Football is Ruined - Play to the Whistle?VAR

[Fox92]

7 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 Can you imagine in the last few seconds of a game the ref awards a penalty ...    but the VAR shows the player wasn’t touched but threw himself down without the slightest touch ...   ref gives him a second yellow and off he goes ...    game goes to extra time and we win the FA cup.

I don't want to imagine it actually.

 

And where are you stopping it? Players pull shirts at corners, which technically is a foul, so are you wanting referees to look at VAR at every corner? 

FA Cup final ET..... Maguire pulls the shirt of an opponent who goes to ground .... Maguire scores a free header ... we win the FA Cup ..... the referee hasn't reviewed but should really. That is as bad as the dive in normal time.

 

Referees wind me up just as much as the next guy but it's a human decision and how they interpret the game, whether it's right or wrong. I've seen us benefit from bad decisions and I've seen us have bad decisions go against us.

 

Referee decisions are over analysed. 

Edited 17 January 2018 by Fox92

[Yes N'Didi]

2 hours ago, Captain... said:

If you look at the penalty incident last night, it was probably a penalty, but it wasn't 100% clear cut. I think VAR should stay away from those sort of decisions for the time being. You  need to trust the ref who is in the thick of the action, things often look different on a slo mo replay. Keep VAR away from subjective decisions while it is  still being trialled.

But the VAR isn't there to be subjective - it is there to check that the referee hasn't made a clear an obvious error.

 

Take the Hazard/Bellerin penalty in the league the other week. It's still subjective now whether it was a penalty or a dive. If the referee gives the penalty, and then reviews via VAR, it's not the VAR's job to look at the ins and outs of a subjective decision, it's to confirm if the referee has made a clear and obvious error. Was it an obvious dive or not a foul? No, so original decision stands. If the referee hadn't awarded it, the decision would also likely stand as no penalty because the VAR can't conirm that it was a clear and obvious error. The referee also has a chance to view it back, which can also only be a good thing. If they watch it back and still think it's a penalty, even if you disagree you can appreciate that there's enough in it for the referee to review it and still think his decision is correct.

 

People seem to think that referees will become redundant - their first decision is still the decision - unless VAR tells them they have made a clear and obvious error, and only when a goal has been scored, someone has been (or should be) sent off, or you should have had a penalty.

[Countryfox]

Just now, Fox92 said:

I don't want to imagine it actually.

 

And where are you stopping it? Players pull shirts at corners, which technically is a foul, so are you wanting referees to look at VAR at every corner?

 

Referees wind me up just as much as the next guy but it's a human decision and how they interpret the game, whether it's right or wrong. I've seen us benefit from bad decisions and I've seen us have bad decisions go against us.

 

Referee decisions are over analysed. 

 You sound like me about a year ago ...    but watching repeated and blatant cheating week in week out has turned me.   Regarding pulling shirts etc I agree that some sort of common sense needs to be applied ...    we could leave that to the ref ! (There’s a novel idea) ...   and if we don’t like it we can always boo a bit and give him a quick chorus of you don’t know what you’re doing ...

[Captain...]

19 minutes ago, Yes N'Didi said:

But the VAR isn't there to be subjective - it is there to check that the referee hasn't made a clear an obvious error.

 

Take the Hazard/Bellerin penalty in the league the other week. It's still subjective now whether it was a penalty or a dive. If the referee gives the penalty, and then reviews via VAR, it's not the VAR's job to look at the ins and outs of a subjective decision, it's to confirm if the referee has made a clear and obvious error. Was it an obvious dive or not a foul? No, so original decision stands. If the referee hadn't awarded it, the decision would also likely stand as no penalty because the VAR can't conirm that it was a clear and obvious error. The referee also has a chance to view it back, which can also only be a good thing. If they watch it back and still think it's a penalty, even if you disagree you can appreciate that there's enough in it for the referee to review it and still think his decision is correct.

 

People seem to think that referees will become redundant - their first decision is still the decision - unless VAR tells them they have made a clear and obvious error, and only when a goal has been scored, someone has been (or should be) sent off, or you should have had a penalty.

I agree, it shouldn't be anywhere near subjective decisions like fouls, but the refs shouldn't watch them back, it would have just caused more confusion last night. I know it was only a few seconds delay but unless the ref hasn't seen anything then he shouldn't be communicating with VAR over a foul/penalty. The wording of a foul is so open to interpretation it will never work and while it is being trialled it should be purely on black and white decisions, mainly to get some confidence in the system.

[ozleicester]

So.... quite a number of posters are suggesting we should restrict the amount that the VAR can look at... hmmm whats the word im looking for... is it.. luddite?...no wait..thats not it......

