The state of the game

[RowlattsFox]

Player behaviour is the crux of everything for me and how accepted it has become. 

 

I often think I'm falling out of love with football but still watch every game I can so can't be that bad. It's uncomfortable to watch sometimes and I'm sure we all have a non-football loving friend who argues about how pathetic it is, and it's getting harder and harder to stick up for. VAR is just another thing that should be a good thing, but in the end its just a camera. 

 

I don't think so much football being on TV is helping either to be honest, as much as I tune in for most, there is no break from it. 

 

 

[Les-TA-Jon]

VAR is just simply technology. It's another tool in the toolbox to enable officiating of the game. VAR isn't the problem. It's the implementation of it. 

 

There are many challenges with it, so I can certainly see why it's taking time to settle on an implementation that works. 

 

Lots of the elements of it have pros and cons. 

 

The 'clear and obvious' threshold

• I'm not a fan of it, nor how high they set it.
• But it does reduce the amount of 're-refereeing' that occurs, without it there would be countless stoppages
• But it also unnecessarily protects the referee and too often prevents correct decisions being made
• They just need to give the best information (and replays) to all involved and make the right decision, regardless of who gets overruled in the process. 
• It creates weird situations where a player can be fouled in the build up to a goal, VAR says its a foul, but if the ref says "I saw it and didn't think so" they can't rule out the goal, because it's not a 'clear and obvious' mistake by the ref. Whereas if he says I missed that, they can overrule the ref and rule out the goal. 

Offside

• All of these problems stem from the fact that the offside rule wasn't written with the forensic analysis of VAR in mind. 
• PL VAR hands are currently quite tied by the offside rules
• Offside is one of football's few objective decisions - you are either off or on. I'm not in favour of bringing more subjective decisions into the game. For every 'Umpire's call' that says he's level, there'd be people screaming "No way, he's offside, doesn't matter by how much!"
• Yes there's all sorts of questions about the currently technology - frame rates, speed of players, can they truly be sure they've paused at EXACTLY the moment the ball left the boot of the passer, are the lines in EXACTLY the right place. But it's the best they've got at the moment. 
• Some have suggested a threshold or daylight idea. But then we'd just simply be drawing the lines in a different place, and would still have 'ridiculous' millimeter decisions
• The current interpretation of looking at any part of the body the player could legally score with, seems fair - I mean how else could they judge it? 
• But the problem there is that you get all there 'armpit' offsides or 'shirt sleeve' offsides. Attackers are naturally going to have those parts of the body infront, because it's how humans run and players are used to pointing for a desired pass (see: Bamford offside)
• One thing you could do is, only judge offside by the part of the player they DID use to score - but that doesn't account for players offside in the buildup, but not the eventual goalscorer, nor does it account for a player whose leg/whatever is well offside, but then eventually scores with some other body part
• You could try and judge offside only by the feet of players, but player's feet aren't always on the ground, and this would make offside traps very difficult

One thing that is always lost in the vitriolic moaning about VAR and decisions after matches, is that VAR means no has scored an offside goal for 2 years. And with the current set up, it's impossible to score a goal and be offside. That's great progress and it should be recognised. Gone are the days of a player being half a yard (or more!) offside, the linesman miss it and the pundits shrugging after the fact, despite the gravity of the injustice. 

 

My overall point is that these are complex and nuanced issues and there isn't any simple solutions. 

[Les-TA-Jon]

16 minutes ago, Sampson said:

But VAR by definition is just shifting the subjective desicion from one party to another. And while doing it, stops the game for 5 minutes and kills the flow of the game and the enjoyment of the big moments.

 

VAR definitely *is* the problem. Regardless of how good or not the officials are, you're ultimately shifting one subjective desicion to another - handball, red cards and penalties have always been very contentious and subjective, it's nothing to do with the new rules or whatever. But what VAR does is kill the flow of the game solely to swap one subjective decision for another.

 

It's a gimmick for tv.

