VAR - yes or no?

Skoorb

Alert Team
#1
VAR once again in the headlines after the dippers were dumped out of the cup by City’s next league opponents WBA.

Much faffing about at the Hawthorns it seems.........it is early days and the failure of the authorities to permit the replays to be shown on the screens appears to be causing unhappiness which I can understand. Feels like the FA are keeping thing safe and avoiding the scrutiny that more transparency around the decsins would bring.

So.....would you stick with the system or ditch it?
 

Rising

Alert Team
#2
I vote stick with it. At this experimental stage it's slow and a bit clumsy (and that refers to both VAR and the officials) but with fine-tuning it will become quicker. At the end of the day, if it get's the decisions correct, it has to be worth it.
:026:

 

Tudor

Alert Team
#3
VAR is still a 'work in progress' and needs to be given time so those who are in charge of the system can iron out any issues.

I am all for it, for now.
 

Skoorb

Alert Team
#4
I a man for sticking with it. Early days, teething problems etc but important to get the right decision.

The decisions at Anfield yesterday were all correct but there was frustration over the time it took to reach them especially when the review videos are not shown in the stadium.

We will see if it comes into play this afternoon in our fixture.....
 
#6
There is bound to be controversy and the main problem that appears from last night was that it takes the fun out of controversial decisions says the commentator, there is nothing to talk about afterwards in the pub, look at it everyone's talking about VAR.

If the decision in the end is the right one and I am not too sure about Salah obvious collapse as though all the bones in his bones instantly disappeared because he felt the slight tug, but should players go down? On the other hand it cuts out controversial offsides and definitely cuts out diving.

Yes they are taking their time and they moan about it, but there should be a time keeper like they do in rugby. How many times have we seen over the years TV showing different angles of things that the referee has only had one angle for a spit second and how long do these replays go on for?

I think they will get better and quicker, eg. they would be no need for the ref on the field to view the TV, he should take the decision of the VAR referee (again like they do in cricket)

I assume all players know what a foul is and they realise the consequences of their actions, the obvious one would be Diver Young's elbow.

We stick with it.
 

Rising

Alert Team
#7
One of the problems is that the crowd don't know what's going on whilst the VAR is being used. Some suggested that it should be like in rugby where you can hear the ref. However, it has been pointed out, quite rightly, that there is respect for the ref in rugby but there is no respect for our refs and the foul-mouthed language of the footballers would be audible. The broadcasters would be forever apologising for it.
I think one solution might be that the studio VAR ref should be mic'd up to inform the crowd what's happening.


 

johnkelv

Vital Football Hero
#8
Stick with it, all I want is the right decision which is fair to both teams. It will get better over time, who would not want goal line technology now ??
 
#9
Didn't watch last night but I believe it was varcical.

As has been touched on here already, transparency is key if this is to be accepted by the football public, I feel.
 
#10
Bluedub - 28/1/2018 10:16

Didn't watch last night but I believe it was varcical.

As has been touched on here already, transparency is key if this is to be accepted by the football public, I feel.
I watched it and I didn't think it was farcical at all. Each referral just took too long. All the decisions were correct.

 
#11
As I said, this could be shortened by the on-field ref not looking at the screen, but taking the decision of the VAR Ref who is I assume just as qualified, but transparency would be good if the VAR decision making could be seen on the big screen to the fans
 

OziMan

Vital Football Legend
#13
Yes stick with it if only because it is here and it will not go away. Once it becomes streamlined it will be great and as has been mentioned, the crowd needs to know what is going on.
Perhaps at long last, players surrounding the refs protesting will be punished so that will be a good addition to it.
 

Skoorb

Alert Team
#14
More fishy goings on as the puzzling failure of the added time at the end of the Liverpool v WBA FA Cup game to match the amount of time spent undertaking VAR reviews has a different light thrown upon it by Klopp who alludes to the influence of BT Sport.

We all know that the "tail wags the dog" these days but would they have this level of influence because of broadcast schedule pressure?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/01/29/jurgen-klopp-claims-liverpools-fa-cup-tie-cut-short-bt-sport/
 

Rising

Alert Team
#15
No, I don't think the broadcaster can dictate the length of the game and I think Klippity was confused as alluded to. However, it is something they are going to have to make sure doesn't become an issue. I also agree that that decisions will get made quicker once the offals are fully up to speed, so to speak, and are used to the technology.

 
#16
I still rankle over the famous 7 mins when 4 were shown in the match where Owen scored a last kick winner

a proper time keeper play till the ball goes out of play, that means those last minute corners, where they take their time never happens.
 

Rising

Alert Team
#17
Buzz Lightyear - 7/2/2018 08:10

I still rankle over the famous 7 mins when 4 were shown in the match where Owen scored a last kick winner

a proper time keeper play till the ball goes out of play, that means those last minute corners, where they take their time never happens.
Yes, Buzz. Fergie-time was irrefutable. If they were losing, their games went on and on until they scored.



 

Skoorb

Alert Team
#18
I still cannot fathom the instruction not to blow the full time whistle until the ball is in a 'non-controversial' part of the pitch.....i.e. near to heading towards the halfway line.

The clock doesn't stop when the ball goes out for a throw or corner but how many times has the added time been up when a corner remains to be taken BUT the referee STILL allows it to go ahead and ONLY blows for full time once it has been taken and there is no danger of a goal being scored? The ball does not have to be in play for the final whistle to be blown but it is as if the side taking the corner get a 'free hit'.

For me this absolutely undermines the idea that the officials do not manipulate time within a game. If the ball is out of play for a corner when the added time is over.......blow the whistle.

The infamous 7 out of 4 minutes you refer to Buzz was allegedly extended because of the time Atkinson added on for the celebrations after Bellamy's equaliser. BUT he did NOT similarly add on additional minutes for the celebrations after Tiny Tim Owen scored for the rags. Oh no. If I recall the whistle was blown pretty much as soon as City kicked off. Funny that.
 

kennyclementstache

Vital Football Legend
#19
I imagine there is leeway in that when the 4th Official signifies 3 minutes or whatever it is a case of rounding up - it isn't an exact science otherwise they'd be signifying 3 minutes 18 seconds for instance. There is enough stress in the game without another Jack Taylor incident; disallowing a Brazil goal because they'd fanny'd around so long taking a corner he blew for time whilst it was in the air but before it hit the back of the net. 1974 World Cup against Sweden, although I could be wrong.