"The role of the VAR is to ensure that no clearly wrong decisions are made in conjunction with the award or non-award of a penalty kick."
Harry Kane v Tunisa. Fail.
Team finishes above England on goal difference of one. England play Brazil in quarter final instead of Mexico.
Factual situation. Spain are above Portugal because they have less Yellow cards. Maybe Spain play Mexico instead of Brazil in the quarter final? Maybe that yellow card should have been reviewed? Like I said before (and as usual was ignored) where do you draw the line? It should be all or nothing. It should be nothing.
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.
What page was that? I saw one post on this thread regarding the Iran goal, and that was quickly corrected by others including myself who has been a massive critic of VAR at this world cup. Talk about dishonest.
It's funny that you talk about anti VAR people ignoring things, because I have issues with VAR that are not contradictory, illogical or dishonest and I note that nobody in the "pro" crowd is taking me to task on them as every time I mention the problems my post gets ignored;
No communication with the fans in the stadium
No transparency with the communications between the ref and VAR
No consistency in the decisions being made using the tech
Issues with the continuation of play whilst a VAR review is underway
Linesman and refs not making, or being slow to make decisions which are clear, but are too afraid to stop play
Didn't Brazil have some issues in the Swiss game as well and even look into making a formal complaint to FIFA about it? Surprised that's not mentioned in the article.
edit I forgot about the Argentina/Iceland game as well where there was arguably 2 contentious decisions in that game, again not mentioned in the article. How lazy was the guy who wrote this to not even research a single weeks worth of games. "every big decision game by game" lol except for the ones we forgot.
"The role of the VAR is to ensure that no clearly wrong decisions are made in conjunction with the award or non-award of a penalty kick."
Harry Kane v Tunisa. Fail.
Team finishes above England on goal difference of one. England play Brazil in quarter final instead of Mexico.
Factual situation. Spain are above Portugal because they have less Yellow cards. Maybe Spain play Mexico instead of Brazil in the quarter final? Maybe that yellow card should have been reviewed? Like I said before (and as usual was ignored) where do you draw the line? It should be all or nothing. It should be nothing.
Bit the penalty situation would have been the same pre-VAR, it's not perfect but a work in progress, perhaps this world cup was too soon to try it at a tournament but by and large its been a success.
As for where do you draw the line, the line was clearly drawn before the tournament, I think overtime the line will certainly move, but more correct decisions can only be a good thing.
The linesman have been encouraged to keep their flag down if they don't know as VAR is looking over their shoulder.... He is paid to do it and has a clear view across the line. Cop out.
"The role of the VAR is to ensure that no clearly wrong decisions are made in conjunction with the award or non-award of a penalty kick."
Harry Kane v Tunisa. Fail.
Team finishes above England on goal difference of one. England play Brazil in quarter final instead of Mexico.
Factual situation. Spain are above Portugal because they have less Yellow cards. Maybe Spain play Mexico instead of Brazil in the quarter final? Maybe that yellow card should have been reviewed? Like I said before (and as usual was ignored) where do you draw the line? It should be all or nothing. It should be nothing.
Bit the penalty situation would have been the same pre-VAR, it's not perfect but a work in progress, perhaps this world cup was too soon to try it at a tournament but by and large its been a success.
As for where do you draw the line, the line was clearly drawn before the tournament, I think overtime the line will certainly move, but more correct decisions can only be a good thing.
Almost contradicting yourself in a single sentence there Stu?
So you concede that every decision will eventually be made by VAR at the top level then, not where I want football to be going as I am sure you have guessed.
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.
What page was that? I saw one post on this thread regarding the Iran goal, and that was quickly corrected by others including myself who has been a massive critic of VAR at this world cup. Talk about dishonest.
It's funny that you talk about anti VAR people ignoring things, because I have issues with VAR that are not contradictory, illogical or dishonest and I note that nobody in the "pro" crowd is taking me to task on them as every time I mention the problems my post gets ignored;
No communication with the fans in the stadium
No transparency with the communications between the ref and VAR
No consistency in the decisions being made using the tech
Issues with the continuation of play whilst a VAR review is underway
Linesman and refs not making, or being slow to make decisions which are clear, but are too afraid to stop play
Not a single person has claimed VAR is perfect, or that aren't issues the urgently need resolving.
The whole debate here is those who see value in the technology and can see it improving, versus those who don't want it under any circumstances and attack it for not be 100% right now. Anybody who genuinely wants VAR can see it's not perfect, but the only way to improve it is through use. Now the world cup may not be the best stage at this time, but it hasn't made any game worse, so the attacks feel like people who just don't like it having a pop, rather than anything constructive or useful.
So are you are willing to concede that there are valid criticisms of VAR that have been mentioned on here and they are not contradictory, illogical or dishonest then because that was what I was taking exception to in your previous post.
I'm happy to have the debate and I will concede when VAR gets it right it's great - that Brazil penalty just now for example - but I think the issues I have mentioned are too big to be ignored right now and that's why they shouldn't have rushed VAR into this tournament.
So are you are willing to concede that there are valid criticisms of VAR that have been mentioned on here and they are not contradictory, illogical or dishonest then because that was what I was taking exception to in your previous post.
I'm happy to have the debate and I will concede when VAR gets it right it's great - that Brazil penalty just now for example - but I think the issues I have mentioned are too big to be ignored right now and that's why they shouldn't have rushed VAR into this tournament.
It was people using false examples and complaining they love the fallibility of referees whilst attacking VAR for not being 100% perfect that I was more aiming more comments at.
There are genuine areas that need improvements, and the difference of opinion there can be broadly summarised as those who wish to continue using and improving the system vs those who want to wait until it's a potentially unobtainable perfect vs those who simply don't want technology (though I personally find the justifications curious to outright bizarre at times)
Was it.... Ref has a clear view of the penalty incident from 8 yards away. Was never a penalty all day long. Neymar gets in the ear of the ref at half time as well. Clearly his decision making process is helped by the fact that he knows he can use his get out jail free card called VARce, if he didn't have it, he would have never given the penalty in the first place.
Further to that the lino in the first half who took 5 seconds to flag a player who was clearly 2 yards offside , again his monopoly card can be used also. Ridiculous.... Make a howler and trundle off and review it.
Was it.... Ref has a clear view of the penalty incident from 8 yards away. Was never a penalty all day long. Neymar gets in the ear of the ref at half time as well. Clearly his decision making process is helped by the fact that he knows he can use his get out jail free card called VARce, if he didn't have it, he would have never given the penalty in the first place.
Further to that the lino in the first half who took 5 seconds to flag a player who was clearly 2 yards offside , again his monopoly card can be used also. Ridiculous.... Make a howler and trundle off and review it.
So which is it? Officials will make a decision because it can be overturned? Or officials won't make a decision because it can be overturned?
Was it.... Ref has a clear view of the penalty incident from 8 yards away. Was never a penalty all day long. Neymar gets in the ear of the ref at half time as well. Clearly his decision making process is helped by the fact that he knows he can use his get out jail free card called VARce, if he didn't have it, he would have never given the penalty in the first place.
Further to that the lino in the first half who took 5 seconds to flag a player who was clearly 2 yards offside , again his monopoly card can be used also. Ridiculous.... Make a howler and trundle off and review it.
So which is it? Officials will make a decision because it can be overturned? Or officials won't make a decision because it can be overturned?
Sounds like an argument in knots already.
It's what he does, sets up two contradictory positions and then uses both in his argument.
Plus second guessing what the referee would have done in a set of circumstances that do not exist (if VAR wasn't there then he would definitely have made a different decision) is like proving a negative.
We have literally no way of knowing what he would have done, all we can go on is what he did, which was give a terrible decision which thankfully VAR corrected.
The linesman have been encouraged to keep their flag down if they don't know as VAR is looking over their shoulder.... He is paid to do it and has a clear view across the line. Cop out.
"The role of the VAR is to ensure that no clearly wrong decisions are made in conjunction with the award or non-award of a penalty kick."
Harry Kane v Tunisa. Fail.
Team finishes above England on goal difference of one. England play Brazil in quarter final instead of Mexico.
Factual situation. Spain are above Portugal because they have less Yellow cards. Maybe Spain play Mexico instead of Brazil in the quarter final? Maybe that yellow card should have been reviewed? Like I said before (and as usual was ignored) where do you draw the line? It should be all or nothing. It should be nothing.
So in over 20 games your evidence is that it worked well in about 19, but not in England v Tunisia. It is out there in black and white where the line is being drawn and it is not being used to review yellow cards. Sorry, but you've just proved VAR has worked very well in over 90% of the games.
So are you are willing to concede that there are valid criticisms of VAR that have been mentioned on here and they are not contradictory, illogical or dishonest then because that was what I was taking exception to in your previous post.
I'm happy to have the debate and I will concede when VAR gets it right it's great - that Brazil penalty just now for example - but I think the issues I have mentioned are too big to be ignored right now and that's why they shouldn't have rushed VAR into this tournament.
It was people using false examples and complaining they love the fallibility of referees whilst attacking VAR for not being 100% perfect that I was more aiming more comments at.
There are genuine areas that need improvements, and the difference of opinion there can be broadly summarised as those who wish to continue using and improving the system vs those who want to wait until it's a potentially unobtainable perfect vs those who simply don't want technology (though I personally find the justifications curious to outright bizarre at times)
That's all fine and I don't disagree that it seems silly to criticise VAR and then in the same breath say they don't mind if refs make human errors - but look at it from another perspective - can you not see how immensely frustrating it is when the ref calls a foul for holding/dragging down which is ratified by VAR in the Croatia/Nigeria game and then a day later TWO decisions are blatantly ignored by the ref and VAR does nothing to bring that to the refs attention even though it was for the exact same thing?
I feel we have every right to criticise VAR for that in the same way we would if it was purely a ref decision with no VAR involvement in both games- we were told VAR would mean the question of consistency would be a thing of the past and it has not happened. It can be argued that is down to a poor and stubborn ref in the second game and we shouldn't blame VAR for it but that goes directly to my other point that they shouldn't have rushed VAR into the tournament with refs who didn't know or care to use it.
The world cup is not the place for trail blazing to occur when there are multiple national leagues and competitions where they could do it. There is a reason the Premier league has opted not to have VAR yet and it's because there is too much at stake to have a system that isn't ready yet, FIFA should have had the same consideration for the world cup.
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.
So you're saying if VAR is implemented in the football league you'll be unhappy, because you would prefer to continue with the appalling League1 referees, giving crucial wrong decisions every game, because you enjoy wrong decisions. Fair enough. Personally I'm sick and tired of the referees making bad decisions, which also appear to be to the disadvantage of Charlton more often than not.
The linesman have been encouraged to keep their flag down if they don't know as VAR is looking over their shoulder.... He is paid to do it and has a clear view across the line. Cop out.
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.
So you're saying if VAR is implemented in the football league you'll be unhappy, because you would prefer to continue with the appalling League1 referees, giving crucial wrong decisions every game, because you enjoy wrong decisions. Fair enough. Personally I'm sick and tired of the referees making bad decisions, which also appear to be to the disadvantage of Charlton more often than not.
If VAR was in the Football League, we'd have beaten Millwall when Bauer's goal was disallowed for no reason...
"The role of the VAR is to ensure that no clearly wrong decisions are made in conjunction with the award or non-award of a penalty kick."
Harry Kane v Tunisa. Fail.
Team finishes above England on goal difference of one. England play Brazil in quarter final instead of Mexico.
Factual situation. Spain are above Portugal because they have less Yellow cards. Maybe Spain play Mexico instead of Brazil in the quarter final? Maybe that yellow card should have been reviewed? Like I said before (and as usual was ignored) where do you draw the line? It should be all or nothing. It should be nothing.
So in over 20 games your evidence is that it worked well in about 19, but not in England v Tunisia. It is out there in black and white where the line is being drawn and it is not being used to review yellow cards. Sorry, but you've just proved VAR has worked very well in over 90% of the games.
Well I have not watched 20 games, but if VAR has been perfect other than twice in one game, then you are correct. Except of course it hasn't.
Why are you VARites not clamouring for it to be used for everything, as one of the mainstays of the whole argument is that it stops mistakes being made. Why is it okay for mistakes to be made up to this point, but not up to that point? As I said, my two main objections are that eventually it will be used for everything, and then we have two different (similar) sports going on, and that the decisions are still subjective, so leave it to one man to make that decision as we always have.
I highly doubt VAR would ever filter down to the football league even in a perfect world - surely there just isn't enough personnel or equipment to do it in forty odd games a week all at the same time. Championship maybe but even that might be a stretch.
"The role of the VAR is to ensure that no clearly wrong decisions are made in conjunction with the award or non-award of a penalty kick."
Harry Kane v Tunisa. Fail.
Team finishes above England on goal difference of one. England play Brazil in quarter final instead of Mexico.
Factual situation. Spain are above Portugal because they have less Yellow cards. Maybe Spain play Mexico instead of Brazil in the quarter final? Maybe that yellow card should have been reviewed? Like I said before (and as usual was ignored) where do you draw the line? It should be all or nothing. It should be nothing.
So in over 20 games your evidence is that it worked well in about 19, but not in England v Tunisia. It is out there in black and white where the line is being drawn and it is not being used to review yellow cards. Sorry, but you've just proved VAR has worked very well in over 90% of the games.
Well I have not watched 20 games, but if VAR has been perfect other than twice in one game, then you are correct. Except of course it hasn't.
Why are you VARites not clamouring for it to be used for everything, as one of the mainstays of the whole argument is that it stops mistakes being made. Why is it okay for mistakes to be made up to this point, but not up to that point? As I said, my two main objections are that eventually it will be used for everything, and then we have two different (similar) sports going on, and that the decisions are still subjective, so leave it to one man to make that decision as we always have.
It stops game/league changing mistakes in 99% of cases. The 1% of cases might be where some ridiculous yellow card rules stops a team from qualifying as you've previously argued.
"The role of the VAR is to ensure that no clearly wrong decisions are made in conjunction with the award or non-award of a penalty kick."
Harry Kane v Tunisa. Fail.
Team finishes above England on goal difference of one. England play Brazil in quarter final instead of Mexico.
Factual situation. Spain are above Portugal because they have less Yellow cards. Maybe Spain play Mexico instead of Brazil in the quarter final? Maybe that yellow card should have been reviewed? Like I said before (and as usual was ignored) where do you draw the line? It should be all or nothing. It should be nothing.
So in over 20 games your evidence is that it worked well in about 19, but not in England v Tunisia. It is out there in black and white where the line is being drawn and it is not being used to review yellow cards. Sorry, but you've just proved VAR has worked very well in over 90% of the games.
Well I have not watched 20 games, but if VAR has been perfect other than twice in one game, then you are correct. Except of course it hasn't.
Why are you VARites not clamouring for it to be used for everything, as one of the mainstays of the whole argument is that it stops mistakes being made. Why is it okay for mistakes to be made up to this point, but not up to that point? As I said, my two main objections are that eventually it will be used for everything, and then we have two different (similar) sports going on, and that the decisions are still subjective, so leave it to one man to make that decision as we always have.
It stops game/league changing mistakes in 99% of cases. The 1% of cases might be where some ridiculous yellow card rules stops a team from qualifying as you've previously argued.
We are going round in circles mate. You love it, I hate it. Sometimes we have to agree to differ.
Comments
Harry Kane v Tunisa. Fail.
Team finishes above England on goal difference of one. England play Brazil in quarter final instead of Mexico.
