Imagine having VAR at Wembley....may have had to have a look at both our goals, would have ruined the moment from my point of view.
Reckon both would have been ruled out
Pearce jumping over Oviedo would have been a foul, reckon Taylor's toe is potentially offside prior to him collecting the ball that he sends in Purrington's direction
Football is a lot like life. It comes at you fast, it's easy to make mistakes and you rarely get a chance to do it over again. If I might be a little philosophical for a moment, the beauty is in our imperfections. Do your best to get things right, but accept that nobody is infallible.
For me, VAR takes away a fundamental aspect of football. Fans arguing about decisions has always been part of the game. What's more fun? Shouting "The referees a wanker!" or "The referees a wanker, but it's all sorted out now so we've got nothing to be upset about after all and we'll just sit down now!"
Nobody likes anybody who is right all the time.
I wonder how many people, when England went a goal down in a world cup quarter final match against Argentina, to the hand of God goal, rejoiced in the "beauty of our imperfections"?
Lots of the problems in this tournament are being blamed on VAR when in fact the cause is the introduction of a number of questionable new rules.
However, I don't like the time some decisions are taking. I don't think the ref should ever have to look at a TV screen. If the VAR refs want to correct a clear and obvious mistake they should make that call within 30 seconds or let the refs decision stand.
Football is a lot like life. It comes at you fast, it's easy to make mistakes and you rarely get a chance to do it over again. If I might be a little philosophical for a moment, the beauty is in our imperfections. Do your best to get things right, but accept that nobody is infallible.
For me, VAR takes away a fundamental aspect of football. Fans arguing about decisions has always been part of the game. What's more fun? Shouting "The referees a wanker!" or "The referees a wanker, but it's all sorted out now so we've got nothing to be upset about after all and we'll just sit down now!"
Nobody likes anybody who is right all the time.
I wonder how many people, when England went a goal down in a world cup quarter final match against Argentina, to the hand of God goal, rejoiced in the "beauty of our imperfections"?
I was cross at the time, but that's England for you. They always find a new and exiting way to let you down.
The "Hand of God" is now a legendary moment in football, still talked about more than 30 years later. I think I'd rather have that sort of football folklore than everything being forgettably correct.
If it's here to stay (and I wish it wasn't) then we really should look seriously at how it is used in rugby. It is the ref who calls for it and who asks a specific Q. They retain control and authority. For example, the ref would have had to call for a check on whether or not the Scottish goalie moved. Also let the lino signal in a different way for suspected but not definite offside which is then reviewed.
Otherwise let play continue and go with the on-field decisions.
The only exception- again as in rugby- would be cheating or a violent challenge off the ball which the VAR official could bring to ref's attention at time or could be used for post match citing and player punishment.
If it's here to stay (and I wish it wasn't) then we really should look seriously at how it is used in rugby. It is the ref who calls for it and who asks a specific Q. They retain control and authority. For example, the ref would have had to call for a check on whether or not the Scottish goalie moved. Also let the lino signal in a different way for suspected but not definite offside which is then reviewed.
Otherwise let play continue and go with the on-field decisions.
The only exception- again as in rugby- would be cheating or a violent challenge off the ball which the VAR official could bring to ref's attention at time or could be used for post match citing and player punishment.
Its always felt though that FIFA / Football has this complex where it thinks its a better Sport than all others and shouldnt have to be taking ideas from other sports that already work
i.e. take the whole concept of the referee in Rugby, when watching on the TV you hear both conversation between referee and player or VAR - How difficult would it be to copy the design and do EXACTLY the same in Football, would certainly save us watching the game on TV without wondering what the fuck is going on
Its also something that has surprised me (correct me if Im wrong) as cant you purchase somethimg if your at the game itself where you can hear the referee there too (i.e. Its not just limited for those who stay at home), if so then straight away its another cheap and easy way for the Footballing bodies to make more money
Not really sure that giving the ref full control over VAR would really work in football.
Henry's infamous handball goal in the world cup qualifiers was completely missed by the referee. I don't think he would have called for a VAR review without an appeal from the (few) players who spotted it.
But that moves us into an appeal system based on NFL where the game stops every few seconds.
For me the VARs should just be extra "virtual linesmen" in who can advise refs in the same way they always have. This basically keeps the game the same as it always has been.
This is football - not rugby - not NFL - not cricket - not tennis!
Not really sure that giving the ref full control over VAR would really work in football.
