Topic: VAR! Video Assistant Referee & Shite Referees in General

[lessthanmatt]

I would introduce it slowly. I'm not sure it's even worth it for penalties or red cards. I would start with offsides, and maybe leave it at that too. They're more or less a black-or-white call and so I think there's a scope for technology there (it would have to be some advanced shit but I imagine it's possible, given the single criteria of players in front of a certain line when the ball is kicked). It would probably never be "instant" like goal-line technology, but might be done with a small delay. Stuff like "interfering with play or not" complicates matters, adding a grey area to the black-or-white call that technology could likely never account for.

[Barneylfc∗]

Chelsea should have had two pens tonight, imho. Ref gave none, VAR sided with the ref.

Now had the Ref given both, VAR would still have sided with the ref.

VAR only solves blatant wrong calls. As we'll see over the course of a season, those are fewer than many think. Estimates are 2% of calls will be over turned.

Do we need all this hassle for 2% of calls?

That's only your opinion. My opinion is the ref got all the calls correct, VAR or not. As you say, VAR is there to give clear and obvious calls. Yet here you are declaring it a waste of time and money because of 1 contentious call, and a blatant dive by Morata.

Then we get into the issue of slowing matches down. Time added on for VAR revues. And I 1000% guarantee you and everyone else within the next 10 years we'll see adverts during the match once VAR is instituted. This will make for longer matches. Some matches may go longer than 2 hours. Those going to the match will exeprience even greater transport issues ( missing last train as an example).

2 hours  You're just talking shite now. Missing trains etc? Fuck sake wise up lad.

[Barneylfc∗]

I am a bit confused, and the past page hasn't sunk in yet. Can someone please confirm to me, so if  the linesman puts up the flag, it will be the referee to decide whether to continue the play and then come back later if it is a wrong call?!
Or does the referee stop the play on seeing the linesman's flag.

You're confused because people are talking nonsense. It's the refs decision whether he stops play. Nothing has changed in that regard. Absolutely nothing. A linesman putting his flag up does not mean the ref has to stop the play. That is and always has been the case.
Only in the case where a goal is scored will the VAR look at it and tell the ref whether it was right or wrong to let it go.

[Barneylfc∗]

Offsides doesn't even work.

I remember earlier this season when Salah was ruled off sides and he was in our own half when the ball was played. Explain how VAR would correct that?

There are other incidents where the attacker is way outside the 18 yard box because the defence is playing a high line and the attacker is onside.

The Leicester call was easier because their player was in the box and shot straight away and scored. Sure that one was easier. But equality in calls for offsides decisions VAR can't--won't correct in all cases, imho.

If Salah goes on to score, the VAR can then tell the ref his decision to allow play to continue is correct.

What do you mean about defenders playing a high line? VAR isn't restricted to within 30 yards of the goal line, so I don't know what point you are trying to make? Creating an argument for arguments sake I suspect.

[Barneylfc∗]

Refs will start deferring to VAR rather make a decision themselves, if they're unsure if a tackle in the box was a pen they'll refer to the VAR. this will defo slow the game down. Also where will it stop, soon it'll be used for all sorts, as soon as VAR helps one team but isn't used for an incorrect decision for another people will demand it's used for everything. The tv companies will start insisting on it being used more in return for more money.

Have you any examples where other leagues have ads during VAR? Don't come back with NFL or Rugby or Cricket or any other sport, they're irrelevant.
Clearly you don't understand how VAR works. The ref doesn't, and according to the rules, can't ask VAR to get involved. The ref makes a call on the pitch, then the VAR intercepts if that is a blatantly wrong call.

[Carra-ton]

You're confused because people are talking nonsense. It's the refs decision whether he stops play. Nothing has changed in that regard. Absolutely nothing. A linesman putting his flag up does not mean the ref has to stop the play. That is and always has been the case.
Only in the case where a goal is scored will the VAR look at it and tell the ref whether it was right or wrong to let it go.

Thanks a ton.

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

Aside form whether it is a good idea or not, 2 things that definitely aren't helping are pundits missing the whole point of VAR and getting it wrong and players / coaches drawing screens with their hands.

