The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[tom_avfc]

8 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

But the point is Stevo, over time and after the 8th or 9th time you've celebrated wildly only to see it chalked off does the enthusiasm begin to wane?

I think it would and will if this is the route we're going down.

I do not believe that any other sport celebrates pivotal moments like a football fan celebrates a goal, maybe I'm biased as it's my preferred sport but I don't see the same passion and outpouring of emotion that football invokes in ANY other sport.

I don't really agree with this. The same happens with a wicket in a cricket match or a try in a rugby match. Celebrated, reviewed and then chalked off. 

It's new and its not perfect but if it leads to more correct decisions it has to be kept and improved. Effectively this argument is that we should allow illegal goals because the fans may be angry when they get correctly overturned. I still think I'd rather have the correct decisions.

[bannedfromHandV]

9 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

No I don't think it will wane.

It happens in other sports. Goals/tries/ touchdowns are celebrated wildly. Occasionally the score is reviewed and confirmed or chalked off. 

Again, do you not celebrate a goal as wildly because it might be ruled out because the lino has his flag up? It's the exact same thing.

I wouldn't right now no but 2 years down the line and you know it's once bitten twice shy and all that.

And I'm sorry but I disagree, I do not see tries or touchdowns (in particular the latter) being celebrated as wildly, I honestly don't think any other sport comes close to football in that aspect.

[Mark Albrighton]

Of course when a goal goes in you celebrate and if the lineman raises the flag it’s deflating.

However when that happens it usually takes, say, 30 seconds if that? It’s normally pretty quick in fairness.

Basically to get people on board, VAR needs to be a lot quicker. The problem I think is I don’t see how it can be much quicker. I assume the VAR ref has to view the goal/incident at least once, maybe twice or more, possibly in slow motion. 

I have a feeling it may detract from the celebration of a goal when supporters think “oh hang on, we can’t really enjoy this until we find out for definite in 60 seconds (or longer) time.”

I’m in favour of technology being used, I really am. But football is not the same as other sports so I don’t accept the comparison.

Edited March 1, 2018 by Shropshire Lad

[bobzy]

12 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I didn’t see the game, but if a foul “carries on” into the box then it’s a penalty. 

It’s not given where it began. 

Correct - also, one of the worst rules in football. 

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

I didn't see it.

But did the crowd not celebrate the spurs goal which looked like a perfectly good goal BEFORE the confusion about VAR? That's my point

 

Five extra minutes.... who cares?

Firstly that will come down as the system is introduced because all this nonsense of players complaining about VAR and appealing for it and the confusion will disappear.
Secondly, it's five minutes. If there's a big head injury and there's 5 minutes added time nobody says "Oh my **** god, FIVE minutes extra! ARGH!!!"
Shit happens. 

There are definitely teething problems. Certain things definitely need to be ironed out. But half the "confusion" around it is caused by people not understanding it, and players thinking they can appeal for VAR, or appeal against the decision when it's been reviewed.
Just like when goalline technology came in. Players and pundits were arguing with it. Now it's not even mentioned because people know it works.

to your first question the spurs fans were pissed off and it was more sarcastic cheers not out of joy for the goal  To answer the second you say who cares but what about if there is more second half and you get another 5 minutes thats 10 extra minutes. Lets say there is then extra time and penalties people might be there until 11pm or later for midweek games.

you are speculating that it will be better there are no guarantees. if they can get the waiting time and communication issues sorted then it could work but in its current form its hopeless.  

stevo unless we are at a game and "experience" the VAR i think your wrong in saying people dont  understand it. It would work better if there was something telling you on the big screen why they are going to VAR. how is anyone meant to know if it was a foul, a  offside or whatever the reason is. its pretty poor in its existing form but it can work if they sort these problems out 

[VillaChris]

Shambles last night.

[a m ole]

if fans are confused or don’t understand what’s going on, they should do some **** research and find out. it’s been used, aside from one or two teething moments, exactly to the protocol set out.

[fightoffyour]

19 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

to your first question the spurs fans were pissed off and it was more sarcastic cheers not out of joy for the goal 

But they weren't pissed off when they originally scored the goal, before any VAR was involved - they just celebrated like they'd scored a goal that they thought they had!

 

1 hour ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I wouldn't right now no but 2 years down the line and you know it's once bitten twice shy and all that.

And I'm sorry but I disagree, I do not see tries or touchdowns (in particular the latter) being celebrated as wildly, I honestly don't think any other sport comes close to football in that aspect.

