VAR

[viva hate]

VAR is beginning to annoy me! All the decisions I've seen so far after VAR have been correct but there have been many instances when VAR should have been used to overturn a decision or award a penalty and it hasn't been used. 

 

The thing that annoys me the most is when a goal has been scored, the fans celebrate and then you have to wait to see if it was actually a goal. Takes the enjoyment out of celebrating. 

[rudi must stay]

1 minute ago, viva hate said:

VAR is beginning to annoy me! All the decisions I've seen so far after VAR have been correct but there have been many instances when VAR should have been used to overturn a decision or award a penalty and it hasn't been used. 

 

The thing that annoys me the most is when a goal has been scored, the fans celebrate and then you have to wait to see if it was actually a goal. Takes the enjoyment out of celebrating. 

 

Doesn't stop poor refs. IMO he didn't have the bottle to look at the incident

[Sooperstar]

1 minute ago, rudi must stay said:

 

Doesn't stop poor refs. IMO he didn't have the bottle to look at the incident

The incident is looked at by the VAR refs and they then decide if the ref should look at it again.

[rudi must stay]

1 minute ago, Sooperstar said:

The incident is looked at by the VAR refs and they then decide if the ref should look at it again.

 

Must be only if the ref decides its worth looking at

[Bazzas right boot]

The system is great. 

 

The method needs adjusted. 

 

Challenges, like tennis is the way to go, also takes the accountability of when it is used away from the ref and on to the team challenging. 

If they **** it, no debate. 

Actually adds another dimension to football of when to use them and not waste them. 

 

Quite simple really. 

 

 

[Sooperstar]

6 minutes ago, rudi must stay said:

 

Must be only if the ref decides its worth looking at

No, it's not, I've just explained to you how it works!

[AuldReekie444]

12 minutes ago, viva hate said:

VAR is beginning to annoy me! All the decisions I've seen so far after VAR have been correct but there have been many instances when VAR should have been used to overturn a decision or award a penalty and it hasn't been used. 

 

The thing that annoys me the most is when a goal has been scored, the fans celebrate and then you have to wait to see if it was actually a goal. Takes the enjoyment out of celebrating. 

that seemed a a penalty to sweden

[Gambo]

Still down to human interpretation of the incident.

 

Clearing up nothing.

 

Leave it to the ref and his linesman.

[rudi must stay]

1 minute ago, Sooperstar said:

No, it's not, I've just explained to you how it works!

 

Thought it was the ref saying let's review it. And the committee do that. It seems to me anyway that is how it works anyway. How come Lee Dixon said "the ref doesn't even want to see the incident'

[Sooperstar]

Just now, rudi must stay said:

 

Thought it was the ref saying let's review it. And the committee do that. It seems to me anyway that is how it works anyway. How come Lee Dixon said "the ref doesn't even want to see the incident'

Because Lee Dixon is like many commentators and hasn't bothered to understand how it works.

 

Here, read this...

 

https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2018-06-20/world-cup-2018-var-video-referee-how-does-it-work-russia-decisions-explained/

[LeftBack]

14 minutes ago, Gambo said:

Still down to human interpretation of the incident.

 

Clearing up nothing.

 

Leave it to the ref and his linesman.

Agreed. Find it annoying and spoiling enjoyment.

[By the light]

26 minutes ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

The system is great. 

 

The method needs adjusted. 

 

Challenges, like tennis is the way to go, also takes the accountability of when it is used away from the ref and on to the team challenging. 

If they **** it, no debate. 

Actually adds another dimension to football of when to use them and not waste them. 

 

Quite simple really. 

 

 

 

Thats my view too. 2 challenges per half

[Bazzas right boot]

With VAR, our penalty in 98 would have been a free kick...... 

12 would have stood due to the clip on the heels. 

 

In 86, at dens we would have had a pk and went 1-0 up. 

 

The "swings and roundabouts" will still occur, just be different. 

