Quote from: paul_e on December 07, 2021, 10:18:39 AMQuote from: Clive W on December 07, 2021, 09:56:32 AMI 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 angleI 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 upheldI'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.
Quote from: Clive W on December 07, 2021, 09:56:32 AMI 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 angleI 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 upheldI'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.
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 angleI 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
Whats the worst that is going to happen? Refs get abused, booed etc because the crowd don't agree with the decision? It all happens now. I'd wager that more transparent the decision making process the less abuse officials and players would get. By all means make a bad decision if people know you've gone through all the available information and still made a bad decision it is what it is. It's this closed shop, behind closed doors, closing ranks, monumental arse covering that goes on from the whole set up that riles everyone up because it makes them look more crooked than they are. (Apart from Kevin friend he's definitely a cheating ******)
Quote from: Smoke on December 07, 2021, 10:53:32 AMWhats the worst that is going to happen? Refs get abused, booed etc because the crowd don't agree with the decision? It all happens now. I'd wager that more transparent the decision making process the less abuse officials and players would get. By all means make a bad decision if people know you've gone through all the available information and still made a bad decision it is what it is. It's this closed shop, behind closed doors, closing ranks, monumental arse covering that goes on from the whole set up that riles everyone up because it makes them look more crooked than they are. (Apart from Kevin friend he's definitely a cheating ******) Referee's are not crooks, incompetent at times yes but not crooks. No referee, no football.
They want the controversy They want the pissed off fans. The clear and obvious mistake error is totally ignored - if it wasn't then they wouldn't take 5 minutes looking at them! All about entertainment, pure and simple, adding a bit of jeopardy to the SKY armchair viewers. Once you realise that, then you can ignore it.
As someone explained above, the VAR experience for fans at home watching on TV is SO far removed from the experience in the ground that something has to change, surely?I completely understand why they don't show everything, particularly the 'clear and obvious error reviews' because it doesn't matter how many times you show it, there will always be differences of opinion on those. Much less so for balls crossing lines and offsides, where the decision is much more clear-cut.Can you imagine if they HAD shown the Schmeichel/Ramsey incident in slow-motion and freeze-frame on the big screen? You'd have 40k fans utterly convinced he didn't have "control of the ball" and that a goal would definitely be awarded, then absolute carnage when it wasn't. I'm generally pretty calm at the football (excited by the good, but rarely too angered by the bad), but watching at home I was completely incensed - I can't imagine how the mood would have evolved had I been sat in the Holte with similarly aggrieved fans having seen the same angles.So I get the dilemma that they have, but something needs to change. What, or how, I don't know.I like the idea of the refs being mic'd up for VAR reviews, so they can at least explain the decision - even if you haven't seen it. A ref saying "Goalkeeper had his hand on top the ball while it was on the ground, foul given" might have helped - maybe? They couldn't be mic'd for the rest of the game as broadcasters would be forever apologising for the bad language heard from the players. Rugby has a definite advantage there in terms of player behaviour.
It was a bit more that a few fans getting grumpy and booing. It was a collective expression of disbelief and then reference to the referees assumed sexual behaviour.
Quote from: Brend'Watkins on December 07, 2021, 02:45:50 PMIt was a bit more that a few fans getting grumpy and booing. It was a collective expression of disbelief and then reference to the referees assumed sexual behaviour. So just the same as every other match then?I'd rather see the video, especially as the forecasted scenes of "carnage" didn't happen when we did.
Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.
Author
Topic: VAR (Read 347775 times)
