VAR replays to be shown on screens at Premier League matches

[ajthefox]

49 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I agree, but  fans won't have to understand the rules because a var panal is going to make a decision about an incident and probably base that decision on a rule book in front of them, and that's it, no argument and certainly no yelling at a referee because he's totally blameless and his decision has been made for him by someone who could be 50 miles away. 

That's all well and good but fans won't stop arguing about it. Point being this is meant to be for the benefit of fans from what I can tell, but I don't think it'll change much because of the nature of fans in general. Still an ok move in my book though, app replays aside.

[jammie82uk]

17 hours ago, davieG said:

For clubs that do not have giant screens in their stadium,

 

So that’ll be Liverpool and Man United then

[PaulW]

17 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Can't we just accept that game referees are human beings that make mistakes, but are generally trying their best and it all evens out in the end?

Not very easy to accept though if an obviously wrong decision sends your team down, or means a promotion, or title -winning effort fails, no matter what went before in terms of 'win some lose some'. 

[woddyuk]

The idea of watching a VAR decision on an app is good but have you tried to get a decent signal in grounds with 25-70k all trying to get on the phone mast simultaneously  Half time scores Facebook, twitter updates etc etc. In reality there will be too much of a lag.

Might be OK at Bournemouth 

 

Standard big screen graphics sounds a decent shout 

 

Can believe that it's 2019 the age of electronic media and Anfield & Old  Trafford still don't have any. 

[Yes N'Didi]

17 hours ago, Otis said:

We seen disallowed goals because a player is half an inch offside, which is utter garbage.

Can’t tell if this is sarcastic. This is the only one which is clear cut - either you’re offside or not. Half an inch is half an inch and the goal is correctly disallowed. If we conceded in the last minute of a cup final to a goal which was half an inch offside would you want it to stand? As long as the correct decision is reached.

[davieG]

22 minutes ago, Yes N'Didi said:

Can’t tell if this is sarcastic. This is the only one which is clear cut - either you’re offside or not. Half an inch is half an inch and the goal is correctly disallowed. If we conceded in the last minute of a cup final to a goal which was half an inch offside would you want it to stand? As long as the correct decision is reached.

Well it's only offside or not if they payed as much attention to the point the ball leaves the players boot as the do to whether a player is beyond the line of defence, at the moment we take it for granted that they have picked the exact moment.

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, FoxInTheBirstallBox said:

I'm sure Cardiff wouldn't agree with that after the way this season went

I know they had some at the end of the season, but are you telling me that, during the whole season, they never had any in their favour which shouldn't have been given?

[Corky]

1 hour ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

I know they had some at the end of the season, but are you telling me that, during the whole season, they never had any in their favour which shouldn't have been given?

They had an offside winner allowed to beat Brighton so that was two points gained.

[leicesterseddon]

The other problem I have with VAR is that although the current rules are not that obtrusive, it's potentially the thin end of a very big wedge.

 

At the moment, the technology is limited to the 4 "match-changing" situations: goals, penalties, mistaken identity and straight reds.

 

But what's to say this won't be expanded? In a few years people will no doubt be clamouring to apply it to yellows, ordinary fouls, etc.

 

The other thing I worry about is that the fact that referees can consult the VAR off their own bat.

 

The lesson from the 3rd umpire in cricket is that over time, cautious referees who want to cover their arses will end up just reviewing everything. Similar to how even obvious run-outs get referred to the 3rd umpire now, I can see a situation where it will become standard/expected for referees to consult VAR every time they award a penalty.

 

Lastly, the really big danger is that the PL will cave to pressure from players and allow them the right to ask to have decisions reviewed, a bit like in tennis and the 'player review' system in cricket now. This will be mayhem, even if they limit it to say three reviews per game.

 

Review systems kind of work with cricket and tennis because those two sports already have considerable amounts of downtime/breaks built into the pattern of play. This is not the same for football at all.

[Trav Le Bleu]

25 minutes ago, Corky said:

They had an offside winner allowed to beat Brighton so that was two points gained.

Thank you

[SystonFox]

On 05/06/2019 at 20:35, Otis said:

They keep saying this but what we have seen so far isn't the case.

 

We seen disallowed goals because a player is half an inch offside, which is utter garbage.

Well, it isn’t, as they’re offside. Half an inch or five yards. Where do you want them to draw the line?

[Oxfordfox83]

I don’t mind the idea of VAR particularly, but it’s already been horribly misused several times.

 

Take the ref out of the equation-get a team of three in Churchill bunker somewhere to review big decisions, and overrule if it’s a howler. Save all the fannying about running to pitchside and watching it over again, just let VAR refs get it done!

[Yes N'Didi]

16 hours ago, leicesterseddon said:

I can see a situation where it will become standard/expected for referees to consult VAR every time they award a penalty.

