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

[Miltonred]

No.
I like getting angry, pissed off and screwed over by bad refereeing decisions. If they stopped happening, all I'd have left to talk about would be what a total cnut Mourinho is.

That and the fact that its pretty clear already that its a clusterfuck, and the slippery slope argument that we will eventually be having throw in decisions reviewed because they can be "game changing" is likely to happen.

[Chakan]

What's the point of it if the ref and assistant ref can look at the reply and still "not try ruin the game" because of reasons?

[penga]

Again..just so those in the crowd can hear doesn't effect the call one way or the other.

I'll go back to the Incident with Chile. The ref didn't call it. He still used VAR and still said no pen. Now loads thought it was a pen. How would hearing, not enough evidence to change the call,  is going to help?

There is and will always be debates on the ref got it wrong, even with VAR, .

You WILL be told to accept that even with VAR it won't be perfect. So if it isn't perfect, why implement it?

It is nothing more than a judgement call by------another Ref. Probably a Ref from the senior tour, aka, retired Ref. Not a panel of three current FIFA refs like at the ConFed Cup.

Do you seriously think Mike Riley or Graham Poll or another VAR ref will overturn a call against Man Utd? They will use their get out of jail card--not enough evidence.


But the final piece is, and this is why VAR will get introduced, is to get adverts into the game while the match is going on. This VAR review brought to you by BetFair...lol. Then a short 15-30 second advert spot, which comes back from the advert to a live --oh we now have the review answer ( even though it took 5 seconds).

Those at the match just suffer waiting for a call which has slowed the game down. A team on attack putting pressure on the opposition..VAR call..defending team catch a break, their manager tweaks his side, they refresh themselves with water, and now are fresh again physically and mentally as they not under the kosh.


And you will be told---you will be sold---this is all to do with getting the calls right. Even though it won't be perfect. It's not about the calls in the  match but increasing revenues for FA's and clubs.


As one wise old sage once said----Follow the money.

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.

[Phil M]

http://www.football-italia.net/105305/var-nightmare

[4pool]

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..

[penga]

It would be far easier to be in a pub and discuss this. You want point for point arguments.

Just to clarify - I don't think VAR will ever make a perfectly refereed match or anything close. All I'm saying is that with time and refinement, it can definitely increase the quality of refereeing by getting MORE (big) decisions correct, especially the obvious mistakes - hopefully without greatly impacting on the speed of the game - but even if it does a little bit, I and a lot of others are willing to accept that. There will still be controversies regarding when it is used and the decisions made -  but apparently that's great for some people so there will still be things for the fans to argue about. But I say so what? As long as the general quality of refereeing is increased then it is beneficial. Maybe there should be a clock of 1 minute or something like that for the amount of time that can be taken to use VAR otherwise on field ref's decision stands.

1. But what about the more blatant offside mistakes? Would you be happy to let them slide? If so agree to disagree. And could they be checked in quick time? I definitely think so, so why not? And for the most part they were at the Confed cup the legit goals that had offside VAR were checked and approved quite quickly. Would a team rather have a goal wrongly chalked off for offside not given and wait a minute to check if they got the proper decision than resume playing after a stoppage anyway (albeit shorter) for the sake of putting pressure on the opponent? I'm pretty sure they would rather the goal...

For closer calls maybe they need better technology to determine offsides and I'm happy for them to stick to the letter of the law. Once again if it the VAR is unsure, they can choose to stick ref's call just like in other sports video tech is used (or when the time runs out on a VAR clock as I suggested earlier). Also the benefit of eliminating howlers is more important than the negative controversy created by reviewing super close calls in my opinion - there is already controversy on close offside calls without VAR (and even more so when officials get it blatantly wrong) so when you look at it logically in this way, what is the difference? What is the problem?

With regards to other situations you point out with the offside called at halfway, as I said - instructing the linesman to raise their flag a bit later to see if the play continues to develop into a goal can account for most of that. Maybe it will be too difficult to stop and check every single one of those offsides (not goal related) but the impact of those is less than a blatantly offside goal that counts or vice versa for example. At the end of the day, the more game defining wrong decisions that are corrected the better.

2. If there were already ads in America for stoppages, then what does that have to do with VAR? They could already implement ads if they want to which was my point. And similarly there will be a backlash with or without VAR as a supposed reason to be able to introduce Ads. Also you speak vehemently about how it would be detrimental to match going fans. Well they don't see those ads to they? Unless they are played on the big screen which is unlikely as they would normally play replays of the incident just like the TV fans do at the moment. And god forbid they do actually implement ads then it's not the end of the world. We watch plenty of other sports where there are stoppages with ads already without huge problems or moaning, as long as they don't cut off proper replays. They would be annoying but in football they would still be few and far between. There's already ads on the whole game on the bloody sideline sign-boards no one takes notice of anyway.

3. Maybe I didn't explain it clearly but this is what happens in some other sports. The referee gives his initial call which he can't change e.g. no penalty - then the VAR can say into his mic or put the decision up on the big screen to either to confirm no penalty or overrule to a penalty if he is sure of the decision within the allocated time he has to make it and then  cannot be overruled by the on-field ref, or he says ref's call (if he can't determine it assuredly) at which point the ref's initial decision stands. Whether it's mic'd up or not I don't really care but it gives more clarity to the fans.

Also you failed to address that there are already stoppages in play for penalties, goals, etc. Why would it be impossible to come to a decision within those time-frames or at worse with an extra 30 seconds once the process if refined?

4. Yes VAR won't be perfect but again it will get more decisions correct. It doesn't have to be implemented to allow them to check every type of decision so for now you can restrict it to offsides, penalties, red card decisions. For the card decisions VAR should be used less and it should be more up to the discretion of the referee so they must take that into account. The few situations I think it should be used is for example when someone clearly gets wrongly sent off on field ref thinks a player lunged in 2 footed illegal challenge (by the laws of the game) but in actual fact didn't on replay or vice versa. So the silent VAR ref could notify the ref and correct the situation. There would be a stoppage here again anyway from players surrounding the ref to appeal with or without VAR.

