The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[bannedfromHandV]

9 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

VAR works perfectly well in rugby though and that's a pretty fluid game. It seems to be football referees that are uniquely terrible at applying the technology. I still support the idea of VAR but in every other sport VAR has to show something conclusive to change the on-field decision.

And as I said earlier in the thread, they really should have committees able to mete out post match bans for players behaving recklessly towards other players.

It does and it doesn’t, but there are many factors in that.

For starters, it’s not perfect, there are still occasional dubious calls and times where the footage available leaves it inconclusive, reverting to the on field decision in most cases.

Rugby isn’t as high profile and not as widely reported when there are mistakes, there’s also a far higher level of respect for officials in the game which extends off the field too, so they’re not scrutinised in the same way basically.

The game itself as well, yes it’s fluid but not in the same way football is, it’s still slowed down much more often illustrated by the fact that ‘advantages’ can sometimes last for minutes, of course it explodes into life sporadically but a lot of it is quite slow going. The rules over what you can and can’t do are somewhat more defined too, versus football which as I’ve said is a contact sport, the definition of a foul is therefore excessive or cynical contact but that will always on occasion (or even often) be subjective irrespective of how many camera angles you use to judge it.

I should add that like goal line technology, I can see a place for VAR, for definitive things like offside etc.

Edited October 19, 2020 by bannedfromHandV

[Panto_Villan]

1 hour ago, bannedfromHandV said:

It does and it doesn’t, but there are many factors in that.

For starters, it’s not perfect, there are still occasional dubious calls and times where the footage available leaves it inconclusive, reverting to the on field decision in most cases.

Rugby isn’t as high profile and not as widely reported when there are mistakes, there’s also a far higher level of respect for officials in the game which extends off the field too, so they’re not scrutinised in the same way basically.

The game itself as well, yes it’s fluid but not in the same way football is, it’s still slowed down much more often illustrated by the fact that ‘advantages’ can sometimes last for minutes, of course it explodes into life sporadically but a lot of it is quite slow going. The rules over what you can and can’t do are somewhat more defined too, versus football which as I’ve said is a contact sport, the definition of a foul is therefore excessive or cynical contact but that will always on occasion (or even often) be subjective irrespective of how many camera angles you use to judge it.

I should add that like goal line technology, I can see a place for VAR, for definitive things like offside etc.

Indeed, I think we mostly agree with each other overall. I just think the supposed "stop start" nature of rugby is overstated with regards to how VAR is used - e.g. the ball is always dead in rugby when VAR is used to check the grounding of a try, but in the vast majority of cases the ball is also dead when VAR is checking whether a goal is legitimate in football, etc. Basically I think VAR tends to be used when the game has already stopped, so the extra fluidity of football doesn't matter that much in practice.

I also don't think that there's necessarily more grey areas in football either, as there's plenty of subjective rugby offences (many of which only occur when the game is in full flow) too - such as what exactly constitutes a high tackle when the ball carrier is going low into a tackle, or whether a player happens to be running a line that obstructs someone trying to get to a ball or tackle the ball carrier. The same thought pattern applies in the use of VAR there than for fouls in football, and I think there's some common sense rules that mean VAR can be used in those situations without ruining the flow of the game.

Anyway, my point is really that a lot of other sports have already worked through most of the teething issues with VAR, and I find it mystifying that football seems intent on learning the same lessons through trial and error. Obviously every sport is different and football can't just lift the rugby setup in its entirety, but I feel they should try to take a bit more inspiration from how other sports use it.

[Shomin Geki]

15 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

The technology is working perfectly for offsides. You might not like it, but it is. 

I don't like it either. 

 

Here is an excellent twitter thread on why and how it works

 

 

Very interesting!

One point though.  Has the distinction of handball always been ruled as precisely as a literal diagram of the human form?  In the actual laws of the game?  Whether it was Balotelli's shouldering of the ball in, Carew volleyballing a loose ball away with one almighty shrug, or the Mings penalty last season, I've frequently wondered if this was something of a grey area.  A decent presumption was that the bony part of the shoulder was fair game.  The fleshy part, no.

So, does this new application of the handball rule actually, strangely, alter the fundamentals of the game?  Are shoulders now a legit footballing option?  Could an enterprising individual incorporate this more directly into their game, crosses deliberately fired below the head for a deadly MMA style shoulder strike goal?  And so on.

Or is it limited to given scenarios?

Part of this suggestion is pure impish glee at the darkish arts, but another part of me is kinda surprised that a precise ruling in football isn't somehow 'gamed' more.  I seem to remember, I think, Van Nistelrooy creatively exploiting the 'second phase' development of the offside rule during its infancy, gazumping bemused defenders.  But very little since.  Whilst defending has undoubtedly become more organised and cultured, I'm convinced there's space there to exploit...

[Stevo985]

12 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

It does and it doesn’t, but there are many factors in that.

For starters, it’s not perfect, there are still occasional dubious calls and times where the footage available leaves it inconclusive, reverting to the on field decision in most cases.

Rugby isn’t as high profile and not as widely reported when there are mistakes, there’s also a far higher level of respect for officials in the game which extends off the field too, so they’re not scrutinised in the same way basically.

