VAR | Page 2 | Vital Football

VAR

John Motson doesn't want VAR and that's good enough for me. Goal line technology is fine; play carries on until the ref receives a signal that the ball crossed the line and a goal kick or goal is awarded. For VAR to work needs split second timing - if a decision takes time then the benefit of the doubt must prevail. As 3 x 6 wrote, a single wrong decision won't make a difference overall; plus, why do so many asst. refs. seem to miss so much?
 
ThreeSixes said:
No single referee decision, over a 38 game season, will cost a team their place in the league.
Click to expand...

In principal yes, but given that time is linear, an incorrectly given penalty in the last minute of the last game of the season that costs a team their place in the league will factually cost a team their place in the league?

Imagine if Gills had to win on the last day of the season and a pen was given against us when the guy was outside the area in 94th minute and Cody steps up to score for Wimbledon??

I'd definitely blame the ref then!
 
Every decision over the whole season put together cost them their place in the league.

Goaline tech Is fine. Very dubious re VAR. Even "clear and obvious" isn't clear and obvious to everybody.
 
It needs to be on a referral basis. Player goes to ref, asks for a referral for a specific thing the ref missed, and then it gets referred. If player was right, they keep the referral, if not, they lose it. They could only get one per half, that can't be carried over, and off you go.

You could even manage this as a method of working out who is actually the best ref or not, by virtue of seeing who's decisions get held up the most.
 
According to Graeme Poll on talk sport and Dermot Gallagher on sky there is no "clear and obvious" mentioned in the use official wording of VAR,so where has it come from, because so many people think that's the grounds for its use.

IMO they either have to go to a referral system as MM says, of they leave it to the refs to decide if they want anything reviewed or looked at again, not have someone in their ear telling them they might have made a mistake. What should be made a yellow card offence is any player other than the captain approaching the ref re VAR.

A prime example was Loris on Sunday taking out Sterling, the ref gave a penalty and a yellow card, but the correct decision should have been a free kick and a red card. If the ref had been given the option he might have wanted to view it again. What is for sure is now the club's have opted not to implement VAR there can be no reason for any manager going on about how the refs got it wrong as they opted not to give the ref help.

VAR is not a bad idea, its just how best its implemented.
 
Last edited:
The referral system is a good way of doing it for several reasons:

1. It will encourage the captains to take more of a leadership role with regards to being the main point of contact between the players and the ref.

2. It will set limits on how many times VAR can be called for: a captain who appeals every decision that goes against them will lose their referral very quickly in the game/half. At the moment, their is no structure - any and every decision could go to VAR, there is no limit, hence the delays and hence the fan frustration.

3. The fans will have a greater understanding of why a decision is being reviewed. Knowing that it is someone on the pitch in the thick of the action that is calling for a referral will be more reassuring to the fans than knowing the whole thing is being driven by some bloke in a studio hundreds of miles away, who might be having a bad day and chooses to refer every little decision. For complete transparency it would be useful to have the replay on the big stadium screens.
 
Last edited:
There are two things about this argument I don't like. One is the accusation that people who are against VAR are against all kinds of progress in football. I'm not. The rules evolve, and if they improve things, like the change to the offside rule, three points for a win, the play-offs or the back-pass rule, then I'm all for it.

The second thing, and the more insidious one, I think, is to do with the fact that this rule change, unlike the ones above, is one that can't be rolled out throughout the game. It reinforces the idea that above a certain level, football is important simply because there's more money riding on it. And by implication, lower levels of football (like ours) are not important. That's got nothing to do with fairness. It's all about conserving value for investors.

And quite apart from that, there's the practical side. Not only does it drag out beyond all reason (as at Mainz v Freiburg), but you could replay the run-up to any goal or any other incident and if you look carefully enough, you'll find some infringement by either side. Footballers are always at it.

It's no fairer than any spontaneous decision by a referee, and actively makes the sport as a spectacle worse..
 
Even in cricket, tv decisions are flawed. Before any lbw or nick are decided, the tv umpire checks for a no-ball implying that every delivery should in effect be checked.
 
Wayne.Kerr said:
Even in cricket, tv decisions are flawed. Before any lbw or nick are decided, the tv umpire checks for a no-ball implying that every delivery should in effect be checked.
Click to expand...
Well you can’t be out on a no ball so that is correct!
 
Firstly, I'm not for VAR in any form. There, I said it.

Goal line tech - ok I suppose. It's instantaneous and black & white. but I could take it or leave it. Same for all.

The rest is all open to interpretation and it's why sport is sport and not an exact science. Refs make mistakes and so do players, managers and owners. No side has ever been relegated/promoted by a refs decision alone. A team is great or shite over 46 games, not 10 seconds. And take a look at the number of VAR decisions so far that still seem to be incorrect in someone's eyes even though they have 20 cameras in super slo mo trying to sort it all out.

I also don't think having a set number of referrals by a captain is the way to go. If the idea of VAR is to make the decisions correct, why should it stop after 2 or 3 goes? Are decisions after that ok if they are wrong? Or, even worse, blatantly wrong? I find that part in cricket is even worse than just letting the umpires decide and abide by their decisions.

I do like the idea someone mentioned above about a yellow card for any player (other than captain) that approaches a ref to remonstrate. Rugby League (and Union?) does that bit very well.
 
People have said VAR would have sorted the Lloris/Sterling incident; the fucking linesman should have sorted it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Captainreblue said:
According to Graeme Poll on talk sport and Dermot Gallagher on sky there is no "clear and obvious" mentioned in the use official wording of VAR,so where has it come from, because so many people think that's the grounds for its use.
Click to expand...

While it is true that it isn't the wording in the rules, it has also been said that the VAR person is likely to err on the side of caution and only over rule the referee where an error is "clear and obvious". The VAR operator is less likely to over rule and undermine the official in the more grey area cases where the decision could be considered more open to interpretation.
 
Mark Lawrenson (France vs Aus) is moaning about VAR now, which makes me even more convinced that it's the right think.

Use of VAR in that game is exactly what it's there for. Two penalties correctly given and without the review one of them would have been wrong.
 
Trouble with the whole concept of VAR for me is that so many decisions aren't black or white. I've just seen that French penalty replayed about 20 times, and I still can't make up my mind whether it was a penalty or not (I'd say I'm probably 60-40 that it was a pen).

I thought the point of VAR was supposed to be to correct clear and obvious errors, and I don't think that was a clear and obvious error. A decision like that is always going to divide people. The referee not initially giving a penalty wasn't the wrong decision. If he had given the penalty without consulting VAR, that wouldn't have been the wrong decision either. It was his opinion, and as the man in the middle, that should be all that matters (in my opinion).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.