VAR

[buckielugger]

The Chelsea/Utd game seemed to highlight all the possible VAR cock ups in one match.
Maguire clearly kicks a Chelsea player full on in the knackers but not red carded or anything for it (then later scores instead of watching from the stand).
Meanwhile Chelsea do score twice but Mr VAR decides otherwise. One goal ruled out because another player has pushed someone else (neither involved in goal) but VAR man ignores the the pusher was himself pushed into the Utd player.
Then a 2nd goal ruled out as Giroud dared to put a bit of a toe offside.
All quite nonsensical.

Maybe we need a VAR VAR...an actually competent ref overseeing the incompetent VAR ref.

 

[hulloutpost]

What's the long-term gain? I think it's solving a problem that doesn't really exist.

Same as cricket, reduce the absolute howlers to a miniscule amount. They did exist before VAR. The problem at the moment is there is an over strong desire to protect referees decisions and there are too many grey areas. They will be reduced (grey areas) starting this Summer with the ridiculous offside interpretations currently being worked to.

 

[Chimpimp]

Not sure many people attend football matches to see every decision correctly called by the referee.

They go to see their side win and for the feeling just as your side has scored.

VAR is just a different method of coming up with a subjective decision. It’s only “correct” if you agree with it.

It therefore is adding nothing much to “correct” decisions.

But it is taking a lot from the enjoyment of the paying public.

The people in favour are top clubs (who think they will get more decisions go their way than against) and TV.

Those two parties have no real interest in non PL football.

So hopefully they will not bother to inflict it on the rest of us.

 

[plumbob]

If you have to run the replay frame-by-frame, and umpteen times, to make a decision it's ridiculous. It's clearly and obviously not a clear and obvious error!
2 replays at full speed, if you can't immediately see it was offside without laying down multicoloured lines then the lino got it right.
As already said, simply changing to "clear daylight" will clearly and obviously change nothing.

 

[buckielugger]

If you have to run the replay frame-by-frame, and umpteen times, to make a decision it's ridiculous. It's clearly and obviously not a clear and obvious error!
2 replays at full speed, if you can't immediately see it was offside without laying down multicoloured lines then the lino got it right.
As already said, simply changing to "clear daylight" will clearly and obviously change nothing.

Well said, a very clear and obvious answer.

 

[NottyImp]

Same as cricket, reduce the absolute howlers to a miniscule amount. They did exist before VAR. The problem at the moment is there is an over strong desire to protect referees decisions and there are too many grey areas. They will be reduced (grey areas) starting this Summer with the ridiculous offside interpretations currently being worked to.

Football is a very different game to cricket, though. No ball-tracking or snick-ometers, for example, which eliminates a lot of the howlers. Football has far more grey areas that are not subject to technology.

My own view is that there are few gains from VAR in football that are not evened out over a season. I would much rather see the money spent on supporting and training top-class officials who make fewer errors.

 

[hulloutpost]

Football is a very different game to cricket, though. No ball-tracking or snick-ometers, for example, which eliminates a lot of the howlers. Football has far more grey areas that are not subject to technology.

My own view is that there are few gains from VAR in football that are not evened out over a season. I would much rather see the money spent on supporting and training top-class officials who make fewer errors.

Why not do both and have the best of all worlds. I remain hopeful that within a couple of years the fiasco we currently see will become the exception. Obviously if there is no sign of significant improvement within a sensible timescale I could be persuaded otherwise. I accept cricket is a different game but even so some of the issues about subjectivity and technology are shared and it took cricket probably five years plus improved technology to sort it out and settle down. What's to say that there won't be improved technology/more angles etc. so far as cameras go. The issue I have less confidence about admittedly is the prevalence of administrators (law makers in particular) and the referees Mafia that I believe have too little common sense and too much influence in equal measure.

 

[buckielugger]

Football is a very different game to cricket, though. No ball-tracking or snick-ometers, for example, which eliminates a lot of the howlers. Football has far more grey areas that are not subject to technology.

My own view is that there are few gains from VAR in football that are not evened out over a season. I would much rather see the money spent on supporting and training top-class officials who make fewer errors.

Well precisely.
It is still shocking that we have amateur/part-time refs in charge of a fully professional sport (at our level at least).
Most apparently get on the league list thanks more to masonic links than to actual ability.
(And I say that based on evidence of a top ref I knew well...he knew he was the only non-Mason out of 40 league officials in his region!)(as well as being the only one who had actually been a footballer too!!).

And the fact that clueless clowns like Mr Toner can make the League list says it all.

 

[nlondonimp]

agree that more of the huge amounts of money sloshing around should be spent on training quality referees. but even after that, everyone has to accept that they will make mistakes, just as players make mistakes, managers make mistakes, and fans watching make mistakes.

then - if var is to continue - i would prefer to see referees making the decision to go to var when they see fit, rather than referees undermined by var. would also like to see more respect by players for referees' decisions [as in rugby u].

imo a 5 minute sin bin would solve a lot of issues with player behaviour towards referees.

and while we are at it, ffs bring in a rule to make players take throw ins and free kicks from the correct place. drives me nuts watching them edging forward to wherever they like.

