It's only being tested, to see how the logistics hold up to several, simultaneous matches. Although it's very rare, there can be as many as ten, simultaneous matches in the Premier League.
On the afternoon of the "trial", there are seven Premier League matches, five of them simultaneous. I think it makes a lot of sense to test the robustness of the technology and architecture before it goes live.
But they did it last week with 4 games all kicking off at the same time
4 is not 8. If they're load testing it makes sense.
Other than the last game of the season when u have all 10.
When are you gonna get more than 5 prem games on at the same time
I don't think things do even out over the course of a season. It would be interesting to see if there was any way of working that out; I can see that you can't have it at all levels because of the cost, but that's really no excuse in the PL
Surely the introduction of goal line technology needs to be at all levels (down to League Two at least) before VAR would be introduced outside of the Prem.
However, if they're going to use VAR in a few League Cup games, surely it needs to be used in all in the interest of fairness?
I am not sure I fully follow this argument. While it's better to have the same conditions for every match in the competition, why should it matter if one match has VAR and another doesn't?
Matches are played on different days, at different times, in different weather, under natural light or floodlights, at different altitudes, with different sized crowds. But, in each match, both teams have the same conditions.
Why would it be "unfair" for the Everton v Southampton match to have VAR and the Tottenham v Watford match not? And which team or teams would be disadvantaged?
See my reply above, but ultimately the conditions a match are played in are a moot point. The only consistency should be the rules, which relate to number of players on a team, the rule book, and the officiating team. If one match has 3 officials (4 with the 4th official), but another has 9, more errors can be noticed and decisions can be made. That is unfair to the teams that are not being able to play with VAR being present. Key decisions could be missed which mean they could end up in the next round. In your example Spurs and Watford would be disadvantaged as Spurs could have a clear penalty decision ruled out which would mean they could advance through to the next round.
Look at the Partick Thistle match the other day. They scored a perfectly legitimate goal which was not given. Had goal line technology been present it would have been, and could have given them an extra goal for goal difference meaning they escape relegation or qualify for Europe come the end of the season. Surely it is the same argument with VAR?
Sorry, that doesn't make any sense at all.
Let's replace Spurs or Watford with Charlton.
91st minute. Clear penalty. Not given. If VAR was there it would have been given.
You'd be perfectly happy with that because both teams didn't have the use of VAR?
No, let's not change the scenario I have you, which is based on the next round of the League Cup.
You're suggesting that both Spurs and Watford are at a disadvantage, despite playing each other, because another tie has VAR?
You're making a good argument for VAR, but you're arguing that it should be used only for every match or for no match. Which means that the disadvantage your'e claiming that both Spurs and Watford would disappear if the VAR in the other match were switched off.
I don't think things do even out over the course of a season. It would be interesting to see if there was any way of working that out; I can see that you can't have it at all levels because of the cost, but that's really no excuse in the PL
Surely the introduction of goal line technology needs to be at all levels (down to League Two at least) before VAR would be introduced outside of the Prem.
However, if they're going to use VAR in a few League Cup games, surely it needs to be used in all in the interest of fairness?
I am not sure I fully follow this argument. While it's better to have the same conditions for every match in the competition, why should it matter if one match has VAR and another doesn't?
Matches are played on different days, at different times, in different weather, under natural light or floodlights, at different altitudes, with different sized crowds. But, in each match, both teams have the same conditions.
Why would it be "unfair" for the Everton v Southampton match to have VAR and the Tottenham v Watford match not? And which team or teams would be disadvantaged?
When incidents are reviewed over and over again through VAR, the "not enough for me" line inevitably moves according to the importance of the game.
If Tottenham and Everton(?) were both competing for a place in the champions league and only one of the games could be VAR, both clubs would fight quite strongly to have it. If Southampton and Watford were facing relegation they would both fight not to have it1
Without VAR an incident is a penalty only if the referee sees it and has no doubt!
With VAR, the "not enough for me" threshold will be much lower and any sort of potential contact will be judged a penalty.
VAR is bound to favour the better team!
Not sure why the position in the table makes any difference. The bigger crowds tend to get more decisions going for them anyway, partially due to crowd pressure, whereas the VAR ref in a TV studio is under less pressure and might be more neutral
I don't think things do even out over the course of a season. It would be interesting to see if there was any way of working that out; I can see that you can't have it at all levels because of the cost, but that's really no excuse in the PL
Surely the introduction of goal line technology needs to be at all levels (down to League Two at least) before VAR would be introduced outside of the Prem.
However, if they're going to use VAR in a few League Cup games, surely it needs to be used in all in the interest of fairness?
I am not sure I fully follow this argument. While it's better to have the same conditions for every match in the competition, why should it matter if one match has VAR and another doesn't?
