I don't disagree that the current implementation needs refining, but as you mentioned in your original post, football is not the same as tennis or cricket, where limited reviews make more sense (although even in cricket it can get farcical with reviews being used incorrectly and then lost and incidents occurring later that would have been overturned on a review)Care to explain why they are such a bad idea?
It would be better than the total farce we have at the moment.
Challenges are a terrible idea.
There is nothing wrong with VAR, but there is a problem with the way it is currently implemented as demonstrated the other night. There is nothing wrong with reviewing every goal in the background. Players celebrate, that takes time. As long as the review is completed in 30 seconds to a minute to catch any 'clear and obvious' issues then it will work fine. Taking 2 mins + for a decision isn't helping.
It would also be beneficial if the crowd got to see what the video ref was reviewing and the TV was able to listen in on the decision making as they do in rugby. The hanging around not knowing what is going on is the frustrating thing for the players and fans and unfortunately a LOT of fans don't really know all the rules (despite what they may think) so are at a loss when it is reviewed / decisions are made.
They can make the VAR decisions an interesting part of the game and part of the entertainment, but as per usual football is trying to do things differently and being secretive about everything.
VAR should just operate in the background and only intervene if it sees a clear error on a major incident - goal, pen, red card - then signal to the ref, who then stops the game and reverts to the decision of VAR.
I don't disagree that the current implementation needs refining, but as you mentioned in your original post, football is not the same as tennis or cricket, where limited reviews make more sense (although even in cricket it can get farcical with reviews being used incorrectly and then lost and incidents occurring later that would have been overturned on a review)
My personal view with challenges is they will potentially be used even more so to break up the game and perhaps applied in an unsporting way. What if there is a strong penalty shout, but the referee waves it away. Whilst play continues the other team start to break quickly, the manager thinks, "I can stop this" and chucks in a review. The referee will have to stop the game, go to review. The other issue even if you get around that by allowing play to continue until it has been reviewed by the VAR is it creates even more confusion. You will also have incidents that potentially can't be reviewed simply because the manager has used all his up, that creates even more controversy. Take Lampards goal. Imagine Capello had used all his reviews and couldn't challenge it? There would be moaning and uproar, "we should allow 5 reviews... 6 reviews... they should have unlimited reviews etc."
In my mind there is a simple answer to the use of VAR.
1. All goals are reviewed quickly to confirm there are no obvious errors, such as offside in the build up. I'm not talking about the Llorente challenge. These occur in the background whilst players are celebrating and must be concluded within 1 min of the goal being scored, similar to how it was applied for Llorente's first goal. If nothing is obvious, the goal stands, no waiting about
2. The referee is able to call a review for a potential infringement after a goal or at any point if he wants to check something specifically, i.e. the Llorente challenge on the first disallowed goal (assuming the ref saw it), or an off the ball incident pointed out to him by one of the assistant referees. These should be displayed on a big screen with the crowd seeing what is being checked and comms between the Ref and VAR being heard on the TV. Again these should be answered ideally within 1 - 2 minutes and really the Ref should be looking at the TV screen discussing it with the VAR with the final decision coming down to the on field ref.
There really was no need to use VAR for the Trippier penalty. The ref should have called that correctly without VAR.
I would consider the option of the video ref being able to point out possible infringements to the ref on the field, but that would have to be looked at carefully as that would potentially created a scenario that is more stop start.
So one ex ref says should have stood and 2 other ex refs said it was right to not stand. Wtf??
Mainz fans agree: https://twitter.com/ftamsut/status/968945625659297792In Italy where they are using VAR in the league this year, it has been called the 'death of football'.
It's almost as if the rules are....poorly drafted!
And then there is a discussion as to what constitutes a 'clear and obvious' error. This is supposedly how the system already operates, but that first goal being ruled out was anything but 'clear and obvious'. Many of these decisions are down to interpretation. Some incidents are truly unambiguous but drawing that line is not necessarily easy.
Why bother with the linesman at all in that case? If what he says counts for nothing because it var is the decider why not just let var call offsides anyway? Did it go off for a throw in leading up to the goal or a goal kick? No need for a linesman just let var call it!The problem isn’t reviewing every major incident, the problem is pausing the game whilst this happens.
VAR should just operate in the background and only intervene if it sees a clear error on a major incident - goal, pen, red card - then signal to the ref, who then stops the game and reverts to the decision of VAR.
The ref should no longer blow when a linesman raises his flag, but allow play to develop, knowing the offside will be checked immediately- this is quick and easy - it’s a line. And the decision of VAR on offsides can be instantaneous and would be better than good goals getting chalked off because of erroneous flags, which you can’t celebrate anyway.
Challenges are a terrible idea.
There is nothing wrong with VAR, but there is a problem with the way it is currently implemented as demonstrated the other night. There is nothing wrong with reviewing every goal in the background. Players celebrate, that takes time. As long as the review is completed in 30 seconds to a minute to catch any 'clear and obvious' issues then it will work fine. Taking 2 mins + for a decision isn't helping.
It would also be beneficial if the crowd got to see what the video ref was reviewing and the TV was able to listen in on the decision making as they do in rugby. The hanging around not knowing what is going on is the frustrating thing for the players and fans and unfortunately a LOT of fans don't really know all the rules (despite what they may think) so are at a loss when it is reviewed / decisions are made.
They can make the VAR decisions an interesting part of the game and part of the entertainment, but as per usual football is trying to do things differently and being secretive about everything.