If one of the unintended consequences of this is players trying to get the ref to review an incident (which shows that they don't fully understand it) then it either needs to be fucked off straight away or instant yellows for players attempting to force a review. I think that we end up with the game we deserve, and if steps aren't taken to nip this in the bud then we will deserve the TV gestures, just as we deserve dissent, holding on corners, surrounding refs etc.

[clinical]

Why don't they do it like they do in tennis? The captain gets two goes at VAR a match. If he's wrong twice they lose it.

Surely it would be much better. To be honest I thought that's how it was going to work.

The ref thinks it's a dive. Captain disagrees he challenges it. Surely that is so simple?

[Barneylfc∗]

Aside form whether it is a good idea or not, 2 things that definitely aren't helping are pundits missing the whole point of VAR and getting it wrong and players / coaches drawing screens with their hands.

If one of the unintended consequences of this is players trying to get the ref to review an incident (which shows that they don't fully understand it) then it either needs to be fucked off straight away or instant yellows for players attempting to force a review. I think that we end up with the game we deserve, and if steps aren't taken to nip this in the bud then we will deserve the TV gestures, just as we deserve dissent, holding on corners, surrounding refs etc.

Yeah, a lot of the confusion will stem from the moronic pundits as we seen last night.
Players doing that gesture should definitely be treated the same as the card gesture.

[Barneylfc∗]

Why don't they do it like they do in tennis? The captain gets two goes at VAR a match. If he's wrong twice they lose it.

Surely it would be much better. To be honest I thought that's how it was going to work.

The ref thinks it's a dive. Captain disagrees he challenges it. Surely that is so simple?

I think the problem with that is that it's out of the refs hands for a review. As a retired ref admitted, they are intimidated by certain players and managers

[clinical]

I think the problem with that is that it's out of the refs hands for a review. As a retired ref admitted, they are intimidated by certain players and managers

Surely that's the whole point. Well for me it is. The ref gave a decision, the likely hood is he isn't going to change his mind. What happens if the ref doesn't want to go to VAR but the decision is clearly wrong, like last night. Chelsea captain could have used 1 of their reviews and the decision would have been overturned.

I hate all the hand gestures by players, but if the captain can use the VAR he should be able to ask the ref to review it. It's the only way it works imo. Refs being scared should have nothing to do with it. The captain and the captain only has the power to ask for a review. It stops the whole thing.

[TheShanklyGates]

Surely that's the whole point. Well for me it is. The ref gave a decision, the likely hood is he isn't going to change his mind. What happens if the ref doesn't want to go to VAR but the decision is clearly wrong, like last night. Chelsea captain could have used 1 of their reviews and the decision would have been overturned.

Was it? I don't know what I'm missing here but it looked like a dive to me.

[clinical]

Was it? I don't know what I'm missing here but it looked like a dive to me.

Come off it. If that was Bobby you'd have been screaming for a penalty. My point is it is should be used as a challenge system only, not everytime the ref is unsure.

Anyway I'm a huge supporter of VAR in tennis cricket and hockey. But it's how it's implemented. It won't work how they are doing it now.

[TheShanklyGates]

Come off it. If that was Bobby you'd have been screaming for a penalty. My point is it is should be used as a challenge system only, not everytime the ref is unsure.

The point is though that it's subjective and VAR won't, nor is it intended to, overturn the referee's decision unless it's obvious beyond any reasonable doubt that he has made a mistake.

And I hate the idea of a challenge system, it would be abused relentlessly by the Mourinhos of this world to disrupt the game.

[clinical]

The point is though that it's subjective and VAR won't, nor is it intended to, overturn the referee's decision unless it's obvious beyond any reasonable doubt that he has made a mistake.

And I hate the idea of a challenge system, it would be abused relentlessly by the Mourinhos of this world to disrupt the game.

That's why the captain only can do it and they have a maximum number of times they can use it. They'd get a lot less penalties at old trafford that's for sure.