I was in a small pub with maybe 50 people, some English, more Scottish, watching the Rugby on Saturday (I'm not even a fan really) and England had 2 tries both disallowed on review that were celebrated wildly as it happened.

[Stevo985]

29 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

to your first question the spurs fans were pissed off and it was more sarcastic cheers not out of joy for the goal 

Forget it, Dem. You're  not understanding me

[a m ole]

43 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Correct - also, one of the worst rules in football. 

disagree. why give the advantage to the defending team, or fouling player?

[Demitri_C]

26 minutes ago, a m ole said:

if fans are confused or don’t understand what’s going on, they should do some **** research and find out. it’s been used, aside from one or two teething moments, exactly to the protocol set out.

I bet you would have been irritated though if you were sitting that freezing cold without no explanation. the current system sucks 

[MrDuck]

15 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

But the point is Stevo, over time and after the 8th or 9th time you've celebrated wildly only to see it chalked off does the enthusiasm begin to wane?

 

This is what happened for me in The Ashes series just gone.  So many decisions were overturned, that by the end, I couldn't get excited when a wicket was taken, rather I sat there for 5 minutes waiting for the third umpire decision... by which time either the excitement had gone, or I was just plain pissed off.

[Stevo985]

7 hours ago, MrDuck said:

This is what happened for me in The Ashes series just gone.  So many decisions were overturned, that by the end, I couldn't get excited when a wicket was taken, rather I sat there for 5 minutes waiting for the third umpire decision... by which time either the excitement had gone, or I was just plain pissed off.

Your problem there was you were watching the most boring sport on the face of the planet

 

[PieFacE]

I think simply showing replays of the controversial incident on the screens within the ground would make the whole process better.

[bannedfromHandV]

1 hour ago, PieFacE said:

I think simply showing replays of the controversial incident on the screens within the ground would make the whole process better.

If this is the route we're going down then referees should be made to wear a mic which syncs with the PA system in the ground for them to communicate what is going on.

As they do in NFL, rugby etc.

Of course I would prefer if they just scrapped it altogether but when it comes to technology, progress is difficult to halt.

[bobzy]

4 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

If this is the route we're going down then referees should be made to wear a mic which syncs with the PA system in the ground for them to communicate what is going on.

I think they should anyway to flag the amount of abuse they get from a bunch of overpaid rocket polishers who they're officiating.

[bobzy]

On 3/1/2018 at 11:06, a m ole said:

disagree. why give the advantage to the defending team, or fouling player?

How's it an advantage?  They attacker gets a free kick.  By allowing the foul to continue into the box, it's basically encouraging diving.

If a player makes a tactical foul just outside the box, then it should be a free kick - not a penalty because the attacker decided they could keep going until they made it into the area.

[Stevo985]

12 minutes ago, bobzy said:

How's it an advantage?  They attacker gets a free kick.  By allowing the foul to continue into the box, it's basically encouraging diving.

If a player makes a tactical foul just outside the box, then it should be a free kick - not a penalty because the attacker decided they could keep going until they made it into the area.

I think you've got it wrong here.

If contact is outside the box and the attacker falls into the box then it's not a pen.

The "carrying on" is for the actual foul. Like if it's a shirt pull that starts outside of the box and the attacker eventually gets pulled down inside the box, that's a pen.

If the defender doesn't touch the attacker in the box, it's just that the attacker has carried on into it, that's not a penalty.

 

At least as I understand it.

[a m ole]

27 minutes ago, bobzy said:

How's it an advantage?  They attacker gets a free kick.  By allowing the foul to continue into the box, it's basically encouraging diving.

If a player makes a tactical foul just outside the box, then it should be a free kick - not a penalty because the attacker decided they could keep going until they made it into the area.

the defender can keep fouling until the player is down and unable to play the ball and only give away a free kick. Youre effectively playing advantage for a pull or a hold until no advantage is taken.

In your scenario you’re penalising the attacker for trying to stay on his feet. 

Edited March 2, 2018 by a m ole

[a m ole]

2 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I think you've got it wrong here.

If contact is outside the box and the attacker falls into the box then it's not a pen.

The "carrying on" is for the actual foul. Like if it's a shirt pull that starts outside of the box and the attacker eventually gets pulled down inside the box, that's a pen.

If the defender doesn't touch the attacker in the box, it's just that the attacker has carried on into it, that's not a penalty.

 

At least as I understand it.

spot on