The VAR thread

[Dan]

8 hours ago, Pete52 said:

It worked fine at the World Cup. 

This is unfortunately another myth but we're on totally different pages. I have no time for a system which makes the process of the ball crossing the line to the goal being given taking about four minutes. They could get 100% of the decisions right and I'd still want nothing to do with it. The fact they still can't get the decisions right just rubs your nose in it.

 

Last weekends officiating was embarrassingly bad. You'd expect it from some piss pot league in eastern European not the supposed best league in the world.

 

Works in Europe is another one I hear too often. I've seen Juventus denied what looked a stone wall penalty tonight. I don't believe every official is 'that' incompetent, and if they are, then we have to concede we're chasing a goal we'll never reach.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said:

Standing around waiting for a goal is absolutely awful. I remember right back to that very first day we had it in the Premier League against Wolves, where they had their goal disallowed. I think it had hit about 20 seconds in and I'd lost interest. I'd rather they just played on. But that for me is mental - I'm tribal, I want everything for us, yet there I am willing on a goal against us because of how surreal and silly the situation at the time feels?

 

I'm definitely not going to pretend it was perfect before VAR but it's brought very little good to the table whilst I think most of the negatives are barely disputable. I mean you only have to read the last few pages of this thread. It's so unbelievably boring. I'm not saying I even disagree with the outcome they came to but the whole process itself is just so dreary.

 

It's definitely not ready - they shouldn't have bothered until they had these semi-automated offsides, but the fact is it's been in this league for three and a half years now and we're still having the same debates. At some point we're going to have to admit it isn't right for the game.

I can have some sympathy with that point of view and the better the game gets to flow while cutting out the mistakes through application of technology, the better.

 

I however will likely never be convinced that returning to the pre-VAR status quo wholesale and abandoning the tech entirely would be a plus for the game. Human error simply shouldn't just be accepted as "part of the game" IMO.

[Super_horns]

4 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

This is unfortunately another myth but we're on totally different pages.

England certainly didn't feel that VAR was working well after the France game and there were a few contentious decisions mainly on penalties I remember but guess you will always get that with or without VAR.

 

Football has so many subjective areas to decide that no-one can be perfect in their decision making. 

 

Just look at the Arsenal penalty the other night - a lot of debate over was it one or not.

 

The ref on the pitch happened to think it was and VAR agreed - some will say at least there wasn't a long wait and they backed the man in the middle. 

[Aus Fox]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Nah, Oz, I'm not getting there mate. You and I see eye to eye on a lot of societal issues but the application of technology in helping with them is clearly not one of them.

 

Human mistakes don't make football great IMO.

The problem with VAR is not in removing human error, it’s trying to be perfect and perfect is not what we need.

As a neutral, a goal like Barnes on Saturday, you don’t want those goals chalked off. 
Arsenal v Man City in the week, when Man City were awarded a penalty, one quick view no lines and you could see Haarland was offside - move on.

If you can’t see it without the need for lines then you stick with the onfield decision for me.

 

[leicsmac]

20 minutes ago, Aus Fox said:

The problem with VAR is not in removing human error, it’s trying to be perfect and perfect is not what we need.

As a neutral, a goal like Barnes on Saturday, you don’t want those goals chalked off. 
Arsenal v Man City in the week, when Man City were awarded a penalty, one quick view no lines and you could see Haarland was offside - move on.

If you can’t see it without the need for lines then you stick with the onfield decision for me.

 

You're right, we don't need perfect, human created tech isn't going to supply that. We just need better. And in terms of reducing errors, I still think this system succeeds there.

 

I'd agree on the close offside calls tbh until automated tech reduces the error further.

[LCFCJohn]

25 minutes ago, Aus Fox said:

The problem with VAR is not in removing human error, it’s trying to be perfect and perfect is not what we need.

As a neutral, a goal like Barnes on Saturday, you don’t want those goals chalked off. 
Arsenal v Man City in the week, when Man City were awarded a penalty, one quick view no lines and you could see Haarland was offside - move on.

If you can’t see it without the need for lines then you stick with the onfield decision for me.

 

Bang on this, shouldn’t even need lines drawing. Having the ability to pause and have a second look is good as things can be missed in real time but it literally needs a quick look for a matter of seconds.

 

Goals like Barnes on Saturday shouldn’t be classed as offside under any rules!

[worth_the_wait]

38 minutes ago, LCFCJohn said:

Bang on this, shouldn’t even need lines drawing. Having the ability to pause and have a second look is good as things can be missed in real time but it literally needs a quick look for a matter of seconds.

 

That's exactly my take

 

(as I said the other week, my "7 second rule".   Freeze the picture, if it's not obviously offside on one look (7 seconds), then it's level ie onside)

[StanSP]

5 minutes ago, worth_the_wait said:

That's exactly my take

 

(as I said the other week, my "7 second rule".   Freeze the picture, if it's not obviously offside on one look (7 seconds), then it's level ie onside)

Why 7 seconds? 

[ThurmastonFox]

4 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Why 7 seconds? 

Agree. Should be 21 seconds. And when VAR checks are complete  “Romeo done” should be declared over the tannoy so everyone knows play can continue

[worth_the_wait]

3 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Why 7 seconds? 

An arbitrary time limit.   Doesn't matter what it is ... 5 seconds, 10 seconds, take your pick.   So long as it's not 2 minutes

[StanSP]

Just now, worth_the_wait said:

An arbitrary time limit.   Doesn't matter what it is ... 5 seconds, 10 seconds, take your pick.   So long as it's not 2 minutes

1m 59s seems perfect. 

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, Super_horns said:

 

Football has so many subjective areas to decide that no-one can be perfect in their decision making. 

