VAR

[Rusko187]

Few things here, I'm interested to see what others feelings are towards VAR and whether it is wanted/needed within the game? And the other being how you wish for it to be implemented?

 

My original thinking would be that VAR all the time will be obtrusive and will hinder the continuity of the game which has previously put me off the idea, yes we all get aggrieved by incorrect decisions but we also do get our share of them going our way as well.

 

Then I thought about how it works in Tennis, give the teams a number of VAR calls (say 2 each half or 2 per game) that can be made for "game changing decisions" i.e. penalties, sending offs, goals etc. VAR can be continually reviewed throughout the game for "none game changing decisions" lesser fouls in areas which won't result in goals etc to ensure players who commit lesser fouls can be cautioned or booked when seen fit but not interrupt the play.

An agreeable time of say 30 seconds will be added at the end of the game to compensate the review and once reviewed the decision is final.

 

The referee can call to review in cases where a manager does not make a request, and only a manager can make the call for the review. Decisions can be overturned or upheld based on successful calls.

 

For me I think this will prevent the system from being abused, it will create a situation where "those" decisions won't become the talking points for days to come and it gives the referees that much needed support they need..... what do you think?

 

 

[Bobby Hundreds]

Should be like red flags in A-ball.

[tom27111]

The challenges idea is just awful. It would mean that wrong decisions would still be made,  making it not worth having.

 

Also, how do you make these challenges? It's easy in tennis and cricket because the game is at a natural stoppage. This wouldn't be the case in football. Effectively, you could challenge, just for the sake of it, as your opponent breaks. This means more controversy. 

 

Something needs doing, but not a certain number of reviews per match. That's utterly ridiculous. 

[Fox92]

Challenges is stupid because we'll end up with people like Mourinho wanting to challenge everything.

 

The comparisons to other sports isn't fair because sports like tennis and cricket are stop-start where as football is/should be free flowing. I think if the referee gives a penalty that's up for discussion, they'll be time for someone to look at VAR and decide if it's a penalty or not, but constant challenges will ruin it because free kicks are usually taken  quickly and the game continues. 

 

But I don't know what's its going to salve. If referee A is watching VAR he might think its a penalty but for the same decision referee B might think it wasn't a penalty. Referee decisions and the inconsistency of referee winds me up and I've boiled over at games many many times but the law of the game is down to opinion most of the game - "If the referee judges...". 

[RowlattsFox]

I struggle to see how its going to work without causing problems, there will be some cases where it will stop something completely wrong from happening which is fine, but then there are lots of occasions where people have different interpretations of the same event. It will have to be like cricket where a 'soft decision is made' b the referee and there has to be 100% evidence to turn the decision around.

 

Personally think having goal line technology is enough.

Edited 4 January 2018 by RowlattsFox

[Guest MattP]

Long overdue, the big sides certainly have for years had the benefit of getting dubious calls and that has to stop even if we struggle for a while to implement a new system.

 

@RowlattsFox makes a great point though about how it is used, video evidence has to have a conclusive element to it so the referee will need to make a soft call on the field and then that decision is only changed if we know rather than think that he's got it wrong.

 

The biggest problem could be explaining that to the fans, some football supporters have never been the brightest and I think some will struggle to get their heads around "conclusive evidence" and instead spend weeks complaining about why they didn't get given a 50/50 penalty.

[Rusko187]

20 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

Challenges is stupid because we'll end up with people like Mourinho wanting to challenge everything.

 

The comparisons to other sports isn't fair because sports like tennis and cricket are stop-start where as football is/should be free flowing. I think if the referee gives a penalty that's up for discussion, they'll be time for someone to look at VAR and decide if it's a penalty or not, but constant challenges will ruin it because free kicks are usually taken  quickly and the game continues. 

 

But I don't know what's its going to salve. If referee A is watching VAR he might think its a penalty but for the same decision referee B might think it wasn't a penalty. Referee decisions and the inconsistency of referee winds me up and I've boiled over at games many many times but the law of the game is down to opinion most of the game - "If the referee judges...". 

As I say limiting to say 2 challenges per match or half, you wouldn't waste it to disrupt an attack when really you could potentially face a crucial decision being made against you later in the game and you have no challenge. 

So when I say game changing decisions, player goes down in the box ref points to the spot.. the opposing manager can choose to challenge if he feels it's unjust, he will be left with 1 challenge to make. If the decision was correct the penalty is taken etc game is resumed, if penalty is incorrect than a free kick is awarded to the opposing team.

