VAR yes or no ..... Discuss

[davieG]

2 minutes ago, TheUltimateWinner said:

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. 

This, There's really no point in having all these cameras and viewing angles if the ref makes his decision after viewing just one of them as we have seen all in the interest of not slowing the game down.

 

There's plenty of time wasted already with long drawn out set ups for free kicks, players and refs prevent quick free kicks, players staying on the pitch when injured even rolling back on etc. I know that's not justification for VAR to take a long time but let's get the rest of the game in order and use the saved time to take a considered view with the VAR evidence because if we're going to have it let's do it properly.

 

Maybe VAR should be coupled with a proper match time clock which everyone can see.

[ozleicester]

14 hours ago, 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.

Which again suggests that VAR is a pointless excerise

[The Doctor]

1 minute ago, ozleicester said:

Which again suggests that VAR is a pointless excerise

No it doesn't, don't be ridiculous. Still a decision to make, but VAR means they actually see the incident properly to make the call with proper knowledge

[ozleicester]

1 minute ago, The Doctor said:

No it doesn't, don't be ridiculous. Still a decision to make, but VAR means they actually see the incident properly to make the call with proper knowledge

But it does NOT resolve the problem it is being implemented for.

 

All it does it waste time and give a different view, last nights handball given to the aussies was wrong... fact.  The ref made the right decision, the ref following VAR made the wrong decision.

[The Doctor]

Just now, ozleicester said:

But it does NOT resolve the problem it is being implemented for.

 

All it does it waste time and give a different view, last nights handball given to the aussies was wrong... fact.  The ref made the right decision, the ref following VAR made the wrong decision.

How does it not resolve the problem? It caught a France penalty they should have had and the ref missed. It caught a Peru penalty the ref missed. It caught a Sweden penalty the ref missed. The Aussie penalty yesterday is really the first one I've disagreed with. Overall it's working well - it's not 100% but let's be clear, in any topic, perfect or not at all is a moronic position.

[ozleicester]

6 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

How does it not resolve the problem? It caught a France penalty they should have had and the ref missed. It caught a Peru penalty the ref missed. It caught a Sweden penalty the ref missed. The Aussie penalty yesterday is really the first one I've disagreed with. Overall it's working well - it's not 100% but let's be clear, in any topic, perfect or not at all is a moronic position.

Because... as YOU say people can view subjective situations differently.

 

[The Doctor]

4 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Because... as YOU say people can view subjective situations differently.

 

And? It still resolves refs not getting good angles of incidents

Edited 22 June 2018 by The Doctor

[ozleicester]

Just now, The Doctor said:

And? It still resolves 

so, why add four more imperfect opinions?

[martyn]

The Australia penalty yesterday was not a case of VAR failing, but one could definitely make the case for the referee not making the correct decision once he'd seen the replays. Ultimately, the issue is with the interpretation of the handball law, which has always been a massive grey area rather than the use of the technology.

 

VAR is working pretty well imo.

Edited 22 June 2018 by martyn

[ozleicester]

8 minutes ago, martyn said:

The Australia penalty yesterday was not a case of VAR failing, but one could definitely make the case for the referee not making the correct decision once he'd seen the replays. Ultimately, the issue is with the interpretation of the handball law, which has always been a massive grey area rather than the use of the technology.

 

VAR is working pretty well imo.

 

well, no. The correct decision was made by the ref during the game, he was advised to review via VAR, he then made the incorrect decision.

 

Im obviously not saying that every decision made by VAR is wrong... but the same applies for every decision made by the ref. Its an imperfect game where interpretation can be considered error. but why add extra layers of interpretation?

 

Ive GOT THE ANSWER... we need VAR of VAR 

 

 

Edited 22 June 2018 by ozleicester

[The Doctor]

12 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

so, why add four more imperfect opinions?

 Which are? 

 

[martyn]

7 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

well, no. The correct decision was made by the ref during the game, he was advised to review via VAR, he then made the incorrect decision.

 

Im obviously not saying that every decision made by VAR is wrong... but the same applies for every decision made by the ref. Its an imperfect game where interpretation can be considered error. but why add extra layers of interpretation?

 

Ive GOT THE ANSWER... we need VAR of VAR 

 

 

 

Because the "extra layers of interpretation" will assist the referee in making what he or she deems to be the correct decision.

 

If the referee believed after watching replays of the incident that it was a penalty, then that's the referee, not VAR that's at fault (if you believe it to be an incorrect decision).

 

Ergo, the point stands that the issue is with how the handball rule is interpreted, not the tech.

[ozleicester]

5 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

 Which are? 

 

Do you understand how it works? 

