VARguments

[tunstallhill]

This is a commonly suggested idea. I just think there'd be a huge circus around the whole thing. It'd literally be a week before accusations of inconsistency abound because one mistake was corrected and an even more obvious wasn't. It'd just become another avenue for managers and fans to spit the dummy out.

totally agree, its best of an utterly shite situation. the only reason i suggest it is that it shows some respect for the match going and tv audiences, instead of sometimes 3, 4 or 5 minutes of standing around.

they should also take away the screens at the side of the pitch, its all theatre

if they announced tomorrow that they were scrapping VAR the world over, there would literally be not one single person on earth disappointed

 

[Faust17]

Referees shouldn't feel like chumps. I just can't get my head round what people can't understand. Even after years and years of referees getting decisions wrong people still can't seem to grasp that in real time you don't have a chance in hell of not making huge errors. They always have and they always will. Real time, shit vantage point, obstructed view etc - they don't stand a chance!

I honestly think VAR could work if they let a panel of 3 decide big decisions from the control room (reds, pens and fouls leading to goals). Who would make up those panels is the only challenge.

Agreed they shouldn’t feel like chumps.

Before VAR they were ‘right’ all of the time in the ground. Now they have to meekly go across to the screen told by Stewart atwell in their ear that they’ve dropped one, then meekly march to the penalty spot in front of 50,000 people and say ‘I was wrong’. (And in fact they weren’t always wrong - just a matter of opinion sometimes).

No way they would want it.

 

[Fleagle]

This is a commonly suggested idea. I just think there'd be a huge circus around the whole thing. It'd literally be a week before accusations of inconsistency abound because one mistake was corrected and an even more obvious wasn't. It'd just become another avenue for managers and fans to spit the dummy out.

And in a nutshell, there is the problem. I don’t think you can make it work in football because the players and managers are generally speaking just too petulant whenever anything goes against them, because the broadcastera like a good row, and so will broadcast the managers words even when he is quite clearly full of shit, and because a significant proportion of the fans are too thick to realise that 50-50 decisions by definition go the other way half the time (let’s face it, most of us think that even when a 10-90 decision goes against us that’s proof the referee has been bought).

The trouble is, that same petulance and stupidity will make it impossible to drop as well. if it ever was, every decision that misfired without it would produce exactly the same chaos.

 

[Faust17]

the TV companies have always pushed it. the first couple of years saw every single pundit and commentator jam in somewhere into every single broadcast the phrase 'look, we need it and ultimately i think its good for football...''

there was and is very little, if any, public criticism of it. bare in mind just about every single proper footy fan has uttered the words 'var is utter shite' or 'var is ruining football'.... yet not one pundit, commentator, presenter or ex player has ever said they want rid of it. they are clearly told by the TV companies to skirt around the subject and praise it as much as possible, and avoid at all costs from criticising it.

the whole thing stinks. absolute morons in charge of massive organisations, who couldn't run a f***ing bath. i blame the private education system

Tend to agree - makes good drama so probs tv.

It’s just interesting - no one seemingly wants it but we all agree it’s not going anywhere! How has that happened!? Even the strongest advocate says it ‘might work if we did it differently’. Hardly strong argument in favour!

 

[Nil desperandum]

14 cameras for goal decision system. God knows how many for the match. And none of them focusing on when the ball is played. Only on the line. It is beyond ridiculous.

The Stockley Park T-square must be shaped like f***ing banana man

 

[Matnab]

And in a nutshell, there is the problem. I don’t think you can make it work in football because the players and managers are generally speaking just too petulant whenever anything goes against them, because the broadcastera like a good row, and so will broadcast the managers words even when he is quite clearly full of shit, and because a significant proportion of the fans are too thick to realise that 50-50 decisions by definition go the other way half the time (let’s face it, most of us think that even when a 10-90 decision goes against us that’s proof the referee has been bought).

The trouble is, that same petulance and stupidity will make it impossible to drop as well. if it ever was, every decision that misfired without it would produce exactly the same chaos.

Amen! It's never ever going to change. It's not the way the game is officiate. It's the constant twisting of fans who would applaud a decision they are criticising if it had gone their way in the same circumstances. The childish circus that's been built up around officiating has become unbearable.

 

[stan the man]

The only time VAR could have really been used effectively was in 1966

 

[ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK]

Referees shouldn't feel like chumps. I just can't get my head round what people can't understand. Even after years and years of referees getting decisions wrong people still can't seem to grasp that in real time you don't have a chance in hell of not making huge errors. They always have and they always will. Real time, shit vantage point, obstructed view etc - they don't stand a chance!

