VAR yes or no ..... Discuss

[Sir Shep]

In my opinion VAR is stopping the usual suspects from cheating and having penalty’s being given, I’ve always suspected in the past that the same teams have progressed having always got the rub of the green and at least that doesn’t happen now. 

[TheUltimateWinner]

The systems only as good as the ref watching it, today the system failed because the ref failed to make the right call.

 

I do think on the whole it has improved things, it's just the standard of reffing (maybe more training needed?) needs to be better.

[Super_horns]

Or as the BBC guys suggested Brazil's reputation went against them thanks to the dives of Neymar.

 

Certainly was a good shout for a penalty though. 

[st albans fox]

22 hours ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

That kompany challenge was a stonewall pen. If it can’t get those decisions right I don’t see how it can be used, certainly for penalty decisions.

 

Funnily enough I was comfortable  that it wasn’t a pen - some refs would give it, some wouldn’t. Hence it isn’t a clear and obvious error so shouldn’t be reviewed.  As the tournement has progressed, so the use of VAR has improved as the refs operating it have realised the rules for its use. its only for stonewall obvious decisions and that one wasn’t imo. 

[foxile5]

On 06/07/2018 at 21:56, Super_horns said:

Or as the BBC guys suggested Brazil's reputation went against them thanks to the dives of Neymar. 

In which case it's hard to have sympathy. He's made a mockery of himself this tournament. 

[WigstonWanderer]

When it was first introduced here in Aus, the guidelines indicated that asking the ref for a review would be an automatic booking. They don’t seem to have followed through on that.

[davieG]

31 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

When it was first introduced here in Aus, the guidelines indicated that asking the ref for a review would be an automatic booking. They don’t seem to have followed through on that.

Or imginary cards, delaying freekicks  and diving, has anyone been booked for diving?

So much inconsistency on many basic obvious things.

[norwichfox]

How did we ever manage without it?

[Kitchandro]

And that’s why VAR is a failure.

 

You can say what you like about the other decisions in this tournament, some have been right, some have been badly wrong.

 

But the World Cup has been decided by a rank bad decision that was only allowed to exist because of VAR. 

 

An intervention like that is unacceptable. France were totally suited to the luxury of being able to sit back after that and scored 2 goals on the break. Without that decision, I don’t think France would have had a hope. They were miles 2nd best.

 

And to add insult to injury, as I said inconsistency was a massive problem with this system, they did not go to VAR when Croatia should have had a penalty minutes earlier. 

 

A bitter, bitter taste as the wrong team won the World Cup due to VAR. 

[Guest seanfox778]

Will VAR be in the Premier League for the upcoming season? 

[Super_horns]

So one mistake and it's been a total failure ?

 

Slightly harsh I feel .

 

Its not been perfect but corrected a few wrongs .

[Super_horns]

Just now, seanfox778 said:

Will VAR be in the Premier League for the upcoming season? 

No - clubs voted against it .

[TheSomersetFox]

6 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

And that’s why VAR is a failure.

 

You can say what you like about the other decisions in this tournament, some have been right, some have been badly wrong.

 

But the World Cup has been decided by a rank bad decision that was only allowed to exist because of VAR. 

 

An intervention like that is unacceptable. France were totally suited to the luxury of being able to sit back after that and scored 2 goals on the break. Without that decision, I don’t think France would have had a hope. They were miles 2nd best.

 

And to add insult to injury, as I said inconsistency was a massive problem with this system, they did not go to VAR when Croatia should have had a penalty minutes earlier. 

 

A bitter, bitter taste as the wrong team won the World Cup due to VAR. 

Would you prefer it to be decided by an awful decision without the use of VAR? Many won’t agree with VAR at times, I think the referee’s have made the wrong shouts off the back of it at times, but on the whole it’s been very successful this tournament.

 

It’s the handball law that needs sorting if anything.

[simFox]

What exactly did the VAR refs do? I don't recall one decision where they intervened. What was the point of them?

[CosbehFox]

VAR and it’s use on handballs have been the issue. Some of the penalties given for handball have been awful decisions 

[Guest seanfox778]

1 minute ago, simFox said:

What exactly did the VAR refs do? I don't recall one decision where they intervened. What was the point of them?

