Interesting one. For objective decisions, technology is obviously fine. Did the ball cross the line? That's either Yes or No. But for subjective decisions - was the handball deliberate? - it's harder and (as usual) the Americans mostly have it right in asking the referee to make a call and then using replays to decide if there's enough evidence to overturn the decision they have made. I think that having a time limit in video decisions would be right and, where possible, show the replays on the big screen, make it part of watching the game.
If you want controversy and talking points then that is why Game of Thrones exists, football is meant to be a sport and like any sport it should be decided on player ability not who gets lucky with a mistake by the officials or which team has the most convincing cheaters.
I'm still undecided about the use of tv evidence for penalties etc - goal line decisions is great & is done electronically so there is no stoppage in play - but on what I've just seen above I think there could be a whole lot of trouble. What would have happened if they had scored on the breakaway - does the goal not stand as they have gone back to award a penalty (cant have both). If it does come in then they should be a time period in which you decide to appeal for a tv review like they do in cricket - but in this case not 15 seconds but around 5.
Let's take cricket as an analogous example - "That LBW decision was rubbish umps!" - DRS then used. Granted, players aren't using it effectively (ahem Shane Watson) but that's their call. DRS is then spot on (i.e. the technology - sometimes the rules surrounding DRS aren't, like the whole umpire's call debacle, but that's on the MCC/ICC/lawmakers).
I want to see correct decisions being made, on the whole. It worked in this instance. I think, though, that the clock should be paused during such instances. Anyway, I'm no expert - but overall how can technology not be a good thing?
The idea that football is somehow enhanced by referring errors is utter nonsense to me. I can remember plenty of classic games that didn't require controversy to make them so. For instance, can you recall a single referring decision in our play-off final that was not only incorrect, but made for a better, more memorable game?
Football is not an exact science. Humans can do a better job of reading between the lines and figuring out the subtleties of a situation than a computer, yet a computer will only deal in absolutes thus make for a more stringent, black and white decision making process.
Until computers can do that, or until footballers find some degree of honour, the best we can do is use the technology available.
The biggest issue is deciding what's worth reviewing. For an errant arm/ throw in decision can be just as big an issue as a goal line clearance (as we know to our cost). I don't expect VAR to be used in that instance, its not realistic to run a game that way. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't use it to affect a game where a clear error has been made. All the examples we've seen so far have justified it IMO. The only people who'll suffer are pundits, and I've got no problem with that.
Let's take cricket as an analogous example - "That LBW decision was rubbish umps!" - DRS then used. Granted, players aren't using it effectively (ahem Shane Watson) but that's their call. DRS is then spot on (i.e. the technology - sometimes the rules surrounding DRS aren't, like the whole umpire's call debacle, but that's on the MCC/ICC/lawmakers).
I want to see correct decisions being made, on the whole. It worked in this instance. I think, though, that the clock should be paused during such instances. Anyway, I'm no expert - but overall how can technology not be a good thing?
I like the DRS / snicko / hotspot system but its fundamentally flawed. The whole idea is to eradicate the bad decisions that umpires used to give (some notable ones in the 90's by certain foreign umpires ) and that on the whole has improved - but giving the onus on the teams to decide when a review should take place means that their reviews could be used up in a matter of overs ( as New Zealand did in the recent test series against SA) and then cant appeal when a true howler happens. There should be unlimited reviews but teams lose a number of runs every time there is an unsuccessful review...............teams chasing 250 on the last day might not appeal so much if they know they might have another 10 or 20 runs added.
Football did not die yesterday with the introduction of this technology. How can it be a bad thing when an instance like the penalty that Burnley were awarded last week can be overturned when the ball was handled by the Burnley player. That video also proves the defender tried to cheat by making it seem like he was fouled when he knew his hand had touched the ball and then proceeds to pretend he has been smacked in the back and front of the face. This will certainly make cheating a lot harder.
The whole "but then people wouldn't be able to argue about it in a pub" argument that I always hear when this is discussed is total nonsense. The concept that the highest ideal of a multi-million-pound sport is "drunk people need to shout at each other" is ludicrous.
