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

[PhaseOfPlay]

Another reason why it will probably create new codes of the game. This ex-ref is suggesting that in Scotland, games that are televised could use VAR - which implies that games that aren't on telly, wouldn't have to:

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42504610

"There's a massive game, Hearts versus Hibs covered live by a national broadcaster, television evidence there. Why do we not bring in another official to sit in the stand or sit in a lorry outside and look at the evidence that is there?

"And we have also got another game coming up on Saturday [Celtic v Rangers] where it's going to be broadcast live again, so we're not asking to put additional cost into it - we're actually using the evidence that is there for us."

If VAR is implemented internationally, only the big leagues will probably have access to it. Even in Scotland, some games aren't televised. So if they can't afford VAR in every Scottish Premier League game, then it really creates two different versions of the rules - one which is te traditional one we know now, and one that includes the use of a video ref. It changes the dynamics of the game.

The FIFA laws will almost be as big as the NFL rulebook!

[redtel]

Another reason why it will probably create new codes of the game. This ex-ref is suggesting that in Scotland, games that are televised could use VAR - which implies that games that aren't on telly, wouldn't have to:

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42504610

If VAR is implemented internationally, only the big leagues will probably have access to it. Even in Scotland, some games aren't televised. So if they can't afford VAR in every Scottish Premier League game, then it really creates two different versions of the rules - one which is te traditional one we know now, and one that includes the use of a video ref. It changes the dynamics of the game.

The FIFA laws will almost be as big as the NFL rulebook!

Spot on, there will be two codes as there are in other sports that have used VAR for years. Tennis, Rugby League, Cricket, even Track and Road Cycling officials use TV after races to sort out any transgressions if TV is present.

Untelevised evens won't have this additional look at rule breaking but I see VAR as helping referees get their percentage of correct decisions up by 1 or 2 %. It's already in the 90's but nothing is worse than millions knowing the ref has it wrong and there's no way of helping him out.

Some stadiums around the world show replays on the big screen so that means even the players know there's been a mistake made and the coach on the bench starts complaining.

As long as everyone realises that VAR won't correct every wrong decision as sometimes it's still not clear.

[Peabee]

Another reason why it will probably create new codes of the game. This ex-ref is suggesting that in Scotland, games that are televised could use VAR - which implies that games that aren't on telly, wouldn't have to:

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42504610

If VAR is implemented internationally, only the big leagues will probably have access to it. Even in Scotland, some games aren't televised. So if they can't afford VAR in every Scottish Premier League game, then it really creates two different versions of the rules - one which is te traditional one we know now, and one that includes the use of a video ref. It changes the dynamics of the game.

The FIFA laws will almost be as big as the NFL rulebook!

But this statement says nothing about games that aren’t televised. 

[PhaseOfPlay]

But this statement says nothing about games that aren’t televised.

He's talking about no additional cost. So if the cameras aren't already present, that means there would be no VAR unless the clubs actually pay for it, which they can't. So, by implication, games that aren't televised won't have VAR, games that are, will. Within the same division. Which means one set of rules for one set of games, and another set of rules for another set of games. It would be like having the back pass in some games, and not others.

[afc tukrish]

He's talking about no additional cost. So if the cameras aren't already present, that means there would be no VAR unless the clubs actually pay for it, which they can't. So, by implication, games that aren't televised won't have VAR, games that are, will. Within the same division. Which means one set of rules for one set of games, and another set of rules for another set of games. It would be like having the back pass in some games, and not others.

Interesting point, and one with which I agree.

But I couldn't help but think, is the quality of refereeing uniform in all matches already?

Does the FA give certain matches to "higher quality" referees?

If not, they've already established that there is not a uniform standard.

It's not so much that the rules will be different, but the rulings, rather...

[PhaseOfPlay]

Interesting point, and one with which I agree.

But I couldn't help but think, is the quality of refereeing uniform in all matches already?

Does the FA give certain matches to "higher quality" referees?

If not, they've already established that there is not a uniform standard.

It's not so much that the rules will be different, but the rulings, rather...

But also the rules, because one will have to be written to allow the ref to consult VAR when available, because it constitutes a delay to the game

[Bjinxi]

Having seen the VAR in the Bundesliga so far I can say that I am not a huge fan of it.

At first I was happy but the way it is done is ridiculous, especially when you are in the stadium and don't know whats going on.

It would be far better if the teams had two challenges per game and can use them whenever they feel like because right now its up to the goodwill of the referee if he wants to check it or not and this varies every game as there is no strict rule or way of dealing with these things...

It has created more troubles as it helped as some of the decisions still seemed wrong although they were reviewed several times.

I like the premier league as it is even if there are mistakes... But if there was a strict set of rules and a way of handling all the stuff then I'd be welcoming it.

[LanceLink!!!!!]

