VAR

[genome]

There's "no speaking to me"? Climb out of your own arse, Seb...

How often have you seen TMO being used for those kinds of decisions? It is used for the black-and-white decisions such as - "has the ball been touched down?" "Is he over the line?" "Did he get a touch to the ball?" Stuff that is easily yes or no. You don't get stuff being referred to it like in football, such as "Is it a foul, or a dive? - How much contact was there?" "Was it ball to hand, or hand to ball?" etc. Even the offside rule has been open to interpretation like in the Liverpool vs Tottenham game.

That's why VAR takes ages, because it doesn't suddenly make it easier to make the right decision.

[Sebastian the Red]

I'm afraid you're wrong about what it's used for in rugby, but keep it up champ.

I can only suggest that maybe you could watch some rugby? Not only will you learn something, maybe improve your mind a touch, but it's a far superior game so you might actually enjoy yourself in the process.

[Silver Fox]

As for being a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, I'd expect any fan resisting VAR to pipe down when in future Reading or England or whoever are subject to an obvious error which, after all, is what VAR (and all technology) is trying to eliminate (for example, Lampard's goal, Henry's handball, Liverpool's 'goal' in the CL semi vs Chelsea), or our ghost goal vs Watford.

Three of those examples would be sorted with goal line technology, which has been proved to work a treat

No technology will ever prevent the French from cheating

[Sebastian the Red]

No technology will ever prevent the French from cheating

I agree

[Hoop Blah]

I also don't think VAR, if used properly, is as subjective as you suggest, HB. We are (even the knuckle-draggers) sensible-headed enough to know when a foul is definitely a foul, and when a dive is definitely a dive. That is where VAR should be used, and if it is, there can't really be much argument about the outcome.

And here lies a big issue with it, and your view that it's just the implementation/current use of it that's flawed. There are plenty of situations where people, even neutrals, can't agree on whether it's a foul, a dive or offside. Sure, they might not be the clear and obvious errors VAR is looking to address, but these are the majority of contentious situations or those that impact on a game and thats why VAR will nearly always take longer than it should.

I'd love to see football address the issues of timewasting, cheating and lack of respect for the officials to get the game back to where it should be, but I don't see VAR as being helpful in that. Stricter enforcement of the laws would help, as would better knowledge of those laws amongst both players and pundits so that they can lead that change and some robust retrospective punishments for cheating and dissent. Ultimately though, and perhaps I'm wrong here, I just don't see VAR doesn't really fitting in with it.

[Sanguine]

There are plenty of situations where people, even neutrals, can't agree on whether it's a foul, a dive or offside.

So those aren't clear and obvious errors. Which takes me back to VAR only being used at the right time, and secondly, on those occasions where it is used, a mindset shift to the referee (backed up by TV) having the final say.

[Victor Meldrew]

I'm afraid you're wrong about what it's used for in rugby, but keep it up champ.

I can only suggest that maybe you could watch some rugby? Not only will you learn something, maybe improve your mind a touch, but it's a far superior game so you might actually enjoy yourself in the process.

I think the language used in rugby commentary is as crass as that used in football.
Every other word is hype with overuse of words like massive, huge, enormous to the extent that they are used not to just describe an individual player but for example a penalty kick.
"Hits" are now the big thing, stolen from American football, when previously it was about tackles.

Personally I quite like Rugby League because there is so much more action with no never-ending scrums, line-outs and rucks where the 19 stone no-necks can get a breather. Not that they should need much of a breather because I read of one game timed at 16 minutes only of action in 80 although I think there is a bit more action of late and in particular in the added time period.

As for the class, behaviour stuff I think there has been a lessening of yobbishness off the pitch with football fans and an increase in the yobbishness by fans and players of Union particularly off the pitch and for those players it is probably linked to them now being so-called professionals with more time and money than they had in the amateur days.

The respect for referees on the pitch goes back to the amateur days (often played by servicemen and the police who had no problem in using the word "sir") and along with golf and snooker there is certainly more respect for authority than in football.
Let's face it Union is very much a minority sport watched by the few, played by the few and understood by the few so, (apart from the ra-ra around the few international fixtures) the sport is so much less in the public eye and there is so much less at stake financially linked to the outcome of a game.
When it has been professional for a bit longer I expect the respect for officials to wane-watch this space.

[Hoop Blah]

There are plenty of situations where people, even neutrals, can't agree on whether it's a foul, a dive or offside.

So those aren't clear and obvious errors. Which takes me back to VAR only being used at the right time, and secondly, on those occasions where it is used, a mindset shift to the referee (backed up by TV) having the final say.

But that clear and obvious is so subjective still, and if it's just for those where there's no debate then the use of VAR is going to be so rare it's probably not worth bothering with.

[Sanguine]

Clear and obvious isn't particularly subjective, in my view.

Incidences like the Henry handball are few and far between, but obvious fouls in the box, not given, are more frequent. That's where VAR comes in. It might not happen every game, but how many times a season do we see penalties given where the defender has actually got a toe on the ball, or where the attacker has started to fall before contact? These things are 'clear and obvious' on video.

I still can't see past people objecting to this purely for change's sake.

[double d]

NZ vs Lions had a wrong decision as well. NZ vs Wales in 2016. Scotland vs Australia in the RWC 2015. It's not the perfect system you think it is.

The constant comparison with Rugby is flawed anyway. Completely different sport, much more black-and-white and less open to interpretation of the rules. The flow of the game is also completely different.

Football's just not suited to it.

1. No one ever said it was perfect. It's just much, much better than the alternative.

2. If you think that rugby is "more black-and-white and less open to interpretation" then I'm afraid there's no speaking to you. The reffing at the breakdown, at scrums, etc, is every bit as open to the individual preferences of referees as any football match.

