VAR

[what_wind_turbine?]

As much as anything, I think the issue is with referees in football being scared of perceived culpability. Knowing they will be blamed for any decision that isn't comprehensively correct - hence why they are overusing VAR as a resource to make almost every decision.

As a comparitor, in rugby, a decision can be reviewed, usually accompanied by the ref asking, for example, "Is there any reason I can't award a try". A decision has been made, and unless there is a reason to deviate from that decision, it will be taken. The referee's decision is respected, and so the TMO can be used as a resource.

Similarly, 50/50 decisions on an LBW in cricket are based upon umpire's call. The assumption is the decision is correct unless it is conclusively not.

On the other hand, a referee in football knows that their decisions are not respected. Every decision is argued, abused, they will be harangued. That's why VAR is probably, sadly, doomed to fail. VAR should be the introduction that drags football into the 21st century, but endemic cuntishness from the players/fans won't let it succeed.

[Hoop Blah]

As much as anything, I think the issue is with referees in football being scared of perceived culpability. Knowing they will be blamed for any decision that isn't comprehensively correct - hence why they are overusing VAR as a resource to make almost every decision.

As a comparitor, in rugby, a decision can be reviewed, usually accompanied by the ref asking, for example, "Is there any reason I can't award a try". A decision has been made, and unless there is a reason to deviate from that decision, it will be taken. The referee's decision is respected, and so the TMO can be used as a resource.

Similarly, 50/50 decisions on an LBW in cricket are based upon umpire's call. The assumption is the decision is correct unless it is conclusively not.

On the other hand, a referee in football knows that their decisions are not respected. Every decision is argued, abused, they will be harangued. That's why VAR is probably, sadly, doomed to fail. VAR should be the introduction that drags football into the 21st century, but endemic cuntishness from the players/fans won't let it succeed.

Generally agree, although in cricket we've seen a definite change in the decisions an umpire will give which means that on review decisions are going the wrong way because of the tentative decision the umpire has given onfield in the hope that it'll be reviewed.

[Greatwesternline]

Best thing about football is its a low scoring sport which means every goal is massive.

That is why the emotional intensity of a goal being scored is so high, and therefore fun.

If you can't go mad when you score a goal because it might be chalked off the joy of football has gone.

I therefore think VAR is a terrible idea. So what if the ref gets a few decisions wrong every odd game or so. Its only a sport. No one's life is depending on it. Get over it. It is supposed to be fun.

Take out the fun and get the correct result seems absurd to me.

The same is now true in cricket. Previously for an LBW the umpires finger would go up and it was like scoring a goal. Now you can't celebrate LBWs because they get reviewed. Its killed the excitment of an LBW appeal.

[From Despair To Where?]

A similar situation has arisen in the NFL although in that instance it's the rules that need tweaking rather than the technology. I honestly think video evidence should only he used to overturn glaringly obvious errors. If it's not clear after a couple of looks, go with the on field decision

[Sanguine]

If you can't go mad when you score a goal because it might be chalked off the joy of football has gone.

I therefore think VAR is a terrible idea.

That's ridiculous. You can still go mad. If a goal is chalked off by VAR then it will (once the system is ironed out) be rightly so. How and why that would stop fans celebrating when it hits the net I don't know.

[Hoop Blah]

If you can't go mad when you score a goal because it might be chalked off the joy of football has gone.

I therefore think VAR is a terrible idea.

That's ridiculous. You can still go mad. If a goal is chalked off by VAR then it will (once the system is ironed out) be rightly so. How and why that would stop fans celebrating when it hits the net I don't know.

It depends how many goals end up being chalked off doesn't it? Or how fans perceive it at least. If there's a decent chance a goal is going to be disallowed then naturally you're celebration is going to become a bit more muted over time.

I doubt that many goals will be impacted by VAR though, so it shouldn't really be a problem.

I was watching BT's Premier League chat programme after the game on Saturday night and they said that there were issues at the Confederation Cup with their version of VAR. Anyone know what happened there?

[genome]

If you can't go mad when you score a goal because it might be chalked off the joy of football has gone.

I therefore think VAR is a terrible idea.

That's ridiculous. You can still go mad. If a goal is chalked off by VAR then it will (once the system is ironed out) be rightly so. How and why that would stop fans celebrating when it hits the net I don't know.

It depends how many goals end up being chalked off doesn't it? Or how fans perceive it at least. If there's a decent chance a goal is going to be disallowed then naturally you're celebration is going to become a bit more muted over time.

Well, if Tottenham's 1st "goal" against Rochdale is a precedent, then we'd be going to VAR for every goal.

[John Madejski's Wallet]

How far back are they going to go? Even now manager's moan about a foul that should have been given in the other half 20 passes before the goal.

If VAR starts getting used for that sh* t then I am truly OUT

[Greatwesternline]

If you can't go mad when you score a goal because it might be chalked off the joy of football has gone.

I therefore think VAR is a terrible idea.

That's ridiculous. You can still go mad. If a goal is chalked off by VAR then it will (once the system is ironed out) be rightly so. How and why that would stop fans celebrating when it hits the net I don't know.

Every goal that involves a through ball with a player on the edge of the line of the last man. Every goal from a corner, think how many goals will be ruled out for shirt puling.

Every goal from a free kick swung in where every player stands on the edge of the last man.

Those cover most goals. Not that many goals actually come from open play where there is no question of offside being an issue.

[Sanguine]

If you can't go mad when you score a goal because it might be chalked off the joy of football has gone.

I therefore think VAR is a terrible idea.

That's ridiculous. You can still go mad. If a goal is chalked off by VAR then it will (once the system is ironed out) be rightly so. How and why that would stop fans celebrating when it hits the net I don't know.

Every goal that involves a through ball with a player on the edge of the line of the last man. Every goal from a corner, think how many goals will be ruled out for shirt puling.

Every goal from a free kick swung in where every player stands on the edge of the last man.

Those cover most goals. Not that many goals actually come from open play where there is no question of offside being an issue.

You are being utterly ridiculous. If you want to stop bouncing around when your team scores I guess that's up to you. For some reason though you are hugely exaggerating the numbers of goals for which VAR would be used. Bizarre.

[genome]

He's not being ridiculous, Sanguine. It's a legitimate concern.

Goal celebrations are a huge part of the emotional impact of football, and if there's a chance your goal could be ruled out because the referee needs to be 100% sure there's no infringement, it's going to completely ruin the moment. You saw it in the Tottenham vs Rochdale game. It's a slippery slope and it needs to be clarified before being brought in properly.

I just don't feel you're getting the emotional side of the argument. You need to realise why the vast majority of people watch football, discrediting that and calling it "ridiculous" or "precious" is just a bit obtuse.

[Hoop Blah]

I was watching BT's Premier League chat programme after the game on Saturday night and they said that there were issues at the Confederation Cup with their version of VAR. Anyone know what happened there?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40474969

So again, it looks like a fair few mistakes were made even with the VAR in place and some of the criticism is the same as that coming out of the pilot in the FA Cup over here.

My concern is that despite there being something like 4,000 games played out using VAR (I think that's the stat I saw in some of the coverage of FIFA's VAR thumbs up for the World Cup) we're still such basic issues with the system and it's use.

[Sanguine]

It's not obtuse, and it's ridiculous. I'm saying that the notion that even a small minority of fans in the ground will be nervously looking at the officials instead of going crazy when a goal goes is silly.

VAR as a technology is great. It isn't yet being used properly. VAR should not have been used for Spurs' goal against Rochdale. Eliminate misuse of the system and for the most part you eliminate all of the controversy about VAR so far. As has already been discussed, the VAR's role in the example of the Spurs goal should have been to check the video (in the background, without communicating with the referee) and conclude that no obvious error had been made. Simple, and the fans wouldn't even have known it was going on.

[genome]

It's not obtuse, and it's ridiculous. I'm saying that the notion that even a small minority of fans in the ground will be nervously looking at the officials instead of going crazy when a goal goes is silly.

VAR as a technology is great. It isn't yet being used properly. VAR should not have been used for Spurs' goal against Rochdale. Eliminate misuse of the system and for the most part you eliminate all of the controversy about VAR so far. As has already been discussed, the VAR's role in the example of the Spurs goal should have been to check the video (in the background, without communicating with the referee) and conclude that no obvious error had been made. Simple, and the fans wouldn't even have known it was going on.

