[Football] VAR April 2023 Poll - Fit for Purpose?

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Nonsense.

VAR was supposed to fix the problems that clearly existed. It hasn’t done that and it’s made the fan experience worse to boot. That’s literally the point of the thread

My take is different. For me most VAR decisions are correct more often than the decision in the pre-VAR era.

It is about making things better rather than perfect.

In contrast to my youth, as a sophisticated chap, I now like to shower every morning but I can get a bit whiffy by the following morning despite use of deodorant. I am nevertheless unlikely to conclude that personal hygeine doesn't work, so I may as well abandon it.

 

[Guinness Boy]

My take is different. For me most VAR decisions are correct more often than the decision in the pre-VAR era.

It is about making things better rather than perfect.

In contrast to my youth, as a sophisticated chap, I now like to shower every morning but I can get a bit whiffy by the following morning despite use of deodorant. I am nevertheless unlikely to conclude that personal hygeine doesn't work, so I may as well abandon it.

Unless you’re the sort of fan who stands there at The Amex clapping like a seal and exclaiming “gosh, I’m glad they got that right” when a Mitoma goal is ruled out for offside by a toenail after five minutes and two hundred replays - and I suspect you’re not - then it has not made things better. It’s made them just as annoying in a new and more expensive way.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I have written endlessly about changing the rubric:

1. transferring the final VAR decision to the VAR ref instead of VAR 'helping' the onfield ref when the man with the cameras spots something the ref has got wrong;
2. restricting VAR involvement only to offside where a goal is scored, penalties, and red cards;
3. insisting that when it is clear a player is offside the lino should flag - flagging later is absurd since if the lino was unsure he shouldn't flag at all;
4. introducing a 20 second rule (or a 40 second rule) whereby if VAR can't see the ref was wrong then VAR shuts up;
5. insisting the on-field ref actually makes decisions rather than wait for VAR - if the decision is wrong and VAR can see it is wrong VAR can overrule.
6. And the clear blue daylight rule for offsides, with the caveat that bits of the body you can't score with can't be offside. I might also bring in mandatory shoulder line markings on shirts to help the camera on iffy offside decisions - with the 20 or 40 second rule helping focus minds

It really isn't complicated. And as stated it has been discussed on here ad nauseam.

1) diminishes the role of the on field ref and will further reduce the quality and number of applicants for the role.
2) is already the case and as we saw on Saturday the calls from VAR are subjective, certainly on penalties. Employ two different operators and get two different views ie no different from two different on field refs.
3) it is often not clear a player is offside as the forward tries to time his run, so if we keep VAR your idea will cause there to be goals ‘incorrectly’ (in VAR perfectionist terms) ruled out by linesmen.
4) is fine if we are keeping it but does not address the issues raised.
5) you have used the word ‘wrong.’ It is very often subjective.
6) yes, in either a VAR or a non VAR world.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Unless you’re the sort of fan who stands there at The Amex clapping like a seal and exclaiming “gosh, I’m glad they got that right” when a Mitoma goal is ruled out for offside by a toenail after five minutes and two hundred replays - and I suspect you’re not - then it has not made things better. It’s made them just as annoying in a new and more expensive way.

Fair enough. I watch a lot of footy on TV and find the championship almost unwatchable these days owing to the ludicrous errors that cost goals and games. But I am aware that by and large the people in the stadium are not aware of the errors, and by the time they have got home they may well be past caring. I was like that before VAR.

But for me, Pandora's box has been opened by VAR. I have a number of other, refreshingly florid, analogies but I deem them unnecessary. Or do I mean unwise?

So it comes down to whether you want things to be more likely to be correct but with checks (delays) or simply live in the moment (with game-changing mistakes a price worth paying).

I realize this may seem perverse after Saturday's shit show, but I remain in the former camp. I can see you on the other side of the fence . . . . . . . tutting

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

1) diminishes the role of the on field ref and will further reduce the quality and number of applicants for the role.
2) is already the case and as we saw on Saturday the calls from VAR are subjective, certainly on penalties. Employ two different operators and get two different views ie no different from two different on field refs.
3) it is often not clear a player is offside as the forward tries to time his run, so if we keep VAR your idea will cause there to be goals ‘incorrectly’ (in VAR perfectionist terms) ruled out by linesmen.
4) is fine if we are keeping it but does not address the issues raised.
5) you have used the word ‘wrong.’ It is very often subjective.
6) yes, in either a VAR or a non VAR world.

1. I don't care. Pay them more. That's why we have a western market economy rather than communism.
2. Yes I know. The subjectivity is dealt with by my points 3, 4 and 5. I have proposed a global set of changes hat used together make things better. If you deconstruct them and treat them as isolated solutions you will reach the wrong conclusion.
3. You are describing a marginal decision situation. I said 'when it is clear'. Yes there will be a point where there is a transition between offside being clear and not clear. At that point on field judgement is needed. If play is stopped because offside is called by the on field officials erroneously, that would be sad, but it is the least worse scenario. This would be the case with or without VAR. Under all other situations having VAR and using it as I describe would improve the accuracy of decisions.
4. See reply 2, above. Drinking my tea within 5 minutes of pouring it means it tastes nicer. This does not solve all my dietary requirements but it makes my breakfast better, putting me in a better mood and generally contributing to my health and wellbeing. It is all part of my nicely balanced lifestyle. Brushing my teeth for three minutes is another example. Digression won't kill me, but why not do things that are helpful?
5. I said if it is wrong and VAR can see it is wrong. If you cannot accept the existence of the phenomenon of 'wrong', I don't see why you are concerning yourself with the officiating at Spuds.
6. I think you have gone and ruddy well agreed with me. What were you thinking? The added value of clear blue daylight when using VAR allows for the false precision of the millimeter line placement, and the sense of injustice over absurdly close calls. The point is that VAR can generate millimeter line placement of you make it so; in live action the human eye simply can't make such precise assessment.*

*We have something like a 400 msec reaction time so even if the lino is eyeballing the players in question, and in line with them both, if they are moving in opposite directions at roughly15 Km/h each, their relative position will have changed by up to 3 meters in those 400 msec. The human eye simply can't judge an offside within 3 meres in running players. Not enough precision. And if the lino isn't in like it will be inaccurate as well as imprecise.

Perhaps VAR should use a 3 meter wide red and green line and if the lines overlap it is onside. I'd be happy with that. There are many rubrics that could be tried with VAR, all of which are better than now and better than without VAR.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

1. I don't care. Pay them more. That's why we have a western market economy rather than communism.
2. Yes I know. The subjectivity is dealt with by my points 3, 4 and 5. I have proposed a global set of changes hat used together make things better. If you deconstruct them and treat them as isolated solutions you will reach the wrong conclusion.
3. You are describing a marginal decision situation. I said 'when it is clear'. Yes there will be a point where there is a transition between offside being clear and not clear. At that point on field judgement is needed. If play is stopped because offside is called by the on field officials erroneously, that would be sad, but it is the least worse scenario. This would be the case with or without VAR. Under all other situations having VAR and using it as I describe would improve the accuracy of decisions.
4. See reply 2, above. Drinking my tea within 5 minutes of pouring it means it tastes nicer. This does not solve all my dietary requirements but it makes my breakfast better, putting me in a better mood and generally contributing to my health and wellbeing. It is all part of my nicely balanced lifestyle. Brushing my teeth for three minutes is another example. Digression won't kill me, but why not do things that are helpful?
5. I said if it is wrong and VAR can see it is wrong. If you cannot accept the existence of the phenomenon of 'wrong', I don't see why you are concerning yourself with the officiating at Spuds.
6. I think you have gone and ruddy well agreed with me. What were you thinking? The added value of clear blue daylight when using VAR allows for the false precision of the millimeter line placement, and the sense of injustice over absurdly close calls. The point is that VAR can generate millimeter line placement of you make it so; in live action the human eye simply can't make such precise assessment.*

*We have something like a 400 msec reaction time so even if the lino is eyeballing the players in question, and in line with them both, if they are moving in opposite directions at roughly15 Km/h each, their relative position will have changed by up to 3 meters in those 400 msec. The human eye simply can't judge an offside within 3 meres in running players. Not enough precision. And if the lino isn't in like it will be inaccurate as well as imprecise.

