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.
Can you explain what the worst case scenario is for me? Let's say VAR comes in this this season and becomes a part of the game. It's nornal.
Now fast forward five years. You're watching a Sunday League game down the park... where can you foresee a problem?
Same arguments against Goal Line Technology are being rolled out again with VAR, the arguements didn't make sense 5 years ago, and don't now.
Yep it will be the same stuck in the mud old codgers who just cannot adapt to change. Probably the same ones who objected when the substitute format changed from just 1.
Used for the first time in a competitive game. Wellington Phoenix v Sydney yesterday in the A-League.
The introduction of goal-line technology can be defended, but VAR is complete utter bullshit.
Decisions add to the theatre of football. Games stopped a couple of times every half, so the video ref can review a situation - please don't let this be the norm.
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...
1. Thousands of sunday league teams, school teams, uni teams, whatever, every single week. I'm not talking about kids having a kickabout, I'm talking about deciding to play a football match. 2. Discarding the ref, which I've talked about above, at the moment, yes, it is possible to play the same game with minimum cost. When you bring in video replays you lose that, that's my point. (As I said before, the stands, chearleaders etc are irrelevant to what happens on the pitch/the rules.)
Another point not mentioned is that if you want players to show more respect for referees, then surely taking responsibility/authority away from referees in dribs and drabs, by handing it over to video, is exactly the wrong way to go about it...
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...
1. Thousands of sunday league teams, school teams, uni teams, whatever, every single week. I'm not talking about kids having a kickabout, I'm talking about deciding to play a football match. 2. Discarding the ref, which I've talked about above, at the moment, yes, it is possible to play the same game with minimum cost. When you bring in video replays you lose that, that's my point. (As I said before, the stands, chearleaders etc are irrelevant to what happens on the pitch/the rules.)
Another point not mentioned is that if you want players to show more respect for referees, then surely taking responsibility/authority away from referees in dribs and drabs, by handing it over to video, is exactly the wrong way to go about it...
But those games don't use professional linesman or a fourth official. Yet they function still.
I still haven't heard anyone explain what the tangible difference would be for the amateur game. Are you able to put it into real terms? Like, I turn up on a Sunday, meet my mates, get changed, get on the pitch, play, score, concede, get frustrated with the ref or not, match ends, we have a beer and go home... at which point did the VAR from the Premier League the day before impact or change that process?
I totally understand the arguments in favour of VAR - we've all witnessed horrendous refereeing blunders which have cost games (thanks Keith Stroud), and the injustice really hurts. With so much riding on professional football these days, the expectations on referees are growing all the time, and the fans have a right to expect a competent performance. Anything which can assist with this can surely only be a good thing.
BUT I am dead against VAR in football.
All of the other sports in which this has been used successfully will naturally have frequent stoppages in play, when video evidence can be used. In cricket, for example, there's a opportunity to review each individual ball without interrupting the play itself. The Hawkeye system in tennis gives instant results, similar to goalline technology in football, which I don't have a problem with. Even in rugby, which is probably the closest analogy to football, there are far more natural stoppages due to the technical and physical nature of the game.
Football doesn't have this - so you are left with a number of imperfect options. Do you allow the referee to stop developing play to review an incident and risk breaking up an attack, or do you let the attack continue, have a team score, and then rewind 2-3 minutes of play to conclude the team committed a foul at the other end and chalk the goal off? If you do that, what do you do with the 'lost' playing time? Allowing a number of 'challenges' from the players themselves poses the same question - do they have to wait for the ball to go dead? How far back are they allowed to then challenge?
The other issue for me is that, where technological assistance is provided, it is human nature to want to rely upon this as much as possible. We already see this in rugby union. It's rare these days for a try to be awarded at all without some reference back to the VAR, from questioning specific incidents all the way up to the faintly ridiculous ('Is there any reason I can't award a try?') If VAR is introduced in football there will be even more pressure on referees to get things right - there will effectively be no excuse if a referee misses an incident and doesn't refer to the video ref. Football is all about the emotion. When Charlton score, I want to celebrate - not wait 2 minutes while somebody watches replays from 7 different angles before deciding whether or not the goal will stand. This is inevitable - what referee is not going to want to cover themselves given the opportunity?
There are other ways to deal with cheating (e.g. applying bans post-match where diving is proved by video evidence), without destroying the flow and emotion of the game.
