Anybody who still thinks VAR is a good idea needs their effing head examined... Got finally home after our debacle v Preston... Thanks SWT...... To see a son 210 second was it orwasn't it a penalty... Ffs I give up...
Anybody who still thinks VAR is a good idea needs their effing head examined... Got finally home after our debacle v Preston... Thanks SWT...... To see a son 210 second was it orwasn't it a penalty... Ffs I give up...
It is a good idea if used correctly.
I watch alot of MLS and its used very well there, the fact is no ref is england has looked at the screen which makes no sense
Read this thread, listened to radio debates, watched tv pundits argue over it. Strikes me this classic case of people who got personally invested in supporting a position and have personality type that cannot back down and admit they were wrong therefore argue the minutiae on every occasion. VAR is shite- needs scrapping.
So why is it working in Germany, Spain, France, Portugal, Belgium, Italy and others but it needs scrapping here in the U.K.?
Its been incredibly poorly implemented. The bloke watching the footage is having to make two decisions.
1. is it a foul/handball/whatever? 2. is it a clear and obvious mistake by the onfield ref?
The second question is far more subjective than the first and we are the only country putting that question to our video assistants.
Please, next season, do it like everyone else and scrap the “clear and obvious” nonsense. If it’s a foul it’s a foul. Please let’s not have this situation where we have to guess whether we think the ref should’ve seen it or not.
Going back on the marginal offsides, how is an attacker supposed to know if he's offside or not?, he plays to the general rule of being level, now he has to make sure he's behind the defender to make sure
Going back on the marginal offsides, how is an attacker supposed to know if he's offside or not?, he plays to the general rule of being level, now he has to make sure he's behind the defender to make sure
The answer to the question in your first sentence is the second part of your second sentence.
In the cold light day I would say that it was a total act of cowardice by the VAR officials not to overturn the red card.
Son was clearly distressed and even some of the Everton players to time to console him.
Not disagreeing but it would be a bit ridiculous if the ref gave a red and whilst halfway to the changing room, they reverse the decision and throw Son back on
In the cold light day I would say that it was a total act of cowardice by the VAR officials not to overturn the red card.
Son was clearly distressed and even some of the Everton players to time to console him.
Not disagreeing but it would be a bit ridiculous if the ref gave a red and whilst halfway to the changing room, they reverse the decision and throw Son back on
Bit like the referee against West Brom who had to go through the farce of retracting a red card - He was lucky the mistaken player hadnt already walked down the tunnel
Amid the incessant controversy and debate over VAR, it might be worth remembering that not only did the Premier League spend two years preparing for the system’s implementation, but the decision to introduce it this season was made by all 20 member clubs in a unanimous vote.
In fairness, and despite evidence from elsewhere, there was no way of knowing exactly how it would play out in reality here, nor the precise nature or extent of the issues it would raise.
However, The Athletic has learnt that in meetings preceding the decisive ballot, much of the current discord was predicted. Certain executives alerted those who were pushing hardest for VAR that if anyone would end up complaining about the technology it was likely to be them.
It is understood the strongest support for the proposals came from clubs towards the top of the table and that a number of their contemporaries at so-called “smaller” sides urged caution.
There have been a series of contentious incidents so far this season, leading to calls for VAR to be suspended or amended so the accuracy and process can be improved.
The most prominent decisions of the weekend came when a Roberto Firmino equaliser for Liverpool against Aston Villa was ruled out for offside and Tottenham’s Son Heung-min was sent off against Everton. The Firmino decision went to VAR and, despite the player appearing to the naked eye to be level, the Premier League said that VAR judged that “his armpit … was marginally ahead of the last Villa defender”. Son was shown a red card by Martin Atkinson, which was upheld by VAR forendangering the safety of a player, despite Andre Gomes’ horrific leg injury seeming to have occurred after the initial challenge.
A source explained: “When this was voted on, the big clubs were convinced that VAR would benefit them because of the ‘injustices’ they suffer, but it’s nothing compared to the injustices the smaller teams have suffered for years against those sides, especially at their grounds.
“In the meetings prior, the smaller clubs couldn’t understand why these guys were so adamant VAR would favour them. They told them clearly. It’s just someone else, sat in front of TV screens, reviewing the decisions. Surely they realised there would be calls they wouldn’t agree with?
“The problem is people only focus on the decisions that go against them and not the decisions that go for them. The smaller teams rarely used to get decisions against the big teams, who were used to things going their way, so if VAR is going to favour anyone it’s the smaller teams.
“Think about it this way: VAR is more likely to chalk off a goal than it is to allow one that has already been chalked off, because finding an infringement is easier than proving the referee has made a mistake. Then consider that bigger teams score more goals the smaller teams.
“If bigger teams score more goals and there’s more reason to have a goal chalked off than allow one that has already been chalked off, bigger teams will obviously have more complaints.”
The most recent area of focus in England has been pitchside monitors, which organisers wanted to be used sparingly but, to date, have not once been referred to by a referee.
“The big teams want referees to go and check the monitors in the hope that, especially in their stadiums, they’ll do so under huge pressure from the crowd,” argues the source. “They don’t want somebody in Stockley Park [the VAR hub] deciding because they can’t intimidate him.
