The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[useless]

 

[bannedfromHandV]

6 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

That's not remotely the same thing.

It’s not, but it’s further reinforcement of the precious big clubs potentially, of course the two things are not the same in isolation with one another.

It is now more than ever highly possible for outside influences to impact what happens during a match, that’s 100% not a good thing.

Obviously it’s a stretch, but I wouldn’t be surprised by anything any more.

Edited February 18, 2020 by bannedfromHandV

[Stevo985]

6 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

It’s not, but it’s further reinforcement of the precious big clubs potentially, of course the two things are not the same in isolation with one another.

It is now more than ever highly possible for outside influences to impact what happens during a match, that’s 100% not a good thing.

Obviously it’s a stretch, but I wouldn’t be surprised by anything any more.

It's a huge stretch. 

You're talking about widespread, institutionalised match fixing at (one of) the highest levels of the game.

It would be the biggest scandal in the history of the game.

[Zatman]

It be a big scandal if any editor had the bottle and any journalist not afraid to be ostracized, its just like doping in football. Is too much money and too much yes men in the media to make a big deal about it

[Stevo985]

2 minutes ago, Zatman said:

It be a big scandal if any editor had the bottle and any journalist not afraid to be ostracized, its just like doping in football. Is too much money and too much yes men in the media to make a big deal about it

Even doping would be nowhere near as big of a big deal as this if it were true.

It's ludicrous.

[PieFacE]

 

Interesting...

[bannedfromHandV]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

It's a huge stretch. 

You're talking about widespread, institutionalised match fixing at (one of) the highest levels of the game.

It would be the biggest scandal in the history of the game.

Well questions can be asked when decisions are being made miles away and behind closed doors, who knows who is having input into those decisions, anyone could be present.

I’m not saying it’s true or I believe it to be happening necessarily but it leaves it open to possibility, and football is corrupt to the core at the upper echelons.

[Stevo985]

8 hours ago, PieFacE said:

 

Interesting...

Pointless. We'll still have the same measured by mm decisions, it'll just be a metre further forward.

[Stevo985]

8 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Well questions can be asked when decisions are being made miles away and behind closed doors, who knows who is having input into those decisions, anyone could be present.

I’m not saying it’s true or I believe it to be happening necessarily but it leaves it open to possibility, and football is corrupt to the core at the upper echelons.

Well further to the ludicrousness of it, the evidence doesn't really support it either. Plenty of the big teams have had lots of stuff go against them.

For example, why would they be giving this as offside if the system was in place to make sure Liverpool win?

There will always be a bias towards the big clubs. But again the suggestion that VAR was brought in to deliberately manipulate results to make sure the big teams win just isn't feasible, imo. I don't think people truly believe that.

 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Stevo985

[kurtsimonw]

17 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Pointless. We'll still have the same measured by mm decisions, it'll just be a metre further forward.

Yeah, it makes no sense. At some point, you have to draw the line. Why not draw the line at, you know, offside.

All the rule change would do is nullify the offside trap to an extent, and could result in deeper lines and more boring football IMO.

[Zatman]

Remove offside and play 19th century kick and rush style. Maybe remove refs too and let be a free for all

[sne]

41 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

 

God I hate "offsides" like that.

You can't tell anything from that picture and even worse they don't pay even close to that molecular level attention to the exact point when the ball left the foot from the passer so it's all just pointless anyway.

It used to be (in Sweden anyway) a rule that was something like "benefit of a doubt goes to the attacking team" since we all want to see goals and if it's too close to call then it's a goal.

Not perfect but still better than the farce we have now.

 

[Stevo985]

14 minutes ago, sne said:

God I hate "offsides" like that.

You can't tell anything from that picture and even worse they don't pay even close to that molecular level attention to the exact point when the ball left the foot from the passer so it's all just pointless anyway.

It used to be (in Sweden anyway) a rule that was something like "benefit of a doubt goes to the attacking team" since we all want to see goals and if it's too close to call then it's a goal.

Not perfect but still better than the farce we have now.

 

This is why I think it should be reviewed, but just do it by eye.

By all means have the line on the pitch parallel to the goal line to make it easier, but just have someone view the video and if it's not clear enough to go against the on pitch call then let it go.

No ref is going to see that clip and say that was offside. It's ludicrous.

[bannedfromHandV]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

Well further to the ludicrousness of it, the evidence doesn't really support it either. Plenty of the big teams have had lots of stuff go against them.

For example, why would they be giving this as offside if the system was in place to make sure Liverpool win?

There will always be a bias towards the big clubs. But again the suggestion that VAR was brought in to deliberately manipulate results to make sure the big teams win just isn't feasible, imo. I don't think people truly believe that.

 

But you accept it's possible?

[Stevo985]

4 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

But you accept it's possible?

Of course it's possible. I never said it was impossible, because anything is possible. 

But something being possible doesn't make it a valid argument.

 

It's possible that Villa will win every game 10-0 next season and be crowned Premier League Champions and the best team in the history of the world. Doesn't mean I'm wrong when I call it a ludicrously wild suggestion though.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Stevo985

[kurtsimonw]

Liverpool, Man City and Chelsea have had enough go against them.

Probably the 3 most dominant clubs in the country over the past 5 or 6 years. There's more evidence to suggest VAR is trying to level the playing field than otherwise.

Which I don't believe is true, either. VAR is just poor referees making poor decisions, irrespective of the clubs involved.

 

Edited February 19, 2020 by kurtsimonw

[sne]

No support for use of pitchside monitors apparently.

Not sure their thinking is correct tbh. Think the pressure on refs at home to big clubs is already influencing a ton and pitchside monitors would give them a leg to stand on against the pressure rather than vice versa.

Quote

Premier League clubs continue to snub the pitchside VAR monitors as smaller clubs believe it would give bigger sides advantage

• The majority of Premier League clubs do not want referees to use VAR monitors
• The division's smaller clubs believe it could give the larger teams an advantage

Premier League clubs are still against the widespread use of pitchside VAR monitors, Sportsmail can reveal.

It is understood the top-flight’s smaller clubs, in particular, are reluctant to use the screens more frequently due to concerns it would provide an advantage to the bigger sides, especially at home.

Chelsea manager Frank Lampard was left angered by the decision not to dismiss Maguire, who scored United’s second, and questioned why referee Anthony Taylor did not use the pitchside monitor to review the incident.

Sportsmail understands Taylor was advised not to review the flashpoint by VAR official Chris Kavanagh, who did not deem the kick as violent conduct.

Kavanagh’s call effectively meant Taylor would have to dispute his colleague’s decision if he reviewed the incident for himself on the touchline - a big call given the VAR official had already viewed replays.

One source explained: ‘Using the screens favours the big clubs, particularly when they are at home because it gives the opportunity for home fans to try and influence referees during the breaks in play.’ 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8018021/Premier-League-clubs-continue-snub-pitchside-VAR-monitors.html

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, sne said:

No support for use of pitchside monitors apparently.

Not sure their thinking is correct tbh. Think the pressure on refs at home to big clubs is already influencing a ton and pitchside monitors would give them a leg to stand on against the pressure rather than vice versa.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8018021/Premier-League-clubs-continue-snub-pitchside-VAR-monitors.html

I couldn't disagree more with that.

I do think Referees are influenced by crowds. But I think that's in the heat of the moment. 

Using a pitchside monitor would give the ref time to properly think about a decision and remove that bias from his head. Any referee influenced by a crowd given that amount of time to think and consider his decision isn't fit to be a referee anyway.

[sne]

7 minutes ago, kurtsimonw said:

Liverpool, Man City and Chelsea have had enough go against them.

Probably the 3 most dominant clubs in the country over the past 5 or 6 years. There's more evidence to suggest VAR is trying to level the playing field than otherwise.

Which I don't believe is true, either. VAR is just poor referees making poor decisions, irrespective of the clubs involved.

 

Pool and Man U are the ones who have benefited the most by VAR by some distance IMO.

Doesn't mean VAR is bent, those are the same clubs that where helped the most by (some) refs before VAR as well. 

VAR is just giving those ref a safety line to maintain the status quo.

[sne]

Just now, Stevo985 said:

I couldn't disagree more with that.

I do think Referees are influenced by crowds. But I think that's in the heat of the moment. 

Using a pitchside monitor would give the ref time to properly think about a decision and remove that bias from his head. Any referee influenced by a crowd given that amount of time to think and consider his decision isn't fit to be a referee anyway.

Yeah exactly. 

Think the clubs got it backwards on this one.