VAR.. Taking the natural flow out the game. ?

[6TimesaRed]

Today is a clear inducation of how it would ruin the game..

That counter attacking goal would never have happened as the offside decision would have gone to VAR..

When does the ref call it to VAR? Allow the Liverpool attack to finish then refer back to VAR..?

If Fulham goal was not offside, Liverpools would be wiped out and Fulham's correctly awarded..

VAR though would have potentially ruled out both, As the freekick Allison took, the ball was not stationary.

Anyway my point.. if VAR was called, before the Allison Freekick as it's suppose to, you have destroyed the flow of the game... Certainly feel aggreaved, the opposition when you see an opening, particularly as the Fulham's goal was offside...

VAR needs more thought before being implemented, I think..

What's the solution here?

 

[manwithnoname]

I think it's certainly in need of more thought about implementation and how often/ when it is used.

As you said, it clearly will interrupt the flow of the game, and that stop-start aspect is a concern. Maybe ultimately it will be a choice: do fans (and viewers) want less wrong decisions but a worse spectacle?

My other fear is the total lack of respect VAR has for the fans who are actually in the ground, sitting there with no clue what's going on as people look at TV replays.

 

[gkmacca]

It would've been have lousy for us in that particular instance (although that incident was NOT 'a clear and obvious error,' which is the only basis for involving VAR), but generally I want the really bad decisions corrected in games. There's absolutely no need for VAR to be over-used or wrongly-used, or for it to take too long. That's down to how well-trained are the refs who call on it and those who use it.

As for wasting time, if people are really exercised about this, then I wish they'd complain about the endless breaks for the treatment of minor knocks on the pitch. If anyone who gets injured is either made to walk off for treatment or else is stretchered off, games would run far more smoothly. I don't even recall when players stopped being made to go off for treatment, but these days the minutes lost as players have a little chat with the physio, and have a swig of water, etc etc, is ridiculous.

At least VAR will right a few wrongs.

 

[6TimesaRed]

It would've been have lousy for us in that particular instance (although that incident was NOT 'a clear and obvious error,' which is the only basis for involving VAR), but generally I want the really bad decisions corrected in games. There's absolutely no need for VAR to be over-used or wrongly-used, or for it to take too long. That's down to how well-trained are the refs who call on it and those who use it.

As for wasting time, if people are really exercised about this, then I wish they'd complain about the endless breaks for the treatment of minor knocks on the pitch. If anyone who gets injured is either made to walk off for treatment or else is stretchered off, games would run far more smoothly. I don't even recall when players stopped being made to go off for treatment, but these days the minutes lost as players have a little chat with the physio, and have a swig of water, etc etc, is ridiculous.

At least VAR will right a few wrongs.

The offside was a close call, arguably VAR worthy.. under current VAR criteria it would definitely go to review.. I think the solution should be that if you a have a difference of opinion with officials over a call that is when and only VAR should be used...

 

[gkmacca]

The offside was a close call, arguably VAR worthy.. under current VAR criteria it would definitely go to review.. .

The current criteria are based on one thing: something that is deemed 'a clear and obvious error'. That wasn't a clear and obvious error. It's NOT to be called on for borderline decisions - that was the issue which worried refs who feared their judgement would be undermined. The refs will be left to make borderline decisions as they do now. This is the problem - there's widespread confusion about when it's supposed to be used, because it hasn't in the past been used correctly.




The referee may be assisted by a video assistant referee (VAR) only in the event of a ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ in relation to:

• goal/no goal
• penalty/no penalty
• direct red card (not second caution)
• mistaken identity when the referee cautions or sends off the wrong player of the offending team

 

[Frogfish]

It would've been have lousy for us in that particular instance (although that incident was NOT 'a clear and obvious error,' which is the only basis for involving VAR), but generally I want the really bad decisions corrected in games. There's absolutely no need for VAR to be over-used or wrongly-used, or for it to take too long. That's down to how well-trained are the refs who call on it and those who use it.

As for wasting time, if people are really exercised about this, then I wish they'd complain about the endless breaks for the treatment of minor knocks on the pitch. If anyone who gets injured is either made to walk off for treatment or else is stretchered off, games would run far more smoothly. I don't even recall when players stopped being made to go off for treatment, but these days the minutes lost as players have a little chat with the physio, and have a swig of water, etc etc, is ridiculous.

At least VAR will right a few wrongs.

This, this and this.

It doesn't ruin rugby despite the sometimes long decision times required. It builds tension.

What it requires is a change in the mentality of the spectators. Which will come in time.

Give me the correct decision 99/100 instead of the 7/10 we currently endure.

 

[manwithnoname]

This, this and this.

It doesn't ruin rugby despite the sometimes long decision times required. It builds tension.

What it requires is a change in the mentality of the spectators. Which will come in time.

Give me the correct decision 99/100 instead of the 7/10 we currently endure.

It doesn't ruin rugby because it's the most stop/start interrupted game anyway. Interruptions are built into the game on purpose.

The mentality of the spectators?! Fucking hell, behave

 

[Frogfish]

It doesn't ruin rugby because it's the most stop/start interrupted game anyway. Interruptions are built into the game on purpose.

The mentality of the spectators?! Fucking hell, behave

Human beings are adverse to change. You know this. 10 years from now we'll all have forgotten how it was pre-VAR.

 

[gkmacca]

This, this and this.

It doesn't ruin rugby despite the sometimes long decision times required. It builds tension.

What it requires is a change in the mentality of the spectators. Which will come in time.

Give me the correct decision 99/100 instead of the 7/10 we currently endure.

It's all down to training the officials - and the media. Today's offside/onside debate for example: when you watch it multiple times and you still don't agree, that's a pretty good sign that VAR is irrelevant. That's the kind of incident where a ref shouldn't even consider asking for help.

VAR is meant to overturn the kind of errors that everyone immediately, or after the first replay, agrees is a terrible error. It's not to be called on for the kind of issues that still look debatable after 10 replays. It's a last resort option. I think the only time VAR might have been called on today would have been that tackle on Salah that looked like a red card as soon as the first replay was shown. And even then, that probably wasn't enough to warrant an intervention. So properly used, VAR won't slow down matches. But our refs are already - the majority of them - so contrary they'll need intensive training.

 

[6TimesaRed]

The current criteria are based on one thing: something that is deemed 'a clear and obvious error'. That wasn't a clear and obvious error. It's NOT to be called on for borderline decisions - that was the issue which worried refs who feared their judgement would be undermined. The refs will be left to make borderline decisions as they do now. This is the problem - there's widespread confusion about when it's supposed to be used, because it hasn't in the past been used correctly.




The referee may be assisted by a video assistant referee (VAR) only in the event of a ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ in relation to:

• goal/no goal
• penalty/no penalty
• direct red card (not second caution)
• mistaken identity when the referee cautions or sends off the wrong player of the offending team

Who makes that call, it being a clear or obvious error ? This surely allows for manipulation from the teams on the field..

If you have a 4th official or linesman, or even a referee disagree with another officials opinion, that in itself could be deemed a potential clear and obvious error, anything that raises doubt, in fact could potentially fall into that criteria..

 

[gkmacca]

Who makes that call, it being a clear or obvious error ? This surely allows for manipulation form the teams on the field..

If you have a 4th official or linesman, or even a referee disagree with another officials opinion, that in itself could be deemed a potential clear and obvious error, anything that raises doubt, in fact could potentially fall into that criteria..

Well, you can either question anyone's judgement, or you can just accept from experience the knowledge practically the whole stadium has when a huge error has been made, or appears to have been made. You can debate everything, but come on, a really dangerous tackle that gets a yellow rather than a red, a Sterling-style ghost trip inside the box - that's what VAR is there for. There has to be MAJOR doubt to warrant VAR. It really isn't that complicated even for refs to use.

 

[moron]

I actually think we would be fucked if we had VAR in place; we have got away with critical decisions this season; I mean the Spurs one for a start - if at the end the ref gave them a pen - then we would be 2 points down. As for those games where it would have made a difference to us - they were early in games; with plenty of time for the opposition to get at us. The Arsenal decision - regardless - they would have come back in the 2nd half to fuck us up; as it happened I was kinda satisfied we went in 0-0 at half time; because Emry would have had fuck all to say to this team.

 

[gkmacca]

I actually think we would be fucked if we had VAR in place; we have got away with critical decisions this season; I mean the Spurs one for a start - if at the end the ref gave them a pen - then we would be 2 points down. As for those games where it would have made a difference to us - they were early in games; with plenty of time for the opposition to get at us. The Arsenal decision - regardless - they would have come back in the 2nd half to fuck us up; as it happened I was kinda satisfied we went in 0-0 at half time; because Emry would have had fuck all to say to this team.

How we might have fared is not exactly the way to judge it, although, thanks to your frankly bizarre descent into uncontrolled wimpishness in the past week, it comes as no surprise. Once again: VAR, used as planned, is there to correct absolute clangers, not provide the final word on long-running debates about ambiguous incidents.

 

[Woland]

We'd need a fucking big telly hanging from some string above the centre spot at Anfield, like what they have in the boxing.

I think it worked well in the world cup when it was quick. It was crap when trialled here last year because obvious decisions took days. There is an ok way of doing it. Russia+... As in the speed of the Russian decisions, just less of them. Just the proper wrong shit, not every fifty fifty. As for rugby, it fucked the whole sport for me. I used to enjoy it before they brought it in.

 

[Rafiagra]

The offside rule needs to change so as to be definitive and then VAR can apply to those decisions. Its all very well saying it should apply to clear and obvious errors, but that just won't wash if a goal you unfairly concede isn't corrected because it wasn't clear or obvious. The point of the technology is to ensure such mistakes don't have effect. If there is debate about when/where it shouldn't be used, then its going to cause continual painful arguments every game as pundits chip in with their usual God-given opinions.

VAR needs to come in, but the whole system needs refining. Although we wouldn't have scored that goal if the ref has to stop to call a review, I think such instances would be such rarities that on balance, if the game needs to stop for the review, then it should.

At what point though does technology take over and such decisions can be immediately made using technology so there is no need for human 'interpretation'?

 

[Woland]

Why does the game need to stop for the review? Just let the game crack on and drag it back if a clear error is definitely spotted within the time it takes to watch a couple of replays. If three people can't unanimously say there was a clear error after watching two replays then fuck it, carry on.

 

[moron]

How we might have fared is not exactly the way to judge it, although, thanks to your frankly bizarre descent into uncontrolled wimpishness in the past week, it comes as no surprise. Once again: VAR, used as planned, is there to correct absolute clangers, not provide the final word on long-running debates about ambiguous incidents.

Tell me you don't lose a testicle every time you watch City play ? - maybe you lost them both - I don't know gk.

Just to add - we have what one penalty decision go our way at home in nearly a whole season ... if we have VAR maybe we get nothing.

 

[Molbystwin]

Today is a clear inducation of how it would ruin the game..

That counter attacking goal would never have happened as the offside decision would have gone to VAR..

When does the ref call it to VAR? Allow the Liverpool attack to finish then refer back to VAR..?

If Fulham goal was not offside, Liverpools would be wiped out and Fulham's correctly awarded..

VAR though would have potentially ruled out both, As the freekick Allison took, the ball was not stationary.

Anyway my point.. if VAR was called, before the Allison Freekick as it's suppose to, you have destroyed the flow of the game... Certainly feel aggreaved, the opposition when you see an opening, particularly as the Fulham's goal was offside...

VAR needs more thought before being implemented, I think..

What's the solution here?

Personally, I do not like the VAR system at all especially when in truth it often produces decisions which are still merely interpretations of the rules. you still get bullshit reffing even with it so why bother? The example which sticks out in my mind is the penalty against Croatia in the World Cup final, it should never have been given the defender had no time at all to move his arm out of the way and it completely distorted the game.

I haven't seen why people are saying that Fulhams offside goal was a goal? It looked offside to me on all the replays but then again they didn't have up any magical image lines etc... maybe VAR would have judged it differently.... but then again maybe VAR could have given us a penalty or sent one of their players off with a red card...

I prefer just having a good ref.

 

[The Nomad]

Why does the game need to stop for the review? Just let the game crack on and drag it back if a clear error is definitely spotted within the time it takes to watch a couple of replays. If three people can't unanimously say there was a clear error after watching two replays then fuck it, carry on.

This.. You should have 30 seconds to sort it out and drag it back if needs be.

Fulham sound bitter, totally forgetting that under VAR Chambers' yellow would have been upgraded to red.

 

[moron]

Personally, I do not like the VAR system at all especially when in truth it often produces decisions which are still merely interpretations of the rules. you still get bullshit reffing even with it so why bother? The example which sticks out in my mind is the penalty against Croatia in the World Cup final, it should never have been given the defender had no time at all to move his arm out of the way and it completely distorted the game.

I haven't seen why people are saying that Fulhams offside goal was a goal? It looked offside to me on all the replays but then again they didn't have up any magical image lines etc... maybe VAR would have judged it differently.... but then again maybe VAR could have given us a penalty or sent one of their players off with a red card...

I prefer just having a good ref.

Really good this...i forgot about those strange decisions at the world cup with VAR. Like you say whats the point if we are gonna still have questions with VAR in place.