Matches are played on different days, at different times, in different weather, under natural light or floodlights, at different altitudes, with different sized crowds. But, in each match, both teams have the same conditions.
Why would it be "unfair" for the Everton v Southampton match to have VAR and the Tottenham v Watford match not? And which team or teams would be disadvantaged?
See my reply above, but ultimately the conditions a match are played in are a moot point. The only consistency should be the rules, which relate to number of players on a team, the rule book, and the officiating team. If one match has 3 officials (4 with the 4th official), but another has 9, more errors can be noticed and decisions can be made. That is unfair to the teams that are not being able to play with VAR being present. Key decisions could be missed which mean they could end up in the next round. In your example Spurs and Watford would be disadvantaged as Spurs could have a clear penalty decision ruled out which would mean they could advance through to the next round.
Look at the Partick Thistle match the other day. They scored a perfectly legitimate goal which was not given. Had goal line technology been present it would have been, and could have given them an extra goal for goal difference meaning they escape relegation or qualify for Europe come the end of the season. Surely it is the same argument with VAR?
Sorry, that doesn't make any sense at all.
Let's replace Spurs or Watford with Charlton.
91st minute. Clear penalty. Not given. If VAR was there it would have been given.
You'd be perfectly happy with that because both teams didn't have the use of VAR?
No, let's not change the scenario I have you, which is based on the next round of the League Cup.
You're suggesting that both Spurs and Watford are at a disadvantage, despite playing each other, because another tie has VAR?
You're making a good argument for VAR, but you're arguing that it should be used only for every match or for no match. Which means that the disadvantage your'e claiming that both Spurs and Watford would disappear if the VAR in the other match were switched off.
Yes it would disappear, but the advantage that the other match would have would also disappear.
How is it fair that Spurs v Watford would not get a penalty given that would be given in the other match?
I don't think things do even out over the course of a season. It would be interesting to see if there was any way of working that out; I can see that you can't have it at all levels because of the cost, but that's really no excuse in the PL
Surely the introduction of goal line technology needs to be at all levels (down to League Two at least) before VAR would be introduced outside of the Prem.
However, if they're going to use VAR in a few League Cup games, surely it needs to be used in all in the interest of fairness?
I am not sure I fully follow this argument. While it's better to have the same conditions for every match in the competition, why should it matter if one match has VAR and another doesn't?
Matches are played on different days, at different times, in different weather, under natural light or floodlights, at different altitudes, with different sized crowds. But, in each match, both teams have the same conditions.
Why would it be "unfair" for the Everton v Southampton match to have VAR and the Tottenham v Watford match not? And which team or teams would be disadvantaged?
See my reply above, but ultimately the conditions a match are played in are a moot point. The only consistency should be the rules, which relate to number of players on a team, the rule book, and the officiating team. If one match has 3 officials (4 with the 4th official), but another has 9, more errors can be noticed and decisions can be made. That is unfair to the teams that are not being able to play with VAR being present. Key decisions could be missed which mean they could end up in the next round. In your example Spurs and Watford would be disadvantaged as Spurs could have a clear penalty decision ruled out which would mean they could advance through to the next round.
Look at the Partick Thistle match the other day. They scored a perfectly legitimate goal which was not given. Had goal line technology been present it would have been, and could have given them an extra goal for goal difference meaning they escape relegation or qualify for Europe come the end of the season. Surely it is the same argument with VAR?
Sorry, that doesn't make any sense at all.
Let's replace Spurs or Watford with Charlton.
91st minute. Clear penalty. Not given. If VAR was there it would have been given.
You'd be perfectly happy with that because both teams didn't have the use of VAR?
No, let's not change the scenario I have you, which is based on the next round of the League Cup.
You're suggesting that both Spurs and Watford are at a disadvantage, despite playing each other, because another tie has VAR?
You're making a good argument for VAR, but you're arguing that it should be used only for every match or for no match. Which means that the disadvantage your'e claiming that both Spurs and Watford would disappear if the VAR in the other match were switched off.
Yes it would disappear, but the advantage that the other match would have would also disappear.
How is it fair that Spurs v Watford would not get a penalty given that would be given in the other match?
This is getting more and more bizarre!
Explain to me how having VAR in one match means that both sides in another match that does not have VAR are disadvantaged.
You're actually doubling down on the suggestion that two teams are equally disadvantaged, because of the way a match that neither of them is - or can be - playing in, is administered. So, if the VAR in the other match was switched off half-way through, would Spurs and Watford both suddenly become less disadvantaged?
What would happen if thy didn't tell the Spurs and Watford players whether the other match had VAR? Or, even worse, if the Spurs players were told the other match didn't have VAR and the Watford players were told it did, would that mean the Watford players thought they were disadvantaged and therefore might play with a bit more commitment and fury?
