[Football] VAR set to be used in Premier League next season

[father_and_son]

Trouble is, I can see referees being tempted to ask for a review when they're not sure of a call, especially a big one. Thats not supposed to be how it works, but if he's not sure of the call, its human nature to seek help so as to try to avoid dropping a bollock. I bet its already happening with VARS, we just don't know about it.

It happens already in cricket, where umpires have to make a call on a run-out. I've seen occasions where the batsman is clearly a long way short, and the decision could/should easily be made without the need for a replay, but the umpire calls for one anyway just to be sure. It doesn't matter so much in cricket as its not a flowing game, reviews fit in more naturally there. But in football, it would be a pain in the arse.

VARS will be good for ironing out the occasional obvious howler. But if it starts being used for highly marginal calls, like that Fulham disallowed goal last week...hmmm.

I do think that the solution for this is that the VAR is constantly reviewing footage and it should be down to them to highlight something to the Ref rather than allow the Ref to call for assistance.

Ultimately the VAR is a team of individuals watching the game but with multiple camera angles to ensure they see [nearly] everything. They should be in constant contact with the Ref and be able to advise that play is stopped, pulled back or not restarting because of that or this infringement.

Ref's should have the confidence to know that if they get the voice in the ear, that it is something they should act on, but the authority to delay acting if both the offence and the current play dictate (as per 'advantage').

Giving the ref's the ability to call in VAR raises the problems you suggest but also the opposite problem! There are enough egos in the ranks of officials that will deliberately ignore the option of VAR, even when they should be called in, because ultimately they don't like being told they were wrong!

 

[Easy 10]

Lets also hope that when it comes in next year, we've at least got rid of the wonky lines when looking at offsides

 

[Frankie]

oopsy

 

[Acker79]

My problem with how it was implemented in the World Cup is that it felt like for too many of the VAR instances the laws of the game were not actually being applied. When determining if a foul had occurred, they weren't looking at whether the challenge was careless, reckless, or used excessive force, they looked to see if there was contact. When determining if deliberate handling had occurred they we're looking at whether the arm moved to the ball, or if there was clear intent, but whether there was contact between the ball and the hand.

If you're not judging these things by the laws of the game when using VAR, then it undermines the game. Something that is not and never has been a foul when on the halfway line is let go, but when VAR comes in in the penalty box it suddenly becomes a foul.


I also, for similar reason, don't like the idea of the VAR making the decision on anything that is opinion based. Any offence that is only an offence if, in the opinion of the referee it is an offence should always be viewed by the referee. In the box or outside, on or offside, out of play or not - let the video assistant call it. That's fact based. A foul is only a foul if in the opinion of the referee it is careless, reckless or uses excessive force.


I also don't see the need for it to be shown on the big screen. That just feeds into this culture of undermining the ref by making it seem like it matters what anyone else thinks. Again, a fouls is a foul if, in the opinion of the referee, it is careless, reckless or uses excessive force. Not in the opinion of the majority of viewers/spectators. Not in the opinion of a panel of former players. Not in the opinion of the guys down the pub. By all means, convey the decision - a big "No goal - offside!' sign, or "FOUL!" flash up on the screen, if the ref's gestures are too obscure. But we shouldn't be shown the replays.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

It might just help rule out a few blatant errors... but it is going to throw up a whole new set of binfests. Opinions will always be just that. And football is full of them, and many of them blinkered!

But it shouldn't, and the WC proved that generally it cut out the silly errors. In theory, all it's doing is giving a second option for viewing to the person in charge who most clearly knows the rules. Referees that don't use it effectively will quickly be out for those that do as they won't be able to hide behind their errors with a "well in real time it looked like X and I don't get the benefit of a second look..." type excuse.

Furthermore, VAR itself isn't the issue. All it does is minimise, where possible, human error. How anyone can think that's a bad thing is beyond me.

The only real issue is that VAR use so far has shown a real contempt for match going fans who often aren't kept up to date. A few fairly sensible adjustments and that would be ironed out relatively easily I'd imagine.

 

[burnee54]

Ooh, now you've done it. The GOONSQUAD will be out in force defending the swivel-eyed gravity whore to the hilt, asking for evidence that he dives, then arguing that black is white when its presented to them.

The thing I'm going to hate is when we're celebrating a goal but then see that there's a VAR review, so it all gets put on hold. I appreciated we might be on the right side of that when we've conceded, but you lose all the spontanaeity. Anyway, I'm getting ahead of meself, we might not even be involved next season.

Shirley you don't mean Weeble Zaha?

 

[BensGrandad]

My problem with how it was implemented in the World Cup is that it felt like for too many of the VAR instances the laws of the game were not actually being applied. When determining if a foul had occurred, they weren't looking at whether the challenge was careless, reckless, or used excessive force, they looked to see if there was contact. When determining if deliberate handling had occurred they we're looking at whether the arm moved to the ball, or if there was clear intent, but whether there was contact between the ball and the hand.

If you're not judging these things by the laws of the game when using VAR, then it undermines the game. Something that is not and never has been a foul when on the halfway line is let go, but when VAR comes in in the penalty box it suddenly becomes a foul.


