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

[Kostur]

Yeah I’m clueless because it took the ref’s two minutes to see what could be seen live. If two minutes is a reasonable and required amount of time then why the need to insist it will get quicker?

I don't know, because not every decision will be as complex as the one described above? Because some of the decisions with time will be analysed quicker? Because the whole process of using technology in VAR will also get quicker as the refs get used to it? Because based on what I (and no, not only I) have seen in the Polish league that has the VAR running for more than half a season, exclusively in cups, it does get quicker?

I presume you're one of those who has been screaming 'feck VAR off, it will slow the game down' and other rubbish before and there's little point in trying to convince you otherwise, right?

 

[sullydnl]

There's a period of acclimitisation involved when new technology is introduced in any industry, a period in which proccesses slow and are disrupted. There's even a term for that disruption but I can't remember it off the top of my head.

Anyway, that's especially the case when the new technology comes with new protocol dictating how it should be be used, as VAR does. No amount of practice beforehand can remove this period of acclimitisation and the slowing of processes that accompanies its introduction, it's just something that needs to be worked through for long term gain.

During this period there will be greater pause, hesitation and doubt as the people using the technology are uncomfortable with both it, the procedures around it and the scrutiny they are under while using it. This should decrease as they have gain more experience and become more confident in what they're doing, without impacting the effectiveness of the process. As I say, this is the reality of this sort of change in any industry, it isn't going to magically not apply to football.

When I talk about VAR speeding up, this is the first thing I mean.

 

[acnumber9]

I don't know, because not every decision will be as complex as the one described above? Because some of the decisions with time will be analysed quicker? Because the whole process of using technology in VAR will also get quicker as the refs get used to it? Because based on what I (and no, not only I) have seen in the Polish league that has the VAR running for more than half a season, exclusively in cups, it does get quicker?

I presume you're one of those who has been screaming 'feck VAR off, it will slow the game down' and other rubbish before and there's little point in trying to convince you otherwise, right?

My opinion is no more set in stone than yours is. I don’t need to call somebody clueless to get my point across. Maybe they will be able to communicate quicker in future. Maybe it will be so slick we’ll not notice. At that time my opinion will change. So I’ll leave you with it.

 

[red4ever 79]

No, obviously not.

Why obviously not? It was a valid question?
Or maybe you're clueless. VAR is hardly ever a process of just one passage of play, they're usually forced to check previous passages of play, just like the one with our goal. You've had a foul on Mata, Fred being offside and also I presume them checking whether Lukaku was absorbing the goalkeeper/defender's attention in the play and then it's the ref who decides whether he did or not. You've got three different decisions to make here, hence the time. Rewinding those passages takes time and getting used to, probably the ref who's doing the VAR review needs time to adapt to the technology it takes (remember the blunder with broadcasting which put some hilariously shit lines in our game earlier this season or the last season?).

 

[Kostur]

My opinion is no more set in stone than yours is. I don’t need to call somebody clueless to get my point across. Maybe they will be able to communicate quicker in future. Maybe it will be so slick we’ll not notice. At that time my opinion will change. So I’ll leave you with it.

I've called you clueless because you're making it sound like the refereeing is an easy thing to do and you can decide things faster from one replay than a referee. It sounds hilarious to say the least.

The question.

Because there's no point in that. You get those replays in the TV thanks to broadcasting, I cannot see a reason behind explaining it to the crowd, NFL umpire style, just because some people disagree with a decision. It hasn't happened before VAR, no reason whatsoever to introduce such practice alongside VAR, as much as I love berating the refs.

If people will feel like it they will disagree with the referee anyway, no matter what is shown and explained with the help of VAR.

 

[Chipper]

Because the ref had already decided it was a penalty. He double checked the offside and decided to call it back to the penalty decision or play play-on.

Once offside had been established he awarded the penalty.

Oh of course, didn't think of that. Cheers!

What do we reckon he was to talking to the linesman for, possibly to ask if he was sure Mata played the ball and not a Reading player? It's my only guess but I think VAR could have cleared that up too if in doubt without the need for the chat.

