[Football] How Do We Get Rid Of VAR?

[father_and_son]

Sure.

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

They estimate the difference to be 3.5 minutes.

You came back far too quickly with that answer... do you want to see their decision in slo-mo one more time?!

 

[ferring seagull]

IMHO , VAR was and is the way forward to overcome the sometimes obvious frailties of match officials.

However

Lino's should be instructed to raise their flags immediately in any offside situation other than where there is serious doubt.
Steps must be made to eliminate any situation where the impartiality of officials ( both match and VAR ) is any way questionable.
The match referee must be required to view the matchside monitor when VAR officials are convinced the original decision was flawed, AND, the pertinent part of the footage should be shown on the
Stadium large screens so fans can view the circumstances upon which the final decision was based.
The sport authorities ( FIFA ) need to become transparent and precise about certain situations which occur in the penalty area with specific reference to diving and other on on ones ( or not ).
Match officials should have protection from fans but, to my mind, such protection would not even be necessary if fans can see precisely the justification for the decision.

 

[whosthedaddy]

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 would also add, and make it a rule, that they don't slow the replay down to a snails pace because it can alter the perspective of the viewer.

Also, the fans need to be kept abreast of what's happening during the VAR/ref review and why the decision has been given, communication to the fans is paramount for us to trust the technology.

 

[Superphil]

The only to be sure to way to get rid of it is if fans stop watching, live and on the telly. If fans globally did this under that pretence, then the authorities (sic) would have to get rid of it.

 

[father_and_son]

I would also add, and make it a rule, that they don't slow the replay down to a snails pace because it can alter the perspective of the viewer.

Also, the fans need to be kept abreast of what's happening during the VAR/ref review and why the decision has been given, communication to the fans is paramount for us to trust the technology.

If the timescales are set right your first point should be moot. The bunker doesn't have enough time to watch it back in super slo-mo. And they are just looking for 'clear & obvious' so if the call is marginal anyway it should be to back the ref.

And as for the second, again, if the timing is right the fans should notice no more than, say, a third of the reviews even taking place. Again, if it's not clear, ref's ruling stands. Big screen (and TV at home ) should show something is being reviewed, who and what and there should be 3 outcomes, upheld, inconclusive (so upheld) and overturned. I would expect to see 'overturned' once a weekend at most (not scientific, just gut feel, but I'm sure the stats exist somewhere on how many decisions were made within 10/15 seconds that changed an outcome).

And as I said elsewhere I think it's important VAR reviews everything to a proper conclusion so that all the relevant organisations (league, FA, PGMOL, etc )and the officials themselves can see what they called right and what they (with hindsight) called wrong and that data should be used to improve refereeing - just not at the expense of the flow of the game.

 

[GT49er]

If the timescales are set right your first point should be moot. The bunker doesn't have enough time to watch it back in super slo-mo. And they are just looking for 'clear & obvious' so if the call is marginal anyway it should be to back the ref.

And as for the second, again, if the timing is right the fans should notice no more than, say, a third of the reviews even taking place. Again, if it's not clear, ref's ruling stands. Big screen (and TV at home ) should show something is being reviewed, who and what and there should be 3 outcomes, upheld, inconclusive (so upheld) and overturned. I would expect to see 'overturned' once a weekend at most (not scientific, just gut feel, but I'm sure the stats exist somewhere on how many decisions were made within 10/15 seconds that changed an outcome).

Thus giving the lie to the authorities' assertion, that the on-field referee is still the man/woman/person/entity in charge, not the VAR.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Thus giving the lie to the authorities' assertion, that the on-field referee is still the man/woman/person/entity in charge, not the VAR.

This assertion, and the imperative behind it, is the root cause of the problem.

I was asked by a science journal to advise on peer review decisions on research papers submitted for consideration for pubication. The decision to accept or reject a paper is ordinarily made by an editor based on advice by referees (anonymous other scientists). The problem was the referees and editors were accepting for publication countless papers that were flawed owing to poor experimental design and analysis. I am an expert on the latter. So the editors were asked by the editor-in-chief to contact me about a paper if the editor was not sure it was 'good'. In the following year I received 3 requests to advise on papers (the journal receives 2000 papers for consideration). TAnd the journal carried on publishing a good percentage of crap research.

So I suggested that all papers be sent to me for vetting (triage).

'Oh no, we can't have that. You'd be usurping the prerogative of the editors! They have to be the ones who make the decision.'

You couldn't make it up.

The referees are playing the same game - they want advice but they want to make the final decisions themselves, requiring that they can ignore the advice or refuse to even consider asking for advice as they see fit, and are making up weird and wanky rubrics to alow this madness to continue.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

It is a great shame that in the age of VAR that Alec Ferguson is no longer the manager of Manchester United.
That is something I would have loved to have seen when all those decisions that went their way due to useless/bent or scared refs are overturned or a winning goal in Fergie time is ruled out correctly for being offside.

 

[drew]

I would also add, and make it a rule, that they don't slow the replay down to a snails pace because it can alter the perspective of the viewer.

Also, the fans need to be kept abreast of what's happening during the VAR/ref review and why the decision has been given, communication to the fans is paramount for us to trust the technology.

Don't agree with that at all, neither the limited seconds to review it. The point of VAR is to get decisions right. I think the only area where slowing it down changes the perspective is where a player has lunged in. Where it's a tackle that isn't dangerous, it's important to see if contact with the ball was first.

 

[father_and_son]

The referees are playing the same game - they want advice but they want to make the final decisions themselves, requiring that they can ignore the advice or refuse to even consider asking for advice as they see fit, and are making up weird and wanky rubrics to alow this madness to continue.

VAR is referees policing themselves which I imagine is far more acceptable (but far less effective) than an independent body reviewing all their decisions.

However, everyone in football knows that, on the whole, referees in the PL are sh1t and getting worse. Lots of reasons can be quoted why this is the case but the biggest being a complete lack of transparency within their ranks. If referees had a grade given by an independent VAR at the end of each game and it were made public, those grades would improve dramatically within the first season.

Football collects huge amounts of stats on everything about players from touches of the ball to distance run, etc and yet, of the 23 people on the pitch, one has complete immunity from any proper analytical review of their performance (so it can be improved) and weirdly that person has the biggest influence on the outcome.

If VAR was used (possibly privately) to review the referee post-game but, in the most part, supported their decisions during the game and VAR was independent of match day officials (maybe part of the referee accreditation is to do a season in the bunker first) then I think the issues you raise wouldn't apply to football.

 

[Tokyohands]

Maybe the system needs to be hacked....for it to actually work properly!