The question for me is would you rather have a raft of subjective decisions made by one man, in the heat of the on-pitch moments, with seconds to decide, no additional information or the benefits of replays or alternate angles. 

 

Or would you rather those subjective decisions being made with all the best information available? 

[Les-TA-Jon]

What VAR has done has shone more light on the subconscious bias officials have towards the big teams, because even with the benefit of VAR and all the replays, they still make some crazy decisions to benefit the big clubs, that I cannot ever imagining smaller clubs benefitting from in the same way. 

 

i.e Maguire stamp, Fernandes pen vs Villa etc etc 

[SemperEadem]

33 minutes ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

It works fine in Europe, although I'm not a fan. Its the refs over here - they're absolutely appalling.

Does it? I read this a lot but I'm yet to see it actually being the case. I watch a decent amount of German football and they have just like us every single week the same situation in that it is VAR decisions that get talked about more than game. 

[NewquayFox]

VAR is a fraud, run by mates of Referees and Officials not giving the correct decisions so as not to embarrass their mates on the pitch...

Cheats are winning games every week, Man Utd 6.0 up last night and Martial clearly dives before he caught the defenders leg, clamp down on the cheats...

[peach0000]

25 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Mike Dean was absolutely shocking last night - VAR has at least exposed him in that sense. Sadly, he will not be punished, and probably not even reprimanded.

I think this has somewhat been blown out of proportion. The first red card was correct. The first penalty was rightfully overturned to a free kick by VAR (something impossible to judge without replays) and the second penalty and red card was subjective (not a clear and obvious error) for the penalty and as for the red card, as the rules are written it was a red card. People moan a lot about lack of consistency in officiating but when you compare the David Luiz red card and the Bednarek red card they were judged under the same law of the game and were ruled the same way (the way the law says it should). It's simple. Stop a clear goal scoring opportunity with no attempt to get the ball it is a red card (no double jeopardy) this is what happened with Luiz and what subjectively (but less clearly) happened with bednarek. The officials got it right, if people want to complain it should be to the law makers not the referee.

[Sampson]

5 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

The question for me is would you rather have a raft of subjective decisions made by one man, in the heat of the on-pitch moments, with seconds to decide, no additional information or the benefits of replays or alternate angles. 

 

Or would you rather those subjective decisions being made with all the best information available? 

Obviously the former. Like it was before. The additional information rarely add up to much and it's not worth the incessant checks to make the desicions. 

 

I can accept refereeing mistakes in the heat of the moment- I can't accept 5 minutes quibbling over different camera angles just to come to another subjective desicion.

 

The benefits of VAR come nowhere close to outweighing the disruption and killing of the flow of the game.

[Corky]

22 minutes ago, RowlattsFox said:

I don't think so much football being on TV is helping either to be honest, as much as I tune in for most, there is no break from it. 

 

This is a big part, for me. So many of these games would be nowhere near live TV in this country, the presenters and pundits couldn't care less but have to show an interest now when every fan could be watching which has never been the case when a proportion of the fanbases were able to attend.

 

The problem with no crowds is that every game feels the same. It could be a classic, it could be dreadful but with no crowd to get the temperature from you are more reliant on actually watching it all. It isn't background noise any more.

 

There was a game last week that I had on whilst reading a book and I didn't look away from the book for a decent amount of time, whereas with a crowd you get a better feel for what is happening.

[roblcfc84]

Really relevant to how I’m feeling. Absolutely love the game - watching, coaching and playing. 
 

But it really has become soulless. It’s a weird one because in terms of success it’s surely the best position the club has ever been in. But something is missing. 
 

A few years back I’d have watched as many games as I could, and now I pretty much watch Leicester. 
 

I think everyone has covered the main reasons already but for me: 

 

- The desperation to cling to the big-6 narrative has become embarrassing, particularly on Sky. 
- The coverage is at times a joke - blanket cliches with little to no knowledge or research. 
- VAR - in theory great, in practice a long way to go. 

