Weekend Football

[John Smith]

Absolute joke of a VAR decision in the Fulham-Oldham game. Thankfully it was missed, but how the hell the VAR ref saw that as a foul is mystifying. There was the slightest graze of a touch and then the Fulham player clearly dived.

This is why VAR needs to be abolished. No place for it in the sport of football.

Cairney should be ashamed of himself if he has to resort to cheating in order to beat Oldham at home. Great save from the keeper and great character by the Latics to win it after that.

VAR clearly doesn't work, please get rid.

[Stranded]

Absolute joke of a VAR decision in the Fulham-Oldham game. Thankfully it was missed, but how the hell the VAR ref saw that as a foul is mystifying. There was the slightest graze of a touch and then the Fulham player clearly dived.

Didn't the ref originally give the pen? If so, for it to be reversed there needs to be a clear error seen, as there was contact, however minimal, the VAR ref couldn't overturn it.

[Sanguine]

Absolute joke of a VAR decision in the Fulham-Oldham game. Thankfully it was missed, but how the hell the VAR ref saw that as a foul is mystifying. There was the slightest graze of a touch and then the Fulham player clearly dived.

Didn't the ref originally give the pen? If so, for it to be reversed there needs to be a clear error seen, as there was contact, however minimal, the VAR ref couldn't overturn it.

This. The problem with VAR remains the way in which it is used and fans' understanding of what decisions will be overturned and when, not the technology and the decisions made. Another example is the two minutes that the ref in the United v Reading game spent standing motionless with his hand to his ear. Fans need to be made aware of what is going on.

[Stranded]

Absolute joke of a VAR decision in the Fulham-Oldham game. Thankfully it was missed, but how the hell the VAR ref saw that as a foul is mystifying. There was the slightest graze of a touch and then the Fulham player clearly dived.

Didn't the ref originally give the pen? If so, for it to be reversed there needs to be a clear error seen, as there was contact, however minimal, the VAR ref couldn't overturn it.

This. The problem with VAR remains the way in which it is used and fans' understanding of what decisions will be overturned and when, not the technology and the decisions made. Another example is the two minutes that the ref in the United v Reading game spent standing motionless with his hand to his ear. Fans need to be made aware of what is going on.

Re our game, what happened to the ref going to the side of the pitch to view the replay? That worked pretty well in the WC as it was clear that a review was taking place.

[Sanguine]

Didn't the ref originally give the pen? If so, for it to be reversed there needs to be a clear error seen, as there was contact, however minimal, the VAR ref couldn't overturn it.

This. The problem with VAR remains the way in which it is used and fans' understanding of what decisions will be overturned and when, not the technology and the decisions made. Another example is the two minutes that the ref in the United v Reading game spent standing motionless with his hand to his ear. Fans need to be made aware of what is going on.

Re our game, what happened to the ref going to the side of the pitch to view the replay? That worked pretty well in the WC as it was clear that a review was taking place.

Yep, that did confuse me a bit, as I thought the process was that the VAR officials suggested to the referee that he watch a replay and review his decision. Seems to have changed to the VAR officials making the decision in isolation. Which I don't particularly mind, but that needs to be clear - and I think if that's the process then the footage being reviewed should be played on the big screen.

[Stranded]

This. The problem with VAR remains the way in which it is used and fans' understanding of what decisions will be overturned and when, not the technology and the decisions made. Another example is the two minutes that the ref in the United v Reading game spent standing motionless with his hand to his ear. Fans need to be made aware of what is going on.

Re our game, what happened to the ref going to the side of the pitch to view the replay? That worked pretty well in the WC as it was clear that a review was taking place.

Yep, that did confuse me a bit, as I thought the process was that the VAR officials suggested to the referee that he watch a replay and review his decision. Seems to have changed to the VAR officials making the decision in isolation. Which I don't particularly mind, but that needs to be clear - and I think if that's the process then the footage being reviewed should be played on the big screen.

VAR will remain confusing until it is used week in, week out and consistantly i.e. ref always views replays after advice. It would also help if it is used across all games in a competition, using VAR in just 9 games this weekend is a bit half-baked.

[Hoop Blah]

This. The problem with VAR remains the way in which it is used and fans' understanding of what decisions will be overturned and when, not the technology and the decisions made. Another example is the two minutes that the ref in the United v Reading game spent standing motionless with his hand to his ear. Fans need to be made aware of what is going on.

For me the problem is that it's also still a matter of opinion and so even on review it comes down to what that official thinks at that moment in time.

[John Smith]

For me the problem is that it's also still a matter of opinion and so even on review it comes down to what that official thinks at that moment in time.

Exactly

[Sanguine]

This. The problem with VAR remains the way in which it is used and fans' understanding of what decisions will be overturned and when, not the technology and the decisions made. Another example is the two minutes that the ref in the United v Reading game spent standing motionless with his hand to his ear. Fans need to be made aware of what is going on.

For me the problem is that it's also still a matter of opinion and so even on review it comes down to what that official thinks at that moment in time.

That's the nuance I was trying to pull out. In cricket, the umpire gives his opinion, and if technology says it's a close call, it stays with his on-field decision. That's the bit that football fans can't get their heads around - VAR isn't and wasn't ever designed to be used to adjudge the minutest of fouls or barely detectable simulation, but to correct obvious mistakes.

You're right - even on review, if it's a marginal call it stays with what the official thought at that moment in time. That's how it should be.
I don't see why that is a problem. The argument seems to be that because technology can't help with subjective decisions, it shouldn't help with objective ones.

[Victor Meldrew]

This. The problem with VAR remains the way in which it is used and fans' understanding of what decisions will be overturned and when, not the technology and the decisions made. Another example is the two minutes that the ref in the United v Reading game spent standing motionless with his hand to his ear. Fans need to be made aware of what is going on.

For me the problem is that it's also still a matter of opinion and so even on review it comes down to what that official thinks at that moment in time.

That's the nuance I was trying to pull out. In cricket, the umpire gives his opinion, and if technology says it's a close call, it stays with his on-field decision. That's the bit that football fans can't get their heads around - VAR isn't and wasn't ever designed to be used to adjudge the minutest of fouls or barely detectable simulation, but to correct obvious mistakes.

You're right - even on review, if it's a marginal call it stays with what the official thought at that moment in time. That's how it should be.
I don't see why that is a problem. The argument seems to be that because technology can't help with subjective decisions, it shouldn't help with objective ones.

Talking to a Turkish lad the other day (he runs the local paper shop and is a fan of Galatasaray and played both football and basketball for them but not at the very top level) his gripe is that the ref decides whether to refer to VAR (they have VAR in Turkey for all games).

He admits to looking at things through RTGs but is convinced that the refs have it in for his team and hardly ever refer when it might be to Galatasaray's advantage.
In his opinion the top Turkish ref (the one we see in European games with the very dark hair flattened by overuse of brylcream-can't think of his name) is the worst culprit of all and seemingly never refers to VAR if the decision could favour Galatasaray.

I would guess his "never" isn't actually never.

[Hoop Blah]

That's the nuance I was trying to pull out. In cricket, the umpire gives his opinion, and if technology says it's a close call, it stays with his on-field decision. That's the bit that football fans can't get their heads around - VAR isn't and wasn't ever designed to be used to adjudge the minutest of fouls or barely detectable simulation, but to correct obvious mistakes.

You're right - even on review, if it's a marginal call it stays with what the official thought at that moment in time. That's how it should be.
I don't see why that is a problem. The argument seems to be that because technology can't help with subjective decisions, it shouldn't help with objective ones.

Cricket is still dealing in decisions of fact though really, it's just they allow a margin for error between the umpires opinion and the fact the technology can deliver. In football it's only really giving the official more information to make a call on what happened (which is fine, but it's a massive limitation for VAR in football).

[Silver Fox]

Which is why goalline technology is great and VAR is flawed

[Hendo]

Which is why goalline technology is great and VAR is flawed

Happy for VAR to be used for offside decisions as well, as they are 99% of the time, on or off.

[Hoop Blah]

Which is why goalline technology is great and VAR is flawed

Happy for VAR to be used for offside decisions as well, as they are 99% of the time, on or off.

Apart from whether they're interfering with play or making a attempt to gain an advantage from being in an offside position.

As last nights VAR decision and the subsequent alternative camera angle showed, it's not always quite as black and white as it can appear either.

[Sanguine]

Still don't get the fuss. This is a mindset thing, it's nothing to do with the technology, which predominantly works well.

VAR should be used to overturn obvious errors. Whatever the decision on the pitch, VAR isn't there to make a different subjective decision.
Has a referee given a penalty where it is clear on replays that a player dived? Has a referee turned down a penalty where it is clear on replays that a player was fouled? Has a referee missed some violent or dangerous play?

The 'problems' in my view remain officials using the technology incorrectly, fans who misunderstand the purpose of it, and lack of clarity in stadiums as to what is going on.

There is clearly an improvement to be made concerning offsides. Clearly Kane will look more onside from behind the play (per the official view), and he will look more offisde from ahead of the play (per the view Chelsea provided).

[Hendo]

Which is why goalline technology is great and VAR is flawed

Happy for VAR to be used for offside decisions as well, as they are 99% of the time, on or off.

Apart from whether they're interfering with play or making a attempt to gain an advantage from being in an offside position.

As last nights VAR decision and the subsequent alternative camera angle showed, it's not always quite as black and white as it can appear either.

I think it would be fairly obvious if someone was trying to gain an advantage/interfering with play, certainly more obvious than penalty/simulation decisions.

With the camera angles, I didn't see that until this morning, was quite interesting. A simple way around that is that all parties agree on what cameras will be used and no other angles will be considered.

[Hoop Blah]

]I think it would be fairly obvious if someone was trying to gain an advantage/interfering with play, certainly more obvious than penalty/simulation decisions.

With the camera angles, I didn't see that until this morning, was quite interesting. A simple way around that is that all parties agree on what cameras will be used and no other angles will be considered.

If it was that obvious, why is it something that is often a subject of debate?

Still don't get the fuss. This is a mindset thing, it's nothing to do with the technology, which predominantly works well.

VAR should be used to overturn obvious errors. Whatever the decision on the pitch, VAR isn't there to make a different subjective decision.
Has a referee given a penalty where it is clear on replays that a player dived? Has a referee turned down a penalty where it is clear on replays that a player was fouled? Has a referee missed some violent or dangerous play?

The 'problems' in my view remain officials using the technology incorrectly, fans who misunderstand the purpose of it, and lack of clarity in stadiums as to what is going on.

There is clearly an improvement to be made concerning offsides. Clearly Kane will look more onside from behind the play (per the official view), and he will look more offisde from ahead of the play (per the view Chelsea provided).

I'd agree the problem is with the implementation as much as the tech, although last nights debate on the VAR decision was as much about the tech for once as the Chelsea analysts had a better/different angle that would've changed the decision. It shows it's not conclusive from the VAR angle.

[John Smith]

Is Declan Rice good?

[Old Man Andrews]

Is Declan Rice good?

His uncle Ben certainly recommends him.

[John Smith]

Is Declan Rice good?

His uncle Ben certainly recommends him.

As does the whole of the media.

I don't think he's all that.