Used for the first time in a competitive game. Wellington Phoenix v Sydney yesterday in the A-League.
The introduction of goal-line technology can be defended, but VAR is complete utter bullshit.
Decisions add to the theatre of football. Games stopped a couple of times every half, so the video ref can review a situation - please don't let this be the norm.
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...
1. Thousands of sunday league teams, school teams, uni teams, whatever, every single week. I'm not talking about kids having a kickabout, I'm talking about deciding to play a football match. 2. Discarding the ref, which I've talked about above, at the moment, yes, it is possible to play the same game with minimum cost. When you bring in video replays you lose that, that's my point. (As I said before, the stands, chearleaders etc are irrelevant to what happens on the pitch/the rules.)
Another point not mentioned is that if you want players to show more respect for referees, then surely taking responsibility/authority away from referees in dribs and drabs, by handing it over to video, is exactly the wrong way to go about it...
But those games don't use professional linesman or a fourth official. Yet they function still.
I still haven't heard anyone explain what the tangible difference would be for the amateur game. Are you able to put it into real terms? Like, I turn up on a Sunday, meet my mates, get changed, get on the pitch, play, score, concede, get frustrated with the ref or not, match ends, we have a beer and go home... at which point did the VAR from the Premier League the day before impact or change that process?
I'm not saying it changes the amateur game, or that it wouldn't 'function'. I'm just saying that it makes the professional game (or the professional game at the very top levels) a different game to the one being played, for example, by my uni team. I think that's pretty uncontroversial. I guess the issue is that some people, like you, don't seem that bothered by that, but others, like me, think it would be a sad development.
And on top of that I agree with the worries about it disrupting the flow of the game, making it less enjoyable to watch, + the concerns about overreliance on technology and how that affects the autority of the ref.
Like I'm not being overdramatic, it's not going to make me stop watching football or anything, but that's just my opinion on it.
I don't understand anyone against video evidence. Surely you want the correct decision.
Some of my instinctive opposition comes from remembering attempts by American TV companies in the seventies to insert ads into live games. Regular appeals and time outs to review previous "plays" would be an ideal opportunity for selling IPhones to the rest of the world while the players and spectators stand in the cold waiting for the signal to restart the game? Probably a bit paranoid now to think the game might go that way though!
This is literally the Brexit argument again. Passionate, slightly incoherent 'don't ruin the controversy of being a weird insular island nation with terrible football decisions' reactionaries vs liberal metropolitan elites with their hi-tech cameras and their patience to wait for video replays/deal with all that Brussels red tape. Maybe we should hold a referendum, ft. Farage standing beside a still of England's 3rd goal in 1966, booming 'THEY WOULD TAKE THIS FROM US' and various FA dignitaries too busy getting paid to fight VAR's corner, culminating in a solemn pledge from new FA chief Richard Littlejohn to never allow replays to be shown ever, even for the viewing public, and to ensure only the most controversial and inept of referees to take charge of matches from now on
I don't understand anyone against video evidence. Surely you want the correct decision.
Some of my instinctive opposition comes from remembering attempts by American TV companies in the seventies to insert ads into live games. Regular appeals and time outs to review previous "plays" would be an ideal opportunity for selling IPhones to the rest of the world while the players and spectators stand in the cold waiting for the signal to restart the game? Probably a bit paranoid now to think the game might go that way though!
They've now realised in the NFL at least that the stops are turning younger viewers away. Plans are ahead to decreases stoppages and ad time from next season.
Sorry but I can't see how this would kill the game. Yes it may well interrupt play from time to time - but could you imagine the life that will be given to the game if the behaviour of those play acting, diving or deliberately fouling can be properly called into question? The decisions of referees and linesmen can be challenged or vindicated and possibly - if it was implemented well, off-the-ball incidents would be reviewable, too.
I suspect it wouldn't take too long too see a change in behaviour on the pitch from players once a few of them have been caught - and the game itself surely is the best winner from what comes out of it?
I'd love to see it sensibly and maturely implemented under Premier League and EFL.
Used for the first time in a competitive game. Wellington Phoenix v Sydney yesterday in the A-League.
The introduction of goal-line technology can be defended, but VAR is complete utter bullshit.
Decisions add to the theatre of football. Games stopped a couple of times every half, so the video ref can review a situation - please don't let this be the norm.
I think it needs to be used, when a goal should be given or not and if a player should be sent off or not.
Both these situations can greatly affect games and I don't think referees should be allowed to make blunders of this importance.
You'd stop the game every time there's a decision to be made as to whether a player should be sent off or not?
Did I say every time?
The game isn't constantly being stopped for these decisions and in any respect if a foul has been committed the game is stopped, regardless if it's a sending off or not.
The time it takes, to take a free kick is time consuming anyway, what with players arguing with the ref, each other, marking the distance the wall needs to be from the kick etc., etc., in that time the VAR would have made a decision.
Whose to say that the VAR official was correct it was only his opinion.
The guy on the radio will relay what he's seeing and give the ref some feedback. The ref still makes the final call. In some instances he'll say "it's 100% a head butt when you were looking the other way" or "without a doubt he was onside". Stuff where, when we are watching it at home, we could call up the ref on his mobile and tell him so quickly we could fix the game ourselves.
The interesting area is how they handle the more subjective decisions. What we shouldn't lose sight of is the difference between what a ref sees with his own eyes, and what 24fps, TV pictures relay. Body language, things being said, niggly stuff - sometimes TV doesn't convey what a ref is experiencing. As long as the ref makes the final call it should be fine, but it'll be interesting to see the audience reaction when a ref overrules VAR for the first time.
Whats the point then of having a ref and linesmen...no need for them now. just have a man in a box watching on TV.
So who is going to control the players, enforce the 10 yards at free kicks, tell the players the decisions ?
I didn't read in detail, but are you suggesting a giant tannoy should boom out the decisions every 30 seconds ?
Yes if you like grounds have tannoy system. Why not utilise it. In fact why doesn't a computer work out the result. Save us all going. If people are suggesting a third man who only has an opinion ref it from a lofty position.
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.
Of course they'd go back to award the penalty. That's the whole point. All because they go on and score doesn't mean the handball no longer occured.
I don't understand anyone against video evidence. Surely you want the correct decision.
Some of my instinctive opposition comes from remembering attempts by American TV companies in the seventies to insert ads into live games. Regular appeals and time outs to review previous "plays" would be an ideal opportunity for selling IPhones to the rest of the world while the players and spectators stand in the cold waiting for the signal to restart the game? Probably a bit paranoid now to think the game might go that way though!
They've now realised in the NFL at least that the stops are turning younger viewers away. Plans are ahead to decreases stoppages and ad time from next season.
That's because they add specific breaks for ads, like after the kick off! I don't think they'll change the decision review process?
Used for the first time in a competitive game. Wellington Phoenix v Sydney yesterday in the A-League.
The introduction of goal-line technology can be defended, but VAR is complete utter bullshit.
Decisions add to the theatre of football. Games stopped a couple of times every half, so the video ref can review a situation - please don't let this be the norm.
I think it needs to be used, when a goal should be given or not and if a player should be sent off or not.
Both these situations can greatly affect games and I don't think referees should be allowed to make blunders of this importance.
You'd stop the game every time there's a decision to be made as to whether a player should be sent off or not?
Did I say every time?
The game isn't constantly being stopped for these decisions and in any respect if a foul has been committed the game is stopped, regardless if it's a sending off or not.
The time it takes, to take a free kick is time consuming anyway, what with players arguing with the ref, each other, marking the distance the wall needs to be from the kick etc., etc., in that time the VAR would have made a decision.
No you didn't. And that's the point. Who decides whether or not any tackle is deemed worthy of a review? Does the on-field ref decide which tackles are reviewed? If so, does he just ask for reviews of every foul he gives (in which case all fouls he misses go unpunished, which would be a complete failure of a review system)? Or does every challenge get reviewed automatically (in which case, we'll be adding to fixure congestion, becase Wednesday night games won't be finished before kick off time on Saturday)?
You said "...when a goal should be given or not and if a player should be sent off or not". So, what happens when two players go for a ball, both hit the deck and the ball spins out from the tackle to an attacking player? Does the ref stop the game and ask for the VAR to wind back the tape and review whether one (or both) should be sent off? If so, then every challenge will have to be reviewed in case there was a potential sending-off incident that the referee missed. And if not, then some incidents *will* be missed - which is what happens today - and the whole idea of video evidenc will have failed.
It's simply not possible to review every incident throughout the match, during play, within a few seconds of each incident. And, as soon as you miss one, you've negated the whole point of video refereeing.
