You would genuinely just throw it in the bin because of one failure? The entire thing has failed? What a ridiculous attitude.
Yes I would.
If the purpose of the change is to prevent errors or to stop players, managers and staff arguing, it has demonstrably failed on both counts. It therefore doesn't work.
That doesn't, of course, mean that a different system might not work. If there's a better system, it might be worth considering that. But this one has failed, so the test need not continue.
The "ridiculous" thing to do would be to continue to support a failed concept.
You failed it without starting it.
PS could we cut a deal where you don't use the patronising quotation marks if we happen to converse?
You would genuinely just throw it in the bin because of one failure? The entire thing has failed? What a ridiculous attitude.
Yes I would.
If the purpose of the change is to prevent errors or to stop players, managers and staff arguing, it has demonstrably failed on both counts. It therefore doesn't work.
That doesn't, of course, mean that a different system might not work. If there's a better system, it might be worth considering that. But this one has failed, so the test need not continue.
The "ridiculous" thing to do would be to continue to support a failed concept.
You failed it without starting it.
PS could we cut a deal where you don't use the patronising quotation marks if we happen to converse?
Yes, it's fair to say I failed it without starting it. It's now been started and it's failed. That's why I think it should be scrapped entirely, or replaced with a better-thought-out system. Preferably the former.
It's not prevent errors, it's to reduce them. In an ideal world, errors are not made but that's not going to happen with whatever measures we take.
You''ll never get a perfect system, nor do you get a near perfect system straight away. You put something in place that you're confident works better than already used and you refine it going forward to make the system better.
Say for example, referees get offside decisions wrong 2.5% of the time. Why would you not implement a system that starts at 1% error and continue to improve the system as and when you can?
By contrast, doing nothing is to suggest that the current level of refereeing mistakes are fine when multi-millions are on the line.
Let me ask you a question about this @Callumcafc - without any prejudice. I'd be interested to know your opinion on this...
There were three "goals" in the match. Ignore the first (awarded) and third (whistled). But, concentrate on the second. The ref awarded the goal, but then asked for the VAR. What question was the ref asking?
It's not prevent errors, it's to reduce them. In an ideal world, errors are not made but that's not going to happen with whatever measures we take.
You''ll never get a perfect system, nor do you get a near perfect system straight away. You put something in place that you're confident works better than already used and you refine it going forward to make the system better.
Say for example, referees get offside decisions wrong 2.5% of the time. Why would you not implement a system that starts at 1% error and continue to improve the system as and when you can?
By contrast, doing nothing is to suggest that the current level of refereeing mistakes are fine when multi-millions are on the line.
Let me ask you a question about this @Callumcafc - without any prejudice. I'd be interested to know your opinion on this...
There were three "goals" in the match. Ignore the first (awarded) and third (whistled). But, concentrate on the second. The ref awarded the goal, but then asked for the VAR. What question was the ref asking?
Wasn't the goal disallowed before video replays were called for?
I don't intend to speculate on what the ref on the field asked. The video ref watched the action from multiple angles and was satisfied that there was no reason to disallow the goal. You can only ask him why he came to that conclusion.
I don't think it can be denied that a human being, in the long run, will be able to make more correct decisions with the benefit of multiple angles of an incident, as well as enough time to think clearly.
It's not prevent errors, it's to reduce them. In an ideal world, errors are not made but that's not going to happen with whatever measures we take.
You''ll never get a perfect system, nor do you get a near perfect system straight away. You put something in place that you're confident works better than already used and you refine it going forward to make the system better.
Say for example, referees get offside decisions wrong 2.5% of the time. Why would you not implement a system that starts at 1% error and continue to improve the system as and when you can?
By contrast, doing nothing is to suggest that the current level of refereeing mistakes are fine when multi-millions are on the line.
Let me ask you a question about this @Callumcafc - without any prejudice. I'd be interested to know your opinion on this...
There were three "goals" in the match. Ignore the first (awarded) and third (whistled). But, concentrate on the second. The ref awarded the goal, but then asked for the VAR. What question was the ref asking?
Wasn't the goal disallowed before video replays were called for?
I don't intend to speculate on what the ref on the field asked. The video ref watched the action from multiple angles and was satisfied that there was no reason to disallow the goal. You can only ask him why he came to that conclusion.
I don't think it can be denied that a human being, in the long run, will be able to make more correct decisions with the benefit of multiple angles of an incident, as well as enough time to think clearly.
Indulge me!
What do you think the ref was asking the VAR to check for?
It's not prevent errors, it's to reduce them. In an ideal world, errors are not made but that's not going to happen with whatever measures we take.
You''ll never get a perfect system, nor do you get a near perfect system straight away. You put something in place that you're confident works better than already used and you refine it going forward to make the system better.
