VAR yes or no ..... Discuss

[StanSP]

2 hours ago, ozleicester said:

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

What's the point? It gets decisions right as well? 

It's not like it's constantly failing. It overturned the refs decision (or got him to check it) for the Peru penalty. 

 

[ozleicester]

31 minutes ago, StanSP said:

What's the point? It gets decisions right as well? 

It's not like it's constantly failing. It overturned the refs decision (or got him to check it) for the Peru penalty. 

 

Well thats why i dont see the point... the Ref, gets some right and some wrong... why add another layer?

 

[Guest MattP]

Yes.

 

It will get more things right than wrong and that can only be a good thing.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

gave the French Peno and missed the Argies peno

The French penalty was correct (you can't just trip someone over because you have touched the ball) and the Argie one was 50/50 so that shouldn't be overturned as it's not "clear and obvious"

[Finnegan]

30 minutes ago, MattP said:

The French penalty was correct (you can't just trip someone over because you have touched the ball) and the Argie one was 50/50 so that shouldn't be overturned as it's not "clear and obvious"

 

This. Plus I'm fed up of hearing "it got x or y wrong so it's rubbish."

 

1. If it's better than a ref alone, it's an improvement. 

 

2. It's brand new technology, we've got to learn to use it. 

 

I wanted to slap Roy Keane yesterday "you don't bring it in until its 100%", what? Everything has to be field tested eventually, everything. 

Edited 17 June 2018 by Finnegan

[StanSP]

52 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Well thats why i dont see the point... the Ref, gets some right and some wrong... why add another layer?

 

cos it'll eventually ensure that the correct decisions are made. 

I don't get how, with technology available, people are just willing to settle games on wrong decisions and then look back on it saying it should have been the other way. Well, now, you don't have to have that sort of regret where you wish the decision was made correctly. 

 

I can't buy in to the argument that anyone isn't bothered that if we were in the FA Cup Final or if the title was to be decided, and a decision has been made which is ultimately, maybe blatantly, wrong and then we go on to lose that chance of winning a game. 

 

It's another layer that will make games fairer. No-one right now is saying VAR is perfect and maybe it never will be, but it will achieve it's aim of overturning wrong decisions more often than not. 

 

How angry and outraged were England fans when Lampard's goal wasn't allowed against Germany? Look at how goalline technology gets everything pretty bang on and removes the doubt and aids officials in giving the right decision. I think VAR is well on the way to helping officials massively. The biggest improvement still to be made is time taken to overturn or review a decision. Having said that, Peru's penalty was done fairly quickly compared to the 2-3 minutes that we saw some decisions take when VAR first came about.

[TheUltimateWinner]

I've been really impressed with VAR at the world cup so far. If it was rolled out next year in the PL at the state it's at in the WC I'd be happy.

 

It seems like the PL refs just made a right hash of it and over complicated the whole review process.

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

This. Plus I'm fed up of hearing "it got x or y wrong so it's rubbish."

 

1. If it's better than a ref alone, it's an improvement. 

 

2. It's brand new technology, we've got to learn to use it. 

 

I wanted to slap Roy Keane yesterday "you don't bring it in until its 100%", what? Everything has to be field tested eventually, everything. 

 

I've heard the same tired argument against other tech like self-driving cars.

 

Honestly don't get why people ask for perfection from machines when they're designed and made by humans and when merely a statistically significant improvement will do. It's irrational.

[whoareyaaa]

I'm with bert for international football it is fine, but don't think we should bring it into the domestic leagues

[StanSP]

The other thing I'd improve is make it fairer in cup competitions domestically. They're bringing it in for games at Premier League grounds only. How is that fair on football league clubs or PL clubs that are drawn away?

[ozleicester]

22 minutes ago, StanSP said:

cos it'll eventually ensure that the correct decisions are made. 

I don't get how, with technology available, people are just willing to settle games on wrong decisions and then look back on it saying it should have been the other way. Well, now, you don't have to have that sort of regret where you wish the decision was made correctly. 

 

I can't buy in to the argument that anyone isn't bothered that if we were in the FA Cup Final or if the title was to be decided, and a decision has been made which is ultimately, maybe blatantly, wrong and then we go on to lose that chance of winning a game. 

 

It's another layer that will make games fairer. No-one right now is saying VAR is perfect and maybe it never will be, but it will achieve it's aim of overturning wrong decisions more often than not. 

 

How angry and outraged were England fans when Lampard's goal wasn't allowed against Germany? Look at how goalline technology gets everything pretty bang on and removes the doubt and aids officials in giving the right decision. I think VAR is well on the way to helping officials massively. The biggest improvement still to be made is time taken to overturn or review a decision. Having said that, Peru's penalty was done fairly quickly compared to the 2-3 minutes that we saw some decisions take when VAR first came about.

I wont keep going on, coz ive made my opinions clear and people just get whiney (Not you)... but there are literally hundreds (maybe thousands) of decisions made and not made every game, it is impossible to remove human error from the game, and even if we do... is that what we want?... or is that where the game moves from sport to entertainment.

[Koke]

It gets more things right than wrong. The Peru pen was correct as was the French. The fundamental problem with the anti argument is they expect VAR to get everything 100% correct. There are many decisions that are 50/50 and many more that are debatable or borderline. 

 

I'm just ****ing tired if the tedious inane chat about VAR after every goddamn match. 

[StanSP]

3 minutes ago, Koke said:

It gets more things right than wrong. The Peru pen was correct as was the French. The fundamental problem with the anti argument is they expect VAR to get everything 100% correct. There are many decisions that are 50/50 and many more that are debatable or borderline. 

 

I'm just ****ing tired if the tedious inane chat about VAR after every goddamn match. 

