Has the Introduction of VAR Improved Football

[Deleted member 15344]

Was a discussion heard last night and they were discussing the impact of VAR on the game

It was very mixed between it’s made the game better to it’s ruined the game

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I voted Yes but accept it is more nuanced than that. It is better because we are getting more decisions correct, offside being an obvious example. Glaring errors are also overturned, although recently they have to be really glaring rather than just a bit wrong.

The biggest downside is the lack of spontaneous happiness when a goal goes in. Does it stand or not? The decision process desperately needs speeding up.

Lack of consistency? That is just the nature of refereeing, the human element.

For all the complaints, there were more before VAR

 

[Orikoru]

Largely ruined it for me. I was expecting a simple system where a referee would review an incident on a screen if he wasn't sure about something - 2 or 3 looks at it and give his decision. Taking an extra 60 seconds maybe? What we got was a bunch of clowns in an office miles away, spending 3 or 4 minutes drawing little lines on a screen or viewing super slowmos with absolutely no context of the game; and then still getting them wrong. Complete farce and one of the reasons I hardly watch any football anymore.

 

[GreiginFife]

Is the question not more "has the way VAR has been implemented and subsequently executed..." rather than the introduction itself?

 

[Neilds]

Is this the most pointless poll on the forum? Just read the Football thread and it will give you your answer

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Is this the most pointless poll on the forum? Just read the Football thread and it will give you your answer

There could well be a silent majority in favour for all we know. Just because the moans are loud doesn't mean that everyone agrees

 

[Bdill93]

I've gone Yes too. Very Similar take to LT.

No matter what the system is, human opinion comes in to play with a lot of decisions - id like more consistency but accept it may take a while to come.

In the grounds I think we've got used to it more - you kind of know when a contentious goal has been scored.

What annoys me the most is offside flagging, some linos flag quickly still, some don't, just stick with one rule throughout!

 

[IanM]

Do players and managers still abuse officials and condone cheating?

Do officials still fail to book/send off players and managers for abusing them?

Yes.

Nothings changed then!

 

[JayB]

I'm not a fan of VAR, I think it would have been better to sit in the background and give the captains an appeal, get it wrong and lose it, get it right and keep if to use again later.

As it is, I think it takes some of the responsibility from the officials to actually make decisions.

I also hate the delay in offsides being called, sooner or later someone will be hurt from a challenge due to the ludicrous decision to allow the move to carry on, if it's offside, stick your flag up.

 

[WGCRider]

Is the question not more "has the way VAR has been implemented and subsequently executed..." rather than the introduction itself?

I don't think this is correct. Particularly on offside and handball VAR gets 100% of decisions correct 100% of the time. What has failed is that the rules of football have not kept up with the technology.

Also - a different topic - but as a fan VAR is nowhere near the biggest issue in the game today. Poor player (and manager) behaviour is tolerated as part of the game when really it's is something that can be stamped out overnight. Quite literally every other sport on earth manages to respect the referees but footballers can't figure out how to do it.

 

[Orikoru]

I don't think this is correct. Particularly on offside and handball VAR gets 100% of decisions correct 100% of the time. What has failed is that the rules of football have not kept up with the technology.

Bold - don't agree with this at all.
Italic - I do agree with this. There was no need to change the rules, but they attempted to make them fully black and white (i.e. readable by technology and tried to remove any grey areas) but they've failed miserably and left them an incomprehensible mess.

 

[WGCRider]

Bold - don't agree with this at all.
Italic - I do agree with this. There was no need to change the rules, but they attempted to make them fully black and white (i.e. readable by technology and tried to remove any grey areas) but they've failed miserably and left them an incomprehensible mess.

No - the other way around! Take offside for example, it has been to vague for years. When VAR came in people where saying things like "how can a hand keep a player onside". This was not an issue before when someone was running and their arms where moving cause the linesman judged where their body was. The rules never allowed for grey areas because they didn't need too - linesman invented them cause their eyes where not quick enough. Now when everything is viewed frame by frame the rules still don't allow for grey areas but need to be changed to do this. i.e. you can't be played onside by a hand.

You should also remember that with VAR the system tells the operator instantly if it's offside or onside. In the same way that in tennis they don't have any line judges anymore. The "lines" you see at home are for your benefit. Same as the ooooh hawkeye graphic in tennis.

Handball is the same. The rules say if it hits your hand it's handball. 5 year olds could figure that out watching TV. The grey area of "ball to hand" and "intention" is the problem.

 

[Orikoru]

No - the other way around! Take offside for example, it has been to vague for years. When VAR came in people where saying things like "how can a hand keep a player onside". This was not an issue before when someone was running and their arms where moving cause the linesman judged where their body was. The rules never allowed for grey areas because they didn't need too - linesman invented them cause their eyes where not quick enough. Now when everything is viewed frame by frame the rules still don't allow for grey areas but need to be changed to do this. i.e. you can't be played onside by a hand.

You should also remember that with VAR the system tells the operator instantly if it's offside or onside. In the same way that in tennis they don't have any line judges anymore. The "lines" you see at home are for your benefit. Same as the ooooh hawkeye graphic in tennis.

Handball is the same. The rules say if it hits your hand it's handball. 5 year olds could figure that out watching TV. The grey area of "ball to hand" and "intention" is the problem.

Hands were never offside, it always had to be a body part you can score with. When VAR came in, some moron thought "great, now we can draw lines all over the screen for 3 minutes" instead of thinking "great, now if the linesman isn't sure then the ref can watch it again on the screen and decide if he was on or off. That's how easy it could have been if they didn't jump the shark.

 

[Hobbit]

I’m in the “yes” camp. We often talk about the horrendous decisions made by VAR and the time taken. We focus on the negative. But how many times do they get a ref to change his decision to the right one? More often than it makes a wrong decision. On balance I’d say it’s made a positive impact but it’s also highlighted what can be so wrong about it’s implementation.

Still improvements to be made but it’s a step forward for me.

 

[WGCRider]

if the linesman isn't sure

Yeah - that's where we disagree. 100% of the time the "lines" tell you 100% correctly if it's onside or offside. You may not like how they got there but for sure the answer is correct. Match of the day may disagree but there is no debate.
To me you are proposing checking the linesman call some of the time. So you'll still have some wrong and some right. What's the point of that?

 

[hairball_89]

Yeah - that's where we disagree. 100% of the time the "lines" tell you 100% correctly if it's onside or offside. You may not like how they got there but for sure the answer is correct. Match of the day may disagree but there is no debate.
To me you are proposing checking the linesman call some of the time. So you'll still have some wrong and some right. What's the point of that?

For sure, apart from when the lines are drawn on the wrong person... As happened to Brighton.

I'm with @Orikoru - it's an absolute farce. But that's mainly because those running it aren't fit for purpose, as is clear by the number of drawn out discussions after every game where absolute nonsense from the referees is the key talking point and not the football - see, Jota red/not red card from the Liverpool spurs game.

 

[Jimaroid]

I’ve voted yes as I’m a telly clapper.

I’d vote no if I was a match goer.

 

[clubchamp98]

I think it could have but voted NO because of the people using it.

The standard of reffing is atrocious in the PL and VAR is showing it up.
They back up the on field decision to much when it’s blatantly wrong.

imho they need to stop tinkering with rules to suit VAR and train better referees.
sort the dissent from players on the pitch and managers on the line.

Giving refs very expensive electronic toys hasn’t bettered the game.

 

[AmandaJR]

I'm voting no. For me it's the simple joy at scoring a goal which is now always muted as the dreaded VAR check is made.

I would have been for it but only for the clear and obvious error and it's so much more than that and way more invasive to the pleasure of watching a football match (settees and stands alike).

 

[HampshireHog]

VAR technology is very much like my putter, in so much as there’s no problem with it, it’s the idiot using it that’s the problem.

I think offside is better for having VAR and will get better and faster once we move beyond using someone who’s primary competency was blowing a whistle placing the lines.

The subjective stuff handballs and red card offences just call the referee straight over to monitor if in doubt rather than holding up the game for 3 minutes.