VAR

[Mr Optimist]

I think VAR could be great, as someone said, if there is agreement as to what types of decisions or incidents it will be used for and these are carefully laid out.

What I fear will happen after watching Chelsea last night is utterkunts like Conte and players like Morata haranguing officials theatrically drawing imaginary boxes with their fingers. It will be the new imaginary card waiving. That side will need to be stamped on pretty quickly.

[John Smith]

If it's not going to prove conclusive then why have it? It's just the same as having a referee. I agree the cultural change needs to happen with more respect to the ref, especially from pundits, but this can only happen by going by the decision he thinks is right.

It's not going to be conclusive in ALL cases because some offences are inherently subjective involving things like intent and recklessness. Or incredibly marginal things. And as I said it doesn't give you perfect coverage.

But it does give you a second look, multiple angles, freeze frame, slow motion etc.

That's more than a ref has. If it reduces the number of clear injust decisions it's worth it.

Tech in cricket can't get 100% of decisions 100% correct, but you don't see people saying it shouldn't be used at all.

xackly....it's a lot better than guessing.

Try it out and see how it works

We are trying it and it's not working. This is football, completely different to cricket. Sack it off. Refs don't get that many decisions wrong, they just need to improve the standard further down the pyramid.

[genome]

What I fear will happen after watching Chelsea last night is utterkunts like Conte and players like Morata haranguing officials theatrically drawing imaginary boxes with their fingers. It will be the new imaginary card waiving. That side will need to be stamped on pretty quickly.

Yeah, that's my worry too. I can see it driving me nuts

[Sanguine]

I think VAR could be great, as someone said, if there is agreement as to what types of decisions or incidents it will be used for and these are carefully laid out.

What I fear will happen after watching Chelsea last night is utterkunts like Conte and players like Morata haranguing officials theatrically drawing imaginary boxes with their fingers. It will be the new imaginary card waiving. That side will need to be stamped on pretty quickly.

As I suggested yesterday, and contrary to some calls for teams to have a number of 'challenges' per game, I'd like to see VAR used like the TMO in rugby. I know that the captains might have the odd word in the referees' ear, but essentially TMO is a referees-only system. There is no requesting it, the on-field ref just talks to the TMO and vice versa as and when they feel they need to. No debate, decision is final, move on.

The 'problem' with VAR, as highlighted, is the lack of respect for officials in football. No idea what Morata said exactly, but it was refreshing to see a player dismissed for once after aiming a spitload of bile at the referee.

[Snowflake Royal]

It's not going to be conclusive in ALL cases because some offences are inherently subjective involving things like intent and recklessness. Or incredibly marginal things. And as I said it doesn't give you perfect coverage.

But it does give you a second look, multiple angles, freeze frame, slow motion etc.

That's more than a ref has. If it reduces the number of clear injust decisions it's worth it.

Tech in cricket can't get 100% of decisions 100% correct, but you don't see people saying it shouldn't be used at all.

xackly....it's a lot better than guessing.

Try it out and see how it works

We are trying it and it's not working. This is football, completely different to cricket. Sack it off. Refs don't get that many decisions wrong, they just need to improve the standard further down the pyramid.

How is it not working? Because that fukwit Phil Neville doesn't like it?

It's been used barely at all yet. That's not a proper trial.

[Hoop Blah]

As I suggested yesterday, and contrary to some calls for teams to have a number of 'challenges' per game, I'd like to see VAR used like the TMO in rugby. I know that the captains might have the odd word in the referees' ear, but essentially TMO is a referees-only system. There is no requesting it, the on-field ref just talks to the TMO and vice versa as and when they feel they need to. No debate, decision is final, move on.

The 'problem' with VAR, as highlighted, is the lack of respect for officials in football. No idea what Morata said exactly, but it was refreshing to see a player dismissed for once after aiming a spitload of bile at the referee.

My concern has always been that football is a more fluid game than rugby and has more subjective decisions to make too and so where it appears to work ok in rugby it will have more of a negative effect on a game of football.

I totally agree on the issue around the level of respect for the referee though. I'm not convinced that VAR is ever going to help that though.

[BR0B0T]

I'd have introduced it gradually with a bit of framework

i.e. we're used to goalline tech let's use VAR for the next step

Check for offsides after a 'goal' has been scored...it's binary and will sort marginal decisions out effectively

[Stranded]

I'd have introduced it gradually with a bit of framework

i.e. we're used to goalline tech let's use VAR for the next step

Check for offsides after a 'goal' has been scored...it's binary and will sort marginal decisions out effectively

It is being introduced gradually though isn't it? Limited to 2 competitions (that people don't care than much about any more apparently) and can only be used to check on goals, red cards, penalties and mistaken idenity. The trial said they hope to cut errors by 2% initially so not been seen as a silver bullet but just a way to improve things slowly but surely.

It's there as an extra pair of eyes and I can't see how that is a bad thing.

[Hoop Blah]

I'd have introduced it gradually with a bit of framework

i.e. we're used to goalline tech let's use VAR for the next step

Check for offsides after a 'goal' has been scored...it's binary and will sort marginal decisions out effectively

It is being introduced gradually though isn't it? Limited to 2 competitions (that people don't care than much about any more apparently) and can only be used to check on goals, red cards, penalties and mistaken idenity. The trial said they hope to cut errors by 2% initially so not been seen as a silver bullet but just a way to improve things slowly but surely.

It's there as an extra pair of eyes and I can't see how that is a bad thing.

That 2% is 50% of refereeing errors though isn't it? Taking correct decisions from 96 to 98%.

How can it be a bad thing? By negatively effecting the flow of the game and still not fixing the perceived problem.

I read that 47% of players in Germany want to get rid of their version of VAR. Now I'm not one for taking players opinions to be that objective or worthwhile but if almost half of the players think it's a bad thing then I'm not convinced their pilot could be said to be successful (so far). Now that might be as much about implementation as the concept itself but there is obviously scope for it to be negative.

[Stranded]

I'd have introduced it gradually with a bit of framework

i.e. we're used to goalline tech let's use VAR for the next step

Check for offsides after a 'goal' has been scored...it's binary and will sort marginal decisions out effectively

It is being introduced gradually though isn't it? Limited to 2 competitions (that people don't care than much about any more apparently) and can only be used to check on goals, red cards, penalties and mistaken idenity. The trial said they hope to cut errors by 2% initially so not been seen as a silver bullet but just a way to improve things slowly but surely.

It's there as an extra pair of eyes and I can't see how that is a bad thing.

That 2% is 50% of refereeing errors though isn't it? Taking correct decisions from 96 to 98%.

How can it be a bad thing? By negatively effecting the flow of the game and still not fixing the perceived problem.

I read that 47% of players in Germany want to get rid of their version of VAR. Now I'm not one for taking players opinions to be that objective or worthwhile but if almost half of the players think it's a bad thing then I'm not convinced their pilot could be said to be successful (so far). Now that might be as much about implementation as the concept itself but there is obviously scope for it to be negative.

Surely the success will be purely measured on if VAR increases the number of correct decisions not if the players like it or not? Players mostly won't like it as they can't get away with some of the things they could get away with prior to it's introduction.

I guarantee everyone will winge about it for a year or two then it will just be part of the game and no-one will bat an eyelid. The only way it won't come in is if there are a large number of errors resulting from it's use.

[Sanguine]

I read a lot about 'it will disrupt the flow of the game', but is there any evidence in its use so far that it 'disrupts the flow of the game', any more so that the time is has taken to correct a wrong decision, or ensure a decision is correct?

It took 67 seconds from Ineacho's shot hitting the net for the goal to be awarded by VAR. Celebration of the goal in the stadium when it went in weren't mooted, and you could argue that it takes a minute to restart the game after a goal anyway*. And I've seen no evidence in other sports (such as rugby or cricket) of fans not celebrating a win or a wicket or a try or whatever as vociferously in case it is overturned.

*and in that respect, like for goals, I'd guess that any time used for VAR is added at the end.

[Stranded]

I read a lot about 'it will disrupt the flow of the game', but is there any evidence in its use so far that it 'disrupts the flow of the game', any more so that the time is has taken to correct a wrong decision, or ensure a decision is correct?

It took 67 seconds from Ineacho's shot hitting the net for the goal to be awarded by VAR. Celebration of the goal in the stadium when it went in weren't mooted, and you could argue that it takes a minute to restart the game after a goal anyway*. And I've seen no evidence in other sports (such as rugby or cricket) of fans not celebrating a win or a wicket or a try or whatever as vociferously in case it is overturned.

*and in that respect, like for goals, I'd guess that any time used for VAR is added at the end.

Well quite - the ball is dead, the game is already stopped. How long does it take for a free kick to be set up or a corner to be taken, those are parts of the game that can and do take longer than it will do to review most incidents under the VAR scope.

Take the Brighton goal that was reviewed, it was checked (as there was a question over handball ) and confirmed as OK in the time in took Brighton to celebrate the goal and get back to position for the restart.

[tmesis]

One of the worst arguments against VAR is the one about wrong decisions somehow being part of the game, and we'd be robbed of talking points.

How does that even work when the biggest talking point about a wrong decision is that fact that the ref got it wrong?

VAR should be used for black and white decisions only, not something that can be as subjective as 'contact' or 'intent' in deciding a penalty or foul.

Whether there was contact or not isn't subjective,

The subjective part, if applied, is whether the attacker was tripped, or whether he threw himself at the player to engineer a trip. Weirdly "contact" results in a foul far more often inside or around the area than it does in the middle of the pitch.

Intent isn't part of the rules any more. You don't have to judge whether a player meant to trip someone, or meant to handle a ball. It's more a case of whether it was their fault that it happened.

