VAR

[Vegas]

It’s quite an insightful and creative solution I think. The issue is of course that goals have such a scarcity value that the awarding or not of a penalty is often a game changing call, in a way it mostly isn’t with other sports.

We all get hung up on whether they should or shouldn’t be given and it’s often the case that people who know the game pretty well can  disagree even after 5 slomo replays.

So a great alternative is to make the punishment less. Well done Cas!

[chrisw1]

The 'precise moment' is not quite as importnant now given the margin for error with the lines.  The reality now is under the current system if you are called offside then you were almost certainly offside.  There will always be a margin of debate wherever you draw the line, but I think the balance is fine now.  And of course the 'big errors' (for offside) have been eliminated.

Some people will never be happy, but I don't see how you can say the current system is worse than someone guessing.

It's ever other part of VAR that is being implemented horrendously.  It should be a tool for the ref, not someone peering over his shoulder.  Refs should be brave enough to say, I'm taking another look at that...

[Smithy]

Normal distance, but it can't be given to your penalty taker but someone designated beforehand who's crap at it so for us you'd have Davis and then Martinez

What about like they do in basketball where the person fouled has to take the shot?

[Pat Mustard]

The 'precise moment' is not quite as importnant now given the margin for error with the lines.  The reality now is under the current system if you are called offside then you were almost certainly offside.  There will always be a margin of debate wherever you draw the line, but I think the balance is fine now.  And of course the 'big errors' (for offside) have been eliminated.

Some people will never be happy, but I don't see how you can say the current system is worse than someone guessing.

It's ever other part of VAR that is being implemented horrendously.  It should be a tool for the ref, not someone peering over his shoulder.  Refs should be brave enough to say, I'm taking another look at that...

It is still someone guessing though, just someone sat in front of a monitor one hundred miles away.  At best it is pseudo-science, but it is certainly not any better by an order of magnitude that makes it worth losing the spontaneity of a goal celebration that we used to have.  The lines aren't thick enough to account for the number of conflicting movements in an offside decision (when the ball is kicked, when the player running at pace is physically offside etc.), and actually the frame rate of the cameras also make it even less possible to know precisely when the ball is kicked.  There is no perfect way to judge offside at the moment, so VAR has actively made this worse.

Also, there is the additional problem of goals being scored following offsides that the assistants no longer give.  There is now a reticence to flag for clear offsides because of VAR, which then directly impacts the following passages of play.  We've seen examples of corners being given following an offside not being flagged, which can then lead directly to goals.  So in this instance again I think we can say that the new system is worse as it has introduced new problems that weren't there previously.

[Brend'Watkins]

The 'precise moment' is not quite as importnant now given the margin for error with the lines.  The reality now is under the current system if you are called offside then you were almost certainly offside.  There will always be a margin of debate wherever you draw the line, but I think the balance is fine now.  And of course the 'big errors' (for offside) have been eliminated.

Some people will never be happy, but I don't see how you can say the current system is worse than someone guessing.

It's ever other part of VAR that is being implemented horrendously.  It should be a tool for the ref, not someone peering over his shoulder.  Refs should be brave enough to say, I'm taking another look at that...

It is still someone guessing though, just someone sat in front of a monitor one hundred miles away.  At best it is pseudo-science, but it is certainly not any better by an order of magnitude that makes it worth losing the spontaneity of a goal celebration that we used to have.  The lines aren't thick enough to account for the number of conflicting movements in an offside decision (when the ball is kicked, when the player running at pace is physically offside etc.), and actually the frame rate of the cameras also make it even less possible to know precisely when the ball is kicked.  There is no perfect way to judge offside at the moment, so VAR has actively made this worse.

Also, there is the additional problem of goals being scored following offsides that the assistants no longer give.  There is now a reticence to flag for clear offsides because of VAR, which then directly impacts the following passages of play.  We've seen examples of corners being given following an offside not being flagged, which can then lead directly to goals.  So in this instance again I think we can say that the new system is worse as it has introduced new problems that weren't there previously.

That's true but there is a bigger margin of tolerance with the technology. The precise moment of ball being kicked with movement initiated and that linked to the attacker and last defender is covered with the increased tolerance of the line width. These are all minute fractions of a second which was more important when the thinner lines that were initially used. The technology is now better than a linesman's visual assessment for most of the game if you take into account linesman's positioning.  Is the linesman exactly in line with the last defender and does the linesman's vision take into account his position when the ball is precisely kicked in relation to the forward's position and the part of his body that could make him offside?  Technology wins that decision more often than the linesman.

The last point has some credence and is something which needs sorting. I think once the technology is improved even further offside decisions will be taken out of the linesman's duty.

[LeonW]

The other thing to consider for those that say VAR is working is the penalties issue. On field refs award penalties even if they're not sure because they expect VAR to review them and tell them if they've got it wrong. But alot of the time VAR doesn't because it follows the 'it's not clear and obvious, therefore we can't get involved' cop out. So you have an increase in penalties that are not penalties being awarded. Not only that, but it doesn't review enough those that should be penalties but which haven't been awarded by the on field ref.  The reason; because the ref hasn't awarded it.

[The Edge]

The whole debate about whether or not VAR is good for the game boils down to one thing. It's just not the same celebrating a goal anymore because you half expect it to be ruled out. Both our goals against Leicester had muted celebrations. Yours truly who's been known to celebrate wildly didn't get that same buzz thanks to VAR. It's taken more out of the game than its given and I don't think that's even debatable.

[LeonW]

Funny seeing the outcry about VAR yesterday when a couple of decisions go against Liverpool. Klopp, Sky, all having meltdowns. ‘VAR needs to change. It’s not working.’ Etc, etc, etc ad nauseam. Yet nothing the week before. Not a peep.

[Baldy]

Scrap VAR for everything but offsides but let the match referee still use the technology!!

I used to referee and still have 'nightmares' about a decision I made about 40 years ago. I wish I could have seen that incident again!!

Between obstructions, distractions, distance, angles, pressure etc it is humanly impossible to make the correct 'split second' decision on every occasion.

I propose, if the match referee suspects an infringement leading to a goal or a sending off, he/she makes a clear 'square' signal and at the next stop in play goes to a TV monitor to see an 'action replay' from a few angles before they make their final decision. Twelve eyes should be better than two.

For any serious incident not seen by the match officials, each manager has twenty seconds to lodge a 'review' with the 4th official. Along same format as Test Cricket. It amazes me how many cricket players soon 'shut up' when they have to make a decision!! One legitimate review per team allowed. Match referee views monitor and makes final decision.

I wish the technology was available in my day.

[paul_e]

Scrap VAR for everything but offsides but let the match referee still use the technology!!

I used to referee and still have 'nightmares' about a decision I made about 40 years ago. I wish I could have seen that incident again!!

Between obstructions, distractions, distance, angles, pressure etc it is humanly impossible to make the correct 'split second' decision on every occasion.

I propose, if the match referee suspects an infringement leading to a goal or a sending off, he/she makes a clear 'square' signal and at the next stop in play goes to a TV monitor to see an 'action replay' from a few angles before they make their final decision. Twelve eyes should be better than two.

For any serious incident not seen by the match officials, each manager has twenty seconds to lodge a 'review' with the 4th official. Along same format as Test Cricket. It amazes me how many cricket players soon 'shut up' when they have to make a decision!! One legitimate review per team allowed. Match referee views monitor and makes final decision.

I wish the technology was available in my day.

I mostly agree with this but I wouldn't give reviews, they have too much potential to be used tactically to slow/stop the game at a key time. I would keep VAR though but the only time I'd allow them to signal to the referee is for a incident that they believe has been missed that should be a yellow/red card that the referee hasn't seen (or hasn't signalled as having seen).

The big change for me is that refs need t allow play to go on if they're not sure and them whistle at the end of that "period of play" (either the ball goes dead or possession has clearly changed to the other team). Then they, mic'ed up and audible in the stadium, tell the VAR what they want to check and go to a screen where they get 2-3 angles at full speed, if they're still not sure play continues from wherever it left off and if a goal was scored during that period it stands. Done properly it only applies to a couple of incidents per game and takes no longer than the current situation of the ref dealing with players from both sides arguing over his decision.

[He wears a magic hat]

I really like the idea of the review. I'm convinced it will help stop the simulation. It will make the indiviuals players and the teams collectively take responsibility for their own actions.

Only downside I see to it is the tactical review especially when teams have reviews left and they concede a late goal

[Dave P]

Only downside I see to it is the tactical review especially when teams have reviews left and they concede a late goal

And if there is nothing wrong with said goal, then there will be no issue.

[Baldy]

Teams have faking injury as a 'time out' since the beginning of mankind. Be no different from a tactical review.

[chrisw1]

I think reviews are bullshit.  The refereeing team has all the facilities they need to get key decisions right.  It's just the way they are operating VAR that is mind boggling.  The lack of common sense beggars belief.  Watch some rugby games.  Copy the best bits of how their teams work together.  People keep saying 'yeah but rugby is stop start etc etc'.  I don't think these people have watched how slick the refereeing is in rugby.  The only thing that takes much time is ball grounding decisions and by their very nature they neeed as many camera angles as possible.  And no, the ref mic doesn't need to be piped into the stadium, it isn't in rugby it's just the tv audience who hear it.  If using the big screens is seen as problematic there should be 6 screens arounds the ground and the ref shouldn't be afraid to check his own decisions.  It's so simple.

[Ad@m]

I still struggle with why anyone thinks there's anything wrong with how rugby handle video assistance.  A qualified ref is watching on TV to help the onfield ref.  The onfield ref can either refer something or the VAR can speak to him live to say he thinks he's missed something.  The ref's miked up so everyone at home and in the ground can hear what he's saying and the ref watches the replay on the big screen so fans at home and in the ground can see what he sees.

Why the obsession with reinventing the wheel?