Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

VAR Discussion thread

2456719

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 60,881 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,002 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,647 ✭✭✭beggars_bush


    Two games in a row

    Two blatant incorrect VAR decisions against Everton

    Joke


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,393 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    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 ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭Benimar


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,543 ✭✭✭✭CSF


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭Benimar


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,692 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,111 ✭✭✭Akabusi


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,543 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,967 ✭✭✭ebbsy


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,409 ✭✭✭✭gimli2112


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,543 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,692 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 508 ✭✭✭Scott Tenorman


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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,264 ✭✭✭✭citytillidie


    Why comparing a game like rugby to football?

    ******



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,543 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭Benimar


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,025 ✭✭✭duffman13


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,508 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,033 ✭✭✭✭Richard Hillman


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,191 ✭✭✭✭Shanotheslayer


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,508 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,002 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,543 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,002 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,543 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,447 ✭✭✭kerplun k


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,692 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,002 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,626 ✭✭✭theoneeyedman


    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.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,002 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,543 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,002 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,543 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,559 ✭✭✭celt262


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,191 ✭✭✭✭Shanotheslayer


    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 :)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,692 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,709 ✭✭✭✭Cantona's Collars


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

    Only strikers with small feet will be picked in future.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,002 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,508 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,002 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,002 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,508 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,002 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    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)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,264 ✭✭✭✭citytillidie


    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

    ******



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,692 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,191 ✭✭✭✭Shanotheslayer


    Not sure how accurate but a view of Salah situation


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


  • Advertisement
Advertisement