"PL managers want VARs to be assigned to refereeing teams"

[DazN]

I was anti-VAR originally because of some of the reasons mentioned on here. Far too many decisions in football games are subjective and in the opinion of the referee, whereas in most other sports they are a lot more black and white. I've come round to the fact that it is here to stay, but I do think it will always be controversial as there are some match situations where you can show the same clip to 10 referees and 5 will say foul and the other 5 no foul, the potential foul on Gabriel in the Newcastle vs Arsenal game being a classic example. I just can't think of other sports using video reviews where that happens.

Certainly in cricket there is much less ambiguity. Their use of technology is perfectly suited to the sport.

With rugby there is more grey area especially with the new tackling rules, but with both sports it is obvious to everyone what is going on, unlike VAR which is always veiled in secrecy.

 

[RustyRef]

Certainly in cricket there is much less ambiguity. Their use of technology is perfectly suited to the sport.

With rugby there is more grey area especially with the new tackling rules, but with both sports it is obvious to everyone what is going on, unlike VAR which is always veiled in secrecy.

The new head protection rules have certainly made TMO in rugby much less black and white, but prior to that there weren't that many controversial TMO decisions. And that really demonstrates my point, the new rules add in subjectivity and have led to controversy, the Tom Curry red card in particular led to huge debates around TMO that had never been had before.

In football, aside from offside, almost all decisions are subjective, and that is the challenge.

 

[socal lurker]

I was anti-VAR originally because of some of the reasons mentioned on here. Far too many decisions in football games are subjective and in the opinion of the referee, whereas in most other sports they are a lot more black and white. I've come round to the fact that it is here to stay, but I do think it will always be controversial as there are some match situations where you can show the same clip to 10 referees and 5 will say foul and the other 5 no foul, the potential foul on Gabriel in the Newcastle vs Arsenal game being a classic example. I just can't think of other sports using video reviews where that happens.

The NBA permits a coach challenge on fouls (or at least certain fouls), which is a subjective call similar to the subjective fouls in soccer. And they can use it (I believe in both the NBA) to determine if a foul is a flagrant foul. That said, I think there is far more that is subjective that is reviewed in soccer, and with higher consequences on a single call. (I’m still anti-VAR as I don’t think it makes the game bette, though I would concede it fixes some errors in a positive way. But there is no way that genie is going back in the bottle.)

 

[santa sangria]

VAR is rubbish as is.

It’s now just a bigger stick the football family is using to beat referees.

The protocol is indefensible.

It is also incredibly boring. I look forward to the day when we can watch football and discuss football without it being about this schoolboy c*** up!

 

[santa sangria]

There’s a tipping poiint.

The product is badly damaged. I think it’s now that it’s so badly damaged that it outweighs the benefit of the extra media coverage.

I think this week there has been far more commentary that the game would be better without it and getting rid of it - or a radical re implementation - is now a big part of the discussion.

 

[GraemeS]

The new head protection rules have certainly made TMO in rugby much less black and white, but prior to that there weren't that many controversial TMO decisions. And that really demonstrates my point, the new rules add in subjectivity and have led to controversy, the Tom Curry red card in particular led to huge debates around TMO that had never been had before.

In football, aside from offside, almost all decisions are subjective, and that is the challenge.

I think the "bunker upgrade" system is a big part of the issue with things like the Curry red card - everyone involved in the game is broadly happy with a yellow for that, but the referee is obliged to let the bunker have a second look. Then a nameless and faceless additional official nowhere near the ground watches dozens of slow-motion replays and decides there must have been intent and so it deserves an upgrade.

It's a move away from the relatively successful TMO system towards a lot of the bad bits of VAR. I don't disagree that the new rules are a little more nebulous than what used to be in place, but I think changing who's really making the decision is definitely part of the problem.

 

[RefereeX]

So when VAR doesn’t intervene when there is a case of SFP that the referee misses (Guimaraes elbow on Jorginho) is that our fault for expecting such an intervention?

Until we have transparency with regards to communication VAR is hamstrung and we know we will never get that because it would expose what officials have to tolerate every game from players and coaches which the game likes to pretend doesn’t happen.

Assuming this is a response to my post, no, but it's not very often that the ones creating such controversy have been easily categorised as a wrong decision. Take for example the Rashford red card from Tuesday - everyone is going mad about it, but its subjective. VAR will never please everyone with subjective decisions and rather than agree with the fact that it's a subjective call, people will blame VAR as the problem.

The facts of the matter are VAR has without doubt improved the accuracy of key match decisions in terms of the percentage of calls that are 'correct'. VAR isn't perfect, but it's certainly not the major problem with football at the minute.

 

[Quarryref]

IMHO, we have to get back to "VAR will only get involved with a very, very, very clear & obvious error, which is not in anyway subjective, 100 out of 100 people would view it that way".

The problem is that what is and isn't a clear and obvious error is still subjective. You just move the grey area to a different place and in the process correct fewer errors

 

[Runner-Ref]

Bring in a challenge-based system.

Each team has X amount of challenges per game and only X,Y&Z decisions can be challenged.

Gives the clubs an element of power and also responsibility. If they don't challenge something and it gets missed, it's partially on them

 

[GraemeS]

Assuming this is a response to my post, no, but it's not very often that the ones creating such controversy have been easily categorised as a wrong decision. Take for example the Rashford red card from Tuesday - everyone is going mad about it, but its subjective. VAR will never please everyone with subjective decisions and rather than agree with the fact that it's a subjective call, people will blame VAR as the problem.

The facts of the matter are VAR has without doubt improved the accuracy of key match decisions in terms of the percentage of calls that are 'correct'. VAR isn't perfect, but it's certainly not the major problem with football at the minute.

But this is where the protocol lets referees down. The referee clearly and understandably hasn't seen that as an offence, but the VAR can't just pop it on the screen and tell the ref to make a call - he has to either let a clear orange foul slide with zero punishment, or find reasons to think it's a red in order to be able to ask for a review. And then once told it's a red, the ref is obliged to agree 99%+ of the time, because disagreements at the screen are supposed to be incredibly rare by design.

A rugby TMO would just call the ref up and say "missed foul play, I'll show you some angles and then what sanction do you want to give?", but the football VAR doesn't have that option. So everything becomes more dramatic by default.

 

[RefereeX]

But this is where the protocol lets referees down. The referee clearly and understandably hasn't seen that as an offence, but the VAR can't just pop it on the screen and tell the ref to make a call - he has to either let a clear orange foul slide with zero punishment, or find reasons to think it's a red in order to be able to ask for a review. And then once told it's a red, the ref is obliged to agree 99%+ of the time, because disagreements at the screen are supposed to be incredibly rare by design.

A rugby TMO would just call the ref up and say "missed foul play, I'll show you some angles and then what sanction do you want to give?", but the football VAR doesn't have that option. So everything becomes more dramatic by default.

And this is what I mean by 'it's not perfect', it could definitely use a tweak or 2... but like I say, VAR in itself isn't the problem that's creating uproar at the minute. We get far more key decisions correct than we did 5 years ago... peoples expectations of VAR is the problem.

 

[GraemeS]

I think part of the problem is that VAR is incredibly restricted due to it pandering to people worried about it slowing things down too much. And that's made to seem like a more legitimate concern because the process is so hidden - 5 minutes of everyone standing still not knowing what's going on is rubbish compared to the in-stadium experience of a rugby TMO check.

It's essentially a sliding scale where at one end you have "keep everything flowing" and at the other you have "get as much right as possible". We've seen the former end of the scale in all pre-VAR football - I'd like to have a go at the latter end and see how bad that actually is. Make anything reviewable if the VAR thinks it could be consequential, include letting the referee take a second look at anything subjective and see what "increased correct decisions" actually looks like. We're literally missing half the data needed to make an informed decision.

 

[JamesL]

Bring in a challenge-based system.

Each team has X amount of challenges per game and only X,Y&Z decisions can be challenged.

Gives the clubs an element of power and also responsibility. If they don't challenge something and it gets missed, it's partially on them

It won't really fix any of the problems we have now.

The Wolves manager said after the Sheff utd game, and okay take with a pinch of salt, that even after seeing the penalty decision again, the referee still thought it was a penalty.

The independent KMI panel and most of football disagree with it so they would lose the challenge. And potentially the ability to challenge again.

And whilst this was in minute 90 whatever, so not a great example for the point I am making, you can see the issues it would cause and we would still be having the same discussions.

I was formerly an advocate of the challenge system but I just don't think that it would actually help / solve the fundamental problems that having VAR is causing.

 

[Runner-Ref]

It won't really fix any of the problems we have now.

The Wolves manager said after the Sheff utd game, and okay take with a pinch of salt, that even after seeing the penalty decision again, the referee still thought it was a penalty.

The independent KMI panel and most of football disagree with it so they would lose the challenge. And potentially the ability to challenge again.

And whilst this was in minute 90 whatever, so not a great example for the point I am making, you can see the issues it would cause and we would still be having the same discussions.

I was formerly an advocate of the challenge system but I just don't think that it would actually help / solve the fundamental problems that having VAR is causing.

I agree it wouldn't necessarily fix it, but I don't think anything ever will.

But having the challenge-based system gives the clubs an element of power & accountability. Yes the referee may still rule their original decision to be correct, but at least the clubs have had a chance to contest it.

 

[JamesL]

I agree it wouldn't necessarily fix it, but I don't think anything ever will.

But having the challenge-based system gives the clubs an element of power & accountability. Yes the referee may still rule their original decision to be correct, but at least the clubs have had a chance to contest it.

It would. But it would also really spoil the game.

Those that think VAR interrupts too much now would get shock of their life.

I just think that the divide between a players understanding of the game, and the rules is too far a bridge to gap to allow a sensible, coherent, challenge process, without significantly impacting on playing time, momentum of the game etc..

 

[Runner-Ref]

It would. But it would also really spoil the game.

Those that think VAR interrupts too much now would get shock of their life.

I just think that the divide between a players understanding of the game, and the rules is too far a bridge to gap to allow a sensible, coherent, challenge process, without significantly impacting on playing time, momentum of the game etc..

I'm not convinced it would interrupt the game that much. As things are, there is technically infinite amount of times that VAR can get involved in a game and stop it whilst a check takes place. If the clubs only had 2 challenges each per game, that's a maximum of 4 stoppages.

For the bit about understanding the game etc, the clubs would need to ensure they get more clued up on the laws. Or at least have a designated member of the dugout who is, who would then be the one to challenge.

 

[The Gump]

Flamed by the medja

A big part of this is a societal problem and inflamed by the media, no doubt. Ultimately, there's nothing that can be done about that.

However, there is something that can be done about players, managers (Arteta and O'Neil, for example) and clubs (Cambridge City FC's latest tweet being a good example). But the FA largely sit idly by and show for all their promised and campaigns that they're just empty words.

As for VAR, I've come round to hating it. It works in cricket (particularly) and rugby because the decisions are less subjective and there's full transparency of the decision making process.

With IFAB obviously loathe at true transparency (with some justification given the current protocol) and the controversy increasing week on week, VAR is either doomed or needs a complete overhaul. Either way, I don't expect people (fans, players, coaches, media, clubs) to suddenly start accepting human-error in refereeing, because the still don't in all the leagues where VAR doesn't exist!

 

[GraemeS]

The laws themselves are problems as well. These decisions should be able to be less subjective - we discussed the flow chart rugby provides for assessing head impacts, and it should be really simple to clarify footballs laws to something similar, particularly for lunging-style SFP fouls and handball. But IFAB just use vague language, "clarify" it in poorly-circulated guidelines and training only a small % of people get to be in and then are surprised when consistent and understandable decisions aren't possible.

 

[lincs22]

The more I think about it, the more I'd seriously like them to consider putting ex-players in the VAR booth. Let them do it how they want it done and see how they get on.

I would go one further - make the EPL managers in charge of VAR.

So for Liverpool v Man U make Arteta the VAR. Lets see ow good he actually is and unbiased he can be

 

[RyantheRef]

I'd like to see a team of ex-players / pundits officiate a game. Provided they are mic-d up of course for our entertainment.

If Neville and Carragher are anything to go by, they wouldn't pass the fitness test to even get onto the field. Still, it would be quite fun to watch.