I don't know if I'm missing something here but I cant get my head around the shift of attitude towards officiating which has been caused by VAR. A lot of people have fallen in to some sort of a trap in my humble opinion.
In many ways VAR has nothing to do with subjective matters in the game. Its just a tool to increase accuracy, the subjective matters are supposed to remain subjective. People are unhappy with millimeter offside decisions but that was always the case even before VAR.
The linesman would flag (or fail to flag) and those watching on tv would look at the replay and if its close, arguments would ensue over whether it was offside. If it wasn't close and the ref got it wrong, fans of the aggrieved team would moan and demand video review be introduced because in this day and age we know it can be done. Theres a sense that people don't see the point in getting robbed if its avoidable.
Millimeter offsides were always offside, it was down to whether the linesman flags or not. If the linesman flags and replays show that a heel was offside, we would hail the accuracy of the linesman.
In all these scenarios, and more, fans would accept the decision of the ref and move on. With VAR this is proving difficult for fans to do. Its like there's an added responsibility on VAR and if VAR can't satisfy that then it "needs to be scrapped".
There are some blatant flaws in the manner in which VAR is being implemented, and that should be looked at because even tiny flaws could ruin everything. It needs to be close to perfect for this level of the game.
To be fair to anti VAR people, the flaws in VAR have given rise and are a huge boost to the dissenting views. They've done a shambolic job in this country, its embarrassing and its like it's being done by children from start to finish. Every time VAR is called upon its like a panic ensues in the VAR room. These guys don't really know what they're doing.
However, I'd say decision accuracy has improved and should improve even further if they make the right changes. Time taken to make decisions can be less than a minute if they put on their thinking caps. Scrapping VAR would take officiating back to a worse time IMO. We need to stick with it and hope they get it right.
Clearer rules are required all round and especially as to how far back a VAR check should go.
In the Liverpool Wolves game, they said something like-after the VVD ghost handball two players played the ball (Lallana and Mane) and influenced the game before the ball hit the back of the net. Apparently going back to review the VVD handball would have been too far back.
This sounds inconsistent with other decisions perhaps but that's not the fault of VAR. The guys implementing it simply don't seem to know their collective ass from their collective elbow.
What really happened IMO is that the VAR panic room was overcome by panic as usual (because they have no proper training and don't know what they're doing) and in the frantic check the VAR ref had no idea that the ball might have hit VVDs hand. The goal had been disallowed for Lallana handball so that's where the check started. Offside check is mandatory.
Upon realising this the PGMOL just made up some reason, this is what they do. They lie over at PGMOL. Some of the reasoning they give for wrong decisions is a joke. They can never admit an error and this leads to a lot of stupid reasoning. I don't know who told them to be on Twitter and sheet explaining everything as it happens. Another stupid decision IMO.
VAR is off to a decent start. What we need is reduction in time taken to make decisions and a framework that will ensure consistency in all decisions. Simple as that in my eyes.
Thanks for reading and all views welcome.
VAR ramblings
posted on 4/1/20
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 53 minutes ago
comment by Naby W@n Kenaby - May the flop be with you. (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 2 minutes ago
The only issue with the pitch side monitors are they are going to be time consuming as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From what I've seen, they aren't. It took them about two minutes to see Lallana passed with his shoulder rather than arm. I doubt it would have taken the on field referee that long to view a monitor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
bar the onfield ref was utterly sure it was handball and would refuse to review cos hes a manc caant.
we need independent and accountable people in charge.
we just had a 0-1 loss turned into a 1-0 win by var. one good use and one terrible use.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which one was the terrible use? The Wolves offside?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes.
I saw no liverpool player appeal. it didn't look offside till they took 2mins to draw lines etc.
we were robbed by taylor but var fixed it but then var goes and robs wolves. that's the problem with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is insane IMO.
The player was offside. How can you be robbed if its offside? You can complain about the time taken and the procedure used but how do you complain about a correct decision?
You have completely misunderstood VAR, and its purpose too and with your expectations I can see more frustration in store for you. Most of what you speak of was the same before VAR and I don't see why things should change after VAR. It's your expectayions and attitude towards VAR that has changed.
Its almost like you didn't read the article.
posted on 4/1/20
comment by Naby W@n Kenaby - May the flop be with you. (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 53 minutes ago
comment by Naby W@n Kenaby - May the flop be with you. (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 2 minutes ago
The only issue with the pitch side monitors are they are going to be time consuming as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From what I've seen, they aren't. It took them about two minutes to see Lallana passed with his shoulder rather than arm. I doubt it would have taken the on field referee that long to view a monitor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
bar the onfield ref was utterly sure it was handball and would refuse to review cos hes a manc caant.
we need independent and accountable people in charge.
we just had a 0-1 loss turned into a 1-0 win by var. one good use and one terrible use.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which one was the terrible use? The Wolves offside?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes.
