VAR Discussion thread

Agent Coulson · 03-11-2019 7:04pm

He is right.

https://twitter.com/petercrouch/status/1190977568968716289?s=20

Carcharodon · 03-11-2019 7:19pm

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Not a fan of VAR at all. Just let refs ref and accept that they are human and make mistakes from time to time.

I’d be in more the line of this thinking, keep it for goal line decisions and some how for make it work for offsides, somehow simplify it, this offside by a fingernail stuff is nonsense.
Maybe managers get to have 3 challanges per game but that is also a bit too NFL
It’s a tough one, the penalty ones are very annoying, slowing any action down can make it seem very different from real time, people need to understand it’s a physical game with a lot going on

beggars_bush · 03-11-2019 7:26pm

Two games in a row

Two blatant incorrect VAR decisions against Everton

Joke

Fr Tod Umptious · 04-11-2019 11:01am

Carcharodon wrote: »

I’d be in more the line of this thinking, keep it for goal line decisions and some how for make it work for offsides, somehow simplify it, this offside by a fingernail stuff is nonsense.
Maybe managers get to have 3 challanges per game but that is also a bit too NFL
It’s a tough one, the penalty ones are very annoying, slowing any action down can make it seem very different from real time, people need to understand it’s a physical game with a lot going on

Challenges are a good idea but what's the penalty for getting it wrong.
In NFL it's loss of a timeout.
What could you use in soccer ?

Benimar · 04-11-2019 12:04pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Challenges are a good idea but what's the penalty for getting it wrong.
In NFL it's loss of a timeout.
What could you use in soccer ?

My solution is to allow each team to make 4 subs. Take a sub away for a failed challenge.

Similar to the NFL, if you are out of subs you can't challenge.

CSF · 04-11-2019 12:18pm

How do people anticipate that allowing managers to challenge decisions will improve the sub-par review process that already exists?

Benimar · 04-11-2019 12:30pm

CSF wrote: »

How do people anticipate that allowing managers to challenge decisions will improve the sub-par review process that already exists?

It won't. That needs to change too.

Challenge, get match day ref to review on screen in consultation with VAR official. Mic up the refs so we can hear whats going on.

Won't improve things overnight (as English refs are poor) but it would surely be better than the current shambles.

I'm pro-VAR but not the nonsense the EPL are passing off as VAR.

osarusan · 04-11-2019 12:33pm

Isn't every possible red card tackle, goal, and penalty (or possible penalty) reviewed automatically?

I wouldn't be in favour of managers being allowed to review any decision, just potentially game-changing ones, but those are reviewed anyway.

I'd love to hear the thought process/dialogue that happens with VAR. With the Dele Alli handball yesterday for example, what, if anything, would be the process or sequence of questions by which a decision was reached?

Akabusi · 04-11-2019 12:45pm

Another major difference i see is in a rugby match you will often see the referee himself refer to the video assistant when they are unsure. Then you see and hear them discuss the play together to arrive at the right decision. It is more of a whole referee team responsibility. As they have the monitors at the games, why couldn't the VAR person be at that monitor actually doing the review there, they could even have the sound connected to the stadium speakers like they have in the NFL, so at least the crowd can understand what is being reviewed and the reasoning behind whatever decision is made - call him the 5th official.

CSF · 04-11-2019 12:49pm

I mean the VAR method they have, works in theory. There’s no need for a pitchside monitor to be used, because there’s a guy watching it who is a Premier League referee with video footage available.

The problem is what is going on in Stockley Park, and I agree that being able to hear the video logic would be a huge help.

I can’t see a good reason why the decision making shouldn’t be transparent.

ebbsy · 04-11-2019 1:02pm

Just get rid of it.

I was watching a Spanish game last night where the Granada player blocked a cross with his outstretched arm. After a good few minutes of the ref looking at the monitor no peno was given.

It is not just in England.

gimli2112 · 04-11-2019 1:05pm

It's actually amazing how such a good idea can be implemented so poorly. I think on balance it's working well but some of the decisions are so bad you lose faith in the process

CSF · 04-11-2019 1:23pm

ebbsy wrote: »

Just get rid of it.

