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

[Redsnappa]

On the contrary, didn't United have a stupendous amount of offside goals allowed last season?

It's not just about him, nor about him solely at Yernited ... it's him and anyone that uses that style of cynical play - it's another rule that can be manipulated by the spoilers of the game to their advantage and to stop footballing sides.

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

I'm not sure though what happens if the ref goes with the linesman and whistles for offside, but the VAR tells him it was on.

This is the elephant in the room that no one in the media or the game seems to be acknowledging.

Unless they find a way to allow justice to be done in events like Sterling vs Man City, VAR for offsides just does not work from a consistency point of view.

[Kashinoda]

Linesmen's flags will soon be an irrelevance. Until a high profile player gets a hamstring injury from sprinting and misses a big (WC or CL) match, because they played on despite a flag for offside. Then it'll be changed.

The most outlandish thing I've read against VAR yet.

[stewil007]

Thought it worked perfectly well last night.

People say that the flow of the game will be lost.  Football is a game with many breaks in it anyway - throws-in, corners, free kicks, injuries etc, so I'm not sure it will make that much difference.  And those who want to slow the game down, already do it anyway

From a purist POV, I would like to see all this seasons (all teams) games be analysed to see what difference VAR would have made to the table, how many goals overturned, how many given etc etc

[rob1966]

Linesmen's flags will soon be an irrelevance. Until a high profile player gets a hamstring injury from sprinting and misses a big (WC or CL) match, because they played on despite a flag for offside. Then it'll be changed.

Even without VAR, until the ref whistles he should be playing on anyway.

From what I understand, if the ref lets play go on, he will be told by the VAR if it is the wrong call.
I'm not sure though what happens if the ref goes with the linesman and whistles for offside, but the VAR tells him it was on.

Never thought of that. Unless its clear cut I can see lineos not flagging, but signalling for VAR and then let VAR check the decision - they do this in Rugby, check the offsides on a kick that leads to a try if unsure. Fits with the "advantage to the attacking side" they used to go on about.

[stewil007]

From what I understand, if the ref lets play go on, he will be told by the VAR if it is the wrong call.
I'm not sure though what happens if the ref goes with the linesman and whistles for offside, but the VAR tells him it was on.

if the ref whistles then VAR isn't allowed, if I understood from what happened last night.  I'm sure they said that they had to check whether the Ref had blown his whistle in the passage of play.  My guess if he had blown then the 2nd goal wouldn't have stood

[Skeeve]

It's not just about him, nor about him solely at Yernited ... it's him and anyone that uses that style of cynical play - it's another rule that can be manipulated by the spoilers of the game to their advantage and to stop footballing sides.

As long as they aren't stupid enough to give the managers in a game a set number of challenges then the amount they can disrupt things will be minimal which is more than offset by the benefits of the system.

While people having objections to VAR is perfectly fine and understandable, some of the comments on 5live yesterday were ridiculous, the Fleetwood manager Uwe Rosler said he wasn't in favour of it because the system wasn't 100% perfect which is only a valid argument if it was supplementing a system that was also 100% and despite being a manager based in the UK he seemed like he was trying to claim some expertise just because Germany has already introduced it. Matthew Upson was even worse with his objection which seemed to be claiming that people enjoy discussing contentious decisions in the pub, ignoring the obvious point that people are more likely ranting against the decision and wishing the mistake could have been avoided.

[4pool]

Some think VAR worked perfectly well last night.

There were 4 minutes of added time in the second half. Both teams used their 3 subs second half, so that is 6 substitutions. The VAR took 67 seconds, so the match was stopped to confirm the goal. Now the player celebrated but that was cut short when the linesmans flag was up and the Ref, John Moss, ruled goal kick. He then had his finger to his ear as VAR was looking at the situation. Everyone stood around waiting.

Some may think this is how it should work and in the end the right call was made.

However, if it took 67 seconds why is the time during which VAR is being used is not added on to the match time?

And there were a couple other instances during the match when Moss had his ear piece used for VAR.


All this needs is for Man utd to suffer at the hands of VAR and maybe they'll add the Fergie time to the match for the use of VAR. Won't help all clubs though, just them...

[classycarra]

The most outlandish thing I've read against VAR yet.

Sorry you lack imagination then mate

[Broad Spectrum]

Hang on a second, are you telling me VAR was used to confirm a goal and the world didn’t end?!

[Barneylfc∗]

Some think VAR worked perfectly well last night.

There were 4 minutes of added time in the second half. Both teams used their 3 subs second half, so that is 6 substitutions. The VAR took 67 seconds, so the match was stopped to confirm the goal. Now the player celebrated but that was cut short when the linesmans flag was up and the Ref, John Moss, ruled goal kick. He then had his finger to his ear as VAR was looking at the situation. Everyone stood around waiting.

Some may think this is how it should work and in the end the right call was made.

However, if it took 67 seconds why is the time during which VAR is being used is not added on to the match time?

And there were a couple other instances during the match when Moss had his ear piece used for VAR.


All this needs is for Man utd to suffer at the hands of VAR and maybe they'll add the Fergie time to the match for the use of VAR. Won't help all clubs though, just them...

30 seconds per sub, 67 seconds for VAR = 4 minutes 7 seconds.
Injury time is hardly ever accurate though. Plenty of games you see 6 subs, 2/3 goals, an injury or 2 all in the second half and you're looking at 3/4 minutes injury time. That's before VAR is introduced.

[classycarra]

Hang on a second, are you telling me VAR was used to confirm a goal and the world didn’t end?!

It's the first principle and towards an awful endpoint. Some people think 'technology' (early 20th C technology) will improve football. I would suggest they have dogmatic faith, rather than logical expectations

[oldfordie]

VAR can actually help to cut down on stoppages, the game would have been stopped wrongly for offside last night, it wasn't, play continued and the player scored,there will be many situations when a player is allowed to play on and the player fails to score or a defender gets back to tackle and wins the ball back, the point is play was not stopped. if we are cutting down on unnecessary stoppages then the game will actually flow better.
The time it takes for a decision can be cut down in most cases am sure, play was not stopped for a replay alone, the player scored so play was stopped, players celebrated then returned to their own half to kick off again, I don't think anyone noticed the stoppage time. it was all over by the time players were lined up. it would be interesting to get the average time it takes to kick off again after a goal has been scored and compare times.
If there are problems with players not playing to the whistle then the problems not VAR, the problem is introducing a signal system that works.

[4pool]

VAR can actually help to cut down on stoppages, the game would have been stopped wrongly for offside last night, it wasn't, play continued and the player scored,there will be many situations when a player is allowed to play on and the player fails to score or a defender gets back to tackle and wins the ball back, the point is play was not stopped. if we are cutting down on unnecessary stoppages then the game will actually flow better.
The time it takes for a decision can be cut down in most cases am sure, play was not stopped for a replay alone, the player scored so play was stopped, players celebrated then returned to their own half to kick off again, I don't think anyone noticed the stoppage time. it was all over by the time players were lined up. it would be interesting to get the average time it takes to kick off again after a goal has been scored and compare times.
If there are problems with players not playing to the whistle then the problems not VAR, the problem is introducing a signal system that works.

You didn't watch the match last night did you. I did.

Further as to VAR and implementation, it took 67 seconds. The goal was scored, player celebrated, Linesman flagged, Ref ( Jonathan Moss) awarded a goal kick. Keeper retrieved the ball, then Moss went towards the keeper with his hand to his ear piece and waited for the review. Players stood around not knowing what to do.


In the specific case of the First goal being allowed by the use of VAR, Moss only took advice from the VAR official. Even though there was a telly set up for the Ref to consult himself, and the commenators thought he was going over to use it, Moss never did. So the VAR officials decision was used to overrule the linesman.

And had Moss gone over to check for himself, it would have taken longer than the 67 seconds it did to award the goal as he was standing inside the 18 yard box.

All 6 subs were used in the match, only 4 minutes added. What about the 67 seconds the Ref held the match up? Further, there were a couple other VAR reviews in total.

It's only a matter of time before managers question added time and should the Ref stop the watch when he is in discussion for VAR.

[oldfordie]

You didn't watch the match last night did you. I did.

Further as to VAR and implementation, it took 67 seconds. The goal was scored, player celebrated, Linesman flagged, Ref ( Jonathan Moss) awarded a goal kick. Keeper retrieved the ball, then Moss went towards the keeper with his hand to his ear piece and waited for the review. Players stood around not knowing what to do.


In the specific case of the First goal being allowed by the use of VAR, Moss only took advice from the VAR official. Even though there was a telly set up for the Ref to consult himself, and the commenators thought he was going over to use it, Moss never did. So the VAR officials decision was used to overrule the linesman.

And had Moss gone over to check for himself, it would have taken longer than the 67 seconds it did to award the goal as he was standing inside the 18 yard box.

All 6 subs were used in the match, only 4 minutes added. What about the 67 seconds the Ref held the match up? Further, there were a couple other VAR reviews in total.

It's only a matter of time before managers question added time and should the Ref stop the watch when he is in discussion for VAR.

What makes you think I never watched the match last night? yes I had it on tv, I saw the offside incident live, you really took all that information from watching live I know I didn't, I got the 67 secs during the discussion after the match. you missed out one important piece of information. what I saw was play continuing and a goal scored, then the ref made a tv signal for the VAR to be reviewed, are you suggesting the ref should walk all the way off the field and review the replay himself knowing this will take far longer,  whats your point here.?

[4pool]

What makes you think I never watched the match last night? yes I had it on tv, I saw the offside incident live, you really took all that information from watching live I know I didn't, I got the 67 secs during the discussion after the match. you missed out one important piece of information. what I saw was play continuing and a goal scored, then the ref made a tv signal for the VAR to be reviewed, are you suggesting the ref should walk all the way off the field and review the replay himself knowing this will take far longer,  whats your point here.?

It was a bang-bang play, scored from about the 6 yard line. There wasn't time for dribbling, rounding other players, etc. as the linesman flags for offsides.

And the Ref awarded a goal kick. He originally point there. Keeper got the ball and was placing it down, then Moss had his hand to his ear. Players went up to ask what was going on. He waved them away.

Eventually VAR intervened.

The Ref is supposed to have the Final say on incidents reviewed. Why do you think they put a tv pitchside and made a big deal out of it before the match that the Ref would use it for VAR calls.

In this incident, Mike Jones who was the VAR official, indicated he thought it was onside. Moss took his word rather than confirm as he should have done-- per the rules.

Edit: From the beeb:

76:20 - Iheanacho has the ball in the back of the net and wheels around to celebrate.

76:22 - Referee Jonathan Moss blows his whistle to disallow the goal after his assistant flags for offside.

76:29 - Moss has his hand to his ear to indicate he is consulting with the video referee Mike Jones - who is in an office in London. For most of the next minute, Moss is listening rather than speaking.

77:27 - Moss signals the shape of a TV screen with his hands, to indicate he is changing his decision, and blows his whistle to award the goal.

[Barneylfc∗]

Eventually VAR intervened.

The Ref is supposed to have the Final say on incidents reviewed. Why do you think they put a tv pitchside and made a big deal out of it before the match that the Ref would use it for VAR calls.

In this incident, Mike Jones who was the VAR official, indicated he thought it was onside. Moss took his word rather than confirm as he should have done-- per the rules.

The ref has no obligation to use the pitch side footage

https://football-technology.fifa.com/en/media-tiles/video-assistant-referees-var/

Step 3
Decision or action is taken

The referee decides to review the video footage on the side of the field of play before taking the appropriate action/decision, or the referee accepts the information from the VARs and takes the appropriate action/decision.

[Pistolero]

hated the idea of it.....hate the reality of it even more

[oldfordie]

It was a bang-bang play, scored from about the 6 yard line. There wasn't time for dribbling, rounding other players, etc. as the linesman flags for offsides.

And the Ref awarded a goal kick. He originally point there. Keeper got the ball and was placing it down, then Moss had his hand to his ear. Players went up to ask what was going on. He waved them away.

Eventually VAR intervened.

The Ref is supposed to have the Final say on incidents reviewed. Why do you think they put a tv pitchside and made a big deal out of it before the match that the Ref would use it for VAR calls.

In this incident, Mike Jones who was the VAR official, indicated he thought it was onside. Moss took his word rather than confirm as he should have done-- per the rules.

Edit: From the beeb:

76:20 - Iheanacho has the ball in the back of the net and wheels around to celebrate.

76:22 - Referee Jonathan Moss blows his whistle to disallow the goal after his assistant flags for offside.

76:29 - Moss has his hand to his ear to indicate he is consulting with the video referee Mike Jones - who is in an office in London. For most of the next minute, Moss is listening rather than speaking.

77:27 - Moss signals the shape of a TV screen with his hands, to indicate he is changing his decision, and blows his whistle to award the goal.

Which system do you think works best, the referee is forced to review all VAR replays which result in a goal throughout the game, or a system were the ref can be in contact with the VAR who will give him a decision in seconds. to be honest I think people want to make the argument that refs should make all these decisions knowing it will take far longer, they can then argue VAR is a failure as it takes too long.
What happens after the goal is scored is at the refs discretion. he can review himself if he wants or ask VAR for their decision, it's pretty obvious a conversation is taking place between the VAR and the ref, I may be wrong but I would assume the ref asks him how sure he is, he may be told am certain or am really not sure here, I imagine thats the sort of conversation their having, so I can see most of these replays being sorted in a few secs when VAR tells him am sure it's the right decision but I wouldn't be surprised when the ref has to run over and make the decision himself.

[Barneylfc∗]

VAR decides corners now?

[TepidT2O]

hated the idea of it.....hate the reality of it even more

I agree....

It worse than I expected... and I thought it would be poor..

[xhaxhi]

I like the idea of VAR and I think it can work in the scenarios it is meant to be used  for:

For penalties: The referee stops the game everytime someone is looking for a penalty and then either award the penalty or books the player for the dive!

Red Card/mistaken identity: The referee would have stopped the game and all there is to confirm the decission/action to be taken!

Offside decisions: This is a bit trickier. For this to work I think the linesman should allow play to continue (unless a very obvious offside), meanwhile the VAR checks whether offside or not. If it is offside then the game is pulled back if the attacking team has the ball otherwise allow the game to continue.

[WisconsinRed]

VAR will be the death of footy as we know it. Using technology isn't always for the best. Footy will end up like nfl.

[rob1966]

Slowing the game down has been mentioned, yet players waste far more time. Just watching Chelsea, the ball went out for a goal kick to them, it took 31 seconds from the ball crossing the line to Caballero taking the kick, yet Caballero had the ball in his hands within 7 seconds.

[4pool]

Which system do you think works best,

For me, the 4th official should look at the replays and call the Ref over is he thinks the Ref should review.



After tonights Chelsea v Norwich match

Well i've been saying.....VAR isn't going to change all the calls some may want. Which will lead to the same arguments of was it a pen or wasn't. Now it will change to not only the Ref getting it wrong but the VAR siding with the Ref and not overturning the call.

[Statto Red]

In Rugby when they go to VAR they have a separate ref in the truck watching a screen who the on pitch ref contacts[sometimes vice versa] when they need VAR for tries or any other incident on the pitch, the ref & ref watching the screen are miked up so you can hear what the discussion &  whst eventual decision is, football should have this system.

[Skeeve]

VAR will be the death of footy as we know it. Using technology isn't always for the best. Footy will end up like nfl.

Can the hyperbole, VAR will not be the death of football any more than increasingly inept refs will be the death of it, when the smallest mistake can have such a huge implication to the fate of a club then it makes sense to use what they can in order to reduce the number of mistakes while at the same time recognising that it also should not disrupt play too much either.

[oldfordie]

For me, the 4th official should look at the replays and call the Ref over is he thinks the Ref should review.



After tonights Chelsea v Norwich match

Well i've been saying.....VAR isn't going to change all the calls some may want. Which will lead to the same arguments of was it a pen or wasn't. Now it will change to not only the Ref getting it wrong but the VAR siding with the Ref and not overturning the call.

Yeah. I wouldn't have a problem with the 4th official asking ref to review,it depends on what the review is about.
I don't think reviews will work out well for fouls and pens, ive only argued for offsides as they are rarely opinion, maybe we could have them for clear cut decisions like the old Maradona hand of god goals but a lot of these other decisions are opinion. we can all watch the same replay over and over and people will still disagree on whether it's a pen.
Shearer made me laugh tonight, how this replay system is a joke, it was a obvious pen, maybe we should do away with refs as well as the ref missed the same incident,(not a serious suggestion of course) it didn't actually prove VAR dosen't work, it just proves it's not 100%, thats not down to the VAR,it's down to people having different opinions but overall I don't think it should be used on pens and fouls unless it's something blatant the refs missed, maybe your suggestion of the 4th official notifying the ref on a big incident is perfect for these situations and the ref running over to review the incident.
I forgot to time the first goal to kick off, I assume it's shorter than 67 secs but the equalizer goal to kick off time was around 66-67 secs as well, bit of a coincidence I know.

[Skeeve]

In Rugby when they go to VAR they have a separate ref in the truck watching a screen who the on pitch ref contacts[sometimes vice versa] when they need VAR for tries or any other incident on the pitch, the ref & ref watching the screen are miked up so you can hear what the discussion &  whst eventual decision is, football should have this system.

They should probably nick a number of things from rugby with regards to the officials, don't they also have the mike on when a ref is talking to a player and his captain about a decision concerning that player too?

