VAR Issues

[Spudulike]

The 'big' clubs that have been influencing officials for years must be getting slightly concerned about this.

[Spudulike]

2 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

its only goals, penos and reds

Exactly. Didn't the keeper take Nacho out after he flicked it past him ?? Need to watch it again.

[EastAnglianFox]

??

 

 

[Collymore]

10 minutes ago, StanSP said:

yeah my point being was that VAR, in my opinion, is good for the game because at least you'll get to the right decisions for the majority of the time, whether it's against you or for you
 

I don't buy the criticism that 'there'll be no talking points when technology is used' (not you, just what I've heard about it over the years). Look at what this thread is for an example of how there are still talking points about the game!

I agree.... it would be interesting to know how VAR might have affected our title winning season. What points total would have we ended up on? Might we have had players sent off and got suspended after VAR? I don't know the answer and would require some anorak trawling through hours of footage (can think of worse tasks) but everything possible seemed in our favour that season... 

Edited 16 January 2018 by Collymore

[whoareyaaa]

Just now, Spudulike said:

Exactly. Didn't the keeper take Nacho out after he flicked it past him ?? Need to watch it again.

heh? if he missed and he was brought down after then it could be looked at due to it being in the area, a peno

[Spudulike]

Mike Jones is a what ??

[ARCHER]

2 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Mike Jones is a what ??

I think he said current

[Spudulike]

1 minute ago, whoareyaaa said:

heh? if he missed and he was brought down after then it could be looked at due to it being in the area, a peno

That's my point.

 

The keeper could still have got a red eventhough Nacho scored.

[SCP4Ever]

9 minutes ago, Lovejoy said:

Will they review every goal scored now?

Hello, boys!
How are my foxy friends doing??

 

I have quite a few things to say about VAR, that hopefully will help many of you understand how it ('s supposed to) work(s).
First and foremost, yes. ALL goals are reviewed by the VAR. It's one of the 4 things where it can intervene, and I'll try to explain it as well as possible, but bear in mind that this is all still a work in progress.

The 4 situations where the VAR can intervene are:

Goals - All the goals are subject to review, and if there's any irregularity in the play leading up to it (like a foul or offside), it can be overturned.

Penalties - If the VAR spots a penalty foul that the ref missed, he can call him up and tell him. He can also correct the referee if he thinks a penalty has been incorrectly given.
Red cards - If the VAR spots a red card offense that the officials on the pitch missed, he can communicate that to the referee.

Mistaken identities - This one is a bit more vague, since it can include simulations (diving and the like) and bookings given to wrong players.

 

Now this bit here is SUPER IMPORTANT. The VAR can only intervene when the game is stopped. As soon as it resumes, it's done, which is why it's important that everyone takes this into account. The VAR needs to move fast, and the ref, if in doubt, whould wait in order to get the all clear or not.
As you probably noticed, the VAR doesn't intervene in offsides. BUT, since all goals are reviewed, it's the (current) recommendation from the International Board to, when in doubt, let play continue, and if there's an offside, the goal will be overruled.

 

As things are now, the countries already using VAR have different experiences and procedure implementation, which is good, because it gives varying information that allows for a better protocol, improved communication, etc. Here in Portugal, we've had a handful of interventions, the time lost has been nominal at best, but in Italy, for example, there's been games with 8 and 10 minutes added time because of VAR.

 

I can tell you that it can be a roller coaster of emotions as well. Sporting had a pretty comfortable game at the start of the season, playing Estoril. We were winning 2-0 before the 15 minute mark, and were coasting to another 3 points, when 5 minutes from time, Lucas Evangelista scored a screamer from outside the box. We prepared ourselves for a complicated last minutes, when we got a 3rd goal just into stoppage time. It was a relief, but short lived, as the VAR called for an offside prior to the goal, getting us back to a 1 goal lead. And as our fears blossomed, Estoril equalized in the last minute of added time, only for THAT goal to be also disallowed for an offside, allowing us to bag the win and breathe a much deserved sigh of relief.