[Sooperstar]

1 minute ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

With VAR, our penalty in 98 would have been a free kick...... 

12 would have stood due to the clip on the heels. 

 

In 86, at dens we would have had a pk and went 1-0 up. 

 

The "swings and roundabouts" will still occur, just be different. 

The clip in 2012 was comfortably outside the box.

 

And the 98 one was not clearly outside the box. 

Edited June 23, 2018 by Sooperstar

[viva hate]

When we score against Hibs I want to gloat straight away. I don't want to wait. 

[Bazzas right boot]

12 minutes ago, Sooperstar said:

The clip in 2012 was comfortably outside the box.

 

And the 98 one was not clearly outside the box. 

 

The pull then, there was a foul inside the box. 

 

98.....?

[Mollo]

I agree. I think it’s tried to solve a ‘problem’ but it’s just taking something away from the game. 

 

Id rather a committee reviewed at the time and let mistakes be mistakes unless they see a handball goal or a punch in the face etc.

 

Just my opinion. Footy ain’t perfect, and it won’t be even with VAR so why let it stay and sap passion and celebration out of it.

[Sooperstar]

1 minute ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

The pull then, there was a foul inside the box. 

 

98.....?

In 2012 both the pull and the clip were outside the box. There is actually no debate about that. There was no foul inside the box. If you think there was then you need to look closely at the angle from behind the goals. He is at least a yard outside the box when his heel is clipped.

[Sir Vladimir of Romanov]

Law 12 allows the ref to award a penalty for an offence that began outside the box and continues into said box. 

[Bazzas right boot]

1 hour ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

The pull then, there was a foul inside the box. 

 

98.....?

 

 

Show the clip or the jkb painting, clearly there was a foul in 5he box.

 

 

[Statto]

I think VAR has been great for football. Games aren't as stop-start as everyone thought they would be, if anything, they flow better because the officials are encouraged to let the marginal decisions go and if a goal is scored from it, VAR can be looked at for offsides and fouls.

 

I understand that some fans might not like the fact you can celebrate a goal and 30 seconds later, it can be disallowed but I think it's still better than what we have now, sometimes leaving the game not knowing whether a decision was correct or not. With VAR, you're confident they got these big game-changing decisions right.

[LarrysRightFoot]

The decision not to use VAR to give Serbia a penalty yesterday was unreal. Two boys rugby tackle Mitrovic and he gets a could given against him. If that isn’t clear and obvious I don’t know what is.

Edited June 23, 2018 by LarrysRightFoot

[JamboJen]

3 hours ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

The system is great. 

 

The method needs adjusted. 

 

Challenges, like tennis is the way to go, also takes the accountability of when it is used away from the ref and on to the team challenging. 

If they **** it, no debate. 

Actually adds another dimension to football of when to use them and not waste them. 

 

Quite simple really. 

 

 

Exactly.

 

Hockey uses a team challenges system as well as the umpire being able to call for a review of their own volition as well. Works really well.

 

Obviously tennis and hockey have fewer grey areas in terms of what is/isn't legal or in/out, but is long as football defines what (and where) challenges can and can't be made then it will benefit everyone.

 

Every decision VAR has changed in this World Cup has been right. It's also missed a lot of chances to make a correct decision. Regardless, there are more right decisions with VAR than there would have been without it.

[Romanov Stole My Pension]

4 hours ago, viva hate said:

When we score against Hibs I want to gloat straight away. I don't want to wait. 

Exactly.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

4 hours ago, Gambo said:

Still down to human interpretation of the incident.

 

Clearing up nothing.

 

Leave it to the ref and his linesman.

Exactly. Say no to VAR.

[davemclaren]

5 hours ago, Gambo said:

Still down to human interpretation of the incident.

 

Clearing up nothing.

 

Leave it to the ref and his linesman.

I agree. 

