VAR used to reverse offside decision & award goal

[redjambo]

For the first time in English football, VAR was used to reverse an offside decision in the Leicester-Fleetwood game tonight, with the goal being awarded. Great to see.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42616210

[redjambo]

 

[Footballfirst]

Had the ref been sharp enough to blow the whistle for offside before Iheanacho  netted, then he wouldn't have been able to give the goal as play would have been dead the moment the whistle went.  I can see there being issues like coming up in future games.

 

The biggest problem I have is that the fans and the TV audience don't get to see what the VAR is looking at in real time.

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

Had the ref been sharp enough to blow the whistle for offside before Iheanacho  netted, then he wouldn't have been able to give the goal as play would have been dead the moment the whistle went.  I can see there being issues like coming up in future games.

 

The biggest problem I have is that the fans and the TV audience don't get to see what the VAR is looking at in real time.

 

Good point, but perhaps referees will delay from whistling immediately in critical situations purely for that reason unless the decision is clear-cut, knowing that VAR will settle the issue if a goal is scored etc. It will definitely take a while, and a lot of "case law", before a happy medium is found.

 

If the game is being televised, the TV viewers will be able to see the TV company's replays, which are essentially the ones being used by the video ref. To show replays on big screens would need all the teams in a certain competition to have screens to be fair, no?

[kila]

Just now, redjambo said:

If the game is being televised, the TV viewers will be able to see the TV company's replays, which are essentially the ones being used by the video ref. To show replays on big screens would need all the teams in a certain competition to have screens to be fair, no?

 

At least for the BT Sport games, during a VAR decision all we've had is a close up of the ref's face for 30 secs. Quite off putting!

 

Probably so they can restrict the footage to just those in the VAR room while a decision being made, or if it were in Scotland and involving the OF, edited (I'm sure the ball was yellow a frame ago...)

[redjambo]

3 minutes ago, kila said:

 

At least for the BT Sport games, during a VAR decision all we've had is a close up of the ref's face for 30 secs. Quite off putting!

 

Probably so they can restrict the footage to just those in the VAR room while a decision being made, or if it were in Scotland and involving the OF, edited (I'm sure the ball was yellow a frame ago...)

 

 

[Romanov Stole My Pension]

So every time a referee isn't 100% sure he'll be letting play run on until we check the tele. Sounds awful.

[Footballfirst]

9 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Good point, but perhaps referees will delay from whistling immediately in critical situations purely for that reason unless the decision is clear-cut, knowing that VAR will settle the issue if a goal is scored etc. It will definitely take a while, and a lot of "case law", before a happy medium is found.

 

If the game is being televised, the TV viewers will be able to see the TV company's replays, which are essentially the ones being used by the video ref. To show replays on big screens would need all the teams in a certain competition to have screens to be fair, no?

I was watching the game on TV and a replay was shown just before the final decision was made, however the image with the virtual lines across the pitch only appeared after the decision was taken.

 

Apparently the VAR has four views he can use.  It maybe that the one shown to viewers was the best angle, but did the VAR have the ability to see it with the lines?

 

The fans attnding games don't have a clue how close a decision may be, but I feel that it would help if all the information was available to everyone at the same time.

 

I'm very much in the pro-VAR camp.  If it improves the referees' correct decision making from 95% to 98% then it will be a success.  However, I'd like the process to be open and transparent.  Let's hear the discussion between the ref and the VAR, as they do in rugby.

[ecjambo]

I don’t like the idea of VAR. it’s just another example of the game becoming so commercialised and focused on how much money can be chucked into more technology.

 

Maybe I’m an old romantic, but I like football the way it was. Plus, take out the controversial decisions, what are the papers, pundits, your mates got to talk about. Bad decisions make up a huge part of the game. I know it can go against you at times, but it can also go for you, i.e. if that Hibs lad’s shot was over the line or not...we’ll never know! 

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

I was watching the game on TV and a replay was shown just before the final decision was made, however the image with the virtual lines across the pitch only appeared after the decision was taken.

 

Apparently the VAR has four views he can use.  It maybe that the one shown to viewers was the best angle, but did the VAR have the ability to see it with the lines.

 

The fans at the games wouldn't have a clue, but I feel that it would help if all the information was available to everyone at the same time.

 

I'm very much in the pro-VAR camp.  If it improves the referees' correct decision making from 95% to 98% then it will be a success.  However, I'd like the process to be open and transparent.  Let's hear the discussion between the ref and the VAR, as they do in rugby.

 

I completely agree with this. The current situation gives the impression that the authorities are not over-confident in their system. Perhaps, as time goes by and the wrinkles get ironed out, they will become confident enough to make the procedure more transparent.

[redjambo]

2 minutes ago, ecjambo said:

I don’t like the idea of VAR. it’s just another example of the game becoming so commercialised and focused on how much money can be chucked into more technology.

