VAR

[paul_e]

I’ve played Rugby for over 30 years, and while the game may have sped up it is nothing like football even now. Every scrum, line-out, penalty and free-kick takes at least 30 seconds to set up and eats up huge amounts of game time. That is before you get to periods of play where little is happening due to back and forth kicking, or tied up slowly going through phases of possession.

I love Rugby, but it is nowhere near as free-flowing as football and does allow for reviews as it is rare you will get more than a couple of minutes of play before there is a significant stoppage for a set-piece. You would also never get a situation in Rugby like one in the Burnley-Bournemouth game last season where a goal was disallowed and a penalty awarded at the other end because one team broke and the first opportunity to review the decision came after the ball had gone into the net of the team who got the penalty. Finally, Rugby also stops the clock for injuries, reviews etc in a way football doesn’t, so if we have VAR decisions that take 3-4 minutes then we are going to see games that last nearly 2 hours before long.

If we have VAR then I absolutely accept that football can learn a lot from the way the assistance is used in Rugby. My problem with it is that it fundamentally changes the nature of the game and our relationship with it as spectators. If it was just used to review serious foul play that the ref might have missed then I could just about accept it, but it will never stop at that and so I don’t think that’s a price worth paying.

TL;DR For Most posters, I agree that it marks a fundamental change for football but it did for rugby and cricket as well, the difference is the officials in those sports wanted it to succeed, I don't think they do in football.

Playing at a level below the top flight doesn't really have much bearing on this, I've played for 20 years myself and I barely see my level and international and European standard as the same sport, the difference in fitness levels alone is frightening. I watch as much rugby as football and I'd say the number of slow stop-start games and faced passed back and forth is about the same between the 2. Most of the long delays that used to happen around scrums in particular are gone now the hit has been removed. Football has shorter but more regular breaks for things like corners, goal kicks and throw-ins compared to line-outs and drop-outs with free kicks and penalties taking as long in each sport in my opinion. The 1 difference is the penalty kicked into the corner for a line-out there's no equivalent of using a set-piece to gain another in football.

First bold bit - how is that any different to teams passing it around their back 4 for 30-40 seconds as happens regularly when they need a breather?

Second, is that honestly not true for most football games? how often do you see a period where stuff that might be reviewed is happening and the ball stays in play for 3-4 minutes? It's not as common as a lot of people think.

Third, last season or the one before Cobus Reinach had a try disallowed to give a penalty against saints in their 22, I remember it well because I was fucking livid.

Fourth, They already take this into account 4-5 minutes at the end of each half isn't that unusual. On top of that Football is designed around the ball being in play for roughly 2/3rds of the game time and rugby is pretty similar, if you look it up the stats back this up. Most of the clock stopping now is because of injuries or reviews, clubs taking the piss getting ready for scrums and line outs doesn't happen now.

[Pat Mustard]

I’ve played Rugby for over 30 years, and while the game may have sped up it is nothing like football even now. Every scrum, line-out, penalty and free-kick takes at least 30 seconds to set up and eats up huge amounts of game time. That is before you get to periods of play where little is happening due to back and forth kicking, or tied up slowly going through phases of possession.

I love Rugby, but it is nowhere near as free-flowing as football and does allow for reviews as it is rare you will get more than a couple of minutes of play before there is a significant stoppage for a set-piece. You would also never get a situation in Rugby like one in the Burnley-Bournemouth game last season where a goal was disallowed and a penalty awarded at the other end because one team broke and the first opportunity to review the decision came after the ball had gone into the net of the team who got the penalty. Finally, Rugby also stops the clock for injuries, reviews etc in a way football doesn’t, so if we have VAR decisions that take 3-4 minutes then we are going to see games that last nearly 2 hours before long.

If we have VAR then I absolutely accept that football can learn a lot from the way the assistance is used in Rugby. My problem with it is that it fundamentally changes the nature of the game and our relationship with it as spectators. If it was just used to review serious foul play that the ref might have missed then I could just about accept it, but it will never stop at that and so I don’t think that’s a price worth paying.

TL;DR For Most posters, I agree that it marks a fundamental change for football but it did for rugby and cricket as well, the difference is the officials in those sports wanted it to succeed, I don't think they do in football.

Playing at a level below the top flight doesn't really have much bearing on this, I've played for 20 years myself and I barely see my level and international and European standard as the same sport, the difference in fitness levels alone is frightening. I watch as much rugby as football and I'd say the number of slow stop-start games and faced passed back and forth is about the same between the 2. Most of the long delays that used to happen around scrums in particular are gone now the hit has been removed. Football has shorter but more regular breaks for things like corners, goal kicks and throw-ins compared to line-outs and drop-outs with free kicks and penalties taking as long in each sport in my opinion. The 1 difference is the penalty kicked into the corner for a line-out there's no equivalent of using a set-piece to gain another in football.

First bold bit - how is that any different to teams passing it around their back 4 for 30-40 seconds as happens regularly when they need a breather?

Second, is that honestly not true for most football games? how often do you see a period where stuff that might be reviewed is happening and the ball stays in play for 3-4 minutes? It's not as common as a lot of people think.

Third, last season or the one before Cobus Reinach had a try disallowed to give a penalty against saints in their 22, I remember it well because I was fucking livid.

Fourth, They already take this into account 4-5 minutes at the end of each half isn't that unusual. On top of that Football is designed around the ball being in play for roughly 2/3rds of the game time and rugby is pretty similar, if you look it up the stats back this up. Most of the clock stopping now is because of injuries or reviews, clubs taking the piss getting ready for scrums and line outs doesn't happen now.

Rugby is still a fundamentally different game, not least in the way the ball is turned over, meaning it is far easier to slow down a game. Even though they have been sped up, it still takes a good 30 seconds every time a line out or scrum is set up, and they often lead directly into another period where the ball is held up either through kicking exchanges or the ball being kept tight.

None of this is to criticise the game, but VAR can work much better in a sport where the expectation is for regular breaks in play, or at least extended periods of slow play. I think the biggest difference between the two sports can be seen from possession metrics - games are regularly won by teams with 30% possession in football. I don’t have the stats to hand, but I would be very surprised if many Rugby teams win matches with that level of possession.

All of this though comes back to what do we want football to be? As you said, top level Rugby might as well be a different sport to the one we have played on a Saturday afternoon - that doesn’t appeal to me at all when it comes to football.

It’s ludicrous that we effectively have different rules operating in the Premier League to every other level of football in England because of VAR. I hate the fact that my first reaction now to a tackle, free kick, penalty or goal is ‘what is VAR going to do’.  One of football’s beauties is its spontaneity, and I just don’t think whatever advantages VAR supposedly brings are worth the price of what is being lost at the moment.

[Toronto Villa]

My eyes are bleeding

[stevenavfc]

The system is in part subjective. The camera angle is usually not in line as required for horse racing. The precise moment the ball is kicked is impossible to determine accurately compared to arbitrary lines that leave no room for judgement. Who checks the pitch dimensions that I assume are the points of reference for said drawn lines? Is the lens aberration in the camera and the monitor checked? Sounds a bit extreme I know but if one part of the process is definitive then everything else has to be. Otherwise a margin for error needs to be included which should favour the attacker. 

[Steve67]

The system is in part subjective. The camera angle is usually not in line as required for horse racing. The precise moment the ball is kicked is impossible to determine accurately compared to arbitrary lines that leave no room for judgement. Who checks the pitch dimensions that I assume are the points of reference for said drawn lines? Is the lens aberration in the camera and the monitor checked? Sounds a bit extreme I know but if one part of the process is definitive then everything else has to be. Otherwise a margin for error needs to be included which should favour the attacker. 

Fantastic post.  I fully agree.

[Lastfootstamper]

Why should it favour the attacker? It's a law meant to stop goals being scored.

[Drummond]

Why should it favour the attacker? It's a law meant to stop goals being scored.

It's a law to stop an attacker from gaining an unfair advantage.

[Brend'Watkins]

It used to favour the defenders. That was when the attacking player receiving the ball had to be behind the last defender. The law changed because everyone wanted to see more goals as that is what the game is all about so they allowed level to be deemed onside. Now, there is no such thing as level. That’s how it appears to me anyway. So we have reverted back to it favouring the defender.

