Video Assistant Referees to be used for 2018 World Cup

dfx-

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

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.

Not necessarily right or wrong, it changed decisions both right and wrong and kept one decision that was wrong. You could probably get the same success from a random decision making process out of a hat.

It got one right and two wrong.

The referees on the day without VAR influence got one right and two wrong.

The supposed point of VAR is to help the humans get decisions correct and presumably getting more correct than without it (otherwise what's the point) and it failed to do that yesterday.

CSF

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

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.

So it’s not clear and obvious errors then? It’s any situation where the referee changes his opinion after watching a video of it?

NIMAN

Great success so far.

Bring it on in all big competitions and leagues I say.

PhlegmyMoses

dfx- wrote: »

Not necessarily right or wrong, it changed decisions both right and wrong and kept one decision that was wrong. You could probably get the same success from a random decision making process out of a hat.

It got one right and two wrong.

The referees on the day without VAR influence got one right and two wrong.

The supposed point of VAR is to help the humans get decisions correct and presumably getting more correct than without it (otherwise what's the point) and it failed to do that yesterday.

This doesn't logically follow. I don't know what decisions you are talking about so I'm not going to argue their merits, but if there were 3 decisions, 3 that the ref was going to get wrong without VAR, but one was overturned with the help of VAR, that is a 33% better hit rate than without. The default position is that the ref gets all three of those wrong without video help. Where previously he gets 100% wrong, he now improves by 33% with VAR.

You can argue whether the impact on the speed of the game is worth such an improvement, but your way of evaluating the situation isn't logical.

764dak

CSF wrote: »

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

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.

So it’s not clear and obvious errors then? It’s any situation where the referee changes his opinion after watching a video of it?

Clear and obvious error rule sounds like nonsense. 

CSF

764dak wrote: »

Clear and obvious error rule sounds like nonsense. 

Well I think they need to be clear how it’s going to work, in the interest of fairness.

It can’t work one way, this week, and another next week, but then when it’s the other way next week people say ‘ok but he still ended up with the correct decision’

This only ends up being with the outcome being more fair, rather than less fair, if it’s consistent in its approach.

If you’re allowing the referee to stop and change decisions at his discretion, then fine, but then that needs to be the rule, and referees need to be held accountable for their consistency in doing so.

LuckyLloyd

Swedish penalty an excellent demonstration of the VAR system in action

ElTel

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Swedish penalty an excellent demonstration of the VAR system in action

I'm not so sure, although my understanding of the process is probably wrong.

Why did the ref stop the game at a moment when Korea were counter-attacking? Did he decide in that moment that he would be giving a penalty?

764dak

ElTel wrote: »

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Swedish penalty an excellent demonstration of the VAR system in action

I'm not so sure, although my understanding of the process is probably wrong.

Why did the ref stop the game at a moment when Korea were counter-attacking? Did he decide in that moment that he would be giving a penalty?

The refs in the room told him to check.

lawred2

The amount of rugby tackling going on in the box last night during the England Tunisia game was ridiculous. If it's not going to be used for those such moments then what's the point?

RobbingBandit

Is the VAR able to intervene in a game or is it only there to be called upon to review?

lawred2

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Is the VAR able to intervene in a game or is it only there to be called upon to review?

surely it is illogical if it can only be used if called upon to review something..

sure what if an incident was not seen by the officials... the VAR lads just sit on their hands!

RobbingBandit

Logic and football don't really get along VAR has been used to award a goal at halftime in Germany.

Zico !

The lads in the starship enterprise are having a nightmare -Decisions against England last night were incredible

pudzey101

what happens if a ref takes longer than 20 seconds to choose to view VAR and the opposition team go up the field and score ?

Niska

FIFA's VAR overview:

https://football-technology.fifa.com/en/innovations/var-at-the-world-cup/

Interesting that they break incidents down into factual (e.g. position of foul - inside or outside penalty area) and interpretation (e.g. whether handball is deliberate or not).

lorcand1990

pudzey101 wrote: »

what happens if a ref takes longer than 20 seconds to choose to view VAR and the opposition team go up the field and score ?