I also, for similar reason, don't like the idea of the VAR making the decision on anything that is opinion based. Any offence that is only an offence if, in the opinion of the referee it is an offence should always be viewed by the referee. In the box or outside, on or offside, out of play or not - let the video assistant call it. That's fact based. A foul is only a foul if in the opinion of the referee it is careless, reckless or uses excessive force.


I also don't see the need for it to be shown on the big screen. That just feeds into this culture of undermining the ref by making it seem like it matters what anyone else thinks. Again, a fouls is a foul if, in the opinion of the referee, it is careless, reckless or uses excessive force. Not in the opinion of the majority of viewers/spectators. Not in the opinion of a panel of former players. Not in the opinion of the guys down the pub. By all means, convey the decision - a big "No goal - offside!' sign, or "FOUL!" flash up on the screen, if the ref's gestures are too obscure. But we shouldn't be shown the replays.

I am not suggesting the whole incident be shown on the big screen but I do believe that if it was offside a line shown as per normal tv showing this to be so or a hand ball or foul a frozen still picture of the incident be shown. Fouls etc shouldnt be opinion based but down purely to the laws of the game.in regard to being high reckless etc.

 

[Whitechapel]

It’ll be the end of me being a ST holder at the Amex if this is the case.

I’ve seen a few people talk about how brilliantly it worked during the World Cup. Whilst it’s true there was a marked improvement during the WC it’s important to remember they had an entire team of officials there to review numerous camera angles for every decision so they could decide quickly. Brighton v Burnley won’t get that. Did anybody remember the Liverpool v West Brom FA Cup game? That is what we’ll get.

If we have to bring it in then let’s leave it until it’s been perfected by other leagues across Europe. It’s not at that stage yet though. Earlier this year a referee awarded a penalty after he’d blown for Half Time in a Bundesliga game. The teams were in the changing rooms and a lot of the fans had gone to get a beer. Imagine something like that happening at The Amex.

VAR is a flawed concept anyway. Only incidents leading to goals can be reviewed. What happens if there is a foul on the halfway line not given, and 10 seconds later the team score? Is that leading to a goal? What about 15 seconds before, 20, 25, 30... you get the point.

Football isn’t perfect. It’s flawed, there are mistakes but I’d rather lose to the odd unfair goal like the Cardiff winner then have the entire game ruined so we can quadruple check if somebody was half an inch offside. Especially when VAR brings a whole new host of problems to the equation. Losing that spontaneous limbs of a last minute goal because you’re waiting/expecting it to go to VAR will be the final nail in the coffin for me.

 

[GooGull]

Thin end of the wedge for lower league and grass roots football. We either all play to the same rues or we don't.

Still, I suppose if schools and councils are eventually required to install VAR on all their pitches, and clubs will have to meet the costs, plus paying for six refs, not just one, then they can all go out of business and we can build much needed housing on all the pitches.
The top clubs can just buy in players from abroad, so all will be wonderful on planet PL football, eh?

Not sure any schools have got goal line technology yet?

 

[Frankie]

Don't like it , it will be two seperate games now , one for the haves , and one for the have nots , the Amex will be a ghost town come 5-15 when the game eventually finishes , where will it end ? next thing you know there will be fire eating cheerleaders and some lunatic on a kawasaki 125 trying to leap over Maty Ryan without a safety net .

 

[Titanic]

It’ll be the end of me being a ST holder at the Amex if this is the case.
...
Losing that spontaneous limbs of a last minute goal because you’re waiting/expecting it to go to VAR will be the final nail in the coffin for me.

Top flouncing

 

[Saunders]

My problem with how it was implemented in the World Cup is that it felt like for too many of the VAR instances the laws of the game were not actually being applied. When determining if a foul had occurred, they weren't looking at whether the challenge was careless, reckless, or used excessive force, they looked to see if there was contact. When determining if deliberate handling had occurred they we're looking at whether the arm moved to the ball, or if there was clear intent, but whether there was contact between the ball and the hand.

If you're not judging these things by the laws of the game when using VAR, then it undermines the game. Something that is not and never has been a foul when on the halfway line is let go, but when VAR comes in in the penalty box it suddenly becomes a foul.


I also, for similar reason, don't like the idea of the VAR making the decision on anything that is opinion based. Any offence that is only an offence if, in the opinion of the referee it is an offence should always be viewed by the referee. In the box or outside, on or offside, out of play or not - let the video assistant call it. That's fact based. A foul is only a foul if in the opinion of the referee it is careless, reckless or uses excessive force.


I also don't see the need for it to be shown on the big screen. That just feeds into this culture of undermining the ref by making it seem like it matters what anyone else thinks. Again, a fouls is a foul if, in the opinion of the referee, it is careless, reckless or uses excessive force. Not in the opinion of the majority of viewers/spectators. Not in the opinion of a panel of former players. Not in the opinion of the guys down the pub. By all means, convey the decision - a big "No goal - offside!' sign, or "FOUL!" flash up on the screen, if the ref's gestures are too obscure. But we shouldn't be shown the replays.