[Ian.]

It’s really only to stop goal hanging, so surely if we’re talking about fingertips, elbows or heals something has gone wrong.

Last season Jack had his back to goal, out on the wing and the back of his heal was slightly off. That’s one of probably over twenty ridiculous decisions we’ve had with VAR.

[Ad@m]

It’s really only to stop goal hanging, so surely if we’re talking about fingertips, elbows or heals something has gone wrong.

Last season Jack had his back to goal, out on the wing and the back of his heal was slightly off. That’s one of probably over twenty ridiculous decisions we’ve had with VAR.

I think it was Wes wasn't it? The Burnley game.

But you're right, the rule is to stop strikers taking the piss and with VAR it's got ridiculously out of hand.

[Ian.]

I was thinking of Jack being called for offside when he crossed for someone, can’t remember who scored and I’m sure it was against Man Utd. The Wes one was yet another stupid VAR incident. Jacks header was ruled out wasn’t it?

[Hinckley Dave]

I really don't care how lines are drawn, different angles, what part of a body counts etc. I still wouldn't care if they somehow managed to come up with a 100% fool proof accurate and quick way of doing it. What I do care about is celebrating bloody goals. It massively pisses me off and is turning me off the game fast that I sit at home watching us score against the stripeys and I just sit there knowing there's no point celebrating as it might not count. Is that the game we all want to see...we score a goal...waaaaait, waaaaait bit more, hang on, bit longer...nearly done, yeah goal stands...wahey!!! Nope.

[WassallVillain]

I really don't care how lines are drawn, different angles, what part of a body counts etc. I still wouldn't care if they somehow managed to come up with a 100% fool proof accurate and quick way of doing it. What I do care about is celebrating bloody goals. It massively pisses me off and is turning me off the game fast that I sit at home watching us score against the stripeys and I just sit there knowing there's no point celebrating as it might not count. Is that the game we all want to see...we score a goal...waaaaait, waaaaait bit more, hang on, bit longer...nearly done, yeah goal stands...wahey!!! Nope.

This is how I feel. Watching a goal being scored is reduced to a soulless waiting period.  It’s Like banking a cheque.  You make an application to have 1 added to your account. If all is correct and above board your funds will be available shortly.

[The Edge]

We now find ourselves in a situation where an elbow or a toe can rule out a goal which of course is ludicrous because the technology right now just can't be so precise and it's really not in the spirit of the game. When they got hold of var originally were the  club's involved? If not why not. Those who were originally involved got it wrong royally. They've dug themselves into a hole and just kept on digging rather than admit they got it wrong. There's an old saying that goes "when you're in a hole stop digging" I just wish someone at the top had the common sense and the balls to call a halt to the whole shabby mess and admit they've messed up and go back to the drawing board. Then re-introduce it once there's a unanimous agreement on how to implement it. In my view it could still be the useful addition to the game that we all hoped for. I'd break it down simply as:
Reviewers at Stockley Park are there to help cut out the OBVIOUS mistakes by referees. If a blatant offside is missed by the officials the ref is told to go to the monitor and have a look. No lines on the screen. Just the ref getting a better view of what he may have missed.
In the case of a possible penalty once again he goes to the monitor. No slow mo's just replays of better angles. And the same for serious foul play with the same criteria.
That's it. That's all that's needed from var, applied fairly and equally.

[dave shelley]

My take on VAR FWIW:

Camera's to cover all perimeter lines of the pitch so that there can be no doubt that the whole of the ball is over the whole of the line should it ever be contentious.

Camera's to cover the half way line to determine if an attacking player is in his own half in a contentious off-side a la Dean Saunders/Jimmy Greaves scenario.

Camera's to cover the penalty area lines to determine inside or not.

Camera's to be used in a case of mistaken identity.

The rest can be put in the fucking bin and hand the game back to the referee and linesmen/women.  We've lived with the game for the best part of one hundred and fifty years and survived until this shit-show and the fools that operate it showed up, I could still live with it.