[Football] VAR at Shalke tonight

[Easy 10]

That is an excellent point. Ditto cricket - Was it a no-ball? Was there bat involved? Did he make his ground? These are issues that can be solved by technology nearly 100% of the time with total accuracy. Not so for football. Was that handball accidental or deliberate? Well you tell me.

Been saying this all along. Technology works well in other sports because you are essentially reviewing a binary decision. Added to the fact that sports such as NFL, cricket, rugby are for the most part a series of plays, short bursts of action before a natural break in play. Football is not. It is a flowing game, and any number of incidents can happen during a passage of play since the "VAR" incident took place before the ball goes dead.

It will get some stuff right, and can certainly work well on occasions. But it also adds its own new layer of complex problematic controversy that will still cause loads of unending arguments. Which we always had before the emergence of VAR, so frankly, I don't really see the point of it.

 

[Is it PotG?]

I think most agree VAR was correct. Idiot HWT seems to live in a parallel universe.

 

[Easy 10]

No reviews in time added on. It may not be needed but I would hate to see a review system where all 5 reviews were used each game in the last 5 mins.

Blimey. So a ref misses a "clear and obvious error" in the box (a blatant handball, or a terrible penalty decision or whatever), a gamechanging, scorechanging decision. But because we're beyond the 90th minute, it can't be appealed/corrected ?

Yes, that'd stop all the controversy at a stroke, for sure.

 

[Munkfish]

Blimey. So a ref misses a "clear and obvious error" in the box (a blatant handball, or a terrible penalty decision or whatever), a gamechanging, scorechanging decision. But because we're beyond the 90th minute, it can't be appealed/corrected ?

Yes, that'd stop all the controversy at a stroke, for sure.

What would your suggestion be?

And of course it would stop the controversy if they were the laws that were set out. I am not saying its perfect, but quite frankly I dont see why football has this craving to be 100% perfect. What it would mean however are their are terms and set rules when and when things can be challanged. If its the same for all teams, if you agree with it or not it wouldnt cause anymore controversy as the rules are the same for both teams and know what they are up against. Something I think is completely wrong at the moment that no one is actually clear on how it is used or how it should be used.

 

[Easy 10]

What would your suggestion be?

And of course it would stop the controversy if they were the laws that were set out. I am not saying its perfect, but quite frankly I dont see why football has this craving to be 100% perfect. What it would mean however are their are terms and set rules when and when things can be challanged. If its the same for all teams, if you agree with it or not it wouldnt cause anymore controversy as the rules are the same for both teams and know what they are up against. Something I think is completely wrong at the moment that no one is actually clear on how it is used or how it should be used.

I think you nailed it when you said "frankly I dont see why football has this craving to be 100% perfect". I'm in complete agreement with you there. Before VAR arrived, you may not always have got the right decision, but it would at least be an honest one, and you'd just have to take the rough with the smooth. Its a human game, and human errors can occur - I can accept that. Or lets say I'd RATHER accept that, than have this whole complex system introduced which needs its own raft of new laws and regulations in order to try to accommodate it into our game.

Fact is though, like it or loathe it, we're stuck with it now. I don't like your idea of a system of X number of reviews being allowed, exactly for the reason you picked up on - it would sometimes end up being abused at the arse-end of a game just to help break things up, just as managers already do with numerous pointless subs to run the clock down. Imagine adding in a couple of frivolous VAR appeals on top of that, we'd never get out of injury time. I don't know how you can legislate against that, so I simply wouldn't bring that aspect in.

The main problem seems to be that VAR is only supposed to get involved in the instance of a clear and obvious error being made. Which is fine in theory, but it also carries so many shades of grey, and the pressure to get things 100% right means its still being used for borderline calls. Which it was not supposed to do, but it was an inevitable result and a 100% predictable thin end of a big wedge.

 

[trueblue]

Both correct decisions as far as I’m concerned, but why does it take them so long to arrive at the decision?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Agreed. Really, this problem shouldn't arise. If the VAR can't decide in the first 30-60 seconds after seeing a couple of replays, then it's really not an obvious mistake on the ref's part.

 

[darkwolf666]

But what if its a borderline, borderline decision? Where does the line fall between what's a clear error and an unclear one?

Football was not designed for video reffing, should have steered well clear

Goal line technology is all mist ever really wanted, the rest should be left to the officials...