Will VAR Change Football for the Better?
Discussion
LF5335 said:
johnboy1975 said:
Broadly agree.
I do think there's a discussion to be had around whether the ref missed it, or saw it and deemed it not a foul. In other words, did it spot a "clear and obvious" error, or re ref the game? I suppose you might say that by not giving it, he has missed it. Needs to go Specsavers then, he was right on top of it...
Ironically that's two we've had where if the ref had taken slightly more action, then technically/ probably VAR wouldn't have intervened further to our detriment. (If the Utd player - Martial? - hadn't been booked for diving then Young's block isn't checked for a pen)
This red isn't the hill I want to die on regarding VAR. But it's going to be a matter of weeks before one is referred to VAR and it isn't given as a red. If that's the desired outcome then the red should be overturned and apologies issued (for what they are worth). However I think it will be upheld, and this is "the new normal". If it's applied consistently then zero problem from me. We shall see...
There's just been a long list of borderline / subjective calls going against us which might be technically correct but feel wrong even in isolation. Put together, they stink.
If the ref has seen it and deemed it not to be a foul then he should be strong enough to stand by that decision when VAR ask him to review it on screen. If he hasn’t seen it then fair enough, but that’s where we should get the audio and specific questions asked by VAR of the ref at the point of review. The problem is that VAR is re-reffing the match. Plus refs are abdicating decisions to VAR. Penalty claims are far too common so unless it’s a stonewall pen refs wait for VAR to give it. Much like umpires in cricket never give run outs anymore and let the 3rd umpire do the work, no matter how obvious it is. I do think there's a discussion to be had around whether the ref missed it, or saw it and deemed it not a foul. In other words, did it spot a "clear and obvious" error, or re ref the game? I suppose you might say that by not giving it, he has missed it. Needs to go Specsavers then, he was right on top of it...
Ironically that's two we've had where if the ref had taken slightly more action, then technically/ probably VAR wouldn't have intervened further to our detriment. (If the Utd player - Martial? - hadn't been booked for diving then Young's block isn't checked for a pen)
This red isn't the hill I want to die on regarding VAR. But it's going to be a matter of weeks before one is referred to VAR and it isn't given as a red. If that's the desired outcome then the red should be overturned and apologies issued (for what they are worth). However I think it will be upheld, and this is "the new normal". If it's applied consistently then zero problem from me. We shall see...
There's just been a long list of borderline / subjective calls going against us which might be technically correct but feel wrong even in isolation. Put together, they stink.
I think you’re overplaying the VAR decisions that go against you and ignoring the ones that go for you. Just like every fan of every club does.
(Poor Darren England, given a 12 month ban from Liverpool games, can we request the same with Craig Pawson? 
)I take your final point. I concede we've had a couple of opposition goals ruled out for "toenail offsides".
Here's an image of stills of fouls over the past couple of seasons committed against our players which either weren't reviewed, or were reviewed and judged to be ok. (NB some may have been given as yellow onfield, and thus not deemed a clear and obvious error). (Context, we haven't had a man advantage since 2020)
We haven't had a penalty all season (should have had a couple at least, Vs Spurs away and Palace in the cup - if we are being consistent - but that's a wider VAR issue). And if you give it for shirt pulls, you're going to get 3 or 4 a game. Well actually you wouldn't because defenders would adapt their behaviour pretty damn quick
A single photo in isolation never tells the story and it’s difficult to get the perspective of whether the boot is actually going into the shin, behind it, or in front of it and missing it. I could probably show half a dozen of my team where we had a player sent off, but the opposition player got away with it. Equally just as many dodgy penalty decisions that we benefitted from as well as lost out on and offsides.
The reality is that we’re never going to be happy when VAR goes against our team and we all forget when it does us a favour.
The reality is that we’re never going to be happy when VAR goes against our team and we all forget when it does us a favour.
mickk said:
Driver101 said:
mickk said:
Watching the United v Wigan match tonight is like a breath of fresh air, free flowing football and no wasted time. 90 seconds extra time from the 1st half.
I think the home fans want VAR. 
Pretty pitiful cheating to beat a team from two divisions below you. There is very little likeable about this United side.
