VAR Discussion thread

PhlegmyMoses

6 wrote: »

I'd rather a correct decision than a stab at it.

Either use VAR for offsides or go back to to the old way. Don't half use it, and subsequently have incorrect calls even though the technology is there. That would be ridiculous.

The technology isn't there though, they have literally said that it is not as accurate as goal line tech and likely never will be so should be used as a guide. It is still giving an approximation, so it is no more right than before if you are applying black and white logic to the situation. I don't see the issue with a ref eyeballing a still either. Will cut out egregious errors where a player is well off and also cut down on the decisions where it is barely off (maybe, we can't be quite sure 100%!)

CalamariFritti

munstermagic11 wrote: »

People keep throwing out this line, and it's utterly meaningless.
Are grounds less full? Is there less of a TV audience? Are players/managers/fans leaving the game? No to all the above.
We've a few months into a new system to try improve the game. Maybe it's needs tweaking, a change, whatever. But the OTT hyperbole of "killing the game" is so juvenile.

It is not. I'm not saying VAR is bad. What I'm saying is what I'm seeing right now in the stadiums is bad. And yes if it stays that way it will maybe not kill the game but kill what makes watching the game enjoyable.

Goals are everything. We all wait for them. Players, spectators, everyone. And when they happen its an eruption of joy or agony. Screaming, shouting, strangers hugging each other, the whole works. You take that away from the game and replace it with a 5 minute break for the legal department will have a serious impact.

And tbh for what? It hasn't actually improved the decision making. We still have VAR decisions that seem to make no sense whatsoever and are heavily debated afterwards. And as for offside, thats a separate issue, but again what is being done right now will harm the game. Someone who is in front by their big toe is level.

Its the same as in golf, the ball moved half a centimetre just before a 200 meter shot because I may or may not have caused the ball to move when setting down the club? 1 shot penalty. Eh really?

.G.

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

The technology isn't there though, they have literally said that it is not as accurate as goal line tech and likely never will be so should be used as a guide. It is still giving an approximation, so it is no more right than before if you are applying black and white logic to the situation. I don't see the issue with a ref eyeballing a still either. Will cut out egregious errors where a player is well off and also cut down on the decisions where it is barely off (maybe, we can't be quite sure 100%!)

Goal line tech has a margin of error too, it's quite small though, 3.88mm's so never likely to be an issue.

It's the same as the offside tech that's there now though as it applies to everyone equally, with the same margin of error in every game and every scenario. Its consistent every single game, every single week. We could go as we are or go back to lino's using their eyes and getting decisions wrong single week, with far less consistency than VAR and having vocal VAR opponents like Gary Linekar pull them up on it every single week on MOTD etc as the hypocrites always did.

Its very sensible the clarification that IFAB seem to be saying they'll be issuing though. If its not clearly wrong on the first viewing or whatever than you go no further with it. Just as long as everyone accepts they'll still get stuff wrong by doing that and TV pundits will be quick to draw their lines and point it out when they do, because controversy keeps the clicks and views coming.

BorneTobyWilde

Lines should be thicker to take in account the difference between video frames. Anyway there is only uproar about VAR now because it helped Liverpool win again. The two actual decisions were clearly right in Liverpool Wolves game. It's other games that they looked dodgy.

pjohnson

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Lines should be thicker to take in account the difference between video frames. Anyway there is only uproar about VAR now because it helped Liverpool win again. The two actual decisions were clearly right in Liverpool Wolves game. It's other games that they looked dodgy.

This must be the Liverpool version of Blue Moon with conspiracies :pac:

Tom Mann Centuria

I hate VAR, and I'd rather have an imperfect, fluid game, as it's been for 100 plus years, just like it still like is, for all but 20 professional teams in England. (and let's be honest Northampton Town are never going to have to worry about VAR)

Anyhoo, the stats for who's benefited most/least:

https://twitter.com/JustinWalley10/status/1211776302094659584?s=20

TitianGerm

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

I hate VAR, and I'd rather have an imperfect, fluid game, as it's been for 100 plus years, just like it still like is, for all but 20 professional teams in England. (and let's be honest Northampton Town are never going to have to worry about VAR)

Anyhoo, the stats for who's benefited most/least:

https://twitter.com/JustinWalley10/status/1211776302094659584?s=20

That can't be right because the net score isn't Nil. If something is overturned in favor of one team it is automatically overturned against the opposition.