The only one I can recall is when Sweden got a penalty against South Korea.

[Super_horns]

2 minutes ago, simFox said:

What exactly did the VAR refs do? I don't recall one decision where they intervened. What was the point of them?

 

 

If you mean getting the ref to look at the screen then;

 

France v Australia 

Denmark v Peru 

Sweden v South Korea 

Brazil v Costa Rica 

Today

 

They don't make a decision for the ref - just advises them.

 

 

[Super_horns]

4 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

VAR and it’s use on handballs have been the issue. Some of the penalties given for handball have been awful decisions 

It's almost like people just guess and it's rarely 100% right .

[Corky]

51 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

VAR and it’s use on handballs have been the issue. Some of the penalties given for handball have been awful decisions 

The Portugal v Iran one beggared belief.

[davieG]

If you've got 4 VAR refs suggesting it's at best questionable or at worst an actual penalty then it makes it difficult for the match ref to make an instant under pressure decision and seemingly not seeing all the views the VAR refs viewed.

 

Either was it's not the VAR at fault it's the was it's being used and interpreted by 5 refs.

[Vacamion]

 

VAR is the tool.

 

The reffing when using it is the problem.

 

Still think it’s better getting to see contentious incidents and make a more informed decision that not having the facility.

[ScouseFox]

the fact every replay is in slow motion is going result in a lot of decisions like today’s. no way that’s given if they watch every replay in real time, it’s impossible for him to get out of the way, the guy about a foot in front of him ducks and it hits his hand. 

 

if its going to continue weve got to have either no slow motions or a bit of liability built in to the fact every hand ball and every tackle is going to look worse at 1/10th of the speed. 

[martyn]

For me it's a success. Pretty much all issues have resulted from incorrect ref interpretations of incidents, which is mostly independent of the tech. 

 

Having said that, I tend to agree with the above point about the slow motion camera, which can distort an incident, particularly hand balls.

 

 

 

 

[Captain...]

On 15/07/2018 at 18:12, Kitchandro said:

And that’s why VAR is a failure.

 

You can say what you like about the other decisions in this tournament, some have been right, some have been badly wrong.

 

But the World Cup has been decided by a rank bad decision that was only allowed to exist because of VAR.  

 

An intervention like that is unacceptable. France were totally suited to the luxury of being able to sit back after that and scored 2 goals on the break. Without that decision, I don’t think France would have had a hope. They were miles 2nd best.

 

And to add insult to injury, as I said inconsistency was a massive problem with this system, they did not go to VAR when Croatia should have had a penalty minutes earlier. 

 

A bitter, bitter taste as the wrong team won the World Cup due to VAR. 

But VAR didn't make that decision. The ref did.

 

The issue is the laws of the game and referee's directives and guidelines are not tight enough to say yes that was handball or no it wasn't. The BBC were all saying it was clearly not a penalty, but many other pundits and broadcasters were saying it clearly was a penalty.

 

There is no watertight definition of a handball, so it is all subjective and the VA refs can't make that call for the ref, the ref looked at it and decided it was a penalty. What I would like to know is if the VA refs asked the ref did you see the ball hit the players hand, if he did then it shouldn't have been reviewed, if he didn't because he was unsighted then he should be able to have a look at it and make a judgement.

 

Ultimately for VAR to work perfectly we need to re-write the laws of the game to be more black and white, like rugby, or we need to limit it's usage to only black and white decisions. Offside or not, out of play or not, hit the hand or not. In the area or not.

 

I  think it was a qualified success at the World Cup only one real howler and a few questionable ones, generally around handball, slow motion replays are not the same as seeing it in real time and it does change perspective, but they will get better at implementing it. Time spent reviewing decisions was excessive, if you can't decide quickly then you stick with your onfield decision. Generally the right outcome was reached with only minor disruption.

[dylanlegend]

VAR is good but it can be better.

 

10 qualified guys sat in a room watching replays, if a majority (8+) agree (using buzzers or similar) then a decision should be overturned / made. They should tell the main 'ref' immediately.

 

They shouldnt make the ref go to a video screen that's crazy and puts far too much pressure on the ref to change things in front of 40,000plus