[OTT]

Its not being implemented correctly IMO. I would personally push for a challenge system to take the decision on whether or not an incident merits VAR out of the refs hands. A limited challenge system whereby each team is limited to say 3 challenges per game would be a much more effective system. Take the Mitrovic penalty for instance, the Serbian manager could have spoke to the 4th official and requested VAR  rather than leaving it to the refs discretion. 

 

No system is perfect and I'd absolutely expect a challenge system to be abused for time wasting and breaking up the flow of the game meaning it would need fine tuned (e.g. on offsides the play is allowed to finish before the challenge is ruled on, or, a contentious incident must have occurred for a VAR challenge to be used)

 

Football is a multibillion pound industry and I think it has moved beyond the refs full discretion. The refs decisions should be beyond reproach and I think having multiple layers of validation to his decision making would be helpful, I.e - Player goes down, Ref gives penalty, Opposition manager challenges, VAR used, panel observes and advises ref accordingly, ref implements advise, Post Match Panel decision is reviewed again and if there is a clear failure the panel are censored. 

 

Our current system gives too much power to one person and it results in some truly awful instances of refereeing. I can accept losing if we lose on merit but instances like the Scott Brown goal at Tynecastle circa 2011(?) where we've clearly ****ing scored and the refs waived it off and allowed them to take the ball straight up the other end and score is ridiculous and ruins the sport. Likewise, Davisgate and the many more that exist.  

[i8hibsh]

Football just got that little bit shitter.

[John Gentleman]

10 hours ago, Sooperstar said:

No, it's not, I've just explained to you how it works!

Yep, it's two-way traffic alright (VAR team team can communicate with the ref and suggest a review. The ref can also call for a review without prior communication with the VAR team.) I think there's a bit of confusion about the phrase, "Only the referee can call for a review". Folk seem to be thinking that if the ref misses something/gets a decision incorrect then that's the end of of it – no VAR. That's an incorrect interpretation. The VAR team may suggest to a ref that his decision or an incident deserves another look. It's then up to the ref to initiate a review or simply ignore the VAR team's suggestion.

Here's a link to FIFA's own webpage which deals with VAR:

https://football-technology.fifa.com/en/innovations/var-at-the-world-cup/#thedecisionprocess

As I've mentioned elsewhere, VAR at the world's premier football event should go swimmingly well, given that everything bar the kitchen sink's being thrown at it. Different story, methinks, on a cauld, dreich January night up at Dens Park. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

A question on VAR. Are the replays being shown within the stadium? If so, surely VAR cannot be implemented across top flight football without video screens becoming a compulsory feature of stadia, otherwise it will be yet another reason for fans to choose TV over paying at the gate.

[hughesie27]

1 hour ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

A question on VAR. Are the replays being shown within the stadium? If so, surely VAR cannot be implemented across top flight football without video screens becoming a compulsory feature of stadia, otherwise it will be yet another reason for fans to choose TV over paying at the gate.

Not sure what you are asking.

 

The decision is made miles away from the stadium at VAR HQ (ridiculous name).

Replays are also show in the stadium just like every stadium with a screen around the world already.

Usually, at games I've been too the replays don't start playing until a few minutes after the incident. They don't impact the game though. There's no reason a stadium needs  to have a big screen for VAR. The ref refers to a pitchside monitor to make his decision.

 

 

[Spellczech]

The problem is still there with poor officials. They either don't bother to make a decision because they know VAR will decide if the goal was offside, or they do make the decision and refuse to review it. Scottish officials would be doing the latter...

[hughesie27]

10 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

The problem is still there with poor officials. They either don't bother to make a decision because they know VAR will decide if the goal was offside, or they do make the decision and refuse to review it. Scottish officials would be doing the latter...

People's lack of knowledge over how VAR works is a big problem.

 

The on pitch ref has no choice on whether or not he reviews the footage. If the guy watching the screen feels an error has been made or that thed referee needs to have another look he tells the ref. The ref then MUST go and check the pitchside monitor. He can then either stick with his original call or change.