First competitive English game to have VAR tonight. Brighton v Bournemouth in the FA Cup.

[Lfsea]

First competitive English game to have VAR tonight. Brighton v Bournemouth in the FA Cup.

I appreciate there isn't necessarily a good time to start anything like this as it'll always be awkward, but it seems a little odd to me that Brighton and Bournemouth potentially get the benefit of it, but the other 31 matches in round 3, don't benefit from it. It feels like its impact has the potential to be far greater in a cup competition where it's all or nothing, that it would in a league game where its ripple would be smaller.

[PhaseOfPlay]

As I said, it's going to create two sets of rules now.

I wonder if anything controversial happens tonight, will any other teams from this round who suffered from a controversial incidents this weekend, ask for replays, or hint that this might be a future possibility? Because it really doesn't seem fair to the other teams to not have had the "benefit" of VAR in their games.

[LanceLink!!!!!]

[classycarra]

As I said, it's going to create two sets of rules now.

I wonder if anything controversial happens tonight, will any other teams from this round who suffered from a controversial incidents this weekend, ask for replays, or hint that this might be a future possibility? Because it really doesn't seem fair to the other teams to not have had the "benefit" of VAR in their games.

Hope that happens

Unfortunately what's more likely is it'll either not be used at all or will be used to confirm something the ref already saw and called - at which point people who don't see the big picture will proclaim it a success and march the bandwagon further on

[TheFuturesRed]

I was at an A-League game last month and I saw first hand how it shouldn't be used... To overrule a ref's decision. It also ruins the flow of the game apart from anything.

Basically what happened was 2 Central Coast Mariners players got sent off because their yellow's got upgraded to red because the VAR deemed the ref's decision to be too lenient. The first probably was a straight red but the second guy didn't even touch the oppo player. What ever happened to the Ref's decision being final?

This is the story anyway.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-17/var-killing-football-for-fans-says-incensed-okon/9266350

Something similar happened the week before.

Also in this article, the VAR team and Ref were relieved of their duties!
https://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/article/2017/12/19/mariners-have-no-avenue-appeal-var-red-cards

[sinnermichael]

The problem is the punishments aren't equal. As it is, you're better off diving and getting punished by VAR (yellow card) than getting away with it and being retrospectively punished (2 game ban).

[swoopy]

Sky & BT both absolutely desperate to be the first to show an incident where the decision is made by VAR

BT mentioned it at every oportunity on Monday Night

Sky mentioned it loads tonight as well, and now showing replays of the 'incident' that was reviewed by VAR but no change was made (in other words, a non-event as the referee's on-the-field deision wasn't changed)... but still needs to be mentioned loads of time

Hilarious

[Caligula?]

Yeah, I realize the need for new technology but VAR is a mess. It seemed like Atkinson was unsure of every bigger incident tonight and consulted the VAR just to be on the safe side. Referees are just going to go to it instead of making their minds up themselves only so they won't be in the line of fire after the match, and it's going to result in tons of unecessary stoppages.

Also, does the referee have to ask the refs on VAR in order for an incident to be revisited or do they tell him themselves without him asking?

[Libertine]

Yeah, I realize the need for new technology but VAR is a mess. It seemed like Atkinson was unsure of every bigger incident tonight and consulted the VAR just to be on the safe side. Referees are just going to go to it instead of making their minds up themselves only so they won't be in the line of fire after the match, and it's going to result in tons of unecessary stoppages.

Which is exactly what's happened with rugby - refs take every opportunity to clarify any decision with the least doubt.

Entirely predictable that football will follow suit.

[Kashinoda]

Yeah, I realize the need for new technology but VAR is a mess. It seemed like Atkinson was unsure of every bigger incident tonight and consulted the VAR just to be on the safe side. Referees are just going to go to it instead of making their minds up themselves only so they won't be in the line of fire after the match, and it's going to result in tons of unecessary stoppages.

Also, does the referee have to ask the refs on VAR in order for an incident to be revisited or do they tell him themselves without him asking?

Refs don't get to consult with VAR do they? VAR simply intervenes if they see something.


Who decides when the VAR gets involved?

The VAR only. A referee can’t say, ‘I’m unsure, help me’ if they are in doubt. They have to make their decision first and if the VAR wants to get involved, they can.

[Caligula?]

Refs don't get to consult with VAR do they? VAR simply intervenes if they see something.

Doesn't that umdermine his authority though?

[Kashinoda]

Doesn't that undermine his authority though?

They intervene if they feel they've seen something, advise the referee and he can decide what to do. Either agree, refer to the video panel or disagree.

There's a lot refs could miss or be unsighted by, it doesn't undermine them. And he can't refer anything to VAR, so VAR will only ever intervene for valid reasons.

Not sure what the issue is with it at all.

