Will VAR Change Football for the Better?

[Driver101]

johnboy1975 said:

Driver101 said:

What can you actually change to improve it?

The complaints are with the decisions made and the time taken to get to decisions. I can't see the human decision making part changing. Better technology to scan and pick up offsides quicker?

More transparency? (Live audio of the check) Would keep fans in the ground more informed, and (maybe) make the delays more palatable?

But, yeah, it's probably the AI offside thing that was trailed in the WC. Think it's live in Italy - and possibly elsewhere? Think I'd prefer the thicker lines idea mooted earlier, I strongly dislike fractional offsides, even if it were accurate to the nth degree (which currently it isn't)

Talksport just saying when it was brought in, they envisioned checks taking 6 seconds, and there would be one check every four or five games . Can't see either of those ever being remotely realistic.

I do agree with the keeping the fans informed. I don't think explaining why you've made the wrong decision will help.

I don't think thicker lines help. As you say the accuracy isn't 100% and a thicker line still has a defined line. An inch offside or an inch over the thick offside lines will still have the same arguments.

The lines are already thicker at the moment.

Edited by Driver101 on Saturday 11th November 10:22

[Rumblestripe]

Driver101 said:

What can you actually change to improve it?

The complaints are with the decisions made and the time taken to get to decisions. I can't see the human decision making part changing. Better technology to scan and pick up offsides quicker?

Make it challenge based. Like cricket or the NFL, the coach/manager challenges an on field decision, there are a limited number of challenges and only for one aspect (so if you challenge a goal you say why offside/handball/foul) and that is checked for not well he's not offside let's have a look at a possible handball. Correct challenge retained, incorrect challenge lost. Puts the onus on the coach to challenge not the ref to decide he would like another look. Of course they may be used tactically to break up play at the end of a game.

[johnboy1975]

Driver101 said:

johnboy1975 said:

Driver101 said:

What can you actually change to improve it?

The complaints are with the decisions made and the time taken to get to decisions. I can't see the human decision making part changing. Better technology to scan and pick up offsides quicker?

More transparency? (Live audio of the check) Would keep fans in the ground more informed, and (maybe) make the delays more palatable?

But, yeah, it's probably the AI offside thing that was trailed in the WC. Think it's live in Italy - and possibly elsewhere? Think I'd prefer the thicker lines idea mooted earlier, I strongly dislike fractional offsides, even if it were accurate to the nth degree (which currently it isn't)

Talksport just saying when it was brought in, they envisioned checks taking 6 seconds, and there would be one check every four or five games . Can't see either of those ever being remotely realistic.

I do agree with the keeping the fans informed. I don't think explaining why you've made the wrong decision will help.

I don't think thicker lines help. As you say the accuracy isn't 100% and a thicker line still has a defined line. An inch offside or an inch over the thick offside lines will still have the same arguments.

The lines are already thicker at the moment.

Edited by Driver101 on Saturday 11th November 10:22

Are the lines thicker currently?

Thicker lines gives more certainty that the player is off, so if your 6" off the argument that "it's only a tiny amount" loses some validity. (As opposed to 0.5cm - currently??) Also, more certainty that you are off at the time the ball is played

I'd go with "looks level = advantage to the attacker " personally rather than getting the lines out. Maybe VAR could have a use if the offside decision is egregiously wrong? But then one mans "egregiously wrong" differs from the next, especially when their own team is involved

[LF5335]

johnboy1975 said:

Are the lines thicker currently?

Thicker lines gives more certainty that the player is off, so if your 6" off the argument that "it's only a tiny amount" loses some validity. (As opposed to 0.5cm - currently??) Also, more certainty that you are off at the time the ball is played

I'd go with "looks level = advantage to the attacker " personally rather than getting the lines out. Maybe VAR could have a use if the offside decision is egregiously wrong? But then one mans "egregiously wrong" differs from the next, especially when their own team is involved

I agree with the thicker lines argument. VAR can’t tell the exact moment that the ball left the players foot, so there needs to be a margin of error. As long as the decision making process remains the same on when they choose to measure the offside moment then it makes perfect sense to thicken the lines. Decisions should be quicker and easier to accept. There will still be marginal decisions as a cut off point has to be decided upon, but some additional leeway gets away from the “testicle’s hair” absolute decisions.

[Driver101]

johnboy1975 said:

Driver101 said:

johnboy1975 said:

Driver101 said:

What can you actually change to improve it?

The complaints are with the decisions made and the time taken to get to decisions. I can't see the human decision making part changing. Better technology to scan and pick up offsides quicker?

More transparency? (Live audio of the check) Would keep fans in the ground more informed, and (maybe) make the delays more palatable?

But, yeah, it's probably the AI offside thing that was trailed in the WC. Think it's live in Italy - and possibly elsewhere? Think I'd prefer the thicker lines idea mooted earlier, I strongly dislike fractional offsides, even if it were accurate to the nth degree (which currently it isn't)

Talksport just saying when it was brought in, they envisioned checks taking 6 seconds, and there would be one check every four or five games . Can't see either of those ever being remotely realistic.

