You have focused all on the negatives here. Were the offside checks not good in the Confed cup? Do you have a problem with goal line technology already implemented? At minimum does VAR used in these situations increase fairness in the game without slowing down the game? I think so. There does not necessarily have to be that many big decisions in a game to warrant the use of VAR but either way I would rather wait an extra 30 seconds or a minute at the game a few times than to feel cheated and go home angry by the ref influencing the decision against my team.
VAR is not implemented perfectly or to a great standard yet, but there are suggestions as to ways in which it can. VAR doesn't have to be implemented the way you see which clearly would slow down the game or bring in adverts nor is it in it's greatest form during the Confed cup. If you read my above posts there are many points there that you would've failed to address.
1. I don't really think you can argue that the off-side check part of VAR is detrimental, just like goal line tech. it's more a black and white situation. Only thing you need the refs to do here is raise the flag a bit later if they think it's offside to allow the play to develop somewhat if it ends in a goal - and the players just have to adapt to play to the whistle which they should already be doing.
2. There are already pretty lengthy stoppages that take well over 15-30 seconds in the game such as ref calling a penalty, some freekick/corner situations, a red card situation, an injury or a goal being scored + ensuing celebration. Now broadcasters if they wanted to could already play adverts during these stoppages. If VAR was bought in I reckon it is highly illogical that ads would be played because everyone will want to focus on and watch the replays leading up to a VAR decision - just like everyone watching replays of a goal being scored or of a penalty incident - there is literally no difference.
3. So for example a penalty is called or the ball goes out of play after a penalty incident, the players start to surround the ref - here the VAR should already be looking at reviews of the situation and if he is able to come up with a definite decision within 30sec - 1min during the stoppage then it's all good no? If it can't be worked out, stick with the on-field ref's original call. Currently, refs sometimes already consult with the linesman on some of these decisions which already produces further stoppage time - so it already isn't much different to consulting a VAR. There should be a dialogue and this should be audible to the fans at the game (which would perhaps help them be engaged during the stoppage, while looking at replays on the big screen) and on TV. To minimise stoppages but maintain fairness/integrity, the on field referee should be allowed to stop the game to check something if the ball isn't out of play ONLY if he is unsure about a penalty decision i.e. obstructed view.
4. There will still be debate over VAR penalty/foul type decisions. So what? Sometimes the ref on field is guessing because he had an obscured view and only saw it once, other times the ref could've missed something entirely. VAR can relieve refs of some pressure to make these calls, which could have a positive impact on their mindset and performance (refs themselves have hinted at this). I would rather get it looked at in multiple angles that have an unsure ref guessing a decision or missing a key decision. It still improves the integrity of the game but you can still have a moan/debate about decisions it if that's what people want. It will still be a judgement call by a human and errors can still happen but most likely it will be a more well-educated call. What it should do is eliminate howlers which at the end of the day makes the game fairer and better for everyone.
5. For example a player like Fellaini elbows one of our players off the ball without being seen by an official on field - our player is concussed and needs to be substituted. Are you happy to accept Fellaini to continue the game with no punishment while we have had to sub off a starting 11 player? The VAR could've spotted it immediately and notified the ref. Whether a red/yellow/foul was issued and the ensuing debate about what was the correct punishment, at least the incident was spotted. At that point most people would be happy to go with the decision of the VAR - it should be like an extra ref with another set of eyes that can view things from multiple angles and more than once.
6. Mistaken identity - self explanatory e.g. how can you send the wrong guy off or book someone twice but let him stay on the pitch. Kills the integrity of the game and makes it a farce. VAR in theory should be able to sort these things out with minimal stoppages or none at all. I'm pretty sure there was a very long stoppage where the ref couldn't identify which of AOC and Gibbs I think it was, was the culprit of a red card. VAR in this situation would've in fact decreased the stoppage time.
I don't feel like I'm looking at it with rose-tinted glasses when I say Liverpool get fucked over more often than not by referee decisions (even Klopp complained about the number of offside calls against us during the season for example) and that VAR will benefit us. I really don't care if people find Mourinho moaning about ref decisions funny - it will still occur anyway with or without VAR. I would rather have a fairer game, if decisions that went for us were overturned by VAR then that's absolutely fine because that is fair. But when they go against us for example, would you rather be denied a title after almost 30 years of not winning it by poor ref decisions that influenced it against us that could've been corrected, or moan over having to wait an extra few minutes during a game? If it's the latter then that's pretty disappointing.
It would be far easier to be in a pub and discuss this. You want point for point arguments.
Were the offside checks not good in the Confed cup? No, not entirely.
Do you have a problem with goal line technology already implemented? No.
At minimum does VAR used in these situations increase fairness in the game without slowing down the game? I think so. -- I don't.
1. I don't really think you can argue that the off-side check part of VAR is detrimental, just like goal line tech. it's more a black and white situation. Only thing you need the refs to do here is raise the flag a bit later if they think it's offside to allow the play to develop somewhat if it ends in a goal - and the players just have to adapt to play to the whistle which they should already be doing.There was an offsides call that the VAR ref in the Con Fed Cup that said was offsides. It was
very marginal at best. A player leaning ahead, which you could only see in slow motion. Now this becomes a judgmental call which other VAR Refs might not have given and a linesman wouldn't. The play was stopped for 2-3 minutes, not 30 seconds. Further the time added on did not reflect the time of stoppages for VAR review in ANY Con Fed match. You want fairness, well clock management is also part of fairness.
I also want to know, how is VAR going to help on a counter attack where the linesman flags for offsides, the Ref blows the whistle, and there's a free kick to the defending team. Oh but wait..VAR said the player was onsides. Happened against Chile when their player was in their own half, he sprinted for the ball--offsides was called, no VAR review.
Where is the fairness in that? How do you recreate a counter attacking situation for the attacking team when VAR says onsides?
2. There are already pretty lengthy stoppages that take well over 15-30 seconds in the game such as ref calling a penalty, some freekick/corner situations, a red card situation, an injury or a goal being scored + ensuing celebration. Now broadcasters if they wanted to could already play adverts during these stoppages. If VAR was bought in I reckon it is highly illogical that ads would be played because everyone will want to focus on and watch the replays leading up to a VAR decision - just like everyone watching replays of a goal being scored or of a penalty incident - there is literally no difference.You're young. In America broadcaster did have adverts during the run of play in situations like throw-ins, surrounding of Refs, etc. And then they would came back 30 seconds later-- and show a replay of a goal just scored. They took a beating over it from people watching on tv. It finally stopped after a campaign to advertisers by supporters.
Now you don't see a problem with it.
There are running adverts popping into the screen now in other leagues. Along the crawl at the bottom or a split screen.
This will be a continuing trend to outright advert without seeing the match.
And advertisers will want a minimum of advert per half. After all they are paying the big bucks. So if there are no VAR decisions for a half, how do the tv companies get the adverts in? because they will.
It's all about conditioning the lab rats. You will be conditioned.
3. So for example a penalty is called or the ball goes out of play after a penalty incident, the players start to surround the ref - here the VAR should already be looking at reviews of the situation and if he is able to come up with a definite decision within 30sec - 1min during the stoppage then it's all good no? If it can't be worked out, stick with the on-field ref's original call. Currently, refs sometimes already consult with the linesman on some of these decisions which already produces further stoppage time - so it already isn't much different to consulting a VAR. There should be a dialogue and this should be audible to the fans at the game (which would perhaps help them be engaged during the stoppage, while looking at replays on the big screen) and on TV. To minimise stoppages but maintain fairness/integrity, the on field referee should be allowed to stop the game to check something if the ball isn't out of play ONLY if he is unsure about a penalty decision i.e. obstructed view.
The argument of letting the crowd in the stadium hear what is going on and show replays of the incident, is the last thing the FA will do.
Many matches are heated affairs. Do you REALLY think showing an incident, the Ref not changing his mind,
will not incite the crowd even more? Especially when one set of supporters feels they were wronged? I take it your for perimeter fencing to come back so there are no pitch invasions or someone wanting to get at a Ref or linesman?
4. There will still be debate over VAR penalty/foul type decisions. So what? Sometimes the ref on field is guessing because he had an obscured view and only saw it once, other times the ref could've missed something entirely. VAR can relieve refs of some pressure to make these calls, which could have a positive impact on their mindset and performance (refs themselves have hinted at this). I would rather get it looked at in multiple angles that have an unsure ref guessing a decision or missing a key decision. It still improves the integrity of the game but you can still have a moan/debate about decisions it if that's what people want. It will still be a judgement call by a human and errors can still happen but most likely it will be a more well-educated call. What it should do is eliminate howlers which at the end of the day makes the game fairer and better for everyone.
5. For example a player like Fellaini elbows one of our players off the ball without being seen by an official on field - our player is concussed and needs to be substituted. Are you happy to accept Fellaini to continue the game with no punishment while we have had to sub off a starting 11 player? The VAR could've spotted it immediately and notified the ref. Whether a red/yellow/foul was issued and the ensuing debate about what was the correct punishment, at least the incident was spotted. At that point most people would be happy to go with the decision of the VAR - it should be like an extra ref with another set of eyes that can view things from multiple angles and more than once.You must live in some sort of bubble at home watching the match.
It makes no difference why VAR is used, you just use the penalty incident as an example. There will be loads of different actual chances for VAR. Because we will be told we need to get things right. Penalties are but one type. VAR will be expanded to Red card incidents as well. What about second yellows which could mean a red? Ball goes over the goal line, Ref says goal kick, VAR shows corner, let's stop things to get it right as the attacking team should get the "fair" call.
So now you'll have multiple things for the VAR to check. And by Fowler if the VAR doesn't flag something you watching at home thinks he should or those in the crowd think he should---it could lead to problems when there's an appearance of bias.
Ah but VAR won't be perfect, so put your hand down in the back.
As for incidents the Ref didn't see, like your Fellaini one. There are retrospective reviews of all matches. So there is a chance a player will be found to be guilty after the fact. Happens every season. BUT only if the incident isn't seen by the ref. If the ref or linesman sees it and does not caution the player during the match, then there isn't retrospective punishment.
Now let's try VAR on these. LFOL. How long do you think a stoppage in play will need to be because someone tells the VAR ref in the out of control booth, we've got a camera angle on something that happened behind the play. It may be 3-4-5 minutes after the fact. So lets run with the VAR calls it and asks the Ref to look. He goes over looks at the incident, asks the 4th official if he saw it and asks the linesman if he saw anything..one or both said they saw it and they tell the ref it was 6 of one-- half dozen of the other because this has been going on all match between the two of them. And you
expect a Red card to come because you've seen the incident, the commentators are going nuts watching the replays ( and you want those in the ground to see this as well remember), then the Ref comes back and says play on-- no call. Good fcuking luck with that.
6. Mistaken identity - self explanatory e.g. how can you send the wrong guy off or book someone twice but let him stay on the pitch. Kills the integrity of the game and makes it a farce. VAR in theory should be able to sort these things out with minimal stoppages or none at all. I'm pretty sure there was a very long stoppage where the ref couldn't identify which of AOC and Gibbs I think it was, was the culprit of a red card. VAR in this situation would've in fact decreased the stoppage time.There's already a remedy for mistaken identity now. And some players have had their Red card rescinded.
I don't feel like I'm looking at it with rose-tinted glasses when I say Liverpool get fucked over more often than not by referee decisions (even Klopp complained about the number of offside calls against us during the season for example) and that VAR will benefit us. I really don't care if people find Mourinho moaning about ref decisions funny - it will still occur anyway with or without VAR. I would rather have a fairer game, if decisions that went for us were overturned by VAR then that's absolutely fine because that is fair. But when they go against us for example, would you rather be denied a title after almost 30 years of not winning it by poor ref decisions that influenced it against us that could've been corrected, or moan over having to wait an extra few minutes during a game? If it's the latter then that's pretty disappointing.Where you and others run afoul of VAR is that you are expecting perfect results every time. Football, as officiated by the Ref and his assistants, isn't always fair. Nor will it be with VAR because of the human element. What one VAR official think is review-able doesn't mean all VAR officials will. Not to mention VAR reviews will take time. And really won't solve the worlds problems when the Ref doesn't change his call when those tv land thinks he should. Supporters will still feel aggrieved when they think VAR calls went against them. In that respect, the more things change--the more they stay the same. Only now, there's adverts during the match..