[TheShanklyGates]

That's why the captain only can do it and they have a maximum number of times they can use it. They'd get a lot less penalties at old trafford that's for sure.

But what's to stop the manager telling his captain, either during the game or beforehand, to frivolously challenge a decision to temporarily relieve pressure on his team, for example? Would the challenges only be allowed for the same instances that VAR is being used at the moment or would they be able to challenge any free kick, booking, throw-in etc.? I just hate the idea of teams being able to turn challenging the refereeing of a game into a tactical ploy. It's bad enough as it is with players from certain teams constantly getting in the face of the referee.

[clinical]

But what's to stop the manager telling his captain, either during the game or beforehand, to frivolously challenge a decision to temporarily relieve pressure on his team, for example? Would the challenges only be allowed for the same instances that VAR is being used at the moment or would they be able to challenge any free kick, booking, throw-in etc.? I just hate the idea of teams being able to turn challenging the refereeing of a game into a tactical ploy. It's bad enough as it is with players from certain teams constantly getting in the face of the referee.

I think it should be limited to goals, penalties and straight red cards. Because I do agree with you about what people like Mourinho would do.

Just like in cricket, you can't go hmm think that was a no ball, challenge.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

I would start with offsides, and maybe leave it at that too.

Agreed. This has always been my mindset with regards to technology in football. Goal-line and offside decisions, absolutely fine; they're clear decisions which nobody can dispute. They can also be very difficult for referees and assistant referees to get right.

technology used for decisions beyond those two scenarios is potentially creating a minefield and putting far too much pressure on referees. By all means have someone in the background to correct howlers (Doucoure's handball for example) but otherwise leave it be.

[TheShanklyGates]

I think it should be limited to goals, penalties and straight red cards.

Just like in cricket, you can't go hmm think that was a no ball, challenge.

I don't really follow cricket so I have no idea how it works there but I think the system in rugby, where it is at the referee's discretion as to whether to consult the video ref and the players then accept whatever decision is reached, works well. I just think refereeing of the game should be left to the referees and the players should stick to playing. Furthermore, having a challenge system could still allow bad decisions to slip through the net - say a goal is incorrectly ruled out for offside and a team has used all their challenges, or chooses not to use a challenge for fear of wasting it. Under a challenge system the incorrect decision would stand but with VAR as it currently is it would be correctly overturned.

Isn't the whole point of VAR to reduce instances of mistakes slipping through? You're far more likely to do that if the system is in the hands of the referees rather than the players.

And besides, you only have to listen to muppets like Shearer to know half the players don't even have a clue what the rules are...

[stevensr123]

I in mixed minds over VAR, mainly because it changes sports so much any time it gets involved. NRL for example, it shits me to tears when you have to cheer twice because pretty much every try goes through it now because the ref doesn't want to be scrutinised.

I wish they implemented it more like tennis, where it has a lot less impact. Each captain gets 2/3 chances to look back at a decision. and maybe invest in technology that can automatically detect if a player is offside in relation to the ball.

[stevensr123]

I don't really follow cricket so I have no idea how it works there but I think the system in rugby, where it is at the referee's discretion as to whether to consult the video ref and the players then accept whatever decision is reached, works well. I just think refereeing of the game should be left to the referees and the players should stick to playing. Furthermore, having a challenge system could still allow bad decisions to slip through the net - say a goal is incorrectly ruled out for offside and a team has used all their challenges, or chooses not to use a challenge for fear of wasting it. Under a challenge system the incorrect decision would stand but with VAR as it currently is it would be correctly overturned.

Isn't the whole point of VAR to reduce instances of mistakes slipping through? You're far more likely to do that if the system is in the hands of the referees rather than the players.

And besides, you only have to listen to muppets like Shearer to know half the players don't even have a clue what the rules are...

My problem with the way rugby has implemented it (in Australia), is the fact refs are now too scared to just give try's. so now pretty much every try goes through to the VAR, no matter how obvious it is. And I see that happening here as well down the line.

[TheShanklyGates]

My problem with the way rugby has implemented it (in Australia), is the fact refs are now too scared to just give try's. so now pretty much every try goes through to the VAR, no matter how obvious it is. And I see that happening here as well down the line.

I was under the impression that all goals were already being reviewed in football? It's just in the majority of cases you won't notice it because it's cleared up in a few seconds while everyone celebrates.

[oldfordie]

I think it should be limited to goals, penalties and straight red cards. Because I do agree with you about what people like Mourinho would do.

Just like in cricket, you can't go hmm think that was a no ball, challenge.

VAR is about trying to eliminate human error not changing opinions.if the refs had a clear view of the incident and he thinks it's not a pen then thats the only opinion that matters.
VAR should be about reviewing a incident which is impossible to decide in real time. it should only be used for offsides and balls going out of play for this reason,i suppose a argument could be made for hand balls but coaches challenges should never happen, the only opinion that matters is the refs.

[stevensr123]

I was under the impression that all goals were already being reviewed in football? It's just in the majority of cases you won't notice it because it's cleared up in a few seconds while everyone celebrates.

not sure about over here but in the NRL it goes the "bunker" if the ref wants to get a second opinion. but because the ref these days are too scared, they pretty much go the bunker all the time now.

[MNAA]

VAR is an improvement over what is in place prior to VAR which is nothing. What it needs is a clear and consistent guidance on application and implementation. Over time things will improve

Areas that priority should be given for VAR - goals that are actually offsides, red card offense, penalty decisions (foul or no foul, dive or no dive, handball or no handball), disputed goals (incorporate goal line technology) and disputed fouls given (to cut down the Hazard-like simulation that we so often these days

[Barneylfc∗]

What happens if the ref doesn't want to go to VAR but the decision is clearly wrong, like last night. Chelsea captain could have used 1 of their reviews and the decision would have been overturned.

Only 2 of the decisions last night are debatable. My opinion is he got both of them right. William was looking for the penalty, and Morata dived. Other people disagree.
VAR will only intervene on clear and obvious errors, which none of them were, so VAR did not intervene.
As I understand it, and I think it's quite clear, the ref does not ask for a review. The VAR contacts the ref and tells him whether he made the right decision, or the wrong decision. In these instances, as in the case with the Leicester goal, the ref can either accept what the VAR says, or go to the pitchside monitor.

In the case of the Pedro one - had the ref gave a penalty, the VAR would have contacted the ref and told him there was no contact and Pedro clearly and obviously dived. The ref then would either accept that and reverse his decision, or go to the monitor to see for himself then reverse it.

[WisconsinRed]

Have you any examples where other leagues have ads during VAR? Don't come back with NFL or Rugby or Cricket or any other sport, they're irrelevant.
Clearly you don't understand how VAR works. The ref doesn't, and according to the rules, can't ask VAR to get involved. The ref makes a call on the pitch, then the VAR intercepts if that is a blatantly wrong call.

I think you're being naive, the tv companies will be all over this. It'll ruin the game eventually.

[oldfordie]

I think you're being naive, the tv companies will be all over this. It'll ruin the game eventually.

How? what do you think the TV companies will do.

[MNAA]

William was looking for the penalty, and Morata dived. 
In the case of the Pedro one - and Pedro clearly and obviously dived

VAR over time will root out these behaviors. Attackers bouncing off defenders, toppling over looking for penalties or free-kicks in dangerous positions

[WisconsinRed]

How? what do you think the TV companies will do.

Give more money for a certain amount of var stoppages?

[oldfordie]

Give more money for a certain amount of var stoppages?

I assume you mean the TV companies want these stoppages so they can go to advertisements and make more money?
If thats what you mean your saying Refs will call VAR replays when their not needed, thats not going to happen. Has Sky ever gone to advertisements for a break of play for injuries etc.  ive never known it. it's obvious some of these injuries will stop play far longer than any VAR so if the intention is to make more money from more stoppages then why don't they go to advertisements when a player gets injured.

[Skeeve]

How? what do you think the TV companies will do.

He seems to be making the massive leap that because the NFL games might show an advert during a review that automatically means that football will do the same thing, conveniently ignoring the fact that NFL games show adverts whenever possible unlike football.

