Will VAR Change Football for the Better?
Discussion
Adam B said:
90% of the issues with VAR would be solved by:
a) applying clear and obvious to offside too (eg use the Souness solution)
b) set a 30 or 60 second time limit on VAR refs making a call
c) mic up the ref to explain the decision to the stadium
I'm confused at the referees having decisions overruled by VAR and at times his call is not questioned. If there is no VAR intervention he's often mobbed by the aggrieved players and VAR, inevitably, comes in. a) applying clear and obvious to offside too (eg use the Souness solution)
b) set a 30 or 60 second time limit on VAR refs making a call
c) mic up the ref to explain the decision to the stadium
In short, I'm just not liking how VAR has ended up. Great idea. The game is just not ready for it, or it is not good enough to be introduced to the game.
Adam B said:
90% of the issues with VAR would be solved by:
a) applying clear and obvious to offside too (eg use the Souness solution)
Surely the Souness idea (any part of body onside) would still have the blokes in Stockley park drawing lines to within millimeters, except they'd be drawing them on the last part of the attacker's and defender's bodies e.g. their trailing foot rather than the front part? It would still decided by millimeters. It needs something like how LBW is decided in cricket where the umpires decision stands if less than 550% of the ball is clipping the stumps. Make it Linesman's decision if it's less than, say, 150mm (6"). It would also mean the linesman has to do something again. Just an idea... a) applying clear and obvious to offside too (eg use the Souness solution)
RichB said:
Surely the Souness idea (any part of body onside) would still have the blokes in Stockley park drawing lines to within millimeters, except they'd be drawing them on the last part of the attacker's and defender's bodies e.g. their trailing foot rather than the front part? It would still decided by millimeters. It needs something like how LBW is decided in cricket where the umpires decision stands if less than 550% of the ball is clipping the stumps. Make it Linesman's decision if it's less than, say, 150mm (6"). It would also mean the linesman has to do something again. Just an idea...
You’ve not exactly solved anything have you with those measurements. 151mm of the whatever vs 149mm, oh well one’s a goal and one isn’t. The difference? Millimetres. The use should be clear and obvious as keeps being mentioned. If it’s not instantly obvious as offside at first look, then it’s not offside. Maybe allow three angles, or something but it should be at first look, not after some quantum physics and nanometre calculations.
Surely the fundamental problem is that in the space of a few game weeks at the start of the season we jumped from VAR being used to correct clear and obvious errors, to VAR being used to validate every single goal and offside decision. Instead of an emergency tool to correct obvious mistakes, it's become a crutch upon which the officials rely. The tail is wagging the dog. If it takes more than a quick replay and instead people are drawing lines to the mm and reviewing myriad angles and taking 60+ seconds to draw a conclusion - then it's not a clear and obvious error.
Keoparakolo said:
I think (amd I’m happy to be corrected if wrong) that the rules changed a few years ago around the professional foul when through one goal. The view was that if outside the penalty area than a red card should be given to the defending player, whereas if inside the area, then a penalty and yellow is sufficient rather than double penalising the defending team.
I’m not saying I agree with that approach, especially the flaws such as where the penalty is missed there’s effectively no punishment for the defending team. VAR is making a missed penalty ever less likely though with the strict enforcement of encroachment as discussed previously.
You’re right I think about the rule change ,forgot about it although it’s a flawed as you say.I’m not saying I agree with that approach, especially the flaws such as where the penalty is missed there’s effectively no punishment for the defending team. VAR is making a missed penalty ever less likely though with the strict enforcement of encroachment as discussed previously.
franki68 said:
Keoparakolo said:
I think (amd I’m happy to be corrected if wrong) that the rules changed a few years ago around the professional foul when through one goal. The view was that if outside the penalty area than a red card should be given to the defending player, whereas if inside the area, then a penalty and yellow is sufficient rather than double penalising the defending team.
I’m not saying I agree with that approach, especially the flaws such as where the penalty is missed there’s effectively no punishment for the defending team. VAR is making a missed penalty ever less likely though with the strict enforcement of encroachment as discussed previously.