If a competition is set up with certain rules, then all matches have to meet the same conditions, including how the match is officiated.
The advantage/disadvantage is not about the particular teams in a certain match. It’s about fairness for all teams over the course of the season/competition. Hence why in the Premier League every team plays every team once at home and once away. With 11 men. With 7 subs. With 4 officials. With goal line technology.
If only every other match was played with VAR how is that fair to the teams that haven’t played in those matches? Decisions made in those matches are never given the chance to be decided in matches where VAR isn’t used. It isn’t a level playing field.
If a competition is set up with certain rules, then all matches have to meet the same conditions, including how the match is officiated.
The advantage/disadvantage is not about the particular teams in a certain match. It’s about fairness for all teams over the course of the season/competition. Hence why in the Premier League every team plays every team once at home and once away. With 11 men. With 7 subs. With 4 officials. With goal line technology.
If only every other match was played with VAR how is that fair to the teams that haven’t played in those matches? Decisions made in those matches are never given the chance to be decided in matches where VAR isn’t used. It isn’t a level playing field.
Each team only plays its opposition in each match, no-one else. It doesn't matter what goes on in any of the other matches. You beat your opponents and you're through to the next round; they're not: it doesn't matter what happens in any other match.
You're suggesting a scenario where the only football competitions that are fair are ones where every match is played with VAR. So should we scrap the results of matches that weren't played with VAR?
Every team plays every match under the same conditions as its opponents. How is that not fair?
So let’s play one match with only 10 men a side. Let’s play one match with 2 balls. Let’s play one match with no ref.
You’ve either got to play every match in a competition with VAR or without VAR. It’s not about fairness in that one match. It’s about fairness for every team over the whole completion.
VAR not used in a match between Man U and Yeovil. Because of this Yeovil don’t get a clear penalty that would have been given if VAR was present and don’t go through to the next round. Now the team who will play Man U in the next round have an unfair draw and face a harder team than they would have if Yeovil had been given that penalty and won the match.
Take the League Cup out of it and use the Premier League as an example. If you don’t use it in every match then teams may win or lose matches that they would have otherwise lost or won, having an impact on all other teams in the league regarding qualifying for Europe or relegation even though they haven’t played in those matches.
Comments
When are you gonna get more than 5 prem games on at the same time
You're suggesting that both Spurs and Watford are at a disadvantage, despite playing each other, because another tie has VAR?
You're making a good argument for VAR, but you're arguing that it should be used only for every match or for no match. Which means that the disadvantage your'e claiming that both Spurs and Watford would disappear if the VAR in the other match were switched off.
How is it fair that Spurs v Watford would not get a penalty given that would be given in the other match?
Explain to me how having VAR in one match means that both sides in another match that does not have VAR are disadvantaged.
You're actually doubling down on the suggestion that two teams are equally disadvantaged, because of the way a match that neither of them is - or can be - playing in, is administered. So, if the VAR in the other match was switched off half-way through, would Spurs and Watford both suddenly become less disadvantaged?
What would happen if thy didn't tell the Spurs and Watford players whether the other match had VAR? Or, even worse, if the Spurs players were told the other match didn't have VAR and the Watford players were told it did, would that mean the Watford players thought they were disadvantaged and therefore might play with a bit more commitment and fury?
You see where this is going?
If a competition is set up with certain rules, then all matches have to meet the same conditions, including how the match is officiated.
The advantage/disadvantage is not about the particular teams in a certain match. It’s about fairness for all teams over the course of the season/competition. Hence why in the Premier League every team plays every team once at home and once away. With 11 men. With 7 subs. With 4 officials. With goal line technology.
If only every other match was played with VAR how is that fair to the teams that haven’t played in those matches? Decisions made in those matches are never given the chance to be decided in matches where VAR isn’t used. It isn’t a level playing field.
You're suggesting a scenario where the only football competitions that are fair are ones where every match is played with VAR. So should we scrap the results of matches that weren't played with VAR?
Every team plays every match under the same conditions as its opponents. How is that not fair?
You’ve either got to play every match in a competition with VAR or without VAR. It’s not about fairness in that one match. It’s about fairness for every team over the whole completion.
VAR not used in a match between Man U and Yeovil. Because of this Yeovil don’t get a clear penalty that would have been given if VAR was present and don’t go through to the next round. Now the team who will play Man U in the next round have an unfair draw and face a harder team than they would have if Yeovil had been given that penalty and won the match.
Take the League Cup out of it and use the Premier League as an example. If you don’t use it in every match then teams may win or lose matches that they would have otherwise lost or won, having an impact on all other teams in the league regarding qualifying for Europe or relegation even though they haven’t played in those matches.
FAIRNESS.
Let's agree to disagree, shall we?
The Premier League will now make a formal request to the International Football Association Board and Fifa.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46224473