This already is the case. All game chancing decisions will be reviewed. If a penalty is awarded it will be checked by the VAR team. If they cannot see an obvious reason why it shouldn’t be given, then nothing will change and it will take less than 30 seconds (normally the length of time the opposition complain for anyway).

[yorkie1999]

9 hours ago, SystonFox said:

Well, it isn’t, as they’re offside. Half an inch or five yards. Where do you want them to draw the line?

That's one of the problems with using var to determine a very close offside. Last night Lingaard was deemed offside by half an inch and when the replays were shown everyone could see that his toe was half an inch offside and we all marveled at the technology, but that was only because we were taking for granted that the superimposed line was within half an inch of being parallel to the goal line which i very much doubt. There needs to be a bit of tolerance built into it and a bit more than half an inch, unless the groundsman that painted the white line can guarantee he's painted it within less than half an inch over 60 metres and perpendicular to the sideline.

[davieG]

5 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

That's one of the problems with using var to determine a very close offside. Last night Lingaard was deemed offside by half an inch and when the replays were shown everyone could see that his toe was half an inch offside and we all marveled at the technology, but that was only because we were taking for granted that the superimposed line was within half an inch of being parallel to the goal line which i very much doubt. There needs to be a bit of tolerance built into it and a bit more than half an inch, unless the groundsman that painted the white line can guarantee he's painted it within less than half an inch over 60 metres and perpendicular to the sideline.

Not forgetting the accuracy of determining when the ball left the passer's boot, do we ever see that? 

[yorkie1999]

2 minutes ago, davieG said:

Not forgetting the accuracy of determining when the ball left the passer's boot, do we ever see that? 

That's a point, who determines the exact milli-second a ball leaves the players foot? You cannot implement this sort of technology and expect it to be exactly right when there are so many variables of inaccuracy and then turn round and say, well var says its right so it must be right.

[davieG]

You could argue based on the narrow margin that the original decision was not an 'obvious error'.

 

I'm not totally familiar with the cricket video reviews but don't they have to be very obvious to over rule the umpires decision/

[Bobby Hundreds]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

You could argue based on the narrow margin that the original decision was not an 'obvious error'.

 

I'm not totally familiar with the cricket video reviews but don't they have to be very obvious to over rule the umpires decision/

Yes, but it took a good few years of fine tuning to get where it is now. 

[SystonFox]

You can’t allow for half an inch tolerance though. You just cant

[Otis]

10 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

That's a point, who determines the exact milli-second a ball leaves the players foot? You cannot implement this sort of technology and expect it to be exactly right when there are so many variables of inaccuracy and then turn round and say, well var says its right so it must be right.

This was exactly my point.

After numerous replays and artifical lines drawn on the pitch it still can't be deemed whether it was the correct decision. The rules state "Clear & obvious" which this wasn't so the original decision should stand.

 

I'm all for extra technology helping officials but using it to overule such close calls is wrong because the current system is not that accurate. And I think that's why the rule is "clear & obvious mistakes".

 

[Super_horns]

2 hours ago, SystonFox said:

You can’t allow for half an inch tolerance though. You just cant

France had a goal ruled out for just that in the World Cup game just now.

 

Probably won't matter but if that was in a big Premier league game there would still be up roar I feel.

 

Its good to check up on anything major an official has missed but think there will still be debate about decisions.

 

 

[Jimothy]

6 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

France had a goal ruled out for just that in the World Cup game just now.

 

Probably won't matter but if that was in a big Premier league game there would still be up roar I feel.

 

Its good to check up on anything major an official has missed but think there will still be debate about decisions.

 

 

It was an inch at most. Its meant to be for clear and obvious errors. It was a ridiculous decision to rule the goal out.

[filbertway]

Should they have an inch tolerance for goals as well? If it's offside it's offside. Whether it's an inch or a yard. It's the only thing that can be clear and obvious.

[Oxfordfox83]

1 hour ago, filbertway said:

Should they have an inch tolerance for goals as well? If it's offside it's offside. Whether it's an inch or a yard. It's the only thing that can be clear and obvious.

a) Offside isn’t clear and obvious, it hinges on the point of striking (at best arbitrary), the plotting of a perfect perpendicular line, and an odd decision making process that didn’t exist before TV adjudication about whether a defender’s shoulder can play a striker’s toe onside. 

b) It’s not about whether the decision is clear and obvious, it’s about whether the referee’s error is clear and obvious. If the error isn’t clear and obvious, VAR should not be used.

[yorkie1999]

4 hours ago, Otis said:

This was exactly my point.

After numerous replays and artifical lines drawn on the pitch it still can't be deemed whether it was the correct decision. The rules state "Clear & obvious" which this wasn't so the original decision should stand.

 

I'm all for extra technology helping officials but using it to overule such close calls is wrong because the current system is not that accurate. And I think that's why the rule is "clear & obvious mistakes".

 

So why don’t they let the linesman decide, then over rule it if it is a clear and obvious mistake. Fifa hey!!