 

I shake my head when I see players running to the Ref making the VAR sign as if he has any choice in reviewing the footage or not.

[Spellczech]

6 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

People's lack of knowledge over how VAR works is a big problem.

 

The on pitch ref has no choice on whether or not he reviews the footage. If the guy watching the screen feels an error has been made or that thed referee needs to have another look he tells the ref. The ref then MUST go and check the pitchside monitor. He can then either stick with his original call or change.

 

I shake my head when I see players running to the Ref making the VAR sign as if he has any choice in reviewing the footage or not.

In that case the problem is with the off-pitch officials too. The referee yesterday who missed the push on Berg which would've seen Sweden get a penalty was the same referee who missed the trip on Pavon that would've seen Argentina get a second penalty in their first game...I assume the VAR guys who failed to correct his errors were different people? I also assume they made a call on the very subjective basis of "clear and obvious error". Both errors were clear (on TV) but the "obvious" requirement allows them to say that it was reasonable for the referee to miss them!

 

I may be confusing my referees in the above with the referee from the Serbia v Switzerland ref who also missed a clear penalty...I've been watching a lot of football!

Edited June 24, 2018 by Spellczech

[hughesie27]

3 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

In that case the problem is with the off-pitch officials too. The referee yesterday who missed the push on Berg which would've seen Sweden get a penalty was the same referee who missed the trip on Pavon that would've seen Argentina get a second penalty in their first game...I assume the VAR guys who failed to correct his errors were different people? I also assume they made a call on the very subjective basis of "clear and obvious error". Both errors were clear (on TV) but the "obvious" requirement allows them to say that it was reasonable for the referee to miss them!

 

I may be confusing my referees in the above with the referee from the Serbia v Switzerland ref who also missed a clear penalty...I've been watching a lot of football!

There's definitely still been mistakes made where penalties should have been given that weren't. Can't explain why they weren't put forward for review. That's the thing with football. No two challengfees are the same. Footage looks much different and can tell a different story in slow motion than regular play. Decisions are still open to debate. Its not as black and white as goal line technology and it never can be.

 

But for me VAR has been a benefit for the game. I don't care about the flow of a match or how long a decision takes tto be made as long as the right decision is reached. Fairness over quality every time.

 

And it's unquestionable that VAR has got it right a lot more than when it's been wrong.

[DVB]

Maybe they should make it a challenge system. I would imagine the Swedes would have challenged for the penalty that wasn’t given and Costa Rica would have challenged Neymars dive.

[hughesie27]

9 minutes ago, DVB said:

Maybe they should make it a challenge system. I would imagine the Swedes would have challenged for the penalty that wasn’t given and Costa Rica would have challenged Neymars dive.

I'd definitely be interested in seeing how that would play out over the next World Cup.

There would need to be some sort of time limit as teams could just have staff watching TV replays advising when to challenge.

We have already seen a couple of examples where the ref has played on only for the match to stop at the other end of the pitch and be brought back.

Edited June 24, 2018 by hughesie27

[Ray Gin]

Taking nothing away from the game for me. An excellent addition and helps cut down on the number of wrong decisions.

[John Gentleman]

2 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

A question on VAR. Are the replays being shown within the stadium? If so, surely VAR cannot be implemented across top flight football without video screens becoming a compulsory feature of stadia, otherwise it will be yet another reason for fans to choose TV over paying at the gate.

From my above link:

".....The person operating the tablet is located in the video operation room and has access to the audio from the referee communication system as well as the camera angles the VAR is looking at. The VAR information system will also be used to automatically create VAR-specific graphic templates for TV and the giant screen in the stadium."

So, that's the WC sorted. Can't see it happening at Dens though! Looks like the definition of "giant" is open to interpretation too. One person's 'giant' could be another person's minuscule. 

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 hour ago, hughesie27 said:

Not sure what you are asking.

