VAR

[Brend'Watkins]

VAR is proving that it's not completely accurate but it's still more accurate than the time before VAR.  Like most technology it will improve over time.

[Pete3206]

I hope so, because it's a dog's breakfast at the moment.

[KevinGage]

It's utter bollocks.

I didn't actually mind the World Cup version that much. The ref -if he was unsure of a big call- could go to the third umpire or whatever.  A bit of a wait occasionally, but felt like progress.

This is nausing fans out at the majority of grounds and just feels like a mess.

Video analysis has helped rugby, tennis and cricket without drastically altering the flow and feeling of those sports. In cricket, it actually adds an element of excitement and additional strategy with the use (or misuse) of the review system.

I don't mind change. But it has to be change for the better.

[The Edge]

It's fundementally flawed in my opinion. Those saying that offside is offside even if it's only by a millimetre are missing this. They are calling "offside" by putting two parralel lines red & blue but when your talking in millimetres can it really be that accurate? I don't think so. To be so precise you also have to ascertain the milli-second the ball leaves the passing players foot. The system simply isn't accurate enough to make such precise calls. No the only way to make it work is to have an observer who can invoke VAR when and only when he see's a clear and obvious mistake by the officials. When VAR was first mooted it was said that it wouldn't be intrusive in games and would only be used to rectify a "clear and obvious mistake by the match officials" We should get back to that or drop it apart from goal line technology which is absolutely conclusive.

[Baldy]

Until 100% perfection is fully proven, for offside, a 'margin of error' of 10 centimeters should be allowed to the advantage of the attacking team. 

[j66acd]

The myth that using VAR will get decisions correct till exists. Fouls are always going to be subjective, all VAR does is ask for a second opinion.

For years people cited Tennis, Rugby and Cricket as examples but in almost all cases in those sports it's a decision based on fact, not opinion. The handball/offside VAR decisions may be factual but they have not made the rules clear enough for the video ref to come to a definitive decision so we have a shitty mess full of conjecture and argument. If people are hell bent on demanding the correct outcome every time just feed the data of each team into a computer and see what the result is, all human error, player or official is removed.

If you look at the cricket, much has been made of Joel Wilson's error in not calling the LBW yesterday, but Nathan Lyon made an equally crucial mistake. Why does a player get a pass but the umpire doesn't? Those errors just added to the drama. As did Paine's decision to refer just a few moments earlier.

I still see a second yellow card as a potential game changing decision yet there is no referral so what's the fuckin point.? Give it back to the ref and let's get on with it for fucks sake.

Or just let it bed in and get it right.

As for rugby, a lot of the decisions are far from factual - it deals with foul play anywhere on the field and any potential offences leading up to a try.

We've been moaning for years about duff decisions, diving, off side goals, people not being sent off in cup finals, Patrick Bamford being a c*** etc etc.  I just don't get why people aren't prepared to work through the various teething problems to get a system that works and hopefuly improves the fairness of the game in the long run.

Because the sense of injustice fuels our support, being on the right end of an incorrect decision makes us feel like naughty school kids as we giggle at our opponents, the unpredictability appals us and thrills us in equal measure, we build certain officials into bogeymen and villains, we love the drama, we love the arguments and conjecture, what might have been, what should've been and those garrulous tales of huge decisions that denied our team the world dominance they so richly deserved if it wasn't for a fat bloke from Staffordshire or a school master from Harrow.

Sport is a glorious thing, Sunday afternoon was a perfect example, yes technology was used but it was human bravery and skill, fallibility and misjudgement that gave it the drama.

I have enjoyed football for almost 50 years and the addition of VAR has not enhanced that at all. I want justice and order in life, I want chaos and disorder in Sport, it's what makes it for me.

It’s like reading poetry.

[cdbearsfan]

Until 100% perfection is fully proven, for offside, a 'margin of error' of 10 centimeters should be allowed to the advantage of the attacking team. 

How are you going to decide whether it is ten centimetres, use VAR? I'd say it would be much more difficult to judge whether a player is 9.9 or 10.1 cm offside than it would be just to judge if a player is offside.

I don't really get why people are so worried about offsides and VAR, it's one area that the technology should get right 99% of the time. The only issue would be where an official or a player who wasn't interfering with player obstructed the camera so as to make it unclear, in which case the decision would be made by the assistant referee.

[Brend'Watkins]

The myth that using VAR will get decisions correct till exists. Fouls are always going to be subjective, all VAR does is ask for a second opinion.

For years people cited Tennis, Rugby and Cricket as examples but in almost all cases in those sports it's a decision based on fact, not opinion. The handball/offside VAR decisions may be factual but they have not made the rules clear enough for the video ref to come to a definitive decision so we have a shitty mess full of conjecture and argument. If people are hell bent on demanding the correct outcome every time just feed the data of each team into a computer and see what the result is, all human error, player or official is removed.

If you look at the cricket, much has been made of Joel Wilson's error in not calling the LBW yesterday, but Nathan Lyon made an equally crucial mistake. Why does a player get a pass but the umpire doesn't? Those errors just added to the drama. As did Paine's decision to refer just a few moments earlier.

I still see a second yellow card as a potential game changing decision yet there is no referral so what's the fuckin point.? Give it back to the ref and let's get on with it for fucks sake.

Or just let it bed in and get it right.

As for rugby, a lot of the decisions are far from factual - it deals with foul play anywhere on the field and any potential offences leading up to a try.

We've been moaning for years about duff decisions, diving, off side goals, people not being sent off in cup finals, Patrick Bamford being a c*** etc etc.  I just don't get why people aren't prepared to work through the various teething problems to get a system that works and hopefuly improves the fairness of the game in the long run.

Because the sense of injustice fuels our support, being on the right end of an incorrect decision makes us feel like naughty school kids as we giggle at our opponents, the unpredictability appals us and thrills us in equal measure, we build certain officials into bogeymen and villains, we love the drama, we love the arguments and conjecture, what might have been, what should've been and those garrulous tales of huge decisions that denied our team the world dominance they so richly deserved if it wasn't for a fat bloke from Staffordshire or a school master from Harrow.

Sport is a glorious thing, Sunday afternoon was a perfect example, yes technology was used but it was human bravery and skill, fallibility and misjudgement that gave it the drama.

I have enjoyed football for almost 50 years and the addition of VAR has not enhanced that at all. I want justice and order in life, I want chaos and disorder in Sport, it's what makes it for me.

What about those thousands even millions when you take in the gambling sector out there who in their lives want "justice and order in life" but their lives and work are involved in sport?  Your personal requirement for chaos and disorder will affect them while there's money involved.  Justice and order in life and justice and order in sport or as near as we possibly can is what I want.

[Nev]

The myth that using VAR will get decisions correct till exists. Fouls are always going to be subjective, all VAR does is ask for a second opinion.

For years people cited Tennis, Rugby and Cricket as examples but in almost all cases in those sports it's a decision based on fact, not opinion. The handball/offside VAR decisions may be factual but they have not made the rules clear enough for the video ref to come to a definitive decision so we have a shitty mess full of conjecture and argument. If people are hell bent on demanding the correct outcome every time just feed the data of each team into a computer and see what the result is, all human error, player or official is removed.

If you look at the cricket, much has been made of Joel Wilson's error in not calling the LBW yesterday, but Nathan Lyon made an equally crucial mistake. Why does a player get a pass but the umpire doesn't? Those errors just added to the drama. As did Paine's decision to refer just a few moments earlier.

I still see a second yellow card as a potential game changing decision yet there is no referral so what's the fuckin point.? Give it back to the ref and let's get on with it for fucks sake.

Or just let it bed in and get it right.

As for rugby, a lot of the decisions are far from factual - it deals with foul play anywhere on the field and any potential offences leading up to a try.