It needs to go on the screen and the VAR reviewers need to man up and tell us what they are reviewing and why the decision was made. Otherwise you have the stupid situation like we did last year of the last people to know whats happening are the 30,000 people in the ground who have paid and travelled to go there. The points you make about what they reviewed at the WC is just conjecture by the pundits and commentators. If they do not let us know what they are reviewing and why they made the decision then they will just guess and then disagree or agree based on an assumption. I know referees will not want to have to explain their decisions but if this is to work they need to.

Also the general punditry and commentary needs to be improved as many do not even know the laws of the game and they are criticising decisions based on flawed knowledge. They always want to criticise every decision as well even if its just being a devils advocate its annoying. The overall negativity of the media and press towards VAR is putting unecessary pressure on those working with it and making it less likely that they will go into full disclosure which is what needs to happen.

 

[GT49er]

Not sure any schools have got goal line technology yet?

No, not yet.

Once upon a time it was only big rich first division clubs that had to install floodlights.

 

[BensGrandad]

I didnt realise until reading it earlier today that neither Old Trafford nor Anfield have got big screens perhaps they think it will reduce the number of seats available but if VAR was brought in and the review shown what would it cost them to install them, next to nothing really.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I didnt realise until reading it earlier today that neither Old Trafford nor Anfield have got big screens perhaps they think it will reduce the number of seats available but if VAR was brought in and the review shown what would it cost them to install them, next to nothing really.

For the size and resolution those top clubs would likely want, somewhere around £230k each, plus shipping, installation and VAT. The stadium confines / likely craneage and engineering required for the support steelwork, mean the install costs, up to £50k per display.

Let me know if anyone needs a formal quotation

 

[BensGrandad]

For the size and resolution those top clubs would likely want, somewhere around £230k each, plus shipping, installation and VAT. The stadium confines / likely craneage and engineering required for the support steelwork, mean the install costs, up to £50k per display.

Let me know if anyone needs a formal quotation

Didnt realise it would be that expensive but even so it is cheaper than some of their failed transfer purchases. What player could they buy for £500k.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Didnt realise it would be that expensive but even so it is cheaper than some of their failed transfer purchases. What player could they buy for £500k.

Within the context of Premier League membership, half a million pounds or so, isn’t a lot. There are, for example facilities criteria that every club HAS to provide, such as a certain type of floodlights (our lighting upgrade we had to add, when we were promoted, cost a lot more than that). If the PL made screens mandatory, they’d have to find a way (in reality, it’s almost certainly a lack of suitable locations in those grounds to fit them, than the cost, that has prevented them before now).

 

[BensGrandad]

Lack of suitable location or the number of seats that they would lose due to the vision etc.

 

[Acker79]

It needs to go on the screen and the VAR reviewers need to man up and tell us what they are reviewing and why the decision was made. Otherwise you have the stupid situation like we did last year of the last people to know whats happening are the 30,000 people in the ground who have paid and travelled to go there. The points you make about what they reviewed at the WC is just conjecture by the pundits and commentators. If they do not let us know what they are reviewing and why they made the decision then they will just guess and then disagree or agree based on an assumption. I know referees will not want to have to explain their decisions but if this is to work they need to.

Why do they have to explain their decisions? How is looking at a video replay and coming to the conclusion that a foul has occurred more in need of an explanation than looking at a real time challenge and deciding a foul has occurred? You want an explanation? Here's your explanation.

If you know the laws of the game, refereeing decisions are not a mystery. It's disingenuous to act like they are. I find it really annoying how, when faced with two very similar challenges where one is ruled a foul and the other is not, commentators are quick to simply, and correctly, note that one was a wrong decision, but when two apparently similar offside situations result in two different decisions it becomes "the law is so complex, why is this one onside and this one not?" as if both were correct when the truth is as simple as the similar fouls. One decision was wrong.

Knowing the current laws of the game removes a massive amount of confusion in refereeing decisions. It's not the referee's job to teach fans and pundits the laws of the game, and breakdown their every decision based on those laws; their job is to implement the laws. If you can't work out the the ref holding one arm up and indicating a line with his other is him signalling there was an offside, that's on you. If you can't work out that a ref pointing to his hand means there was a handball, that's on you.

Fans wanting to see the video and expecting referees to explain their decisions need to get over themselves. You're not the referee, it matters not one jot whether you watch the video to see if you think there was an offence. You are a biased spectator with a vested interest in every decision (Did we score? Nothing wrong in the build up then, book anyone who even looks like they might be questioning our decision. Did we concede? Clearly there was a deliberate block there, some shoving, a bit of handball and that guy on the far side doing his shoelaces up was interfering with play and offside if we draw one of those wiggly lines"). The only thing the ref owes you is to implement the laws fairly and honestly. Consistency would be nice, but so would common sense, but those two things often contradict each other.

 

[BensGrandad]

For the size and resolution those top clubs would likely want, somewhere around £230k each, plus shipping, installation and VAT. The stadium confines / likely craneage and engineering required for the support steelwork, mean the install costs, up to £50k per display.

Let me know if anyone needs a formal quotation

Is that £50k per showing a cost per match or the original outlay spread over a season or two as surely it cannot cost us that much each game at The Amex.