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

[Triggaaar]

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.

Indeed that would be crap. I think it would be pretty daft if he blew up as they're through on goal. It's a work in progress, they should be able to come up with a solution.

If the break is really quick, before time for a VAR review, I'd rather let it play out and if the breaking team score the ref immediately makes it clear that it's subject to review. It's either a goal for one side, or a penalty to the other. A massive decision obviously, but that can't be avoided.

 

[Triggaaar]

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

Ok cool. I assume it's a group of referees that usually take charge of the game is it? I'd like to know who they were for our game.

 

[SussexSeahawk]

I am amazed how negative the reaction to VAR has been on here. My guess is that anger towards the referee has just been redirected towards VAR. Yes in the England game there should have been (at least one) penalty to England, but the reason they didn't give it was because the referee on the pitch didn't give it and VAR are being very cautious (proobably too much so imo) about what they overturn.

There has not been a single outrageous decision so far this world cup incorrectly overturned by VAR (I know some people dispute the Griezmann penalty, but it definitely was a penalty). So every single decision VAR has 'got wrong', would also have been given were VAR not at the world cup. Walker's foul would still have been a penalty, Kane would still not have got a penalty. Meanwhile we have seen at least a couple of occasions where bad decisions were corrected: Sweden's penalty vs South Korea being the clearest example.

So there have definitely been more correct decisions this world cup thanks to VAR than if there were no VAR. So what's all the complaints about? Too much time wasted? Not really: there's rarely been delays to the match at all. Inconsistency? Well not really, as there would be more inconsistency if there were no VAR: and we hear enough complaints throughout the season for refs being inconsistent. So I'm really stumped (other than people just not liking change / something they don't entirely understand) where everyone's hatred of VAR comes from.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

If VAR cannot spot players being wrestled to the ground in the penalty box, it serves no useful purpose.

 

[SussexSeahawk]

If VAR cannot spot players being wrestled to the ground in the penalty box, it serves no useful purpose.

But the ref was the one who didn't spot it! The reason they didn't overturn it, was that this sort of crap happens multiple times every game and if they gave a penalty every time, tons of people would be moaning about VAR ruining the game (am not denying it should have been overturned). Your issue is that VAR isn't overturning as much as you would like it to do. It's still better than the ref on his own.

 

[Hornblower]

But the ref was the one who didn't spot it! The reason they didn't overturn it, was that this sort of crap happens multiple times every game and if they gave a penalty every time, tons of people would be moaning about VAR ruining the game (am not denying it should have been overturned). Your issue is that VAR isn't overturning as much as you would like it to do. It's still better than the ref on his own.

However, the officials did make a point of saying that they would not tolerate players being impeded in the box in this tournament. Not much sign of that approach being applied so far.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

But the ref was the one who didn't spot it! The reason they didn't overturn it, was that this sort of crap happens multiple times every game and if they gave a penalty every time, tons of people would be moaning about VAR ruining the game (am not denying it should have been overturned). Your issue is that VAR isn't overturning as much as you would like it to do. It's still better than the ref on his own.

I don't believe it is any better than the ref on his own !

Total waste of money if it can't get the obvious things right, and also at a cost to disrupting the flow of the game.

Should be scrapped and go back on trial until it can get the basic and obvious things right !

 

[Easy 10]

But the ref was the one who didn't spot it! The reason they didn't overturn it, was that this sort of crap happens multiple times every game and if they gave a penalty every time, tons of people would be moaning about VAR ruining the game (am not denying it should have been overturned). Your issue is that VAR isn't overturning as much as you would like it to do. It's still better than the ref on his own.

If they gave a penalty every time, then maybe defenders would stop doing it.

This was always going to be the problem though, the consistency of when it is and isn't used. Sometimes fouls are blatant, sometimes they're not. Now its been brought in, people are expecting it to be perfect and clear everything up, when it won't. You've got Brazil grizzling to FIFA over the Swiss equaliser when Zuber craftily shoved the defender in the back and nodded it in, and also asking why Neymar didn't get a pen. Argentina were denied a pen when Pavon was clearly wiped out by an Iceland defender, but play went on with no referee review. Then we had the Kane incidents, both of which were worthy of penalties it that went well beyond a shove or a pull. Whereas the French were awarded a pen on a much more marginal call.