5. The FA has an archaic and shit system. Firstly, if the incident was spotted and refereed correctly on the field, they could be punished immediately to the benefit of the team that just got their player knocked out/injured. You can most likely get no benefit from the player being suspended after your game - in fact if the player is from a smaller team for example e.g. Benteke but then is banned for the next 3 games against City, Chelsea, Spurs or something and cannot positively affect those games then there is no benefit to the team he offended against.

Secondly, although a different argument altogether that retrospective ban shit is actual bullshit - the ref can see the incident but incorrectly rule on it, then the player can get a way with it. In other professional leagues when these type of incidences occur there is a tribunal or panel to make these decisions - if the ref sees it they can put it on report for more awareness and even if they don't the panel/tribunal is still allowed to view video evidence of the incident and hand out punishment. Then they have a set of guidelines to grade the offence and games to be missed such as whether the action was deemed accidental, careless, intentional and on the other side they have the impact of that action - low, medium, high, severe etc and this will be based on reports from neutral medical staff and things like whether the player was able to continue the game and even testifying/giving evidence. This is how it should work and would also start to eliminate snide play like elbows/stamps as more people could get banned. Not this ref saw it or didn't nonsense.

[rafathegaffa83]

It's not perfect, but in the grand scheme of things, it would improve the majority of decisions which cost clubs millions. I'm thinking of things like offside goals, which are supposed to even themselves over the course of the season. Imagine a scenario, if a club missed out on staying up by a point, because in mid-October, they lost a game due to a late offside goal.

[CrasherKid79]

It's not perfect, but in the grand scheme of things, it would improve the majority of decisions which cost clubs millions. I'm thinking of things like offside goals, which are supposed to even themselves over the course of the season. Imagine a scenario, if a club missed out on staying up by a point, because in mid-October, they lost a game due to a late offside goal.

If a club is relegated it's due to bad performance over a whole season, not an offside goal in October.
That's why League position over the course of a whole season is considered the best marker of where a club is at.

Has always been the case.

[KissThisGuy]

If a club is relegated it's due to bad performance over a whole season, not an offside goal in October.
That's why League position over the course of a whole season is considered the best marker of where a club is at.

Has always been the case.

I'm unsure whether or not VAR would work or not, and I haven't seen the recent trial in the ConFed Cup. I also agree that relegation is deserved if you finish in the bottom three if you finish in the bottom 3 after 38 games. Hypothetically speaking though, if a team that finished 18th was denied a blatant penalty in the 93rd minute against the team that finished 17th and they subsequently conceded the winner from the counter attack I think they can feel rightly aggrieved. In that situation it is a 6 point swing. If they missed out on safety by 5 points or fewer I'd say that was a pivotal moment in their season, because although they have been poor over the entirety of the 38 games the same can be said of the team in 17th.

[CrasherKid79]

I'm unsure whether or not VAR would work or not, and I haven't seen the recent trial in the ConFed Cup. I also agree that relegation is deserved if you finish in the bottom three if you finish in the bottom 3 after 38 games. Hypothetically speaking though, if a team that finished 18th was denied a blatant penalty in the 93rd minute against the team that finished 17th and they subsequently conceded the winner from the counter attack I think they can feel rightly aggrieved. In that situation it is a 6 point swing. If they missed out on safety by 5 points or fewer I'd say that was a pivotal moment in their season, because although they have been poor over the entirety of the 38 games the same can be said of the team in 17th.

It's the old joke about how Warnock held Sheffield Uniteds relegation against Liverpool due to a (Fowler or Gerrard, fuck my memory is bad) dive for a penalty at the start of the season.

What about the other 37 games you cock nose prick?

I've stated on various forums about how VAR doesn't work in Rugby League. Again a game last night was on Sky where a wrong decision was made regarding a try. It doesn't resolve anything if the VAR officials are as incompetent as the officials on the pitch.

Incorrect decisions will still be made. They certainly don't only take 30 seconds either. They tend to view them from multiple angles several times. Sometimes taking several minutes. This will lead to some games lasting well over 100 minutes if we keep the existing 45 minute halves or, more worryingly the idea I've heard banded about, reducing to 30 minute halves with clock stopping every time the ball goes out.

Personally, I think the game is facing so many problems already. I'm finding some of the theatrics involved so bad that it's putting me off watching anyone but the reds. the next few world cups are write offs due to the ridiculous unfair FIFA selection of the hosts. International football is in jeopardy due to lack of interest. Money rich clubs with no tradition becoming huge forces etc etc.

The more stability that can exist, the better.

[4pool]

Just to clarify -

Not arsed mate.

I've answered your questions before. This is nothing more than what you posted before. No sense rehashing the same stuff.

There are a myriad of "exceptions"  during the run of play that will need to be reviewed if you have your way. You're not arsed because you expect this will help. You focus on "blatant" off sides but those are few and far between. You only want a review when a goal happens..was it , or was it not offsides. This can be done during the goal celebration. Whoopeee do. You forget the 20 other "offsides" during the run of play that should be looked at. This can't happen in the time frames you think.

Anyway i'm really not arsed because what you want posting in here has fcuk all to do with what the officials of the game may or may not decide. Just like my postings on it mean fcuk all.

However, in my little humble opinion I'll be more right than you 20 years from now when step by step the game is eroded-- to get calls right. We'll have time to debate it during the adverts in the middle of the match. Those in the stadium might have just enough time to run to the toilet and get back. And some will be wanting the good old days back when matches lasted 90 minutes and were done in less than 2 hours.

[4pool]

Penga..