Video refs work in sports which have "plays", ie short bursts of action followed by a dead-ball situation. That's why they work perfctly in cricket for line calls, rugby for tries and in gridiron for anything flagged; quite well in tennis (with some huge reservations); and won't work in a free-flowing game like football, which can have uninterrupted play for minutes on end.
Actually @sillav nitram let me ask you this question: have another look at the video on the original post. View it once, so that you see what the VAR saw, ie once in real time and twice more in slow-motion. Then answer this question: can you categorically say that, without question that either of the following *didn't* happen..?
The attacking player (light blue shirt) put his left hand on the dfender's arm. In so doing, he pushed the defender's arm up and onto the ball.
Is it possible that is what happened? Because if it's possible, then the VAR system has failed.
So what if it failed? It's still going to provide more accurate decion-making over the course of a game to have video used than not. Saying it failed once therefore "the whole idea has failed" is nonsense.
So what if it failed? It's still going to provide more accurate decion-making over the course of a game to have video used than not. Saying it failed once therefore "the whole idea has failed" is nonsense.
Here's "so what" if it failed: if you change the way football is played, so that matches are no longer in the sole control of the on-field referee, to a system that also gets it wrong, you've done nothing to improve the fans' confidence in decision-making, you don't have any reason to believe it will improve the behavious and attitude of players and managers and, equally important, you set off the conspiracy theorists. If in-match decisions are made off-field, via closed circuit tv and radio traffic to the ref, as soon as an obvious mistake is made, you open the door to people thinking - and eventually assuming - there are malignant forces at play.
If the ref makes a mistake, it's because (a) he didn't see it properly and/or (b) he's incompetent. When the "VAR" makes a "mistake", people will question whether it's been made deliberatetly.
There are lots of reasons why video refs are a crap idea in football; this is only one of them.
The referee often plays an advantage and then goes back to the original foul, when the balls gone out of play. I don't see why that couldn't continue.
Also the FA step in when dangerous play occurs that the ref, misses during matches, that also should continue.
The VAR is there to assist, we've already seen how goal line technology is benefiting the game and I'm sure we'd all feel pissed off and angry if Charlton were denied a promotion, winning a Championship, Cup Final (I know that's never likely to happen) or worse being relegated because a goal was disallowed or given that went against us.
I'm not saying it's perfect and ultimately someone has to have the final say and presumably that would be the VAR and one would just have to accept, that despite all efforts, mistakes may still happen.
I'm obviously not a referee or an expert on the game but it could at least be trialed, if it isn't already, to see the benefits and impact on the game, whether it slows matches down etc., etc.,
If the technology is available, then we should use it but that's just my opinion.
Whose to say that the VAR official was correct it was only his opinion.
The guy on the radio will relay what he's seeing and give the ref some feedback. The ref still makes the final call. In some instances he'll say "it's 100% a head butt when you were looking the other way" or "without a doubt he was onside". Stuff where, when we are watching it at home, we could call up the ref on his mobile and tell him so quickly we could fix the game ourselves.
The interesting area is how they handle the more subjective decisions. What we shouldn't lose sight of is the difference between what a ref sees with his own eyes, and what 24fps, TV pictures relay. Body language, things being said, niggly stuff - sometimes TV doesn't convey what a ref is experiencing. As long as the ref makes the final call it should be fine, but it'll be interesting to see the audience reaction when a ref overrules VAR for the first time.
Last week on an ipl game of cricket the video umpire took about 5 mins to decide whether a batsman was run out or not. He was clearly about a foot outside the crease yet took 5 minutes to decide it. Those who think the decision will take seconds are off their head.
So if we should draw advantage of it, if the technology is available, where do we stop? After all, technology is only going to improve vastly in the next 20-30 years. Why not ensure every single freekick is given? Ball rolling out if play + offside will be an easy one. No more linesmen in the future then. After all, we want to eliminate errors from the ref. And if it's only supposed to be used situations, which can change a game, then why isn't an incorrect offside call allowed to be reviewed? The player was one on one with the keeper and if he'd scored, they would have been promoted.
So what if it failed? It's still going to provide more accurate decion-making over the course of a game to have video used than not. Saying it failed once therefore "the whole idea has failed" is nonsense.