 

Just look at the Arsenal penalty the other night - a lot of debate over was it one or not.

 

The ref on the pitch happened to think it was and VAR agreed - some will say at least there wasn't a long wait and they backed the man in the middle. 

Not necessarily- the var has to check that the refs interpretation is not a clear and obvious error.  So if it’s just his subjective judgment and it can’t be shown that he is absolutely 100% wrong, then the onfield decision stays. It could be that all three var officials say ‘I probably wouldn’t have given that’ but if the on field call is pen then it stays as a pen.  That’s how it should be or we will be re referreeing games which will be lasting three hours …..

 

I wonder how many absolute howlers have been corrected by var over the three seasons we’ve had it ?

 

I remember an offside at old Trafford where arsenal were denied a  goal which was then corrected but how many other offsides which have been corrected were huge errors by lino ?  How many goals that were chalked off were absolute howlers of offences not seen by the ref?  I don’t see that the benefits are anywhere near close to outweighing the costs to the supporter. 

Edited 17 February 2023 by st albans fox

[foxinsocks]

When i am watching a tv game i would like paddy power to out up the odds on any var review abd allow betting.

[Robo61]

10 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Nah, Oz, I'm not getting there mate. You and I see eye to eye on a lot of societal issues but the application of technology in helping with them is clearly not one of them.

 

Human mistakes don't make football great IMO.

Have to completetly disagree,  if footballers didn't make mistakes it would make for a very very dull game. 

[leicsmac]

26 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

Have to completetly disagree,  if footballers didn't make mistakes it would make for a very very dull game. 

Ha, true.

 

I was referring more to mistakes in enforcing the rules of the game.

[CosbehFox]

I like what they have in Dutch football regards offside - effectively umpires call. In examples where it's so tight that the evidence is inconclusive, it's the decision on the field which counts. 

[Dan]

10 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I can have some sympathy with that point of view and the better the game gets to flow while cutting out the mistakes through application of technology, the better.

 

I however will likely never be convinced that returning to the pre-VAR status quo wholesale and abandoning the tech entirely would be a plus for the game. Human error simply shouldn't just be accepted as "part of the game" IMO.

The problem is we haven't actually eradicated it. I will concede we are currently at a ridiculous point where the whole thing is half-baked, so it's guaranteed to fail, but then I'm really not convinced what we're supposedly aiming for is really achievable either.

[Dan]

6 hours ago, Super_horns said:

England certainly didn't feel that VAR was working well after the France game and there were a few contentious decisions mainly on penalties I remember but guess you will always get that with or without VAR.

 

Football has so many subjective areas to decide that no-one can be perfect in their decision making. 

 

Just look at the Arsenal penalty the other night - a lot of debate over was it one or not.

 

The ref on the pitch happened to think it was and VAR agreed - some will say at least there wasn't a long wait and they backed the man in the middle. 

The disagreements on decisions are a key point. The rules are that complex, that down to interpretation that qualified officials can have disagreements on them, so you're never going to hit a satisfactory level. What you are going to do though is ruin the spectacle in the pursuit of it and that's the only real certainty. It's an easy decision to get rid for me. I wasn't against them trialling it but quite quickly it was obvious that it was ridiculous. It's a shame we're still persisting with it.

[ozleicester]

25 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Ha, true.

 

I was referring more to mistakes in enforcing the rules of the game.

but even those errors give something to the game and i still believe they even themselves out over a season.

Unless a ref is a real cheat, the errors are a part of the game and var will never remove all errors,.

Sport isnt life, it doesnt have to be fair and equal for all. The next step is salary caps and drafts...which is sport socialism and we end up with average instead of the very best.

[leicsmac]

27 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said:

The problem is we haven't actually eradicated it. I will concede we are currently at a ridiculous point where the whole thing is half-baked, so it's guaranteed to fail, but then I'm really not convinced what we're supposedly aiming for is really achievable either.

And as per above, eradication of all errors is impossible, but reduction in them certainly is possible and is happening.

 

I think that's worth it, especially as the tech matures, but evidently other folks think differently.

 

16 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

but even those errors give something to the game and i still believe they even themselves out over a season.
 

I don't, but I can't prove it either. And I don't think it should be left to chance anyway if an alternative exists.

 

18 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Unless a ref is a real cheat, the errors are a part of the game and var will never remove all errors,.
 

As per above, don't let the perfect be the enemy of progress on this one.

 

18 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Sport isnt life, it doesnt have to be fair and equal for all. The next step is salary caps and drafts...which is sport socialism and we end up with average instead of the very best.

Enforcement of the rules can be made fairer while still maintaining the idea of the best succeeding without salary caps, drafts etc.

 

NB. I find it professionally interesting how your worldview on football differs so much from life in this way.

[Super_horns]

4 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

The disagreements on decisions are a key point. The rules are that complex, that down to interpretation that qualified officials can have disagreements on them, so you're never going to hit a satisfactory level. What you are going to do though is ruin the spectacle in the pursuit of it and that's the only real certainty. It's an easy decision to get rid for me. I wasn't against them trialling it but quite quickly it was obvious that it was ridiculous. It's a shame we're still persisting with it.

Well what really needed to happen was for clubs , managers and pundits to accept that in real time with one quick look officials will make errors ( ok some will be worse than others ) 

 

I really think they thought all decisions would be right and we’d have no contentious issues with VAR.

[moore_94]

 

[Tuna]

Wow Lee Mason sacked!

[Unabomber]

Which call did he get wrong last weekend? There was so many 

[jammie82uk]

6 minutes ago, Unabomber said:

Which call did he get wrong last weekend? There was so many 

He did the Arsenal game