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.
This is true of rugby, but not true of football. The ref can't return play to an original incident when the ball goes out of play. If it goes out of play while he's "playing advantage", it's a throw, a corner or a goal-kick.
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.
It is there to assist. But, ask yourself whom it's assisting? The ref? The players? The fans?
Well, obviously it's assisting - to some extent - the ref. It helps ensure all decisions (except, of course, the ones it gets wrong) are made clearly. And that helps the ref control the game, because he becomes blameless in the eyes of the players. Although, of course, it will simply mean that players stop arguing with the ref about the decisions he (or she) makes, and instead argues with the ref to ensure decisions are sent upstairs. We'll have the stupid sight of players demanding that the ref stops the flow of the game to send decisions to faceless administrator watching the telly.
Is it helping the players? No, not really. It's interrupting their game, making it stop and start, breaking up the flow, pace and rhythm of the game. They don't get to see the decision and they may not even know why the decision's been made. It changes the game. And not for the better.
Is it helping the fans? No it's not. It's not the sort of intervention that suits football fans. Happy clappy tennis fans that like to "oooooOOOOH" the replay of the ball on the big screen: yes. Packed cricket stadiums full of fans sitting almost 100 yards from a fist-sized ball wanting to see a close-up of action on a big screen with a definite in/out decision: yes. But football fans who want to see exciting, fast, blood and thunder, passionate football, the smack of boot on ball and the rippling of ball on net: no. Football fans want to scream and shout about the thing they saw one second ago and, while doing so, want to feel the adrenaline rush when the next thing happens in one second's time.
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.
Yes! Mistakes happen! Not many, not often, but, in fact, sometimes. According to the PGMO, Premier League referees make 245 decisions per game. How many of these are wrong? Five.
That's not five penalty decisions per match. Five decisions. It might be a throw the wrong way, a free kick awarded when there shouldn't have been one, a "play-on" when it should have been stopped.
Is there any point bringing in a system that fails to eliminate those five decisions? Or, are we satisfied that we can "cope" with "only" getting 98% right?
The ref makes a decision every 22 seconds. What is the process of checking each of those decisions, live, in-play? How does a VAR review, almost three times a minute, the decisions the ref makes? And, of course, we can't just say "well we'll only look at the decisions that result in a goal being scored or not scored", because - and this is the nature of football - any decision can result in a goal scored or conceded within a few seconds: it takes one pass to split a defence and go one-on-one with a goalkeeper.
But it's not just the ref's decisions we need to look at. To the referee's 245 decisions, we need to add the Assistant referees' 50. That's a total of 345 decisions. One every fifteen seconds. How do you do that? In order to iron out the 2% of (mainly trivial) mistakes, you have to review them all, find the tiny number that are wrong and overturn them. How do you do that?
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.,
I'm not opposed to it being trialed. And, actually, I'm not opposed to it being trialed a long, long way away. So, in that respect, New Zealand would seem a great place. Not least because they'll be able to compare how poorly it will work in football, compared to how brilliantly it works in rugby and cricket.
If the technology is available, then we should use it but that's just my opinion.
Goal-line technology works as well in the Premier League as hawkeye (and its competing technologies) in cricket and tennis. Actually, because it works without interrupting the play, I would say it works even better. I am all for goal-line technology.
But I am absolutely against the idea of asking someone "upstairs" to give his/her opinion on a matter that the ref, fifteen yards away has already made a call on.
Refs calling the game without recourse to video assistance aren't perfect. But, at 98%, they're close enough for me. And, the cost - in terms of game interruptions, accusations of interference, crowd unrest and "spoiling" the world's greatest game - is far too great for my liking.
When I go to a game, I want to witness the raw emotion of a match unfolding in front of my eyes. I don't want to have a referee interpreting a administrator's interpretation of a video replay of an event that happened a few minutes ago. Watching football shouldn't be relegated to a series of third-hand decisions; it should be about the adrenaline rush of willing your team on, watching them score and going instantly, uncontrollably and totally fucking mental.