[Rusko187]

21 minutes ago, RowlattsFox said:

I struggle to see how its going to work without causing problems, there will be some cases where it will stop something completely wrong from happening which is fine, but then there are lots of occasions where people have different interpretations of the same event. It will have to be like cricket where a 'soft decision is made' b the referee and there has to be 100% evidence to turn the decision around.

 

Personally think having goal line technology is enough.

That's what I was trying to say, I'm not expecting play to be stopped because of a foul in the centre circle unless it was significant dangerous play etc. I'm trying to limit the occasions play is stopped hence why I say a limited amount of challenges must be called by the manager to facilitate a stop in play.

[Kitchandro]

I think the game is intrisically corrupt and the powers that be will always find a way of making incorrect decisions.

 

Referees can see most of these incidents as plain as a pikestaff. Like the penalty last night, he was looking right at it. Or the Palace one against Man City (Moss AGAIN). Will Hazard be banned when the video footage of him diving last night is readily available? I doubt it, he's certainly too marketable for Sky Sports - the owners of the Premier League, to sully his name and call it correctly as a blatant piece of cheating.

 

Either that or I'm not convinced they understand the rules half the time. Why are so many fouls given in favour of goalkeepers or against the player trying to keep the ball in the corner in stoppage time?

 

Why are the golden boys of English football given the benefit of the doubt after dives and leg-breakers - even when the FA have it within their power to ban these players retrospectively having seen the video footage? And why is the new diving rule so lenient?

 

Why do more dodgy decisions go in favour of the bigger clubs and the home side? Why is a 'hand on the shoulder' considered a foul on a defender but not on a striker in the box? Or at the other end of the spectrum, a blatant push?

 

These can't be coincidences, they're too common. A lot of the time it's not that they're missing things, it's that they are motivated to give certain decisions, usually because they don't want to get proverbially lynched - ex-referees have even admitted this. But also, I believe, because they are under instruction that this is a product that is being sold, and some parts of football and not exactly a great selling point for 'the beautiful game'.

 

 

[Finnegan]

Something that is new in rugby now is that the TMO will constantly be watching incidents and might bring play back a couple of phases for something like violent conduct or dangerous play which let's the ref keep the game flowing. 

 

Nothing to stop us having that in football. 

 

Let's say there's a potential penalty incident, the ref would just ignore it and let play go on for a few seconds while the video ref checks it again. 

 

You're hardly talking more than a few seconds for him to look at it slowed down abs decide if there's contact. You just bring play back to the incident. 

 

Could do it with borderline offsides after goals go in, encourage more linesmen to let the close calls play out and if the ball goes in, check it after quickly. 

 

Diving, violent conduct like elbows, all stuff like that could be picked up after the fact by the TMO. 

 

With video and communication technology what it is these days, there's really no reason it should drastically slow down the game. 

 

It'd also take a lot of the excuses away from officials and make them more accountable. You can't claim you didn't see an incident in United's area in the final minute at Old Trafford when the whole world knows you've got a TMO checking. 

 

You occasionally get people in rugby claiming that VAR makes refs trust their own judgement less but actually I think the standard of refereeing in rugby has improved over the last generation since they've had more technology support. 

[Finnegan]

Oh, regards challenges: it could actually have the opposite effect. Wenger, Mourinho and Co aren't really blind and do actually know the rules of football. They've got to be well aware they're chatting shit a lot of the time. 

 

I'd be funny to hear pundits responding to their moaning about decisions by going "if it was such a blatant penalty, why didn't you challenge l?" 

[Rusko187]

1 minute ago, Finnegan said:

Oh, regards challenges: it could actually have the opposite effect. Wenger, Mourinho and Co aren't really blind and do actually know the rules of football. They've got to be well aware they're chatting shit a lot of the time. 

 

I'd be funny to hear pundits responding to their moaning about decisions by going "if it was such a blatant penalty, why didn't you challenge l?" 

I like your previous point, and that is my thinking of how it plays out.

 

Taking Kitchandros point I didn't watch the game last night but penalty is given after a "dubious" decision than Wenger can pipe up before the penalty to have that decision reviewed. I'm assuming it was a blatant dive but Wenger has contested the decision and loses a "challenge token", Hazard is awarded a card and retrospective action (if needed) and a free kick is awarded to Arsenal... would take 30 seconds to look at that which could be added as stoppage time at the end of the game.

[Kitchandro]

6 minutes ago, Rusko187 said:

As I say limiting to say 2 challenges per match or half, you wouldn't waste it to disrupt an attack when really you could potentially face a crucial decision being made against you later in the game and you have no challenge. 

So when I say game changing decisions, player goes down in the box ref points to the spot.. the opposing manager can choose to challenge if he feels it's unjust, he will be left with 1 challenge to make. If the decision was correct the penalty is taken etc game is resumed, if penalty is incorrect than a free kick is awarded to the opposing team.