Here's "so what" if it failed: if you change the way football is played, so that matches are no longer in the sole control of the on-field referee, to a system that also gets it wrong, you've done nothing to improve the fans' confidence in decision-making, you don't have any reason to believe it will improve the behavious and attitude of players and managers and, equally important, you set off the conspiracy theorists. If in-match decisions are made off-field, via closed circuit tv and radio traffic to the ref, as soon as an obvious mistake is made, you open the door to people thinking - and eventually assuming - there are malignant forces at play.
If the ref makes a mistake, it's because (a) he didn't see it properly and/or (b) he's incompetent. When the "VAR" makes a "mistake", people will question whether it's been made deliberatetly.
There are lots of reasons why video refs are a crap idea in football; this is only one of them.
That's all very dramatic, and I'm not sure where the conspiracy theory suddenly came from (seems like a bit of a stretch to me) but I still don't understand the logic of believing one 'failure' (presumably if they're uncertain they'll tell the ref that anyway) undermines the entire system and causes such pandemonium. By that logic, there's no point having a referee either, surely?
So if we should draw advantage of it, if the technology is available, where do we stop? After all, technology is only going to improve vastly in the next 20-30 years. Why not ensure every single freekick is given? Ball rolling out if play + offside will be an easy one. No more linesmen in the future then. After all, we want to eliminate errors from the ref. And if it's only supposed to be used situations, which can change a game, then why isn't an incorrect offside call allowed to be reviewed? The player was one on one with the keeper and if he'd scored, they would have been promoted.
Yes. Absolutely. If we could employ computers to make all decisions 100% accurately then why wouldn't we do that?
The only drawback to VAR that I can see is slowing the game down. And it seems pretty clear that the authorities are trialling this stuff to see if it can be used without negatively impacting the pace of the game. It's absolutely worth doing that to find out. The rest of this sounds like "man shakes fist at cloud" stuff to me.
Comments
Now fast forward five years. You're watching a Sunday League game down the park... where can you foresee a problem?
Probably the same ones who objected when the substitute format changed from just 1.
I think it needs to be used, when a goal should be given or not and if a player should be sent off or not.
Both these situations can greatly affect games and I don't think referees should be allowed to make blunders of this importance.
2. Discarding the ref, which I've talked about above, at the moment, yes, it is possible to play the same game with minimum cost. When you bring in video replays you lose that, that's my point. (As I said before, the stands, chearleaders etc are irrelevant to what happens on the pitch/the rules.)
Another point not mentioned is that if you want players to show more respect for referees, then surely taking responsibility/authority away from referees in dribs and drabs, by handing it over to video, is exactly the wrong way to go about it...
I still haven't heard anyone explain what the tangible difference would be for the amateur game. Are you able to put it into real terms? Like, I turn up on a Sunday, meet my mates, get changed, get on the pitch, play, score, concede, get frustrated with the ref or not, match ends, we have a beer and go home... at which point did the VAR from the Premier League the day before impact or change that process?
BUT I am dead against VAR in football.
All of the other sports in which this has been used successfully will naturally have frequent stoppages in play, when video evidence can be used. In cricket, for example, there's a opportunity to review each individual ball without interrupting the play itself. The Hawkeye system in tennis gives instant results, similar to goalline technology in football, which I don't have a problem with. Even in rugby, which is probably the closest analogy to football, there are far more natural stoppages due to the technical and physical nature of the game.
Football doesn't have this - so you are left with a number of imperfect options. Do you allow the referee to stop developing play to review an incident and risk breaking up an attack, or do you let the attack continue, have a team score, and then rewind 2-3 minutes of play to conclude the team committed a foul at the other end and chalk the goal off? If you do that, what do you do with the 'lost' playing time? Allowing a number of 'challenges' from the players themselves poses the same question - do they have to wait for the ball to go dead? How far back are they allowed to then challenge?
The other issue for me is that, where technological assistance is provided, it is human nature to want to rely upon this as much as possible. We already see this in rugby union. It's rare these days for a try to be awarded at all without some reference back to the VAR, from questioning specific incidents all the way up to the faintly ridiculous ('Is there any reason I can't award a try?') If VAR is introduced in football there will be even more pressure on referees to get things right - there will effectively be no excuse if a referee misses an incident and doesn't refer to the video ref. Football is all about the emotion. When Charlton score, I want to celebrate - not wait 2 minutes while somebody watches replays from 7 different angles before deciding whether or not the goal will stand. This is inevitable - what referee is not going to want to cover themselves given the opportunity?
