I was very sceptical about VAR initially, not because I didnt think the technology could work but because so much of football is subjective - who had a good game, who had a bad game, was it a foul, should it have been a red, etc - that I didnt think any amount of technology could change that.
But we were assured that the technology would only be used to overturn the "clear and obvious errors", with the Frank Lampard and Thierry Henry "goals" ofted cited as the type of incidents it was designed to correct. Cant really argue with that.
Now it's been in a while I realise my initial scepticism was misplaced and it's worked like a dream. I love the different coloured lines going up on screen 5 minutes after the event to prove that someone was a bollock hair offside. Or the half hour wait for the team of refs looking at their screens - in full kits - to replay an incident 74 times from 18 different angles only to flip a coin about what they should do next. The consistency is fantastic and it's taken all of the controversy out of the game, as was promised.
Yes indeed, I have been converted to the church of VAR. Amen, brothers and sisters.
When I thought I was starting to understand how penalty hand balls are given, yesterday threw all that away! Ridiculous and I a not anti VAR per se. But we do have contentious decisions without VAR. Look at the sending off yesterday. That was never a straight red in a million years.
It's not VAR that is the problem, it's the morons who run it.
How anyone can see that Soucek handball and not give a penalty is crazy. That's not VAR's fault, it's the fault of whoever was in charge of it.
Same for the Brighton goal. The VAR line was drawn to the wrong defender! Again the fault of the VAR operator.
VAR was brought in to reduce human errors, all it has done is give us more technically accurate human errors
But its being ran by Humans...
Hopefully the semi-automated offside will help the Premier League from next season.
Makes me laugh thinking back to when pundits complained prior to the introduction of VAR, they said it would take away talking points of the game, which many will discuss down the pub - Of course that was never going to happen, there are too many grey rules in the game for it to be fully effective.
It's not VAR that is the problem, it's the morons who run it.
How anyone can see that Soucek handball and not give a penalty is crazy. That's not VAR's fault, it's the fault of whoever was in charge of it.
Same for the Brighton goal. The VAR line was drawn to the wrong defender! Again the fault of the VAR operator.
I really dont understand this argument. It comes up over and over again, "it's not VAR that's the problem".
Of course it is!
VAR stands for "Video Assistant Referee: an official who helps the main referee to make decisions during a game using film recorded at the game."
You cant separate the cameras, set square lines being drawn, etc from the people making the decisions when it's all part of the same system. It seems to me weve gone from controversial decisions the referee used to make having only had one look at things from one angle, to absolutely terrible decisions being made after a five minute wait and with the benefit of multiple camera angles and slow motion.
And the "answer" being put forward by some is "more technology". It's like when you hear that the answer to Americas gun problem is more guns, you just shake your head and realise the genie ain't ever getting back in the bottle.
If a ref makes a decision, and the VAR official suggests he or she look at it again. There is an immediate pressure on the ref to change the decision. It is another reason why I would like to give each team an appeal. If they appeal, it is looked at but there would not be the same pressure. If they have used up their appeal, tough luck. I don't see cricket teams moaning about it when it costs them. It becomes another aspect of the game.
It's worth a trial but I wonder how the "Hand of God" would now be regarded if it happened after a failed appeal.
We would have the situation where a "miked up" ref gives a goal and the whole world knows within seconds that it is handball. Any attempt by the VAR team to overrule the ref would presumably be illegal and unfair.
How would the conversation with VAR go?
Ref - "I can sense I've missed something but I don't know what."
VAR - "Sorry England cannot appeal so we cannot help you".
Ref - "Please Please tell me what happened. I know I should disallow this goal. The crowd are booing. Please tell me what happened!"
VAR - "Sorry mate you're on your own!"
Fair point but this would never happen if teams only appel when they are 100% sure. You may say that you can never be 100% sure but you are using the extreme example of the Maradona handball and that was a 100% failsafe appeal situation. If we had already wasted it earlier on something innocuous then tough shit.
I would go further with the appeal system and award appeals according to a fair play points system. Therefore teams accrue points for the following: 1. They don't argue with the referee 2. Only the captain speaks to the referee 3. They don't stand in front of opposition free kicks
4. They don't take the ball into the corners to waste time
5. The goalkeeper takes goal kicks within a set time
6. They don't mock opposition fans by celebrating at the wrong end
Etc etc
This would mean that VAR is not only to make decisions fairer but encourages fair play. Teams with better fair play scores may end up with multiple appeals per match whereas others would get none. After all, it's a spectator sport and all this 'game management' is making the game shit to watch.
It’s just a stunning level of incompetence. I haven’t heard about VAR decisions as bad as these ones, let alone three in one weekend, from other major leagues in months.
It’s just a stunning level of incompetence. I haven’t heard about VAR decisions as bad as these ones, let alone three in one weekend, from other major leagues in months.
Juventus had one a few months ago which was a shocker I believe
The problem with something like handball is that there is an element of a referee making a call. Now if you are trying to use technology to make perfect decisions, you have to remove the judgement element. So as Gary lineaker used to say, if it touches the hand/arm it should be a penalty weather there was intent or not. When you have judgement calls, there will always be inconsistent decisions. I haven't got an issue with this, but it is the football authorities that seem to have.
I'd give each team an appeal which they would lose if found wrong and which could only be used for goals or sending offs. That would give them the opportunity to do something about a massive miscarriage of justice but would otherwise allow the game to flow more as it used to. And I'd give the refs more freedom to ref the game and if they are not up to it, that is a different issue to resolve.
The problem with something like handball is that there is an element of a referee making a call. Now if you are trying to use technology to make perfect decisions, you have to remove the judgement element. So as Gary lineaker used to say, if it touches the hand/arm it should be a penalty weather there was intent or not. When you have judgement calls, there will always be inconsistent decisions. I haven't got an issue with this, but it is the football authorities that seem to have.
I'd give each team an appeal which they would lose if found wrong and which could only be used for goals or sending offs. That would give them the opportunity to do something about a massive miscarriage of justice but would otherwise allow the game to flow more as it used to. And I'd give the refs more freedom to ref the game and if they are not up to it, that is a different issue to resolve.
I get where you are coming from, but, as I have said before, a bad decision is a bad decision. Just because you have appealed and lost does not mean a massive miscarriage of justice can't occur later on.
The problem with something like handball is that there is an element of a referee making a call. Now if you are trying to use technology to make perfect decisions, you have to remove the judgement element. So as Gary lineaker used to say, if it touches the hand/arm it should be a penalty weather there was intent or not. When you have judgement calls, there will always be inconsistent decisions. I haven't got an issue with this, but it is the football authorities that seem to have.
I'd give each team an appeal which they would lose if found wrong and which could only be used for goals or sending offs. That would give them the opportunity to do something about a massive miscarriage of justice but would otherwise allow the game to flow more as it used to. And I'd give the refs more freedom to ref the game and if they are not up to it, that is a different issue to resolve.
I get where you are coming from, but, as I have said before, a bad decision is a bad decision. Just because you have appealed and lost does not mean a massive miscarriage of justice can't occur later on.
In which case, be careful not to appeal unless certain, so as to not waste your appeal(s).
It is also possible to make all your substitutions and then get a genuine injury.
I’ve been undecided for a while. Where I’ve got to is that the rules need to be clearer. For offside, it generally works, although more clarity with what constitutes interfering with play is needed. Any hint that an offside distracts a defence means interfering. As for the spate of handballs that result in penalties, I think refs should have the power to decide whether there is reasonable intenti. I think the general interpretation that if the hand is raised etc. is not working. As for fouls, in theory if 0.0001 of a millimetre of a boot touches an opponent, it should be penalty. I think again the referee should have the power to decide whether the contact had any effect on the outcome. It’s how things work in a court of law - reasonable doubt and all that. Give the refs more tools but don’t have them strapped by overly-interpret rules.
The problem with something like handball is that there is an element of a referee making a call. Now if you are trying to use technology to make perfect decisions, you have to remove the judgement element. So as Gary lineaker used to say, if it touches the hand/arm it should be a penalty weather there was intent or not. When you have judgement calls, there will always be inconsistent decisions. I haven't got an issue with this, but it is the football authorities that seem to have.
I'd give each team an appeal which they would lose if found wrong and which could only be used for goals or sending offs. That would give them the opportunity to do something about a massive miscarriage of justice but would otherwise allow the game to flow more as it used to. And I'd give the refs more freedom to ref the game and if they are not up to it, that is a different issue to resolve.
I get where you are coming from, but, as I have said before, a bad decision is a bad decision. Just because you have appealed and lost does not mean a massive miscarriage of justice can't occur later on.
Of course it can but if you accept that you have lost the opportunity to affect it and with that accept perfection is impossible it is a more satisfying way to go about it. I think the problem with VAR and indeed tinkering with rules is an attempt to achieve the impossible in that respect.
I recall Australia losing an ashes test because they had used up their reviews. They didn't complain and nor did anybody else. It was just the game.
In principal the Video Assistant Referee is a good idea, especially for line decisions and for highlighting oversights or inadvertent howlers that occasionally arise. Implementation in the premier league has been ropey to terrible but that ain't the only issue with VAR. The tangled mess of bullshit and nonsense in the current offside rule makes some decisions impossible to get "right" When Channel 4 first showed Italian Serie A, however long ago that was, 20+years? The host broadcaster was already able to overlay lines on the VT to review offside (fuorigioco) decisions. It wasn't swift enough to be used in games but showing lines against the feet of the pertinent players was quick and simple. That was 20+ years ago. If the offside rule is halfway to sensible then today's superfast technology ought to make that completely uncontroversial. But FIFA, UEFA, et al have repeatedly fucked around with the rule constantly getting further and further away from anything even vaguely workable. All this crap about the part of a player's body closest to the goal (head? arm? shoulder?) being the decisive factor is just total crap - the only body parts relevant are feet - the clue is in the name - and for the line to be meaningful it has to be on the floor, everything else is guesswork - the VAR picture remains 2D FFS. I'm still with Brian Clough on the "interfering with play" bullshit - for the teenagers "if he ain't interfering with play I want to know why..." This weekend's implementation of VAR was inexcusable and humiliating for all concerned. The halfwits in the VAR booths need sending back to ref school and their eyes testing. Howard Webb must be regretting taking the job, he's saddled with staff unfit for purpose. VAR's always going to break up the flow of games, a bit, but as we saw in the World Cup, even over zealous checking of too many decisions didn't hold things up too long too often.
Are the VAR lines across the pitch measured from the goal line or the halfway line?
Whichever it is are we really to believe that the white lines are laser perfect in their measurements and application? I don't expect players or officials to be perfect and I don't really expect the decisions to be either. It is killing the instant excitement that the game generates that makes it so exciting.
If a ref makes a decision, and the VAR official suggests he or she look at it again. There is an immediate pressure on the ref to change the decision. It is another reason why I would like to give each team an appeal. If they appeal, it is looked at but there would not be the same pressure. If they have used up their appeal, tough luck. I don't see cricket teams moaning about it when it costs them. It becomes another aspect of the game.
It's worth a trial but I wonder how the "Hand of God" would now be regarded if it happened after a failed appeal.
We would have the situation where a "miked up" ref gives a goal and the whole world knows within seconds that it is handball. Any attempt by the VAR team to overrule the ref would presumably be illegal and unfair.
How would the conversation with VAR go?
Ref - "I can sense I've missed something but I don't know what."
VAR - "Sorry England cannot appeal so we cannot help you".
Ref - "Please Please tell me what happened. I know I should disallow this goal. The crowd are booing. Please tell me what happened!"
VAR - "Sorry mate you're on your own!"
Fair point but this would never happen if teams only appel when they are 100% sure. You may say that you can never be 100% sure but you are using the extreme example of the Maradona handball and that was a 100% failsafe appeal situation. If we had already wasted it earlier on something innocuous then tough shit.
I would go further with the appeal system and award appeals according to a fair play points system. Therefore teams accrue points for the following: 1. They don't argue with the referee 2. Only the captain speaks to the referee 3. They don't stand in front of opposition free kicks
4. They don't take the ball into the corners to waste time
5. The goalkeeper takes goal kicks within a set time
6. They don't mock opposition fans by celebrating at the wrong end
Etc etc
This would mean that VAR is not only to make decisions fairer but encourages fair play. Teams with better fair play scores may end up with multiple appeals per match whereas others would get none. After all, it's a spectator sport and all this 'game management' is making the game shit to watch.
Absolutely nothing wrong with taking the ball into the corners to try to use up some time. The ball is still in play and there for the opposition to try to get hold of.
Otherwise, what else would you want to get rid of - playing the ball around at the back to try to use up time?
The problem with something like handball is that there is an element of a referee making a call. Now if you are trying to use technology to make perfect decisions, you have to remove the judgement element. So as Gary lineaker used to say, if it touches the hand/arm it should be a penalty weather there was intent or not. When you have judgement calls, there will always be inconsistent decisions. I haven't got an issue with this, but it is the football authorities that seem to have.
I'd give each team an appeal which they would lose if found wrong and which could only be used for goals or sending offs. That would give them the opportunity to do something about a massive miscarriage of justice but would otherwise allow the game to flow more as it used to. And I'd give the refs more freedom to ref the game and if they are not up to it, that is a different issue to resolve.
I get where you are coming from, but, as I have said before, a bad decision is a bad decision. Just because you have appealed and lost does not mean a massive miscarriage of justice can't occur later on.
Of course it can but if you accept that you have lost the opportunity to affect it and with that accept perfection is impossible it is a more satisfying way to go about it. I think the problem with VAR and indeed tinkering with rules is an attempt to achieve the impossible in that respect.
I recall Australia losing an ashes test because they had used up their reviews. They didn't complain and nor did anybody else. It was just the game.
I find that hard to believe...
The errors in football were "just the game" before VAR arrived, but those goalposts moved, didn't they? And the whole gist of the last two days debate has been that it still doesn't bloody work!
In cricket they have how many appeals? Why not the same in football? Why not more? Who sets the arbitary figure? The same twats who think VAR is a good idea in the first place...
The first appeal may still look stonewall to you, but the man with the say still gets it wrong and then he does it again.
Until every decision goes to VAR none should.
Almost five years since it came into the laws of the game and it's still "work in progress". We might see the benefits about the same time as they are now claiming we'll see the benefits of Brexit...
You can't have a foolproof system when human beings are involved. Goal line technology has proven effective as it doesn't need human intervention, unless it gets a fault and doesn't work.
Let the Premier league put up with the chumps every week like we have too.
Comments
'Ref chief Webb: VAR talks could be aired for better transparency'
I was very sceptical about VAR initially, not because I didnt think the technology could work but because so much of football is subjective - who had a good game, who had a bad game, was it a foul, should it have been a red, etc - that I didnt think any amount of technology could change that.
But we were assured that the technology would only be used to overturn the "clear and obvious errors", with the Frank Lampard and Thierry Henry "goals" ofted cited as the type of incidents it was designed to correct. Cant really argue with that.
Now it's been in a while I realise my initial scepticism was misplaced and it's worked like a dream. I love the different coloured lines going up on screen 5 minutes after the event to prove that someone was a bollock hair offside. Or the half hour wait for the team of refs looking at their screens - in full kits - to replay an incident 74 times from 18 different angles only to flip a coin about what they should do next. The consistency is fantastic and it's taken all of the controversy out of the game, as was promised.
Yes indeed, I have been converted to the church of VAR. Amen, brothers and sisters.
Haven’t seen the Brentford goal but gather that was also contentious.
How anyone can see that Soucek handball and not give a penalty is crazy. That's not VAR's fault, it's the fault of whoever was in charge of it.
Same for the Brighton goal. The VAR line was drawn to the wrong defender! Again the fault of the VAR operator.
Hopefully the semi-automated offside will help the Premier League from next season.
Makes me laugh thinking back to when pundits complained prior to the introduction of VAR, they said it would take away talking points of the game, which many will discuss down the pub - Of course that was never going to happen, there are too many grey rules in the game for it to be fully effective.
Oh .....
Of course it is!
VAR stands for "Video Assistant Referee: an official who helps the main referee to make decisions during a game using film recorded at the game."
You cant separate the cameras, set square lines being drawn, etc from the people making the decisions when it's all part of the same system. It seems to me weve gone from controversial decisions the referee used to make having only had one look at things from one angle, to absolutely terrible decisions being made after a five minute wait and with the benefit of multiple camera angles and slow motion.
And the "answer" being put forward by some is "more technology". It's like when you hear that the answer to Americas gun problem is more guns, you just shake your head and realise the genie ain't ever getting back in the bottle.
Yesterday we saw first hand that the decision making at our level is by and large a joke.
Then we turn on the TV and see even with the benefit of var and multiple replays the morons still get it wrong.
Its now beyond farcical.
A hand ball not given despite the ball going towards goal and the defender some way from the shot.
A terrible day for VAR and it's the human element which is at fault not the technology which has helped both Tennis and Rugby.
I would go further with the appeal system and award appeals according to a fair play points system. Therefore teams accrue points for the following:
1. They don't argue with the referee
2. Only the captain speaks to the referee
3. They don't stand in front of opposition free kicks
This would mean that VAR is not only to make decisions fairer but encourages fair play. Teams with better fair play scores may end up with multiple appeals per match whereas others would get none. After all, it's a spectator sport and all this 'game management' is making the game shit to watch.
I'd give each team an appeal which they would lose if found wrong and which could only be used for goals or sending offs. That would give them the opportunity to do something about a massive miscarriage of justice but would otherwise allow the game to flow more as it used to. And I'd give the refs more freedom to ref the game and if they are not up to it, that is a different issue to resolve.
It is also possible to make all your substitutions and then get a genuine injury.
Do not waste appeals or substitutions.
I recall Australia losing an ashes test because they had used up their reviews. They didn't complain and nor did anybody else. It was just the game.
Implementation in the premier league has been ropey to terrible but that ain't the only issue with VAR.
The tangled mess of bullshit and nonsense in the current offside rule makes some decisions impossible to get "right"
When Channel 4 first showed Italian Serie A, however long ago that was, 20+years? The host broadcaster was already able to overlay lines on the VT to review offside (fuorigioco) decisions. It wasn't swift enough to be used in games but showing lines against the feet of the pertinent players was quick and simple. That was 20+ years ago. If the offside rule is halfway to sensible then today's superfast technology ought to make that completely uncontroversial. But FIFA, UEFA, et al have repeatedly fucked around with the rule constantly getting further and further away from anything even vaguely workable. All this crap about the part of a player's body closest to the goal (head? arm? shoulder?) being the decisive factor is just total crap - the only body parts relevant are feet - the clue is in the name - and for the line to be meaningful it has to be on the floor, everything else is guesswork - the VAR picture remains 2D FFS.
I'm still with Brian Clough on the "interfering with play" bullshit - for the teenagers "if he ain't interfering with play I want to know why..."
This weekend's implementation of VAR was inexcusable and humiliating for all concerned. The halfwits in the VAR booths need sending back to ref school and their eyes testing. Howard Webb must be regretting taking the job, he's saddled with staff unfit for purpose.
VAR's always going to break up the flow of games, a bit, but as we saw in the World Cup, even over zealous checking of too many decisions didn't hold things up too long too often.
I don't expect players or officials to be perfect and I don't really expect the decisions to be either.
It is killing the instant excitement that the game generates that makes it so exciting.
Otherwise, what else would you want to get rid of - playing the ball around at the back to try to use up time?
The errors in football were "just the game" before VAR arrived, but those goalposts moved, didn't they? And the whole gist of the last two days debate has been that it still doesn't bloody work!
In cricket they have how many appeals? Why not the same in football? Why not more? Who sets the arbitary figure? The same twats who think VAR is a good idea in the first place...
The first appeal may still look stonewall to you, but the man with the say still gets it wrong and then he does it again.
Until every decision goes to VAR none should.
Almost five years since it came into the laws of the game and it's still "work in progress". We might see the benefits about the same time as they are now claiming we'll see the benefits of Brexit...
You can't have a foolproof system when human beings are involved. Goal line technology has proven effective as it doesn't need human intervention, unless it gets a fault and doesn't work.
Let the Premier league put up with the chumps every week like we have too.
VAR get rid of it.