100% penalty not awarded for Harry Kane being wrestled to the ground. Anyone want to defend that call?
VAR is superb, but the guys that night looked at Stones being impeded and not Kane being wrestled. The combination of a poor Referee and a poor VAR team which is down to human errors which is no fault of a technology which will improve the % of correct decisions.
So VAR is superb as it misses things.
VAR doesn't miss a thing. A Ref with his own agenda and a VAR team that must've been instructed to limit the amount of overules on wrestling from corners. Maybe despite what FIFA say, they don't want 6 penalties a game for blocking and holding at corners. VAR isn't the problem, human brain freeze is.
Well a penalty was awarded for Croatia the day before for holding in the penalty box during a set piece. That shows an incredible lack of consistency if VAR is picking and choosing what infractions to call out - it's either a foul to drag someone down in the box or it's not, it can't be sometimes ok and sometimes not can it? Where is the fairness in that?
But that error is nothing to do with the VAR system is it, depending on which report is correct, either the VAR Ref decided to ignore it OR the pitch ref was informed and decided not to review. So either way human error, not VAR error. If VAR corrects just one major decision (which it already has) then it's worth it.
I think it's an excellent addition to our game
The officials are part of the VAR system, you cannot separate them because it suits an argument. If the officials fail/cheat then the system has failed/cheated. Until VAR becomes fully automated it's always going to be such.
I'm in favour of the implementation of technology, I'm pro VAR's use in the long run. But to implement it so early in the biggest football tournament in the world when it's still in it's fledgling stages and the majority of the officials have little if any realtime experience with it, has been a mistake in my opinion. It also appears that the direction of VAR's use also seems not to have been ironed out, or at least not been made clear to everyone (including those using it).
Theres been a few soft penalties because or VAR but hasnt anyone else noticed how much the play isnt being stopped. Refs appear to be letting a lot more go, aslong as its outside the box. Its been refreshing to watch to be honest lots of players simply told get up and get on with it.
There we go....prime example of VAR being a mess (even though the right outcome was achieved).
How long after the penalty incident did that review happen? What if Denmark had scored in that time period?
Then Denmark's goal is chalked off and Australia have the penalty awarded. Easy.
That is just absurd? 'Football — should be left alone. It is a human endeavor to be played by flawed people, and officiated by them too. It means everything for 90 minutes, then nothing after. It is catharsis. And VAR takes a little slice of that imperfection away.'
Why is it absurd? I'm really struggling with why giving the correct decisions is absurd...
Your quote is from an article which also lambasts goal line technology.
"Yesterday tiny Northern Ireland failed to qualify for the World Cup next year in Russia, thanks in part to a staggeringly bad decision by referee Ovidiu Hategan. Video assistance would have absolved his error in moments. It would also have robbed us of a talking point, a slew of memes and funny comments and, more importantly, human error." https://medium.com/@seanwilliams85/why-var-in-soccer-is-a-disaster-and-so-is-goal-line-technology-f068dfb3d009
Glad to see that "a slew of memes" is more important than getting to the right decision!
There we go....prime example of VAR being a mess (even though the right outcome was achieved).
How long after the penalty incident did that review happen? What if Denmark had scored in that time period?
Then Denmark's goal is chalked off and Australia have the penalty awarded. Easy.
That is just absurd? 'Football — should be left alone. It is a human endeavor to be played by flawed people, and officiated by them too. It means everything for 90 minutes, then nothing after. It is catharsis. And VAR takes a little slice of that imperfection away.'
Why is it absurd? I'm really struggling with why giving the correct decisions is absurd...
Your quote is from an article which also lambasts goal line technology.
"Yesterday tiny Northern Ireland failed to qualify for the World Cup next year in Russia, thanks in part to a staggeringly bad decision by referee Ovidiu Hategan. Video assistance would have absolved his error in moments. It would also have robbed us of a talking point, a slew of memes and funny comments and, more importantly, human error." https://medium.com/@seanwilliams85/why-var-in-soccer-is-a-disaster-and-so-is-goal-line-technology-f068dfb3d009
Glad to see that "a slew of memes" is more important than getting to the right decision!
Goal line technology is fine because its objective and so quick, fine the article isn't the best but imo you're viewing football like a robot. It's absurd because how can you celebrate a goal like mad, and then the next minute you're about to concede a penalty? It will get to the point fans will question whether there goal really stood due to a foul in the build up or the other end of the pitch. It kills raw emotion. I'm guessing you watch football on the TV more than live games?
I've watched hundreds of live games. I don't buy the raw emotion killing argument. Have yet to see evidence of it and think it's massively overstated.
Wouldn't the truly absurd situation be a World Cup final decided by an incorrect refereeing decision?
No, would be a shame but that's part of football. Aguero's goal against QPR is overturned due to a foul in the build up, technically it may be the right decision, but healthy for the sport?
I've watched hundreds of live games. I don't buy the raw emotion killing argument. Have yet to see evidence of it and think it's massively overstated.
Wouldn't the truly absurd situation be a World Cup final decided by an incorrect refereeing decision?
No, would be a shame but that's part of football. Aguero's goal against QPR is overturned due to a foul in the build up, technically it may be the right decision, but healthy for the sport?
If that was the case... there's no technically about it. It is the right decision, therefore it is healthy for the sport.
I've watched hundreds of live games. I don't buy the raw emotion killing argument. Have yet to see evidence of it and think it's massively overstated.
Wouldn't the truly absurd situation be a World Cup final decided by an incorrect refereeing decision?
No, would be a shame but that's part of football. Aguero's goal against QPR is overturned due to a foul in the build up, technically it may be the right decision, but healthy for the sport?
If that was the case... there's no technically about it. It is the right decision, therefore it is healthy for the sport.
In my opinion human/refereeing error is part of football and provides us with controversy and different views, which i personally enjoy. In your opinion you want every refereeing decision to be right, fair enough, i personally am happy with the way it is.
Complete f******* joke of an idea to bring this stupid system onto the world stage when nobody in charge of operating it or working with it knows how it bloody works!
Going to cost some poor nation big time in the latter stages of this tournament. ...And it'll probably be us.
