[Football] Its simple, copy cricket and tennis.

[Is it PotG?]

If a VAR reversal kept us in the English Soccer Premiership come next May, many folks would be lauding it....'What a great innovation'.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Trigaar obviously doesn’t go to watch live.

Yeah he does, but I don't agree with him.

 

[Nobby]

If a VAR reversal kept us in the English Soccer Premiership come next May, many folks would be lauding it....'What a great innovation'.

Hate VAR with a passion.
IT experts and wannabe refs managing a game from 100 miles away.
Armchair fans having an advantage over fans attending games

 

[Arthritic Toe]

No it is not. We wanted the ability to overturn obviously incorrect decisions, not "he was offside by 2mm" nor did we want the game held up for every major moment. Giving the teams one, maybe two, referrals deals with the issue. Very few wanted this.

It doesn't deal with it at all. In fact it would make it even worse. Teams would save their one or two referalls for goals against them. The majority of games feature one or two goals per team. This would result in more or less every goal being refered to VAR, just as now. Pointless.

 

[Deadly Danson]

If a VAR reversal kept us in the English Soccer Premiership come next May, many folks would be lauding it....'What a great innovation'.

No they wouldn't. This isn't about Var favouring one team or another. It's about tv led nonsense ruining the best thing about going to football.

 

[Barham's tash]

Yes I know this another VAR thread, but one with a slight difference in that it has a tried and tested solution. The whole push for a VAR came from the need to stop howlers such as the "Hand of God" and other such notorious incidents. What we have ended up is a bloody monstrosity that only the most pedantic of perfectionists can like. Why not follow both cricket and tennis and give the sides a certain amount of referrals per half (probably one certainly no more than two) and leave the rest up to the on field refs, who I would not give the power of referral to as I suspect they would be too scared NOT to use it if they had it.

This then gives the ability to the Captain/Manager to challenge a decision based on what his team are telling him.

This system would deliver what was behind the push that led to VAR rather than the perfectionist system we have been lumbered with.

This whole argument falls down because of the instantaneous nature of television replays.

It works in cricket because messages are not to be conveyed from dressing room to pitch but unless you invoke a ban on tv directors replaying incidents before the 15 second window then it’s got no hope of working.

 

[Pantani]

I feel a large part of what makes it work in cricket and tennis is that the review system engages the fans. They all know what is going on there is an announcement of the review, big screen shows the tennis ball missing/clipping the line, or shows the three reds for the lbw decision. All very visual, and tense and all of these reviews are line calls. Brilliant, great, perfect. Except the standard of cricket umpiring has fallen through the floor but that is a different conversation.

Football has it right with the goal line technology, again a simple line call, on, and here is the key, an immovable line. But VAR is a mess, the offside calls are still subjective as the line is drawn from a camera angle not necessarily looking straight down the line. The ball being passed is also subjective when exactly did it leave the players foot? So even offside, the second most simple, line based decision cannot truly be ruled on accurately under the current conditions.

As for the handball decisions against attacking sides we have seen so far this season, well that needs to be changed immediately. Both Wolves and City have had goals chalked off against the spirit of the game and laws as I understand them.

Finally, back to my original point. Until they find a way of engaging the fan at the match with the VAR system then it is a huge no from me. Whatever the VAR officials are looking at should be on the big screen, and the audio of any discussion should be broadcast too. We have paid to be there, we should be fully informed of what is going on.

Even if somehow the FA found a way to deal with all these issues I would probably still be anti VAR as for me football is about the visceral passion of scoring a goal, it is the rarity and difficulty of scoring a goal that makes football the sport it is. That is why the world loves this game, for that moment when you totally lose your shit, that we are going to do this you know feeling, that second of unadulterated joy. That is football, and that is why VAR is not and never will be football for me.

 

[blockhseagull]

I feel a large part of what makes it work in cricket and tennis is that the review system engages the fans. They all know what is going on there is an announcement of the review, big screen shows the tennis ball missing/clipping the line, or shows the three reds for the lbw decision. All very visual, and tense and all of these reviews are line calls. Brilliant, great, perfect. Except the standard of cricket umpiring has fallen through the floor but that is a different conversation.

