@PinnerPaul you're right, the offside VAR check Clement turpin had in the city schalke game took forever. Several other goals had lengthy checks as well leading to frustration all round
Man in the middle documentary
- Thread starter Degnann
- Start date
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
To add a final part of balance and to placate Henry Winter's lawyers 
, he DID say that VAR was brought in to prevent "The Hand of God or the Thierry Henry handball - not to say that someone's armpit is offside" - so well played to him for that and UEFA for leaving that in the programme!
, he DID say that VAR was brought in to prevent "The Hand of God or the Thierry Henry handball - not to say that someone's armpit is offside" - so well played to him for that and UEFA for leaving that in the programme!I think the MLS model for offside is better for that reason. Referee is asked to check for OS, if it isn’t clearly OS after looking at the screen then it’s not given. No daft 1 pixel lines, no goals ruled out because the wrist is over the line etc.
one
RefChat Addict
Since this has dissented to yet another VAR thread,
Point 6 of lotg VAR principles:
There is no time limit for the review process as accuracy is more important than speed.
Also, I have never liked the challenge system as it leaves it in player's hands. But at the moment it is a better option than leaving it in video AR's hands.
Point 6 of lotg VAR principles:
There is no time limit for the review process as accuracy is more important than speed.
Also, I have never liked the challenge system as it leaves it in player's hands. But at the moment it is a better option than leaving it in video AR's hands.
What other options are there and why is it being in players hands intrinsically bad?
Leave it in the hands of the VAR - adds an extra layer of subjectivity when it comes to what is actually reviewable.
Leave it in the hands of the referee - requires such a major re-working of how the referees are trained to think. The referee is always right....until you get to the PL, where you suddenly have to be open to admitting that you're not and make a choice to undermine your own match control. We've already seen Graham Scott be sent to the monitor, told he was wrong, watch a replay 3 times and still refuse to accept he's wrong - how often do you think he would make use of the VAR system if it relied on a starting point of him admitting he was probably wrong?
Give it to the players/managers - anything is reviewable as long as you think it's worth one of a limited number of reviews. Immediately removes the controversy we've had around incidents where either the VAR has failed to initiate a review when they should, or when a goal has been scored off a non-reviewable decision (corner/GK, or a foul too far back in a move). As long as you include sensible limitations on how many/when challenges can be used, I don't really see the problem. Might even help reduce dissent - it becomes simple for a referee to say "either review it, or shut up", so what's the point in standing there shouting at the ref?
Yeah but even if there’s doubt you have to sell it as if there isn’t any. There’s often value in telling players you weren’t sure, for small things like 50/50 throw-ins and maybe GK/CK calls, I find they admire the honesty...anything beyond that doesn’t work.
Yeah, I think this is a fair summary of what I mean. You and I both know that I might not actually get every decision right. But the referees using VAR will have gone through a 10-50 year career without VAR where they are required to act like they have got every major decision right for match control reasons.
To then ask them to voluntarily turn round and second-guess themselves is a bigger ask than I think people pushing for referee-led reviews think it is.
What is wrong with the rugby example?
I'm awarding a goal. Before I do that can you please confirm there was no foul by the attacking player. Or, Awarding Goal, can you check for offside offence, player 10. If the referee is clear about what he wants reviewed and the VAR has license to pick out any other serious errors is thsy not a viable alternative.
I can think of only 1 time where I have seen a ref go and stand by original decision which was Cakir and handball offence. You just K ow when he goes he is coming back with a different decision, which isn't always the correct one.
Just debating you here Graeme, you know I am a fan of a challenge system
These people are exceptional individuals and professionals. I expect them to be able to adjust quickly (though I still understand there will be hiccups) and I don't think this is as great a problem as you're making it out to be.
I don't mind the idea in principal, but think the biggest obstacle is the different culture in football and rugby. What I absolutely don't want to encourage is a situation where a referee is stood in the middle of the pitch, being shouted at by 11 players to go and review something. That doesn't happen in rugby because of the way interactions with the referee are ingrained in the culture, but I think we're a long way off assuming that will be fine in football.What is wrong with the rugby example?
I'm awarding a goal. Before I do that can you please confirm there was no foul by the attacking player. Or, Awarding Goal, can you check for offside offence, player 10. If the referee is clear about what he wants reviewed and the VAR has license to pick out any other serious errors is thsy not a viable alternative.
I can think of only 1 time where I have seen a ref go and stand by original decision which was Cakir and handball offence. You just K ow when he goes he is coming back with a different decision, which isn't always the correct one.
Just debating you here Graeme, you know I am a fan of a challenge system
In fact, I think that was originally cited as one of the reasons for using a VAR-led system, so even IFAB acknowledge it as a problem. There is a lot we can take from the rugby system (I personally think everyone would be a lot happier if reviews were carried out via a big screen than in a cloaked booth), but I think we have to acknowledge the difference between the sports as well. And as I previously said, I think one of the major benefits of a challenge system is that it gives the referee the option to say "challenge it or piss off" to anyone who complains about his decision.
It also doesn't help that football insists on a running clock and poorly-defined stoppage time. Rugby stops the clock immediately if the referee wants to discuss with the TMO, or a line judge, or even to law down to law to a player. So none of the above can be manipulated to waste time and hold onto a slender lead. Wheras footballers know that if they can make the referee waste 3 minutes on a discussion or a review, there's very little chance that more than one of those minutes will be added back at the end. Again, actively encouraging the idea of getting in the referee's face and pushing him to review.
I am not a fan of the challenge system at all, but I tend to agree with UEFA's system of referee-led checks. The referee should, in all circumstances, be the final arbiter and I think that's where the Premier League gets it horribly wrong. They need to go to the screen and make a final decision, imo.
Again, I'm going to cite Graham Scott not that long ago. Got a decision wrong, was told by the VAR that he'd got it wrong, watched multiple replays clearly showing he'd got it wrong and still, went with his original decision. He's been trained for years to ignore the shouts of 22 people who tell him he's wrong, why would adding a 23rd voice in his ear affect those trained-in instincts?
Then he will not be there long (although with the FA's record of turnover, he might be there for another 30 years), and somebody who can adapt will take his place.