The VAR Thread

Danny1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
3,421
With Mike Riley as the lead of that meeting they may aswell just go in there and talk different languages to each other! Still can’t believe he is in charge of implementing VAR!
 

mpickard2087

Patient Zero
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
20,872
I didn't want VAR anywhere near football in the first place, but now it's here the main problem that I see happening is that when you have a system like the Premier League has where the monitor by the dugouts isn't used and the decisions are made by the ref sat watching the video screens, the video ref has to be willing to take charge and make decisions. Apart from a couple of exceptions during this season, currently they seem totally reluctant to do anything that makes the on-field ref look bad, and so change decisions, and that just leads to it taking forever as they umm and ahh before bottling making a decision and the viewing public looking on dumbfounded.

The video refs have got to find some bollocks and confidence to step in, officiate, and go against their colleague(s) or this will just keep happening.
 

ajspurs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Messages
15,539
I hate VAR at the moment, would rather they went back to the old system and just made mistakes as they used to. Sick of scoring a goal and not celebrating or holding my breath because play is still going yet you hear the commentators saying they're checking for a potential handball/foul/whatever that no one has even seen.

If anything I'd rather they just used it for offsides, but even then as others on here have said, the whole fingernail offside bollocks is annoying too.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
5,854
I've said it before and I'll stick by it, I still thing having a certain amount of "challenges" is the way to go. If you gave each team 1 challenge per game, which they keep if the challenge was successful, then it would basically limit VAR interventions to 2 per game in most instances.

It would be relatively self-policing because teams wouldn't challenge decisions unless they were almost certain that it would be overturned, so that solves the "clear and obvious" thing right away i.e. players who blatantly dived wouldn't appeal for the challenge because they'd risk losing their challenge for a genuine mistake later in the match, so would only challenge when they thought it was clear and obvious. Likewise you wouldn't have VAR reviewing all these idiotic "Was his nosehair offside?" decisions because nobody would challenge a call that was that close.

The only other criticism I've heard is that managers would use it to break up the play towards the end of the game. That is obviously a slight risk, but even if that was the case it would only happen a maximum of 1 time. You'd obviously have it so that the challenge was only looked at the next time the ball went out of play anyway, so you wouldn't be able to use it to break up an opposition attack. You could even have a review after the games and punish teams for making "frivolous challenges" clearly just for the sake of it at the end of the game by removing their challenge in the following game or something like that.

To me it seems like an absolute no-brainer because it would massively reduce the number of times VAR was used, and would mean that it was genuinely only used for cases where there was a high chance of there being a clear error, rather than for all these stupid 1mm offside decisions and stuff. It seems like that majority of people who are against this system are only against it because of some weird obsession with it seeming "too American", which is nonsense anyway because they have it in cricket anyway.
 

Danners9

Important First Team Player
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Messages
13,430
Last night in the A-League.


(You may have to change the vid quality to 2.7mbps in the top right corner, it starts off really blotchy)

Australia was, I think, the first to introduce VAR. Last season was a nightmare as they struggled week after week. A return to form yesterday.

It's way over the line. Have a look at the vid at about 25 seconds. 5 mins to make the decision and still get it wrong. Western United did end up winning 2-1.

The 2nd video, further down, was also not given. I thought it was a clear push - similar to Son yesterday. That game ended 1-1.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
24,542
It’s just not good enough is it?

Yesterday was the worst I’ve experienced it in the stadium. We’ve no idea what’s going on or what they’re looking at. Refs need microphones so we can hear them and they need to put the incidents on the screens. It’s all too secret.
 

allatsea

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
5,120
It’s just not good enough is it?

Yesterday was the worst I’ve experienced it in the stadium. We’ve no idea what’s going on or what they’re looking at. Refs need microphones so we can hear them and they need to put the incidents on the screens. It’s all too secret.
Can't work out why the first Sheffield United goal was ruled out but the second wasn't. I thought the second one was more offside than the first. I guess they decided they just couldn't rule out two goals for such close offsides.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
24,542
Can't work out why the first Sheffield United goal was ruled out but the second wasn't. I thought the second one was more offside than the first. I guess they decided they just couldn't rule out two goals for such close offsides.
yeah as soon as the second one was referred I said they’d give it whatever, if it was close, because they wouldn’t want to rule out two goals.
 