[Jake]

VAR sucks, fuck VAR. Part of the game is the ref making decisions.

[Caligula?]

They intervene if they feel they've seen something, advise the referee and he can decide what to do. Either agree, refer to the video panel or disagree.

There's a lot refs could miss or be unsighted by, it doesn't undermine them. And he can't refer anything to VAR, so VAR will only ever intervene for valid reasons.

Not sure what the issue is with it at all.

If that's the case, then so be it.

However I've still no idea why tonight there were a number of stoppages in play when Atkinson was discussing something with the VAR, only to then not change his initial decision in the slightest bit. If VAR intervenes only for valid reasons and the referee can't refer to them, what were they even discussing if no decision was changed?

[PhaseOfPlay]

The game is a player's game.

More subs on the bench and more subs available makes it a coaches game

More refs on and off the field makes it a refs game

More television power makes it a TV game

We always have to be careful of the impact of major "admin" changes to the game and how it affects the flow of the game for the players.

[Kashinoda]

If that's the case, then so be it.

However I've still no idea why tonight there were a number of stoppages in play when Atkinson was discussing something with the VAR, only to then not change his initial decision in the slightest bit. If VAR intervenes only for valid reasons and the referee can't refer to them, what were they even discussing if no decision was changed?

I didn't watch the game but I expect some teething issues? Big game, on the TV, Atkinson probably losing his head a bit.

Needs to bed in a lot.

[Kashinoda]

The game is a player's game.

More subs on the bench and more subs available makes it a coaches game

More refs on and off the field makes it a refs game

More television power makes it a TV game

We always have to be careful of the impact of major "admin" changes to the game and how it affects the flow of the game for the players.

Flow is a key point.

But VAR can only intervene before play resumes, not after. The game doesn't wait for VAR to make a decision, most of the time you're looking at big calls - goals, red cards, pens. Time where flow is indeed altered anyway.

[Kwaideng]

The game is a player's game.

More subs on the bench and more subs available makes it a coaches game

More refs on and off the field makes it a refs game

More television power makes it a TV game

 

More Mourinho  makes is a c*nt's game.

[PhaseOfPlay]

More Mourinho  makes is a c*nt's game.

True dat!

[TepidT2O]

It’s been atrocious so far...

It’s added nothing;g and only taken away form the game.

Far worse than I expected to be honest.

[keano7]

It’s got a lot more flaws than it does positives. The Fabregas non-pen tonight took about 3 minutes to sort out. Welbeck won the ball fair and square in real time yet we needed 15 replays from sky until Atkinson said “carry on”.

I think it should be used but only in the background I.e. to double check any potentially controversial goals scored and for incidents where a punch has been thrown or a really bad tackle which has been missed by the ref.

Yes, penalty decisions are debatable but it should be the referees call only otherwise it’s going to take 3 minutes every incident to clear up.

[BER]

I think it's presence alone is going to cut out a lot of diving and shithouse tackles from happening in the first place.

Those penalty shouts that people debate for days are another matter though.

[Alan_X]

It would be far better if the teams had two challenges per game and can use them whenever they feel like because right now its up to the goodwill of the referee if he wants to check it or not and this varies every game as there is no strict rule or way of dealing with these things...

That's an awful idea and makes the whole thing meaningless. It's either there to ensure all decisions are correct or it becomes tactical and liable to be misused. VAR is either instantaneous (like goal line technology) or used for retrospective punishment to deter diving etc.

Football is a fluid game and there's a fundamental problem that some incidents result in a dead ball and can be reviewed without interrupting the flow of the game while some don't.

1. An offside is not called and a 'goal' is scored but on review it can be disallowed. The decision is reversed with no impact.
2. An offside is called incorrectly when the forward is in a clear goal scoring position. The review shows that the call was wrong - does the ref give a penalty? The decision has been reversed but you can't 're-set' the game.

Is the manager allowed to use his challenge to stop play in the second case? Do you abandon linesmen in VAR games and just let every 'offside' go until the ball goes dead?

[Alan_X]

Flow is a key point.

But VAR can only intervene before play resumes, not after. The game doesn't wait for VAR to make a decision, most of the time you're looking at big calls - goals, red cards, pens. Time where flow is indeed altered anyway.

Conte's comment this evening:

"You have to improve and understand that when you start to use VAR you then need to add more extra time," Conte said. "When there are doubts about two situations in the game then the extra time is seven, eight or nine minutes."

Games with four or five decisions are going to have 10, 15 minutes of added time. Fucking ridiculous. Refs are going to be under pressure to use it if it's there and advertisers will love it - a handy five minutes to drop in a couple of adverts.

[Broad Spectrum]

Which is exactly what's happened with rugby - refs take every opportunity to clarify any decision with the least doubt.

Entirely predictable that football will follow suit.

