Well open mics so you can here the discussion between the officials would be a start.
At least that way you might have a understanding as to they have reached the awful outcome they have.
By giving it a permanent rest so we can all move on.
Having this debate it seems, after every game is boring, monotonous and is achieving nothing.
How about trying something fresh like each TV Channel showing live games restricting commentary to one individual commentator, disposing of all the so called experts adding their piffle to the proceedings and stop showing Slow Mo replays countless times as if repetition is going to change the way events occurs on the pitch at normal speed.
Just a thought from someone who has been watching live matches since 1952 and is totally disenchanted with the current game.
Put it in the bin. We tried it, it doesn't work.
You suggestion is not how other sports necessarily use VAR. Tennis has a challenge system but that is a very different game and the challenge can only be used for one specific thing, and even then players get up to 4 challenges a set. In a grand slam match that is up to 20 challenges for one small aspect.
The challenge system in football is a flawed idea. The potential applications are too broad and you will end up with a team being beaten because of a huge and obvious error but they had already used their challenge, or being beaten by a smaller error because they are too wary to use their challenge.
There weren't 2 poor decisions against Liverpool on Saturday - there was one. Like it or not, the offside was the correct decision under the current rules.
The challenge system in football is a flawed idea. The potential applications are too broad and you will end up with a team being beaten because of a huge and obvious error but they had already used their challenge, or being beaten by a smaller error because they are too wary to use their challenge.
_____________
But both of those are up to the team to avoid, aren't they? If you've "already used your challenge(s)", it's because you chose to dispute a correct decision: in other words, you made a mistake. If you challenge correctly, you don't lose that challenge.
And with the idea of being "too wary to use their challenge": you're only really likely to appeal the big decisions, i.e. those that lead to goals, penalties or red cards, so if you genuinely feel one of those has gone against you, use a challenge.
It's worked well in tennis and, while there is more subjectivity in football, I think the idea could transfer across. It would stop some of these fractional offsides, which nobody really wanted, as teams wouldn't really be challenging them unless they were pretty desperate.
I think with offside football should use the cricket DRS method where it is umpire (linesman) call. Like for the Mane goal if it is deemed on side with the naked eye then technology needs substantial evidence to overturn the decision.
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
The challenge system in football is a flawed idea. The potential applications are too broad and you will end up with a team being beaten because of a huge and obvious error but they had already used their challenge, or being beaten by a smaller error because they are too wary to use their challenge.
_____________
But both of those are up to the team to avoid, aren't they? If you've "already used your challenge(s)", it's because you chose to dispute a correct decision: in other words, you made a mistake. If you challenge correctly, you don't lose that challenge.
And with the idea of being "too wary to use their challenge": you're only really likely to appeal the big decisions, i.e. those that lead to goals, penalties or red cards, so if you genuinely feel one of those has gone against you, use a challenge.
It's worked well in tennis and, while there is more subjectivity in football, I think the idea could transfer across. It would stop some of these fractional offsides, which nobody really wanted, as teams wouldn't really be challenging them unless they were pretty desperate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the issue - as you have said - is that there is subjectivity in football. Tennis uses it for a purely factual decision. Was the ball out.
A football team could use their challenge on a subjective decision and make a perfectly reasonable case that it wasn't a penalty or red card etc, and the ref decides that he feels it still was a penalty. Then the challenge is lost and you are at the mercy of a huge error.
It is an arbitrary restriction and the only purpose for it that I could see would be to be able to blame the cheated team for a wrong decision by letting people say "should have used your challenge then" or "shouldn't have lost your challenge then".
I can see of no actual benefit it brings over the current system which (barring errors, which might still happen in a challenge system) checks every major incident as standard.
comment by (K̇ash) I'm the Mané - PL Champione (U1108)
posted 46 seconds ago
I think with offside football should use the cricket DRS method where it is umpire (linesman) call. Like for the Mane goal if it is deemed on side with the naked eye then technology needs substantial evidence to overturn the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They have evidence. They have a photograph showing Mane to be marginally offside.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
The challenge system in football is a flawed idea. The potential applications are too broad and you will end up with a team being beaten because of a huge and obvious error but they had already used their challenge, or being beaten by a smaller error because they are too wary to use their challenge.
_____________
But both of those are up to the team to avoid, aren't they? If you've "already used your challenge(s)", it's because you chose to dispute a correct decision: in other words, you made a mistake. If you challenge correctly, you don't lose that challenge.
And with the idea of being "too wary to use their challenge": you're only really likely to appeal the big decisions, i.e. those that lead to goals, penalties or red cards, so if you genuinely feel one of those has gone against you, use a challenge.
It's worked well in tennis and, while there is more subjectivity in football, I think the idea could transfer across. It would stop some of these fractional offsides, which nobody really wanted, as teams wouldn't really be challenging them unless they were pretty desperate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the issue - as you have said - is that there is subjectivity in football. Tennis uses it for a purely factual decision. Was the ball out.
A football team could use their challenge on a subjective decision and make a perfectly reasonable case that it wasn't a penalty or red card etc, and the ref decides that he feels it still was a penalty. Then the challenge is lost and you are at the mercy of a huge error.
It is an arbitrary restriction and the only purpose for it that I could see would be to be able to blame the cheated team for a wrong decision by letting people say "should have used your challenge then" or "shouldn't have lost your challenge then".
I can see of no actual benefit it brings over the current system which (barring errors, which might still happen in a challenge system) checks every major incident as standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree in general and meant to add to my post that any review system, with or without challenges, is doomed to fail if wrong decisions are still made after the review. But one improvement over the system in place now might be that the current system is just too much - goals are being ruled out that nobody would have dreamed of challenging. At least with limited challenges, the disruption of the game would be minimised.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) I'm the Mané - PL Champione (U1108)
posted 46 seconds ago
I think with offside football should use the cricket DRS method where it is umpire (linesman) call. Like for the Mane goal if it is deemed on side with the naked eye then technology needs substantial evidence to overturn the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They have evidence. They have a photograph showing Mane to be marginally offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not substantial though. Rather than making lines up you go by the linesman call.
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
The challenge system in football is a flawed idea. The potential applications are too broad and you will end up with a team being beaten because of a huge and obvious error but they had already used their challenge, or being beaten by a smaller error because they are too wary to use their challenge.
_____________
But both of those are up to the team to avoid, aren't they? If you've "already used your challenge(s)", it's because you chose to dispute a correct decision: in other words, you made a mistake. If you challenge correctly, you don't lose that challenge.
And with the idea of being "too wary to use their challenge": you're only really likely to appeal the big decisions, i.e. those that lead to goals, penalties or red cards, so if you genuinely feel one of those has gone against you, use a challenge.
It's worked well in tennis and, while there is more subjectivity in football, I think the idea could transfer across. It would stop some of these fractional offsides, which nobody really wanted, as teams wouldn't really be challenging them unless they were pretty desperate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the issue - as you have said - is that there is subjectivity in football. Tennis uses it for a purely factual decision. Was the ball out.
A football team could use their challenge on a subjective decision and make a perfectly reasonable case that it wasn't a penalty or red card etc, and the ref decides that he feels it still was a penalty. Then the challenge is lost and you are at the mercy of a huge error.
It is an arbitrary restriction and the only purpose for it that I could see would be to be able to blame the cheated team for a wrong decision by letting people say "should have used your challenge then" or "shouldn't have lost your challenge then".
I can see of no actual benefit it brings over the current system which (barring errors, which might still happen in a challenge system) checks every major incident as standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree in general and meant to add to my post that any review system, with or without challenges, is doomed to fail if wrong decisions are still made after the review. But one improvement over the system in place now might be that the current system is just too much - goals are being ruled out that nobody would have dreamed of challenging. At least with limited challenges, the disruption of the game would be minimised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure. As you said people are likely to challenge goals. In fact for the Mane one, being so late in the game, the only way I could see it not being challenged is if Everton had lost their challenge already.
If we accept the PL that the offside was given correctly, then that means it would have been challenged and disallowed anyway or Everton would have conceded unfairly due simply to a lost challenge.
comment by (K̇ash) I'm the Mané - PL Champione (U1108)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) I'm the Mané - PL Champione (U1108)
posted 46 seconds ago
I think with offside football should use the cricket DRS method where it is umpire (linesman) call. Like for the Mane goal if it is deemed on side with the naked eye then technology needs substantial evidence to overturn the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They have evidence. They have a photograph showing Mane to be marginally offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not substantial though. Rather than making lines up you go by the linesman call.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what happens if you have 2 calls in the same game. One was not called by the linesman and the goal given. VAR shows it is marginally offside but they go with the linesman call.
Team B then scores a legitimate goal that is flagged offside. VAR shows that it was just on but it is marginal and so they go with the linesman.
Two decisions given incorrectly that mean a team loses instead of winning because people prefer a less accurate system.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
The challenge system in football is a flawed idea. The potential applications are too broad and you will end up with a team being beaten because of a huge and obvious error but they had already used their challenge, or being beaten by a smaller error because they are too wary to use their challenge.
_____________
But both of those are up to the team to avoid, aren't they? If you've "already used your challenge(s)", it's because you chose to dispute a correct decision: in other words, you made a mistake. If you challenge correctly, you don't lose that challenge.
And with the idea of being "too wary to use their challenge": you're only really likely to appeal the big decisions, i.e. those that lead to goals, penalties or red cards, so if you genuinely feel one of those has gone against you, use a challenge.
It's worked well in tennis and, while there is more subjectivity in football, I think the idea could transfer across. It would stop some of these fractional offsides, which nobody really wanted, as teams wouldn't really be challenging them unless they were pretty desperate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the issue - as you have said - is that there is subjectivity in football. Tennis uses it for a purely factual decision. Was the ball out.
A football team could use their challenge on a subjective decision and make a perfectly reasonable case that it wasn't a penalty or red card etc, and the ref decides that he feels it still was a penalty. Then the challenge is lost and you are at the mercy of a huge error.
It is an arbitrary restriction and the only purpose for it that I could see would be to be able to blame the cheated team for a wrong decision by letting people say "should have used your challenge then" or "shouldn't have lost your challenge then".
I can see of no actual benefit it brings over the current system which (barring errors, which might still happen in a challenge system) checks every major incident as standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree in general and meant to add to my post that any review system, with or without challenges, is doomed to fail if wrong decisions are still made after the review. But one improvement over the system in place now might be that the current system is just too much - goals are being ruled out that nobody would have dreamed of challenging. At least with limited challenges, the disruption of the game would be minimised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure. As you said people are likely to challenge goals. In fact for the Mane one, being so late in the game, the only way I could see it not being challenged is if Everton had lost their challenge already.
If we accept the PL that the offside was given correctly, then that means it would have been challenged and disallowed anyway or Everton would have conceded unfairly due simply to a lost challenge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's the game. Also I'd suggest that if your challenge was successful you get another one.
It works in baseball very well. There has to be substantial evidence to overturn the call on the field so there are times where it's so close at first base, it still isn't overturned. Same would apply with Mane, call was onside and it was far too close to judge as offside.
comment by Take Mahomes, Country Roads (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
The challenge system in football is a flawed idea. The potential applications are too broad and you will end up with a team being beaten because of a huge and obvious error but they had already used their challenge, or being beaten by a smaller error because they are too wary to use their challenge.
_____________
But both of those are up to the team to avoid, aren't they? If you've "already used your challenge(s)", it's because you chose to dispute a correct decision: in other words, you made a mistake. If you challenge correctly, you don't lose that challenge.
And with the idea of being "too wary to use their challenge": you're only really likely to appeal the big decisions, i.e. those that lead to goals, penalties or red cards, so if you genuinely feel one of those has gone against you, use a challenge.
It's worked well in tennis and, while there is more subjectivity in football, I think the idea could transfer across. It would stop some of these fractional offsides, which nobody really wanted, as teams wouldn't really be challenging them unless they were pretty desperate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the issue - as you have said - is that there is subjectivity in football. Tennis uses it for a purely factual decision. Was the ball out.
A football team could use their challenge on a subjective decision and make a perfectly reasonable case that it wasn't a penalty or red card etc, and the ref decides that he feels it still was a penalty. Then the challenge is lost and you are at the mercy of a huge error.
It is an arbitrary restriction and the only purpose for it that I could see would be to be able to blame the cheated team for a wrong decision by letting people say "should have used your challenge then" or "shouldn't have lost your challenge then".
I can see of no actual benefit it brings over the current system which (barring errors, which might still happen in a challenge system) checks every major incident as standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree in general and meant to add to my post that any review system, with or without challenges, is doomed to fail if wrong decisions are still made after the review. But one improvement over the system in place now might be that the current system is just too much - goals are being ruled out that nobody would have dreamed of challenging. At least with limited challenges, the disruption of the game would be minimised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure. As you said people are likely to challenge goals. In fact for the Mane one, being so late in the game, the only way I could see it not being challenged is if Everton had lost their challenge already.
If we accept the PL that the offside was given correctly, then that means it would have been challenged and disallowed anyway or Everton would have conceded unfairly due simply to a lost challenge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's the game. Also I'd suggest that if your challenge was successful you get another one.
It works in baseball very well. There has to be substantial evidence to overturn the call on the field so there are times where it's so close at first base, it still isn't overturned. Same would apply with Mane, call was onside and it was far too close to judge as offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it isnt the game. As I said, the only difference between a challenge system and the one we have is that it essentially goes from, double check that all decisions are correct to only double check if a team asks and then pubish them if they were wrong. It seems inferior to the system we currently have in every way.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Take Mahomes, Country Roads (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
The challenge system in football is a flawed idea. The potential applications are too broad and you will end up with a team being beaten because of a huge and obvious error but they had already used their challenge, or being beaten by a smaller error because they are too wary to use their challenge.
_____________
But both of those are up to the team to avoid, aren't they? If you've "already used your challenge(s)", it's because you chose to dispute a correct decision: in other words, you made a mistake. If you challenge correctly, you don't lose that challenge.
And with the idea of being "too wary to use their challenge": you're only really likely to appeal the big decisions, i.e. those that lead to goals, penalties or red cards, so if you genuinely feel one of those has gone against you, use a challenge.
It's worked well in tennis and, while there is more subjectivity in football, I think the idea could transfer across. It would stop some of these fractional offsides, which nobody really wanted, as teams wouldn't really be challenging them unless they were pretty desperate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the issue - as you have said - is that there is subjectivity in football. Tennis uses it for a purely factual decision. Was the ball out.
A football team could use their challenge on a subjective decision and make a perfectly reasonable case that it wasn't a penalty or red card etc, and the ref decides that he feels it still was a penalty. Then the challenge is lost and you are at the mercy of a huge error.
It is an arbitrary restriction and the only purpose for it that I could see would be to be able to blame the cheated team for a wrong decision by letting people say "should have used your challenge then" or "shouldn't have lost your challenge then".
I can see of no actual benefit it brings over the current system which (barring errors, which might still happen in a challenge system) checks every major incident as standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree in general and meant to add to my post that any review system, with or without challenges, is doomed to fail if wrong decisions are still made after the review. But one improvement over the system in place now might be that the current system is just too much - goals are being ruled out that nobody would have dreamed of challenging. At least with limited challenges, the disruption of the game would be minimised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure. As you said people are likely to challenge goals. In fact for the Mane one, being so late in the game, the only way I could see it not being challenged is if Everton had lost their challenge already.
If we accept the PL that the offside was given correctly, then that means it would have been challenged and disallowed anyway or Everton would have conceded unfairly due simply to a lost challenge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's the game. Also I'd suggest that if your challenge was successful you get another one.
It works in baseball very well. There has to be substantial evidence to overturn the call on the field so there are times where it's so close at first base, it still isn't overturned. Same would apply with Mane, call was onside and it was far too close to judge as offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it isnt the game. As I said, the only difference between a challenge system and the one we have is that it essentially goes from, double check that all decisions are correct to only double check if a team asks and then pubish them if they were wrong. It seems inferior to the system we currently have in every way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree entirely. The game is becoming so stop start because every eyelash is being checked for ridiculous decisions.
The proposal I have would have a game stopped for review twice, not after every single goal as it is currently.
Far better for the sport.
I said this as VAR was being introduced that you implement a strategy similar to the one in cricket where you only get 3 reviews per game. Maybe with football only being 90 minutes whereas cricket is all day you can limit this to 2 per game, or 1 a half or something like that, or again, even be really strict and say 1.
As much as that is a good idea in principle, I still think it would annoy fans and clubs because if officials were getting 2/3 big calls wrong in a game and you only got 1 review per game, they'd be pointing at the incompetent referee's and would then be asking to revert back to the system we currently have now where every decision is reviewed to hopefully come to the correct decision.
The fact of the matter is they've reviewed these decisions at the weekend and still got it wrong. It's not the system that's the issue for me, its the incompetence of the guys sat at Stockley Park.
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 2 minutes ago
I said this as VAR was being introduced that you implement a strategy similar to the one in cricket where you only get 3 reviews per game. Maybe with football only being 90 minutes whereas cricket is all day you can limit this to 2 per game, or 1 a half or something like that, or again, even be really strict and say 1.
As much as that is a good idea in principle, I still think it would annoy fans and clubs because if officials were getting 2/3 big calls wrong in a game and you only got 1 review per game, they'd be pointing at the incompetent referee's and would then be asking to revert back to the system we currently have now where every decision is reviewed to hopefully come to the correct decision.
The fact of the matter is they've reviewed these decisions at the weekend and still got it wrong. It's not the system that's the issue for me, its the incompetence of the guys sat at Stockley Park.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if you get your challenge back if it's successful then you'd be able to challenge all of those incompetent decisions...
Yes but on the flip side if you get it wrong and you miss out on 2/3 defining calls in the game, players, clubs and fans alike will be crying out for it to return to its current format.
As I say, it is a good idea and if it wasn't like it currently is, this may have happened. But it's just issues with incompetent officials at the moment.
comment by Take Mahomes, Country Roads (U3979)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Take Mahomes, Country Roads (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
The challenge system in football is a flawed idea. The potential applications are too broad and you will end up with a team being beaten because of a huge and obvious error but they had already used their challenge, or being beaten by a smaller error because they are too wary to use their challenge.
_____________
But both of those are up to the team to avoid, aren't they? If you've "already used your challenge(s)", it's because you chose to dispute a correct decision: in other words, you made a mistake. If you challenge correctly, you don't lose that challenge.
And with the idea of being "too wary to use their challenge": you're only really likely to appeal the big decisions, i.e. those that lead to goals, penalties or red cards, so if you genuinely feel one of those has gone against you, use a challenge.
It's worked well in tennis and, while there is more subjectivity in football, I think the idea could transfer across. It would stop some of these fractional offsides, which nobody really wanted, as teams wouldn't really be challenging them unless they were pretty desperate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the issue - as you have said - is that there is subjectivity in football. Tennis uses it for a purely factual decision. Was the ball out.
A football team could use their challenge on a subjective decision and make a perfectly reasonable case that it wasn't a penalty or red card etc, and the ref decides that he feels it still was a penalty. Then the challenge is lost and you are at the mercy of a huge error.
It is an arbitrary restriction and the only purpose for it that I could see would be to be able to blame the cheated team for a wrong decision by letting people say "should have used your challenge then" or "shouldn't have lost your challenge then".
I can see of no actual benefit it brings over the current system which (barring errors, which might still happen in a challenge system) checks every major incident as standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree in general and meant to add to my post that any review system, with or without challenges, is doomed to fail if wrong decisions are still made after the review. But one improvement over the system in place now might be that the current system is just too much - goals are being ruled out that nobody would have dreamed of challenging. At least with limited challenges, the disruption of the game would be minimised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure. As you said people are likely to challenge goals. In fact for the Mane one, being so late in the game, the only way I could see it not being challenged is if Everton had lost their challenge already.
If we accept the PL that the offside was given correctly, then that means it would have been challenged and disallowed anyway or Everton would have conceded unfairly due simply to a lost challenge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's the game. Also I'd suggest that if your challenge was successful you get another one.
It works in baseball very well. There has to be substantial evidence to overturn the call on the field so there are times where it's so close at first base, it still isn't overturned. Same would apply with Mane, call was onside and it was far too close to judge as offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it isnt the game. As I said, the only difference between a challenge system and the one we have is that it essentially goes from, double check that all decisions are correct to only double check if a team asks and then pubish them if they were wrong. It seems inferior to the system we currently have in every way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree entirely. The game is becoming so stop start because every eyelash is being checked for ridiculous decisions.
The proposal I have would have a game stopped for review twice, not after every single goal as it is currently.
Far better for the sport.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except that the studies have shown that the average VAR review stoppage is 1 minutes and there is one, on average, every 3 games or so. Checks happening in the background don't stop the game because play continues. So an average of 20 seconds per game is spent on VAR reviews, compared to say 30-35 minutes per game where the ball is out of play for throw-ins, free-kicks, restarts after goals, substitutions.
There are approx 100 stops and starts per game of football on average, and this was the case long before VAR.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 hour, 4 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) I'm the Mané - PL Champione (U1108)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) I'm the Mané - PL Champione (U1108)
posted 46 seconds ago
I think with offside football should use the cricket DRS method where it is umpire (linesman) call. Like for the Mane goal if it is deemed on side with the naked eye then technology needs substantial evidence to overturn the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They have evidence. They have a photograph showing Mane to be marginally offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not substantial though. Rather than making lines up you go by the linesman call.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what happens if you have 2 calls in the same game. One was not called by the linesman and the goal given. VAR shows it is marginally offside but they go with the linesman call.
Team B then scores a legitimate goal that is flagged offside. VAR shows that it was just on but it is marginal and so they go with the linesman.
Two decisions given incorrectly that mean a team loses instead of winning because people prefer a less accurate system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I say marginal I am talking about the extreme Mane offside. Naked eye is probably the best way to settle this because technology does not have the frames to be accurate. Technology should correct obvious offsides or not but with Mane its not clear and obvious so on field decision remains.
I think VAR is great for offsides. It has added some much needed consistency to offside decisions. The problem is the rule itself, not the technology itself, so the offside rule itself needs to be changed and simplified.
Referee's also need to use the pitch side monitors and the VAR officials should be encouraging them to do so. The authorities also need to fess up and stop abdicating responsibility when appalling error's occur. If an official facks up, then admit the official has facked up. Their handling of the Pickford incident has been a disgrace.
Most global sports have embraced and ultimately have enhanced their product utilising technology. Football and tech is in it's embryonic stage and there has to be in improvement, but the jumpers for goalposts mentality which proceeded imo wasn't fit for purpose in modern day football.
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 5 minutes ago
I think VAR is great for offsides. It has added some much needed consistency to offside decisions. The problem is the rule itself, not the technology itself, so the offside rule itself needs to be changed and simplified.
Referee's also need to use the pitch side monitors and the VAR officials should be encouraging them to do so. The authorities also need to fess up and stop abdicating responsibility when appalling error's occur. If an official facks up, then admit the official has facked up. Their handling of the Pickford incident has been a disgrace.
Most global sports have embraced and ultimately have enhanced their product utilising technology. Football and tech is in it's embryonic stage and there has to be in improvement, but the jumpers for goalposts mentality which proceeded imo wasn't fit for purpose in modern day football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree - the two changes I would make to the current VAR setup are that I would have the ref team wear microphones so that fans can understand why the ref has come to the decision. Even if we disagree with the decisions at least we would know why it had been made.
The other change would only really be needed when fans are back in the stadium, and it would be to allow VAR replays to be shown in the big screens so fans in the stadium can see what is being looked at.
I don't like this idea. If you exhaust your review calls in the first 10 minutes then the ref can pretty much do what he wants from there without reference to you or video technology, and you can't do anything about it.
No need for challenges. They'll slow the game down as you'll be damned sure each team will use their full allocation. Just get the decisions correct as much as possible.
Against Everton we would have used our opportunity maybe with the VVD incident and that means you wouldn't be able to use it for the offside goal. Obviously things would have panned out differently if Pickford had been sent off but the point is one review call per 90 minutes would rarely be of any use IMO.
Sign in if you want to comment
VAR
Page 1 of 2
posted on 20/10/20
Well open mics so you can here the discussion between the officials would be a start.
At least that way you might have a understanding as to they have reached the awful outcome they have.
posted on 20/10/20
By giving it a permanent rest so we can all move on.
Having this debate it seems, after every game is boring, monotonous and is achieving nothing.
