Oh jeezo it works.....

[Ciley Myrus]

Shall we retract goal line tech too?

Imagine a system which can prove whether a valid goal has been scored! Who needs that in a game of football!

 

[one]

but where do you draw the line? what if you see an incident, think it's offside but dont put your flag up. attempt at goal is saved for a corner which the attacking team then score from? that doesn't seem right to me...

The answer to you question is you stop at play leading up to the goal if memory serves me right.
So VAR will not get involved in your example (it is not part of play leading to goal. its the next phase). This problem is going to be there without VAR as well so i don't see how you can 'blame' VAR for this error.

 

[GraemeS]

The answer to you question is you stop at play leading up to the goal if memory serves me right.
So VAR will not get involved in your example (it is not part of play leading to goal. its the next phase). This problem is going to be there without VAR as well so i don't see how you can 'blame' VAR for this error.

You can certainly blame a poorly-implemented system?

 

[one]

A very fair question - corner decisions are not reviewable if I remember correctly, and a corner that leads to a goal is unlikely to be included in a post-goal review. This is why a challenge system makes most sense to me - if a manager fails to challenge a corner that leads to a goal, he's got no one to blame but himself.

The problem is not with the corner in his example. Its with an error before the corner. Even a challenge system will have issues there. How far back can you go for a challenge?

 

[GraemeS]

The problem is not with the corner in his example. Its with an error before the corner. Even a challenge system will have issues there. How far back can you go for a challenge?

Challenge would have to take place before the next restart of play (in the case, the corner) - failing to make a challenge signal before that means the corner is taken and any future challenge can only go back that far.

It would require some impressive foresight from a manager to decide that decision is worth risking a review on, but it would still be entirely his fault for failing to do so if play is allowed to continue and a goal is scored from a corner that shouldn't have been taken.

 

[es1]

The problem is not with the corner in his example. Its with an error before the corner. Even a challenge system will have issues there. How far back can you go for a challenge?

another fair question. and one that would need to be decided by IFAB...

i'd suggest 2 challenges per team per game, you can use it on any decision but you lose it which would prevent teams using it for throw ins / goal kicks etc.

Once challenge is made ref stops play if possible (limited attacking potential) or plays on until ball out of play or attack breaks down.

another issue is using challenges tactically to disrupt play, so there needs to be penalties for incorrect/spurious challenges

 

[GraemeS]

another fair question. and one that would need to be decided by IFAB...

i'd suggest 2 challenges per team per game, you can use it on any decision but you lose it which would prevent teams using it for throw ins / goal kicks etc.

Once challenge is made ref stops play if possible (limited attacking potential) or plays on until ball out of play or attack breaks down.

another issue is using challenges tactically to disrupt play, so there needs to be penalties for incorrect/spurious challenges

NFL uses the loss of a timeout as a punishment for an incorrect challenge, the closest equivalent in football would be loss of a substitute I guess.

On the other hand, in cricket, loss of a challenge (and eventually, loss of the ability to challenge at all) is considered punishment enough.

 

[es1]

NFL uses the loss of a timeout as a punishment for an incorrect challenge, the closest equivalent in football would be loss of a substitute I guess.

On the other hand, in cricket, loss of a challenge (and eventually, loss of the ability to challenge at all) is considered punishment enough.

oh, loss of substitute, that'd be good! i do think even if successful the challenge should be lost otherwise you could get lots of challenges for non-important decisions like thrown in/goal kicks

 

[one]

another fair question. and one that would need to be decided by IFAB...

i'd suggest 2 challenges per team per game, you can use it on any decision but you lose it which would prevent teams using it for throw ins / goal kicks etc.

Once challenge is made ref stops play if possible (limited attacking potential) or plays on until ball out of play or attack breaks down.

another issue is using challenges tactically to disrupt play, so there needs to be penalties for incorrect/spurious challenges

I can see why you like a challenge system but not for me. If we were to have VAR i prefer the current one.

Any challenge for a close offside call would be a lottery. Even ARs perfectly in line can get it wrong. imagine challenging from the TA. Then you have clubs with big money who would get their own review people to tell them if they should challenge a decision.... less manageable than the current system.

