The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[Genie]

8 hours ago, Farlz said:

Look how quickly the red card was sorted in the Chelsea game tonight because the ref went over and used the monitor. The big problem we have in the Prem is that every single English referee is a shambles and until they're all sacked off VAR will remain a mess. 

They must be directed by their bosses not to do it (for whatever reason). Maybe some kind of protect?

[Mic09]

6 minutes ago, Genie said:

They must be directed by their bosses not to do it (for whatever reason). Maybe some kind of protect?

What are they protesting? Reason and common sense?

[Genie]

4 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

What are they protesting? Reason and common sense?

I dunno, maybe deep down they  don't like having another authority telling them they made a mistake. Just speculation really as I can't think of another reason why they'd refuse to look at the monitors en-masse in the England but seem comfortable with it elsewhere.

Funnily, I was just looking on wiki about refs and noticed this  

[Stevo985]

I think the monitors thing was because they thought it would take longer and delay the game too much.

I think it's nonsense. If anything I think it would be quicker as the ref knows what he's looking at/for

[Genie]

16 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I think the monitors thing was because they thought it would take longer and delay the game too much.

I think it's nonsense. If anything I think it would be quicker as the ref knows what he's looking at/for

I agree with that, the fact that they are all refusing to look at them in this country suggests they have been told not to (imo).

[Stevo985]

Just now, Genie said:

I agree with that, the fact that they are all refusing to look at them in this country suggests they have been told not to (imo).

They have been told not to. I don't think it's the refs themselves making those decisions.

And someone posted in here last week that the smaller clubs were asking them to continue not using them as they think the refs could be influenced by the crowd at bigger grounds.

Which again I think is nonsense.

[Genie]

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

They have been told not to. I don't think it's the refs themselves making those decisions.

And someone posted in here last week that the smaller clubs were asking them to continue not using them as they think the refs could be influenced by the crowd at bigger grounds.

Which again I think is nonsense.

It shows what a farce the whole thing is, the major investment in it and the direction it is to be used and adopted into our game (by FIFA/UEFA I assume). Then at a national level decisions being made not to use it. Why aren't FIFA/UEFA TELLING the English FA that they MUST use the monitors. Its a bit of an experiment and we're not even testing it properly.

[sne]

Trolling through this thread to try and fins a summary of the "evolution" of PL VAR this season and this is what I could find:

Followed by this in late August:

Quote

Referees ordered not to check VAR screens during matches after difficult introduction to the Premier League

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7400363/Referees-ordered-not-check-VAR-screens-matches-difficult-introduction-Premier-League.html

• And then they had an emergency meeting in early September where they changed some more stuff.
• Then they had another emergency meeting in early November to made even more adjustments.

Then it was this in January:

Quote

VAR: Premier League referees set to use pitchside monitors

Premier League referees have been told to start using pitchside monitors for red card decisions where it is felt they should have the final say.

The Professional Game Match Officials Limited, the body that manages elite referees, has issued the guidance.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/51145986

Might have missed something but it's clearly a mess.  

Edited February 26, 2020 by sne

[Bugzy1991]

I'm confused why monitors are better? What difference does it make? Referees are all taught the same thing. The same inconsistencies will happen if they use a monitor. One game will be different to the next. I don't know who's in the VAR room but I assume it's refs right? If not , just make the 4th official (already established ref)  be in the var room instead. 

There will still be a lot of inconsistencies from game to game because a lot of the rules are highly subjective. One red card will not be the same red card next week even if they use monitors

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by Bugzy1991

[fightoffyour]

7 minutes ago, Bugzy1991 said:

I'm confused why monitors are better? What difference does it make? Referees are all taught the same thing. The same inconsistencies will happen if they use a monitor. One game will be different to the next. I don't know who's in the VAR room but I assume it's refs right? If not , just make the 4th official (already established ref)  be in the var room instead. 

There will still be a lot of inconsistencies from game to game because a lot of the rules are highly subjective. 

1. The referee has already seen the incident (unless it's about something off the ball or just completely missed) and so knows what to look for and what he might have got wrong, as well as being the only official with an on-field view and a feeling for player and staff reactions.

2. VARs might be less willing to overturn ("correct") the decision of the referee, one of their peers, without knowing if he has seen an incident properly or just interpreted it differently.

3. The referee is more accountable than a faceless official in a remote shipping container.

[sne]

12 minutes ago, Bugzy1991 said:

I'm confused why monitors are better? What difference does it make? Referees are all taught the same thing. The same inconsistencies will happen if they use a monitor. One game will be different to the next. I don't know who's in the VAR room but I assume it's refs right? If not , just make the 4th official (already established ref)  be in the var room instead. 

There will still be a lot of inconsistencies from game to game because a lot of the rules are highly subjective. One red card will not be the same red card next week even if they use monitors

 

But at least with monitors it's the ref judging the game that makes the call, right or wrong.

Not some guy eating hot-pockets in a room somewhere who has no accountability to the players on the pitch

[Bugzy1991]

4 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

1. The referee has already seen the incident (unless it's about something off the ball or just completely missed) and so knows what to look for and what he might have got wrong, as well as being the only official with an on-field view and a feeling for player and staff reactions.

2. VARs might be less willing to overturn ("correct") the decision of the referee, one of their peers, without knowing if he has seen an incident properly or just interpreted it differently.