I saw no liverpool player appeal. it didn't look offside till they took 2mins to draw lines etc.
we were robbed by taylor but var fixed it but then var goes and robs wolves. that's the problem with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is insane IMO.
The player was offside. How can you be robbed if its offside? You can complain about the time taken and the procedure used but how do you complain about a correct decision?
You have completely misunderstood VAR, and its purpose too and with your expectations I can see more frustration in store for you. Most of what you speak of was the same before VAR and I don't see why things should change after VAR. It's your expectayions and attitude towards VAR that has changed.
Its almost like you didn't read the article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's ridiculous. You'll see people complain about offsides because it was only mm's and therefore no advantage was gained(disagree the as you can easily gain an advantage by being mm's offside) but then take the goal tonight by Wolves. No advantage was gained by it hitting his arm, it was going in anyhow but no complaints.
Then we have this idea that no players appealed and the referee didn't see it. That's the whole point of VAR, it keeps the rules in place and makes the game fair, as instead of us arguing about it being offside, we get the correct decision.
posted on 4/1/20
If doherty had headed it onto his hand defending and scored an own goal would it be ruled out ? Certainly if he did that defending a cross it wouldnt be a penalty.
posted on 4/1/20
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 43 minutes ago
If doherty had headed it onto his hand defending and scored an own goal would it be ruled out ? Certainly if he did that defending a cross it wouldnt be a penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Accidentally handball only applies to the attacking team if they score, either directly or from creating a goalscoring opportunity/gaining possession and then creating a goalscoring opportunity.
posted on 5/1/20
Interesting read and some good points. I like VAR and it is likely here to stay. Some parts, such as speed, will improve over time, but there will always be some delay. In addition to needing to view the replays you also have to allow time for the ref to explain why he made the decision and the VAR to relay back why this was correct or not. Trying to impose 30 second time limits will just force them to rush and make mistakes.
The review system makes absolutely no sense in a football context, this is also why rugby doesn't have one. In tennis it is used only to see if a ball was in or not and the players are usually in a position to have a reasonable idea themselves. They also get about 15-20 reviews each per match.
For football a review system would be far more complex because it covers fouls, offsides, off the ball incidents etc. How is the manager (or caotain) likely to know if a review should be called if they are stood 50 or more yards away from the incident? Also, many of the decisions would be subjective so they will use a review because it looks like a penalty but the ref might just say no, and then they lose a review.
posted on 5/1/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 43 minutes ago
Interesting read and some good points. I like VAR and it is likely here to stay. Some parts, such as speed, will improve over time, but there will always be some delay. In addition to needing to view the replays you also have to allow time for the ref to explain why he made the decision and the VAR to relay back why this was correct or not. Trying to impose 30 second time limits will just force them to rush and make mistakes.
The review system makes absolutely no sense in a football context, this is also why rugby doesn't have one. In tennis it is used only to see if a ball was in or not and the players are usually in a position to have a reasonable idea themselves. They also get about 15-20 reviews each per match.
For football a review system would be far more complex because it covers fouls, offsides, off the ball incidents etc. How is the manager (or caotain) likely to know if a review should be called if they are stood 50 or more yards away from the incident? Also, many of the decisions would be subjective so they will use a review because it looks like a penalty but the ref might just say no, and then they lose a review.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. Also many games pass without VAR intervention but if both managers had two calls, you'd be damned sure they'll be using both and therefore there will be four calls every game.
posted on 5/1/20
tennis players get 2 reviews per set. it's actually too many as they tend to try their luck. in a 5 set match that's 10 total.
imo you can either accept every single goal is reviewed for a minute or reviews imo
posted on 5/1/20
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 8 minutes ago
tennis players get 2 reviews per set. it's actually too many as they tend to try their luck. in a 5 set match that's 10 total.
imo you can either accept every single goal is reviewed for a minute or reviews imo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennis and football are completely different hence different rules and different implementations of enforcing them.
Reviews don't mean stoppages. All goals are reviewed but most don't involve the game being stopped.
posted on 5/1/20
Very good article 👍.
I'm with you. Using technology to try to ensure note correct decisions are made can only be a good thing. The issue is the human element and the inconsistency with which it's applied.
Michael Oliver went over and looked at the screen today, then correctly awarded a red card. That will hopefully be a watershed. The ref on the pitch should be able to review his own decision, and the guys in the studio should only be a supporting mechanism
posted on 5/1/20
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 4 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 8 minutes ago
tennis players get 2 reviews per set. it's actually too many as they tend to try their luck. in a 5 set match that's 10 total.
imo you can either accept every single goal is reviewed for a minute or reviews imo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennis and football are completely different hence different rules and different implementations of enforcing them.
Reviews don't mean stoppages. All goals are reviewed but most don't involve the game being stopped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The game is automatically stopped when a goal is scored. If there is a review of the goal then they don't allow kick-off to happen until the review has happened.
If it was a review system then, when would the player request a review? It would have to be during a stoppage and the game wouldn't be allowed to continue until after the review.