Penalty not spotted without VAR. Looks like a push to me. VAR should be a godsend, rather than the mess it is...
https://twitter.com/COYB/status/174444425364709797...
https://twitter.com/COYB/status/174444425364709797...
I think VAR is a godsend many times but its never noticed, they often check and sign off on onfield decisions by referees in literally 20 seconds or so and tell him to play on, all whilst the game has continued without interruption. This happens many times during the course of a game, sometimes the commentators even refer to it in a whisper 'VAR has checked it and carry on'.
Of course when there is something that VAR gives that fans don't like, but is as the rules dictate, often VAR is to blame as a concept. Yes VAR as we have seen in a relatively tiny number of instances has got it wrong because the camera angle and player positions, or user error. This is such a minority given VAR is used probably thousands of times over the course of a season.
Can it be improved, of course, all tech can. Is it an utter mess, I dont agree with that, I just think the relatively small number of genuine VAR incidents get blown way out of proportion along with fans and media wrongly attributing VAR to a decision when the issue is the laws.
Around 40 mins of a 90 minute match is spent with the ball dead and not in play, this has been shown to be driven mainly by the time wasting by players, throw ins take 20-30 seconds free kicks over a minute. Players rolling around feigning injury is shown to be a big contributor to lost time.
Of course when there is something that VAR gives that fans don't like, but is as the rules dictate, often VAR is to blame as a concept. Yes VAR as we have seen in a relatively tiny number of instances has got it wrong because the camera angle and player positions, or user error. This is such a minority given VAR is used probably thousands of times over the course of a season.
Can it be improved, of course, all tech can. Is it an utter mess, I dont agree with that, I just think the relatively small number of genuine VAR incidents get blown way out of proportion along with fans and media wrongly attributing VAR to a decision when the issue is the laws.
Around 40 mins of a 90 minute match is spent with the ball dead and not in play, this has been shown to be driven mainly by the time wasting by players, throw ins take 20-30 seconds free kicks over a minute. Players rolling around feigning injury is shown to be a big contributor to lost time.
coldel said:
I think VAR is a godsend many times but its never noticed, they often check and sign off on onfield decisions by referees in literally 20 seconds or so and tell him to play on, all whilst the game has continued without interruption. This happens many times during the course of a game, sometimes the commentators even refer to it in a whisper 'VAR has checked it and carry on'.
Var is brilliant when it doesn't do anything! Genius!!If there is no VAR then we carry on anyway.
There are two major problems with VAR in any form
1. It changes the game. Before the Boro v Chelsea game tonight Pochetino has been pointing out to his players that they must play differently because there is no VAR. So the game played at the "Elite" level is not the same as the game played on parks, the recs, the schoolfields, etc.
2. It destroys the flow of the game. Football is a dynamic sport not stop start like cricket or even rugby. We get the unedifying spectacle of players stood around waiting for a decision to be made by faceless disembodied "experts" in an computer suite somewhere, for the spectators in the ground we do not get to see the footage being examined and get only the briefest of explanation of any decision.
It should be remembered that football is not "more serious than life and death" to paraphrase a famous quote, it is entertainment, a diversion, a frippery and if it ceases to be "entertaining" then it will ultimately fail.
Rumblestripe said:
Var is brilliant when it doesn't do anything! Genius!!
If there is no VAR then we carry on anyway.
There are two major problems with VAR in any form
1. It changes the game. Before the Boro v Chelsea game tonight Pochetino has been pointing out to his players that they must play differently because there is no VAR. So the game played at the "Elite" level is not the same as the game played on parks, the recs, the schoolfields, etc.
2. It destroys the flow of the game. Football is a dynamic sport not stop start like cricket or even rugby. We get the unedifying spectacle of players stood around waiting for a decision to be made by faceless disembodied "experts" in an computer suite somewhere, for the spectators in the ground we do not get to see the footage being examined and get only the briefest of explanation of any decision.
It should be remembered that football is not "more serious than life and death" to paraphrase a famous quote, it is entertainment, a diversion, a frippery and if it ceases to be "entertaining" then it will ultimately fail.
