The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[Mic09]

editing

Edited April 16, 2019 by Mic09

[Mic09]

20 minutes ago, CharlieAitken59 said:

If you read my post then you will see more than one valid argument against VAR or in what are my examples not valid?

Don't forget that the supposed USP for VAR is to "ensure a fair and correct result in EVERY game". Please tell me how this is possible when it can only be used in 4  ways!

I think that the burden of proof needs to lie on the opponents of the VAR system. Unfortunately I have not seen an argument from you that defeats the purpose of VAR.

But let's take a hypothetical. You have 100 football games, in which every single one has an unfair penalty because the ref has seen a handball which wasn't there. The team on the receiving end loses 0-1.

Then you have 1 game in which VAR has been used and that penalty was not given. 

Which is a fairer game?

[Davkaus]

 

2 minutes ago, CharlieAitken59 said:

I think my example is pretty much self-explanatory!

I couldn't disagree more

Quote

Whats fair if Manure are a goal up at Rochdale in the FA cup with 5 mins to go when Rochdale should have been awarded a 'stonewall' penalty......referee doesn't give it and Rochdale do not have VAR (due to the cost)! .......how is that fair?  Literally £millions lost by Rochdale in terms of lost revenue that a replay at Old Trafford would have yielded!

In this scenario, it's not given because Rochdale don't have VAR, which is currently exactly what happens, and you think this would somehow be grossly unfair.

Think about it the other way around, and the match is at OT, where VAR is very affordable, but just disabled for 'fairness' and that wrong decision goes against them. I'm sure they'd be delighted.

19 minutes ago, CharlieAitken59 said:

Well, clearly its not fair if  its a cup game and there is a possibility of a replay where one team has VAR and goal line technology and the other doesn't.....surely thats impossible to justify!

Again, couldn't disagree more. Both teams in the games are playing in the same circumstances.

I'd far rather have the tech in as much as possible, rather than not have it anywhere because it's not everywhere.

Someone else referenced 4th officials not being available everywhere in the football pyramid. Shall we get rid of them at higher levels too? Unfair, isn't it.

[CharlieAitken59]

Try and read my post and tell me that the 2 examples I have given can both be fair and correct!  They cant be, it's totally wrong to claim otherwise!

There are many, many more examples out there!

You have yet to tell me how every the result of every game can be judged to be fair and correct when it can only be used on specific occssions! (4).

It's a complete nonsense IMO

 

 

 

[chappy]

I was on my stag do in Lisbon over the weekend. On Sunday we went to Benfica vs Setubal. Cracking game for the neutral - 4-2 home win. There were two VAR penalties awarded in the game. Neither had been given in real time but the ref went to check both on the little screen at the side. One to Benfica and was a definite penalty (they missed it) and one to Setubal which was an awful decision! Shouldn’t have been given - they scored. However, that can happen without VAR too. All added to the drama of the game and didn’t hold it up at all. First time I’ve seen it live in action and I liked it!

Off topic - Joao Felix looks a class player for Benfica!

[CharlieAitken59]

11 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

 

I couldn't disagree more

In this scenario, it's not given because Rochdale don't have VAR, which is currently exactly what happens, and you think this would somehow be grossly unfair.

Think about it the other way around, and the match is at OT, where VAR is very affordable, but just disabled for 'fairness' and that wrong decision goes against them. I'm sure they'd be delighted.

Again, couldn't disagree more. Both teams in the games are playing in the same circumstances.

I'd far rather have the tech in as much as possible, rather than not have it anywhere because it's not everywhere.

Someone else referenced 4th officials not being available everywhere in the football pyramid. Shall we get rid of them at higher levels too? Unfair, isn't it.

Thats not a cogent argument whatsoever!  If as you say it currently happens then why have it at all if Rochdale will still be in the same position if they cant afford to install it. You seem to have tripped yourself up there bud!

 

[bannedfromHandV]

29 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I think that the burden of proof needs to lie on the opponents of the VAR system. Unfortunately I have not seen an argument from you that defeats the purpose of VAR.

But let's take a hypothetical. You have 100 football games, in which every single one has an unfair penalty because the ref has seen a handball which wasn't there. The team on the receiving end loses 0-1.

Then you have 1 game in which VAR has been used and that penalty was not given. 

Which is a fairer game?

Wow, okay, how about this:

It will almost completely ruin the fluidity of the sport and almost every single time you go to celebrate a goal you'll have to temper your joy with wondering if there will be a 2-3 minute review every time.

 

[Mic09]

11 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Wow, okay, how about this:

It will almost completely ruin the fluidity of the sport and almost every single time you go to celebrate a goal you'll have to temper your joy with wondering if there will be a 2-3 minute review every time.

 

you say 'it will ruin'

But majority of World Football already uses this system. FA is years behind. 

It hasn't ruined anything and fans are still watching the games in Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Nethelands or Spain. 

so how will it ruin the fluidity?

And although I don't think it does ruin fluidity, let's assume it does.

Would you rather wait 2 minutes to see a fair result of the game? Or would you rather see Maradona style handball? 

[Davkaus]

 

Quote

then why have it at all if Rochdale will still be in the same position if they cant afford to install it.

