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

[The Large One]

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.

Comparing rugby and football is a bit pointless here.

One - rugby has an 'play advantage' rule which can go on for 10, 15, maybe even 30 seconds which football doesn't have. When that advantage is over, all other considerations don't come into it.

Two - the incident you're talking about (checking an offside after a try has been scored) is only part of a natural break - not, as you're suggesting, something which video judge can buzz the referee over. In rugby, the referee asks for assistance - NOT the video judge offer assistance. If a referee misses an offside for a try, he misses an offside for a try, and duly awards it.

The nature of rugby is different too, and this makes for a different kind of refereeing. Rugby is about territory - you have to be behind the game line to play. Football doesn't have that consideration, and the concept of offside is totally different.

Football simply will not cater for so many stoppages.

 

[BensGrandad]

It is not only offside that a try is refused for. I have seen them disallowed for an earlier forward pass, playing stepping out of play, high tackle amongst others. I do not see why the rules cannot be applied in football. In your example there would be a break in play when the other side have scored. So it is simple go back to the original infringement and start again from that.

 

[Easy 10]

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.

Yep. Just a couple of the potential complications that could crop up - making the VAR decision a controversy in itself.

One thing I would say, at the moment, the VAR review trials are currently being used to "clear up" 4 things, and 4 things only. Goals (ie if there was a foul in the buildup), red cards, penalty decisions, and mistaken identity. We are not yet at a stage where they're looking at overturning offside decisions. But there's still enough within those 4 criteria for a whole WHUPASS can of worms to be opened up every game.

It always astonishes me, the knee-jerk reaction when we see an abysmal decision like last night on Murray that "well VAR would've sorted that out in 30 seconds". Maybe - but that also completely ignores the whole MYRIAD of borderline calls a ref would be pressured into making using the very same method. And how many bloody times in a game ?? Because the nature of football, he WOULD be pressured into looking again at those 4 criteria all the damn time (well 3, as mistaken identity is so rare).

You can say "well only allow x number of VAR reviews per team per game" - but you know damn well it'd be used to try to rule out a goal. Managers would be grasping at any tiny incident in the build-up to a goal to see of there was any kind of infringement they could use to get it ruled out. Would anyone else like to stand around waiting to see if we could celebrate a goal while THAT whole charade plays out ? The likes of Mark Hughes would be all over that like a tramp on chips.

Nope, sorry. Simple line calls are one thing, I think goalline technology is fine. Anything else can do one.

 

[BensGrandad]

Yep. Just a couple of the potential complications that could crop up - making the VAR decision a controversy in itself.

One thing I would say, at the moment, the VAR review trials are currently being used to "clear up" 4 things, and 4 things only. Goals (ie if there was a foul in the buildup), red cards, penalty decisions, and mistaken identity. We are not yet at a stage where they're looking at overturning offside decisions. But there's still enough within those 4 criteria for a whole WHUPASS can of worms to be opened up every game.

It always astonishes me, the knee-jerk reaction when we see an abysmal decision like last night on Murray that "well VAR would've sorted that out in 30 seconds". Maybe - but that also completely ignores the whole MYRIAD of borderline calls a ref would be pressured into making using the very same method. And how many bloody times in a game ?? Because the nature of football, he WOULD be pressured into looking again at those 4 criteria all the damn time (well 3, as mistaken identity is so rare).

You can say "well only allow x number of VAR reviews per team per game" - but you know damn well it'd be used to try to rule out a goal. Managers would be grasping at any tiny incident in the build-up to a goal to see of there was any kind of infringement they could use to get it ruled out. Would anyone else like to stand around waiting to see if we could celebrate a goal while THAT whole charade plays out ? The likes of Mark Hughes would be all over that like a tramp on chips.

Nope, sorry. Simple line calls are one thing, I think goalline technology is fine. Anything else can do one.

why does the 4th official not have an input into decisions or if he does did he agree with the incompetant pair last night, we will never know.

 

[Easy 10]

It is not only offside that a try is refused for. I have seen them disallowed for an earlier forward pass, playing stepping out of play, high tackle amongst others. I do not see why the rules cannot be applied in football. In your example there would be a break in play when the other side have scored. So it is simple go back to the original infringement and start again from that.

So if the ref makes a duff non-decision on a penalty at one end, play goes on unbroken, the other team breaks up the other end and gets awarded a penalty, and there's a red card offence in the buildup, are you saying that entire passage of play is null and void pending the review of the original penalty decision ? Then the ref is reviewing (1) the original pen and whether to award it. Then (2) if he does award it then play goes back for the original pen. But if he doesn't, then he's got to look at the 2nd pen and probably (3) the red card as well.

Lovely. I'll go and get a beer I think.

 

[Captain Sensible]

So if the ref makes a duff non-decision on a penalty at one end, play goes on unbroken, the other team breaks up the other end and gets awarded a penalty, and there's a red card offence in the buildup, are you saying that entire passage of play is null and void pending the review of the original penalty decision ? Then the ref is reviewing (1) the original pen and whether to award it. Then (2) if he does award it then play goes back for the original pen. But if he doesn't, then he's got to look at the 2nd pen and probably (3) the red card as well.

Lovely. I'll go and get a beer I think.

Interesting scenario, hope u are enjoying your beer! But are you saying all 3 incidents are controversial and need reviewing? That would be highly highly unusual. Basically the play has to be brought back to the original incident. If the decision was wrong, it was wrong.

 

[BensGrandad]

You are trying to think of hypothetical situations that in reality probably wouldnt happen, and if they did it would be once in about two seasons or so. Rules can be placed in case of such an eventuality and probably never ever used.

 

[Easy 10]

why does the 4th official not have an input into decisions or if he does did he agree with the incompetant pair last night, we will never know.

The lino should have had his eyes open last night. That was just basic incompetence between the two of them - he enabled the ref to dig an almighty hole for himself whereby he made not one, not two, but THREE duff decisions (initially a corner - the ball hadn't gone out. Then a goal kick - the ball hadn't gone out. Then a handball - it was a penalty you IDIOT).

That was a simple decision to have made in the first place, that he completely bottled because of the red card aspect ("should I send him off?). They should have sorted that out quite easily between them. It still doesn't justify bringing in video reviews though, because if they're incompetent without them, they can be just as incompetent with them.

 

[BensGrandad]

The lino should have had his eyes open last night. That was just basic incompetence between the two of them - he enabled the ref to dig an almighty hole for himself whereby he made not one, not two, but THREE duff decisions (initially a corner - the ball hadn't gone out. Then a goal kick - the ball hadn't gone out. Then a handball - it was a penalty you IDIOT).

That was a simple decision to have made in the first place, that he completely bottled because of the red card aspect ("should I send him off?). They should have sorted that out quite easily between them. It still doesn't justify bringing in video reviews though, because if they're incompetent without them, they can be just as incompetent with them.

I wouldnt argue about their incompetence but if a man sat in the car park watching a tv screen said it was a penalty then that is the answer if he says not, again that is the answer. I think that it is more likely that he would be correct with his decison.

 

[Captain Sensible]

I wouldnt argue about their incompetence but if a man sat in the car park watching a tv screen said it was a penalty then that is the answer if he says not, again that is the answer. I think that it is more likely that he would be correct with his decison.

Have to agree with you there. I think the game really needs this but it needs to be done properly and as quickly as possible. If something needs multiple views, then you go with the refs original decision. It should only be used where a decision can be instantly identified as incorrect and can be corrected. I predict that we will hardly notice any breaks in play for it. Hawkeye can already instantly detect offside. It’s gonna leave things much more to skill and reduce the chance element of obvious decisions being incorrect.

 

[BensGrandad]

The simple answer as regards a penalty which could be seen very quickly (a) is it a foul or handball (b) was it inside of the box.

As regards a goal was there any infringement this may take a few seconds longer but the game will have been stopped it is just a matter of how it is restarted if a goal is given or not.

I do not think the man in the car park should be able to contact the ref and say you have just missed a foul. Restrict it to goals and penalties. Possibly red cards.

 

[Gwylan]

It always astonishes me, the knee-jerk reaction when we see an abysmal decision like last night on Murray that "well VAR would've sorted that out in 30 seconds". Maybe - but that also completely ignores the whole MYRIAD of borderline calls a ref would be pressured into making using the very same method. And how many bloody times in a game ?? Because the nature of football, he WOULD be pressured into looking again at those 4 criteria all the damn time (well 3, as mistaken identity is so rare).

And that's what's happened in rugby. It looked pretty straightforward when the rule was introduced but the way it's now been expanded is IMO detrimental to the development of the game. I was for video replays in rugby but having seen the dog's breakfast they've become, I'm dead against them in football.

 

[BensGrandad]

And that's what's happened in rugby. It looked pretty straightforward when the rule was introduced but the way it's now been expanded is IMO detrimental to the development of the game. I was for video replays in rugby but having seen the dog's breakfast they've become, I'm dead against them in football.

Isnt that down to the administrators of the game.

 

[Gwylan]

Isnt that down to the administrators of the game.

Well yes, but you think that footballers' administrators are better? Where have you been the last 30 years?

 

[The Large One]

The simple answer as regards a penalty which could be seen very quickly (a) is it a foul or handball (b) was it inside of the box.

You think the notion of deciding every foul - or even handball - is simple? Really?

People are forgetting that last night's 'nailed-on' penalty decision is, relatively speaking, a rarity - i.e. such an obvious foul which wasn't given.

How many debates on here - after the final whistle take place where there is no unilateral consensus? Forget the majority decision - a unilateral consensus?

Did he dive? Was there contact? Did he get the ball before or after the player? Was the player too rough in his challenge? Did he go down too easily? Was it ball-to-hand (still not a defence, incidentally) or hand-to-ball? Was his hand in a 'natural' position? If not, by how much?

We can't decide in hours in here, let alone five seconds. At the end of the day, if you go to the 'man-in-the-booth', you are still looking at the opinion of another arbiter. In which case, go with the original arbiter. That's what he's there for.