We've been moaning for years about duff decisions, diving, off side goals, people not being sent off in cup finals, Patrick Bamford being a c*** etc etc.  I just don't get why people aren't prepared to work through the various teething problems to get a system that works and hopefuly improves the fairness of the game in the long run.

Because the sense of injustice fuels our support, being on the right end of an incorrect decision makes us feel like naughty school kids as we giggle at our opponents, the unpredictability appals us and thrills us in equal measure, we build certain officials into bogeymen and villains, we love the drama, we love the arguments and conjecture, what might have been, what should've been and those garrulous tales of huge decisions that denied our team the world dominance they so richly deserved if it wasn't for a fat bloke from Staffordshire or a school master from Harrow.

Sport is a glorious thing, Sunday afternoon was a perfect example, yes technology was used but it was human bravery and skill, fallibility and misjudgement that gave it the drama.

I have enjoyed football for almost 50 years and the addition of VAR has not enhanced that at all. I want justice and order in life, I want chaos and disorder in Sport, it's what makes it for me.

What about those thousands even millions when you take in the gambling sector out there who in their lives want "justice and order in life" but their lives and work are involved in sport?  Your personal requirement for chaos and disorder will affect them while there's money involved.  Justice and order in life and justice and order in sport or as near as we possibly can is what I want.

That's fine, surely to get that would require the elimination of human error completely, not just from officials. as I stated earlier, feed the data into a computer and let it decide the result.

[Lastfootstamper]

Until 100% perfection is fully proven, for offside, a 'margin of error' of 10 centimeters should be allowed to the advantage of the attacking team. 

How are you going to decide whether it is ten centimetres, use VAR? I'd say it would be much more difficult to judge whether a player is 9.9 or 10.1 cm offside than it would be just to judge if a player is offside.

I don't really get why people are so worried about offsides and VAR, it's one area that the technology should get right 99% of the time. The only issue would be where an official or a player who wasn't interfering with player obstructed the camera so as to make it unclear, in which case the decision would be made by the assistant referee.

Based on an assumption that the snapshot used to determine when the ball is played is correct. We all seem happy with a couple of coloured sharply depicted lines on the telly which "clearly" show from some angle a gnat's bollock betwixt attacker and defender, whilst there's simultaneously a blurred foot delivering the pass.

[Brend'Watkins]

Absolutely. Just as it does at the 100mtrs, tennis, cricket etc.  The cricket being the main one of recent impact.  Had Australia not wasted their last review they'd have won the game and the Ashes. You could argue that technology added to the drama but the rules as they are in that instance were to England's benefit.

Human error has to be eradicated if it can, there's too much at stake for it to be based on the opinion of an individual who might for whatever reason favour a team in red over one in Claret and Blue.   

[ktvillan]

A tool is only as good as the person using it.  VAR is a very useful tool, being applied by a bunch of, well, tools.  They spout the "clear and obvious" mantra, but ignore it completely and nit-pick over trifles.  They interfere when no interference is required or beneficial, and ignore when it is. 

Marginal offsides are not "clear and obvious" errors.  Handballs where it is ball to hand are still very subjective and should be left to the ref.  Handballs like Thierry Henry's against Ireland and Rodriquez against Villa are not subjective ball to hand instances, they are clearly and obviously deliberate movements of hand to ball.  The ones that everyone in the ground can see except for the officials.
Balls over the line like Lampard's against Germany have been resolved by other tech.

Refs make mistakes and so will VAR officials.  But there have been proven cases of corrupt officials, and given the sums involved and betting syndicates etc. it would be naive to think that there isn't still some undue influence.   

There is also bias, whether conscious or unconscious.   I can't recall any game Elleray reffed for us where there wasn't some kind of controversial decision against us. He was a total twat, every time.  Some of that could have been stopped by VAR.  The older readers will recall how often Liverpool would edge a 1-0 win at Anfield with a late controversial penalty, or how often a visiting side would get one there, or at Old Trafford.   

VAR will make it harder for any corruption and/or bias to feed through to decisions made.  I've said many times, take it out of the hands of the officials to decide when it's used, because they are fucking clueless, QED, over and over.  Use a review request system, two per team per game.  It will then tend to be used for more blatant issues rather than marginal calls, at least until the last few minutes when unused reviews would be used up. 

Stopping VAR would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Nev]

A tool is only as good as the person using it.  VAR is a very useful tool, being applied by a bunch of, well, tools.  They spout the "clear and obvious" mantra, but ignore it completely and nit-pick over trifles.  They interfere when no interference is required or beneficial, and ignore when it is. 

Marginal offsides are not "clear and obvious" errors.  Handballs where it is ball to hand are still very subjective and should be left to the ref.  Handballs like Thierry Henry's against Ireland and Rodriquez against Villa are not subjective ball to hand instances, they are clearly and obviously deliberate movements of hand to ball.  The ones that everyone in the ground can see except for the officials.
Balls over the line like Lampard's against Germany have been resolved by other tech.

Refs make mistakes and so will VAR officials.  But there have been proven cases of corrupt officials, and given the sums involved and betting syndicates etc. it would be naive to think that there isn't still some undue influence.   

There is also bias, whether conscious or unconscious.   I can't recall any game Elleray reffed for us where there wasn't some kind of controversial decision against us. He was a total twat, every time.  Some of that could have been stopped by VAR.  The older readers will recall how often Liverpool would edge a 1-0 win at Anfield with a late controversial penalty, or how often a visiting side would get one there, or at Old Trafford.   

VAR will make it harder for any corruption and/or bias to feed through to decisions made.  I've said many times, take it out of the hands of the officials to decide when it's used, because they are fucking clueless, QED, over and over.  Use a review request system, two per team per game.  It will then tend to be used for more blatant issues rather than marginal calls, at least until the last few minutes when unused reviews would be used up. 

Stopping VAR would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Despite my opposition I'm pragmatic enough to accept that VAR will not be removed and I agree with an appeals/review system to simplify the system and make it more palatable for luddites such as myself.

[Baldy]

Until 100% perfection is fully proven, for offside, a 'margin of error' of 10 centimeters should be allowed to the advantage of the attacking team. 

How are you going to decide whether it is ten centimetres, use VAR? I'd say it would be much more difficult to judge whether a player is 9.9 or 10.1 cm offside than it would be just to judge if a player is offside.

I don't really get why people are so worried about offsides and VAR, it's one area that the technology should get right 99% of the time. The only issue would be where an official or a player who wasn't interfering with player obstructed the camera so as to make it unclear, in which case the decision would be made by the assistant referee.

If we add a 10cm 'margin of error' line on to the current VAR line that denotes the last defender that should do the trick. As mentioned in a previous post, to simplify matters, I would prefer there has to be a 'clear gap' between the forward and the last defender before being flagged offside.

Football is an entertainment, goals are its bloodline. We can't be disallowing goals because someone has got big feet or a big hooter. A forward does not have the advantage of lines drawn across the pitch and by instinct, will try to gain an inch on the defender. We don't want our forwards to have to go backwards to often. The current law is to the advantage of defenders and for the sake of entertainment, the advantage should be to the attacking side.

That is my worry, Mr Bully.
 

[Brend'Watkins]

Refs make mistakes and so will VAR officials.  But there have been proven cases of corrupt officials, and given the sums involved and betting syndicates etc. it would be naive to think that there isn't still some undue influence.   

There is also bias, whether conscious or unconscious.   I can't recall any game Elleray reffed for us where there wasn't some kind of controversial decision against us. He was a total twat, every time.  Some of that could have been stopped by VAR.  The older readers will recall how often Liverpool would edge a 1-0 win at Anfield with a late controversial penalty, or how often a visiting side would get one there, or at Old Trafford.   

The first point, it won't eradicate that completely but it will improve it massively.  The 2nd, it will be interesting to see the amount of pens that are given to them and against compared with previous seasons.  Stevie Gee's scoring record would look a lot sadder had VAR been around when he was playing.