The game itself as well, yes it’s fluid but not in the same way football is, it’s still slowed down much more often illustrated by the fact that ‘advantages’ can sometimes last for minutes, of course it explodes into life sporadically but a lot of it is quite slow going. The rules over what you can and can’t do are somewhat more defined too, versus football which as I’ve said is a contact sport, the definition of a foul is therefore excessive or cynical contact but that will always on occasion (or even often) be subjective irrespective of how many camera angles you use to judge it.

I should add that like goal line technology, I can see a place for VAR, for definitive things like offside etc.

The best thing Rugby does with it's video technology, imo, is gives you the audio of the on field referee talking it through with the video ref.

It just clears up a lot of grey areas and speculation. At least if you can hear the ref saying "I don't think it should be given because of this" or "I saw that on the pitch and I don't think it's a red card because such and such" you can understand some decisions.

To keep it all a secret just keeps everyone in the dark.

[Mic09]

50 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

The best thing Rugby does with it's video technology, imo, is gives you the audio of the on field referee talking it through with the video ref.

It just clears up a lot of grey areas and speculation. At least if you can hear the ref saying "I don't think it should be given because of this" or "I saw that on the pitch and I don't think it's a red card because such and such" you can understand some decisions.

To keep it all a secret just keeps everyone in the dark.

Can you imagine Premier League referees facing any kind of due diligence from the public?

Never gonna happen.  

[sne]

I'm not even surprised.

Quote

David Coote DROPPED from referee and VAR roles for the first time this season after forgetting he could review Jordan Pickford's horror lunge on Virgil van Dijk in the Merseyside derby...

Sportsmail revealed on Monday that Coote thought that the offside against Van Dijk on Saturday — which he checked forensically — nullified what happened afterwards. 

Liverpool insiders say they were told on Saturday that Coote was 'too distracted' by the offside check and therefore did not look at the possible red card for Pickford. 

PGMOL boss Mike Riley then spoke to the club on Sunday, claiming that the match officials did review the challenge and deemed it not to be a red

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8859493/David-Coote-DROPPED-referee-VAR-roles-time-season.html

[Zatman]

Surely Mike Riley should be sacked as well 

[The_Steve]

21 hours ago, Mic09 said:

Can you imagine Premier League referees facing any kind of due diligence from the public?

Never gonna happen.  

Exactly. The fundamental failure of VAR is that officials 90% of the time don’t want to undermine the on-pitch officials. It’s a boys club. They protect each other. Despite the incredibly poor quality of officiating. That, or they are just too cowardly to overturn decisions. Also, we live in a country still where certain referees love to make the drama about themselves. Or get cushy newspaper columns after they retire to protect said boys club. 

[villa4europe]

7 hours ago, Zatman said:

Surely Mike Riley should be sacked as well 

long overdue, not sure how he hasn't fallen on his sword after last years debacle

im sure I read somewhere that he's made more changes to the rules in the last 10 years than in something daft like the previous 100

id bet my left bollock they'd just line up the next clown like moss or dean or dowd (I've only just realised he's retired)

[CardiffGreens]

31 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

long overdue, not sure how he hasn't fallen on his sword after last years debacle

im sure I read somewhere that he's made more changes to the rules in the last 10 years than in something daft like the previous 100

id bet my left bollock they'd just line up the next clown like moss or dean or dowd (I've only just realised he's retired)

Pedantry alert: The bolded bit is all thanks to David Elleray; technical director at IFAB since 2016.

Edited October 21, 2020 by CardiffGreens
missing "is"

[villa4europe]

41 minutes ago, CardiffGreens said:

Pedantry alert: The bolded bit is all thanks to David Elleray; technical director at IFAB since 2016.

that's sounds about right, something like more changes in 4 years than the previous 100 was the headline I saw

[Zatman]

Pretty sure the joke about Mike Riley was that he used to always give United penalties. Even in retirement he has foubd a system to give penalties 

[Zatman]

 

[sne]

Refs ordered to protect Maguire by the FA? Has to be one of the most blatant penalties ignored there when Maguire bear hugged and wrestled down the Chelsea player in the box.

Edited October 24, 2020 by sne

[Phil Silvers]

4 minutes ago, sne said:

Refs ordered to protect Maguire by the FA? Has to be one of the most blatant penalties ignored there when Maguire bear hugged and pulled the Chelsea player in the box.

That was almost UFC like, the game is bent.

[Villaphan04]

All we ask for is consistency. And yet we never get it. I think that Digne red is correct, but we see several other challenges like that get waved away. 

Edited October 25, 2020 by Villaphan04

[Davkaus]

23 hours ago, sne said:

Refs ordered to protect Maguire by the FA? Has to be one of the most blatant penalties ignored there when Maguire bear hugged and wrestled down the Chelsea player in the box.

I didn't see that until you mentioned it.

What the actual ****?

 

[penguin]

It’s almost comical at the moment because despite all the VAR and dodgy decisions in their favour United are still absolutely shit. Liverpool got a good rub of the green with it last year but United honestly take it to another level.

At the risk of approaching tin foil hat territory I’m not sure what more could be done to benefit them without it being clear and obvious corruption.

[Stevo985]

On 21/10/2020 at 16:19, Zatman said:

 

This is essential imo

[penguin]

MOTD saying the Arsenal goal should have stood. Xhaka is literally standing right in front of the GK and has to jump out the way of the ball, if that isn’t having an influence on play what is? The offside rule is a **** joke at the moment.