Jump to content

The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)


Stevo985

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Genie said:

I think this is the part we’ll never agree on. Ok, we knock out a few bad decisions, but for me the cost of that is too high. It’s too intrusive, it’s too slow, it ruins the flow and having these big goals being pulled back breaks my heart.

I’d rather have football at full tilt, full emotion, full excitement, full talking points, knowing that apart from a quick glance to see if the linesman flag is down the goal is good than knowing it’s always right (which is still sometimes isn’t).

Mr Noel Gallagher was right, “true perfection has to be imperfect. I know that that sounds foolish but it’s true”.

 

genuine question, do you think it's easy for you to say, given that we're yet to have a game where it's been used? i.e. do you think that some spurs supporting VAR skeptics had their heads turned in the semi final?

i fully acknowledge it's flaws, and the impact it will have on the game...those scenes for man city just wouldn't happen again because everyone will know not to get too excited until the review has been completed. and i'm OK with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Zatman said:

If Championship had VAR last season we would have played against 10 men most games

nah because it's clear and obvious errors for goals and mistaken identity i believe...and serious foul play. not yellow cards. that's my understanding anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

genuine question, do you think it's easy for you to say, given that we're yet to have a game where it's been used? i.e. do you think that some spurs supporting VAR skeptics had their heads turned in the semi final?

i fully acknowledge it's flaws, and the impact it will have on the game...those scenes for man city just wouldn't happen again because everyone will know not to get too excited until the review has been completed. and i'm OK with that.

I’ve watched England many tines with VAR. Also as a neutral watching lots of games. My view is the cost of being a bit closer to 100% correct takes too much away from the natural game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Genie said:

I think this is the part we’ll never agree on. Ok, we knock out a few bad decisions, but for me the cost of that is too high. It’s too intrusive, it’s too slow, it ruins the flow and having these big goals being pulled back breaks my heart.

I’d rather have football at full tilt, full emotion, full excitement, full talking points, knowing that apart from a quick glance to see if the linesman flag is down the goal is good than knowing it’s always right (which is still sometimes isn’t).

Mr Noel Gallagher was right, “true perfection has to be imperfect. I know that that sounds foolish but it’s true”.

 

It will still be imperfect. But the big decisions will be right. Or at least have far more chance of being right.

I don't understand how anyone can see that as a bad thing.

It's a bit slow at the moment, but again that's all implementation. Once players and managers stop appealing for VAR and then against the VAR decisions, which is where half the delay comes from, it'll be much quicker.

Plus, as I've pointed out before, the amount spent on VAR decisions is actually tiny per game. I can't remember the full break down but it was something like an average of 90 seconds per game is spent on VAR. Whereas an average game spends about 15 minutes waiting for free kicks to be taken.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mic09 said:

Maybe, but I'm confident that in a large sample of 1000 close, controversial decisions, VAR is likely to give a correct call in 90/95% of cases.

A referee will always be 50/50.

Well I think that's a bit of a disservice to referees. They don't just toss a coin when faced with making a decision.

People go on as though every single game is heavily influenced by a refereeing error - it's not, the reason it feels like there's more errors these days is because of the volume of matches broadcast and the incessant 24 hour sport news channels pulling apart every thread and fibre of the game.

 

As the article posted states, there are two types of football viewing fan;

1. Wants to go and enjoy a sporting spectacle with all the unpredictability that goes with it

2. Wants to see the fair and right result irrespective of the affect on the spectacle

 

Personally I don't need everything to be right and fair, I've never considered football as being broken (in this context) and therefore do not see a need for a 'fix'.

 

It amazes me that people cannot see or refuse to accept the impact this is having and will have on the game, but then, again as the article states, there is no middle ground between fans 1 and fans 2, just lots of indignation and hot air.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Well I think that's a bit of a disservice to referees. They don't just toss a coin when faced with making a decision.

People go on as though every single game is heavily influenced by a refereeing error - it's not, the reason it feels like there's more errors these days is because of the volume of matches broadcast and the incessant 24 hour sport news channels pulling apart every thread and fibre of the game.

 

As the article posted states, there are two types of football viewing fan;

1. Wants to go and enjoy a sporting spectacle with all the unpredictability that goes with it

2. Wants to see the fair and right result irrespective of the affect on the spectacle

 

Personally I don't need everything to be right and fair, I've never considered football as being broken (in this context) and therefore do not see a need for a 'fix'.

 

It amazes me that people cannot see or refuse to accept the impact this is having and will have on the game, but then, again as the article states, there is no middle ground between fans 1 and fans 2, just lots of indignation and hot air.

 

the problem is that i'm both of those fans you list. when i'm neutral i'm number 1, when watching villa i'm number 2. i leave villa park much happier after a win than a draw/defeat. i enjoy the spectacle much more when we're winning than if we draw/lose. if we dont win, i dont leave villa park thinking "well that was a great sporting spectacle with all the unpredictability that went with it". i leave pissed off that we've lost. on the basis that i dont watch a particularly large number of games from with my 'fan number 1' hat on (i.e. neutral) i'd much rather have a lessened spectacle if it means that i dont leave villa park pissed off at a crap decision costing us

however, watching the CL semi as a neutral, i loved that reaction from city when that goal went in. and equally hated that the moment was taken off them for what was essentially a technicality and wouldn't have made a difference either way. the way that i can remain in support of VAR in spite of this, is that i put myself in spurs' shoes, and know that i'd have been livid had the goal stood and later found to be offside...whether it had made a difference or not

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

It will still be imperfect. But the big decisions will be right. Or at least have far more chance of being right.

I don't understand how anyone can see that as a bad thing.

It's a bit slow at the moment, but again that's all implementation. Once players and managers stop appealing for VAR and then against the VAR decisions, which is where half the delay comes from, it'll be much quicker.

Plus, as I've pointed out before, the amount spent on VAR decisions is actually tiny per game. I can't remember the full break down but it was something like an average of 90 seconds per game is spent on VAR. Whereas an average game spends about 15 minutes waiting for free kicks to be taken.

You have watched football before haven’t you? 😂

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

 

As the article posted states, there are two types of football viewing fan;

1. Wants to go and enjoy a sporting spectacle with all the unpredictability that goes with it

2. Wants to see the fair and right result irrespective of the affect on the spectacle

 

 

Honestly, I think that's bollocks.

Why even have a referee if you're a fan that fits into number 1?

Can you not want to enjoy a spectacle AND see the right result?

 

The game has constantly been evolving in it's entire life to make it fairer. I'm not sure why people have such an issue with this step? We've gone from no referees, to referees, to refs and assistant refs, to fourth officials, to goalline officials, to goalline technology.

This is just the next step.

Were people agaisnt having linesman when they were introduced and lumped into a category of football fan that wanted to see "the fair and right result irrespective of the affect on the spectacle"

Nobody wants to see the spectacle of football ruined.
But VAR won't ruin it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Genie said:

You have watched football before haven’t you? 😂

 

Yes thanks. Players appeal for decisions all the time because they have influence. 

Once they realise that they have no effect on whether VAR is used or not, they'll stop appealing.

It's like when goalline tech was introduced. You'd have players complaining and appealing about decisions. Then people gradually learned that it made no difference because they had no influence on it.

 

VAR will (or should) not be affected by the appeals of the players. VAR tells the ref if there is something to be reviewed. Not the other way round. So a player making the stupid VAR signal has no influence on the decision.

And if you watch a VAR game now, half the delay is players crowding the ref during/after a VAR decision. Once that stops, the time loss will be much less.

But, again, it's already minimal compared to plenty of other aspects. If people really care about the game slowing down they should be putting all their efforts into stamping out timewasting or the farce around lining up a free kick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Well I think that's a bit of a disservice to referees. They don't just toss a coin when faced with making a decision.

People go on as though every single game is heavily influenced by a refereeing error - it's not, the reason it feels like there's more errors these days is because of the volume of matches broadcast and the incessant 24 hour sport news channels pulling apart every thread and fibre of the game.

  

As the article posted states, there are two types of football viewing fan;

1. Wants to go and enjoy a sporting spectacle with all the unpredictability that goes with it

2. Wants to see the fair and right result irrespective of the affect on the spectacle

 

Personally I don't need everything to be right and fair, I've never considered football as being broken (in this context) and therefore do not see a need for a 'fix'.

 

It amazes me that people cannot see or refuse to accept the impact this is having and will have on the game, but then, again as the article states, there is no middle ground between fans 1 and fans 2, just lots of indignation and hot air.

  

As for doing disservice to referees, that's not what I meant. I referenced extreme situations where it's very hard to make a call, i.e. the refs view was blocked. In those, the ref will either give a handball or not - it's 50/50. With VAR, it's more likely (but not definite!) that the right decision will be made. VAR is no more than another set of eyes in slow motion.

As for 2 types of football fans, I disagree. On Saturday's, I don't go to theatres or comedy clubs, I go to be entertained at a football stadium, but it's only entertaining if it's fair.

It would not be entertaining if we knew the referee was bias, or if one team had 13 players on the pitch. It would not be entertaining if one team could be offside, but the other could not. I consider injustice in sports as not entertaining - it's a nuisance, something that people will talk about. Football is only entertaining because we have 2 teams, both playing by the rules, both with an equal chance of winning. Otherwise what is the point in the game?
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

Honestly, I think that's bollocks.

Why even have a referee if you're a fan that fits into number 1?

You’re doing that classic black/white thing. If it’s not 100% then it’s completely shit...

It’s very close to 100% now, there’s probably a stat somewhere. But it’s probably something like 97% of decisions are correct for example. VAR improves it to say 98%, at a cost of disruption, delay, frustration and gives the players and staff something else to moan about.

I’m saying for me, it’s not worth it. It’s taking more away than it gives. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even the "it ruins the natural flow" argument is incredibly weak for me. VAR is generally only ever checked when the ball is out of play. Sometimes it takes just seconds, and most it takes a few minutes, but the ball is out of play anyway so what's this "natural flow" it's preventing? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Yes thanks. Players appeal for decisions all the time because they have influence. 

Once they realise that they have no effect on whether VAR is used or not, they'll stop appealing.

It's like when goalline tech was introduced. You'd have players complaining and appealing about decisions. Then people gradually learned that it made no difference because they had no influence on it..

I think you’re trolling now.

Players and managers will appeal for everything, forever. You know that. 

Absolutely nobody has ever complained about a goal line technology decision. You know that too.

Its a bizarre argument. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PieFacE said:

Even the "it ruins the natural flow" argument is incredibly weak for me. VAR is generally only ever checked when the ball is out of play. Sometimes it takes just seconds, and most it takes a few minutes, but the ball is out of play anyway so what's this "natural flow" it's preventing? 

The players standing around when they should be playing football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

The players standing around when they should be playing football.

It's a tiny amount of time that it actually happens though. It's a sacrifice completely worth making for the correct decisions. More time will be wasted in a game from goalkeepers taking their time kicking a ball.

As Stevo said, it's also teething problems, the amount of time taken on VAR decisions will reduce over time as it becomes the "norm". 

Edited by PieFacE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

nah because it's clear and obvious errors for goals and mistaken identity i believe...and serious foul play. not yellow cards. that's my understanding anyway

yeah but some of the tackles on Jack would have been looked at especially from Kieftenbald for example. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PieFacE said:

It's a tiny amount of time that it actually happens though. It's a sacrifice completely worth making for the correct decisions. More time will be wasted in a game from goalkeepers taking their time kicking a ball.

As Stevo said, it's also teething problems, the amount of time taken on VAR decisions will reduce over time as it becomes the "norm". 

I started by saying (to Ben) that i felt we’d not agree on it, it comes down to what you value.

For me, I don’t think there’s enough benefit to justify the delays and disruption to play/stoppages. Some people will think it’s totally worth it. It’s just my view. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

17 minutes ago, Genie said:

You’re doing that classic black/white thing. If it’s not 100% then it’s completely shit...

It’s very close to 100% now, there’s probably a stat somewhere. But it’s probably something like 97% of decisions are correct for example. VAR improves it to say 98%, at a cost of disruption, delay, frustration and gives the players and staff something else to moan about.

I’m saying for me, it’s not worth it. It’s taking more away than it gives. 

No, the article did the black/white thing by splitting people into two groups. I consider myself a fan of VAR and in both categories. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â