[BR0B0T]

shirley offside is one thing they should be able to sort out with tech in near real time

[Snowflake Royal]

One of the worst arguments against VAR is the one about wrong decisions somehow being part of the game, and we'd be robbed of talking points.

How does that even work when the biggest talking point about a wrong decision is that fact that the ref got it wrong?

VAR should be used for black and white decisions only, not something that can be as subjective as 'contact' or 'intent' in deciding a penalty or foul.

Whether there was contact or not isn't subjective,

The subjective part, if applied, is whether the attacker was tripped, or whether he threw himself at the player to engineer a trip. Weirdly "contact" results in a foul far more often inside or around the area than it does in the middle of the pitch.

Intent isn't part of the rules any more. You don't have to judge whether a player meant to trip someone, or meant to handle a ball. It's more a case of whether it was their fault that it happened.

I may be wrong, but contact in of itself isn't an offence. It's impeding someone unlawfully that is. So whilst VAR may be able to tell you categorically if there was contact, like with Willian or Morata it could, it doesn't tell you whether that contact is a foul. I think I'm agreeing with you other than that it doesn't have to be the 'fouled' player causing the contact to not be a foul, it could be that the contact is not deemed sufficient to impede them.

And that's not objective, it's subjective. So VAR can answer the ref's question of if there was contact. Or notify the ref there was contact and ask him if he saw it or if not would like to reconsider. But it shouldn't jump in and take over from a ref who may well have seen the incident clearly and made a firm judgement call about whether it constituted an offence.

Personally, I think that covers the Willian situtation. There was contact, I've seen some argue he dangled a leg out and it was a dive, some seem to be arguing there was clear contact so it should be a penalty, maybe the ref saw it and thought it was just a natural coming together where no one was impeded and no offence occurred, in which case it's totally right for VAR not to have overruled him unless it's incredibly clear that isn't the case.

[tmesis]

shirley offside is one thing they should be able to sort out with tech in near real time

Maybe, but I always feel that unless someone is clearly offside, it doesn't really matter, so if there's any doubt it should be called onside. If they have a look on VAR and it's inconclusive, always give it as onside.

The rule was, after all, only invented to stop goalhanging, or people standing beyond the defence, which would give them an unfair advantage. It wasn't brought in to stop people being a couple of inches offside.

[BR0B0T]

shirley offside is one thing they should be able to sort out with tech in near real time

Maybe, but I always feel that unless someone is clearly offside, it doesn't really matter, so if there's any doubt it should be called onside. If they have a look on VAR and it's inconclusive, always give it as onside.

The rule was, after all, only invented to stop goalhanging, or people standing beyond the defence, which would give them an unfair advantage. It wasn't brought in to stop people being a couple of inches offside.

I talking about automating the decision rather than video replay

I have no idea how a linesman can actually view when the ball was kicked and check if the player is onside (esp if the attacker has made a fast diagonal run and the defender is stepping up). Also if you are looking in a line the player furthest away from you always looks in a more forward position

[Snowflake Royal]

shirley offside is one thing they should be able to sort out with tech in near real time

Maybe, but I always feel that unless someone is clearly offside, it doesn't really matter, so if there's any doubt it should be called onside. If they have a look on VAR and it's inconclusive, always give it as onside.

The rule was, after all, only invented to stop goalhanging, or people standing beyond the defence, which would give them an unfair advantage. It wasn't brought in to stop people being a couple of inches offside.

I talking about automating the decision rather than video replay

I have no idea how a linesman can actually view when the ball was kicked and check if the player is onside (esp if the attacker has made a fast diagonal run and the defender is stepping up). Also if you are looking in a line the player furthest away from you always looks in a more forward position

My guess is it'd be to do with how expensive and processing intensive it is to constantly be running the tech live, rather than just booting it up when there's a decision to be made in that one moment. It's got to track an awful lot in play to be live, automated and virtually immediate.

[Hoop Blah]

It would also have to make a subjective decision on whether the player was interfering with play if you want to automate the whole decision.

[Hoop Blah]

I read a lot about 'it will disrupt the flow of the game', but is there any evidence in its use so far that it 'disrupts the flow of the game', any more so that the time is has taken to correct a wrong decision, or ensure a decision is correct?

It took 67 seconds from Ineacho's shot hitting the net for the goal to be awarded by VAR. Celebration of the goal in the stadium when it went in weren't mooted, and you could argue that it takes a minute to restart the game after a goal anyway*. And I've seen no evidence in other sports (such as rugby or cricket) of fans not celebrating a win or a wicket or a try or whatever as vociferously in case it is overturned.

*and in that respect, like for goals, I'd guess that any time used for VAR is added at the end.

I think one of the criticisms from the players in Germany and, to a lesser extent Italy, is that it's already disrupting the flow of games.

I'm all for the pilot programme but my fear remains that it'll have a negative effect long term for little gain in terms of correcting decisions. It'll very much be dependant upon the implementation but I do think it'll open the door to more intrusive reviews over time. This will just be the tip of the iceberg.