F.A. Cup 2017/18

[Gb160]

I think each manager should have 3 challenges to refer to VAR throughout a match, even if the official disagrees, then after those 3 challenges VAR can only be used by the official at their discretion, I think that would make it fair.

Nah, it'll be abused and used to break up play in the latter stages of matches.
Managers and players shouldn't have any involvement whatsoever.

 

[danielneeds]

Nah, it'll be abused and used to break up play in the latter stages of matches.
Managers and players shouldn't have any involvement whatsoever.

I think if it's only one challenge per game, it may work. Obviously no manager would use it frivolously apart from in the final minute or two in case they get a stinker against them. The final few mins of matches are mostly full of time wasting and subs to break up play anyway,

 

[cwy21]

What I don't understand is, if the ref can refuse to view the VAR then what is the point in having it in the first place?

On the match report it reads "Referee Andre Marriner did not see the need to refer to VAR as Murray steered the ball in from close range despite Palace's calls for handball (87)"

If it was handball the VAR would have told him. It wasn't. The ref didn't decide to do anything. After reading a couple articles on today's match, it's clear that people don't understand how VAR works. People ask "why didn't the VAR look at it" and they don't realize that he did look at it. He also probably looked at 10 other things during the match, but none of them were clear and obvious errors which means he didn't need to get involved and stop the match.

 

[Hazardousman]

Nah, it'll be abused and used to break up play in the latter stages of matches.
Managers and players shouldn't have any involvement whatsoever.

More so than time wasting that already occurs?

I don’t think it will happen like that mate, managers already do that with subs anyway so I can’t see it making that much difference even if they did do it.

I don’t like the officials having the ability to disregard the VAR, it essentially renders it useless.

 

[Hazardousman]

If it was handball the VAR would have told him. It wasn't. The ref didn't decide to do anything. After reading a couple articles on today's match, it's clear that people don't understand how VAR works. People ask "why didn't the VAR look at it" and they don't realize that he did look at it. He also probably looked at 10 other things during the match, but none of them were clear and obvious errors which means he didn't need to get involved and stop the match.

He didn’t look at the VAR though did he? That’s what they are saying.

 

[Hazardousman]

The ref was obviously very sure it didn't hit Murray's arm and didn't allow himself to get swayed by the palace protests.

But this is why VAR is being introduced because refs are often wrong on these things, if they can just disregard it then surely it’s redundant?

 

[Gbspurs]

But this is why VAR is being introduced because refs are often wrong on these things, if they can just disregard it then surely it’s redundant?

I thought it was a 2 way thing, so if the VAR picks up an issue they notify the ref which in turn leads him to check the replay.

 

[Hazardousman]

I thought it was a 2 way thing, so if the VAR picks up an issue they notify the ref which in turn leads him to check the replay.

Oh really? I thought they just had to check a monitor at the side of the pitch?

 

[Gbspurs]

Oh really? I thought they just had to check a monitor at the side of the pitch?

They do as the overall decision is down to the ref but I thought they could be "notified" of issues from the VAR as a prompt.

 

[cider spurs]

They do as the overall decision is down to the ref but I thought they could be "notified" of issues from the VAR as a prompt.

I too thought that this was the case.

 

[mark87]

But this is why VAR is being introduced because refs are often wrong on these things, if they can just disregard it then surely it’s redundant?

Well then why have a ref on the pitch at all then if VAR must be used on every decision? The refs still have final say on decisions, he was confident VAR wasnt necessary so didn't use it. Honestly don't see the issue here.

 

[Hazardousman]

They do as the overall decision is down to the ref but I thought they could be "notified" of issues from the VAR as a prompt.

Is it some random bloke sitting in a room notifying them with multiple screens?

If it is, I want that job lol.

 

[Hazardousman]

Well then why have a ref on the pitch at all then if VAR must be used on every decision? The refs still have final say on decisions, he was confident VAR wasnt necessary so didn't use it. Honestly don't see the issue here.

You make a great point, why bother.

 

[mark87]

You make a great point, why bother.

It'll save money so great idea.

 

[Gb160]

More so than time wasting that already occurs?

I don’t think it will happen like that mate, managers already do that with subs anyway so I can’t see it making that much difference even if they did do it.

I don’t like the officials having the ability to disregard the VAR, it essentially renders it useless.

The fact that managers already do just emphasises the point...they have one way to break up the game and its often abused, why give them another way? It will literally make the last couple of minutes of every tight match very frustrating to watch.

I agree with your last point though, that does seem odd.

 

[cwy21]

He didn’t look at the VAR though did he? That’s what they are saying.

There are a few big misconceptions that came out of this game.

The Video Referee (VAR) did check to see if the ball was handled. After the goal, the ref held his finger to his ear. This is the sign that the VAR is checking something. These checks will happen many times a game and most of the time that fans won't know it happened. If the VAR wants a few extra seconds, the ref can hold up a restart for a few seconds with the finger to the ear signal.

In this case, after one or two replays, the VAR was confident that the goal was good which means the referee had no reason to go over to the monitors. The correct call was made and lets move on.

If one of these routine checks leads the VAR to believe a clear and obvious error has occurred, he will inform the referee who will give the TV box signal. Since the standard is a "clear and obvious error", when the referee gives the TV box signal, that means the decision will be changed. The referee can go look at the pitch side monitor or has the option of taking the VARs advice without looking at it himself. In the US, referees have been instructed to avoid going to the pitch side monitors in situations like offside and the ball over the goal line. If the VAR says it was offside, then just cancel the goal and get on with play.

In summary, the VAR did look at the goal. The referee won't "ignore" the VAR. The system worked without interrupting the game. In fact, it worked so well that people didn't even realize it was used.

 

[Hazardousman]

There are a few big misconceptions that came out of this game.

The Video Referee (VAR) did check to see if the ball was handled. After the goal, the ref held his finger to his ear. This is the sign that the VAR is checking something. These checks will happen many times a game and most of the time that fans won't know it happened. If the VAR wants a few extra seconds, the ref can hold up a restart for a few seconds with the finger to the ear signal.

In this case, after one or two replays, the VAR was confident that the goal was good which means the referee had no reason to go over to the monitors. The correct call was made and lets move on.

If one of these routine checks leads the VAR to believe a clear and obvious error has occurred, he will inform the referee who will give the TV box signal. Since the standard is a "clear and obvious error", when the referee gives the TV box signal, that means the decision will be changed. The referee can go look at the pitch side monitor or has the option of taking the VARs advice without looking at it himself. In the US, referees have been instructed to avoid going to the pitch side monitors in situations like offside and the ball over the goal line. If the VAR says it was offside, then just cancel the goal and get on with play.

In summary, the VAR did look at the goal. The referee won't "ignore" the VAR. The system worked without interrupting the game. In fact, it worked so well that people didn't even realize it was used.

So, what you are telling me is that we are relying on someone looking at monitors and informing the ref if it’s worth looking at? Is this multiple people or just one single person in a room?

 

[cwy21]

So, what you are telling me is that we are relying on someone looking at monitors and informing the ref if it’s worth looking at? Is this multiple people or just one single person in a room?

It's one video referee assigned to a match that had access to all camera feeds. It'll be a referee who does Premier League games (much like a fourth official). That person looks at everything and tells the center referee if they need to look at something (assuming it falls into one of the four categories that VAR can be used).

 

[Gbspurs]

Is it some random bloke sitting in a room notifying them with multiple screens?

If it is, I want that job lol.

Its a fellow referee similar to the 4th official. Last night was Neil Swarbrick. Definitely better than running around in the rain.

You make a great point, why bother.

Tbf to Referees they keep the flow of the game going.

 

[WalkerboyUK]

He didn’t look at the VAR though did he? That’s what they are saying.

He isn't supposed to look at the video footage unless the actual VAR (who is in London) communicates that he should.

This is the whole thing with VAR - it's not the on pitch referee that can request it, but it's the VAR, in a studio who is already watching and has until the ball next goes out of play to communicate to the ref if something is amiss.
The clue is in the name Video ASSISTANT Referee. It's there to assist, not to dictate.