 

So if you guys have any questions that I can answer, go for it.

[StanSP]

2 minutes ago, SCP4Ever said:

 

 

So if you guys have any questions that I can answer, go for it.

Andy King - club legend or nah? 

[holyfox]

28 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

I couldn’t agree more with the OP, it’s a halfway house and the referees still have way too much discretion.

 

The Iborra penalty incident clearly should have been given tonight.

 

The other thing was, I saw the replay at home, concluded it was clearly onside and it took Moss a further 30 seconds (it felt like longer) to actually give the goal.

 

They need to be far quicker because that was tedious and it was an easy decision once you’ve seen the replay.

100% this! Couldn’t understand how we didn’t get a penalty for that; he almost gave him a bear hug and got away with it?!

[SCP4Ever]

26 minutes ago, StanSP said:

incorrect.

 

Replays showed the linesman was bang in line with Iheanacho and Pond. Can see why he gave it offside as it's a split second movement which involves Riyad's pass, Pond moving towards him, Iheanacho moving forward. 

 

 

Linesmen use sight and sound to call offsides. They watch the players' line, while listening for the sound of the ball being kicked. The problem with this is that sound travels slower than light (and therefore sight), so when he hears the sound, the ball was already passed. When we're talking about fractions of seconds, it makes a difference.

[SCP4Ever]

2 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Andy King - club legend or nah? 

VAR questions, m8...

 

But with nearly 400 games played, is it really a question...?

[foxes_rule1978]

1 minute ago, holyfox said:

100% this! Couldn’t understand how we didn’t get a penalty for that; he almost gave him a bear hug and got away with it?!

VAR gives such incidents a chance for it to be reviewed, I would rather that happens then not because I feel such decisions will be given correctly more often then if the ref just sees it at the time it happens. 

[Quorndon_Fox]

Honestly it’s a slippy slope, ruined rugby and it will only be a matter of time until you start stopping the clock every time a decision needs reviewing. Leave it to human error, it’s gives us something to talk about!

Edited 16 January 2018 by Quorndon_Fox

[Donut]

As i see it there are a number of creases that need to be ironed out.

 

Let me explain the offside issue i dont like.

 

As our Portuguese friend has explained, the stopping of the game is critical to the use of VAR.

 

If we are using VAR then the referee surely cant blow for offside or players will at times stop playing, kick the ball away, keepers not try and save the ball etc.

 

Waste legitimate goal chances basically.

 

So if the referee then DOESNT whistle for offside, are we then going to endure 4 or 5 instances of strikers running through and shooting each game, scoring or forcing corners etc,when offside.

 

This would make for a dismal spectacle of goals constantly being ruled out.

 

This doesnt happen now because the only thing governing the game is the ref and the whistle.

 

There are many issues but for me this is a significant one.

[Arkie Bennett]

Moss didn't seem to add anything like enough time for the stoppages. The delay before awarding the goal must have been around 2 minutes on its own.

[Donut]

Just now, Arkie Bennett said:

Moss didn't seem to add anything like enough time for the stoppages. The delay before awarding the goal must have been around 2 minutes on its own.

And the signalling is not clear either. The system itself is being used inconsistently as some referees review footage pitch side themself.

[st albans fox]

4 minutes ago, Arkie Bennett said:

Moss didn't seem to add anything like enough time for the stoppages. The delay before awarding the goal must have been around 2 minutes on its own.

Apparently it was 67 seconds ?

 

i assume this decision took longer than it would usually do as they were rechecking a few times. They really couldn’t afford to get VAR’s first decision wrong. 

[Foxxed]

It will make the game more accurate. But it'll also increase the length of some existing game pauses.

 

And the players will mill around waiting for the decision.

 

It's trading speed and intensity for accuracy. I'm still unsure what I think about that.

[Carl the Llama]

In all 3 matches where a var's been used, how much time has been wasted waiting for them to make a decision?  Sounds like it must be a pretty high number.

[SCP4Ever]

3 minutes ago, Donut said:

As i see it there are a number of creases that need to be ironed out.