“Even then, they wouldn’t get every decision and they’d moan about that, too. There have been incidents in Italy, for example, where the on-field referee just ends up arguing with the VAR.
“No system takes something from being at a certain level of accuracy to 100 per cent, it’s impossible. What it does is make things better. Are there more correct calls now than before VAR? Yes.
“If people push for it to be suspended, it will be the same people who wanted it in the first place, the same people who always think everything goes against them. We know decisions will go for and against every club with VAR, but on balance it is fairer overall, across the whole league.
“If previously, say, 10 per cent of decisions were wrong and now it’s five per cent, that’s an improvement. It was pointed out by a few executives in the meetings that with all the camera angles we’ve been able to look at in recent years, we’ve often spent two weeks discussing decisions after matches. So what makes you think having those angles in front of you live will make it any more clear cut?
“Is VAR spoiling our enjoyment of the game? It’s hard for me to imagine that we should not have the system because somebody’s celebration was spoiled, if indeed it was an illegal goal.”
“Is VAR spoiling our enjoyment of the game? It’s hard for me to imagine that we should not have the system because somebody’s celebration was spoiled, if indeed it was an illegal goal.”
Then the "source" has not got football in his soul. Sorry.
Interesting that despite what others have claimed on the thread, it isn't all sweetness and light in other leagues either.
The general consensus online seems to be that VAR is far better in other countries than in the Premier League. A small sentence to the contrary in the article above, without citing any specific incidents isn’t going to sway me on that.
Is VAR perfect in other countries? No. Is it better than what Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A etc. had before? Yes.
By contrast, you could argue things have got worse in the Premier League.
Interestingly enough, the NFL are starting to have a very similar debate over the phrase “clear and obvious”.
The NFL has, for some years, allowed team challenges on certain refereeing decision. After a poor decision was made in the NFC Championship (equivalent of a semi final to the Super Bowl) game some months back that changed the outcome of the game, they added “pass interference” to the list of decisions that teams could challenge.
However, unlike all the other items on the list it was deemed that the mistake by the onfield referee needed to be “clear and obvious” to be overturned.
This means that so far, through nine weeks of the NFL season, not a single pass interference decision has been overturned and teams are beginning to think it was pointless adding it to the list in the first place. It has changed nothing.
Sound familiar?
Here’s the solution: stop guessing about whether the referee made a mistake or not and just decide what the decision should be based upon the images provided. Otherwise, scrap the whole damn thing.
Is the "consensus on line" based on people viewing football shows in Germany, France etc where local pundits have discussed it? Or is people just deciding that is what has happened there, because that's what they think? A few people on here have espoused that view, but with no outside evidence.
It may be the case, I don't know, but so far I have only hearsay to go on, other than witnessing the occasional game here, where there have certainly been debates over it's use (my language skills are not sufficient to know exactly what is going on, but it is being debated).
Rothko's linked article on the other hand does contain a link to a situation in Germany (just the one, I grant you) where it has clearly caused controversy.
Is the ball actually touching the passer's foot. From this angle it is impossible to tell. This picture could easily be just before he passed it or just after!
Sheffield United goal ruled out for offside in the build up....
...why is the line drawn to the defenders knee, when his head and shoulder are in front of the line?
if the attacked had squeezed into a smaller boot he’d be onside.
I agréé. I was thinking the same yesterday because a friend with size 11 feet had visited. What if he were playing? He'd be offside more often. He could be standing in the same spot and he'd be offside but a smaller player with smaller feet wouldn't.
Sheffield United goal ruled out for offside in the build up....
...why is the line drawn to the defenders knee, when his head and shoulder are in front of the line?
if the attacked had squeezed into a smaller boot he’d be onside.
I agréé. I was thinking the same yesterday because a friend with size 11 feet had visited. What if he were playing? He'd be offside more often. He could be standing in the same spot and he'd be offside but a smaller player with smaller feet wouldn't.
He’d also score more goals by getting his toe on the end of crosses...
Comments
I watch alot of MLS and its used very well there, the fact is no ref is england has looked at the screen which makes no sense
Its been incredibly poorly implemented. The bloke watching the footage is having to make two decisions.
1. is it a foul/handball/whatever?
2. is it a clear and obvious mistake by the onfield ref?
The second question is far more subjective than the first and we are the only country putting that question to our video assistants.
Please, next season, do it like everyone else and scrap the “clear and obvious” nonsense. If it’s a foul it’s a foul. Please let’s not have this situation where we have to guess whether we think the ref should’ve seen it or not.
Son was clearly distressed and even some of the Everton players to time to console him.
Agree with the boy Lineker.
It hasn't improved the game here one bit, just made it made fractious and, at times disjointed.
We need to use it less frequently for the bigger decisions that as said above are howlers.
Big clubs pushed hardest for VAR
Amid the incessant controversy and debate over VAR, it might be worth remembering that not only did the Premier League spend two years preparing for the system’s implementation, but the decision to introduce it this season was made by all 20 member clubs in a unanimous vote.
In fairness, and despite evidence from elsewhere, there was no way of knowing exactly how it would play out in reality here, nor the precise nature or extent of the issues it would raise.
However, The Athletic has learnt that in meetings preceding the decisive ballot, much of the current discord was predicted. Certain executives alerted those who were pushing hardest for VAR that if anyone would end up complaining about the technology it was likely to be them.
It is understood the strongest support for the proposals came from clubs towards the top of the table and that a number of their contemporaries at so-called “smaller” sides urged caution.
There have been a series of contentious incidents so far this season, leading to calls for VAR to be suspended or amended so the accuracy and process can be improved.
The most prominent decisions of the weekend came when a Roberto Firmino equaliser for Liverpool against Aston Villa was ruled out for offside and Tottenham’s Son Heung-min was sent off against Everton. The Firmino decision went to VAR and, despite the player appearing to the naked eye to be level, the Premier League said that VAR judged that “his armpit … was marginally ahead of the last Villa defender”. Son was shown a red card by Martin Atkinson, which was upheld by VAR forendangering the safety of a player, despite Andre Gomes’ horrific leg injury seeming to have occurred after the initial challenge.
A source explained: “When this was voted on, the big clubs were convinced that VAR would benefit them because of the ‘injustices’ they suffer, but it’s nothing compared to the injustices the smaller teams have suffered for years against those sides, especially at their grounds.
“In the meetings prior, the smaller clubs couldn’t understand why these guys were so adamant VAR would favour them. They told them clearly. It’s just someone else, sat in front of TV screens, reviewing the decisions. Surely they realised there would be calls they wouldn’t agree with?
“The problem is people only focus on the decisions that go against them and not the decisions that go for them. The smaller teams rarely used to get decisions against the big teams, who were used to things going their way, so if VAR is going to favour anyone it’s the smaller teams.
“Think about it this way: VAR is more likely to chalk off a goal than it is to allow one that has already been chalked off, because finding an infringement is easier than proving the referee has made a mistake. Then consider that bigger teams score more goals the smaller teams.
“If bigger teams score more goals and there’s more reason to have a goal chalked off than allow one that has already been chalked off, bigger teams will obviously have more complaints.”
Although VAR has been operating in other countries such as Germany for longer than the Premier League, they have encountered problems of their own and opinion has been similarly divided.
The most recent area of focus in England has been pitchside monitors, which organisers wanted to be used sparingly but, to date, have not once been referred to by a referee.
“The big teams want referees to go and check the monitors in the hope that, especially in their stadiums, they’ll do so under huge pressure from the crowd,” argues the source. “They don’t want somebody in Stockley Park [the VAR hub] deciding because they can’t intimidate him.
“Even then, they wouldn’t get every decision and they’d moan about that, too. There have been incidents in Italy, for example, where the on-field referee just ends up arguing with the VAR.
“No system takes something from being at a certain level of accuracy to 100 per cent, it’s impossible. What it does is make things better. Are there more correct calls now than before VAR? Yes.
“If people push for it to be suspended, it will be the same people who wanted it in the first place, the same people who always think everything goes against them. We know decisions will go for and against every club with VAR, but on balance it is fairer overall, across the whole league.
“If previously, say, 10 per cent of decisions were wrong and now it’s five per cent, that’s an improvement. It was pointed out by a few executives in the meetings that with all the camera angles we’ve been able to look at in recent years, we’ve often spent two weeks discussing decisions after matches. So what makes you think having those angles in front of you live will make it any more clear cut?
“Is VAR spoiling our enjoyment of the game? It’s hard for me to imagine that we should not have the system because somebody’s celebration was spoiled, if indeed it was an illegal goal.”
Then the "source" has not got football in his soul. Sorry.
Interesting that despite what others have claimed on the thread, it isn't all sweetness and light in other leagues either.
By contrast, you could argue things have got worse in the Premier League.
Interestingly enough, the NFL are starting to have a very similar debate over the phrase “clear and obvious”.
However, unlike all the other items on the list it was deemed that the mistake by the onfield referee needed to be “clear and obvious” to be overturned.
This means that so far, through nine weeks of the NFL season, not a single pass interference decision has been overturned and teams are beginning to think it was pointless adding it to the list in the first place. It has changed nothing.
Here’s the solution: stop guessing about whether the referee made a mistake or not and just decide what the decision should be based upon the images provided. Otherwise, scrap the whole damn thing.
It may be the case, I don't know, but so far I have only hearsay to go on, other than witnessing the occasional game here, where there have certainly been debates over it's use (my language skills are not sufficient to know exactly what is going on, but it is being debated).
Rothko's linked article on the other hand does contain a link to a situation in Germany (just the one, I grant you) where it has clearly caused controversy.
...why is the line drawn to the defenders knee, when his head and shoulder are in front of the line?
if the attacked had squeezed into a smaller boot he’d be onside.
It should be 30 secs max. If you can’t make a decision in that time then the on field decision should stand.
I agréé. I was thinking the same yesterday because a friend with size 11 feet had visited. What if he were playing? He'd be offside more often. He could be standing in the same spot and he'd be offside but a smaller player with smaller feet wouldn't.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/50367354