Colin's got the answers!!

[markref]

MSN

Neil Warnock has apparently put forward a five point plan for Howard Webb to "save VAR". The main point is getting ex-players to act as VAR because they know the game and Referees don't!

Colin joining the group (together with Nigel Farage and Keith Hackett) of people who have served their purpose and should go away now! (or preferably before now!)

 

[SammyT5]

Unless those players were also trained and experienced referees they’d do an even worse job as the VARs.

 

[Runner-Ref]

I said this the other day.... give the ex-pros a go. Let us see them mess it up even further.

You only have to watch different channels for their different pundits, and how much their opinions on incidents vary to show it wouldn't work. But its worth a go, just to simply prove a point.

 

[RefereeX]

I noted that one of his answers was a 30 second time limit to make a decision. I can't wait for the time that they realise a major error after 31 seconds and it's too late to intervene.

 

[RyantheRef]

I noted that one of his answers was a 30 second time limit to make a decision. I can't wait for the time that they realise a major error after 31 seconds and it's too late to intervene.

Then they'll complain about strict implementation of rules

 

[SammyT5]

I’ve just read all his five points and they are absolutely ludicrous:

https://x.com/warnockofficial/status/1724763515532038243?s=46&t=GfQ8Fi_YHXFpmfA2kWAe9A

It shows a complete lack of understanding of how refereeing and VAR works and would lead to so many issues.

 

[DazN]

The plan:

1) Set a THIRTY-SECOND time limit for decisions to be made
2) Stop using slow-motion replays that often make incidents look worse
3) Change the offside rule so there must be daylight between an attacking and defending player and introduce the semi-automated system
4) Allow refs freedom to use common-sense and end the era of “robot officials”
5) Appoint an independent group of ex-players and coaches to operate the technology

Job done.

 

[Runner-Ref]

The plan:

1) Set a THIRTY-SECOND time limit for decisions to be made
2) Stop using slow-motion replays that often make incidents look worse
3) Change the offside rule so there must be daylight between an attacking and defending player and introduce the semi-automated system
4) Allow refs freedom to use common-sense and end the era of “robot officials”
5) Appoint an independent group of ex-players and coaches to operate the technology

Job done.

1- Could potentially work, however if a decision was rushed and then deemed to be wrong, people would moan

2- agree to an extent, especially when it comes to SFP. But with things like HB or a trip in which defender may or may not have touched the ball, think slow-mo helps

3- that will solve absolutely nothing as no one will be able to agree on what daylight means.

4- this one is all well and good, but will lead to more inconsistencies as common sense will differ from person to person

5- I really want them to trial this

 

[DazN]

Yes with regards to point 3) I can never quite comprehend how fans think changing the offside rule to 'allow daylight' would make any difference because surely there will always be a point at which it becomes a marginal decision. Rather than 'is he onside or not?' it would just become 'is there daylight or not?'

 

[DazN]

4- this one is all well and good, but will lead to more inconsistencies as common sense will differ from person to person

Especially when inconsistency is what they already argue about.

 

[JamesL]

The plan:

1) Set a THIRTY-SECOND time limit for decisions to be made
2) Stop using slow-motion replays that often make incidents look worse
3) Change the offside rule so there must be daylight between an attacking and defending player and introduce the semi-automated system
4) Allow refs freedom to use common-sense and end the era of “robot officials”
5) Appoint an independent group of ex-players and coaches to operate the technology

Job done.

1) Not an option. Newcastle v Arsenal prime example. 3 decisions. 10 secs per decisions. And then when a clanger is discovered after 30 seconds and it can't be changed the word common sense will start getting thrown around again.

2) Agree. But then all that will happen is the broadcasters will use the slow mo to crate controversy. Won't solve any problems but will create more.

3) this seems a simple change but anyone who understands flash lag, understands that it you don't see daylight (as the AR) they probably aren't Offside.

4) One mans common sense is very different to another and will lead to more cries of inconsistency! A non-starter.

5) few points here. The refa don't actually physically operate it. But the real point is about getting players and coaches in. Worth a go. The other, more centric idea would be to perhaps get a referee and an ex-player/coach. Would be an interesting approach... Are there lots or players and coaches queuing up to take on this role? I doubt it.

 

[benmc]

Not with what pay they'll be offered to make decisions compared to pay they'll be offered to unpick them

 

[GraemeS]

If you're allowing for the VARs to no longer have to be top-level refs or former top-level refs, the first thing they should do is scout further down the referee ranks. Find young refs who know the laws and are comfortable with technology and offer a third specialist VAR route.

 

[JamesL]

If you're allowing for the VARs to no longer have to be top-level refs or former top-level refs, the first thing they should do is scout further down the referee ranks. Find young refs who know the laws and are comfortable with technology and offer a third specialist VAR route.

Nothing like putting your CV out there Graeme 😅 👍

 

[GraemeS]

Nothing like putting your CV out there Graeme 😅 👍

I wouldn't turn it down!

But in all seriousness, I think it should be a choice at the same time you're currently expected to choose between ref/AR.

 

[Runner-Ref]

I wouldn't turn it down!

But in all seriousness, I think it should be a choice at the same time you're currently expected to choose between ref/AR.

It's certainly not the worst idea in the world and could be something worth considering, if they haven't already.

But I really do want them to put ex-players/coaches in there as a trial and see how it goes. I'm 99% certain it wouldn't solve the issues, but it may open people's eyes to just how difficult refereeing is. The idea of an ex-pro simply being a good referee/VAR because they used to play is utter tosh. Just like being a quality ex-pro doesn't make them any good as a manager e.g Lampard, Gerrard, Rooney etc)

 

[george.g]

Lampard, Gerrard, Rooney etc)

With their managerial stints they’ll be used to being booed off the pitch at least.

 

[RefGod]

If you're allowing for the VARs to no longer have to be top-level refs or former top-level refs, the first thing they should do is scout further down the referee ranks. Find young refs who know the laws and are comfortable with technology and offer a third specialist VAR route.

Why young ?

If it's not the Select Groups, surely it should go down the refereeing ladder from EFL to level 2's who come under the PGMOL.

 

[GraemeS]

It's certainly not the worst idea in the world and could be something worth considering, if they haven't already.

But I really do want them to put ex-players/coaches in there as a trial and see how it goes. I'm 99% certain it wouldn't solve the issues, but it may open people's eyes to just how difficult refereeing is. The idea of an ex-pro simply being a good referee/VAR because they used to play is utter tosh. Just like being a quality ex-pro doesn't make them any good as a manager e.g Lampard, Gerrard, Rooney etc)

I think you do run into a larger philosophical question of how much should the laws drive football decisions vs how much "what football expects" should drive the laws. Because ex-players will definitely go for the latter, and refereeing/law writers need to decide if they want to resist that or go along with it.

Putting obvious safety concerns aside, I do feel like WFE should drive law writing more than it does. It's why I always say that the answer to "fix" the handball law is to make it result-based. What players care about is if the ball is taken away from them by a handball, so if the core question is "did the player gain an advantage by use of their hand/arm", handball would broadly speaking line up with what football expects.

 

[Runner-Ref]

I think you do run into a larger philosophical question of how much should the laws drive football decisions vs how much "what football expects" should drive the laws. Because ex-players will definitely go for the latter, and refereeing/law writers need to decide if they want to resist that or go along with it.

Putting obvious safety concerns aside, I do feel like WFE should drive law writing more than it does. It's why I always say that the answer to "fix" the handball law is to make it result-based. What players care about is if the ball is taken away from them by a handball, so if the core question is "did the player gain an advantage by use of their hand/arm", handball would broadly speaking line up with what football expects.

I don't doubt that they would go along the line with what football expects, but this still wouldn't appease everyone. The team who felt wronged by the decision and would kick up a fuss that it went against law. My main point is that no matter what formula they go with, people will still moan. We are in an age of technology, which allows for the media to blow stuff out of proportion that would never have been as issue 15 years or so ago. Then you have Social Media, which gives people who they think know it all give their opinion as gospel, and other people believe it.