Video Assistant Referees to be used for 2018 World Cup

martyos121

Confirmed by FIFA president Gianni Infantino this evening.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/39726260

The video assistant referee (VAR) technology can only review incidents relating to goals, red cards, mistaken identities and penalties.

Very interesting and it'll certainly divide opinions. How do you all feel about it?

Jayop

Considering when you watch football on TV even with the benefit of 100 replays you still have incidents in every single game that are debated and divide opinion I think this is going to end up with more problems.

The best way to do it is to have the ref make an on field decision and unless there's conclusive evidence to the contrary you stick with that.

alchemist33

I'm a big fan of video technology but that seems very broad. Still more positive than negative on this though and can't wait to see it implemented.

LuckyLloyd

Brilliant

That's a positive anyway. About time.

Royale with Cheese

It's ridiculous that it's taken this long for it to be at least trialled. If it's really going to be as bad as all the neighsayers think you can just get rid of it again.

Proper order. Bring it in asap. Ronaldo's 'goal' against Bayern last week. A yard offside. Embarrassing.......

Penalties? That could be dodgy to say the least.

Tom Mann Centuria

Two of my favourite sports, Rugby League and Cricket both have video ref of one sort or another, but both are much more stop start with natural pauses than football and mistakes and controversy are still not that uncommon, so for that reason I'm against it. It just adds another layer of officialdom that may still get it wrong, just take longer doing it.

TV companies will love it, as a.They can discuss even more decisions and b. ultimately, nipping off for quick ad break whilst decision is made.

Tom Mann Centuria

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Two of my favourite sports, Rugby League and Cricket both have video ref of one sort or another, but both are much more stop start with natural pauses than football and mistakes and controversy are still not that uncommon, so for that reason I'm against it. It just adds another layer of officialdom that may still get it wrong, just take longer doing it.

TV companies will love it, as a.They can discuss even more decisions and b. ultimately, nipping off for quick ad break whilst decision is made.

I honestly can't see a problem with it re a goal where there is a disputed offside decision involved. There's a natural pause in the game after a goal is scored anyway.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Don't like it.Simple as that.Don't care if it improves officiating and I don't care if people thinks it's illogical to dislike it I just don't like it.It can never result in every single decision being correct as it won't be used to judge everything that happens and no mistake is bigger than another as once one mistake happens due to the butterfly affect everything that happens from there on in in a game has been forever altered therefore the mis-awarding of a thrown in or free kick in the first minute of the game can be just as vital as a bad offside decision that cancels out a goal later as without the initial mistake early in the game the situation that arose for the goal to be incorrectly disallowed may not have ever happened.

callaway92

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Don't like it.Simple as that.Don't care if it improves officiating and I don't care if people thinks it's illogical to dislike it I just don't like it.It can never result in every single decision being correct as it won't be used to judge everything that happens and no mistake is bigger than another as once one mistake happens due to the butterfly affect everything that happens from there on in in a game has been forever altered therefore the mis-awarding of a thrown in or free kick in the first minute of the game can be just as vital as a bad offside decision that cancels out a goal later as without the initial mistake early in the game the situation that arose for the goal to be incorrectly disallowed may not have ever happened.

Such a bizarre, backwards thought process.

LuckyLloyd

Thankfully the backwards thinkers have been outflanked. It will come in, it will work, and will quickly become a natural part of the game.

Guy:Incognito

Have they considered adding more linesmen instead? 1 for each player and an extra one to watch the ball maybe.

Tom Mann Centuria

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Thankfully the backwards thinkers have been outflanked. It will come in, it will work, and will quickly become a natural part of the game.

A natural part of the upper tier of the game possibly. Please don't infer football begins and ends in the Premier league or richest leagues elsewhere.

Guy:Incognito

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Don't like it.Simple as that.Don't care if it improves officiating and I don't care if people thinks it's illogical to dislike it I just don't like it.It can never result in every single decision being correct as it won't be used to judge everything that happens and no mistake is bigger than another as once one mistake happens due to the butterfly affect everything that happens from there on in in a game has been forever altered therefore the mis-awarding of a thrown in or free kick in the first minute of the game can be just as vital as a bad offside decision that cancels out a goal later as without the initial mistake early in the game the situation that arose for the goal to be incorrectly disallowed may not have ever happened.

