VAR

[Ave IT]

I was mildly sceptical of VAR at first but still open minded ….. but when fans, players & managers feel they can’t celebrate a goal anymore then it needs to be stopped or seriously curtailed. TV should be about showing (or recording) a live event as a passive by-stander / viewer – but VAR seems to be specifically designed for TV and is directing the game. Fans in the stadium have often have no idea what’s going on.

It’s true that the handball law is a mess at the moment and needs to be clarified but it is made much worse by VAR. Why? Well a ref could apply a bit of common sense without VAR but with VAR then any appeal has to be minutely, painstakingly scrutinised and then the absolute letter of the law applied. Yes – technically it may be correct but sometimes it’s not right - if you get my meaning. Then there’s the whole timing thing – how far back do you go in time to check something? What if an incident happens in one penalty box then it’s quickly cleared and a goal happens at the other end – do you go back and use VAR for the first incident? So a perfectly good goal at one end is ruled out and a penalty awarded at the other? :crazy: ….and what if the defender in the first incident did handle but inadvertently (so by my understanding not a penalty) but his clearance provided the assist that led directly to the goal at the other end…….. by my understanding that IS now considered a handball as it led directly to a goal? WTF happens then???

I think they need to stick rigorously to ‘clear and obvious’ – the VAR team only bleeping in if a real howler has been made, none of this replay back & forward with lines drawn on the monitor bull. If a ‘reasonable’ ref/lino could have been expected to give the decision that way then let it stand and don’t interfere even if it isn’t actually correct. OK - so that in itself is a grey zone but I say err on the side of minimal external interruptions. V-o-R’s point about gambling is a good one too.

 

[Balham Green]

I was mildly sceptical of VAR at first but still open minded ….. but when fans, players & managers feel they can’t celebrate a goal anymore then it needs to be stopped or seriously curtailed. TV should be about showing (or recording) a live event as a passive by-stander / viewer – but VAR seems to be specifically designed for TV and is directing the game. Fans in the stadium have often have no idea what’s going on.

It’s true that the handball law is a mess at the moment and needs to be clarified but it is made much worse by VAR. Why? Well a ref could apply a bit of common sense without VAR but with VAR then any appeal has to be minutely, painstakingly scrutinised and then the absolute letter of the law applied. Yes – technically it may be correct but sometimes it’s not right - if you get my meaning. Then there’s the whole timing thing – how far back do you go in time to check something? What if an incident happens in one penalty box then it’s quickly cleared and a goal happens at the other end – do you go back and use VAR for the first incident? So a perfectly good goal at one end is ruled out and a penalty awarded at the other? :crazy: ….and what if the defender in the first incident did handle but inadvertently (so by my understanding not a penalty) but his clearance provided the assist that led directly to the goal at the other end…….. by my understanding that IS now considered a handball as it led directly to a goal? WTF happens then???

I think they need to stick rigorously to ‘clear and obvious’ – the VAR team only bleeping in if a real howler has been made, none of this replay back & forward with lines drawn on the monitor bull. If a ‘reasonable’ ref/lino could have been expected to give the decision that way then let it stand and don’t interfere even if it isn’t actually correct. OK - so that in itself is a grey zone but I say err on the side of minimal external interruptions. V-o-R’s point about gambling is a good one too.

I agree. Usrd to think it a good idea in principal and still could be but the plonkers who review it clearly have zero common sense and dont understand clear and obvious (offside by a big toe :facepalm: ) so get rid.

 

[Guiri Green]

I thought it was a good idea when they first introduced it, I assumed it would mainly be used to eradicate diving and the general cheating we usually see at thst level. An aide for the Ref for the times he wasn't 100% sure of the decision he needed to make, also, for when a clear and obvious offside was missed.

What we've ended up with is Refs being made impotent and apparently reluctant to review the replay themselves, an obsession with minimal offsides and a Virtual Ref squirreled away in a portacabin somewhere offsite effectivley refereeing the whole game rather than providing the technical assistance the Ref needs.

It's added a new dimension to the games I've seen but not a good one, nitpicking has taken over.

 

[mervyn]

I was wholeheartedly behind VAR on the assumption that it would follow the NFL principle of speedy checks when there was a genuine doubt. I assumed that because our game is significantly less technical with far fewer players, then checking would be only occasional and immediate, where the referee had a genuine doubt.