- Games are so stop/start - relentless free kicks and players throwing themselves to the ground. 
- Lack of character/personality - it’s all so controlled and bland. 
- Lack of fans doesn’t help. 
 

It is a weird feeling falling out of love with the game. No doubt the athleticism and skill level is better, but at what cost. 
 

[Nalis]

Maybe the VAR aspect needs to be revamped, maybe only to be used with a challenge system like in tennis or cricket that can only be called by the captain or a vice captain of the captain is a goalie. A maximum of one challenge per team per match.

 

Might also mean players dont complain to the ref as much as they can call a challenge.

[Voll Blau]

Every time we score now the pang of "But what about VAR..." enters my mind. It's a fvcking rubbish feeling. Sport is to be enjoyed, and this just sucks any enjoyment out of me.

[sacreblueits442]

34 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

The question for me is would you rather have a raft of subjective decisions made by one man, in the heat of the on-pitch moments, with seconds to decide, no additional information or the benefits of replays or alternate angles. 

 

Or would you rather those subjective decisions being made with all the best information available? 

....they still get it wrong!!!

[Vazman]

23 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Mike Dean was absolutely shocking last night - VAR has at least exposed him in that sense. Sadly, he will not be punished, and probably not even reprimanded.

I think Mike Dean's decision should be used as a case study, and learning exercise on a Referees refresher course.

 

I'd be interested to hear how many other Refs would have given the decision.

 

 

[Stuntman_Mike]

Well you know it's bad when you'd sooner the ref make a decision in a split second that costs your team, without them having a chance to look at it and to change their mind.

[Spudulike]

1 hour ago, Dan LCFC said:

It really is pathetic. The introduction of VAR has had so many more negatives than positives, more than anything it's increased the over scrutiny of refereeing decisions to the point it's the talking point of what feels like more games than it isn't. I do think in terms of the Premier League itself, whatever the opposite of halcyon days are, this is it. No fans at games combined with this rubbish and I do just find myself watching fewer and fewer games. I hope it gets better.

I only watch City games live now. Occasionally catch MotD. That's it. Cancelled Sky a year ago but have BT Sport as its a package with Broadband. 

 

I flicked on the ManU match for the first few minutes and then Mrs Spud came in and said (hopefully) can we watch a drama on C5? She was amazed when I flipped it over without any protest or descent. Can't be arsed with it anymore. 

 

But I will be glued to the City match tonight. 

[ParkerPen]

Perhaps there should be 'x' amount of calls to VAR per game / half in the same way as in Cricket and so on decided by a suitable representative for each team

 

use your calls up and there's an armpit offside missed that goes against you, tough. 

[ParkerPen]

56 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

I personally find the overconsumption of football far more of a killer than VAR. I'm far from a fan of VAR, but it can be tweaked and ultimately will be. Football is far more for the TV viewer, even before the pandemic, than it is the supporters in the ground. 

 

One of the positives if/when we eventually return to the 2nd tier would be 3pm Saturday kick offs. 

I get the sentiment but I remember the season we got promoted from the championship we barely had any Saturday 3pm kick offs due to games moved for TV ! 

[AKCJ]

22 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Every time we score now the pang of "But what about VAR..." enters my mind. It's a fvcking rubbish feeling. Sport is to be enjoyed, and this just sucks any enjoyment out of me.

This is something you can't get the armchair fan to understand either.

[AKCJ]

Perfectly sums it up.

[Les-TA-Jon]

19 minutes ago, sacreblueits442 said:

....they still get it wrong!!!

...which is irrelevant, right? We can't ensure all decisions are correct. But I'd rather have decisions made with MORE information than LESS. 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

59 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

VAR is just simply technology. It's another tool in the toolbox to enable officiating of the game. VAR isn't the problem. It's the implementation of it. 

 

There are many challenges with it, so I can certainly see why it's taking time to settle on an implementation that works. 

