Jump to content

What are your thoughts on VAR?  

526 members have voted

  1. 1. What are your thoughts on VAR?

    • Love it, all for it, fantastic introduction to football
      100
    • Hate it, games gone
      153
    • Somewhere in between
      273

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closes on 17/05/20 at 19:00

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Not at all. 

It's how its being utilised and implemented that's the issue, the technology is fine.

Football was brilliant from 1872 to 2019 (no VAR).

 

The problem is VAR.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VAR gives me a fvckin headache.

 

Wouldn't be surprised if they end up binning it off tbh

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still don't get how people think it was only minimial contact on Origi.

 

It's so clear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Still don't get how people think it was only minimial contact on Origi.

 

It's so clear. 

He was not bearing weight on his leg and it didn’t move even a fraction when it was touched. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fouls are too objective to have a right or wrong answer. A foul for one ref may not be a foul for another. We just have to come to the realisation there will always be controversy regarding ‘fouls’ and VAR will not change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though it’s benefitted is more than it’s hurt us it’s still wank. It’s not teething problems or the implementation, it’s just shit.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, StanSP said:

Still don't get how people think it was only minimial contact on Origi.

 

It's so clear. 

One of The things that makes it not a foul for me just like the mane incident a few weeks ago, they get hit on the left leg or foot in mane’s case both go down holding their right foot  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

One of The things that makes it not a foul for me just like the mane incident a few weeks ago, they get hit on the left leg or foot in mane’s case both go down holding their right foot  

The pain and force was so great its passed from one foot to the other. Medical mystery, doctors are baffled. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Ref Watch: VAR right not to overrule decision'

http://www.skysports.com/share/11841098

 

 

Two decisions wrong just this weekend; penalties should've been given for both Watford and Man City. 

If Watford score, they're 2-0 and probably go on to win the game. 

 

That's two decisions too many, the annoying this is these aren't even 50/50 calls. The Vertonghen challenge is a clear foul, it shouldn't be missed normally, no excuses with VAR.

 

Edit: 

They call our decisions as correctly called, Moss didn't see the clip of the ankle so once it's brought to his attention it needs to be called as a foul

Edited by UniFox21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who's followed this thread will know my feelings on the disaster that is VAR.

 

After last weekends decisions, I don't know how anyone can now disagree with me!

 

The quicker VAR is binned the better. Utterly shambolic last weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people aren't twigging on to the 'clear and obvious' metric nor the high bar they've set for it. They've openly said they don't want VAR to be a vehicle for matches to be 're-refereed' 

 

So a lot of people are left confused by VAR.

 

Another thing is, most people aren't making the distinction between normal refereeing decisions and VAR itself. Much of the debate/controversial moments so far, have been to do with the inherently subjective nature of the laws of the game and how it's refereed, rather than VAR itself. Ultimately, we have to accept that there will always be that present in the game, but it's about referees making those subjective decisions in the most informed way - i.e additional replays and camera angles. 

 

The other thing is, that there's always going to be a lag with these things - everyone in the sport, fans included, have to get used to it. So we're seeing a lot of decisions being made, that aren't being made differently because of VAR - they're only being made because officials now have an opportunity to see them. For example 95% of officials would rule the Wood clip on Evans as a foul, over the last 10-15 years - but they'd never be expected to see those kinds of incidents in real time - hence why historically we haven't seen those kinds of decisions. Now with the VAR checks they can see them, and with the footage it's hard to argue that it's NOT a foul. 

 

So the jarring effect for fans, isn't VAR itself, it's just that decisions that we're used to being noticed and now getting seen. And that's where the clear and obvious thing comes back in. Moss didn't see the trip, so VAR can overrule it because it's a clear and obvious mistake. But, even if they think it's a foul on Origi in the Man U vs Liverpool game, they can't overrule it, because Atkinson saw the incident. 

 

What's interesting about the Woods Evans incident is that it introduces two new concepts:

  • the 'defensive dive' whereby we might well see defenders starting to dive or simulate, when an attacker bundles them away/over/off the ball (and presumably only when they know their chance of effectively defending the play is gone) in the hope that a VAR goal check results in it being chalked off for a foul in the build up. 
  • Player's making requests to the Referee/VAR to review a specific element of the incident - we saw Evans getting up and immediately saying "He tripped me up". Historically players have no recourse on the field - the ref's already made his decision, but in this instance may Evan's had some influence there? Maybe VAR would have seen it anyway, but were they specifically looking for it? 
Edited by Les-TA-Jon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

Most people aren't twigging on to the 'clear and obvious' metric nor the high bar they've set for it. They've openly said they don't want VAR to be a vehicle for matches to be 're-refereed' 

 

So a lot of people are left confused by VAR.

 

Another thing is, most people aren't making the distinction between normal refereeing decisions and VAR itself. Much of the debate/controversial moments so far, have been to do with the inherently subjective nature of the laws of the game and how it's refereed, rather than VAR itself. Ultimately, we have to accept that there will always be that present in the game, but it's about referees making those subjective decisions in the most informed way - i.e additional replays and camera angles. 

