[Football] VAR - will football ever be the same again?

[ATFC Seagull]

I like moaning about refereeing decisions. It cheers you up on a long train journey home. The defeats and failures will always be there anyway, but its nice to be able to years down the line talk about what would have been if it wasn't for the ****ing ref/lino.

 

[Acker79]

Did anyone actually ask for VAR, I thought all most people wanted was goal line technology to stop travesties like the Frank Lampard effort against Germany. The rest should be left to the refs...

Yes, they did.

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?28157-TV-Replays
https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?62682-thats-why-we-need-Action-replays!
https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?162839-TV-Replays-Extra-officials-NSC-DECIDES
https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?22740-video-replays (only a couple of replies, all against VAR, but the poll is overwhelmingly in favour)
https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?12467-Video-Replays-Yay-or-Nay

 

[Acker79]

Yes, they did.

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?28157-TV-Replays
https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?62682-thats-why-we-need-Action-replays!
https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?162839-TV-Replays-Extra-officials-NSC-DECIDES
https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?22740-video-replays (only a couple of replies, all against VAR, but the poll is overwhelmingly in favour)
https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?12467-Video-Replays-Yay-or-Nay

See also:
https://www.espn.co.uk/football/league-name/story/2315070/headline
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/4372074.stm
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/sep/16/can-video-replay-work-in-soccer-mls-thinks-so
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football-referees-have-a-right-to-replay-1268323.html
https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/we-need-video-challenge-says-qpr-co-owner-1.454148

 

[Cheshire Cat]

They need to speed up the decision making process, otherwise extra time will become ridiculous.

 

[darkwolf666]

Yes, they did.

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?28157-TV-Replays
https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?62682-thats-why-we-need-Action-replays!
https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?162839-TV-Replays-Extra-officials-NSC-DECIDES
https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?22740-video-replays (only a couple of replies, all against VAR, but the poll is overwhelmingly in favour)
https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?12467-Video-Replays-Yay-or-Nay

Strangely, apart from the fact you have trawled back FIFTEEN years for some of your evidence, I see few people advocating much more than I have said, goal line technology. There is the usual all refs are rubbish type posts but a large percentage want to see refs making the majority of decisions, unhindered.

 

[Acker79]

Strangely, apart from the fact you have trawled back FIFTEEN years for some of your evidence, I see few people advocating much more than I have said, goal line technology. There is the usual all refs are rubbish type posts but a large percentage want to see refs making the majority of decisions, unhindered.

Trawl is a bit of a stretch. I typed 'video replays' in the search box, not exactly a long gestating research project (undoubtedly 'VAR' would bring back more results including more recent ones, but 'VAR' is too short for the search engine). I quickly found several polls that answer 'yes' to the question of if it is wanted,vbacked up with posts calling for its introduction. Sure, some only want limited use, but others wanted more. If you're only going to pay attention to the posts that back up your point and ignore the rest, that's your choice. It doesn't change the fact that people were calling for it. No it wasn't unanimous, but very little is in football. You're being unreasonable if that is what you're looking for.

 

[darkwolf666]

Trawl is a bit of a stretch. I typed 'video replays' in the search box, not exactly a long gestating research project (undoubtedly 'VAR' would bring back more results including more recent ones, but 'VAR' is too short for the search engine). I quickly found several polls that answer 'yes' to the question of if it is wanted,vbacked up with posts calling for its introduction. Sure, some only want limited use, but others wanted more. If you're only going to pay attention to the posts that back up your point and ignore the rest, that's your choice. It doesn't change the fact that people were calling for it. No it wasn't unanimous, but very little is in football. You're being unreasonable if that is what you're looking for.

Sorry, I still disagree with you. I really don’t believe many of those people called for or want this Frankenstein’s monster that is VAR.

 

[Acker79]

Sorry, I still disagree with you. I really don’t believe many of those people called for or want this Frankenstein’s monster that is VAR.

Wanting the version of VAR we got, and wanting VAR are two different things. I agree they didn't want what we currently have, but they wanted video replays.

The biggest problem in delivering the VAR they want is it won't be any fairer than not having it. It requires inconsistently applying laws, ignoring laws, allowing some provable errors to stand - offside is offside. Whether by a fraction of an inch or a by a dozen yards. The laws say you can't score if you're offside. We can prove someone is offside by even the smallest distance with video replay, but fans want to ignore that. It ignores the idea of the ref's opinion defining certain infringements. A challenge is a foul if, in the opinion of the referee it is careless, reckless, or uses excessive force. VAR doesn't mean the ref's opinion will now fall in line the pundits or the fans.

That's before you even get into the idea of club biases that exist with every decision prior to VAR (that controversial challenge against us was a foul and red card, if it was our player then the game is going soft if it considers that a foul!).

So I agree that those calling for VAR weren't calling for this iteration of it, they were calling for some fantasy version that won't ever exist. But that wasn't the point. The point was that they were calling for the technology to be used.

 

[BensGrandad]

They need to speed up the decision making process, otherwise extra time will become ridiculous.

That is easily got over do not add on the time that it takes to get a VAR answer.

 

[Bodian]

That is easily got over do not add on the time that it takes to get a VAR answer.

? - really. That would mean losing five minutes of actual football in some games! And that's the point some of us are making - it's going to change the live game in a negative way.

 

[darkwolf666]

Wanting the version of VAR we got, and wanting VAR are two different things. I agree they didn't want what we currently have, but they wanted video replays.

The biggest problem in delivering the VAR they want is it won't be any fairer than not having it. It requires inconsistently applying laws, ignoring laws, allowing some provable errors to stand - offside is offside. Whether by a fraction of an inch or a by a dozen yards. The laws say you can't score if you're offside. We can prove someone is offside by even the smallest distance with video replay, but fans want to ignore that. It ignores the idea of the ref's opinion defining certain infringements. A challenge is a foul if, in the opinion of the referee it is careless, reckless, or uses excessive force. VAR doesn't mean the ref's opinion will now fall in line the pundits or the fans.

That's before you even get into the idea of club biases that exist with every decision prior to VAR (that controversial challenge against us was a foul and red card, if it was our player then the game is going soft if it considers that a foul!).

So I agree that those calling for VAR weren't calling for this iteration of it, they were calling for some fantasy version that won't ever exist. But that wasn't the point. The point was that they were calling for the technology to be used.

For a moment there I thought this was the Brexit thread

 

[GT49er]

That is easily got over do not add on the time that it takes to get a VAR answer.

They don't. Nowhere near all of it anyway.

Perhaps the answer would be to not use VAR for off-side. That's always going to be marginal anyway, and there's no reason why the on-field officials' decision shouldn't stand. Keep it for off the ball incidents and other offences that the referee doesn't see, and maybe for reviewing red/yellow/no card at all decisions where the ref. has obviously dropped a bollock.

 

[A1X]

VAR is a good thing, however the one tweak I would make is to impose a 30 second time limit on the decisions. Anything obvious should be seen in that time, otherwise it reverts to "referee's call" and stays with the on field decision. It'll take some time to bed in but I thought it worked pretty well in the 2018 world cup and I reckon by January it'll have stopped being a "thing".

 

[BadFish]

VAR is a good thing, however the one tweak I would make is to impose a 30 second time limit on the decisions. Anything obvious should be seen in that time, otherwise it reverts to "referee's call" and stays with the on field decision. It'll take some time to bed in but I thought it worked pretty well in the 2018 world cup and I reckon by January it'll have stopped being a "thing".

Not a bad idea in my opinion. This would filter out the decisions that are not clear and obvious. Perhaps this could be coupled with the idea of managers having a couple of challenges in each half?

The main discussion about VAR is not about it getting the decisions right or wrong. It certainly gets far more correct than wrong, so it is doing what it set out to do. Now the teething problems need to be ironed out and it should all be good.

