The VAR thread

[Les-TA-Jon]

22 minutes ago, worth_the_wait said:

And in the last 2 years, there has barely been a single offside decision overturned that was a blatantly obvious error.   Practically every offside decision overturned has been by miniscule margins of about an inch, or less ... which in any common sense definition is level ie onside.  And it's sometimes taken them 3 minutes to work it out!

They've always said from the start that the 'clear and obvious' ruling doesn't apply to Offsides, since Offsides are an objective thing. 

 

I think there's a lot of debate to be had about the current implementation of VAR, and for what it's worth I don't like it in it's current form. 

 

However, when it comes to Offsides, I think VAR is a roaring success. It's totally eradicated offside goals from the sport. 

[Guest worth_the_wait]

4 hours ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

They've always said from the start that the 'clear and obvious' ruling doesn't apply to Offsides, since Offsides are an objective thing. 

 

I think there's a lot of debate to be had about the current implementation of VAR, and for what it's worth I don't like it in it's current form. 

 

However, when it comes to Offsides, I think VAR is a roaring success. It's totally eradicated offside goals from the sport. 

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think offsides are as objective as you think.

 

As I said earlier, with players and ball all moving, the 1/50 second camera speed just can't give an answer down to the nearest fraction of an inch.

 

And half the offsides are so close, it sometimes takes them a couple of minutes of staring at lines to try and make a call ... which as often as not is subjective.   If it was obvious (and objective) it would only have ever taken them about 7 seconds to give an answer.

 

And to be honest, who the **** has ever bothered about a player supposedly being half an inch offside anyway?

[Les-TA-Jon]

2 minutes ago, worth_the_wait said:

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think offsides are as objective as you think.

 

As I said earlier, with players and ball all moving, the 1/50 second camera speed just can't give an answer down to the nearest fraction of an inch.

 

And half the offsides are so close, it sometimes takes them a couple of minutes of staring at lines to try and make a call ... which as often as not is subjective.   If it was obvious (and objective) it would only have ever taken them about 7 seconds to give an answer.

 

And to be honest, who the **** has ever bothered about a player supposedly being half an inch offside anyway?

Yes, there's all sorts of debate to be had about frame rates, speed of players, where they draw the line etc. But the reality is, a linesman + VAR check is the best solution at the moment. 

 

But the powers that be have decided (rightly IMO) that Offsides are an 'objective' decision - i.e you're either on or off - therefore they won't apply the clear and obvious ruling to it. 

 

And re: half inches - I was very bothered when Chilwell get ruled offside in the FA Cup final! 

 

It's about a cultural shift and those things take time. Had that final been played in pre-VAR, Chilwell would have been onside, scored the equaliser and we probably go onto lose the final in extra time. He still would have been 'offside' with the benefit of replays - but only Leicester fans would care. 

 

 

[Super_horns]

There was a lot of fuss about goals being ruled out for finger nail offsides but that has improved at least .

 

In reality there have always been complaints about decisions made- just now it’s two fold !

[jammie82uk]

 

[KFS]

5 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

 

So it takes a player to have his leg broken in a challenge like that to give it? Nice 

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

10 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Saw the Italians use it last night to finish off juveentus’ remote chances of winning the league 

inter wing back puts his foot across the challenge and plants his foot just before the defender placed his foot in the same place - so the foot is trodden on (not heavily) and the player takes another step before falling under further challenges - just not a pen. But the var intervenes and whilst the English comms are astonished that it gets given, at half time, zola comments ‘well there is contact so it’s a pen’.  Sorry but this isn’t the game j grew up with and played and it’s certainly not the one I want to watch any more …..

 

God knows where this will end up if a dozen years time but it won’t be what all of us think the game is and was 

 

we need someone with influence out there to stop this because it’s going to rip the game up and take it away from us all - and we won’t get back to where it was … 

 

 

 

The idea that it is legitimate to go down if there is contact (however soft) is one of it not the worst development in football in recent times. At one point it was called cheating! 

[Guest Col city fan]

11 hours ago, worth_the_wait said:

Many people still don't seem to realise that we have been sold a big fat lie.
 
We were led to believe that VAR was there to overturn blatantly obvious errors, such as Maradona punching the ball into the net in the 1986 World Cup Quarter Final.   Or maybe rare instances where a goal was allowed with a player clearly a couple of yards offside.
 
Instead VAR has corrupted the term "clear and obvious" to mean whatever the person(s) at Stockley Park wants it to mean.  
 
So for example on Saturday, it apparently wasn't a clear and obvious error not to send the Man Utd player off, but it was apparently a clear and obvious error to disallow Maddison's "goal".  I don't think either decision was necessarily a clear and obvious error, whatever that actually means.
 
