VAR Issues

[foxinsox]

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.

The crowd didn't seem unhappy during the wait. Indeed we quite enjoyed "whooooing". 

 

It is no more disruptive to the flow than any other stoppage. 

[SouthStandUpperTier]

The crowd didn't seem unhappy during the wait. Indeed we quite enjoyed "whooooing". 

 

It is no more disruptive to the flow than any other stoppage. 

If they start slow clapping like in the tennis then I'm out.

 

[Donut]

18 minutes ago, skmanuk said:

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.

 

No you missed what i said

 

As you can see, juding offsides can be difficult.

 

So what you could end up with is a situation where either linesmen arent flagging and referees whistling, leading to numerous instances of strikers running in on goal and "scoring" and the decision having to be reviewed.

 

It doesnt make sense the linesman and referee will call a borderline offside. It could waste a goalscoring chance and managers will go ape shit.

Edited 16 January 2018 by Donut

[skmanuk]

7 minutes ago, foxinsox said:

The crowd didn't seem unhappy during the wait. Indeed we quite enjoyed "whooooing". 

 

It is no more disruptive to the flow than any other stoppage. 

I agree, I was there and there was a noticeable buildup in tension during the what was a very short wait.

 

for those complaining about the delay far more time is wasted during substitutions as players exit the pitch at a snails pace.

[gw_leics772]

The biggest issue for me was middle aged men behind me chanting var. From that point on it can **** right off.

 

And even the goal. What an anti climactic way to win a game.

 

World's gone mad.

[Ian Nacho]

Petty, I know, but an indication to what the referee is doing instead of just putting his finger on his ear would be nice.

[Ian Nacho]

3 minutes ago, gw_leics772 said:

The biggest issue for me was middle aged men behind me chanting var. From that point on it can **** right off.

 

And even the goal. What an anti climactic way to win a game.

 

World's gone mad.

 

Would you rather the ref gets the decision wrong and we don't win the game?

[gw_leics772]

1 minute ago, Ian Nacho said:

Would you rather the ref gets the decision wrong and we don't win the game?

Been there, done that. You get over it. 

[Arkie Bennett]

35 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

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. 

Fair enough, it felt longer. They need to cut that time down otherwise five or six minutes of stoppage time will become the norm if there are several VAR consultations.

[Dukla Leicester]

6 minutes ago, skmanuk said:

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.

If this is correct and offsides are no reviewed then i can’t see how we got the goal awarded. The linesman flags for offside and we score before moss has chance to blow the whistle. Now moss should either agree with his linesman that nacho is offside and award a freekick or overule him and allow the goal. Its one or the other, surely. Why has the var been called into play? Has moss ****ed up again?

[fuchsntf]

People Like Uwe Rössler..!!

Or any negative,miserable Arguments.

Fleetwood we're Not playing for Offside..so if Nacho was another 1inch onside

Whats and where ist his Excuse. Ditto when it goes against us another time..

 

Lets not yet Go yet OTT...ITS here ,embrace it, lets see how it developes..

Rugby IMO ist better for it..10% of tries you cant See,plus 5-10% of other incidents,

One cant always call..hey-ho even for allowing,for another 10% confused descisions,

That means an Improvement of 80%...

Mind you..if we get an another "Wembley Goal" , a Game With Vars will Run for 60years?

 

[Donut]

5 minutes ago, Dukla Leicester said:

If this is correct and offsides are no reviewed then i can’t see how we got the goal awarded. The linesman flags for offside and we score before moss has chance to blow the whistle. Now moss should either agree with his linesman that nacho is offside and award a freekick or overule him and allow the goal. Its one or the other, surely. Why has the var been called into play? Has moss ****ed up again?

The goal is the stop in play so jon moss was right to have var have a look at the incident and eventually award the goal.

 

But if he had whistled when he saw the flag and stopped the game hed have ruined a legitimate goal scoring chance. Or as we often see, the keeper would make a token effort of a save.

 

It is THAT that makes var for offsides very dodgy.

Edited 16 January 2018 by Donut

[Hirsty The Blue 94]

44 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.

Agree with this point completely. Defenders and keepers stop almost immediately once the offside flag is raised, and it's too hard to differentiate what 'immediate' means like the bloke after you tried to correct you one. If Iheanacho takes a touch, his chance to score is gone by the sounds of it as the ref would blow his whistle, the offside given and no review available.

 

A 2nd issue is that all goalscoring plays are reviewed, so things leading up to the goal are assessed. How far back does that go? There are times in football where a pattern of play develops over 2-3 minutes, without the ball going out of play. What is included in the immediate build up? We could be going back to a pull of the shirt 2 minutes before the goal is scored in the other corner of the pitch.The reason it works (to an extent) in the NFL is that a play lasts a short period of time, the ball is thrown, the catch is made, all that takes about 10 seconds. In football the game flows so quickly that there isn't a natural point where you can say that it is 'in the build up' to the goal.

 

One thing I would bring in VAR for is for violent conduct & issuing of straight red cards. If the VAR sees something that the ref doesn't off the ball, he tells him he has seen a headbutt, stop the game next time the ball leaves the field of play and have a look. Likewise a bloke flies into a 2 footed challenge, on field ref gives a yellow, VAR man tells him it's a red (or at least tells him to have a look at it again) so the correct decision can be made. Anything else and there is too many grey areas for me.

[HybridFox]

Rugby seems a lot quicker when they go upstairs. It shouldn't really be that different for football. They have to sort that out.

 

But VAR is for the better. Remember people being against goal line tech before it was implemented. Don't see one person complaining now

[Chester Dontlie]

About time football catched up with the times. To think that video technology for instant replay was already available half a century ago! Imagine 'Hand of God' and thousands of other wrong calls which since then could be reviewed and corrected.

 

Better late than never. And if it the VAR decision goes the wrong way for us, so what. Since when the referees were on Leicester side anyway. If it wasn't for the VAR magic the fat cnut would never give us that goal 

 

 

 

 

[SCP4Ever]

26 minutes ago, skmanuk said:

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

Yes, but so are some of the players and managers... 

Joking aside, it's a question of time and experience. Players are very used to raising their arms calling for an offside instead of trying to cut the ball or prevent a goal. That will change. What will also change is diving and unsportsmanlike behavior, since you're now much more likely to get caught.

And I wouldn't be surprised if some players think anything can be reviewed by the VAR, I've seen plenty of players making the VAR sign asking for reviews of plays that aren't possible.

 

25 minutes ago, foxinsox said:

The crowd didn't seem unhappy during the wait. Indeed we quite enjoyed "whooooing". 

 

It is no more disruptive to the flow than any other stoppage. 

I didn't mean unhappy, although that will happen when calls go against you, but less so than before.

I meant unsure and apprehensive. When it's a clear situation, like a potential penalty or offside, it's kind of easy to tell, but even so, there's a blatant lack of information, and I think it would improve the experience if the refs were allowed to inform the crowd of what was going on.

 

5 minutes ago, Arkie Bennett said:

Fair enough, it felt longer. They need to cut that time down otherwise five or six minutes of stoppage time will become the norm if there are several VAR consultations.

It always feels longer on the stands. And I don't think you've had the referee go check the monitors yet. That adds even more time, while he reviews the images sent to him by the VAR.

The fact of the matter is, there's really not that many VAR pauses in a game anyway. We've had VAR on every single game in Portugal's league this year, and there's not been a lot of time lost. In fact, considering how much players here fake injuries, it's been barely noticeable.

 

4 minutes ago, Dukla Leicester said:

If this is correct and offsides are no reviewed then i can’t see how we got the goal awarded. The linesman flags for offside and we score before moss has chance to blow the whistle. Now moss should either agree with his linesman that nacho is offside and award a freekick or overule him and allow the goal. Its one or the other, surely. Why has the var been called into play? Has moss ****ed up again?

 

That is a very good question. Since if was a pretty fast thing, I don't think he blew the whistle before the goal was scored, which is why the goal was allowed to stand, but if the whistle had gone, the VAR couldn't have intervened, so that was a mistake on all their parts, both VAR, linesman and referee.

[foxfanazer]

1 hour ago, EastAnglianFox said:

Feel a bit for the linesman, made to look a bit like he'd fvcked up but week in week out you see far, far worse offside decisions given, was a very close call.

Yeah it was a tight call tbh and my initial reaction was offside but they applied the VAR correctly

[Hirsty The Blue 94]

Can see the offside situation getting ridiculous. Linesman are going to be reluctant to put their flag up, as they don't want to deny a potential goalscoring chance, safe in the knowledge that if the goal is scored it will be reviewed anyway should it go in. Could easily get to the stage where there are 3 or 4 of these goals ruled out every game which would make it a bit of a farce. It's like the 'run outs' used in Cricket, sometimes you see batsman out by about 4 yards, but the umpire will always go to the 3rd umpire just because the technology is there.

 

I know this is a trial period, but until these type of questions are ironed answered sufficiently it cannot be a success. The problem is because tonight got the correct decision eventually the mainstream media which effect public opinion has labelled it successful, which is likely to influence the FA's decision makers. People say that there was reluctance with goal line technology, but I don't remember it actually being controversial at all. When something is as black and white as a ball crossing a line there is no room for interpretation. Sadly with any other decision in football made by the referee there is.

[Donut]

11 minutes ago, SCP4Ever said:

Yes, but so are some of the players and managers... 