Watching it again you could argue Lukaku is offside in the first pass (clearly is) and that he then influences the path of the tackling defender, who has to run out of Lukakus path and therefore then comes Late Into tackling Mata.

If I was Reading I'd be arguing something else. Offside happens at the moment the ball is played, in this case by Mata. If Mata is brought down after playing the ball then it's after the offside offence has happened so the offside should still stand as the ball is/should be seen as dead by the time he is challenged.

I mean, if the receiver of a pass was in a offside position when the ball was played and then got tripped he'd still be given offside so why should that change if instead it's the player who has played the ball that is brought down?

Of course, if I'm United (I am), I counter that by saying Mata wasn't trying to play it to anyone, he was attempting to dribble, and him getting brought down stopped him continuing his run with the ball, and if not for the trip then he may well have been the next player to get to the ball, not Fred.

Edit: I'd also to point to the modern interpretation of the offside law, where players are only flagged if they touch it/interfere. While the decision to see if Fred was in an offside position is made at the time Mata plays the ball, Mata is brought down before Fred does receive it therefore that should count first instead.

 

[acnumber9]

I've called you clueless because you're making it sound like the refereeing is an easy thing to do and you can decide things faster from one replay than a referee. It sounds hilarious to say the least.



Because there's no point in that. You get those replays in the TV thanks to broadcasting, I cannot see a reason behind explaining it to the crowd, NFL umpire style, just because some people disagree with a decision. It hasn't happened before VAR, no reason whatsoever to introduce such practice alongside VAR, as much as I love berating the refs.

If people will feel like it they will disagree with the referee anyway, no matter what is shown and explained with the help of VAR.

I said penalty the second the flag went up. Guess what was given. Imagine the shock at a football fan thinking they know a decision better than a ref.

 

[Kostur]

I said penalty the second the flag went up. Guess what was given.

Well we are blessed to have you with us then. Hope that one day you decide to join up the English refs to teach the plebs how to referee properly.

 

[acnumber9]

Well we are blessed to have you with us then. Hope that one day you decide to join up the English refs to teach the plebs how to referee properly.

What a tiring person you are.

 

[Rado_N]

I presume you're one of those who has been screaming 'feck VAR off, it will slow the game down' and other rubbish before and there's little point in trying to convince you otherwise, right?

We've literally just seen a decision (and a pretty clear one at that) take over two minutes to resolve. How is it "rubbish" to suggest it'll slow the game down?

 

[acnumber9]

We've literally just seen a decision (and a pretty clear one at that) take over two minutes to resolve. How is it "rubbish" to suggest it'll slow the game down?

We’re stuck in the dark ages and glued to our opinions though. While they are all very subjective about their opinion.

 

[Zlatan 7]

A question for people in favour of VAR and how it will improve.

If in five years time, it’s still taking multiple checks and 2-4 minutes to make the decision will you still be in favour of it just because it may get the correct call?

I’m not being pissy, I just struggle to see how it can dramatically be sped up and think Once it’s implemented that’s it, it won’t be going away. I fear we will see more rule changes introduced such as stop clocks to accommodate the VAR

 

[Kostur]

We've literally just seen a decision (and a pretty clear one at that) take over two minutes to resolve. How is it "rubbish" to suggest it'll slow the game down?

Are you going to take the whole thing in the context or just cut the parts of it? Or should I come back to you and once there's a situation where usually players would be running around complaining to the refs about what decision should be made (red card, questionable penalty) that will get quickened up thanks to VAR and say 'I told you so'?

 

[red4ever 79]

I've called you clueless because you're making it sound like the refereeing is an easy thing to do and you can decide things faster from one replay than a referee. It sounds hilarious to say the least.



Because there's no point in that. You get those replays in the TV thanks to broadcasting, I cannot see a reason behind explaining it to the crowd, NFL umpire style, just because some people disagree with a decision. It hasn't happened before VAR, no reason whatsoever to introduce such practice alongside VAR, as much as I love berating the refs.

If people will feel like it they will disagree with the referee anyway, no matter what is shown and explained with the help of VAR.

I've called you clueless because you're making it sound like the refereeing is an easy thing to do and you can decide things faster from one replay than a referee. It sounds hilarious to say the least.