Seen loads of games in serie A this season where that’s not the case.

[me76]

From the experience of Rugby League - it's a fricken nightmare. I don't watch many League games but when I do it is incredibly frustrating the time wasted going to the VR and then often the decisions aren't correct or clear anyway.   I don't think it's improved the game at all, actually the exact opposite.  Fans and coaches still complain about bad decisions - so what's different?  I'm against it.  Has to be some really really clear rules about the kinds of incidents it can be used for.  Conte is right - there will be endless endless breaks in play. 

[Kashinoda]

Conte's comment this evening:

"You have to improve and understand that when you start to use VAR you then need to add more extra time," Conte said. "When there are doubts about two situations in the game then the extra time is seven, eight or nine minutes."

Games with four or five decisions are going to have 10, 15 minutes of added time. Fucking ridiculous. Refs are going to be under pressure to use it if it's there and advertisers will love it - a handy five minutes to drop in a couple of adverts.

Doesn't that ignore all of Conte's positive comments about VAR?

The hyperbole after being used in 3 games is a crazy. How can refs be under pressure to use it when it's simply there to inform them when they've fucked up?

The frustration last night is Atkinson was using it to consult multiple decisions, that is not the intended use of VAR. It's not Rugby League. I'm not sure why he was allowed to do so, teething issues.

VAR tells you when you've fucked up, it's not their for consultation all the time.

So, for example, if Murray had clearly scored with his hand and Marriner had not spotted it, the VAR would contact him via an audio link and tell him to reverse that decision as soon as possible.

"What the referee doesn't have the option of doing is saying is 'I don't know if that was a penalty or not, I'll look at the replay'," added Elleray.

"We are requiring the referees to carry on refereeing as if there is no video assistant referee. If they make a clear and obvious error, they get told about it and I think most referees will welcome that."

And

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/what-var-how-work-whats-11814289

 

[bryanod]

Think the one that bothered me was the Fabregas non-peno. Took about 40 seconds for play to stop for a corner, surely Video ref already had seen couple replays and decided its grand, should not have needed to stop and wait for him.

Should only geet 10-15 seconds to review, if can't overturn a clear wrong decision, then decision stands as called. If need super-slo-mo and 12 angles then its not CLEAR.

Could always just stop the clock?

Introduce that and can also just stop it for too much timewasting too, be sound.

[classycarra]

How could anyone imagine VAR would be useful, even if it was actually implemented intelligently?

As it stands we have an extremely imperfect system for calling or reversing decisions over the course of several days after the match. And we have a basic, but systematic, failure to even understand the basic principles around some fundamental aspects of refereeing a game:

1) What is a handball?
2) When is a dive, following minor contact, a foul?
3) And when is it a dive?
4) And when do you give a yellow and a free kick for a  dive, when do you just ignore it?
5) Why are attackers in the box being punished by referees for trying to score by playing to the whistle?

These are just a handful of things that need to be clarified (and publicly codified with some directive or whatever). Otherwise we're just adding time, to an already diminishing spectacle (with timewasting endemic) to further ruin the sport. And showing contempt for people who attend football matches (favouring advertisers and tv spectators.

Either refs will close shop and collude with one another (see why you're referring this to VAR, and yep there's a dive there, but the ref was right so won't overturn it) or embarrassingly overrule each other constantly because even the same referee frequently calls things like handballs contrary to their previous calls (it hits his hand yes, but it was very quick and close to him vs it hits his hand and is very close to him, but i'm giving it anyway)

[Kashinoda]

Think the one that bothered me was the Fabregas non-peno. Took about 40 seconds for play to stop for a corner, surely Video ref already had seen couple replays and decided its grand, should not have needed to stop and wait for him.

The idea is play is meant to continue and VAR has until the next break in play to advise the ref if he saw something.

VAR actually has no involvement (as far as I know) in penalty decisions that haven't been awarded. Atkinson shouldn't be stopping the game to have a chat.

[iamnant]

Should only get 10-15 seconds to review, if can't overturn a clear wrong decision, then decision stands as called. If need super-slo-mo and 12 angles then its not CLEAR.

That's pretty spot on. Football isn't a sport to be stopped for lengthy periods without having to (injuries etc.) - VAR should be there to overturn obviously incorrect decisions, such as Sterling's offside goal v City in 2014, or that Burnley handball v Swansea last season (just off the top of my head).

[classycarra]

That's pretty spot on. Football isn't a sport to be stopped for lengthy periods without having to (injuries etc.) - VAR should be there to overturn obviously incorrect decisions, such as Sterling's offside goal v City in 2014, or that Burnley handball v Swansea last season (just off the top of my head).

How could it overturn sterling’s? Linesman flagged, play stopped before anything happened. Absolute best case scenario for us would be we got possession back as a drop ball