Will VAR Change Football for the Better?

[franki68]

Driver101 said:

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

No one said that did they ?

[Driver101]

franki68 said:

Driver101 said:

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

No one said that did they ?

The last numerous posts, including your own, are discussing VAR decisions equaling themselves up.

franki68 said:

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 .

[franki68]

Driver101 said:

I was giving factual information. ,that var decisions sort of equal out normally ,at no point did I say that was var’s role .

[Driver101]

franki68 said:

Driver101 said:

I was giving factual information. ,that var decisions sort of equal out normally ,at no point did I say that was var’s role .

I don't think you've understood the point I was making.


Factual information that VAR sort of equals itself out?

Looking at how many decisions went for and against a team does not mean that VAR decisions equal themselves up. Each decision could have a completely different bearing on a game.

[franki68]

Driver101 said:

I don't think you've understood the point I was making.


Factual information that VAR sort of equals itself out?

Looking at how many decisions went for and against a team does not mean that VAR decisions equal themselves up. Each decision could have a completely different bearing on a game.

Your addressing a point no one made or you misunderstand .

[Driver101]

franki68 said:

Driver101 said:

I don't think you've understood the point I was making.


Factual information that VAR sort of equals itself out?

Looking at how many decisions went for and against a team does not mean that VAR decisions equal themselves up. Each decision could have a completely different bearing on a game.

Your addressing a point no one made or you misunderstand .

Are you reading the thread? There are numerous quotes about decisions equalling themselves up including you.

What is the point you are trying to make saying VAR decisions equal themselves up?

What is factual about your post saying that VAR decisions sort of equal themselves up?


The theory behind VAR was it wasn't supposed to make mistakes. It was supposed to get the decisions correct. Just because 2 wrong decisions went for your team and 2 wrong decisions went against you team it doesn't mean things equal themselves up. Some wrong decisions cost points some don't. Not all mistakes have the same impact to balance themselves up.

[franki68]

Driver101 said:

I don't think you've understood the point I was making.


Factual information that VAR sort of equals itself out?

Looking at how many decisions went for and against a team does not mean that VAR decisions equal themselves up. Each decision could have a completely different bearing on a game.

Your addressing a point no one made or you misunderstand .

[Driver101]

franki68 said:

Driver101 said:

I don't think you've understood the point I was making.


Factual information that VAR sort of equals itself out?

Looking at how many decisions went for and against a team does not mean that VAR decisions equal themselves up. Each decision could have a completely different bearing on a game.

Your addressing a point no one made or you misunderstand .

You've responded to the same post twice with the same answer.

I responded to that post the first time you made it. You are making little sense.

[SWoll]

Driver101 said:

The theory behind VAR was it wasn't supposed to make mistakes. It was supposed to get the decisions correct.

As soon as you are dealing with a subjective decision made by a human being then I don't see how anyone could possibly expect that all decisions will get universal approval?

Handballs, penalties, red cards and "interfering with play" offside decisions are always going to be a problem.

[Driver101]

SWoll said:

Driver101 said:

The theory behind VAR was it wasn't supposed to make mistakes. It was supposed to get the decisions correct.

As soon as you are dealing with a subjective decision made by a human being then I don't see how anyone could possibly expect that all decisions will get universal approval?

Handballs, penalties, red cards and "interfering with play" offside decisions are always going to be a problem.

Subjective decision are not going to get universal approval. They have been too many decisions that nearly everyone agrees, or can see the clear inconsistency of decisions, and all the decisions that PGMOL have admitted were errors.

[franki68]

Driver101 said:

You've responded to the same post twice with the same answer.

I responded to that post the first time you made it. You are making little sense.

Someone said they hope that var decisions equal out
I said they roughly did looking at the stats
You then said that isn’t the role of var
I said no one said that is the role of var
You then posted comments made neither of which said that it was var’s role to equalise out and stated that we were discussing var equalling out (we were but no one said that was var’s role)
I then repeated that no one had said that it was Var’s role to equal out decisions .

I hope that clarifies the matter .

[Driver101]

franki68 said:

Driver101 said:

You've responded to the same post twice with the same answer.

I responded to that post the first time you made it. You are making little sense.

Someone said they hope that var decisions equal out
I said they roughly did looking at the stats
You then said that isn’t the role of var
I said no one said that is the role of var
You then posted comments made neither of which said that it was var’s role to equalise out and stated that we were discussing var equalling out (we were but no one said that was var’s role)
I then repeated that no one had said that it was Var’s role to equal out decisions .

I hope that clarifies the matter .

As clear as mud.

The comments about decisions equalling themselves are in the thread.

I think you are reading my comment meaning VAR is literally making decisions to equal things up. My post said the role of was to get decisions correct, not hope decisions equal themselves up.

Just because you have 2 VAR decisions in your favour and 2 decisions against you that does not mean the decisions "sort of equal themselves out". There are VAR decisions that cost points and there are VAR decisions that don't. Each VAR decision has a different impact.

The stats from last season show that the amount decisions don't equal themselves for clubs anyway.

[franki68]

Driver101 said:

As clear as mud.

The comments about decisions equalling themselves are in the thread.