You’re right I think about the rule change ,forgot about it although it’s a flawed as you say.I’m not saying I agree with that approach, especially the flaws such as where the penalty is missed there’s effectively no punishment for the defending team. VAR is making a missed penalty ever less likely though with the strict enforcement of encroachment as discussed previously.
If it is a professional foul inside the box it's still a red card.
Keoparakolo said:
RichB said:
Surely the Souness idea (any part of body onside) would still have the blokes in Stockley park drawing lines to within millimeters, except they'd be drawing them on the last part of the attacker's and defender's bodies e.g. their trailing foot rather than the front part? It would still decided by millimeters. It needs something like how LBW is decided in cricket where the umpires decision stands if less than 550% of the ball is clipping the stumps. Make it Linesman's decision if it's less than, say, 150mm (6"). It would also mean the linesman has to do something again. Just an idea...
You’ve not exactly solved anything have you with those measurements. 151mm of the whatever vs 149mm, oh well one’s a goal and one isn’t. The difference? Millimetres. The use should be clear and obvious as keeps being mentioned. If it’s not instantly obvious as offside at first look, then it’s not offside. Maybe allow three angles, or something but it should be at first look, not after some quantum physics and nanometre calculations.
RichB said:
rue. So basically, give the blokes at SP 15 seconds and if they can't decide it's not clear and obvious.
The problem with a time limit is that the technology may jam and eat up time, or one operator may be more proficient than another, so able to see more in the time available. Limit it by number of angles or something. I working on the basis it’s here to stay, which I’d rather it wasn’t. Cricket and Rugby League use it and you rarely see a run out given by an umpire on the field in cricket even when the player is 5 years shy of the crease, or a try in RL where everything goes upstairs even when there’s no reason. Frustrating in both those games, I can’t see football doing anything but heading down that route too. We’re going to see strikers retiring having had two seasons worth of goals ruled out on marginal decisions.
Now that the season is half over, I wonder if the officials who are paid handsomely to travel all the way to an office in Stockley Park each match day to watch a single game on TV, whilst dressed in their referee kits, think they are doing a worthwhile job with their limited IT skills and fuzzy red and blue lines? Is that honestly what they signed up for when pursuing a career as football match officials?
andy97 said:
Can of worms. The definition of where obvious is will stir so many arguments. Surprised to see Sheffield Utd to be the worst hit by VAR especially as they are punching above their weight.
Driver101 said:
andy97 said:
Can of worms. The definition of where obvious is will stir so many arguments. Surprised to see Sheffield Utd to be the worst hit by VAR especially as they are punching above their weight.
I think for us, despite being bottom of the VaR net decisions table, it hasn’t necessarily turned into lost points.
We’ve had a few equalisers ruled out for example and have gone on to score another equaliser and then shut up shop and take a point. If VaR had not existed and we got the goals we would have played for the draw, just for longer.
franki68 said:
The rules and the consistency of application it seems to me are a bigger issue than VAR.
Alan Brazil once said "The refs need to be consistent and apply common sense". Seemingly not realising it's when common sense is applied that consistency is lost. Because the laws are the same for everyone, but common sense is variable. Alan Brazil also says that a red card challenge in the first few minutes, if the pitch is slippy or it's a "ding dong derby" as he calls it, obviously shouldn't result in the player being sent off. Because the pitch is slippy and/or it's a ding dong derby, and the ref should apply common sense. How long should this exemption from a red card last, under common sense. 2 mins, 5 mins, 15 mins?
So when such a well known pundit comes out with utter b
ks like that, there's little hope.If we want consistency, people have to realise that refs will never be allowed to use any common sense, and just stick rigidly to the letter of the law.
Driver101 said:
That's the thing all too often. One minute a ref will be praised for not ruining a game by booking people early, next game they are ripped to bits for not nailing players down right away by the very same pundits.
It's not just Brazil that has those kind of views.
Fine use VAR to review the tackles where we all wince, no matter which side you’re supporting. Get rid of it for goal decisions, as all it ever does is spoil the game It's not just Brazil that has those kind of views.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff