VAR yes or no ..... Discuss

[StanSP]

18 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

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 

Really? 

I thought VAR can request the on field ref to have a look at something and explain why. Then the on field ref will have a look at the monitor at the side of the pitch, look at replays and then make the change if necessary 

[jammie82uk]

Yeah VAR can request he looks at something but the on pitch ref can refuse 

 

[Super_horns]

1 hour ago, jammie82uk said:

Yeah VAR can request he looks at something but the on pitch ref can refuse 

 

Which maybe happened on Monday night - 5live and TS still going on about it now.

 

Thank goodness we won eh!?

 

 

[MrSpaM]

I don't really get a lot of the anti VAR arguments tbh

 

It's almost as if people have it engrained in their brains that shit decisions are just part of the sport, but when a shit decision loses you out on a multi, multi million pound prize nowadays it's just not acceptable for a ref to make a blatantly stupid call

 

Granted VAR has also given us some fairly stupid decisions so far but in time this will stop happening

 

I do think it's incredibly stupid that the referee can refuse to accept his decision was wrong even if it's blatantly obvious on camera though, that is just dumb

Edited 20 June 2018 by MrSpaM

[Guest seanfox778]

It hasn’t really happened so far but I don’t like how sometimes teams can’t fully celebrate whilst they’re checking a goal, you still have that doubt that it’ll get ruled out and by the time the goal has been confirmed that initial crazy elation of netting a World Cup goal has gone and it’s time for kick-off. 

[The Doctor]

58 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Which maybe happened on Monday night - 5live and TS still going on about it now.

 

Thank goodness we won eh!?

 

 

Except VAR only ask him to have a look if he's got something wrong, at most what he's got wrong is not giving a free kick to Tunisia. Amazing how many England fans are bitter about the ref not advantaging them with a mistake. You won, get over it.

[Voll Blau]

I fully agree with everything Danny Baker's said on this subject.

[st albans fox]

I’m on record more than once about being unhappy with VAR and it’s use. Today just adds to my side of the argument. So much inconsistency- normal refereeing is filled with inconsistencies across games and weeks. VAR is going to make this even more noticeable. If we aren’t going to improve on this then what’s the point of it. 

[TeePee]

VAR will improve with time - if you look at Cricket, the reaction initially was very similar: 'oh, it's ruining the game', 'oh, but you're undermining the umpires', 'what's the point if you can't get it right 100% of the time?' etc etc - and they're still making minor tweaks to it even now, but it's been responsible for making far more correct decisions than incorrect ones, so by its very nature, it's got to be a positive thing. Yes, there are still going to be human errors where officials don't use it correctly, or use it for something it maybe shouldn't have been used for, but that's not an issue with the technology, that's an issue with the people using it, who will no doubt receive more training and familiarity with it the more it's used.

 

There's no point throwing the baby out with the bathwater just because it's not immediately perfect right out of the gate. Give it some time to bed in, and it'll quickly be recognised as something that, whilst not perfect, helps the right decision get made more often in the long run.

[Super_horns]

The BBC guys felt Croatia's striker could have been sent off for a bad tackle in the first half and it certainly wasn't pretty.

Naturally he then went and scored - we will think nothing of it as Croatia deserved to beat a poor Argentinean side but if that had been against England we'd be up in arms!

[Kitchandro]

On 20/06/2018 at 10:48, MrSpaM said:

I don't really get a lot of the anti VAR arguments tbh

 

It's almost as if people have it engrained in their brains that shit decisions are just part of the sport, but when a shit decision loses you out on a multi, multi million pound prize nowadays it's just not acceptable for a ref to make a blatantly stupid call

 

Granted VAR has also given us some fairly stupid decisions so far but in time this will stop happening

 

I do think it's incredibly stupid that the referee can refuse to accept his decision was wrong even if it's blatantly obvious on camera though, that is just dumb

 

Sorry, where's your evidence or reasoning to support a statement like that?

 

If anything, VAR just proves further that referees are generally incompetent and/or corrupt, and that all this help people have been clamouring for for them will not clean up the sport one iota.

 

The 2 main problems with it are this:

 

1. They are inconsistent with which decisions they review.

 

2. They are reviewing correct decisions and incorrectly overturning them.

 

It's not solved any problems, it's just a new way for referees to get things wrong and more reason for players to gripe about perceived injustices.

 

Where's the retrospective video evidence to ban cheats? Surely diving is the biggest stain on the sport and not only needs addressing most of all, but would also be far easier to stamp out?

 

VAR is just a cheap attempt to make it look like the game is honest.

[SouthStandUpperTier]

@TeePee meet @Kitchandro, FoxesTalk's resident misery guts.

[Kitchandro]

4 minutes ago, TeePee said:

VAR will improve with time - if you look at Cricket, the reaction initially was very similar: 'oh, it's ruining the game', 'oh, but you're undermining the umpires', 'what's the point if you can't get it right 100% of the time?' etc etc - and they're still making minor tweaks to it even now, but it's been responsible for making far more correct decisions than incorrect ones, so by its very nature, it's got to be a positive thing. Yes, there are still going to be human errors where officials don't use it correctly, or use it for something it maybe shouldn't have been used for, but that's not an issue with the technology, that's an issue with the people using it, who will no doubt receive more training and familiarity with it the more it's used.

 

There's no point throwing the baby out with the bathwater just because it's not immediately perfect right out of the gate. Give it some time to bed in, and it'll quickly be recognised as something that, whilst not perfect, helps the right decision get made more often in the long run.

But it's got nothing to do with training with the technology, this is basic refereeing. There is no confusion here, they are looking at the incidents on a screen. It's as clear as day and they are still getting things wrong.

 

This is the World Cup, the sport's flagship competition, and the referees don't even know what a handball or a foul is. Handball's have to be deliberate. Fouls have to be players being impeded, not just touched. Tripped, not just falling over after being brushed. They don't understand this in real time or looking at a video.

 

You talk about it not being perfect but it is meaningless unless it is 100% correct and 100% consistent.

 

If it's not 100% correct, then you have created a problem where there was none by overturning right decisions.

 

If it's not 100% consistent, then it will always be (rightly) subject to accusations of being biased towards one team.

 

 

[Super_horns]

14 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

:

 

2. They are reviewing correct decisions and incorrectly overturning them.

 

I

But isn't that just in your opinion? 

 

Otherwise might say most of the decisions have been correctly overturned...

 

If anything some might argue have been missed like a second penalty for Argentina v Iceland and the Kane corner wrestling ones.

 

Guess that is where the trouble is - not going to be totally accurate and sometimes just shows up the on field ref making a mistake or maybe doesn't give him the confidence to be totally sure about giving one?

 

Refs like everyone else in life will make mistakes even with VAR unless it really is only used to for clear cut errors rather than debatable ones like the incidents in the 2 Australian matches. 

Edited 21 June 2018 by Super_horns

[The Doctor]

2 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

But it's got nothing to do with training with the technology, this is basic refereeing. There is no confusion here, they are looking at the incidents on a screen. It's as clear as day and they are still getting things wrong.

 

This is the World Cup, the sport's flagship competition, and the referees don't even know what a handball or a foul is. Handball's have to be deliberate. Fouls have to be players being impeded, not just touched. Tripped, not just falling over after being brushed. They don't understand this in real time or looking at a video.

Almost like whether handball was deliberate or not is a matter of opinion from the referee, unless you're complaining that VAR doesn't give referees psychic powers. 

 

Almost like whether a tackle that gets the ball is still excessive is a matter of opinion.

 

Actually, **** it. With the exception of offsides, it's pretty much always a matter of interpretation - yellow or red, whether a handball is deliberate, whether a player going down is a dive (i.e. not enough contact to force the reaction), whether a tackle that touches the ball and trips the man has enough of the ball...

 

Your problem isn't that it's not working, it's that you don't understand how people can view subjective situations differently.

[Kitchandro]

Just now, Super_horns said:

But isn't that just in your opinion? 

 

Otherwise might say most of the decisions have been correctly overturned...

 

Guess that is where the trouble is - not going to be totally accurate and sometimes just shows up the on field ref making a mistake or maybe doesn't give him the confidence to be totally sure about giving one?

Well, in your opinion it's my opinion

 

You're right though, that is the point. It's just going to wind more people up, because it isn't black and white and yet it is interfering with things it shouldn't interfere with, and yet doing the opposite as well.

 

I do think today's handball would be seen as most as not deliberate, for example. And there are going to be plenty of those incidents, they won't just stop making controversial decisions one day.

 

Time to stop making excuses for referees, they don't need help, they need the sack.

[TeePee]

2 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

You talk about it not being perfect but it is meaningless unless it is 100% correct and 100% consistent.

How so?

