You only have to look at other sports to know that it's a fallacy to believe that video replays will eventually be used for everything. American Football has had a video review system for 20+ years and it's still used only for match changing decisions.
PS it's also still the same game with the same rules so you certainly won't have "two different games being played". Video replay does not affect cricket, tennis etc in that way so neither would it affect football.
"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.
What about the cases where a wrong corner or throw in decision leads to a goal? Or a wrongful free kick award at the other end of the field leading to a goal? Those things occur a lot more often than 1% of the time don't they?
You only have to look at other sports to know that it's a fallacy to believe that video replays will eventually be used for everything. American Football has had a video review system for 20+ years and it's using only for match changing decisions.
Bugger - now I have to come back - LOL.
I know I sound like a broken record, but take you back to Charlton v Fulham again. YOU might be happy to accept that decision, others wont. "If we can use the technology for A why can't we use it for B?" It's a logical progression.
American football is played in 10 second bursts, no comparison.
"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've watched all the games and VAR has been a benefit in all of the games bar perhaps England v Tunisia. Even then it had no negative impact, because the game wasn't stopped for The 2 Kane decisions.
I've not read anyone anywhere claiming that VAR is perfect, you've just introduced that from nowhere (if one or two have claimed that VAR is perfect, so what, it is of no consequence).
Yes, I would prefer VAR to be used for more than the 4 stated aims, but that has to be balanced with not slowing the game down too much.
VAR, at this stage is not to stop all mistakes being made. It is to reduce mistakes being made regarding goals, penalties, red cards in the main, plus one other which I can't recall. The aims are all in the numerous links provided above by others.
You only have to look at other sports to know that it's a fallacy to believe that video replays will eventually be used for everything. American Football has had a video review system for 20+ years and it's using only for match changing decisions.
Bugger - now I have to come back - LOL.
I know I sound like a broken record, but take you back to Charlton v Fulham again. YOU might be happy to accept that decision, others wont. "If we can use the technology for A why can't we use it for B?" It's a logical progression.
American football is played in 10 second bursts, no comparison.
*EDIT* That's what I was getting at Manicmania.
So because of one incident 10 years ago, your sure that we should dump this whole system in the bin?
As I said in reply to @Manicmania these incidents are a lot rarer than people tend to think (as evidenced by pulling up one incident from ten years ago) and when the system we have is something that everyone is more comfortable with, I would personally like to see the addition of a challenge system which means that for example, Charlton could've challenged that particular incident if they had chosen to do so.
Funny thing is when attending Charlton games and we've had stonewall penalties turned down. I've never once heard anyone cheer and then shout out thanks for not giving us that penalty ref, I'd have had nothing to talk about if you had.
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.
Fair enough. I can’t recall too many tight offside decisions that have had to be referred to VAR though which would suggest the assistant referees are doing their job. I’ve seen a couple of offside decisions not given that would have been spotted by Mr Magoo but compare that to the amount of games we’ve had so far it’s minimal errors.
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.
Thought it was clear enough..my grandaughter understood.
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.
Its in every game not just this one. ..they know they have VAR man sitting on their shoulder..
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.
You only have to look at other sports to know that it's a fallacy to believe that video replays will eventually be used for everything. American Football has had a video review system for 20+ years and it's using only for match changing decisions.
Bugger - now I have to come back - LOL.
I know I sound like a broken record, but take you back to Charlton v Fulham again. YOU might be happy to accept that decision, others wont. "If we can use the technology for A why can't we use it for B?" It's a logical progression.
American football is played in 10 second bursts, no comparison.
*EDIT* That's what I was getting at Manicmania.
So because of one incident 10 years ago, your sure that we should dump this whole system in the bin?
As I said in reply to @Manicmania these incidents are a lot rarer than people tend to think (as evidenced by pulling up one incident from ten years ago) and when the system we have is something that everyone is more comfortable with, I would personally like to see the addition of a challenge system which means that for example, Charlton could've challenged that particular incident if they had chosen to do so.
I just firmly believe that the reasons for wanting VAR are rational whereas the reasons for not wanting VAR are irrational.
I'd love to have a VAR that works and is transparent. I'll say what i've said about 50 times in this thread, FIFA should have taken this a bit slower and not tried to road test it at a major international tournament with so much at stake.
They could have just done mistaken identity and offside decisions, kept it simple and objective to start with. Then when it becomes clear that the fans need the communication in the stadium you knock up a "VAR decision pending" picture on photoshop to plaster on the big screen for the fans and stick a mic on the ref like the rugby.
Then for TV audiences you also have a mic on the head VAR guy so that we can hear the decision and the conversation between the ref and VAR (they can even put it on a delay like the formula 1 guys do with their comms)
Once that system gets going, the refs and fans get used to the referring and the slight delays they cause (which again over time will speed up naturally) you can then in the next competition ramp things u by adding in the penalty and red card calls - by that stage the ref, the fans and the players will be used to VAR and the procedure.
