Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
VAR - are you a fan?
Comments
-
But there wouldn't be a lot of challenges, in some games none.Rothko said:
Challenges work absolutely fine in stop start sports like Cricket or American Football, where there is 15/20 seconds between plays to check before challenging. It doesn't in a free flowing sport like FootballMuttleyCAFC said:I have always thought the sensible introduction of VAR would be a good thing. Other sports seem to have managed to do it well. But Football at the higher levels is more about corruption and a by product of that is the people running the game at European and World level are self interested idiots riding a gravy train. It is the idiot part that applies to VAR. There may be different ways to apply it successfully, but you need to get a small group of sensible people (ex players would be my suggestion) and get them to come up with and tweak something that works well.
I think the first thing to acknowledge is that you can't make decisions 100% fair. There is a subjective element to many decisions. Ultimately the ref should have the final say. It seems obvious to me that if a team thinks the ref has got something material to the result of the game wrong they should have the opportunity to ask them to look at it again. It shouldn't be another ref as that puts pressure on the ref. If another ref suggests the ref looks at it again, it is suggesting he might have got it wrong.
England won a test match against Australia last summer because the umpires made an error. They couldn't challenge the decision because they had wasted their appeal not long before. Nobody made any fuss about the injustice of it, not even the Aussies. They accepted it and along with that were critical of themselves. Wrong decision but no controversy which there may have been had there not been a review system. That is how it should work in football. Give each team one appeal and they keep it if they are right. If they waste it, they cant complain if it bites them on the bum later. The ref is not under the same pressure and whilst not being fully fair (which is unachievable) the game is fairer and there is a mechanism to prevent a massive injustice. Then let the ref manage the game. I'm sure refs will like this as they will accept they can miss things and this will help if that is the case, and they can actually ref a game not massively differently to how they have before VAR.0 -
But if you want the Challenge system, then you also get as in the NFL that every scoring play is reviewed for a penalty, and every wicket is reviewed for a no-ball. And that's the main whine from those who don't like VAR that goals are being wiped out, they would still be struck out0
-
All this verbal masterbation when all that is needed is to do what youth football teaches: respect the referee's decision and get on with it.6
-
think you want the 'Incident in North Upper' thread :-))jimmymelrose said:All this verbal masterbation when all that is needed is to do what youth football teaches: respect the referee's decision and get on with it.
1 -
I'm not so sure there wouldn't be a fuss about a blatantly incorrect decision being missed in a world cup final because a team could no longer appeal. Would we now accept Maradona's goal as genius if we'd earlier just missed out on an appeal?MuttleyCAFC said:
But there wouldn't be a lot of challenges, in some games none.Rothko said:
Challenges work absolutely fine in stop start sports like Cricket or American Football, where there is 15/20 seconds between plays to check before challenging. It doesn't in a free flowing sport like FootballMuttleyCAFC said:I have always thought the sensible introduction of VAR would be a good thing. Other sports seem to have managed to do it well. But Football at the higher levels is more about corruption and a by product of that is the people running the game at European and World level are self interested idiots riding a gravy train. It is the idiot part that applies to VAR. There may be different ways to apply it successfully, but you need to get a small group of sensible people (ex players would be my suggestion) and get them to come up with and tweak something that works well.
I think the first thing to acknowledge is that you can't make decisions 100% fair. There is a subjective element to many decisions. Ultimately the ref should have the final say. It seems obvious to me that if a team thinks the ref has got something material to the result of the game wrong they should have the opportunity to ask them to look at it again. It shouldn't be another ref as that puts pressure on the ref. If another ref suggests the ref looks at it again, it is suggesting he might have got it wrong.
England won a test match against Australia last summer because the umpires made an error. They couldn't challenge the decision because they had wasted their appeal not long before. Nobody made any fuss about the injustice of it, not even the Aussies. They accepted it and along with that were critical of themselves. Wrong decision but no controversy which there may have been had there not been a review system. That is how it should work in football. Give each team one appeal and they keep it if they are right. If they waste it, they cant complain if it bites them on the bum later. The ref is not under the same pressure and whilst not being fully fair (which is unachievable) the game is fairer and there is a mechanism to prevent a massive injustice. Then let the ref manage the game. I'm sure refs will like this as they will accept they can miss things and this will help if that is the case, and they can actually ref a game not massively differently to how they have before VAR.
The dynamics of refereeing a game with one team able and one not able to appeal would be interesting!
Would the ref let more go knowing that a team can appeal? I can imagine refs turning to the captain with a "What do you think?" look after a dubious penalty shout! I guess we'd need an experiment to see what actually happens.
As it happens, I personally think the cricket match last summer was a total farce! Stupid game!
0 -
I think the concept of VAR isn’t applicable to football, i don’t think there is another sport similar to the feeling of scoring a goal which is why we watch football. Slowly its taking away the emotion of scoring a goal, what happened to the days of scoring a goal, quick glance at a lino and no flag so goal!That for me is worth more than getting every decision correct?5
-
2
-
Simple solution to offside. Seeing as technology is now so accurate, let it allow 30 mms where a player won't be offside. The law was tinkered with before VAR, but this would be a software solution to ridiculous situations where people are offside by a toenail!0
-
The idea of allowing any part of the body that's onside to count, is nuts, what cranks have thought that up1
-
I'd scrap VAR and rely on the good old referee's decision.cafcsinger said:I think the concept of VAR isn’t applicable to football, i don’t think there is another sport similar to the feeling of scoring a goal which is why we watch football. Slowly its taking away the emotion of scoring a goal, what happened to the days of scoring a goal, quick glance at a lino and no flag so goal!That for me is worth more than getting every decision correct?
5 - Sponsored links:
-
Why's that?Rothko said:The idea of allowing any part of the body that's onside to count, is nuts, what cranks have thought that up
To my mind "offside" as being clear daylight between the forward and the defender is a clearer way of explaining it. There will be more goals and it will be easier for the person running the line to give offside as there will have to be clear daylight between them,
1 -
all it will do is get teams to defend deeper and kill space behind0
-
I doubt whether a matter of millimetres, as it is in some cases, will have that dramatic an effect. Equally, why would teams want to defend deeper particularly in the case of free kicks when it invites even more congestion and potential interference for keepers? It's virtually impossible for some teams to defend any deeper against the likes of City anyway.Rothko said:all it will do is get teams to defend deeper and kill space behind
But it it does happen, won't games become more stretched?
0 -
I suspect centre-halves won't want to give nippy strikers a yard or two head star by them playing behind them.Addick Addict said:
I doubt whether a matter of millimetres, as it is in some cases, will have that dramatic an effect. Equally, why would teams want to defend deeper particularly in the case of free kicks when it invites even more congestion and potential interference for keepers? It's virtually impossible for some teams to defend any deeper against the likes of City anyway.Rothko said:all it will do is get teams to defend deeper and kill space behind
But it it does happen, won't games become more stretched?
Do you think these two are onside?
https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/12300969727381790740 -
Been saying what that bloke is saying for the entire season - I find it bizarre as to why the rule needs changing because at some point there will always be a case which is as marginal as what we're getting at the moment
The sole issue with VAR is everyone wants the decisions going in their favour... If that happens then great, if not then you get the "F**k VAR songs"0 -
Why wouldn't we want to benefit nippy strikers or quick one twos that are ruled out when a team defends the 18 yard box?Rothko said:
I suspect centre-halves won't want to give nippy strikers a yard or two head star by them playing behind them.Addick Addict said:
I doubt whether a matter of millimetres, as it is in some cases, will have that dramatic an effect. Equally, why would teams want to defend deeper particularly in the case of free kicks when it invites even more congestion and potential interference for keepers? It's virtually impossible for some teams to defend any deeper against the likes of City anyway.Rothko said:all it will do is get teams to defend deeper and kill space behind
But it it does happen, won't games become more stretched?