Its in now, we're stuck with it. And we'll have to learn to get used to the glaring inconsistencies in its use. Sometimes it works well, but I can't help feeling that all we've done is swap one set of controversies for a whole set of new ones.

 

[SussexSeahawk]

I don't believe it is any better than the ref on his own !

Total waste of money if it can't get the obvious things right, and also at a cost to disrupting the flow of the game.

Should be scrapped and go back on trial until it can get the basic and obvious things right !

Well it's definitely not worse. But I think that view would be different if we had an incident like in Sweden-South Korea. If that was in an Albion match and not given, can you imagine the vitriol the ref would have got on here? Well now there is a system in play for the world cup that would stop that sort of incident from ending a team's world cup. I seriously don't understand how a normal ref without that assistance is no better than a ref on his own.

The money argument is a fair consideration, but lets be honest: this is football. However many millions it takes to implement VAR is a drop in the ocean in world cup terms.

 

[SussexSeahawk]

However, the officials did make a point of saying that they would not tolerate players being impeded in the box in this tournament. Not much sign of that approach being applied so far.

Agreed. But that is a ref problem not a VAR problem.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I'm totally with [MENTION=34551]SussexSeahawk[/MENTION] on this.

Of course its not perfect, but it is well in credit, so far this tournament. You have to remember what it is for - not for a second opinion on matters of interpretation (which most 'grappling' incidents are), but to correct manifest MISTAKES.

The South Korea one was excellent use of the system, as was the penalty given against Russia last night - the referee interpreted the challenge as a foul, but gave it outside the box, only for the VAR officials to look at the footage in a few seconds, and confirm the incident continued into the penalty area, thus a PK. For line decisions (is it in the box? Was it offside? Did the ball go out?) the technology is an irrefutable positive.

For opinion / interpretation based decisions it is not, and was never claimed to be, a panacea.

 

[SussexSeahawk]

Now its been brought in, people are expecting it to be perfect and clear everything up, when it won't. You've got Brazil grizzling to FIFA over the Swiss equaliser when Zuber craftily shoved the defender in the back and nodded it in, and also asking why Neymar didn't get a pen. Argentina were denied a pen when Pavon was clearly wiped out by an Iceland defender, but play went on with no referee review. Then we had the Kane incidents, both of which were worthy of penalties it that went well beyond a shove or a pull. Whereas the French were awarded a pen on a much more marginal call.

Well I think you answer it in your first sentence. The problem is people's expectations, not VAR.

The France one was not a more marginal call though. With upper-body fouls (such as the Kane incident, and the Swiss goal), it's much harder to get a clear and obvious decision. Contact between players does not automatically make it a foul, so the ref (and then ultimately the VAR) has to determine the level of contact. They have clearly erred on the side of caution with regard to overturning these (in my opinion too much) and it's no coincidence that in every single incident like this, VAR has not overturned the on-field decision (so any complaints with VAR should be directed at the ref).

Tackles with the legs though are much easier to define and therefore easier to overturn. The South Korean player didn't touch the ball, but tripped the player so it was clearly a penalty. There is no decision that needs to be made about 'how hard the contact was'. There was clearly contact there, so it was a penalty. The Griezmann incident was similar, but slightly more complex. The defender touches the ball, trips the front leg but then on his follow through completely takes away the back leg. This part of the tackle is clearly where the foul comes from and all top level refs clearly identify that as a foul (see Clattenburg's discussion on that incident). Although you get arguments on here about how he got the ball, it's fairly obvious to the refs that this is just a foul, so it was overturned. The Pavon foul seems to be a clearly wrong decision and the process obviously failed there (although the ref didn't give it either).

I think people seem to have rose-tinted spectacles as to what normal refereeing looks like. There is no way that there is more inconsistency in the way VAR has been used in this WC is more than among regular refs. Just think of any match in which you know who refs.