I think you are reading my comment meaning VAR is literally making decisions to equal things up. My post said the role of was to get decisions correct, not hope decisions equal themselves up.

Just because you have 2 VAR decisions in your favour and 2 decisions against you that does not mean the decisions "sort of equal themselves out". There are VAR decisions that cost points and there are VAR decisions that don't. Each VAR decision has a different impact.

The stats from last season show that the amount decisions don't equal themselves for clubs anyway.

I was talking about the number of decisions , you are really barking up the wrong tree .I agree var decisions do not equalise out due to for example a decision at 3-0 is very difffrent from one at 1-0 in impact on a game usually ,but you are getting into the realms of subjective views and it’s the same for decisions which aren’t reviewed by var but should be .
Anyway you carry on .

[johnboy1975]

Driver101 said:

As clear as mud.

The comments about decisions equalling themselves are in the thread.

I think you are reading my comment meaning VAR is literally making decisions to equal things up. My post said the role of was to get decisions correct, not hope decisions equal themselves up.

Just because you have 2 VAR decisions in your favour and 2 decisions against you that does not mean the decisions "sort of equal themselves out". There are VAR decisions that cost points and there are VAR decisions that don't. Each VAR decision has a different impact.

The stats from last season show that the amount decisions don't equal themselves for clubs anyway.

My comments were meant as in we're no further forward if we're back at "decisions equal themselves out" - which has been the mantra with bad ref calls since forever. Yes some bad decisions cost points and others don't, and bad calls are hard to stomach, but overall, and on average, they "kind of" do level out. And most of the moaning managers do is precisely so they get a "kind call" in the following matches (IMO). Also you definitely see cases of soft penalties being given to the other team if you get a soft one yourself, which you could argue is the ref trying to balance up a bad call, or perhaps just applying consistency.

Re the bold, do you mean incorrect VAR decisions? Correct ones are meaningless, as per the Liverpool stat that they had gained the most points from VAR calls a few seasons back. If it's a correct overrule and you benefit, that's great. It's actually what VAR should be doing. Eliminating bad decisions.

The problem is the subjectivity, so ones man correct overrule of a red is another man's "VAR is favouring x team". Compounded when you get a red a few weeks later in similar identical circumstances, and they go with the on field call.

Haaland penalty (City's first goal in the 4-4)...apart from the fact he instigated it, there have been a series of (objectively) worse pulls which weren't given as penalties.



Comments from Dermot are interesting, he says "At least we've got an on field decision" (??) Also says if penalty not given on field, VAR wouldn't have overruled. So subjective / not clear and obvious. Which is fine, but they've got all the angles and more time to think. And VAR have intervened on numerous other occasions...


https://youtu.be/_KZtyQnj9_k?si=8uDlq-jo00fsXF71

There should be some sort of baseline at least, even if in the end it is subjective.

[Blib]

If, in the end, many VAR decisions are subjective, merely replacing the on pitch team's opinion with those of blokes in a room, and bearing in mind the disruption that VAR causes to the flow of the game....

.....what's the point?

[johnboy1975]

Blib said:

If, in the end, many VAR decisions are subjective, merely replacing the on pitch team's opinion with those of blokes in a room, and bearing in mind the disruption that VAR causes to the flow of the game....

.....what's the point?

My point precisely.

Maybe they could get a "subjective - on field decision stands" verdict out within 30 seconds or so?

[SWoll]

Blib said:

If, in the end, many VAR decisions are subjective, merely replacing the on pitch team's opinion with those of blokes in a room, and bearing in mind the disruption that VAR causes to the flow of the game....

.....what's the point?

To ensure stuff like the Romero sending off for Spurs doesn't get missed? On-field the decision was offside and no foul.

The ridiculous thing there is the inconsistency again as in the same game he should have been red carded earlier for the kick out at Colwill along with Udogie for the crazy two footer aimed at Sterling.

[Blib]

So, pointless?

[johnboy1975]

Blib said:

So, pointless?

If they get away with not releasing audio for over a fortnight, and then the best they can come up with is "I see two hands on his back but no evidence of a push" - then yes.

Audio of Newcastle goal vs Arsenal finally released:



When they are checking the offside they see the push multiple times in slow motion

For the offside, all he has to be is past the keeper...Clearly off for me as stated earlier in thread as he's past the keeper whilst the defender is still on his feet and the ball is "in the mix", and there's oodles of time before the defender is pushed to the floor having a little rest on the ground (for no reason whatsoever )

I need to let this one go now. It's not even my team ffs. Adios

[TwigtheWonderkid]

SWoll said:

To ensure stuff like the Romero sending off for Spurs doesn't get missed? On-field the decision was offside and no foul.

The ridiculous thing there is the inconsistency again as in the same game he should have been red carded earlier for the kick out at Colwill along with Udogie for the crazy two footer aimed at Sterling.

I cannot understand why Udogie wasn't sent off for his 2 footed lunge in the first half. It matters not that he didn't make contact with Stirling, as that was only due to Stirling taking evasive action. According to the laws of the game, that's a straight red, with no scope for leniency. Crazy decision. The Romero kick out, that's a matter for the ref to decide if it was serious enough. So unlike Udogie, not a mandatory red