Erm it does do something, it does it often unseen, just because you dont see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.If there is no VAR then we carry on anyway.
There are two major problems with VAR in any form
1. It changes the game. Before the Boro v Chelsea game tonight Pochetino has been pointing out to his players that they must play differently because there is no VAR. So the game played at the "Elite" level is not the same as the game played on parks, the recs, the schoolfields, etc.
2. It destroys the flow of the game. Football is a dynamic sport not stop start like cricket or even rugby. We get the unedifying spectacle of players stood around waiting for a decision to be made by faceless disembodied "experts" in an computer suite somewhere, for the spectators in the ground we do not get to see the footage being examined and get only the briefest of explanation of any decision.
It should be remembered that football is not "more serious than life and death" to paraphrase a famous quote, it is entertainment, a diversion, a frippery and if it ceases to be "entertaining" then it will ultimately fail.
I would agree to a degree on point 1 but point 2 is a fallacy, nearly half the game the ball is not dynamic or in play, its actually a lot more of a stop start game than people realise. You have time to go on and check your emails/social media whilst a player rolls around on the ground after a tackle where he isn't touched, has a physio come on for no reason, then all the players wrestle in the box before taking it which needs ref intervention before the ball is finally played some two or three minutes after the initial foul. If you want the game to be 'freeflowing' sort out the behaviour because this happens so much more often than any VAR intervention.
And yes football is entertainment, not life and death, but the players managers and staff literally bay for blood if any decision dare go against them?
coldel said:
Erm it does do something, it does it often unseen, just because you dont see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I would agree to a degree on point 1 but point 2 is a fallacy, nearly half the game the ball is not dynamic or in play, its actually a lot more of a stop start game than people realise. You have time to go on and check your emails/social media whilst a player rolls around on the ground after a tackle where he isn't touched, has a physio come on for no reason, then all the players wrestle in the box before taking it which needs ref intervention before the ball is finally played some two or three minutes after the initial foul. If you want the game to be 'freeflowing' sort out the behaviour because this happens so much more often than any VAR intervention.
And yes football is entertainment, not life and death, but the players managers and staff literally bay for blood if any decision dare go against them?
Thinking about something and then deciding to do nothing is just taking a long time to do nothing.I would agree to a degree on point 1 but point 2 is a fallacy, nearly half the game the ball is not dynamic or in play, its actually a lot more of a stop start game than people realise. You have time to go on and check your emails/social media whilst a player rolls around on the ground after a tackle where he isn't touched, has a physio come on for no reason, then all the players wrestle in the box before taking it which needs ref intervention before the ball is finally played some two or three minutes after the initial foul. If you want the game to be 'freeflowing' sort out the behaviour because this happens so much more often than any VAR intervention.
And yes football is entertainment, not life and death, but the players managers and staff literally bay for blood if any decision dare go against them?
The issue of players faking injuries to "break up play" is nothing to do with whether VAR is a good thing or not. Though you could argue that the presence of VAR encourages players to "draw attention" to physical contact by behaving in that way. I think that is a minor point though. If there was a will we could solve this "issue" very easily and without the resource to technology. Firstly allow physios to enter the field of play if a player is injured, the physio becoming "part of the field of play" like the refs used to be (perhaps not allowed in the penalty area. Secondly, any player claiming a head injury must pass a "concussion protocol" from medical professional and this must take place off the field (a concussion substitute allowed) and not allowed to rejoin play for a set period of time (I don't know a couple of minutes, maybe five)
The undeniable fact that VAR does not disrupt play as much as the other instances you have mentioned does not validate it's use. The "fannying about" at corners and throw-ins although the ball is not in play is part of the game so not dead time like standing around waiting for a VAR decision.
Rumblestripe said:
Thinking about something and then deciding to do nothing is just taking a long time to do nothing.