Joking aside, it's a question of time and experience. Players are very used to raising their arms calling for an offside instead of trying to cut the ball or prevent a goal. That will change. What will also change is diving and unsportsmanlike behavior, since you're now much more likely to get caught.

And I wouldn't be surprised if some players think anything can be reviewed by the VAR, I've seen plenty of players making the VAR sign asking for reviews of plays that aren't possible.

 

 

I dont really see how the VAR will cut down instances of diving to be honest.

 

The idea of a dive is to deceive the referee that a player has been fouled for a penalty when they havent.

 

So if the "dive" is convincing enough that the onfield referee blows for a penalty, can the VAR say with absolute certainty a clear and obvious error has been made by the referee in order to overturn his decision?

 

If the dive is absolutely blatant it will be handled on the field by the referee with a yellow card. 

 

If the referee gives a penalty for a blatant dive the issue is the on field referee being sub standard.

 

If VAR does come in it must also surely mean retrospective dive punishments must be stopped, as it brings the referee AND VAR into disrepute.

 

You surely cant have an on field referee give a penalty, a VAR say there isnt evidence of a clear error by the referee only for a panel to then say theyre both wrong and ban the player retrospectively?

[BoyJones]

10 minutes ago, foxfanazer said:

Yeah it was a tight call tbh and my initial reaction was offside but they applied the VAR correctly

Personally thought that as offsides decisions go, it was one of the simpler ones for the Lino to get right. All players and ball virtually in same view, not like a 40 yard pass over the top. 

 

So from the corner flag area, he looked onside to us with the naked eye. Surprised when the flag went up. The Lino's made a complete ball's up - bloke in the pub said I was being harsh, but unfortunately we need VAR because of the poor standard of officials currently working in the game.

[SCP4Ever]

15 minutes ago, Donut said:

The goal is the stop in play so jon moss was right to have var have a look at the incident and eventually award the goal.

 

But if he had whistled when he saw the flag and stopped the game hed have ruined a legitimate goal scoring chance. Or as we often see, the keeper would make a token effort of a save.

 

It is THAT that makes var for offsides very dodgy.

you are correct. We've had quite a number of bad offsides given here that were resulted in goals that never were because the linesman flags it wrongly and the ref blows the whistle. The referee has no choice, he doesn't know if it's a bad call or not, he needs to trust his team, which means that the linesmen need to change to allow the game to benefit.

you can disallow an illegal goal, you cannot validate one for an in-existent offside.

I think this is the simpler solution, really, but the International Board could also start to include offsides in the list of plays to be reviewed. I hope they don't, though, because not all offsides will result in goals.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Hirsty The Blue 94 said:

Agree with this point completely. Defenders and keepers stop almost immediately once the offside flag is raised, and it's too hard to differentiate what 'immediate' means like the bloke after you tried to correct you one. If Iheanacho takes a touch, his chance to score is gone by the sounds of it as the ref would blow his whistle, the offside given and no review available.

That's right. And it will happen, especially before linesmen get the hang of this new technology. They're used to calling things a certain way, and it's going to take some time to get used to VAR.

 

10 minutes ago, Hirsty The Blue 94 said:

A 2nd issue is that all goalscoring plays are reviewed, so things leading up to the goal are assessed. How far back does that go? There are times in football where a pattern of play develops over 2-3 minutes, without the ball going out of play. What is included in the immediate build up? We could be going back to a pull of the shirt 2 minutes before the goal is scored in the other corner of the pitch.The reason it works (to an extent) in the NFL is that a play lasts a short period of time, the ball is thrown, the catch is made, all that takes about 10 seconds. In football the game flows so quickly that there isn't a natural point where you can say that it is 'in the build up' to the goal.

That is a very good question. From my understanding, it's from when the play began, meaning when you got the ball from the opposing team, or from the keeper, or from a throw-in, free kick, corner kick, etc. There's been a (I hope it's a future textbook) situation this season in the Netherlands Super Cup (their version of the Charity Shield) last August. Feyenoord were winning 1-0, and there was a penalty for Vitesse, which the ref didn't call. On the counter, Feyenoord scored their second, but the VAR called the ref about the penalty, the ref went to the monitor to review it, and awarded the penalty kick to Vitesse, who drew level. Feyenoord ended up winning on penalties, but it was a great and super ballsy decision from the referee.

I do, however, have a big question about this situation. Was the play reviewed for the penalty kick missed, or for the entire play before the goal, meaning, if it wasn't a goal, would he have called it too? I want to think he would, but in any case it gives you an idea about how far back they can go. Of course, this might also change and/or be more clarified in the future.