 

The decision is made miles away from the stadium at VAR HQ (ridiculous name).

Replays are also show in the stadium just like every stadium with a screen around the world already.

Usually, at games I've been too the replays don't start playing until a few minutes after the incident. They don't impact the game though. There's no reason a stadium needs  to have a big screen for VAR. The ref refers to a pitchside monitor to make his decision.

 

 

I'm talking about the difference in "fan experience" between watching the game live and on the telly. If VAR was introduced without screens in the stadium, it would be another reason to simply out of going and watch on TV instead as you get all the VAR replays on TV.

[hughesie27]

8 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

I'm talking about the difference in "fan experience" between watching the game live and on the telly. If VAR was introduced without screens in the stadium, it would be another reason to simply out of going and watch on TV instead as you get all the VAR replays on TV.

I don't see how that would be any different from how big TV screens operate now in stadiums.

They already show replays of key moments after the fact. Whether the ref was right or wrong.

[Maroon Sailor]

50 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

 

And it's unquestionable that VAR has got it right a lot more than when it's been wrong.

 

The issue is when it's not being used when it should be

[Bull's-eye]

I don't mind it and feel it's benefited this WC, it won't work with incompetent referees like we have In the SPFL, not that the league could afford it anyway. 

The EPL has already postponed using it for a year and if anyone's going to get it right it will be them.

 

There are issues obviously but none that really can't be sorted pretty easily. Would like to see it used properly for diving, all over the pitch, not just in the box and the wrestling matches are either allowed or not. Apart from that I think it's working well.

 

[Maroon Sailor]

 

[John Gentleman]

6 minutes ago, Oliver Twist said:

I don't mind it and feel it's benefited this WC, it won't work with incompetent referees like we have In the SPFL, not that the league could afford it anyway. 

The EPL has already postponed using it for a year and if anyone's going to get it right it will be them.

 

There are issues obviously but none that really can't be sorted pretty easily. Would like to see it used properly for diving, all over the pitch, not just in the box and the wrestling matches are either allowed or not. Apart from that I think it's working well.

 

Yet, bizarrely, the Brits had to approve VAR's use in the World Cup via the International Football Association Board (IFAB). IFAB is comprised of the SFA, English FA, Welsh FA, Northern Irish FA and FIFA. The latter has 4 votes, while the former have 1 vote each.

http://www.theifab.com/home

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Football_Association_Board

[I P Knightley]

2 hours ago, hughesie27 said:

Not sure what you are asking.

 

The decision is made miles away from the stadium at VAR HQ (ridiculous name).

Replays are also show in the stadium just like every stadium with a screen around the world already.

Usually, at games I've been too the replays don't start playing until a few minutes after the incident. They don't impact the game though. There's no reason a stadium needs  to have a big screen for VAR. The ref refers to a pitchside monitor to make his decision.

 

 

I think the question is whether supporters in the ground need to see the footage that's being reviewed. If the ground doesn't have big screens for the crowd, how can it work? 

 

Given that so much happens during a match that you don't see or, without a screen, you don't see replays,  I'd say it's a moot question. We currently have moments of "wtf just happened?" and we have to guess why a foul was given or not. It would be the same if they were using VAR but we'd know that VAR was being used which would be a little more comforting. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

53 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

I don't see how that would be any different from how big TV screens operate now in stadiums.

They already show replays of key moments after the fact. Whether the ref was right or wrong.

I think you missed the point. I'm referring to stadiums without screens.

[grumpyespana]

VAR seems to be a improvement but its seems to be missing a lot of stuff as well, it cannie be that hard when four refs are looking at the screen but it is personally.

[William H. Bonney]

7 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

I think you missed the point. I'm referring to stadiums without screens.

 

I imagine it would have a detrimental effect on attendances. 

[davemclaren]

Ultimately we will be able to do away with Referees and Linesman and just leave all decisions and the running of the game to the technology. I give it 10 years before we have that sort of technology.