Jump to content

The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)


Stevo985

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

It's either a foul or it isn't - just because people disagree on the interpretation of the rule it doesn't make the rule subjective.

It's exactly for that reason VAR was introduced, so that refs can be better equipped to make objective decisions.

With the best will in the world, you don't have a good handle on what 'subjective' means here. If two people can see the same thing and have different opinions about what they are looking at, then it is by definition subjective. Rules can be written down in books, but the gap between the written rule and the implementation by referees or VAR officials is precisely what makes the decisions subjective. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

With the best will in the world, you don't have a good handle on what 'subjective' means here. If two people can see the same thing and have different opinions about what they are looking at, then it is by definition subjective. Rules can be written down in books, but the gap between the written rule and the implementation by referees or VAR officials is precisely what makes the decisions subjective. 

Ever heard of the Shroedingers Cat?

Just because people disagree on something, it doesn't make it any less actual. 

You said it yourself - the rules are written in books but INTERPRETATION differs. What is and isn't a foul is an objective law of the game. The interpretations  of that law can of course differ, but there is a correct, finite answer on whether something is or isn't a foul, even when often that decision isn't easy.

Therefore I'm happy with VAR. It helps to make more correct calls.

Edited by Mic09
Wrong word used
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mic09 said:

Ever heard of the Shroedingers Cat?

Just because people disagree on something, it doesn't make it any less actual. 

You said it yourself - the rules are written in books but INTERPRETATION differs. What is and isn't a foul is an objective law of the game. The interpretations of that law are of course subjective, but there is a correct, finite answer on whether something is or isn't a foul, even when often that decision isn't easy.

Therefore I'm happy with VAR. It helps to make more correct calls.

The words on the page have a specific meaning. However, words on a page cannot adequately describe the infinite multitude of ways in which a body, two bodies or more, and/or a football can collide with each other in three-dimensional physical space. There is a gap, where interpretation comes in, in the form of a referee. That gap introduces subjectivity, yet the gap cannot be eliminated, hence refereeing decisions are ipso facto subjective. 

There's no point talking about 'the laws of the game' in isolation from their implementation through actual referees.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

The words on the page have a specific meaning. However, words on a page cannot adequately describe the infinite multitude of ways in which a body, two bodies or more, and/or a football can collide with each other in three-dimensional physical space. There is a gap, where interpretation comes in, in the form of a referee. That gap introduces subjectivity, yet the gap cannot be eliminated, hence refereeing decisions are ipso facto subjective. 

There's no point talking about 'the laws of the game' in isolation from their implementation through actual referees.  

Maybe that's where the disagreement came from.

However you will agree that those referees are all being trained and tought to interpret the game in one specific way - there is an end goal that fifa is striving for and a uniform way that they wish for games to be refereed.

Therefore, rather than being happy with the referees making calls for themselves (And interpreting the rule as they see it)  VAR was implemented to limit the referees misjudgements (or interpretations if you will) and giving them a greater chance of making a correct call, in line with objective rules of the game.

Btw, we could argue this forever haha :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Maybe that's where the disagreement came from.

However you will agree that those referees are all being trained and tought to interpret the game in one specific way - there is an end goal that fifa is striving for and a uniform way that they wish for games to be refereed.

Therefore, rather than being happy with the referees making calls for themselves (And interpreting the rule as they see it)  VAR was implemented to limit the referees misjudgements (or interpretations if you will) and giving them a greater chance of making a correct call, in line with objective rules of the game.

Btw, we could argue this forever haha :)

We certainly could, and it's time for me to go to bed. We're probably in furious agreement anyway. Have a nice rest of your evening. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not sure I really get the arguments against VAR. There was an article in the times today showing that VAR had reversed 15 decisions during the World Cup of which they concluded that 12 were clearly correct reversals, 2 were probably correct and just 1 (the Iran penalty against Portugal) was clearly incorrect.

Therefore, even if we ignore the 2 debatable decisions there’s a net of 11 correct decisions which without VAR would have been wrong. I’m sure your Shearers, Lawrensons etc. would have been sat in their  studios criticising referee standards if this was the case.

I’m more understanding of the view that VAR could have been used more often but as the system becomes more widely used, these issues should get ironed out.

On a side note having watched the implementation of VAR at this World Cup I’d be a bit pissed off if we were in the Premier League that the owners have voted against bringing VAR in. If we’ve seen 12 correct reversals of decisions in the number of World Cup games, VAR could make a big difference over a full league season. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mic09 said:

Fouls are not subjective, the referees are making mistakes when they are not awarding panelties when they should have done. The rules of the game are clear.

1. Yes they are and it's nonsense to claim otherwise. That's why referees/fans/pundits disagree over whether something was a foul or not. 2. The rules of the game aren't clear  For example handball situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I agree with this. The comparison to goal line technology is very wide of the mark; the decisions that have been made due to VAR are often still very subjective. Goal line technology is, as you say, utterly clean cut. 

They're not different versions of the same thing, they're different things. 

The comparison with goal line technology wasn't meant as comparing the technology. 

I was comparing the reactions to it. As in when goal line technology came in it was a huge talking point and people were creating controversy over it and appealing decisions just because it was new.

I agree that that is more clear cut so it's not exactly the same. But the point is the hype around VAR at the moment is causing way more controversy and appeals etc than we'll see in the future. once it's fully implemented it'll just run in the background, players will stop appealing for it to be used (because it's pointless) and pundits will stop trying to find every possible reason to criticise it.

Decisions will still cause controversy, but it will be the judgement of the refs that will be the controversial bit, not the use of the technology.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mic09 said:

Ever heard of the Shroedingers Cat?

Just because people disagree on something, it doesn't make it any less actual. 

You said it yourself - the rules are written in books but INTERPRETATION differs. What is and isn't a foul is an objective law of the game. The interpretations  of that law can of course differ, but there is a correct, finite answer on whether something is or isn't a foul, even when often that decision isn't easy.

Therefore I'm happy with VAR. It helps to make more correct calls.

I'm no expert, but I don't see how Schrodinger's cat has anything to do with the rest of this post...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

I'm no expert, but I don't see how Schrodinger's cat has anything to do with the rest of this post...

It's an example of a subjective opinion.

The fact is, the cat is either dead or alive, much like it's a foul or it it's not a foul. Although we might not be sure on the answer, there is in fact a right answer.

I thought it was a rather clear example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mic09 said:

It's an example of a subjective opinion.

The fact is, the cat is either dead or alive, much like it's a foul or it it's not a foul. Although we might not be sure on the answer, there is in fact a right answer.

I thought it was a rather clear example.

Again I'm a layman, but I didn't think Schrodingers cat was anything to do with subjectivity. Quite the opposite.

But I won't pretend to understand it fully so I'll back out of this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, villa89 said:

1. Yes they are and it's nonsense to claim otherwise. That's why referees/fans/pundits disagree over whether something was a foul or not. 2. The rules of the game aren't clear  For example handball situations.

The rules of the game are incredibly clear with handball situations - it's just that opinions over time have introduced widely-held beliefs that aren't in the rules i.e: "arm in an unnatural position".  You have to handle the ball deliberately, that's it.  At this World Cup, only Umtiti and Sanchez should have been punished (and both were) - the Poulsen and Soares ones were crazy decisions.

 

VAR has been good, for me.  As Lineker said last night (perhaps), it's actually added some drama into the game as well.  The problem is that it'll take some time to settle down.  "Clear and obvious error" needs to come back into it - not "oh, you might want to review this".  The penalty appeal against Rojo last night is a good example.  Referee doesn't give it and, aside from that being entirely the right call, even if you thought it may be a handball, there isn't a clear and obvious error there.  VAR should just review and say "no, you're fine.  Carry on".  The waiting then sending the ref to look at the incident was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bobzy said:

You have to handle the ball deliberately, that's it. 

How do you determine if a player has deliberately handled a ball? Unless you are a mind reader you'll never know. So it's a subjective decision and the rule isn't clear because you can't actually determine what's deliberate and what's not. And that's just one example, there are lots of other rules/fouls in the game that aren't clear and are totally subjective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, villa89 said:

How do you determine if a player has deliberately handled a ball? Unless you are a mind reader you'll never know. So it's a subjective decision and the rule isn't clear because you can't actually determine what's deliberate and what's not. And that's just one example, there are lots of other rules/fouls in the game that aren't clear and are totally subjective. 

Personally, I think it's pretty simple.

Did Rojo deliberately handle the ball?  No.  Did Poulsen?  No.  Did Umtiti?  Yes.  Did Soares?  No.  Did Sanchez? Yes - that's just from this World Cup and I'd be surprised if anyone thinks differently*.

 

 

 

* - Plus they'd just be wrong if they did :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bobzy said:

Personally, I think it's pretty simple.

It's not though and that's my whole point. If you look at the examples you listed you'll find plenty of people/pundits/refs who will disagree with your judgement. 

Edited by villa89
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I've said before but "deliberate" hand ball is so subjective. I think it's very very rare that a player deliberately handles a ball in the area.

Yes, it is.

 

WHICH IS WHY THERE SHOULDN'T BE THIS MANY PENALTIES FOR HANDBALL ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Yes, it is.

 

WHICH IS WHY THERE SHOULDN'T BE THIS MANY PENALTIES FOR HANDBALL ?

But the point is it's very very difficult to judge whether a player has done it deliberately or not. 

Even the Sanchez one you could argue wasn't deliberate. He just had his arms out. 

Which is where I think the "unnatural position" thing has come from. Because intent is too hard to judge unless you're a mind reader. 
Plus if it's purely on intent, then surely a defender could stand on the line with his arms in the air? If the ball its them well, he didn't intend it, so it's not a handball. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â