Henry's infamous handball goal in the world cup qualifiers was completely missed by the referee. I don't think he would have called for a VAR review without an appeal from the (few) players who spotted it.
But that moves us into an appeal system based on NFL where the game stops every few seconds.
For me the VARs should just be extra "virtual linesmen" in who can advise refs in the same way they always have. This basically keeps the game the same as it always has been.
This is football - not rugby - not NFL - not cricket - not tennis!
Correct this is Football but at the same time there is no need to re-invent the wheel which is what FIFA is trying to do
The Henry handball would come under the "cheating" category in my description above where VAR could call the ref's attention to such things.
For example, with our winner at Wembley, though, it would be up to the ref to call a review only if they specifically wanted to check whether Pearce had fouled. The difficulty with VAR in football is things like that remain subjective so put the onus on the ref to stay in control and support them getting it right as far as possible in real-time.
On the other hand if VAR were around in 1966 England
IF ? The ball clearly didn't go completely over the line as around 25 years ago a computer graphics showed it hadn't plus the last goal wouldn't have happened because the refs blow up straight away when supporters encroach on to the pitch now.
Being 1966 and only 21 years after the end of the war, the 40 year old Russian Lino had a decision to make, over the line for goal to England or no goal in Germany's favour. As he wanted to go back and live happily ever after in his home land he made the correct decision !
I have totally researched the 66 WC and England made sure the strictest ref did the England v Argentina ( sent the captain off early doors for back chat) and the weakest ref in charge of a Brazil game where Pele was Kicked out of the tournament.
Don't want to piss on everyone's memory if old enough but we just cheat in a more subtle way to Johnny Foreigner.
I was never in favour. I'm a firm believer that the technology used should be consistent throughout the game, it shouldn't change just because some people choose to have money riding on it. You can call me a luddite, but frankly I've only just come to terms with having a piece of tape stretched across the top of the goal posts. That said, I watched a lot of the last World Cup and thought VAR worked out a lot better than I expected. Not brilliant, but better than I thought.
If I was to concede that video technology should be used in the game though, it wouldn't be anything to do with determining what decision the ref should have called, it would be about improving the behaviour of the players. I quite like the idea of every player being individually recorded for the whole 90 minutes. Any instances of fouling, diving, trying to trick or bully the ref, or general arguing would be dealt with by highly punitive fines. If we could use technology to end the cheating and 'gamesmanship', we'd be a lot nearer a situation where we didn't need VAR for determining marginal decisions.
I don't think VAR should be used as a crutch for refs. Many decisions in football are opinion based so VAR will not solve these. I think VAR is important because in this big money game, it can help prevent major miscarriages of justice that could, for example, see a team relegated from the Premier League or knocked out of a World Cup..
I think it has not been implemented well. It has to be an option for teams to use and it has to be something precious so it it not overused or risked. I think if FIFA adopted this criteria they would have come up with something better. It can never prevent wrong decisions, but it can give teams more power to avoid being victims of them. I know it is a different sport, but if a cricket team uses up its reviews it is seen as their problem.
I think FIFA should get a panel of sensible ex players together and review its laws. The hand ball, penalty and offside laws have become too complicated and need resetting to something more sensible that is less open to interpretation.
I think rugby refs use it well, they make a decision and if they’re not sure about something after a try they will ask the video ref to look at something specific, such as a forward pass. If they can’t determine it from video they stick with their original decision. I don’t believe you have a video ref scouring every second looking for offences. Also helps that the players don’t harass the referee in the same way footballers do although admittedly that doesn’t happen in the women’s game. I think the video ref can step in for violent conduct.
I don't think VAR should be used as a crutch for refs. Many decisions in football are opinion based so VAR will not solve these. I think VAR is important because in this big money game, it can help prevent major miscarriages of justice that could, for example, see a team relegated from the Premier League or knocked out of a World Cup..
I think it has not been implemented well. It has to be an option for teams to use and it has to be something precious so it it not overused or risked. I think if FIFA adopted this criteria they would have come up with something better. It can never prevent wrong decisions, but it can give teams more power to avoid being victims of them. I know it is a different sport, but if a cricket team uses up its reviews it is seen as their problem.
I think FIFA should get a panel of sensible ex players together and review its laws. The hand ball, penalty and offside laws have become too complicated and need resetting to something more sensible that is less open to interpretation.
This, for me is the problem with the money argument. Not being relegated or not knocked out of a cup should be important in and of themselves, not because of big money. This should be the same all the way down the pyramid. I get that the bigger the team/country the more people people will have their hopes pinned on its success, but winning is great and losing is painful whether you are part of (or follow) a big monied side or your local amateur team. We shouldn't have a situation where these are differentiated by technology.
I don't think VAR should be used as a crutch for refs. Many decisions in football are opinion based so VAR will not solve these. I think VAR is important because in this big money game, it can help prevent major miscarriages of justice that could, for example, see a team relegated from the Premier League or knocked out of a World Cup..
I think it has not been implemented well. It has to be an option for teams to use and it has to be something precious so it it not overused or risked. I think if FIFA adopted this criteria they would have come up with something better. It can never prevent wrong decisions, but it can give teams more power to avoid being victims of them. I know it is a different sport, but if a cricket team uses up its reviews it is seen as their problem.
I think FIFA should get a panel of sensible ex players together and review its laws. The hand ball, penalty and offside laws have become too complicated and need resetting to something more sensible that is less open to interpretation.
This, for me is the problem with the money argument. Not being relegated or not knocked out of a cup should be important in and of themselves, not because of big money. This should be the same all the way down the pyramid. I get that the bigger the team/country the more people people will have their hopes pinned on its success, but winning is great and losing is painful whether you are part of (or follow) a big monied side or your local amateur team. We shouldn't have a situation where these are differentiated by technology.
I think rugby refs use it well, they make a decision and if they’re not sure about something after a try they will ask the video ref to look at something specific, such as a forward pass. If they can’t determine it from video they stick with their original decision. I don’t believe you have a video ref scouring every second looking for offences. Also helps that the players don’t harass the referee in the same way footballers do although admittedly that doesn’t happen in the women’s game. I think the video ref can step in for violent conduct.
Whilst very much an exception, I agree, it did on Sunday.
Best thing to happen in football for years if it means the cheats, divers and poor officiating is dealt with.
Ive not seen a dive picked up on VAR yet .
To be fair, that's one of the things I like about women's football. It's generally a lot more honest. I haven't seen as many of the games as I'd like but I don't recall any blatant diving.
I have seen play acting though, a Spain player getting Rapinoe booked by making out she was slapped in the face when it was the lightest of touches...
The problem for me is that many decisions in football ARE subjective. When you look at penalty claims there's a whole range of incidents from "blatant dive/slip" to "GBH by the defender" but lots of incidents are borderline "I've seen them given" types where even with VAR you're still relying on the interpretation of the officials.
Where it's a blatant dive or an unpunished GBH I want that reversed, but for the ones in the middle VAR isn't really helping unless you make the rules completely black and white which would probably ruin the sport. Hence we are still having controversial penalties being given, and massive delays before the decision is made
Best thing to happen in football for years if it means the cheats, divers and poor officiating is dealt with.
Ive not seen a dive picked up on VAR yet .
To be fair, that's one of the things I like about women's football. It's generally a lot more honest. I haven't seen as many of the games as I'd like but I don't recall any blatant diving.
I have seen play acting though, a Spain player getting Rapinoe booked by making out she was slapped in the face when it was the lightest of touches...
Like I say, generally. The other day the BBC did a run down of the stats between men's and women's football and the difference between the two for fouls, dissent and simulation were massive. Men are big fat cheaters basically!!
Best thing to happen in football for years if it means the cheats, divers and poor officiating is dealt with.
Ive not seen a dive picked up on VAR yet .
To be fair, that's one of the things I like about women's football. It's generally a lot more honest. I haven't seen as many of the games as I'd like but I don't recall any blatant diving.
I have seen play acting though, a Spain player getting Rapinoe booked by making out she was slapped in the face when it was the lightest of touches...
Like I say, generally. The other day the BBC did a run down of the stats between men's and women's football and the difference between the two for fouls, dissent and simulation were massive. Men are big fat cheaters basically!!
Or is it because there is more money at stake in the mens game... i.e. a LOT more money at stake!! So there is a greater need to win at all costs
Best thing to happen in football for years if it means the cheats, divers and poor officiating is dealt with.
Ive not seen a dive picked up on VAR yet .
To be fair, that's one of the things I like about women's football. It's generally a lot more honest. I haven't seen as many of the games as I'd like but I don't recall any blatant diving.
I have seen play acting though, a Spain player getting Rapinoe booked by making out she was slapped in the face when it was the lightest of touches...
