Pal v Eve

[JamesL]

And all of this stuff would need putting into place before it was put out into the wild.

The 30 second thing is just an example of how it could work. But I honestly don't see how it would be that difficult to do.

VAR currently is not fit for purpose. Anything has to be better than what we currently have. In theory VAR is a simple idea. A simple idea that they have managed to make a complete and utter mess of.

Other sports have a challenge system, I don't see why it wouldn't work for football. The idea of football is a quick flowing game doesn't really wash, as VAR has put a stop to that already

As I sort of said in the other thread lots of other sports only use them for objective decisions.

Tennis - in / out
Cricket - in / out
Rugby - tackle height, double movement, pass direction (not sure what else but from what I see, very little, it's objective questions).

I don't watch any American sports so I don't know how much subjectivity there is in the decisions they are taking, what I do get the impression is that no other sport where 1 decision can produce such wildly different opinions on the outcome.

It happens among referees. You seen it at training events. Same clip and you can get several different outcomes around the room.

That never changes whatever system of video review is employed.

 

[GraemeS]

Right, which is why none of us have ever claimed that a challenge system would magically produce universally accepted results

The point is that it puts the decision back on the ref and removes the poorly-understood and poorly-implemented C&O concept. That would seem to me to at least somewhat improve the chances of getting results that are at least consistent within the game and within the ethos of the referee in any given moment.

And your rugby point actually is relevant, because there's very little reason why SFP couldn't be treated like high tackles in rugby - but the laws aren't written well enough for that. My fictional "Graeme fixes football" manifesto would include rewriting the laws to include flow charts for SFP, handball etc as well as introducing VAR challenges, a rugby-style concussion protocol etc. But absent that, it's not reasonable to expect a challenge system to fix issues with poorly-written laws - especially when the current VAR system does nothing but make them more obvious anyway!

 

[JamesL]

Right, which is why none of us have ever claimed that a challenge system would magically produce universally accepted results

The point is that it puts the decision back on the ref and removes the poorly-understood and poorly-implemented C&O concept. That would seem to me to at least somewhat improve the chances of getting results that are at least consistent within the game and within the ethos of the referee in any given moment.

And your rugby point actually is relevant, because there's very little reason why SFP couldn't be treated like high tackles in rugby - but the laws aren't written well enough for that. My fictional "Graeme fixes football" manifesto would include rewriting the laws to include flow charts for SFP, handball etc as well as introducing VAR challenges, a rugby-style concussion protocol etc. But absent that, it's not reasonable to expect a challenge system to fix issues with poorly-written laws - especially when the current VAR system does nothing but make them more obvious anyway!

But I don't see how that would radically Chang what we have now.

There will be more interruptions.
Greater pressure on the referee from the challenging team.
Greater pressure on the referee from the non challenging team
Additional pressure from their (still potentially wrong decision) removing the ability to challenge future decisions.
Reviews I think would probably take longer overall - made by total presumptions.

I'm just opposed to it as a solution. I think, and of course only my thoughts, it will be fraught with more issues than we have now.

 

[DJIC]

I don't think they'll win an appeal, if they try one. For the that very reason.

I'll put my view out there, I think they will win their appeal, the 'football people' independent panel, not all are referees will view the red card as not what football expects, majority of pundits, fans, social media posts don't see this as a red card challenge.

 

[es1]

I'll put my view out there, I think they will win their appeal, the 'football people' independent panel, not all are referees will view the red card as not what football expects, majority of pundits, fans, social media posts don't see this as a red card challenge.

if the hull one got overturned then this one has to be.

 

[Runner-Ref]

As I sort of said in the other thread lots of other sports only use them for objective decisions.

Tennis - in / out
Cricket - in / out
Rugby - tackle height, double movement, pass direction (not sure what else but from what I see, very little, it's objective questions).

I don't watch any American sports so I don't know how much subjectivity there is in the decisions they are taking, what I do get the impression is that no other sport where 1 decision can produce such wildly different opinions on the outcome.

It happens among referees. You seen it at training events. Same clip and you can get several different outcomes around the room.

That never changes whatever system of video review is employed.

TennisI can get that its either ball in & out.

I'm not a big Rugby fan, but is tackle height and pass direction an objective question? If I remember correctly in the recent WC, there was some controversy over a forward pass either given or not given. I am imagine its similar to offside in football, in theory it should be objective. But in practice there's more to it.

Same for the tackle height; don't they take into account external factors and not simply look at the height of the tackle? That to me sounds similar to SFP

As I say, I'm not a big Rugby fan so I could be talking waffle here. But itw my very basic understanding

 

[GraemeS]

But I don't see how that would radically Chang what we have now.

There will be more interruptions.
Greater pressure on the referee from the challenging team.
Greater pressure on the referee from the non challenging team
Additional pressure from their (still potentially wrong decision) removing the ability to challenge future decisions.
Reviews I think would probably take longer overall - made by total presumptions.

I'm just opposed to it as a solution. I think, and of course only my thoughts, it will be fraught with more issues than we have now.

I don't necessarily agree with any of that. I'm getting close to writing out my entire proposal now, but it's lunch break so I'll be a bit more expansive!

I personally would have reviews carried out on a big screen, but I appreciate that would be a no-go for IFAB. So you have a challenge initiated by (let's assume) a manager, with the detail of exactly what they're challenging for explained to the 4O. Ref then jogs to the small screen, looks at a set of replays supplied by the RO and then makes a call. Anyone tries to exert undue pressure or approach while the review is underway and they get booked or sent off, same as under current laws.

And your last two points will certainly be teething problems, but will go away as people learn not to use reviews frivolously. The key is having 3 possible outcomes: the obvious review correct/review incorrect, but also a "no clear evidence" middle ground, that will sustain the on-field decision, but also allow the coach to keep their challenge.

If they waste it on something obviously wrong or something done just to waste time, the challenge will be gone and they might not have it when they need it. In every other sport where challenges occur, this is seen as the manager/players fault - I don't know why people think football is so special that this wouldn't occur for us too. It works the other way too - in the NFC championship game last season, the 49ers failed to challenge a play early in the game that would have been overturned if the flag was thrown. The talk after the game was on the coach failing to take the opportunity to challenge and how the game might have changed if he acted faster (they went on to loose heavily, mostly due to injuries to multiple QBs). Almost nothing was said about the fact it was a fairly simple wrong call by the officials in the first place!

And while you might get more reviews, each individual review should be quicker. You don't have the delay while the VAR decides if it's C&O before calling the ref over, it's just throw flag-->briefly explain to 4O-->screen. You'll also remove the ones where everyone waits for a minute or two and then it doesn't lead to a review because the VAR decides it isn't C&O, so that will also balance out the possibility of having more challenges overall.

 

[Runner-Ref]

But I don't see how that would radically Chang what we have now.

There will be more interruptions.
Greater pressure on the referee from the challenging team.
Greater pressure on the referee from the non challenging team
Additional pressure from their (still potentially wrong decision) removing the ability to challenge future decisions.
Reviews I think would probably take longer overall - made by total presumptions.

I'm just opposed to it as a solution. I think, and of course only my thoughts, it will be fraught with more issues than we have now.

This was a terrible beer, but Everton fans always loved it as it looked decent as a shirt sponsor.

Why would there be more interruptions? As things are, we can have unlimited amount of checks happen in a game. If each team had X amount of challenges each, that's the absolute maximum amount of challenges you could have per game. Unless you allow clubs to keep their challenge if they're deemed to be incorrect. But if we are getting to a point where we have more than say 4 challenges in a game (based on each club having 2) maybe we need to start looking at the officiating standards

 

[Runner-Ref]

I don't necessarily agree with any of that. I'm getting close to writing out my entire proposal now, but it's lunch break so I'll be a bit more expansive!

I personally would have reviews carried out on a big screen, but I appreciate that would be a no-go for IFAB. So you have a challenge initiated by (let's assume) a manager, with the detail of exactly what they're challenging for explained to the 4O. Ref then jogs to the small screen, looks at a set of replays supplied by the RO and then makes a call. Anyone tries to exert undue pressure or approach while the review is underway and they get booked or sent off, same as under current laws.

And your last two points will certainly be teething problems, but will go away as people learn not to use reviews frivolously. The key is having 3 possible outcomes: the obvious review correct/review incorrect, but also a "no clear evidence" middle ground, that will sustain the on-field decision, but also allow the coach to keep their challenge.

If they waste it on something obviously wrong or something done just to waste time, the challenge will be gone and they might not have it when they need it. In every other sport where challenges occur, this is seen as the manager/players fault - I don't know why people think football is so special that this wouldn't occur for us too. It works the other way too - in the NFC championship game last season, the 49ers failed to challenge a play early in the game that would have been overturned if the flag was thrown. The talk after the game was on the coach failing to take the opportunity to challenge and how the game might have changed if he acted faster - almost nothing about the fact it was a fairly simple wrong call by the officials in the first place!

And while you might get more reviews, each individual review should be quicker. You don't have the delay while the VAR decides if it's C&O before calling the ref over, it's just throw flag-->briefly explain to 4O-->screen. You'll also remove the ones where everyone waits for a minute or two and then it doesn't lead to a review because the VAR decides it isn't C&O, so that will also balance out the possibility of having more challenges overall.

Pretty much agree with all of this apart from the big screen idea. Not all stadiums have a big screen and as much as I want more transparency between officials & clubs/fans, I feel like it would make things worse. Opening the mics could maybe be a happy median

 

[Runner-Ref]

I don't think they'll win an appeal, if they try one. For the that very reason.

Well we'll find out very soon! Appeal is in

 

[GraemeS]

Pretty much agree with all of this apart from the big screen idea. Not all stadiums have a big screen and as much as I want more transparency between officials & clubs/fans, I feel like it would make things worse. Opening the mics could maybe be a happy median

I'm broadly not a huge fan of babying football fans, and I don't think it's a problem if a small % of grounds without a big screen still have to use the current VAR screens, it just makes it a worse experience for their fans and adds an incentive to upgrade.

But like I say, I know that's not a hill to die on as we're a long way off that happening in reality!

 

[JamesL]

In every other sport where challenges occur, this is seen as the manager/players fault - I don't know why people think football is so special that this wouldn't occur for us too.

I get what you are saying but the mechanics of football decision making is different.

Tennis, I challenge ball in/out call. The tech then shows where the ball landed. Factual. Objective. No argument. It doesn't have the same human, looking back at it, to make a judgement call.

Cricket - Similar process only that there is an operator, but he is still being guided by the technology. Only thing that isn't tech guided I guess is a no ball.

This is what I think makes football decision reviews very different from other sports.

Football may blame a manager for frivolous appealing. They will be less forgiving when the referee goes to the monitor and makes what is perceived to be a wrong decision, be that supporting or changing his original decision.

And I think that is why I really disagree with the notion of limiting challenges, and therefore a challenge based system.

I'm Jurgen Klopp in the Spurs game. I challenge Curtis Jones' red card. Legitimate challenge. It split opinion. Referee goes to screen. Confirms decision (Correctly). Challenge lost.
Something else happens that's challenged, legitimate challenge, I now have no challenges remaining. The offside incident happens. Nothing can be done.

The game will not accept this. We all know it.

Chelsea V Spurs....
Another game where there was a lot of VaR checks and reviews. High propensity to lose fair and legitimate challenges.

The game will not accept Howard Webb saying, yes the referee got that wrong, but you were out of challenges.

I can see some merits in a challenge system don't get me wrong, you've highlighted some, there just isn't enough solutions and an awful lot of cons that I can see in it for it to be a realistic prospect.

I also don't agree with the.manager telling 4O who tells the referee, especially if there is something techy that the club don't articulate well....Chinese whispers an that. It should go from the horse's mouth to the referee.

 

[Runner-Ref]

I'm broadly not a huge fan of babying football fans, and I don't think it's a problem if a small % of grounds without a big screen still have to use the current VAR screens, it just makes it a worse experience for their fans and adds an incentive to upgrade.

But like I say, I know that's not a hill to die on as we're a long way off that happening in reality!

Does anyone know the % of which PL grounds actually have a screen?

In rugby, which levels/versions of rugby use a screen?

 

[GraemeS]

Does anyone know the % of which PL grounds actually have a screen?

In rugby, which levels/versions of rugby use a screen?

I've read elsewhere that it's only Anfield and Old Trafford that don't, but that might have changed since with promotion and relegation.

 

[JamesL]

Does anyone know the % of which PL grounds actually have a screen?

In rugby, which levels/versions of rugby use a screen?

As I understand it only old Trafford and Anfield don't have a screen so 10%

 

[JamesL]

I've read elsewhere that it's only Anfield and Old Trafford that don't, but that might have changed since with promotion and relegation.

I think they are common place through championship and most league 1 clubs now. I think it is to do with the way Old Trafford and Anfield were designed well before screens were a thing.

 

[Runner-Ref]

I'm Jurgen Klopp in the Spurs game. I challenge Curtis Jones' red card. Legitimate challenge. It split opinion. Referee goes to screen. Confirms decision (Correctly). Challenge lost.
Something else happens that's challenged, legitimate challenge, I now have no challenges remaining. The offside incident happens. Nothing can be done.

The game will not accept this. We all know it.

Chelsea V Spurs....
Another game where there was a lot of VaR checks and reviews. High propensity to lose fair and legitimate challenges.

I completely agree that tennis is more of an objective call. But I domy believe that rugby is.

On the examples you mentioned, how many games actually have the need for that many challenges in reality? You may get the odd one where a team do genuinely run out of challenges, but that's the way it goes. It's on the clubs to use them wisely. And as part of that, educate themselves on not only law, but the actualy application of it. Maybe clubs will even employ someone who would actually decide whether its worth challenging a decision.

 

[JamesL]

I completely agree that tennis is more of an objective call. But I domy believe that rugby is.

On the examples you mentioned, how many games actually have the need for that many challenges in reality? You may get the odd one where a team do genuinely run out of challenges, but that's the way it goes. It's on the clubs to use them wisely. And as part of that, educate themselves on not only law, but the actually application of it. Maybe clubs will even employ someone who would actually decide whether its worth challenging a decision.

And how many times has an error, as significant as the Liv - TH happened?

 

[Runner-Ref]

And how many times has an error, as significant as the Liv - TH happened?

Enough that HW has had to make a number of apologies over the last 12 months

 

[GraemeS]

I'm Jurgen Klopp in the Spurs game. I challenge Curtis Jones' red card. Legitimate challenge. It split opinion. Referee goes to screen. Confirms decision (Correctly). Challenge lost.
Something else happens that's challenged, legitimate challenge, I now have no challenges remaining. The offside incident happens. Nothing can be done.

Interestingly, I think that was actually one where it was given as yellow on the field and upgraded to red by VAR. So actually, the likely thing that would happen is: ref gives yellow card, Tottenham go "is that definitely a red? Probably not, better save the challenge. And Klopp actually does end up both happy and with his challenge in his pocket!