3. I agree that football, in its current form, is probably not suited to it - but not because of the sport itself, but because of the relentlessly shit fans and the lower class dross that play the sport, with absolutely no respect for authority. VaR, for me, is one of the ways of stamping that out, and gentrifying the game, culling the fanbase of undesirable elements, and improving the behaviour of players on the pitch. VaR, alongside retrospective bans, should be used a hell of a lot more.

Genome clearly knows utterly pfuck all about Rugby, the blithering macaroni.

As somebody who works within various sports on a day to day basis and in the industry, I can assure you that (and I have detailed knowledge of this due to work) that football is far more black and white then Rugby.

He obviously didn't watch the 6 nations between Italy and England last year when nobody from England were aware of the recently changed rules (which happen every year).

Rugby rules are alot harder and enforcing them scrum, ruck, high speed tackles, knock on etc.

Football is just kicking and running and falling over.

[double d]

NZ vs Lions had a wrong decision as well. NZ vs Wales in 2016. Scotland vs Australia in the RWC 2015. It's not the perfect system you think it is.

The constant comparison with Rugby is flawed anyway. Completely different sport, much more black-and-white and less open to interpretation of the rules. The flow of the game is also completely different.

Football's just not suited to it.

1. No one ever said it was perfect. It's just much, much better than the alternative.

2. If you think that rugby is "more black-and-white and less open to interpretation" then I'm afraid there's no speaking to you. The reffing at the breakdown, at scrums, etc, is every bit as open to the individual preferences of referees as any football match.

3. I agree that football, in its current form, is probably not suited to it - but not because of the sport itself, but because of the relentlessly shit fans and the lower class dross that play the sport, with absolutely no respect for authority. VaR, for me, is one of the ways of stamping that out, and gentrifying the game, culling the fanbase of undesirable elements, and improving the behaviour of players on the pitch. VaR, alongside retrospective bans, should be used a hell of a lot more.

Btw.. poty

Point 3 is why var will never work. And also why no gay players will ever come out. The fans are all idiotic, knuckledraggers who don't get the concept of anything.

And there is no talking to Gebome you are right.

Plus the players surround and harrased the referee and have no respect like rugby players.

[Sebastian the Red]

Oh dear. DD is agreeing with me.

Genome, I owe you an apology.

[genome]

DD, you’re right, there is no talking to me. Because I have you on ignore. Now, kindly stop quoting me.

[double d]

DD, you’re right, there is no talking to me. Because I have you on ignore. Now, kindly stop quoting me.

I was answering sebs post. It isn't my fault I was quoting you too. You can take me off ignore. I just wanted to add to the debate. I do not like var and in its current form it will not work unless a culture change

[genome]

Oh dear. DD is agreeing with me.

Genome, I owe you an apology.

No m8, I take your points. I only really watch international rugby and can only really recall TMO being used for fairly easy decisions but I could well be wrong about that.

I do think the emotional element to Football is the overriding factor for a lot of people with regards to VAR (including actual footballers). All your logical viewpoints in defence of it, while they are sound, can’t really reconcile that right now. The emotional side of my brain is saying the whole thing is going to sterilise the match day experience.

You can call me precious if you like, but it’s just mine and many others opinion.

With the right changes to the system though, people will hopefully meet in the middle.

[Platypuss]

An issue with VAR is that refs now can't just let "minor"/non-obvious infringements go when a goal is scored.
VAR with penalties is always going to be horrific as the ref is normally in a position to "ignore"anything but blatant encroachment, goalie coming off the line etc. Now they can't as under VAR scrutiny, doing otherwise means they will need to justify why they chose to ignore a law.

If it means that in the long haul the laws are better heeded then I'm all for it.

[Sebastian the Red]

Oh dear. DD is agreeing with me.

Genome, I owe you an apology.

No m8, I take your points. I only really watch international rugby and can only really recall TMO being used for fairly easy decisions but I could well be wrong about that.

I do think the emotional element to Football is the overriding factor for a lot of people with regards to VAR (including actual footballers). All your logical viewpoints in defence of it, while they are sound, can’t really reconcile that right now. The emotional side of my brain is saying the whole thing is going to sterilise the match day experience.

You can call me precious if you like, but it’s just mine and many others opinion.

With the right changes to the system though, people will hopefully meet in the middle.

In all fairness I’ve just been entertaining myself for much of the afternoon by playing my normal persona and taking my views to their extreme. It’s been fun. But now dd’s here, the fun stops.

[Hoop Blah]

Clear and obvious isn't particularly subjective, in my view.

Really? How do you qualify it objectively then? Your view of what's an error will undoubtedly be different to someone else's.

[Sanguine]

Clear and obvious isn't particularly subjective, in my view.

Really? How do you qualify it objectively then? Your view of what's an error will undoubtedly be different to someone else's.

I think that's facetious. As I've tried to explain above, a clear and obvious error might be a) an obvious dive (daylight between the player and supposed contact), or b) an obvious foul (a clear trip). Some stuff isn't clear and obvious, and so VAR doesn't come into play.

[Hoop Blah]

Clear and obvious isn't particularly subjective, in my view.

Really? How do you qualify it objectively then? Your view of what's an error will undoubtedly be different to someone else's.

I think that's facetious. As I've tried to explain above, a clear and obvious error might be a) an obvious dive (daylight between the player and supposed contact), or b) an obvious foul (a clear trip). Some stuff isn't clear and obvious, and so VAR doesn't come into play.

Of course it's facetious, but it's also going to be the reality that at some point you have to draw the line between clear and obvious and debatable and that's going to be quite subjective and will certainly be a grey area.