I'll ask you this.

Man Utd v Liverpool at Old Trafford.

United have the ball in our half. Hendo wins it in midfield, takes off on the run up field. Mane is on the go down the right, Firmino down the middle, Coutinho in space down the left. United have three defenders back. Hendo swings a pass out right for Mane to run on to 25 yards from goal...he's behind their man getting to the ball...Linesman has the flag up for offsides. Mane hears the whistle , stops, and United retrieve the ball. They put it in play, 45 seconds later they swing a ball into the box and it's headed in. VAR ref determines Mane was on side. Tight call but the video does show Mane was on sides as we watch on the telly. Do we get the ball back? If so where? Under what conditions? Do we get a chance at a 3v3 before the rest of the players can join in or do United get to bring everyone back to defend?   Does the United goal count? Where's the fairness in it if it does count because we had  3 v 3 but our "chance" to score was taken away by the linesman. There's no guarantee United would even have got the ball back in the next 45 seconds while we were on attack ( unless we scored ).

[Rush 82]

Penga..

I'll ask you this.

Man Utd v Liverpool at Old Trafford.

United have the ball in our half. Hendo wins it in midfield, takes off on the run up field. Mane is on the go down the right, Firmino down the middle, Coutinho in space down the left. United have three defenders back. Hendo swings a pass out right for Mane to run on to 25 yards from goal...he's behind their man getting to the ball...Linesman has the flag up for offsides. Mane hears the whistle , stops, and United retrieve the ball. They put it in play, 45 seconds later they swing a ball into the box and it's headed in. VAR ref determines Mane was on side. Tight call but the video does show Mane was on sides as we watch on the telly. Do we get the ball back? If so where? Under what conditions? Do we get a chance at a 3v3 before the rest of the players can join in or do United get to bring everyone back to defend?   Does the United goal count? Where's the fairness in it if it does count because we had  3 v 3 but our "chance" to score was taken away by the linesman. There's no guarantee United would even have got the ball back in the next 45 seconds while we were on attack ( unless we scored ).

We get it. You don't like VAR.

[classycarra]

We get it. You don't like VAR.

And he's coming up with good examples to explain why, and to challenge those in favour to come up with a good guiding principle for VAR in those situations. That's a good thing. Shoot down his arguments, if you disagree, but don't just shoot him down for no reason

[Rush 82]

And he's coming up with good examples to explain why, and to challenge those in favour to come up with a good guiding principle for VAR in those situations. That's a good thing. Shoot down his arguments, if you disagree, but don't just shoot him down for no reason

Didn't think I shot him down but anyhoo

4pool is using 'edge' cases to justify not using a tool that patently increases the opportunity to get better onfield/in-game decisions. The reality is that bad decisions will still be made - even with VAR - however, VAR will rectify enough of the current poor decisions that we see week in and week out to justify its adoption (in my opinion).

The other argument around it being the thin edge of the wedge for advertising can't be refuted or supported since it hasn't happened yet - and if it does, I'll be at the forefront of online protests to the advertisers.

VAR is not, and will not, be the tool to rule out ALL bad decisions - how can it be when you still have humans with all their foibles making the actual decisions.

[Rush 82]

Penga..

I'll ask you this.

Man Utd v Liverpool at Old Trafford.

United have the ball in our half. Hendo wins it in midfield, takes off on the run up field. Mane is on the go down the right, Firmino down the middle, Coutinho in space down the left. United have three defenders back. Hendo swings a pass out right for Mane to run on to 25 yards from goal...he's behind their man getting to the ball...Linesman has the flag up for offsides. Mane hears the whistle , stops, and United retrieve the ball. They put it in play, 45 seconds later they swing a ball into the box and it's headed in. VAR ref determines Mane was on side. Tight call but the video does show Mane was on sides as we watch on the telly. Do we get the ball back? If so where? Under what conditions? Do we get a chance at a 3v3 before the rest of the players can join in or do United get to bring everyone back to defend?   Does the United goal count? Where's the fairness in it if it does count because we had  3 v 3 but our "chance" to score was taken away by the linesman. There's no guarantee United would even have got the ball back in the next 45 seconds while we were on attack ( unless we scored ).

The protocol laid down should be:

If lino flag goes up, ref does not blow whistle, allow play to continue until VAR confirms in his ear that the call is correct.

Players play to the whistle not the lino's flag.

It's no different from current where the flag goes up, the player doesn't hear the whistle, scores, celebrates and is crestfallen when he sees the dreaded flag.

Your entire scenario post the flag above is a huge 'what if, then what' which is simply a strawman that you're happily putting up in order to knock down again.

[4pool]

The protocol laid down should be:

If lino flag goes up, ref does not blow whistle, allow play to continue until VAR confirms in his ear that the call is correct.

Players play to the whistle not the lino's flag.

It's no different from current where the flag goes up, the player doesn't hear the whistle, scores, celebrates and is crestfallen when he sees the dreaded flag.

Your entire scenario post the flag above is a huge 'what if, then what' which is simply a strawman that you're happily putting up in order to knock down again.

Strawman has nothing to do with it. Because should VAR come about, the officials will need to decide what is and what isn't review able. What scenarios. When to stop play. And they will go through exercises like the one I bring up.

So...

Don't you think it will become silly and a farce to play to the whistle while the VAR ref has a look at every offsides call? In which case, why even flag for one, just let the run of play happen.

But let's go back to my scenario above. Linesman flags Mane for offsides, Ref does not immediately blow the whistle per your interpretation. In your explanation  when the flag is raised this triggers the VAR ref to instantly review. If it is a tight call as I suggested, then the VAR ref is going to look at multiple angles probably multiple times. Just like those at home see during a stoppage in play. This takes 15-30 seconds. Not 5.

