VAR Vote
- Thread starter Gabriel
- Start date
If only it wasn't the Club's owners doing the voting. I'm of a mind that the Managers (or anyone football orientated) would kick it out, but hey ho
Nonetheless, the vote highlights what a shambles it's been from Day 1 with no sign of improvement
Indeed, with the possible exception of SAOS, I don't believe there's scope for improving the subjective elements. Perhaps the vote should've been for the subjective stuff only
Last edited:
People will call for it to come back the second a goal is wrongly awarded or ruled out...
I think bring in semi-automated offsides like in the UCL and mic up refs rugby style (and allow them to say more than some law quoting that most fans don't recognise), will go a long way to helping.
I think bring in semi-automated offsides like in the UCL and mic up refs rugby style (and allow them to say more than some law quoting that most fans don't recognise), will go a long way to helping.
It needs 14 of the 20 clubs to vote for it, so very unlikely to happen. There's an argument to say it would be very dis-advantageous for the top clubs to have VAR in Europe but not in their domestic competitions, so I really can't see them voting for it.
The answer for me is to go back to what it was designed for, absolute clear and obvious errors. Taking offside out of the equation it should just be for the types of situation where 100 referees look at it and immediately say it was a mistake, like the Thierry Handball vs Ireland handling offence. That would probably mean non-offside VAR interventions that you can count on one hand over the course of a season. But that wouldn't address the first 3 bullet points as there would still be delays whilst they checked offsides, albeit much faster with semi-automated system.
I keep coming back to this fact though, it was the clubs that asked for VAR. It wasn't hoisted on them on the whim of the footballing authorities, rather was based on years and years of the clubs calling for the referees to get help.
The answer for me is to go back to what it was designed for, absolute clear and obvious errors. Taking offside out of the equation it should just be for the types of situation where 100 referees look at it and immediately say it was a mistake, like the Thierry Handball vs Ireland handling offence. That would probably mean non-offside VAR interventions that you can count on one hand over the course of a season. But that wouldn't address the first 3 bullet points as there would still be delays whilst they checked offsides, albeit much faster with semi-automated system.
I keep coming back to this fact though, it was the clubs that asked for VAR. It wasn't hoisted on them on the whim of the footballing authorities, rather was based on years and years of the clubs calling for the referees to get help.
And then throwing referee's under the bus when they didn't like what they voted for
I think there's a fair chance the clubs will vote to get rid of it, Sweden got the ball rolling and if a major league follows then we could potentially see a snowball affect happening.
I don't think VAR is as bad as people make out to be. Fans can't accept camera angles and how the technology works around that so doubt some of the marginal offside decisions. The subjective decisions are always going to cause an issue and I do think unless it's 100% the wrong decision then penalties/red cards should not be overturned.
I think if VAR does get scrapped, I do think there will still be a way automated offside can still be used.
I don't think VAR is as bad as people make out to be. Fans can't accept camera angles and how the technology works around that so doubt some of the marginal offside decisions. The subjective decisions are always going to cause an issue and I do think unless it's 100% the wrong decision then penalties/red cards should not be overturned.
I think if VAR does get scrapped, I do think there will still be a way automated offside can still be used.
FinalWhistle
Armchair Referee
For all its faults and issues, I think VAR should stay. I like the forensic level analysis of incidents and overall it improves reffing quality. I believe that the process will continue to improve over time.
Don't forget that the side on the wrong end of a VAR decision will nearly always protest since they're naturally biased, even when the video evidence clearly shows them to be in the wrong, so it's not possible to stamp out all dissent and the integrity of the game should't be compromised because of it by removing VAR.
Don't forget that the side on the wrong end of a VAR decision will nearly always protest since they're naturally biased, even when the video evidence clearly shows them to be in the wrong, so it's not possible to stamp out all dissent and the integrity of the game should't be compromised because of it by removing VAR.
I think VAR is a good idea in principal, I think we're still stuck with a poor version of it.
I've said before, but it baffles me that they didn't start by copy/pasting the rugby TMO system and tweaking from there. Instead choosing to build a new system from scratch and introducing a bunch of teething problems in the early days when they really could have done with buy-in.
I think if you said tomorrow that SAOT will be brought in exactly as it is in Europe and everything else will be done TMO-style, you'd be taking a massive and easy leap forward - which is unacceptable for a system that's now been around a good few years to still be noticeably behind a system they could have adopted from day 1.
I've said before, but it baffles me that they didn't start by copy/pasting the rugby TMO system and tweaking from there. Instead choosing to build a new system from scratch and introducing a bunch of teething problems in the early days when they really could have done with buy-in.
I think if you said tomorrow that SAOT will be brought in exactly as it is in Europe and everything else will be done TMO-style, you'd be taking a massive and easy leap forward - which is unacceptable for a system that's now been around a good few years to still be noticeably behind a system they could have adopted from day 1.
Runner Ref
Active Member
Challenge-based system
Challenge-based system
Challenge-based system
Challenge-based system
Challenge-based system
Challenge-based system
Challenge-based system
Challenge-based system
Challenge-based system
Yeah, that too.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
For what it's worth, I'm in the one person in 100 who felt / feels that the on field Additional Assistant Referees (behind each goal) were the perfect solution. Whilst they were derided at the time (in part because the average fan at that point didn't understand the importance of referee comms) in reality, they provided the perfect additional support / angle for the vast majority of KMIs. None of this C&O nonsense, just additional on field input of the same type that referees were already used to receiving from their ARs.
Fair, but again, it was ballsed up by a complete misunderstanding from the people implementing them as to what the point of doing this is.
Fans and managers don't want two immobile additional referees/ARs secretly boosting the correct decisions by a few %, they want actual evidence of useful intervention. Those AARs may have been incredibly useful to the ref (although I maintain they were on the wrong side of the goal!), but they don't get to visibly flag, which means they don't claim "credit" for anything, which means they don't fulfil the actual point of any changes like this, which should be boosting fan/manager confidence in officials.
It's the exact same reason why VAR decisions being made in a veil of secrecy was always going to be sub-optimal. For fans to feel any benefit from the process, they have to know what the process is and they have to see it working properly over and over.
Even the version we have now is self-defeating in that sense, because an artificially high proportion of controversial/wrong decisions make it onto the Webb show - it gives the impression that 75% of VAR decisions are wrong or deserving of some additional scrutiny, wheras if everything was on open comms, there would be a much better understanding of how they do actually get it right most of the time!
Kes
I'll Decide ...
I'd tend to agree.
I think it has to stay. At the very least, we're not seeing "Hand Of God" goals winning football matches etc.
I think Anthony Gordon pretty much hit the nail on the head as to how many are currently feeling about VAR. Around 55 seconds in ....
Runner Ref
Active Member
I think I sit on the complete opposite side of the fence here. The forensic levels of analysis are one of the major issues, as they will analyse things too much. This is why the media can always find something to fault.
Not convinced it has improved the level of officiating.
Yes there will always be people moaning, regardless of having VAR or not. So that argument is enough to make me think we might as well scrap it.
Tottenham vs Liverpool- Luis Diaz disallowed goal.............
Runner Ref
Active Member
Not sure I'd quite say it is factual. Whether a KMI is correct or incorrect is still down to an element of opinion
Tend to agree with this, but they messed it up