VAR in Holland and US

[es1]

VAR got a run out yestersay, I'm attempting to post links to YouTube videos so hopefully it works.

Both instances see the ref change his original onfield decision. Both instances look messy with players crowding the ref demanding a review which needs to be stopped.

There's still a whole lot more that needs to be refined with the VAR process imo to make it smoother and appear more like the ref is in control. I think I'd still prefer a system like American Football where teams have a certain amount of reviews per game mind.

 

[zarathustra]

I think the first video is a better example of how VAR should be used, but I wouldn't hold that particular video up as the gold standard.

I don't think that play should be allowed to go all the way up the other end of the pitch and the opposition score before ruling out their goal and giving a penalty.

Rugby has these natural stoppages in play, football doesn't.

I also think it would be better if the review is done on the big screen, like rugby.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

First one......What an absolute mess.... 2 minutes completely wasted... A bloke in the stand could see the foul on the keeper in 10 seconds... make the call... simples.....

 

[alexgr]

They're not perfect, no, but the correct decision is (eventually) reached in each case, and that's surely something to be supported.

It needs a *LOT* of fine-tuning but this is definitely a step in the right direction.

 

[AlexF]

Note that in the second where there's a goal scored at the other end of the pitch... there was an offside offence right before the goal. So it wasn't really 2-0, then a penalty to take it back to 1-1.

 

[Russell Jones]

They're not perfect, no, but the correct decision is (eventually) reached in each case, and that's surely something to be supported

The real question for me is whether the prize you outline above .. 'correct decisions' ... is worth the potential disruption to the usual flow of the game. From the various examplesI've seen so far, I'd say the answer is currently no. However, it's certainly possible that appropriate fine tuning of the system might redress the cost / benefit balance.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

I was at Bramall Lane yesterday and we had 2 goals correctly ruled out for offside. Hard to see from the Kop but I've seen videos since and they were tight but correct. Last night on our fans forum the refs were getting dogs abuse, useless, rubbish, disgusting and all that was banded about. I had to intervene and post the videos to show them, it was obvious to any person who could be bothered to look and understand. Even then some of them were saying it was wrong calls and all that. So I posted the actual law and the reasoning behind the decisions and so far I've had 10 likes from more sensible members as well as some ignorant posts making new laws up. Didn't need VAR, eagle eyed Lino did his job correctly....

 

[J79]

Justice done, good.

As said before, 90% of the problems would be solved by giving full responsibility to the VAR, who should be the only person to watch the images and to make the decision (which he then communicates to the on-field referee, who informs the players). It's so obvious, why do they stick to the current system?

 

[santa sangria]

The two examples in the OP are really poor because of the time wasted. The first example the ref should also spot that IMHO. In the second example, that is a dangerous new precedent to bring back play after so long.
In both cases the VAR just takes far too long and suggests that it's daft that the ref has to actually see the screen (also what if it had rained in Holland?).
Surely the VAR should be given similar powers to the AR. Advising the referee with clear signals about offences/incidents the referee did not see... why the minute of ear 'ole, the walking to the screen, turning your back on the match... I think this is all a right mess. Surely this will only work if the ref doesn't have to look at the screen, no?

 

[Peter Grove]

Surely the VAR should be given similar powers to the AR. Advising the referee with clear signals about offences/incidents the referee did not see... why the minute of ear 'ole, the walking to the screen, turning your back on the match... I think this is all a right mess. Surely this will only work if the ref doesn't have to look at the screen, no?

I would say the VAR's have been given similar powers to AR's which is why they can only "assist, not insist" on the actual decision which is the sole prerogative of the referee. The core principle that the IFAB is sticking to is that the referee is the sole judge of facts concerned with play and so only the referee can make the final decision, nobody else. You may not like, or agree with that principle but it has been at the heart of the laws ever since referees became part of the game in 1889.

Once you start giving other officials the power to over-rule the referee you've turned a corner that cannot easily be "un-turned." I have already seen the suggestion made on this forum (possibly tongue in cheek, possibly not) that eventually they might do away with referees altogether and just have the VAR's decide on every single thing. I think the IFAB is keen to avoid anything that would dilute the authority of the referee and I'm not sure they're totally wrong on that front.

 

[J79]

I would say the VAR's have been given similar powers to AR's which is why they can only "assist, not insist" on the actual decision which is the sole prerogative of the referee. The core principle that the IFAB is sticking to is that the referee is the sole judge of facts concerned with play and so only the referee can make the final decision, nobody else. You may not like, or agree with that principle but it has been at the heart of the laws ever since referees became part of the game in 1889.

Once you start giving other officials the power to over-rule the referee you've turned a corner that cannot easily be "un-turned." I have already seen the suggestion made on this forum (possibly tongue in cheek, possibly not) that eventually they might do away with referees altogether and just have the VAR's decide on every single thing. I think the IFAB is keen to avoid anything that would dilute the authority of the referee and I'm not sure they're totally wrong on that front.

If IFAB wants to combine (A) "the referee as sole judge" and (B) "video review", which I agree is not totally wrong, there is only one logical outcome : that "the referee" (the sole judge) will end up being the video referee and that the on-field referee will become one of his assistants. This paradigm shift is inevitable if you want to install the best possible procedure.

And I think they're aware of this, but that conservatism/traditionalism/ego (of the retired on-field referees in the commissions)/... blocks a more reasonable protocol. They feel (and probably rightly so) that once you go down the road of giving some power to the VAR, it will ultimately lead to the video referee becoming the main referee. The minds are not yet ready for that, but it should just be a matter of time.

It's clear that when drawing up the protocol, they did not start with a blank paper and just tried to develop the best procedure possible, but that they started with one dogma ("the on-field referee has to stay in charge of everything") and that every step in the protocol had to be subject to that untouchable idea. And this obsession has led to an illogical and flawed procedure.