Perhaps VAR should use a 3 meter wide red and green line and if the lines overlap it is onside. I'd be happy with that. There are many rubrics that could be tried with VAR, all of which are better than now and better than without VAR.

Well, there will be some areas of agreement. Overall though I couldn’t disagree with you more. My mention of Spurs was purely to illustrate the subjective nature of football decision making. The thread on here asking which decision was the worst found a consensus of a very high probability on the Mitoma non penalty but more disagreement on the handball goals. Your answer to 1) is a little worrying as like most jobs there needs to be progression. We are telling referees the higher they progress the lesser the responsibility. If money is the only incentive, well…

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Your answer to 1) is a little worrying as like most jobs there needs to be progression. We are telling referees the higher they progress the lesser the responsibility. If money is the only incentive, well…

That would suggest people would rather referee a Non-League game where they have the final decision, than referee a Champions League final, where they have some assistance.
I'd suggest that this isn't the case. And if a referee has that attitude they shouldn't be anywhere near a professional game anyway.

 

[Brighton Rock Podcast]

VAR system is only ever as good as its operatives and application. Our’s lack any meaningful credentials or quality to the relevant value

 

[Greg Bobkin]

About time for another one of our irregular VAR for / against polls.

I've always been against this joyless mood hoover of a device. Yesterday, those limbs, Welbeck coming over to us on the slide, pure joy all round. And then......

But take that out of it for a moment. We were told by many on here (some of them even sensible) that we'd get "correct" decisions. We were told that it would rid us of top six bias. It has done no such thing.

All the time that decisions are being made by fallible human beings who carry unconscious bias around them like a bottle of water VAR will simply be something that delays games, removes exuberant celebrations and still gets all kinds of things wrong.

No. I've said that since it was first introduced.

 

[thejackal]

I think we need something like VAR to correct the really glaring officiating mistakes (e.g. Lampard, Henry) but it obviously requires a far, far lighter touch than is currently being applied.

It's almost as if they've got a new toy and they're trying to use it as often as they can. VAR should be intervening a few times a season, not a few times per game.

 

[Simster]

Nonsense.

VAR was supposed to fix the problems that clearly existed. It hasn’t done that and it’s made the fan experience worse to boot. That’s literally the point of the thread

The question is whether or not VAR is currently fit for purpose and clearly it isn't.

However, think @London Irish has a point - people forget the number of big six decisions that has always characterised refereeing decisions, not to mention the number of times offsides were blown for when players were clearly onside (and sometimes vice versa), plus Villa should have been relegated after Sheff Utd scored a goal that wasn't given. In fact there are loads of decisions.

There are multiple problems with VAR though. Primarily that it takes too long, and the referees running it are unbelievably incompetent.

So right now, it's f**king shit. Either fix these two problems quickly or bin it.

 

[Bozza]

VAR system is only ever as good as its operatives and application. Our’s lack any meaningful credentials or quality to the relevant value

Exactly.

VAR is, essentially, made up of three components...

- Technology - the cameras and video equipment to capture and replay match action
- Operative - the VAR ref who reviews match action
- Application - the rules that set out how the operative addresses the footage he reviews

Away from offside, there's little obviously wrong with the technology - most incidents seem to be captured well, and generally from multiple angles.

The issue is with the latter two and, more than likely, predominantly the application. Taking the Mitoma penalty incident as a working example, it simply can not be the case that the operative with the technology available to him was unable to see that Mitoma had been impeded. So, I can't help but narrow it down to the application he believed he was working to meant he did not intervene.

It feels like the application has changed so many times - clear and obvious, low bar, high bar, do not re-ref a game etc, that it doesn't feel surprising that an operative may make mistakes with application.

But, unless we are able to have sight of how they are told to apply what they see, as well as full transparency of comms between officials - as happens in rugby union - then we're all completely in the dark and making wild guesses.

 

[Guinness Boy]

The question is whether or not VAR is currently fit for purpose and clearly it isn't.

However, think @London Irish has a point - people forget the number of big six decisions that has always characterised refereeing decisions, not to mention the number of times offsides were blown for when players were clearly onside (and sometimes vice versa), plus Villa should have been relegated after Sheff Utd scored a goal that wasn't given. In fact there are loads of decisions.

There are multiple problems with VAR though. Primarily that it takes too long, and the referees running it are unbelievably incompetent.