 

The other thing is, that there's always going to be a lag with these things - everyone in the sport, fans included, have to get used to it. So we're seeing a lot of decisions being made, that aren't being made differently because of VAR - they're only being made because officials now have an opportunity to see them. For example 95% of officials would rule the Wood clip on Evans as a foul, over the last 10-15 years - but they'd never be expected to see those kinds of incidents in real time - hence why historically we haven't seen those kinds of decisions. Now with the VAR checks they can see them, and with the footage it's hard to argue that it's NOT a foul. 

 

So the jarring effect for fans, isn't VAR itself, it's just that decisions that we're used to being noticed and now getting seen. And that's where the clear and obvious thing comes back in. Moss didn't see the trip, so VAR can overrule it because it's a clear and obvious mistake. But, even if they think it's a foul on Origi in the Man U vs Liverpool game, they can't overrule it, because Atkinson saw the incident. 

 

What's interesting about the Woods Evans incident is that it introduces two new concepts:

  • the 'defensive dive' whereby we might well see defenders starting to dive or simulate, when an attacker bundles them away/over/off the ball (and presumably only when they know their chance of effectively defending the play is gone)
  • Player's making requests to the Referee/VAR to review a specific element of the incident - we saw Evans getting up and immediately saying "He tripped me up". Historically players have no recourse on the field - the ref's already made his decision, but in this instance may Evan's had some influence there? Maybe VAR would have seen it anyway, but were they specifically looking for it? 

This already exists, players moan at everything and I do think VAR would have already been looking at it anyway (was quite obvious that Evans didn't just tumble getting the ball).

 

Back to your post about VAR in general, I think there are three types of fans:

 

1. Don't like VAR at all as it delays games, takes away the spontaneous celebration etc. (they would rather refs make bad mistakes)

2. Hate VAR because it makes bad decisions, isn't working (as you describe, it's the rules generally)

3. Those who like VAR but think it can be sped up, improved

 

I would class myself as 3. It needs to be quicker, clearer signage to inform fans, have the chat between ref/VAR over the tannoy system for everyone to hear, give VR more control over the incidents, get refs to view more of the replays themselves. Rugby is a very good example of how communication, reviewing etc. should work. Linesman, ref, VAR all look together and discuss.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant how they showed the red card incident yesterday.  Clearly showing the incident to the crowd, commentators felt it was the best its been done so far 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where it worked last night. Great decision to play on then return to the incident. Clear red which the ref didn't see and the linesman might not have been completely sure about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Corky said:

Where it worked last night. Great decision to play on then return to the incident. Clear red which the ref didn't see and the linesman might not have been completely sure about.

It was also excellent refereeing by Marriner to let the game go on at that point, who I thought refereed well last night in terrible conditions.

 

As much as I loathe VAR, revisiting the incident after the goal showed it can work. However it MUST be consistent to convince me, which it hasn't been so far. I've seen just as many reviewed VAR red card incidents, worse than last night, which have gone unpunished, including Tielemans v Bournemouth.

 

Showing it to the fans on a big screen keep them fully informed and left no-one in any doubt the decision was correct. Unlike last Saturday at Spuds where it showed No Goal, but also 1-1 after Alli handled it, and a goal was given!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even worse for VAR today. When you see Man City's second goal it was clear David Silva got a slight touch. Sterling was offside obstructing the keeper right infront of him when he touched it and it should have been disallowed. After about 4 minutes of review they said Silva didn't touch it and gave the goal to De Bruyne who played the ball in. Even though Silva was telling the ref at the time he scored it.

 

Now the Premier League have overruled and given the goal to Silva after the match. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Guesty said:

Even worse for VAR today. When you see Man City's second goal it was clear David Silva got a slight touch. Sterling was offside obstructing the keeper right infront of him when he touched it and it should have been disallowed. After about 4 minutes of review they said Silva didn't touch it and gave the goal to De Bruyne who played the ball in. Even though Silva was telling the ref at the time he scored it.

 

Now the Premier League have overruled and given the goal to Silva after the match. 

 

Yes, another terrible decision.

 

Add in the Brighton v Everton match and we have yet another weekend (so far!) of farcical decisions.

 

There is no consistency at all and it actually seems to be getting worse and is definitely creating more problems than before it's introduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Well apparently you only won 9-0 because Mike Dean was unsporting in sending the Southampton player off ..

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50201142

Crooks is a massive knob head. 

Made so much of the VAR decision and wanted to get a dig in to Mike Dean he almost disregarded that most of the goals would/could have come along even if Southampton had 11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/10/2019 at 10:25, UniFox21 said:

Brilliant how they showed the red card incident yesterday.  Clearly showing the incident to the crowd, commentators felt it was the best its been done so far 

Was just going to say the same, even though I didn't see it on the screen in the ground as I was too busy celebrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...