I honestly think VAR could work if they let a panel of 3 decide big decisions from the control room (reds, pens and fouls leading to goals). Who would make up those panels is the only challenge.

As you know, it's the Clear & Obvious shite that is the main problem of the inconsistency. The ref himself, as you say, has the real time view that is sometimes limited and they will make obvious errors. However VAR is ignoring a lot of decisions where if the on-field ref was given the chance of watching the video would probably change his mind and make the 'most' correct decision. This is what causes a lot of kerfuffle and rightly so as it's far too inconsistent.

The answer is the main ref in the video room calling decisions as best he can. There would be none of VAR thinking "Well, it's the wrong decision given on the pitch but was it clear and obvious enough?" shite that currently happens and then sometimes dragging the on-field ref ower again to view selected incidents.

All this C&O shite was brought in to keep the game as it was, with the on-field decisions being most of the decisions without much disruption. If you recall when VAR first came in the ref was dragged ower loads and people weren't happy. This is where the C&O bar was increased to appease people and try to limit the disruption. The problem is that this means too much inconsistency, just like the old days but probably not as much but certainly more noticeable. One week the ref gives summit as a penna as he's seen summit yet the next week another doesn't see a very familiar incident as clearly yet VAR doesn't get him to watch it again which would mean he'd change his mind.

If at least the video main ref is making most decisions 'fairly' then at least it would improve. It's always going to have controversy as some will see it one way and some the other but a lot of that is bias by a manager/player/fans/pundits and especially those who don't fully understand the rules. The likes of "he got the ball" is still trotted out when a player gets a toenail on the ball but goes through another player wiping him out is a common one.

Their decisions would still be reviewed (possibly by panel) but you'd like to think most refs would call most decisions best they can. The problem being is that would everyone accept it like they do in rugby and other games?

 

[AC Mack]

i've been the biggest critic of it since day one, and hate it with a passion for what it has took from football. however, the only way in my opinion how it could work would be for there to be a time limit on VAR decisions, 5 seconds or 10 seconds.

if it can't be corrected in 5 seconds then its not a clear and obvious error

If we're going to have it, why set a time limit? That's just setting up for failure.

 

[tunstallhill]

If we're going to have it, why set a time limit? That's just setting up for failure.

Because the time it takes to make the decision is one of the biggest piss takes about the whole thing

And, more importantly, it's a way of defining 'clear and obvious '

 

[cluffy]

Because the time it takes to make the decision is one of the biggest piss takes about the whole thing

And, more importantly, it's a way of defining 'clear and obvious '

I agree with you. Although 5 seconds isn’t enough - I’d go 20

 

[tunstallhill]

I agree with you. Although 5 seconds isn’t enough - I’d go 20

Aye agree. I just mean a defined time and make it quick. And make it easy to measure ...either 'error' or 'no error'

If it's an error, then decision is overturned immediately and the game starts from that point straight away. None of this shite with the refs going to a screen. Just tell the ref 'goal disallowed - hand ball' and the ref tells the players , it flashes on the screen for the fans, and the game resumes.

It needs to be quick and decisive. If it can't be, then it's by definition not a clear error by the on field ref, so just go with it

 

[Matnab]

Aye agree. I just mean a defined time and make it quick. And make it easy to measure ...either 'error' or 'no error'

If it's an error, then decision is overturned immediately and the game starts from that point straight away. None of this shite with the refs going to a screen. Just tell the ref 'goal disallowed - hand ball' and the ref tells the players , it flashes on the screen for the fans, and the game resumes.

It needs to be quick and decisive. If it can't be, then it's by definition not a clear error by the on field ref, so just go with it

Again, fine until after the game when a different angle they didn't have time to view shows a clear and definitive view of a blatant infringement.

It'd last a week before the whole footballing public would go into complete meltdown.

 

[AC Mack]

Because the time it takes to make the decision is one of the biggest piss takes about the whole thing

And, more importantly, it's a way of defining 'clear and obvious '

I don't think it defines clear and obvious - it just puts more pressure on the official to get it right in double quick time.

I get the argument: we all want it to be quicker and smoother, but surely not at the sacrifice of getting the decision right.

First and foremost, that's what it's there to do.

I agree with you. Although 5 seconds isn’t enough - I’d go 20

Time limits should be put in sport to stop people cheating or gaining an advantage, not to make major decisions more difficult to assess.

