VAR

Nowt wrong with VAR except some ludicrous implementation by refs/ decision-makers, they need people who understand logic/ physics, as well as the rules.

The Erikson one was a foul, push in the back, with two arms, a knee in the side and he never got the ball, not sure why this was talked about so much, this was easy. Yes physicality and strength is meant to be allowed, as in shoulder to shoulder and getting the ball, but not coming through the back and not getting the ball, that's never been allowed.

The Chelsea one was a coming together, but possibly wasn't a foul, it had zero impact on the keeper spilling it, or the other player putting it in the net. Then there was the point that it was only the laces, which glanced over the top of him at slow speed, it's not like he studded or chopped him.
A bit tougher this though, the keeper has every right to dive in on a legitimate 50/50, but there was no way on earth there never would be contact, but is a player allowed to go into a 50/50 like that with his studs showing, even if it wasn't his studs making contact? Anywhere else on the pitch that's probably a foul for studs showing, and then contact after the other guy won the ball, what happened after is irrelevant.

For me, I'd have maybe stuck with the original decision on that one, as to have this much debate about it means it's not clear and obvious, unless studs showign agaisnt an advancing keeper is a foul, or 50/50 contact after not getting the ball is a foul, which they both probably are.

1662387682377.png

For every one VAR decision that is wrong and one VAR which could be open to interpretation there's probably 20 which are correct, and no word is ever said, as they were correct.

It's always singluar mistakes which get highlighted, and they would, as they're mistakes, but it does not mean the system does not work, far from it. If it didn't work we would be talking about 20 mistakes each week.
 
I think the issue with using ex-pros is that the game (and its laws) are changing regularly.

New guidance to referees issued most seasons now - unless the ex-pro has literally just stopped playing, it would be a different game with different interpretations of the rules.
 
changingman said:
I think the issue with using ex-pros is that the game (and its laws) are changing regularly.

New guidance to referees issued most seasons now - unless the ex-pro has literally just stopped playing, it would be a different game with different interpretations of the rules.
Click to expand...
The major problem with using ex-pros (the same problem using them as pundits but with no consequences) is they are often thick as mince and have never understood the game they played.
 
changingman said:
I think the issue with using ex-pros is that the game (and its laws) are changing regularly.

New guidance to referees issued most seasons now - unless the ex-pro has literally just stopped playing, it would be a different game with different interpretations of the rules.
Click to expand...
Nano said:
The major problem with using ex-pros (the same problem using them as pundits but with no consequences) is they are often thick as mince and have never understood the game they played.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they don't know the rules (and a lot of them didn't know the rules when they played either), but you could have a ref with them or some rule geek explaining, and a panel of 5 or two panels of 5 could probably cover all the games simultaneously, from one centralised location. There's just too much money in it, to get this wrong. The ref's should be miked up, and have to explain a decision.

If it goes to VAR the ref should be taken out of the equation, why have one man decide, looking at a tiny screen, in the sunlight with 50,000 fans and 22 players shouting in his ear, that can't be easy to handle?

I've played some ball sports up to very high level and I've clearly not known the full rules well enough to officiate, as I've been put in my place countless times, yet from playing these sports at high levels you can understand what ref's can't.

The biggest bugbear for me is when some people say "he's hardly touched him", but when someone is running at 20k/hr even the slightest bit of contact can send you into a cartwheeling mess.

Offsides down to millimetres should not be overturned if they would change something awarded as a goal. The second they get the measuring stick out, forget it, it's close enough. The camera's on the players, or the ball are not accurate enough to be using <500mm accuracy on offsides.

Or maybe do away with enforced VAR and just have one-three appeals, if you get your appeal right, you retain it.

VAR and challenge systems work better in every single other sport, it's not the VAR which is the problem, it's how it's implemented, by who it's implemented and it's the lack of clarity on certain decisions.

VAR still gets a hell of a lot more right, than it does wrong, which is one critical thing to remember.
 
Mayor Goldie Wilson said:
so, VAR…this weekend has to be the beginning of the end, surely?
Click to expand...
It'll be the beginning of the end for the officials who were operating it for the Brighton, Chelsea and Newcastle games maybe but not for the technology which is absolutely fine; it just seems to be a real task to find anyone competent enough to use it with a real understanding of the game.

One of the big criticisms of it when first introduced was there would be a lack of a human element in decisions. Ironically there has never been a more of a human element in game decisions than there is now which are arriving via technology rather than in person but every VAR mistake is human error. The tech is good, just need more competent people to operate it.
 
Andy_W said:
Yeah, they don't know the rules (and a lot of them didn't know the rules when they played either), but you could have a ref with them or some rule geek explaining, and a panel of 5 or two panels of 5 could probably cover all the games simultaneously, from one centralised location. There's just too much money in it, to get this wrong. The ref's should be miked up, and have to explain a decision.

If it goes to VAR the ref should be taken out of the equation, why have one man decide, looking at a tiny screen, in the sunlight with 50,000 fans and 22 players shouting in his ear, that can't be easy to handle?

I've played some ball sports up to very high level and I've clearly not known the full rules well enough to officiate, as I've been put in my place countless times, yet from playing these sports at high levels you can understand what ref's can't.

The biggest bugbear for me is when some people say "he's hardly touched him", but when someone is running at 20k/hr even the slightest bit of contact can send you into a cartwheeling mess.