 

Maybe I’m an old romantic, but I like football the way it was. Plus, take out the controversial decisions, what are the papers, pundits, your mates got to talk about. Bad decisions make up a huge part of the game. I know it can go against you at times, but it can also go for you, i.e. if that Hibs lad’s shot was over the line or not...we’ll never know! 

 

I come from the old "sport should be as fair as possible" brigade. I know that it was considered pretty amusing by non-English football fans, but as a neutral I was pretty incensed that Maradona got away with the "Hand of God". Any time since that event that I've seen really bad decisions, it has rankled my sense of fair play. A game should rest on the merits of the play, not the quality of the refereeing decisions. It also allows less room for cheating, whether from players or officials.

[hughesie27]

I was under the impression that the VAR was advisory for the the referee and ultimately he had to make the final after viewing the footage himself. Here the call has been made elsewhere.

[Sandy Clark]

Football is going to make a complete mess of this facility for some time.

[dsk1210]

15 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

I was under the impression that the VAR was advisory for the the referee and ultimately he had to make the final after viewing the footage himself. Here the call has been made elsewhere.

 

Because the evidence proves that is the correct decision, as long as its the right call it does not matter who makes it.

[hughesie27]

2 minutes ago, dsk1210 said:

 

Because the evidence proves that is the correct decision, as long as its the right call it does not matter who makes it.

Of course the right call was made. But in the BBC clip about how it works with Howard Webb he states that the ref still has to make the call.

 

Perhaps it's more applicable to situations of red cards or handballs.

 

 

[Ferryjambo99]

25 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

I was under the impression that the VAR was advisory for the the referee and ultimately he had to make the final after viewing the footage himself. Here the call has been made elsewhere.

 

 

I'd guess because it's a clear cut decision and not something subjective like a red card or penalty

[whyskey]

what happens if a defender sees the flag go up and stops, var gives a goal, if the defender had not stopped he would have got back  on the goal line and cleared the ball. this is where this system falls down and should not be used, its controversy that makes the game.

[davieholt]

24 minutes ago, whyskey said:

what happens if a defender sees the flag go up and stops, var gives a goal, if the defender had not stopped he would have got back  on the goal line and cleared the ball. this is where this system falls down and should not be used, its controversy that makes the game.

 

24 minutes ago, whyskey said:

what happens if a defender sees the flag go up and stops, var gives a goal, if the defender had not stopped he would have got back  on the goal line and cleared the ball. this is where this system falls down and should not be used, its controversy that makes the game.

 

Another example of a situation where players should always play to the whistle. Does my head in when a defender stops and raises his hand when he thinks a forward is offside.

[Siphiwe Tshabalala]

We should be thankful the SFA don't have a pot to piss in. 

 

I really don't like it at all but if they're going to do it, why not just lift the system used in Rugby/Rugby League? 

 

Refs should be wired up with a mic, simple as that.

[southcap]

Love how people find small faults and immediately rule it out and think it should be scrapped.

 

Like anything new, there is always going to be problems and issues that need ironed out and solved.

 

Anything that makes the game fairer and brings the game to a more level playing field, rather than the bigger teams getting the benefit of the doubt(just a natural psychological issue) the better.

 

If controversy is the only thing that makes football interesting, you need to find a new sport to follow.

[RobNox]

6 hours ago, whyskey said:

what happens if a defender sees the flag go up and stops, var gives a goal, if the defender had not stopped he would have got back  on the goal line and cleared the ball. this is where this system falls down and should not be used, its controversy that makes the game.

The same as would happen now if a defender saw the flag go up, stopped, and the ref overruled the flag.  Play to the whistle.

[peter_hmfc]

Anyone against VAR:

 

 

The sooner these arsehole officials are held instantly accountable to their decisions the better, the sooner they have no excuse for wrong decisions the better.

[deko 94]

I'm against it all. Thankfully we can't afford goal line technology at the moment in Scotland, so probably won't get this for a while... 

[redjambo]

3 minutes ago, deko 94 said:

I'm against it all. Thankfully we can't afford goal line technology at the moment in Scotland, so probably won't get this for a while... 

 

Out of interest, why?

[Dazzle]

18 hours ago, ecjambo said:

I don’t like the idea of VAR. it’s just another example of the game becoming so commercialised and focused on how much money can be chucked into more technology.

 

Maybe I’m an old romantic, but I like football the way it was. Plus, take out the controversial decisions, what are the papers, pundits, your mates got to talk about. Bad decisions make up a huge part of the game. I know it can go against you at times, but it can also go for you, i.e. if that Hibs lad’s shot was over the line or not...we’ll never know! 

 

I like the idea of VAR to examine penalties and incidents where referee/linesman didn't see ball cross the goal line.  I don't like the idea that every close offside decision is being looked at. Although, perhaps there is a need for it in Scotland where the refs and linesmen are awful/corrupt. 