To see your team score a goal is one of life’s greatest moments, from edge of the seat to pure joy in a second. I can’t imagine how it would feel if most Argyle goals couldn’t be wholeheartedly celebrated until a VAR check, often lasting a very long time. Whilst I’m desperate for Argyle to progress, this is one of many reasons why it would not be the end of the world if we never reached the Premiership.

 

[Mike Charlick]

It's sh1te! Just bin it. Players make mistakes, officials make mistakes. The change in the handball law particularly p1sses me off. The laws at elite level should be interpreted exactly as they are at grass roots.

 

[GreenThing]

I was mildly sceptical of VAR at first but still open minded ….. but when fans, players & managers feel they can’t celebrate a goal anymore then it needs to be stopped or seriously curtailed. TV should be about showing (or recording) a live event as a passive by-stander / viewer – but VAR seems to be specifically designed for TV and is directing the game. Fans in the stadium have often have no idea what’s going on.

It’s true that the handball law is a mess at the moment and needs to be clarified but it is made much worse by VAR. Why? Well a ref could apply a bit of common sense without VAR but with VAR then any appeal has to be minutely, painstakingly scrutinised and then the absolute letter of the law applied. Yes – technically it may be correct but sometimes it’s not right - if you get my meaning. Then there’s the whole timing thing – how far back do you go in time to check something? What if an incident happens in one penalty box then it’s quickly cleared and a goal happens at the other end – do you go back and use VAR for the first incident? So a perfectly good goal at one end is ruled out and a penalty awarded at the other? :crazy: ….and what if the defender in the first incident did handle but inadvertently (so by my understanding not a penalty) but his clearance provided the assist that led directly to the goal at the other end…….. by my understanding that IS now considered a handball as it led directly to a goal? WTF happens then???

I think they need to stick rigorously to ‘clear and obvious’ – the VAR team only bleeping in if a real howler has been made, none of this replay back & forward with lines drawn on the monitor bull. If a ‘reasonable’ ref/lino could have been expected to give the decision that way then let it stand and don’t interfere even if it isn’t actually correct. OK - so that in itself is a grey zone but I say err on the side of minimal external interruptions. V-o-R’s point about gambling is a good one too.

I agree. Usrd to think it a good idea in principal and still could be but the plonkers who review it clearly have zero common sense and dont understand clear and obvious (offside by a big toe :facepalm: ) so get rid.

I agree with both of these posts.

BG’s point about being offside by a big toe. When you kick a ball, your foot is in contact with the ball as your foot follows through. At what point is it determined that the ball is kicked? Is it when the foot first makes contact, or when the ball breaks contact? The ‘big toe’ could be offside when contact is made and onside again when the contact is broken (or vice versa). When viewing the var footage, the kicking foot is usually a bit of a blur, so the exact moment the ball is kicked cannot be determined precisely enough to to be millimetre accurate with the big toe.

I’m happy for the ref to have ‘another look’ at an incident to see what he’d missed the first time. However, this should be done with a real-time replay only. If you have to slow it down, pause, watch again then repeat for 5mins, then the mistake wasn’t clear and obvious.

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

I was mildly sceptical of VAR at first but still open minded ….. but when fans, players & managers feel they can’t celebrate a goal anymore then it needs to be stopped or seriously curtailed. TV should be about showing (or recording) a live event as a passive by-stander / viewer – but VAR seems to be specifically designed for TV and is directing the game. Fans in the stadium have often have no idea what’s going on.

It’s true that the handball law is a mess at the moment and needs to be clarified but it is made much worse by VAR. Why? Well a ref could apply a bit of common sense without VAR but with VAR then any appeal has to be minutely, painstakingly scrutinised and then the absolute letter of the law applied. Yes – technically it may be correct but sometimes it’s not right - if you get my meaning. Then there’s the whole timing thing – how far back do you go in time to check something? What if an incident happens in one penalty box then it’s quickly cleared and a goal happens at the other end – do you go back and use VAR for the first incident? So a perfectly good goal at one end is ruled out and a penalty awarded at the other? :crazy: ….and what if the defender in the first incident did handle but inadvertently (so by my understanding not a penalty) but his clearance provided the assist that led directly to the goal at the other end…….. by my understanding that IS now considered a handball as it led directly to a goal? WTF happens then???

I think they need to stick rigorously to ‘clear and obvious’ – the VAR team only bleeping in if a real howler has been made, none of this replay back & forward with lines drawn on the monitor bull. If a ‘reasonable’ ref/lino could have been expected to give the decision that way then let it stand and don’t interfere even if it isn’t actually correct. OK - so that in itself is a grey zone but I say err on the side of minimal external interruptions. V-o-R’s point about gambling is a good one too.

I agree. Usrd to think it a good idea in principal and still could be but the plonkers who review it clearly have zero common sense and dont understand clear and obvious (offside by a big toe :facepalm: ) so get rid.

I agree with both of these posts.

BG’s point about being offside by a big toe. When you kick a ball, your foot is in contact with the ball as your foot follows through. At what point is it determined that the ball is kicked? Is it when the foot first makes contact, or when the ball breaks contact? The ‘big toe’ could be offside when contact is made and onside again when the contact is broken (or vice versa). When viewing the var footage, the kicking foot is usually a bit of a blur, so the exact moment the ball is kicked cannot be determined precisely enough to to be millimetre accurate with the big toe.

I’m happy for the ref to have ‘another look’ at an incident to see what he’d missed the first time. However, this should be done with a real-time replay only. If you have to slow it down, pause, watch again then repeat for 5mins, then the mistake wasn’t clear and obvious.

Absolutely spot on. If you're offside (by the letter of the law) then you are offside but all their fancy lines miss the fundamental factor of "when".

If they are measuring distances from the goal line in millimetres then milliseconds are going to count especially when defenders and attackers are moving in opposite directions. Until they can precisely determine the moment that the ball leaves the foot/head, IMO they should only be checking replays without the use of these lines. A clear and obvious offside will be apparent to the VAR's naked eye. If they look level then it's not offside, same as it has always been.

 

[Cobi Budge]

Harry Kane's disallowed goal today has to be one of the most depressing moments since the introduction of VAR. That just isn't football. Both the accidental handball rule, and the fact VAR even pulled it back, are ridiculous.

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

Harry Kane's disallowed goal today has to be one of the most depressing moments since the introduction of VAR. That just isn't football. Both the accidental handball rule, and the fact VAR even pulled it back, are ridiculous.

A law that wasn't really thought through. It has to be amended, surely. On the Harry Kane goal, even with the multiple replays I thought it hit his back rather than his arm.

 

[The Doctor]

I've not seen the Kane 'goal' but the 5th Man City 'goal' scored late in yesterday's game against Liverpool by Mahrez was an example of what I felt was a perfectly decent goal being disallowed for a handball in the build up that made absolutely no difference to the way the play unfolded.

 

[Bryan Tregunna]

Like most sports that now have VAR or similar, the idea is to correct clear ond obvious on-field mistakes.
VAR in football has taken this to the extreme.
Did it hit his arm? Yes.
Was it intentional? No.
Did it affect the play? No.
The goal should have stood.

In rugby, the ref can ask for a review while play continues and during play the video ref can advise the ref to have a look at an incident. The on-field ref has the final say.
Cricket has 'umpire's call' that allows for a margin of error (both ref and technology).
But unless there is a clear and obvious error, let play continue.

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

Like most sports that now have VAR or similar, the idea is to correct clear ond obvious on-field mistakes.
VAR in football has taken this to the extreme.
Did it hit his arm? Yes.
Was it intentional? No.
Did it affect the play? No.
The goal should have stood.

In rugby, the ref can ask for a review while play continues and during play the video ref can advise the ref to have a look at an incident. The on-field ref has the final say.
Cricket has 'umpire's call' that allows for a margin of error (both ref and technology).
But unless there is a clear and obvious error, let play continue.

There lies the problem because the way the laws are right now, you can't have both.

 

[Cobi Budge]

The disallowed Palace goal just now - Christ - that isn’t football.

I was supportive of VAR at first but just I’m becoming less & less so. These offside decisions are insane, a toe? How is a toe clear and obvious? A couple of yards then sure, but when the difference is a toe for me the advantage/benefit of doubt should be with the attacker.

 

[Knibbsworth]

Bournemouth looked like they scored a perfectly valid goal against Manchester City yesterday, which got flagged for offside, and it didn't even go to VAR.

 

[oldage]

VAR is creating more problems than it is solving. Get back to letting the ref decide and stuff the technology.