Because there's no point in that. You get those replays in the TV thanks to broadcasting, I cannot see a reason behind explaining it to the crowd, NFL umpire style, just because some people disagree with a decision. It hasn't happened before VAR, no reason whatsoever to introduce such practice alongside VAR, as much as I love berating the refs.

If people will feel like it they will disagree with the referee anyway, no matter what is shown and explained with the help of VAR.

I meant for the fans in the stadium. I think they should also be able to see the replay there live.

 

[acnumber9]

Are you going to take the whole thing in the context or just cut the parts of it? Or should I come back to you and once there's a situation where usually players would be running around complaining to the refs about what decision should be made (red card, questionable penalty) that will get quickened up thanks to VAR and say 'I told you so'?

Definitely a man who’s opinion is open to change. What a gift to us all.

 

[Kostur]

Definitely a man who’s opinion is open to change. What a gift to us all.

What a tiring person you are.

 

[Rado_N]

Are you going to take the whole thing in the context or just cut the parts of it? Or should I come back to you and once there's a situation where usually players would be running around complaining to the refs about what decision should be made (red card, questionable penalty) that will get quickened up thanks to VAR and say 'I told you so'?

Cut parts of it? It was a stand-alone sentence which I quoted in it's entirety. You said it was rubbish to suggest the game would be slowed when we've just seen exactly that happen.

You're having a bit of a 'mare here with constantly shifting the goalposts and your shitty attitude doesn't help or make you seem like someone it's worth having a conversation with.

 

[Raoul]

VAR is great. Hope it stays.

 

[Kostur]

Cut parts of it? It was a stand-alone sentence which I quoted in it's entirety. You said it was rubbish to suggest the game would be slowed when we've just seen exactly that happen.

You're having a bit of a 'mare here with constantly shifting the goalposts and your shitty attitude doesn't help or make you seem like someone it's worth having a conversation with.

Stand-alone sentence in a context created by previous conversation we're having here, where I've already claimed that the whole passage of play would be cut into three smaller passages, so in the end it's not as simple as you're painting it to be. You can also conveniently ignore the instances where it will speed up the game and stick to one decision which took two minutes though if you wish, I couldn't give a shit really.

If you don't like my shitty attitude you can always either just ignore me or don't respond to my posts if it's such a chore.

 

[Rado_N]

That's probably best.

 

[sullydnl]

A question for people in favour of VAR and how it will improve.

If in five years time, it’s still taking multiple checks and 2-4 minutes to make the decision will you still be in favour of it just because it may get the correct call?

I’m not being pissy, I just struggle to see how it can dramatically be sped up and think Once it’s implemented that’s it, it won’t be going away. I fear we will see more rule changes introduced such as stop clocks to accommodate the VAR

Personally I'm in favour of it now, as is, due to the net benefit it provides. That would be the case even if I thought it wasn't going to speed up.

I very firmly believe it will speed up though as it would be astonishing if the process was immediately operating as efficiently as it possibly could despite the inexperience of those using and implementing it. By "astonishing" I mean researchers in this area would literally spend decades trying to figure out how they had managed it. I rather doubt the people behind VAR are that brilliant.

As for further rule changes, that's fine too. Rules are always changing in sports, there's no reason for football to stay as it is forever.

 

[cyberman]

What's actually slowed down here? Apart from what? Maybe two instances we've had the same tempo we have always had.
Surely getting the big decision correct is worth a 2 minute lull? Or do we want Michael Oliver fecking it up with repercussions?
Let's not pretend the entire game has been stop start here.

 

[Zlatan 7]

Personally I'm in favour of it now, as is, due to the net benefit it provides. That would be the case even if I thought it wasn't going to speed up.

I very firmly believe it will speed up though as it would be astonishing if the process was immediately operating as efficiently as it possibly could despite the inexperience of those using and implementing it. By "astonishing" I mean researchers in this area would literally spend decades trying to figure out how they had managed it. I rather doubt the people behind VAR are that brilliant.

As for further rule changes, that's fine too. Rules are always changing in sports, there's no reason for football to stay as it is forever.

Sound reply. Can see why you like it for net benefits and you personally don’t mind further changes.

Maybe I am more of a cave dweller. I like football matches being 90 minutes with injury time and no additional adverts. I know that sounds hyperbole and may not happen, just pointing out it’s that kind of change I wouldn’t like.

I can’t see it being a massive stretch to think of 10 second adverts being on screen when a VAR decision is being judged, time stopped, hooter at the end of play, every 5th match being played in America and milky coffees becoming frappacappacinos

 

[11101]

A question for people in favour of VAR and how it will improve.

If in five years time, it’s still taking multiple checks and 2-4 minutes to make the decision will you still be in favour of it just because it may get the correct call?

I’m not being pissy, I just struggle to see how it can dramatically be sped up and think Once it’s implemented that’s it, it won’t be going away. I fear we will see more rule changes introduced such as stop clocks to accommodate the VAR

Absolutely. I'll take a few stoppages over some of the terrible decisions referees make, and the consequences that come with them.

I actually hope its expanded beyond just goal decisions and a few other bits. It would be great to eliminate the cheating tactics of the likes of Suarez and Costa from the game - the referee gets a word in his ear every time one of them rakes his studs down someone's leg.

 

[OnlyTwoDaSilvas]

ESPN commentary laid it on thick about how much of an injustice it was towards Reading.

First they suggested that VAR missed a high boot from Fred. Then early in the 2nd half they revisited it and somehow suggested that VAR got it wrong again as Fred was offside before Mata was fouled, so it shouldn't have been a penalty. Not sure how that's possible, as Mata is fouled as he plays the ball. Then later on they claimed that the referee didn't follow procedure and that the FIFA directive is that the referee should always go to the touchline and review it.

The first two just seem like desperation for Reading to get something out of the game. But the last point seems like a massive waste of time, if it's even true? Surely it's better if it's akin to Rugby, where a video referee alerts them to what actually happened, rather than the referee having to run 50 yards to look at it himself. In this instance it would be the VAR assistant telling the referee "yes, it's a foul, give a penalty" via his in-ear. If linesmen can make the referee aware of infractions, why can't a qualified referee with a video screen?

 

[promisedlanchiao]

This is why we need VAR. Rightly turned the game comfortable for us with that pen when without it, our second string could have been in for a real slog. Stuff will go against us as well like it did away to huddersfield in the cup last year with the Mata goal, but VAR is the best solution for fair matches and thank God its getting implemented in the PL next season onwards.

 

[Kostur]

ESPN commentary laid it on thick about how much of an injustice it was towards Reading.

First they suggested that VAR missed a high boot from Fred. Then early in the 2nd half they revisited it and somehow suggested that VAR got it wrong again as Fred was offside before Mata was fouled, so it shouldn't have been a penalty. Not sure how that's possible, as Mata is fouled as he plays the ball. Then later on they claimed that the referee didn't follow procedure and that the FIFA directive is that the referee should always go to the touchline and review it.

The first two just seem like desperation for Reading to get something out of the game. But the last point seems like a massive waste of time, if it's even true? Surely it's better if it's akin to Rugby, where a video referee alerts them to what actually happened, rather than the referee having to run 50 yards to look at it himself. In this instance it would be the VAR assistant telling the referee "yes, it's a foul, give a penalty" via his in-ear. If linesmen can make the referee aware of infractions, why can't a qualified referee with a video screen?

This sums up most people's problem with VAR. They have absolutely no idea when to use, how to use it, how it is applicable and how it is not but they'll bitch about it ad infinitum.

2. The final decision will always be taken by the referee.
6. Only the referee can initiate a review; the VAR (and the other match officials) can only recommend a review to the referee.

Only the referee can initiate a review – other match officials (especially the VAR) may recommend a review but only the referee will decide whether or not to have a review and the outcome of that review. The referee may decide that the match officials have clearly seen the incident and therefore no review is needed.

There's literally no such a thing as FIFA directive that would force the ref to 'always go to the touchline and review it'. Yet those so called experts will spout out such shit and people who are too fecking lazy to check it themselves will lap it up and repeat it.

 

[OnlyTwoDaSilvas]

This sums up most people's problem with VAR. They have absolutely no idea when to use, how to use it, how it is applicable and how it is not but they'll bitch about it ad infinitum.



There's literally no such a thing as FIFA directive that would force the ref to 'always go to the touchline and review it'. Yet those so called experts will spout out such shit and people who are too fecking lazy to check it themselves will lap it up and repeat it.

That's good to know.

It did seem like a reach from the ESPN commentators, and they continued the talk about the decision all through the game as going against poor, lowly Reading. No idea where they got this "FIFA directive" thing from. They didn't chime in with it until late in the 2nd half, so someone had obviously fed it to them, plucked from somewhere. Generally, commentators should avoid discussing intricacies of rules. So many times they don't even get the offside rule right, how are they meant to wrap their heads around VAR whilst its in its infancy...

 

[Kostur]

That's good to know.

It did seem like a reach from the ESPN commentators, and they continued the talk about the decision all through the game as going against poor, lowly Reading. No idea where they got this "FIFA directive" thing from. They didn't chime in with it until late in the 2nd half, so someone had obviously fed it to them, plucked from somewhere. Generally, commentators should avoid discussing intricacies of rules. So many times they don't even get the offside rule right, how are they meant to wrap their heads around VAR whilst its in its infancy...

21st century, fake news, etc., etc.

 

[Amar__]

There are so many things that take time in football game, fake injuries, substitutions, long throw teams like Stoke used to be, etc., all that takes far more time during some games than it takes to check if the actual game changing decision is okay or not, and hardly anyone used to complain about those small things, while we have so many people complaining about VAR despite it being the thing that actually matters. It's ridiculous, it takes time because it can change the direction of the game in right way. Only one who I expect to complain are teams like Real Madrid, Barcelona, etc., teams who get so many unfair decisions in their favour in every game. Real Madrid, despite being best team around, would lose so many games/knockout games if it wasn't for dubious decisions their way which wouldn't happen with VAR around.

 

[El Zoido]

There were a number of uses of VAR in our game today, that were quick and basically invisible, such as the McTominay handball shout. But when there’s one that’s slightly more complicated and requires a couple of views, everyone complains and says VAR sucks, it takes too long and ruins the game, etc.

 

[Chipper]

ESPN commentary laid it on thick about how much of an injustice it was towards Reading.

First they suggested that VAR missed a high boot from Fred. Then early in the 2nd half they revisited it and somehow suggested that VAR got it wrong again as Fred was offside before Mata was fouled, so it shouldn't have been a penalty. Not sure how that's possible, as Mata is fouled as he plays the ball. Then later on they claimed that the referee didn't follow procedure and that the FIFA directive is that the referee should always go to the touchline and review it.

I can sort of see some merit in that line of argument. Haven't watched on ESPN but I did mention it too, although I ultimately I think the right decision was made here.

When replays are looked at to see if there was on offside or not, either by VAR or just pundits deciding if something was or wasn't, the action is frozen at the moment the ball is played because that's when the decision is taken from. The foul was a split second after he played the ball so you could say the offside already happened by then, taking it from the moment the ball was played.

Now the reason I don't think that's such a great argument in this case, is because 1) Mata looked like he was trying to dribble it to me, rather than pass to anyone and if not for the challenge could have retrieved his own touch 2) the flag only goes up these days once someone receives the ball (or a pass) even though the decision to see if you were offside or not happens at the point of the ball being played. As Mata was brought down before Fred touched it, foul.

There could be grey area in different circumstances though. If Mata is not brought down when he is, but randomly pushed over or brought down after the ball is the net you'd give the offside. If he's brought down with more of delay than he was today, say right at around the same time Fred touches it, then what?

Edit: Or for a more exxagerated example, not including a penalty, if someone hoists along, high ball forward and are caught immediately after releasing it you give the free kick even if the intended target of the pass is offside. But what if someone smacks a ball forward, runs ten yards and someone grabs his shirt right around the same time the intended receiver of the pass, who was in an offside position challenges for it? Foul for the shirt pull or offside?

 

[Mb194dc]

All the other big leagues in Europe have VAR already. Seen it used loads in la Liga this season and its working very well. Funny reading on the BBC like it's some kind of massive novelty. We're just behind in its use.

 

[Sandikan]

I said penalty the second the flag went up. Guess what was given. Imagine the shock at a football fan thinking they know a decision better than a ref.

You're watching it on a tv in perfect clear footage.
The ref could easily have been distracted, had someone in the way, or anything.

That's why they...referred it to someone...watching tv. i'd imagine.

 

[Anustart89]

All the other big leagues in Europe have VAR already. Seen it used loads in la Liga this season and its working very well. Funny reading on the BBC like it's some kind of massive novelty. We're just behind in its use.

Not to mention the fact that no league or competition that's had VAR introduced has removed it from use. It's a massive step forward, whichever way you look at it.

So what if it's delaying the game a couple of minutes? If you're making plans that depend on the game ending at 90+4 minutes, then you should re-evaluate your scheduling. I'd rather see a game last two minutes longer than be pissed off for two hours after the game because we got robbed by the ref.

Yes, in a perfect world we'd have an instant system, but that's not how some decisions work. Today, for example, they had one foul and two offsides to review in the same situation. Of course that'll take a couple of minutes.

 

[FootballHQ]

A question for people in favour of VAR and how it will improve.

If in five years time, it’s still taking multiple checks and 2-4 minutes to make the decision will you still be in favour of it just because it may get the correct call?

I’m not being pissy, I just struggle to see how it can dramatically be sped up and think Once it’s implemented that’s it, it won’t be going away. I fear we will see more rule changes introduced such as stop clocks to accommodate the VAR

I think a good idea would be to install a TV behind each goal. Obviously the reviews are most likely to be penalty decisions so easier to ref to jog ten yards and have a look rather than have to run back to halfway line all the time which takes 2 minutes.

 

[awop]

I think a good idea would be to install a TV behind each goal. Obviously the reviews are most likely to be penalty decisions so easier to ref to jog ten yards and have a look rather than have to run back to halfway line all the time which takes 2 minutes.

What if they go to VAR when it's an incident in the middle of the pitch ? Maybe there should be one monitor behind each goal and the one in the middle.
What i would change though is that it should not be next to the bench, managers and players can still shout at the ref.Why isn't it on the opposite side where there's nobody ?

A question for people in favour of VAR and how it will improve.

If in five years time, it’s still taking multiple checks and 2-4 minutes to make the decision will you still be in favour of it just because it may get the correct call?

1000% yes. As someone mentioned for every "long decisions" VAR checked dozens of small incidents in real time that you or the ref did not even notice.
It makes the whole game fairer. Anyway props to the "it's cold out there" argument, that was a good laugh.

 

[acnumber9]

You're watching it on a tv in perfect clear footage.
The ref could easily have been distracted, had someone in the way, or anything.

That's why they...referred it to someone...watching tv. i'd imagine.

I’m talking about the people watching it on a screen. That took two minutes to decide.

 

[padr81]

A question for people in favour of VAR and how it will improve.

If in five years time, it’s still taking multiple checks and 2-4 minutes to make the decision will you still be in favour of it just because it may get the correct call?

I’m not being pissy, I just struggle to see how it can dramatically be sped up and think Once it’s implemented that’s it, it won’t be going away. I fear we will see more rule changes introduced such as stop clocks to accommodate the VAR

Yes absolutely. 2 or even 4 minutes here and there is nothing compared to a decision fecking up your season.

Here's the question I'll put to the people who want rid of VAR.
United are in the CL final vs Madrid, 90th minute Bale breaks through and scores, question of offside (and he's actually off) but linesman's flag didn't go up. Are you fine with it if the ref says "Ah feck it, I'm giving a goal, I don't wanna slow the pace of the game down". 4 minutes is nothing in that situation.

Given the fact managers bus parking managers excel at keeping the ball out of play and having it in play for only approx 50 minutes of the 90 anyway, football should completely move to a stop clock with 30 minutes per side imho.

 

[Seanus]

Can someone tell me why the ref was just listening to the VAR through his earpiece when I am sure last season we saw refs actually looking at the incident on an monitor? Or did I dream that?