3. The referee is more accountable than a faceless official in a remote shipping container.

1. So has the var guys. They seen incident also. They know whether they're looking for handball, or push on a corner, or a bad tackle. It take 1 second to communicate also.

2. Maybe yeh. 

3. Accountable to who? Refs got away with a lot before VAR with 0 accountability. On the rare occasion, the ref had one of his worst games imaginable he would get demoted to championship for a week. But that doesn't mean the VAR guys can't be accountable. Why can't they? They can easily set up a system where they are. 

[fightoffyour]

12 minutes ago, Bugzy1991 said:

1. So has the var guys. They seen incident also. They know whether they're looking for handball, or push on a corner, or a bad tackle. It take 1 second to communicate also.

2. Maybe yeh. 

3. Accountable to who? Refs got away with a lot before VAR with 0 accountability. On the rare occasion, the ref had one of his worst games imaginable he would get demoted to championship for a week. But that doesn't mean the VAR guys can't be accountable. Why can't they? They can easily set up a system where they are. 

1. What about the extra view and real-time interpretation rather than slow motion replays? No one has the referee's or even any on-field viewing angle, which could actually be the best available.

2. 

3. I'd argue there's some degree of accountability on field during a match that the referee will have to answer to from players and managers. If the VAR makes a decision then the ref can just shrug his shoulders and say "it wasn't me."

Edited February 26, 2020 by fightoffyour

[Sam-AVFC]

The clear and obvious rule needs changing too.

They need to do it like rugby so the ref makes a decision and then asks the VAR guy “is there a reason I shouldn’t give a penalty” As opposed to leaving the full decision making process to them.

The ref/linesman definitely would have had a view in Lo Celso and I bet if he’d asked whether there was any reason not to give a red the decision would not have been the same.

[Stevo985]

2 hours ago, Bugzy1991 said:

I'm confused why monitors are better? What difference does it make? Referees are all taught the same thing. The same inconsistencies will happen if they use a monitor. One game will be different to the next. I don't know who's in the VAR room but I assume it's refs right? If not , just make the 4th official (already established ref)  be in the var room instead. 

There will still be a lot of inconsistencies from game to game because a lot of the rules are highly subjective. One red card will not be the same red card next week even if they use monitors

 

Because a monitor allows the same ref to review his own decision. 

That eliminates inconsistency within the same game

 

It should be a conversation between the on pitch ref and the VAR ref, both looking at the footage.

"I think you've missed this"

"No, I saw that but I didn't give it because of this"

"Ok, but what about that?"

"That's true but also that"

"Ok I agree with that"

"On field decision stands then?"

"I agree"

 

 

One ref just overruling another with no discussion is shit.

 

Edit: obviously sometimes that's appropriate. Offsides or mistaken identity or whether a foul was in or out of the box or something doesn't require the conversation

Edited February 26, 2020 by Stevo985

[Stevo985]

12 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

The clear and obvious rule needs changing too.

They need to do it like rugby so the ref makes a decision and then asks the VAR guy “is there a reason I shouldn’t give a penalty” As opposed to leaving the full decision making process to them.

Exactly this. And if the answer is "yes" then they review the footage together.

[Bugzy1991]

Genuine question, does it remove inconsistencies within the same game ? Why can't the ref make the same inconsistencies than the refs in the booths? 

We see how many inconsistencies have every football game before VAR. Why are we saying they can't so it again? 

Most complaints I see is that it's inconsistent between games. Whilst individual errors in a game 

Edited February 26, 2020 by Bugzy1991

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, Bugzy1991 said:

Genuine question, does it remove inconsistencies within the same game ? Why can't the ref make the same inconsistencies than the refs in the booths? 

We see how many inconsistencies have every football game before VAR. Why are we saying they can't so it again? 

Most complaints I see is that it's inconsistent between games. Whilst individual errors in a game 

Obviously they can. But it makes it far less likely.

[philwhitters]

I think the Spurs penalty is a perfect example of where the referee looking at it themselves again in discussion with VAR (preferably fans being privy to the conversation also) would benefit.

VAR: "There was contact between defender and attacker"
Ref: (Whilst viewing footage) "I saw the contact, I felt it was initiated by the attacker leaning in to the defenders challenge so didn't warrant a foul, and still do"
VAR: "Ok stick with on field decision"

OR

VAR: "There was contact between defender and attacker"
Ref: (Whilst viewing footage) "I didn't see that previously, I only saw contact defender made with the ball.  Having seen it again I'm going to reverse my decision and award a penalty"

As it is, the bloke in the booth has changed the decision, where as in the scenario above the ref may have seen the incident clearly and in his mind wasn't a foul, so not a 'clear and obvious' error.  Incidents are being re-reffed by someone else.

I just think if the VAR is going to look at the footage several times the Ref may as well look at it too, rather than everyone standing around waiting.

[kurtsimonw]

It ultimately comes down to refs being of a really, really poor standard. The more VAR talk there is, the more VAR is necessary.

If a referee, even with multiple replay viewings, is getting things wrong - what does this say? It says that the refs either don't know the rules or are just poor at judging things. And people want VAR gone and for these people to have less assistance?

It truly makes no sense. 

They need to change this "clear and obvious" thing as well. An error is an error. You can't define something completely subjective like "clear and obvious".