Edit: maybe I'm adding up wrong?

BorneTobyWilde

If they judge it only on feet it's problem solved, they do that in tennis when a player serves, or in darts with a player throws. They can lean all they fcking want in other sports,
VAR is nuts.

.G.

TitianGerm wrote: »

That can't be right because the net score isn't Nil. If something is overturned in favor of one team it is automatically overturned against the opposition.

Edit: maybe I'm adding up wrong?

This table is overturns that we're deemed to be correct decisions only.So in the Liverpool v Wolves game for example, Liverpool got 2 decisions, both deemed to be correct so they go to +2. Wolves don't go to -2 because the decisions were over turned correctly. From the table Wolves have had 6 decisions go against, all deemed to be correct so they are -6.

From a LiVARpool perspective, ordinarily that game ends up 1 nil to Wolves which a lot of people would be ok with but I'm glad we had VAR! That is the only game Liverpool have played this season where a VAR decision has happened that has actually affected the result.

dfx-

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

I hate VAR, and I'd rather have an imperfect, fluid game, as it's been for 100 plus years, just like it still like is, for all but 20 professional teams in England. (and let's be honest Northampton Town are never going to have to worry about VAR)

Anyhoo, the stats for who's benefited most/least:

It's also not just about who benefited the most or least - every VAR check especially when changing a decision like the Liverpool goal is lengthy and disruptive.

It aims to improve decisions by 2% while being disruptive 100% of the time.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

TitianGerm wrote: »

That can't be right because the net score isn't Nil. If something is overturned in favor of one team it is automatically overturned against the opposition.

Edit: maybe I'm adding up wrong?

I think you are - as far as I can see, it's 24 and -24

.G. wrote: »

This table is overturns that we're deemed to be correct decisions only.So in the Liverpool v Wolves game for example, Liverpool got 2 decisions, both deemed to be correct so they go to +2. Wolves don't go to -2 because the decisions were over turned correctly. From the table Wolves have had 6 decisions go against, all deemed to be correct so they are -6.

From a LiVARpool perspective, ordinarily that game ends up 1 nil to Wolves which a lot of people would be ok with but I'm glad we had VAR! That is the only game Liverpool have played this season where a VAR decision has happened that has actually affected the result.

The proble there is twofold:
1 - if the Liverpool goal os ruled out, then the second inscident woudl never have happened anyway. Time/space continuum would have gone off on a different reality.
2 - Even if it had, it would only have meant Wolves would be 1-0 up at half time: how do you know Liverpool wouldn't have approached the second half differently, Klopp would have made different tactical decisions and Liverpool could have scored 3 or 4 second-half goals?

CalamariFritti

I am against VAR too.

Football is a game played by men (women, persons, people, lol) and should be refereed by the same. The players make errors and so do the referees. Its part of the game.

Any attempt at technology needs to be ultra conservative and with a very light touch. It should not change the flow of the game. At the moment its way too intrusive, its all people talk about these days. They came in too heavy with VAR.

I would feel different if it was a clear cut thing after a few months of observation, but is isn't. They still arrive at wrong decisions and the offside thing is just a joke now. They introduced a new disruptive element which hasn't actually improved the ruling situation. It only raises more questions.

Football is a fast flowing game, there are infringements all over the pitch at any given moment. You cannot legislate for all that which is what they're trying at the moment. Ruling out a goal because a minute earlier, in the build up, a challenge was too strong or it may have been handball. It's bad and I wish it would stop.

messinkiapina

Seem something on the BBC there about governing bodies calling for VAR to be used only for clear and obvious errors.

Won't we then just have a situation where we're all debating what a clear and obvious error is? How far offside does a player have to be before VAR will intervene? If we're depending on humans to decide that, then how would that make it any less flakey and inconsistent than it is now?

martingriff

messinkiapina wrote: »

Seem something on the BBC there about governing bodies calling for VAR to be used only for clear and obvious errors.

Won't we then just have a situation where we're all debating what a clear and obvious error is? How far offside does a player have to be before VAR will intervene? If we're depending on humans to decide that, then how would that make it any less flakey and inconsistent than it is now?

If you can see it with the eye on normal speed or on slow replay not by stopping and going miniscule

osarusan

messinkiapina wrote: »

Won't we then just have a situation where we're all debating what a clear and obvious error is?

Has this ever been defined anywhere? What exactly 'clear and obvious' means? Are there steps taken to reach a decision that something was a clear and obvious error?

Quazzie

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I am against VAR too.

Being against VAR is being against accurate referreeing. I think(hope) you are just against VAR in it's current guise.

CSF

Excellent use of VAR in the Wolves game for the red card. Finally refs not going unchecked in their conservative approach of avoiding making any bad decisions.

The handball rule remains a mess however.

Cantona's Collars

https://twitter.com/OliverKay/status/1212356205584244739

So the EPL are ignoring the IFAB directive yet again. It's as if they are going out of their way to ruin fans enjoyment of the game.

ArmaniJeanss

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

https://twitter.com/OliverKay/status/1212356205584244739

So the EPL are ignoring the IFAB directive yet again. It's as if they are going out of their way to ruin fans enjoyment of the game.

It wasn't anything close to a directive, more of a suggestion/guidance.

Cantona's Collars

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

It wasn't anything close to a directive, more of a suggestion/guidance.

In other words,they suggested that they follow the international norm but it's Britain they are dealing with and we know that they aren't good at doing that.

Richard Hillman

https://twitter.com/richardajkeys/status/1212430115470282754?s=19


Sounds like an ideal scenario for the PL. They get their wish of getting rid of VAR, whilst saying sorry lads, our hands our tied IFAB won't let us use it.

martingriff

Richard Hillman wrote: »

https://twitter.com/richardajkeys/status/1212430115470282754?s=19


Sounds like an ideal scenario for the PL. They get their wish of getting rid of VAR, whilst saying sorry lads, our hands our tied IFAB won't let us use it.

Except they will be allowed to use it if they use the same rules as everyone else. Its crazy that those using VAR are not using the same rules

osarusan

Villa offside is an example of what somebody said earlier in the thread - that this offside rule was written without considering the forensic analysis that VAR provides.

It's probably understandable to write a rule in the way it was written when no linesman will ever spot a 1cm offside and they'll only spot the obvious ones. But now VAR can measure that, and make decisions based on such tiny margins.

I said it earlier in the thread, but I wonder if it could be changed so that the line for the defender is widened to say 12 inches (call it the margin for error, or benefit of the doubt), and only when an attacker has a body part beyond that wider line are they given as offside.

dfx-

Quazzie wrote: »

Being against VAR is being against accurate referreeing. I think(hope) you are just against VAR in it's current guise.

For the Mahrez offside/VAR penalty check today...Mahrez was found to be onside by VAR, but no penalty given.

So the game re-started with the original, now known to be incorrect or inaccurate, offside decision...?

CSF

dfx- wrote: »

For the Mahrez offside/VAR penalty check today...Mahrez was found to be onside by VAR, but no penalty given.

So the game re-started with the original, now known to be incorrect or inaccurate, offside decision...?

That’s normal though. They don’t reverse decisions that aren’t consequential.

They won’t enforce/reverse offsides unless there is a goal or penalty involved. They won’t enforce/reverse handballs unless a goal is scored (I think the attacking handball rule is stupid but that’s a whole different conversation) or a penalty is involved.

Once it’s been decided that there is no penalty to he given, you revert back to whatever the next beginning of play is, free kick, corner, goal kick, whichever.

You don’t suddenly start reviewing things that aren’t down as reviewable just because you’ve spotted them while checking something that is reviewable.

joeguevara

Var should never be a replacement to the ref or linesman and should only be used to assist them. Every decision seems to be going to VAR and makes the referee seem like an also ran.

I was chatting with a few mates after Spurs losing to Chelsea and I (along with considerable help from Arthur Guinness) decided that VAR should only be used to award goals and not to disallow them. The whole concept of VAR (from my recollection) was to award goals when the ball crossed the line and the ref didn't see. It was never for offside due to a bootlace.

Most premiership matches have over 6-10 minutes added time due to VAR delays. Way too long and it's affecting intensity of the game as players know the match lasts longer and also results as high percentage of goals being scored so late when normally match would be finished.

Get rid of VAR. Stick a chip in ball which will trigger when cross the line. If there is violent conduct not detected by officials cite the player after the match. Or perhaps the 4th official could view incidents like that and inform ref and give a recommendation.

Fans and analysts should be talking about overhead volleys or crunching tackles instead of a disallowed goal because of an oversized nose straying offside.

celt262

joeguevara wrote: »

Var should never be a replacement to the ref or linesman and should only be used to assist them. Every decision seems to be going to VAR and makes the referee seem like an also ran.

I was chatting with a few mates after Spurs losing to Chelsea and I (along with considerable help from Arthur Guinness) decided that VAR should only be used to award goals and not to disallow them. The whole concept of VAR (from my recollection) was to award goals when the ball crossed the line and the ref didn't see. It was never for offside due to a bootlace.

Most premiership matches have over 6-10 minutes added time due to VAR delays. Way too long and it's affecting intensity of the game as players know the match lasts longer and also results as high percentage of goals being scored so late when normally match would be finished.

Get rid of VAR. Stick a chip in ball which will trigger when cross the line. If there is violent conduct not detected by officials cite the player after the match. Or perhaps the 4th official could view incidents like that and inform ref and give a recommendation.

Fans and analysts should be talking about overhead volleys or crunching tackles instead of a disallowed goal because of an oversized nose straying offside.

I'm afraid you and your friends dont know much about goal line technology.

joeguevara

celt262 wrote: »

I'm afraid you and your friends dont know much about goal line technology.

Well I know it's either an array of 3d cameras or magnetic fields that track the path of the ball to determine whether it crosses the line. I'd assume Hawkeye in hurling is quite similar. But it's better craic to think about sticking chips on a football. Sure if we didn't you wouldn't have the chance to look down on our seeming lack of knowledge.

Trigger

joeguevara wrote: »

Var should never be a replacement to the ref or linesman and should only be used to assist them. Every decision seems to be going to VAR and makes the referee seem like an also ran.

I was chatting with a few mates after Spurs losing to Chelsea and I (along with considerable help from Arthur Guinness) decided that VAR should only be used to award goals and not to disallow them. The whole concept of VAR (from my recollection) was to award goals when the ball crossed the line and the ref didn't see. It was never for offside due to a bootlace.

Most premiership matches have over 6-10 minutes added time due to VAR delays. Way too long and it's affecting intensity of the game as players know the match lasts longer and also results as high percentage of goals being scored so late when normally match would be finished.

Get rid of VAR. Stick a chip in ball which will trigger when cross the line. If there is violent conduct not detected by officials cite the player after the match. Or perhaps the 4th official could view incidents like that and inform ref and give a recommendation.

Fans and analysts should be talking about overhead volleys or crunching tackles instead of a disallowed goal because of an oversized nose straying offside.

Var is Video Assistant Referee, it has nothing to do with Goal line technology, they are 2 separate entities, and two separate pieces of technology

joeguevara

Trigger wrote: »

Var is Video Assistant Referee, it has nothing to do with Goal line technology, they are 2 separate entities, and two separate pieces of technology

OK hands up. I didn't differentiate and as you rightly stated it's separate. But my point still stands. Be better if used for awarding goals rather than disallowing goals.

