Will VAR Change Football for the Better?
Discussion
Just to add, the decision was made whilst they had no straight lines and it took over 8 minutes for BT to superimpose their own lines onto the picture. I’ll take a photo of that amd lost it in the United thread too to show what they had available to make the decision.
According to Twig’s comments just up the page this shouldn’t even be in their remit to review.
According to Twig’s comments just up the page this shouldn’t even be in their remit to review.
Gavia said:
Just to add, the decision was made whilst they had no straight lines and it took over 8 minutes for BT to superimpose their own lines onto the picture. I’ll take a photo of that amd lost it in the United thread too to show what they had available to make the decision.
According to Twig’s comments just up the page this shouldn’t even be in their remit to review.
No,it was an offside so is up for review. As I understand it VAR is for offside, penalties and mistaken identity. That's it.On top of that, you have goal line tech. According to Twig’s comments just up the page this shouldn’t even be in their remit to review.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Completely spot on.I'd argue that anyone that doesn't get that isn't part of the 'us' he talks about in the line "Outsiders see it as 22 men kicking a ball about on a pitch, but to us it’s so much more."
Also... we would never have seen this most perfect moment of poetic justice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pma5RDt6MRw
Edited by Boydie88 on Thursday 22 February 09:33
Gavia said:
Just to add, the decision was made whilst they had no straight lines and it took over 8 minutes for BT to superimpose their own lines onto the picture. I’ll take a photo of that amd lost it in the United thread too to show what they had available to make the decision.
According to Twig’s comments just up the page this shouldn’t even be in their remit to review.
I can confirm the VAR definitely had the correct images including straight lines to enable him to make the correct decision. The VAR on the day I believe was Neil Swarbrick and the Match Official was Kevin Friend. According to Twig’s comments just up the page this shouldn’t even be in their remit to review.
Unfortunately, the pictures broadcast by BT cast doubt on the final decision which is understandable.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Just for the record, the Thierry Henry handball goal would not get disallowed under the current VAR regime. It wasn't a penalty call, offside or mistaken identity, which are the 3 things VAR covers. And it's nothing to do with goal line technology. So the goal would stand today under VAR. Same with the Maradonna hand of god goal. That's not within VAR remit either.
Incorrect. VAR reviews;
Goals
Penalty/no penalty decisions
Direct Red Cards
Mistaken Identity
On this basis the Thierry Henry and Maradona goals would have both been ruled out.
Alfahorn said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Just for the record, the Thierry Henry handball goal would not get disallowed under the current VAR regime. It wasn't a penalty call, offside or mistaken identity, which are the 3 things VAR covers. And it's nothing to do with goal line technology. So the goal would stand today under VAR. Same with the Maradonna hand of god goal. That's not within VAR remit either.
Incorrect. VAR reviews;
Goals
Penalty/no penalty decisions
Direct Red Cards
Mistaken Identity
On this basis the Thierry Henry and Maradona goals would have both been ruled out.
The Maradonna goal has become part of football folk law, the Argentinian FA English language podcast is actually called Hand Of Pod. Would it have been better if that goal had been disallowed on the spot. In hindsight, definitely not. Football needs stuff like that.
And as for the Irish, f
k 'em. Glad they went out, boring football. Who wouldn't want the French at a tournament instead of the Irish, unless you're Irish. The fact that they went out so controversially makes it even more enjoyable. 
Alfahorn said:
I can confirm the VAR definitely had the correct images including straight lines to enable him to make the correct decision. The VAR on the day I believe was Neil Swarbrick and the Match Official was Kevin Friend.
Unfortunately, the pictures broadcast by BT cast doubt on the final decision which is understandable.
Working on the basis that you’re part of the set up amd have some insight, I’ll ask the follwoing questions thenUnfortunately, the pictures broadcast by BT cast doubt on the final decision which is understandable.
Why did the direct link to VAR broadcast those wonky lines?
Why was that feed instantly removed?
Why were there no further images provided to the viewing public, whilst the decision was being made?
Why did it take 8 minutes for them to provide BT with the correct still?
Does VAR remove the rule around benefit of the doubt to the attacking player?
Will all goals be reviewed? If not why not?
How far back will a review go? For example a goalkeeper hold the ball for 6.1 seconds before releasing it, after several passes a goal is scored. Will that be ruled out?
Gavia said:
Does VAR remove the rule around benefit of the doubt to the attacking player?
That never has been a rule. The directive you refer to doesn't give the benefit of doubt to the attacking player, but says if in doubt, don't give the decision. Just play on. That favours the attacking player in a debateable offside appeal, but favours the defending player in a debateable penalty appeal. The mantra is always better not to give something that happened, rather than give something that didn't happen.TwigtheWonderkid said:
That never has been a rule. The directive you refer to doesn't give the benefit of doubt to the attacking player, but says if in doubt, don't give the decision. Just play on. That favours the attacking player in a debateable offside appeal, but favours the defending player in a debateable penalty appeal. The mantra is always better not to give something that happened, rather than give something that didn't happen.
I was asking the guy with the claimed insight to VAR. However, the question still stands. Has that directive now been superseded in games with VAR?Gavia said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That never has been a rule. The directive you refer to doesn't give the benefit of doubt to the attacking player, but says if in doubt, don't give the decision. Just play on. That favours the attacking player in a debateable offside appeal, but favours the defending player in a debateable penalty appeal. The mantra is always better not to give something that happened, rather than give something that didn't happen.
I was asking the guy with the claimed insight to VAR. However, the question still stands. Has that directive now been superseded in games with VAR?TwigtheWonderkid said:
I was just pointing out the directive. And no, it hasn't changed. If VAR is inconclusive, the decision shouldn't be given. So a too close to call offside will be given as onside, and a disputed penalty appeal will be given as no penalty.
That’s fair enough, but taking the Mata disallowed goal, surely that was arguably too close to call, or the ones in the Liverpool vs West Brom game. All seemed very tight decisions and that’s where I’m struggling with the concept. There won’t be any contentious decisions any more and another part of the emotion will be removed. Could you imagine this in the 66 World Cup final?!
I’d still like alfahorn to reply to the questions asked though.
Clear and obvious? Exactly the same argument that I had with the Mata goal that everyone said was the correct decision, but was hardly a clear and obvious mistake.
There is no way that that goal shouldn’t have stood. I can’t wait for the endless 0-0 draws we’re about to get with this system is place.
There is no way that that goal shouldn’t have stood. I can’t wait for the endless 0-0 draws we’re about to get with this system is place.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff