Plus, are these refs all perfectly comfortable with using the technology? Their main focus will be on on-field officiating and this is like a secondary job. Yes, they all have training and a level of ability, but I am sure there are some who are out of their comfort in the VAR room.

I've been saying for the last year that the VAR room should be on public stream so everyone can see/hear how the decisions are made.

I really believe we'll have an AI element to VAR before long. This can introduce consistency - always applying the same objective criteria - and I guess it would be able to measure velocity / impact / offside more accurately than the human brain. More importantly, it should be able to compute everything and give a verdict in a split second.

This can leave the human referee with judgements to make about intent / to approve or overrule obvious misinterpretations.

No one can be trusted, and at the end of the day its a game of opinions and judgement.

You will see different pundits, ex-players, ex-refs, commentators reaching different conclusions about the same situation.

You can never take this out of the game so instead of people debating a refs decision they instead debate a VAR decision.

Personally, i would rather be debating the former. Everyone nows its a tough job so mistakes are inevitable. But mistakes with the benefit of VAR which has so many downsides to the enjoyment of the game. I just do not see it as bringing enough to warrant the VAR BS we have to put up with.

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Plus, are these refs all perfectly comfortable with using the technology? Their main focus will be on on-field officiating and this is like a secondary job. Yes, they all have training and a level of ability, but I am sure there are some who are out of their comfort in the VAR room.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep some people are just tech savvy and others aren't in their day to day lives. It can take ages for one person to learn to use an iPad, and others will pick it up quickly. It may be that some of the refs are just not good with technology in general. Might be scraping the barrel a bit here but I think it's worth a mention.

Agree with the article. The tool is correct but the person running them is the issue. If you have the same referee's in the VAR hub making decisions as well, you aren't actually getting better quality decisions, it's just another opportunity for an inconsistent referee to look at a decision.

I do agree it needs to be an independent panel of people who are not associated to the referee's in any way. That would take time to implement though so it's definitely a long-term view.

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 26 minutes ago
I really believe we'll have an AI element to VAR before long. This can introduce consistency - always applying the same objective criteria - and I guess it would be able to measure velocity / impact / offside more accurately than the human brain. More importantly, it should be able to compute everything and give a verdict in a split second.

This can leave the human referee with judgements to make about intent / to approve or overrule obvious misinterpretations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't wait for this to happen. Can only imagine the 'Who should've actually won the PL: Seasons 2010-2024' revelations.

I couldn't believe the Soucek red card, looked totally accidental, I'm sure Mitrovic said as much himself.

How often are those types of elbows in a challenge for the ball ignored? Obviously I'm bias in my thinking but I do remember a couple of specific examples of Utd players being elbowed similarly this season.

Ultimately, the issue for fans is the lack of consistency in decision making.

I think the VAR is to blame for the Soucek red. Even though Dean did review it, once he is told to rewatch it the thing in his mind is red. Whoever the VAR was I think dropped his mate in it.

comment by Serial WUManiser™© -¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (U1410)
posted 1 hour, 54 minutes ago


My preference would be ex-players, who know more about the game and would add a different point of view to it.

Only problem would be to find the ex-players not affiliated with or biased against certain clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

But do they know more about refereeing the game? A lot of players seem completely unfamiliar with a lot of the laws and ex-player pundits are often no better. The refs (and VAR) have to apply the rules so you can't have so one going "in my day that wasn't a foul so I ain't giving it".

The first step should be micing refs and VAR up so that the discussion can be listened to and you can get an idea of why the ref has made a decision. This will help people to understand the reasoning and also help people learn the laws. You may still disagree, but it will reduce those complete headscratcher moments.

If it was ex players perhaps they could help to eliminate the cheating as seen by Salah yet again yesterday
Until the cheating is sorted out by suspending the culprits it will continue to ruin the game

the sending off there is ridiculous as you've viewed it so many times and there is zero intent.

I agree with the messages above.

I would follow the cricket and rugby models.

1. I would have a referee pose a question that is to the VAR assistant. This works excellently in rugby as it frames the referee's mindset prior to VAR but covers far more issues than would occur in cricket.

2. I would require the conversation to be public with referee and VAR person going through their protocol together. there was an excellent example of this at work in yesterday's rugby where Barnes sent off the irish lad for a head show where the linesmen ref and 4th official in the booth all discussed and the ref ran his scenario of force and such and asked if anyone saw it different. the result was a clear and obvious red that the ref had initially missed and told the welsh it was just a good clear out.

3. I would like them to have to state the final decision clearly.

4. I would ban mancity wums off every site as the blatant baiting above is just being silly. (as seen by gundogan diving and screaming then up sprinting the minute the yellow card was given )

This idea while nice has so many holes in it. For a start, there's no one better to watch the screen than referees. All you're doing is creating another bunch of refs that never have to show their faces. They'd been even less accountable and easier to bribe.