CSF

joeguevara wrote: »

OK hands up. I didn't differentiate and as you rightly stated it's separate. But my point still stands. Be better if used for awarding goals rather than disallowing goals.

Depends on the goal really. Some of these offsides shouldn’t be disallowed and these ones where it glances off someone’s arm in a non controlling way, the same.

But if someone is properly offside or controls the ball with his hand, or fouls someone, those goals should absolutely be disallowed.

joeguevara

CSF wrote: »

Depends on the goal really. Some of these offsides shouldn’t be disallowed and these ones where it glances off someone’s arm in a non controlling way, the same.

But if someone is properly offside or controls the ball with his hand, or fouls someone, those goals should absolutely be disallowed.

But those should be seen by the refs and/or linesmen. Add more if needed. If have no faith in the officials then that's a different issue. But the disallowing goals for instances that they could not ever have seen is using the technology in a way that it was never intended to.

People were saying it was needed for incidences such as Pedro Mendes scoring against United and the ball was a couple of feet behind the line but wasn't awarded.

It's only an opinion. Not saying it's correct but would be a better use of the technology.

Fr Tod Umptious

joeguevara wrote: »

But those should be seen by the refs and/or linesmen. Add more if needed. If have no faith in the officials then that's a different issue. But the disallowing goals for instances that they could not ever have seen is using the technology in a way that it was never intended to.

People were saying it was needed for incidences such as Pedro Mendes scoring against United and the ball was a couple of feet behind the line but wasn't awarded.

It's only an opinion. Not saying it's correct but would be a better use of the technology.

That's exactly the type of situation that Goal Line Technology was introduced for as few years ago.

CSF

joeguevara wrote: »

But those should be seen by the refs and/or linesmen. Add more if needed. If have no faith in the officials then that's a different issue. But the disallowing goals for instances that they could not ever have seen is using the technology in a way that it was never intended to.

People were saying it was needed for incidences such as Pedro Mendes scoring against United and the ball was a couple of feet behind the line but wasn't awarded.

It's only an opinion. Not saying it's correct but would be a better use of the technology.

I do think you’re mixing up VAR and goal line technology again. That’s not what VAR was introduced for. Then again, some of the decisions we’ve seen recently aren’t what VAR was introduced for either. They need to find the right balance.

joeguevara

CSF wrote: »

I do think you’re mixing up VAR and goal line technology again. That’s not what VAR was introduced for. Then again, some of the decisions we’ve seen recently aren’t what VAR was introduced for either. They need to find the right balance.

I don't think I was explain it well. Goal line technology is great. And then var should be used to award a goal where warranted if ref incorrectly disallows.

It shouldn't be used to disallow goals. Mainly because of the tiny infractions that are usually involves and the huge delays.

Constant checking for penalties when the ref has made his decision is causing refs to second guess themselves.

Or else scrap all the above and just stop analysts and commentators talking about VAR. Spurs have definitely benefitted from it, most notably in CL match against city, but still have the above opinion.

Don't really follow the English Premier League so can't say I'm familiar with the controversies there. 

I do remember Belgium cheating to keep us out of Spain '82 when Stapleton had a good goal disallowed and Gerets dived to win a free before the Ceulemans winner.  Or Wim Kieft scoring from an offside position to knock us out of Euro '88.  Or, of course, Henry and that handball in 2009.

And while I appreciate people want faster decisions, or clarification, I really do not have any issue with the idea that refs should be subject to review.  So that, whatever about the armpit stuff that seems to have gripped the EPL, the shockingly egregious decisions that saw us utterly screwed over will be reduced.

Nunu

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't really follow the English Premier League so can't say I'm familiar with the controversies there. 

I do remember Belgium cheating to keep us out of Spain '82 when Stapleton had a good goal disallowed and Gerets dived to win a free before the Ceulemans winner.  Or Wim Kieft scoring from an offside position to knock us out of Euro '88.  Or, of course, Henry and that handball in 2009.