 

But what if a minor decision leads to a major incident?

 

A soft free kick is given which they score from, for example. Or a booking for a key player, which is followed up by a second yellow in the 2nd half.

 

The principle is all wrong, it's not about whether the manager thinks the decision is fair or not. As above, the referee or another official has to make the decision in the end anyway. I've seen Dermot Gallagher reviewing the week's decisions on Sky Sports and some of the things he says are complete nonsense - he contradicts himself, he doesn't understand the handball rule, he shows the shocking inconsistencies that most referees do despite having seen the incidents several times on video.

 

The bottom line is, there is a possibility that a team could run out of challenges and have the worst decision ever against them. Then what?

 

 

 

[yorkie1999]

50 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

Challenges is stupid because we'll end up with people like Mourinho wanting to challenge everything.

 

The comparisons to other sports isn't fair because sports like tennis and cricket are stop-start where as football is/should be free flowing. I think if the referee gives a penalty that's up for discussion, they'll be time for someone to look at VAR and decide if it's a penalty or not, but constant challenges will ruin it because free kicks are usually taken  quickly and the game continues. 

 

But I don't know what's its going to salve. If referee A is watching VAR he might think its a penalty but for the same decision referee B might think it wasn't a penalty. Referee decisions and the inconsistency of referee winds me up and I've boiled over at games many many times but the law of the game is down to opinion most of the game - "If the referee judges...". 

Challenges are brilliant because we'll end up with people like Mourinho knowing he only has 2 challenges and not being able to moan for a week after the game because he has already made his challenges.

[Rusko187]

4 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

 

But what if a minor decision leads to a major incident?

 

A soft free kick is given which they score from, for example. Or a booking for a key player, which is followed up by a second yellow in the 2nd half.

 

The principle is all wrong, it's not about whether the manager thinks the decision is fair or not. As above, the referee or another official has to make the decision in the end anyway. I've seen Dermot Gallagher reviewing the week's decisions on Sky Sports and some of the things he says are complete nonsense - he contradicts himself, he doesn't understand the handball rule, he shows the shocking inconsistencies that most referees do despite having seen the incidents several times on video.

 

The bottom line is, there is a possibility that a team could run out of challenges and have the worst decision ever against them. Then what?

 

 

 

So in the context of what happened with the Spurs V Arsenal game earlier in the season, an offside goal was scored from a free-kick where a foul was not committed.. the referee ultimately makes an in-play decision... whether the manager chooses to challenge is down to them but it's at that point the opportunity to do so.

If he chooses not to than the free-kick stands and is taken, in that case if Pochettino felt so strongly about it not being a free kick he should contest! If he didn't than it's down to an in-decision made to the best of the referees ability. If the referee is unsure on whether to call it a foul he can request for a review.

 

I'm not saying my idea is 100% fool-proof but this is the reality and it's coming whether we like it or not, I'm just speculating how I think it can work effectively.. Personally I think it could improve on a lot of things.

 

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Challenges are brilliant because we'll end up with people like Mourinho knowing he only has 2 challenges and not being able to moan for a week after the game because he has already made his challenges.

He'll find something to throw out there that makes it not his fault, have no fear of that. We are talking about a bloke here that has blamed the weather, the ball boys and the physio for bad results in the past.

 

We'll need a new one of these though.....

 

 

[Kitchandro]

What the game really needs is a complete retraining of referees, and the FA needs to come down on them like a ton of bricks if they making howlers, or making consistently inexplicable decisions even if they're not highlighted by the media. Was Shinji's disallowed goal mentioned in the MOTD studio even though it was a blatant dive? It didn't effect the result, but on another day it could have done.

 

That is an example of a decision that was only given because the referee wanted to give the benefit of the doubt to the defender and avoid controversy (with us leading and in control it was the less risky decision). It's an awful, inexcusable decision (you're supposed to give what you see, not imagine contact) but one not highlighted.

 

The FA should be having regular meetings with referees to ask what on earth they are thinking with this sort of thing. It's like goals disallowed for a foul on the keeper, everyone forgets about those as a rule, for some reason we accept that golkeepers can't have anyone near them, but they are allowed to be reckless and clean out strikers without punishment.

 

There needs to be some changes to the rules as well. They need to go back and change the diving rule, for a start. Anyone caught diving, whether it's seen or not, whether it's given or not, whether it's in the box or on the halfway line - should be banned for 6 games. They need to start saying 'diving has no place in football' rather than 'diving is ok as long as the referee doesn't give a penalty and ignores it'. It would be stamped out overnight if every single player who went to the floor on purpose (contact is irrelevant if they fall over voluntarily) was prevented from playing for a large number of matches. Players know what they're doing and deserve no sympathy if they're caught. Despite some protestations, diving and play acting is often very clear on review.

 

The other thing is they need to immediately get rid of the rule which prevents them reviewing incidents in which a player was booked. It's ridiculous and is an easy way out of controversy when what they need is the balls to enforce justice. It's also a pathetic way of protecting referees, who should be scrutinised by their bosses, not backed to the hilt no matter how badly they are doing.

 

The FA and Premier League have incorporated a way of operating which makes it way too easy to control which decisions they want to give and which they don't.

 

Unfortunately, things don't change in football (or anywhere really) until the media highlights them. That's why penalty shoot-outs changed, that's why goalscoring opportunities aren't always punishable by a red card anymore (a daft new rule), that's why we now have goal-line technology (amazingly after the most profitable football country in the world were knocked out of the world cup in a match with a goal not given because that technology wasn't in place). That's even why we had that short period where referees were clamping down on holding in the box. Then people stopped going on about it. So the referees stopped bothering.

 

Sky Sports and the BBC will, never, ever slate their beloved million pound players for diving and ask that they be truly punished. They'd rather criticise defenders for being 'naive' enough to make a challenge on someone who is obviously going to dive. It's those dumbass defenders that are the real enemy you see.

[Webbo]

45 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Something that is new in rugby now is that the TMO will constantly be watching incidents and might bring play back a couple of phases for something like violent conduct or dangerous play which let's the ref keep the game flowing. 

 

Nothing to stop us having that in football. 

 

Let's say there's a potential penalty incident, the ref would just ignore it and let play go on for a few seconds while the video ref checks it again. 

 

You're hardly talking more than a few seconds for him to look at it slowed down abs decide if there's contact. You just bring play back to the incident. 

 

Could do it with borderline offsides after goals go in, encourage more linesmen to let the close calls play out and if the ball goes in, check it after quickly. 

 

Diving, violent conduct like elbows, all stuff like that could be picked up after the fact by the TMO. 

 

With video and communication technology what it is these days, there's really no reason it should drastically slow down the game. 

 

It'd also take a lot of the excuses away from officials and make them more accountable. You can't claim you didn't see an incident in United's area in the final minute at Old Trafford when the whole world knows you've got a TMO checking. 

 

You occasionally get people in rugby claiming that VAR makes refs trust their own judgement less but actually I think the standard of refereeing in rugby has improved over the last generation since they've had more technology support. 

Some rugby games I've seen on TV there's been 10 minutes of stoppages per half just to review decisions. Do we really want that?

[Finnegan]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Some rugby games I've seen on TV there's been 10 minutes of stoppages per half just to review decisions. Do we really want that?

 

Obviously not but you won't do it for every call, just major incidents. 

 

Like I said, goals, violent conduct, dives in key areas, etc. 

 

For your average incident in the middle of the pitch you're just going to let the game flow. 

 

Now we've got hawk eye, goals would only need checking if there was a suspected offside and that would be an instant decision based off a replay with a computer generated line across the pitch. Easy. You could probably even programme a computer to make an offside decision in 2018.

 

The only stoppages in rugby that really take a while to sort out are pile ups, particularly on the try line. That's obviously not a problem in football. 

 

Seriously, the technophobes and changephobes that rattle out the same rubbish about "slowing the game down" when it comes to VAR need to join this decade. 

 

I've never seen anyone seriously suggest it should be implemented in football exactly as it is in rugby. Rugby has a lot more natural stoppages than football already. 

Edited 4 January 2018 by Finnegan

[mancunianfox]

VAR is the worst thing that could happen to football. I watch loads of American Sports and even in sports where there is a lot of breaks like American Football, Cricket, Rugby it isn't perfect. In the NFL video review has caused nobody (even the officials) to even understand something as simple as whether or not a catch has been made anymore. I think for the very slight improvements it would completely disrupt the flow of a game that is almost perfect.

 

I do like the idea above of having something a computer monitor offside's though.

[Captain...]

The problem is the rules are down to interpretation, especially when it comes to fouls and hand balls, and that will not change easily.

 

There are some clear cut things that can be cleared up with technology. Goal line technology is one, why not extend it round the pitch. I'm not sure Salah took the ball out in the build up to his first goal, but if he did then that linesman cost us a goal. That is something clearly defined that can be checked. The same with offsides, it would be interesting to know how quickly it takes Sky to bring up that offside graphic, and how rigorously tested it is. I like @Finnegan's suggestion of letting marginal offsides run and then review it if it comes to something, even if it is a throw in or corner for the attacking team.

