VAR

[tony scott]

That’s crazy what if we had been awarded a penalty in that time, and also what would happen if a player committed a really bad red card tackle injuring an opponent?

[cdbearsfan]

Our penalty would have been nullified for their earlier penalty. A red card would have been cancelled if it caused the cancelled penalty, unless it was for something like violent conduct, dissent, or racist/homophobic language. I think!

[Gareth]

Still nowhere near a fit for purpose system though yesterdays farce was more about the users than the system.

- monitors are utterly pointless, the moment the ref goes to a monitor the doubt has been seen in his mind and they always change the decision - complete waste of time that spectators have paid for.
- usage of slo-mo replays creates incidents when there is no incident, should only use real speed replays.
- crowd in ground are still in the dark about checks & progress of the checks - pathetic
- offsides given by var are still subjective because absolutely no technology to measure the split second a pass is made so no proof that the lines are placed on the correct video frame

Pathetic system administered by clueless oafs like a Riley was never going to be foolproof but it still creates more arguments than it solves.

[sickbeggar]

I view it as entertainment gimmick now so it doesn't bother me so much. it's whole purpose is to stir up controversy rather than stop it and it certainly works with that aim in mind. Sky obviously love it. If we get penalised, its par for the course, if we benefit from it, I still hate it

[PaulTheVillan]

I really don't think they should show anything in slow motion.

[Concrete Tom]

If they stick to the “clear and obvious” error methodology, VAR isn’t so bad.

But in reality, they are overusing the technology to wade in where there is no “clear and obvious” error.

[dcdavecollett]

Agreed.

We've now been robbed v Arsenal and on Sunday as well.

[Smoke]

The Ref should be in charge just like in rugby and have a dialogue with the VAR official, ask for more views and watch the whole incident from every available angle.

It boils my piss that the ref is told to go and look at 1 freeze frame from a certain angle normally showing the "worst" possible view favouring the way the var wants the decision to go.


For example Watkins vs Evans through kn goal the other day. I think everyone would be much happier for the play to continue to it's conclusion for the ref to then say, VAR I think there was a foul in that passage of play let's have a look. Then, Show it on the big screen for everyone to see what's being viewed to inform the decision.

I'm sure players would like twice about diving and rolling around like they've been shot for a penalty if its going to be rewatched in slow mo from 4 different angles by 40/50k people in the crowd.

The ref should be charge of the entire game and should have the balls to own decisions infront of the crowd.

[frank black]

The VAR process treats supporters with utter contempt. It’s OK for the sofa fans to see the replays and understand what VAR are looking at, but oh no, not the actual fans at the game. We are just a bunch of knuckle dragging hooligans that would riot at every controversial decision…When we score I want to see the instant replay on the screen, not a blank screen and a ref with his hand to his ear.. it’s pathetic and I hate the whole process with a passion 

[Clive W]

I like the rugby approach. Everyone can see what the officials are looking at and can hear the discussions taking place. My only concern is the time that some of the rugby decisions take. It can sometimes take a couple of minutes to review everything from every conceivable angle

I would advocate adopting the rugby system but putting a time limit on the VAR review.

If, say, after 30 seconds it is still unclear, then obviously a “clear and obvious error” has not been made and the on-pitch decision should be upheld

[sickbeggar]

If they stick to the “clear and obvious” error methodology, VAR isn’t so bad.

But in reality, they are overusing the technology to wade in where there is no “clear and obvious” error.

Yeah but its not about the rules, its about entertainment. and stirring up controversy. If you see it from that POV then it all makes perfect sense. If the ref had disallowed our goal/given it, the amount of media scrutiny would have been far less. It's the aspect of changing a decision already made that generates the entertainment.

[paul_e]

I like the rugby approach. Everyone can see what the officials are looking at and can hear the discussions taking place. My only concern is the time that some of the rugby decisions take. It can sometimes take a couple of minutes to review everything from every conceivable angle

I would advocate adopting the rugby system but putting a time limit on the VAR review.

If, say, after 30 seconds it is still unclear, then obviously a “clear and obvious error” has not been made and the on-pitch decision should be upheld

I'd say you see 1 or 2 that take longer than 30 seconds per weekend in the rugby (I watch pretty much every minute of it, either live or here - https://www.premiershiprugby.com/prtv/) they have the balance spot on. Having the ref mic'ed up it a big part because you know what is going on all the time and they are explaining the decisions. As I said on the match thread, the one where he blew up as Watkins was about to shoot was, in my opinion, a far bigger problem than the one everyone is talking about. It's exactly the sort of scenario where VAR gives the ref extra tools to ensure he's gettings right but too many of them are scared of using it that way.

[London Villan]

The Ref should be in charge just like in rugby and have a dialogue with the VAR official, ask for more views and watch the whole incident from every available angle.

It boils my piss that the ref is told to go and look at 1 freeze frame from a certain angle normally showing the "worst" possible view favouring the way the var wants the decision to go.


For example Watkins vs Evans through kn goal the other day. I think everyone would be much happier for the play to continue to it's conclusion for the ref to then say, VAR I think there was a foul in that passage of play let's have a look. Then, Show it on the big screen for everyone to see what's being viewed to inform the decision.

I'm sure players would like twice about diving and rolling around like they've been shot for a penalty if its going to be rewatched in slow mo from 4 different angles by 40/50k people in the crowd.

The ref should be charge of the entire game and should have the balls to own decisions infront of the crowd.

Like the flag system in NFL - play it to the conclusion and then review if there has been a "flag". Not seen a replay of Watkins and Evans but I can imagine it was very marginal.

[London Villan]

And yes the ref should tell the fans in the ground why the decision has been overturned. Arrogant twats.

[Risso]

I like the rugby approach. Everyone can see what the officials are looking at and can hear the discussions taking place. My only concern is the time that some of the rugby decisions take. It can sometimes take a couple of minutes to review everything from every conceivable angle

I would advocate adopting the rugby system but putting a time limit on the VAR review.

If, say, after 30 seconds it is still unclear, then obviously a “clear and obvious error” has not been made and the on-pitch decision should be upheld

I'd say you see 1 or 2 that take longer than 30 seconds per weekend in the rugby (I watch pretty much every minute of it, either live or here - https://www.premiershiprugby.com/prtv/) they have the balance spot on. Having the ref mic'ed up it a big part because you know what is going on all the time and they are explaining the decisions. As I said on the match thread, the one where he blew up as Watkins was about to shoot was, in my opinion, a far bigger problem than the one everyone is talking about. It's exactly the sort of scenario where VAR gives the ref extra tools to ensure he's gettings right but too many of them are scared of using it that way.

It's been alluded to before, but the difference between rugby and football crowds is like night and day. At rugby all fans go quiet for whichever team's player is trying to kick a conversion, can you imagine that at a football match.? I like the idea of the ref explaining VAR decisions in theory, but I think in practice it would lead to trouble.