Scrote
Well-known member
It's not about the players not knowing the rules. It's about two ex-players seeing Skipps challenge as a potential leg-breaker and the ref saying that the lack of malice and the fact it was a follow through after playing the ball, negate that. The rules cover it as "playing in a dangerous manner". Winning the ball doesn't exempt you from that and neither does lack of malice. Some things are just dangerous.Half the problem is the players don’t know the rules, not to the letter anyway, but any ex player on a var panel would obviously do a course. Nobody is saying they should be ref, but the brighter ones could handle var easily.
A ref will never likely understand though, even most fans couldn’t, for a lot of decisions.
Like fouls as one example. They refs just don’t get what minor contact at high speed can do, even if players don’t go down it’s still a foul. These don’t get given as fouls though, so then players have to make the most of it, and then from that comes diving and people trailing a foot to get fouled etc. It’s like a snowball effect.
It’s all caused by an understanding of the rules, and thinking this is an understand of the game, and it isn’t.
FIFA/ the FA don't help the refs though either. Its 2023, why are players and managers still getting in the refs face? In any other sport if you do that you end up in the stands. Protect the refs and var better, and they’ll make better decisions.
VAR still gets a lot more right than wrong, but it should be 99% correct, and never used as a bailout.
VAR shouldn’t be used for offsides how it is either, if they think they need to get the lines out, and can’t decide without them, then stick with the original decision.
It's also not about after the fact injury, but an after the fact injury can indicate that the manner of play was dangerous (not always but usually).
I fully agree about players/managers in refs faces and that is easily dealt with but for some reason the powers that be have decided not to - they've had decades to sort it out.
VAR stats are difficult to prove becuase they can only show what they gone correct when they intervened. They never go through a game and highlight all the areas VAR should have intervened but didn't. There are no false positives but having watched an awful lot of footy I'd be surprised if there weren't as many incorrect calls now as there have ever been. Just getting one or two big ones right isn't worth the rest of the rigmarole that comes with VAR.
They should either use it for everything or not at all, in my opinion. Encroaching, foul throws, correct decisions on who touched it last before going out etc. With the FA etc. wanting to keep refs as the focal point of decision-making you just end up with this half-way house where we seem to have as many apologies for big decisions being called wrong as we have obviously bad decisions being overturned.
VAR is awful. End the failed experiment. Give us back our football (before we get promoted (hopefully)).