VAR

[chrisw1]

With or without VAR Kane would still have got his pen, Watkins would have still been sent off, Watkins still wouldn't have got his pen against spurs etc etc

Cancelling VAR isn't necessarily the answer as we're still going to get the rough end of the decisions.  Operating it correctly is what needs to happen.

[AllanW]

I don't believe we and other clubs shoukd just accept it. 

the technology doesn't work but because officials are making the wrong decisions even with the benefit of more information.  That's negligence or corrupt and either way shoukd be tackled head on.

Precisely. Yes.

The people who shouldn't accept this situation aren't just us, it's the owners of the clubs. They are in a major position to do something about it. There are ways of doing it differently, even with video technology, just look at other sports. And please don't 'But we're not the same as rugby/american football/cricket' etc. Everyone knows that BUT they make it work for them a lot better than our sport does. In none of those sports does anyone seriously think that there is bias or unfairness.

In ours everyone thinks that because it's so obvious. That needs to change.

[Drummond]

With or without VAR Kane would still have got his pen, Watkins would have still been sent off, Watkins still wouldn't have got his pen against spurs etc etc

Cancelling VAR isn't necessarily the answer as we're still going to get the rough end of the decisions.  Operating it correctly is what needs to happen.

Except that referees with VAR in place make decisions knowing they can be checked and confirmed or overruled. Without it they have to be more confident they are getting it right as the scrutiny sits with them.

One thing I'd like to see with VAR is for a decision to be explained. As an example the Watkins pen the other night. Why wasn't it? Then we'd all know.

[chrisw1]

With or without VAR Kane would still have got his pen, Watkins would have still been sent off, Watkins still wouldn't have got his pen against spurs etc etc

Cancelling VAR isn't necessarily the answer as we're still going to get the rough end of the decisions.  Operating it correctly is what needs to happen.

Except that referees with VAR in place make decisions knowing they can be checked and confirmed or overruled. Without it they have to be more confident they are getting it right as the scrutiny sits with them.

One thing I'd like to see with VAR is for a decision to be explained. As an example the Watkins pen the other night. Why wasn't it? Then we'd all know.

This is where the rugby version works so well.  The ref has an open conversation with the VAR and they work through the logic and step by step come to a joint decision - with the ref having the final say.  Eg a high tackle - "so theres contact with the head from the shoulder at force with the tackler out of control, there's no clear mitigating factors,,, so we're agreed it's a red card?"   It doesn't take any longer than the football shitshow version and it works brilliantly.  They could have done exactly the same with the Watkins decision "so the keeper clearly makes significant contact with the attacher and brings him down.  The defender made no contact with the balll first.  The attacker had lost control of the ball but it's still clearly in play, so the decision is...."

To be clear, in rugby the fans in the ground don't hear this exchange ad nor would they in football.  But the key thing is there's logic and accountability for every decision.

In my view the ref should go to the monitor for every penalty and red card decision - even if the latter is by way of a second yellow - as it has such a major impact on the game.  They can have 6 or 8  monitors around the ground so he never has to jog more then 30 yards or so to get to one and it's not right in from of the managers.

It just seems there's this huge arrogance that they can't possibly copy another sport and have to come up with their own shitter version.

[Brend'Watkins]

It's there for the clear an obvious error we are told. The ref makes a clear and obvious error so why aren't they straight on to correct him?  The clear and obvious error in this Var camp is that Kevin Friend is there.

It can't even be shoved under the ref's interpretation mat either.  It's a foul and therefore a penalty.

[chrisw1]

The 'clear and obvious error' requirement is why the whole thing is bullshit.  VAR will only ever work if they drop that and allow the refs to work as a team to come to the right decision.

At the moment if the ref if called to the monitor it's akin to him being put on the naughty step - he's being told he's fucked up and the monitor is just window dressing, not an honest appraisal of the decision.

I honestly think it would be hard to think of a more ridiculously flawed system if you tried.

[Rico]

As far as I'm concerned the best option for VAR would be to do away with the clear and obvious interpretation, and just allow each team two reviews per half. The ref could then go to the monitor and get another look at it. It would also do away with the Stockley Park guys.

[Toronto Villa]

As far as I'm concerned the best option for VAR would be to do away with the clear and obvious interpretation, and just allow each team two reviews per half. The ref could then go to the monitor and get another look at it. It would also do away with the Stockley Park guys.

I’ve been saying that for ages. Do it like the NFL where on field refs make most of the decisions. In a stop start sport like NFL football they can afford the delays for all scoring plays. I wouldn’t do that for us unless a manager requested it. But it would speed up the game immeasurably and put the onus back on the refs and assistants who could choose to get assistance from the monitor when they couldn’t as a team make a decision. Also managers can challenge key incidents twice and lose the second if they were not successful with the first.

[chrisw1]

I don't see how the two challenge rule helps.  We appeal the Watkins pen, get over ruled and we're even more fucked over as we've just lost our second challenge. An even better way to give the Big 6 more advantage.

Used properly VAR would take no more time than it does now but the decision making could be improved.

[Drummond]

With or without VAR Kane would still have got his pen, Watkins would have still been sent off, Watkins still wouldn't have got his pen against spurs etc etc

Cancelling VAR isn't necessarily the answer as we're still going to get the rough end of the decisions.  Operating it correctly is what needs to happen.

Except that referees with VAR in place make decisions knowing they can be checked and confirmed or overruled. Without it they have to be more confident they are getting it right as the scrutiny sits with them.

One thing I'd like to see with VAR is for a decision to be explained. As an example the Watkins pen the other night. Why wasn't it? Then we'd all know.

This is where the rugby version works so well.  The ref has an open conversation with the VAR and they work through the logic and step by step come to a joint decision - with the ref having the final say.  Eg a high tackle - "so theres contact with the head from the shoulder at force with the tackler out of control, there's no clear mitigating factors,,, so we're agreed it's a red card?"   It doesn't take any longer than the football shitshow version and it works brilliantly.  They could have done exactly the same with the Watkins decision "so the keeper clearly makes significant contact with the attacher and brings him down.  The defender made no contact with the balll first.  The attacker had lost control of the ball but it's still clearly in play, so the decision is...."

To be clear, in rugby the fans in the ground don't hear this exchange ad nor would they in football.  But the key thing is there's logic and accountability for every decision.

In my view the ref should go to the monitor for every penalty and red card decision - even if the latter is by way of a second yellow - as it has such a major impact on the game.  They can have 6 or 8  monitors around the ground so he never has to jog more then 30 yards or so to get to one and it's not right in from of the managers.

It just seems there's this huge arrogance that they can't possibly copy another sport and have to come up with their own shitter version.

Absolutely.

I'm sure when I went to Twickenham (a while ago the last time) and I had one of those radio things I could hear the discussion regarding the decision.

[dave shelley]

On the subject of asking referee's to explain their decisions, I can't see it ever happening simply because it would raise more questions than it answered.  As has been said, VAR is still at the whim of a human being probably with a different interpretation than the one who made the original decision.

IMO, football with VAR is no further enhanced and decision making no more improved than it was before we ever heard of it.

[Smithy]

The problem as I see it, is that VAR is great in matters of 'fact'.  Was he offside/onside, did the keeper move before the kick, did the ball cross the line etc.  What it's not very good at is helping with matters of interpretation - was that a foul/dive, was he too close to move his arm out the way etc - which if we're all honest are probably the decisions that are the biggest problem for most fans. 

You can show two refs one incident and they'll potentially disagree on their interpretation of the laws of the game and what should happen next - VAR is NEVER going to fix that.  The "clear and obvious error" thing is just an extension of that.  If they think the ref has seen the incident, VAR is not going to call him out - I think it's only used if they genuinely believe a ref has missed something.

I was a big advocate for VAR, but in its current format, I'm not sure it's helping as much as it should to warrant the negative impact it has on the match-day experience.

[Drummond]

Twats

[danno]

Mic them up. Let us listen to them justifying their baffling decision making.

If nothing else it will give me less time to listen to Jenas' inane wittering.

[nick harper]

I know it was Albion but that decision against Liverpool to disallow a goal the other night because a player was standing offside and deemed to be in front of the goalkeeper was an absolute shocker as it would have gone in if there had been two goalkeepers. It was the wrong interpretation and has probably cost Leicester a place in the champions league.