VAR yes or no ..... Discuss

[The Doctor]

14 minutes ago, Bert said:

I would say in international tournaments, yes. But in the league no. 

 

Theres always going to be a loophole because it's going to boil down to an opinion unless it's so clear and obvious. 

 

It was used perfectly in this game but no so in the France game as on here you had lots saying penalty and lots saying not. 

But really that'll always be the case. Foul or just a strong tackle is a debate that gets had pretty much every time someone goes down.

 

Only problem with it for me is what happens between the foul and the game being stopped - e.g. say a player is on a booking and commits a challenge worthy of a yellow card before the ball reaches a neutral zone and it's reviewed, should be a pen; does he get the second yellow since play shouldn't have got to that point?

[Finnegan]

2 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Why would he have to make it in the blink of an eye? The current system doesn’t. The manager has a view of the decision as he sees it like everyone else and will almost certainly go straight to 4th official with a challenge, they do that now but the 4th official ignores them. Whether they have a good view or not is irrelevant, a match official is making the decision and if they lose the challenge they lose the right to do so again. 

 

The manager has to make the decision in the blink of an eye because if he doesn't, the ref doesn't know there's a challenge and just let's the match flow on doesn't he? 

 

With the current system, the ref decides to pause at a sensible impasse and watch the replay. 

 

Alternatively, in rugby, the video ref chimes in over mic in the refs ear if he sees something. 

 

In American football a challenge is made by the coach throwing on a flag, that'd be the closest to what we'd have in football hut it'd have to moment's after the incident otherwise the game moves on and it's not relevant almost instantly.

 

Thats exactly what I mean by the game being too fast. 

 

No offence, its just a terrible idea, which is why nobody is suggesting it, discussing it seriously or trialling it anywhere in football. 

[yorkie1999]

No, prefer refs getting a slating, i think it makes it easy for a clever striker to buy a penalty

Edited 16 June 2018 by yorkie1999

[Unabomber]

Personally I think goal line technology can’t be faulted as it is black and white and the correct decision is made instantly. But there are just too many grey areas with VAR. I think with regards to diving or ref errors we should implement harsher retrospective punishment to try n abolish future weapons trying to cheat.  

[Sharpe's Fox]

Just now, Finnegan said:

 

The manager has to make the decision in the blink of an eye because if he doesn't, the ref doesn't know there's a challenge and just let's the match flow on doesn't he? 

 

With the current system, the ref decides to pause at a sensible impasse and watch the replay. 

 

Alternatively, in rugby, the video ref chimes in over mic in the refs ear if he sees something. 

 

In American football a challenge is made by the coach throwing on a flag, that'd be the closest to what we'd have in football hut it'd have to moment's after the incident otherwise the game moves on and it's not relevant almost instantly.

 

Thats exactly what I mean by the game being too fast. 

 

No offence, its just a terrible idea, which is why nobody is suggesting it, discussing it seriously or trialling it anywhere in football. 

The 4th official is always in contact with the referee. They both have earpieces in. It’s 2018. The football is in glorious technicolour now. 

[Finnegan]

2 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

The 4th official is always in contact with the referee. They both have earpieces in. It’s 2018. The football is in glorious technicolour now. 

 

Think you're missing the point tbf. 

 

It doesn't matter how quickly the manager can get word to the ref once he's decided to challenge, it matters how long he has to decide to challenge before the game has moved on and it isn't relevant. 

 

Have you ever had seats at ground level at the game? The view is shit, if you're talking about an offside or a trip or handball in the box on the other side of the pitch, how the **** is he always meant to see that and decide to challenge and risk losing his challenges? 

 

The only obvious way round it is to have each team have a video analyst watching on a screen up in the stands who can buzz a challenge that triggers on the ref's watch. 

 

But even then they've got to make their mind up in the blink of an eye and if you're doing that with an officer in the stands why not just have the var? 

 

Seriously. I can give you a number of reasons why the challenge system is dumb (hence, again, why nobody official is discussing it) but you've not actually given a single reason why you think it's better than var? 

[Royston.]

 

Pros and cons but i just dont like change so NO

 

[davieG]

I can't decide I think I need some form of VAR to review my thoughts to help me decide, mind you I could still be wrong which ever i choose.

[Sharpe's Fox]

Just now, Finnegan said:

Seriously. I can give you a number of reasons why the challenge system is dumb (hence, again, why nobody official is discussing it) but you've not actually given a single reason why you think it's better than var? 

It negates the main issue I have with VAR which is it takes too long to make too many decisions in one game like in the Tottenham Rochdale game this season. Officials are using it as a safety net and not making a decision themselves in the knowledge they have the VAR behind them. The crowd are in confusion multiple times in a game and it kills atmospheres stone dead. In a challenge system the decision to look again at the moment in the game is out of officials hands, they keep refereeing as they would and if a challenge is made it makes its obvious what is happening and as its a managers decision it brings in another taking point to the game. 

 

I know there’s lots of problems with it but i only really took issue with yours as it seemed you were picking up on ones that really don’t exist since the manager has players, staff and people in the stands to advise. Nothing personal, i just dont think we should see VAR as a magic bullet and ignore the problems it brings for match goers in the name of getting everything right. Keep the match experience frenetic and give the opportunity to negate the rare really bad decisions.

[ScouseFox]

absolutely inane and boring chat before and after every match is fu cking horrible though. the world cup invites loads of not that big football fans to watch loads of football. so far my housemate knows every c unting thing about VAR but nothing about football, the players, the teams or anything else. give it a rest and show us ronaldos goals or messi missing. 

