[Football] VAR to be used at the World Cup

[BensGrandad]

I stand to be corrected, but my understanding of it is that in the scenario you paint, once the ref blows the whistle (for offside) that ends the passage of play, so even if the striker still sticks the ball in the net there will be no VAR awarding of a goal because no goal has been scored (play was dead). In other words, once the ref's whistle blows, the ability to "alter" the incorrect offside decision by VAR is lost.

What this will lead to, perhaps, is referees allowing play to continue for a few seconds after an offside flag, just in case something like you say materialises.

would that be a problem if refs allowed it to continue for 30 secs and then consulted the VAR.

 

[Albion my Albion]

[/B]


would that be a problem if refs allowed it to continue for 30 secs and then consulted the VAR.

Doesn't this happen in many games even when a ref blows his whistle and the striker pretends or actually doesn't hear the whistle.

 

[Albion my Albion]

The voiding of plays happens all the time. It will continue to happen even if VAR is never used in the future.

 

[Easy 10]

You may want to watch football that way but you already watch football with delays for injury. I think it very necessary that a call have a much better chance to be correct than now when many are wrong. Terribly wrong, and many here have continually protested calls are very wrong.

Injuries are part and parcel, those delays are inevitable and unavoidable.

I actually think the principal of VARS is ok in theory - they're not looking to review EVERYTHING, only when (in the opinion of the VAR) there has been a clear error made by the on-pitch ref. My concern is that it opens up a whole spectrum of game-changing incidents for review, and I'm far from convinced that they'll still get it "right" to the opinion of everyone, even after standing around for however long looking at it. At the end of the day, its still another human, interpreting a decision by another human. And there's enough dispute on here, in pundit studios, wherever, that can't reach a consensus even after multiple replays.

You're just swapping one controversy for a whole bunch of new ones IMO. And on top of that, trying to shoe-horn it into a live game. Quickly.

 

[AZ Gull]

And if there's a millisecond between the whistle going, and the ball hitting the net ?.

That is potentially an issue right now, and has been for years. Just ask Accrington Stanley, Brazil against Sweden in the World Cup, or Whitehawk 15 months ago.

 

[Albion my Albion]

Injuries are part and parcel, those delays are inevitable and unavoidable.

I actually think the principal of VARS is ok in theory - they're not looking to review EVERYTHING, only when (in the opinion of the VAR) there has been a clear error made by the on-pitch ref. My concern is that it opens up a whole spectrum of game-changing incidents for review, and I'm far from convinced that they'll still get it "right" to the opinion of everyone, even after standing around for however long looking at it. At the end of the day, its still another human, interpreting a decision by another human. And there's enough dispute on here, in pundit studios, wherever, that can't reach a consensus even after multiple replays.

You're just swapping one controversy for a whole bunch of new ones IMO. And on top of that, trying to shoe-horn it into a live game. Quickly.

In my opinion the correctness of ref's calls goes from 75% to 99% with the inclusion of VAR in ref's decisions in sport. I like it in the American sport I have seen it. It's not always correct but it has a much better chance of being correct.

 

[Easy 10]

If it works like a dream then I'll hold my hands up and say great, glad its come in.

I just like football how it is. And I think there's trouble ahead.

 

[trueblue]

If you saw and then read the post-match reaction from that Chelsea v Arsenal game, with the (extended) silent review of something that happened several minutes earlier, you'd know its a long way from ideal. You're sat there for a minute+ while the ref confers with the bloke in Heathrow, until they finally arrive at a verdict. And that was WITHOUT the ref even going to the pitchside monitor, which would've drawn it out even longer.

Sorry chap. Thats just not how I want to watch football.

Fair enough. I can see how it's confusing for events when it's a while before there's a break in play. However, that will be relatively rare overall and I'm sure if Albion had been blatantly denied a goal or wrongly had one awarded against us, we'd be pretty happy the officials reached the right decision. In most cases, it will just operate as a safety net in the background, helping refs make strong and bold decisions - which as one of the smaller clubs we should definitely welcome (as Saturday proved).

It's only going to be tedious if fans insist on kicking up a stink when it fails to resolve incidents that aren't clear and obvious, or moan that the referee didn't go to look at the pitch-side monitor. Strangely, a lot of those appear to be the same fans who simultaneously complain that they don't want play to be held up.

Personally, although I can understand why refs want the on-field official to have the final say, I think it might be better if eventually the remote VAR's decision on contentious issues was treated as conclusive. After all, he has the best view of all and it would cause the least disruption.

 

[Easy 10]

Personally, although I can understand why refs want the on-field official to have the final say, I think it might be better if eventually the remote VAR's decision on contentious issues was treated as conclusive. After all, he has the best view of all and it would cause the least disruption.

Its an interesting idea. But again, you're fundamentally altering the fabric of the game as we know it. VARS is only currently being used at Premier League stadiums, as currently they are the only ones which are obligated to upgrade their TV facilities to accommodate Sky, and hence the VAR. The same will stand for the World Cup of course.

If the on-field ref doesn't have the final say, then whats the point of having him at all ? Are you in favour of abolishing the on-field ref in the top flight, in favour of the guy sat near Heathrow airport...whilst the rest of the League still has the man in the middle ?

 

[BadFish]

Exactly what I was discussing with a mate the other day. The mantra is "you play to the whistle". So here's a scenario.

A player goes through on goal, and the lino (incorrectly) flags for offside. The whistle goes straight away to stop the game (as it does), but the player sticks the ball in the net anyway. The VAR says "hang on ref, you need to look at this - he was onside".

Whats the call ?

Var isn't used in this scenario. It is used only in four distinct scenarios.

https://football-technology.fifa.com/en/media-tiles/video-assistant-referees-var/

 

[BadFish]

Here's one from the Dutch league

https://youtu.be/h9Z_dXhrPQU

It worked well, the Feyenoord goal shouldn't have counted as there was a penalty down the other end.

Correct decision given. Without VAR the decision would have been incorrect.

 

[BadFish]

If the choice is between getting more big decisions right while having play a little interrupted and getting big decisions wrong (a couple of penalty shouts against Chelsea could have changed the game) while keeping the current rhythm (which lets face it is often pretty stop start) I am firmly in the lets get big calls as right as possible.

 

[Easy 10]

Var isn't used in this scenario. It is used only in four distinct scenarios.

https://football-technology.fifa.com/en/media-tiles/video-assistant-referees-var/

It absolutely IS used in that scenario. Its a VARS call on a goal - see the Leicester one last week vs Fleetwood that was initially ruled out for offside, but subsequently (correctly) reinstated by VARS.

It worked extremely well that time, I'd be the first to admit it. But it ain't always going to play out like that...

 

[jimhigham]

Yeah but...



I still don't honestly know how I feel about VAR right now but I remember being bloody enraged that afternoon.

 

[Easy 10]

Yeah but...

View attachment 93378

I still don't honestly know how I feel about VAR right now but I remember being bloody enraged that afternoon.

Thats already been put to bed by goal-line technology now. That will never happen again in a WC or a top flight game at least.

 

[BadFish]

It absolutely IS used in that scenario. Its a VARS call on a goal - see the Leicester one last week vs Fleetwood that was initially ruled out for offside, but subsequently (correctly) reinstated by VARS.

It worked extremely well that time, I'd be the first to admit it. But it ain't always going to play out like that...

As i understand it (I don't claim to be an expert) the difference between the two scenarios is the inclusion of the referees whistle in yours. The Leicester v Fleetwood scenario only involves a Linesman's flag so the game is still in play. Your Scenario involves the ref whistling and stopping the game for an offside. This means that no goal has been scored so VAR is not used.

 

[BadFish]

Fair enough. I can see how it's confusing for events when it's a while before there's a break in play. However, that will be relatively rare overall and I'm sure if Albion had been blatantly denied a goal or wrongly had one awarded against us, we'd be pretty happy the officials reached the right decision. In most cases, it will just operate as a safety net in the background, helping refs make strong and bold decisions - which as one of the smaller clubs we should definitely welcome (as Saturday proved).

It's only going to be tedious if fans insist on kicking up a stink when it fails to resolve incidents that aren't clear and obvious, or moan that the referee didn't go to look at the pitch-side monitor. Strangely, a lot of those appear to be the same fans who simultaneously complain that they don't want play to be held up.

Personally, although I can understand why refs want the on-field official to have the final say, I think it might be better if eventually the remote VAR's decision on contentious issues was treated as conclusive. After all, he has the best view of all and it would cause the least disruption.

Is this down to the ref at the moment? For Murray's goal the ref just took the word of the VAR in his earpiece didn't he?

 

[Stat Brother]

Thats bollocks though. Goal line technology is a simple line call. Its binary - either its over the line, or its not. The stuff VARS is being brought in for is for subjective decisions on fouls, many of which are a LONG way away from being simple black-and-white decisions. Its an interpretation - along with the added complication of the game not always being "dead" when its being called into play.

Of COURSE its possible to have one without the other. We've had it for a couple of seasons now !

The bottom line is goal line video assist refereeing is there as a safeguard to stop the actual referee making a wrong call in a game changing situation.
The only difference is it's called upon only once or twice a season.

But we all know these human errors happen in most games (unless it's the insipid nonsense carried out by the Albion v palace) you can't be in favour of opening the stable door a little bit.

Personally I wouldn't have opened it at all.
But then again I won't have £100,000,000+, or lifting the World Cup, riding on the whim of a poorly positioned referee.

 

[seagulls4ever]

The video assistant referee (VAR) system has been accurate in 98.9% of decisions so far during its two-year worldwide trial, says the International Football Association Board

Key Ifab findings:
In the 804 matches there were 3,947 checks for possible reviewable incidents.
56.9% ofchecks were for penalty incidents and goals.
There was an average of fewer than five checks per match.
The median check time of the VAR is 20 seconds.
The median duration of a review is 60 seconds.
68.8% ofmatcheshad no review.
One decision in three matches is a "clear and obvious error".
In 8% ofmatches the VAR had a decisive impact on the outcome of the game.
24% of all matches were positively affected by the involvement of VAR (changing an initial incorrect decision by the referee).
The average time'lost' due to the VAR represents less than 1% of overall playing time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42781236

 

[maffew]

The fact is that if the World Cup 2018 was the goal for VAR, then this process should have started 2 years ago. Personally, I see it as a solution that simply HAS to be implemented. The only thing is, it has to be done properly. In many ways it reminds me of when the backpass rule was implemented - so many people high profile pundits moaned about that changing the way the game would be played because goalkeepers aren't good with their feet (Gary Lineker was a particularly harsh critic). But guess what, keepers learned and the game MASSIVELY improved as a spectacle once it was implemented.

good post - I didnt realise that Gary Lineker, I would have thought as a striker he woul have been a backer