Staggered that some are claiming australia goal is a good example of VAR. Very marginal decision, certainly not a clear & obvious error, the result is less consistency than ever
Going to cost some poor nation big time in the latter stages of this tournament. ...And it'll probably be us.
Almost did the other night with 2 missed penalties and a soft one given to Tunisia albeit they only agreed with the ref in that case.
I am not sure there was any doubt with Kane's winner though so that should have stopped anyone celebrating.
Even in tonight's gamer which Croatia deserved to win as Argentina were so poor the 1st scorer might well have been sent off for a bad tackle in the 1st half.
So I do agree that seems to still be inconsistency in decision making and it would be nice to hear the conversation going on as per rugby.
Certainly hasn't just been used for "clear and obvious" errors as I understood the VAR was in for,
They seem to worry fans are going to kick off if a decision is changed...well we aren't all Millwall/West Ham types are we!
As for any players trying to get the refs to use it - just give them a yellow for dissent.
100% penalty not awarded for Harry Kane being wrestled to the ground. Anyone want to defend that call?
VAR is superb, but the guys that night looked at Stones being impeded and not Kane being wrestled. The combination of a poor Referee and a poor VAR team which is down to human errors which is no fault of a technology which will improve the % of correct decisions.
So VAR is superb as it misses things.
VAR doesn't miss a thing. A Ref with his own agenda and a VAR team that must've been instructed to limit the amount of overules on wrestling from corners. Maybe despite what FIFA say, they don't want 6 penalties a game for blocking and holding at corners. VAR isn't the problem, human brain freeze is.
Well a penalty was awarded for Croatia the day before for holding in the penalty box during a set piece. That shows an incredible lack of consistency if VAR is picking and choosing what infractions to call out - it's either a foul to drag someone down in the box or it's not, it can't be sometimes ok and sometimes not can it? Where is the fairness in that?
But that error is nothing to do with the VAR system is it, depending on which report is correct, either the VAR Ref decided to ignore it OR the pitch ref was informed and decided not to review. So either way human error, not VAR error. If VAR corrects just one major decision (which it already has) then it's worth it.
I think it's an excellent addition to our game
The officials are part of the VAR system, you cannot separate them because it suits an argument. If the officials fail/cheat then the system has failed/cheated. Until VAR becomes fully automated it's always going to be such.
I'm in favour of the implementation of technology, I'm pro VAR's use in the long run. But to implement it so early in the biggest football tournament in the world when it's still in it's fledgling stages and the majority of the officials have little if any realtime experience with it, has been a mistake in my opinion. It also appears that the direction of VAR's use also seems not to have been ironed out, or at least not been made clear to everyone (including those using it).
Its not about suiting an argument or point of view, or in this case a fact. VAR was introduced to eliminate human error, the fact that in the Harry Cane incident, either the VAR ref didn't contact the on pitch ref to review or they did and he declined is human error, so its not VARs fault is it. I understand that all the officials involved were investigated by FIFA and no doubt changes have been made. It makes me laugh that such a massive positive change to our game as been implemented, and all the nay sayers expect it to work 100% from day one, or in this case tournament one, or its going to stop all and every error, to think both is naive in the extreme. The bottom line is that if VAR corrects just one major decision, which it has done, then its is a success, it can be nothing else. Ot course there will always be subjectivity, take the Danish penalty yesterday, but in the case of that incident, the defenders hand was raised so by the letter of the law its a penalty kick, however subjectivity will always happen. Its here to say, get used to it, but the negative self appointed protectors of the beautiful game dont like it, they are probably the same dinosaurs who didn't like subs rising from one to whatever we have now, or even when the clubs took the brass bands away at half time.
100% penalty not awarded for Harry Kane being wrestled to the ground. Anyone want to defend that call?
VAR is superb, but the guys that night looked at Stones being impeded and not Kane being wrestled. The combination of a poor Referee and a poor VAR team which is down to human errors which is no fault of a technology which will improve the % of correct decisions.
So VAR is superb as it misses things.
VAR doesn't miss a thing. A Ref with his own agenda and a VAR team that must've been instructed to limit the amount of overules on wrestling from corners. Maybe despite what FIFA say, they don't want 6 penalties a game for blocking and holding at corners. VAR isn't the problem, human brain freeze is.
Well a penalty was awarded for Croatia the day before for holding in the penalty box during a set piece. That shows an incredible lack of consistency if VAR is picking and choosing what infractions to call out - it's either a foul to drag someone down in the box or it's not, it can't be sometimes ok and sometimes not can it? Where is the fairness in that?
But that error is nothing to do with the VAR system is it, depending on which report is correct, either the VAR Ref decided to ignore it OR the pitch ref was informed and decided not to review. So either way human error, not VAR error. If VAR corrects just one major decision (which it already has) then it's worth it.
I think it's an excellent addition to our game
The officials are part of the VAR system, you cannot separate them because it suits an argument. If the officials fail/cheat then the system has failed/cheated. Until VAR becomes fully automated it's always going to be such.
I'm in favour of the implementation of technology, I'm pro VAR's use in the long run. But to implement it so early in the biggest football tournament in the world when it's still in it's fledgling stages and the majority of the officials have little if any realtime experience with it, has been a mistake in my opinion. It also appears that the direction of VAR's use also seems not to have been ironed out, or at least not been made clear to everyone (including those using it).
Its not about suiting an argument or point of view, or in this case a fact. VAR was introduced to eliminate human error, the fact that in the Harry Cane incident, either the VAR ref didn't contact the on pitch ref to review or they did and he declined is human error, so its not VARs fault is it. I understand that all the officials involved were investigated by FIFA and no doubt changes have been made. It makes me laugh that such a massive positive change to our game as been implemented, and all the nay sayers expect it to work 100% from day one, or in this case tournament one, or its going to stop all and every error, to think both is naive in the extreme. The bottom line is that if VAR corrects just one major decision, which it has done, then its is a success, it can be nothing else. Ot course there will always be subjectivity, take the Danish penalty yesterday, but in the case of that incident, the defenders hand was raised so by the letter of the law its a penalty kick, however subjectivity will always happen. Its here to say, get used to it, but the negative self appointed protectors of the beautiful game dont like it, they are probably the same dinosaurs who didn't like subs rising from one to whatever we have now, or even when the clubs took the brass bands away at half time.
What a silly comment, football evolves all the time, and some changes are welcome and others bizarre. VAR does nothing but move mistakes from the playing area into a TV room somewhere miles away...Ref misses it and so the do VAR people, what really is the point. Don't say to eliminate mistakes as there are loads during a game including giving free kicks that should not be, corners, throws etc. If you are going to use it properly, sit the ref in the main stand in front of a TV screen and let him referee it from there.
100% penalty not awarded for Harry Kane being wrestled to the ground. Anyone want to defend that call?
VAR is superb, but the guys that night looked at Stones being impeded and not Kane being wrestled. The combination of a poor Referee and a poor VAR team which is down to human errors which is no fault of a technology which will improve the % of correct decisions.
So VAR is superb as it misses things.
VAR doesn't miss a thing. A Ref with his own agenda and a VAR team that must've been instructed to limit the amount of overules on wrestling from corners. Maybe despite what FIFA say, they don't want 6 penalties a game for blocking and holding at corners. VAR isn't the problem, human brain freeze is.
Well a penalty was awarded for Croatia the day before for holding in the penalty box during a set piece. That shows an incredible lack of consistency if VAR is picking and choosing what infractions to call out - it's either a foul to drag someone down in the box or it's not, it can't be sometimes ok and sometimes not can it? Where is the fairness in that?
But that error is nothing to do with the VAR system is it, depending on which report is correct, either the VAR Ref decided to ignore it OR the pitch ref was informed and decided not to review. So either way human error, not VAR error. If VAR corrects just one major decision (which it already has) then it's worth it.
I think it's an excellent addition to our game
The officials are part of the VAR system, you cannot separate them because it suits an argument. If the officials fail/cheat then the system has failed/cheated. Until VAR becomes fully automated it's always going to be such.
I'm in favour of the implementation of technology, I'm pro VAR's use in the long run. But to implement it so early in the biggest football tournament in the world when it's still in it's fledgling stages and the majority of the officials have little if any realtime experience with it, has been a mistake in my opinion. It also appears that the direction of VAR's use also seems not to have been ironed out, or at least not been made clear to everyone (including those using it).
Its not about suiting an argument or point of view, or in this case a fact. VAR was introduced to eliminate human error, the fact that in the Harry Cane incident, either the VAR ref didn't contact the on pitch ref to review or they did and he declined is human error, so its not VARs fault is it. I understand that all the officials involved were investigated by FIFA and no doubt changes have been made. It makes me laugh that such a massive positive change to our game as been implemented, and all the nay sayers expect it to work 100% from day one, or in this case tournament one, or its going to stop all and every error, to think both is naive in the extreme. The bottom line is that if VAR corrects just one major decision, which it has done, then its is a success, it can be nothing else. Ot course there will always be subjectivity, take the Danish penalty yesterday, but in the case of that incident, the defenders hand was raised so by the letter of the law its a penalty kick, however subjectivity will always happen. Its here to say, get used to it, but the negative self appointed protectors of the beautiful game dont like it, they are probably the same dinosaurs who didn't like subs rising from one to whatever we have now, or even when the clubs took the brass bands away at half time.
What a silly comment, football evolves all the time, and some changes are welcome and others bizarre. VAR does nothing but move mistakes from the playing area into a TV room somewhere miles away...Ref misses it and so the do VAR people, what really is the point. Don't say to eliminate mistakes as there are loads during a game including giving free kicks that should not be, corners, throws etc. If you are going to use it properly, sit the ref in the main stand in front of a TV screen and let him referee it from there.
During your play time, did you actually read what I posted ?
100% penalty not awarded for Harry Kane being wrestled to the ground. Anyone want to defend that call?
VAR is superb, but the guys that night looked at Stones being impeded and not Kane being wrestled. The combination of a poor Referee and a poor VAR team which is down to human errors which is no fault of a technology which will improve the % of correct decisions.
So VAR is superb as it misses things.
VAR doesn't miss a thing. A Ref with his own agenda and a VAR team that must've been instructed to limit the amount of overules on wrestling from corners. Maybe despite what FIFA say, they don't want 6 penalties a game for blocking and holding at corners. VAR isn't the problem, human brain freeze is.
Well a penalty was awarded for Croatia the day before for holding in the penalty box during a set piece. That shows an incredible lack of consistency if VAR is picking and choosing what infractions to call out - it's either a foul to drag someone down in the box or it's not, it can't be sometimes ok and sometimes not can it? Where is the fairness in that?
But that error is nothing to do with the VAR system is it, depending on which report is correct, either the VAR Ref decided to ignore it OR the pitch ref was informed and decided not to review. So either way human error, not VAR error. If VAR corrects just one major decision (which it already has) then it's worth it.
I think it's an excellent addition to our game
The officials are part of the VAR system, you cannot separate them because it suits an argument. If the officials fail/cheat then the system has failed/cheated. Until VAR becomes fully automated it's always going to be such.
I'm in favour of the implementation of technology, I'm pro VAR's use in the long run. But to implement it so early in the biggest football tournament in the world when it's still in it's fledgling stages and the majority of the officials have little if any realtime experience with it, has been a mistake in my opinion. It also appears that the direction of VAR's use also seems not to have been ironed out, or at least not been made clear to everyone (including those using it).
Its not about suiting an argument or point of view, or in this case a fact. VAR was introduced to eliminate human error, the fact that in the Harry Cane incident, either the VAR ref didn't contact the on pitch ref to review or they did and he declined is human error, so its not VARs fault is it. I understand that all the officials involved were investigated by FIFA and no doubt changes have been made. It makes me laugh that such a massive positive change to our game as been implemented, and all the nay sayers expect it to work 100% from day one, or in this case tournament one, or its going to stop all and every error, to think both is naive in the extreme. The bottom line is that if VAR corrects just one major decision, which it has done, then its is a success, it can be nothing else. Ot course there will always be subjectivity, take the Danish penalty yesterday, but in the case of that incident, the defenders hand was raised so by the letter of the law its a penalty kick, however subjectivity will always happen. Its here to say, get used to it, but the negative self appointed protectors of the beautiful game dont like it, they are probably the same dinosaurs who didn't like subs rising from one to whatever we have now, or even when the clubs took the brass bands away at half time.
What a silly comment, football evolves all the time, and some changes are welcome and others bizarre. VAR does nothing but move mistakes from the playing area into a TV room somewhere miles away...Ref misses it and so the do VAR people, what really is the point. Don't say to eliminate mistakes as there are loads during a game including giving free kicks that should not be, corners, throws etc. If you are going to use it properly, sit the ref in the main stand in front of a TV screen and let him referee it from there.
With utmost respect @Chippycafc your knowledge about refereeing comes across as being really naive.
The single biggest quality of a referee is that of "man management". This requires being close and personal to players; it requires having a match raporte with players for 90 minutes. Simply giving match decisons, although important, is only part of the skills required by referees. Man mangement techniques cannot be carried at distance although it could be argued that foul-related decision making can.
VAR has been a great success so far. Almost every time it has been used to over turn a decision by the ref it has been correct. The penalty for Australia was the refs fault, not VAR. Also, we are seeing defenders take more care at set pieces as it becomes clear they can no longer get away with the grappling that always use to take place. The fact that the fouls against Kane were missed will be the exception rather than the rule by the end of this world cup.
What I've noticed is that some blatant penalties aren't being awarded by the referees and are then being awarded correctly by the VAR team.
Makes VAR look great, but are we in danger of refs never giving anything knowing they have a backroom staff to help out?
Or it proves that the game is so much faster now and there is a lot to see during corners, so the poor buggers cant see everything, but VAR can and does.
Anti-VAR crowd: "We like the errors human refs make, it's a sport played by fallible humans and should be officiated in the same way. If there's no mistakes what will we talk about in the pub later?"
One of the human operators of VAR makes a mistake.
Anti-VAR crowd "Not like that! What's the point in having VAR if it makes mistakes, I want all my mistakes made in person on the pitch, not at any other distance or any other way, I have very specific requirements for the type of mistake I want to keep and equally stringent requirements about the type of mistake I don't like"
Anti-VAR crowd: "We like the errors human refs make, it's a sport played by fallible humans and should be officiated in the same way. If there's no mistakes what will we talk about in the pub later?"
One of the human operators of VAR makes a mistake.
Anti-VAR crowd "Not like that! What's the point in having VAR if it makes mistakes, I want all my mistakes made in person on the pitch, not at any other distance or any other way, I have very specific requirements for the type of mistake I want to keep and equally stringent requirements about the type of mistake I don't like"
Yes, its astonishing mate, the old duffers just don't like change do they?
100% penalty not awarded for Harry Kane being wrestled to the ground. Anyone want to defend that call?
VAR is superb, but the guys that night looked at Stones being impeded and not Kane being wrestled. The combination of a poor Referee and a poor VAR team which is down to human errors which is no fault of a technology which will improve the % of correct decisions.
So VAR is superb as it misses things.
VAR doesn't miss a thing. A Ref with his own agenda and a VAR team that must've been instructed to limit the amount of overules on wrestling from corners. Maybe despite what FIFA say, they don't want 6 penalties a game for blocking and holding at corners. VAR isn't the problem, human brain freeze is.
Well a penalty was awarded for Croatia the day before for holding in the penalty box during a set piece. That shows an incredible lack of consistency if VAR is picking and choosing what infractions to call out - it's either a foul to drag someone down in the box or it's not, it can't be sometimes ok and sometimes not can it? Where is the fairness in that?
But that error is nothing to do with the VAR system is it, depending on which report is correct, either the VAR Ref decided to ignore it OR the pitch ref was informed and decided not to review. So either way human error, not VAR error. If VAR corrects just one major decision (which it already has) then it's worth it.
I think it's an excellent addition to our game
The officials are part of the VAR system, you cannot separate them because it suits an argument. If the officials fail/cheat then the system has failed/cheated. Until VAR becomes fully automated it's always going to be such.
I'm in favour of the implementation of technology, I'm pro VAR's use in the long run. But to implement it so early in the biggest football tournament in the world when it's still in it's fledgling stages and the majority of the officials have little if any realtime experience with it, has been a mistake in my opinion. It also appears that the direction of VAR's use also seems not to have been ironed out, or at least not been made clear to everyone (including those using it).
Its not about suiting an argument or point of view, or in this case a fact. VAR was introduced to eliminate human error, the fact that in the Harry Cane incident, either the VAR ref didn't contact the on pitch ref to review or they did and he declined is human error, so its not VARs fault is it. I understand that all the officials involved were investigated by FIFA and no doubt changes have been made. It makes me laugh that such a massive positive change to our game as been implemented, and all the nay sayers expect it to work 100% from day one, or in this case tournament one, or its going to stop all and every error, to think both is naive in the extreme. The bottom line is that if VAR corrects just one major decision, which it has done, then its is a success, it can be nothing else. Ot course there will always be subjectivity, take the Danish penalty yesterday, but in the case of that incident, the defenders hand was raised so by the letter of the law its a penalty kick, however subjectivity will always happen. Its here to say, get used to it, but the negative self appointed protectors of the beautiful game dont like it, they are probably the same dinosaurs who didn't like subs rising from one to whatever we have now, or even when the clubs took the brass bands away at half time.
What a silly comment, football evolves all the time, and some changes are welcome and others bizarre. VAR does nothing but move mistakes from the playing area into a TV room somewhere miles away...Ref misses it and so the do VAR people, what really is the point. Don't say to eliminate mistakes as there are loads during a game including giving free kicks that should not be, corners, throws etc. If you are going to use it properly, sit the ref in the main stand in front of a TV screen and let him referee it from there.
With utmost respect @Chippycafc your knowledge about refereeing comes across as being really naive.
The single biggest quality of a referee is that of "man management". This requires being close and personal to players; it requires having a match raporte with players for 90 minutes. Simply giving match decisons, although important, is only part of the skills required by referees. Man mangement techniques cannot be carried at distance although it could be argued that foul-related decision making can.
Hi mate, i understand all that cant understand why people want to bring in another level of match refereeing. The idea was to eliminate ALL mistakes it clearly does not. I was being sarcastic when i stated sitting the ref in the stand, thought that was fairly obvious.
100% penalty not awarded for Harry Kane being wrestled to the ground. Anyone want to defend that call?
VAR is superb, but the guys that night looked at Stones being impeded and not Kane being wrestled. The combination of a poor Referee and a poor VAR team which is down to human errors which is no fault of a technology which will improve the % of correct decisions.
So VAR is superb as it misses things.
VAR doesn't miss a thing. A Ref with his own agenda and a VAR team that must've been instructed to limit the amount of overules on wrestling from corners. Maybe despite what FIFA say, they don't want 6 penalties a game for blocking and holding at corners. VAR isn't the problem, human brain freeze is.
Well a penalty was awarded for Croatia the day before for holding in the penalty box during a set piece. That shows an incredible lack of consistency if VAR is picking and choosing what infractions to call out - it's either a foul to drag someone down in the box or it's not, it can't be sometimes ok and sometimes not can it? Where is the fairness in that?
But that error is nothing to do with the VAR system is it, depending on which report is correct, either the VAR Ref decided to ignore it OR the pitch ref was informed and decided not to review. So either way human error, not VAR error. If VAR corrects just one major decision (which it already has) then it's worth it.
I think it's an excellent addition to our game
The officials are part of the VAR system, you cannot separate them because it suits an argument. If the officials fail/cheat then the system has failed/cheated. Until VAR becomes fully automated it's always going to be such.
I'm in favour of the implementation of technology, I'm pro VAR's use in the long run. But to implement it so early in the biggest football tournament in the world when it's still in it's fledgling stages and the majority of the officials have little if any realtime experience with it, has been a mistake in my opinion. It also appears that the direction of VAR's use also seems not to have been ironed out, or at least not been made clear to everyone (including those using it).
Its not about suiting an argument or point of view, or in this case a fact. VAR was introduced to eliminate human error, the fact that in the Harry Cane incident, either the VAR ref didn't contact the on pitch ref to review or they did and he declined is human error, so its not VARs fault is it. I understand that all the officials involved were investigated by FIFA and no doubt changes have been made. It makes me laugh that such a massive positive change to our game as been implemented, and all the nay sayers expect it to work 100% from day one, or in this case tournament one, or its going to stop all and every error, to think both is naive in the extreme. The bottom line is that if VAR corrects just one major decision, which it has done, then its is a success, it can be nothing else. Ot course there will always be subjectivity, take the Danish penalty yesterday, but in the case of that incident, the defenders hand was raised so by the letter of the law its a penalty kick, however subjectivity will always happen. Its here to say, get used to it, but the negative self appointed protectors of the beautiful game dont like it, they are probably the same dinosaurs who didn't like subs rising from one to whatever we have now, or even when the clubs took the brass bands away at half time.
What a silly comment, football evolves all the time, and some changes are welcome and others bizarre. VAR does nothing but move mistakes from the playing area into a TV room somewhere miles away...Ref misses it and so the do VAR people, what really is the point. Don't say to eliminate mistakes as there are loads during a game including giving free kicks that should not be, corners, throws etc. If you are going to use it properly, sit the ref in the main stand in front of a TV screen and let him referee it from there.
With utmost respect @Chippycafc your knowledge about refereeing comes across as being really naive.
The single biggest quality of a referee is that of "man management". This requires being close and personal to players; it requires having a match raporte with players for 90 minutes. Simply giving match decisons, although important, is only part of the skills required by referees. Man mangement techniques cannot be carried at distance although it could be argued that foul-related decision making can.
Hi mate, i understand all that cant understand why people want to bring in another level of match refereeing. The idea was to eliminate ALL mistakes it clearly does not. I was being sarcastic when i stated sitting the ref in the stand, thought that was fairly obvious.
Where did you get that idea? I've never heard that as the stated aim and it's clearly impossible with currently technology, maybe impossible no matter what. The aim was to improve decision making around making incidents, which we are already seeing happen.
If you try to hold something to an impossible standard then it will always fail, which is clearly what you want. Already on this thread you've attacked VAR for making too many and not enough mistakes.
What I've noticed is that some blatant penalties aren't being awarded by the referees and are then being awarded correctly by the VAR team.
Makes VAR look great, but are we in danger of refs never giving anything knowing they have a backroom staff to help out?
Hear hear..like having extra linesman by the goal in champions league games, that hasn't worked either, as all managers do is moan why did the ref give or not give it when he had someone closer who did/didn't. Leave the game alone. I will say it again, technology should only be used for matter of fact, not matters of opinion.
100% penalty not awarded for Harry Kane being wrestled to the ground. Anyone want to defend that call?
VAR is superb, but the guys that night looked at Stones being impeded and not Kane being wrestled. The combination of a poor Referee and a poor VAR team which is down to human errors which is no fault of a technology which will improve the % of correct decisions.
So VAR is superb as it misses things.
VAR doesn't miss a thing. A Ref with his own agenda and a VAR team that must've been instructed to limit the amount of overules on wrestling from corners. Maybe despite what FIFA say, they don't want 6 penalties a game for blocking and holding at corners. VAR isn't the problem, human brain freeze is.
Well a penalty was awarded for Croatia the day before for holding in the penalty box during a set piece. That shows an incredible lack of consistency if VAR is picking and choosing what infractions to call out - it's either a foul to drag someone down in the box or it's not, it can't be sometimes ok and sometimes not can it? Where is the fairness in that?
But that error is nothing to do with the VAR system is it, depending on which report is correct, either the VAR Ref decided to ignore it OR the pitch ref was informed and decided not to review. So either way human error, not VAR error. If VAR corrects just one major decision (which it already has) then it's worth it.
I think it's an excellent addition to our game
The officials are part of the VAR system, you cannot separate them because it suits an argument. If the officials fail/cheat then the system has failed/cheated. Until VAR becomes fully automated it's always going to be such.
I'm in favour of the implementation of technology, I'm pro VAR's use in the long run. But to implement it so early in the biggest football tournament in the world when it's still in it's fledgling stages and the majority of the officials have little if any realtime experience with it, has been a mistake in my opinion. It also appears that the direction of VAR's use also seems not to have been ironed out, or at least not been made clear to everyone (including those using it).
Its not about suiting an argument or point of view, or in this case a fact. VAR was introduced to eliminate human error, the fact that in the Harry Cane incident, either the VAR ref didn't contact the on pitch ref to review or they did and he declined is human error, so its not VARs fault is it. I understand that all the officials involved were investigated by FIFA and no doubt changes have been made. It makes me laugh that such a massive positive change to our game as been implemented, and all the nay sayers expect it to work 100% from day one, or in this case tournament one, or its going to stop all and every error, to think both is naive in the extreme. The bottom line is that if VAR corrects just one major decision, which it has done, then its is a success, it can be nothing else. Ot course there will always be subjectivity, take the Danish penalty yesterday, but in the case of that incident, the defenders hand was raised so by the letter of the law its a penalty kick, however subjectivity will always happen. Its here to say, get used to it, but the negative self appointed protectors of the beautiful game dont like it, they are probably the same dinosaurs who didn't like subs rising from one to whatever we have now, or even when the clubs took the brass bands away at half time.
What a silly comment, football evolves all the time, and some changes are welcome and others bizarre. VAR does nothing but move mistakes from the playing area into a TV room somewhere miles away...Ref misses it and so the do VAR people, what really is the point. Don't say to eliminate mistakes as there are loads during a game including giving free kicks that should not be, corners, throws etc. If you are going to use it properly, sit the ref in the main stand in front of a TV screen and let him referee it from there.
With utmost respect @Chippycafc your knowledge about refereeing comes across as being really naive.
The single biggest quality of a referee is that of "man management". This requires being close and personal to players; it requires having a match raporte with players for 90 minutes. Simply giving match decisons, although important, is only part of the skills required by referees. Man mangement techniques cannot be carried at distance although it could be argued that foul-related decision making can.
Hi mate, i understand all that cant understand why people want to bring in another level of match refereeing. The idea was to eliminate ALL mistakes it clearly does not. I was being sarcastic when i stated sitting the ref in the stand, thought that was fairly obvious.
Where did you get that idea? I've never heard that as the stated aim and it's clearly impossible with currently technology, maybe impossible no matter what. The aim was to improve decision making around making incidents, which we are already seeing happen.
If you try to hold something to an impossible standard then it will always fail, which is clearly what you want. Already on this thread you've attacked VAR for making too many and not enough mistakes.
It has been mentioned several times, go back and read it from the start and on other threads based on the same. Most if not all football pundits (obviously those that have played the game and know about it) think the same...
100% penalty not awarded for Harry Kane being wrestled to the ground. Anyone want to defend that call?
VAR is superb, but the guys that night looked at Stones being impeded and not Kane being wrestled. The combination of a poor Referee and a poor VAR team which is down to human errors which is no fault of a technology which will improve the % of correct decisions.
So VAR is superb as it misses things.
VAR doesn't miss a thing. A Ref with his own agenda and a VAR team that must've been instructed to limit the amount of overules on wrestling from corners. Maybe despite what FIFA say, they don't want 6 penalties a game for blocking and holding at corners. VAR isn't the problem, human brain freeze is.
Well a penalty was awarded for Croatia the day before for holding in the penalty box during a set piece. That shows an incredible lack of consistency if VAR is picking and choosing what infractions to call out - it's either a foul to drag someone down in the box or it's not, it can't be sometimes ok and sometimes not can it? Where is the fairness in that?
But that error is nothing to do with the VAR system is it, depending on which report is correct, either the VAR Ref decided to ignore it OR the pitch ref was informed and decided not to review. So either way human error, not VAR error. If VAR corrects just one major decision (which it already has) then it's worth it.
I think it's an excellent addition to our game
The officials are part of the VAR system, you cannot separate them because it suits an argument. If the officials fail/cheat then the system has failed/cheated. Until VAR becomes fully automated it's always going to be such.
I'm in favour of the implementation of technology, I'm pro VAR's use in the long run. But to implement it so early in the biggest football tournament in the world when it's still in it's fledgling stages and the majority of the officials have little if any realtime experience with it, has been a mistake in my opinion. It also appears that the direction of VAR's use also seems not to have been ironed out, or at least not been made clear to everyone (including those using it).
Its not about suiting an argument or point of view, or in this case a fact. VAR was introduced to eliminate human error, the fact that in the Harry Cane incident, either the VAR ref didn't contact the on pitch ref to review or they did and he declined is human error, so its not VARs fault is it. I understand that all the officials involved were investigated by FIFA and no doubt changes have been made. It makes me laugh that such a massive positive change to our game as been implemented, and all the nay sayers expect it to work 100% from day one, or in this case tournament one, or its going to stop all and every error, to think both is naive in the extreme. The bottom line is that if VAR corrects just one major decision, which it has done, then its is a success, it can be nothing else. Ot course there will always be subjectivity, take the Danish penalty yesterday, but in the case of that incident, the defenders hand was raised so by the letter of the law its a penalty kick, however subjectivity will always happen. Its here to say, get used to it, but the negative self appointed protectors of the beautiful game dont like it, they are probably the same dinosaurs who didn't like subs rising from one to whatever we have now, or even when the clubs took the brass bands away at half time.
What a silly comment, football evolves all the time, and some changes are welcome and others bizarre. VAR does nothing but move mistakes from the playing area into a TV room somewhere miles away...Ref misses it and so the do VAR people, what really is the point. Don't say to eliminate mistakes as there are loads during a game including giving free kicks that should not be, corners, throws etc. If you are going to use it properly, sit the ref in the main stand in front of a TV screen and let him referee it from there.
With utmost respect @Chippycafc your knowledge about refereeing comes across as being really naive.
The single biggest quality of a referee is that of "man management". This requires being close and personal to players; it requires having a match raporte with players for 90 minutes. Simply giving match decisons, although important, is only part of the skills required by referees. Man mangement techniques cannot be carried at distance although it could be argued that foul-related decision making can.
Hi mate, i understand all that cant understand why people want to bring in another level of match refereeing. The idea was to eliminate ALL mistakes it clearly does not. I was being sarcastic when i stated sitting the ref in the stand, thought that was fairly obvious.
Where did you get that idea? I've never heard that as the stated aim and it's clearly impossible with currently technology, maybe impossible no matter what. The aim was to improve decision making around making incidents, which we are already seeing happen.
If you try to hold something to an impossible standard then it will always fail, which is clearly what you want. Already on this thread you've attacked VAR for making too many and not enough mistakes.
