[Football] VAR at Shalke tonight

[Easy 10]

Also saw this from the BBC report:

"The second penalty was given for a foul by Fernandinho on Salif Sane - the referee sticking with his decision after briefly consulting the VAR."

If thats what actually happened with that 2nd pen, then its incorrect use of VAR. The referee is supposed to make all of his on-field decisions as normal, he is NOT supposed to be communicating with VAR to affirm his decisions. VAR is only supposed to get involved if (in the opion of the VAR) the ref may have dropped a bollock and needs to review it. VAR is not there as a crutch for the ref to defer to when he's not sure.

Its a mess.

 

[Easy 10]

That first penalty decision, in a nutshell, is the problem with VAR. Even after the benefit of the replays, you've got 2 distinct camps, some who believe it was a handball and a pen, and some that don't. Despite the benefit of multiple replays, you're still asking people to make subjective decisions when its by no means black and white.

What I would say is that on first viewing in realtime, the ref decided it was no pen. VAR is only supposed to get involved when there has been a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS ERROR. Was the original decision (no pen) CLEARLY wrong ? The fact that it took 3-4 minutes of deliberation by the VAR official suggests not. And the ref didn't even go over for another look himself.

In my opinion, that was a borderline decision. Seen them given, seen them not. So the VAR should've left well alone. But, we are where we are and there's no stopping it now.

While I'm banging on, its now emerged that the pitchside monitor was broken, so the ref did not have the option of going to review it for himself.

I mean christ.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

That first penalty decision, in a nutshell, is the problem with VAR. Even after the benefit of the replays, you've got 2 distinct camps, some who believe it was a handball and a pen, and some that don't. Despite the benefit of multiple replays, you're still asking people to make subjective decisions when its by no means black and white.

What I would say is that on first viewing in realtime, the ref decided it was no pen. VAR is only supposed to get involved when there has been a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS ERROR. Was the original decision (no pen) CLEARLY wrong ? The fact that it took 3-4 minutes of deliberation by the VAR official suggests not. And the ref didn't even go over for another look himself.

In my opinion, that was a borderline decision. Seen them given, seen them not. So the VAR should've left well alone. But, we are where we are and there's no stopping it now.

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

 

[mikeyjh]

Every time a pundit comes on the radio to talk about VAR - VAR is never the problem, it's always something else. The officials not knowing how to use it etc etc. This morning Danny Mills is telling me it isn't VAR, it's the handball rule and the monitor broke, not VAR being a crap idea, no, never. This tweet said it well.
[tweet]1098326522820202502[/tweet]

 

[Whitechapel]

I remember saying VAR was a steaming pile of shit that wouldn’t work on here a few months ago, and more than one poster told me how wrong I was. Think yesterday showed off a lot of my problems with VAR. I’m really debating giving up my season ticket next year, it’s a joke currently.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I was watching the Atletico Juve game (The cool man's choice) and the VAR was used perfectly.

Costa was running towards the area, tripped but fell into the area. The ref pointed to the spot but then checked with VAR. 3 quick replays showed he was tripped outside and he gave the free kick instead, Maybe 30 seconds of waiting and the Atletico players (who were arguing EVERYTHING all night) even nodded and agreed with the refs decision when he clearly explained he had checked with VAR.

I don't actually like VAR but it was the perfect use of it.

It would maybe fall flat in Europe (due to language barrier) but I think domestically the refs should be mic'd up like the NFL. The mics are automatically off but switched on to announce what the ref is reviewing.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

VAR should only be used when its not about opinions. Offsides are clear with var - there is a yes or no answer. Handballs and fouls are ALWAYS going to be about opinions unless they are clear and obvious, in which case the ref and assistants should see it (Burnley match aside).

On balance - don't want VAR thanks.

 

[Wozza]

VAR should give managers the right to call two or three reviews a match. That's it.

The onus is then on the teams, and the ref can forget about it until called on.

And it's enough to cut-out really horrible, game-changing mistakes.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

For once in my life I agree with you.

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

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

VAR should only be used when its not about opinions. Offsides are clear with var - there is a yes or no answer. Handballs and fouls are ALWAYS going to be about opinions unless they are clear and obvious, in which case the ref and assistants should see it (Burnley match aside).

On balance - don't want VAR thanks.

Agreed. It's why it drives me mad when people compare it to the brilliance of goal line technology. It's nothing like it.

The reason it works in rugby is that the reviews are always on a technical point which can very rarely be argued. Was the pass forward? Was the ball grounded properly? Was the player offside when the ball was kicked? Simple.

Last night I saw them SLOWING DOWN handballs. There was some ref in the studio saying "look, he only moves his hand away at the last second". ERRRRR YEAH, That's because you are watching a 5 second slow down of something which happened in half a second. You can make anything look deliberate in slow motion. Watch it again in real time if you have to.

 

[Simster]

VAR would work fine if everybody was clear WHEN and HOW it should be called upon.

Yesterday served to demonstrate how football risks undermining a technology that could prove very beneficial if it was implemented sensibly because people are saying "right, bin it because it is shit" rather than "this is a shit way of using the technology, let's have some clear rules governing when it can be used".