Say for example, referees get offside decisions wrong 2.5% of the time. Why would you not implement a system that starts at 1% error and continue to improve the system as and when you can?
By contrast, doing nothing is to suggest that the current level of refereeing mistakes are fine when multi-millions are on the line.
Let me ask you a question about this @Callumcafc - without any prejudice. I'd be interested to know your opinion on this...
There were three "goals" in the match. Ignore the first (awarded) and third (whistled). But, concentrate on the second. The ref awarded the goal, but then asked for the VAR. What question was the ref asking?
Wasn't the goal disallowed before video replays were called for?
I don't intend to speculate on what the ref on the field asked. The video ref watched the action from multiple angles and was satisfied that there was no reason to disallow the goal. You can only ask him why he came to that conclusion.
I don't think it can be denied that a human being, in the long run, will be able to make more correct decisions with the benefit of multiple angles of an incident, as well as enough time to think clearly.
Indulge me!
What do you think the ref was asking the VAR to check for?
His exact words were "can you overrule the decision whether it's correct or not so we can create a controversy, please?"
How long into the system will the managers in these countries start saying...why didnt the VAR official pick that up (when he's missed something) he's got the best seat in the house and many camera's etc...I will tell you when first weekend...
The fourth official gets it in the ear from the managers the VAR official wont be any different...
Call me old fashioned, but I to me it's just not the same football anymore.
I love/hate the controversy, when the ref gets it wrong. It's football for crying out loud! This is what makes this the best game in the world by miles.
All the big speaking points from back in the days will still be there, but no new ones will arise. It's all going to be so bloody mechanical. 'Oh, ref missed this one. Let's just ask him to stop the game, as we need to check this one on the screen'.
What Maradona did to you guys in '86 was bang out of order (Hand of God). That moment will never be forgotten. Even though I'm not English, I was appalled by the refs decision and I can only imagine why you guys would have been fuming. But it added something extremely special to this beautiful game. If VAR existed, it would quickly have been forgotten.
(And yes, if VAR existed in '93, Denmark would have qualified for the World Cup '94, as the ref would have awarded Schmeichel a freekick, as Bakero clearly blocked him, before Hierro headed in the winner - still fuck it, it's football - you win some, you lose some).
Anyway, as it looks, I might look at football in a different way to most on this forum.
It's not prevent errors, it's to reduce them. In an ideal world, errors are not made but that's not going to happen with whatever measures we take.
You''ll never get a perfect system, nor do you get a near perfect system straight away. You put something in place that you're confident works better than already used and you refine it going forward to make the system better.
Say for example, referees get offside decisions wrong 2.5% of the time. Why would you not implement a system that starts at 1% error and continue to improve the system as and when you can?
By contrast, doing nothing is to suggest that the current level of refereeing mistakes are fine when multi-millions are on the line.
And there's the rub. Totally indicative of todays sad world where everything has to be about cash, knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. I don't care about Manchester United's cash, or anyone else's for that matter, I care about sport, and mistakes by officials are part and parcel of that. I might change my mind if it works 100% of the time, so far it's not even as good as the original officials rate of success.
Used twice yesterday between Sydney FC and Perth Glory. Some would say that the video reg got it wrong at the 2-0 goal. Incidents at 00.54 and 03.59 https://youtu.be/F8JPF--59IA
That is pretty conclusive evidence that the VAR system doesn't ALWAYS work.
You would genuinely just throw it in the bin because of one failure? The entire thing has failed? What a ridiculous attitude.
Yes I would.
If the purpose of the change is to prevent errors or to stop players, managers and staff arguing, it has demonstrably failed on both counts. It therefore doesn't work.
That doesn't, of course, mean that a different system might not work. If there's a better system, it might be worth considering that. But this one has failed, so the test need not continue.
The "ridiculous" thing to do would be to continue to support a failed concept.
Or you ensure it is refined to ensure it can be utilised in a way that works.
Obviously the current set up of VAR doesn't work well enough to push live to all professional games, therefore I'd recommend research continues as the VAR can be refined to ensure it is workable. It should be the match officials making the decision of when to use it in my opinion.
Seeing it in use for the first time (during the U20 World Cup and now Confederations Cup) we need to be able to hear what is being discussed between the Referee and the Officials using the Video Technology.
At the moment there is a lot of thumb twiddling as we wait to see what decision will be made. And with the second Portugal goal yesterday nothing happened, we waited whilst the referee conferred with the officials and then suddenly the match kicked off again
Used twice yesterday between Sydney FC and Perth Glory. Some would say that the video reg got it wrong at the 2-0 goal. Incidents at 00.54 and 03.59 https://youtu.be/F8JPF--59IA
That is pretty conclusive evidence that the VAR system doesn't ALWAYS work.