Tucker

Nerd
Joined
Jul 15, 2013
Messages
9,375
The implementation is abysmal. They are taking far too long to make the decision and over turning things that are far too minuscule. The first Sheff Utd goal yesterday should have stood, like Son’s against Leicester should have.

Imo if they can’t make a decision within 60 seconds, then they should go with the original refs decision. If somethings clear and obvious, you’ll be able to tell within a minute. If you can’t then it can’t have made enough of a difference to the action.
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
28,894
Supposedly the PL managers are meeting Mike Riley on Thursday for VAR discussions. Hopefully they can get some common sense to prevail but I'm massively skeptical.
So didn't make a difference then lol
 

Japhet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
10,224
The implementation is abysmal. They are taking far too long to make the decision and over turning things that are far too minuscule. The first Sheff Utd goal yesterday should have stood, like Son’s against Leicester should have.

Imo if they can’t make a decision within 60 seconds, then they should go with the original refs decision. If somethings clear and obvious, you’ll be able to tell within a minute. If you can’t then it can’t have made enough of a difference to the action.

I agree, but it will be a proper whinge fest if the footage is made available.
 

allatsea

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
5,120
VAR checking Mn U second goal against Brighton. It is getting ridiculous how many things are getting checked by VAR nd how long it takes them to make a decision.
 

theShiznit

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2004
Messages
13,687
So I hear West ham conceded a goal yesterday from a corner that wasn't.

How simple would that be for VAR to overturn.

As it was against West Ham I'll allow it this time but some of the things they can't change are pathetic.
 

werty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
22,139
So I hear West ham conceded a goal yesterday from a corner that wasn't.

How simple would that be for VAR to overturn.

As it was against West Ham I'll allow it this time but some of the things they can't change are pathetic.
Might as well do away with referees altogether if we're going to get every decision review.
 

JCRD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
6,577
I've said it before and I'll stick by it, I still thing having a certain amount of "challenges" is the way to go. If you gave each team 1 challenge per game, which they keep if the challenge was successful, then it would basically limit VAR interventions to 2 per game in most instances.

It would be relatively self-policing because teams wouldn't challenge decisions unless they were almost certain that it would be overturned, so that solves the "clear and obvious" thing right away i.e. players who blatantly dived wouldn't appeal for the challenge because they'd risk losing their challenge for a genuine mistake later in the match, so would only challenge when they thought it was clear and obvious. Likewise you wouldn't have VAR reviewing all these idiotic "Was his nosehair offside?" decisions because nobody would challenge a call that was that close.

The only other criticism I've heard is that managers would use it to break up the play towards the end of the game. That is obviously a slight risk, but even if that was the case it would only happen a maximum of 1 time. You'd obviously have it so that the challenge was only looked at the next time the ball went out of play anyway, so you wouldn't be able to use it to break up an opposition attack. You could even have a review after the games and punish teams for making "frivolous challenges" clearly just for the sake of it at the end of the game by removing their challenge in the following game or something like that.

To me it seems like an absolute no-brainer because it would massively reduce the number of times VAR was used, and would mean that it was genuinely only used for cases where there was a high chance of there being a clear error, rather than for all these stupid 1mm offside decisions and stuff. It seems like that majority of people who are against this system are only against it because of some weird obsession with it seeming "too American", which is nonsense anyway because they have it in cricket anyway.
Ive seen this bandied about a fair bit but I just dont agree. I mean if Sheffied United had challenged the 'offside' goal yesterday well... it would still be considered offside and the issue remains about how pedantic the rule is. If Pep challenged today, it still wouldnt have been a penalty but the issue wasnt that it would have taken a minute or two but the rules themeselves.

I agree with you if all we are focussed on is the time taken rather than the accuracy of the decisions - is that what the objective is?

The discussion on VAR there needs to be clear separation of what is at the heart of the discussion - is it time taken or whether the decisions are correct or not?

In my view the time taken is too long and the rules themselves are ambiguous - so the whole challenge thing wouldnt resolve anything that VAR was supposed to resolve in the first instance because the rules themselves are inadequate.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
5,854
Ive seen this bandied about a fair bit but I just dont agree. I mean if Sheffied United had challenged the 'offside' goal yesterday well... it would still be considered offside and the issue remains about how pedantic the rule is. If Pep challenged today, it still wouldnt have been a penalty but the issue wasnt that it would have taken a minute or two but the rules themeselves.

I agree with you if all we are focussed on is the time taken rather than the accuracy of the decisions - is that what the objective is?

The discussion on VAR there needs to be clear separation of what is at the heart of the discussion - is it time taken or whether the decisions are correct or not?

In my view the time taken is too long and the rules themselves are ambiguous - so the whole challenge thing wouldnt resolve anything that VAR was supposed to resolve in the first instance because the rules themselves are inadequate.
I never said it would fix every issue with VAR Obviously it wouldn't fix the issues in terms of the poorly written rules, but that's a completely different point. They clearly need to rethink offsides and handballs but that's not really a VAR issue. VAR just highlights how stupid the rule is.

But to use the Sheffield goal as an example, it was not called offside by the referee so in my system it would've been a goal, unless Pochettino challenged the decision. It would then presumably have been overturned because of the pedantic rule, but the point is he almost certainly wouldn't have challenged the decision in the first place because it wasn't "clear and obvious" so even if we thought it was very slightly offside, most likely we wouldn't have wasted our challenge on such a close call. Thats the advantage of having challenges - VAR would only ever be used if a team thought there was a blatantly wrong decision
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
6,303
I can’t understand how the FA/EPL have managed to make their version of VAR so inept compared to something that actually worked pretty well at the last WC.
They seem to think they know best and are so backward/arrogant/bent/incompetent(insert whatever works best actually) that all thats happened is that you’ve now got two sets of officials that are deemed to have got a decision wrong when everyone else watching it is left scratching their heads as to how on earth they have come to their decision.
One chap posted earlier that it’s more about protecting the refs integrity which the longer it goes on for actually sounds right, I can’t remember but do they have access to the on field monitor and if so why don’t they use it?
Every other sport uses it to pretty much good effect, why is it so hard for football?
 

JCRD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
6,577
I never said it would fix every issue with VAR Obviously it wouldn't fix the issues in terms of the poorly written rules, but that's a completely different point. They clearly need to rethink offsides and handballs but that's not really a VAR issue. VAR just highlights how stupid the rule is.

But to use the Sheffield goal as an example, it was not called offside by the referee so in my system it would've been a goal, unless Pochettino challenged the decision. It would then presumably have been overturned because of the pedantic rule, but the point is he almost certainly wouldn't have challenged the decision in the first place because it wasn't "clear and obvious" so even if we thought it was very slightly offside, most likely we wouldn't have wasted our challenge on such a close call. Thats the advantage of having challenges - VAR would only ever be used if a team thought there was a blatantly wrong decision
I see the point youre making and i agree with the suggestion to a point but surely issues would still remain? If the purpose for bringing VAR in was to get decisions correct then the challenges option kind of negate its advantages or rather its use. If Poch used up his three challenges and they were incorrect but later in the game a decision went against him that turned out to be incorrect - then we are back to square one about referees and decisions. You would then have managers hesitant in challenging you can also have challenges being used tactically to disrupt the flow of the game - you see it in NFL with timeouts.

My view is either we do away with VAR or we limit the decisions that VAR can make and what the referees can make. Referees should be able to go to the tv thing when it comes to the hard decisions i.e. penalties and offsides... free kicks and sending offs we go with the referees decision on the field.

Also issues like todays game wasnt necessarily VAR but again its use and implementation... the rules are there yet so ambiguous and unfortunately VAR and the rules go hand in hand
 

theShiznit

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2004
Messages
13,687
Might as well do away with referees altogether if we're going to get every decision review.
You could have a game with four sending offs all from wrongly awarded yellow cards decided by a corner awarded wrongly or a goal from a direct free kick given for a dive. All of which there's nothing VAR could change.

When major errors can still decide games what's the point?
 

werty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
22,139
You could have a game with four sending offs all from wrongly awarded yellow cards decided by a corner awarded wrongly or a goal from a direct free kick given for a dive. All of which there's nothing VAR could change.

When major errors can still decide games what's the point?
Then nearly every single decision will be reviewed and the game will last another 2 hours.
 
Top