Because not all football clubs are Rochdale. All PL clubs and Championship clubs can afford it, so it'll go in at the levels at which it can be implemented. In exactly the same way as GL tech and 4th officials aren't at all levels.

And that isn't unfair, because in any one game, both teams are playing with the exact same circumstances. It should be used in as many games as possible, the alternative is letting wrong decisions stand in games out of a misguided sense of fairness.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Davkaus

[Mic09]

5 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

 

Because not all football clubs are Rochdale. All PL clubs and Championship clubs can afford it, so it'll go in at the levels at which it can be implemented. In exactly the same way as GL tech and 4th officials aren't at all levels.

 And that isn't unfair, because in any one game, both teams are playing with the exact same circumstances. It should be used in as many games as possible, the alternative is letting wrong decisions stand in games out of a misguided sense of fairness.

Exactly.

It's a little bit like saying what's the point in linesmen if Sunday league can't have them.

It would be great if Rochdale could afford VAR. But if it can't, why not make the game fairer for the clubs that can?

[kurtsimonw]

3 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

That entire passage may/probably wouldn't have occurred with VAR involved and that's what I think we'll lose - the fluidity, the pace and the passion in football.

And 9 times out of 10, the initial penalty is scored, and Watford as a club lose out on hundreds of millions all because the ref got conned by someone diving.

Saying VAR is shit because it won't allow shit decisions to be made doesn't really make much sense.

If VAR was around 10 years ago, we potentially do the double in 2009/10. 

Edited April 16, 2019 by kurtsimonw

[Mic09]

5 minutes ago, kurtsimonw said:

 And 9 times out of 10, the initial penalty is scored, and Watford as a club lose out on hundreds of millions all because the ref got conned by someone diving.

Saying VAR is shit because it won't allow shit decisions to be made doesn't really make much sense.

 If VAR was around 10 years ago, we potentially do the double in 2009/10. 

Don't be silly. Let's not ruin the beautiful game 

[Zatman]

15 minutes ago, kurtsimonw said:

And 9 times out of 10, the initial penalty is scored, and Watford as a club lose out on hundreds of millions all because the ref got conned by someone diving.

Saying VAR is shit because it won't allow shit decisions to be made doesn't really make much sense.

If VAR was around 10 years ago, we potentially do the double in 2009/10. 

I think Dowd knew Vidic was last manand bottled it. Not sure even VAR would have helped us that day

[Davkaus]

Imagine if this was invented decades ago and we were used to it being used, then someone comes out with "Hey guys, let's take out the VAR and just have wrong decisions more often, it'll be more entertaining".

[bannedfromHandV]

1 hour ago, Mic09 said:

you say 'it will ruin'

But majority of World Football already uses this system. FA is years behind. 

It hasn't ruined anything and fans are still watching the games in Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Nethelands or Spain. 

so how will it ruin the fluidity?

And although I don't think it does ruin fluidity, let's assume it does.

Would you rather wait 2 minutes to see a fair result of the game? Or would you rather see Maradona style handball? 

I would accept the odd bad decision to do away with VAR yes.

[bannedfromHandV]

44 minutes ago, kurtsimonw said:

And 9 times out of 10, the initial penalty is scored, and Watford as a club lose out on hundreds of millions all because the ref got conned by someone diving.

Saying VAR is shit because it won't allow shit decisions to be made doesn't really make much sense.

If VAR was around 10 years ago, we potentially do the double in 2009/10. 

I'm sure if we went through that season with a fine tooth comb it will have pulled up plenty of adverse affects for us as well as positive, if it had been around we may not have even made it to Wembley to be on the end of a shit refereeing decision, pointless argument unless you can unequivocally prove that we (or any other club) has been adversely affected by bad decisions over a long period of time.

[Keyblade]

Somewhat ironically, the biggest drawback of VAR is also the one of the main reasons for its existence: human error. But it's worth it for another reason, it can bring into question incidents that the officials didn't or couldn't see. That in itself is a huge improvement, even if it does nothing to mitigate the human error involved in snap judgement during a fast-paced game (which I would argue it does, anyway), it'd still be worth it for that reason alone.

[Mic09]

24 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I would accept the odd bad decision to do away with VAR yes.

What if that happened in a champions League final that Villa played in that cost us the game?

[bannedfromHandV]

29 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

What if that happened in a champions League final that Villa played in that cost us the game?

What if it is implemented and we lose a final because of it?

There's two sides to everything, particularly something like this.

[CharlieAitken59]

2 hours ago, Davkaus said:

 

Because not all football clubs are Rochdale. All PL clubs and Championship clubs can afford it, so it'll go in at the levels at which it can be implemented. In exactly the same way as GL tech and 4th officials aren't at all levels.

And that isn't unfair, because in any one game, both teams are playing with the exact same circumstances. It should be used in as many games as possible, the alternative is letting wrong decisions stand in games out of a misguided sense of fairness.

Lol... that's a very poor attempt  at backtracking!  Whats musguided about wanting fairness?  That's the VAR USP!

 

And btw....it will NOT be in use in the championship next season....you have tripped yourself up again bud!

The more you dig the less cogent your argument becomes!