[Football] Clubs to Vote on VAR removal

[Justice]

Did anyone notice if they watched the game VAR which it’s not meant to do handed a yellow to Romero after his clash with the keeper.
If that’s not secondary refereeing I don’t know what is.

 

[Withdean11]

VAR could have been good if they had stuck to *clear and obvious*.

Any VAR decisions that requires lines to be drawn and images to be be sent for analysis by an electronic microscope for ages are a ridulous waste of time.

If they can't get it right after all this time just Get Rid.

Very much this.

I'd be for it if they only check for clear and obvious mistakes. One quick look in the background to see if it's clear a mistake has been made i.e a player is clearly offside, then VAR can over rule. If not, go with the on field decision.

Actions like the James red card last night which the referee has missed can be looked at while play continues.

The problem is they are getting far too forensic with it. You don't need to draw lines and determine that a players toenail is offside.

 

[herecomesaregular]

Pointless getting too excited by this vote as A/ not enough clubs will vote for VAR removal and B/ the Premier League won't want to go with it anyway as it'll discredit their brand (I believe the noddy Swedish league is the only "top" level league to say No to VAR?).

 

[Guy Fawkes]

What VAR will never do, and will never be captured in any of the stats they produce to show how well (or poorly) VAR has been working, or which teams have benefitted most / least from VAR interventions is show how bias the officials are, especially towards the big six (they get awarded softer decisions) and how inconsistent the standard of refereeing is, how one team can get punished for an offense (player booked, free kick awarded, etc) yet other teams commit the same or worse examples and don't get punished but instead waves play on.

For example, Dunk was booked at Forest for watching a VAR review on the monitor as the ref deemed him too close and shouldn't be watching, yet every game you see players doing the same and no booking, even though some are closer than Dunk was

We got a player booked for not retreating fast enough after they took a very quick freekick, almost as soon as the award was given (or simply because the opposition complained about our player not having retreated) and yet a Chelsea player yesterday can stand about 3 yards away, make no effort to retreat, stand there for a long time and yet not get booked.

We have players booked this season for kicking the ball away moments after the play stopped, (Veltman and Buonanotte examples from this season spring to mind) and yet we see opposition players kicking the ball away several seconds later than in either of those 2 examples, and yet no booking.

Booking for time wasting by the keeper vary, with some handed out for failing to take the kick despite less time passing compared to others (normally these bookings happen if there is little time left and the leading side slows things down, yet the opposition may have been taking a lot longer with their goal kicks for most of the game and no booking.

 

[Flounce]

I think fans of smaller clubs like Brighton should just “know their place” and not expect to get decisions that the big clubs do from refs and all will be fine

After all we are just making up the numbers but won’t be winning anything so it doesn’t really matter does it?

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Pretty sure the refs would like to see the back of it.
I think they are more than happy that VAR is taking the blame for their poor performances and inconsistencies.

Personally I would like to see more technology not less.

The big issues with VAR are:

• the amount of time it takes for referees to interpret the data
• The lack of communication with the fans in the stadium
• Inconsistent interpretation of the data
• The incompatibility with the intention of the laws, when viewed with modern technology

None of this is down to the technology.

This, the changes they made to the laws to make it easier to use VAR have been, in many cases, proven to be a disaster.

Scrapping things like is the player interfering with play and going back to simply on or offside would simplify the process but what you are left with due to this rule is that it's left open to interpretation and therefore inconsistencies.
Handball decisions and position of the hand, (ball to hand or hand to ball, unnatural position, etc are all subjective and don't add to consistent decisions, so give an opportunity for there to be claims of bias and corruption by some)

They need to review all the laws and make them a lot less subjective, which will only help VAR to make quicker decisions (if VAR stays)

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Maybe a solution is to do what some other sports do, you have a set limit for the number of challenges you can make and these challenges are the times that VAR then reviews it? if successful, you keep your challenge, if not then you lose it (not sure if they keep if subjective)

Cricket has their Decision Review System
NFL has challenge flags

A lot that gets ruled out now wouldn't be as in a lot of cases, no one has even protested (no one calling for a penalty to be overturned by had accepted it as one, or calling for offside when it was someone's toenail, or whatever) so its unlikely a team will use a review on it

That way, if the team are convinced the decision is wrong, they can use a review

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

I think what needs to be done is fix the appalling standard of refereeing because that is the problem. Fix that and the on field officiating would improve and so would VAR. The common denominator is the refs. Arguing about VAR just shifts the focus from where it should be.

PGMOL has a problem. It just ignores it hoping the next week it’ll get better when they know that it won’t. Until they admit t they have an issue the situation won’t improve.

 

[crodonilson]

The Albion won't vote to scrap it though. Too invested in the corporate Premier League nonsense, just like we don't want a regulator or FAB.

Absolutely no chance we vote in favour of getting rid, as I mentioned earlier I think PB and indeed many other club officials will be privately seething at Wolverhampton. Their chairman will be getting a very rough ride at the next PL meeting, this will probably be one of the most one way votes in PL history, I would guess 19-1.

 

[US Seagull]

Maybe a solution is to do what some other sports do, you have a set limit for the number of challenges you can make and these challenges are the times that VAR then reviews it? if successful, you keep your challenge, if not then you lose it (not sure if they keep if subjective)

Cricket has their Decision Review System
NFL has challenge flags

A lot that gets ruled out now wouldn't be as in a lot of cases, no one has even protested (no one calling for a penalty to be overturned by had accepted it as one, or calling for offside when it was someone's toenail, or whatever) so its unlikely a team will use a review on it

That way, if the team are convinced the decision is wrong, they can use a review

This has been what I've been thinking about this morning.

Each side gets some number of challenges, let's say three (although you can adjust that to suit your taste). If the coach or the captain asks for a review, then it goes to VAR, otherwise the on-field decision stands. It'll make them think about whether or not it's really worth challenging or not. Maybe some decisions could still be subject to automatic review (say, serious violent conduct on the field).

The only real downside I see is that coaches will use the challenges as a time wasting tactic in the closing minutes of the game. Of course, the fix for that is a stop clock, but the merits of that are a whole other debate. Or maybe we only stop the clock for VAR reviews?

I guess then the argument might be that you could use challenges as a timeout instead. Or stop the momentum of the other side by making bullshit challenges. But maybe there could be repercussions for that? A yellow for a challenge that is deemed to be entirely spurious?

 

[Beanstalk]

I'm generally pro-VAR and think Wolves' attempt to get rid of it was silly at best. At the same time, I'm not stupid and can see that it needs some serious reform in this country. It's been implemented, we have it, it's cost a lot of money and would cost even more to get rid of it, and the rest of the world has it as well. Time to make the Premier League the best exponent of the use of VAR.

Here is how I’d fix it.

1. Get rid of the “Hollywood” referral system - no more VAR flash screens or running to a screen on the side of the pitch, the refs should be in constant conversation with VAR in the same way they are with assistant referees and 4th officials anyway. VAR officials should be trained for their specific role and make up a regular part of the matchday officiating team.
2. ⁠No bar for interference - With VAR just being part of the referee’s team rather than a separate entity to be referred to, like the current matchday officiating team, they advise in real time on any decision - referee’s decision is final.
3. ⁠Show replays in the ground and have a dedicated Twitter feed explaining in clear terms what decision has been made live.
4. ⁠Assistant referee no longer responsible for offsides. Make all objective decisions (offside, ball in and out of play, goal-line) semi-automated/automated.

Regarding the 4th point, I know that semi-automated offsides are coming in from next season, but, as per anything related to VAR, with a caveat. Assistant referees will still be the on field decision makers when it comes to offside when the criteria for VAR has not been reached.

"The technology provides for all potential offsides to be alerted to the VAR. However, this information will only be validated and communicated to the referee on pitch in case of one of the usual defined match-changing moments covered by VAR -- goals, penalties and red cards. So if an offside is detected before a corner or a free kick but hasn't been flagged by the assistant referee, the VAR will not alert the referee and offside will not be penalised."

More importantly, and as others have alluded to: scrap the PGMOL and bring refereeing back into the fold of the actual game. We are the only country in Europe that outsources refereeing to a third party and the contractor is not delivering on their side of the bargain - renationalise referees!

 

[crodonilson]

This has been what I've been thinking about this morning.

Each side gets some number of challenges, let's say three (although you can adjust that to suit your taste). If the coach or the captain asks for a review, then it goes to VAR, otherwise the on-field decision stands. It'll make them think about whether or not it's really worth challenging or not. Maybe some decisions could still be subject to automatic review (say, serious violent conduct on the field).

The only real downside I see is that coaches will use the challenges as a time wasting tactic in the closing minutes of the game. Of course, the fix for that is a stop clock, but the merits of that are a whole other debate. Or maybe we only stop the clock for VAR reviews?

I guess then the argument might be that you could use challenges as a timeout instead. Or stop the momentum of the other side by making bullshit challenges. But maybe there could be repercussions for that? A yellow for a challenge that is deemed to be entirely spurious?

I think the challenge system works in NFL because it is a very stop-start game, the challenge doesn't really interrupt the flow of the game when there are so many interruptions anyway. Thee per team so 6 challenges per match would seem massive overkill, particularly if the intention is again to get rid of only the absolute howlers of which any side should only get a handful (if that many) over the course of a full season. If you were to go that way I would give each team 3 challenges over the whole season, and if you use it and the decision is overturned you keep your challenge. Subjective decisions will always be subjective, either with the referee on pitch or a guy in a TV studio. I actually think we tend to get more subjective decisions wrong now because they are slowed down, freeze framed which loses the original context of how the incident happened (and obviously then makes many incidents look far worse slowed down).

 

[US Seagull]

Another thought on offsides. I suspect the original intention of the rule wasn't to be measuring toenails to see if they are just past the last defenders ass cheek. The idea was to prevent deliberate goal hanging which would cause games to degenerate into a game of super long balls to the guy that's hanging around just a foot from the goal line to tap in. A situation that would also make it practically impossible (or at least practically suicidal) to play a high line. Ever. I don't think anybody would want that. So I feel like the rule is being applied strictly, when that was never really the intention. The rule says the attacking player must be level (or further back) than the last defender, but the originators knew that was a standard that could never been achieved (with the tools they had at the time), but the rule provided cover for the ref and the lino if an attacker was clearly a foot offside. So I do think all this faffing about drawing lines is very much against the original intention of the rule.

It's a bit like the rule that a keeper can only hold the ball for six seconds. It's rarely enforced and you'll never see a ref pull out a stopwatch and start timing the keeper when he picks the ball up. The idea is that if the keeper is really taking the piss, and has been holding the ball for multiple seconds that anybody would clearly judge as being far in excess of 6 seconds, the ref can book him and he can't really argue that it was only 5.79 seconds since it's actually been 30 seconds already.

So I don't think we should really be worrying about a player being 2mm offside. We should be worrying about a player half a foot offside. As somebody above suggested, the players already have GPS trackers, so why not use them? If the GPS tracker is forward of the last defender, then that's good enough. It might even be possible to require trackers in boots and make the rule just apply to feet. Is you foot forward of the last defender's foot? Offside. Had you ducked your head a fraction forward as you started your run? Who cares? Close enough.

 

[Washie]

Umm. Source?

The last time I looked at this topic, the closest we’d got was a theory (Alcubierre metric) that proposed a possible mechanism. However, it required the creation and manipulation of negative energy, with the most likely starting point being the manipulation of dark matter/energy.

I think you’ll find we’re some distance away from a warp drive. We have a highly speculative theory which relies on a highly speculative energy source derived from a source that we have not yet isolated.

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

 

[Washie]

Sorry link I provided didn't work, but paper was published on 29th April called "Constant velocity physical warp drive solution"

 

[US Seagull]

I think the challenge system works in NFL because it is a very stop-start game, the challenge doesn't really interrupt the flow of the game when there are so many interruptions anyway. Thee per team so 6 challenges per match would seem massive overkill, particularly if the intention is again to get rid of only the absolute howlers of which any side should only get a handful (if that many) over the course of a full season. If you were to go that way I would give each team 3 challenges over the whole season, and if you use it and the decision is overturned you keep your challenge. Subjective decisions will always be subjective, either with the referee on pitch or a guy in a TV studio. I actually think we tend to get more subjective decisions wrong now because they are slowed down, freeze framed which loses the original context of how the incident happened (and obviously then makes many incidents look far worse slowed down).

It is 100% true that the challenge system is much better suited to the NFL because, as you say, it's stop-start already, being broken down into discrete "plays", and, more importantly, it has a stop clock. So time spent on a challenge doesn't change the game clock.

 

[US Seagull]

3. ⁠Show replays in the ground and have a dedicated Twitter feed explaining in clear terms what decision has been made live.

I vaguely remember that one of the arguments against replays in the stadium was the fear of enraging the crowd, potentially leading to trouble. You see a, I don't know, Chelsea player lash out and kick your star forward right in his recently injured knee (totally hypothetical, of course) and suddenly the crowd are absolutely fuming, yelling abuse at the ref, the other teams players, the offending player, the other teams coaching staff and the other teams "fans".

I'm not saying that still a relevant concern (and maybe it never really was), and maybe seeing what really happened would actually help reduce the temperature in the crowd. But it is worth considering.

 

[amexer]

Having watched highlights it confirmed what I thought at time Andringa foul was a penalty. With no VAR can accept refs decision but if we have VAR should have been referred.

 

[Beanstalk]

I vaguely remember that one of the arguments against replays in the stadium was the fear of enraging the crowd, potentially leading to trouble. You see a, I don't know, Chelsea player lash out and kick your star forward right in his recently injured knee (totally hypothetical, of course) and suddenly the crowd are absolutely fuming, yelling abuse at the ref, the other teams players, the offending player, the other teams coaching staff and the other teams "fans".

I'm not saying that still a relevant concern (and maybe it never really was), and maybe seeing what really happened would actually help reduce the temperature in the crowd. But it is worth considering.

The crowd are fuming anyway, and yelling abuse at the referee is happening all the time regardless of what is shown on the replay. I think it's a massive cop-out by the PL and PGMOL to allow immediate live pictures of decision making to be broadcast by Sky etc. but for those in the stands to be blind to that. We've all got smart phones, the Wi-Fi at the Amex is superb these days, you can get the pictures within 2 mins anyway, just be more transparent about it all!

 

[Pavilionaire]

Football is run by morons. Nothing typifies this better than FIFFA chief Gianni Infantino's ruling out the 'blue' card option for sin-binning a player.

The blue card gives the ref the opportunity to remove the player for 10 minutes without excluding them from the rest of the game. Then the 4th official has up to 10 minutes to review the footage and see if the blue card should be upgraded to a red.

It works like a dream in rugby union, it allows the game to flow and it punishes the offending player's side in real time. There is no huge drama when the red card is awarded as the player is already off the field.

As for VAR, the right thing to do would be to choose a middle path where VAR is kept for 'clear and obvious' errors and time-limited to 30-45 seconds.