It has been mentioned several times, go back and read it from the start and on other threads based on the same. Most if not all football pundits (obviously those that have played the game and know about it) think the same...
100% penalty not awarded for Harry Kane being wrestled to the ground. Anyone want to defend that call?
VAR is superb, but the guys that night looked at Stones being impeded and not Kane being wrestled. The combination of a poor Referee and a poor VAR team which is down to human errors which is no fault of a technology which will improve the % of correct decisions.
So VAR is superb as it misses things.
VAR doesn't miss a thing. A Ref with his own agenda and a VAR team that must've been instructed to limit the amount of overules on wrestling from corners. Maybe despite what FIFA say, they don't want 6 penalties a game for blocking and holding at corners. VAR isn't the problem, human brain freeze is.
Well a penalty was awarded for Croatia the day before for holding in the penalty box during a set piece. That shows an incredible lack of consistency if VAR is picking and choosing what infractions to call out - it's either a foul to drag someone down in the box or it's not, it can't be sometimes ok and sometimes not can it? Where is the fairness in that?
But that error is nothing to do with the VAR system is it, depending on which report is correct, either the VAR Ref decided to ignore it OR the pitch ref was informed and decided not to review. So either way human error, not VAR error. If VAR corrects just one major decision (which it already has) then it's worth it.
I think it's an excellent addition to our game
The officials are part of the VAR system, you cannot separate them because it suits an argument. If the officials fail/cheat then the system has failed/cheated. Until VAR becomes fully automated it's always going to be such.
I'm in favour of the implementation of technology, I'm pro VAR's use in the long run. But to implement it so early in the biggest football tournament in the world when it's still in it's fledgling stages and the majority of the officials have little if any realtime experience with it, has been a mistake in my opinion. It also appears that the direction of VAR's use also seems not to have been ironed out, or at least not been made clear to everyone (including those using it).
Its not about suiting an argument or point of view, or in this case a fact. VAR was introduced to eliminate human error, the fact that in the Harry Cane incident, either the VAR ref didn't contact the on pitch ref to review or they did and he declined is human error, so its not VARs fault is it. I understand that all the officials involved were investigated by FIFA and no doubt changes have been made. It makes me laugh that such a massive positive change to our game as been implemented, and all the nay sayers expect it to work 100% from day one, or in this case tournament one, or its going to stop all and every error, to think both is naive in the extreme. The bottom line is that if VAR corrects just one major decision, which it has done, then its is a success, it can be nothing else. Ot course there will always be subjectivity, take the Danish penalty yesterday, but in the case of that incident, the defenders hand was raised so by the letter of the law its a penalty kick, however subjectivity will always happen. Its here to say, get used to it, but the negative self appointed protectors of the beautiful game dont like it, they are probably the same dinosaurs who didn't like subs rising from one to whatever we have now, or even when the clubs took the brass bands away at half time.
What a silly comment, football evolves all the time, and some changes are welcome and others bizarre. VAR does nothing but move mistakes from the playing area into a TV room somewhere miles away...Ref misses it and so the do VAR people, what really is the point. Don't say to eliminate mistakes as there are loads during a game including giving free kicks that should not be, corners, throws etc. If you are going to use it properly, sit the ref in the main stand in front of a TV screen and let him referee it from there.
With utmost respect @Chippycafc your knowledge about refereeing comes across as being really naive.
The single biggest quality of a referee is that of "man management". This requires being close and personal to players; it requires having a match raporte with players for 90 minutes. Simply giving match decisons, although important, is only part of the skills required by referees. Man mangement techniques cannot be carried at distance although it could be argued that foul-related decision making can.
Hi mate, i understand all that cant understand why people want to bring in another level of match refereeing. The idea was to eliminate ALL mistakes it clearly does not. I was being sarcastic when i stated sitting the ref in the stand, thought that was fairly obvious.
Where did you get that idea? I've never heard that as the stated aim and it's clearly impossible with currently technology, maybe impossible no matter what. The aim was to improve decision making around making incidents, which we are already seeing happen.
If you try to hold something to an impossible standard then it will always fail, which is clearly what you want. Already on this thread you've attacked VAR for making too many and not enough mistakes.
It has been mentioned several times, go back and read it from the start and on other threads based on the same. Most if not all football pundits (obviously those that have played the game and know about it) think the same...
I've not managed to find a quote from FIFA or any officials claiming VAR will eradicate all errors. It's simply not possible and claiming that is the aim is simply not true. When you say you've heard pundits saying that then they are straight up wrong, and I'd put good money on them, like you, being anti-VAR and setting up to fail with impossible expectations.
There we go....prime example of VAR being a mess (even though the right outcome was achieved).
How long after the penalty incident did that review happen? What if Denmark had scored in that time period?
Then Denmark's goal is chalked off and Australia have the penalty awarded. Easy.
That is just absurd? 'Football — should be left alone. It is a human endeavor to be played by flawed people, and officiated by them too. It means everything for 90 minutes, then nothing after. It is catharsis. And VAR takes a little slice of that imperfection away.'
Why is it absurd? I'm really struggling with why giving the correct decisions is absurd...
Your quote is from an article which also lambasts goal line technology.
"Yesterday tiny Northern Ireland failed to qualify for the World Cup next year in Russia, thanks in part to a staggeringly bad decision by referee Ovidiu Hategan. Video assistance would have absolved his error in moments. It would also have robbed us of a talking point, a slew of memes and funny comments and, more importantly, human error." https://medium.com/@seanwilliams85/why-var-in-soccer-is-a-disaster-and-so-is-goal-line-technology-f068dfb3d009
Glad to see that "a slew of memes" is more important than getting to the right decision!
I was tongue in cheek when I described you as the Brexit voter of VAR. Life appears to be imitating art...
Anti-VAR crowd: "We like the errors human refs make, it's a sport played by fallible humans and should be officiated in the same way. If there's no mistakes what will we talk about in the pub later?"
One of the human operators of VAR makes a mistake.
Anti-VAR crowd "Not like that! What's the point in having VAR if it makes mistakes, I want all my mistakes made in person on the pitch, not at any other distance or any other way, I have very specific requirements for the type of mistake I want to keep and equally stringent requirements about the type of mistake I don't like"
VAR fan: "It stops mistakes being made"
VAR makes a mistake.
VAR fan: "It's impossible to eliminate mistakes with current technology"
Anti-VAR crowd: "We like the errors human refs make, it's a sport played by fallible humans and should be officiated in the same way. If there's no mistakes what will we talk about in the pub later?"
One of the human operators of VAR makes a mistake.
Anti-VAR crowd "Not like that! What's the point in having VAR if it makes mistakes, I want all my mistakes made in person on the pitch, not at any other distance or any other way, I have very specific requirements for the type of mistake I want to keep and equally stringent requirements about the type of mistake I don't like"
VAR fan: "It stops mistakes being made"
VAR makes a mistake.
VAR fan: "It's impossible to eliminate mistakes with current technology"
Thing is those statements are mutually exclusive unless you incorrectly assume the first sentence means "all" mistakes, not a more realistic "some" or "the more glaring", which is that stated aim of the system.
I just don't understand. Surely we all want referees to make better decisions. Nothing done in the last 100 years has had a significant effect on that, and we finally start to get tools that might allow this to happen and people attack them. And not just attack, but in contradictory, illogical and dishonest ways. There was a whole page on hear complaining about the Iran goal that was disallowed and people actually claimed that it was VARs fault and that the lino would have raised his flag if it wasn't for VAR, and that allowed Iran to celebrate before the goal was disallowed. The flag clearly went up before the ball hit the back of the next, and the anti VAR crowd completely ignored the facts in order to attack VAR. It's just weird.
Even if you don't like the current implementation, the current attacks go far beyond that to the very idea of having accurate officiating of games.
Comments
I'm in favour of the implementation of technology, I'm pro VAR's use in the long run. But to implement it so early in the biggest football tournament in the world when it's still in it's fledgling stages and the majority of the officials have little if any realtime experience with it, has been a mistake in my opinion. It also appears that the direction of VAR's use also seems not to have been ironed out, or at least not been made clear to everyone (including those using it).
Your quote is from an article which also lambasts goal line technology.
"Yesterday tiny Northern Ireland failed to qualify for the World Cup next year in Russia, thanks in part to a staggeringly bad decision by referee Ovidiu Hategan. Video assistance would have absolved his error in moments. It would also have robbed us of a talking point, a slew of memes and funny comments and, more importantly, human error."
https://medium.com/@seanwilliams85/why-var-in-soccer-is-a-disaster-and-so-is-goal-line-technology-f068dfb3d009
Glad to see that "a slew of memes" is more important than getting to the right decision!
Wouldn't the truly absurd situation be a World Cup final decided by an incorrect refereeing decision?
Going to cost some poor nation big time in the latter stages of this tournament.
...And it'll probably be us.
I am not sure there was any doubt with Kane's winner though so that should have stopped anyone celebrating.
Even in tonight's gamer which Croatia deserved to win as Argentina were so poor the 1st scorer might well have been sent off for a bad tackle in the 1st half.
So I do agree that seems to still be inconsistency in decision making and it would be nice to hear the conversation going on as per rugby.
Certainly hasn't just been used for "clear and obvious" errors as I understood the VAR was in for,
They seem to worry fans are going to kick off if a decision is changed...well we aren't all Millwall/West Ham types are we!
As for any players trying to get the refs to use it - just give them a yellow for dissent.
VAR was introduced to eliminate human error, the fact that in the Harry Cane incident, either the VAR ref didn't contact the on pitch ref to review or they did and he declined is human error, so its not VARs fault is it. I understand that all the officials involved were investigated by FIFA and no doubt changes have been made.
It makes me laugh that such a massive positive change to our game as been implemented, and all the nay sayers expect it to work 100% from day one, or in this case tournament one, or its going to stop all and every error, to think both is naive in the extreme.
The bottom line is that if VAR corrects just one major decision, which it has done, then its is a success, it can be nothing else.
Ot course there will always be subjectivity, take the Danish penalty yesterday, but in the case of that incident, the defenders hand was raised so by the letter of the law its a penalty kick, however subjectivity will always happen.
Its here to say, get used to it, but the negative self appointed protectors of the beautiful game dont like it, they are probably the same dinosaurs who didn't like subs rising from one to whatever we have now, or even when the clubs took the brass bands away at half time.
Makes VAR look great, but are we in danger of refs never giving anything knowing they have a backroom staff to help out?
The single biggest quality of a referee is that of "man management". This requires being close and personal to players; it requires having a match raporte with players for 90 minutes. Simply giving match decisons, although important, is only part of the skills required by referees. Man mangement techniques cannot be carried at distance although it could be argued that foul-related decision making can.
One of the human operators of VAR makes a mistake.
Anti-VAR crowd "Not like that! What's the point in having VAR if it makes mistakes, I want all my mistakes made in person on the pitch, not at any other distance or any other way, I have very specific requirements for the type of mistake I want to keep and equally stringent requirements about the type of mistake I don't like"
If you try to hold something to an impossible standard then it will always fail, which is clearly what you want. Already on this thread you've attacked VAR for making too many and not enough mistakes.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-cup/0/var-rules-used-fifa-2018-world-cup/
I've not managed to find a quote from FIFA or any officials claiming VAR will eradicate all errors. It's simply not possible and claiming that is the aim is simply not true. When you say you've heard pundits saying that then they are straight up wrong, and I'd put good money on them, like you, being anti-VAR and setting up to fail with impossible expectations.
VAR makes a mistake.
VAR fan: "It's impossible to eliminate mistakes with current technology"
I just don't understand. Surely we all want referees to make better decisions. Nothing done in the last 100 years has had a significant effect on that, and we finally start to get tools that might allow this to happen and people attack them. And not just attack, but in contradictory, illogical and dishonest ways. There was a whole page on hear complaining about the Iran goal that was disallowed and people actually claimed that it was VARs fault and that the lino would have raised his flag if it wasn't for VAR, and that allowed Iran to celebrate before the goal was disallowed. The flag clearly went up before the ball hit the back of the next, and the anti VAR crowd completely ignored the facts in order to attack VAR. It's just weird.
Even if you don't like the current implementation, the current attacks go far beyond that to the very idea of having accurate officiating of games.