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

[Mensch ist der United]

I will just state my general opinion about VAR now.

So first of all. Why do we need a referee? Because decisions, neutral decisions have to be made. Sometimes I argue with people who are against the decision making of a referee, but if two parties are different opinion you always need a judge. The game is so fast and a single pair of eyes cannot judge that fast. Therefore VAR must be part of the game. Sometimes it does not even matter if the call has been right or wrong as long as there is a decision at all.

At the moment VAR is still being tested out and it does not work that good. Why? I guess it needs time. The biggest problem is, that the spectators at the stadiums do not get any idea what is decided and what not. This should be changed. There must be some sort of transparency. Maybe they should announce the decisions in the stadiums and show the video material. After all they are the ones who pay the biggest money and are a big part of the life attraction that is called live football.

Then you need a clear rule set when VAR decides and when not. The biggest problem is offside. Many times offside goals still count and they say they have a technical line. This line must also get broadcasted for transparency reasons. Many times not-offside looks like offside on TV because the screen is just paused too late or because of the point of view of the camera. We need to see the pictures the VAR guys see.

The people that argue about that the decisions hinder/slowen the game and make it less enjoyable to celebrate a goal --> that is totally BS, because it is just another emotional moment when VAR kicks in. So why take that away? Just make it transparent to the spectators in the stadiums! We still scream and shout in the stadiums even though when it is offside afterwards, without VAR.


!
At this point I have to state my opinion on Nanis red card, which I am waiting for since it happened but never bothered to post on the noob forums. It was a clear red card and totally wanted from Nani. You see him looking at the player he fouled just a few seconds before he karate kicks him. The guys who do not see that do clearly have the Man Utd fanboy sunglasses on. Decisions have to be made. And almost ALL refs are neutral and just judge by their honest opinion. Mistakes happen, you cannot change that. or wait, maybe you can minimize it... with VAR.

 

[do.ob]

Players left the pitch. Were in the dressing room. Were called out again.

I'm literally not literally talking about a couple of seconds delay. That takes more than a couple of seconds. Huge issues like this get dismissed as a 'couple seconds delay'.


EDIT: According to the BBC the delay was six minutes. But if you're not being melodramatic and hyperbolic you'd probably round that down to a couple of seconds, sure

It was around a minute or maybe slightly less that passed between final whistle and the refs grabbing their headset and Freiburg's players had probably vanished into the tunnel 10-15 seconds ago. At that point it was clear something was up and a reversal was likely. So yes, it was a matter of seconds and thus the Team of Mainz which was walking off the pitch slightly slower was still there to watch things unfold.

 

[esmufc07]

VAR is as bad as this shit..

I quite like that

 

[Paxi]

I quite like that

But the finishing...

 

[Oldham]

O dear

 

[wub1234]

I don't think so. I cant think of a team in any of the top leagues which were relegated/ won the championship because of refereeing decisions rather they deserved to be there.

For example, Barcelona had a legitimate goal ruled out on the final day of the 2013-14 season when playing the eventual champions Atletico Madrid. It literally decided the league. While it could, reasonably, be argued that the league is decided over 38 games, this was an absolutely pivotal decision, which was incorrect, which replays demonstrated was clearly incorrect.

While it was a good story for Atletico to win it, and deserved, technically it was the wrong decision.

 

[langster]

I don't think so. I cant think of a team in any of the top leagues which were relegated/ won the championship because of refereeing decisions rather they deserved to be there.

Bolton were relegated due to a goal that shouldn't have stood. Obviously their play that season cost them, but that one goal sent them down.

Thierry Henry's illegal goal cost the Republic of Ireland a well deserved place in the World Cup. There is no excuse for decisions like that costing teams like they do, not in this day and age when we have the technology at hand to review and correct the decisions.

VAR needs to be implemented properly, just not abused or misused as it has been. I agree It's not been used well and is a shambles at the moment when it really could be so easy to implement correctly so it wouldn't be intrusive and would be a help rather than a hindrance.

 

[surf]

According to some sources its not clear if the ref handled this situation correctly. Apparently the rules say he is only able to take actions as long as he is on the field. In the videos it appears as the VAR contacted him after leaving the field so this could lead to a possible protest by Freiburg.

Good point, though I cannot see anything in the laws about only being able to take action on the field of play.

VAR is not part of the laws but rather a competition rule, which should not override the laws.

Another thing is whether a referee is allowed by the laws to change his mind about the end of a half and continue it once he has blown the whistle and ended it. Nothing in the laws seems to forbid him from recalling the players onto the field at half time, which is weird. He/she can change a decision unless play has restarted or the game has ended. So if this had happened at the end of the second half there is no recalling the players.

 

[Rafaeldagold]

So guys apparently Germany was one of the many places where VAR is working perfectly and it’s just our FA implementing it wrong..?

Hopefully this lie can stop being told on this thread as VAR is terrible everywhere because it’s a system that will not and never will be suitable for football.

 

[bleedred]

For example, Barcelona had a legitimate goal ruled out on the final day of the 2013-14 season when playing the eventual champions Atletico Madrid. It literally decided the league. While it could, reasonably, be argued that the league is decided over 38 games, this was an absolutely pivotal decision, which was incorrect, which replays demonstrated was clearly incorrect.

While it was a good story for Atletico to win it, and deserved, technically it was the wrong decision.

Bolton were relegated due to a goal that shouldn't have stood. Obviously their play that season cost them, but that one goal sent them down.

Thierry Henry's illegal goal cost the Republic of Ireland a well deserved place in the World Cup. There is no excuse for decisions like that costing teams like they do, not in this day and age when we have the technology at hand to review and correct the decisions.

VAR needs to be implemented properly, just not abused or misused as it has been. I agree It's not been used well and is a shambles at the moment when it really could be so easy to implement correctly so it wouldn't be intrusive and would be a help rather than a hindrance.

I don't accept that at all. One incident deciding the league title/relegation is hyperbolic. Same with people still claiming that United lost the title in 09-10 because of Drogba's offside goal. Unless you factor in the possible wrong decisions for/against the team, then its not possible to say, that was the only decision affecting the title/relegation.

Its similar to say, We see Slippy G as the incident to where Liverpool lost the title, because it was a pivotal moment. But they still could have won the league, had they beaten teams which they lost/drew against. That moment would not have mattered in the context of the league. Its just that when it comes towards the end of the season, when the margins are very less, people seem to think that is what decides the title. In fairness, its doesn't.

Yes, another argument that is usually brought up very rare/odd decisions like Henry's handball or hand of god, or Ox-Gibbs Mix up. But these such incidents/ absolute howlers are very rare and I agree we need to fix it. But the definition of "clear and obvious" is a slippery slope in football. I don't think we cannot pick and choose on what to use the technology for.

 

[montpelier]

On the plus side - this German thing has highlighted that any controversial incident in the last few seconds of the 1st half, they do get 15 minutes to sort out.

And why couldn't they have just started the 2nd half with the penalty? Rather than going off, coming out, going off & coming back out again?

But the main point I'd like to make is -

 

[Rafaeldagold]

Video assistant referee (VAR) "is not football", says the Mainz midfielder who scored a penalty during half-time in his side's Bundesliga win over relegation rivals Freiburg on Monday.

Argentine Pablo De Blasis has scored two penalties from VAR this season but said players "lose the emotions".

Referee Guido Winkmann called both sides back from the dressing room after consulting the VAR system and penalising Freiburg for handball.

"I don't like it," said De Blasis, 30.

"I like the old football, with more emotions, without the referee on the video stopping the emotions."



So here’s a player playing in the German league with VAR and he really doesn’t like it..I thought all across Europe VAR was amazing and was just our FA messing it’s implementation up?

 

[Mrs Smoker]

Ok, Pablo. We'll add you to 'no' pile.

 

[Zehner]

I think it is the implementation, honestly. Was a great supporter of VAR but in this form, it is nonsense. Don't think that the "on-field referee" should have any influence. If it is a close call he will want to see the footage himself and this takes far too long.

Additionally, it is completely arbitrary at the moment. I've seen so many occasions where the VAR intervened because of a situation and didn't do it in the exact same situation one or two games later. And I didn't even watch that much Bundesliga football this season. An instance was when Wendell flew into a tackle against the Dortmund player Gonzalo Castro and rightfully saw a red card for it after the VAR called the ref. Only one game later against Stuttgart, Santiago Ascaibar had the very same tackle against Brandt with the only difference that the game was already interrupted. If anything, this made it even worse. The VAR didn't intervene. The thing is, if your club doesn't have a lobby at the media, these occasions won't get covered. It was the most extreme one I remember since it was in two consecutive matches with the same team and really similar fouls - really mindblowing, honestly - but there were many similar situations. Of course the decision against Wendell was right and it will be used as an argument for the VAR but the refrained call didn't get any attention. This is also because German media tend to protect the referees and generally tend to support his decisions.

This really grinds your gears and gives you the feeling that the system is exploited. The problem is that the people behind the cameras may have the same biases as the on-field referee.
I am still a supporter of the VAR in general since I think it can prevent many unfair decisions but nothing is better than this kind of implementation.

In my opinion, a system like the hawk eye would be better. Or advocates for each club who sit with the video referees behind the cameras. But in this shape, it is just bad. And it has to be ensured that the decision doesn't take that much time. This idea with a TV screen at the side line is just nuts.

 

[awop]

Ok, Pablo. We'll add you to 'no' pile.

He's great fun.

I think it is the implementation, honestly.
[...] it has to be ensured that the decision doesn't take that much time. This idea with a TV screen at the side line is just nuts.

Agreed, the concept is here to stay, they have to make it seamless for everyone, coaches, players and fans so even the thickest people can't argue with it.

In the meantime, i thoroughly enjoyed Iago Aspas's rush of emotions when he scored with his hand tonight.
He didn't even have to wait to celebrate his cheating.

 

[lonelyred]

Good point, though I cannot see anything in the laws about only being able to take action on the field of play.

VAR is not part of the laws but rather a competition rule, which should not override the laws.

Another thing is whether a referee is allowed by the laws to change his mind about the end of a half and continue it once he has blown the whistle and ended it. Nothing in the laws seems to forbid him from recalling the players onto the field at half time, which is weird. He/she can change a decision unless play has restarted or the game has ended. So if this had happened at the end of the second half there is no recalling the players.

I don't believe that would be the case - the duration of the match is defined as two halves ("A match lasts for two equal halves of 45 minutes..." ). They are independent periods of time (for instance: "The referee must not compensate for a timekeeping error during the first half by changing the length of the second half.") and all technical and disciplinary measures and rules apply in exactly the same way at the either half's end (for example: "If a penalty kick has to be taken or retaken, the half is extended until the penalty kick is completed.").*

So if what happened in that match (recalling the players after the end of the first half) is acceptable, then doing the same thing after the second half had ended (recalling the players after reviewing the video) should be considered to be technically correct too.

Which is horrible.

Of course you are right that a decision can not be changed after the play had restarted - neither after the end of the first half (with the second half kick-off), nor at any other time during the match.


* All quotes taken from the IFAB Laws of the Game, Law 7.

 

[wub1234]

I don't accept that at all. One incident deciding the league title/relegation is hyperbolic. Same with people still claiming that United lost the title in 09-10 because of Drogba's offside goal. Unless you factor in the possible wrong decisions for/against the team, then its not possible to say, that was the only decision affecting the title/relegation.

How many incorrect decisions would there need to be before you would concede that they have an impact on the outcome of a competition? Can you give us a ballpark figure?

 

[Rafaeldagold]

How many incorrect decisions would there need to be before you would concede that they have an impact on the outcome of a competition? Can you give us a ballpark figure?

Ok so if everything is about getting 100% accuracy VAR will eventually be used to check every decision which is what you want right? I mean a team could get relegated on a slight foul not seen middle of the park before they concede a goal?

 

[Rafaeldagold]

He's great fun.

Agreed, the concept is here to stay, they have to make it seamless for everyone, coaches, players and fans so even the thickest people can't argue with it.

In the meantime, i thoroughly enjoyed Iago Aspas's rush of emotions when he scored with his hand tonight.
He didn't even have to wait to celebrate his cheating.[/QU



Concept isn’t here to stay. For starters the premier league and champions league realise it’s not suitable and aren’t implementing it next season. To say it’s here to stay is just wrong.

‘The thickest people’ are probably the people who care more about the game itself then whether every decision is 100% correct. If that makes me thick then yeh ok..I’d say it’s pretty thick and dopey to ruin the game and make the game less free flowing just because there’s 1 or 2 major poor ref decisions a season. Thick.

 

[bleedred]

How many incorrect decisions would there need to be before you would concede that they have an impact on the outcome of a competition? Can you give us a ballpark figure?

Depends on what sort of decisions you mean, "clear and Obvious" or " any random 50/50's".

 

[wub1234]

Ok so if everything is about getting 100% accuracy VAR will eventually be used to check every decision which is what you want right? I mean a team could get relegated on a slight foul not seen middle of the park before they concede a goal?

No-one is advocating that. It's not difficult to look at key decisions, and this will improve decision-making. Even with the teething troubles that they've had with implementing it, the system has still improved decision-making quite demonstrably. It's just that when similar systems were introduced in other sports, people that watched them accepted that they would require a bedding-in period, whereas football supporters love moaning about anything and everything. In my opinion.

 

[wub1234]

Depends on what sort of decisions you mean, "clear and Obvious" or " any random 50/50's".

For example, the goal I referenced was offside, which can be done with almost 100% accuracy, and it was clearly a wrong decision in this case. So one offside in a key game according to you had no impact on the season, how many goal-denying decisions would need to be completely and demonstrably wrong before it makes a difference?

 

[bleedred]

No-one is advocating that. It's not difficult to look at key decisions, and this will improve decision-making. Even with the teething troubles that they've had with implementing it, the system has still improved decision-making quite demonstrably. It's just that when similar systems were introduced in other sports, people that watched them accepted that they would require a bedding-in period, whereas football supporters love moaning about anything and everything. In my opinion.

What is a key decision?. Everything is a key decision in football because of the flow of the game. A throw-in/corner given wrongly could lead to a goal. Is that throw in a key decision by your definition. Should it be checked through VAR?

Not really, an improvement from 95%-99% isn't a significant improvement, considering the baggage associated with it.

Again, other sports/fans also have issues with it.Take Rugby for example, TMO's were implemented in 2003 and still there are certain calls which cause controversy and people also don't like the fact that it's being used too often.

TMO referrals in 2011 RWC - 58
TMO referrals in 2015 RWC - 132

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/15/tmo-decision-wales-england-precedent-six-nations

http://www.scmp.com/sport/rugby/art...far-constant-television-replays-angering-fans

http://www.rugbyworld.com/tournaments/world-cup/time-to-tweak-the-tmo-48968

http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/13772178.TMO_over_use_could_push_fans_away_from_rugby/

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport...ld-rugby-bosses-consider-overhauling-10818202

https://www.thestatszone.com/development-of-video-technology-in-sport

There has been a huge amount of discussion based on the use of TMOs in rugby over the years. Many people say that the use of TMOs has become too familiar and disrupts the flow of the game. The referees no longer stick to their decisions and consequently do not trust in their own abilities. Many fans think that TMOs should only be used in the act of scoring and not for other infringements during a game. The worry is that fans are beginning to turn their back on the sport as the technology that was originally brought into the game to improve the viewership could be causing the opposite.

That is what will happen in football as well. To begin with, it will be only for "clear and obvious". Then the criteria will keep expanding, leading to more and more referrals.

 

[bleedred]

For example, the goal I referenced was offside, which can be done with almost 100% accuracy, and it was clearly a wrong decision in this case. So one offside in a key game according to you had no impact on the season, how many goal-denying decisions would need to be completely and demonstrably wrong before it makes a difference?

In such a scenario, say, if a team gets a decision like that 1 in 4 games, then they would have been extremely lucky.

so, to answer your question I would say, a team would have gained an unfair advantage if they get "such" decisions ~10 times over the season. This is provided that they don't get similar decisions going against them as well.

 

[Rafaeldagold]

No-one is advocating that. It's not difficult to look at key decisions, and this will improve decision-making. Even with the teething troubles that they've had with implementing it, the system has still improved decision-making quite demonstrably. It's just that when similar systems were introduced in other sports, people that watched them accepted that they would require a bedding-in period, whereas football supporters love moaning about anything and everything. In my opinion.

VAR can work better in less free flowing sports, not football.

What is a game changing decision? Surely they’ll be looking at more and more things disrupting the game more and more- because the technology is there, it would be ridiculous not to use it right?

And at the end of the day is the slightly more accuracy worth all the hassle, confusion, stoppages, the having to wait a bit to really celebrate a goal in case var man sees a slight coming together or something.

Is it worth it? For me and a lot of people it isn’t. Not sure why that’s hard to understand

 

[Oscie]

When errors occur we need more than insisting we just look the other way with an assumption it'll probably all get ironed out in the end. That's been the most frustrating thing of the trial, the fact supporters don't seem at all interested in addressing issues raised in the trial. Or the insistence that confusion and lengthy delays are fine because everyone watches football with complete emotional disinterest so as long as the decision is correct people will be okay with it all.

Even when it's shown to be a complete abomination, for example recalling players back from the dressing room and a delay of 6 minutes, people are still steadfast refusing to acknowledge that maybe this whole thing was rushed. Even the acknowledgement that referees don't even know how to use VAR isn't enough for it to be accepted this thing was rushed. The 'car wasn't speeding, the lamppost was simply obtusely stationary' argument. Even when it is a complete cock-up the response is to pretend it isn't. As if people are so married to the principle of VAR they don't actually care what it is in practice.

 

[awop]

When errors occur we need more than insisting we just look the other way with an assumption it'll probably all get ironed out in the end. That's been the most frustrating thing of the trial, the fact supporters don't seem at all interested in addressing issues raised in the trial. Or the insistence that confusion and lengthy delays are fine because everyone watches football with complete emotional disinterest so as long as the decision is correct people will be okay with it all.

Even when it's shown to be a complete abomination, for example recalling players back from the dressing room and a delay of 6 minutes, people are still steadfast refusing to acknowledge that maybe this whole thing was rushed. Even the acknowledgement that referees don't even know how to use VAR isn't enough for it to be accepted this thing was rushed. The 'car wasn't speeding, the lamppost was simply obtusely stationary' argument. Even when it is a complete cock-up the response is to pretend it isn't. As if people are so married to the principle of VAR they don't actually care what it is in practice.

Referees are not used to use VAR, that's why they need trials in real condition not in a 5 a side game between 50y old bald men.

 

[Oscie]

Referees are not used to use VAR, that's why they need trials in real condition not in a 5 a side game between 50y old bald men.

But surely then the role out should have been phased to ensure referees were able to get their head around it easier?

This isn't a mock test, these are real games being officiated using a system that those officiating it do not know how to use. A trial that wasn't rushed and ill-thought out, would have considered this and considered only using VAR for red cards, or just potential penalty decisions, until referees got used to it. When they did move onto including something else. Not role out everything at once and then when games are ruined by inept application because referees aren't used to this shit-ton of bollocks that have been dumped on their heads as if they're the recipient in a tech geek's bukkake.

The problems we're seeing are primarily down to the whole idea not being thought through enough. Everything from considering whether someone glaring at a freeze frame to determine if someone's kneecap was offside, to just rolling out the whole thing all at once with scant regard to whether those actually charged with using it might have needed a bite-sized, gradual introduction in order so they can keep on top of it.

The whole thing hasn't so much been: 'shoot first and ask questions later', but more 'shoot first and if there are questions later just say that the corpses are collateral damage as the marksman needs to get used to the gun'

 

[montpelier]

I'll go simpler than that.

They still seem very open-minded about how they are going to use it. And this trial period is about establishing that as much as anything else. it would seem.

''making policy on the hoof'' is what they'd call it in political circles

What they look at, what causes them to look at it, who looks at it, and any decision-making guidelines all still seem somewhat unclear, isn't it?

Even as far as who is actually in charge once the VAR swings into action, is it him or is it me?

Gonna be an interesting World Cup, .

 

[Oscie]

We've just seen it used to determine who should get a throw-in near the halfway line.

But of course anyone who speculated this could be used to determine who should get a throw-in near the half-way line were being ridiculous and hysterical.

 

[Revan]

We've just seen it used to determine who should get a throw-in near the halfway line.

But of course anyone who speculated this could be used to determine who should get a throw-in near the half-way line were being ridiculous and hysterical.

Nope. It was used to determine if Spurs defender touched the ball with his hand and so if it was a penalty or not.

So, agenda, agenda...

 

[Oscie]

Nope. It was used to determine if Spurs defender touched the ball with his hand and so if it was a penalty or not.

So, agenda, agenda...

Are penalties often given near the halfway line?


The ball went out of play, the referee paused and put his finger to his ear and then pointed the direction the throw-in would go. How the feck was it to determine whether a penalty should be given?

 

[bosnian_red]

We've just seen it used to determine who should get a throw-in near the halfway line.

But of course anyone who speculated this could be used to determine who should get a throw-in near the half-way line were being ridiculous and hysterical.

As revan said, it was for the penalty shout a minute earlier, they just waited for the ball to go out of play

 

[Red Stone]

We've just seen it used to determine who should get a throw-in near the halfway line.

But of course anyone who speculated this could be used to determine who should get a throw-in near the half-way line were being ridiculous and hysterical.

Meanwhile, a dirty stamp from Trippier went completely unpunished because why bother with unimportant nonsense like yellow cards?

 

[Revan]

Are penalties often given near the halfway line?


The ball went out of play, the referee paused and put his finger to his ear and then pointed the direction the throw-in would go. How the feck was it to determine whether a penalty should be given?

It was the first moment the ball was out of play, and referee did good to not interrupt the play while the ball was still on play.

 

[Oscie]

As revan said, it was for the penalty should a minute earlier, they just waited for the ball to go out of play

Okay fair enough.

Not sure that makes it better. Playing on for a minute and then potentially stopping and going back and awarding a penalty.

 

[Revan]

Meanwhile, a dirty stamp from Trippier went completely unpunished because why bother with unimportant nonsense like yellow cards?

VAR is used only for pens, red cards and offsides. Unless it is fully automatized, it is hard to use it for other things cause it will stop the play very often.

 

[bosnian_red]

Okay fair enough.

Not sure that makes it better. Playing on for a minute and then potentially stopping and going back and awarding a penalty.

Nothing wrong with it. You don't want them to stop the play, let it go on til it goes out of bounds then look at it real quick. Took like 10 seconds, no big deal

 

[giorno]

Meanwhile, a dirty stamp from Trippier went completely unpunished because why bother with unimportant nonsense like yellow cards?

Only possible red card situations are among the actions covered by VAR

 

[James Peril]

Are penalties often given near the halfway line?


The ball went out of play, the referee paused and put his finger to his ear and then pointed the direction the throw-in would go. How the feck was it to determine whether a penalty should be given?

Ohh... stop embarrassing yourself man. At least get a better picture of what’s happening before goig into a rant. It was a handball-situation, and you have to wait until the ball is out of play to make a call with VAR. They havent’t showed the situation in replay on the telly yet, weird.