VAR yes or no ..... Discuss

[StanSP]

48 minutes ago, RonnieTodger said:

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.

they do check on every goal. I suspect you mean waiting for the on-field referee to confirm but those people in the VAR hideaway miles away are checking everything constantly, this includes all goals no matter how blatantly clear it may be that there's nothing wrong with it.

[urban.spaceman]

I'm glad it's finally here and I think it is working out quite well IMO. Especially that the VAR refs are reviewing incidents straight after they happen and then contacting the ref.

 

What needs to be decided is when referees should stop the game and go to review it themselves. Like what's just happened in the Sweden/South Korea match - the foul wasn't initially given and South Korea were on the break before the ref stopped play. If South Korea had scored before he blew the whistle then that would have been even more controversial.

 

They're still working out problems like that but I'm just glad it's here.

[Guest]

The officiating in general so far has been pretty good imo. They seem to be doing their best to let things flow naturally - potentially a side effect of VAR, since they know they've got a safety net.

[Super_horns]

VAR collecting a lot of assists !

[Manwell Pablo]

Think it's been good this tournament, so far at least, delays have been drastically cut and most importantly the right decisions, on the whole, are being made. 

 

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

Is VAR used when the ref requests it, or when the VAR spot something that they think the ref should see and let him know? The second way seems the best, but from what I've seen so far, I suspect it's the first.

[Webbo]

If it can't spot a rugby tackle in the box what's the point?

[Super_horns]

51 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Is VAR used when the ref requests it, or when the VAR spot something that they think the ref should see and let him know? The second way seems the best, but from what I've seen so far, I suspect it's the first.

The latter - not sure what they missed with the Kane incidents though!

 

You can be sure if that had been a Premier league game they would have been given.

[psychonaut]

Good but inconsistent. I feel like its turning into non touch football as a consequence in outfield play. 

[The Doctor]

45 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If it can't spot a rugby tackle in the box what's the point?

Eh, foul is by stones first. Not much point pulling it all the way back for a defensive free kick

[ozleicester]

it has just changed the whinning from blaming ref to blaming var.

 

As shown above and in match threads... it just ends up being a difference of interpretation.

[HighPeakFox]

VARdy - yes.

 

VAR - on balance, I think I'm against it.

[The Doctor]

6 hours ago, ozleicester said:

it has just changed the whinning from blaming ref to blaming var.

 

As shown above and in match threads... it just ends up being a difference of interpretation.

But aside from is it over the line/is it offside, pretty every decision is a matter of interpretation. Handball - was it a deliberate movement, was the hand in an unnatural position. Tackles - was there excessive force, did they make sufficient contact with the ball to have won the tackle. Dive - has the striker initiated contact, is there enough contact to bring him down... Your argument is little more than you want bad decisions to be made because decisions have still got to be made. But, would you really not have wanted it out in Madrid April last year with that BS pen for atletico?

 

Let's be fair, the standard so far is high - not got a thing wrong. Frances was a penalty, he's touched the ball yes but he's not moved it away from Griezmann at all. Perus was a penalty, leg got swept. Sweden's was and was an excellent catch, looked like the defender played the ball in real time. It's a jarring system not being used to it, but it's working very well

[WigstonWanderer]

It’s turning out to be a bit of a mixed bag.

 

I’d like to see more information given on their reasoning. This could easily be conveyed to commentators and disseminated. For example, was the obvious wrestling move on Kane not given because of an earlier foul by Stones? If so, let people know.

[StanSP]

VAR working again  

[Trav Le Bleu]

Then failing.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

It’s turning out to be a bit of a mixed bag.

 

I’d like to see more information given on their reasoning. This could easily be conveyed to commentators and disseminated. For example, was the obvious wrestling move on Kane not given because of an earlier foul by Stones? If so, let people know.

Agreed, and I think that's the best way of going about it. Some people I know want the officials to wear microphones or the live VAR feed to be shown on screens, but I think that runs the risk of turning it into a bit of a sideshow. People say the best refs are the ones you don't notice and I think the same applies to VAR - have it done quickly, quietly and with minimum fuss. A quick word to the commentators/media team would let decisions be communicated better without disrupting the process or blowing it out of proportion.

[Manwell Pablo]

To say you still want imperfections in the game but only want to use VAR if it correctly governs the entire game is frankly, ridiculous. 

 

Baffles me me that people don’t want to see as fair a contest as possible still which is all it is, as the system in place this tournament has done a great job.

 

Even in the case of Kane it’s not changed things for the worse, just the same shit decision given by the ref still stands as it would have done without VAR

Edited 19 June 2018 by Manwell Pablo

[yorkie1999]

It will ruin the game in the same way F1 has been ruined with all the over analysing of petty infringements and we’ll end up with pundit referees explaining every var decision to us because we’re all too dumb to understand how it works.

[WigstonWanderer]

43 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

It will ruin the game in the same way F1 has been ruined with all the over analysing of petty infringements and we’ll end up with pundit referees explaining every var decision to us because we’re all too dumb to understand how it works.

I don’t think that in practice there are that many controversial incidents in a single typical match. Obviously it would help if major controversies like the Kane incident(s) were explained at least on TV and perhaps via a screen at the ground.

[Wizerud]

Eventually they will get it down to where each decision should take no more than 10 seconds. Then I think we'll really start to see the benefit of it and you can expand it to other decisions so long as it's quick enough you barely notice. Even something as simple as deciding who gets a disputed throw-in could be included but ONLY if they can make it fast enough.

 

And while they're at it, it's ridiculous that injury time is so badly measured and managed. Why is it that the first half injury time is always like 1-2 minutes but the second half it's anything from 3-6? Surely they should be about the same? They just don't seem to be taking into account all the time wasted. And yes you can include the VAR delays as part of that!

Edited 20 June 2018 by Wizerud

[ozleicester]

Meh, VAR is here to stay, the only change is that an instant decision by a referee is being replaced by a delayed decision by a referee watching a tv.

 

There will be errors, there will be disputed decisions, it's just an extension of the existing and a way to reduce the flow of the game and increase advertising opportunities and increase revenues.

[StanSP]

8 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

It will ruin the game in the same way F1 has been ruined with all the over analysing of petty infringements and we’ll end up with pundit referees explaining every var decision to us because we’re all too dumb to understand how it works.

Speak for yourself! 

[The Doctor]

4 hours ago, Wizerud said:

.And while they're at it, it's ridiculous that injury time is so badly measured and managed. Why is it that the first half injury time is always like 1-2 minutes but the second half it's anything from 3-6? Surely they should be about the same? 

 

Why should they be about the same? It's a default 30 seconds per sub, and most subs are done second half. All six subs and there's and extra 3 minutes to start with

[jammie82uk]

On 18/06/2018 at 21:59, Super_horns said:

The latter - not sure what they missed with the Kane incidents though!

 

You can be sure if that had been a Premier league game they would have been given.

The thing is the on pitch ref is still in charge and his decision is final he doesn’t need to use VAR it’s not compulsory 

if the tv refs say I have an incident for you to look at, the on pitch ref can refuse the help or say I already seen what happened and I’m happy with my decision