The critism on the VAR in the Netherlands is that its purely random. Imo the development that the VAR should go through, is some rule that decide when you will ask for a var-check.
VAR - Not the hero we want, the one we need
- Thread starter Pavl3n
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Obviously it was fun the other night for us united fans, but in general i think i was happy with just the goal line tech.
And likewise, good luck explaining how the use of modern technology is unilaterally positive.
I never said it was though, nor does the pro-VAR argument depend on it being so. There just needs to be net benefit. Like I said, there are plenty of reasonable grounds to criticise VAR on that don't involve imagining what might happen in the future, or emotional damage to the sport that most people will never feel.
If the alternative argument is trying to keep football forever as it was in the late 90's/early 00's though then there was only ever going to one winner.
It’s not about the 90s or early 00s. It’s about not disturbing a perfect creative process because there is literally no reason to.
These decisions are all the micro level of the sport. To worry so much about them and to think you have to seek perfection there will have an effect on the macro view of the sport, which is what makes it the beautiful game.
Guess that’s tough to explain to people who only care about wins and losses.
What an overraction. VAR and any type of instant replay in sports is about fair play. Football has evolved into a billion dollar dollar industry where results can have major financial repercussions (i.e. relegation/promotion, sports betting). The football governing bodies have an obligation to do whatever they can to make sure decisions are accurate and fair. They also need a defense against biased fans and journalists who claim matches are fixed by UEFA, the FA, or whoever. VAR helps with everything I just outlined
This is flatly untrue. Let's not make things up for the sake of argument (there is actually a sport you could have used to illustrate this)
I think you're naive if you don't think football federations weigh the effects of implementing a system like VAR.
VAR produced one of the most excited, drama-filled football matches I have ever seen, yet some are in hear complaining. Crazy stuff
I think this is interesting.
https://talksport.com/football/529579/manchester-city-tottenham-llorente-handball-var-mark-halsey/
Especially this bit
But leaving that, where previously the 'wiggle room' way of making decisions would have benefitted defenders like I want to & then Halsey implies that the rules-only approach now favours the attacker.
The utterly farcical offside rule also greatly favours attackers. If you like that. it's all great, I can see that. But then VAR on offside is proving problematic & last week they wouldn't consider something or other due to the defence having had the opportunity to 'reset' whatever that is.
Let's say VAR is in, which it probably is & is really good for stopping 'whopper' mistakes & should reduce cheating considerably but it is going to change what we watch happening in the penalty areas, absolutely fundamentally. Good luck saying Mo Salah dived the next time someone rests a hand on his shoulder. See his hand on his shoulder? Now have a look at what the rules say & remember that there's no 'wiggle room' anymore.
https://talksport.com/football/529579/manchester-city-tottenham-llorente-handball-var-mark-halsey/
Especially this bit
I'm sure we know the 'other' one is the PSG one. I didn't think that was a penalty meself, until you bring in the silhouette stuff & then you can scramble together a case to say it is. In the same way that some fairly hard work will make a case for the Llorente goal being legit.
But leaving that, where previously the 'wiggle room' way of making decisions would have benefitted defenders like I want to & then Halsey implies that the rules-only approach now favours the attacker.
The utterly farcical offside rule also greatly favours attackers. If you like that. it's all great, I can see that. But then VAR on offside is proving problematic & last week they wouldn't consider something or other due to the defence having had the opportunity to 'reset' whatever that is.
Let's say VAR is in, which it probably is & is really good for stopping 'whopper' mistakes & should reduce cheating considerably but it is going to change what we watch happening in the penalty areas, absolutely fundamentally. Good luck saying Mo Salah dived the next time someone rests a hand on his shoulder. See his hand on his shoulder? Now have a look at what the rules say & remember that there's no 'wiggle room' anymore.
Yeah, I've been saying this for a long time now. VAR to automatically review penalties, goals and red cards, but the teams have to have some kind of challenge system where they can challenge any call and force a VAR check.
If you want to waste your challenge (if it's not overturned) on a throw-in, then so be it. It's a travesty that it gets checked if it's inside the box, but two inches outside the box and you're left to the real-time, potentially obstructed, view of the referee.
Team challenges (which are kept if the call is overturned) have to be incorporated somehow IMO. Now people will be saying "well, teams will use it to waste time", but that easily fixable if you just add an automatic two minutes at the end of the game for a forced VAR check, even if the check takes ten seconds. That way a team forcing a frivolous VAR check in an attempt to waste time lose time instead.
Like how VAR benefited Daley Blind and proved he didn’t intentionally handball in the box vs. Juve?
All it would take is a challenge flag or something that you throw at the 4th official.
Yes, exactly like that. The single example nullifies all the advantages attackers have had sent their way for the past 20 years.
Will VAR get plenty of stuff right, yes it probably will. Less so if you bring in a challenge system, obviously.
There are NO arguments against for you guys? Not at all.
Just ban us from this thread please, it's fecking ridiculous.
Yes because football federations always make the best decisions..(Quatar cough cough)
If you need VAR to rule out a goal for a match to be compelling then it’s a bit sad I guess. I’d call the atmosphere more awkward & odd than compelling.
Yep. It’s the difference between scripted and unscripted drama.
Of course there is, they're just not as important as the benefits. The argument is getting tedious, VAR is here to stay, now the discussion should be how the system can be improved instead of having a "how'bout my little feelings though" roundtable.
Bit silly to think just because it’s here that it’s good or will improve the entertainment value.
Evidence is on @awop ’s side
Oh yes and so much of it. Good to draw conclusions from the one time and all. Dope.
I watch the Bundesliga every weekend, bud. It has worked.
It’s been a positive addition to La Liga and the Eredivisie as well.
I’ve not seen statistics released from this season yet, but statistics do exist from last season and the last World Cup.
World Cup: 99.3% accurate
La Liga: https://www.skysports.com/football/...-la-liga-statistics-released-by-referees-body
IFAB report compiled from 800 matches in 20 competitions in 2018: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42781236
I’d like to see you quantify “it’s going to take away romance and emotion of the game”.
The critiques about Qatar are real and documented. The critiques about VAR are based upon an abstract concept of the "romanticism of the game". Not exactly the same thing.
The last sentence is a straw man. Nobody is saying you need VAR for a compelling match. What a lot are saying is the notion that VAR will kill the "romanticism" of the game is a complete fabrication based on nothing but personal preferences.
Don’t think anyone’s said it will kill it, just that it will change it. The change could be for better or worse and is still to be determined. The accuracy of results has never once in the history of the game hindered its popularity or growth. To focus so much on it now is a risk.
"But you can't quantify romanticism of the game! You just can't!"
I honestly don't understand how anyone can be against instant replay, especially in football. There are much larger implications than simply what's happening in the match.
It’s not on me to prove anything. The proof is in the fact that it’s the most popular sport on earth and has come to be so without the help of instant replay. It’s the responsibility of VAR proponents to prove or quantify how it will make the sport better. No easy task considering there’s not a close second in terms of popularity.
You are making an accusation against VAR, aren’t you?
So, go ahead. Quantify your claim. Show me the crowds of people in La Liga, the Bundesliga, the World Cup, etc. all in a bored stupor, lulled to death by the soul crusher that is VAR.
I’m questioning its value. To make such a big change to the fabric of the sport you, or those who pushed for it, should be able to assign some sort of value to it.
The bolded is irrelevant. For one, VAR will not hinder the growth of football (I think we can all agree with that). More importantly, a decision that wins or loses a professional football match can have important ramifications. Ask Cardiff, if they end up relegated by a point, how much that offside goal might have cost them. Missed revenue from extra home matches in a knockout competition, wagers on matches, and public perception of match-fixing are a few other obvious reasons why instant replay/ VAR is beneficial.
Why not take a couple of extra minutes to make sure the correct decisions are made? This reminds me of how wrong people were when the NFL adopted instant replay. People swore it was the end of football, but now it would be absolutely ridiculous to remove it. Human error in sports is NOT a good thing. It leads to low-intelligence people peddling conspiracy theories and normal, fallible human-beings becoming the scapegoats for idiots.
They’ve published the stats on VAR every year so far showing its value. I mean... those on my side have done their part to prove their case.
Convenient that you don’t think you have the same burden of proof.
Somebody still hasn’t backed up their claim that instant replay has become “an annoyance” in American football.
Yeah, quite a good little post this, tbf.
Views are obviously split on the spectacle/romance thing - I don't see that this is going to change for the timebeing.
VAR is great for the objective stuff & correcting what the ref sees that we all agree is wrong - there is quite a lot of this, despite how we argue about the subjective stuff.
For subjective, I like how the ref gets to review his own decision, but he has to be given all the best angles.
At the risk of commencing another fight - I didn't see any evidence that the legendary Cakir (or wahtever his name is) got sight of them all when looking at the you-know-what for Spurs-City & I don't believe what UEFA say about it either. They would, wouldn't they. (Mandy Rice-Davies)
Offsides is what I want to see them sort out. And here's a more general question? Is it unreasonable to have assister & scorer to have been 'onside' during the scoring & creating of a goal. Because atm, a runner breaks the defensive line & a player who was basically standing offside turns around & scores from Player A's cross, he's back onside by being behind the ball in different phase of play. But not really, according to how we used to play.**
**which was crap because there were 150 offsides a game,
If you understand how I've explained that, are you bothered at all, or is it fair enough - being the same for both sides & leading to more goals being scored.
If they could VAR offsides properly I could get to like it.
NFL is a completely different sport with a stop start nature, which means video replay can work in that sport I guess- Football is unique in that it’s very few stoppages & a flowing game. This is what people are trying to preserve
Stats stats stats..this is where we’re different- just because VAR increases accuracy levels of decisions doesn’t mean it’s good for the game.
