The Ref Stop

Video Assistant Referees (VAR)

The Ref Stop
GraemeS said:
With all due respect, I think that's some serious rubbish. The laws of the game exist and the sport should be about who can play best within those laws, not who gets away with more law breaking than their opponent.
Click to expand...

With equal respect, you have missed the whole point of the article.

To say a 'wrong decision' is 'getting away with breaking the law' is just silly.

You're clearly in the camp that is chasing the dream of no wrong decisions in a match. IMHO we're never going to get there and we're going to ruin the game trying.
 
I don't have time to engage in more discussion right now but how about this point just raised on TalkSport. Didn't even think about it to be honest, but why the hell was Craig Pawson (or any referee who uses VAR) just strolling over to the TV on the side of the pitch? For those who have an issue with the time (which I do), you could save between maybe 15-30 seconds both ways if you jog over at a good pace.
 
NERef said:
Why did the players and manager argue with the decision?
Click to expand...

Because the West Brom players thought that penalty on Salah was harsh. At full match speed you wave that away because of the exaggerated dive. There are coaches and players who'll look at that decision and think it's not a penalty, hence the questioning of the referee.
 
As much as I don't like the current system I think its important to be 'fair' and not blame the system for poor refereeing :) . The fact that the time used up for review was not added on correctly was just poor refereeing. It could easily happen for injuries as well when you have a 3min and 4min injury break and only add on 5min. Same with not cautioning players surrounding the referee. It happens all the time with non-VAR decisions.
 
Last edited:
one said:
Thanks Rrusty I was about to start another thread.

While in concept it’s a good idea, IMO the process is killing the game and fundamentally flawed. I agree with some of your points.

The most common criticism of current system is the delays in the review and confusion it causes. For me this is because two of its main principles are contradictory.
  • Only clear and obvious errors are reversed.
  • Only the referee can initiate a review

These two contradict each other at times and cause the delay/confusion problems. For me its very simple. If an experienced referee in the VAR room has seen a CLEAR error, why does the referee have to review it? We are not talking about a 50-50 here. It’s a clear error, detected by an experienced referee at the same level of the one in the middle.

AND if it takes more than 15 or 20 seconds of review (by the VAR) to see an error then how can it be a CLEAR one. If you can’t see it within very short period and you need multiple replays and perhaps freeze frame or slow motion then its not a clear error.

So here is what I think the process should be:

Case 1
  • Incident
  • It’s believed referee has made a clear error
  • VAR (on their own initiative or tipped by any other official) informs the referee and starts a video reviews. Less than 15-20 seconds after the referee’s decision the error is confirmed.
  • VAR tells referee he made a clear error and the decision should be so and so
  • Referee changes the decision. All within 30 seconds of the original decision.

Case 2:
  • Incident
  • It’s believed referee has made a clear error
  • VAR (on their own initiative or tipped by any other official) informs the referee and starts a video reviews. VAR can’t confirm the error within 20 seconds.
  • VAR tells referee no further action needed
  • Game continues.

Keeping the time within 30 seconds which is common to other stoppages in play means the crowd doesn’t even need to know a review is taking place and its completely hidden. Any delay would feel as part of the normal game. The only communication they need is if a decision has been changed.
Click to expand...

In this instance the VAR in the Eredivisie came to his conclusion within 20 seconds of the original foul. In the Netherlands, we're doing quite alright with VAR, but mostly because the refs trust the man in the truck. There have been some tricky situations though, so it isn't all smooths sailing
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
PinnerPaul said:
11. Don't really understand this? Anyone help on this one?
Click to expand...
You can't roll the "clock" back five minutes to show a missed foul by the team that scored a goal. The VAR stuff I've seen from MLS suggests that the VAR can only go back to the beginning of the possession that led to a goal (ie, if the turnover that led to that possession or anything from that point to the point of goal has a clearly missed offence, then it can be suggested for review).
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
#10 is weird. I read that as saying that, if the ref shows a RC for SFP, but then the VAR suggests a review, ref can change the decision and re-start but not the sanction that has just been awarded incorrectly...
 
santa sangria said:
#10 is weird. I read that as saying that, if the ref shows a RC for SFP, but then the VAR suggests a review, ref can change the decision and re-start but not the sanction that has just been awarded incorrectly...
Click to expand...
I think this refers to for example another reckless challenge or dissent in the period before play is stopped to review. So you would still be cautioned as if play had continued basically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
..just watching that Dutch vid... there should be another law that states no substitutions during VAR review... imagine if a team subbed off a player that the VAR then finds committed e.g. a RC offence...!
 
one said:
As much as I don't like the current system I think its important to be 'fair' and not blame the system for poor refereeing :) . The fact that the time used up for review was not added on correctly was just poor refereeing. It could easily happen for injuries as well when you have a 3min and 4min injury break and only add on 5min. Same with not cautioning players surrounding the referee. It happens all the time with non-VAR decisions.
Click to expand...


Yes, despite my opposition to VAR - you are correct. In this match in addition to the points you make, reviewing the 3rd goal despite there being no possibility of an obvious error & the time taken to review the penalty decision isn't really down to the system but the officials on the day.

Having said that by giving the referee even more to do and more protocols to follow, you are inviting more 'errors'
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
santa sangria said:
That's not what it says though;)
Click to expand...
Read it again santa. It definitely does say that.
Its basically covering the scenario of events that shouldnt of happened had the correct decision been made in the first instance. Thats certainly how I read it at least.
I think thats backed up by the "except spa / dogso" as rightly so there was no promising attack or ogso as the review would have ruled out tht passage of play.
 
PinnerPaul said:
Yes, despite my opposition to VAR - you are correct. In this match in addition to the points you make, reviewing the 3rd goal despite there being no possibility of an obvious error & the time taken to review the penalty decision isn't really down to the system but the officials on the day.

Having said that by giving the referee even more to do and more protocols to follow, you are inviting more 'errors'
Click to expand...
I was of the impression that all goals will be reviewed and I happen to think rightly so. Its about the only natural stoppage in the game whih presents a real opportunity to use the tech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top