I find this a bit ironic as well because before VAR was even implemented people would say it would remove all conversations because there'd be no controversy  

[The Horse's Mouth]

It's ****ing wank like, you must hate football if you support it 

[Parafox]

18 hours ago, Unabomber said:

Absolutely not it is ruining the games takes ages to make a decision then they still can get it wrong as we saw with France game earlier! And then you get players asking for VAR out of desperation

. 

In the games I've seen, sometimes players take longer to take a throw-in than it takes to get a decision from VAR

[Milo]

19 hours ago, Finnegan said:

Yes. 

 

I'm an absolute militant, I'm not really interested in any "against" arguments because 99.9% I've heard are actually shit. 

 

It's got to be a No to VAR.

 

What s cock-eyed, shambolic, pointless system it is. Thin end of a shitty wedge.

 

I really don't get why it is used for some decisions and not others - a foul is a foul.

 

Knobbling a Froggy in the box is fine. Minor contact in the box is referred to VAR and given as a penalty...shirt pulling/grappling from a corner, isn't. This whole 'clear and obvious error' is clearly and obviously lip service. Offside calls can be given where a players knee hair is a quarter of an inch offside, as seen in the video replay but missed by the Lino...clearly and obviously not a clear and obvious error, but still given by VAR.       

 

Why have a Lino if VAR is going to give the offsides? Might as well do away with them.

 

Why can't contentious corners be referred to VAR? Debatable throw in's that the Lino got wrong? I'd definitely want a VAR decision if I though a keeper was holding on to the ball for more than 6 seconds.

 

Honestly don't get why some decisions are referable and not others - every decision is important if it might lead to a goal.

 

 

Bah

    

[The Doctor]

6 hours ago, ozleicester said:

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

Thing is you can't say the wrong decision was made because with these there's still a subjective opinion to be made. Frances pen, I'd argue it was because even though he makes contact with the ball he doesn't get it out of Griezmanns path, taking him out is then a foul, you'd argue it's not because he gets the ball. Not sure which of the two Argentina claims you're on but again there's still an argue it either way aspect to it. But, it gives the referee support. Say it wasn't in use - tomorrow night sterling goes through, Benny tangles with him. Ref doesn't give it but later watching the replays Benny clearly fouls him, no way of correcting the decision: you'd all be livid. Can't have it both ways.

[ozleicester]

5 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Thing is you can't say the wrong decision was made because with these there's still a subjective opinion to be made. Frances pen, I'd argue it was because even though he makes contact with the ball he doesn't get it out of Griezmanns path, taking him out is then a foul, you'd argue it's not because he gets the ball. Not sure which of the two Argentina claims you're on but again there's still an argue it either way aspect to it. But, it gives the referee support. Say it wasn't in use - tomorrow night sterling goes through, Benny tangles with him. Ref doesn't give it but later watching the replays Benny clearly fouls him, no way of correcting the decision: you'd all be livid. Can't have it both ways.

Yes.... but, i accept that it is a game, errors are made, balls bounce off a divots, puddles stop goals. Its sport......i enjoy the imperfections.

 

Damn. i wasnt going to keep arguing  

Edited 17 June 2018 by ozleicester

[The Horse's Mouth]

VAR really gone to pot in the end of this match 

[StanSP]

why do the VAR officials have to wear the referee kit in their little hub  

[CosbehFox]

It’s suprised me how well it’s been implemented during this World Cup. The first time I think it was used incorrectly was at the end of the Serbia game but that’s decided by the VAR team more than anyone 

[ozleicester]

15 hours ago, StanSP said:

why do the VAR officials have to wear the referee kit in their little hub  

FKW

[Captain...]

In principle yes, but I don't think the implementation has been very good in the domestic leagues and football needs to look at the rules and decide what sort of game it is going to be. Var will only be 100% successful and accurate if the rules are re-written in black and white and not down to ref's opinion. As the laws stand the only safe application of VAR is if it clearly shows 100% the ref made an error. The man in the middle will always have a better sense of things than 3 men in a truck.

 

I really wish they had done a soft launch of VAR to correct only black and white decisions, such as handballs given when it didn't hit the hand, fouls given when it was a clear dive. Clear offsides, I don't care about a toe being offside, I care about a striker taking up an illegal position. Or off the ball incidents that the ref has no chance of seeing and mistaken identity.

 

On 17/06/2018 at 09:14, MattP said:

The French penalty was correct (you can't just trip someone over because you have touched the ball) and the Argie one was 50/50 so that shouldn't be overturned as it's not "clear and obvious"

I think so far the  application of VAR in the World Cup has been ok, I missed the French game, but in all the games I've watched there have been minimal stoppages on reviewing decisions and they have backed the ref. Even when it looks like a probable penalty. If they are not 100% certain quickly they should not overrule the ref. We don't want a situation where ref's get undermined and we end up referring everything to VAR. Being on the pitch the ref has a different insight into the game and can tell things like intent better than a replay which loses all nuance and natural movement.

 

The French penalty I would agree with as a penalty mainly because it is one where he was through on goal and would have probably scored, I think those types of incidents should have a greater scope for VAR than say a bit of grappling in the box, or a nudge on the edge of the area with the player heading to the touchline.

Edited 18 June 2018 by Captain...

[Captain...]

Also have to say I loved Bilic's comment last night, they need to stop talking about decisions based on VAR especially first up, I know they have paid a lot of money to put celebrity ex-ref Mark Clattenburg in a truck, but if they just shut up about VAR we wouldn't even notice it in most games.

 

 

[RonnieTodger]

Seems to have been implemented quite well so far, unlike the FA Cup. What you don't want is them checking on every goal just in case, because it'll dampen celebrations.