The issue of players faking injuries to "break up play" is nothing to do with whether VAR is a good thing or not. Though you could argue that the presence of VAR encourages players to "draw attention" to physical contact by behaving in that way. I think that is a minor point though. If there was a will we could solve this "issue" very easily and without the resource to technology. Firstly allow physios to enter the field of play if a player is injured, the physio becoming "part of the field of play" like the refs used to be (perhaps not allowed in the penalty area. Secondly, any player claiming a head injury must pass a "concussion protocol" from medical professional and this must take place off the field (a concussion substitute allowed) and not allowed to rejoin play for a set period of time (I don't know a couple of minutes, maybe five)
The undeniable fact that VAR does not disrupt play as much as the other instances you have mentioned does not validate it's use. The "fannying about" at corners and throw-ins although the ball is not in play is part of the game so not dead time like standing around waiting for a VAR decision.
Well no it isn't, often VAR checks happen in the background as the game goes on. Decisions which the referee gave which are then checked as correct are part of the process, thats not doing nothing.The issue of players faking injuries to "break up play" is nothing to do with whether VAR is a good thing or not. Though you could argue that the presence of VAR encourages players to "draw attention" to physical contact by behaving in that way. I think that is a minor point though. If there was a will we could solve this "issue" very easily and without the resource to technology. Firstly allow physios to enter the field of play if a player is injured, the physio becoming "part of the field of play" like the refs used to be (perhaps not allowed in the penalty area. Secondly, any player claiming a head injury must pass a "concussion protocol" from medical professional and this must take place off the field (a concussion substitute allowed) and not allowed to rejoin play for a set period of time (I don't know a couple of minutes, maybe five)
The undeniable fact that VAR does not disrupt play as much as the other instances you have mentioned does not validate it's use. The "fannying about" at corners and throw-ins although the ball is not in play is part of the game so not dead time like standing around waiting for a VAR decision.
So the VAR process probably 90% of the time is mostly happening whilst the ball is live and the game ongoing, then if there is a change of decision needed the game is stopped.
There is a constant referral to the minutes waiting for VAR but these are few and far between, and no where near as frequent as the time lost to player behaviour. Imagine a game where players didnt dive at every contact, didn't waste 30 seconds per throw in trying to illegally gain yardage, didn't need physios on the field of play for fake injuries or fake no contact concussion checks - that the game was actually freeflowing (because right now it isn't because of players) and every now and again tech intervenes to right a wrong.
I am more dismayed at the state of modern football because of the constant post match moaning by staff and players, the constant diving on the pitch, the simulation and cheating that goes on - all that is just accepted as part of the game - than the VAR interventions.
coldel said:
Well no it isn't, often VAR checks happen in the background as the game goes on. Decisions which the referee gave which are then checked as correct are part of the process, thats not doing nothing.
...other stuff...
I am more dismayed at the state of modern football because of the constant post match moaning by staff and players, the constant diving on the pitch, the simulation and cheating that goes on - all that is just accepted as part of the game - than the VAR interventions.
VAR in the background is doing nothing useful. So I don't see it as a plus as it contributes nothing to the game in progress....other stuff...
I am more dismayed at the state of modern football because of the constant post match moaning by staff and players, the constant diving on the pitch, the simulation and cheating that goes on - all that is just accepted as part of the game - than the VAR interventions.
On the last point you make. Well this is a thread discussion about VAR. But I would say that the post match moaning by staff, players and pundits are what has brought about VAR to address a problem that only exists in the psyches of this small and shrinking demographic (many pundits and managers are openly questioning VAR now having advocated for it in the past)
coldel said:
Rumblestripe said:
Var is brilliant when it doesn't do anything! Genius!!
If there is no VAR then we carry on anyway.
There are two major problems with VAR in any form
1. It changes the game. Before the Boro v Chelsea game tonight Pochetino has been pointing out to his players that they must play differently because there is no VAR. So the game played at the "Elite" level is not the same as the game played on parks, the recs, the schoolfields, etc.
2. It destroys the flow of the game. Football is a dynamic sport not stop start like cricket or even rugby. We get the unedifying spectacle of players stood around waiting for a decision to be made by faceless disembodied "experts" in an computer suite somewhere, for the spectators in the ground we do not get to see the footage being examined and get only the briefest of explanation of any decision.
It should be remembered that football is not "more serious than life and death" to paraphrase a famous quote, it is entertainment, a diversion, a frippery and if it ceases to be "entertaining" then it will ultimately fail.
Erm it does do something, it does it often unseen, just because you dont see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.If there is no VAR then we carry on anyway.
There are two major problems with VAR in any form
1. It changes the game. Before the Boro v Chelsea game tonight Pochetino has been pointing out to his players that they must play differently because there is no VAR. So the game played at the "Elite" level is not the same as the game played on parks, the recs, the schoolfields, etc.
2. It destroys the flow of the game. Football is a dynamic sport not stop start like cricket or even rugby. We get the unedifying spectacle of players stood around waiting for a decision to be made by faceless disembodied "experts" in an computer suite somewhere, for the spectators in the ground we do not get to see the footage being examined and get only the briefest of explanation of any decision.
It should be remembered that football is not "more serious than life and death" to paraphrase a famous quote, it is entertainment, a diversion, a frippery and if it ceases to be "entertaining" then it will ultimately fail.
I would agree to a degree on point 1 but point 2 is a fallacy, nearly half the game the ball is not dynamic or in play, its actually a lot more of a stop start game than people realise. You have time to go on and check your emails/social media whilst a player rolls around on the ground after a tackle where he isn't touched, has a physio come on for no reason, then all the players wrestle in the box before taking it which needs ref intervention before the ball is finally played some two or three minutes after the initial foul. If you want the game to be 'freeflowing' sort out the behaviour because this happens so much more often than any VAR intervention.
And yes football is entertainment, not life and death, but the players managers and staff literally bay for blood if any decision dare go against them?
Elite sport should always be different from the same sport played at a lower level as otherwise elite sport doesn't remain elite.
markh1973 said:
coldel said:
Rumblestripe said:
Var is brilliant when it doesn't do anything! Genius!!
If there is no VAR then we carry on anyway.
There are two major problems with VAR in any form
1. It changes the game. Before the Boro v Chelsea game tonight Pochetino has been pointing out to his players that they must play differently because there is no VAR. So the game played at the "Elite" level is not the same as the game played on parks, the recs, the schoolfields, etc.
2. It destroys the flow of the game. Football is a dynamic sport not stop start like cricket or even rugby. We get the unedifying spectacle of players stood around waiting for a decision to be made by faceless disembodied "experts" in an computer suite somewhere, for the spectators in the ground we do not get to see the footage being examined and get only the briefest of explanation of any decision.
It should be remembered that football is not "more serious than life and death" to paraphrase a famous quote, it is entertainment, a diversion, a frippery and if it ceases to be "entertaining" then it will ultimately fail.
Erm it does do something, it does it often unseen, just because you dont see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.If there is no VAR then we carry on anyway.
There are two major problems with VAR in any form
1. It changes the game. Before the Boro v Chelsea game tonight Pochetino has been pointing out to his players that they must play differently because there is no VAR. So the game played at the "Elite" level is not the same as the game played on parks, the recs, the schoolfields, etc.
2. It destroys the flow of the game. Football is a dynamic sport not stop start like cricket or even rugby. We get the unedifying spectacle of players stood around waiting for a decision to be made by faceless disembodied "experts" in an computer suite somewhere, for the spectators in the ground we do not get to see the footage being examined and get only the briefest of explanation of any decision.
It should be remembered that football is not "more serious than life and death" to paraphrase a famous quote, it is entertainment, a diversion, a frippery and if it ceases to be "entertaining" then it will ultimately fail.
I would agree to a degree on point 1 but point 2 is a fallacy, nearly half the game the ball is not dynamic or in play, its actually a lot more of a stop start game than people realise. You have time to go on and check your emails/social media whilst a player rolls around on the ground after a tackle where he isn't touched, has a physio come on for no reason, then all the players wrestle in the box before taking it which needs ref intervention before the ball is finally played some two or three minutes after the initial foul. If you want the game to be 'freeflowing' sort out the behaviour because this happens so much more often than any VAR intervention.
And yes football is entertainment, not life and death, but the players managers and staff literally bay for blood if any decision dare go against them?
Elite sport should always be different from the same sport played at a lower level as otherwise elite sport doesn't remain elite.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff