A&H

Colin's got the answers!!

Runner-Ref said:
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
Click to expand...

Slow-mo is valuable for determining many of the considerations for SFP like point of contact, and it helps to determine the body shape of the guilty party at the time of the contact. IMO, slow-motion replays should be used in conjunction with real-time in order to asses all of the considerations for SFP, of which speed and force are but two.

Runner-Ref said:
4- this one is all well and good, but will lead to more inconsistencies as common sense will differ from person to person
Click to expand...

Yeah, this isn't even a serious suggestion. Whenever people say they want the referee to use common sense, they mean they want to referee to do things which they agree with.
 
The Referee Store
Not for a moment do I endorse Warnock's 'bright ideas', but when slating them, keep in mind that we Referees (or at least those who govern us), have made a right Horlicks of VAR so 'don't throw stones in glass houses', is what I would say

Appreciate the chasm of two-way disrespect between referees and the wider football community. They think we are idiots and vice versa... It's toxic
Very very few (on either side) can appreciate/understand one another's blinkered view of the football world
 
Last edited:
On 4, that argues for getting rid of VAR completely. We used to think ITOOTR was the guiding light of the game. The referee opinion was what mattered, and we expected Rs to be arbiters of justice and use the Laws as a tool to dispense justice. Over the past decade or two, we’ve seen an ongoing effort (likely driven in part by TV replay) to quantify and specify in the name of consistency. Hard to roll that back in a world where every call is microanalyzed by pundits round the world with multiple angles and various speeds of slow mo and stop action.

As far as slo mo use by VAR, I think it is necessary, but also is currently used incorrectly in many VAR systems. Real speed is critical. I think MLS gets it right in that for a foul/SFP they typically show the R the point of contact in a still and then run the play at full speed—only at full speed can you fairly judge the amount of force and the impact on the opponent. Slow KO often makes both of those look worse than they are. And slow mo can be essential on some p,AYSO to determine if a ball was touched—both to see the contact and to see the change in the ball from the contact.
 
Any suggestion of ex-players or managers being VARs is laughable. Take Jermaine Jenas, who is regarded by many as the most intelligent of ex-footballers, he got himself wound up on MoTD because an offside was given when the ball had been played backwards. VAR checks would just take even longer as we'd need to have a referee who does know the laws explaining the laws to them to avoid them making an absolute horlicks of the situation.

Danny Murphy is another one, regarded as one of the more intelligent and articulate of players, but he regularly analyses situations and comes out with suggested outcomes that are just not compatible with the laws.
 
RustyRef said:
Any suggestion of ex-players or managers being VARs is laughable. Take Jermaine Jenas, who is regarded by many as the most intelligent of ex-footballers, he got himself wound up on MoTD because an offside was given when the ball had been played backwards. VAR checks would just take even longer as we'd need to have a referee who does know the laws explaining the laws to them to avoid them making an absolute horlicks of the situation.

Danny Murphy is another one, regarded as one of the more intelligent and articulate of players, but he regularly analyses situations and comes out with suggested outcomes that are just not compatible with the laws.
Click to expand...
But this is exactly why they need to trial it. Let the supposed experts realise how difficult it is, let them **** it up.

Then maybe people would sympathise and respect referees that bit more.

I know in reality this is never going to happen, but they should put their money where their mouth is imo.
 
RustyRef said:
Danny Murphy is another one, regarded as one of the more intelligent and articulate of players
Click to expand...
Not by me he's not. I don't rate him in the slightest
Anyway, I agree with you. The players don't know what they don't know about about Law
That's part of the ignorance for their part of the two way divide. They have absolutely no clue what it's like and how difficult it is to referee a game.
And the difficulty level of refereeing is largely of their making!
 
Runner-Ref said:
But this is exactly why they need to trial it. Let the supposed experts realise how difficult it is, let them **** it up.

Then maybe people would sympathise and respect referees that bit more.

I know in reality this is never going to happen, but they should put their money where their mouth is imo.
Click to expand...
But they wouldn't sympathise, they would like the facts that they got decisions wrong if it suited them. Not penalising handling that by law is 100% an offence would go down well with the vast majority of supporters as long as it wasn't their team impacted. There are lots of laws that players and fans don't like, so if ex-players as referees manipulated the way they should be applied they would be seen as heroes, not villains.
 
RustyRef said:
But they wouldn't sympathise, they would like the facts that they got decisions wrong if it suited them. Not penalising handling that by law is 100% an offence would go down well with the vast majority of supporters as long as it wasn't their team impacted. There are lots of laws that players and fans don't like, so if ex-players as referees manipulated the way they should be applied they would be seen as heroes, not villains.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced it would go down well. If anything it would lead to further annoyance as the ex-pros would have less consistency than referees. Referees will at least try to referee to the laws of the game. The ex-pros would attempt to referee it how they see fit, and that would change week on week.