As a team defending you're wondering where the hell is the whistle, you saw the flag raised. In the mean time, as there's been no whistle and playing on, we are attacking as Mane gets to the ball, he has a touch and sends it far post to Coutinho who has beaten their man. Flag goes up again because the linesman thinks Phil is off sides. A VAR will ultimately show Phil to be offsides but the VAR ref is still reviewing the first one on Mane. Because we're playing to the whistle, Phil brings the ball down and shoots far post. It hits the post and rebounds out. Firmino wins the ball back. Passes it back to Hendo, who moves it to Gini. Gine loses the ball and United gain possession. They go on attack and have the ball down the side. Ref blows the whistle...Everyone stops and looks bemused. What the hell did the ref blow the whistle for.

Those in the ground saw the flag go up and are screaming Mane was off sides. Play went on. Then another flag for Phil being off sides. Play goes on. Cue more screams from United supporters at the linesman and Ref. Eventually the ref gets a buzz in his ear and blows up.

I'll suggest those attending will think it's a farce that it took so long. I'll suggest even those at home or the pub will think the whole thing is a farce as well.

But there is VAR to correct the blatant calls blown. Of which there are maybe 5 per season. Because I am going to contend that the VAR ref , who is an ex-ref, is not going to over turn "close-ish" calls against his fellow refs and linesman. Many of which he had worked with. He will side with them and their training. He will understand how they made the call in the first place.


Lets take a look at a potential Penalty. Strawman again.  Ref says no. VAR says yes. Who has final say? Ref reviews the replay and still in his mind thinks the contact wasn't enough. VAR claims it was. Cue calls that VAR doesn't work.  And i won't even get into the VAR ref buzzing the Ref to have a look and how long that takes, what was going on at the time on the pitch, which side benefits from the ability to regroup due to the ref blowing up, and the crowd getting upset the match was stopped for nothing as the Ref doesn't change his mind after viewing the incident again. Farce comes to mind..

[Rush 82]

Strawman has nothing to do with it. Because should VAR come about, the officials will need to decide what is and what isn't review able. What scenarios. When to stop play. And they will go through exercises like the one I bring up.

So...

Don't you think it will become silly and a farce to play to the whistle while the VAR ref has a look at every offsides call? In which case, why even flag for one, just let the run of play happen.

But let's go back to my scenario above. Linesman flags Mane for offsides, Ref does not immediately blow the whistle per your interpretation. In your explanation  when the flag is raised this triggers the VAR ref to instantly review. If it is a tight call as I suggested, then the VAR ref is going to look at multiple angles probably multiple times. Just like those at home see during a stoppage in play. This takes 15-30 seconds. Not 5.

As a team defending you're wondering where the hell is the whistle, you saw the flag raised. In the mean time, as there's been no whistle and playing on, we are attacking as Mane gets to the ball, he has a touch and sends it far post to Coutinho who has beaten their man. Flag goes up again because the linesman thinks Phil is off sides. A VAR will ultimately show Phil to be offsides but the VAR ref is still reviewing the first one on Mane. Because we're playing to the whistle, Phil brings the ball down and shoots far post. It hits the post and rebounds out. Firmino wins the ball back. Passes it back to Hendo, who moves it to Gini. Gine loses the ball and United gain possession. They go on attack and have the ball down the side. Ref blows the whistle...Everyone stops and looks bemused. What the hell did the ref blow the whistle for.

Those in the ground saw the flag go up and are screaming Mane was off sides. Play went on. Then another flag for Phil being off sides. Play goes on. Cue more screams from United supporters at the linesman and Ref. Eventually the ref gets a buzz in his ear and blows up.

I'll suggest those attending will think it's a farce that it took so long. I'll suggest even those at home or the pub will think the whole thing is a farce as well.

But there is VAR to correct the blatant calls blown. Of which there are maybe 5 per season. Because I am going to contend that the VAR ref , who is an ex-ref, is not going to over turn "close-ish" calls against his fellow refs and linesman. Many of which he had worked with. He will side with them and their training. He will understand how they made the call in the first place.


Lets take a look at a potential Penalty. Strawman again.  Ref says no. VAR says yes. Who has final say? Ref reviews the replay and still in his mind thinks the contact wasn't enough. VAR claims it was. Cue calls that VAR doesn't work.  And i won't even get into the VAR ref buzzing the Ref to have a look and how long that takes, what was going on at the time on the pitch, which side benefits from the ability to regroup due to the ref blowing up, and the crowd getting upset the match was stopped for nothing as the Ref doesn't change his mind after viewing the incident again. Farce comes to mind..

I'm happy to agree to disagree.  Nowt wrong with having opposing views with respect to VAR.

Cheers man.

[Sarge]

I voted unsure as its not perfected yet but in time I feel they'll get it right but for now it needs fixing.

[CrasherKid79]

I voted unsure as its not perfected yet but in time I feel they'll get it right but for now it needs fixing.

Come on man .... no room for fence sitters !! 

[4pool]

I'm happy to agree to disagree.  Nowt wrong with having opposing views with respect to VAR.

Cheers man.

I appreciate that.

But as you watch matches, keep in mind your version...

[penga]

Penga..

I'll ask you this.

Man Utd v Liverpool at Old Trafford.

United have the ball in our half. Hendo wins it in midfield, takes off on the run up field. Mane is on the go down the right, Firmino down the middle, Coutinho in space down the left. United have three defenders back. Hendo swings a pass out right for Mane to run on to 25 yards from goal...he's behind their man getting to the ball...Linesman has the flag up for offsides. Mane hears the whistle , stops, and United retrieve the ball. They put it in play, 45 seconds later they swing a ball into the box and it's headed in. VAR ref determines Mane was on side. Tight call but the video does show Mane was on sides as we watch on the telly. Do we get the ball back? If so where? Under what conditions? Do we get a chance at a 3v3 before the rest of the players can join in or do United get to bring everyone back to defend?   Does the United goal count? Where's the fairness in it if it does count because we had  3 v 3 but our "chance" to score was taken away by the linesman. There's no guarantee United would even have got the ball back in the next 45 seconds while we were on attack ( unless we scored ).

Didn't think I shot him down but anyhoo

4pool is using 'edge' cases to justify not using a tool that patently increases the opportunity to get better onfield/in-game decisions. The reality is that bad decisions will still be made - even with VAR - however, VAR will rectify enough of the current poor decisions that we see week in and week out to justify its adoption (in my opinion).

The other argument around it being the thin edge of the wedge for advertising can't be refuted or supported since it hasn't happened yet - and if it does, I'll be at the forefront of online protests to the advertisers.

VAR is not, and will not, be the tool to rule out ALL bad decisions - how can it be when you still have humans with all their foibles making the actual decisions.

Agree with Rush 82 here, he explains it fairly well. If you read my above long post, as I said, VAR doesn't have to be used in every situation (and won't) - only to get more decisions correct in a game and once again avoid howlers - because howlers are usually huge game changing actions. You don't seem to understand a wrongly given or chalked off goal is a huge action in the context of a game compared to say a free kick for being offside.

Furthermore I explained already in my above post which you skipped - to remedy most situations, all the linesman needs to do is raise his flag late or the ref flow his whistle late and let the play continue to see if a goal is scored or not within that play. For situations that can't be remedied by this just stick with in lineman's call like normal, nothing was affected too much it's a free kick as opposed to an incorrect offside ruling that resulted in a goal. If you concede a goal soon after that wrongly given free kick then tough luck - the team had a chance to at least set up and defend normally - which would've happened anyway without VAR!!! So in the end because everyone can see highlights of the game without VAR - well guess what - THERE WILL STILL BE CONTROVERSY -  because the people will see that he was wrongly given offside at 45 seconds led to a goal down the other end!!! That is the point - You are in no way increasing the controversy just by using VAR if it is used correctly unless you are being somewhat irrational.

It's actually really not hard to tell if someone is offside or not via video replay, very few incidents are where the players look exactly level and as I said if they were the linesman call can stand as I explained once again in my earlier post. Actual blatant offsides that you can tell by the current video replays are quite abundant - Man Utd got over 5 of them in quick succession last season. Let me ask you this, were you happy to accept the offside Valencia crossing the ball in that eventually resulted in Ibra's goal against us last season? I certainly wasn't, we played much better than them, didn't let them have any big chances and got ripped off by an offside/illegal play that could've been corrected.

Here I will give you several examples - some are grainy youtubes but mostly blatant enough and if they weren't so blatant most of these were verified as offsides on the shows like skysports and stuff because I saw them:

Mancs just this season...https://www.footballfancast.com/social-media/twitter/man-united-boast-incredibly-fortunate-stat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRYQ8MRI8j8 EFL cup final against Man Utd gabbiadini onside would've been 1-0 up in that game instead of 0-2 down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSc1AIV5o1U The one against us for Man Utf, harder to tell on grainy youtube video, easy to tell with HD and the imaginary line drawn across the field. And even Gary the Manc saying he is offside in the commentary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thOFho4Lm4k Man Utd even in the Europa League
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak_JLrPFQKk Man Utd wait a minute not 1 but 2 against the same team??!?!

But wait there's more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gf2esnLYgo A top 10 compilation including you guessed it another 2 blatant ones from Man Utd this season 2:00 ibra at it again and 2:30 nice scorpion kick from Henrik Also includes one of us getting shafted yet again (previous season) sigh at 1:00...

Another one against us shock horror (Man utd vs Liverpool previous season)...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BqeeYt2DRc

But cool don't worry about VAR, just keep letting these things happen.

It's also not worthy to solve decisions like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEbCYARM-lM

And let's not forget the farce that was Bayern vs Real this season
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ei-dc_l1zw

I'm sure Atletico fans are very happy no VAR as well losing their 2nd CL final to their bitter rival on penalties after drawing 1-1 with that illegal goal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkpF4AzbcsU

[4pool]

Wish i didn't respond....

You don't get it. And apparently never will.

[penga]

Wish i didn't respond....

You don't get it. And apparently never will.

And neither do you. Your arguments don't make a lot of sense and after my longish rebuttal you had no comeback - what I wrote in the longer post with the 6 points was different and explained better to counter your points and instead you ignore it and try to pick out some rare examples of where VAR would be difficult to use. So let me break it down for you.

- As I've already admitted there will still be "unfair" moments using VAR and human error can still occurs.
- You tried to give some example - it was rebutted with a solution and you had no response, instead some snide remark.
- I don't see the problem in the controversy it creates because that controversy will exist regardless of whether VAR is used is the point - in your offside example if VAR was in play a rational person would be able to see this.
- VAR will be used to get MORE decisions correct, especially blatant ones - not used for ALL decisions as you seem to suggest. You are hinting the only way it's "fair" is to use it for all decisions which simply won't happen and isn't necessarily true. At the end of the day this is still a good thing because it can increase the quality of refereeing a match.
- Given you a shitload of examples where VAR could've very easily been used to reverse blatant incorrect decisions in quick time but you have never once admitted any benefit to that for some strange reason. I can at least admit some flaws to VAR - but my opinion is overall it will be beneficial to refereeing the game which is where we differ in opinion.
- You keep harping on about borderline offside calls that would be hard to distinguish via VAR, I rebutted that with actual evidence - there are so many calls that could be quite easily made by VAR on offsides - but once again the evidence is ignored.

You also seem to be very willing to accept the blatant injustices and seem to keep dodging the topic. So giving you the hypothetical question on the positive side of VAR - if Liverpool were unjustly ruled out a goal or something to win the title that could've been corrected by VAR you would be happy to accept it? Just like the insanely skewed number of times we have gotten bad decisions against a certain Man Utd. OK strange...