Factual situation. Spain are above Portugal because they have less Yellow cards. Maybe Spain play Mexico instead of Brazil in the quarter final? Maybe that yellow card should have been reviewed? Like I said before (and as usual was ignored) where do you draw the line? It should be all or nothing. It should be nothing.
It's funny that you talk about anti VAR people ignoring things, because I have issues with VAR that are not contradictory, illogical or dishonest and I note that nobody in the "pro" crowd is taking me to task on them as every time I mention the problems my post gets ignored;
No communication with the fans in the stadium
No transparency with the communications between the ref and VAR
No consistency in the decisions being made using the tech
Issues with the continuation of play whilst a VAR review is underway
Linesman and refs not making, or being slow to make decisions which are clear, but are too afraid to stop play
edit I forgot about the Argentina/Iceland game as well where there was arguably 2 contentious decisions in that game, again not mentioned in the article. How lazy was the guy who wrote this to not even research a single weeks worth of games. "every big decision game by game" lol except for the ones we forgot.
As for where do you draw the line, the line was clearly drawn before the tournament, I think overtime the line will certainly move, but more correct decisions can only be a good thing.
So you concede that every decision will eventually be made by VAR at the top level then, not where I want football to be going as I am sure you have guessed.
The whole debate here is those who see value in the technology and can see it improving, versus those who don't want it under any circumstances and attack it for not be 100% right now. Anybody who genuinely wants VAR can see it's not perfect, but the only way to improve it is through use. Now the world cup may not be the best stage at this time, but it hasn't made any game worse, so the attacks feel like people who just don't like it having a pop, rather than anything constructive or useful.
But it's useless, huh
I'm happy to have the debate and I will concede when VAR gets it right it's great - that Brazil penalty just now for example - but I think the issues I have mentioned are too big to be ignored right now and that's why they shouldn't have rushed VAR into this tournament.
There are genuine areas that need improvements, and the difference of opinion there can be broadly summarised as those who wish to continue using and improving the system vs those who want to wait until it's a potentially unobtainable perfect vs those who simply don't want technology (though I personally find the justifications curious to outright bizarre at times)
Further to that the lino in the first half who took 5 seconds to flag a player who was clearly 2 yards offside , again his monopoly card can be used also. Ridiculous.... Make a howler and trundle off and review it.
Sounds like an argument in knots already.
Over on the Brexit thread, you lambast people for making predictions they can't back up 100%
Any idea about tomorrow's lottery numbers?
Plus second guessing what the referee would have done in a set of circumstances that do not exist (if VAR wasn't there then he would definitely have made a different decision) is like proving a negative.
We have literally no way of knowing what he would have done, all we can go on is what he did, which was give a terrible decision which thankfully VAR corrected.
It is out there in black and white where the line is being drawn and it is not being used to review yellow cards.
Sorry, but you've just proved VAR has worked very well in over 90% of the games.
I feel we have every right to criticise VAR for that in the same way we would if it was purely a ref decision with no VAR involvement in both games- we were told VAR would mean the question of consistency would be a thing of the past and it has not happened. It can be argued that is down to a poor and stubborn ref in the second game and we shouldn't blame VAR for it but that goes directly to my other point that they shouldn't have rushed VAR into the tournament with refs who didn't know or care to use it.
The world cup is not the place for trail blazing to occur when there are multiple national leagues and competitions where they could do it. There is a reason the Premier league has opted not to have VAR yet and it's because there is too much at stake to have a system that isn't ready yet, FIFA should have had the same consideration for the world cup.
Fair enough.
Personally I'm sick and tired of the referees making bad decisions, which also appear to be to the disadvantage of Charlton more often than not.
That's good enough for me.
Why are you VARites not clamouring for it to be used for everything, as one of the mainstays of the whole argument is that it stops mistakes being made. Why is it okay for mistakes to be made up to this point, but not up to that point? As I said, my two main objections are that eventually it will be used for everything, and then we have two different (similar) sports going on, and that the decisions are still subjective, so leave it to one man to make that decision as we always have.