I was watching a Spanish game last night where the Granada player blocked a cross with his outstretched arm. After a good few minutes of the ref looking at the monitor no peno was given.

It is not just in England.

What do you take from that though? I wasn’t the biggest fan of the idea of VAR but none of that was down to apprehension that the decision making would get worse.

If VAR gets scrapped tomorrow, would referees be held accountable for their role in the poor decision making process, or do we treat VAR as a sentient being that makes poor decisions, and will create progress with its omission?

osarusan · 04-11-2019 1:28pm

gimli2112 wrote: »

but some of the decisions are so bad you lose faith in the process

Yeah, we are still seeing the kind of decisions VAR was supposed to eliminate. Either VAR is not remedying the bad decisions, or worse, VAR is making them.

gimli2112 wrote: »

It's actually amazing how such a good idea can be implemented so poorly.

Agree with this too. I mean, the rugby template that works so much better is right there in front of them, yet they choose not to adopt it.

Scott Tenorman · 04-11-2019 1:33pm

Agent Coulson wrote: »

He is right.

https://twitter.com/petercrouch/status/1190977568968716289?s=20

Arms don't count, it's only parts of the body you can score with.

citytillidie · 04-11-2019 1:38pm

Why comparing a game like rugby to football?

CSF · 04-11-2019 1:41pm

citytillidie wrote: »

Why comparing a game like rugby to football?

I don’t think there’s a comparison between the games. I don’t like rugby at all. But why can’t the decision making process be transparent?

Benimar · 04-11-2019 1:46pm

osarusan wrote: »

Yeah, we are still seeing the kind of decisions VAR was supposed to eliminate. Either VAR is not remedying the bad decisions, or worse, VAR is making them.

Agree with this too. I mean, the rugby template that works so much better is right there in front of them, yet they choose not to adopt it.

VAR doesn't make decisions though, the people using the system do...and therein lies the problem.

VAR does exactly what it says on the tin. It highlights what really happened. If a referee sitting in an office wants to ignore what he can see with his own eyes, then thats where the change needs to take place.

duffman13 · 04-11-2019 1:48pm

It's gotten ridiculous now! Clear and obvious mistakes should be something that's is...... well clear and obvious, if you watch a replay once or possibly twice and are unsure then you go with the onfield decision. If it's a dive/offisde/free you'll know from the first or second look whether a clear and obvious mistake has occurred

ArmaniJeanss · 04-11-2019 1:53pm

Akabusi wrote: »

Another major difference i see is in a rugby match you will often see the referee himself refer to the video assistant when they are unsure. Then you see and hear them discuss the play together to arrive at the right decision. It is more of a whole referee team responsibility. As they have the monitors at the games, why couldn't the VAR person be at that monitor actually doing the review there, they could even have the sound connected to the stadium speakers like they have in the NFL, so at least the crowd can understand what is being reviewed and the reasoning behind whatever decision is made - call him the 5th official.

Rugby isn't doing the in-depth mathematical reviews that soccer is doing, specifically with off-sides. Because soccer has made the decision to do this, it makes sense for it to be done in a central location with multiple angles and the required software & technology, and people trained to use it.
Rather than trying to replicate it at every ground.

If it was just opinion referrals (handballs, fouls etc) then your pitchside TMO method would make sense.

Richard Hillman · 04-11-2019 2:01pm

The reason why they are told not to use the monitors because the Premier league (the clubs) thought it would take up too much time. When I say too much time, they don't give a toss about the flow of the game, what they care about is that the TV Companies may lose out on ad breaks, thus reducing the next TV deal.

Sky have moved their 2nd Sunday game kick off to 4.30 from 4.00 to try and recover the lost ad break (and then some) but this is creating problems in America as the games ending close to 6.30 are clashing with the NFL.

The clubs and TV were dragged into VAR Kicking and screaming, they did not want it. They want it to fail.