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.
What about being able to verify if a penalty is actually a penalty or if someone dived? Potential red card offence - so let's check if someone's deliberately studded the player or if he was going for the ball and it was not deliberate. And what about catching violent conduct at the time it's been committed? Might actually give confidence to the fans that cheating dirty bastards have to answer for their behaviour and it might curb the belligerent and confrontational attitudes of players towards the referee.
The whole 'controversy makes the game exciting' argument is nonsense IMO.
If you want controversy then go and watch Big Brother.
In this day and age we should be able to keep sport at the top level as fair as possible so that those who actually make a living playing the game get the wins/losses they deserve based on their performances.
"But what would we talk about down the pub without the controversial decisions?!?!?"
How about the game itself...? I really don't want to spend money to go and watch a game to then come out of it talking about a referee or linesman to be honest.
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 deliberately.
There are lots of reasons why video refs are a crap idea in football; this is only one of them.
What about being able to verify if a penalty is actually a penalty or if someone dived? Potential red card offence - so let's check if someone's deliberately studded the player or if he was going for the ball and it was not deliberate. And what about catching violent conduct at the time it's been committed? Might actually give confidence to the fans that cheating dirty bastards have to answer for their behaviour and it might curb the belligerent and confrontational attitudes of players towards the referee.
I am not suggesting that it wouldn't be better if we could be sure that all decisions are correct. Of course that would be ideal. But I do question whether we could ever get to that stage without compromising some of the things that make football so much better to watch than, say, gridiron.
You've asked "what about being able to verify if a penalty is actually a penalty or if someone dived?" If there's an infallible way of determining that, without stopping the game artificially that would be great. But how?
If you can tell me how it can work in the following case, I'd be more supportive. But, as I think it can't, I am going to remain skeptical. (Or rather, vehemently opposed).
Here's the scenario, of a penalty/no penalty/dive situation. Tell me how this might work...
Through ball to the (blue) centre forward who beats the offside trap (at least, the Assistant Referee does not flag for offside). He controls the ball and heads toward the penalty area. The defender chases him and reaches him around the edge of the box. The defender attempts to tackle him. Both the defender and attacker go to ground. The ball rolls to the goalkeeper who boots it clear. The ball flies into the opponents half where an attacker (red) controls it, shoots and scores.
Until now, everyone (reluctantly or otherwise) would accept the decision of the referee to play on at the point of the initial challenge. No penalty, no dive, passionate response from the crowd. Play on. Game moves ahead quickly.
But with VAR what happens and when? In particular, what happens when if the VAR reviews the incident and determines that the attacker dived?
At the end of the day you are still relying on someone forming an opinion on a decision. What if the VAR gets it worng have two VARs, three, four.
I can just see it now when the first VAR decision goes against Jose Mourinho....At the end of the day when human beings are involved no matter what system are in use, there will be mistakes.
Right decisions can only be made as a matter of fact (did the ball cross the line or not) not opinion.
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 deliberately.
There are lots of reasons why video refs are a crap idea in football; this is only one of them.
What about being able to verify if a penalty is actually a penalty or if someone dived? Potential red card offence - so let's check if someone's deliberately studded the player or if he was going for the ball and it was not deliberate. And what about catching violent conduct at the time it's been committed? Might actually give confidence to the fans that cheating dirty bastards have to answer for their behaviour and it might curb the belligerent and confrontational attitudes of players towards the referee.
I am not suggesting that it wouldn't be better if we could be sure that all decisions are correct. Of course that would be ideal. But I do question whether we could ever get to that stage without compromising some of the things that make football so much better to watch than, say, gridiron.
You've asked "what about being able to verify if a penalty is actually a penalty or if someone dived?" If there's an infallible way of determining that, without stopping the game artificially that would be great. But how?
If you can tell me how it can work in the following case, I'd be more supportive. But, as I think it can't, I am going to remain skeptical. (Or rather, vehemently opposed).
Here's the scenario, of a penalty/no penalty/dive situation. Tell me how this might work...
Through ball to the (blue) centre forward who beats the offside trap (at least, the Assistant Referee does not flag for offside). He controls the ball and heads toward the penalty area. The defender chases him and reaches him around the edge of the box. The defender attempts to tackle him. Both the defender and attacker go to ground. The ball rolls to the goalkeeper who boots it clear. The ball flies into the opponents half where an attacker (red) controls it, shoots and scores.
Until now, everyone (reluctantly or otherwise) would accept the decision of the referee to play on at the point of the initial challenge. No penalty, no dive, passionate response from the crowd. Play on. Game moves ahead quickly.
But with VAR what happens and when? In particular, what happens when if the VAR reviews the incident and determines that the attacker dived?
More concerning is what happens if the linesman does put up his flag and the review shows that the forward was NOT offside?
Why on earth would the referee blow his whistle in this situation when there is even a small chance he might be wrong? If he doesn't blow his whistle any mistake can be corrected later but once he gives offside there is no way back.
Unless you change the rules of the game somehow ........
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 deliberately.
There are lots of reasons why video refs are a crap idea in football; this is only one of them.
What about being able to verify if a penalty is actually a penalty or if someone dived? Potential red card offence - so let's check if someone's deliberately studded the player or if he was going for the ball and it was not deliberate. And what about catching violent conduct at the time it's been committed? Might actually give confidence to the fans that cheating dirty bastards have to answer for their behaviour and it might curb the belligerent and confrontational attitudes of players towards the referee.
I am not suggesting that it wouldn't be better if we could be sure that all decisions are correct. Of course that would be ideal. But I do question whether we could ever get to that stage without compromising some of the things that make football so much better to watch than, say, gridiron.
You've asked "what about being able to verify if a penalty is actually a penalty or if someone dived?" If there's an infallible way of determining that, without stopping the game artificially that would be great. But how?
If you can tell me how it can work in the following case, I'd be more supportive. But, as I think it can't, I am going to remain skeptical. (Or rather, vehemently opposed).
Here's the scenario, of a penalty/no penalty/dive situation. Tell me how this might work...
Through ball to the (blue) centre forward who beats the offside trap (at least, the Assistant Referee does not flag for offside). He controls the ball and heads toward the penalty area. The defender chases him and reaches him around the edge of the box. The defender attempts to tackle him. Both the defender and attacker go to ground. The ball rolls to the goalkeeper who boots it clear. The ball flies into the opponents half where an attacker (red) controls it, shoots and scores.
Until now, everyone (reluctantly or otherwise) would accept the decision of the referee to play on at the point of the initial challenge. No penalty, no dive, passionate response from the crowd. Play on. Game moves ahead quickly.
But with VAR what happens and when? In particular, what happens when if the VAR reviews the incident and determines that the attacker dived?
More concerning is what happens if the linesman does put up his flag and the review shows that the forward was NOT offside?
Why on earth would the referee blow his whistle in this situation when there is even a small chance he might be wrong? If he doesn't blow his whistle any mistake can be corrected later but once he gives offside there is no way back.
Unless you change the rules of the game somehow ........
In the France Spain game didn't the ref rule offside and the goal given.
Used twice yesterday between Sydney FC and Perth Glory. Some would say that the video reg got it wrong at the 2-0 goal. Incidents at 00.54 and 03.59 https://youtu.be/F8JPF--59IA
Used twice yesterday between Sydney FC and Perth Glory. Some would say that the video reg got it wrong at the 2-0 goal. Incidents at 00.54 and 03.59 https://youtu.be/F8JPF--59IA
That is pretty conclusive evidence that the VAR system doesn't work.
You would genuinely just throw it in the bin because of one failure? The entire thing has failed? What a ridiculous attitude.
Yep.
Thats why today I'm taking the monumental step of delivering a petition to the FA, demanding the immediate withdrawal of all referees. I saw one make a mistake once and decided they're not worth the hassle..
Only joking, Chizz. I get your views, but do think it's a bit premature to use that as conclusive evidence that they dont work. I'd genuinely like to see a trial and some numbers, but I'm not exactly convinced myself tbh.
