Will VAR Change Football for the Better?
Discussion
There was a review in the Leicester/Spurs game after Spurs scored, where they took an age trying to determine whether a Spurs player had touched the ball from a corner and thus a potential offside. Once they had finally decided that Davies had touched the ball they looked at the offside and almost immediately determined that it wasn't offside. They could have just looked at the offside in the first instance and saved everyone several minutes wasted stoppage. It's stuff like this that makes them look like clowns even when they get the decision right.
johnboy1975 said:
Always thought the managers should have a VAR button, with x uses per game. This could also apply to the opposing manager having a VARVAR button when VAR goes against him 
If we really are stuck with VAR, and it appears that we are. Two things:1. Change to a challenge based system with limited uses per game/half.
2. VAR time limit, if a decision cannot be shown to be a "clear and obvious error" within say two minutes, the onfield decision stands.
I think in Tennis (and maybe other sports) you get a limit of "calls" (i.e. equivalent to a VAR check).
Lets say, 2 per match.
If your claim is successful, then the counter stays at 2.
If claim is not successful then goes down and once at 0, no VAR check at all (even if a clear error the ref/lino hasn't seen)
Note there would be NO VAR checks in the game other than when manager requests one. That will mean a goal will stand unless opposing manager decides to "gamble" on a VAR check. There would be a time limit too, say 60secs to make the VAR claim.
Possibly only claims for incidents in the area and/or goals. Not for minor things in the middle of the pitch else they'd be claiming all the time, even if they're right but makes little difference and ruins flow of game.
Also, I think VAR could intervene if a potential off the ball red card offence even if managers do not request it, but other than that all in the hands of the managers when to request one.
Lets say, 2 per match.
If your claim is successful, then the counter stays at 2.
If claim is not successful then goes down and once at 0, no VAR check at all (even if a clear error the ref/lino hasn't seen)
Note there would be NO VAR checks in the game other than when manager requests one. That will mean a goal will stand unless opposing manager decides to "gamble" on a VAR check. There would be a time limit too, say 60secs to make the VAR claim.
Possibly only claims for incidents in the area and/or goals. Not for minor things in the middle of the pitch else they'd be claiming all the time, even if they're right but makes little difference and ruins flow of game.
Also, I think VAR could intervene if a potential off the ball red card offence even if managers do not request it, but other than that all in the hands of the managers when to request one.
Edited by Dracoro on Thursday 9th March 15:57
Dracoro said:
I think in Tennis (and maybe other sports) you get a limit of "calls" (i.e. equivalent to a VAR check).
Lets say, 2 per match.
If your claim is successful, then the counter stays at 2.
If claim is not successful then goes down and once at 0, no VAR check at all (even if a clear error the ref/lino hasn't seen)
Note there would be NO VAR checks in the game other than when manager requests one. That will mean a goal will stand unless opposing manager decides to "gamble" on a VAR check. There would be a time limit too, say 60secs to make the VAR claim.
Possibly only claims for incidents in the area and/or goals. Not for minor things in the middle of the pitch else they'd be claiming all the time, even if they're right but makes little difference and ruins flow of game.
Also, I think VAR could intervene if a potential off the ball red card offence even if managers do not request it, but other than that all in the hands of the managers when to request one.
Agree with the sentiment. Not sure if 'deliberately not using it to override a clear an obvious error ' (once out of calls...) is a good look though.Lets say, 2 per match.
If your claim is successful, then the counter stays at 2.
If claim is not successful then goes down and once at 0, no VAR check at all (even if a clear error the ref/lino hasn't seen)
Note there would be NO VAR checks in the game other than when manager requests one. That will mean a goal will stand unless opposing manager decides to "gamble" on a VAR check. There would be a time limit too, say 60secs to make the VAR claim.
Possibly only claims for incidents in the area and/or goals. Not for minor things in the middle of the pitch else they'd be claiming all the time, even if they're right but makes little difference and ruins flow of game.
Also, I think VAR could intervene if a potential off the ball red card offence even if managers do not request it, but other than that all in the hands of the managers when to request one.
Edited by Dracoro on Thursday 9th March 15:57
Think I'd keep it as is, but with 3 manual challenges per Coach in addition, working the same way you describe (ie you can't appeal a dodgy decision if out of challenges)
Whether it would just descend into farce / add in an additional 10 minutes per game for no great improvement is another matter...
Maybe a yellow card for the manager if its deemed a frivolous (ab)use of the challenge?
Dracoro said:
I think in Tennis (and maybe other sports) you get a limit of "calls" (i.e. equivalent to a VAR check).
Lets say, 2 per match.
If your claim is successful, then the counter stays at 2.
If claim is not successful then goes down and once at 0, no VAR check at all (even if a clear error the ref/lino hasn't seen)
Note there would be NO VAR checks in the game other than when manager requests one. That will mean a goal will stand unless opposing manager decides to "gamble" on a VAR check. There would be a time limit too, say 60secs to make the VAR claim.
Possibly only claims for incidents in the area and/or goals. Not for minor things in the middle of the pitch else they'd be claiming all the time, even if they're right but makes little difference and ruins flow of game.
Also, I think VAR could intervene if a potential off the ball red card offence even if managers do not request it, but other than that all in the hands of the managers when to request one.
I think we should keep VAR but add another three on the panel to cover DIVAR for the cheating, diving scum, another 6 sponsored by Crayola to draw the lines DOHVAR and when the coffers are running low at FA additional panel FINVAR to cover over-celebrations, managers rolling their eyes at yet another sLets say, 2 per match.
If your claim is successful, then the counter stays at 2.
If claim is not successful then goes down and once at 0, no VAR check at all (even if a clear error the ref/lino hasn't seen)
Note there would be NO VAR checks in the game other than when manager requests one. That will mean a goal will stand unless opposing manager decides to "gamble" on a VAR check. There would be a time limit too, say 60secs to make the VAR claim.
Possibly only claims for incidents in the area and/or goals. Not for minor things in the middle of the pitch else they'd be claiming all the time, even if they're right but makes little difference and ruins flow of game.
Also, I think VAR could intervene if a potential off the ball red card offence even if managers do not request it, but other than that all in the hands of the managers when to request one.
Edited by Dracoro on Thursday 9th March 15:57
t decision, fans chanting anything, fans not sitting down, ballboys being gits also known as VAGVAR for being such tts...naturally all of these will be switched off if a Manchester players manhandles an official or feigns injury 
Blib said:
The most important thing is that VAR continues to strip spontaneous celebration of a goal out of the game. 
Mo Salah celebrated his 129th Liverpool goal (vs Ma Utd) with massive gusto, crowd went mad etc etc. Very (very) tight offside call (deemed on after 4 mins of deliberations) - I did wonder if they didn't want to chalk off an historic goal. Would he still have got booked for removing his shirt if it had been disallowed? (Presumably)Rumblestripe said:
2. VAR time limit, if a decision cannot be shown to be a "clear and obvious error" within say two minutes, the onfield decision stands.
That wouldn't help on offside, which often take the longest time, because the clear and obvious criteria doesn't apply to those. C & O is only for subjective calls, like penalties, not factual stuff like offside. TwigtheWonderkid said:
Rumblestripe said:
2. VAR time limit, if a decision cannot be shown to be a "clear and obvious error" within say two minutes, the onfield decision stands.
That wouldn't help on offside, which often take the longest time, because the clear and obvious criteria doesn't apply to those. C & O is only for subjective calls, like penalties, not factual stuff like offside. Toe nail offsides really grate, even if correct. And doubly so when not / disputed / dusputable. Although the "VARVAR" button / appeal sn't going to help as they are going to review the same still...
The problem with tight offsides is that when someone's running through at 20mph, the point at which you draw the line becomes critical. As does the frames per second for that matter.
{{I must be confused. Mo Salah goal (for 6-0) was miles on}}
johnboy1975 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Rumblestripe said:
2. VAR time limit, if a decision cannot be shown to be a "clear and obvious error" within say two minutes, the onfield decision stands.
That wouldn't help on offside, which often take the longest time, because the clear and obvious criteria doesn't apply to those. C & O is only for subjective calls, like penalties, not factual stuff like offside. Toe nail offsides really grate, even if correct.
Ffs, I thought you lot wanted the decisions to be right.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
See, this is what I don't get. I was against var from the get go, and still am. But people who were for it (I don't know if you were or not) are moaning that it's too accurate. I hear it all the time, "that offside was ridiculous....ok, technically he was offside but......"
Ffs, I thought you lot wanted the decisions to be right.
I like the concept. Ie "eliminate human error". But it just shifts the human error from the linesman to the bloke at Stockley park drawing the lines.Ffs, I thought you lot wanted the decisions to be right.
Are errors down? Am sure someone's done an analysis showing they are down (by a lot), but it doesn't really feel that way to me.
I'm sure every fan has a list of bad VAR decisions that didn't go their way, and a list of stuff that went for opponents/ rivals.
Being level means exactly that. But in reality it's going to be 1cm on, or 1cm off (or 0.5cm on / off). I'd argue that's not what it's designed for, and for all intents and purposes, you could say "level, goal stands" after a quick 5 second look
And then you have subjective decisions. "Not clear and obvious". And stuff out of scope, ie ball goes for a goal kick but ref awards a corner, and a goal is scored.
It's a can of worms that probably shouldn't have been opened, but can't be put back in the box (to mangle my metaphors)
I was getting ready to take my lad training when it happened so didn't see the replays properly; Lisbon v Arsenal last night. Martinelli was shown a yellow card for impeding the goalkeeper but it looked harsh. I heard the commentators mention Xhaka looking more the guilty party if anything.
As this conversation was taking place, the referee tuned into VAR and reached for his yellow card and starts to draw the invisible screen. It looked like he was about to reverse his decision but instead, he fumbled the card back in and quickly signaled for the game to restart.
I'd love to hear what the conversation there was.
As this conversation was taking place, the referee tuned into VAR and reached for his yellow card and starts to draw the invisible screen. It looked like he was about to reverse his decision but instead, he fumbled the card back in and quickly signaled for the game to restart.
I'd love to hear what the conversation there was.
I find the 'offside by a centimetre' a nonsense. If the frame isn't taken the instant the ball leaves the foot then you cannot determine that accurately whether a player is offside or not. Same as when a defender's running out and an attacker's running through, the closing speed is too high to determine that level of accuracy. Also when shirts are flapping - is that thin air inside that bit of material or the player's body? Too fine a margin to determine accurately. And then there's the lines themselves, which must be at least a couple of centimetres thick, plus the lines are running diagonally across and the camera isn't exactly perpendicular to where the incident is supposed to have taken place.
So as I say, to me these miniscule margins are too fine for the technology - it's like quoting numbers to multiple decimal places, you can't measure it so it's (mostly) a pointless exercise.
So as I say, to me these miniscule margins are too fine for the technology - it's like quoting numbers to multiple decimal places, you can't measure it so it's (mostly) a pointless exercise.
Antony Moxey said:
I find the 'offside by a centimetre' a nonsense. If the frame isn't taken the instant the ball leaves the foot then you cannot determine that accurately whether a player is offside or not. Same as when a defender's running out and an attacker's running through, the closing speed is too high to determine that level of accuracy. Also when shirts are flapping - is that thin air inside that bit of material or the player's body? Too fine a margin to determine accurately. And then there's the lines themselves, which must be at least a couple of centimetres thick, plus the lines are running diagonally across and the camera isn't exactly perpendicular to where the incident is supposed to have taken place.
So as I say, to me these miniscule margins are too fine for the technology - it's like quoting numbers to multiple decimal places, you can't measure it so it's (mostly) a pointless exercise.
Without looking up the exact wording, is it not something like "when the ball is kicked". Tthe ball leaving the foot could be four or five frames after the ball was "kicked" if you define "kicked" as first touched. This is how silly this is all getting, but many millions of pounds could be riding on the descision.So as I say, to me these miniscule margins are too fine for the technology - it's like quoting numbers to multiple decimal places, you can't measure it so it's (mostly) a pointless exercise.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff