VAR Issues

[Donut]

6 minutes ago, Spicer said:

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

Would be horrendous.

 

Imagine the Iborra incident was against Man Utd and put up on big screens.

 

VAR confirms no pen.

 

There would be serious aggro in the stands after such an incident.

[HighPeakFox]

2 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

I was dead in line with it and it was clearly onside. Nacho was too fast for the limo, who was 3 yards behind. Goes to show. It was great waiting for the decision as well

He out ran a car?

[SCP4Ever]

7 minutes ago, Donut said:

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.

 

That's possible. The VAR isn't there to correct every single mistake, it's there to avoid gross mistakes that can potentially change the outcome of a match. Which is why they only review and intervene in these 4 types of situation. It's still possible that calls are going to be wrongly made, but since we'll be getting into minute details, like millimetres instead of centimeters, or the intensity of a given contact between defender and attacker, and most importantly, the referee and VAR views on those things. 
For example, we might see a contact in the box as worthy of a penalty, and pundits too, while others don't.

But we'll be spared from those grotesque mistakes, like that handball that cost Ireland a World Cup spot, or Maradona's hand of God goal.

 

5 minutes ago, Spicer said:

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

 

It's possible, but I don't think it's necessary. For the people at home, definitely, but at the stadium, I'd be happy with an announcement from the ref on the PA, like they do in the NFL. Like donut said, there could be trouble, although how can you argue with the truth...?

[skmanuk]

5 hours ago, Donut said:

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.

This is in an incorrect scenario, if there is no goal it cannot be reviewed. Play continues as normal.

[Harry - LCFC]

7 hours 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.

My thoughts too.

 

So many goals will require us and the players to get 'permission' to celebrate from the VAR that they'll lose the instant, revelatory joy we're used to.

[Donut]

1 hour ago, skmanuk said:

This is in an incorrect scenario, if there is no goal it cannot be reviewed. Play continues as normal.

So youve proved my point then.

 

If the situation didnt result in a goal we let the decision go.

 

Restarting a game with a defending team free kick or attacking team corner are totally different.

Edited 17 January 2018 by Donut

[Foxxed]

8 hours 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.

Nacho's second goal celebration was very anti climatic.

 

It looked like a bunch of six form girls huddled 'round waiting for their A Level results. You could almost hear Silva shout "yay".

 

[gw_leics772]

1 minute ago, Foxxed said:

Nacho's second goal celebration was very anti climatic.

 

It looked like a bunch of six form girls huddled 'round waiting for their A Level results. You could almost hear Silva shout "yay".

 

Definitely, but when the decisions inevitably speed up I imagine it will he better.

 

What will NEVER be bearable is when middle aged men chant like schoolgirls for a video referral.

 

Maybe I should contact the club. If I text that number in the ground and they came in and executed them, or perhaps snipered them from distance, I think that could add to my "match day experience"

[gw_leics772]

7 minutes ago, Donut said:

So youve proved my point then.

 

If the situation didnt result in a goal we let the decision go.

 

Restarting a game with a defending team free kick or attacking team corner are totally different.

Yay, playground football. 

 

People certainly won't leave early when it's next goal wins in injury time.

 

I can get behind that one.

[Babylon]

55 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

Nacho's second goal celebration was very anti climatic.

 

It looked like a bunch of six form girls huddled 'round waiting for their A Level results. You could almost hear Silva shout "yay".

 

The other option was the goal being ruled out entirely. I really don't get the "it ruined the celebration" in these circumstances.

 

It might do if they end up reviewing every single goal. In Rugby it started off like this with the refs still having a lot of power, but as it went on they reviewed more and more stuff to the point of them checking almost every goal.

[ozleicester]

29 minutes ago, Babylon said:

The other option was the goal being ruled out entirely. I really don't get the "it ruined the celebration" in these circumstances.

 

It might do if they end up reviewing every single goal. In Rugby it started off like this with the refs still having a lot of power, but as it went on they reviewed more and more stuff to the point of them checking almost every goal.

They are reviewing EVERY goal

[Guest Cujek]

11 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

Whisper it quietly, but Moss handled it all well tonight I thought.

of course he did, the useless bastard dont even have to do his job at all now, he can make it all about him even more by training the cameras on him whilst someone else makes a decision for him.

[Babylon]

24 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

They are reviewing EVERY goal

And did that ruin the celebration for the first goal?

[filbertway]

9 hours ago, Donut said:

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.

Well it's not a goal. So they just carry on with whatever the officials on the pitch decided. 

[Super_horns]

11 hours ago, Spudulike said:

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

Wenger will probably still claim he didn't see certain incidents (depending on which way it goes)!

 

Marco Silva would probably be out of a job if VAR had been in place for our game on Saturday....

....

A perfect example of where VAR would work - enough time was spent with the Southampton players complaining (rightly as it proved) so any delay would be covered.

 

Ok might get out of hand on occasions but better to be totally right than wrong just because it took too long to use VAR?

 

The only issue is when managers and players start demanding it being used for the minor things like throw ins!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ricey]

The problem with VAR is that it will get to the stage when players and fans will be so paranoid about it that most goals won't be celebrated when they go in. There will be half-hearted celebrations until everyone knows for certain that that VAR has given the goal. Seeing as most goals have some kind of contentious issue in the build-up, this is going kill the single best thing about watching football.