 

[Easy 10]

Have to agree with you there. I think the game really needs this but it needs to be done properly and as quickly as possible. If something needs multiple views, then you go with the refs original decision. It should only be used where a decision can be instantly identified as incorrect and can be corrected. I predict that we will hardly notice any breaks in play for it. Hawkeye can already instantly detect offside. It’s gonna leave things much more to skill and reduce the chance element of obvious decisions being incorrect.

I predict the EXACT opposite. Its the thin end of the wedge - once you introduce it, the officials are going to start using it as a "crutch" to check their own big decisions, whether that be for their own reassurance, or through pressure from players and managers who are going bonkers. I reckon pretty much every penalty decision would go to the VAR, loads of reds, and quite a few goals. If you're happy to wait for every BIG decision to be reviewed then so be it, but its not the sort of game I want to be watching.

[MENTION=25]Gwylan[/MENTION] is quite right, its already affected rugby, the reviews are getting excessive and thats in a much more stop-start game. Another example is in cricket, where I've seen umpires increasingly rely on TV replays to call incidents such as run-outs that really were quite clear to call in the first place. But because the technology is there, they LEAN on it to make sure. Its human nature. Now thats not so bad in a non-flowing game such as cricket. But in football - it'd RUIN it.

And for what ? So we can try and get every decision perfect. Injustices are part of sport, sometimes it goes for you, sometimes it goes against you. But the price of trying to completely eliminate all of them, all the mistakes (when it actually won't), is just too high a price for the spectacle of the game. In my opinion.

 

[Nixonator]

Interesting scenario, hope u are enjoying your beer! But are you saying all 3 incidents are controversial and need reviewing? That would be highly highly unusual. Basically the play has to be brought back to the original incident. If the decision was wrong, it was wrong.

It will be shit watching the football eventually if this comes in.

I like to be able to see the net bulge, no lino flag and the ref with his arm toward the centre circle to know I can celebrate. I don't want 2 mins after celebrating a goal for it to be disallowed. Sure it could work the other way, but it will just feel shit even if it goes our way. I'd rather these things even themself out naturally and let the game flow. I say this having travelled up to boro in 15/16 and being ****** out of promotion by a complete clown of a referee. For me that means refereeing standards need to improve, linesman need to improve, be paid more and be ****ing accountable for shit performances. I do not instantly think video tech must be the only answer.

Nor do I want 15 mins added to a game because of 1) time for the decision making process and 2) the additional time from the null play between checking and deciding - which would also cause fitness concerns for players and implications on fan travel.

 

[jonnyrovers]

I’d rather see the ability to slow the game taken away from players. Last night was all the proof needed that time wasting is rife & unmanaged.

The FA has engaged with fans and clubs to come up with a range of potential measures including:

KO takes place exactly 60 seconds after a goal is scored. If you’re still line dancing or kissing turf then tough $hit.

30 minutes a half with the clock stopped EVERY TIME play stops.

If time wasting is futile it will stop. No technology required.

Having said all of that none of it solves the problem of dodgy ref decisions...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Large One]

I’d rather see the ability to slow the game taken away from players. Last night was all the proof needed that time wasting is rife & unmanaged.

The FA has engaged with fans and clubs to come up with a range of potential measures including:

KO takes place exactly 60 seconds after a goal is scored. If you’re still line dancing or kissing turf then tough $hit.

30 minutes a half with the clock stopped EVERY TIME play stops.

If time wasting is futile it will stop. No technology required.

Having said all of that none of it solves the problem of dodgy ref decisions...

I don't think the timings issues you talk about will change much.

It's not so much about the 'ball-in-play' time that's the central issue. It's any notion of delay used to disrupt the tempo of a team in the ascendancy in a close match. The classic example that springs to mind is the 1991 Play-Off Final (yeah, I know it's 26 years ago, but bear with me).

Admittedly we weren't great that day, but any time we managed to get a head of steam going, and start playing well, a Notts County player went down with an 'injury'. Injury, my arse. It was about distrupting the temp. Colin Wanker was a dab-hand at that level of gamesmanship. So is Mark Hughes.

I think this is also a point referees either don't get or don't care about. They might see a team wasting time and feel it's OK to add on a couple of minutes - but that's not the point.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

In cricket, the sole purpose of bringing technology in to the game was to stop the "howlers". Umpires at that level are very good, but not perfect. With ultra edge, a snick behind will be obvious 99% of the time so now the non-walkers are found out. Likewise an inside edge on to pad and given LBW. To begin wih, the Indians refused to accept it, but now they've come round to realise is better to be right more often than not.

The key to preventing time wasting, as so many of you are concerned with, is to limit the number of "challenges" - I believe it's 2 per set in tennis and 2 per 80 overs in cricket - so you need to be confident before you challenge. Maybe a max of 2 per half in footie.

Murray would have challenged his incident and inside 20 seconds the ball would have been placed on the spot.

My opinion is that it's more important to get these decisions right as careers and livelihoods are up for scrutiny in professional sport - the need to stop the "howler" is essential and Lee Mason made a howler. It's way less significant at grassroots sport where howlers in all sports will always occur.