Aye agree. I just mean a defined time and make it quick. And make it easy to measure ...either 'error' or 'no error'

If it's an error, then decision is overturned immediately and the game starts from that point straight away. None of this shite with the refs going to a screen. Just tell the ref 'goal disallowed - hand ball' and the ref tells the players , it flashes on the screen for the fans, and the game resumes.

It needs to be quick and decisive. If it can't be, then it's by definition not a clear error by the on field ref, so just go with it

I agree with your other points about checking whether there's been an error on the pitch and the video ref to make that decision without all this screen stuff.

We just don't need something else that's going to make the process even harder, and a time limit would do that.

 

[redandwhiterob]

Aye agree. I just mean a defined time and make it quick. And make it easy to measure ...either 'error' or 'no error'

If it's an error, then decision is overturned immediately and the game starts from that point straight away. None of this shite with the refs going to a screen. Just tell the ref 'goal disallowed - hand ball' and the ref tells the players , it flashes on the screen for the fans, and the game resumes.

It needs to be quick and decisive. If it can't be, then it's by definition not a clear error by the on field ref, so just go with it

The time limit is a ridiculous idea marra and totally unworkable. You could have 4 different camera angles to access a foul. From three it looks ok but from the other it doesn't. You can't just dismiss the relevant camera angle because you've ran out of time. If you have var the officials have to get all the time they need to come to what they think is the correct decision

 

[AC Mack]

Again, fine until after the game when a different angle they didn't have time to view shows a clear and definitive view of a blatant infringement.

It'd last a week before the whole footballing public would go into complete meltdown.

Indeed. There'd be uproar if it was shown that VAR got a major decision wrong when if they'd just had time to check another angle, they'd have come to the right decision.

 

[tunstallhill]

I don't think it defines clear and obvious - it just puts more pressure on the official to get it right in double quick time.

I get the argument: we all want it to be quicker and smoother, but surely not at the sacrifice of getting the decision right.

First and foremost, that's what it's there to do.


Time limits should be put in sport to stop people cheating or gaining an advantage, not to make major decisions more difficult to assess.


I agree with your other points about checking whether there's been an error on the pitch and the video ref to make that decision without all this screen stuff.

We just don't need something else that's going to make the process even harder, and a time limit would do that.

A) 'getting the right decision ' shouldn't be prioritised over protecting the essence of the game.

B) the vast majority of these decisions are impossible to define in 'right' or 'wrong' . They are subjective. Even after 1000 replays most decisions still split fans and pundits. So why aim for something that is physically impossible to achieve?

It should be there for blatant errors, not trying to rule every single goal out for tiny, miniscule infringements that could possibly be interpreted as a foul. The ball bouncing in off an attackers hand and ref missed it - error. The ball brushing the sleeve of the lad who played the ball out wide to the lad who crossed it before the strikers tucked it away - no error.

The time limit is a ridiculous idea marra and totally unworkable. You could have 4 different camera angles to access a foul. From three it looks ok but from the other it doesn't. You can't just dismiss the relevant camera angle because you've ran out of time. If you have var the officials have to get all the time they need to come to what they think is the correct decision

Well then it needs scrapping all together because in 10-20 years time, top level football will be unrecognisable from what made it so popular in the first place

Why not just count how many cameras there are at any one time and put one VAR ref on each one. They don't get to see other angles. They get thier own camera angle and 20 seconds to say if there was something missed. I'm just thinking of possible solutions , instead of saying 'oh well we'll just have to live with it'

 

[cluffy]

Indeed. There'd be uproar if it was shown that VAR got a major decision wrong when if they'd just had time to check another angle, they'd have come to the right decision.

There’s uproar whatever happens. So a fear of uproar is meaningless.

 

[Matnab]

There’s uproar whatever happens. So a fear of uproar is meaningless.

There's uproar and then there's uproar. At least you recognise there will never be a time when people say 'you know what, they've nailed it these officials, we're really happy with officiating'. That's never going to happen.

A time limit would create an absolute shit storm. There'd be complete turmoil over why some decisions were made inside the time limit and others weren't. It'd be pandemonium.

 

[tunstallhill]

There's uproar and then there's uproar. At least you recognise there will never be a time when people say 'you know what, they've nailed it these officials, we're really happy with officiating'. That's never going to happen.

A time limit would create an absolute shit storm. There'd be complete turmoil over why some decisions were made inside the time limit and others weren't. It'd be pandemonium.

You know what would decrease the shit storm? A simple system where the on field ref just refs the game as he sees it. Not ideal, but the best option we have by a country mile

The introduction of VAR has increased the amount of controversy over decision making, not decreased it.