[redjambo]

6 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

 

I like the idea of VAR to examine penalties and incidents where referee/linesman didn't see ball cross the goal line.  I don't like the idea that every close offside decision is being looked at. Although, perhaps there is a need for it in Scotland where the refs and linesmen are awful/corrupt. 

 

This. If we can get it to work properly, VAR could be a good equaliser.

 

No more of this? (Andy Davis)

 

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/linesman-s-call-breaks-hearts-1-1004326

[132goals1958]

18 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

I come from the old "sport should be as fair as possible" brigade. I know that it was considered pretty amusing by non-English football fans, but as a neutral I was pretty incensed that Maradona got away with the "Hand of God". Any time since that event that I've seen really bad decisions, it has rankled my sense of fair play. A game should rest on the merits of the play, not the quality of the refereeing decisions. It also allows less room for cheating, whether from players or officials.

 

The stakes in England are much higher. The playoff for the premiership for example in terms of money is huge and the more assistance for the referee imo can only be beneficial.

[Dazzle]

6 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

This. If we can get it to work properly, VAR could be a good equaliser.

 

No more of this? (Andy Davis)

 

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/linesman-s-call-breaks-hearts-1-1004326

 

Really, it doesn't have to be a "technology" solution. Since cameras are at all SPL games, a quick replay would soon rectify obvious mistakes or deliberate "mistakes". The example above was not an offside decision that was wrong. TV cameras were there, a quick look at the replay would have quashed the penalty decision and the linesman banished. There's no reason the SFA can't take retroactive action using what was seen on TV. That really annoys me. 

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

 

Really, it doesn't have to be a "technology" solution. Since cameras are at all SPL games, a quick replay would soon rectify obvious mistakes or deliberate "mistakes". The example above was not an offside decision that was wrong. TV cameras were there, a quick look at the replay would have quashed the penalty decision and the linesman banished. There's no reason the SFA can't take retroactive action using what was seen on TV. That really annoys me. 

 

But that's what VAR does. It allows a video ref to take a quick look at replays to determine if refereeing mistakes were made. Television is technology.

 

[Dazzle]

Just now, redjambo said:

 

But that's what VAR does. It allows a video ref to take a quick look at replays to determine if refereeing mistakes were made. Television is technology.

 

VAR and "goal line technology" are more than TV replays. In the vast majority of cases you don't need either, the replays that everyone sees at home is usually enough to confirm what happened. 

[redjambo]

Just now, Dazzle said:

VAR and "goal line technology" are more than TV replays. In the vast majority of cases you don't need either, the replays that everyone sees at home is usually enough to confirm what happened. 

 

VAR and goal-line technology are separate things. With VAR, the video ref gets to see what we would see at home (if the TV company chooses to shows it to us) and advise the referee, in specific situations, of the accuracy of refereeing decisions. That's it.

 

[Jambo-Fox]

I was at the ‘historic’ match last night (not a great game but still a lot better than the first one!) - the VAR experience weird! The crowd, the players, coaches etc are so detached from what’s going on!

 

The crowd stand to celebrate, it’s disallowed .... the players accept the decision,  the crowd sit, no point in abusing the officials they never change their decisions.... wait ..... what’s going on???

 

”VAR PLEASE GIVE US A GOAL”!!

 

Decision made by an official 100 miles South in Premier League communications HQ! NB I know it’s an FA competition but the experiments are being run on Premier League investments.

 

Good or bad?? On balance good BUT they’ll need to find a better way to engage those actually at the match!

 

 

[Dazzle]

8 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

VAR and goal-line technology are separate things. With VAR, the video ref gets to see what we would see at home (if the TV company chooses to shows it to us) and advise the referee, in specific situations, of the accuracy of refereeing decisions. That's it.

 

Yes they are separate, but the "VAR technology" implements 12 or so cameras which I think is overkill and I say, is more than just TV replays. I'm not against it, I just would like to see it used sparingly. 

[redjambo]

3 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Yes they are separate, but the "VAR technology" implements 12 or so cameras which I think is overkill and I say, is more than just TV replays. I'm not against it, I just would like to see it used sparingly. 

 

In the early days, we only had one camera at football matches. Then we added another. Goal cameras followed, even touchline cameras, overhead cameras.

 

As a result, the experience for the TV viewer has been enhanced. We can see the play from many different angles, each shining a different light on a particular passage of play. We mostly don't realise how many cameras are being used though (although we would get an idea if each camera had a camera number which was prominently displayed in the corner of the screen when that camera was being used).

 

This article in 2010 described Sky TV as having 24 cameras at a match. Before VAR.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1301170/The-impossible-job-Sky-TV-24-cameras-referees-much.html

[Dazzle]

8 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

In the early days, we only had one camera at football matches. Then we added another. Goal cameras followed, even touchline cameras, overhead cameras.