[4pool]

Look, pay attention.

You focus on getting the few offside goals per season corrected for fairness.


At no point do you acknowledge that ALL offside calls will need to be reviewed. Not just those where a goal that will be called back. Just like goal line technology would be the only use of technology, now VAR should be used for off sides calls where a goal is wrongly scored and only that. It doesn't stop at that and that is the point you spectacularly miss or gloss over.

Golf is a simple game with few rules. Yet the "Decisions on the Rules" is as thick as anything. The same will happen with VAR. People think it will be a simple thing.  It won't because there are always, what about this, why not this, etc. The Laws of the game are simple as well. Very few of them. Yet interpretation varies. The same will happen with VAR. Injustice will still be there.

Wayne Rooney does one of his over the ball tackles, no card. VAR ref buzzes the ref and says it looks bad to me. Ref reviews and tells the VAR ref he got the ball, that's what I saw, so no card. All the time the game has been stopped, for nothing. Arguing ensues in the stands and on line--just like now.

If fairness is to be used, then how about all the calls that --oh he was on sides and the linesman got it wrong--be called? Attacking teams should not be punished for bad calls.

Once the flag goes up, the ref blows up, attacking team has lost their attack and defensive team has a free kick.

Waiting X number of seconds before the ref blows for a correct decision of off sides is absurd and unworkable. The VAR ref will have to wait for the control booth to rewind the play and show him multiple angles of a potential off sides. It won't take a second or two. How long does the Ref need to wait and let play continue? Now see the absurdness of it. Do they play 10-15 seconds or more? Absurd and a farce.

An example for you..top of the 18 yard  box, Coutinho to Firmino, reverse pass back to Phil--Flag goes up. Right now ref blows the whistle, he doesn't wait. If the new rules are the Ref waits for the VAR== Phil was going away from goal towards the corner, shot not on. I guarantee you whomever we are playing is screaming for the Ref to blow up. Whether Phil was off sides or not, it becomes a farce as play continues, defenders aren't sure, managers are screaming, crowd is screaming and then 15 seconds or more later either the Ref waves play on or he blows the whistle. Maybe the call is off sides, the VAR ref sides with the linesman. We are then treated to the situation via replay as the free kick is taken and it's tight, could have been called on sides but we've lost the advantage. No different to now except the farce of everyone waiting on the VAR.



Then there are Red card situations. How many times, oh that was a Red and the ref didn't even give him a card. And you expect the VAR ref to over rule the Ref on the pitch.  A VAR ref who probably helped train the one on the pitch or trained with him.

Second yellow cards. Same as above.

Then there are cards for foul play behind the refs back that he misses.

The use of technology won't stop at just certain things..

And then you do acknowledge that things won't be perfect, the system won't always work, and human error ( VAR official may or may not use replays where he should).

In other words, shit happens just like now without VAR. So why use it just to get a few things right when most things won't be corrected?

Instead of any rebuttal, save it. Just watch the game and try to envision your version of how things will work. And then maybe "some" reality will hit. It's unworkable because it won't be limited. Others within the game will want more "fairness" if we're going to have VAR. You will be over ruled.

Better yet, go down to your local park or some local match. And play VAR ref on your own with a camera.

Before you do, start here like Carragher and Neville did:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5h7yts

Instead of being an internet warrior over the subject put real use into action. You'll soon find out how unworkable it is. Especially the Ref waiting on the VAR for off sides calls. As an ex-Ref..youth match level...get back to us with your report on effectiveness after trying it, not arguing about it. Ta.

[penga]

Look, pay attention.

You focus on getting the few offside goals per season corrected for fairness.


At no point do you acknowledge that ALL offside calls will need to be reviewed. Not just those where a goal that will be called back. Just like goal line technology would be the only use of technology, now VAR should be used for off sides calls where a goal is wrongly scored and only that. It doesn't stop at that and that is the point you spectacularly miss or gloss over.

Golf is a simple game with few rules. Yet the "Decisions on the Rules" is as thick as anything. The same will happen with VAR. People think it will be a simple thing.  It won't because there are always, what about this, why not this, etc. The Laws of the game are simple as well. Very few of them. Yet interpretation varies. The same will happen with VAR. Injustice will still be there.

Wayne Rooney does one of his over the ball tackles, no card. VAR ref buzzes the ref and says it looks bad to me. Ref reviews and tells the VAR ref he got the ball, that's what I saw, so no card. All the time the game has been stopped, for nothing. Arguing ensues in the stands and on line--just like now.

If fairness is to be used, then how about all the calls that --oh he was on sides and the linesman got it wrong--be called? Attacking teams should not be punished for bad calls.

Once the flag goes up, the ref blows up, attacking team has lost their attack and defensive team has a free kick.

Waiting X number of seconds before the ref blows for a correct decision of off sides is absurd and unworkable. The VAR ref will have to wait for the control booth to rewind the play and show him multiple angles of a potential off sides. It won't take a second or two. How long does the Ref need to wait and let play continue? Now see the absurdness of it. Do they play 10-15 seconds or more? Absurd and a farce.

An example for you..top of the 18 yard  box, Coutinho to Firmino, reverse pass back to Phil--Flag goes up. Right now ref blows the whistle, he doesn't wait. If the new rules are the Ref waits for the VAR== Phil was going away from goal towards the corner, shot not on. I guarantee you whomever we are playing is screaming for the Ref to blow up. Whether Phil was off sides or not, it becomes a farce as play continues, defenders aren't sure, managers are screaming, crowd is screaming and then 15 seconds or more later either the Ref waves play on or he blows the whistle. Maybe the call is off sides, the VAR ref sides with the linesman. We are then treated to the situation via replay as the free kick is taken and it's tight, could have been called on sides but we've lost the advantage. No different to now except the farce of everyone waiting on the VAR.



Then there are Red card situations. How many times, oh that was a Red and the ref didn't even give him a card. And you expect the VAR ref to over rule the Ref on the pitch.  A VAR ref who probably helped train the one on the pitch or trained with him.

Second yellow cards. Same as above.

Then there are cards for foul play behind the refs back that he misses.

The use of technology won't stop at just certain things..

And then you do acknowledge that things won't be perfect, the system won't always work, and human error ( VAR official may or may not use replays where he should).

In other words, shit happens just like now without VAR. So why use it just to get a few things right when most things won't be corrected?

Instead of any rebuttal, save it. Just watch the game and try to envision your version of how things will work. And then maybe "some" reality will hit. It's unworkable because it won't be limited. Others within the game will want more "fairness" if we're going to have VAR. You will be over ruled.

Better yet, go down to your local park or some local match. And play VAR ref on your own with a camera.

Before you do, start here like Carragher and Neville did:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5h7yts

Instead of being an internet warrior over the subject put real use into action. You'll soon find out how unworkable it is. Especially the Ref waiting on the VAR for off sides calls. As an ex-Ref..youth match level...get back to us with your report on effectiveness after trying it, not arguing about it. Ta.

Simple principle: two wrongs don't make a right, better to get one right call than none.

I already said not every offside situation needs to be checked - you keep repeating for some reason you have to check every offside. Just because blatant goal offsides are checked and others aren't doesn't make the game more unfair.  Goal situations change games much more than offside free kicks - already been said - simple logic. For your above Coutinho/Firmino situation whatever happens, the ref doesn't need to stop and check unless it's a goal situation in my opinion and that goal situation can be coaxed by blowing the the linesman raising their flag later. If the goal situation does not occur, then just continue as usual with the ref's call as if there was no VAR - what is the problem? The fans would've been able to tell that Coutinho was onside on the replays without VAR anyway...and be outraged at the ref if they want to. How is being outraged at the VAR not being used in this situation worse than getting the call wrong anyway without VAR? Furthermore the bodies in charge could let the fans know when they implement it, that only goal situations are to be reviewed by VAR or something like that if that helps appease your "outrage".

Just like in tennis for example - every out/in decision is not checked by video technology, only when the player challenges - now is that the most fair system? no, but their aren't too many complaints and it doesn't make the game more unfair than before the hawkeye challenge system was introduced.

Did you not even read what I wrote regarding red and yellow cards? Leave it up to the ref's discretion unless he tells the VAR he had an obscured view or didn't see it at which point the VAR can make the decision based on replays if it was clear as opposed to guessing. Unless the decision was so clear cut that the VAR who can be given power to control and call the decision - if they make a mistake then their position will be reviewed or receive some punishment or something. Otherwise you guessed it - ref's call! There should be no discussion between whether ref/VAR - one or the other makes a decision based on protocols that would be put in place.

Injustice will still be there (at least I can admit this) but there will be a lot less of it and less game changing ones (apparently you can't admit this even though it is so obvious). Once again you keep dodging giving an answer on the ones that clearly could be helped by VAR - you only draw up hypothetical situations where it would be difficult to use - that I countered with reasonable solutions and you kind of keep ignoring them so you're basically impossible to reason with. If you could see both sides a bit more maybe you would sound less arrogant. Mind you I'm just giving examples of how VAR could be more effectively implemented - not saying this is what they definitely would do but at the same time you seem to keep wanting to shoot down decent suggestions without arguing with much logic.

You keep talking about farces, well the decisions I see on a weekly basis as I provided with evidence above with no VAR are even more intense farces and they would be no doubt reduced with VAR used correctly. I am already outraged as are many other fans of football, we want the level of refereeing to get better and this could be the way. Also did you even listen to what the referees themselves said about VAR in the Carra/Nev video as well as the ones at the Confederations Cup? They are for it to be introduced. 44:30 - the bloody ref himself says they can quickly get correct decisions in 20-30 seconds LOL. He also outlines the challenges with VAR which is why we are having discussions as to how to best implement it - it doesn't have to be your very negatively perceived version.

[Gnurglan]

No.

Let me first say I'm for the goal line technology. What we saw in the Confed is not something I want. The reason I'm against is I'm quite familiar with this from ice hockey. Decisions often take too long and this in a start-stop sport, where people are used to breaks. Football is not like that. Also, if we take the offside rule, it appears good if we see the player was offside and the goal was not given. It's just that it's a smaller problem than we make it. Referees are extremely good at making these calls already.

We should remember that VAR is very expensive, it's not 100% fail proof and the breaks that we get are a step toward commercials during games. There are a couple of other things that could/should be tried before VAR. I don't understand why there are no tests with two main referees out on the pitch (instead of the joke with penalty area refs). It's very easy to try and it exists in other sports. The other thing is to implement an official time keeper. That's another thing that's easy to try. The only thing needed is a sign from the referee when the time should be stopped. Both of these things could be tried for a very low cost. We'd quickly get to see how breaks are handled before we look to introduce more technology.

[oojason]

Interesting scenes from the Dutch Super Cup between Feyenoord and Vitesse at the weekend...

https://twitter.com/FOXSportsnl/status/893884709826170880 or https://streamable.com/mjn48


the match-going fans seem to be have been forgotten about re this VAR introduction - they really should do as the match officials in the rugby do where the crowd and tv audience can hear and be informed of what is going on...


(Feyenoord won 4-2 on penalties - with Brad Jones saving 2 )

[The Real Rasta]

Interesting scenes from the Dutch Super Cup between Feyenoord and Vitesse at the weekend...

https://twitter.com/FOXSportsnl/status/893884709826170880 or https://streamable.com/mjn48


the match-going fans seem to be have been forgotten about re this VAR introduction - they could really do as the match officials do in the rugby where the crowd can tv audience can hear and be informed of what is going on...