 

[es1]

I can see why you like a challenge system but not for me. If we were to have VAR i prefer the current one.

Any challenge for a close offside call would be a lottery. Even ARs perfectly in line can get it wrong. imagine challenging from the TA. Then you have clubs with big money who would get their own review people to tell them if they should challenge a decision.... less manageable than the current system.

true, but challenge within 10 seconds or similar...

but anyway, this isn't the system we're using so not much point going into too much detail!

I quite like the idea of video refereeing but would be equally happy (as a fan and a ref) never to see it in our game.

 

[JamesL]

This system is so messed up. There are so many what ifs that are arising from the trial. Most of my misgivings have already been covered but i am 100% with @Padfoot. This is a gimmick to appease the money men.
I almost think this could be to blame for some of the comments from lower leagues. They see the big boys getting all the tech and they want it..how do they get it? Repeatedly criticise the standard of officiati g making life even harder the lower down you are as a referee. Its a joke of a system at present and is really turning me off football truth be told. Its going to make the game sterile. No1 will be able to celebrate a goal like they used to. It'll be all polite ripples of applause from the prawn sandwich brigade following the "review".

 

[Russell Jones]

You are content to deny teams valid goals? Are you sure football officiating is your thing? Players play to score more goals than the opposition, fans pay in to see their team score more goals than the opposition but your happy to disallow them?

Football at the highest level is primarily a form of entertainment. So it's perfectly valid to question whether the overall level of entertainment is enhanced or diminshed by the introduction of new technology. For me, goal line technology has increased the entertainment ... greater drama as the official checks his watch, with no material delay to the flow of the game. The impact of VAR on the other hand is still completely unknown as regards improving the spectacle for the paying public, whether they be in the ground or watching elsewhere. Focussing simply on improving the correct %age of decisions from say, 90% to 95%, is a spurious argument ... in my opinion most fans would rather watch a 'good' uninterrupted match and then enjoy debating the decisions afterwards. That said, I respect those whose opinions differ. I wonder if you'll offer the same courtesy .....

 

[JamesL]

According to ifab its working... the wonder of stats. Expect full roll out.

In the 804 matches there were 3,947 checks for possible reviewable incidents.
56.9% ofchecks were for penalty incidents and goals.
There was an average of fewer than five checks per match.
The median check time of the VAR is 20 seconds.
The median duration of a review is 60 seconds.
68.8% ofmatcheshad no review.
One decision in three matches is a "clear and obvious error".
In 8% ofmatches the VAR had a decisive impact on the outcome of the game.
24% of all matches were positively affected by the involvement of VAR (changing an initial incorrect decision by the referee).
The average time'lost' due to the VAR represents less than 1% of overall playing time

(Bbc sport)

 

[one]

According to ifab its working... the wonder of stats. Expect full roll out.

In the 804 matches there were 3,947 checks for possible reviewable incidents.
56.9% ofchecks were for penalty incidents and goals.
There was an average of fewer than five checks per match.
The median check time of the VAR is 20 seconds.
The median duration of a review is 60 seconds.
68.8% ofmatcheshad no review.
One decision in three matches is a "clear and obvious error".
In 8% ofmatches the VAR had a decisive impact on the outcome of the game.
24% of all matches were positively affected by the involvement of VAR (changing an initial incorrect decision by the referee).
The average time'lost' due to the VAR represents less than 1% of overall playing time

(Bbc sport)

I am in the stats business and I can tell you how you represent the numbers (and what you present and what you hide) is as important as the numbers themselves and most times have a bigger impact that the numbers themselves.

An example I use is the stats for sick leave. Fridays and Mondays combined (just before or after a weekend) make up as high as 40% of sick leaves. You immediately think people often take a sickie to get a long weekend. But that is a completely average stat considering Fridays and Mondays add up to 40% of working days.

See how they sometimes used median, sometime average. It clearly is a favorable representation for VAR. But from those numbers it does look to make the result of the game 'more accurate'. But does that mean its working? As @Russell Jones said, does it make it a better experience for the fans and players overall? Has anyone tried to measure it and produce some stats on that front?

VAR will eventually come in not because it makes football a better game or sport, but because its now a business at the top end and businesses don't want to loose money because of human error.