[Football] How Do We Get Rid Of VAR?

[blue-shifted]

As one of an alleged minority of match going fans, I do want it. I see it mostly as a safety net against the cheats and divers in the game. Sure, it could do with a few tweaks, but you can bet your life that without it, we'd have more decisions against us at the likes of Anfield, Old Trafford and even Villa Park where Smith has so many divers in his team, they have made it in to an art form. I cheer like a loon for every goal we score and if it gets ruled for some infringement or other, well that's always been the case. I just prefer to keep VAR as my security blanket. It's got a few holes in it, but it stops the Maguires and Kanes of this world from tumbling their giant frames at every 'contact'.

It's a fair comment and I believe this is the main benefit.

Though I still believe that diving could be stamped out overnight if there was the will to do so.

I don't think there should be fines or even yellow cards for it.

I think that all matches should be reviewed post game and if there is a clear attempt at cheating to try to win a penalty, then the club in question should be deducted a league point.

 

[GT49er]

As one of an alleged minority of match going fans, I do want it. I see it mostly as a safety net against the cheats and divers in the game. Sure, it could do with a few tweaks, but you can bet your life that without it, we'd have more decisions against us at the likes of Anfield, Old Trafford and even Villa Park where Smith has so many divers in his team, they have made it in to an art form. I cheer like a loon for every goal we score and if it gets ruled for some infringement or other, well that's always been the case. I just prefer to keep VAR as my security blanket. It's got a few holes in it, but it stops the Maguires and Kanes of this world from tumbling their giant frames at every 'contact'.

Which it blatantly hasn't ....................................

 

[Johnny RoastBeef]

There is a way to make VAR work better. Like Graham Potter said, Stockley Park should only be used for cases of mistaken identity, offside, inside/outside the penalty area and was the ball over the line.

Everything else should be handled by the Ref at the pitch side monitor, but only if he is requested to do so by either team captain.

Each team gets 1 review per match, which is carried over if the review is successful, but lost if the ref sticks to his original decision.

If a review is called for on the pitch by a team captain, the ref asks Stockley Park to replay the incident on the monitor and the big screen and lets everyone in the stadium know what the review is looking for.

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

Does that mean the decisions by VAR will be even more undecipherable than the ones from Stockley Pk?

I wondered who would notice my deliberate howler! Where is Alan Turing when you need him? Not sure he was a footie fan though.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

But the current interpretation exists only because of VAR?

And disagree with most of what you say. It's not inevitable. If enough paying public say they want it gone, it will be gone. Fans just need to speak in a clearer voice ... and not go silent on it when a VAR decision benefits their team.

No. The current interpretation exists because of referees.

The current interpretation of criminal law does not exist because of forensic science, fingerprinting etc. It exists because of the imperatives of the lawmakers.

The current interpretation of the rules of football by referees in the era of VAR is akin to judges declaring that now we have fingerprinting we can argue against guilt if the fingerprint on the handle of the knife used in the stabbing that was found at the scene in the hand of the accused is a bit blurred. **** off to that, I say.

 

[blue-shifted]

No. The current interpretation exists because of referees.

The current interpretation of criminal law does not exist because of forensic science, fingerprinting etc. It exists because of the imperatives of the lawmakers.

The current interpretation of the rules of football by referees in the era of VAR is akin to judges declaring that now we have fingerprinting we can argue against guilt if the fingerprint on the handle of the knife used in the stabbing that was found at the scene in the hand of the accused is a bit blurred. **** off to that, I say.

I don't entirely understand what you're saying.

Do you agree with this?

"Linesmen are now instructed to not raise the flag for a marginal offside as this can be decided by VAR in the event of a goal"

 

[blue-shifted]

I wondered who would notice my deliberate howler! Where is Alan Turing when you need him? Not sure he was a footie fan though.

Big fan of MK Dons apparently

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I don't entirely understand what you're saying.

Do you agree with this?

"Linesmen are now instructed to not raise the flag for a marginal offside as this can be decided by VAR in the event of a goal"

Agree in what sense? Was it a statement made by someone? Well, if was made I agree it was made. As a good idea? No, of course not. As evidence that VAR is to blame for bad rules, very certainly not.

That is a policy decision. Who made the policy? The referees association and the football authorities (not sure how they interact but they do). People make rules, not 'VAR'.

Stupid use of VAR (as here) is akin to: "Police have been instructed to not chase erratic drivers on suspicion of drink driving because this can be checked later after an accident using a breathalyser." The solution to that would not be to get rid of breathalysers.

I can give you any number of analogies and aphorisms if you still struggle to get yourhead around this. Why not simply say 'anyway, I don't care, I hate VAR' and have done with it?

Edit: actually you have an important point about marginal decisions. Hold off replying and I'll explain....

In this case it has been decided that it is better to let the game run for marginal decisions as VAR can check later if there is a 'consequence' during the same phase of play. A consequence is defined as.....well I don't know but I assume it is a goal a foul. In this case it was a catestrophic collision between two players that would not have happened had the game be stopped earlier.

OK so there are several ways of looking at this. You could argue that this was just a one off bit of bad luck. The injury could have occurred at any time during the game. VAR did not cause it - playing fotball caused it.

You could argue that it would not have happened had the lino flagged. This is true. But so what? What if there had been no offside and a player scored a legit goal? What if the lino flagged in error?

It seems to me that it makes eminent sense to allow a game to run on if there is a possible offside that the lino thinks is 50:50. If the lino can see it is offside and he is sure (or she) then they should flag. There is no need to change behaviour or rules here 'because of VAR'

I suspect people are conflating three things.

First we have egregious offsides that the lino pointlessly lets run. There is no need for that. It has nothing to do with VAR itself and is a bit if shithousery someone thought up.

Second, it seems there is now a new interpretation of the rules that there is no point stopping the game for offside if the opponents don't gain from it. This is more shithousery about the laws, not VAR.

Third there is the possibility of someone getting seriously injured if a game is allowed to run on by the lino when it could have been stopped. As noted above, this is no more a risk than during normal play.

OK, I'm bored now.....

 

[father_and_son]

Clear and obvious is easy when you have 40 cameras. Not for one human ref. See Thierry Henry's handball against Ireland - that needed VAR, didn't it?

The problem is with the massive cost of VAR, they want to use it far, far, far, far more than it should be. It should be used about once every 10 games, for massive howlers. Not minute detail stuff. If it was actually used for clear and obvious, it would improve the game. IMO.

For me there should be a "10-sec rule". If you cannot categorically, hand-on-heart, say there was a mistake after 10-seconds of watching it back and forth, then it wasn't a clear and obvious mistake.
Really, really simple.

VAR is here to stay. Too much money and too many reputations were staked on it.
The only thing, as fans, that we can hope for, is that it is used in a positive manner, to improve the game.

 

[blue-shifted]

For me there should be a "10-sec rule". If you cannot categorically, hand-on-heart, say there was a mistake after 10-seconds of watching it back and forth, then it wasn't a clear and obvious mistake.
Really, really simple.

VAR is here to stay. Too much money and too many reputations were staked on it.
The only thing, as fans, that we can hope for, is that it is used in a positive manner, to improve the game.

Can I ask, do you want it to stay?

So, if you, could wave a magic wand and it would be gone, would you do it?

 

[blue-shifted]

Agree in what sense? Was it a statement made by someone? Well, if was made I agree it was made. As a good idea? No, of course not. As evidence that VAR is to blame for bad rules, very certainly not.

That is a policy decision. Who made the policy? The referees association and the football authorities (not sure how they interact but they do). People make rules, not 'VAR'.

Stupid use of VAR (as here) is akin to: "Police have been instructed to not chase erratic drivers on suspicion of drink driving because this can be checked later after an accident using a breathalyser." The solution to that would not be to get rid of breathalysers.

I can give you any number of analogies and aphorisms if you still struggle to get yourhead around this. Why not simply say 'anyway, I don't care, I hate VAR' and have done with it?

Edit: actually you have an important point about marginal decisions. Hold off replying and I'll explain....

Please don't

 

[father_and_son]

Can I ask, do you want it to stay?

So, if you, could wave a magic wand and it would be gone, would you do it?

No. Used right I do actually think it could improve the game.

It absolutely unequivocally is NOT being used right at the moment and therefore it is not improving the game. It's killing it for fans in the stadium which, as a STH, I hate.

I think the 10-second rule fixes it for me. It stops the howlers but ignores the forward being a gnat's pube-width offside.

There are other things wrong about the game at the moment, we all know "handball" has turned into a random lottery, and each of those things need to be fixed alongside fixing VAR. But I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Please don't

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

For me there should be a "10-sec rule". If you cannot categorically, hand-on-heart, say there was a mistake after 10-seconds of watching it back and forth, then it wasn't a clear and obvious mistake.
Really, really simple.

VAR is here to stay. Too much money and too many reputations were staked on it.
The only thing, as fans, that we can hope for, is that it is used in a positive manner, to improve the game.

I had called for 20 sec but, **** it, yeah, 10 would do.

 

[Easy 10]

For me there should be a "10-sec rule". If you cannot categorically, hand-on-heart, say there was a mistake after 10-seconds of watching it back and forth, then it wasn't a clear and obvious mistake.
Really, really simple.

VAR is here to stay. Too much money and too many reputations were staked on it.
The only thing, as fans, that we can hope for, is that it is used in a positive manner, to improve the game.

Having a 10 second timer on making a decision (maybe with a little Countdown-style ticking tune in his earpiece ?) would only ramp up the pressure on the official to reach a decision, and fast.

Its a really, really simple way to arrive at a duff decision quickly.

 

[father_and_son]

I had called for 20 sec but, **** it, yeah, 10 would do.

Split the difference with you??

 

[Mellotron]

For me there should be a "10-sec rule". If you cannot categorically, hand-on-heart, say there was a mistake after 10-seconds of watching it back and forth, then it wasn't a clear and obvious mistake.
Really, really simple.

VAR is here to stay. Too much money and too many reputations were staked on it.
The only thing, as fans, that we can hope for, is that it is used in a positive manner, to improve the game.

Totally agreed - if you have to watch something more than 2-3 times, it’s not clear and obvious.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Split the difference with you??

Sure.

I have checked with the referees' association and they agree.

They estimate the difference to be 3.5 minutes.

 

[father_and_son]

Having a 10 second timer on making a decision (maybe with a little Countdown-style ticking tune in his earpiece ?) would only ramp up the pressure on the official to reach a decision, and fast.

Its a really, really simple way to arrive at a duff decision quickly.

Cut off the audio feed from the bunker after 15 seconds- VAR can spend all the time in the world to get the 'right' decision* but the game needs a quick decision - sometimes that might be wrong, but it is the same decision the ref made on the field so no better, no worse. The big screen changes to "Inconclusive. Decision Stands." Ref restarts the game. We all celebrate/swear/sing/whatever. All within a reasonable timescale.

* The right decision can be discussed at length between VAR and the match officials *after* the game to improve/learn/validate etc. But it doesn't need to involve the 30k plus who want to enjoy the game they paid to watch.

 

[blue-shifted]

My views on VAR

It's existence isn't compatible with fan culture. The ability to celebrate a goal, knowing it's a goal is fundamental to the supporter experience. No amount of tweaking can ever fix it

It could be got rid of, but it would take a united front from football supporters, in a similar way to the project big picture reaction. However, despite most not wanting it, a similar unified response doesn't exist. Many do want it, others are confident it can be improved. Lots would like it gone, but deterministic about it, that their view doesn't count, so no point in protesting.

If it has to stay, it should only be to eliminate the howler. The on field ref, should get one further look in real time from one camera angle. If he can't detect a bad decision straight away, then as you were, play on. That way the true injustices, Thierry Henry handball etc, can be detected and over-ruled, but it doesn't intrude on the vast majority of matches