How about trying something fresh like each TV Channel showing live games restricting commentary to one individual commentator, disposing of all the so called experts adding their piffle to the proceedings and stop showing Slow Mo replays countless times as if repetition is going to change the way events occurs on the pitch at normal speed.
Just a thought from someone who has been watching live matches since 1952 and is totally disenchanted with the current game.
posted on 20/10/20
Put it in the bin. We tried it, it doesn't work.
posted on 20/10/20
You suggestion is not how other sports necessarily use VAR. Tennis has a challenge system but that is a very different game and the challenge can only be used for one specific thing, and even then players get up to 4 challenges a set. In a grand slam match that is up to 20 challenges for one small aspect.
The challenge system in football is a flawed idea. The potential applications are too broad and you will end up with a team being beaten because of a huge and obvious error but they had already used their challenge, or being beaten by a smaller error because they are too wary to use their challenge.
There weren't 2 poor decisions against Liverpool on Saturday - there was one. Like it or not, the offside was the correct decision under the current rules.
posted on 20/10/20
The challenge system in football is a flawed idea. The potential applications are too broad and you will end up with a team being beaten because of a huge and obvious error but they had already used their challenge, or being beaten by a smaller error because they are too wary to use their challenge.
_____________
But both of those are up to the team to avoid, aren't they? If you've "already used your challenge(s)", it's because you chose to dispute a correct decision: in other words, you made a mistake. If you challenge correctly, you don't lose that challenge.
And with the idea of being "too wary to use their challenge": you're only really likely to appeal the big decisions, i.e. those that lead to goals, penalties or red cards, so if you genuinely feel one of those has gone against you, use a challenge.
It's worked well in tennis and, while there is more subjectivity in football, I think the idea could transfer across. It would stop some of these fractional offsides, which nobody really wanted, as teams wouldn't really be challenging them unless they were pretty desperate.
posted on 20/10/20
I think with offside football should use the cricket DRS method where it is umpire (linesman) call. Like for the Mane goal if it is deemed on side with the naked eye then technology needs substantial evidence to overturn the decision.
posted on 20/10/20
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
The challenge system in football is a flawed idea. The potential applications are too broad and you will end up with a team being beaten because of a huge and obvious error but they had already used their challenge, or being beaten by a smaller error because they are too wary to use their challenge.
_____________
But both of those are up to the team to avoid, aren't they? If you've "already used your challenge(s)", it's because you chose to dispute a correct decision: in other words, you made a mistake. If you challenge correctly, you don't lose that challenge.
And with the idea of being "too wary to use their challenge": you're only really likely to appeal the big decisions, i.e. those that lead to goals, penalties or red cards, so if you genuinely feel one of those has gone against you, use a challenge.
It's worked well in tennis and, while there is more subjectivity in football, I think the idea could transfer across. It would stop some of these fractional offsides, which nobody really wanted, as teams wouldn't really be challenging them unless they were pretty desperate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the issue - as you have said - is that there is subjectivity in football. Tennis uses it for a purely factual decision. Was the ball out.
A football team could use their challenge on a subjective decision and make a perfectly reasonable case that it wasn't a penalty or red card etc, and the ref decides that he feels it still was a penalty. Then the challenge is lost and you are at the mercy of a huge error.
It is an arbitrary restriction and the only purpose for it that I could see would be to be able to blame the cheated team for a wrong decision by letting people say "should have used your challenge then" or "shouldn't have lost your challenge then".
I can see of no actual benefit it brings over the current system which (barring errors, which might still happen in a challenge system) checks every major incident as standard.
posted on 20/10/20
comment by (K̇ash) I'm the Mané - PL Champione (U1108)
posted 46 seconds ago
I think with offside football should use the cricket DRS method where it is umpire (linesman) call. Like for the Mane goal if it is deemed on side with the naked eye then technology needs substantial evidence to overturn the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They have evidence. They have a photograph showing Mane to be marginally offside.
posted on 20/10/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
The challenge system in football is a flawed idea. The potential applications are too broad and you will end up with a team being beaten because of a huge and obvious error but they had already used their challenge, or being beaten by a smaller error because they are too wary to use their challenge.
_____________
But both of those are up to the team to avoid, aren't they? If you've "already used your challenge(s)", it's because you chose to dispute a correct decision: in other words, you made a mistake. If you challenge correctly, you don't lose that challenge.
And with the idea of being "too wary to use their challenge": you're only really likely to appeal the big decisions, i.e. those that lead to goals, penalties or red cards, so if you genuinely feel one of those has gone against you, use a challenge.
It's worked well in tennis and, while there is more subjectivity in football, I think the idea could transfer across. It would stop some of these fractional offsides, which nobody really wanted, as teams wouldn't really be challenging them unless they were pretty desperate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the issue - as you have said - is that there is subjectivity in football. Tennis uses it for a purely factual decision. Was the ball out.
A football team could use their challenge on a subjective decision and make a perfectly reasonable case that it wasn't a penalty or red card etc, and the ref decides that he feels it still was a penalty. Then the challenge is lost and you are at the mercy of a huge error.
It is an arbitrary restriction and the only purpose for it that I could see would be to be able to blame the cheated team for a wrong decision by letting people say "should have used your challenge then" or "shouldn't have lost your challenge then".
I can see of no actual benefit it brings over the current system which (barring errors, which might still happen in a challenge system) checks every major incident as standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree in general and meant to add to my post that any review system, with or without challenges, is doomed to fail if wrong decisions are still made after the review. But one improvement over the system in place now might be that the current system is just too much - goals are being ruled out that nobody would have dreamed of challenging. At least with limited challenges, the disruption of the game would be minimised.
posted on 20/10/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) I'm the Mané - PL Champione (U1108)
posted 46 seconds ago
I think with offside football should use the cricket DRS method where it is umpire (linesman) call. Like for the Mane goal if it is deemed on side with the naked eye then technology needs substantial evidence to overturn the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They have evidence. They have a photograph showing Mane to be marginally offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not substantial though. Rather than making lines up you go by the linesman call.
posted on 20/10/20
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
The challenge system in football is a flawed idea. The potential applications are too broad and you will end up with a team being beaten because of a huge and obvious error but they had already used their challenge, or being beaten by a smaller error because they are too wary to use their challenge.