And in the last 2 years, there has barely been a single offside decision overturned that was a blatantly obvious error.   Practically every offside decision overturned has been by miniscule margins of about an inch, or less ... which in any common sense definition is level ie onside.  And it's sometimes taken them 3 minutes to work it out!
 
(and as has been pointed out before, the camera technology to 1/50th second and working out the precise moment the ball was kicked, doesn't allow such accuracy anyway).
 
The use of the pitchside monitor is becoming a joke.   
 
Stockley Park finds a slow motion angle of what they thinks reinforces their opinion of the incident, but discards the other images that the onfield referee might think backs up his decision.   And the showing of it in slow motion is just as likely to lead to a wrong conclusion.   In many instances the onfield ref can make a better call of whether there was sufficient contact to cause the hulking great bloke to crumple in a heap, roll over 4 times, and squeal like a baby.  The zombie at Stockley Park is just checking slow motion for whether "there was contact".
    
And this is actually encouraging players to try and engineer even more contact than they previously used to, knowing that VAR will be less likely to catch out their antics.   Unless of course, it's a total dive and there was absolutely no contact at all.  But refs are fairly good at spotting the obvious dives anyway.
 
(I say "fairly good" as we can all think of the odd famous diving example that wasn't spotted.  But these pretty much even themselves up anyway.  Speedie dived in 1992 playoff final, Ewan Roberts clatters the Derby goalie in 1994 playoff final).
 
But at least pre VAR we could cheer every goal and penalty save (and even an offside flag that saved our bacon).  Now, you don't even know what the ****s going to stand until VAR has gone through every possible option of trying to ruin your celebrations.

 

That’s the biggest issue of all for me. It ruins goal celebrations. It effectively ruins why we watch football ffs!

[Plastik Man]

41 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

That’s the biggest issue of all for me. It ruins goal celebrations. It effectively ruins why we watch football ffs!

This is a valid point.

 

Whilst I've supported VAR, especially for 'objective' decisions like offside, I have to say by far the most entertaining game recently was the VAR-less Rennes away tie. 

 

I suspect however, VAR reviews are part of the attraction for the casual TV viewer? 

[jmono84]

9 hours ago, jammie82uk said:

 

Load of crap. The tackle was reckless and endangered Maddison, it’s clear from that still he has, 2 feet out the ground, no control of his body, studs up. Yes some challenges are borderline but that’s as clear a red as they get.

 

I also remembered the goal Man U scored against Wolves after that horror tackle by Pogba on Neves. That goal still stood didn’t it VAR and another time a Man U player has gotten away with an awful challenge on a opposition player.

 

So there’s 1 and bit of a game (our game and this wolves game) in recent times where Man U have had at least 5 things go their way!

 

Im not saying there’s a conspiracy going on but there’s definitely a bias towards the bigger teams.

Edited 5 April 2022 by jmono84

[volpeazzurro]

However did the world of football manage for all those years without the use of VAR?

 

Arguably we have even more debate about decisions now than we did before, largely due to those catch all phrases like 'interpretation of the laws of the game'. Surely if we're still relying on interpretation and opinion and it's not black and white we're not really any further forward?

 

Admittedly offsides can be black and white but do we really want decision making based on a bit of armpit or arse cheek? Surely we want more goals and excitement i.e. the old rule that if in doubt, give the benefit of doubt to the striker. As the main body part used in football is by definition the foot, would it not be more appropriate for an offside to be given if a foot, with clear daylight behind it would be required for a legitimate offside and not a bit of finger, toe or elbow?

 

Most of all, the lack of spontaneity is arguably killing the live game experience. If it take 3 minutes for a debatable decision, then it's not fit for purpose for me. Linesmen too seem to have been absolved of any meaningful decision making choosing to default to VAR instead thereby avoiding responsibility,  including the decision to carry on playing when there's an obvious decision to be made and risking injuries to players. 

Edited 5 April 2022 by volpeazzurro

[st albans fox]

The Scottish leagues are voting on var soon

 

will be interesting to see which way they jump although from what I understand, those high up inside the PL (inc clubs) prefer having it to not having it.

I wonder if the tv companies have evidence that the non aligned fan likes it and therefore it’s better for their numbers …..

 

Edited 5 April 2022 by st albans fox

[Unabomber]

13 hours ago, jammie82uk said:

 

This guy always seems to justify VAR even when it made the wrong decision such as that challenge. Very strange behaviour.

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

I’m not sure if anyone else has made this point, but VAR hasn’t been in operation in the Europa Conference (and Europa League? I can’t remember).

 

Would anyone say it’s been missed in those games? 

[messerschmitt]

There is one completely different way that you could get better decisions without slowing the game at all.