 

The other cases are blatant dives, serious foul play off the ball, hand ball given in error, or mistaken identity. If a defender swears blind he didn't touch/impede the attacker, then it can be reviewed, but only if there is 0 contact, until they clearly define a foul it is impossible to be 100% when there is even the slightest contact. If a player goes up to a ref with a bloody nose and says that so and so has just elbowed him off the ball, then that is something that can be checked easily. If a ref calls a player for handball and he swears it didn't touch his hand, think Wes Morgan against Liverpool (I think), first season in the Prem, hit him squarely on the head and ref gave a penalty for handball. Like with fouls though if there is contact with the hand the video ref can't clear up if it was deliberate or not. The other one is when the ball goes out of play and is incorrectly awarded to the wrong team but that feels like it is going too far at the moment.

 

There is one other concern with VAR, it happens in Cricket the more you look at a diving catch and when you slow it down it always looks like they've dropped it, you see it as well on MOTD, when something is slowed down it looks a lot worse.

 

I guess to start we give the ref the tools he needs to ref a game and that includes clearly defining what is a foul and then we use VAR for the absolute howlers and the most blatant kind of cheating, then you need to review each game each decision and determine what the correct decision should have been and dish out retrospective punishments where necessary even wipe out goals scored through cheating, because to get what we want there needs to be a black and white rule book or we just stop over analysing the ref and just accept that as part of the game there will be decisions go against you.

Edited 4 January 2018 by Captain...

[leicsmac]

Most of the salient points have been debated already so I'll just add:

 

Implement it for penalty calls, offsides and violent conduct immediately. And while you're at it, mic up the refs and apply three-match suspensions for any abusive language by a player picked up by the ref's mic.

[Finnegan]

11 minutes ago, mancunianfox said:

VAR is the worst thing that could happen to football. I watch loads of American Sports and even in sports where there is a lot of breaks like American Football, Cricket, Rugby it isn't perfect. In the NFL video review has caused nobody (even the officials) to even understand something as simple as whether or not a catch has been made anymore. I think for the very slight improvements it would completely disrupt the flow of a game that is almost perfect.

 

I do like the idea above of having something a computer monitor offside's though.

 

Whether or not a catch has been made is very much like whether a tackle is late or whether a player was off the ground etc in rugby. Some of those get slowed down frame by frame to make ridiculously marginal decisions. 

 

I don't like that, I'm not a fan of it. If you have to slow it down to 1/2000 speed to decide if someone was fouled then he probably wasn't fouled. 

 

But none of that is about the technology and its limits, it's all about how we choose to use it.

 

I would add a stipulation that, for example, for a penalty to be given through VAR there must be "clear and obvious contact" watching at 1/2 speed. 

 

I absolutely do not want to see hours of replays during the game of a boot grazing three micro pixels across Raheem Sterling's boot to see if TECHNICALLY there was contact before a foul is given. 

 

All of that is about how you write the rules when you implement the change. 

 

Same with offside. If you can't tell from two different angles, if it's so marginal after two quick freeze frames then you give the the attacker benefit of the doubt and give the goal. Quick and easy. 

[Tuna]

It has to happen, you just have to look at the Lampard goal in the 2006 world cup for an instance where VAR would have cleared that up very quickly, and it is just ridiculous that within 30 seconds of that goal not being given, everyone in the stadium (and the world!) knew it was a goal.

 

It cannot be that difficult to have a system that will not disrupt the continuity of the game.

 

I definitely do not want a "Challenge" system that would just be abused by the likes of Mourinho and Warnock etc who would challenge everything, plus if you had say 3 challenges per match you'd still end up with incorrect decisions if you have used all your challenges.

 

I'd simply have the footage of the game relayed to the video assistant referee (s) and they can challenge any decision via earpiece to the referee or through the fourth official. Referees and linesmen referee as normal, but if they make a mistake, tell the ref, rectify it and then move on with the match.

 

I appreciate of course this sort of technology would probably be too expensive to implement in the lower leagues.

[The Quick Brown Fox]

Use the same watch they have for Goal. 3 seperate refs have the video footage, if 2 of them make a call the watch vibrates, the game continues unless the ref gets the notification as he does for goals. 

Ref has control of game, if he blows for a pen the 3 refs have until the pen is taken to notify the ref he has it wrong. No unnecessary stoppages or delays. I know there will still be a certain amount of controversial decisions but I feel that makes football as good and interesting as it is, I will personally be a little gutted to see wrong decisions totally irradiated. Just another excuse we would lose when we have lost a game.