Topic: Video Assistant Referees (VAR)

[Twinport53]

For me it's s*** because it is not VAR, it's VR. The actual ref has no control, as what he decides is then overturned by some bloke 100 miles away.

VAR should only be used if the ref legitimately needs help or he's made a blatant error. Not for over analysing every tackle, foul, offside call and goal.

Last night the ref actually asked "What for?" when he was told VAR had seen something. It's to invasive.

[Ian W]

Does anyone have a summary of how and when it's actually supposed to work?

[jdckelly]

its been very poorly implemented, main issue I have is since the refs mic's aren't heard by anyone but themselves and at the stadiums they don't show what the hell they're doing while the game is just stopped then the crowd at the game is completely left in the dark at least with rugby, cricket or tennis they show whats being reviewed. Throw in the time it takes and it probably just doesn't work well with football and honestly I'd prefer it if they just used the additional assistant refs behind the goals as they do with the champions league.

[Yorkie]

I think it's unnecessary and, to make matters worse, is being horribly delivered. I appreciate the angle that it's a 'work in progress,' but it's been so far away from anything acceptable that I can't see the final product being anything other than clunky and s***.

Can we get a poll?

[Dave]

It seems poorly implemented now if the wait is genuinely that long. I didn't watch the match but if it's causing ridiculous stoppages then it's s****.

That said, i genuinely believe reducing the capacity for human error to be a good thing and not draining of the soul of the sport. in any sport. someone is either onside or they're not, it's not a judgement call. I think a good balance of application has to be found and maybe the results of the first iteration of an idea shouldn't be used as a bludgeon against future improvements.

In theory, but not in any reasonable practice.

[Infinitely Content]

I think the fact of the matter is that if it's to be made compulsory, people will get used to it and it will become an accepted side of the game - regardless of how much people dislike it at present. I also believe most of us would be happy with it if it was seamlessly done consistently, it's hard to argue with as a concept, but the current implication & example of it has shown it's ambiguous & ugly sides.

[Figures 1-0 Football]

I think it's unnecessary and, to make matters worse, is being horribly delivered. I appreciate the angle that it's a 'work in progress,' but it's been so far away from anything acceptable that I can't see the final product being anything other than clunky and s***.

Can we get a poll?

Added the poll.

I really fail to understand why Sky/BT are so unanimously in favour of it. Controversial decisions form a huge amount of their analysis like, why would they want to lose that?

[joeyt]

Is the plan to eventually have all PL games using VAR or only those in the allocated TV slots?

[Wullie]

I think it's unnecessary and, to make matters worse, is being horribly delivered. I appreciate the angle that it's a 'work in progress,' but it's been so far away from anything acceptable that I can't see the final product being anything other than clunky and s***.

Can we get a poll?

Added the poll.

I really fail to understand why Sky/BT are so unanimously in favour of it. Controversial decisions form a huge amount of their analysis like, why would they want to lose that?

The broadcasters are the ones who provide the video footage to the VAR team - is there a financial incentive? Are the FA paying them? Genuinely have no idea.

Are they that in favour though? The BT team certainly weren't last night.

[Wullie]

I think the point about it disturbing celebrations of players and supporters is showing itself to be increasingly strong, it wasn't something I thought would be that much of an issue but it is.

Football's a game more than any other where that one moment might mean everything and this thing throws the balance right off. Points in tennis, rugby, American football, wickets in cricket, all come so regularly, yes one decision can affect a match but not like football where goals are so sparse. You don't get that explosion of a crowd for a wicket or a try unless it's particularly crucial or late.

Of course there's always been the risk of a late flag but that's not the same as this. If somebody is forensically checking each goal for an infringement and you're having to wait for confirmation, it's doing significant damage to the sport as a spectacle imo.

[54]

Just seen the highlights from the Spurs game, that disallowed goal decision is just flat out wrong, the penalty should have been a free-kick as contact was outside the box, I'm not sure on the rules regarding the actual penalty, but people do that run up all the time and it never gets recalled. What a s*** show.

[Optimistic Nut]

Nah the penalty decision and disallowing it were both correct. Loads of players stutter in the run up but Son flat out stopped.

[Wullie]

The law seems to say that Son did nothing wrong.

This clarification makes it clear. Feinting in the run-up: ok. Feinting to kick: not ok. pic.twitter.com/bKerjEEl6n

— Raphael Honigstein (@honigstein) March 1, 2018

[Wullie]

Nah the penalty decision and disallowing it were both correct. Loads of players stutter in the run up but Son flat out stopped.

Doesn't matter. If only matters if he actually feints the shot e.g. Messi vs Milan.

Here’s the actual wording. This Law is designed to stop players wiggling their foot around over the ball, not delaying/interrupting their run-up. pic.twitter.com/SvcxiesABL

— Raphael Honigstein (@honigstein) March 1, 2018

[ponsaelius]

I hate it with every fibre of my being, for a whole host of different reasons.

[Optimistic Nut]

Surprised more people don't do that then. Almost a guaranteed goal.

[Yorkie]

I hate it with every fibre of my being, for a whole host of different reasons.

Like you say, I don't really know where to start with all the reasons to be opposed... but I find it very sad that there is no room for consultation with supporters for something which will have potentially enormous ramifications on the very nature of the sport.

[oldtype]

Takes a few years for all the kinks to be worked out of this sort of thing.  Eventually the decision times are going to get much faster and they'll get a better handle on which decisions should be reviewed.  I wouldn't be looking to throw things out just because it's not working well immediately.

[Yorkie]

I'm all for progress but I'm still yet to hear one solitary argument for why it is even needed or how it would benefit the sport, regardless of any of the negative impacts it carries with it.

After almost two centuries of matches solely featuring human participation, I honestly don't know what problem it's supposed to be solving. Aye, you get the odd car crash of a decision and it's extremely galling in the moment (and potentially enduring), but 99.9999999% of calls are justifiable, once you consider that every minutiae to a passage of play has an effect on what follows. The existing referees do an ample job of governing that and should be allowed to forever more without the aid of forensic analysis.

It's almost like VAR is some inevitable, immovable hazard which has been bestowed on the sport and we're having to come up with ways to manage it, like bad weather. As opposed to some idea which has been given the go-ahead based on risk assessment and consultation.

I honestly detest the whole thing for this and all the other reasons mentioned in this thread, and it makes me sad.

[Hughesy]

Admittedly I haven't been at a game where VAR has been used, but I don't really get the idea that you now can't celebrate the scoring of a goal.  Surely you just celebrate on the assumption that you have scored a goal?  Goals get disallowed quite frequently anyway for offside or various infringements, but it doesn't stop people celebrating as if the goal is a goal.  It's the same in cricket - the point at which you take a wicket is still a moment of celebration.

Just seems a s*** argument to me.

EDIT: hadn't read Wullie's post, but I don't agree!

[Figures 1-0 Football]

I think the point about it disturbing celebrations of players and supporters is showing itself to be increasingly strong, it wasn't something I thought would be that much of an issue but it is.

Football's a game more than any other where that one moment might mean everything and this thing throws the balance right off. Points in tennis, rugby, American football, wickets in cricket, all come so regularly, yes one decision can affect a match but not like football where goals are so sparse. You don't get that explosion of a crowd for a wicket or a try unless it's particularly crucial or late.

Of course there's always been the risk of a late flag but that's not the same as this. If somebody is forensically checking each goal for an infringement and you're having to wait for confirmation, it's doing significant damage to the sport as a spectacle imo.

This is the main reason I don’t want it, to be honest.

I’m the first to moan when a decision incorrectly goes against us, but I’d rather have that then dilute the game even more with VAR. Cant think of anything worse than the ‘norm’ being a 5 second pause after the ball hits the net whilst the crowd check if the referee is referring to VAR, prior to celebrating.

It’d be a complete farce and we’d see more scenes like Burton at home last season, where we have officials wandering around the pitch whilst everyone else is in total confusion.

Apparently, VAR has a 98% success rate of getting decisions right (SSN), I’d question why the f*** that isn’t 100% like

[Figures 1-0 Football]

Admittedly I haven't been at a game where VAR has been used, but I don't really get the idea that you now can't celebrate the scoring of a goal.  Surely you just celebrate on the assumption that you have scored a goal?  Goals get disallowed quite frequently anyway for offside or various infringements, but it doesn't stop people celebrating as if the goal is a goal.  It's the same in cricket - the point at which you take a wicket is still a moment of celebration.

Just seems a s*** argument to me.

EDIT: hadn't read Wullie's post, but I don't agree!

Where there is an infringement, there is usually a flag and/or whistle before the ball his the net - so a lot of people in the ground notice this prior to celebrating and the celebrations are never ‘full on’. It’s highly unusual that a goal is chalked off and the whole stadium is in pandemonium.

VAR would disallow the goal anywhere from 15 seconds to 2 minutes (as we’ve seen) after the ball hits the net, it’s totally different to looking up after jumping out of your seat and noticing an offside flag, imo.

Add in the waiting around tor a decision and then another round of almost plastic celebrations if the goal is given and it’s totally rancid, imo.

As others have said, VAR is used in sports that are nowhere near as celebratory as football is where there is a goal - which is why it works in those sports but wouldn’t in ours.

[timeEd32]

The two best implementations of video/tech in sports are tennis and football (goal-line) because they are nearly instant (and not surprising humans have been completely removed).

Video reviews in baseball and the NFL are painfully slow, but the big difference is both of those sports are naturally stop/start. Long replay reviews in basketball feel worse than those other two sports and a football match is similar. It loses all momentum.

I'm 100% in favor of using technology to ensure decisions are made correctly, but they need a system that balances accuracy with speed. If a decision can't obviously be changed within X amount of time (maybe 30 seconds?) then stick with the ruling on the field. Egregious errors will be fixed with a lot less impact on the game.

[Kaizero]

“Beckham into Sheringham....and Solskjaer has won it....or has he, there is a VAR call. The ref wants to go back & check Solskjaer’s positioning.... we’re still waiting....he’ll only be another minute”.

— United Religion (@Unitedology) February 28, 2018

?s=21

[Cronky]

Ours is a sport where too many decisions rest on difficult matters of opinion, rather than clear cut matters of fact. Technology isn't going to get round that.