[KrefelderFox666]

Not read every comment on here so sorry if I repeat something. Here is my view:

 

1. VAR is great because it will help referees when they make a wrong decision and enable the game to be fairer

2. The referees decision stands unless the VAR has a strong belief that the referee may have made a mistake

3. Offside goals will be fairly straight forward to say yes or no but of course there is the problem of when does the ref blow for offside (i.e. is the attack stopped and the team prevented from scoring) - will referees if in doubt now not give offside and then review later

4. Penalties and red cards are down to the interpretation of the law and so naturally difficult to decide. Three different referees may have three different views

 

Overall I think VAR benefits the game, technology is there so use it.

[Ted Maul]

It could get incredibly frustrating- imagine the scenes... Vardy nips in behind the Spurs defence on the last day of the season to score a stoppage time winner and put us into the Europa League. The referee consults VAR, and it emerges that his toe is 1 inch offside, and we are denied.

 

I think it should be to eliminate horror decisions and there should be some benefit of doubt given to officials, like 'umpire's call' in cricket. For offsides, maybe there should be some distance between the furthest part forward and the line- 1 ft?- for a decision to be overturned.

[David Hankey]

1 hour ago, Ted Maul said:

It could get incredibly frustrating- imagine the scenes... Vardy nips in behind the Spurs defence on the last day of the season to score a stoppage time winner and put us into the Europa League. The referee consults VAR, and it emerges that his toe is 1 inch offside, and we are denied.

 

I think it should be to eliminate horror decisions and there should be some benefit of doubt given to officials, like 'umpire's call' in cricket. For offsides, maybe there should be some distance between the furthest part forward and the line- 1 ft?- for a decision to be overturned.

If you're offside, whether it's an inch or a yard, you're offside. The thing I'm most concerned is the amount of interruption there will be or will it be a case each side is only allowed so many appeals per game?

 

Anyway it won't be introduced until the start of next season for league matches at the earliest. Just think how unfair it would be if they brought in straight away to league games with all those dodgy decisions which have gone on prior to yesterday. So, don't worry about Vardy nipping in behind the Totteringham defence.

 

[Ted Maul]

11 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

If you're offside, whether it's an inch or a yard, you're offside.

I'm not sure I agree with that. On that basis, if you're driving at 31 MPH in a 30 area, you're speeding and should be penalised. In reality, that would be incredibly pedantic and the law gives motorists a little leeway- I think new offside rules should do similar for attackers. 

 

The rule has changed so much over the years anyway, I think they will tweak it in some ways when VAR is introduced properly. Your toe being beyond the last defender doesn't exactly give you a massive advantage, and goals being disallowed for that just seems silly to me.

[foxinsocks]

I wonder if we could have league table where we rate refs who got the initial decisions wrong  (overruled by VAR) divided by their game time.  This would show the serial offenders.

 

 

[st albans fox]

The offside issue is, i thInk, going to have be fine tuned to the point that for example  only where a goal is scored by a player receiving the ball within the final third would there be a review. Through balls where a player is running on from thirty yards + out could cause chaos. Refs will be unwilling to blow to the linesman’s flag, linesmen will become unwilling to put up their flags. I wonder how this has manifested itself in those countries where it’s being used. 

 

If the officials stop giving offsides for tight decisions then we will get loads of disallowed goals. Once the whistle is blown there can be no review. At what point does the ref have to acknowledge the flag and blow up - after the player shoots? after the player squares? after the keeper saves ? And if the keeper saves and the ball comes back to the striker is that tough if he then puts the rebound in after the whilstle is then blown ??? 

 

 

[Jimbo]

2 big issues I have with it so far

 

1) the amount of time it took to get the correct decision.  Last night, having watched the replays when I got home, in normal time it was a close call.  When the replays slowed it down it was a clear decision to make.  I was sat right at the back of the south stand last night, by the TV studio in the corner.  I could see very early on that it was a goal on the screens in there, but it still took a seemingly considerable amount of time for it to be awarded.  If a decision as clear cut as that can take that long what's it going to take when the decision is still debatable?

 

2) how are the FA going to play this out?  Let play run and then check?  If the ref blows the whistle and everyone stops then the goal cannot be awarded.  It works in rugby, which is a fairly stop/start game because they let the play run and go back to check after a try is scored.  You can't do that in football.

 

If/when it becomes a full time fixture in the sport there's going to be just as many arguments about it as there are refereeing decisions now.

 

There will be a case when someone argues that the VAR should be used in the build up to a goal.  There'll be a dodgy handball not given or a winger letting the ball run just out of play in the build up to a goal scored 30 seconds later and some plank will mention using VAR is those instances. Which will be a fair argument to an extent.  A game changing incident doesn't just have to be something that happens in the box.

 

Just don't have it and leave the game as it.  You'll have players in a few years in the refs ear at every decision asking him to check it

[Quorndon_Fox]

12 hours ago, TK95 said:

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

Mate are you taking the piss? Games are constantly stopped for TMO intervention. Every time anyone scores a try now it seems to go to the TMO to be reviewed from 5 different angles.  Rugby was never a free flowing game before, it inbarable to watch now. 

[Babylon]

2 hours ago, Ted Maul said:

It could get incredibly frustrating- imagine the scenes... Vardy nips in behind the Spurs defence on the last day of the season to score a stoppage time winner and put us into the Europa League. The referee consults VAR, and it emerges that his toe is 1 inch offside, and we are denied.

 

I think it should be to eliminate horror decisions and there should be some benefit of doubt given to officials, like 'umpire's call' in cricket. For offsides, maybe there should be some distance between the furthest part forward and the line- 1 ft?- for a decision to be overturned.

Image how frustratign it would be if Kane scores and offside goal (again), but it can't be overruled because he's only half a foot offside.