Well could just go the other way so and remove refs and rules altogether. Have a free for all. It'll even itself out in the end.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Don't like it.Simple as that.Don't care if it improves officiating and I don't care if people thinks it's illogical to dislike it I just don't like it.It can never result in every single decision being correct as it won't be used to judge everything that happens and no mistake is bigger than another as once one mistake happens due to the butterfly affect everything that happens from there on in in a game has been forever altered therefore the mis-awarding of a thrown in or free kick in the first minute of the game can be just as vital as a bad offside decision that cancels out a goal later as without the initial mistake early in the game the situation that arose for the goal to be incorrectly disallowed may not have ever happened.

I'm sorry, but just no. This is a ridiculously weak argument against its introduction.

LuckyLloyd

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

A natural part of the upper tier of the game possibly. Please don't infer football begins and ends in the Premier league or richest leagues elsewhere.

It's where the decisions have the highest competitive and financial meaning. No, it won't become a natural part of amateur football, but so what? Amateur football is already leagues different to the upper echelons of the elite game. You start at the top and work your way down with something like this.

Dirty Dingus McGee

callaway92 wrote: »

Such a bizarre, backwards thought process.

It's not though.

If an incorrect decision is made around the awarding of a throw in everything else that happens in the game has been forever altered by that decision.As a result this small mistake which won't be checked can have unforeseen implications for what happens in the game from then on and thus the making of a correct decision later in the game because of the video ref may seem to be correct but ultimately is wrong because of the initial mistake at the start of the game which created a ripple effect that cannot be turned back and the situation that was decided by the video ref may not have actually happened if the initial mistake was not made.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Well could just go the other way so and remove refs and rules altogether. Have a free for all. It'll even itself out in the end.

Just leave it as it is .The sport is imperfect no point going for a half arsed version of perfection that isn't actually perfection but tries to convince everyone that it is.

Tom Mann Centuria

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It's where the decisions have the highest competitive and financial meaning. No, it won't become a natural part of amateur football, but so what? Amateur football is already leagues different to the upper echelons of the elite game. You start at the top and work your way down with something like this.

The notion of working down is fanciful. It will never trickle down, even past the Championship televised games imo. There just isn't ever going to be the money. League of Ireland teams at the very top of their game won't get video refs, nor will dozens of other Countries top leagues. So it's not about the elite, it's about the privileged.

And money, I agree with you there, it's about money.

BorneTobyWilde

Interesting video in link, it's a reason it can't work.

Was that Rooney incident a penalty or not ? Should rooney have left keeper land o crunching tackle, or was he in right to get out of way and still win the penalty, or would you now class it a dive and no penalty?
Did Kompany deserve a red, after all he did what keeper did, went in very late and high but again the player got out of way, so red or no red. I'm confused by the video, are they saying all those decisions were incorrect ?

Dirty Dingus McGee

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

It's not though.

If an incorrect decision is made around the awarding of a throw in everything else that happens in the game has been forever altered by that decision.As a result this small mistake which won't be checked can have unforeseen implications for what happens in the game from then on and thus the making of a correct decision later in the game because of the video ref may seem to be correct but ultimately is wrong because of the initial mistake at the start of the game which created a ripple effect that cannot be turned back and the situation that was decided by the video ref may not have actually happened if the initial mistake was not made.

Honestly, who cares though? You are arguing for something that can never ever be proven. What about all the things that happen in a game that aren't against its laws? What if A passes to B, instead of C? Its a different game after that isn't it if C gets the ball instead?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Don't like it.Simple as that.Don't care if it improves officiating and I don't care if people thinks it's illogical to dislike it I just don't like it.It can never result in every single decision being correct as it won't be used to judge everything that happens and no mistake is bigger than another as once one mistake happens due to the butterfly affect everything that happens from there on in in a game has been forever altered therefore the mis-awarding of a thrown in or free kick in the first minute of the game can be just as vital as a bad offside decision that cancels out a goal later as without the initial mistake early in the game the situation that arose for the goal to be incorrectly disallowed may not have ever happened.