Shanotheslayer · 04-11-2019 2:08pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The reason why they are told not to use the monitors because the Premier league (the clubs) thought it would take up too much time. When I say too much time, they don't give a toss about the flow of the game, what they care about is that the TV Companies may lose out on ad breaks, thus reducing the next TV deal.

Sky have moved their 2nd Sunday game kick off to 4.30 from 4.00 to try and recover the lost ad break (and then some) but this is creating problems in America as the games ending close to 6.30 are clashing with the NFL.

The clubs and TV were dragged into VAR Kicking and screaming, they did not want it. They want it to fail.

Has that 4:30 KO not been around for a few years?

ArmaniJeanss · 04-11-2019 2:26pm

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Has that 4:30 KO not been around for a few years?

Only for triple headers, for which they used 12.00, 2.15pm and 4.30pm.
For normal double headers it was 1.30pm and 4.00pm.
The new time slots give them consistency, as in there will be no change to the last game when they have their five or six triple headers later in the season.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo · 06-11-2019 11:36pm

VAR has basically eliminated diving from the game. That alone is worth it in my view.

Carcharodon · 09-11-2019 5:32pm

If the future of football is offside decisions like The Sheffield United one against Spurs, then Iam out, painful and cringeworthy watching that goal get disallowed

CSF · 09-11-2019 5:39pm

Carcharodon wrote: »

If the future of football is offside decisions like The Sheffield United one against Spurs, then Iam out, painful and cringeworthy watching that goal get disallowed

Is this not extreme? We've been watching horrendous decisions by English referees for years, and now we're freaking over one that is technically correct?

Carcharodon · 09-11-2019 6:09pm

CSF wrote: »

Is this not extreme? We've been watching horrendous decisions by English referees for years, and now we're freaking over one that is technically correct?

Obviously iam being extreme... but human mistakes are fine but breaking the game down to these insane margins is ridiculous in my opinion
It just removes a lot of the human connection for me.
It needs to be reeled in a bit for me, maybe restrict it to final pplayer that touches ball, I know there is a learning curve but I hope people don’t dig in on both side and a sensible common ground is achieved

CSF · 09-11-2019 6:14pm

Carcharodon wrote: »

Obviously iam being extreme... but human mistakes are fine but breaking the game down to these insane margins is ridiculous in my opinion
It just removes a lot of the human connection for me.
It needs to be reeled in a bit for me, maybe restrict it to final pplayer that touches ball, I know there is a learning curve but I hope people don’t dig in on both side and a sensible common ground is achieved

I think the biggest problem is how long the decision takes. Ultimately the line we use is arbitrary, and if we give a bit more leeway, and the decision is right on the edge of that line, people are equally outraged right?

kerplun k · 09-11-2019 6:32pm

Annoying as it is, it was offside. Even if it was just a toe, it was still offside. It’s the correct decision.

I think if we actually heard the conversation between the referee and VAR, we’d be more willing to accept decisions like this.

Hearing the active conversations that leads to the decision would put some of the human element back into it.

osarusan · 09-11-2019 6:52pm

Offside is one area where it works well I think, apart from the length it sometimes takes.

Sure, when a fragment of a knee cap is over the line, it seems silly, but that's the rule, not VAR. If the rule was that any scoring part of the attacker being on the same line of any part of the defender meant it was onside, there'd be strikers kept onside by a toenail, and it would be silly too.

There needs to be a line, and wherever it is, there will always be close calls.

Carcharodon · 09-11-2019 7:17pm

CSF wrote: »

I think the biggest problem is how long the decision takes. Ultimately the line we use is arbitrary, and if we give a bit more leeway, and the decision is right on the edge of that line, people are equally outraged right?

I agree, I think the offside rule was brought in for a good genuine reason that made sense but now it has gone to a total extreme, the rule wasn’t made to rule out goals because a player has a finger nail offside in the build up. It doesn’t help the game in the slightest, at least make VAR just make a decision on the final ball, anything else doesn’t help the game in my opinion.

theoneeyedman · 09-11-2019 7:26pm

kerplun k wrote: »

Annoying as it is, it was offside. Even if it was just a toe, it was still offside. It’s the correct decision.