[simFox]

If decisions are in our favour then I'm all for it. For decisions that go against us, I think it should be canned.

[Vacamion]

 

Getting correct decisions?

 

I’m in.

 

But I’m disappointed in Foxestalk that no one yet has posted that VAR screenshot of the offside with the wonky lines.

 

[Finnegan]

21 minutes ago, ScouseFox said:

absolutely inane and boring chat before and after every match is fu cking horrible though. the world cup invites loads of not that big football fans to watch loads of football. so far my housemate knows every c unting thing about VAR but nothing about football, the players, the teams or anything else. give it a rest and show us ronaldos goals or messi missing. 

 

This ffs, why is every journo that screamed for it for years now desperate to find fault and rave on about it? 

 

Shut up and just get on with the football. 

[BenTheFox]

Works in Rugby, Tennis, Cricket etc. where there are more natural stoppages and less of the rules are open to interpretation. In football there are a few grey areas and the ball is in play for so much of the game that finding the correct time to check something is tricky. I'm not sure. 

[Kitchandro]

I've nothing against VAR in principle but it simply isn't worth the extra hassle.

 

The France penalty was incorrect - yes the video evidence proved that the defender made contact with Griezmann but it doesn't prove whether the defender got enough of the ball (a no in my opinion) or whether the contact was enough to send Griezmann down (again a no in my opinion). It will never be an exact science and the main problem is referees are either too poor or dishonest to make the right calls regardless of how many times they see them.

 

So as many times as they review an incorrect decision and get it right with VAR, they will review a correct decision and get it wrong with VAR just as often. They also do not review many, many other important or shockingly incorrect decisions, such as players blatantly diving and getting players booked, along with other penalty and red card decisions. It's too inconsistent.

 

For it to have any value they need to review every single decision because in the context of a tournament some of them can prove to be massively more important than you think at the time they are made, what with suspensions for yellow cards and goal difference etc. potentially criticial.

 

So, whilst in an ideal world it is a moral, sensible asset to the game, in practice it is pointless and causes as much if not more controversy than is already in the game.

[lgfualol]

Why not. Dont care about having to wait a minute or two. Would take waiting a minute over a ref ****ing over Leicester or England.

[Vacamion]

 

Imagine if there had been VAR the night Griezmann won a penalty for being fouled by Marc Albrighton a yard outside the Leicester box.

 

Let's have correct decisions, not howlers.

[Kitchandro]

4 hours ago, Unabomber said:

Personally I think goal line technology can’t be faulted as it is black and white and the correct decision is made instantly. But there are just too many grey areas with VAR. I think with regards to diving or ref errors we should implement harsher retrospective punishment to try n abolish future weapons trying to cheat.  

This is a great point and that rule should have been put in place long before the idea of VAR was even mentioned.

 

Anybody caught diving, or accentuating contact, or prentending they are hurt when they aren't should be red carded and/or banned for 6 matches. They need to invent a real deterrant for something that ruins people's enjoyment of the match as well as bringing the game into disrepute and seriously devaluing the achievements of both teams and individuals.

 

The only reason it hasn't been implemented is because it has been institutionally encouraged over the past 25 years in certain countries and accepted in the remainder to the extent where the most marketable stars are amongst the biggest culprits. It makes Spanish league football unwatchable, but to the fat cats it's still sellable and that's the important thing. Banning your Suarez's and your Ronaldo's would not go down well in that area.

 

As already discussed there are some of these incidents that are difficult to call even when viewing replays but actually the majority of them are fairly obvious using basic common sense and understanding so I don't accept that as an excuse.

[Aus Fox]

I think for offside decisions, a foul inside/outside the box and goal line decisions it's a great thing, even handball decisions (think Wes Morgan away at Liverpool a few years ago when it hit his head and the ref gave a peon.)

But for subjective decisions like yesterday Australia v France I have listened to a lot of pundits who can't agree and spoken to many who watched the game and no agrees yes or no - for me that's like umpires call in cricket and should stay with the original decision.

My other wondering is what happens between the decision and the viewing- yesterday we saw just over a minute of play between the the foul and the decision being reviewed.

Lets say in that minute Pogba comits a two footed tackle and breaks Mooys leg.

He is then showed the red card. The ref then goes back and reviews the penalty decision and changes his mind- does the red card stand? Does play revert back to where it was at the moment of the original foul? What if Australia had scored on the counter attack?

So many questions 

[foxfanazer]

‘My mates a VAR referee’ just doesn’t have the same ring to it so it’s a no from me

[ozleicester]

Its introduction was to end incorrect decisions.... it failed on that score at LEAST twice yesterday. What is the point?

[Aus Fox]

1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

Its introduction was to end incorrect decisions.... it failed on that score at LEAST twice yesterday. What is the point?

Twice?

[ozleicester]

24 minutes ago, Aus Fox said:

Twice?

gave the French Peno and missed the Argies peno

[Aus Fox]

3 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

gave the French Peno and missed the Argies peno

Was the Argies Peno the ref or VAR?

say what you like about it, it hasn’t ended conversation and controversy 

[ozleicester]

1 minute ago, Aus Fox said:

Was the Argies Peno the ref or VAR?

say what you like about it, it hasn’t ended conversation and controversy 

Either way, the wrong decision was made.. and thats what the VAR was supposed to stop