So right now, it's f**king shit. Either fix these two problems quickly or bin it.

Possibly.

But I watched the Wrexham v Notts Co game yesterday and it was a breath of fresh air.

Looked to me (and Adam Virgo) like at least three offsides were wrongly called when Wrexham could have gone through, but there were two penalty calls correctly made which were both good spots and a goal was a goal, a penalty was a penalty. The game flowed so much better and the result was just about right

 

[Surf's Up]

Let's clear the first bit up first. VAR will not be binned.

Second, blaming bad decisions on the excessive length of time taken to make them. Really?

As I have said repeatedly since Saturday, the problem at the weekend was the VAR official spent too little time, mere seconds, making his decision.

The next myth is that VAR is no more accurate than no VAR. I have watched loads of Championship football this season. There have been loads of errors made with goals falsely chalked off or falsely given when the right decision would have certainly been made had VAR been in use. And, guess what? Next season the championship will use VAR. According to some on here this is being done to lend an unfair advantage to the top six. Part of a conspiracy.

The fact is that VAR, like speed limits and drink driving thresholds are here to stay. We simply need to get the rubric to work.

The biggest obstacles are:

1. The on-pitch ref has the final say. This is how we have come to this clear and obvious bollocks.
Solution? Give the VAR ref the final say. He is the one with the tech.
2. The obsession among many fans to not lose a nanosecond of their football enjoyment experience waiting for a VAR decision, and the repeated drone in the media about this. Solution: give the VAR ref adequate but limited time to make the decision. I have mooted 20 sec, but maybe 40 sec is fairer. After that, go with the on field ref's whim. DON'T do what happened on Saturday and tell the ref it was handball when you clearly cannot tell if it was handball. That was an absolute failure of process. And it was the fault of a foolish man, not VAR.

All events that pissed us off yesterday should have been checked. Denial of a goal scoring opportunity (arguably Mitoma's wasn't but I'll park that) and the scoring of a goal. Our chalked off goals were chalked off due to ignorance (the shoulder cannot handle the ball) and haste (the second chalked off goal is not visibly a hand ball so the VAR ref rushed it and made the wrong decision).

Haste and incompetence. There should be no room for this in football refereeing.

But going back to the pre-VAR era, and agitating for this, is a Luddite imperative. May as well petition for the abolition of speed limits. I really can't understand how some people are still clinging on to this pipedream.

You speak a lot of sense!

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

Causes more controversy and issues than it solves. It also introduced additional human error element into making decisions, may as well reduce it down to the person on the pitch making bad calls rather than two sets of officials making bad calls if they are going to get it wrong anyway.

 

[Simster]

Possibly.

But I watched the Wrexham v Notts Co game yesterday and it was a breath of fresh air.

Looked to me (and Adam Virgo) like at least three offsides were wrongly called when Wrexham could have gone through, but there were two penalty calls correctly made which were both good spots and a goal was a goal, a penalty was a penalty. The game flowed so much better and the result was just about right

That's all well and good when key mistakes aren't made, isn't it? I can't imagine either side would be happy if they'd been subjected to the crap refereeing display we had on Saturday.

And let's say Wrexham had been behind. You honestly think you'd be able to brush off those incorrect offside calls as easily as you have done, simply because the result was "about right"?

 

[Springal]

But actually look at Twitter and Notts County fans are angry about mistakes made in a key game that they lost !

 

[Simster]

But actually look at Twitter and Notts County fans are angry about mistakes made in a key game that they lost !

No, that can't be right. I think you'll find it was a breath of fresh air.

 

[osgood]

VAR IS fit for purpose
PGMOL Are NOT
Sack them and put some competent staff in their place

 

[Clive Walker]

the saying "if we have the technology at our disposal we should use it" was banded around by everyone pre VAR. Im of the belief that we don't yet have the level of technology that is fit for purpose.

Im my view we should have technology that will be able to tell if a player is offside or onside within a 'blink of an eye' of the ball hitting the net. A bit like goal line technology. As soon as the payer wheels away in celebration the entire stadium will know if it has been ruled out or not. This would take away my real hatred of football at the moment. I literally don't celebrate a goal anymore.

Until this level of technology is available we will have this poor version.