There are other ways to deal with cheating (e.g. applying bans post-match where diving is proved by video evidence), without destroying the flow and emotion of the game.
And on top of that I agree with the worries about it disrupting the flow of the game, making it less enjoyable to watch, + the concerns about overreliance on technology and how that affects the autority of the ref.
Like I'm not being overdramatic, it's not going to make me stop watching football or anything, but that's just my opinion on it.
Probably a bit paranoid now to think the game might go that way though!
I suspect it wouldn't take too long too see a change in behaviour on the pitch from players once a few of them have been caught - and the game itself surely is the best winner from what comes out of it?
I'd love to see it sensibly and maturely implemented under Premier League and EFL.
I didn't read in detail, but are you suggesting a giant tannoy should boom out the decisions every 30 seconds ?
The game isn't constantly being stopped for these decisions and in any respect if a foul has been committed the game is stopped, regardless if it's a sending off or not.
The time it takes, to take a free kick is time consuming anyway, what with players arguing with the ref, each other, marking the distance the wall needs to be from the kick etc., etc., in that time the VAR would have made a decision.
The interesting area is how they handle the more subjective decisions. What we shouldn't lose sight of is the difference between what a ref sees with his own eyes, and what 24fps, TV pictures relay. Body language, things being said, niggly stuff - sometimes TV doesn't convey what a ref is experiencing. As long as the ref makes the final call it should be fine, but it'll be interesting to see the audience reaction when a ref overrules VAR for the first time.
You said "...when a goal should be given or not and if a player should be sent off or not". So, what happens when two players go for a ball, both hit the deck and the ball spins out from the tackle to an attacking player? Does the ref stop the game and ask for the VAR to wind back the tape and review whether one (or both) should be sent off? If so, then every challenge will have to be reviewed in case there was a potential sending-off incident that the referee missed. And if not, then some incidents *will* be missed - which is what happens today - and the whole idea of video evidenc will have failed.
It's simply not possible to review every incident throughout the match, during play, within a few seconds of each incident. And, as soon as you miss one, you've negated the whole point of video refereeing.
Video refs work in sports which have "plays", ie short bursts of action followed by a dead-ball situation. That's why they work perfctly in cricket for line calls, rugby for tries and in gridiron for anything flagged; quite well in tennis (with some huge reservations); and won't work in a free-flowing game like football, which can have uninterrupted play for minutes on end.
The attacking player (light blue shirt) put his left hand on the dfender's arm. In so doing, he pushed the defender's arm up and onto the ball.
Is it possible that is what happened? Because if it's possible, then the VAR system has failed.
If the ref makes a mistake, it's because (a) he didn't see it properly and/or (b) he's incompetent. When the "VAR" makes a "mistake", people will question whether it's been made deliberatetly.
There are lots of reasons why video refs are a crap idea in football; this is only one of them.
Also the FA step in when dangerous play occurs that the ref, misses during matches, that also should continue.
The VAR is there to assist, we've already seen how goal line technology is benefiting the game and I'm sure we'd all feel pissed off and angry if Charlton were denied a promotion, winning a Championship, Cup Final (I know that's never likely to happen) or worse being relegated because a goal was disallowed or given that went against us.
I'm not saying it's perfect and ultimately someone has to have the final say and presumably that would be the VAR and one would just have to accept, that despite all efforts, mistakes may still happen.
I'm obviously not a referee or an expert on the game but it could at least be trialed, if it isn't already, to see the benefits and impact on the game, whether it slows matches down etc., etc.,
If the technology is available, then we should use it but that's just my opinion.
After all, technology is only going to improve vastly in the next 20-30 years. Why not ensure every single freekick is given?
Ball rolling out if play + offside will be an easy one. No more linesmen in the future then.
After all, we want to eliminate errors from the ref.
And if it's only supposed to be used situations, which can change a game, then why isn't an incorrect offside call allowed to be reviewed? The player was one on one with the keeper and if he'd scored, they would have been promoted.
The only drawback to VAR that I can see is slowing the game down. And it seems pretty clear that the authorities are trialling this stuff to see if it can be used without negatively impacting the pace of the game. It's absolutely worth doing that to find out. The rest of this sounds like "man shakes fist at cloud" stuff to me.