[Football] Right then. After that demonstration... VAR? Yes or No?

[Seasider78]

The implementation has been a disaster and they cannot continue to use Europe’s top leagues as a live testing ground to refine and develop the system. Needs ripping out and them going back the the drawing board until they have a more consistent system supported by the right rule changes

 

[amexer]

Has to stay to avoid terrible decisions. Last night not good. Foul on Kane clear penalty that assume ref didnt see. Not hard for VAR to have seen that and alerted ref.. Although didnt think Utd was a penalty when VAR looked they couldnt say 100% ref was wrong so right to stick with refs decision. On penalties for fouls dont think VAR should decide but just be saying to ref he should look at monitor before confirming decision.
What must be sorted is stupid rule about ball hitting an arm

 

[Biscuit Barrel]

I not not like VAR, but it is not the technology that is the problem here. It is the terrible VAR referees that are making the wrong decisions.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

A hat-trick of incorrect decisions tonight from V A R across 3 games. V A R needs a serious revamp before next season kick off. Not good enough to simply come out after the game and say it was an incorrect decision.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

There were three drunken fools in traffic accidents yesterday. Does this mean that cars need a serious revamp? What about traffic lights?

The trouble with VAR is there is no trouble with VAR. The trouble is the laws, and the rubric for the use of VAR.

Moaning about VAR itself is on a par with moaning about speed cameras. If we had a law that said if you do 31 MPH you go to gaol, unless it is a Tuesday or you were seeking a lavatory, albeit nobody will check if you genuinely needed a dump, I would understand the general desire to emote, but there would be little point setting fire to a gatso.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Has to stay to avoid terrible decisions. Last night not good. Foul on Kane clear penalty that assume ref didnt see. Not hard for VAR to have seen that and alerted ref.. Although didnt think Utd was a penalty when VAR looked they couldnt say 100% ref was wrong so right to stick with refs decision. On penalties for fouls dont think VAR should decide but just be saying to ref he should look at monitor before confirming decision.
What must be sorted is stupid rule about ball hitting an arm

There are to many problems with the rules and the rubric, all designed to retain the supremacy of the referee's judgement, yet arbitrarily strict on handballs in a goal situation and offside. The latter also works in favour of the ref by taking out of their hands the most tricky of decisions. All about making the refs appear important and inviolate.

I won't explain again why I favour clear blue daylight for offside. For handball I favour 'unnatural movement' (i.e.., subjective judgement - we use it all the time ffs).

And - with VAR, the man or woman in the camera room should get to decide - on anything missed - BUT with only 20 seconds to do so; if they can't decide they shut up and leave it to the ref. That means if VAR sees an off the ball incident or cardable offense they tell the ref.

And we need an end to 'well the ref got it wrong but not wrong enough that we in the VAR room can consider politely suggesting he may like to ponder whether he could find his way to having another think about that, possibly' old bollocks.

Simple.

 

[keaton]

There were three drunken fools in traffic accidents yesterday. Does this mean that cars need a serious revamp? What about traffic lights?

The trouble with VAR is there is no trouble with VAR. The trouble is the laws, and the rubric for the use of VAR.

Moaning about VAR itself is on a par with moaning about speed cameras. If we had a law that said if you do 31 MPH you go to gaol, unless it is a Tuesday or you were seeking a lavatory, albeit nobody will check if you genuinely needed a dump, I would understand the general desire to emote, but there would be little point setting fire to a gatso.

But whether you're speeding or not is fact. Nearly all decisions on a football pitch are open to interpretation. If a speed camera had a person behind it going" I reckon they're speeding" that metaphor would make more sense

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

But whether you're speeding or not is fact. Nearly all decisions on a football pitch are open to interpretation. If a speed camera had a person behind it going" I reckon they're speeding" that metaphor would make more sense

You may have misunderstood. The Gatso is a machine. A videocamera with some software for drawing parallel lines is a machine. Nobody is saying 'I recon they are speeding' or 'I recon they are offside'. The difference is this. When you speed the decision that you are speeding is based on clear rules about what constitutes speeding. In football the camera shows what happens, but the rules on what decision to make are either ambiguous or plain stupid (the latest handball rules in particular). The macine, however, works just fine.

And it is an analogy, not a metaphor. It is errors like this that are dragging this great country down.

Edit: I agree with you that nearly all the rules are open to interpretation. That is the problem. the rules are shit

 

[JBizzle]

As has been stated 1,000 times by others, the issue isn't the technology, it's the rules and the people enforcing said rules.

Bad referees make bad decisions, whether it's next to them on the pitch, or over the VAR system.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

As has been stated 1,000 times by others, the issue isn't the technology, it's the rules and the people enforcing said rules.

Bad referees make bad decisions, whether it's next to them on the pitch, or over the VAR system.

Indeed, but we need to keep saying this in order to rebut those who pop into threads like this, on page umpteen, having read none of the discussion, and start emoting about how we should Get Rid (of VAR).

As for car seatbelts, why should I wear one? I ain't had no accidents. It is a downright liberty. Bloody nanny state. And I drive better when I've had a drink. Stands to reason dunnit. Your bloody Harold Wilson will have us all wearing turbans next.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Has to stay to avoid terrible decisions. Last night not good. Foul on Kane clear penalty that assume ref didnt see. Not hard for VAR to have seen that and alerted ref.. Although didnt think Utd was a penalty when VAR looked they couldnt say 100% ref was wrong so right to stick with refs decision. On penalties for fouls dont think VAR should decide but just be saying to ref he should look at monitor before confirming decision.