I do agree with the keeping the fans informed. I don't think explaining why you've made the wrong decision will help.

I don't think thicker lines help. As you say the accuracy isn't 100% and a thicker line still has a defined line. An inch offside or an inch over the thick offside lines will still have the same arguments.

The lines are already thicker at the moment.

Edited by Driver101 on Saturday 11th November 10:22

Are the lines thicker currently?

Thicker lines gives more certainty that the player is off, so if your 6" off the argument that "it's only a tiny amount" loses some validity. (As opposed to 0.5cm - currently??) Also, more certainty that you are off at the time the ball is played

I'd go with "looks level = advantage to the attacker " personally rather than getting the lines out. Maybe VAR could have a use if the offside decision is egregiously wrong? But then one mans "egregiously wrong" differs from the next, especially when their own team is involved

The lines were widened for the 21/22 season. It also moved to if the lines overlap rather than deciding what line was ahead.

The "onside" goal that Rashford scored was August 2022. That was the goal that everyone thought it was offside, but VAR said it was within the margin of error.

Edited by Driver101 on Saturday 11th November 12:17

[TwigtheWonderkid]

franki68 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Clear and obvious does not apply to offside decisions. Never has.

Nor can you be offside by your testicles hair , but I think you understand the point and are being pedantic .

The point is that people are constantly banging on about offside and clear and obvious errors, when C&O has never been a factor in offside decisions. And I suspect you also thought C&O applied to offside calls, or why mention it?

[Driver101]

This is what we have to deal with in Scotland.

https://x.com/Zeshankenzo/status/17236795908019366...

The clearest dive you will see in your life and it results in a penalty for Rangers.

[Driver101]

Second penalty to Rangers in the same game. VAR flagged this so it must be a clear and obvious error.

https://x.com/ScotlandSky/status/17236984906335850...

Sima(the Rangers player) jumps into Devlin and knocks his arm towards the ball.

[Pitre]

Confused. The trip on Eze yesterday was a clear and obvious error by the ref but VAR didn't give the penalty or rescind the ridiculous yellow for simulation. Bizarre.

[vladcjelli]

Pitre said:

Confused. The trip on Eze yesterday was a clear and obvious error by the ref but VAR didn't give the penalty or rescind the ridiculous yellow for simulation. Bizarre.

I thought this too, looked like the player clipped his right foot.

[Randy Winkman]

Rumblestripe said:

Driver101 said:

What can you actually change to improve it?

The complaints are with the decisions made and the time taken to get to decisions. I can't see the human decision making part changing. Better technology to scan and pick up offsides quicker?

Make it challenge based. Like cricket or the NFL, the coach/manager challenges an on field decision, there are a limited number of challenges and only for one aspect (so if you challenge a goal you say why offside/handball/foul) and that is checked for not well he's not offside let's have a look at a possible handball. Correct challenge retained, incorrect challenge lost. Puts the onus on the coach to challenge not the ref to decide he would like another look. Of course they may be used tactically to break up play at the end of a game.

Just don't see that would work as most of what happens just isn't that clear to the coach. By comparison, in cricket, the bowler, wicket keeper and batsmen have a good view of what's going on. I guess that in football the coach would have half a dozen people around the pitch telling him what to do via earphones but do we really want to go there?

[johnboy1975]

vladcjelli said:

Pitre said:

Confused. The trip on Eze yesterday was a clear and obvious error by the ref but VAR didn't give the penalty or rescind the ridiculous yellow for simulation. Bizarre.

I thought this too, looked like the player clipped his right foot.

I'm biased (Everton) and thought it was the correct call. It's the first time I've heard it, but I believe Crystal Palace are known as the "South London Diving Club"? But ones man's dive is another man's going down easy is another man's penalty I suppose.

Can VAR rescind a yellow? VAR backed the refs call, which is a bit of a theme...

Today saw City get a penalty for a pull on Haaland. Ref gave it, VAR backed it. But Haaland initiated it which the ref might not have seen, but VAR absolutely should. Almost ruined the game for me, but it ended up being a cracker despite it.

If the Eze dive had been given as a penalty, if the Newcastle goal had been ruled out for the push, if the City incident had been deemed a free kick - would VAR have overruled any of them? In theory yes, they would have overruled all 3, because they backed the opposite decision. I have my doubts...which (once again) raises the question "What does VAR actually do?"

[Tycho]

johnboy1975 said:

If the Eze dive had been given as a penalty, if the Newcastle goal had been ruled out for the push, if the City incident had been deemed a free kick - would VAR have overruled any of them? In theory yes, they would have overruled all 3, because they backed the opposite decision. I have my doubts...which (once again) raises the question "What does VAR actually do?"

I agree with most of your post but the part quoted IMO would have been different. VAR would simply have backed the ref due to them not having a spine between them and thrown about the term "clear and obvious error!". Until there is an independent VAR team that has no connection to the refs then we can't have an effective system as they just back the ref too many times when everyone else who's played the game at the top levels disagrees.

[johnboy1975]

Tycho said:

johnboy1975 said:

If the Eze dive had been given as a penalty, if the Newcastle goal had been ruled out for the push, if the City incident had been deemed a free kick - would VAR have overruled any of them? In theory yes, they would have overruled all 3, because they backed the opposite decision. I have my doubts...which (once again) raises the question "What does VAR actually do?"

I agree with most of your post but the part quoted IMO would have been different. VAR would simply have backed the ref due to them not having a spine between them and thrown about the term "clear and obvious error!". Until there is an independent VAR team that has no connection to the refs then we can't have an effective system as they just back the ref too many times when everyone else who's played the game at the top levels disagrees.

That was pretty much the cut and thrust of my post.

Which goes to the clear and obvious thing again.

The Everton / Palace one, I think there is perhaps a degree of contact. Perhaps. Too hard to really tell. If there was, he certainly "made the most of it". Which has happened since forever. I'm actually ok with "not clear and obvious - on field decision upheld" (although perhaps look at the screen) on this one - either way. Also, I thought our (2nd?) goal was a very tight possible offside, so on balance we definitely had the rub of the green. "Decisions even themselves out"

The other two I think are "clear and obvious". Was the Arsenal defender pushed? Yes. Did Haaland initiate the contact? Yes.

So they really need to overrule their mate, absolute minimum ref needs to go to the screen. That's what it's there for.

And - if we can't have audio in game (leading to 60,000 unhappy geordies chanting "referee's / VAR's a wker"?) - at least post it after the match, for every match. Or at the very minimum, if anyone asks for it. You can't give up audio to Liverpool for their disallowed goal, then not give it to Arsenal the following week when they feel wronged.

This will rumble on and on...

[Pitre]

johnboy1975 said:

...The Everton / Palace one, I think there is perhaps a degree of contact. Perhaps. Too hard to really tell. If there was, he certainly "made the most of it". Which has happened since forever. I'm actually ok with "not clear and obvious - on field decision upheld" (although perhaps look at the screen) on this one - either way. Also, I thought our (2nd?) goal was a very tight possible offside, so on balance we definitely had the rub of the green. "Decisions even themselves out"

.

So, I'm not sure how the decisions 'evened themselves out' as what you're saying is that if VAR had done it's job properly, arguably Palace should've/could've won 3-2...

[Ronstein]

Tycho said:

johnboy1975 said:

If the Eze dive had been given as a penalty, if the Newcastle goal had been ruled out for the push, if the City incident had been deemed a free kick - would VAR have overruled any of them? In theory yes, they would have overruled all 3, because they backed the opposite decision. I have my doubts...which (once again) raises the question "What does VAR actually do?"

I agree with most of your post but the part quoted IMO would have been different. VAR would simply have backed the ref due to them not having a spine between them and thrown about the term "clear and obvious error!". Until there is an independent VAR team that has no connection to the refs then we can't have an effective system as they just back the ref too many times when everyone else who's played the game at the top levels disagrees.

Precisely as admitted by Mike Dean when he said he didn't overturn a clear and obvious error because 'his mate was already having a bad day' or words to that effect.

[franki68]

Pitre said:

So, I'm not sure how the decisions 'evened themselves out' as what you're saying is that if VAR had done it's job properly, arguably Palace should've/could've won 3-2...

Var decisions do sort of even over a season,the average decisions going in your favour and against pretty much all sit between -2 & 2 so the worst you should expect is an overall score of -2 decisions going against you over a season and at best 2 decisions overall going in your favour .

[DaveTheRave87]

Rumblestripe said:

Make it challenge based. Like cricket or the NFL, the coach/manager challenges an on field decision, there are a limited number of challenges and only for one aspect (so if you challenge a goal you say why offside/handball/foul) and that is checked for not well he's not offside let's have a look at a possible handball. Correct challenge retained, incorrect challenge lost. Puts the onus on the coach to challenge not the ref to decide he would like another look. Of course they may be used tactically to break up play at the end of a game.

Hockey has the rule that each team is allowed 1 incorrect challenge per game.

It makes sure it's only used for clear and obvious errors as no team wants to lose their challenge on a marginal call.

The TV ref's deliberations are played out to the stadium crowd and the result of the challenge is communicated to everyone.

[johnboy1975]

Pitre said:

So, I'm not sure how the decisions 'evened themselves out' as what you're saying is that if VAR had done it's job properly, arguably Palace should've/could've won 3-2...

I mean, we've had our fair share of st decisions. Thus it evens out (kinda). Perhaps hard luck to Palace on this occasion. Perhaps the right decisions given.

And for clarity, I haven't seen anyone suggest that Doucoure was offside and it's another terrible VAR decision, just that it was tight. Wouldn't have argued with 3-3

[Driver101]

VAR is supposed to get the decisions correct and not equal up the amount of errors it makes for each team over a season.