Will that sequence of events make VAR perfect all of a sudden? Of course not errors will still be made, stuff will be missed, but at least it will have been phased in properly with a proper procedure in place and experienced people on the pitch and in the VAR van. Instead of that at the moment it's cowboy stuff.
Another great VAR decision. I regret that some people won't be able to talk about the referee getting the decision wrong at first. Never mind, perhaps you can talk about how the game was improved by that correct decision, rather than spoiled by the original incorrect decision ?
I can understand the reservations those have on VAR but I'm probably leaning more towards pro VAR (though it can be slow) but i just wish like with refs it was more consistent.
there's been at least 3 decisions that i remember where I believe they have got it wrong but that's not the technology's fault (though some of the replays, especially with handballs should be played at full speed rather than in slow motion so you can judge it correctly) its the people using the technology. everyone in the world knew Kane was fouled apart from those numpties in the VAR room and the part time ref on the pitch.
also can someone tell the players and the coaches to stop doing the square hand gestures. getting as bad as the waving of imaginary cards.
What if a corner that should be a goal kick leads yo a goal....end of story.
I have oft quoted the famous Fulham free kick/our throw in. Arguably changed the history of our club? Like you, I have said all along, where do you draw the line? I know the proponents will say "where it is now", but others will disagree in the future, mark my words. It's all or nothing ultimately. For me, it's nothing.
I feel embarrassed if Cafc fans think not getting a free kick or throw in caused our relegation over a season.
Another thank-you to VAR. @GaryLineker Mitrovic scores for Serbia and that equals the record for consecutive games at a World Cup without a goalless draw. 26 games, the same as in Switzerland in 1954 when every single game had a goal. Just knockout in those days.
7:08 PM - Jun 22, 2018 1,055 298 people are talking about this
Not sure how you can twist not having any 0-0s as being because of VAR...
Sweden v South Korea would likely have ended 0-0 had the Referee not checked the blatant penalty on the video replay as he was happy to let play continue
Comments
I know I sound like a broken record, but take you back to Charlton v Fulham again. YOU might be happy to accept that decision, others wont. "If we can use the technology for A why can't we use it for B?" It's a logical progression.
American football is played in 10 second bursts, no comparison.
*EDIT* That's what I was getting at Manicmania.
Even then it had no negative impact, because the game wasn't stopped for The 2 Kane decisions.
I've not read anyone anywhere claiming that VAR is perfect, you've just introduced that from nowhere (if one or two have claimed that VAR is perfect, so what, it is of no consequence).
Yes, I would prefer VAR to be used for more than the 4 stated aims, but that has to be balanced with not slowing the game down too much.
VAR, at this stage is not to stop all mistakes being made.
It is to reduce mistakes being made regarding goals, penalties, red cards in the main, plus one other which I can't recall.
The aims are all in the numerous links provided above by others.
As I said in reply to @Manicmania these incidents are a lot rarer than people tend to think (as evidenced by pulling up one incident from ten years ago) and when the system we have is something that everyone is more comfortable with, I would personally like to see the addition of a challenge system which means that for example, Charlton could've challenged that particular incident if they had chosen to do so.
I've never once heard anyone cheer and then shout out thanks for not giving us that penalty ref, I'd have had nothing to talk about if you had.
They could have just done mistaken identity and offside decisions, kept it simple and objective to start with. Then when it becomes clear that the fans need the communication in the stadium you knock up a "VAR decision pending" picture on photoshop to plaster on the big screen for the fans and stick a mic on the ref like the rugby.
Then for TV audiences you also have a mic on the head VAR guy so that we can hear the decision and the conversation between the ref and VAR (they can even put it on a delay like the formula 1 guys do with their comms)
Once that system gets going, the refs and fans get used to the referring and the slight delays they cause (which again over time will speed up naturally) you can then in the next competition ramp things u by adding in the penalty and red card calls - by that stage the ref, the fans and the players will be used to VAR and the procedure.
Will that sequence of events make VAR perfect all of a sudden? Of course not errors will still be made, stuff will be missed, but at least it will have been phased in properly with a proper procedure in place and experienced people on the pitch and in the VAR van. Instead of that at the moment it's cowboy stuff.
People will always be unhappy with any kind of change to the game.
I regret that some people won't be able to talk about the referee getting the decision wrong at first.
Never mind, perhaps you can talk about how the game was improved by that correct decision, rather than spoiled by the original incorrect decision ?
there's been at least 3 decisions that i remember where I believe they have got it wrong but that's not the technology's fault (though some of the replays, especially with handballs should be played at full speed rather than in slow motion so you can judge it correctly) its the people using the technology. everyone in the world knew Kane was fouled apart from those numpties in the VAR room and the part time ref on the pitch.
also can someone tell the players and the coaches to stop doing the square hand gestures. getting as bad as the waving of imaginary cards.
@GaryLineker
Mitrovic scores for Serbia and that equals the record for consecutive games at a World Cup without a goalless draw.
26 games, the same as in Switzerland in 1954 when every single game had a goal. Just knockout in those days.
7:08 PM - Jun 22, 2018
1,055
298 people are talking about this