The use of the monitors really is the key.

As things stand, the VAR are massively reluctant to undermine the on-field referee, by overturning his decision. If they think he's made an error, or not seen something, and advise HIM to take a look, that's much easier for all to take. If HE changes his mind, nobody is undermined - all good.

 

[m@goo]

I not not like VAR, but it is not the technology that is the problem here. It is the terrible VAR referees that are making the wrong decisions.

Exactamundo!

We've seen that VAR is brilliant in the right hands i.e during the World Cup where arguably England did so well because VAR spotted things that officials didn't or weren't sure about. It favoured the fair playing teams and was excellent.

But for some reason officials in the Prem just don't know how to use it effectively.

 

[Acker79]

Has VAR just given up since the return ?

The handball rule is stupid as well, Bournemouth Goal should have stood

New laws came into force in June. However, because the premier league is completing last season, they were given dispensation to continue operating under the 2019/20 laws. Had the new rules been used, that goal would have stood (as would the one in the later game that got less coverage). So maybe something to be hopeful for about next season.

 

[Billy the Fish]

The use of the monitors really is the key.

As things stand, the VAR are massively reluctant to undermine the on-field referee, by overturning his decision. If they think he's made an error, or not seen something, and advise HIM to take a look, that's much easier for all to take. If HE changes his mind, nobody is undermined - all good.

This really is the only answer. Single point of responsibility otherwise situations like yesterday will keep happening.

 

[rippleman]

The shove in the back of Kane last night was a penalty in any game, at any level anywhere in the world.

As a former ref I don't blame the ref for missing it; it's a difficult job. But then that's why VAR was introduced; to correct the "clear & obvious error".

How the VAR ref decided in around 5 seconds that it wasn't a pen is truly baffling. From every camera angle it was a penalty.

It is pointless having VAR if the VAR referees lack the competency to use it properly. Maybe Spurs would have gone on to win the game; the potential loss of those two points could impact on Spurs European prospects next season. (I have no strong feelings one way or the other about Spurs or Kane - just in case anybody was wondering).

 

[keaton]

You may have misunderstood. The Gatso is a machine. A videocamera with some software for drawing parallel lines is a machine. Nobody is saying 'I recon they are speeding' or 'I recon they are offside'. The difference is this. When you speed the decision that you are speeding is based on clear rules about what constitutes speeding. In football the camera shows what happens, but the rules on what decision to make are either ambiguous or plain stupid (the latest handball rules in particular). The macine, however, works just fine.

And it is an analogy, not a metaphor. It is errors like this that are dragging this great country down.

Edit: I agree with you that nearly all the rules are open to interpretation. That is the problem. the rules are shit

I take your point but even offside is subjective. My understanding is that the system doesn't draw the lines, humans do.

 

[Swansman]

The shove in the back of Kane last night was a penalty in any game, at any level anywhere in the world.

As a former ref I don't blame the ref for missing it; it's a difficult job. But then that's why VAR was introduced; to correct the "clear & obvious error".

More importantly it likely cost me £20.

 

[Gwylan]

As things stand, the VAR are massively reluctant to undermine the on-field referee, by overturning his decision. If they think he's made an error, or not seen something, and advise HIM to take a look, that's much easier for all to take. If HE changes his mind, nobody is undermined - all good.

This is the key. I don't know what the percentage is, but I'd guess that something like 90% of on-field refs' decisions are upheld by VAR.

Perhaps the PL should get some cricket officials in - third umpires seem to have no hesitation in overturning on-field decisions. I think there were five out of five in the test match yesterday. I have no idea why cricket officials are happy to over-rule their colleagues while football ones aren't but that's the area that needs to be looked at.

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

I voted no, although that wasn't a knee jerk reaction, I was against it from the word go.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The use of the monitors really is the key.

As things stand, the VAR are massively reluctant to undermine the on-field referee, by overturning his decision. If they think he's made an error, or not seen something, and advise HIM to take a look, that's much easier for all to take. If HE changes his mind, nobody is undermined - all good.

Apparently a ref has looked at a monitor only once since last October. The system is failing because VAR either never ask the ref to take a look or the refs always refuse.

Of course if the ref looked at a monitor 3 times a game there would be uproar from the 'keep the game flowing' contingent.

No, VAR will never work until the decision making authority is given to the ref in the VAR room. As I noted earlier this is the case already for handball in the box.

Shift the decisions to a ref in the VAR room. Reduce the role of the ref on the pitch.

 

[METALMICKY]

'Ref Watch: Was Konsa fouled by Fernandes?'

http://www.skysports.com/share/12025394

Some unbelievable rubbish in here. Of course nobody minds if all the errors are genuine!

Thought the Bmuff disallowed goal was actually VAR working well. It was a clear deflection and may have influenced as to whether the ball went in regardless that it was accidental. Although no mention was made of it on another day there would have been questions about whether the overhead kick was dangerous play. To be fair the spurs defender did not react and then the handball issue took over.