I'd like to see "time ball in play" stats published. see how much of a 90 minute game we actually see.
It's around an hour, just over on average. There has been calls in the past for a 60 minute game with the watched stopped NFL-style for every stoppage, no matter how minor or short. I think the FA feel that it would actually lead to games at lower levels being less accurately timed than more. The 90 mins plus a few minutes typical game works out about right on average, where a supposed 60 minutes game with every stoppage accurately tracked will lead to wildly fluctuating playing times, at least initially.
Official rules for the length of a football match.
First half
46 minutes 47 minutes if the game was stopped for any injury.
Second Half 48 minutes +1 minute if the game was stopped for any injury. +1 minute if the away team is winning or drawing and has been slowing the game down. +1 minute if the game is deemed by the referee to be "very important".
In addition, the referee will add time for serious injuries where the game is stopped for three minutes or more. In this case the referee adds the actual length of time lost less two minutes.
Wellington Phoenix v Melbourne Victory (earlier today) had a whopping 8 mins added to the first half. This was mainly due to the VAR, as they had to go back and check an incident several times.
Wellington Phoenix v Melbourne Victory (earlier today) had a whopping 8 mins added to the first half. This was mainly due to the VAR, as they had to go back and check an incident several times.
I've watched lots of Italian and German games this season. None have gone on that long, you don't know it's there unless something big is at stake (at most twice a game) and then justice is done.
I like it, Charlton could have benefitted from it a lot in the past.
Official rules for the length of a football match.
First half
46 minutes 47 minutes if the game was stopped for any injury.
Second Half 48 minutes +1 minute if the game was stopped for any injury. +1 minute if the away team is winning or drawing and has been slowing the game down. +1 minute if the game is deemed by the referee to be "very important".
In addition, the referee will add time for serious injuries where the game is stopped for three minutes or more. In this case the referee adds the actual length of time lost less two minutes.
Official rules for the length of a football match.
First half
46 minutes 47 minutes if the game was stopped for any injury.
Second Half 48 minutes +1 minute if the game was stopped for any injury. +1 minute if the away team is winning or drawing and has been slowing the game down. +1 minute if the game is deemed by the referee to be "very important".
In addition, the referee will add time for serious injuries where the game is stopped for three minutes or more. In this case the referee adds the actual length of time lost less two minutes.
I'd like to see "time ball in play" stats published. see how much of a 90 minute game we actually see.
It's around an hour, just over on average. There has been calls in the past for a 60 minute game with the watched stopped NFL-style for every stoppage, no matter how minor or short. I think the FA feel that it would actually lead to games at lower levels being less accurately timed than more. The 90 mins plus a few minutes typical game works out about right on average, where a supposed 60 minutes game with every stoppage accurately tracked will lead to wildly fluctuating playing times, at least initially.
The minute they introduced goal line technology in the top flight only, football started to be played under different sets of rules depending on the level. VAR extends this "us and them" even more, so NFL style for the big boys and the status quo for the rest isn't a stretch. It's just getting the authorities to admit they now preside over two (slightly) different games and going the whole hog.
I do not agree with this at all personally, but it's what most people want.
In that situation it worked really well as play had been stopped as the goal had been scored.
It will cause an issue if the ref keeps blowing up to look at each and every penalty decision and stopping play, when normally play would continue if the ref didn't think it was a penalty.
The ref can't keep blowing up to look at each decision. The trial is designed so VAR can only be used when there is already a break in play in 4 specific circumstances: Check for offside after a goal is scored/disallowed Check if a given penalty shouldn't have been given Check if a red card really should have been red Check in the case of mistaken identity (which only really comes into play when a player is booked).
In all those cases the game has already stopped, more than likely the players are already hassling the referee and 1min for VAR really isn't going to make much difference (we've seen Man Utd players chase a ref on-mass for minutes on end in the past).
I'm all for VAR but surely it should be like cricket & the reviews screened for all to see. Last nights "review" was a damp squib imo - everyone waiting around not knowing what was being looked at or if the lino was right or wrong. The tv viewers had to rely on the tv production rather than what the VAR ref was looking at & the crowd knew jack shit. More crowd participation needed.
The ref can't keep blowing up to look at each decision. The trial is designed so VAR can only be used when there is already a break in play in 4 specific circumstances: Check for offside after a goal is scored/disallowed Check if a given penalty shouldn't have been given Check if a red card really should have been red Check in the case of mistaken identity (which only really comes into play when a player is booked).