You're assuming it will be a small minority. If it happens once or twice then more and more people are going to start expecting it to be checked whenever there's something marginal (hence me saying it's a slippery slope). Like I said, unless these things are ironed out it's a legit concern. I'm not saying it won't be rectified, I'm just saying right now, I don't think it's as ridiculous an argument as you're making out.

What if Aguero's title-winning goal had to be checked by VAR and then subsequently the goal was given anyway? It would've completely ruined an iconic moment.

[Sanguine]

What if Aguero's title-winning goal had to be checked by VAR and then subsequently the goal was given anyway? It would've completely ruined an iconic moment.

On what basis - when the system is working properly - would it have been checked?
And do you really think, having been behind in injury time, needing a win to take the title, there is anything at all that might have stopped 50,000 City fans going absolutely fcuking mental as the ball hit the back of the net?

There is no 'slippery slope' is the system is used correctly.

[Hoop Blah]

VAR as a technology is great. It isn't yet being used properly. VAR should not have been used for Spurs' goal against Rochdale.

Do you mean it shouldn't have been used? Or that the decision they came up with was wrong?

Eliminate misuse of the system and for the most part you eliminate all of the controversy about VAR so far. As has already been discussed, the VAR's role in the example of the Spurs goal should have been to check the video (in the background, without communicating with the referee) and conclude that no obvious error had been made. Simple, and the fans wouldn't even have known it was going on.

I guess from the second bit you mean the decision. The problem is that we're back to the subjective nature of the decisions that are being made. Someone obviously felt that is was a clear and obvious foul, it just so happens that you, and I guess many others, don't agree with that subjective assessment.

In reality the use of technology is only ever going to be as good as the people that use it. As I said earlier, football is something like 4,000 games into using video reviews and it's still being used pretty inconsistently and poorly. I'm ok with it being given a chance but only if the game is honest in it's appraisal of adopting it. The fact it's been signed off for use in the World Cup in it's current state (with time for improvements of course) is a bit of a worry to me.

[Hoop Blah]

On what basis - when the system is working properly - would it have been checked?

All goals are checked aren't they?

[genome]

What if Aguero's title-winning goal had to be checked by VAR and then subsequently the goal was given anyway? It would've completely ruined an iconic moment.

On what basis - when the system is working properly - would it have been checked?
And do you really think, having been behind in injury time, needing a win to take the title, there is anything at all that might have stopped 50,000 City fans going absolutely fcuking mental as the ball hit the back of the net?

There is no 'slippery slope' is the system is used correctly.

You know, fans can go mental, then have to stop going mental while VAR is checked, before getting the goal confirmed. It's not hard to see why that interruption would spoil such a moment.

And I'm talking hypothetically - just using an iconic goal as an example. Say Aguero was on the shoulder of the last defender and it had to be checked for offside, or the ball came to him and he controlled it with his chest, but the ref didn't see it properly and thought it was a handball.

I'm not arguing that the system will be like that forever. But it's why we need clarification, at the moment we don't have that. Until then, these kinds of concerns are understandable and I don't think it's great to write them off as ridiculous, especially if many people are concerned about it.

[Snowflake Royal]

If you can't go mad when you score a goal because it might be chalked off the joy of football has gone.

I therefore think VAR is a terrible idea.

That's ridiculous. You can still go mad. If a goal is chalked off by VAR then it will (once the system is ironed out) be rightly so. How and why that would stop fans celebrating when it hits the net I don't know.

Every goal that involves a through ball with a player on the edge of the line of the last man. Every goal from a corner, think how many goals will be ruled out for shirt puling.

Every goal from a free kick swung in where every player stands on the edge of the last man.

Those cover most goals. Not that many goals actually come from open play where there is no question of offside being an issue.

About bloody time that happened. Loads more pens at corners too.

I disagree that accounts for most goals. A big chunk, but not convinced it would even be over 50%. Corner goals are very rare for a start.

[Jack Celliers]

With the pause to kill the moment after England scored and the 50/50 penalty award for Italy, that's another game spoilt by VAR. The sooner it dies a death the better.