 

ohh... HYPOCRITE, yes, yes thats it.  

[Captain...]

3 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

So.... quite a number of posters are suggesting we should restrict the amount that the VAR can look at... hmmm whats the word im looking for... is it.. luddite?...no wait..thats not it......

 

ohh... HYPOCRITE, yes, yes thats it.  

Who is being a hypocrite? My view on VAR has changed very little. It just won't work over fouls it should be purely for black and white decisions, offside/not offside, hit the hand/didn't hit the hand, went of play/stayed in play. I don't think refs should be checking things on pitch side monitors unless something happens off the ball.

 

The wording on the law around fouls need to be changed, and refs need to be trained better to have a more consistent approach. Until then one man's penalty is another man's dive and whoever is the ref is correct.

 

The big thing for me about yesterday was how quickly it was resolved. Took less than a minute to get to the right decision.

 

 

[filbertway]

3 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

So.... quite a number of posters are suggesting we should restrict the amount that the VAR can look at... hmmm whats the word im looking for... is it.. luddite?...no wait..thats not it......

 

ohh... HYPOCRITE, yes, yes thats it.  

I'm not sure you've quite grasped what it's there for and the role it plays?

 

I've not read everything you've said admittedly, but what I have read is you mainly making up scenarios that wouldn't happen and then being annoyed at VAR for these made up scenarios?

 

The main arguments against it which are valid for me are

• Can potentially take momentum out of the game
• Can kill the buzz of celebrating a goal not being 100% if it's valid

 

[Manwell Pablo]

6 hours ago, ozleicester said:

I doubt it, to me its not about the slickness or time spent, it is the fundamental change to the game.

 

The ref is no longer in charge! This is the problem and players, managers and fans will come to see refs as irrelevant. 

 

Next time Riyad is through on goal and the ref blows for offside, does he stop?.. does he play on and risk a card?

 

If the ref blows you stop.

 

If the ref wishes to review he needs to not blow allow play to continue and then review after the goal is scored. Just to clear that up for you. 

[ozleicester]

9 minutes ago, filbertway said:

I'm not sure you've quite grasped what it's there for and the role it plays?

 

I've not read everything you've said admittedly, but what I have read is you mainly making up scenarios that wouldn't happen and then being annoyed at VAR for these made up scenarios?

 

The main arguments against it which are valid for me are

• Can potentially take momentum out of the game
• Can kill the buzz of celebrating a goal not being 100% if it's valid

 

I appreciate your concerns, however (valid as they may be) they differ from mine.

 

My concerns are that when we take away responsibility from the referees we change the basic fabric of our game, it will change the way the game is played and the way it is supported. If we want perfection, then we shouldnt be watching football, it is a game, errors are part of what makes it special, errors by players, managers and referees.

 

But, if we are going have VAR....Why do we restrict it to only 4 or 5 areas why not just make the entire game video reffed, almost every corner will require a penalty, and a free kick to the defending team.

[Vlad the Fox]

4 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

I understand that in Aus, appealing to the ref to go to VAR is a yellow card offence.

That would be a sensible approach. 

[filbertway]

14 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

I appreciate your concerns, however (valid as they may be) they differ from mine.

 

My concerns are that when we take away responsibility from the referees we change the basic fabric of our game, it will change the way the game is played and the way it is supported. If we want perfection, then we shouldnt be watching football, it is a game, errors are part of what makes it special, errors by players, managers and referees.

 

But, if we are going have VAR....Why do we restrict it to only 4 or 5 areas why not just make the entire game video reffed, almost every corner will require a penalty, and a free kick to the defending team.

I don't see why it has to be do nothing or micro-ref (pretty sure that's a made up term  ) the game to the point of death.

 

As it is, the referee or his linesmen lose absolutely no responsibility. The only difference is we now have someone who can let them ref know if any of them have made a blatant mistake). 

 

The only difference I expect is to see linesman give the benefit of the doubt to attackers a little more which is no bad thing - especially as if they're offside it'll be seen a few moments later.

 

If it was like this world you're painting where referee's are basically robots being controlled by a team of video referee's, then I agree the game would be gone. This is nothing like that though.

[Guest worth_the_wait]

The funny thing about last night's VAR, is that most of the so-called experts are wetting themselves over it supposedly showed how well it can work.

 

But as per so many things in life, there are 2 ways of looking at it.  In theory, it showed a correct decison in that matey boy was about an inch onside.

 

On the other hand, it showed the process up to be a complie lie.   We were told that VAR would only overturn "obvious and clear mistakes".   But it wasn't.   High tech wizardry and freeze frame technology showed he was about an inch onside.   No linesman in the world could have called that decision, to pinpoint accuracy.  