Just to use yesterday's game as an example, Sweden got a VAR review & won a penalty as S.Korea were breaking away:

If S.Korea had gone & scored on the breakaway, but VAR decided that the attack started due to a foul on a Swedish player in the box, then they have to bring the play back, disallow S.Korea goal & award penalty to Sweden.

LuckyLloyd

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/11490710/premier-league-to-trial-var-this-season

VAR to be trialed in the Premier League before being rolled out in full to start next season

Bit of national level politics and rubber stamping delaying the implementation but - as expected after a successful World Cup - VAR is here to stay.

GavRedKing

They should have rolled it out fully this season in the PL.

Theres already a few incidents that could have been cleared up and reviewed.

Just off the top of my head,

Mendy giving away a penalty against Arsenal on opening day, Mane being offside against West Ham, Wolves "goal" against City, Chelsea penalty at Newcastle, Newcastles equaliser in the same game.

LuckyLloyd

Of course it should, but unfortunately football needs to be dragged kicking and screaming forward on lots of things.

ArmaniJeanss

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Of course it should, but unfortunately football needs to be dragged kicking and screaming forward on lots of things.

Just English football this time.

There was something pleasingly quaint about them trialling it in 3 Caraboo Cup ties last month, 6 weeks after it had been used in all 64 matches at the World Cup.

CSF

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Just English football this time.

There was something pleasingly quaint about them trialling it in 3 Caraboo Cup ties last month, 6 weeks after it had been used in all 64 matches at the World Cup.

They need to make massive improvements on how it was used in the World Cup so I think it’s no bad thing that they’re getting it right before kicking on.

Osmosis Jones

Just to be clear the "trial" for this season won't involve it actually being used in any games, they're gonna have VAR refs watching the games as practice but they won't actually be used to make any calls.

GavRedKing

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Just English football this time.

There was something pleasingly quaint about them trialling it in 3 Caraboo Cup ties last month, 6 weeks after it had been used in all 64 matches at the World Cup.

I think it was trialed in last years Carabao Cup throughout the competition.

Edit : It was the FA cup.

garra

GavRedKing wrote: »

I think it was trialed in last years Carabao Cup throughout the competition.

Edit : It was the FA cup.

Yes - Liverpool given a ridiculous penalty for a foul on Salah in one match iirc

I loathe VAR

Liam O

garra wrote: »

Yes - Liverpool given a ridiculous penalty for a foul on Salah in one match iirc

I loathe VAR

Tbh, even if it was just used to root out the holding at corners I'd be in favour of it. However, it should be the person/people in the booth making the decision and not the ref running back and forth. Unless they start stopping the clock, which I'd also be in favour of.

GavRedKing

Liam O wrote: »

Tbh, even if it was just used to root out the holding at corners I'd be in favour of it. However, it should be the person/people in the booth making the decision and not the ref running back and forth. Unless they start stopping the clock, which I'd also be in favour of.

There was a lot of games in the WC though with proper stoppage time, 5 or 6 mins added on.

Its something they seemed to actively manage.

LuckyLloyd

garra wrote: »

I loathe VAR

It's coming regardless of whether fans love it or not.

Liam O

GavRedKing wrote: »

There was a lot of games in the WC though with proper stoppage time, 5 or 6 mins added on.

Its something they seemed to actively manage.

5 or 6 minutes but then there's 2 subs and a goal or something and they still blow up at 5:01 or 6:01...

garra

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It's coming regardless of whether fans love it or not.

Yeah we will have to suck it up, doesn't add anything to the game imo

Kiith

Can't wait for it to be in all games tbh. Yeah, it's not perfect, but the amount of decisions it gets right far outweigh the ones it misses.

CSF

Kiith wrote: »

Can't wait for it to be in all games tbh. Yeah, it's not perfect, but the amount of decisions it gets right far outweigh the ones it misses.

They need to work on getting it at least consistent. In the World Cup it wasn’t at all. Perfect should be the aim that is ultimately never attainable.