_____________
But both of those are up to the team to avoid, aren't they? If you've "already used your challenge(s)", it's because you chose to dispute a correct decision: in other words, you made a mistake. If you challenge correctly, you don't lose that challenge.
And with the idea of being "too wary to use their challenge": you're only really likely to appeal the big decisions, i.e. those that lead to goals, penalties or red cards, so if you genuinely feel one of those has gone against you, use a challenge.
It's worked well in tennis and, while there is more subjectivity in football, I think the idea could transfer across. It would stop some of these fractional offsides, which nobody really wanted, as teams wouldn't really be challenging them unless they were pretty desperate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the issue - as you have said - is that there is subjectivity in football. Tennis uses it for a purely factual decision. Was the ball out.
A football team could use their challenge on a subjective decision and make a perfectly reasonable case that it wasn't a penalty or red card etc, and the ref decides that he feels it still was a penalty. Then the challenge is lost and you are at the mercy of a huge error.
It is an arbitrary restriction and the only purpose for it that I could see would be to be able to blame the cheated team for a wrong decision by letting people say "should have used your challenge then" or "shouldn't have lost your challenge then".
I can see of no actual benefit it brings over the current system which (barring errors, which might still happen in a challenge system) checks every major incident as standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree in general and meant to add to my post that any review system, with or without challenges, is doomed to fail if wrong decisions are still made after the review. But one improvement over the system in place now might be that the current system is just too much - goals are being ruled out that nobody would have dreamed of challenging. At least with limited challenges, the disruption of the game would be minimised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure. As you said people are likely to challenge goals. In fact for the Mane one, being so late in the game, the only way I could see it not being challenged is if Everton had lost their challenge already.
If we accept the PL that the offside was given correctly, then that means it would have been challenged and disallowed anyway or Everton would have conceded unfairly due simply to a lost challenge.
posted on 20/10/20
comment by (K̇ash) I'm the Mané - PL Champione (U1108)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) I'm the Mané - PL Champione (U1108)
posted 46 seconds ago
I think with offside football should use the cricket DRS method where it is umpire (linesman) call. Like for the Mane goal if it is deemed on side with the naked eye then technology needs substantial evidence to overturn the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They have evidence. They have a photograph showing Mane to be marginally offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not substantial though. Rather than making lines up you go by the linesman call.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what happens if you have 2 calls in the same game. One was not called by the linesman and the goal given. VAR shows it is marginally offside but they go with the linesman call.
Team B then scores a legitimate goal that is flagged offside. VAR shows that it was just on but it is marginal and so they go with the linesman.
Two decisions given incorrectly that mean a team loses instead of winning because people prefer a less accurate system.
posted on 20/10/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
The challenge system in football is a flawed idea. The potential applications are too broad and you will end up with a team being beaten because of a huge and obvious error but they had already used their challenge, or being beaten by a smaller error because they are too wary to use their challenge.
_____________
But both of those are up to the team to avoid, aren't they? If you've "already used your challenge(s)", it's because you chose to dispute a correct decision: in other words, you made a mistake. If you challenge correctly, you don't lose that challenge.
And with the idea of being "too wary to use their challenge": you're only really likely to appeal the big decisions, i.e. those that lead to goals, penalties or red cards, so if you genuinely feel one of those has gone against you, use a challenge.
It's worked well in tennis and, while there is more subjectivity in football, I think the idea could transfer across. It would stop some of these fractional offsides, which nobody really wanted, as teams wouldn't really be challenging them unless they were pretty desperate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the issue - as you have said - is that there is subjectivity in football. Tennis uses it for a purely factual decision. Was the ball out.
A football team could use their challenge on a subjective decision and make a perfectly reasonable case that it wasn't a penalty or red card etc, and the ref decides that he feels it still was a penalty. Then the challenge is lost and you are at the mercy of a huge error.
It is an arbitrary restriction and the only purpose for it that I could see would be to be able to blame the cheated team for a wrong decision by letting people say "should have used your challenge then" or "shouldn't have lost your challenge then".
I can see of no actual benefit it brings over the current system which (barring errors, which might still happen in a challenge system) checks every major incident as standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree in general and meant to add to my post that any review system, with or without challenges, is doomed to fail if wrong decisions are still made after the review. But one improvement over the system in place now might be that the current system is just too much - goals are being ruled out that nobody would have dreamed of challenging. At least with limited challenges, the disruption of the game would be minimised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure. As you said people are likely to challenge goals. In fact for the Mane one, being so late in the game, the only way I could see it not being challenged is if Everton had lost their challenge already.
If we accept the PL that the offside was given correctly, then that means it would have been challenged and disallowed anyway or Everton would have conceded unfairly due simply to a lost challenge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's the game. Also I'd suggest that if your challenge was successful you get another one.
It works in baseball very well. There has to be substantial evidence to overturn the call on the field so there are times where it's so close at first base, it still isn't overturned. Same would apply with Mane, call was onside and it was far too close to judge as offside.
posted on 20/10/20
comment by Take Mahomes, Country Roads (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
The challenge system in football is a flawed idea. The potential applications are too broad and you will end up with a team being beaten because of a huge and obvious error but they had already used their challenge, or being beaten by a smaller error because they are too wary to use their challenge.
_____________
But both of those are up to the team to avoid, aren't they? If you've "already used your challenge(s)", it's because you chose to dispute a correct decision: in other words, you made a mistake. If you challenge correctly, you don't lose that challenge.
And with the idea of being "too wary to use their challenge": you're only really likely to appeal the big decisions, i.e. those that lead to goals, penalties or red cards, so if you genuinely feel one of those has gone against you, use a challenge.
It's worked well in tennis and, while there is more subjectivity in football, I think the idea could transfer across. It would stop some of these fractional offsides, which nobody really wanted, as teams wouldn't really be challenging them unless they were pretty desperate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the issue - as you have said - is that there is subjectivity in football. Tennis uses it for a purely factual decision. Was the ball out.
A football team could use their challenge on a subjective decision and make a perfectly reasonable case that it wasn't a penalty or red card etc, and the ref decides that he feels it still was a penalty. Then the challenge is lost and you are at the mercy of a huge error.