 

So it wasn't an "obvious mistake".  

 

 

 

[RussianFox]

Exactly.

An inch onside, an inch offside - it's not like all (or even most) of "close" offside decisions can be 100% verified by VAR.  In too many cases it's just too close.

The offside line is drawn at the moment when player passes the ball, right? But how to determine the exact moment of pass?

In many cases, draw the line a millisecond later - and it's an inch offside, a millisecond earlier - it's an inch onside.

 

The same with penalties. When there was a contact between players but (visually) it wasn't too hard, how we can define was it enough or not?
When man is running, a little touch can be enough for him to stumble.

Edited 17 January 2018 by RussianFox

[ScouseFox]

going well tonight NAHT 

[Fox92]

This is why I don't think it'll work. It's just an opinion - exactly the same as before.

 

Mike Dean watches VAR ..... he thinks its a penalty 

Jon Moss watches VAR ..... he doesn't think its a penalty

 

???

 

What's the difference.

 

It's exactly what was happening before.

[Vacamion]

 

Yeah, cos football was perfect before VAR, wasn’t it?

 

 

The presence or absence of VAR didn’t affect the outcome there.

 

Maybe if Chelsea players hadn’t spent the game throwing themselves to the floor, the ref might have looked more sympathetically at Willian going over in the first place.

 

It looked like a fairly ropey decision by the ref in real time, but his subjective soft call was not overturned.

 

I don’t see what the problem is.  VAR did not alter or worsen the game.

 

Oh yeah, that’s it. Some people are utterly slobbering for VAR to fail.

 

 

[Manwell Pablo]

Yep controversy in football definitely dead, what will we talk about now, rip football.

[fuchsntf]

9 hours ago, filbertway said:

I'm not sure you've quite grasped what it's there for and the role it plays?

 

I've not read everything you've said admittedly, but what I have read is you mainly making up scenarios that wouldn't happen and then being annoyed at VAR for these made up scenarios?

 

The main arguments against it which are valid for me are

• Can potentially take momentum out of the game
• Can kill the buzz of celebrating a goal not being 100% if it's valid

 

Your 2 points..I disagree with...So where do we go from there... PAM ...

POSTER'S  Assistant Moderator...

[JamesfromlondonLCFC]

15 hours ago, ozleicester said:

This is my point, people are focusing on the "time thing"... its about fundamentally changing our game, its taking the game away from the referee, with out the respect for the ref, the game will die.

 

edit oh and IMHO refs curently get about 90% right... do we want perfection?

Ye thats true, Rugby has VAR, and the players there are SO disrespectful to the ref. its terrible, that game died when they bought in VAR and took away respect for the ref... oh wait.

[filbertway]

15 minutes ago, fuchsntf said:

Your 2 points..I disagree with...So where do we go from there... PAM ...

POSTER'S  Assistant Moderator...

 

[Carl the Llama]

On 17/01/2018 at 15:29, RussianFox said:

Exactly.

An inch onside, an inch offside - it's not like all (or even most) of "close" offside decisions can be 100% verified by VAR.  In too many cases it's just too close.

The offside line is drawn at the moment when player passes the ball, right? But how to determine the exact moment of pass?

In many cases, draw the line a millisecond later - and it's an inch offside, a millisecond earlier - it's an inch onside.

 

The same with penalties. When there was a contact between players but (visually) it wasn't too hard, how we can define was it enough or not?
When man is running, a little touch can be enough for him to stumble.

The line's drawn on the final frame before the ball and foot are no longer visibly in contact with each-other, the HD cameras used make it quite easy to accurately pinpoint that moment.  When was the last time you disagreed with the choice of frame for determining offside?

[davieG]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43795556

 

Teams had to come back on the pitch at half-time to take a 1st half penalty rewarded as a result of VAR.

[rachhere]

9 minutes ago, davieG said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43795556

 

Teams had to come back on the pitch at half-time to take a 1st half penalty rewarded as a result of VAR.

This is going to be an interesting World Cup... 

[Super_horns]

Apparently the decision itself was right but what a break down in communication eh!?

 

Just wait till refs who have never used this before get a hand on it - going to be chaos as they will be taken advantage of by players demanding it be used for almost anything.

 

 

[stripeyfox]

16 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Apparently the decision itself was right but what a break down in communication eh!?

 

Just wait till refs who have never used this before get a hand on it - going to be chaos as they will be taken advantage of by players demanding it be used for almost anything.

 

 

 

This is always going to be the concern. I get that they are trying to get the "right" decision but at what cost?

 

Keep the ref for me, making the calls. He'll get some right and some wrong but hey that's football isn't it? Gives us all something to moan about!