How is this supposed to work?
While it's good to see that the International Football Association Board (IFAB) is interested in running trials for VARs, I do not have enough confidence in the process to "support" the idea, until it is made clear how the process is supposed to work.
In other sports - particularly cricket and rugby - TV replays work really well. That's because a video review can be requested by either team when the ball goes dead (cricket) or called-for by the referee when he deems the ball is dead in order to determine which decision to make (rugby). In tennis they are fairly good, but still subject to interpretation ("yes the ball *was* in, but I am going to determine that the receiving player *would have* had the chance to return it, in which case...").
But, how on earth are they supposed to work in football? There are too many situations in football which can cause problems if the decision is left to video refs:
1. The forward takes the ball into the opposition penalty area where he is challenged, goes to the ground and the ball rolls to the goalkeeper, who starts an attack. At which point is the game stopped so that a review is made? Does the video ref have the authority to send the attacker off for diving? If the ref awards the penalty, and the VAR overturns it, the defending side is at a disadvantage (compared to if the ref had declined the penalty and the ball ended up with the keeper).
2. A goal is scored as a result of a several dozen-pass passage of play which, in turn started with a foul throw. How far does the VAR "wind the tape back" to check if it's a goal or not? in reality the goal shouldn't stand - but is it a good thing to decline a goal as a result of a foul throw? Or a foul that took place thirty passes ago?
3. The ball touches a forward's hand. The ref sees it. The forward is then tackled in the area and goes down. The ref asks the VAR for a verdict. The VAR "gives" the handball. What decision gets made? Free-kick against the forward because the bloke watching the telly thought it was a handball? Or not a free kick, because the ref saw it an allowed it?
Football is exciting because it is non-stop. Until we know how these are handled, how can anyone support "video refs" as a concept?
0
Comments
http://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/72023/changes-are-coming#latest
1. One of the toughest situations. I would hope the game can continue while the video guy takes a look. If the play is stopped 10-15 seconds later, that wouldn't be ideal but at least the right decision would be made and the play not broken up for a non-event. I don't think this is how it will work though - the fear is count attacks are rendered impossible.
2. The throw-in shouldn't be in the remit of the video ref, there's no excuse for a lino and ref not seeing that. But I guess if the video guy does spot it and reverse the footage briefly, it wouldn't take him more than 10 seconds, let alone 36 passes to let the ref know anyway.
3. Presumably he would confer with the ref anyway and point out the handball, the ref would relay that it was seen but not awarded, they move on, and make a decision on the foul.
Anyway - it's all basically on the other thread...
I was watching England v Ireland Six Nations recently and the referee consulted with the second official which took at least a minute. Disrupting the game and for me this is a decision to be made by the match official. I always assume that refs don't cheat so they are bound to get some right and some wrong. I like that and the sometime controversy that comes with it.
It's called the beautiful game for a reason. Leave it alone and stop tinkering with what is the most popular sport on the planet. It's pretty much fine as it is.
Else people like Mourinho will use the changes to constantly disrupt the flow of the game (especially if the other side are on top)
Same can happen in Football... You get three appeals...
If Riga says that an opponents goal was offside and he's right, he keeps those three appeals, if he was wrong to appeal then he gets only two more chances to contest a decision that match... If all three appeals get rejected then you lose the right to contest a single decision during the next match.
Means that the ultimate issues can be contested by teams with harsh penalties enforced if you simply use them to waste time.
Going to be very interesting to see how it's use will be regulated.
I don't see any harm in a fifth official sat with a monitor, who reviews important incidents like penalties/penalty claims, potentially missed offsides, red cards, looking purely for clangers (eg. no contact, contact outside the box, goalscorer 5 yards offside) and then signals to the referee. Meanwhile the game has not been stopped.
I don't think managers should be given the chance to appeal, as that would get messy. You don't want a 5 minute break while the referee decides who the ball touched last on its way out for a throw-in.
Forward is through in one on one on the goalie but linesman is convinced he's offside and game is stopped.
Review shows he was actually onside. Now what the hell do you do?
So the linesman doesn't ever put his flag up just in case he's wrong.
For me the main difficulty problem will be that refs become frightened to stop the play and rely on the fact that it can all be put right later by the video ref. Could be very confusing for spectators!
Anyway, it's going your way not mine, so I wouldn't worry about it until that third appeal comes in. At which point I will be digging you out on every post...
You dont see them asking for more (Or you dont appear to see them asking) so it would be for the Governing bodies to turn around and say; You've got your video calls now, its not our fault your not using them correctly.
If people cant agree to some sort of control with the amount of challenges that can be made then I say dont use it
What I am trying to convey is that we already have very strict rules, which do not include eye-in-the-sky technology. If those strict rules can be broken, then there is no reason to believe that your new set of strict rules cannot be broken in the future, and then again, and again.
I know the laws change all the time, we would still have refs sitting on shooting sticks, hacking and tapes for crossbars if they didn't. But this is such an enormous sea change in the way football is refereed, it is unprecedented and it really does draw a very clear line between the haves and have nots - be it within one country's domestic leagues, or the top flight in a rich country like Britain, and a poor one like Nigeria.
Obviously it would need a rule that a challenge can't be called when the ball is in play but I doubt it would seriously slow down the game considering how much time that is wasted with players celebrating a goal that may have been incorrectly given or when players are surrounding the ref in outrage over a red card or setting up for a set piece etc.
I know this would not help in a situation like a player being called wrongly offside for a one on one chance but just because the technology is not able to deal with every situation does not mean we should not use it to help with the problems it can assist in.
I am just tired of watching so many good games completely spoiled by a wrong call that change the result of the game as this is meant to be a sport, a contest of tactics and player ability, not about which team gets lucky because the ref has a bad angle of view for an important decision.
Any further evidence that referees at this level get an overwhelming number of decisions right must be welcome.
Interesting that the new broom at FIFA is throwing it's weight behind this new initiative.
The problem I envisage if it stops the game then surely any club with an unused appeal late in game could simply use it to disrupt the match exactly how subs are used now, so for me if there if such a system in place then for me only the referee can call upon it but it will almost certainly change football as a spectacle as I think referee's will constantly make decisions knowing it can be overturned rather than let it go.
Then if we have to wait for the next stop in play for a review then this is where I have problem as it not inconceivable that might be a minute or so later and that might brought about by a goal, I can just see this being a farce where a goal could be disallowed for an incident that happened two minutes beforehand and for me will open the door for clubs to start demanding that goals where errors went unnoticed at the time are retrospectively scratched off and the remaining minutes replayed.
It is really frustrating to see wrong decisions being made when the evidence is there to give the correct one but I just don't see Video Referees really being anything more than an aid to the Referee in as much as the 4th Official is rather than someone that rights all the wrongs we see because in reality anything further will for me create as many problems as it solves.