Simple poll - the state of the refchat nation - what would you do with VAR?

[JamesL]

Think it is more that they aren't allowed to. We've heard most of the SG1 referees talk at events, conferences, or with Mike Dean even on the Peter Crouch podcast, so I don't think there is an ability problem, it is just not allowed.

Yes, I'd go as far to say as most top level refs are good speakers.
Every event I have been to where there has been a key speaker (Dean, Coote, stroud, Kavanagh, Taylor) all speak really well..
Being able to. Communicate is a key skill to be a ref.
Communicate with players
Communicate with team
Communicate with managers
Communicate with observers (this being one of the most important, if you can spin the observer he is going to mark you maybe better than he orignally planned).

 

[RustyRef]

Yes, I'd go as far to say as most top level refs are good speakers.
Every event I have been to where there has been a key speaker (Dean, Coote, stroud, Kavanagh, Taylor) all speak really well..
Being able to. Communicate is a key skill to be a ref.
Communicate with players
Communicate with team
Communicate with managers
Communicate with observers (this being one of the most important, if you can spin the observer he is going to mark you maybe better than he orignally planned).

Communication is a vital part of a referee's armoury. Chances are anyone that can't communicate well wouldn't make it anywhere close to SG1 level.

The quietest and most introvert top level referee I've worked with was Dermot Gallagher, and ironically he has gone on to be PGMOL's media representative. I very much doubt there are any SG1 referees that wouldn't be comfortable with public speaking.

 

[santa sangria]

Think it is more that they aren't allowed to. We've heard most of the SG1 referees talk at events, conferences, or with Mike Dean even on the Peter Crouch podcast, so I don't think there is an ability problem, it is just not allowed.

Dean on the pod was great. Obvs that was also the root of my comment about ”Dre”

 

[santa sangria]

Communication is a vital part of a referee's armoury. Chances are anyone that can't communicate well wouldn't make it anywhere close to SG1 level.

The quietest and most introvert top level referee I've worked with was Dermot Gallagher, and ironically he has gone on to be PGMOL's media representative. I very much doubt there are any SG1 referees that wouldn't be comfortable with public speaking.

OK I’m convinced.

 

[RefIADad]

Major changes for me:

1) If the audio is not immediately public, then it should be available in an archive. I like what PRO and MLS do in the US with the weekly review videos led by Greg Barkey, who is PRO's lead on VAR.

2) Offside either goes to the "naked eye" test for a clear and obvious error or the lines are drawn with a 15-20 cm margin of error. If any part of the lines overlap, then the evidence is inconclusive and the call on the field stands.

3) The maximum time for a review (on-field by the referee or an "objective" review by the VAR) is either 60 or 90 seconds. If you can't determine if there's an error in that time frame, it's not clear and obvious.

4) The only time slow-motion replays are used are for plays involving boundaries, such as a ball being completely over a line (we need this in the US since MLS does not have goal line tech) or whether a foul occurred inside of or outside of the penalty area. All reviews involving subjective decisions (whether a foul actually occurred, SFP or VC determination, DOGSO) are made at full speed video replay.

5) I'm not sold on this idea yet, but I'd consider a challenge system where a team would get one challenge per game. If that challenge is successful, you would get one additional challenge. Since you can't take a timeout away from a team in soccer and I don't like the idea of a different "punishment" like cautioning the coach if a challenge isn't upheld, I think the only way to limit really frivolous challenges is to keep the number low and then provide one more challenge if it's successful.

EDIT - I would also add some clarifying language to the final decision. In American football, the referee will either say, "The ruling on the field is confirmed" or "The ruling on the field stands as called". The "confirmed" ruling means that the video evidence showed that the on-field call was conclusively correct. The "stands as called" ruling means that there was not sufficient evidence available to overturn the call. Even doing something like that would help the public know that the video review either concluded the call was right or the call might have been wrong, but there wasn't enough evidence to say for sure. I think it would bring an additional measure of transparency.

 

[lincs22]

I think that there has to be a really rethink on the VAR. The FA and English football have completely arsed the use of VAR. If use as envisaged, it was a great help (World Cup in Russia was improved).

So, I have always been a fan of the challenge idea. But I would have an element of risk for bad challenges - similar to NFL, I would have where you lose a challenge you lose the right to a substitute.

Also, to stop stupidity in the final few.minutes, the clubs cannot challenge in added time. Those reviews by the VAR official only.

I would still have the VAR intervention for SFP or VC.

 

[es1]

I think that there has to be a really rethink on the VAR. The FA and English football have completely arsed the use of VAR. If use as envisaged, it was a great help (World Cup in Russia was improved).

So, I have always been a fan of the challenge idea. But I would have an element of risk for bad challenges - similar to NFL, I would have where you lose a challenge you lose the right to a substitute.

Also, to stop stupidity in the final few.minutes, the clubs cannot challenge in added time. Those reviews by the VAR official only.

I would still have the VAR intervention for SFP or VC.

As much as I'm for challenges, unless everything in added time (or 85 mins onwards?) gets automatically reviewed then you have to leave it wholly with the teams imo

 

[bester]

Doesn't NFL have that system in place because stopping the clock can have a huge impact? It's not going to be much of an issue in football, who'd risk a spurious review when it may mean not having one to use 20 seconds later.

 

[RobOda]

Scrap it on accessibility grounds.