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

[sullydnl]

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.

A 99% success rate is literally impossible and a ludicrously high standard to meet before accepting that introducing VR is beneficial.

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.

Except that already happens with one man in charge.

It's also an issue that should equally exist in rugby, yet it hasn't stopped TMOs from improving the standard of officiating in that sport.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

A 99% success rate is literally impossible and a ludicrously high standard to meet before accepting that introducing VR is beneficial.



Except that already happens with one man in charge.

It's also an issue that should equally exist in rugby, yet it hasn't stopped TMOs from improving the standard of officiating in that sport.

It really doesn't mate. No action and yellows get confused. Yellows and reds are blurry. No action and reds almost never happens.

Also, just stop using Rugby as an example, it's a completely different sport. I understand why you do it. I've probably done it. But it's truly not relevant. It's also moot because there are still questionable calls in rugby, and the decisions sometimes take whole minutes. That's simply not good enough for football.

I'm an absolute purist. I'd strip technology from Tennis and Cricket. I simply don't think it's improved it. At all. It's also nowhere near as accurate as it pretends to be. The replays in those sports are works of fiction at times.

Rugby is possibly the only sport it works in. It's a sport that already had long breaks in the action and one that has one ball and 20+ limbs relevantly in play at times.

VAR is simply nowhere near ready for implementation in football. For me.

 

[noodlehair]

There's two things here...firstly, if you're going to use it, use it properly. You can't have a video ref using video footage to judge an incident, if the referee is then going to wander over to the side of the pitch and overrule it. You then have one referee saying one thing, and another saying something else, so whichever team the decision goes against is justifiably aggrieved. If the video ref gets involved the video ref's decision should be what is adhered to.

Secondly, it only works if the players respect the officials and the officials are strong enough to not be influenced by the players. If you have teams crying for the video ref every time a decision goes against them, and the ref listening to them, or other times claiming he didn't go to the video ref because no one whinged about it, so effectively encouraging players to whinge and moan at him, it's just going to be chaos all the time. If the ref on the pitch can't referee with any authority, having a video ref isn't going to solve this.

Part of me thinks they're deliberately making it shite so they can go "oh look. this doesn't work" and get rid of it again.

What it highlights though is a fundamental problem the relationship with footballers and officials. People say don't compare it to Rugby or other sports, but it's actually very important to compare it, because that's when the problem becomes obvious. In most other sports, if a competitor answers a referee back, harrasses them, or shows any lack of respect for their authority, it isn't tolerated. In football it is.

 

[Oscie]

I'm with others who say the context of a challenge is important most of the time rather than looking at it in isolation. Referees manage the temperature of a game and this is taken into account along with a judgement on each incident itself. Reading that England's opening match in the last Rugby World Cup had 10 minutes worth of video review delays and going back to the 2003 World Cup the average interlude for video review was 85 seconds.

This cannot/will not work with football. To be honest the flaws were so apparent I'm surprised the trial even went ahead.

 

[Oscie]

This is how it worked in Holland. Game allowed to carry on, the other team scored, lengthy pause and wait, decided the goal didn't stand and the game had to be pulled back 2 minutes to a penalty at the other end.

Surely the pinnacle of video action replay will be achieved when fans don't actually react to goals live in the ground but instead wait until a text message alert on the drive home to let them know which goals were allowed to stand and which ones were ruled out after a thorough review of all the goals and major incidents leading up to them.

 

[P-Nut]

This is how it worked in Holland. Game allowed to carry on, the other team scored, lengthy pause and wait, decided the goal didn't stand and the game had to be pulled back 2 minutes to a penalty at the other end.

Surely the pinnacle of video action replay will be achieved when fans don't actually react to goals live in the ground but instead wait until a text message alert on the drive home to let them know which goals were allowed to stand and which ones were ruled out after a thorough review of all the goals and major incidents leading up to them.

Yeah that's not going to go down well

 

[Oscie]

Yeah that's not going to go down well

Indeed but the consequence is inevitable. Letting the game carry on but hope the ball goes out of play quickly and/or that nothing else of important happens until it does, was never a sane position. Shockingly '.....something about rugby..' didn't counter the concern either.

 

[rcoobc]

This is how it worked in Holland. Game allowed to carry on, the other team scored, lengthy pause and wait, decided the goal didn't stand and the game had to be pulled back 2 minutes to a penalty at the other end.

Surely the pinnacle of video action replay will be achieved when fans don't actually react to goals live in the ground but instead wait until a text message alert on the drive home to let them know which goals were allowed to stand and which ones were ruled out after a thorough review of all the goals and major incidents leading up to them.

 

[adexkola]

This is how it worked in Holland. Game allowed to carry on, the other team scored, lengthy pause and wait, decided the goal didn't stand and the game had to be pulled back 2 minutes to a penalty at the other end.

Surely the pinnacle of video action replay will be achieved when fans don't actually react to goals live in the ground but instead wait until a text message alert on the drive home to let them know which goals were allowed to stand and which ones were ruled out after a thorough review of all the goals and major incidents leading up to them.

The right decision.

 

[Oscie]

The right decision.

Of course it was. Feels a bit like knocking a sacred oak tree down and then justifying it by saying it's the right sort of wood for the coffee table you want, so what's the big deal? There are surely other things to consider here.

Unless my text message suggestion actually sounds like a good idea, I refuse to believe someone think that the only matter at hand is whether or not it was a correct decision. Reviewing a last minute goal for several days after the match and letting a committee decide on it's validity would also probably lead to the correct decision, but I wouldn't be able to help thinking that those who used accuracy to justify that process would be missing the point somewhat.

 

[Mrs Smoker]

Good stuff. Dutch were always progressive.

 

[Razvan]

That's great. Hopefully it won't take long for this to become the norm.

 

[Oscie]

For those who like this, is there a limit on how long you'd be willing to wait for a correct decision or how much of the game you'd want to be allowed to continue before it realistically can't be pulled back?

I'm not being provocative but for those who don't like VAR the answer is simple. But those who seem to like it, is your patience in this regard unlimited and all that matters is a quest for accuracy?

For example, if the ball stayed in play for 6 minutes before the opposition scored, or it took 8 minutes for the referee/video assistant to be clear as to what the correct outcome of the penalty was. Is that fine with you? If not, what time limit would you impose and what would be the logic behind the time limit you've chosen?

 

[vanrooney]

For those who like this, is there a limit on how long you'd be willing to wait for a correct decision or how much of the game you'd want to be allowed to continue before it realistically can't be pulled back?

I'm not being provocative but for those who don't like VAR the answer is simple. But those who seem to like it, is your patience in this regard unlimited and all that matters is a quest for accuracy?

For example, if the ball stayed in play for 6 minutes before the opposition scored, or it took 8 minutes for the referee/video assistant to be clear as to what the correct outcome of the penalty was. Is that fine with you? If not, what time limit would you impose and what would be the logic behind the time limit you've chosen?

I dont get your negativity with var. Its an upgrade and makes the game more fair. In Football there are several interruptions so you wont have to wait for 6 min to check a situation normally. Its sad that in more or less every game there is a game changing wrong decission. If we can help the refs with var it shouldnt be a question.

 

[Oscie]

I dont get your negativity with var. Its an upgrade and makes the game more fair. In Football there are several interruptions so you wont have to wait for 6 min to check a situation normally. Its sad that in more or less every game there is a game changing wrong decission. If we can help the refs with var it shouldnt be a question.

But like people who think '.....something...something...rugby', is an argument, you've not really addressed any of the questions.

It's like Brexit, it seems really bizarre how people who support it seem utterly angered by those who dare to question how it's going to work.

There's a high chance the ball won't stay in play for 6 minutes after an incident. But it's not so impossible that it delegitimises the question. These issues aren't addressed by positivity

 

[Sad Chris]

But like people who think '.....something...something...rugby', is an argument, you've not really addressed any of the questions.

It's like Brexit, it seems really bizarre how people who support it seem utterly angered by those who dare to question how it's going to work.

There's a high chance the ball won't stay in play for 6 minutes after an incident. But it's not so impossible that it delegitimises the question. These issues aren't addressed by positivity

I'd expect the ref to interrupt play asap like he would for a head injury. That would lead him to interrupting a possible counter attack, but hopefully cancelling a scored goal as above example, would be a very rare issue.

 

[vanrooney]

But like people who think '.....something...something...rugby', is an argument, you've not really addressed any of the questions.

It's like Brexit, it seems really bizarre how people who support it seem utterly angered by those who dare to question how it's going to work.

There's a high chance the ball won't stay in play for 6 minutes after an incident. But it's not so impossible that it delegitimises the question. These issues aren't addressed by positivity

I asume you were also against goal line tech. Some wrong decisions will be corrected easily with var while others wont be corrected as the evidence is not sufficient. That doesnt meen that var is a failure because the game is getting more fair. Dont compare var with brexit. Its very simple in fact and people that are against it are against every change

 

[adexkola]

Of course it was. Feels a bit like knocking a sacred oak tree down and then justifying it by saying it's the right sort of wood for the coffee table you want, so what's the big deal? There are surely other things to consider here.

Unless my text message suggestion actually sounds like a good idea, I refuse to believe someone think that the only matter at hand is whether or not it was a correct decision. Reviewing a last minute goal for several days after the match and letting a committee decide on it's validity would also probably lead to the correct decision, but I wouldn't be able to help thinking that those who used accuracy to justify that process would be missing the point somewhat.

I was being glib. I think one extreme here is the scenario you've described, where decisions are arrived at after minutes after the emotion is sapped out of the moment. As used as I am to this in American football, I agree with the sentiment that this shouldn't happen in football.

The other extreme is what would have happened if VAR didn't exist. One side would have been robbed of a penalty, and the opposing side would have had a goal they did not deserve.

If I have to choose between two extremes, I'm going with the first everytime. The right decision needs to be arrived at, as much as is humanely possible. My excitement during the game (which by the way, is not completely predicated on fast decisions) is secondary to the outcome of the game being decided by the quality delta between 2 teams, not the inefficiencies of humans refereeing a fast football match.

Thankfully, we don't have to choose between 2 extremes. We can settle for a middle ground that increases the chance of the ref coming to the correct decision, while insisting improvement in turnaround times. So yes, this example is not ideal, but let's not pretend that the alternative would be any better. It would be worse.

Also, watch an American Football game sometime. The breaks taken for the refs to go over decisions don't detract from the enjoyment of watching the game, unless they use that time to go to an ad break. If they leave the game on you get multiple replay angles and insightful commentary on the rules being broken, as well as the implications a decision would have on each team. Good buildup.

 

[Sad Chris]

I don't like the interruptions, but I'm willing to give it a chance. I know I'll love it if we get a few decisions going our way. The real test will be how I'll react when it goes against us. We'll see...

 

[vanrooney]

Ways to implement var in an appropriate way will be found as time goes on. In 5 years nobody can imagine football without var

 

[vanrooney]

I was being glib. I think one extreme here is the scenario you've described, where decisions are arrived at after minutes after the emotion is sapped out of the moment. As used as I am to this in American football, I agree with the sentiment that this shouldn't happen in football.

The other extreme is what would have happened if VAR didn't exist. One side would have been robbed of a penalty, and the opposing side would have had a goal they did not deserve.

If I have to choose between two extremes, I'm going with the first everytime. The right decision needs to be arrived at, as much as is humanely possible. My excitement during the game (which by the way, is not completely predicated on fast decisions) is secondary to the outcome of the game being decided by the quality delta between 2 teams, not the inefficiencies of humans refereeing a fast football match.

Thankfully, we don't have to choose between 2 extremes. We can settle for a middle ground that increases the chance of the ref coming to the correct decision, while insisting improvement in turnaround times. So yes, this example is not ideal, but let's not pretend that the alternative would be any better. It would be worse.

Also, watch an American Football game sometime. The breaks taken for the refs to go over decisions don't detract from the enjoyment of watching the game, unless they use that time to go to an ad break. If they leave the game on you get multiple replay angles and insightful commentary on the rules being broken, as well as the implications a decision would have on each team. Good buildup.

Absolutely agree

 

[Oscie]

I don't like the interruptions, but I'm willing to give it a chance. I know I'll love it if we get a few decisions going our way. The real test will be how I'll react when it goes against us. We'll see...

For me the real test won't be until every time the ball hits the net it's greeting not with a cheer or euphoria but an anxious wait as the video referee takes 5 minutes to look at all the incidents in the lead-up to decide if it should stand.

By then the realisation that "oh it's a bit shit after all" will hopefully not be too late.

Even then among the silence there'll be someone standing there clapping the accuracy of that new system.

 

[Flying high]

The more times I see VAR used, the more I dislike it.

For me, if they can appoint extra officials to do this, then the better option would be to add more referees. Drop the awkward relationship between ref and assistant. Let each official call an offence, but only when absolutely certain.

 

[Vidyoyo]

That video above is absolutely mad. Some are swaying towards the 'right decision' argument but I don't think it's good enough when it clearly hinders the process of the match so much. It's only going to work if the referee spots a decision and gets to blow the whistle to get a VAR verdict instead. I really don't know why or how it could be used in any other way.

 

[vanrooney]

For me the real test won't be until every time the ball hits the net it's greeting not with a cheer or euphoria but an anxious wait as the video referee takes 5 minutes to look at all the incidents in the lead-up to decide if it should stand.

By then the realisation that "oh it's a bit shit after all" will hopefully not be too late.

Even then among the silence there'll be someone standing there clapping the accuracy of that new system.

Often enough there wont be the need of looking at var as the goal is perfectly ok. Your horror scenarios wont get real. Just give it a chance.

 

[Oscie]

Often enough there wont be the need of looking at var as the goal is perfectly ok. Your horror scenarios wont get real. Just give it a chance.

Seriously, are you actually in charge of Brexit?

Worst case scenarios probably won't happen so let's set about introducing a system whereby we don't take them into account at all?

You can't ignore permutations. It's not impossible that the ball could have stayed in play for 3 minutes or longer after the penalty incident before the goal. Where's the limit? At the moment the limit seems to be: pretend there isn't a need for a limit because something probably won't happen.

Sorry but that's lunacy and you are David Davis and I claim my £5

 

[Sad Chris]

For me the real test won't be until every time the ball hits the net it's greeting not with a cheer or euphoria but an anxious wait as the video referee takes 5 minutes to look at all the incidents in the lead-up to decide if it should stand.

By then the realisation that "oh it's a bit shit after all" will hopefully not be too late.

Even then among the silence there'll be someone standing there clapping the accuracy of that new system.

I get your worries. What about a challenge system instead? Then it'd be up to the managers to challenge a decision and only then the video ref would step in. Limited challenges of course.

Alternatively the video ref could still step in for situations like red card offences behind the ref's back, etc.

 

[Oscie]

The worrying thing is that problematic scenarios keep being dismissed as "probably won't happen".

There's 360 games a season. More if you throw in cups, Europe, internationals etc. The chances of something that probably won't happen, eventually happening, is quite high.

If you support VAR then:

1) what is the maximum amount of time you'd allow the game to continue before you declare it not suitable for being pulled back to review an earlier incident, or is it indefinite, and

2) what is the maximum time you'd allow for the referee/video assistant to review an incident before they decide on the outcome or is that too indefinite.

"It probably won't happen", isn't good enough as an answer, and I don't think that's setting the bar too high.

 

[Jarman]

Come on think how the technology works in rugby!! Also I can't wait for Brexit then everything will be better

 

[vanrooney]

Seriously, are you actually in charge of Brexit?

Worst case scenarios probably won't happen so let's set about introducing a system whereby we don't take them into account at all?

You can't ignore permutations. It's not impossible that the ball could have stayed in play for 3 minutes or longer after the penalty incident before the goal. Where's the limit? At the moment the limit seems to be: pretend there isn't a need for a limit because something probably won't happen.

Sorry but that's lunacy and you are David Davis and I claim my £5

You are only thinking about hypothetical worst case scenarios while you forget the worst case that is the status quo. As i said without var you have game changing wrong decisions in next to every game. To do nothing against it wont help. While it will take time to implement var in a sensible way it will make the game fairer in the long run. And please let me alone with your brexit - i am from Austria and cant help you with this imo stupid decision.

 

[hubbuh]

Come on think how the technology works in rugby!! Also I can't wait for Brexit then everything will be better

 

[welshmanc75]

For those who like this, is there a limit on how long you'd be willing to wait for a correct decision or how much of the game you'd want to be allowed to continue before it realistically can't be pulled back?

I'm not being provocative but for those who don't like VAR the answer is simple. But those who seem to like it, is your patience in this regard unlimited and all that matters is a quest for accuracy?

For example, if the ball stayed in play for 6 minutes before the opposition scored, or it took 8 minutes for the referee/video assistant to be clear as to what the correct outcome of the penalty was. Is that fine with you? If not, what time limit would you impose and what would be the logic behind the time limit you've chosen?

In Rugby Union the TMO will watch the replays whilst the game goes on. If he thinks theres an important decision for the ref to look at, he will contacr the ref via the mic and use the code 'check check'. The ref will then stop the play to review what the TMO has seen. (This happened in the recent Lions series with the Sonny Bill red card). The decision came from the TMO within about 30 seconds so could be something that eventually evolves in football

 

[Rado_N]

Was the guy in the crowd signalling for a touchdown?!

 

[Oscie]

In Rugby Union the TMO will watch the replays whilst the game goes on. If he thinks theres an important decision for the ref to look at, he will contacr the ref via the mic and use the code 'check check'. The ref will then stop the play to review what the TMO has seen. (This happened in the recent Lions series with the Sonny Bill red card). The decision came from the TMO within about 30 seconds so could be something that eventually evolves in football

So would everything that happens after 'check, check' no matter what it is, be brought back and effectively voided if the video assistant relays to the referee that the game should be brought back to the earlier incident?

Scenario: City player goes down, ref asks for help, it takes the video referee 2 minutes to reach a conclusion. In meantime the game goes on. A United played in that period handles the ball, it's his second yellow and he leaves the pitch. In the meantime the video referee decides the incident that happened before was a penalty, the game is pulled back. Is the United player let back on given that his infringement took part during a period of the game that technically no longer exists?

 

[Globule]

So would everything that happens after 'check, check' no matter what it is, be brought back and effectively voided if the video assistant relays to the referee that the game should be brought back to the earlier incident?

Scenario: City player goes down, ref asks for help, it takes the video referee 2 minutes to reach a conclusion. In meantime the game goes on. A United played in that period handles the ball, it's his second yellow and he leaves the pitch. In the meantime the video referee decides the incident that happened before was a penalty, the game is pulled back. Is the United player let back on given that his infringement took part during a period of the game that technically no longer exists?

For something like a handball he'd have to be brought back. If he was to get sent off for a dangerous tackle then he'd stay off - regardless of that part of the game being voided, he did endanger an opponent.

I agree that it's a bit of a mess at the moment and still needs a tonne of work, but something needs to be done. Keeping the status quo shouldn't be an option, because there are too many incorrect decisions that have huge ramifications for the competition.

I think you might find refs being too generous with the whistle. So in future, if the same incident above takes place, where a player goes down in the box and the ref doesn't think it's a penalty, I can imagine them blowing anyway and then referring it to VAR. If he was right in his opinion that it wasn't a penalty, the defending team takes possession and the game continues. No harm done. If it turns out it was a penalty, then fair enough.

 

[Flying high]

I get that people are desperate for an improved system.

I'll be right there supporting it when I see it.

VAR as it stands is a long way short of being an improvement and should not be used in top level competitions until it is.

 

[Revan]

But like people who think '.....something...something...rugby', is an argument, you've not really addressed any of the questions.

It's like Brexit, it seems really bizarre how people who support it seem utterly angered by those who dare to question how it's going to work.

There's a high chance the ball won't stay in play for 6 minutes after an incident. But it's not so impossible that it delegitimises the question. These issues aren't addressed by positivity

I have watched a lot of football in my life, and I do not remember ever the ball being in play for 6 minutes. In addition, the referee can stop the match while the ball is on play, providing that is not stopping a dangerous action.

You're making impossible scenarios here to justify something.

 

[Oscie]

I have watched a lot of football in my life, and I do not remember ever the ball being in play for 6 minutes. In addition, the referee can stop the match while the ball is on play, providing that is not stopping a dangerous action.

You're making impossible scenarios here to justify something.

In the 2010 World Cup, Spain vs Chile, the ball was in play for 5 minutes. Okay it's not 6 minutes but that's the first return from a quick Google search.

This is the problem, people keep dismissing reasonable questions as 'impossible scenarios' when they're not. If a system can't withstand questions about how it'd cope in certain hypothetical, far from impossible, scenarios, then it can't be much cop. Nobody suggests these instances will be frequent, or regular or even come along as often to be seen as occasional. But neither are their 'impossible'.

It's concerning that the only scrutiny or examination of the change people like you want to undertake is a mistrust of those who have reservations that 'it'll probably work out okay if we leave it' isn't a sensible approach. It's something that should be questioned and every scenario tested and scrutinised. Instead people treat it like Scientology where the only thing to be wary of is negativity and those who question.

I've not checked the rules but hopefully it's not codified as:

"Oh God, it'll work, okay? Stop being negative!"

 

[R'hllor]

Some really want VAR to fail completely, for them there is no progression of VAR, so its either stays how it was or they demand VAR to fix everything and be 100% success in all types of situation right now.

feck evolution and progression of the system, right. We need system to test it in every game with many different situations as possible,so system can be improved. Current way of doing things plus shitty VAR is still better then just current way of doing things. If VAR in current form can reduce ref`s mistakes by even 5% i am all for it. Sick and tired of "flow of the game" or "poor fans have to wait before celebrating" bullshit throwing around, while in same time you have same game with same ref, Huth loses his shirt while attacking corner -> nothing happens but pulling of shirt in opposite box is awarded with penalty.

 

[Oscie]

Some really want VAR to fail completely, for them there is no progression of VAR, so its either stays how it was or they demand VAR to fix everything and be 100% success in all types of situation right now.

feck evolution and progression of the system, right. We need system to test it in every game with many different situations as possible,so system can be improved. Current way of doing things plus shitty VAR is still better then just current way of doing things. If VAR in current form can reduce ref`s mistakes by even 5% i am all for it. Sick and tired of "flow of the game" or "poor fans have to wait before celebrating" bullshit throwing around, while in same time you have same game with same ref, Huth loses his shirt while attacking corner -> nothing happens but pulling of shirt in opposite box is awarded with penalty.

It's not a case of wanting VAR to fail, it's about not wanting the game ruined by the ham-fisted insistence on trying a system with massive flaws with no other explanation for doing so other than a bizarre faith that'd it'd somehow work out well in the end.

Fundamentally you have to have someone review an incident with their eyes on a screen. Short of anticipating flawless robots to be invented who can instantly provide decisions that are accurate beyond reasonable points of debate, then the idea that it's given VAR will automatically improve beyond the point where it currently is, may well be misplaced.

Being concerned with the practicalities of the system seems a far more sensible approach than being enamoured with the principle no matter how its implemented. If it works brilliantly, then great. Having to put up with it if it doesn't work and all the implications that would have for the game for the sole reason of: 'it might get better' isn't the side of caution I'd prefer football to err on.