It is an arbitrary restriction and the only purpose for it that I could see would be to be able to blame the cheated team for a wrong decision by letting people say "should have used your challenge then" or "shouldn't have lost your challenge then".
I can see of no actual benefit it brings over the current system which (barring errors, which might still happen in a challenge system) checks every major incident as standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree in general and meant to add to my post that any review system, with or without challenges, is doomed to fail if wrong decisions are still made after the review. But one improvement over the system in place now might be that the current system is just too much - goals are being ruled out that nobody would have dreamed of challenging. At least with limited challenges, the disruption of the game would be minimised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure. As you said people are likely to challenge goals. In fact for the Mane one, being so late in the game, the only way I could see it not being challenged is if Everton had lost their challenge already.
If we accept the PL that the offside was given correctly, then that means it would have been challenged and disallowed anyway or Everton would have conceded unfairly due simply to a lost challenge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's the game. Also I'd suggest that if your challenge was successful you get another one.
It works in baseball very well. There has to be substantial evidence to overturn the call on the field so there are times where it's so close at first base, it still isn't overturned. Same would apply with Mane, call was onside and it was far too close to judge as offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it isnt the game. As I said, the only difference between a challenge system and the one we have is that it essentially goes from, double check that all decisions are correct to only double check if a team asks and then pubish them if they were wrong. It seems inferior to the system we currently have in every way.
posted on 20/10/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Take Mahomes, Country Roads (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
The challenge system in football is a flawed idea. The potential applications are too broad and you will end up with a team being beaten because of a huge and obvious error but they had already used their challenge, or being beaten by a smaller error because they are too wary to use their challenge.
_____________
But both of those are up to the team to avoid, aren't they? If you've "already used your challenge(s)", it's because you chose to dispute a correct decision: in other words, you made a mistake. If you challenge correctly, you don't lose that challenge.
And with the idea of being "too wary to use their challenge": you're only really likely to appeal the big decisions, i.e. those that lead to goals, penalties or red cards, so if you genuinely feel one of those has gone against you, use a challenge.
It's worked well in tennis and, while there is more subjectivity in football, I think the idea could transfer across. It would stop some of these fractional offsides, which nobody really wanted, as teams wouldn't really be challenging them unless they were pretty desperate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the issue - as you have said - is that there is subjectivity in football. Tennis uses it for a purely factual decision. Was the ball out.
A football team could use their challenge on a subjective decision and make a perfectly reasonable case that it wasn't a penalty or red card etc, and the ref decides that he feels it still was a penalty. Then the challenge is lost and you are at the mercy of a huge error.
It is an arbitrary restriction and the only purpose for it that I could see would be to be able to blame the cheated team for a wrong decision by letting people say "should have used your challenge then" or "shouldn't have lost your challenge then".
I can see of no actual benefit it brings over the current system which (barring errors, which might still happen in a challenge system) checks every major incident as standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree in general and meant to add to my post that any review system, with or without challenges, is doomed to fail if wrong decisions are still made after the review. But one improvement over the system in place now might be that the current system is just too much - goals are being ruled out that nobody would have dreamed of challenging. At least with limited challenges, the disruption of the game would be minimised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure. As you said people are likely to challenge goals. In fact for the Mane one, being so late in the game, the only way I could see it not being challenged is if Everton had lost their challenge already.
If we accept the PL that the offside was given correctly, then that means it would have been challenged and disallowed anyway or Everton would have conceded unfairly due simply to a lost challenge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's the game. Also I'd suggest that if your challenge was successful you get another one.
It works in baseball very well. There has to be substantial evidence to overturn the call on the field so there are times where it's so close at first base, it still isn't overturned. Same would apply with Mane, call was onside and it was far too close to judge as offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it isnt the game. As I said, the only difference between a challenge system and the one we have is that it essentially goes from, double check that all decisions are correct to only double check if a team asks and then pubish them if they were wrong. It seems inferior to the system we currently have in every way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree entirely. The game is becoming so stop start because every eyelash is being checked for ridiculous decisions.
The proposal I have would have a game stopped for review twice, not after every single goal as it is currently.
Far better for the sport.
posted on 20/10/20
I said this as VAR was being introduced that you implement a strategy similar to the one in cricket where you only get 3 reviews per game. Maybe with football only being 90 minutes whereas cricket is all day you can limit this to 2 per game, or 1 a half or something like that, or again, even be really strict and say 1.
As much as that is a good idea in principle, I still think it would annoy fans and clubs because if officials were getting 2/3 big calls wrong in a game and you only got 1 review per game, they'd be pointing at the incompetent referee's and would then be asking to revert back to the system we currently have now where every decision is reviewed to hopefully come to the correct decision.
The fact of the matter is they've reviewed these decisions at the weekend and still got it wrong. It's not the system that's the issue for me, its the incompetence of the guys sat at Stockley Park.
posted on 20/10/20
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 2 minutes ago
I said this as VAR was being introduced that you implement a strategy similar to the one in cricket where you only get 3 reviews per game. Maybe with football only being 90 minutes whereas cricket is all day you can limit this to 2 per game, or 1 a half or something like that, or again, even be really strict and say 1.
As much as that is a good idea in principle, I still think it would annoy fans and clubs because if officials were getting 2/3 big calls wrong in a game and you only got 1 review per game, they'd be pointing at the incompetent referee's and would then be asking to revert back to the system we currently have now where every decision is reviewed to hopefully come to the correct decision.
The fact of the matter is they've reviewed these decisions at the weekend and still got it wrong. It's not the system that's the issue for me, its the incompetence of the guys sat at Stockley Park.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if you get your challenge back if it's successful then you'd be able to challenge all of those incompetent decisions...
posted on 20/10/20
Yes but on the flip side if you get it wrong and you miss out on 2/3 defining calls in the game, players, clubs and fans alike will be crying out for it to return to its current format.
As I say, it is a good idea and if it wasn't like it currently is, this may have happened. But it's just issues with incompetent officials at the moment.
posted on 20/10/20
comment by Take Mahomes, Country Roads (U3979)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Take Mahomes, Country Roads (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
The challenge system in football is a flawed idea. The potential applications are too broad and you will end up with a team being beaten because of a huge and obvious error but they had already used their challenge, or being beaten by a smaller error because they are too wary to use their challenge.
