VAR vs Reffing.

[Dan]

The truth is virtually nobody sees going back to VAR next season as a positive which I think tells you everything. An assault on the supporter.

[urban fox]

Like the decisions themselves, opinions on VAR are subjective, dependant on whether they go your way or not.

for me it is not the system itself but it’s application that irks most fans. Personally, I think that, other than offside which is factual, if VAR cannot decide within a set time limit, say a minute, then it should go with the on field decision as there is no clear and obvious error.

also there needs to be clarity, so if the ref was miked up fans would at least understand what was being checked and the thought process behind the final decision. Ally this with a few simple rule changes and Clear direction to officials on things like handball and things would be less controversial and not interrupt the flow of the game and spontaneity etc.

[Spiritwalker]

I watched an interview with Gareth Southgate earlier, he is very anti- var, I didn’t know that.

[gerblod]

On 06/11/2023 at 16:00, Trav Le Bleu said:

We have a substantial thread moaning about VAR.

 

We have substantial thread moaning about the poor quality of refereeing at this level.

 

However, a lot of us are saying how much we enjoy being able to instantly celebrate a goal, or not worry about a tackle in the penalty box if the ref doesn't blow his whistle.

 

We may well be going back to the EPL next season, which will mean a return to VAR. So a quick, completely pointless thread...

 

Which system do you prefer? And no, you can't have VAR making perfect instant decisions.

When it's a questionable  opposition goal or potential penalty or a potential red card then we're all up for VAR finding in our favour. As for premature ejaculation (the verbal kind) when we put one in the net my reaction will never be 'let's wait and see' - it's always been an instant reaction. I was in the Liverpool Kop once when we beat them 2-1. I instinctively rejoiced - got some funny looks, but you can't help yourself. Disappointing as a disallowed goal is, the VAR check actually, for me, adds to the drama of a game.

The Kiwis have been complaining about the sending off in the RU WCF, but you can't be selective about rules. They've been badly interpreted at times, but VAR itself is definitive. The only thing that really seems churlish is the micrometer measurement of offside. Maybe there ought to be a +/- of 6 inches allowed to allow for the speed of reaction, but VAR has tidied up the inconsistencies no end and it protects refs as well.

[ajthefox]

I'm not looking forward to it if we do go up but it is all about the implementation.

 

Refs need clearer guidelines for when and when not to use it, and teams need to be advised accordingly ao that we don't have players screaming for VAR all the time.

 

Refs need to be mic'd as well. I think it would help fans understand the process better and it would make them more accountable. Should also help in reducing the grief they get from players.

[volpeazzurro]

Keep goal line technology but other than that, ditch it. Before VAR, supporters and pundits alike would paw over retrospective footage of a decision and argue different points of view. Sometimes the officials got it glaringly wrong but, I never usually considered such as anything more than an honest mistake or something difficult to see from certain angles at speed.

 

Now, even with all the technology, we're doing exactly the same thing and even slowing real time games down and losing the spontaneity and excitement of the game in the process. 

 

Officials haven't improved any, in fact possibly the opposite as they start to rely on VAR to make certain decisions for them.

 

The truth is however that it is here to stay for a number of reasons. I don't see anyone soon backtracking for fear of losing face. It may help if they employed dedicated and regular trained staff and not mixing and matching referees. Specialist staff for a specialist job with clear guidelines. 

Edited 10 November 2023 by volpeazzurro

[WoodyFox]

On 06/11/2023 at 16:13, Fox92 said:

People say refs but then sit at games and sing how bad the ref is, or even post about the referee before the game even takes place.

 

There has been to much emphasis on referees for the past 15/20 years or so, probably even more.

 

Refereeing is a hard job and the game is fast now, too fast. I would also say people around me in the stands boo decisions that turn out to be right half the time watching the highlights back.

If 3 or more decisions go against a team it's instantly 'you're not fit to referee'. If I heard this as a ref I'd be even more inclined to shaft the team

[RonnieTodger]

Well, this week in Europe has busted the myth that it works better elsewhere. 

It really needs binning. The only thing I could get on board with is a challenge system, and put the pressure on arseholes like Arteta. 

[sacreblueits442]

1 hour ago, ajthefox said:

Refs need to be mic'd as well. I think it would help fans understand the process better and it would make them more accountable. Should also help in reducing the grief they get from players.

...whether a ref is mic'd up or not, the decision is still going to be the same and like it is now, heavily questioned!!!

  VAR is operated by people and they make horrid mistakes, we are not going to get a better result  as people (clearly biased ones) operates the technology.

 The referee should be looking to go to the screen for his clarification. Any player who touches him (referee) should be yellow carded, it is time they stood up in their roles and stop hiding behind the people viewing the screens.

Edited 10 November 2023 by sacreblueits442
Spelling error.

[Babylon]

On 06/11/2023 at 20:21, grobyfox1990 said:

We had refs making decisions on the spot for years. And everyone moaned and whined and bleated on about how other sports use tech so why can’t we. Now we do use tech. And everyone moans and whines and bleats on about how they want rid of the tech. 

Because we've made a pigs ear of it. The lack of transparency, the pressure for quick decisions.The over complication of simple laws which seems to add even more personal interpretation, the lack of consistency.

[sacreblueits442]

21 minutes ago, WoodyFox said:

If 3 or more decisions go against a team it's instantly 'you're not fit to referee'. If I heard this as a ref I'd be even more inclined to shaft the team

...yeah but you also see that he is making the same errors  against the opposition!!!

  We are not going to sit there and say we are just biased against a ref not coming down on our side, just watch how tolerant they  are when reffing the big six. They are clearly biased by the crowds, players and managers.

  They were given directives to clamp down on certain things at the start of the season, and you know before half the season is gone, they had already gone soft and reverted to type.

  Stronger refs with better integrity is what is needed.

[WoodyFox]

25 minutes ago, sacreblueits442 said:

...yeah but you also see that he is making the same errors  against the opposition!!!

  We are not going to sit there and say we are just biased against a ref not coming down on our side, just watch how tolerant they  are when reffing the big six. They are clearly biased by the crowds, players and managers.

  They were given directives to clamp down on certain things at the start of the season, and you know before half the season is gone, they had already gone soft and reverted to type.

  Stronger refs with better integrity is what is needed.

Surely you don't sing you're not fit to referee when the ref denies the opposition a clear pen? 

[sacreblueits442]

4 minutes ago, WoodyFox said:

Surely you don't sing you're not fit to referee when the ref denies the opposition a clear pen? 

...yeah, perhaps you do not see or acknowledge he is just as poor against the opposition, but he usually is!!!

[inckley fox]

I always understood the ref to be the 23rd player on the pitch, and that his performance - and often the bleating on about it - was part of the game. I worried that even goal-line technology could diminish that, and start to open up a greater gulf between the experience that millions of people had of playing the game in the UK, and what was going on at the highest level. I believed we weren't doing enough to maintain standards with that 23rd man. Perhaps they did need more money and, in turn, the kind of scrutiny and transparency that such an important role deserves. I felt we should look at that more before opening the proverbial pandora's box.

 

Of course, I totally appreciated the argument that technology could do a lot to raise standards too. And there's no doubt that the goal-line technology has served its purpose superbly, because the use of technology made sense (even if it wasn't my preferred way forward) with the caveat that it doesn't detract from the spectacle or spirit of the game.

 

However there's little doubt that VAR in its current form has done just that. Powers-that-be didn't do enough to make sure that it didn't become invasive, cumbersome and at the same time almost equally controversial as what went before. The rule changes, specifically to handball, were madness as it gave more reasons for people to disallow goals, and therefore more for VAR to check over.

 

I also believe that if more attention was paid to the impact on the 'entertainment' side to the game, many of the other gripes would get less attention. People don't like VAR because they want to celebrate a goal properly when it happens, and don't want to be waiting for minutes for decisions while everything is forensically analysed. That's crucial to football.

 

So if the authorities ask themselves 'how can this be used, but still allow for all that?' Then you might see a lot of the disputes about 'clear and obvious' (grey areas which ultimately serve to benefit bigger sides) become obsolete. For instance, 3 out of 4 goals can be given on the spot, with a ref calling explicitly and visibly for help from VAR when he or another official feels the need, so that peoplr know whether they're celebrating a goal or waiting for a check. Yes, occasionally something would be missed, but if refereeing standards were better-monitored, with recognition of errors, things would improve. You could still have a routine check of red or even yellow cards (I still see no need for the faffing around, going to pitchside monitors if there's another ref with a better view of the incident), but it wouldn't hit the game where it hurts the most.

 

The problem, and its creation, is from people's inability to accept that human error is inevitable. And not necessarily the end of the world.

[Houdini Logic]

The weird thing is... I thought I was a VAR convert but turns out I just forgot what it's like to watch an actual football match

[Les-TA-Jon]

Reality is, it's going nowhere, but this is how i'd implement it

 

* Goal line tech, for goal mouth and byline

* Automated offsides

* VAR checks on goals, penalties and reds - but with very high threshold for intervention - i.e only applicable to truly glaring errors

 

EDIT: maybe the only way to ensure that lost one is some sort of timer - if VAR can find a glaring error/evidence to meet the high threshold for intervention, in, say 60 seconds, that it must be definition be debatable - in which case, retain on-field decision. 

Edited 10 November 2023 by Les-TA-Jon

[Trev3939]

34 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

Reality is, it's going nowhere, but this is how i'd implement it

 

* Goal line tech, for goal mouth and byline

* Automated offsides

* VAR checks on goals, penalties and reds - but with very high threshold for intervention - i.e only applicable to truly glaring errors

 

EDIT: maybe the only way to ensure that lost one is some sort of timer - if VAR can find a glaring error/evidence to meet the high threshold for intervention, in, say 60 seconds, that it must be definition be debatable - in which case, retain on-field decision. 

I like the final idea, but surely this may lead to mistakes as the argument is that the decisions are taking longer because they want to get them right.

[Corky]

23 hours ago, Babylon said:

Because we've made a pigs ear of it. The lack of transparency, the pressure for quick decisions.The over complication of simple laws which seems to add even more personal interpretation, the lack of consistency.

Isn't a current issue the amount of time it takes to make a decision? There is no way a decision should take 15/20 looks at a video. Limit it to 3 or 4 per angle from a couple of angles. Judge it in real time, not super slow motion.

 

Refs need to referee the game without thinking VAR is there. Too many decisions are being made off pitch because the ref isn't making them on field. We've had 15 league games and how many controversial decisions have we been involved in?

[worth_the_wait]

I think VAR has rapidly become affected by the classic "law of the unintended consequence".  It may have been introduced to help refs, but it's having the opposite effect.

 

Refs are scared to give decisions, in case VAR shows they made a mistake.

 

They're abdicating more responsibility, because they know someone else can make the decisions for them. (or they have pootle over to the monitor for a 2nd look).

 

Players are diving even more, as by artificially making contact there's more chance VAR will give a decision in your favour.
 (VAR is usually only looking for "contact" rather than "was there sufficient contact" to bring the player down.)

 

Slow motion VAR is making tackles/fouls look much worse than they really are.   
 (the ref is usually the best placed person to judge impact speed/intent/recklesness etc)

 

Linesman are not flagging offsides, as part of the new instructions that VAR can check that later ... even if it takes 3 minutes to give a decision, that no one can decide on, as there's about half an inch in it.

 

VAR was always going to ruin the enjoyment of most match-going fans.   It might amuse those neutrals watching at home, but it's destroying the sport that has been brilliant for the last 150 years.

 

(as I said earlier, I'm at least slightly heartened by the fact that 91% of our poll have realised, some belatedly, that VAR is absolute utter s h i t e)

[Trav Le Bleu]

I had the misfortune to be listening to Jim White on talkSPORT this morning and he claimed there was a poll saying the vast majority of fans like VAR. 

 

No actual figures or source mentioned of course.

 

[Globalfox]

It’s sad to say but I would give up promotion to avoid VAR. the fact is it sterilizes the game and removes instantaneous joy and heartbreak. If it had improved decision making you might forgive it but it has not. Let’s also go back to one substitute and an outfield player in goal when the keeper is injured. Get IFAB to stop listening to Arsehole Wenger and his mad ideas. Just stop messing with rules.

[OntarioFox]

Needs a challenge system like tennis. Captain or manager can make it at a dead ball, final say on whether to proceed with it goes to the manager, time limit on both (10 seconds maybe).

 

Two per game, with them being kept if the challenge is successful, to minimise it being used as a time wasting method.

 

Would actually give a captain an on-field purpose besides being a bit louder and flipping a coin.

Edited 25 November 2023 by OntarioFox

[Super_horns]

1 hour ago, OntarioFox said:

Needs a challenge system like tennis. Captain or manager can make it at a dead ball, final say on whether to proceed with it goes to the manager, time limit on both (10 seconds maybe).

 

Two per game, with them being kept if the challenge is successful, to minimise it being used as a time wasting method.

 

Would actually give a captain an on-field purpose besides being a bit louder and flipping a coin.

 

Of course having a ref being told to review a decision by a team doesn’t mean they will go the way said team want them to though.

The ref might still think it’s not a foul or handbell for example when the team do and they will still complain after the game that the ref got it wrong.

I am not sure you would get much difference as they will still be making a subjective decision.

 

People needed to just understand refs are humans and make errors in real time rather than think VAR was going to solve  everything and be 100% perfection/consistent .

 

 

[Super_horns]

On 10/11/2023 at 14:54, Trev3939 said:

I like the final idea, but surely this may lead to mistakes as the argument is that the decisions are taking longer because they want to get them right.

Dammed if they rush it and dammed if they don’t.

 

Remember even before VAR one minute there were complaints refs took too long to make a decision but another would be too quick .

[Guest BlueBrett]

Man I know I sound like a broken record at times but VAR is just one more example of unnecessary centralisation of control and the concentration of authority in the hands of a core of incompetents. This consolidatory trend is literally the exact opposite of what technological developments should do for us.

 

They LOVE the fact that it dampens celebrations and they have set up the regulations around its use in such a way as to still afford them the wiggle room to manipulate outcomes at times. I absolutely ****ing hate it.