I think if we actually heard the conversation between the referee and VAR, we’d be more willing to accept decisions like this.

Hearing the active conversations that leads to the decision would put some of the human element back into it.

Was it really though, are those lines (arbitrary as they are) actually parallel? Don't look like it to me, certainly when shown in a TV screen at full size. How wide are the lines if expanded in proportion to the pitch? What frame is the ball kicked?
When you're taking 4 minutes and it's still not clear, then the decision on the field must stand. The lines don't add anything to the tight offsides IMHO.
Codology.

09-11-2019 7:32pm

osarusan wrote: »

Offside is one area where it works well I think, apart from the length it sometimes takes.

Sure, when a fragment of a knee cap is over the line, it seems silly, but that's the rule, not VAR. If the rule was that any scoring part of the attacker being on the same line of any part of the defender meant it was onside, there'd be strikers kept onside by a toenail, and it would be silly too.

There needs to be a line, and wherever it is, there will always be close calls.

Yes, I'd keep VAR just for this, and let everything else go back to the on field ref in all fairness. Need to speed up the decision making as you say.

Carcharodon · 09-11-2019 7:38pm

VAR should be used for glaring injustices not nit picking a potential offside call in the lead up to a goal, the powers that be are just too involved.
Give teams 5 subs and managers 2 challanges, lose a challenge, lose a sub, not saying it’s perfect but it’s an idea

CSF · 09-11-2019 7:44pm

Carcharodon wrote: »

I agree, I think the offside rule was brought in for a good genuine reason that made sense but now it has gone to a total extreme, the rule wasn’t made to rule out goals because a player has a finger nail offside in the build up. It doesn’t help the game in the slightest, at least make VAR just make a decision on the final ball, anything else doesn’t help the game in my opinion.

Who really cares where the arbitrary line is drawn as long as it’s applied consistently?

Carcharodon · 09-11-2019 8:23pm

CSF wrote: »

Who really cares where the arbitrary line is drawn as long as it’s applied consistently?

Definitely a valid point, I probably just have a different philosophy of which direction the game goes, too much time focusing on VAR technology and decisions rather the the game itself
It’s going the direction of NFL and that is painful to watch

CSF · 09-11-2019 8:37pm

Carcharodon wrote: »

Definitely a valid point, I probably just have a different philosophy of which direction the game goes, too much time focusing on VAR technology and decisions rather the the game itself
It’s going the direction of NFL and that is painful to watch

Well I love NFL so that is a different conversation. But that aside, I don't think the intention of getting it actually right, rather than kinda right is the problem. Even if we decide that this 'kinda right' gives the benefit of the doubt to the attacker.

I'm not sure how the technology should take 4 minutes to come to this conclusion. You have technology running crazy amounts of complex processes at the same time, how hard is it to get a still frame computer image for any specific forward pass?

celt262 · 09-11-2019 8:39pm

Carcharodon wrote: »

I agree, I think the offside rule was brought in for a good genuine reason that made sense but now it has gone to a total extreme, the rule wasn’t made to rule out goals because a player has a finger nail offside in the build up. It doesn’t help the game in the slightest, at least make VAR just make a decision on the final ball, anything else doesn’t help the game in my opinion.

Does a finger nail count, u cant score with it so doesnt come into the equation?

Shanotheslayer · 09-11-2019 8:53pm

celt262 wrote: »

Does a finger nail count, u cant score with it so doesnt come into the equation?

Toenail would. Players should make sure they aren't sticking out of their boot

osarusan · 09-11-2019 10:00pm

Carcharodon wrote: »

VAR should be used for glaring injustices not nit picking a potential offside call in the lead up to a goal, the powers that be are just too involved.
Give teams 5 subs and managers 2 challanges, lose a challenge, lose a sub, not saying it’s perfect but it’s an idea

Offside is one area where it doesn't need to be a glaring error either, it just needs to be offisde. Even before EPL referees stopped checking the pitchside monitors, they weren't being used for offside decisions are they are considered objective, not subjective decisions.

Wouldn't be a fan of challenges myself. If managers could challenge for any and every decision, they would, and games would last forever.

And the stuff I think challenges should be limited to - goals, penalties or potential penalties, red cards or potential red cards - are all reviewed without challenges anyway.

Cantona's Collars · 09-11-2019 10:02pm

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Toenail would. Players should make sure they aren't sticking out of their boot

Only strikers with small feet will be picked in future.

Carcharodon · 09-11-2019 10:41pm

osarusan wrote: »

Offside is one area where it doesn't need to be a glaring error either, it just needs to be offisde. Even before EPL referees stopped checking the pitchside monitors, they weren't being used for offside decisions are they are considered objective, not subjective decisions.

Wouldn't be a fan of challenges myself. If managers could challenge for any and every decision, they would, and games would last forever.

And the stuff I think challenges should be limited to - goals, penalties or potential penalties, red cards or potential red cards - are all reviewed without challenges anyway.

I agree that’s why give them 2 challanges per game, 5 subs, lose a challange lose a sub, just an idea, I think it works well in NFL

ArmaniJeanss · 09-11-2019 10:49pm

Carcharodon wrote: »

I agree that’s why give them 2 challanges per game, 5 subs, lose a challange lose a sub, just an idea, I think it works well in NFL

But the point is in NFL the challenges are in addition to all the other things that get reviewed, usually instigated by the refs or as standard.

Carcharodon · 09-11-2019 10:50pm

CSF wrote: »

Well I love NFL so that is a different conversation. But that aside, I don't think the intention of getting it actually right, rather than kinda right is the problem. Even if we decide that this 'kinda right' gives the benefit of the doubt to the attacker.

I'm not sure how the technology should take 4 minutes to come to this conclusion. You have technology running crazy amounts of complex processes at the same time, how hard is it to get a still frame computer image for any specific forward pass?

Iam torn on NFL to be honest, I live in the US so I am just surrounded by it too much, the stop starting is ridiculous but yes a different conversation
I do agree with you, if all this was done quicker it would be better, some sort of time limit if possible

Carcharodon · 09-11-2019 10:50pm

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

But the point is in NFL the challenges are in addition to all the other things that get reviewed, usually instigated by the refs or as standard.

Wasn’t my point

ArmaniJeanss · 09-11-2019 10:54pm

Carcharodon wrote: »

Wasn’t my point

Yes, but you can't just say 'just have challenges like in NFL' and blithely ignore that in NFL all scoring plays are reviewed, all interceptions are reviewed, all fumbles resulting in change of possession are reviewed, all plays within the final 2 minutes of each half are reviewed. Plus more I'm probably not aware of.

Carcharodon · 10-11-2019 12:24am

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Yes, but you can't just say 'just have challenges like in NFL' and blithely ignore that in NFL all scoring plays are reviewed, all interceptions are reviewed, all fumbles resulting in change of possession are reviewed, all plays within the final 2 minutes of each half are reviewed. Plus more I'm probably not aware of.

Why not ? Honestly, not trying to be smart, what’s wrong with taking one aspect of a different sport that I feel works well and applying it to a different sport.
They also throw the ball and wear helmets, should we take that into account too? (Now iam trying to be a smartass)

citytillidie · 10-11-2019 4:48pm

NFL is stop start so it works fine there, rugby is also slower so can’t compare that either all different sports. Just have to compare how the premier league is doing it compared to others

osarusan · 10-11-2019 6:37pm

Just on the Alexander-Arnold handball decision.

A few posters mentioned that it had already accidentally hit Silva's hand, so does mean anything that happens after that which favours Man City become redundant? Or is that limited to goals?

Anyway, whoever that group is that explains VAR decisions (PLMG or something) didn't reference Silva's handball at all, just that the ball ricocheted so quickly that the defender had no response time, but to be honest it looked like Alexander-Arnold stuck his arm out to me.

Shanotheslayer · 10-11-2019 6:53pm

Not sure how accurate but a view of Salah situation

https://twitter.com/EPLStuff/status/1193572801191395328?s=19

VAR Discussion thread

Comments