I would say;

do not use it for:
* handball. Instead, always give the defending team the benefit of the doubt and keep it away from VAR.
* any non-cardable foul outside the box

use it for:
* offsides - you are either off-side or you're not. Linos should keep their flag down unless an absolutely stonewall offside.
* potential bookings/sendings off - these are game changers.
* challenges in the penalty area - excluding handball.

And in all cases, it should be the ref who makes the call with the benefit of VAR, not some gaggle of men 40 miles away.

 

[LVGull]

Absolute joke. How not to do it. Incomptant ref and VAR monitors. Train the ****ers FFS.

I mean the amount of time taken was absurd. The credibility of the decision was therefore nil. And it was wrong (but that is arguable. Maybe).

Works so well in other sports especially rugby. Football as usual ****s it up.

 

[Munkfish]

VAR should give managers the right to call two or three reviews a match. That's it.

The onus is then on the teams, and the ref can forget about it until called on.

And it's enough to cut-out really horrible, game-changing mistakes.

Couldnt agree more with this, should be down to managers and captains to ask for a review, 3 a game and no more than 2 in one half, unless the decision is overuled then you keep your review.

In addition to this I would also bring in fines for managers and players in case of abuse of the system essentially using it as a time out in football and trying to run the clock down at the end of the game.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

VAR makes 2 correct decisions, even Stevie Wonder can see both were penalties

For what it's worth, I think the Otamendi handball is a very grey area. I don't think he intentionally handled the ball so I'm surprised it got given.

I also didn't think it was a foul in the lead up to City's goal.

I guess all it shows is that there will still be opinion about these things.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

VAR would work fine if everybody was clear WHEN and HOW it should be called upon.

Yesterday served to demonstrate how football risks undermining a technology that could prove very beneficial if it was implemented sensibly because people are saying "right, bin it because it is shit" rather than "this is a shit way of using the technology, let's have some clear rules governing when it can be used".

I would say;

do not use it for:
* handball. Instead, always give the defending team the benefit of the doubt and keep it away from VAR.
* any non-cardable foul outside the box

use it for:
* offsides - you are either off-side or you're not. Linos should keep their flag down unless an absolutely stonewall offside.
* potential bookings/sendings off - these are game changers.
* challenges in the penalty area - excluding handball.

And in all cases, it should be the ref who makes the call with the benefit of VAR, not some gaggle of men 40 miles away.

Totally correct. Human's are the issue, not the tech.

 

[Ernest]

For what it's worth, I think the Otamendi handball is a very grey area. I don't think he intentionally handled the ball so I'm surprised it got given.

I also didn't think it was a foul in the lead up to City's goal.

I guess all it shows is that there will still be opinion about these things.

Every decision made by a human is an opinion, an interpretation of events. I didn't know the pitch side screen wasn't working so in that event the VAR shouldn't have been used last night

 

[Brovion]

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

Currently that's my view as well. We've always said that in principle it's a good idea; after all lots of other sports have it so why not football? What has always sunk it though is the next question: "Yeah, but how would you deploy it though?" It must be blindingly obvious to even the most ardent supporter of VAR that that question simply hasn't been answered yet; in fact it's not even close to being answered.

VAR has done nothing to remove controversy, in fact all it's done is add another layer of it. Even the decisions it does get right take too long and remove the spontaneity of the game. I'm not opposed to VAR per se but the current dog's breakfast of an implementation is doing nothing for the game. They should go back to the drawing board until they can solve the deployment problem, and we can go back to moaning at refs and linesmen because they occasionally (and it is only occasionally) get big decisions wrong.

 

[Easy 10]

Couldnt agree more with this, should be down to managers and captains to ask for a review, 3 a game and no more than 2 in one half, unless the decision is overuled then you keep your review.

In addition to this I would also bring in fines for managers and players in case of abuse of the system essentially using it as a time out in football and trying to run the clock down at the end of the game.

How on earth would you implement that when, as we can already see, there is (predictably) such a wide spectrum of interpretations and opinions on VAR incidents ?

"He's only called for VAR to run the clock down there. Ban him. Fine him".
"Hang on though, was that ball to hand or hand to ball ?"
"Errr...."

 

[Brovion]

Agreed. It's why it drives me mad when people compare it to the brilliance of goal line technology. It's nothing like it.

The reason it works in rugby is that the reviews are always on a technical point which can very rarely be argued. Was the pass forward? Was the ball grounded properly? Was the player offside when the ball was kicked? Simple.

Last night I saw them SLOWING DOWN handballs. There was some ref in the studio saying "look, he only moves his hand away at the last second". ERRRRR YEAH, That's because you are watching a 5 second slow down of something which happened in half a second. You can make anything look deliberate in slow motion. Watch it again in real time if you have to.

That is an excellent point. Ditto cricket - Was it a no-ball? Was there bat involved? Did he make his ground? These are technical 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.

 

[Munkfish]

How on earth would you implement that when, as we can already see, there is (predictably) such a wide spectrum of interpretations and opinions on VAR incidents ?

"He's only called for VAR to run the clock down there. Ban him. Fine him".
"Hang on though, was that ball to hand or hand to ball ?"
"Errr...."

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.