One pundit says one thing and another says the other- that just shows that they can't make their minds up.

If they did somehow end up as VAR's, I'm sure they would be given some form of training on the laws. And I can almost guarantee that they would freeze when trying to apply them. Especially if Warnocks 30 second idea came to be
 
Under NW’s plan, would ex-pros and managers be allowed to officiate for clubs they played for / managed?”
 
DazN said:
Under NW’s plan, would ex-pros and managers be allowed to officiate for clubs they played for / managed?”
Click to expand...
Exactly that, how would ‘football world‘ react to Gary Neville in VAR making a decision against Liverpool or City or Chelsea, would never be accepted as impartial. Insert any footballer into this scenario. Could never work.

Always comes back to, so many football decisions are subjective often 50/50 calls. Managers & fans aren’t concerned about ‘correct‘ key match decisions only that key match decisions are decided in their favour.

Only solution is: the football referee is respected as the independent arbitrator, as rugby ‘used to have’ but even they have not been able to retain in recent years. (Note hate/vitriol directed at Wayne Barnes & even Tom Curry).
 
Just to add how this wouldn't work, they discussed it on White & Jordan today with Martin Keown. They got onto the Newcastle vs Arsenal game, and Keown argued that if an ex-player was in VAR the goal would have been disallowed for a push on Gabriel. The hosts said that isn't right as Gary Neville said it wasn't a foul, Keown just shouted over them and continued that every ex-player would give a foul. They then said well if that was the case why did the independent panel vote 4 to 1 for it not being a foul, with at least 4 of those voting being an ex-player or ex-manager. Again Keown wasn't having it and continued to say that any ex-player would give a foul, and when he realised the evidence was clearly against him he went down the route of claiming the panel not being independent and having a vendetta against Arsenal.

Could these types of people really be in the VAR hub? Absolutely no chance.
 
RustyRef said:
Just to add how this wouldn't work, they discussed it on White & Jordan today with Martin Keown. They got onto the Newcastle vs Arsenal game, and Keown argued that if an ex-player was in VAR the goal would have been disallowed for a push on Gabriel. The hosts said that isn't right as Gary Neville said it wasn't a foul, Keown just shouted over them and continued that every ex-player would give a foul. They then said well if that was the case why did the independent panel vote 4 to 1 for it not being a foul, with at least 4 of those voting being an ex-player or ex-manager. Again Keown wasn't having it and continued to say that any ex-player would give a foul, and when he realised the evidence was clearly against him he went down the route of claiming the panel not being independent and having a vendetta against Arsenal.

Could these types of people really be in the VAR hub? Absolutely no chance.
Click to expand...
This is all the more reason why they should be put into the VAR hub, at least on a trial basis.

Let them argue with each other, criticise each other; and see how they go. After all, the current people acting as VAR apparently aren't anyway neat good enough and these 'experts' could do a better job.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would love for the clubs to be asked to vote on the interpretations of the law. (Apparently at the start of each season, something similar to this happens - broadcast it).

Take every public statement or cheap shot at the refereeing decisions made by a club, that Howard hasn't apologised for and ask them how they want it dealt with in the future, if there is wiggle room in the interpretation of the law.

At the start of the season, show a video to all the clubs about decisions that caused an uproar but VAR stands by. Eg, show everyone Daizen Maeda's red card against Atletico.

Let them discuss the decision and vote on amendments to the interpretations of the law. Because I guarantee teams will demand a robust anti-injury approach and are likely opportunistically complaining at the end of games.

Then when people are moaning about: 'Allow refs freedom to use common-sense'.

You can say, your league picked this interpretation.
 
The pantomime that is Paul Merson on SSS is a prime example of why using ex-players as VAR is an incredibly stupid idea.
 
I'm just trying to understand how someone would think that people who publicly admit they don't understand the most basic of the Laws would suddenly be able to successfully adjudicate plays on the field. As others have said, then you have the idiots on social media who think they are right and cannot be swayed even you quote the Laws chapter and verse to them. It's really mind-blowing.
 
socal lurker said:
We used to think ITOOTR was the guiding light of the game. The referee opinion was what mattered, and we expected Rs to be arbiters of justice and use the Laws as a tool to dispense justice.
Click to expand...

I disagree that this is gone in VAR. What VAR does is calls to attention errors in fact which caused the referee to adopt an opinion of an event which does not align with the reality of what occurred. The problem is when VAR is not used this way. Where the referee has made a decision because of a factual error or omission, then VAR is useful and ITOOTR is still the guiding principle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top