That's such silly logic. Almost nothing in life can be 100%. If we can't reduce a problem to zero it shouldn't be done? What your saying doesn't make sense to me sorry.

We can't reduce people on trolleys in hospitals to zero so we should stop looking for ways to improve our health service.
There's not a 100% survival rate with cancer so treatment is a waste of time.
Some people try to not pay their taxes so the government should stop collecting it.
There's no guarantee that I won't be hit by a car on my way to the shops so I won't go.
If I get my car serviced there's still a chance it'll break down at some stage in the future so what's the point in getting it fixed...

...and on and on with other things that don't make sense.

Your logic is not logical.

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

It's not though.

If an incorrect decision is made around the awarding of a throw in everything else that happens in the game has been forever altered by that decision.As a result this small mistake which won't be checked can have unforeseen implications for what happens in the game from then on and thus the making of a correct decision later in the game because of the video ref may seem to be correct but ultimately is wrong because of the initial mistake at the start of the game which created a ripple effect that cannot be turned back and the situation that was decided by the video ref may not have actually happened if the initial mistake was not made.

They're not bringing it in for throw ins. So your hypothetical point is completely redundant.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

That's such silly logic. Almost nothing in life can be 100%. If we can't reduce a problem to zero it shouldn't be done? What your saying doesn't make sense to me sorry.

We can't reduce people on trolleys in hospitals to zero so we should stop looking for ways to improve our health service.
There's not a 100% survival rate with cancer so treatment is a waste of time.
Some people try to not pay their taxes so the government should stop collecting it.
There's no guarantee that I won't be hit by a car on my way to the shops so I won't go.
If I get my car serviced there's still a chance it'll break down at some stage in the future so what's the point in getting it fixed...

...and on and on with other things that don't make sense.

Your logic is not logical.



They're not bringing it in for throw ins. So your hypothetical point is completely redundant.

No that is exactly the point.Because they aren't bringing it in for throw in's ,free kicks,corner kicks, etc there will be mistakes in those areas leading to a ripple effect for the rest of the game.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

No that is exactly the point.Because they aren't bringing it in for throw in's ,free kicks,corner kicks, etc there will be mistakes in those areas leading to a ripple effect for the rest of the game.

I think bringing it in for moments in games that absolutely change the course of a game is the cut off point. Penalties, red cards, goals and mistaken identities. It will reduce the number of crucial wrong decisions in a game, and I think that is an excellent step forward for the game.

You can say a throw in or free kick can change the course of a game but they also might not.

It's judged on degrees of seriousness. Same way not all motoring offences are treated the exact same. For example, the law handles a drunk driving fatality quite differently than parking on a double yellow line.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I think bringing it in for moments in games that absolutely change the course of a game is the cut off point. Penalties, red cards, goals and mistaken identities. It will reduce the number of crucial wrong decisions in a game, and I think that is an excellent step forward for the game.

You can say a throw in or free kick canchange the course of a game but they also might not.

It's judged on degrees of seriousness. Same way not all motoring offences are treated the exact same. A drunk driving fatality is dealt with differently than parking on a double yellow line.

The problem is the only aspect of officiating in soccer that isn't a judgment call is goal line technology (and maybe some offsides).I can accept goal line technology because it can be 100% correct and done very quickly all other types of decision will involve loads of replays and you won't get a perfect decision.

If a corner,free kick or throw in is awarded incorrectly it can directly lead to a goal and yet these things aren't going to be checked.

I'm completely biased on this topic anyway as I don't really mind referee's making mistakes it's part of the game as far as I'm concerned and it would be a pity for it to become too stop start as has happened to rugby in my opinion.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

No that is exactly the point.Because they aren't bringing it in for throw in's ,free kicks,corner kicks, etc there will be mistakes in those areas leading to a ripple effect for the rest of the game.