Here's a video of the play in question, if you guys want to check it out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9Z_dXhrPQU

 

10 minutes ago, Hirsty The Blue 94 said:

One thing I would bring in VAR for is for violent conduct & issuing of straight red cards. If the VAR sees something that the ref doesn't off the ball, he tells him he has seen a headbutt, stop the game next time the ball leaves the field of play and have a look. Likewise a bloke flies into a 2 footed challenge, on field ref gives a yellow, VAR man tells him it's a red (or at least tells him to have a look at it again) so the correct decision can be made. Anything else and there is too many grey areas for me.

They do indeed do that. It's what I called unsportsmanlike behavior, but I think the protocol calls it red card offenses.
 

[SCP4Ever]

9 minutes ago, Donut said:

I dont really see how the VAR will cut down instances of diving to be honest.

The idea of a dive is to deceive the referee that a player has been fouled for a penalty when they haven't.

So if the "dive" is convincing enough that the onfield referee blows for a penalty, can the VAR say with absolute certainty a clear and obvious error has been made by the referee in order to overturn his decision?

If the dive is absolutely blatant it will be handled on the field by the referee with a yellow card. 

If the referee gives a penalty for a blatant dive the issue is the on field referee being sub standard.

If VAR does come in it must also surely mean retrospective dive punishments must be stopped, as it brings the referee AND VAR into disrepute.

You surely cant have an on field referee give a penalty, a VAR say there isn't evidence of a clear error by the referee only for a panel to then say they're both wrong and ban the player retrospectively?

 

There's a couple of things you need to consider.

The VAR has access to the whole feed from the television cameras on the stadium. He's not limited to what the people at home sees, AND he has tools at his disposal so that he can rewind, pause and slomo the crap out of the incident.

The referee ALWAYS has the option to check the images himself. There's a monitor on the sidelines for him to go and get the images sent to him directly from the VAR, so that he can see what his colleague saw and decide for himself, because it will always be his decision. If he disagrees with the VAR, his decision (right or wrong) stands.

And lastly, I don't know if you read my 1st post on this, but one of the 4 types of calls that the VAR can intervene in is the case of mistaken identity. Which is broad enough to include booking the wrong player for a handball, for example, AND also wrongly penalising a player for a foul he didn't commit. So imagine that I dive, and you get booked. The VAR can tell the ref that I faked it, and I get booked instead for diving.

[Donut]

19 minutes ago, Hirsty The Blue 94 said:

Can see the offside situation getting ridiculous. Linesman are going to be reluctant to put their flag up, as they don't want to deny a potential goalscoring chance, safe in the knowledge that if the goal is scored it will be reviewed anyway should it go in. Could easily get to the stage where there are 3 or 4 of these goals ruled out every game which would make it a bit of a farce. It's like the 'run outs' used in Cricket, sometimes you see batsman out by about 4 yards, but the umpire will always go to the 3rd umpire just because the technology is there.

 

This is where VAR also falls down for me in that some decisions are basically "allowed" to be wrong.

 

Example: through ball played to striker who is offside. Linesman does not flag it. Striker runs all the way to the goal and the keeper saves the ball around the post for a corner.

 

The game is stopped....but its not stopped for a goal.

 

so should the game resume with a corner to the attacking team which would not exist had the offside been flagged or a free kick (rightly) to the defending team?

 

There are just way too many uncovered scenarios i feel.

[Donut]

14 minutes ago, SCP4Ever said:

 

There's a couple of things you need to consider.

The VAR has access to the whole feed from the television cameras on the stadium. He's not limited to what the people at home sees, AND he has tools at his disposal so that he can rewind, pause and slomo the crap out of the incident.

The referee ALWAYS has the option to check the images himself. There's a monitor on the sidelines for him to go and get the images sent to him directly from the VAR, so that he can see what his colleague saw and decide for himself, because it will always be his decision. If he disagrees with the VAR, his decision (right or wrong) stands.

And lastly, I don't know if you read my 1st post on this, but one of the 4 types of calls that the VAR can intervene in is the case of mistaken identity. Which is broad enough to include booking the wrong player for a handball, for example, AND also wrongly penalising a player for a foul he didn't commit. So imagine that I dive, and you get booked. The VAR can tell the ref that I faked it, and I get booked instead for diving.

Definitely appreciate the views. But again that brings up the question of real time replay vs slowed down replays. Multiple angles can really play havoc with interpretation too.

 

My point with the dive is, if your dive could con me that youd been fouled convincingly enough, then the VAR will have a very hard time conclusively proving i made a mistake.

 

If i made a total, catastrophic decision thats obviously wrong, then i shouldnt be refereeing.

Edited 17 January 2018 by Donut

[Spicer]

Whilst at the match the VAR uses could be improved. In rugby the recordings are shown on the screens for everyone to see, so fans know what is going on