Just reviewed this, nothing wrong with either decision. The attacking player gets benefit of the doubt if it cannot be clearly determined they were offside.
In fact the player's torso was in line with the defenders trailing leg. Therefore it was a clean goal.
Offside position It is not an offence to be in an offside position.
"A player is in an offside position if: any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. A player is not in an offside position if level with the: second-last opponent or last two opponents"
It's not made a single incorrect decision yet at the Confed Cup. Agree that the system is a bit cumbersome but that's what the trial is there to iron out. Will only get better and quicker from here.
I really struggled with the VAR yesterday. It may only take 45 seconds, but with no idea what the ref is saying and the TV cameras seemingly zooming in on the ref, as a TV viewer
Seeing it in use for the first time (during the U20 World Cup and now Confederations Cup) we need to be able to hear what is being discussed between the Referee and the Officials using the Video Technology.
At the moment there is a lot of thumb twiddling as we wait to see what decision will be made. And with the second Portugal goal yesterday nothing happened, we waited whilst the referee conferred with the officials and then suddenly the match kicked off again
I agree with this and would add that whilst the TV cameras focus on the ref, it's impossible to see what way the decision has been given until the commentators tell you. For 45 seconds you lose all sense of participation in the match. Repeat 3/4/5 times for a key decision and it becomes quite disruptive.
I really struggled with the VAR yesterday. It may only take 45 seconds, but with no idea what the ref is saying and the TV cameras seemingly zooming in on the ref, as a TV viewer
Seeing it in use for the first time (during the U20 World Cup and now Confederations Cup) we need to be able to hear what is being discussed between the Referee and the Officials using the Video Technology.
At the moment there is a lot of thumb twiddling as we wait to see what decision will be made. And with the second Portugal goal yesterday nothing happened, we waited whilst the referee conferred with the officials and then suddenly the match kicked off again
I agree with this and would add that whilst the TV cameras focus on the ref, it's impossible to see what way the decision has been given until the commentators tell you. For 45 seconds you lose all sense of participation in the match. Repeat 3/4/5 times for a key decision and it becomes quite disruptive.
Exactly - With the Pepe goal in the First-Half we saw the briefest of replay for the goal ONCE THE DECISION WAS MADE and then nothing till Half-Time
I'm all for cutting back on replays and showing more of the live action but that took the piss... Unless this is purely down to Russia TV or wherever ITV are getting their feed from
I really struggled with the VAR yesterday. It may only take 45 seconds, but with no idea what the ref is saying and the TV cameras seemingly zooming in on the ref, as a TV viewer
Seeing it in use for the first time (during the U20 World Cup and now Confederations Cup) we need to be able to hear what is being discussed between the Referee and the Officials using the Video Technology.
At the moment there is a lot of thumb twiddling as we wait to see what decision will be made. And with the second Portugal goal yesterday nothing happened, we waited whilst the referee conferred with the officials and then suddenly the match kicked off again
I agree with this and would add that whilst the TV cameras focus on the ref, it's impossible to see what way the decision has been given until the commentators tell you. For 45 seconds you lose all sense of participation in the match. Repeat 3/4/5 times for a key decision and it becomes quite disruptive.
I must admit I am surprised at how confused the TV directors are when it comes to dealing with this and second guessing the refs. It's almost a bit ironic that TV replays are confusing them.
As for the delay, there are multiple occasions in matches where very little occurs. A throw in, ball recovery, substitution, ref has a word with a player, two minutes have passed and nobody notices. Yet a 45 second stoppage (way less than the majority of faked injuries) to make sure justice is done on the spot rather than retroactively is too much? I don't think it is. I don't even think it is to most people who say it is, it's just new and different. A hundred other stoppages are only acceptable cos they've always been that way.
Think the piece sums up what most sensible people have been saying here.
Look at the cricket the other day, Broad was clearly not out when Khawaja or whatever his name is clearly dropped the ball but was given out. Get rid of it.
Think the piece sums up what most sensible people have been saying here.
Look at the cricket the other day, Broad was clearly not out when Khawaja or whatever his name is clearly dropped the ball but was given out. Get rid of it.
That decision was originally not out so it's not as if the video overturned a perfectly good decision, it's just that the video provided didn't give enough evidence to overturn the out decision that had already been made.
I think there is a legitimate argument that we could go down the route of the NFL catch rule fiasco where replay after replay in slow mo in an attempt to get the 100% correct decision blurs the lines between what is and isn't a catch, despite gut instinct telling you exactly what is and isn't a catch in the first place without the need for replays.
Think the piece sums up what most sensible people have been saying here.
Look at the cricket the other day, Broad was clearly not out when Khawaja or whatever his name is clearly dropped the ball but was given out. Get rid of it.
