[Football] VAR!.... Huhh!.... What Is It Good For?

[GT49er]

Problem is they will check every goal from a corner for a foul by the attacking team, which is just not fair when blatant fouls by the defending team are not being caught...they need to sort this out.

That's what he said................................

"Let them just referee as normal, and any serious errors can be picked up by the VAR. "

 

[Weststander]

Really is useless unless it was applied in the same way as rugby. But that is impractical.

Even in rugby Tunisia's tackling a man without the ball is an offence.

 

[Wardy's twin]

thread started well but then people started talking rugby and went down hill rapidly

 

[Easy 10]

Problem is they will check every goal from a corner for a foul by the attacking team, which is just not fair when blatant fouls by the defending team are not being caught...they need to sort this out.

Well if they do, thats not the remit. The VAR is only supposed to get involved when there has been a clear and obvious error. A minor debatable push or tug in the box is not what its supposed to be for.

I do share your trepidation that this could be the thin end of the wedge though. Defining what is a "clear and obvious error" can have many shades of grey. But so far, on the whole, its been ok.

 

[Eeyore]

Even in rugby Tunisia's tackling a man without the ball is an offence.

Irony being that's a penalty in rugby as well as a cardable offence.

 

[maffew]

Very well said.

say it again

 

[Medwayseagull]

I still wouldnt remove VAR. Lets have a big applause for the goal line tech which has ensured goals have been awarded correctly a number of times already this tournament and players are still trying to argue it

VAR and goal line technology are two separate things.

 

[skipper734]

https://youtu.be/qDtYycH52D0

 

[Blue3]

VAR has so far overturned some incorrect refereeing decisions which has got to be a good thing right?,

However yesterday's game with Japan I noticed already we are seeing players trying to influence decision making and calling for the referees to go to VAR.

I fear it could descend into farce affecting the games flow being used to try and disrupt times when teams are under pressure.

Could football lose it's grass route appeal jumpers for goal posts would it then be just a short step away from having time out referral calls when dancing girls will rush onto the pitch with music blaring while VAR decisions are made hundreds if not thousands of miles away at the UEFA VAR facilities in Switzerland, TV commentators saying will this decision be overturned we will find out right after this short message from our sponcers Global Trump inc a few seconds pass and then welcome back the VAR has made a decision and I can tell you yes it was a foul throw!

 

[scamander]

VAR requires a game with plenty of instances where there is a break or stop in play. In rugby it's highly suited because often the ball is dead and VAR is used to establish the outcome, for example the ball is held up over the line, or is it? Ball is dead, so the game is stopped and ref checks to either have a try awarded or 5m scrum.

VAR is used to give the ref more information to make a decision at a point in the game when it has come to a natural stop.

This occurs less in football, was there a foul in the box? You can't stop the game and review whilst the ball is live, it's possible that the team accused of the foul then goes on the counter and scores or launches an attack. Stopping that because the team may have fouled isn't easy or practical.

Ultimately VAR is needed because of the increased ability of players to deceive the ref, yet this is rarely pointed out. Not surprising given those sat in the studios are ex players.

 

[Puppet Master]

It's all a bit "u ok hun?" innit

 

[Triggaaar]

My view is that the referee should have VAR as a simple check to a reactive decision.

E.g ''Is there any reason why I should not award a penalty ?'' The decision remains final unless conclusively proved otherwise. The captain of a team, and no-one else, has the right to ask the referee to look again at decisions surrounding goals and goals only.

The captain doesn't need to ask, if a penalty is given, VAR is already being used to check if there's any reason the penalty shouldn't be awarded. If there is a reason, a message is sent to the ref and he can see the footage.

 

[nicko31]

So glad PL aren't going with it, hate it

 

[Triggaaar]

Problem is they will check every goal from a corner for a foul by the attacking team, which is just not fair when blatant fouls by the defending team are not being caught...they need to sort this out.

It's going to take some time to get it right. It's not all against the attacking team though, there will be more penalties at this world cup than any previous one.

 

[Triggaaar]

VAR has so far overturned some incorrect refereeing decisions which has got to be a good thing right?,

However yesterday's game with Japan I noticed already we are seeing players trying to influence decision making and calling for the referees to go to VAR.

That's only because they themselves don't understand how it works yet. The ref doesn't call for VAR, the big decisions are being reviewed regardless of what the ref does. Asking the ref for VAR doesn't do anything.

I fear it could descend into farce affecting the games flow being used to try and disrupt times when teams are under pressure.

It doesn't work like that.

 

[Triggaaar]

VAR requires a game with plenty of instances where there is a break or stop in play.

There was a game this week where there was a penalty shout, not given, defending team break and go up the other end - no break in play. Ref gets a message that he's missed a clear penalty, so he stops play, checks footage, awards the penalty. There wasn't a need for a break in play.

 

[SAC]

Although not perfect, it's been a lot quicker than some of the examples shown from Italy and Germany.

 

[Triggaaar]

Although not perfect, it's been a lot quicker than some of the examples shown from Italy and Germany.

There are many ways it could have been done, but generally I like the way they're using it at this tournament. Ref just gets on with his job, while things are checked in the background, and ultimately the ref has the final say.

It would be good to know why we weren't given a penalty for the fouls on Kane, as there seems to be a failing in the system somewhere. Referees are accountable for their mistakes (in that we know who the ref is, and they are subject to criticism). I wonder if it should be published who the referees are who are manning the VAR booth too, so that they know they too are subject to scrutiny.

 

[Gazwag]

There was a game this week where there was a penalty shout, not given, defending team break and go up the other end - no break in play. Ref gets a message that he's missed a clear penalty, so he stops play, checks footage, awards the penalty. There wasn't a need for a break in play.

Problem being, what if the ref decides, after reviewing, that there is no penalty, the defending team could have been in on goal with just the keeper to beat when the whistle goes to review the decision.

 

[SussexSeahawk]

I wonder if it should be published who the referees are who are manning the VAR booth too, so that they know they too are subject to scrutiny.

They are published, not that I have any clue who they are.