[WisconsinRed]

Can the hyperbole, VAR will not be the death of football any more than increasingly inept refs will be the death of it, when the smallest mistake can have such a huge implication to the fate of a club then it makes sense to use what they can in order to reduce the number of mistakes while at the same time recognising that it also should not disrupt play too much either.

First of all I won't can anything. I've got my opinion and you've got yours. I suppose time will tell who was on the right side of this debate but it's here now so we will defo find out if it changes the game for the better or worse.

[Skeeve]

Declaring the death of football goes a tad further than mere opinion, at this point it would need to be something a bit more serious than VAR for that to happen such as the idiot in the white house managing to start a nuclear war.

[oldfordie]

They should probably nick a number of things from rugby with regards to the officials, don't they also have the mike on when a ref is talking to a player and his captain about a decision concerning that player too?

Yes,they should look at other sports and see what works, VAR should also evolve. we will have problems am sure but instead of arguing this is crap lets dump it we should tweek the rule to get over the problem, am thinking of the linesman distracting players when he raises his flag for offside, was the lines man absolutely sure it was offside. maybe he can also play a part in VAR with a different signel when he's unsure. all suggestions so nothings written in stone, am sure other suggestions may work better.

[4pool]

Yeah. I wouldn't have a problem with the 4th official asking ref to review,it depends on what the review is about.
I don't think reviews will work out well for fouls and pens, ive only argued for offsides as they are rarely opinion, maybe we could have them for clear cut decisions like the old Maradona hand of god goals but a lot of these other decisions are opinion. we can all watch the same replay over and over and people will still disagree on whether it's a pen.
Shearer made me laugh tonight, how this replay system is a joke, it was a obvious pen, maybe we should do away with refs as well as the ref missed the same incident,(not a serious suggestion of course) it didn't actually prove VAR dosen't work, it just proves it's not 100%, thats not down to the VAR,it's down to people having different opinions but overall I don't think it should be used on pens and fouls unless it's something blatant the refs missed, maybe your suggestion of the 4th official notifying the ref on a big incident is perfect for these situations and the ref running over to review the incident.
I forgot to time the first goal to kick off, I assume it's shorter than 67 secs but the equalizer goal to kick off time was around 66-67 secs as well, bit of a coincidence I know.

Offsides doesn't even work.

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

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

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

[oldfordie]

Offsides doesn't even work.

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

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

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

With respect I think people have got the wrong end of the stick when judging the whole concept of VAR etc, the system we have now is nowhere near perfect, refs get big decisions wrong on a weekly basis, some of those decisions can be massive, the aim of VAR is not to eliminate all these mistakes, the aim is to reduce them, now if we can reduce them dramatically then that's brilliant but to argue we should only introduce a VAR system when it's flawless and gets rid of all bad decisions then the game will never improve. we will carry on blaming refs like we have done for decades for not being professional after replaying the incident in slow motion a few time sat at home.

[4pool]

With respect I think people have got the wrong end of the stick when judging the whole concept of VAR etc, the system we have now is nowhere near perfect, refs get big decisions wrong on a weekly basis, some of those decisions can be massive, the aim of VAR is not to eliminate all these mistakes, the aim is to reduce them, now if we can reduce them dramatically then that's brilliant but to argue we should only introduce a VAR system when it's flawless and gets rid of all bad decisions then the game will never improve. we will carry on blaming refs like we have done for decades for not being professional after replaying the incident in slow motion a few time sat at home.

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

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

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

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

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

Then there will be those who will remember the good old days before VAR..lol.

[oldfordie]

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

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

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

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

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

Then there will be those who will remember the good old days before VAR..lol.

You may well be right on replays for fouls and pens, they could be dumped, we shall see.
I think balls out of play and offsides VAR decisions will eventually come and they will eliminate a lot of bad decisions allowing good goals to stand and actually making the game flow better with less stoppages.

[WisconsinRed]

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

[Frizzo]

Offsides doesn't even work.

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

It wouldn't. And it's not supposed to.

People will get used to it. People that want to hate it will always hate it.

Alan Shearer is an example of a dinosaur imbecile who will never understand and will never like it. His rant about the disgraceful decision against Willian is an example of that.

For a penalty decision to be overturned it needs to be a clear and blatant mistake that can be overturned immediately.

For example, the Lallana and Lovren incidents against Everton would both have stood, even though I don't think either were penalties. Just like the Willian incident.

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

Last night was an absolute clusterfuck.

I’ve said it since day one, using VAR for penalties is pointless. There is too much subjectivity.

[Carra-ton]

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