VAR - Thoughts

[nickjdavis]

I like the concept but the execution is awful.

If it's going to take more than 30 seconds of running back super slow mo videos in order to determine if a ball brushed an arm, or if someones nose was in an offside position then, you need to stick with the onfield refs decision.

53 years they've been running slow mos of Geoff Hurst's goal and the video evidence is still inconclusive as the worlds oldest VAR check rumbles on.

 

[Orikoru]

They've implemented it totally wrongly. Gone way too complicated with it. In my opinion it should work like this:

If the referee isn't sure on a decision or feels he didn't have the best view, indicate that he needs VAR and he goes over to the sideline to watch it again on the screen they have there. He gets to see it from a better angle and makes his mind up from that. Should take no more than 1 minute. No referring it to some idiot who's miles away in a little studio and has no context of the actual game because he's not there. No concerns about not overruling the ref, because the ref is doing it himself.

Offsides - if the linesman isn't sure he should keep the flag down and tell the ref he'd better double check it on VAR. Once again he goes to the sideline where the incident is replayed on the screen. If the forward looks about level with the defence then the goal stands. If he looks clearly offside, clear enough to gain an advantage, then he's offside and the goal is chalked off. Once again, no more than a minute. No referring it to some idiot in a studio so he can draw stupid lines from someone's shoulder to someone else's toe for 4 minutes and prove that he's offside by 0.2 centimetres, bore off with that rubbish.

Those are my feelings, I really wish the FA would do some sort of fan feedback on this so I could let them know. Wishful thinking.

 

[Orikoru]

53 years they've been running slow mos of Geoff Hurst's goal and the video evidence is still inconclusive as the worlds oldest VAR check rumbles on.

To be completely honest, every time I see that footage it clearly looks like it didn't cross the line to me. I wouldn't say it was inconclusive.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Yeah. If VAR was in place, that would have been at least 7 VAR checks, given they do a check after every goal. At worst, had every goal had some sort of tight call to make, and 3 and a half minutes to decide for each one, the game would have taken an extra 24.5 minutes to complete.

No it won’t take that much extra time at all; they simply won’t add it. If you are in any doubt watch the Chelsea Ajax game again. 8 goals, 6 subs, much time wasting and only 4 minutes added.

If there is a change in the game that I would support it would be moving to a timekeeper. 30 minutes each way of the ball in play. Take out all the shenanigans of keepers mucking about and not being penalised. Off the pitch, sitting dead prior to a free kick or corner or in the keepers hands, stop the watch. Restart it when the kick/throw is taken or the keeper distributes the ball.

 

[Hobbit]

Interesting point. When you say "positive" difference, what you really mean is when it makes the correct decision. However, even if it makes the correct decision, you are going to have 1 set of fans feeling negative about it at that moment, even though it was right. So, when it makes correct decisions, I'm not sure we can say it is making a positive change, it just means that we are not blaming the referee or linesman when they make a terrible mistake. But, as we have seen, it tries to make a subjective decision and it all goes to hell. Even if you agree with what looks like a fairly obvious subjective decision, you can guarantee the manager it had a negative impact on, or the fans, will completely disagree with it anyway.

I still think the ref on the pitch needs to take control of it. Take responsibility. It is his face and reputation on the line, and they are highly trained. So, they should be professional enough to deal with it. I would be happy enough if it was scrapped, but if not are the key things that need to be changed as follows:

1. One man has to be in charge. The match referee. Anything that is subjective in the slightest, he must make the final decision.

2. The ref needs to have a microphone, and the fans at home know exactly what is being checked, and the logic behind the decision made

3. The fans in the stadium must be kept informed. Not sure if audio from the referee will help them. But, clear signs on the big screen (of course, this falls apart at stadiums with no big screen)

There seem to be good solutions made by everyone that could make it better than it is now. However, perhaps the biggest problem with no clear solution, is how to communicate with fans in the stadium. Also, I'm not sure if it is fair or not that some matches have VAR while others (lower league, international) do not. Or, when lower and higher clubs meet in the FA Cup, it is in force in some rounds or stadiums, but not in earlier rounds or smaller stadiums.

What I really mean is what I said. Obviously the positive difference is getting the decisions right. No need for dozens of paragraphs. Apply the rules with the aid of technology.... whats not to like.

 

[Swango1980]

No it won’t take that much extra time at all; they simply won’t add it. If you are in any doubt watch the Chelsea Ajax game again. 8 goals, 6 subs, much time wasting and only 4 minutes added.

If there is a change in the game that I would support it would be moving to a timekeeper. 30 minutes each way of the ball in play. Take out all the shenanigans of keepers mucking about and not being penalised. Off the pitch, sitting dead prior to a free kick or corner or in the keepers hands, stop the watch. Restart it when the kick/throw is taken or the keeper distributes the ball.

Good point. There was probably about 15 minutes of actual football in that half. And that's in Europe, where there VAR guidelines are completely different to the Premiership anyway. Basically, managers, players and most importantly fans have literally no idea what VAR is going to be used for or not from one game to the next.

 

[IanM]

Great example of what happens when a new IT System is rolled out with effective "change management & communications."

Organisations do it all the time. I usually get called in about 6 months too late....but that pushes up the day rate!

 

[Swango1980]

What I really mean is what I said. Obviously the positive difference is getting the decisions right. No need for dozens of paragraphs. Apply the rules with the aid of technology.... whats not to like.

I did agree with your point overall, I was just wondering about the definition of the word positive. VAR correctly disallows a goal when the referee or linesman missed something, players and fans for the team that had the goal ruled out aren't praising the positivity of VAR in that moment. The other team are though, so generally 50/50 in terms of emotions from supporting fans in terms of being positive. But, when it makes ridiculous subjective calls, the general feeling goes from 50/50 positive / negative, to lean much more to the negative side. Especially as even the neutrals are criticising it.

Also, back in the day, when emotions got the better of players, a quick punch to the head, or head butt when the referee wasn't looking spiced things up a bit (even if they got a ban after the game). Now, players have their hands tied behind their back, knowing they can't get away with it. Killing the emotion in the game. Btw, that last comment was very much tongue in cheek, although it does feel like the emotion is being sucked away generally.

 

[Imurg]

No it won’t take that much extra time at all; they simply won’t add it. If you are in any doubt watch the Chelsea Ajax game again. 8 goals, 6 subs, much time wasting and only 4 minutes added.

If there is a change in the game that I would support it would be moving to a timekeeper. 30 minutes each way of the ball in play. Take out all the shenanigans of keepers mucking about and not being penalised. Off the pitch, sitting dead prior to a free kick or corner or in the keepers hands, stop the watch. Restart it when the kick/throw is taken or the keeper distributes the ball.

Didn't they try this at a World cup sometime ago...? Got a vague memory of it.

As for VAR...run a clock. 30 seconds to make a decision
If you can't, onfield decision stands.

 

[Piece]

Part of the problem is that we don't get to hear the conversation between the VAR and the on-field official. This means we all speculate about the decision. Take a leaf out of rugby's book. Associated with this, is some fans ignorance of the rules and how they are applied. Being party to the refs conversation would correct misunderstanding, even if some don't agree with the interpretation. I don't like that the refs decision, VAR and on-field, is a secret club - bring it out into the open and then we can appreciate the decision making more.

As for offsides, we need something similar to Hawkeye in cricket, the Umpire's Decision. Clear offside is clear; a boot lace isn't.

 

[nickjdavis]

To be completely honest, every time I see that footage it clearly looks like it didn't cross the line to me. I wouldn't say it was inconclusive.

I watched it again shortly after posting and can only agree with you.

 

[Swango1980]

I bet Weat Ham fans will just love VAR tonight. Yes, disallowed goal because of the law (which is an absolutely ridiculous handball law), but only ever going to be given using VAR as I can't see a ref ever having the confidence to give it.

If they are going to give handball for that, they need to 100% give a penalty any time it brushes a defenders arm accidentally in the box. Or, are the authorities simply trying to implement every method possible to stop goals and kill the mood?

 

[Beezerk]

I bet Weat Ham fans will just love VAR tonight. Yes, disallowed goal because of the law (which is an absolutely ridiculous handball law), but only ever going to be given using VAR as I can't see a ref ever having the confidence to give it.

If they are going to give handball for that, they need to 100% give a penalty any time it brushes a defenders arm accidentally in the box. Or, are the authorities simply trying to implement every method possible to stop goals and kill the mood?

If that's a defender and it's in the box it's not a penalty.
The defence rests.

 

[Orikoru]

Changing the rules to suit VAR is so backwards. VAR was meant to help enforce the rules, but instead they change the rules to help VAR. Daft.

 

[Tashyboy]

I bet Weat Ham fans will just love VAR tonight. Yes, disallowed goal because of the law (which is an absolutely ridiculous handball law), but only ever going to be given using VAR as I can't see a ref ever having the confidence to give it.

If they are going to give handball for that, they need to 100% give a penalty any time it brushes a defenders arm accidentally in the box. Or, are the authorities simply trying to implement every method possible to stop goals and kill the mood?

But I have been saying that since day one.Handball has always been handball, irrespective of which team or player. Any accidental handball by an attacker and a goal Is disallowed. But how do we know that accidental handball by a defender actually stops a goal. Not all accidental handballs lead to goals. Every goal goes to VAR, oops there’s an accidental handball goal disallowed.
Still Waiting for a team to score a goal and it be disallowed because VAR has been looking at A Possible penalty in the other box which is then given.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

I bet Weat Ham fans will just love VAR tonight. Yes, disallowed goal because of the law (which is an absolutely ridiculous handball law), but only ever going to be given using VAR as I can't see a ref ever having the confidence to give it.

If they are going to give handball for that, they need to 100% give a penalty any time it brushes a defenders arm accidentally in the box. Or, are the authorities simply trying to implement every method possible to stop goals and kill the mood?

If the ref looks at that pitch side monitor, I'd be confident he'd be happy to let that go.

Problem is, the handball laws of the game has changed so no matter his opinion or any qualified arbiter of rules opinion it has to be disallowed.

Until the handball rule is changed properly and is fit for purpose these types of incidents will always be given as handball.

How can you have 3 variations of handball?

 

[Swango1980]

If the ref looks at that pitch side monitor, I'd be confident he'd be happy to let that go.

Problem is, the handball laws of the game has changed so no matter his opinion or any qualified arbiter of rules opinion it has to be disallowed.

Until the handball rule is changed properly and is fit for purpose these types of incidents will always be given as handball.

How can you have 3 variations of handball?

I agree. You either give handball after every single accidental incident. That would turn out to be ridiculous, as we may have an average of 2 or 3 penalties a game, and VAR will never be used to look at every handball outside the box, unless the attacking team scores.

Or, go back to what the rules were before. It's handball if it's intentional or the hand is in an unnatural position (I.e. to stop a player spreading his arms like Schmeichel when blocking a shot). OK, some incidents will require a subjective decision by the ref, but at least we can live with that in the long term even if it hurts our team in the short.

The disallowed goals for "handball" and toenails being offside has been unbelievable. Might as well buy FIFA for playstation, set both teams to be computer controlled, and watch that game. At least the VAR decisions are immediate.

 

[Piece]

I bet Weat Ham fans will just love VAR tonight. Yes, disallowed goal because of the law (which is an absolutely ridiculous handball law), but only ever going to be given using VAR as I can't see a ref ever having the confidence to give it.

If they are going to give handball for that, they need to 100% give a penalty any time it brushes a defenders arm accidentally in the box. Or, are the authorities simply trying to implement every method possible to stop goals and kill the mood?

If that had been given, Sheff Utd would have been in uproar. So VAR can’t win really, can it?

VAR isn’t the whole problem. Yes it can be streamlined and made better. But the majority of the issue is with fans‘ ignorance of the laws and some of the laws itself.

 

[Swango1980]

If it had have been given, yes there would be uproar. But only because we all KNOW the handball rule this season, there really was no choice.

In this case, it is not VARs fault, it's the ridiculous handball law. As Orikoru said, they probably changed the law to suit the technology.

Had it been last season, and goal was given, no doubt the Sheff United fans would have moaned a bit. But, probably half heartedly as it was clearly unintentional and his hand was in a normal position. They wouldn't have moaned anywhere near as much as West Ham fans last night. And, for the neutral it was just an absolute joke. We are slowly getting to the point teams and fans are reluctant to celebrate a goal. The biggest cheers will soon come after VAR overturns a decision minutes after it happened.

 

[Piece]

The handball law has been a contentious one for years. It has been tweaked and tweaked, and now it is forensically under the microscope via VAR, it is being exposed.

The quick wins for VAR this year are more use of the pitch monitors and fans hearing the decision process. The latter is tricky for game going fans but rugby and US footy show options.