The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[Mic09]

24 minutes ago, sne said:

There has been loads of debate and controversy in Germany, Italy, France and Spain around VAR this season.

There are articles and videos every week almost with wtf moments that's fueled by VAR.

There seem to be this idea that you can judge VAR without factoring in the people watching the videos and the refs making the calls and that VAR in working fine, it's just the people using it that are poor?

Don't really get that argument.

 

The bottom line is that there is far less controversy about a VAR decision then a typical football game where the referee often makes wrong decisions. At least with VAR they can make it right. 

If there is a system that can help referees to make better decisions, I am all for it.

[sne]

1 minute ago, kurtsimonw said:

Of course it's not completely without controversy, because it is not a black and white sport.

All VAR is, is the ability to rewatch incidents. People seem to expect it to be some all knowing AI entity that gets everything right. Referees make mistakes due to human error, VAR will help eliminate some of that human error. But given it's still the same officials actually making the decision, of course everyone won't agree with all decisions - also, in part, due to the sport not being a clear black/white.

Referees will make mistakes with or without this technology. They'll just make less with it, therefore I don't see how it can be a bad thing.

 

Agreed, but for me the 1% improvement (stat taken from that SKY article posted on page 37 so might be way off) is not worth the negatives VAR brings.

99% accuracy with VAR against 98% without it is not worth it for me.

People enjoy different things when watching football I guess and while I obviously don't want to see my team getting cheated by a wrong call I also do not want to watch a game without flow and spontaneity where you have to wait for the review every time something happens. Especially since the calls are still very much dubious thanks to iffy rules, uneven ref standards and poor implementation.

[sne]

1 minute ago, Mic09 said:

The bottom line is that there is far less controversy about a VAR decision then a typical football game where the referee often makes wrong decisions. At least with VAR they can make it right. 

If there is a system that can help referees to make better decisions, I am all for it.

Honestly not sure that is correct sadly.

[Mic09]

7 minutes ago, sne said:

Honestly not sure that is correct sadly.

Well, I have no stats to back this up.

But think about each game where there has been a dodgy penalty call. That call would have been reviewed, and I am confident that in 80% of times the correct decision would have been given.

Think back to ElGhazi red card on Bamford. VAR would have prevented that. 

[sne]

Just now, Mic09 said:

Well, I have no stats to back this up.

But think about each game where there has been a dodgy penalty call. That call would have been reviewed, and I am confident that in 80% of times the correct decision would have been given.

Think back to ElGhazi red card on Bamford. VAR would have prevented that. 

Well according to SKY the ref's get 98% of calls right without VAR and 99% with VAR.

It's SKY thou so their stats may be well off.

[villa4europe]

6 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Think back to ElGhazi red card on Bamford. VAR would have prevented that. 

that's an obvious one though

I'll throw in another, kompany's tackle on salah which was given as a yellow card, would the use of VAR resulted in a red card and by their accounts led to Liverpool winning the league? or would it have stayed yellow? or would it not even be reviewed?

Liverpool drew that game and didn't win the league so their fans with the red tinted glasses on cant accept it, if VAR had been used he had been sent off Liverpool win that game and win the league with their blue tinted glasses on would city fans accept it? 

I think football by its nature will always have grey areas that are not conclusive and therefore will cause controversy, the problem is that if a ref takes 3/4 minutes to reach a decision that isn't conclusive then people will rightly ask what's the point

[Mic09]

11 minutes ago, sne said:

Well according to SKY the ref's get 98% of calls right without VAR and 99% with VAR.

It's SKY thou so their stats may be well off.

If you or me refereed the game we would have probably got 85% of calls right. These stats include all decisions.

Usually in any given game there are only 1 or 2 controversial situations. And this is where I think that VAR comes in. 

[Zatman]

6 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

that's an obvious one though

I'll throw in another, kompany's tackle on salah which was given as a yellow card, would the use of VAR resulted in a red card and by their accounts led to Liverpool winning the league? or would it have stayed yellow? or would it not even be reviewed?

Liverpool drew that game and didn't win the league so their fans with the red tinted glasses on cant accept it, if VAR had been used he had been sent off Liverpool win that game and win the league with their blue tinted glasses on would city fans accept it? 

I think football by its nature will always have grey areas that are not conclusive and therefore will cause controversy, the problem is that if a ref takes 3/4 minutes to reach a decision that isn't conclusive then people will rightly ask what's the point

Yea but VAR would have ruled out a couple of blatant offside goals and Salah dives

[sne]

2 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

If you or me refereed the game we would have probably got 85% of calls right. These stats include all decisions.

Usually in any given game there are only 1 or 2 controversial situations. And this is where I think that VAR comes in. 

I guess you've not been following the Women WC then? 

 

[Mic09]

4 minutes ago, sne said:

I guess you've not been following the Women WC then? 

 

I haven't actually

However, women's level of playing and inexperience of female referees might also play a part in this. 

[bannedfromHandV]

1 hour ago, Mic09 said:

The bottom line is that there is far less controversy about a VAR decision then a typical football game where the referee often makes wrong decisions. At least with VAR they can make it right. 

If there is a system that can help referees to make better decisions, I am all for it.

But do they though?

I think, thanks largely to 24 hour sports news and all that goes with it, we've become ordained to believe that there is a massive problem when really, there isn't, aside from a few isolated incidents - and a lot of those incidents are open to interpretation anyway (and will remain so even with VAR).

[kurtsimonw]

6 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

But do they though?

I think, thanks largely to 24 hour sports news and all that goes with it, we've become ordained to believe that there is a massive problem when really, there isn't, aside from a few isolated incidents - and a lot of those incidents are open to interpretation anyway (and will remain so even with VAR).

But it's generally only the major incidents brought to our attention.

There's a lot of free kicks given that shouldn't be, fouls gone unpunished, throw-ins, corners/goal kicks given the wrong way.

[tomav84]

1 hour ago, sne said:

Well according to SKY the ref's get 98% of calls right without VAR and 99% with VAR.

It's SKY thou so their stats may be well off.

sky just reported it, the stat was provided by the refs commission, so makes it all the more dubious

[bannedfromHandV]

1 hour ago, kurtsimonw said:

But it's generally only the major incidents brought to our attention.

There's a lot of free kicks given that shouldn't be, fouls gone unpunished, throw-ins, corners/goal kicks given the wrong way.

You're right, and I can't really argue it any which way.

But it just doesn't bother me - it's always been part and parcel of football.

When I played Sunday league you had certain refs who would send you off instantly for swearing, others that wouldn't......it never bothered me, it's just football. Having every single decision 'perfectly correct' is not high on my agenda.

Honestly I hope I'm proven wrong on all my fears and concerns because if I'm not, almost every single football fan will suffer as a result.

[terrytini]

7 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

It's always a talking point when players first encounter it. Just like goalline technology was, or goalline referees, or **** vanishing spray.

It will be a huge talking point next season when it's first used. By the end of the season it wont. Imo.

I hope you are right, you may well be.

I think it’s 70:30 all will be well.

[terrytini]

6 hours ago, sne said:

Honestly not sure that is correct sadly.

Well it has been trialled, there’s an interview with Mike Riley,  and was found to increase correct decisions...can’t remember exactly but certainly improved.

Whether someone thinks it’s worth it is of course entirely subjective.

[terrytini]

6 hours ago, sne said:

There has been loads of debate and controversy in Germany, Italy, France and Spain around VAR this season.

There are articles and videos every week almost with wtf moments that's fueled by VAR.

There seem to be this idea that you can judge VAR without factoring in the people watching the videos and the refs making the calls and that VAR in working fine, it's just the people using it that are poor?

Don't really get that argument.

 

Quite. VAR is the whole thing, it can’t be said to be working if ( IF) parts of it ( eg the humans) aren’t working.

It all has to work, and it has to work very well,  and be seen to work very well, and be seen to be applied consistently and fairly. 

It won’t be a success if all it does is marginally increase correct decisions, it has to do all of the above.

At present it’s not. 

Im with those who say after a few weeks it will be as if it’s always been there (all changes are initially met with disbelief, denial, criticism)- as long as it meets the above. If it doesn’t it will dominate the game which is definitely not wanted.

[bobzy]

3 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

You're right, and I can't really argue it any which way.

But it just doesn't bother me - it's always been part and parcel of football.

When I played Sunday league you had certain refs who would send you off instantly for swearing, others that wouldn't......it never bothered me, it's just football. Having every single decision 'perfectly correct' is not high on my agenda.

Honestly I hope I'm proven wrong on all my fears and concerns because if I'm not, almost every single football fan will suffer as a result.

"Perfectly correct" isn't the thing - it's "blatantly wrong" that needs addressing.

A lot of the problem with the implementation so far is that it doesn't seem to be used only for "clear and obvious errors" (this may be different in leagues that have used the technology for a while?  Not sure) so the game gets stopped a lot for quite a bit of time.  For example, the Cameroon vs England Women's World Cup game was stopped for a while as a VAR review of the Cameroon goal happened.  The player was probably an inch or so offside - and the correct decision was reached - but the margin was so fine that it took a while to say "yes, OK, goal wrongly allowed"; and that's on a law that should be pretty black or white.

[sharkyvilla]

I wonder whether it would be better if each team had a couple of reviews per game to use when they think there has been a wrong decision, rather than letting the refs and his video assistants look at pretty much anything.  It's then that they are over-cautious and check too much, which sucks life out of the game.

[villa4europe]

Germany U21s keeper sent off for jumping to claim a cross with his one knee raised and clattering a player, reviewed by VAR and red card stood

That's one that VAR won't fix, different ref team sees that differently and he stays on