In all those cases the game has already stopped, more than likely the players are already hassling the referee and 1min for VAR really isn't going to make much difference (we've seen Man Utd players chase a ref on-mass for minutes on end in the past).
How long before managers are moaning that VAR isn't being used to check if a penalty SHOULD have been given though?
I'm all for VAR but surely it should be like cricket & the reviews screened for all to see. Last nights "review" was a damp squib imo - everyone waiting around not knowing what was being looked at or if the lino was right or wrong. The tv viewers had to rely on the tv production rather than what the VAR ref was looking at & the crowd knew jack shit. More crowd participation needed.
Definitely agree, not only should we all be able to see it, but like in cricket and rugby, we should be able to hear the conversation between the ref and the VAR. I'd like refs to explain all decisions really, like when a flag is thrown in NFL. So often referees seems to give decisions because the assume something must have happened that they didn't see clearly (and are punished for not giving by the refereeing adjudicators). That simply wouldn't happen if the referee had to say why it was a foul, he's not going to announce to a stadium, "free kick to the defence because there was a bit of pushing and shoving, couldn't really see exactly who, but it feels like there was probably a foul", if the referee can't with any certainty say what the foul was, who committed it and on whom he committed it, then it shouldn't be given.
The other mistake with the way VAR is set-up is that it's all based on the referee. The VAR can't look at a situation and signal the ref to act, the ref has to call for VAR. The whole system may be faster and more efficient if the VAR is given a chance to preempt the ref and look at stuff independently, calling the ref's attention to the important stuff.
The ref can't keep blowing up to look at each decision. The trial is designed so VAR can only be used when there is already a break in play in 4 specific circumstances: Check for offside after a goal is scored/disallowed Check if a given penalty shouldn't have been given Check if a red card really should have been red Check in the case of mistaken identity (which only really comes into play when a player is booked).
In all those cases the game has already stopped, more than likely the players are already hassling the referee and 1min for VAR really isn't going to make much difference (we've seen Man Utd players chase a ref on-mass for minutes on end in the past).
Last night the offside was effectively only relevant after the ball was in the net.
In a situation where the play is (incorrectly) stopped before the attacker shoots, and the keeper and defenders stop playing after hearing the whistle there's no way a goal could be given, even if the ball ends up in the net surely?
The Comms is the issue with VAR looking at how its worked in Italy and Germany, were there is no idea of whats happened/or why its been refer to VAR. Might be the time to open up the Ref's mic when it is referred up.
Comments
WTF?
Well there's the thing. Mention that at a Continental game and you will be met with a blank stare. Seems like an English invention.
I like it, Charlton could have benefitted from it a lot in the past.
One weekend back in August, there was just 47 minutes of actual play between Burnley and West Brom.
Not sure we can have 25 minutes of added time in each half.
Tom Daley may have some tough competition in the coming years.
Who would like to be remembered as the first cheat to be caught on VAR? Have the bookies opened betting yet? What are Zaha’s odds?
I do not agree with this at all personally, but it's what most people want.
VAR overruled and gave the goal.
First VAR goal in English football.
Remember that for future quizzes.
It will cause an issue if the ref keeps blowing up to look at each and every penalty decision and stopping play, when normally play would continue if the ref didn't think it was a penalty.
Check for offside after a goal is scored/disallowed
Check if a given penalty shouldn't have been given
Check if a red card really should have been red
Check in the case of mistaken identity (which only really comes into play when a player is booked).
In all those cases the game has already stopped, more than likely the players are already hassling the referee and 1min for VAR really isn't going to make much difference (we've seen Man Utd players chase a ref on-mass for minutes on end in the past).
The other mistake with the way VAR is set-up is that it's all based on the referee. The VAR can't look at a situation and signal the ref to act, the ref has to call for VAR. The whole system may be faster and more efficient if the VAR is given a chance to preempt the ref and look at stuff independently, calling the ref's attention to the important stuff.
On top of this each club should be able to call on it ONCE per game, the refs use can be down to as and when for the ref.
Excellent.
In a situation where the play is (incorrectly) stopped before the attacker shoots, and the keeper and defenders stop playing after hearing the whistle there's no way a goal could be given, even if the ball ends up in the net surely?