Brentford Vs Liverpool

[socal lurker]

Also, how are we defining these, was it actually 4? Brentford had I think 2 disallowed by VAR (plus/including one which was flagged offside on-field and then confirmed by VAR, not sure if this qualifies as a review?),

Technically, nothing is "confirmed" by the VAR. When the VAR check does not identify a C&O error, the process doesn't proceed to a review. And checks are happening constantly throughout the game--we only know there is a check if the VAR tells the R to not let the game restart or to stop play,. But all of that is pedantic--for time keeping, what matters isn't whether there is a review, but whether play was held up for a "review" or a "check."

 

[socal lurker]

Like....maybe I'm just underestimating football's incompetence, but I'm not expecting the world here - I'm asking for something that has been achieved to a good standard in other less-well-financed sports. It should be a really simple box to tick and if everything we're being told about VAR is true, it should be happening already in reality.

I think as of now it would be really embarrassing if the PL VAR discussions were public (which would have been true for a lot of the WC, too).

Right now, the reality is that VARs and Rs are still learning to communicate. It makes perfect sense for that to be private. I also think soccer is different, as so much of what is being reviewed is subjective, not objective.

But whether it makes sense to have those discussions public in a live sense, I don't understand why the PL won't do something like what MLS does in the US, and release some interchanges to let the public (at least those who care) see into the process. Perhaps Webb will bring that with him to the PL.

 

[GraemeS]

Technically, nothing is "confirmed" by the VAR. When the VAR check does not identify a C&O error, the process doesn't proceed to a review. And checks are happening constantly throughout the game--we only know there is a check if the VAR tells the R to not let the game restart or to stop play,. But all of that is pedantic--for time keeping, what matters isn't whether there is a review, but whether play was held up for a "review" or a "check."

Accept you're right, but it's a pointless distinction to make. Surely it's not unreasonable for something to be reviewed only for the original decision to be upheld? And if they're drawing offside lines because it's close but then determine the on-field decision was just correct, that's taken literally the exact same amount of time as an actual review - so failing to count it as such is skewing the stats.

 

[santa sangria]

What's the plan then? Clone Cann 19 times and make the Cann-clones run every line every matchday until their legs fall off? You can't build a system based on how excellent at his job one man is, when at an absolute minimum, each match requires two of them!

There are already 30 Canns working the EPL. You answered your own question there

 

[GraemeS]

Really, that's the argument? How quickly people forget - VAR wasn't created because IFAB decided they fancied a tinker, it was created because people were repeatedly and vocally unhappy with among other things, the standard of AR accuracy in the EPL.

Careful what you wish for etc, but pretending human accuracy is fine is naïve and/or intellectually dishonest.

 

[RustyRef]

Said it before, but you can't compare VAR in football with reviews in cricket. Cricket decisions are almost always black and white, how many decisions in football fall into that category? Physical offside positions, and ball over line but we already have GLT for that. And not just cricket, but tennis is black and white, and almost all decisions in rugby are.

As we see on here, even with the benefit of multiple replays we don't all agree, and sometimes it is split right down the middle. And that's just because in football we have to be more subjective, especially these days when physical contact doesn't necessarily make a foul. We can all see whether there has been physical contact on a foul or not, but we might not all agree on whether that contact was enough to bring the opponent down.

We are already seeing signs of improvement under Webb, so far we haven't seen inconsistent VAR interventions, and I'm confident he will sort out the comms. Perhaps not real time, but certainly explaining after games. Countries that have nailed VAR far better than England aren't doing live audio, and won't until they are 100% certain that any problems have been ironed out, otherwise it could be hugely embarrassing.

 

[santa sangria]

Really, that's the argument? How quickly people forget - VAR wasn't created because IFAB decided they fancied a tinker, it was created because people were repeatedly and vocally unhappy with among other things, the standard of AR accuracy in the EPL.

Careful what you wish for etc, but pretending human accuracy is fine is naïve and/or intellectually dishonest.

If that’s addressed at me… I would prefer not to have VAR. As for human accuracy, I would gladly sacrifice the handful of millimeter offside decisions that offside VAR corrects to bring back goal celebrations. As for the rest of VAR, the human inaccuracy of the protocol is a large part of the problem - and obviously I would ditch that in a heartbeat.

It’s intellectually naive to support VAR out of blind loyalty and to turn a blind eye as it opens up a yawning chasm and splits the game - and officiating in particular - into two.

 

[socal lurker]

If that’s addressed at me… I would prefer not to have VAR. As for human accuracy, I would gladly sacrifice the handful of millimeter offside decisions that offside VAR corrects to bring back goal celebrations. As for the rest of VAR, the human inaccuracy of the protocol is a large part of the problem - and obviously I would ditch that in a heartbeat.

It’s intellectually naive to support VAR out of blind loyalty and to turn a blind eye as it opens up a yawning chasm and splits the game - and officiating in particular - into two.

While I largely agree with your sentiment, I think it is also naïve to think VAR being abolished is much more likely than IFAB amending the Laws to let field players pick up the ball in their hands and run with it . . . the genie is out of the bottle and is never going back

 

[RustyRef]

While I largely agree with your sentiment, I think it is also naïve to think VAR being abolished is much more likely than IFAB amending the Laws to let field players pick up the ball in their hands and run with it . . . the genie is out of the bottle and is never going back

100% agree, absolutely zero chance of it going anywhere.