VAR

[Drummond]

I was coming from the perspective of a clear and obvious error. If you remove that wording, and just let them help out, then slow mo etc is fine. If a ref just said, 'I didn't see that clearly, would you check for me please?' or the VAR official, said 'I think you may have missed that foul, I'll double check it' it may work.

[paul_e]

I was coming from the perspective of a clear and obvious error. If you remove that wording, and just let them help out, then slow mo etc is fine. If a ref just said, 'I didn't see that clearly, would you check for me please?' or the VAR official, said 'I think you may have missed that foul, I'll double check it' it may work.

I'm not against using a slo-mo but I do think in a lot of cases it distorts the timings too much to be of use. To stick with using rugby as the benchmark the one I don't like is using a slo-mo when reviewing a late tackle, it becomes very easy to convince yourself a player had time to adjust when you're watching it frame by frame, if it looks late on a real-time replay then that's fine but if you have to slow it down to be sure then you're already on tyhe path of giving a bad decision. Coming back to football I think that applies perfectly to the disallowed Ramsey goal, in real time there's no chance you say the keeper has it under control but slowed down it changes things.


I can't think of many cases where slowing things down will give a better view other than the ball crossing a line or offside, and I think they've got the important parts of those right now (maybe needs to be reviewed for the ball going out of play in the build up to goals/incidents but that's a very rare problem anyway.

[Risso]

Again, I know I keep banging on about rugby, but the way VAR is applied there works.  The video ref is there to save his mate on the field from making an absolute horlicks of a decision.  He's not re-referreeing and he's not there to show the onfield ref up.  If the onfield ref misses something, he's there to say "you might want to have another look at that one mate as I think you might have missed something".

The relationship is one of being part of a team who's overall aim is to avoid being the story in the Monday papers.  Not as a team under seige having to prove that the onfield ref always makes the right decision and the VAR is there to back that up.

I agree with it in principle, but you have to factor in the big difference between rugby and football crowds. Even in the biggest derby in rugby, fans all go quiet for both sets of kickers. Imagine the crowd watching multiple replays of a tackle like the Harry Kane one at a Villa - Blues match (I know, unlikely, but bear with me) or Leeds - Man U.

[paul_e]

Again, I know I keep banging on about rugby, but the way VAR is applied there works.  The video ref is there to save his mate on the field from making an absolute horlicks of a decision.  He's not re-referreeing and he's not there to show the onfield ref up.  If the onfield ref misses something, he's there to say "you might want to have another look at that one mate as I think you might have missed something".

The relationship is one of being part of a team who's overall aim is to avoid being the story in the Monday papers.  Not as a team under seige having to prove that the onfield ref always makes the right decision and the VAR is there to back that up.

I agree with it in principle, but you have to factor in the big difference between rugby and football crowds. Even in the biggest derby in rugby, fans all go quiet for both sets of kickers. Imagine the crowd watching multiple replays of a tackle like the Harry Kane one at a Villa - Blues match (I know, unlikely, but bear with me) or Leeds - Man U.

The cultural differences do matter but I'm not sure decision making should be decided on the basis that there are people in the crowd who just want to go and fight the opposition, that's the sort of thinking that leads to fences around the pitch again.

[chrisw1]

I do think it's an issue.  But they can still work it without showing it all on the big screen.  They can have several monitors around the ground (not next to the dug outs) and let the ref watch it again there and make his mind up.  If necessary there could be headphones available so he can hear the VAR and block out the croud noise whilst he makes his decision.  So long as fans are informed what is going on they don't necessarily need to see re-runs of the incident in close up within the stadium.

[Scott Nielsen]

So Kane's red card was not a red card because, erm, he is Kane?

Peter Walton pretty much confirming that players will be treated differently in terms of punishment because of their reputation (despite last para caveat):
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/18f9cc02-6116-11ec-b279-fa13aec304af?shareToken=0ff350ae701060acd7f4b643a1075865

[Ad@m]

So Kane's red card was not a red card because, erm, he is Kane?

Peter Walton pretty much confirming that players will be treated differently in terms of punishment because of their reputation (despite last para caveat):
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/18f9cc02-6116-11ec-b279-fa13aec304af?shareToken=0ff350ae701060acd7f4b643a1075865

If Walton is right (and I'm not sure he is), "clear and obvious" has to go as a concept.  To say that allowing play to carry on after Jota was pushed over as he was about to shoot was not a clear and obvious error is mental.  The ref got it wrong.  VAR should be there to help him.

It's a mess.

[The Edge]

So Kane's red card was not a red card because, erm, he is Kane?

Peter Walton pretty much confirming that players will be treated differently in terms of punishment because of their reputation (despite last para caveat):
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/18f9cc02-6116-11ec-b279-fa13aec304af?shareToken=0ff350ae701060acd7f4b643a1075865

Is it any wonder how much of a clusterfuck they have made from var when a former senior official like him can tie himself up in knots like this? How can a tackle be deemed less dangerous because a players foot isn't quite planted on the ground? Kane was out of control and his studs catching Robertson in the shin could easily have still snapped bone by driving the foot straight into the turf. He goes on to say that each incident is judged solely on its merits so why does it matter if Kanes last red was 10 years ago or 10 days ago? Why even bring that up?

[sickbeggar]

Clear and obvious is their means of never having to admit to getting it wrong. it's actually a work of genius if you think about it.

[Lastfootstamper]

I know it was in a rather one-sided game, but has there been much mention of the incident in the Newcastle game where Edison wiped out Fraser?

[Ad@m]

I know it was in a rather one-sided game, but has there been much mention of the incident in the Newcastle game where Edison wiped out Fraser?

Shearer went to town on it on MotD.

[Lastfootstamper]

I know it was in a rather one-sided game, but has there been much mention of the incident in the Newcastle game where Edison wiped out Fraser?

Shearer went to town on it on MotD.

The explanation I've heard is that it didn't matter because Cancelo came away with the ball? Wouldn't that set a precedent that means any challenge off the ball need never be punished?

[Risso]

Peter Walton is an utter waste of oxygen.

[Ad@m]

I know it was in a rather one-sided game, but has there been much mention of the incident in the Newcastle game where Edison wiped out Fraser?

Shearer went to town on it on MotD.

The explanation I've heard is that it didn't matter because Cancelo came away with the ball? Wouldn't that set a precedent that means any challenge off the ball need never be punished?

Precisely what Shearer said.

[sickbeggar]

Someone needs to embarrass them.  Pass to your 'keeper with the ball in play and get him to just crouch there with his palm on the ball for 5 minutes.