[Football] VARs etc - does anyone actually want them?

[Easy 10]

I've always been against introducing TV replays. People seem to think it'll herald a new panacea of "perfect decisions", where the ref can mince over to a monitor, have a quick squizz and instantly call it spot-on from that. And sometimes that's what would happen. Sometimes. But the reality is that many, many decisions are highly subjective, borderline calls and not clear-cut at all.

Every decision still boils down to interpretation. Now its one thing to make a dubious call on an incident when it happens in real-time, at speed. You can excuse the occasional frailties because the ref is human (usually at least), and players do tend to go out of their way to make it tough for them. But still making a duff call off the back of a VARS replay ? That will just ratchet up the fury and controversy even further. So what does that achieve ?

Not to mention the complicated set of rules that would have to come in to accommodate it according to whether the ball has gone dead or not, or whether you're going back to analyse a decision or a non-decision. Personally, I think you're just swapping one whole set of controversies for another, and at the same time fundamentally altering the fabric and flow of the game we love.

Not for me, Brian.

 

[BensGrandad]

Did I read that Rugby Video Refs are sat in a TV van outside and just relay their decision to the ref. We have the tv car park ready now just need a heated camper van for the retired ref to watch the game.

 

[Captain Sensible]

It has to come in, it will come in. We just have to make sure it improves the game. My hope is that cheating will be highly affected. It’s the cheating that VAR technology should target.

 

[haardman]

If the game has stopped (as in Murray's peno last night) then it's not going to cause any significant delay is it? Maybe a minute or so. If the game is still in motion, I don't see any problem with the game carrying on (as it does in rugby) and the VAR speaking into the refs earpiece letting him know he's reviewing something. You hear it all the time in rugby. If an infringement/mistake is discovered the ref blows up and takes play back to where it occurred.
Even if the offending team runs up the other end and scores, the ref can still cancel the goal and wind play back. Everyone will get used to it after a couple of occurences.

 

[SAC]

When the Bristol City player got banned after diving against Fulham, lots on here (the majority who posted, I think) thought it wrong. This was with having as long to review with as many replays as they want.

If VAR isn't going to be quick and certain then there is no point in it. I'd be very annoyed having to wait 3-8 minutes for each decision.

 

[Gwylan]

Surely it wouldnt take as long as 3 or 4 mins to decide an incident so maybe 30-45 secs maximum, just enough time to show 1 advert.

You clearly didn't see the rugby on Saturday. As I said, one replay lasted eight minutes and several more were three or four minutes.

It's the creep that gets me: when TMOs were introduced in rugby there were about one or two a game and they lasted about a minute, now there are about seven and eight a game

 

[BensGrandad]

I must admit I do not watch rugby and am relating to when it first came in, but I wouldnt think that there is any reason for the video ref to watch an incident more than twice and make a decision. It may not be 100% correct but stands more chance than an incident like last night.

 

[Simster]

I'm really unsure about video replays - one of the TMO decision in the Eng/Aus match took eight minutes. If you have three or four in every game, that's nearly half an hour added on.

It may be acceptable if they ended controversy but they don't: Australia and Scotland both thought they were hard done-by on Saturday and there have been countless examples in cricket where players are still moaning after replays.

I'm all for them at a professional level. You're right, they don't end controversy, but that isn't what they're there for. They are there to overturn obvious injustices, like the goal line technology. What's more, football is a game where a goal is a very valuable commodity. For me, it is laughable in this day and age that an outrageous decision can decide massive games. Henry's handball against the RoI and that shocking penalty decision against Northern Ireland recently. You feel a two minute VAR review would have sorted both decisions.

 

[Simster]

You clearly didn't see the rugby on Saturday. As I said, one replay lasted eight minutes and several more were three or four minutes.

It's the creep that gets me: when TMOs were introduced in rugby there were about one or two a game and they lasted about a minute, now there are about seven and eight a game

That can be easily resolved by simply reverting to usage as in tennis and cricket. i.e. Don't allow refs to use TMOs, and instead allow each team a maximum of one review per half. Rugby haven't implemented it well at all.

 

[Berty23]

Sky had confirmed it was a pen before the arguments had finished on the pitch.

Video won't be perfect so use the same system as cricket. Have a soft signal I.e. Ref says "I don't think it is a pen but please check" the tv official could say "that is a pen" "that isn't a pen" or "inconclusive"

Keeps the human factor on the pitch. Lee mason would surely have preferred a review. We wouldn't even be talking about it. As it is he will be remembered for a howler.

 

[Normal Rob]

don't really want it, but the money in the game and the pressure that brings with it need and demand it. They need to get it right.

 

[Berty23]

As for the argument that you can't have technology at top level unless it is at all levels....my lad played under 10s cricket last summer. No snicko in sight.

 

[Eddiespearritt]

Half-a-dozen VARs during a night game at The Amex - which kicks off at 8.00pm - could make for an interesting challenge on the travelling home front. And not only for away fans who plan on getting back at 3.00am anyway. I remember the days when the Saturday full times were invariably read with very few exceptions at 4.40pm (half time was 10 minutes) - Jeff Stelling could be introducing the day's final results and tables at a about 5.40pm if the inevitable delays kick in. But that's progress for you.

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

If we're not going to introduce VAR then we need to stop this retrospective bans using video evidence. You can't only use it to punish if you aren't going to use it to try and get the decision right first time. Equally the grass roots comments can be applied in terms of retrospective action. The lower down the leagues you go, the less cameras which means you have less angles to prove or disprove something.

 

[BensGrandad]

If we're not going to introduce VAR then we need to stop this retrospective bans using video evidence. You can't only use it to punish if you aren't going to use it to try and get the decision right first time. Equally the grass roots comments can be applied in terms of retrospective action. The lower down the leagues you go, the less cameras which means you have less angles to prove or disprove something.

This is so true the authorities want it all one way. Also include in that MOTD and all other televised games or highlights.

 

[Nixonator]

Massively different to goal line tech, which is decided in an instant and causes a break in play if his watch buzzes.

I believe in tech to further the game but steer well clear of VAR, I've already watched it in action and it's horrendous. We do not need more stoppages in play for the love of god, just let the game flow. I already despair at the 2-3 minutes required sometimes to take a sodding free kick with all the pacing, spraying, having a chat with some players before finding his position to blow the whistle.

Why can't we just have more capable referees and linesman who are paid better and are further rewarded for games that are well officiated? And on the flipside punitive action taken against them if they have an absolute mare. We did not need VAR to figure out that was a bloody penalty last night, come on.

 

[The Large One]

I've always been against introducing TV replays. People seem to think it'll herald a new panacea of "perfect decisions", where the ref can mince over to a monitor, have a quick squizz and instantly call it spot-on from that. And sometimes that's what would happen. Sometimes. But the reality is that many, many decisions are highly subjective, borderline calls and not clear-cut at all.

Every decision still boils down to interpretation. Now its one thing to make a dubious call on an incident when it happens in real-time, at speed. You can excuse the occasional frailties because the ref is human (usually at least), and players do tend to go out of their way to make it tough for them. But still making a duff call off the back of a VARS replay ? That will just ratchet up the fury and controversy even further. So what does that achieve ?

Not to mention the complicated set of rules that would have to come in to accommodate it according to whether the ball has gone dead or not, or whether you're going back to analyse a decision or a non-decision. Personally, I think you're just swapping one whole set of controversies for another, and at the same time fundamentally altering the fabric and flow of the game we love.

Not for me, Brian.

Nail on head.

The whole point of many much refereeing is a decision must be made 'in the opinion of the referee...' - NOT 'that which is deemed correct by excessive technology only available in certain circumstances which may or may not clear up the debate...'.

Take a given scenario were a challenge in the penalty area may or may not be a foul. The amount of contact, the veracity of the challenge, the danger within the challenge, the ease with which a player made the challenge look more dangerous than it was, and on and on. The ref (and his opinion is the ONLY one which counts) could watch it several times, and still be unsure. Meanwhile, the crowd is getting restless, and the players have started on a game of hopscotch to alleviate the boredom.

Meanwhile, think of the undue pressure the referee would be under from the players over a given incident. We saw last night a player trying fabricate an outrage over something which didn't happen. Stoke played the ref beautifully with several old school gamesmanship tricks last night. I shudder to think what they would have done is VAR was available.

 

[Nixonator]

Meanwhile, think of the undue pressure the referee would be under from the players over a given incident. We saw last night a player trying fabricate an outrage over something which didn't happen. Stoke played the ref beautifully with several old school gamesmanship tricks last night. I shudder to think what they would have done is VAR was available.

Which reminds me, forest away last season was it where our players were around the ref pointing at the big screen showing the replay?

I think a big problem is the quality of linesman, they are just not very good at their jobs on the whole. They could help the referee so much more.

 

[The Large One]

Which reminds me, forest away last season was it where our players were around the ref pointing at the big screen showing the replay?

I think a big problem is the quality of linesman, they are just not very good at their jobs on the whole. They could help the referee so much more.

They shouldn't have shown the replay. Irrespective of the morality or the accuracy of the decision - the players shouldn't have had that in their armoury to surround the ref.

There are another issues - as yet undecided.

Scenario...

Team A is attacking, and a defender from Team B appears to foul someone from Team A in the penalty area. The referee says 'play on'. 90 seconds later, without the ball going out, Team B go up the other end and score. It's the first break the referee gets to examine VAR for the original 'penalty claim'. The ref examines the VAR and realises that he should have given a penalty. So he disallows Team B's goal, and awards a penalty to Team A.

This has already happened.

A couple of questions.

1. What happens to the 90 seconds which were played when they shouldn't have been? Are they written off as part of the match, or added to the end as 'extra minutes'?

2. Is it only penalties which are subject to VAR review? Supposing the the incident took place on the edge of the area where is was not obvious as to whether it was a free-kick or a penalty? Is the ref looking for whether there was a foul, irrespective of where it was? So far, people are only calling for key decisions - so does a free kick, near the goal-line, one yard outside the penalty box, count as a key decision? It's not exactly a shooting opportunity.

Additionally, VAR doesn't account for offsides given where the attacking was not offside. So what's the point?

The point is - there are far too many exceptions to make it a reasonable proposition. We have every possibility of this ending in high farce.

 

[BensGrandad]

I would think the Video ref would have seen it and drawn the refs attention to stop play before the other side reached the other end unless of course it was a shot from the keeper out of his hands a la Paul Robinson or Pat Jennings and scored. I am not really into rugby but seem to have seen refs disallow a try because of an earlier infringement, so what is the difference. The argument being that had that been penalised you wouldnt have been in a position to score. So I do not see any problem but if there is wasted time just add it on to the minutes for substitutions injuries time wasting etc.