You would genuinely just throw it in the bin because of one failure? The entire thing has failed? What a ridiculous attitude.
No - I am completely and utterly opposed to it with every sinew and fibre of my mind and body anyway Jim, so I'm totally biased.
This is just a fantastic example of it still being down to someone's opinion, and them getting it horribly wrong, when the original official called it spot on. Chizz's well constructed post shows that the officials on the field are right enough of the time, and evokes the spirit of why we love football. I don't want automatons thanks.
The whole 'controversy makes the game exciting' argument is nonsense IMO.
If you want controversy then go and watch Big Brother.
In this day and age we should be able to keep sport at the top level as fair as possible so that those who actually make a living playing the game get the wins/losses they deserve based on their performances.
"But what would we talk about down the pub without the controversial decisions?!?!?"
How about the game itself...? I really don't want to spend money to go and watch a game to then come out of it talking about a referee or linesman to be honest.
Well, best you start supporting a Premier league team then Tom, because our club are going to spend many more years at a level where video replays don't exist mate.
Watch ipl cricket. Twice this week they took 5 minutes over a catch and whether Brendan Mccullams hat touched the boundary. The catch was debatable as the player asked for the review. Further to this there was time wasted over not out stumpings. Cricketers are appealing for everything even when their gut feeling is its not out. A 75 minute 20-20 game is now lasting 90 minutes.... Dont worry some clowns still think it will only add seconds to a game.
Watch ipl cricket. Twice this week they took 5 minutes over a catch and whether Brendan Mccullams hat touched the boundary. The catch was debatable as the player asked for the review. Further to this there was time wasted over not out stumpings. Cricketers are appealing for everything even when their gut feeling is its not out. A 75 minute 20-20 game is now lasting 90 minutes.... Dont worry some clowns still think it will only add seconds to a game.
"Some clowns" - it's much easier to win a debate when your making up an imaginary opponent. Which clowns in particular are you referring to?
Being pro-VAR doesn't mean signing up to any old system. The hope is that a system can be introduced that has minimal impact on delays, but a positive impact on decision-making.
I doubt anybody involved wants to get into a cricket-like situation. But then again, few people complain about the consistent and lengthy breaks in play caused by fake injuries or small brawls such as today's at Boro. That's acceptable, but checking to see if Sane dived (he did) is too time consuming?
Boro and Swansea were badly cheated by two of the the richest clubs in the world today. Sadly, that lack of honour isn't going to change until players realise they can't get away with it. VAR can do that, if used correctly.
Watch ipl cricket. Twice this week they took 5 minutes over a catch and whether Brendan Mccullams hat touched the boundary. The catch was debatable as the player asked for the review. Further to this there was time wasted over not out stumpings. Cricketers are appealing for everything even when their gut feeling is its not out. A 75 minute 20-20 game is now lasting 90 minutes.... Dont worry some clowns still think it will only add seconds to a game.
"Some clowns" - it's much easier to win a debate when your making up an imaginary opponent. Which clowns in particular are you referring to?
Being pro-VAR doesn't mean signing up to any old system. The hope is that a system can be introduced that has minimal impact on delays, but a positive impact on decision-making.
I doubt anybody involved wants to get into a cricket-like situation. But then again, few people complain about the consistent and lengthy breaks in play caused by fake injuries or small brawls such as today's at Boro. That's acceptable, but checking to see if Sane dived (he did) is too time consuming?
Boro and Swansea were badly cheated by two of the the richest clubs in the world today. Sadly, that lack of honour isn't going to change until players realise they can't get away with it. VAR can do that, if used correctly.
The clowns that want var introduced... Now the world cup. I will say again those that want var still want officials in the middle ..... WHY.
Watch ipl cricket. Twice this week they took 5 minutes over a catch and whether Brendan Mccullams hat touched the boundary. The catch was debatable as the player asked for the review. Further to this there was time wasted over not out stumpings. Cricketers are appealing for everything even when their gut feeling is its not out. A 75 minute 20-20 game is now lasting 90 minutes.... Dont worry some clowns still think it will only add seconds to a game.
"Some clowns" - it's much easier to win a debate when your making up an imaginary opponent. Which clowns in particular are you referring to?
Being pro-VAR doesn't mean signing up to any old system. The hope is that a system can be introduced that has minimal impact on delays, but a positive impact on decision-making.
I doubt anybody involved wants to get into a cricket-like situation. But then again, few people complain about the consistent and lengthy breaks in play caused by fake injuries or small brawls such as today's at Boro. That's acceptable, but checking to see if Sane dived (he did) is too time consuming?
Boro and Swansea were badly cheated by two of the the richest clubs in the world today. Sadly, that lack of honour isn't going to change until players realise they can't get away with it. VAR can do that, if used correctly.
The clowns that want var introduced... Now the world cup. I will say again those that want var still want officials in the middle ..... WHY.
I didnt see the city utd games as i was elsewhere... At Charlton
The commentators seemed to imply that the original decision could not be overruled without "clear" evidence that the linesman was wrong. So the second goal had to stand because interfering with play is a subjective and the refs opinion overrules the VAR opinion.
Interesting to see what happens with more difficult decisions!
Good news though that the system hasn't been used much (although twice in this game) and that the linesman is brave enough to put his flag up rather than leaving it to the VAR.
Watch ipl cricket. Twice this week they took 5 minutes over a catch and whether Brendan Mccullams hat touched the boundary. The catch was debatable as the player asked for the review. Further to this there was time wasted over not out stumpings. Cricketers are appealing for everything even when their gut feeling is its not out. A 75 minute 20-20 game is now lasting 90 minutes.... Dont worry some clowns still think it will only add seconds to a game.
"Some clowns" - it's much easier to win a debate when your making up an imaginary opponent. Which clowns in particular are you referring to?
Being pro-VAR doesn't mean signing up to any old system. The hope is that a system can be introduced that has minimal impact on delays, but a positive impact on decision-making.
I doubt anybody involved wants to get into a cricket-like situation. But then again, few people complain about the consistent and lengthy breaks in play caused by fake injuries or small brawls such as today's at Boro. That's acceptable, but checking to see if Sane dived (he did) is too time consuming?
Boro and Swansea were badly cheated by two of the the richest clubs in the world today. Sadly, that lack of honour isn't going to change until players realise they can't get away with it. VAR can do that, if used correctly.
The clowns that want var introduced... Now the world cup. I will say again those that want var still want officials in the middle ..... WHY.
I didnt see the city utd games as i was elsewhere... At Charlton
Did you just quote/ argue with yourself?
I didn't see those games either. There's this system we can use... but I'm not sure how deep-rooted your hatred of replays is...
If every dive results in a yellow card, there will be less diving. I don't think that's much of a stretch.
Why not just use VAR after the game? If someone is proved to be diving, ban him for x amount of games.
This makes sense. Almost no reason why they shouldn't do this immediately. The only issue being that the ref would be less likely to award a free kick for diving, as it would be picked up later.
You would genuinely just throw it in the bin because of one failure? The entire thing has failed? What a ridiculous attitude.
Yes I would.
If the purpose of the change is to prevent errors or to stop players, managers and staff arguing, it has demonstrably failed on both counts. It therefore doesn't work.
That doesn't, of course, mean that a different system might not work. If there's a better system, it might be worth considering that. But this one has failed, so the test need not continue.
The "ridiculous" thing to do would be to continue to support a failed concept.
It's not prevent errors, it's to reduce them. In an ideal world, errors are not made but that's not going to happen with whatever measures we take.
You''ll never get a perfect system, nor do you get a near perfect system straight away. You put something in place that you're confident works better than already used and you refine it going forward to make the system better.
Say for example, referees get offside decisions wrong 2.5% of the time. Why would you not implement a system that starts at 1% error and continue to improve the system as and when you can?