That decision was originally not out so it's not as if the video overturned a perfectly good decision, it's just that the video provided didn't give enough evidence to overturn the out decision that had already been made.
I think there is a legitimate argument that we could go down the route of the NFL catch rule fiasco where replay after replay in slow mo in an attempt to get the 100% correct decision blurs the lines between what is and isn't a catch, despite gut instinct telling you exactly what is and isn't a catch in the first place without the need for replays.
Dress it up how you like the video evidence gave the WRONG decision.
I can't wait until VAR and other technology removes offsides goals and all matches wind up 0-0 draws. Maybe the occasional crazy game winds up 1-0 due to own goals.
I can't wait until VAR and other technology removes offsides goals and all matches wind up 0-0 draws. Maybe the occasional crazy game winds up 1-0 due to own goals.
If used correctly dont see issue with it. If Palace had scored the penalty, it could have been 3 points that kept them up and stopped an unbeaten season, if we had VAR the pen would not have been given.
If we had VAR Ireland may have beaten France
If it is used correctly VAR could stop terrible decisions that effect clubs.
Comments
PS could we cut a deal where you don't use the patronising quotation marks if we happen to converse?
There were three "goals" in the match. Ignore the first (awarded) and third (whistled). But, concentrate on the second. The ref awarded the goal, but then asked for the VAR. What question was the ref asking?
I don't intend to speculate on what the ref on the field asked. The video ref watched the action from multiple angles and was satisfied that there was no reason to disallow the goal. You can only ask him why he came to that conclusion.
I don't think it can be denied that a human being, in the long run, will be able to make more correct decisions with the benefit of multiple angles of an incident, as well as enough time to think clearly.
What do you think the ref was asking the VAR to check for?
Portugal commits to using video assisted referees for the 2017-18 season.
The fourth official gets it in the ear from the managers the VAR official wont be any different...
I love/hate the controversy, when the ref gets it wrong. It's football for crying out loud! This is what makes this the best game in the world by miles.
All the big speaking points from back in the days will still be there, but no new ones will arise.
It's all going to be so bloody mechanical.
'Oh, ref missed this one. Let's just ask him to stop the game, as we need to check this one on the screen'.
What Maradona did to you guys in '86 was bang out of order (Hand of God). That moment will never be forgotten. Even though I'm not English, I was appalled by the refs decision and I can only imagine why you guys would have been fuming. But it added something extremely special to this beautiful game.
If VAR existed, it would quickly have been forgotten.
(And yes, if VAR existed in '93, Denmark would have qualified for the World Cup '94, as the ref would have awarded Schmeichel a freekick, as Bakero clearly blocked him, before Hierro headed in the winner - still fuck it, it's football - you win some, you lose some).
Anyway, as it looks, I might look at football in a different way to most on this forum.
At the moment there is a lot of thumb twiddling as we wait to see what decision will be made. And with the second Portugal goal yesterday nothing happened, we waited whilst the referee conferred with the officials and then suddenly the match kicked off again
In fact the player's torso was in line with the defenders trailing leg. Therefore it was a clean goal.
Offside position
It is not an offence to be in an offside position.
"A player is in an offside position if:
any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent
The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered.
A player is not in an offside position if level with the:
second-last opponent or
last two opponents"
I'm all for cutting back on replays and showing more of the live action but that took the piss... Unless this is purely down to Russia TV or wherever ITV are getting their feed from
As for the delay, there are multiple occasions in matches where very little occurs. A throw in, ball recovery, substitution, ref has a word with a player, two minutes have passed and nobody notices. Yet a 45 second stoppage (way less than the majority of faked injuries) to make sure justice is done on the spot rather than retroactively is too much? I don't think it is. I don't even think it is to most people who say it is, it's just new and different. A hundred other stoppages are only acceptable cos they've always been that way.
Less than a year in: It's extremely unpopular, both amongst fans, players and managers.
Look at the cricket the other day, Broad was clearly not out when Khawaja or whatever his name is clearly dropped the ball but was given out. Get rid of it.
I think there is a legitimate argument that we could go down the route of the NFL catch rule fiasco where replay after replay in slow mo in an attempt to get the 100% correct decision blurs the lines between what is and isn't a catch, despite gut instinct telling you exactly what is and isn't a catch in the first place without the need for replays.
Will be used in FA Cup this weekend
And League Cup Semi Finals
Friday could be interesting Merseyside Derby live on BBC with VAR and millions watching it be used
If Palace had scored the penalty, it could have been 3 points that kept them up and stopped an unbeaten season, if we had VAR the pen would not have been given.
If we had VAR Ireland may have beaten France
If it is used correctly VAR could stop terrible decisions that effect clubs.