As an academic exercise it's interesting, but there really should be an admission that VAR isn't fit for purpose, instead of continually saying if we change XYZ it might work. At what point is the game we love worth more than slow motion replays and lines on a screen? We tried. It's a farce. Move on.

Surely this is all down to the quality of the refs, whether on the pitch or VAR.

If the VAR ref. is recommending that the onfield ref looks again at the Soucek challange, then its because he thinks its a red card. He is therefore useless at his job as he is alone in seeing something otherthan accidental contact.. The onfield ref agreed, but is at that point under pressure not to go against his colleague, so he either embarrasses himself or the VAR.

As moreinjuredthanowen suggests, having their conversation mic'd up would be ideal (like Rugby). You can therefore hear the VAR stating why he considered there to be an issue and you can hear a discussion and explanation for the decision.

SO for example if the VAR says, i think that Soucek has caught the player deliberately with an elbow, then it is much easier for the onfield ref to disagree with him and then for those watching to accept a decision, as the discussion is transparent. This is key when judgements are being made. Its not like cricket where decisions are black & white. If the ref said, "yes his elbow hits him but that looks like accidental contact to me with no intent" then everyone would understand the decision process and better accept the judgement. Instead the ref is under pressure because VAR has highlighted it and the ref looks foolish if they overturn a recommendation from VAR who has seen it in replay many times already.

BTW, i am always amazed at the tiny size on monitor the refs have to review, from a distance on the side of a pitch. Literally everyone watching from home will have a bigger better clearer view than the ref.

Finally, the refs should also be made to look at it in full speed, as well as slo-mo. Slo-mo makes everything look worse than it is.

The worst thing is I got robbed of FF points...


I'm livid

comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 50 minutes ago
This idea while nice has so many holes in it. For a start, there's no one better to watch the screen than referees. All you're doing is creating another bunch of refs that never have to show their faces. They'd been even less accountable and easier to bribe.

As an academic exercise it's interesting, but there really should be an admission that VAR isn't fit for purpose, instead of continually saying if we change XYZ it might work. At what point is the game we love worth more than slow motion replays and lines on a screen? We tried. It's a farce. Move on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been proven to work, though, both across other football competitions and other sports. It is our refs being shown as not fit for purpose.

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 50 minutes ago
This idea while nice has so many holes in it. For a start, there's no one better to watch the screen than referees. All you're doing is creating another bunch of refs that never have to show their faces. They'd been even less accountable and easier to bribe.

As an academic exercise it's interesting, but there really should be an admission that VAR isn't fit for purpose, instead of continually saying if we change XYZ it might work. At what point is the game we love worth more than slow motion replays and lines on a screen? We tried. It's a farce. Move on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been proven to work, though, both across other football competitions and other sports. It is our refs being shown as not fit for purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By what metric has it been proven to work?

Fan polls consistently show it's made the sport worse to watch.

Yes, good post. I think Liverpool have received some bad VAR decisions this season which I think after last season when some decisions went out way could have influenced the VAR refs and even on field refs this year to give borderline decisions against us. We are all human and we remember past occurrences.

Var should be manned by refs who no longer pass the fitness tests, it should be another step in their career and they should have the final say as the most senior official.

Sounds fair and decent but... Peter Walton!!!

98% accuracy for refs & linos pre VAR
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11096/10808860/referee-myth-busting-how-many-decisions-do-officials-get-right

VAR is reporting 94% / 97% accuracy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55160134

It's interesting to note the fan bias here, as mentioned in the BBC article I linked above. Peter Walton is only reiterating the reason we have VAR - to address 'clear and obvious' errors. The stats don't back up the assertion that we need it to make sure every decision is correct. In fact it seems it might be worse.

But, like I've moaned about all along, once you have video there for clear and obvious errors (which are statistically irrelevant though hard for fans to take) there's always going to be a push to apply it to everything. Which really does ruin the game.

I think VAR could be streamlined to change the impact on games in some instances, there should be a time limit for the review... They have the video instantly... It shouldn't take long, the offside rule should be simplified to foot position to favour attackers and speed up checks.

I'd rather every decision was right, but I'd caveat that with minimal gametime disruption.

If within 20 seconds the VAR ref isn't able to definitively change the decision, the game shouldn't be held up.

comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 15 minutes ago
98% accuracy for refs & linos pre VAR
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11096/10808860/referee-myth-busting-how-many-decisions-do-officials-get-right

VAR is reporting 94% / 97% accuracy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55160134
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The PGMOL produced these figures.
Interesting 165 decisions they make out of 245 are "non visable where play is not stopped". So their accuracy is largely based on when they don't make a decision.

Biased reporting of figures doesn't convince me, just looks like propaganda.

OK DJ, fair enough. Though I'd say the same about the VAR figures.