Similarly, this thing about the sport then being different to when I have a kickabout down the park is garbage. You know what else is different? Four match officials being linked up to each other via microphones and earpieces. 40,000 spectators. Thousands of pounds worth of betting slips. Players getting paid £100,000-per-week. Several television cameras capturing every move. Careers on the line. And yet, I'm able to overlook that when I play in the park; I reckon I could do the same with goal-line technology and VAR.
A couple of points 1. The "VAR" viewed the incident three times (I assume). Once in real-time during play (and that was conclusive enough to determine (correctly) that there was some evidence worth having another look at. And twice (once each from two different angles, in slow-motion) to determine whether the ball hit the defender's arm. We've (probably) all seen it now. But ask yourself this question: when you saw it on the video, were you absolutely certain that the attacker's left arm didn't push the defender's left arm in the way of the ball as they both jumped? Don't go back and review it again (because the VAR didn't do so), but just play back the incident in your mind and dcide whether it's possible that the attacker "made" the defender's arm touch the ball.
Here's the point I am making. If decisions are going to be abrogated to an off-field, "infallible" adjudication, we have to be absolutely certain that the decision the VAR makes cannot be questioned, ever. Otherwise the whole system fails in its intention, which is to remove doubt.
Second, if we can remove *all* doubt, what happens to post-match opinion, discussion, controversy, passion?
The system is flawed, so we shouldnt use it. But if it's not flawed, we should *definitely* not use it.
2. While watching the game live and on a CCTV stream, reviewing the handball decision, deterining if there was any other foul play to which he should pay attention, watching the referee's actions, keeping an eye on the assistant referee (on the far side of the pitch - the one who saw the incident but didn't signal for a penalty) and contacting the on-field referre by radio, there was an offside decision. Was the VAR paying close attention to that too?
Just in case people are concerned that they won't have anything to discuss after a match if correct decisions are made, I've made a little list of other things that happen in football, that might be worthy of conversation: . Goals . Saves . Style of play / formations . Effectiveness of substitutions . Managerial ability . Potential new signings for a team . The standard of specific players, and how they performed in the match . Points total / position in the league table after the match
If you're still bored after discussing these, perhaps you don't actually like football. Maybe you'd prefer to watch a sport without any technological interference. I suggest croquet.
Totally agree with the OP. The further the professional game gets from the game that anyone can play in a park, the more the sport suffers overall...
Playing down the park relies on an honour system. There might be a debate about whether or not the ball hits the post/ jumper, but for the most part we have to be honest without a ref, otherwise it all falls apart. Having honesty is even better than a ref and TV replays combined. So I'm unsure how the sport suffers? If we're lucky we might see a reduction in cheating at the top level, that will hopefully filter down to Sunday League where refs will will be getting conned.
Amateur rugby and cricket isn't unduly affected either. Or American sports like Gridiron and Basketball.
You can have a ref in the park though, if you can be arsed to sort it out, or pay a small amount to hire one for a match, whereas you can't really set up a VAR system.
As for @Powell Is Pleasant's points, most of those things don't really affect the play of the game. VAR does significantly. Depending on how it's introduced (e.g. if there's an appeal system) it also changes the rules of the game. Obviously people will disagree, but I'm really opposed to the game being different at different levels. I'd even apply this to goal-line technology tbh.
And again, just my opinion, but I think in other sports where this has been introduced (at least in the ones I follow) it has sapped some of the life out of the game.
I also think part of the reason I enjoy football is because of the unpredictability, and the emotional connections between fans and players. And I think more you introduce technology, the more you lose these things... Yes, at the moment sometimes there are wrong decisions and its unfair. But then, sometimes your star player gets injured and is out for 6 months and that's unfair too. Or the wind blows the ball away when you're about to score an open goal or whatever. It's a cruel game, and we love it.
Well I am all for it. A lot of refs - those who don't have a problem admitting that some times they might get things wrong, would welcome it too. And while we are at it, give responsibility for added time to the 4th official and have his stopwatch linked to the stadium screen so we can also exactly what time he added in, when.
I go to watch football, not the ref, and I want to know the decisions are either correct or have been reviewed beyond reasonable doubt. I can bear my team being relegated because one of our players misses a crucial penalty. I cannot bear it when are relegated because in the final game the ref awarded a penalty against us which was actually a foul outside the box or a dive.
1. Who the hell does that and 2. That's not the point - it's quite possible to play down the park without A ref, TV replays, four stands, cheerleaders, goal nets, a stadium announcer, dug-outs...
I also think part of the reason I enjoy football is because of the unpredictability, and the emotional connections between fans and players. And I think more you introduce technology, the more you lose these things... Yes, at the moment sometimes there are wrong decisions and its unfair. But then, sometimes your star player gets injured and is out for 6 months and that's unfair too. Or the wind blows the ball away when you're about to score an open goal or whatever. It's a cruel game, and we love it.
I see no connection between any of that and VAR. Why do you think you lose unpredictability with a tool being used in hindsight?
Well I am all for it. A lot of refs - those who don't have a problem admitting that some times they might get things wrong, would welcome it too. And while we are at it, give responsibility for added time to the 4th official and have his stopwatch linked to the stadium screen so we can also exactly what time he added in, when.
I go to watch football, not the ref, and I want to know the decisions are either correct or have been reviewed beyond reasonable doubt. I can bear my team being relegated because one of our players misses a crucial penalty. I cannot bear it when are relegated because in the final game the ref awarded a penalty against us which was actually a foul outside the box or a dive.
Was the right decision made, without any doubt whatsoever, on the original post @PragueAddick ?
Remember the VAR viewed it once in real time and twice (only) in slow-mo replay (eschewing 10 other angles, apparently). So in those three viewings, once each, can you categorically say that, without question, the attacker's arm didn't push the defender's arm up against the ball? Have we determined, with zero risk of failure, that there wasn't a foul committed by the attacker?
Because, if there's any room for doubt whatsoever, the on-field ref's decision should stand.
Well I am all for it. A lot of refs - those who don't have a problem admitting that some times they might get things wrong, would welcome it too. And while we are at it, give responsibility for added time to the 4th official and have his stopwatch linked to the stadium screen so we can also exactly what time he added in, when.
I go to watch football, not the ref, and I want to know the decisions are either correct or have been reviewed beyond reasonable doubt. I can bear my team being relegated because one of our players misses a crucial penalty. I cannot bear it when are relegated because in the final game the ref awarded a penalty against us which was actually a foul outside the box or a dive.
Was the right decision made, without any doubt whatsoever, on the original post @PragueAddick ?
Remember the VAR viewed it once in real time and twice (only) in slow-mo replay (eschewing 10 other angles, apparently). So in those three viewings, once each, can you categorically say that, without question, the attacker's arm didn't push the defender's arm up against the ball? Have we determined, with zero risk of failure, that there wasn't a foul committed by the attacker?
Because, if there's any room for doubt whatsoever, the on-field ref's decision should stand.
I take the point. There will never be 100% certainty. (similar story with the Prague derby penalty I flagged up last week) There is though the opportunity to reduce the number of mistakes and take the personal load (and the abuse they get for their decisions) off the referee. That's the thing, for me.
The stupidest bit of that is the way the team surround the ref after he's given the penalty using the VAR. (Which is part of the problem - i.e. that players are utterly dishonest and unscrupulous when it comes to decisions on the pitch.) On what basis are they protesting? Are they saying the VAR must have got it wrong and they saw it more clearly? Idiots.australians.
In this instance, they're actually Kiwis
Same thing!!
Without rising to the bait... To understand the difference between Ozzies and Kiwis think Milwall fan v Charlton fan. They both appear the same at a glance, but you only need to spend a few minutes with a Milwall fan/Ozzie to notice the receding forehead, heavy browline, limited capability for language and rudimentary comprehension of abstract concepts....
The stupidest bit of that is the way the team surround the ref after he's given the penalty using the VAR. (Which is part of the problem - i.e. that players are utterly dishonest and unscrupulous when it comes to decisions on the pitch.) On what basis are they protesting? Are they saying the VAR must have got it wrong and they saw it more clearly? Idiots.australians.