The most likely change will be that you will get VAR review sponsored by ... banner on the screen while the commentators whitter on about the issue in the cases where the ref goes and looks at it himself.

[oldfordie]

He seems to be making the massive leap that because the NFL games might show an advert during a review that automatically means that football will do the same thing, conveniently ignoring the fact that NFL games show adverts whenever possible unlike football.

The most likely change will be that you will get VAR review sponsored by ... banner on the screen while the commentators whitter on about the issue in the cases where the ref goes and looks at it himself.

Yeah they also advertise while the football game is being played, it's just a different culture.

[clinical]

Only 2 of the decisions last night are debatable. My opinion is he got both of them right. William was looking for the penalty, and Morata dived. Other people disagree.
VAR will only intervene on clear and obvious errors, which none of them were, so VAR did not intervene.
As I understand it, and I think it's quite clear, the ref does not ask for a review. The VAR contacts the ref and tells him whether he made the right decision, or the wrong decision. In these instances, as in the case with the Leicester goal, the ref can either accept what the VAR says, or go to the pitchside monitor.

In the case of the Pedro one - had the ref gave a penalty, the VAR would have contacted the ref and told him there was no contact and Pedro clearly and obviously dived. The ref then would either accept that and reverse his decision, or go to the monitor to see for himself then reverse it.

I thought the ref has to ask for VAR assistance?

[TheShanklyGates]

I thought the ref has to ask for VAR assistance?

Nope, he doesn't have to. He can ask if he's unsure, but if he's confident in his decision he then he won't.

The VAR does review each and every goal, penalty decision and red card decision however and will talk to the referee without being asked if they feel he has made a clear mistake.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b09p2v7d/the-fa-cup-201718-thirdround-replay-chelsea-v-norwich-city

Lineker does an interview with Mike Riley explaining how it all works, starts at 14.35 on that video.

[classycarra]

Why did people think that someone watching replays during a match would automatically improve things?

Did they not notice how the FA already struggle with taking retrospective action, even after the benefit of a week to gather evidence/camera angles/data to decide. People are being blinded by the word technology, and think it equates to progress

[Miltonred]

You're confused because people are talking nonsense. It's the refs decision whether he stops play. Nothing has changed in that regard. Absolutely nothing. A linesman putting his flag up does not mean the ref has to stop the play. That is and always has been the case.
Only in the case where a goal is scored will the VAR look at it and tell the ref whether it was right or wrong to let it go.

I love the fact that you are relying on the idea that the current approach to VAR will be religiously adhered to in perpetuity.


Have you any idea at the richness of that fucking irony!!   

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

If Salah goes on to score, the VAR can then tell the ref his decision to allow play to continue is correct.

Salah won’t have the opportunity to score because the whistle will go as soon as the flag goes up.

Refs are no more liable to ignore the linesman now than they were previously. It’s just not going to happen.

[Upinsmoke]

I don't think it's ready yet.

You've still got the whole issue of a guy in a van not having a fucking clue either.

My issue is what if your 20 yards out and through on goal but get flagged offside wrongly and don't take the shot. Or what if your flagged offside the keeper see's the lino put his flag up so doesn't bother saving it and the striker puts it away. Then it's reviewed and he was onside? But the keeper gave up because he saw the flag go Up, which way does that go.

On pens you've still got the issue of both the ref and var guy getting it wrong.

[stevensr123]

So in terms of how its been performing as of right now, how to people judge it? I thought the game yesterday was terrible (at chelsea).

The media response, the way the players acted, the way offside is implemented etc it was all a poor show.

they need to make it as basic as possible, and then over time look into implementing other stuff. its certainly not ready for the league I think.


and in terms of advertising etc I think its bound to fucking happen. people mention footballl has a different culture etc but footballing culture has already changed and continues to change, clubs are advertising on the training grouts, stadiums, sleeves, shirt sponsors etc

the higher wages and transfer fees go up, the more money they will try and squeeze from every avenue. (they have already milked fans enough)