FSA - VAR Consultation

[Super_horns]

Wonder if this will change anything ?

 

 

Think VAR is here to stay regardless of what fans think.

[davieG]

6 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Wonder if this will change anything ?

 

 

Think VAR is here to stay regardless of what fans think.

Done

[bmt]

Done. Think the questions could have been better

[Sol thewall Bamba]

GERITTOUT! 

[turkish14]

Keep it in 

 

- make it quicker, referees to explain decisions, and for more clarity on handball and offside 

[yorkie1999]

Sticking what the VAR panel are watching on the big screens at the game would be helpful for the fans at the ground.

[The Quick Brown Fox]

If you need lines to see if it's offside or not, go with the on field decision. 

Sort the Handball rule out and keep it the same in every game. 

[Ian Nacho]

Do a referendum where fans can vote for or against it. 

[shailen]

I really don't get the big fuss with VAR. The decisions that are deemed controversial are those that are millimetres in distance and linesman were getting that wrong before anyway, so surely VAR only helps that decision to be more accurate. I get that it can be frustrating but imagine losing top 4 or a title to a clear offside goal which shouldn't have stood. I know what's worse. 

[HybridFox]

VAR is not the issue. It's those implementing it. And until that improves we're f***** either way 

[ARM1968]

Will there be someone reviewing the questions 

[Vlad the Fox]

8 hours ago, ARM1968 said:

Will there be someone reviewing the questions 

No, they’ll ignore all the evidence that’s in front of them and do what they want anyway. 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

10 hours ago, Ian Nacho said:

Do a referendum where fans can vote for or against it. 

*Match going fans

[Super_horns]

10 hours ago, TK95 said:

VAR is not the issue. It's those implementing it. And until that improves we're f***** either way 

 

10 hours ago, shailen said:

I really don't get the big fuss with VAR. The decisions that are deemed controversial are those that are millimetres in distance and linesman were getting that wrong before anyway, so surely VAR only helps that decision to be more accurate. I get that it can be frustrating but imagine losing top 4 or a title to a clear offside goal which shouldn't have stood. I know what's worse. 

Yes agree with that.

 

It’s the rules that are the problem.

 

Does anyone want to see toenails or fingers count as offside ?

 

I don’t think that counts as a clear offside and is very harsh.

[shailen]

10 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

 

Yes agree with that.

 

It’s the rules that are the problem.

 

Does anyone want to see toenails or fingers count as offside ?

 

I don’t think that counts as a clear offside and is very harsh.

No but you can't change the rule of offside. Where do you draw the line, as to what is clear and obvious?

 

I think an idea similar to cricket reviews could work where the linesman calls it as before and VAR can only overrule if it was wrong by more than 1 metre or some set distance, so it's linesman's call unless it's really wrong. 

[RonnieTodger]

It won't change. They'll try everything in the book to piss about with it, until people forget what football was like before this nonsense and are ultimately stuck with it.

 

As with this new Champions League format: TV Fans > Match-Going Fans.

[Super_horns]

3 minutes ago, shailen said:

No but you can't change the rule of offside. Where do you draw the line, as to what is clear and obvious?

 

I think an idea similar to cricket reviews could work where the linesman calls it as before and VAR can only overrule if it was wrong by more than 1 metre or some set distance, so it's linesman's call unless it's really wrong. 

Yes - have some sort of leeway and I think Wenger has tried to come up with some sort of solution but this will be perfect and most decisions are very subjective generally.

 

Much more so than in other sports.

[Hoopla10]

29 minutes ago, shailen said:

No but you can't change the rule of offside. Where do you draw the line, as to what is clear and obvious?

 

I think an idea similar to cricket reviews could work where the linesman calls it as before and VAR can only overrule if it was wrong by more than 1 metre or some set distance, so it's linesman's call unless it's really wrong. 

I wouldn't mind if everybody is in agreement that there's going to be a small level of mistake and give VAR a set time period (really short like 10 seconds). No lines. Just freeze frame or slowdown footage and they can make an eyeball judgement. Then give the attacking player the advantage if it's basically to narrow to judge. 

 

Give all refs mics so we can hear what they're saying to each other and the players. Have teams identify an outfield player (if the captain is the keeper). And only that representative can talk to the ref (unless the ref asks that representative to pull across a player they want to discuss something with).

Introduce a sin-bin. Any back chat, swearing, any non-representative player speaking out of turn, crowding the ref or not shutting up when warned. Gets 8mins in the sin-bin. 

The referees (and their authority body) HAVE to show transparency during the match (ie how/why they're making decisions they are) but also after if a bad refereeing mistake(s) is spotlighted. And action has to be shown to be taken. 

Handball just reverts back to interpretation. So if the player can't react fast enough to get out of the way, not handball. If the player has deliberately moved their hand towards the ball it is. 

The other thing I'd like to see (and hear) is more communication between all referees involved in the game. So the lineperson being more in communication and directing the on-pitch ref to things they've seen. And the on-pitch ref trusting that lineperson. Having that constant dialogue between on-pitch ref, linesperson and VAR. 

 

None of this will probably happen lol. 

Edited 31 March 2021 by Hoopla10

[Leeds Fox]

13 hours ago, browniefox said:

If you need lines to see if it's offside or not, go with the on field decision. 

Sort the Handball rule out and keep it the same in every game. 

Assistants are told not to flag if it’s tight, even if they think it’s marginally offside, so this wouldn’t work.

 

Agree with the lines though. The VAR officials should watch it at full speed and make the decision, in my opinion. 