Football has it right with the goal line technology, again a simple line call, on, and here is the key, an immovable line. But VAR is a mess, the offside calls are still subjective as the line is drawn from a camera angle not necessarily looking straight down the line. The ball being passed is also subjective when exactly did it leave the players foot? So even offside, the second most simple, line based decision cannot truly be ruled on accurately under the current conditions.

As for the handball decisions against attacking sides we have seen so far this season, well that needs to be changed immediately. Both Wolves and City have had goals chalked off against the spirit of the game and laws as I understand them.

Finally, back to my original point. Until they find a way of engaging the fan at the match with the VAR system then it is a huge no from me. Whatever the VAR officials are looking at should be on the big screen, and the audio of any discussion should be broadcast too. We have paid to be there, we should be fully informed of what is going on.

Even if somehow the FA found a way to deal with all these issues I would probably still be anti VAR as for me football is about the visceral passion of scoring a goal, it is the rarity and difficulty of scoring a goal that makes football the sport it is. That is why the world loves this game, for that moment when you totally lose your shit, that we are going to do this you know feeling, that second of unadulterated joy. That is football, and that is why VAR is not and never will be football for me.

The handball decisions are because of the joke of a rule change not because of VAR.

 

[nickjhs]

It doesn't deal with it at all. In fact it would make it even worse. Teams would save their one or two referalls for goals against them. The majority of games feature one or two goals per team. This would result in more or less every goal being refered to VAR, just as now. Pointless.

VAR is not just for goals, penalties come straight to mind, also a ball cleared from behind the line does not immediately trigger VAR so the team that missed out could appeal. If you call for the referral and it is dismissed that's the end of your appeals for this half. You think only one goal or one miss judged clearance or one penalty decision happens per half? Sure if you are correct you keep the referral, but that is exactly why VAR was brought in. No system is perfect but a limited referral one is more preferable than this nightmare.

 

[Pantani]

The handball decisions are because of the joke of a rule change not because of VAR.

Bit of a chicken and egg that one. These types of handball decisions can only be made with the aid of VAR. Neither the Wolves nor City decisions were made live, therefore they are down to VAR.

 

[Eeyore]

Two challenges per game. But if your challenge is successful, you get that one back.

Generally agree with your post. If the ref doesn't see it, the linos don't see it, the eleven opposing players don't see it, the manager and coaching staff don't see it, then it is probably not a clear and obvious error.

Edit: Plus, of course, the ref should be able to ask for a review for a specific reason if he's unsure, since being unsure means he spotted a *possible* infraction.

So every goal is challenged in the hope of some sort of error. That's what teams would do.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

VAR is not just for goals, penalties come straight to mind, also a ball cleared from behind the line does not immediately trigger VAR so the team that missed out could appeal. If you call for the referral and it is dismissed that's the end of your appeals for this half. You think only one goal or one miss judged clearance or one penalty decision happens per half? Sure if you are correct you keep the referral, but that is exactly why VAR was brought in. No system is perfect but a limited referral one is more preferable than this nightmare.

But teams wouldn't 'waste' their referral on anything other than a goal. You'd hope the stone-wall penalties would be seen by the ref anyway. The best chance of gaining advantage for your team is to refer the goal scored against you in the hope that there is something wrong with it. Statistically, this would yield the best advantage. Very different to cricket and tennis where the score is decided by hundreds of points not just one or two as is the case for football.

If tennis matches were won by 2 points to 1, you'd see Hawkeye on every point.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Football has it right with the goal line technology, again a simple line call, on, and here is the key, an immovable line. But VAR is a mess, the offside calls are still subjective as the line is drawn from a camera angle not necessarily looking straight down the line. The ball being passed is also subjective when exactly did it leave the players foot? So even offside, the second most simple, line based decision cannot truly be ruled on accurately under the current conditions.

.

This is where the rule should be changed and follow Cricket's approach, where the decision stands if it's a marginal decision.

If 50% of a players foot is offside ( or some other measure), then the goal stands. Allowing for some potential flaws in the technology.

 

[GloryDays]

Two challenges per game. But if your challenge is successful, you get that one back.

Generally agree with your post. If the ref doesn't see it, the linos don't see it, the eleven opposing players don't see it, the manager and coaching staff don't see it, then it is probably not a clear and obvious error.