So by your logic we should video replay every tackle , throw in, goal kick, free kick in the pursuit of getting 100% accuracy as that’s the be all and end all to you? Hell to the free flowing nature of the game.
Which of course you can’t do as football is massively a subjective sport
I'm not arguing, Raf. But you also don't have to look very far for decisions that we ALL agree are tiresomely completely wrong week after week.
OK, I could be making this up, I suppose.
Couldn’t we have it like the tennis whereby each manager gets to use 1 in each half? If he’s right he gets to keep it but if he’s wrong he loses it.
I think it’s great, and many a goal has been celebrated in the past only to be then ruled out with a late flag.
I like the implementation of VAR, it’s making the game more fair, reduces diving and whining to the ref. And I believe it actually adds to the drama, especially for TV viewers, look at the City Spurs game.
Of course it can be improved, especially in the speed of decision making by refs, who also have to get used to the system. Some adjustments to the rules will help (eg offside, handballs) as it can be reviewed in such detail now.
Stadium experience could be helped with giving the ref a Mic and explaining the decision to the crowd (as not every stadium will have a screen to enable replays)
I do not want a tennis style ticket system at all, as then the game changes to whom can use his tickets correctly. No, the ref on the field is the single decision maker as it is now, and Is the sole responsible for a fair game and protection of the rules
All in all English football still has to get used to VAR, it will take a while. In the Netherlands it took about a season all in all
Next step: implement a stop clock, to get rid of time wasting as well
Of course it can be improved, especially in the speed of decision making by refs, who also have to get used to the system. Some adjustments to the rules will help (eg offside, handballs) as it can be reviewed in such detail now.
Stadium experience could be helped with giving the ref a Mic and explaining the decision to the crowd (as not every stadium will have a screen to enable replays)
I do not want a tennis style ticket system at all, as then the game changes to whom can use his tickets correctly. No, the ref on the field is the single decision maker as it is now, and Is the sole responsible for a fair game and protection of the rules
All in all English football still has to get used to VAR, it will take a while. In the Netherlands it took about a season all in all
Next step: implement a stop clock, to get rid of time wasting as well
But by the rules it wasn't a handball so what are you about. VAR did its job
No, it was not a handball, the arm was as tucked into the body as it possibly can be, short of chopping off the arm there’s nothing more a player can do.
VAR was bang on.
The only “problem” I currently see with VAR is ex-players, pundits and fans like yourself thinking they understand the rules better than professional referees.
1 - These are the Rules which haven't been enforced like that since the dawn of time & are about to be changed.
2 - It's possible that VAR didn't offer the ref all the angles.
3 - He intentionally got on the end of a cross from miles away & (as good as) scored with his arm. (is even a possible interpretation of the Rules, I think)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rules can be interpreted to say it was an accidental handball. (I can half see this, while we thought the arm contact was very minor, awarding the goal seemed fairly reasonable)
VAR done great (you have to work very hard, to get to here) - via the rules at 1 & totally ignoring 2 & 3. But people want to do that, obviously.
2 - It's possible that VAR didn't offer the ref all the angles.
3 - He intentionally got on the end of a cross from miles away & (as good as) scored with his arm. (is even a possible interpretation of the Rules, I think)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rules can be interpreted to say it was an accidental handball. (I can half see this, while we thought the arm contact was very minor, awarding the goal seemed fairly reasonable)
VAR done great (you have to work very hard, to get to here) - via the rules at 1 & totally ignoring 2 & 3. But people want to do that, obviously.
I honestly have no idea where you're going with all your talk of popularity, growth. Football isn't going anywhere. It's like saying the iPhone 1 was a massive hit, no need to improve it leave it as it is.
You're saying "The change could be for better or worse and is still to be determined.". Ok then let's see if your opinion has changed in any way at the end of next season or the following one if we account for a season for the referees & players to get used to it.
But that's the actual purpose of the system. It's designed to do this one thing and it's doing it. Turn it around, do you think the current system is "good for the game" ? Or are you going to harp back about "we need to improve the referees" ?
I still don't understand how you can put your little belly feelings above what's right for the game, the players and the hundreds of people working hard all year long to achieve their goals.
Would you have gone face to face to any Spurs player or staff member on Wednesday night, to tell them about how great the flow of the game was just after they were knocked out to an offside goal ? (I would have loved to btw but would probably have left with fewer teeths
)Improving the system to reduce the time it takes to review, judge and deliver the decision will alleviate some of your concern. And that's what everyone should be talking about instead of wasting time trying to resist the change.
And talking about improving the system, i just came upon a tweet about a segment on bein with Keys and Gray. They're saying that Mike Riley will not let the referee have a check on a pitch-side monitor. He will only have the VAR decision given to him by the London VAR Team and wil have to apply it.
The Premier League would be the only league to do that and effectively remove a chunk of the referee's power and authority.Add that to last season's rule that staff can have a tablet to check the video and you're basically creating a toxic environment for no reason.
It's like they want it to fail and/or create controversy.