(Feyenoord won 4-2 on penalties - with Brad Jones saving 2 )

Like I've always said I have no problem with VAR in theory but the implementation leaves a lot to be desired atm, yes the correct decision was made as it was a pen but this was farcical, don't want to see it anywhere near the WC in its current state.

[4pool]

The  "diving Pool"

Who is in the 13-person pool?

Former players/managers:

Nigel Adkins - former Southampton and Reading boss

Rachel Brown-Finnis - former England goalkeeper and BBC Radio 5 live pundit

Terry Butcher - former England and Ipswich defender

Lee Dixon - former Arsenal and England full-back

Alex McLeish - former Aberdeen defender and ex-Scotland manager

Danny Murphy - former Liverpool and England midfielder

Chris Powell - former Charlton and Huddersfield boss

Trevor Sinclair - former West Ham United and England winger

Former match officials:

Keren Barratt
Steve Dunn
Mike Mullarkey
Alan Wiley
Eddie Wolstenhome

[4pool]

Sorry, work got in the way before I finished.

The reason i posted the diving review panel is this.


Wait until you see which Refs or others will be the VAR official.

[oojason]

Like I've always said I have no problem with VAR in theory but the implementation leaves a lot to be desired atm, yes the correct decision was made as it was a pen but this was farcical, don't want to see it anywhere near the WC in its current state.

Completely agree - it is surprising it's been introduced already (with such little thought or a framework seemingly in place) - despite issues cropping up with it already at the Confederations Cup and other tournaments this summer...

[boots]

No. Sooner have better refs to be honest.

[oojason]

Sorry, work got in the way before I finished.

The reason i posted the diving review panel is this.


Wait until you see which Refs or others will be the VAR official.

VAR isn't being used in the Premier League this season.

[4pool]

VAR isn't being used in the Premier League this season.

No shit..

Wait until it is. First goal line technology. Now a post diving review. The use of VAR is on the horizon.  We must get the calls right. lol.

When it comes to "interpretation" and "implementation", VAR won't correct the calls to the extent some may think. The human element is still there, with biases thrown in.

[oojason]

No shit..

Wait until it is. First goal line technology. Now a post diving review. The use of VAR is on the horizon.  We must get the calls right. lol.

When it comes to "interpretation" and "implementation", VAR won't correct the calls to the extent some may think. The human element is still there, with biases thrown in.

Aye, though don't quite see how ties in with your diving panel list of former players and managers? Could you explain without the 'no shit' bit?

[4pool]

Aye, though don't quite see how ties in with your diving panel list of former players and managers? Could you explain without the 'no shit' bit?

Already did..

Wait until you see which Refs or others will be the VAR official.

When it comes to "interpretation" and "implementation", VAR won't correct the calls to the extent some may think. The human element is still there, with biases thrown in.

[oojason]

Already did..

No, but never mind.

VARs are, and will continue to be, current match officials (with technical a crew on hand).

No. Sooner have better refs to be honest.

Absolutely, and the sooner we have a bit more openness and transparency from the match officials - especially in the case of VAR - or even the ability to hear what the match officials are saying to each other during the game (as in rugby) - the better and more consistent the match officials will have to be - which'll be great for the game

[4pool]

VARs are, and will continue to be, current match officials (with technical a crew on hand).

You're having a laff.

There are barely enough Referee's to go around as it is. When you consider that the 4th official is a ref, and now you think another current Ref will be in the VAR control booth.

https://www.premierleague.com/referees/index?se=54

The last day of the season there are 10 matches kicking off the same time, 10 Refs, 10 4th officials. There are 19 names on last years Refs list who did at least 1 match.  Add 10 more VAR's = 30 Qualified Refs for the 10 matches. 19 names- 30 slots to fill--Houston we have a problem.

The 4th official can't do it because he is within earshot of the managers. He has other responsibilities.

What will happen is the VAR official will be retired ref's who would love to be back in the game and getting paid. The same "old" Refs that didn't get calls right, had their club biases, etc. Same Refs who helped train those on the pitch. Only the blatant calls might be reversed. Otherwise, they will circle the wagons on their own crews.

[oojason]

You're having a laff.

There are barely enough Referee's to go around as it is. When you consider that the 4th official is a ref, and now you think another current Ref will be in the VAR control booth.

https://www.premierleague.com/referees/index?se=54

The last day of the season there are 10 matches kicking off the same time, 10 Refs, 10 4th officials. There are 19 names on last years Refs list who did at least 1 match.  Add 10 more VAR's = 30 Qualified Refs for the 10 matches. 19 names- 30 slots to fill--Houston we have a problem.

The 4th official can't do it because he is within earshot of the managers. He has other responsibilities.

What will happen is the VAR official will be retired ref's who would love to be back in the game and getting paid. The same "old" Refs that didn't get calls right, had their club biases, etc. Same Refs who helped train those on the pitch. Only the blatant calls might be reversed. Otherwise, they will circle the wagons on their own crews.

See, look at that - you did get around to explaining it in the end. Nice one.

Of course, IFAB and FIFA will be looking at leagues (MLS, Serie A, Portugal's top flight, and the Bundesliga etc) using VAR this season to see how they fare - as well as reviewing the recent tournaments.

The VARs will also be replacing the 5th and 6th officials where previously used.

Of course the referee still has the final say - and he is the only one who can initiate a review (the VAR can only recommend a ref go to review).

And finally, 'the same "old" Refs that didn't get calls right, had their club biases, etc. Same Refs who helped train those on the pitch' will have to prove they can do the job of being a VAR as well as having their decisions reviewed where there are not enough current match officials to go around... that is if the procedure is used where the ref goes to have a look at a replay himself - which has been the case in some games so far...