Do you think these two are onside?
https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1230096972738179074
The benefit of the doubt would have to be given to the forward simply because we want more goals. More are ruled out now, which look legitimate, because of a "hairline" decision than they would be under the new rule. And given that many games currently end up with 4 or 5 shots in total on target, the action could hardly be much less however negative the tactics.
What I do agree with is that it probably does need testing before being implemented0 -
I'll be happier when the whole procedure is governed by A I robots .. a t m the human element has too many inconsistences ((:>)0
-
On the 83rd minute VAR at Stockley Park have admitted the Le Celso should have been sent off earlier in the game.
Why has it taken u until now, why did u not say that earlier0 -
I don’t think it was a red, but I don’t know why in that case that they didn’t send Oliver to the screen and allow him to review it.0
-
Apparently said it wasn't human error, it was a VAR error.paulie8290 said:On the 83rd minute VAR at Stockley Park have admitted the Le Celso should have been sent off earlier in the game.
Why has it taken u until now, why did u not say that earlier
How does that even make sense?
VAR either needs scrapping, or a total rethink.1 - Sponsored links:
-
In real time I didn’t think it was a red but the more angles they showed it looked worse and more like a stamp. Should of been a red for me, don’t know why they don’t use the pitch side monitors.0
-
They've then come out and said Lo Celso won't be getting a ban because the incident was seen by match officials.
Even though they've admitted the officials got the decision wrong...farcical.0 -
Potential handball in the box, Bournemouth break and score an equaliser.
VAR confirm handball so game is pulled back for a Burnley penalty instead.
1-0, 1-1, 2-0 all within 18 seconds0 -
Just watched it on YouTubestackitsteve said:Potential handball in the box, Bournemouth break and score an equaliser.
VAR confirm handball so game is pulled back for a Burnley penalty instead.
1-0, 1-1, 2-0 all within 18 seconds
To be fair thats where VAR works, i.e. game continues whilst checks are made so no hanging about
Just unfortunate in this case that Bournemouth scored0 -
0
-
Another example of how VAR is killing
the game. How many other sports does the action continue while video is looked at to see if there was an offence? For a start, handball looked pretty harsh - surely it was his shoulder, no? But then after Bournemouth score a perfectly good equaliser, to pull the game right back for a pretty dubious penalty seems nonsensical to me. And did I read the referee’s lips correctly when he said he wasn’t allowed to go and look at the screen?? Madness.1 -
I disagree, thats were VAR works well.EveshamAddick said:Another example of how VAR is killing
the game. How many other sports does the action continue while video is looked at to see if there was an offence? For a start, handball looked pretty harsh - surely it was his shoulder, no? But then after Bournemouth score a perfectly good equaliser, to pull the game right back for a pretty dubious penalty seems nonsensical to me. And did I read the referee’s lips correctly when he said he wasn’t allowed to go and look at the screen?? Madness.
Had that not been handball and the ref stopped the game to check he would have stopped Bournemouth having the chance to counter attack and score.
But instead the game continued, Bournemouth scored and then VAR pulled it back for the handball.
Not sure about the lip reading but refs are only being advised to use the screens for Red Cards ATM which is wrong and were we are going wrong with VAR, let the ref look at the monitor and make up his own mind1 -
2 red cards wrongly not given (spurs and sheff utd) and 1 handball wrongly not given (man city). Could also argue both Bournemouth handballs were wrong. Another great day for the people running VAR.0
-
I don't think VAR was meant to be used like this was it? I consider Burnley my "second team" but that was ridiculous. The combination of the new approach to handball with VAR is a farce.
Use VAR to confirm if the ball crossed the line or if there was a serious foul.
Utter bollocks.0 -
Sure we were told a few weeks back that refs were now going to be encouraged to use the pitch side monitors. I've watched 3-4 live premier league games since then and haven't once seen the ref use the monitor for a VAR decision.ValleyGary said:In real time I didn’t think it was a red but the more angles they showed it looked worse and more like a stamp. Should of been a red for me, don’t know why they don’t use the pitch side monitors.0
