the FA to improve the general standard of refereeing, specifically the lack of consistency and clarity.
 
adexkola said:
It is absolutely not unique in this. We argue what a catch is in the NFL every weekend.

The sooner football fans let go of this feeling at football's perceived uniqueness, the sooner the sport can catch up with the modern world.
Click to expand...

Football is unique, for the fact it shits all over other sports if for nothing else. And the less american our sport is the better.
 
Who Loves ya Bebe said:
Watched the match last night, and think the 30 second breaks whereby the ref got feedback was a little slow, but believe this will speed up over time when its used more and more.
Click to expand...

How? It's fundamentally a man watching a screen? How do you speed that up?
 
adexkola said:
It is absolutely not unique in this. We argue what a catch is in the NFL every weekend.

The sooner football fans let go of this feeling at football's perceived uniqueness, the sooner the sport can catch up with the modern world.
Click to expand...

It's literally the most popular sport in the modern world. Why does it need to catch up with anything?
 
I've been a bit dismissive of American sport tbf. I'm not a fan but I have spent several days watching cricket, which is just as slow-paced, riddled with stops in play and has fully embraced technology when it comes to referee's decisions. It's just a different kind of buzz, though. A kind of slow burn type of fun, rather than the really frantic adrenaline rush that you get from going to a cracking game of football. I think that's a more or less unique quality to football (in my experience, only shard by Gaelic football and hurling) and anything which might take the edge of that helter skelter excitement - even slightly - should be an absolute last resort. For me, the odd dodgy decision isn't reason enough for such a fundamental change. I honestly have never felt too bothered by bad decisions. It's part of the game and does seem to even out over time.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
It's literally the most popular sport in the modern world. Why does it need to catch up with anything?
Click to expand...

It's the most popular sport in the world, but it doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

I find the concept of not introducing VAR because of the "excitement factor" really crazy. I have never connected my enjoyment of the game to the variableness around a referee's judgement.
 
adexkola said:
It's the most popular sport in the world, but it doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

I find the concept of not introducing VAR because of the "excitement factor" really crazy. I have never connected my enjoyment of the game to the variableness around a referee's judgement.
Click to expand...

The luddite tweet I posted alluded to that link. The crowd do seem to get riled up when they feel a sense of injustice and that can add to the atmosphere. Then there's the extra breaks in play. Which can also puncture any kind of growing excitement.
 
Don't like it. Don't need a reason. Just don't.
 
The VAR will become part of the game, either people like it or not. So much money involved in the sport already that every club will support that idea.

It will take time to adjust and make it a fluid system, but it will happen.
 
VAR is in its infant stages so a lot of people will hate it eventually. It will take some time, but eventually it will iron out deficiencies and be for the good.

Think when decisions like yesterday happen, the ref needs to be mic'd and tell everybody in the ground (and those watching on TV) what is being reviewed.
And for the decision not to take too long. It should be two or three different angles. If its questionable, you stick with whatever the ref initially said. If its obvious, then it should be quick due to how obvious it is.
 
Adding to this, I bet N.Ireland wish VAR was in use during their World Cup playoff.
Same with R.Ireland years ago.

Refs have a tough job as it is, anything that helps them long term is only a good thing. Honestly, this should have been introduced quite some time ago and we would possibly be talking about it being a better system than introducing it in year 2018.
 
Chelsea/Arsenal last night was the first full game I've watched where it's been in use I think. And tbh I'm a little underwhelmed. It's a bit clunky and definitely a lot slower than I would ideally like. Hope this is because it's in the early stages of testing, but I thought it interrupted the flow of the game a little bit too much, which was always my concern.
 
adexkola said:
Have an official watching footage up in the stands. Only very unclear footage requires the ref to look at the TV.
Click to expand...
But it's still going to be someone watching a screen. You can't watch something quicker on a TV sat in the stands than you can sat in a building 40 miles away.

This is what confuses me about the claim that somehow it'll get faster. It currently takes the length of time it takes for a man to watch the footage from X number of angles and come to a conclusion and that's the length of time it'll ALWAYS take because that's what it is. You cannot shorten that. It's not possible.

It's somewhat confusing to hear people say the length of time taken for these decisions will shorten. Unless we're expecting the imminent release of a new piece of technology that'll allow a human being to review a replay from all required angles instantaneously and come to an immediate decision, then this is as quick as it's ever possibly going to get
 
Oscie said:
But it's still going to be someone watching a screen. You can't watch something quicker on a TV sat in the stands than you can sat in a building 40 miles away.

This is what confuses me about the claim that somehow it'll get faster. It currently takes the length of time it takes for a man to watch the footage from X number of angles and come to a conclusion and that's the length of time it'll ALWAYS take because that's what it is. You cannot shorten that. It's not possible.
Click to expand...

You're watching one screen at home.

I don't see why a single person with access to multiple angles simultaneously, wouldn't be able to come to a decision quicker.

The NBA has a specialized replay center created for this very purpose.

http://official.nba.com/replay/

Edit: an article on the NBA replay center. https://www.wired.com/2014/10/nba-replay-center/
 
adexkola said:
You're watching one screen at home.

I don't see why a single person with access to multiple angles simultaneously, wouldn't be able to come to a decision quicker.

The NBA has a specialized replay center created for this very purpose.

http://official.nba.com/replay/
Click to expand...


But they're still going to have to watch them. Even if they watch 3 different angles all at the same time it's still a man watching a screen(s) and making a decision. How effective the decision will be if he's watching 3, 4 or 5 screens at once and not concentrating at one angle at a time, I'm not sure. The vast majority of calls in football are entirely subjective unlike the whole 'did it touch the line' and other such clear cut factual calls that presumably make up the majority of reviews in other sports.

Big difference between 'Did the ball cross the white line' and 'in your opinion is this ball to hand or hand ball?' or 'did he get enough of the ball or is it a penalty' etc.
 
Oscie said:
But they're still going to have to watch them. Even if they watch 3 different angles all at the same time it's still a man watching a screen(s) and making a decision. How effective the decision will be if he's watching 3, 4 or 5 screens at once and not concentrating at one angle at a time, I'm not sure. The vast majority of calls in football are entirely subjective unlike the whole 'did it touch the line' and other such clear cut factual calls that presumably make up the majority of reviews in other sports.

Big difference between 'Did the ball cross the white line' and 'in your opinion is this ball to hand or hand ball?' or 'did he get enough of the ball or is it a penalty' etc.
Click to expand...

Then you have more people in the room! The idea is to present the ref and other officials with all the information possible. If the ref makes a subjective decision with that evidence, then fair enough. But you can't tell me that some decisions won't be impacted. It's not really that complicated. But your mind is set on this issue as previous posts show. :)
 
adexkola said:
Then you have more people in the room! The idea is to present the ref and other officials with all the information possible. If the ref makes a subjective decision with that evidence, then fair enough. But you can't tell me that some decisions won't be impacted. It's not really that complicated. But your mind is set on this issue as previous posts show. :)
Click to expand...

How would that work?

Person 1: I think penalty
Person 2: I disagree
Person 3: I'm erring towards penalty but I'd like to see it again
Person 4: I'm with Person 2, definitely not a penalty.
Person 5: Penalty for me, I think, but like Person 3 I'd like to see it again.

...how is that supposed to make things quicker?

My mind is set because there are really obvious pitfalls, flaws and problems that we can't just hope go away. It isn't a faith whereby it'll work better if we believe it can. Rather cynicism than pretending current and potential problems can be ignored.

This is the problem, we're talking about how to speed things up and your solution is to have a group of people bickering in a room. Let's get real for a second.
 
Oscie said:
How would that work?

Person 1: I think penalty
Person 2: I disagree
Person 3: I'm erring towards penalty but I'd like to see it again
Person 4: I'm with Person 2, definitely not a penalty.
Person 5: Penalty for me, I think, but like Person 3 I'd like to see it again.

...how is that supposed to make things quicker?

My mind is set because there are really obvious pitfalls, flaws and problems that we can't just hope go away. It isn't a faith whereby it'll work better if we believe it can. Rather cynicism than pretending current and potential problems can be ignored.

This is the problem, we're talking about how to speed things up and your solution is to have a group of people bickering in a room. Let's get real for a second.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you think my solution involves people bickering in a room. That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works. If multiple angles proves inconclusive, go with the ref's judgement. If you find an angle the ref wasn't privy to, beam it down to him so he has that info.

The purpose of VAR isn't to introduce more voices into the conversation. It's to provide the ref with the best foundation of knowledge possible to make his decisions. That comes at the expense of a few seconds. Time well spent.
 
adexkola said:
I'm not sure why you think my solution involves people bickering in a room. That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works. If multiple angles proves inconclusive, go with the ref's judgement. If you find an angle the ref wasn't privy to, beam it down to him so he has that info.

The purpose of VAR isn't to introduce more voices into the conversation. It's to provide the ref with the best foundation of knowledge possible to make his decisions. That comes at the expense of a few seconds. Time well spent.
Click to expand...

Presumably because I was giving you credit for not thinking that we'd get a group of people in a room and give them a magic 'agreement' potion that'll make each of them come to the same conclusion as each other.

This is how far down the rabbit hole we are already that we're talking about having "more people in the room!" to watch the footage and come to a decision but are completely dismissing out of hand the possibility they might come to different verdicts and therefore disagree. A 'solution', I might add, proposed to solve the problem of speeding up the time it takes to make the decision.

You're free to pretend that people in a room watching an incident on a bunch of television and then having to agree to come to a decision (majority: will there be a vote? Show of hands?) will somehow quicken the time it takes for a verdict to be reached and relayed to the referee, but I'm not being harsh in suggesting that's a flawed argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.