 

[NottyImp]

Why not do both and have the best of both worlds. I remain hopeful that within a couple of years the fiasco we currently see will become the exception. Obviously if there is no sign of significant improvement within a sensible timescale I could be persuaded otherwise. I accept cricket is a different game but even so some of the issues about subjectivity and technology are shared and it took cricket probably five years plus improved technology to sort it out and settle down. What's to say that there won't be improved technology/more angles etc. so far as cameras go. The issue I have less confidence about admittedly is the prevalence of administrators (law makers in particular) and the referees Mafia that I believe have too little common sense and too much influence in equal measure.

The only way for VAR to work is for it to preserve the flow of football and maintain the fans' experience of a fast-paced, continuous experience. When I see a version of the system that does that, I will support it. Until then, I'd rather do without.

 

[buckielugger]

agree that more of the huge amounts of money sloshing around should be spent on training quality referees. but even after that, everyone has to accept that they will make mistakes, just as players make mistakes, managers make mistakes, and fans watching make mistakes.

then - if var is to continue - i would prefer to see referees making the decision to go to var when they see fit, rather than referees undermined by var. would also like to see more respect by players for referees' decisions [as in rugby u].

imo a 5 minute sin bin would solve a lot of issues with player behaviour towards referees.

and while we are at it, ffs bring in a rule to make players take throw ins and free kicks from the correct place. drives me nuts watching them edging forward to wherever they like.

Sin bins! Yes!!
Been advocating them for years.
If you get booked, there is no penalty in match and gain for opposition unless you go and get booked again.
The only team who might gain will be some other side weeks down the line when bookings have added up to a ban. And that rarely happens anyway. Morrell likely to be our sole "banee" this season.

So...i would have a 10 minute sin bin for a booking. And if a second yellow is incurred then off you go for 20 minutes. (So two yellows no longer a red, just a 30 minutes spell on the sidelines). And theoretically, a third yellow could be given in same game, and I'd double the time off again to 40 minutes sin bin.
Now, sin bin times could clearly over run the total match time and to take that into account as well, I'd issue a one match ban (in addition to sin binning) for every 90 minutes of sin bin time incurred.
So 9 yellows all in different games would equal a one match ban (almost the same as now). But earning 2nd or 3rd yellows in same games will incur longer in sin bin and speed up how soon the match ban occurs.
For really bad offenders, you could say a 2nd 90 minutes aggregate of sin bin time could give a two match ban etc.

 

[buckielugger]

agree that more of the huge amounts of money sloshing around should be spent on training quality referees. but even after that, everyone has to accept that they will make mistakes, just as players make mistakes, managers make mistakes, and fans watching make mistakes.

then - if var is to continue - i would prefer to see referees making the decision to go to var when they see fit, rather than referees undermined by var. would also like to see more respect by players for referees' decisions [as in rugby u].

imo a 5 minute sin bin would solve a lot of issues with player behaviour towards referees.

and while we are at it, ffs bring in a rule to make players take throw ins and free kicks from the correct place. drives me nuts watching them edging forward to wherever they like.

Foul throw every time they throw from wrong place! Totally annoying!!

 

[Eweimps]

Foul throw every time they throw from wrong place! Totally annoying!!

I’m pretty sure that’s still the rule but it’s never implemented. It should be though

 

[elkimp]

Sin bins! Yes!!
Been advocating them for years.
If you get booked, there is no penalty in match and gain for opposition unless you go and get booked again.
The only team who might gain will be some other side weeks down the line when bookings have added up to a ban. And that rarely happens anyway. Morrell likely to be our sole "banee" this season.

So...i would have a 10 minute sin bin for a booking. And if a second yellow is incurred then off you go for 20 minutes. (So two yellows no longer a red, just a 30 minutes spell on the sidelines). And theoretically, a third yellow could be given in same game, and I'd double the time off again to 40 minutes sin bin.
Now, sin bin times could clearly over run the total match time and to take that into account as well, I'd issue a one match ban (in addition to sin binning) for every 90 minutes of sin bin time incurred.
So 9 yellows all in different games would equal a one match ban (almost the same as now). But earning 2nd or 3rd yellows in same games will incur longer in sin bin and speed up how soon the match ban occurs.
For really bad offenders, you could say a 2nd 90 minutes aggregate of sin bin time could give a two match ban etc.

I have personal experience of sin bins. Our local league has brought them in this year as an FA trial. I was the first for our club to be sin binned. Cost me a round.

 

[Sincilbanks]

TV companies are unfairly targeted by fans who don't like VAR, which is most including me.

It was voices within the game who wanted it, and the pundit army, all of whom naively thought VAR would end controversy. They've never heard about the law of unintended consequences and so are now suprised it's raised more questions than it's answered.

TV companies can do with or without VAR. They get to analyse controversial incidents anyway whether it's used or not. As it's causing additional breaks in play it's an actual hindrance to television coverage.

Wenger's suggestion posted by NottyImp won't resolve anything either. It just means the ludicrous, inaccurate MS Paint lines will be drawn a yard further back than they are now.

I explained my point badly, I didn't mean endlessly talk about the controversy, Imeant *in addition* to that they get to pontificate endlessly on the merits of VAR, on the changes that could be made to VAR, on whether the ref should be looking at the sideline monitor, on whether he can talk to the video refs,on whether the decision was too slow to be implemented, on and on it goes like a windmill in the mind, like a circle that never ends.

And as for hindering their coverage of the game? I wonder what TV companies like Sky and BT could do with a 1 or 2 minute break in the game when it's stopped? If the answer that springs to mind is "adverts" then I agree completely...

 

[plumbob]

I explained my point badly, I didn't mean endlessly talk about the controversy, Imeant *in addition* to that they get to pontificate endlessly on the merits of VAR, on the changes that could be made to VAR, on whether the ref should be looking at the sideline monitor, on whether he can talk to the video refs,on whether the decision was too slow to be implemented, on and on it goes like a windmill in the mind, like a circle that never ends.

And as for hindering their coverage of the game? I wonder what TV companies like Sky and BT could do with a 1 or 2 minute break in the game when it's stopped? If the answer that springs to mind is "adverts" then I agree completely...

Not sure they need the break to advertise! From watching Spurs and Wolves this week, I am now fully aware that there is a boxing match on Saturday night. It popped up in the bottom of the screen regularly throughout the match and every other time, the commentator told me as well.

 

[PlymouthImp]

Sin bins! Yes!!
Been advocating them for years.
If you get booked, there is no penalty in match and gain for opposition unless you go and get booked again.
The only team who might gain will be some other side weeks down the line when bookings have added up to a ban. And that rarely happens anyway. Morrell likely to be our sole "banee" this season.

As a fan of Rugby League, I'm also an advocate of the Sin Bin. Yeah alright we'll end up with players going in the bin for 10 minutes (Bridcutt last week against MK could have spent most of the match in it!), but it acts as a deterrent to some unnecessary yellows like dissent (in which Man Utd would have half the team in there every time a decision doesn't go their way). Watching how it sometimes affects a team when a key player goes in the bin, Kevin Brown for Salford Red Devils last week a good example for those others who watch RL, shows it can be a big disadvantage as the result of a stupid action/reaction by a player. The trouble would be based on referees getting yellow card offences wrong or overly-harsh. But I'm all for it.

 

[buckielugger]

As a fan of Rugby League, I'm also an advocate of the Sin Bin. Yeah alright we'll end up with players going in the bin for 10 minutes (Bridcutt last week against MK could have spent most of the match in it!), but it acts as a deterrent to some unnecessary yellows like dissent (in which Man Utd would have half the team in there every time a decision doesn't go their way). Watching how it sometimes affects a team when a key player goes in the bin, Kevin Brown for Salford Red Devils last week a good example for those others who watch RL, shows it can be a big disadvantage as the result of a stupid action/reaction by a player. The trouble would be based on referees getting yellow card offences wrong or overly-harsh. But I'm all for it.

It could certainly lead to better behaviour on the pitch as there would be immediate consequences for any yellow.
It might also then help refs if they are being less hassled by persistant player dissent.
And equally it might encourage refs to book people only when they are sure of it as they could be sidelining players incorrectly.
So I think it would help all round.
Might keep the 4th official busy but they might prefer the greater involvement.

Oh and on timing of sin bin, if ref stops play for injury/substitution etc, which would entail him adding on time at the end of the half, then the time in sin bin ought to be paused as well.

A sin bin has been introduced in leagues below Northern Premier etc level, but only for dissent. I've seen one player sin binned that way. Clearly a start and I guess an experiment at that level by the FA.

 

[Norfolk Imp]

It’s my fault, I take full responsibility and have nobody to blame but myself ....
.... 2 seasons ago I was very vocal on social media for its introduction following City being robbed against Liverpool in the Champions League quarter final.

Sadly I am already predicting my visit to Madrid next Wednesday to be marred by it

George Cain, Jarnail Singh etc all is forgiven.

 

[Sincilbanks]

It’s my fault, I take full responsibility and have nobody to blame but myself ....
.... 2 seasons ago I was very vocal on social media for its introduction following City being robbed against Liverpool in the Champions League quarter final.

Sadly I am already predicting my visit to Madrid next Wednesday to be marred by it

George Cain, Jarnail Singh etc all is forgiven.

"1 down, 6 to go"