Edit: Plus, of course, the ref should be able to ask for a review for a specific reason if he's unsure, since being unsure means he spotted a *possible* infraction.

I think the lino would have flagged DB yesterday when he played the cross. Hard to say since they're told to keep the flag down now but looking back at replays he had a clear line and would most probably have acknowledged it hadn't received a touch on the way through. My only gripe, as I said somewhere else, is the speed of it. Maybe the officials could be equipped with a VAR alarm so that, as soon as it is occurring in play, and before a goal is scored VAR is reviewing a passage of play so that a decision can be made as fast as possible. The goal for us yesterday was a great example of how a fairly rudimentary decision has been made too prevalent. There should be no need to STOP EVERYTHING and wait with bated breath.

Regarding the number of claims per game IMO this is pointless. Tennis and Cricket (referring to the OP) are a totally different as there is a number of potential challenges in one passage of play and the limit helps the game actually play out. Cricket takes long enough at the best of time. As for football, really there is only averagely, at a guess, 3-4 flashpoints for var game, max? How many yesterday? We're not talking anywhere near double digits of claims from the sides. And really we're mostly talking about goals and penalties. All I can see happening here is the first 2 goals of any team scoring being challenged - with fault or not.

 

[GloryDays]

This is where the rule should be changed and follow Cricket's approach, where the decision stands if it's a marginal decision.

If 50% of a players foot is offside ( or some other measure), then the goal stands. Allowing for some potential flaws in the technology.

Indeed. Should implement a Keep it as it is but add 50mm - 100mm bracket in favour of the attacker since they're usually moving at a greater speed to the defending player and at times in the opposite direction. Always used to have benefit of doubt to the attacker before and seemingly getting more strict each year now. I remember the rule of thumb used to be 'daylight between them'. Ha.

Last week Sterling was flagged for seemingly having an atom of a molecule of a boot offside.

 

[brighton_tom]

After our goal being disallowed yesterday and then hearing about a last minute goal being taken away in the city/spurs game i was very much in the "VAR is ruining the game" camp, thinking that every game would now have this type of controversy. But after seeing that both decisions were in my opinion actually correct, i guess its just all something that we need to accept in the game, but its NEEDS to be quicker. Between the ball hitting the back of the net & the goal being disallowed yesterday there must have been 2 to 3 minutes, surely with the technology available an offside could be detected within 30 seconds.

The thing that hurt most about the goal being disallowed yesterday was that enough time had passed for the Albion & west ham fan's to mentally accept that the game was now 1-0, so when the goal eventually got disallowed it like West ham had scored a goal making the game level & gave their fans such a boost. If that weirdly makes sense.

 

[studio150]

I feel a large part of what makes it work in cricket and tennis is that the review system engages the fans. They all know what is going on there is an announcement of the review, big screen shows the tennis ball missing/clipping the line, or shows the three reds for the lbw decision. All very visual, and tense and all of these reviews are line calls. Brilliant, great, perfect.

This is the problem with VAR, it doesn't engage with the fans in the ground.
There is an obvious solution teams like Liverpool and Manchester United need to install two large screens in their grounds or face relegation. Then the whole process of a VAR review needs to be shown on the in ground screens with audio so that everyone in the ground is fully aware of why the VAR decision has been made, rather than spending time trying to find out why the decision has been made via social media or some other avenue.

 

[GT49er]

Also if you had read my post carefully you would see that they would not be able to constantly refer, same as you cannot in Cricket or Tennis.

Seriously? If you'd read my reply you'd know that I knew that.

"They'd end up just referring each time there's a goal against them and hoping for the best (so today's goal would have still been ruled out)" would suggest you hadn't read the bit about only a limited number of appeals being available.

 

[blockhseagull]

Bit of a chicken and egg that one. These types of handball decisions can only be made with the aid of VAR. Neither the Wolves nor City decisions were made live, therefore they are down to VAR.

I see your point.

However it’s the stupid rule change that in this case gives VAR no option.

If the rule hadn’t changed the VAR officials wouldn’t be pulling up stuff like that.

 

[Eeyore]

The issue here is retrospective technology. If the match was being followed in real time then we would have a situation where referrals would be completed so much quicker. Until that happens these discussions will continue in cycle.