I'm sorry D, but that this wasn't given as a goal was just ridiculous and made the game a laughing stock at the time.

Zaph

I think it should be restricted to goals and mistaken identity, everything else is too open to interpretation. We've all seen incidents where a player is sent off or a penalty given by referee A and know that they wouldn't be given if referee B was in charge. So what happens if referee B is the one reviewing a red card or penalty and he disagrees with the decision on-field? Does he have the final say, or can the on-field ref ignore him? At least if it's a question of whether or not a goal should be awarded, the ball either crossed the line or it didn't.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

The problem is the only aspect of officiating in soccer that isn't a judgment call is goal line technology (and maybe some offsides).I can accept goal line technology because it can be 100% correct and done very quickly all other types of decision will involve loads of replays and you won't get a perfect decision.

If a corner,free kick or throw in is awarded incorrectly it can directly lead to a goal and yet these things aren't going to be checked.

I'm completely biased on this topic anyway as I don't really mind referee's making mistakes it's part of the game as far as I'm concerned and it would be a pity for it to become too stop start as has happened to rugby in my opinion.

It's not about getting the perfect decision, it's about having less of the really terrible decisions. Referees have admitted that they can be intimidated by games/players/fans and it can effect their judgement at times which is an important consideration to make on whether this will be good or bad for the game.

I gave a counter argument to you saying that a free kick or throw in can effect a game, but it also might not effect the outcome of a game. The difference is that red cards, mistaken identities, goals and penalties definitely do effect a game.

I think referees making mistakes in the game is one of the biggest problems with football today. Another big issue that can ruin a game is diving. You know pretty much the only thing that has the potential to make players dive less? A video ref who has the benefit of a replay to see if a player was faking or not in real time.

I know football in general is not a stop start game like others. But the only times where there actually is long breaks in play are for the reasons that it is going to be brought in for. What's the average time it takes from a foul being committed in the box to the actual penalty being taken, or a red card foul being committed to the game being restarted? It's minutes, at least two, it can be 5 if a player is injured. So the game is stop start at certain instances within a match.

~Rebel~

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

It's not though.

If an incorrect decision is made around the awarding of a throw in everything else that happens in the game has been forever altered by that decision.As a result this small mistake which won't be checked can have unforeseen implications for what happens in the game from then on and thus the making of a correct decision later in the game because of the video ref may seem to be correct but ultimately is wrong because of the initial mistake at the start of the game which created a ripple effect that cannot be turned back and the situation that was decided by the video ref may not have actually happened if the initial mistake was not made.

Yeah, really what we need is for people to be taken out of the game. From now on, all results will be formed based upon computer simulations. it's the only way to get the true result.

Seriously though, your argument is effectively that if all mistakes can't be fixed, we shouldn't try to fix any. There's a happy medium, where major incidents can be very quickly judged and fixed. I'd be in favour of this being used with a video ref always active.

For instance, offsides could change slightly, so there's a 'play on' ethos - lino raises flag if he thinks it needs to be checked, players keep playing, vid ref can do a very quick check and call a halt if it was offside. Including technology to check across the line accurately should make the decision pretty much instant (for instance, the tech could simply put a line at the furthest forward on a still image. If that point belongs to the attacker, its offside). If its too close for the vid ref to really see for certain, benefit of the doubt given.

Royale with Cheese

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

It's not though.

If an incorrect decision is made around the awarding of a throw in everything else that happens in the game has been forever altered by that decision.As a result this small mistake which won't be checked can have unforeseen implications for what happens in the game from then on and thus the making of a correct decision later in the game because of the video ref may seem to be correct but ultimately is wrong because of the initial mistake at the start of the game which created a ripple effect that cannot be turned back and the situation that was decided by the video ref may not have actually happened if the initial mistake was not made.

This actually makes my head hurt

Jayop

My problem with it isn't what Dirty was saying, but more so that even with all the replays in the work the amount of times people still argue over whether something was a penalty or a red card is unreal. Take BT Sports with Webb in the van outside. Pretty much every time it goes to him for a rule clarification I'll disagree and at least one of the pundits will. You've seen refs disagree with each other over the same thing. So many things in football are grey areas. Like the penalty for Arsenal against Spurs. Loads of people said it was a dive and shouldn't have been a pen, and loads said that even without contact it should have been a pen. Every single one of those instances will have to be accounted for and completely clarified for this to work, and I just don't think that's possible.

What about off-sides. Are linesmen going to stop bothering call an off-side now? Should they incorrectly put their flag up and the play is stopped just before someone scores, or when someone is clean through and would score there will be uproar. So if a player isn't a mile off-side will they just play till the ball goes out and then decide? If that doesn't result in a goal, but rather a corner that the team score from will they bring it back to the original off-side decision being wrong?

What about pens? Will the ref blow for every half foul in the box now and go to the video ref just incase they miss something??


So many questions to be answered before you can say this is a good idea or now.

dfx-

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Seriously though, your argument is effectively that if all mistakes can't be fixed, we shouldn't try to fix any. There's a happy medium, where major incidents can be very quickly judged and fixed. I'd be in favour of this being used with a video ref always active.

What we are doing is just changing one type of problem for another type. What will happen is that referees will give nothing or give everything and wait for a review in his earpiece to prove him wrong, probably the former.

Why stick to major decisions, why wouldn't you check who touched the ball last for a throw-in if you could?

LuckyLloyd

The same jaded 'but what about the edge cases' rhetoric we've heard a million times before. With a video review facility the Thierry Henry handball doesn't eliminate us from the World Cup and Real are forced to score a legitimate goal to beat Bayern in ET last week. The will and motivation to ensure those things trumps your regressive do nothing mindset.

You've been passed by.

dfx-

And it's rhetoric that goes unanswered. Not every game has the Thierry Henry handball.

Every game is littered with edge cases and interpretation, leniency and harshness; solving the first and not wrecking the other is a huge problem. Tens and tens of cases, there's twenty fouls a game on average alone. Offside with a 'play on' ethos is a huge shift in the game much longer than a handball.

TheDoc

About time, yet to hear one remotely convincing argument against having it.

Ridiculous concerns about disruptions to game flow and "loosing the craic of arguing after a match". Silly how long it's taken to come in, and the international friendly recently where it was in, was a clear example of why it's beneficial. And if anything it added some excitement/suspense.

I'd say it's only got away with it being this long because so many of the high profile incidents are with high profile teams or games, where there isn't a real human impact. If there was a club who suffered relegation, after a bogus decision, where the club had to lay of staff to cope, maybe it would have been in a bit sooner.

While it is just a game, there is too much money and livelihoods at stake for stupid decisions, incompetent refereeing and poor mistakes superceed the correct decision millions of people can see at home, moments after the incident.

BorneTobyWilde

What happens when a player goes though on goal, runs on to a ball, linesman waits for him to touch ball and then flags him offside while that players strikes on goal but keeper does not try to save as he sees flag. They run replay and he is actually not offside, will goal stand even though keeper stopped playing.

BorneTobyWilde

The way I look at it you need to do away with linesmen, put them in front of monitors and in contact with ref. Use this in combination of video evidence. Why have an old linesman running up and down pitch when we the viewers at home will always have a better view, give the man a chair and a monitor and a ear piece so he can talk to ref.

Jayop

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

What happens when a player goes though on goal, runs on to a ball, linesman waits for him to touch ball and then flags him offside while that players strikes on goal but keeper does not try to save as he sees flag. They run replay and he is actually not offside, will goal stand even though keeper stopped playing.

The only way is to allow play to continue until the ball goes out of play. You can't have linesmen calling offsides when they're not sure about it.

Trigger

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

What happens when a player goes though on goal, runs on to a ball, linesman waits for him to touch ball and then flags him offside while that players strikes on goal but keeper does not try to save as he sees flag. They run replay and he is actually not offside, will goal stand even though keeper stopped playing.

He should be playing to the whistle anyways

PhilipsR

The cynic in me says they probably got a new advertising partner for when these judgements happen, BEFORE deciding to roll it out.

Yesterday was a very good day for VAR.

Penalty in every match, some following use of VAR. Thought they got it wrong in the Oz France match and the player got the tiniest touch on the ball, but appreciate VAR was meant to reduce errors, as other sports show it cannot eliminate them.

Anyway, if it makes defenders think twice about fouling in the box and results in more goals, it's good for the game. Though the most egregious and irritating foul, the Nigerian defender wrestling the Croatian striker to the ground by wrapping arms around him, didn't require VAR at all.

CSF

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yesterday was a very good day for VAR.

Penalty in every match, some following use of VAR. Thought they got it wrong in the Oz France match and the player got the tiniest touch on the ball, but appreciate VAR was meant to reduce errors, as other sports show it cannot eliminate them.

Anyway, if it makes defenders think twice about fouling in the box and results in more goals, it's good for the game. Though the most egregious and irritating foul, the Nigerian defender wrestling the Croatian striker to the ground by wrapping arms around him, didn't require VAR at all.

Was VAR not intended to only change the decision in situations of a clear and obvious error? Rather than re-refereeing the game ala the French penalty where it clearly wasn’t a clear and obvious error.

Mr.H

BorneTobyWilde wrote:

What happens when a player goes though on goal, runs on to a ball, linesman waits for him to touch ball and then flags him offside while that players strikes on goal but keeper does not try to save as he sees flag. They run replay and he is actually not offside, will goal stand even though keeper stopped playing.

The assistants have been told not to flag these incidents at the world cup and to allow the var to rule it out. That avoids the scenario you mention.

MrKingsley

CSF wrote: »

Was VAR not intended to only change the decision in situations of a clear and obvious error? Rather than re-refereeing the game ala the French penalty where it clearly wasn’t a clear and obvious error.

Yeah I didn’t get that. I could understand if the ref had given the peno and VAR didn’t over rule as it wouldn’t have been a clear error either way

dfx-

CSF wrote: »

Was VAR not intended to only change the decision in situations of a clear and obvious error? Rather than re-refereeing the game ala the French penalty where it clearly wasn’t a clear and obvious error.

It had a 50% success rate at best. It overturned a fair decision and failed to spot a clear error for the Pavon penalty.

Not a good day for it.

BorneTobyWilde

VAR so quick in world cup. And a lot of the decisions are of opinion rather than fact. Costa elbow to the face to take out defender before scoring, in Premier League that is given as a foul in VAR.

ArmaniJeanss

CSF wrote: »

Was VAR not intended to only change the decision in situations of a clear and obvious error? Rather than re-refereeing the game ala the French penalty where it clearly wasn’t a clear and obvious error.

Well technically the referee may have regarded that as a clear and obvious error.
i.e., If he'd seen what happened in real time he'd have considered it a definite no-doubt penalty, so when he saw it on the replay its clear and obvious to him that its an easy reversal according to the VAR directives.

So the issue then is that we and the pundits may disagree with the referees interpretation of what a clear foul is. Though he is more likely to be correct.

PhlegmyMoses

dfx- wrote: »

It had a 50% success rate at best. It overturned a fair decision and failed to spot a clear error for the Pavon penalty.

Not a good day for it.

So it got one more decision right than without. That is a good thing, surely? Or am I missing where we were promised complete eradication of incorrect decisions?

VAR also is not an "it" or some piece of mad technology that auto-spots decisions for you. Decisions still involve a ref and an assistant collaborating, with the aid of video tech. Decisions are still subject to human error and ref interpretation. The process isn't the silver bullet for getting things wrong and setting ludicrously high expectations, especially for such a new process, is willing things to fail.

HalloweenJack

From what I've seen of the VAR decisions so far is that the ones that were given all had contact in them. After that, its up to the officials to interpret the situation. I don't think there's been a decision yet that has been completely baseless.