 

As a result, the experience for the TV viewer has been enhanced. We can see the play from many different angles, each shining a different light on a particular passage of play. We mostly don't realise how many cameras are being used though (although we would get an idea if each camera had a camera number which was prominently displayed in the corner of the screen when that camera was being used).

 

This article in 2010 described Sky TV as having 24 cameras at a match. Before VAR.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1301170/The-impossible-job-Sky-TV-24-cameras-referees-much.html

 

I suspect you already know that VAR technology doesn't use TV (broadcaster's) cameras. 

 

Anyway, I'm done with this, enjoy the rest of your evening. 

[redjambo]

5 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

 

I suspect you already know that VAR technology doesn't use TV (broadcaster's) cameras. 

 

Anyway, I'm done with this, enjoy the rest of your evening. 

 

You too Dazzle.

[redjambo]

For info, as far as I can see, the cameras used by VAR are those used by the TV company broadcasting the game.

 

For example:

 

EPL

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42604127

 

"Supporters watching at home will see the same camera angles as the referees"

 

MLS

 

https://www.si.com/soccer/2017/08/04/var-mls-video-assistant-referee-howard-webb

 

"On those monitors will be all the same feeds the broadcasters for that day's game will use. Nothing more, nothing less."

 

 

[Bridge of Djoum]

19 hours ago, Romanov Stole My Pension said:

So every time a referee isn't 100% sure he'll be letting play run on until we check the tele. Sounds awful.

No, that's not how it works at all.

 

https://football-technology.fifa.com/en/media-tiles/video-assistant-referees-var/

[Bridge of Djoum]

10 hours ago, whyskey said:

what happens if a defender sees the flag go up and stops, var gives a goal, if the defender had not stopped he would have got back  on the goal line and cleared the ball. this is where this system falls down and should not be used, its controversy that makes the game.

Play the whistle. Still the most common shout from bairns football upwards.

[kila]

50 minutes ago, redjambo said:

For info, as far as I can see, the cameras used by VAR are those used by the TV company broadcasting the game.

 

For example:

 

EPL

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42604127

 

"Supporters watching at home will see the same camera angles as the referees"

 

MLS

 

https://www.si.com/soccer/2017/08/04/var-mls-video-assistant-referee-howard-webb

 

"On those monitors will be all the same feeds the broadcasters for that day's game will use. Nothing more, nothing less."

 

 

[Romanov Stole My Pension]

1 hour ago, No Wing Mirrors on Trains. said:

No, that's not how it works at all.

 

https://football-technology.fifa.com/en/media-tiles/video-assistant-referees-var/

 

Penalties

Sounds as though referees will just give more penalties, safe in the knowledge that if they're wrong it'll be overturned by the VAR. Pressure off if they do that. More time for fans to wait about.

 

Goals

Sounds like there's be plenty goals where they'll be checking just to be on the safe side. Fans will be waiting about.

 

Take away the instant emotion in football and it would be shite.

[redjambo]

7 minutes ago, Romanov Stole My Pension said:

 

Penalties

Sounds as though referees will just give more penalties, safe in the knowledge that if they're wrong it'll be overturned by the VAR. Pressure off if they do that. More time for fans to wait about.

 

Goals

Sounds like there's be plenty goals where they'll be checking just to be on the safe side. Fans will be waiting about.

 

Take away the instant emotion in football and it would be shite.

 

Indeed. It will take away the instant emotion of intense anger that the referee or one of his assistants has made another incomprehensively stupid and/or seemingly biased decision against our team. Down with VAR I say!

[Mikey1874]

Clear penalty not given and not checked Chelsea just now 

 

Edit - VAR official decided "not clear and obvious error"

[milky_26]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

Clear penalty not given and not checked Chelsea just now 

was checked, VAR says it was not a clear error

[The Internet]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

Clear penalty not given and not checked Chelsea just now 

 

It was checked and not given. This is why it will never work though. Several replays later and it's not clear either way. Looked to me like a dive though. 

[Debut 4]

Could become a farce.

 

Players starting to make the tv sign for any challenge they think is illegal on them.

 

 

[gnasher75]

12 minutes ago, milky_26 said:

was checked, VAR says it was not a clear error

 

It seemed pretty clear to me! This new system is going to see the VAR official getting the blame for all the dodgy decisions instead of the ref. 

[redjambo]

5 minutes ago, gnasher75 said:

 

It seemed pretty clear to me! This new system is going to see the VAR official getting the blame for all the dodgy decisions instead of the ref. 

 

Did the referee review it track-side?

[Hungry hippo]

2 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Did the referee review it track-side?

 

No. The VAR ref reviewed it away from the ground only.

[kila]

3 minutes ago, redjambo said:

Did the referee review it track-side?

 

No