Offsides down to millimetres should not be overturned if they would change something awarded as a goal. The second they get the measuring stick out, forget it, it's close enough. The camera's on the players, or the ball are not accurate enough to be using <500mm accuracy on offsides.

Or maybe do away with enforced VAR and just have one-three appeals, if you get your appeal right, you retain it.

VAR and challenge systems work better in every single other sport, it's not the VAR which is the problem, it's how it's implemented, by who it's implemented and it's the lack of clarity on certain decisions.

VAR still gets a hell of a lot more right, than it does wrong, which is one critical thing to remember.
Click to expand...
The review suggestion pops up all the time but I couldn't think of a worse use case for it than football. Barely anyone has a clear view so how do you decide when to use it but worst of all is what if you are conned multiple times in a game and the cheats get away with it because you are out of challenges. Many times VAR is checking stuff while the game is still going on, if it finds something it stops. When would there be a challenge? Also, anything that happens before the review calling time runs out would just be challenged. It would be used to stop games and time waste.

I think the current implementation is pretty good but just needs refining. Better referees, more transparency/communication, microphones on everyone, stamp out all kinds of cheating with very strict punishments and things would just go a lot smoother. Things like the Chelsea keeper writhing in agony. It's clearly cheating, there is no pain and that sort of overacting to get players penalised should be punished as seriously as the fouls.

Instead of having 1 Video Ref I would have 3 and they can independently make a decision. If there is a consensus and it changes the decision on the field then that's the decision. No consensus and the on-field decision stands. The referee doesn't need to go and watch it. They almost always agree with what they've been told anyway and when they don't, like with Michael Oliver this weekend, they are wrong but stubborn.
 
Nano said:
The review suggestion pops up all the time but I couldn't think of a worse use case for it than football. Barely anyone has a clear view so how do you decide when to use it but worst of all is what if you are conned multiple times in a game and the cheats get away with it because you are out of challenges. Many times VAR is checking stuff while the game is still going on, if it finds something it stops. When would there be a challenge? Also, anything that happens before the review calling time runs out would just be challenged. It would be used to stop games and time waste.

I think the current implementation is pretty good but just needs refining. Better referees, more transparency/communication, microphones on everyone, stamp out all kinds of cheating with very strict punishments and things would just go a lot smoother. Things like the Chelsea keeper writhing in agony. It's clearly cheating, there is no pain and that sort of overacting to get players penalised should be punished as seriously as the fouls.

Instead of having 1 Video Ref I would have 3 and they can independently make a decision. If there is a consensus and it changes the decision on the field then that's the decision. No consensus and the on-field decision stands. The referee doesn't need to go and watch it. They almost always agree with what they've been told anyway and when they don't, like with Michael Oliver this weekend, they are wrong but stubborn.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I see your point, and accept that, it works in NFL, Cricket, Tennis, but they are slower games. I don't see any harm in taking longer if it gets the correct decision though, I don't even see a problem with having a "ball in play" timer, set to 70/80 minutes. This would drive the purist's insane mind, so will never happen, but there should be a minimum in play time, or time added on is more visible.

I suppose a team captain or manager could be the only one to refer, and play just carries on until they refer, and only have like 10 seconds to do it? If you've been cheated and challenged, then you wouldn't run out of reviews, as they should only cost when you challenge when you're wrong, which is your own fault, that's down to tactics. If you end the game with 3 challenges left and haven't challenged a dodgy penalty then tough tittie.

I don't think we need anything too drastic mind, just more competency from a wealth of experience, as well as a lot more clarity. Refs need micing up, it's an absolute must, no reason not to do it other than the footballers swearing, but that should have been cut out decades ago, like is has been in other sports.
 
GazBoro said:
It'll always be shyte until they actually start putting ex-pros in charge of making VAR decisions..
Click to expand...
worst suggestion ever. Ex-pros often don't actually know the rules of the game, and will start applying "common sense"......that would be a mistake, they are rules not guidelines to be applied on a whim.

We need better process for applying, possibly more than one video ref to make such decisions. Or some other process changes.

I'd like to see a - all offside decisions and all in-out box decisions decisions applied automatically.

Then I would like each manager to have 2 opportunities per half to ask for the ref to review a decision. The manager has 30 seconds to request a review.
 
TeaCider said:
It's here to stay.

We just need to better train referees, probably help by making it a more attractive career path.
I've no idea why you'd want to be a ref right now, you get dogs abuse for fairly meager pay, even at the highest level.

It's a key position in one of the most lucrative sports in the world and most PL playa earn more in a week than they do in a year.
Click to expand...
“We just need to train better referees” - some ones who aren’t biased towards the big clubs would be nice too
 
I think the way we can hear the outcome and the reason like in rugby would make a world of difference . To be fair also applying more yellow cards to these supposed athletes who roll round like they have been shot would also be better . It’s embarrassing and ruining the game . They should be ashamed of themselves at times
 
Funky_Chicken said:
“We just need to train better referees” - some ones who aren’t biased towards the big clubs would be nice too
Click to expand...
We need to train better fans. If you've got 2 kids one week give everything to one and nothing to the other. Cakes chocolate fizzy drinks the lot. Other kid gets bread crusts. Next week switch it around. There will be temper tantrums and whatnot, but they will learn a very valuable lesson to take into adulthood. Sometimes you get **** all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top