The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[Chindie]

An appeals system serves only to add a further tactical consideration and doesn't do what VAR is meant to - prevent refereeing mistakes.

VAR will be a mess until tech is available to quickly review incidents automatically. And that may never be possible with most things, because football is a game whose rules demand interpretation. England's penalty last night took 4 minutes to review and there's still an argument as to whether it really is a penalty. A machine can't do that, and for the foreseeable won't be able to. This is true of a great deal of major decisions in the game. So VAR is destined to be a mess.

Where it isn't a mess, necessarily, is binary matters. Offside etc. And even then, some would argue that making things like offside decisions 'clinical' is a step too far, where margins imperceptible to a human are deciding whether goals stand, or penalties are retaken. 

Suffice to say I'm not really a fan.

[Stuartc445]

So just to clear things up us football fans moan when the ref makes an incorrect decision, and when they get something that will help them make a correct decision football fans moan about that as well. 

The TMO in rugby isn't always correct as perfection is impossible but it just cuts down on the amount of incorrect decisions that are made. The problem with VAR is that unlike the TMO in rugby which is 1 person in the stands whereas VAR is a committee (this is what is wrong with it imo) 

The TMO doesn't get involved with every decision it's only used if the ref asks for it when the ref is unsure (if the TMO isn't sure then it's the refs decision that stands as he's the one that is in charge) the only time the TMO gets involved without the ref asking is when he sees something that the ref has clearly missed.

In short football needs to ditch the current VAR system and adopt the TMO system.

[kurtsimonw]

1 minute ago, Stuartc445 said:

The TMO doesn't get involved with every decision it's only used if the ref asks for it when the ref is unsure

Problem here is refs can be very sure of a decision, so wouldn't ask VAR. Even if ultimately their decision is wrong.

[sharkyvilla]

7 hours ago, Chindie said:

An appeals system serves only to add a further tactical consideration and doesn't do what VAR is meant to - prevent refereeing mistakes.

VAR will be a mess until tech is available to quickly review incidents automatically. And that may never be possible with most things, because football is a game whose rules demand interpretation. England's penalty last night took 4 minutes to review and there's still an argument as to whether it really is a penalty. A machine can't do that, and for the foreseeable won't be able to. This is true of a great deal of major decisions in the game. So VAR is destined to be a mess.

Where it isn't a mess, necessarily, is binary matters. Offside etc. And even then, some would argue that making things like offside decisions 'clinical' is a step too far, where margins imperceptible to a human are deciding whether goals stand, or penalties are retaken. 

Suffice to say I'm not really a fan.

I think the 'put up or shut up' aspect of a review system will generally improve player behaviour, for example if a player has dived and the rest of his teammates demand it goes to VAR then the player who dived gets exposed either way.  Hopefully in time that will stop them wanting to do it, especially if the number of times they can review decisions is capped at 2 or maybe 3 per game so will cost their team a lot more.  My worry about VAR currently is over-caution from refs checking too much.

[Stuartc445]

5 hours ago, kurtsimonw said:

Problem here is refs can be very sure of a decision, so wouldn't ask VAR. Even if ultimately their decision is wrong.

If that happens then the TMO if he's viewed it differently on his screen (given that generally you get a better view on TV) then he'll step in and advise the Ref he has got it wrong because the TMO is there to assist the Ref come to the correct decision.  It doesn't always work but nothing will ever be faultless,  imo Rugby has a better system but that doesn't mean that wrong decisions aren't made because they are nothing can correct all the time.

It should work better and quicker in football then in Rugby tbh as you have goal line technology so doesn't need to be used for that and offside only needs 1 replay. For penalties or red cards you only really need to see 1 or 2 different angles in football to get a clearer picture of whats happened whereas in Rugby a lot of the time it's called upon there is 10 to 15 men on top of the ball so takes up a lot of time looking at different angle to try and see the ball.

For anyone who is concerned that it'll kill the goal celebrations the reality could be that it makes it better because if a goal is reviewed and it stands then you get the chance to celebrate that goal twice and if the goal does get disallowed then it's only like celebrating a goal then finding out it's been ruled offside etc.. so it's not like it'll change that dramatically.

[Lichfield Dean]

Does anybody know what changed in the implementation of VAR in the women's world cup from the group to the knockout stages? We went from a VAR virtually every time the ball was in the penalty area to seeing entire matches with no VAR even when (for example) Sweden should clearly have had a penalty last night.

I don't recall the authorities making any kind of statement about how or why the implementation of VAR changed mid-tournament which has left me pretty confused about it all to be honest.

[sne]

Just now, Lichfield Dean said:

Does anybody know what changed in the implementation of VAR in the women's world cup from the group to the knockout stages? We went from a VAR virtually every time the ball was in the penalty area to seeing entire matches with no VAR even when (for example) Sweden should clearly have had a penalty last night.

I don't recall the authorities making any kind of statement about how or why the implementation of VAR changed mid-tournament which has left me pretty confused about it all to be honest.

Not sure but they had an emergency meeting on the 26th where they explained that everything worked perfect.

Then they changed it from the looks of it

Typical FIFA

[Zatman]

16 hours ago, Lichfield Dean said:

Does anybody know what changed in the implementation of VAR in the women's world cup from the group to the knockout stages? We went from a VAR virtually every time the ball was in the penalty area to seeing entire matches with no VAR even when (for example) Sweden should clearly have had a penalty last night.

I don't recall the authorities making any kind of statement about how or why the implementation of VAR changed mid-tournament which has left me pretty confused about it all to be honest.

Happened in the mens World Cup too last year, just went away quietly

Edited July 5, 2019 by Zatman

[Dr_Pangloss]

The Messi red card goes to show that VAR is useless if you have absolute idiots at the other end of it.

[Zatman]

Farcical but a player like Messi might put pressure on VAR being used going forward

Medel should feel hard done by as well, neither even went down theatrically

[Zatman]

2 minutes to decide penalty in Copa America final. Shocking

[Genie]

12 hours ago, Zatman said:

2 minutes to decide penalty in Copa America final. Shocking

I was going to comment on this myself. It was one of the most obvious handballs you will ever see. I'm pretty sure the ref gave it straight away which is fine. Then there was a wait whilst a VAR check happened... not ideal but this is life now. Then VAR didn't make a decision and the ref had to go over and watch it (blatant handball with almost no appeal from the Brazilian players) before awarding the penalty.

Its stuff like that which there's just no excuse for.

[Davkaus]

This is reassuringly sensible.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48903289

Quote

The key area for implementation of VAR in the Premier League is the height of the threshold to change original decisions, and Riley believes working out when to intervene is the main challenge for the game as a whole, not just for referees.

"Where VAR has been implemented successfully in other competitions it's been a very high bar," he said.

"We don't want VAR to come in and try to re-referee the game. We actually want it to protect the referees from making serious errors, the ones everybody's goes: 'Well, actually, that's wrong.'

"If we keep to that really high bar there is more chance of keeping the flow of the game, the intensity of the game and people enjoying the spectacle of it rather than constantly referring to the video screen for changing decisions."

During their trials in the Premier League last season - up to week 33 - there were eight checks on average, with the average check lasting 29 seconds.

Riley stressed the key to successful implementation of the system is communication.

"The way we get it right is by everyone in the game talking: players, managers, referees, fans, broadcasters. We'll all have an opinion, it's all valid," he said.

"Between us, let's work out where we set that intervention. If we do that we'll create something that's really good for our game.

"At the forefront of our minds all the time are two things: minimum interference for maximum benefit, and to maintain where possible the flow, intensity and speed of the game, because that's what people want to watch in Premier League football."

Other areas of debate from the Women's World Cup include the new laws surrounding handball, but Riley does not believe it is a problem in England.

"I actually think handball is in a really good place in this country, and that's the message that we get from all the clubs - from the managers and the players - when we go and talk to them.

"We have a philosophy that says we want handball to be something that has an impact on the game.

"We are not looking for the ball to be striking arms and we do accept, when we are looking for what is an unnatural position for the arm, that arms move. We don't expect players to defend with their arms behind their back, nor do we expect forwards to try and drill the ball to the hand to win a free-kick.

"The way we've actually implemented handball for the past two or three seasons is the way we are going to continue to do it in the future."

He said, as an example, that the winning penalty for the Netherlands against Japan at the Women's World Cup would not have been awarded in the Premier League.

"We consider that to be a natural position of the hand. You don't expect defenders to have their arms glued to their side, so if the hand is in a natural position then it's not an offence," he said.

 

 

[Stevo985]

On 08/07/2019 at 13:40, Genie said:

I was going to comment on this myself. It was one of the most obvious handballs you will ever see. I'm pretty sure the ref gave it straight away which is fine. Then there was a wait whilst a VAR check happened... not ideal but this is life now. Then VAR didn't make a decision and the ref had to go over and watch it (blatant handball with almost no appeal from the Brazilian players) before awarding the penalty.

Its stuff like that which there's just no excuse for.

I haven’t seen it but if the ref gave it straight away then it sounds like one of those situations where VAR definitely wasn’t needed and shouldn’t have been used. 

These are the kind of things they need to fix badly. 

[Genie]

19 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I haven’t seen it but if the ref gave it straight away then it sounds like one of those situations where VAR definitely wasn’t needed and shouldn’t have been used. 

These are the kind of things they need to fix badly. 

Just had another look at it on YT (about 4:50 in the video below).

He gives the penalty immediately, then waits whilst VAR check it, then is called to check it on the monitor. I agree with you this behaviour needs to be fixed straight away and is completely unnecessary.

 

 

[Chindie]

Long discussion of how VAR is being implemented in the PL along with some examples of where it would and wouldn't have been used had the system been in place last season.

[sne]

I hate it.

[villa4europe]

This games a wet dream for the media 

[a m ole]

The problem with a margin like the Jesus goal for offside is it’s still dependent on technology that isn’t good enough to give an undeniable call.

Not only is it unclear where they judge ‘a part of the body that can play the ball’ as to where to draw the line, but how they draw the line manually to make the call and also where they stop the footage at the ball connection. We saw with the second call that the camera footage showed Sterling’s image in two places because the frame rate wasn’t high enough - if we’re making a call to overturn a decision on a questionable millimetre, that level of detail should apply to the ball connection too but they can’t currently.

I like the technology, dislike what they’re doing with it.

Edited August 10, 2019 by a m ole

[Chindie]

The guidelines for offside will have to change. Having people be ruled offside for tiny margins, margins they can't possibly be seen by a human in motion, and that ultimately don't really make a difference, is nonsense.

They'll either have to reign in VAR use for it or change the rules.