The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[sne]

How about if an offside is too close to call then give the benefit to the attacking player. That's how we used to have it, in Sweden at least.

People want to see goals and having them scratched off by arbitrary lines and Zapruder films is no making anyone happy.

[chappy]

12 hours ago, Davkaus said:

 

What the **** kind of arbitrary line is this? A kind of percentage down the bicep, at a point with no distinctive features. They're making it impossible. Is this why our sleeves are so long this season?  

I genuinely think this is why our shirts have longer sleeves this season. Play the system.

[Mic09]

6 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

But I still don’t understand how Mane is offside. If it’s his arm then surely that means it’s not offside because he can’t score with his arm.  

He is or he's not. I don't think anyone can be certain. We can't tell with the current tech so in my opinion it shouldn't have been disallowed.

[villalad21]

VAR isn't the issue though.

It's the rules.

[Vive_La_Villa]

2 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

He is or he's not. I don't think anyone can be certain. We can't tell with the current tech so in my opinion it shouldn't have been disallowed.

But if you asked a thousand people what they think that would say he looks on. I’m yet to hear anybody agree it was offside and that includes mancs and evertonians.  It sounds like even referee unions are shying away from this one.

[Mic09]

Just now, Vive_La_Villa said:

But if you asked a thousand people what they think that would say he looks on. I’m yet to hear anybody agree it was offside and that includes mancs and evertonians.  It sounds like even referee unions are shying away from this one.

I honestly think it's too close to tell. Let me put it this way, I wouldn't bet a £100 on it.

[Vive_La_Villa]

What happened to that fancy technology where they freeze it and then can zoom to overhead view like FIFA. Maybe that could be more conclusive?

[PaulC]

2 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Yep but they can explain the Pickford challenge.  Because it was offside they couldn’t punish him for the tackle it self so they then had to judge if it was serious foul play and warranted a red card or not. They decided it didn’t. A bad call but it’s subjective and decision has to be made. 
 

But the offside I do not understand what they are seeing.  He looks onside and I’m yet to hear them explain it.

Thats my issue because they see it as subjective I would think most people see it as serious foul play 

[sidcow]

At the end of the day VAR actually DOESN'T WORK and has created MORE controversy. 

I accept that the technology works and it's the humans that are the problem, but then we're back to where we were before. 

So we have all of the drawbacks and none of the advantages so let's just ditch it and get back to enjoying football without the ridiculous delays. 

[PaulC]

7 minutes ago, sidcow said:

At the end of the day VAR actually DOESN'T WORK and has created MORE controversy. 

I accept that the technology works and it's the humans that are the problem, but then we're back to where we were before. 

So we have all of the drawbacks and none of the advantages so let's just ditch it and get back to enjoying football without the ridiculous delays. 

Yes it just proves that the refs even with time on their hands to make the right calls still make mistakes. Need something that takes human error out of the equation complete. In cricket it works because they have that margin of error.  With offsides as its not an exact science there has to be that margin of error allowed. If the linemen gives it it his decision should stand if its too close to call. If he doesnt then it shouldnt be offside. 

[sidcow]

1 minute ago, PaulC said:

Yes it just proves that the refs even with time on their hands to make the right calls still make mistakes. Need something that takes human error out of the equation complete. In cricket it works because they have that margin of error.  With offsides as its not an exact science there has to be that margin of error allowed. If the linemen gives it it his decision should stand if its too close to call. If he doesnt then it shouldnt be offside. 

If we're to persist I still think they should go back to the clear air rule.  Makes the most sense clear air between the entire body of the attacker and defence.  There is then zero argument. Of you can fit a blue line between them it's off. 

[a-k]

What is the point of VAR if they don't even bother checking this, especially the day after Pickford destroyed VVD? This moment could have absolutely crippled our season, no pun intended.

Edited October 19, 2020 by a-k

[bannedfromHandV]

On 18/10/2020 at 11:23, PaulC said:

Yes it just proves that the refs even with time on their hands to make the right calls still make mistakes. Need something that takes human error out of the equation complete. In cricket it works because they have that margin of error.  With offsides as its not an exact science there has to be that margin of error allowed. If the linemen gives it it his decision should stand if its too close to call. If he doesnt then it shouldnt be offside. 

It works in cricket because it’s generally a static game with small windows of action and clearly defined rules for what is or is not out.

Football is incredibly fluid, probably the most fluid sport on the planet and rules are not definitive, you can’t simply look for contact because it’s a contact sport, you can’t simply look for the ball touching the hand because it’s not always handball, you don’t always know for sure if it’s a red card because you’re trying to work out the malice involved.

Without harping on about it this was why I was against VAR from the outset, football is not black and white, never has been and I hope it never is frankly.

[Panto_Villan]

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.

[mikeyp102]

3 minutes 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.

Rugby can be very stop start, especially if they are checking a try. 
VAR in football should work though, like you say it’s more the way it’s used. It should be flagged by VAR and decisions made by the infield ref after reviewing the footage. It’s only happened 2/3 times this season. 

[Panto_Villan]

5 minutes ago, mikeyp102 said:

Rugby can be very stop start, especially if they are checking a try. 
VAR in football should work though, like you say it’s more the way it’s used. It should be flagged by VAR and decisions made by the infield ref after reviewing the footage. It’s only happened 2/3 times this season. 

I get what you mean, but I'm not sure it's *that* much more stop-start than football in practice. They wait until a break in play to check things like illegal tackles and move play back if there was a foul rather than interrupting the flow of play, and similarly they check tries etc after the ball is dead. The same is generally true in football too.

But yeah as you say in most cases the best way to handle it is the VAR guy saying to the ref "hey, you should check this video as you might want to reverse your previous decision". It's about giving the ref enough info to make the correct decision.

[sharkyvilla]

The video ref in rugby is one of the many reasons I hate the sport.  I think VAR in football will be fine if the ref actually checked the screen himself for almost all decisions and if the offside rule is changed so that if you have any part of the body in line with the defender then you are on.  You are still going to have to use the slightly dodgy lines across the pitch until better technology comes out but I think you want to balance it in favour of the striker rather than the defender, after all you can't say Mane was getting an unfair advantage the other day.

[Stevo985]

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

 

 

[Villaphan04]

3 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

 

 

Dale Johnson is generally the only "journo" who actually seems to be understanding the different problems and uses of VAR imo — and puts it out there for the general public. 

[blunther]

The difference with rugby is rugby doesn't really matter, while football does.