 

Let's say, for the sake of putting a arbitrary number on it for the sake of discussion, that referees get 95% of decisions correct unassisted (I suspect you may disagree with my choice of number, but that's not the point - that number can be 90%, 50%, 10% - it's just a hypothetical number).

 

If VAR helps them raise that number to 97%, how can it be meaningless? Surely an extra 2% of decisions being correct is better than nothing at all?

 

Unfortunately, you are never going to get 100% of decisions correct. It's as near as dammit literally impossible. There's always going to be a decision that is so marginal, so absolutely on the line of the rules that you might see it one way, and I might see it another. That's the nature of the rules unfortunately - how do you determine an intangible such as intent? Even in something like Tennis, where rules are more or less absolutes, there are still controversial calls - it's part of elite sport, where the difference between a result can come down to literal millimetres. Would you rather the person making that decision was having to make it from 20 yards away at first glance through a crowd of players, or making it with the assistance of multiple cameras and angles and tracking technology?

[Super_horns]

5 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

 

 

Time to stop making excuses for referees, they don't need help, they need the sack.

Or clear guidelines on handball as an example - and make sure they all use that consistently  but like players and managers they probably won't as no-one is that perfect.

 

Different refs might have a different view on what is a clear and obvious error....

Edited 21 June 2018 by Super_horns

[SouthStandUpperTier]

Of course mistakes are still being made but you only have to see how much VAR has improved since last year's Confederation Cup, where it WAS an utter shambles, to see that it will eventually be an effective and indispensable tool for officials.

[Kitchandro]

Just now, The Doctor said:

Almost like whether handball was deliberate or not is a matter of opinion from the referee, unless you're complaining that VAR doesn't give referees psychic powers. 

 

Almost like whether a tackle that gets the ball is still excessive is a matter of opinion.

 

Actually, **** it. With the exception of offsides, it's pretty much always a matter of interpretation - yellow or red, whether a handball is deliberate, whether a player going down is a dive (i.e. not enough contact to force the reaction), whether a tackle that touches the ball and trips the man has enough of the ball...

 

Your problem isn't that it's not working, it's that you don't understand how people can view subjective situations differently.

Yeh and you're no better, you've moaned about refereeing decisions just like any other football fan. And you know you're right when you do. Juts because you can't prove it with science doesn't mean you're wrong.

 

I do not accept some decisions, and I think many are made on a game by game basis based on referees not even understanding what the rule is. I believe that. Handball's have to be intentional. You can still have dived even if there is contact. A player holding the ball in the corner for more than 10 seconds isn't an automatic free kick to the opposition. Going near the goalkeeper isn't an automatic free kick to the opposition. And how many free kicks are given in the middle of the pitch for something we know full well would never, ever be given as a penalty if it had happened in the box?

 

We know these things, we know them for sure, and yet it's subjective. It isn't black and white, as I said above.

 

I think if you're going to use technology to interfere with the game, you'd better make sure it's flawless and NEVER makes a correct decision incorrect. If it helps gets it wrong once, it's too many times. It's not necessarily bad for the game, but it is totally meaningless unless it's 100% right, because even correct decisions become controversial when there inconsistency in the context.

[The Doctor]

14 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

Yeh and you're no better, you've moaned about refereeing decisions just like any other football fan. And you know you're right when you do. Juts because you can't prove it with science doesn't mean you're wrong.

 

I do not accept some decisions, and I think many are made on a game by game basis based on referees not even understanding what the rule is. I believe that. Handball's have to be intentional. You can still have dived even if there is contact. A player holding the ball in the corner for more than 10 seconds isn't an automatic free kick to the opposition. Going near the goalkeeper isn't an automatic free kick to the opposition. And how many free kicks are given in the middle of the pitch for something we know full well would never, ever be given as a penalty if it had happened in the box?

 

We know these things, we know them for sure, and yet it's subjective. It isn't black and white, as I said above.

 

I think if you're going to use technology to interfere with the game, you'd better make sure it's flawless and NEVER makes a correct decision incorrect. If it helps gets it wrong once, it's too many times. It's not necessarily bad for the game, but it is totally meaningless unless it's 100% right, because even correct decisions become controversial when there inconsistency in the context.

I didn't claim to be better (although now you bring it up, I am better than you ). Yes I've moaned about referees before, but why not make their job easier? Most decisions will still be subjective, but what is the actual argument against letting the ref see it and make a decision based on the actual incident, not what he thinks he's seen from 10 yards back through 5 or 6 bodies? 

 

 

[Manwell Pablo]

8 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

Yeh and you're no better, you've moaned about refereeing decisions just like any other football fan. And you know you're right when you do. Juts because you can't prove it with science doesn't mean you're wrong.

 

I do not accept some decisions, and I think many are made on a game by game basis based on referees not even understanding what the rule is. I believe that. Handball's have to be intentional. You can still have dived even if there is contact. A player holding the ball in the corner for more than 10 seconds isn't an automatic free kick to the opposition. Going near the goalkeeper isn't an automatic free kick to the opposition. And how many free kicks are given in the middle of the pitch for something we know full well would never, ever be given as a penalty if it had happened in the box?

 

We know these things, we know them for sure, and yet it's subjective. It isn't black and white, as I said above.

 

I think if you're going to use technology to interfere with the game, you'd better make sure it's flawless and NEVER makes a correct decision incorrect. If it helps gets it wrong once, it's too many times. It's not necessarily bad for the game, but it is totally meaningless unless it's 100% right, because even correct decisions become controversial when there inconsistency in the context.

 

You don’t accept some unwritten rules of the game which I admit you have a point with. Some of the inconsistencies on what is given solely on where on the pitch it occurs is a little laughable.

 

However you seem to think reffing a game of football is simple and I can 100% confirm from experience it is not and sacking the best refs as soon as they make a couple of mistakes is just going to lower the standard even further. 

 

I’d not agree with your gripes about VAR, funny how you’ve only piped up today after a very questionable result when it’s on the whole stopped a lot of injustice this tournament. If it improves correct decisions by any % I’m all for it, don’t see why it has to be 100% or nothing. 

 

The Denmark decision was disappointing but again the tech merely did its job. The ref was still the man who reviewed it and after having the benefit of a replay I will agree with you on taking actions against the official may be appropriate. Spotting things in real time is difficult but when you’ve had the same benefit of replays as everyone else you shouldn’t be giving a decision like that. 

[Leeds Fox]

1 hour ago, Kitchandro said:

Well, in your opinion it's my opinion

 

You're right though, that is the point. It's just going to wind more people up, because it isn't black and white and yet it is interfering with things it shouldn't interfere with, and yet doing the opposite as well.

 

I do think today's handball would be seen as most as not deliberate, for example. And there are going to be plenty of those incidents, they won't just stop making controversial decisions one day.

 

Time to stop making excuses for referees, they don't need help, they need the sack.

 

The strangest thing about the handball today was that the referee booked the player. A couple of seasons ago he might’ve sent him off (pre double punishment rule). It clearly wasn’t intentional, so in my opinion wasn’t a penalty. The ref gave it as it denied a goalscoring opportunity (still incorrect by the laws of the game). So why book the player as well. The referee must have seen it as deliberate to make the decision and book the offending player. 

[MrSpaM]

11 hours ago, Kitchandro said:

Sorry, where's your evidence or reasoning to support a statement like that?

 

If anything, VAR just proves further that referees are generally incompetent and/or corrupt, and that all this help people have been clamouring for for them will not clean up the sport one iota.

 

The 2 main problems with it are this:

 

1. They are inconsistent with which decisions they review.

 

2. They are reviewing correct decisions and incorrectly overturning them.

 

It's not solved any problems, it's just a new way for referees to get things wrong and more reason for players to gripe about perceived injustices.

 

Where's the retrospective video evidence to ban cheats? Surely diving is the biggest stain on the sport and not only needs addressing most of all, but would also be far easier to stamp out?

 

VAR is just a cheap attempt to make it look like the game is honest.

I don't really think allowing the corruption and incompetence to carry on because "that's just how it is" is really the answer to the problem tbh

 

If referees are still getting decisions wrong even when presented with video evidence shortly after the incident has happened, then I don't think the problem is with VAR, it's with referees that clearly aren't capable of doing their job correctly

 

But how do you police this? Fining them for incorrect decisions? Sacking them? Firing squad?

 

IMO the referee should not be able to overturn VAR decisions, I find that completely baffling, but yeh I can see your point that the people monitoring VAR seem to be making silly decisions as well, such as that hand ball

Edited 22 June 2018 by MrSpaM

[TheUltimateWinner]

What I don't like about it at the moment is the fact that decesions are only given if you make a meal of it and basically protest until a review takes place. 

 

If you force the game to stop and force the referees hand to review the decesion is normally given. It's a case of who shouts loudest wins. 

 

I agree with what Clattenburg has been saying and that is that more time should be taken to review incidents instead of rushing to get the game restarted again as fast as possible.