And while I appreciate people want faster decisions, or clarification, I really do not have any issue with the idea that refs should be subject to review.  So that, whatever about the armpit stuff that seems to have gripped the EPL, the shockingly egregious decisions that saw us utterly screwed over will be reduced.

VAR will be used in the Euro playoffs.

I have a horrible feeling knowing our luck it’ll be a VAR decision that goes against us!

p.s Was Wim Kieft offside? I always remember that goal just being incredibly flukey don’t remember offside element of it?

Agent Coulson

A clear and obvious jersey pull wasn't deemed clear and obvious to the VAR boys even though they could see it being pulled lol

Guy:Incognito

Nunu wrote: »

p.s Was Wim Kieft offside? I always remember that goal just being incredibly flukey don’t remember offside element of it?

I was in the ground for that and can 100% confirm that.......................I cant remember because I was 7.

Nunu

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I was in the ground for that and can 100% confirm that.......................I cant remember because I was 7.

I was outside the ground. We (My Dad) couldn’t get tickets😔 ...whole other story involving an FAI official I won’t go into here but needless to say they’ve been poison from way back when. I was 9 btw😅

Nunu

Nunu wrote: »

p.s Was Wim Kieft offside? I always remember that goal just being incredibly flukey don’t remember offside element of it?

The linesman actually had his flag up and then, bizarrely, took it down. The German media carried photos of him waving the flag.

Guy:Incognito

Nunu wrote: »

I was outside the ground. We (My Dad) couldn’t get tickets😔 ...whole other story involving an FAI official I won’t go into here but needless to say they’ve been poison from way back when. I was 9 btw😅

I didnt have a ticket. My dad lifted me over the turnstile.

I was outside for the England and USSR games (with my mam, he didnt just ditch me:) )

Nunu

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I didnt have a ticket. My dad lifted me over the turnstile.

I was outside for the England and USSR games (with my mam, he didnt just ditch me:) )

We got into those 2 thank God!

matrim

Last year pundits were complaining that offsides were wrong and drawing lines on the screen to prove it and give out about refs. This year they are giving out about refs doing the same thing. Next year the rule will be changed and the same pundits will give out about whatever new line/rule is used to judge offside.

Richard Hillman

matrim wrote: »

Last year pundits were complaining that offsides were wrong and drawing lines on the screen to prove it and give out about refs. This year they are giving out about refs doing the same thing. Next year the rule will be changed and the same pundits will give out about whatever new line/rule is used to judge offside.

FA Cup this weekend, no VAR. We can get back to BT and the BBC spending the entire of half time and full time analysing refereeing decisions.

inforfun

At Cornell University they have an incredible piece of scientific equipment known as the tunneling electron microscope. Now, this microscope is so powerful that by firing electrons you can actually see images of the atom, the infinitesimally minute building blocks of our universe*.

And that is what they are using for some of these off side decisions



*Stolen from Frasier

.G.

https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1213125088301789184

.G.

Richard Hillman wrote: »

FA Cup this weekend, no VAR. We can get back to BT and the BBC spending the entire of half time and full time analysing refereeing decisions.

The pundits really are hypocrites. All the bellyaching about VAR yet as you say they often spent most of their analysis crucifying refs and their assistants for getting tight decisions wrong.

Anyway VAR to be used in 13 FA cup games this round.

http://www.thefa.com/news/2019/dec/31/var-emirates-fa-cup-third-round-311219

citytillidie

Richard Hillman wrote: »

FA Cup this weekend, no VAR. We can get back to BT and the BBC spending the entire of half time and full time analysing refereeing decisions.

Same as last season VAR is only available at Premier League grounds along with Wembley, so any games at Premier league grounds or Wembley will have VAR

Richard Hillman

https://twitter.com/SkySportsNews/status/1213847892017987585?s=19


I knew this would happen this weekend. Its definitely the Premier League telling them not to look at the screens. There is something very shady going on.