By contrast, doing nothing is to suggest that the current level of refereeing mistakes are fine when multi-millions are on the line.
Comments
No reason this should change, either with or without VAR. But it should take place retrospectively, not during the game. It is there to assist. But, ask yourself whom it's assisting? The ref? The players? The fans?
Well, obviously it's assisting - to some extent - the ref. It helps ensure all decisions (except, of course, the ones it gets wrong) are made clearly. And that helps the ref control the game, because he becomes blameless in the eyes of the players. Although, of course, it will simply mean that players stop arguing with the ref about the decisions he (or she) makes, and instead argues with the ref to ensure decisions are sent upstairs. We'll have the stupid sight of players demanding that the ref stops the flow of the game to send decisions to faceless administrator watching the telly.
Is it helping the players? No, not really. It's interrupting their game, making it stop and start, breaking up the flow, pace and rhythm of the game. They don't get to see the decision and they may not even know why the decision's been made. It changes the game. And not for the better.
Is it helping the fans? No it's not. It's not the sort of intervention that suits football fans. Happy clappy tennis fans that like to "oooooOOOOH" the replay of the ball on the big screen: yes. Packed cricket stadiums full of fans sitting almost 100 yards from a fist-sized ball wanting to see a close-up of action on a big screen with a definite in/out decision: yes. But football fans who want to see exciting, fast, blood and thunder, passionate football, the smack of boot on ball and the rippling of ball on net: no. Football fans want to scream and shout about the thing they saw one second ago and, while doing so, want to feel the adrenaline rush when the next thing happens in one second's time.
Yes! Mistakes happen! Not many, not often, but, in fact, sometimes. According to the PGMO, Premier League referees make 245 decisions per game. How many of these are wrong? Five.
That's not five penalty decisions per match. Five decisions. It might be a throw the wrong way, a free kick awarded when there shouldn't have been one, a "play-on" when it should have been stopped.
Is there any point bringing in a system that fails to eliminate those five decisions? Or, are we satisfied that we can "cope" with "only" getting 98% right?
The ref makes a decision every 22 seconds. What is the process of checking each of those decisions, live, in-play? How does a VAR review, almost three times a minute, the decisions the ref makes? And, of course, we can't just say "well we'll only look at the decisions that result in a goal being scored or not scored", because - and this is the nature of football - any decision can result in a goal scored or conceded within a few seconds: it takes one pass to split a defence and go one-on-one with a goalkeeper.
But it's not just the ref's decisions we need to look at. To the referee's 245 decisions, we need to add the Assistant referees' 50. That's a total of 345 decisions. One every fifteen seconds. How do you do that? In order to iron out the 2% of (mainly trivial) mistakes, you have to review them all, find the tiny number that are wrong and overturn them. How do you do that?
I'm not opposed to it being trialed. And, actually, I'm not opposed to it being trialed a long, long way away. So, in that respect, New Zealand would seem a great place. Not least because they'll be able to compare how poorly it will work in football, compared to how brilliantly it works in rugby and cricket. Goal-line technology works as well in the Premier League as hawkeye (and its competing technologies) in cricket and tennis. Actually, because it works without interrupting the play, I would say it works even better. I am all for goal-line technology.
But I am absolutely against the idea of asking someone "upstairs" to give his/her opinion on a matter that the ref, fifteen yards away has already made a call on.
Refs calling the game without recourse to video assistance aren't perfect. But, at 98%, they're close enough for me. And, the cost - in terms of game interruptions, accusations of interference, crowd unrest and "spoiling" the world's greatest game - is far too great for my liking.
When I go to a game, I want to witness the raw emotion of a match unfolding in front of my eyes. I don't want to have a referee interpreting a administrator's interpretation of a video replay of an event that happened a few minutes ago. Watching football shouldn't be relegated to a series of third-hand decisions; it should be about the adrenaline rush of willing your team on, watching them score and going instantly, uncontrollably and totally fucking mental.
If you want controversy then go and watch Big Brother.