PWR. Don't need to, the usual suspects will have trotted out the same argument. I want to watch football, not videoball. Stick your replays where the sun don't shine, or invent a different game based around the one I love. Leave mine alone.
IMO football died the day they used goalposts and nets instead of jumpers.
In all seriousness such an overly dramatic thread, some people just like to get angry about something and the referee is one of those. Personally think it's a disgrace the kind of abuse refs get from players and hopefully this will shut up the players. You can't argue with technology.
The idea that football is somehow enhanced by referring errors is utter nonsense to me. I can remember plenty of classic games that didn't require controversy to make them so. For instance, can you recall a single referring decision in our play-off final that was not only incorrect, but made for a better, more memorable game?
Football is not an exact science. Humans can do a better job of reading between the lines and figuring out the subtleties of a situation than a computer, yet a computer will only deal in absolutes thus make for a more stringent, black and white decision making process.
Until computers can do that, or until footballers find some degree of honour, the best we can do is use the technology available.
The biggest issue is deciding what's worth reviewing. For an errant arm/ throw in decision can be just as big an issue as a goal line clearance (as we know to our cost). I don't expect VAR to be used in that instance, its not realistic to run a game that way. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't use it to affect a game where a clear error has been made. All the examples we've seen so far have justified it IMO. The only people who'll suffer are pundits, and I've got no problem with that.
Arguing about refereeing decisions in the pub after a match has always been part of the football experience. Rarely do you see a refereeing performance as empathetic to the game than that of Mr Wolstenholme on 25 May 1998.
One thing I think we all need to remember is that part of what has made football great is that it's the same game on the park on a Sunday as it is on the biggest stages. As soon as a reviewing system comes in that's lost.
For me, the way to go forward is to have the fourth official watching the video upon whom the ref can rely for a second opinion, or who can draw their attention to things the ref might have missed. This is already their role, but they just don't do it except when a manager kicks a bottle of water or something equally spurious.
This would then mean power to the ref's elbow, rather than another official making the decisions.
My fear is that it's a thin end of the wedge. Matters of fact in football are few and far between. Even offside needs interpretation.
Comments
I want to see correct decisions being made, on the whole. It worked in this instance. I think, though, that the clock should be paused during such instances. Anyway, I'm no expert - but overall how can technology not be a good thing?
Football is not an exact science. Humans can do a better job of reading between the lines and figuring out the subtleties of a situation than a computer, yet a computer will only deal in absolutes thus make for a more stringent, black and white decision making process.
Until computers can do that, or until footballers find some degree of honour, the best we can do is use the technology available.
The biggest issue is deciding what's worth reviewing. For an errant arm/ throw in decision can be just as big an issue as a goal line clearance (as we know to our cost). I don't expect VAR to be used in that instance, its not realistic to run a game that way. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't use it to affect a game where a clear error has been made. All the examples we've seen so far have justified it IMO. The only people who'll suffer are pundits, and I've got no problem with that.
One wrong appeal to the system per game. Once your team get it wrong once, you can't use it again.
Only appealable once the ball next goes out of play. If that means chalking off an opposition goal then so be it.
Similarly, this thing about the sport then being different to when I have a kickabout down the park is garbage. You know what else is different?
Four match officials being linked up to each other via microphones and earpieces. 40,000 spectators. Thousands of pounds worth of betting slips. Players getting paid £100,000-per-week. Several television cameras capturing every move. Careers on the line.
And yet, I'm able to overlook that when I play in the park; I reckon I could do the same with goal-line technology and VAR.
1. The "VAR" viewed the incident three times (I assume). Once in real-time during play (and that was conclusive enough to determine (correctly) that there was some evidence worth having another look at. And twice (once each from two different angles, in slow-motion) to determine whether the ball hit the defender's arm. We've (probably) all seen it now. But ask yourself this question: when you saw it on the video, were you absolutely certain that the attacker's left arm didn't push the defender's left arm in the way of the ball as they both jumped? Don't go back and review it again (because the VAR didn't do so), but just play back the incident in your mind and dcide whether it's possible that the attacker "made" the defender's arm touch the ball.