[Hoopla10]

3 minutes ago, Leeds Fox said:

Assistants are told not to flag if it’s tight, even if they think it’s marginally offside

That rule has to change. There's the obvious complaint of possible injury resulting after a flag should have been raised but also that the linesperson is being asked to decide whether a phase has ended or not. We've seen a linesperson make that mistake and blamed for it. Which seems unfair. During the normal ebb and flow of the game they should just let the lineperson get on with it. In the same way VAR isn't used for every on field incident. 

[ajthefox]

It's a bit disappointing the final question is do you support it, yes or no, when I think the reality is that it is all about the implementation, rather than the principle. 

 

I think most fans are ok with the principle, but the unfortunate reality is that the implementation has been horrendous (clear and obvious errors only has never been it's usage) and none of us really have any faith in our officials/the FA to sort it out because there is a complete lack of transparency and accountability. Ultimately, I've answered no because I would rather go back and be annoyed by human error made at game pace, than have to deal with the abject shite we are dealing with at the moment on a regular basis.

 

The lack of fans was a good opportunity to try and sort these issues out without the additional pressure of tens of thousands of shouting people and it has completely wasted.

 

 

[inckley fox]

There are red herrings in the debate, e.g. Wenger's claim that a thicker line would ease problems with offside. Players, given time, would play to the new line just like they'd play to the 'daylight' rule if you introduced that, and we'd have the same debates as to whether the decision fell within the new lines. Be they thicker, further back, or whatever. Even if you introduced a 'margin of error' where the original referee's decision could still stand, it would still divide goals between those that were given to Team A, but not to Team B.

 

The handball rule is another. This is more about how the law-makers have tied themselves up in knots since moving from the old 'hand-to-ball' guideline. It had its flaws, but when you add new rules which are increasingly open to interpretation there is bound to be a lot of interpretation going on. It's not down to VAR.

 

Finally, there's inconsistency, with some officials possibly pursuing, over weeks and weeks, a different interpretation to others. This isn't a problem with VAR, even though it highlights it. It's a lack of consistency, and that's solved by a rigorous performance-review process. A quick look at the unchanging list of top flight refs tells us that it's not the most competitive of industries, given the immense number of refs across various levels, and serious performance analysis has got to be part of it. Personally, I was surprised that we introduced VAR without looking at this first.

 

Behind many of VAR's teething troubles is this notion that the 'sovereign' referee should be the referee on the pitch. I don't know if this comes from officials being precious about VAR's threat to their legitimacy, or some weird, obsolete romantic notion that a guy in a booth many miles away shouldn't be overruling the chap on the field - but it's definitely thrown a spanner in the works.

 

There are already times - like when a ball crosses the line for a goal - where the 'VAR' has to be sovereign. If we treated VAR as a whole in this way - with an acceptance that the guy in aforementioned booth is also a fully-qualified ref, albeit one with superior information at hand - then we could start to work out what VAR can comfortably take charge of, and what it can't.

 

Some of that is quite bland. Time added on, for instance, should really be decided by someone who has the function of counting stoppages irrespective of circumstances within the game. Then, the technology which works for goal-line decisions could also work for other lines on the pitch, if people wanted to extend things. Other points are debatable. For instance, I learnt recently that provisional software exists - with sensors placed in boots and balls - which can determine automatically an offside, albeit with a necessary change to what offside actually is.

 

As for red (and maybe even yellow cards), or penalties, well, if you want the game speeding up then the logical conclusion is that the fully qualified referee in the booth has the say, rather than the one who has missed something down on the pitch. Why wait? Stop play if you're fairly sure, and wait for the confirmation, or carry on and wait for the call if you're not. I saw that time limits for VAR decisions were a suggestion, so maybe that's a solution. Within 15 seconds of an incident VAR can have looked at it 2 or 3 times, so it begs the question: Do we care that referee A has made a quick, correct decision, rather than referee B?

 

Regarding goals, I would say that this is an area where it's best for the game for us to hold hands up and say 'the technology just isn't there yet for us to make quick decisions which don't damage the spectacle of the game'. And the only way round that, sadly, is for on-field referees to be 'sovereign', and when they think a goal is 100% fine (which is most of the time) they give it, and that's final. So the ref calls the offsides that they take to be offsides, and if a goal is ever ruled out, or given, with the on-field officials suspecting something may be afoot, then they call on VAR by clearly indicating a VAR review rather than pointing to the circle in that moment.

 

A very, very small number of errors would be made, and if your refereeing performances are properly reviewed, they'd improve. The spectacle of the game would be far less impacted on by VAR. And you'd only be upset if you cared that on some occasions, one ref needs to make the call, and on others it's another. It's going back to that original notion that VAR would be applied 'when and where it can be applied effectively'.

Edited 31 March 2021 by inckley fox

[ParkerPen]

football is (was) awesome because of the immediacy of it, ok bad example but the DEEEEEEEEEEEENey moment is what I am on about. (Steve Claridge's Wembley shin is a better one perhaps  )

 

the unbridled joy of when the ball hits the back of the net. 

 

its not the same with VAR, you're just waiting for the video guys to rule out what looked legit for an armpit offside or something that happened 30 seconds ago in play.

 

I wont bother watching a live game (in the stadium I mean) again whilst it is in use, even if they do make it less bad.

[BenTheFox]

13 hours ago, TK95 said:

VAR is not the issue. It's those implementing it. And until that improves we're f***** either way 

I'm sorry, I completely disagree. I'm not actually that bothered if marginal decisions go one way or the other. It completely detracts from the live experience because we're having to wait for minutes to find out whether a goal stands or not which removes that moment of pure joy and adrenaline when a goal is scored. That feeling when your team scores is easily the best thing about football, compromise that and you're not really left with much. 

[Super_horns]

I do agree people probably weren't calling for VAR to rule out minor off sides for a toe or finger and give handballs penalties like confetti each week which was happening.

 

I  think most wanted it in place to over rule any obvious errors that aren't subjective.