 

"Each match will have one VAR and a team of three assistants"

 

So... another FOUR opinions and interpretations

[davieG]

1 minute ago, martyn said:

Because the "extra layers of interpretation" will assist the referee in making what he or she deems to be the correct decision.

 

If the referee believed after watching replays of the incident that it was a penalty, then that's the referee, not VAR that's at fault (if you believe it to be an incorrect decision).

 

Ergo, the point stands that the issue is with how the handball rule is interpreted, not the tech.

In this incident the problem was as a result of the ref only viewing one viewing angle replay in his rush to get the game restarted

[ozleicester]

2 minutes ago, martyn said:

Because the "extra layers of interpretation" will assist the referee in making what he or she deems to be the correct decision.

 

If the referee believed after watching replays of the incident that it was a penalty, then that's the referee, not VAR that's at fault (if you believe it to be an incorrect decision).

 

Ergo, the point stands that the issue is with how the handball rule is interpreted, not the tech.

BUT... the referee already thought he had made the correct decision. What have we benefited? We have lost the flow of the game, weve watched referees become even bigger stars and wevew introduced an opportuntity for more advertising dollars.... but weve still got errors.

[ozleicester]

1 minute ago, davieG said:

In this incident the problem was as a result of the ref only viewing one viewing angle replay in his rush to get the game restarted

The Four were the reason he reviewed it

[davieG]

Just now, ozleicester said:

The Four were the reason he reviewed it

Which is why I questioned whether they were experienced refs or techies who know how to run the system 

[ozleicester]

According to the PGMO (Professional Game Match Officials) Premier League referee makes around 245 decisions per game,nearly 

 

With 4 VAR's we now have ....1000 interpretations.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

BUT... the referee already thought he had made the correct decision. What have we benefited? We have lost the flow of the game, weve watched referees become even bigger stars and wevew introduced an opportuntity for more advertising dollars.... but weve still got errors.

We've obviously still got errors, yeah. The issue there is that for some reason, some people expected VAR to instantly wipe out all refereeing mistakes, which any sane person understands is not possible. It gives referees a better chance of making the correct decision, and has, in the main, worked exactly as intended at this tournament.

[martyn]

Just now, ozleicester said:

BUT... the referee already thought he had made the correct decision. What have we benefited? We have lost the flow of the game, weve watched referees become even bigger stars and wevew introduced an opportuntity for more advertising dollars.... but weve still got errors.

But the referee then changed his mind on that decision when viewing a replay, which thus became the "correct decision" as far as that ref was concerned - the panel advising is moot, the ref still makes the final decision, aided by the technology. It boils down to confusion regarding what constitutes a handball worthy of awarding a penalty, something which would be fixed by a change to the law to remove grey areas. 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Doctor]

12 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Do you understand how it works? 

 

"Each match will have one VAR and a team of three assistants"

 

So... another FOUR opinions and interpretations

Got it. You're just enough of a technophobe to think four people looking at replays from several better angles of a match is better than one seeing it through a crowd once.

 

Out of interest, do you get scared when a train is heading towards screen on the TV, thinking it'll hit you?

[ozleicester]

2 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Got it. You're just enough of a technophobe to think four people looking at replays from several better angles of a match is better than one seeing it through a crowd once.

 

Out of interest, do you get scared when a train is heading towards screen on the TV, thinking it'll hit you?

I appreciate you have some difficulties with holding a civilised discussion, but Ill try anyway.

 

as YOU say "people can view subjective situations differently." 

 

So you see adding a further FOUR interpretations  as a benefit.

[martyn]

1 minute ago, ozleicester said:

I appreciate you have some difficulties with holding a civilised discussion, but Ill try anyway.

 

as YOU say "people can view subjective situations differently." 

 

So you see adding a further FOUR interpretations  as a benefit.

These extra interpretations aren't making the decision, they are giving the referee a chance to view an incident again.

 

So yes, giving a referee a chance to view incidents again to make what they believe to be the correct decision is beneficial, because subjective or not, referees know how to apply the rules of the game more than the man on the street.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

I appreciate you have some difficulties with holding a civilised discussion, but Ill try anyway.

 

as YOU say "people can view subjective situations differently." 

 

So you see adding a further FOUR interpretations  as a benefit.

Might as well sack off the linesmen then. No need for another TWO interpretations, is there? 

[ozleicester]

1 minute ago, martyn said:

These extra interpretations aren't making the decision, they are giving the referee a chance to view an incident again.

 

So yes, giving a referee a chance to view incidents again to make what they believe to be the correct decision is beneficial, because subjective or not, referees know how to apply the rules of the game more than the man on the street.

exactly my point.. the referee knows better... they WILL make mistakes, so will VAR. Why bother with VAR?