_____________
But both of those are up to the team to avoid, aren't they? If you've "already used your challenge(s)", it's because you chose to dispute a correct decision: in other words, you made a mistake. If you challenge correctly, you don't lose that challenge.
And with the idea of being "too wary to use their challenge": you're only really likely to appeal the big decisions, i.e. those that lead to goals, penalties or red cards, so if you genuinely feel one of those has gone against you, use a challenge.
It's worked well in tennis and, while there is more subjectivity in football, I think the idea could transfer across. It would stop some of these fractional offsides, which nobody really wanted, as teams wouldn't really be challenging them unless they were pretty desperate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the issue - as you have said - is that there is subjectivity in football. Tennis uses it for a purely factual decision. Was the ball out.
A football team could use their challenge on a subjective decision and make a perfectly reasonable case that it wasn't a penalty or red card etc, and the ref decides that he feels it still was a penalty. Then the challenge is lost and you are at the mercy of a huge error.
It is an arbitrary restriction and the only purpose for it that I could see would be to be able to blame the cheated team for a wrong decision by letting people say "should have used your challenge then" or "shouldn't have lost your challenge then".
I can see of no actual benefit it brings over the current system which (barring errors, which might still happen in a challenge system) checks every major incident as standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree in general and meant to add to my post that any review system, with or without challenges, is doomed to fail if wrong decisions are still made after the review. But one improvement over the system in place now might be that the current system is just too much - goals are being ruled out that nobody would have dreamed of challenging. At least with limited challenges, the disruption of the game would be minimised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure. As you said people are likely to challenge goals. In fact for the Mane one, being so late in the game, the only way I could see it not being challenged is if Everton had lost their challenge already.
If we accept the PL that the offside was given correctly, then that means it would have been challenged and disallowed anyway or Everton would have conceded unfairly due simply to a lost challenge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's the game. Also I'd suggest that if your challenge was successful you get another one.
It works in baseball very well. There has to be substantial evidence to overturn the call on the field so there are times where it's so close at first base, it still isn't overturned. Same would apply with Mane, call was onside and it was far too close to judge as offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it isnt the game. As I said, the only difference between a challenge system and the one we have is that it essentially goes from, double check that all decisions are correct to only double check if a team asks and then pubish them if they were wrong. It seems inferior to the system we currently have in every way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree entirely. The game is becoming so stop start because every eyelash is being checked for ridiculous decisions.
The proposal I have would have a game stopped for review twice, not after every single goal as it is currently.
Far better for the sport.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except that the studies have shown that the average VAR review stoppage is 1 minutes and there is one, on average, every 3 games or so. Checks happening in the background don't stop the game because play continues. So an average of 20 seconds per game is spent on VAR reviews, compared to say 30-35 minutes per game where the ball is out of play for throw-ins, free-kicks, restarts after goals, substitutions.
There are approx 100 stops and starts per game of football on average, and this was the case long before VAR.
posted on 20/10/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 hour, 4 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) I'm the Mané - PL Champione (U1108)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) I'm the Mané - PL Champione (U1108)
posted 46 seconds ago
I think with offside football should use the cricket DRS method where it is umpire (linesman) call. Like for the Mane goal if it is deemed on side with the naked eye then technology needs substantial evidence to overturn the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They have evidence. They have a photograph showing Mane to be marginally offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not substantial though. Rather than making lines up you go by the linesman call.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what happens if you have 2 calls in the same game. One was not called by the linesman and the goal given. VAR shows it is marginally offside but they go with the linesman call.
Team B then scores a legitimate goal that is flagged offside. VAR shows that it was just on but it is marginal and so they go with the linesman.
Two decisions given incorrectly that mean a team loses instead of winning because people prefer a less accurate system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I say marginal I am talking about the extreme Mane offside. Naked eye is probably the best way to settle this because technology does not have the frames to be accurate. Technology should correct obvious offsides or not but with Mane its not clear and obvious so on field decision remains.
posted on 20/10/20
I think VAR is great for offsides. It has added some much needed consistency to offside decisions. The problem is the rule itself, not the technology itself, so the offside rule itself needs to be changed and simplified.
Referee's also need to use the pitch side monitors and the VAR officials should be encouraging them to do so. The authorities also need to fess up and stop abdicating responsibility when appalling error's occur. If an official facks up, then admit the official has facked up. Their handling of the Pickford incident has been a disgrace.
Most global sports have embraced and ultimately have enhanced their product utilising technology. Football and tech is in it's embryonic stage and there has to be in improvement, but the jumpers for goalposts mentality which proceeded imo wasn't fit for purpose in modern day football.
posted on 20/10/20
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 5 minutes ago
I think VAR is great for offsides. It has added some much needed consistency to offside decisions. The problem is the rule itself, not the technology itself, so the offside rule itself needs to be changed and simplified.
Referee's also need to use the pitch side monitors and the VAR officials should be encouraging them to do so. The authorities also need to fess up and stop abdicating responsibility when appalling error's occur. If an official facks up, then admit the official has facked up. Their handling of the Pickford incident has been a disgrace.
Most global sports have embraced and ultimately have enhanced their product utilising technology. Football and tech is in it's embryonic stage and there has to be in improvement, but the jumpers for goalposts mentality which proceeded imo wasn't fit for purpose in modern day football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree - the two changes I would make to the current VAR setup are that I would have the ref team wear microphones so that fans can understand why the ref has come to the decision. Even if we disagree with the decisions at least we would know why it had been made.
The other change would only really be needed when fans are back in the stadium, and it would be to allow VAR replays to be shown in the big screens so fans in the stadium can see what is being looked at.
posted on 20/10/20
I don't like this idea. If you exhaust your review calls in the first 10 minutes then the ref can pretty much do what he wants from there without reference to you or video technology, and you can't do anything about it.
posted on 20/10/20
No need for challenges. They'll slow the game down as you'll be damned sure each team will use their full allocation. Just get the decisions correct as much as possible.
posted on 20/10/20
Against Everton we would have used our opportunity maybe with the VVD incident and that means you wouldn't be able to use it for the offside goal. Obviously things would have panned out differently if Pickford had been sent off but the point is one review call per 90 minutes would rarely be of any use IMO.
Page 1 of 2