 

[moron]

Personally, I do not like the VAR system at all especially when in truth it often produces decisions which are still merely interpretations of the rules. you still get bullshit reffing even with it so why bother? The example which sticks out in my mind is the penalty against Croatia in the World Cup final, it should never have been given the defender had no time at all to move his arm out of the way and it completely distorted the game.

I haven't seen why people are saying that Fulhams offside goal was a goal? It looked offside to me on all the replays but then again they didn't have up any magical image lines etc... maybe VAR would have judged it differently.... but then again maybe VAR could have given us a penalty or sent one of their players off with a red card...

I prefer just having a good ref.

Really good this...i forgot about those strange decisions at the world cup with VAR. Like you say whats the point if we are gonna still have questions with VAR in place.

 

[RedStar]

Human beings are adverse to change. You know this. 10 years from now we'll all have forgotten how it was pre-VAR.

Not so sure, theyve had it for nearly 20 years in rugby union and I frequently hear people complain that its made the game interminably slow and unwatchable as refs refuse to make calls and refer everything back to the TMO.

I think the same would happen in football, it would become more frequently used over time until it got to the point anything that wasnt a blatantly obvious decision would be referred back to video. I was initially in favour but I dont like the current implementation of it. Id like to see a limit to its use like reviews in tennis or cricket.

 

[gkmacca]

Not so sure, theyve had it for nearly 20 years in rugby union and I frequently hear people complain that its made the game interminably slow and unwatchable as refs refuse to make calls and refer everything back to the TMO.

I think the same would happen in football, it would become more frequently used over time until it got to the point anything that wasnt a blatantly obvious decision would be referred back to video. I was initially in favour but I dont like the current implementation of it. Id like to see a limit to its use like reviews in tennis or cricket.

Yes, although the problem in cricket recently is that some of the video umpires have become obsessed with going through the whole process even when it's immediately obvious what the decision should be. It's almost OCD the way they'll be going, 'Now can you rock and roll that for me, please?' when there's absolutely no point in continuing. As with VAR in football, it will only work well if the basic rules are made crystal clear and the refs and operators are all trained in an effective and uniform way. It's not meant to replace refs as the decision maker, it's there to intervene on those rare occasions when there's been an obvious error. It's been explained perfectly well to broadcasters, so why some of them persist in discussing VAR when there's a really marginal offside debate, for example, is beyond me. That's simply not what it's for.

 

[KopRed]

I hate VAR. It used to be that players take a quick glance at the linesman and off they go celebrating. In future it will be just be countless shots of bored players while they review the videos.

I remember an MLS game recently where Rooney pinged a 50 yards cross to score in the 96th min. They celebrated then stopped then hung around clueless for a good 2 odd minutes while the VAR folks review the video to eventually give the goal. By then it was almost to the 100th mins and everyone just looked like they can't wait to go home.

 

[gkmacca]

But again, that's the technology being misused, it's not the technology that's the problem.

 

[Frogfish]

Not so sure, theyve had it for nearly 20 years in rugby union and I frequently hear people complain that its made the game interminably slow and unwatchable as refs refuse to make calls and refer everything back to the TMO.

I think the same would happen in football, it would become more frequently used over time until it got to the point anything that wasnt a blatantly obvious decision would be referred back to video. I was initially in favour but I dont like the current implementation of it. Id like to see a limit to its use like reviews in tennis or cricket.

I love it. Correct decisions 99% of the time. And most purely rugby people I know love it for that reason too.

It's true the refs need to spped it up though (or have the Video Ref tell them thewe's a discrepancy rather than refer everything back and then wait). 2 or 3 calls from the coaches as in cricket could be applied somehow too (not given that one much thought but it's an option).

I hate it when poor decisions knock teams out of cups or can be said to have cost titles (no they don't even out).

 

[Frogfish]

I hate VAR. It used to be that players take a quick glance at the linesman and off they go celebrating. In future it will be just be countless shots of bored players while they review the videos.

Who gives a shit about watching the players celebrate or look bored ? They're paid fucking millions (and most cheat anyway), make the buggers wait.

 

[manwithnoname]

Who gives a shit about watching the players celebrate or look bored ? They're paid fucking millions (and most cheat anyway), make the buggers wait.

The people who have paid money to watch

 

[iseered]

VAR is a pointless waste of time at best. The stats show referees get 98% of decisions correct at present, VAR won't change much.

 

[gkmacca]

VAR is a pointless waste of time at best. The stats show referees get 98% of decisions correct at present, VAR won't change much.

It's designed for the 2% they get wrong, so it will make a difference if used correctly.