I mentioned it to radio Leicester when VAR was being considered.

This was to have to have 5 TV "referees" watching the game live on TV, some sort of a push button panel in front of them with "foul" "no foul" etc and their decisions fed back to the ref via some sort of watch with five red or green lights for yes / no decision from each tv ref.

These could be shown in the top corner of our tv screen under the score when something happens, and the ref still gets the final decision.

So the ref can see that maybe all 5 thinks its a foul or its split 3.2. He decides weather to ignore the advice or not but we get to see what the 5 think.

It doesn't slow the game down and you should get better calls.

Also you could have two linesman on either side of the pitch level with each other. Offside is only given when both flag. If only one flag goes up then there's doubt and we play on.

It wouldn't slow the game at all and we could go back to celebrating goals.

If you didn't agree with a decision at least you could see the results of what the officials thought in real time.

[Unabomber]

1 hour ago, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

I’m not sure if anyone else has made this point, but VAR hasn’t been in operation in the Europa Conference (and Europa League? I can’t remember).

 

Would anyone say it’s been missed in those games? 

Missed? It’s been absolutely brilliant not having to delay goal celebrations due to stupid VAR. 

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, messerschmitt said:

There is one completely different way that you could get better decisions without slowing the game at all.

I mentioned it to radio Leicester when VAR was being considered.

This was to have to have 5 TV "referees" watching the game live on TV, some sort of a push button panel in front of them with "foul" "no foul" etc and their decisions fed back to the ref via some sort of watch with five red or green lights for yes / no decision from each tv ref.

These could be shown in the top corner of our tv screen under the score when something happens, and the ref still gets the final decision.

So the ref can see that maybe all 5 thinks its a foul or its split 3.2. He decides weather to ignore the advice or not but we get to see what the 5 think.

It doesn't slow the game down and you should get better calls.

Also you could have two linesman on either side of the pitch level with each other. Offside is only given when both flag. If only one flag goes up then there's doubt and we play on.

It wouldn't slow the game at all and we could go back to celebrating goals.

If you didn't agree with a decision at least you could see the results of what the officials thought in real time.

Sounds like the olympics figure skating or boxing …….. you’ve given it a lot of thought but imo, it’s way too complicated.  and you’re not allowing them to see replays then ?  Just make the call as they see the tv feed …….. if replays are involved then I can’t see what the difference is. There are currently 3 officials at stockley park watching each game with one senior being the var. 

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

2 hours ago, Unabomber said:

Missed? It’s been absolutely brilliant not having to delay goal celebrations due to stupid VAR. 

Absobloodyexactly 

[messerschmitt]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

Sounds like the olympics figure skating or boxing …….. you’ve given it a lot of thought but imo, it’s way too complicated.  and you’re not allowing them to see replays then ?  Just make the call as they see the tv feed …….. if replays are involved then I can’t see what the difference is. There are currently 3 officials at stockley park watching each game with one senior being the var. 

No replays, real time. Why is it complicated. Ref gets 5 other opinions instantly. We get to see what they think, in real time.

 

[st albans fox]

3 hours ago, messerschmitt said:

No replays, real time. Why is it complicated. Ref gets 5 other opinions instantly. We get to see what they think, in real time.

 

no replays ?  so the var refs are all judging from an angle where they may not even be able to see the offence ??

[messerschmitt]

30 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

no replays ?  so the var refs are all judging from an angle where they may not even be able to see the offence ??

There are so many angles that are covered by Tv each could have a different view. Even if they did all view live the same pictures we had. How often is anything obscured?

Tv coverage is pretty good to make a decision anyway.

What do you get by slowing it down and seeing replays. The ref has to make a call in real time. His call is usually better than the VAR which distorts it by playing the view and clip they want at the speed to back up what they want.

 

I'm saying that the tackle on Maddison or the goal were both clear enough to make a decision.

I just think you'd get a fairer outcome and instant.

[st albans fox]

On 05/04/2022 at 08:04, st albans fox said:

The Scottish leagues are voting on var soon

 

will be interesting to see which way they jump although from what I understand, those high up inside the PL (inc clubs) prefer having it to not having it.

I wonder if the tv companies have evidence that the non aligned fan likes it and therefore it’s better for their numbers …..

 

They’ve voted to go with it …….

[whoareyaaa]

It's ruined the game, refs have way to much control now as well.

 

[jammie82uk]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

They’ve voted to go with it …….

Apparently 41 out of 42 clubs voted yes, strange that they want to introduce it half way through the season 

[Super_horns]

Some of the decisions in Scotland are pretty bad so the clubs probably think it will make a big difference having it and will improve the calls made...

 

We'll see I guess.