 

Let me explain the offside issue i dont like.

 

As our Portuguese friend has explained, the stopping of the game is critical to the use of VAR.

 

If we are using VAR then the referee surely cant blow for offside or players will at times stop playing, kick the ball away, keepers not try and save the ball etc.

 

Waste legitimate goal chances basically.

 

So if the referee then DOESNT whistle for offside, are we then going to endure 4 or 5 instances of strikers running through and shooting each game, scoring or forcing corners etc,when offside.

 

This would make for a dismal spectacle of goals constantly being ruled out.

 

This doesnt happen now because the only thing governing the game is the ref and the whistle.

 

There are many issues but for me this is a significant one.

 

There are indeed a lot of things still to improve.

Number one for me is communication. It's bad for the people watching at home, with no knowledge of what's going on, but for the fans in the stands it's even worse. I'd love for them to implement a system similar to what the NLF uses for ref calls.

Also, let's not forget that the players and managers are also poorly informed about what can be reviewed or not, how the process works, etc. There need to be some sort of formation sessions to better inform everyone involved about the VAR, and let's not forget pundits and TV commentators.

 

As for the offsides, they are indeed complex. We've had some very bad calls given here, with the flag raised and whistle blown that shouldn't have been, as those cannot be reversed, because a) the game stops; and b) VAR doesn't intervene in offsides. The current recommendation is, when in doubt, let the game continue, and if a goal is scored, it will be reviewed anyway, so a missed offside can be called, but a bad offside cannot. Don't forget, there's always a stop in play when a goal is scored, so the VAR can use that time to review the play and decide if it's all legal or not.

[Vardinio'sCat]

 

This VAR is some crazy headf**k s**t, but if it reduces the gross errors it has to be worth trying.

 

If it had got us a peno as well, I would have given it an unqualified thumbs up. 

Edited 16 January 2018 by Vardinio'sCat

[skmanuk]

21 minutes ago, Donut said:

As i see it there are a number of creases that need to be ironed out.

 

Let me explain the offside issue i dont like.

 

As our Portuguese friend has explained, the stopping of the game is critical to the use of VAR.

 

If we are using VAR then the referee surely cant blow for offside or players will at times stop playing, kick the ball away, keepers not try and save the ball etc.

 

Waste legitimate goal chances basically.

 

So if the referee then DOESNT whistle for offside, are we then going to endure 4 or 5 instances of strikers running through and shooting each game, scoring or forcing corners etc,when offside.

 

This would make for a dismal spectacle of goals constantly being ruled out.

 

This doesnt happen now because the only thing governing the game is the ref and the whistle.

 

There are many issues but for me this is a significant one.

You may wish to look at how this works as I think you misunderstand. Offsides are NOT reviewed. Therefore if the linesmann flags the ref will blow and award a free kick straight away.

 

it is only if it all happens quickly, the ball is in the net and play stopped; then the var is allowed to see if it is a valid goal.

[skmanuk]

4 minutes ago, SCP4Ever said:

 

There are indeed a lot of things still to improve.

Number one for me is communication. It's bad for the people watching at home, with no knowledge of what's going on, but for the fans in the stands it's even worse. I'd love for them to implement a system similar to what the NLF uses for ref calls.

Also, let's not forget that the players and managers are also poorly informed about what can be reviewed or not, how the process works, etc. There need to be some sort of formation sessions to better inform everyone involved about the VAR, and let's not forget pundits and TV commentators.

 

As for the offsides, they are indeed complex. We've had some very bad calls given here, with the flag raised and whistle blown that shouldn't have been, as those cannot be reversed, because a) the game stops; and b) VAR doesn't intervene in offsides. The current recommendation is, when in doubt, let the game continue, and if a goal is scored, it will be reviewed anyway, so a missed offside can be called, but a bad offside cannot. Don't forget, there's always a stop in play when a goal is scored, so the VAR can use that time to review the play and decide if it's all legal or not.

Why are players and managers unsure how it works, the published rules are pretty simple.