VAR
- Thread starter jofusref
- Start date
As a Champion of VAR, your argument would be expected as it justifies having the game referee's from afar
Although I'll counter-counter that argument for you. I hate what remote refereeing has done to the game, so naturally, we're bound to find arguments to the contrary
Hey ho... Just seen the offside (disallowed goal for West Ham tonight). Dear me, glad I watched the snooker (in the absence of Championship/EFL tonight)
Last edited:
Who've we seen demoted over the last decade. Not including those who got ditched for other reasons?
1% ? 2% ?
I make you right about contracts. That's why they keep their jobs. Easy to get rid of someone after a few months. Difficult after a few years
one
RefChat Addict
That not what I am saying. Let me put it in your phraseology.
Refs missed a ton of clear KMIs before VAR. That ton if corrected by VAR now. However they are missing two tons of not very clear KMIs now because of VAR.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
I think the West Ham goal last night (49min in the game for those with Amazon Prime or well featured on MOTD) is a great example which can be used by BOTH advocates of VAR and it's detractors to support their case. The "goal" was initially VAR checked for a foul by West Ham. When this was cleared they then moved on to other possible infringements and through the use of the multiple angles and super slow footage managed to find an offside offence where the ball inadvertently and minutely brushed off the leg of Antonio prior to going in the goal.
So advocates can claim this demonstrates the brilliance of VAR because it allowed football to get to a correct decision that absolutely WOULD and COULD not have been reached by the on field officials. Detractors (I'm firmly in this camp) would argue that the lengthy delay to the game took away from the spectacle, made celebrating the "goal" a lottery and ended up with a decision that the wonderful game of football neither wants nor needs. The overall VAR argument in a special nutshell
The West Ham "goal" is a really interesting one - it's the first one in a long time where I felt like a rugby-style system of having the TMO and referee work together via the big screen would have been a big mistake.
Usually I'm a massive proponent of that system over the hidden TV monitor, but it's such an odd (albeit technically correct) decision, I don't think even showing it on the screen would have helped anyone understand it! Much simpler to just stick an arm up, say that someone was offside at some point and move on as quick as you can.
Usually I'm a massive proponent of that system over the hidden TV monitor, but it's such an odd (albeit technically correct) decision, I don't think even showing it on the screen would have helped anyone understand it! Much simpler to just stick an arm up, say that someone was offside at some point and move on as quick as you can.
NFL style system, ref gives a quick concise explaination of whats happened?
'on review of the play for a potential foul it was determined that the goal was scored by a player in an offside position, therefore no goal' or something along those lines...
In rugby don't they also play the comms between R and VR over the tannoy.. If so would that not help with the decision?
There are still some stadia without big screens... Old Trafford and Annfield the most notable and both are unable to accommodate them at the minute without significant reductions to capacity.
True, although I think they do still typically sell earpieces and/or broadcast the referee comms on a publicised AM frequency? Coupled with the screens, I think it's usually fairly clear what's going on when the TMO is getting involved - if maybe only partly for those in the ground, certainly for those at home who have pictures, official comms and commentators all boardcast live to help them understand the process.
I appreciate there are ground-specific issues, but I don't think the existence of Anfield/Old Trafford would have stopped IFAB implementing this system if that's what they wanted to do. Either with a mandate to install screens (Liverpool have recently rebuilt 2 of the 4 stands, so definitely could have worked some screens into those designs if it was mandatory to do so), or with an grandfather allowance for no screens in some grounds on the understanding that the fans at those grounds would have to accept a worse match-day experience when VAR is being used.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Seen it it happen live in Hockey once. The the on field ref requested the review, she watched the incident with the crowd on the big screen and then gave her decision.
Do we think that would work better in football - ie on field referee only requests a review if there is an element of doubt in his own mind?
Yes there would still be wrong calls for those incidents where on field ref is convinced he is right, but would add more credence to the decision making process and cut out the impossible to see with the naked eye decisions like last night's?
Do we think that would work better in football - ie on field referee only requests a review if there is an element of doubt in his own mind?
Yes there would still be wrong calls for those incidents where on field ref is convinced he is right, but would add more credence to the decision making process and cut out the impossible to see with the naked eye decisions like last night's?
i'd prefer it significantly to the var process we have now
The referee in Ireland/France had no sense the Henry handball occurred and is arguably the moment that led to VAR. Also, the element of doubt standard would probably just lead to more dissent trying to generate the doubt in the refs mind.
true but i bet had he had VAR by request as an option he'd have gone to it based on the irish reaction
Yeh, that seems to be the missed injustice that's endured in everyone's memory
Even I accept a need for some process to prevent these fairly infrequent miscarriages of refereeing. And I would've been broadly in favour of technology pre-VAR (like most people TBF). But, like many football fans who want their manager sacked (or whatever), the phrase, 'be careful what you wish for' couldn't be more apt. None of us could've foreseen the incompatibilities between remote refereeing and the dynamics of the game. Especially for the forgotten suckers with season tickets. Whilst I find the delays and ethos intolerable from home, It's a soul sapping experience in the stadium. I suspect things are different on your side of the pond, but I'm certain the majority of fans, players, coaches and Referees would tear up the protocol over here and start again. The reason VAR persists, is simply because the decision makers are 'money men'. It has little to do with the 'good of the game' anymore
Now, I know that we're broadly opposed on this subject, but I retain respect for those who view the VAR debate from a markedly different cultural background and aspect
I get a bit depressed about the elite game TBH. It's like having a glamourous ex-partner you still have a shining light for. Instead, I've run away with the Championship level bird from next door, with a bit of 'rough grass roots' on the side
The ex-missus is always on the tele though, so I can't get away from her
Last edited:
I think this is a slippery slope however - yes the Irish reaction in that case was extreme, but we all know players will appeal for anything and everything. I'm reminded of a moment where Suarez briefly tried to appeal for a penalty for HB when the GK had made a save!
I'm not saying every player is quite that detached from reality, but I'm loathe to back a system where players will potentially benefit from harassing the referee into a review: that's only asking for more referee abuse, and more reviews than we have currently. It's for this reason I've always wanted to see a challenge-based system - players turn to the referee to appeal and he can say "You think I've got that wrong? Well go and tell your manager to throw his flag/your captain to make the TV signal to me".
I've always been a fan and advocate of the challenge system.
My only issue is that even if the referee looks again and confirms his decision doesn't solve a great deal because the aggrieved team will still feel aggrieved.
I mean, I think with certain players that's just an insurmountable problem! But hopefully if you couple it with other things we've discussed on this thread (public replays and audible explanations), the vast majority of upheld decisions will at least make sense to the majority of people involved, even if they still disagree with the eventual conclusion.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Under the protocols today, the R decides if there will be an OFR--the VAR only recommends. That said, an R who declines to conduct the OFR is on really thin ice if it turns out there was in fact a C&O error, so it virtually never happens. Under current protocols, the R also has the authority to initiate a review for something that was missed (though I don't recall ever seeing it happen).
But I don't think a standard where only the R can raise the issue and only if he has doubt would be a good standard--the worst misses are the ones the R isn't aware of the potential miss.