Like I say, generally. The other day the BBC did a run down of the stats between men's and women's football and the difference between the two for fouls, dissent and simulation were massive. Men are big fat cheaters basically!!
Or is it because there is more money at stake in the mens game... i.e. a LOT more money at stake!! So there is a greater need to win at all costs
Not sure money is at the root of it. Alpha male dominance, testosterone or whatever is also involved. I'm no psychologist but I'm sure there's a difference in approach between the sexes. Yes, there's bigger stakes in the men's professional game but I've seen blokes carry on like twats in Danson Park and there's not much money involved in that.
But the appeal system will still mean major injustice can occur. After the set number of appeals is exhausted a Thierry Henry moment can still happen.
All or nothing.
Yes, I think it is unavoidable. Look at girl who was standing in front of the keeper and not deemed offside. How can that not be overturned? You can't defeat human error or different interpretation of the same law. Like cricket with Umpire's call, if you are not going to give it, you could at least say that it was a reasonable challenge and ensure the team does not lose a challenge.
Having one review becomes a strategic decision and if you use it and lose it and it costs you later, at least it is partly your fault!
Comments
Pearce jumping over Oviedo would have been a foul, reckon Taylor's toe is potentially offside prior to him collecting the ball that he sends in Purrington's direction
However, I don't like the time some decisions are taking. I don't think the ref should ever have to look at a TV screen. If the VAR refs want to correct a clear and obvious mistake they should make that call within 30 seconds or let the refs decision stand.
I was cross at the time, but that's England for you. They always find a new and exiting way to let you down.
The "Hand of God" is now a legendary moment in football, still talked about more than 30 years later. I think I'd rather have that sort of football folklore than everything being forgettably correct.
Otherwise let play continue and go with the on-field decisions.
The only exception- again as in rugby- would be cheating or a violent challenge off the ball which the VAR official could bring to ref's attention at time or could be used for post match citing and player punishment.
i.e. take the whole concept of the referee in Rugby, when watching on the TV you hear both conversation between referee and player or VAR - How difficult would it be to copy the design and do EXACTLY the same in Football, would certainly save us watching the game on TV without wondering what the fuck is going on
Its also something that has surprised me (correct me if Im wrong) as cant you purchase somethimg if your at the game itself where you can hear the referee there too (i.e. Its not just limited for those who stay at home), if so then straight away its another cheap and easy way for the Footballing bodies to make more money
Henry's infamous handball goal in the world cup qualifiers was completely missed by the referee. I don't think he would have called for a VAR review without an appeal from the (few) players who spotted it.
But that moves us into an appeal system based on NFL where the game stops every few seconds.
For me the VARs should just be extra "virtual linesmen" in who can advise refs in the same way they always have. This basically keeps the game the same as it always has been.
This is football - not rugby - not NFL - not cricket - not tennis!
For example, with our winner at Wembley, though, it would be up to the ref to call a review only if they specifically wanted to check whether Pearce had fouled. The difficulty with VAR in football is things like that remain subjective so put the onus on the ref to stay in control and support them getting it right as far as possible in real-time.
https://thevideoscope.com/2018/03/04/8-arguments-against-var/
If I was to concede that video technology should be used in the game though, it wouldn't be anything to do with determining what decision the ref should have called, it would be about improving the behaviour of the players. I quite like the idea of every player being individually recorded for the whole 90 minutes. Any instances of fouling, diving, trying to trick or bully the ref, or general arguing would be dealt with by highly punitive fines. If we could use technology to end the cheating and 'gamesmanship', we'd be a lot nearer a situation where we didn't need VAR for determining marginal decisions.
I think it has not been implemented well. It has to be an option for teams to use and it has to be something precious so it it not overused or risked. I think if FIFA adopted this criteria they would have come up with something better. It can never prevent wrong decisions, but it can give teams more power to avoid being victims of them. I know it is a different sport, but if a cricket team uses up its reviews it is seen as their problem.
I think FIFA should get a panel of sensible ex players together and review its laws. The hand ball, penalty and offside laws have become too complicated and need resetting to something more sensible that is less open to interpretation.
All or nothing.
Where it's a blatant dive or an unpunished GBH I want that reversed, but for the ones in the middle VAR isn't really helping unless you make the rules completely black and white which would probably ruin the sport. Hence we are still having controversial penalties being given, and massive delays before the decision is made
Having one review becomes a strategic decision and if you use it and lose it and it costs you later, at least it is partly your fault!