I am not sure why people were expecting a finished product with no teething problems. It could be said that these should have been addressed before using it in the biggest compeitions around the world but the smaller competitions cannot accommodate the technology anyway so i support there was no option.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

They don't. Nowhere near all of it anyway.

Perhaps the answer would be to not use VAR for off-side. That's always going to be marginal anyway, and there's no reason why the on-field officials' decision shouldn't stand. Keep it for off the ball incidents and other offences that the referee doesn't see, and maybe for reviewing red/yellow/no card at all decisions where the ref. has obviously dropped a bollock.

Wanting the version of VAR we got, and wanting VAR are two different things. I agree they didn't want what we currently have, but they wanted video replays.

The biggest problem in delivering the VAR they want is it won't be any fairer than not having it. It requires inconsistently applying laws, ignoring laws, allowing some provable errors to stand - offside is offside. Whether by a fraction of an inch or a by a dozen yards. The laws say you can't score if you're offside. We can prove someone is offside by even the smallest distance with video replay, but fans want to ignore that. It ignores the idea of the ref's opinion defining certain infringements. A challenge is a foul if, in the opinion of the referee it is careless, reckless, or uses excessive force. VAR doesn't mean the ref's opinion will now fall in line the pundits or the fans.

That's before you even get into the idea of club biases that exist with every decision prior to VAR (that controversial challenge against us was a foul and red card, if it was our player then the game is going soft if it considers that a foul!).

So I agree that those calling for VAR weren't calling for this iteration of it, they were calling for some fantasy version that won't ever exist. But that wasn't the point. The point was that they were calling for the technology to be used.

Everyone gets annoyed when a player punches the ball in the net, or dives for a penalty, or is three yards offside and scores. They stick in the mind, they would be obviously over ruled with no complaints, quick and simple. The good thing about VAR is that they will no longer happen..

But of course those incidents are remarkably rare. We can remember Henry getting France to the world cup over Ireland by handling in the build up to his goal, but how many times has it happened since?

What isn't rare are 10 cm offsides, balls brushing someones arm unintentionally, a keeper 1 ft of his line at a penalty, the ball just going out for a throw in, players going down under the lightest of touches.. and when you've got VAR, they all get looked at.

In the old game, one might mumble and grumble a bit, but we generally accept these fine, these incidents barely get a mention on motd. Ref could have given a penalty, yes, no, maybe? Hint of offside there Alan? Team might feel a little aggrieved? But on the whole we're conditioned to ignore these.

VAR can't ignore them though. Concede a goal that was 5cm offside and VAR says 'not to worry, it was pretty close' - last year we'd have shrugged, next year we'd be fuming.

Load of **** really

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Fans at grounds make up a tiny portion of the viewing audience for matches.

So if VAR ensures the correct decisions are made to bad for the fans at the ground.

Might help clean up the cheating side of the game.

 

[zefarelly]

I'm not a fan of VAR . . . . in theory it gets more right than wrong, but last nights penalty I thought was the wrong decision, and turned the game ( although unfortunately the septics were better) . Defender challenged to clear ball, got a touch, striker threw herslef at it and to the ground looking for the penalty . . . . all she did all game was dive.

 

[Brightonfan1983]

Interesting if quite dull take on VAR in the Premier League from Mike Riley here - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48903289.

Ironic then, that in explaining why VAR will keep everyone happy, he cites an example that proves why it won't:

the winning penalty for the Netherlands against Japan at the Women's World Cup would not have been awarded in the Premier League. "We consider that to be a natural position of the hand. You don't expect defenders to have their arms glued to their side, so if the hand is in a natural position then it's not an offence," he said.

That for me, was a penalty all day - a shot on target stopped by a handball. Deliberate or not, it's handball.

What wasn't handball was England's* disallowed effort the other day against Sweden, when the ball may or may not have brushed an arm to no one's advantage.

This is going to be one heck of a long season


(*and numerous other teams in this World Cup)

 

[Frankie]

Up yours VAR .

 

[keaton]

At the Copa America in match with var available Messi was sent off for being repeatedly chest bumped