In this day and age we should be able to keep sport at the top level as fair as possible so that those who actually make a living playing the game get the wins/losses they deserve based on their performances.
"But what would we talk about down the pub without the controversial decisions?!?!?"
How about the game itself...? I really don't want to spend money to go and watch a game to then come out of it talking about a referee or linesman to be honest.
You've asked "what about being able to verify if a penalty is actually a penalty or if someone dived?" If there's an infallible way of determining that, without stopping the game artificially that would be great. But how?
If you can tell me how it can work in the following case, I'd be more supportive. But, as I think it can't, I am going to remain skeptical. (Or rather, vehemently opposed).
Here's the scenario, of a penalty/no penalty/dive situation. Tell me how this might work...
Through ball to the (blue) centre forward who beats the offside trap (at least, the Assistant Referee does not flag for offside). He controls the ball and heads toward the penalty area. The defender chases him and reaches him around the edge of the box. The defender attempts to tackle him. Both the defender and attacker go to ground. The ball rolls to the goalkeeper who boots it clear. The ball flies into the opponents half where an attacker (red) controls it, shoots and scores.
Until now, everyone (reluctantly or otherwise) would accept the decision of the referee to play on at the point of the initial challenge. No penalty, no dive, passionate response from the crowd. Play on. Game moves ahead quickly.
But with VAR what happens and when? In particular, what happens when if the VAR reviews the incident and determines that the attacker dived?
I can just see it now when the first VAR decision goes against Jose Mourinho....At the end of the day when human beings are involved no matter what system are in use, there will be mistakes.
Right decisions can only be made as a matter of fact (did the ball cross the line or not) not opinion.
Also to what level wil this go down too.
Why on earth would the referee blow his whistle in this situation when there is even a small chance he might be wrong? If he doesn't blow his whistle any mistake can be corrected later but once he gives offside there is no way back.
Unless you change the rules of the game somehow ........
Incidents at 00.54 and 03.59
Interesting that the 3rd was scored during time added on for all the fucking about after the 2nd...
Thats why today I'm taking the monumental step of delivering a petition to the FA, demanding the immediate withdrawal of all referees. I saw one make a mistake once and decided they're not worth the hassle..
Only joking, Chizz.
This is just a fantastic example of it still being down to someone's opinion, and them getting it horribly wrong, when the original official called it spot on. Chizz's well constructed post shows that the officials on the field are right enough of the time, and evokes the spirit of why we love football. I don't want automatons thanks.
Being pro-VAR doesn't mean signing up to any old system. The hope is that a system can be introduced that has minimal impact on delays, but a positive impact on decision-making.
I doubt anybody involved wants to get into a cricket-like situation. But then again, few people complain about the consistent and lengthy breaks in play caused by fake injuries or small brawls such as today's at Boro. That's acceptable, but checking to see if Sane dived (he did) is too time consuming?
Boro and Swansea were badly cheated by two of the the richest clubs in the world today. Sadly, that lack of honour isn't going to change until players realise they can't get away with it. VAR can do that, if used correctly.
Interesting to see what happens with more difficult decisions!
Good news though that the system hasn't been used much (although twice in this game) and that the linesman is brave enough to put his flag up rather than leaving it to the VAR.
I didn't see those games either. There's this system we can use... but I'm not sure how deep-rooted your hatred of replays is...
If the purpose of the change is to prevent errors or to stop players, managers and staff arguing, it has demonstrably failed on both counts. It therefore doesn't work.
That doesn't, of course, mean that a different system might not work. If there's a better system, it might be worth considering that. But this one has failed, so the test need not continue.
The "ridiculous" thing to do would be to continue to support a failed concept.
You''ll never get a perfect system, nor do you get a near perfect system straight away. You put something in place that you're confident works better than already used and you refine it going forward to make the system better.
Say for example, referees get offside decisions wrong 2.5% of the time. Why would you not implement a system that starts at 1% error and continue to improve the system as and when you can?
By contrast, doing nothing is to suggest that the current level of refereeing mistakes are fine when multi-millions are on the line.