Here's the point I am making. If decisions are going to be abrogated to an off-field, "infallible" adjudication, we have to be absolutely certain that the decision the VAR makes cannot be questioned, ever. Otherwise the whole system fails in its intention, which is to remove doubt.
Second, if we can remove *all* doubt, what happens to post-match opinion, discussion, controversy, passion?
The system is flawed, so we shouldnt use it. But if it's not flawed, we should *definitely* not use it.
2. While watching the game live and on a CCTV stream, reviewing the handball decision, deterining if there was any other foul play to which he should pay attention, watching the referee's actions, keeping an eye on the assistant referee (on the far side of the pitch - the one who saw the incident but didn't signal for a penalty) and contacting the on-field referre by radio, there was an offside decision. Was the VAR paying close attention to that too?
. Goals
. Saves
. Style of play / formations
. Effectiveness of substitutions
. Managerial ability
. Potential new signings for a team
. The standard of specific players, and how they performed in the match
. Points total / position in the league table after the match
If you're still bored after discussing these, perhaps you don't actually like football. Maybe you'd prefer to watch a sport without any technological interference. I suggest croquet.
Amateur rugby and cricket isn't unduly affected either. Or American sports like Gridiron and Basketball.
As for @Powell Is Pleasant's points, most of those things don't really affect the play of the game. VAR does significantly. Depending on how it's introduced (e.g. if there's an appeal system) it also changes the rules of the game. Obviously people will disagree, but I'm really opposed to the game being different at different levels. I'd even apply this to goal-line technology tbh.
And again, just my opinion, but I think in other sports where this has been introduced (at least in the ones I follow) it has sapped some of the life out of the game.
I also think part of the reason I enjoy football is because of the unpredictability, and the emotional connections between fans and players. And I think more you introduce technology, the more you lose these things... Yes, at the moment sometimes there are wrong decisions and its unfair. But then, sometimes your star player gets injured and is out for 6 months and that's unfair too. Or the wind blows the ball away when you're about to score an open goal or whatever. It's a cruel game, and we love it.
I go to watch football, not the ref, and I want to know the decisions are either correct or have been reviewed beyond reasonable doubt. I can bear my team being relegated because one of our players misses a crucial penalty. I cannot bear it when are relegated because in the final game the ref awarded a penalty against us which was actually a foul outside the box or a dive.
2. That's not the point - it's quite possible to play down the park without A ref, TV replays, four stands, cheerleaders, goal nets, a stadium announcer, dug-outs... Do you have any examples? I see no connection between any of that and VAR. Why do you think you lose unpredictability with a tool being used in hindsight?
Remember the VAR viewed it once in real time and twice (only) in slow-mo replay (eschewing 10 other angles, apparently). So in those three viewings, once each, can you categorically say that, without question, the attacker's arm didn't push the defender's arm up against the ball? Have we determined, with zero risk of failure, that there wasn't a foul committed by the attacker?
Because, if there's any room for doubt whatsoever, the on-field ref's decision should stand.
This thread is the online equivalent of walking into The Slaughtered Lamb and making eye contact with Brian Glover.
In all seriousness such an overly dramatic thread, some people just like to get angry about something and the referee is one of those. Personally think it's a disgrace the kind of abuse refs get from players and hopefully this will shut up the players. You can't argue with technology.
One thing I think we all need to remember is that part of what has made football great is that it's the same game on the park on a Sunday as it is on the biggest stages. As soon as a reviewing system comes in that's lost.
For me, the way to go forward is to have the fourth official watching the video upon whom the ref can rely for a second opinion, or who can draw their attention to things the ref might have missed. This is already their role, but they just don't do it except when a manager kicks a bottle of water or something equally spurious.
This would then mean power to the ref's elbow, rather than another official making the decisions.
My fear is that it's a thin end of the wedge. Matters of fact in football are few and far between. Even offside needs interpretation.