 

Lots of the elements of it have pros and cons. 

 

The 'clear and obvious' threshold

• I'm not a fan of it, nor how high they set it.
• But it does reduce the amount of 're-refereeing' that occurs, without it there would be countless stoppages
• But it also unnecessarily protects the referee and too often prevents correct decisions being made
• They just need to give the best information (and replays) to all involved and make the right decision, regardless of who gets overruled in the process. 
• It creates weird situations where a player can be fouled in the build up to a goal, VAR says its a foul, but if the ref says "I saw it and didn't think so" they can't rule out the goal, because it's not a 'clear and obvious' mistake by the ref. Whereas if he says I missed that, they can overrule the ref and rule out the goal. 

Offside

• All of these problems stem from the fact that the offside rule wasn't written with the forensic analysis of VAR in mind. 
• PL VAR hands are currently quite tied by the offside rules
• Offside is one of football's few objective decisions - you are either off or on. I'm not in favour of bringing more subjective decisions into the game. For every 'Umpire's call' that says he's level, there'd be people screaming "No way, he's offside, doesn't matter by how much!"
• Yes there's all sorts of questions about the currently technology - frame rates, speed of players, can they truly be sure they've paused at EXACTLY the moment the ball left the boot of the passer, are the lines in EXACTLY the right place. But it's the best they've got at the moment. 
• Some have suggested a threshold or daylight idea. But then we'd just simply be drawing the lines in a different place, and would still have 'ridiculous' millimeter decisions
• The current interpretation of looking at any part of the body the player could legally score with, seems fair - I mean how else could they judge it? 
• But the problem there is that you get all there 'armpit' offsides or 'shirt sleeve' offsides. Attackers are naturally going to have those parts of the body infront, because it's how humans run and players are used to pointing for a desired pass (see: Bamford offside)
• One thing you could do is, only judge offside by the part of the player they DID use to score - but that doesn't account for players offside in the buildup, but not the eventual goalscorer, nor does it account for a player whose leg/whatever is well offside, but then eventually scores with some other body part
• You could try and judge offside only by the feet of players, but player's feet aren't always on the ground, and this would make offside traps very difficult

One thing that is always lost in the vitriolic moaning about VAR and decisions after matches, is that VAR means no has scored an offside goal for 2 years. And with the current set up, it's impossible to score a goal and be offside. That's great progress and it should be recognised. Gone are the days of a player being half a yard (or more!) offside, the linesman miss it and the pundits shrugging after the fact, despite the gravity of the injustice. 

 

My overall point is that these are complex and nuanced issues and there isn't any simple solutions. 

This post reminds me of VAR itself. Hardly the "beautiful game" is it. 

[HighPeakFox]

One thing that troubles me is that there may have always been endemic corruption in the game, and now it's just more visible. And still nothing will be done about it, because money.

[Les-TA-Jon]

1 minute ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

This post reminds me of VAR itself. Hardly the "beautiful game" is it. 

Care to elaborate a tad? 

 

The game has to have laws and rules and agreed conventions on how to interpret them. It's reductionist thinking to believe, that it's as simple as "oh why don't they just sort it out!" 

[Vazman]

Without VAR - A split second decision right or wrong is talked about for 2 mins on MOTD then forgotten about, by most people after a bit of head scratching etc.

 

With VAR - If used correctly can better influence the game, and assist referees to make the right decision provided it's used correctly if the right decision is made its talked about for 10 Seconds on MOTD and forgotten about by most people after a bit of head scratching.

 

VAR - Used incorrectly causes total meltdowns, conspiracy theories, and can alter the course of a game as we saw last night. Causes people to get upset and not trust the officials.

 

The best Outcome for everyone - Referee explains the decision on the post match analysis after the Managers have said their piece. That way they can justify it to everyone watching with nothing to hide open and honestly, everyone's happy provided the Referee stands by his decision.

 

Or - We get rid of it and go back to without VAR comment above.