VAR

[Phil Dunphy]

5 minutes ago, babywhalo said:

VAR is meant to assist the ref to get to the correct decision, it's not meant to take the debate out of football. 

 

It’s meant to help them get the calls right. And there was enough evidence to show that it didn’t do that. 

 

It adds nothing to football. But it takes plenty away. 

[Nookie Bear]

30 minutes ago, Bellion said:

Yeah. And it's OK to use technology for things like whether the ball's crossed the line, because it's (a) instantaneous and (b) a yes/no question.

 

If they were to adopt a 2/3 challenge system like someone suggested, that would be better, although I'd still rather not bother. The way it's going at the moment is down the NFL route, where scores get disallowed for contentious reasons after an absolute age spent reviewing them (although at least that's designed to start and stop constantly).

 

It just doesn't work with football and it's also pretty shit for the fans in the stadium. I was in the ground fairly recently for a relatively brief VAR check and nobody knew what was happening. They should admit it doesn't work and chuck it. They won't, though.  

 

And it's all very exciting when it's the last minute of a World Cup match - nobody can deny it wasn't exciting - but this will be replicated in the 15th minute on a Friday night up at Dens Park. We will all be sitting around wondering what is going on and getting bored.

[SectionDJambo]

That game ended up a farce due to the VAR implementation. It took the referee far too long to give the obvious penalty. Then some random, unknown person in a studio says the penalty should be retaken, without the referee having a look herself.

The added time was nowhere near what should have been added, denying both teams a chance to go through by winning the game. The referee was an obnoxious individual too, finger wagging and talking quite aggressively to the players.

The penalty rule is a nonsense. Why can’t the goalkeeper stand behind the line before the kick is taken? What happens when a player stutters the run up to take a penalty and fools the keeper into moving early? Yellow card for the keeper?

Penalty shoot outs are going to be a farce.

Only football could make rule changes that make things worse.

[Ribble]

As much as I dislike VAR, Fifa will continue with it but it requires major refinement. 

 

Teams/Managers must have the right to ask for a VAR review but in order for it not to massively impinge on the flow of the game the ability to ask for a review needs to be limited to x no of times per game or half. With just 2 VAR review requests Scotland could have had a penalty or two v Japan and could have ruled out Argentina's second last night, they could easily have been on 4-6 points and in the knockout stages.

 

Regarding the flow of the game, the review time should be limited to 20-30 seconds, if the VAR Ref/on field ref cannot determine that a clear and obvious error has been made in 20 seconds then the original decision stands. Last night it wasn't 100% clear whether or not the Scottish player got the slightest of touches on the ball or not, instead of repeatedly watching the same angle it should be a case of 'is it clearly a penalty?', Going by the number of replays and the time taken to decide it cannot possibly be a clear and obvious error.  

[CRB1874]

If as a result of var being used as with last night's game, would Alexander have been sent off if the second penalty had been missed and she had not had at least one foot on the goal line resulting in another re-take as its a yellow card offence? 

There were a number of very harsh challenges last night that went unpunished, hardly seems fair that a goalie can be sent of for encroachment off her line by several inches. 

 

[GED]

VAR in Scotland would give tic and gers 20 more penalties a season.

[Rocky jamboa]

VAR ultimately got the penalty decision right in the end, however, they took far too long to look at it. There should almost be a 30 second limit to look at something. That would be sufficient for the majority of incidents. If you need to spend 3-4 minutes looking at it, you obviously cant be sure about it so just move on. 

 

I could see it was a clear penalty at the time and one replay was enough to confirm it. 

[Robbo-Jambo]

2 hours ago, babywhalo said:

It will be implemented in all the games that have VAR going forward

Even if there is no VAR refs will be looking at the goalies movement on the line a lot more closely when a penalty is given, therefore more retakes might come about more than before.

[babywhalo]

35 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

It’s meant to help them get the calls right. And there was enough evidence to show that it didn’t do that. 

 

It adds nothing to football. But it takes plenty away. 

So we agree that VAR is there to assist the ref to get the calls right.

 

I guess we dont agree on whether the ref got the calls right though, which is fair enough. To me it looked a clear penalty and a clear re-take.

[Robbo-Jambo]

3 hours ago, babywhalo said:

I dont get your point. If the keeper has a foot on the line when the ball is struck and dives forward and saves it, the save stands 

My post said how many do have a foot on the line when they save it ?

 

 

My answer was virtually none have, but the save still stands and they get away with it.

[Robbo-Jambo]

18 minutes ago, Paulp74 said:

VAR ultimately got the penalty decision right in the end, however, they took far too long to look at it. There should almost be a 30 second limit to look at something. That would be sufficient for the majority of incidents. If you need to spend 3-4 minutes looking at it, you obviously cant be sure about it so just move on. 

 

I could see it was a clear penalty at the time and one replay was enough to confirm it. 

Correct.

 

It is meant to be clear and obvious so a ref shouldn't be standing gawking at a tv screen for 5 mins.

[Norm]

Am I the only one who doesn't think it was a penalty? Looked to me the Scotland player just got to the ball first. 

[babywhalo]

4 minutes ago, Robbo-Jambo said:

My post said how many do have a foot on the line when they save it ?

 

 

My answer was virtually none have, but the save still stands and they get away 

They only need a foot on the line when its hit, not when they save it. 

 

So, to answer your question, I dont know how many have a foot on the line when they save it, and it doesn't matter anyway. 

[John Findlay]

VAR was consistent.  It consistently shafted Scotland.

[Phil Dunphy]

13 minutes ago, babywhalo said:

So we agree that VAR is there to assist the ref to get the calls right.

 

I guess we dont agree on whether the ref got the calls right though, which is fair enough. To me it looked a clear penalty and a clear re-take.

 

Whether or not the referee got the decision right (she should have given the penalty in the first instance, because it’s obvious to anyone with eyes that it’s a penalty) but that doesn’t take away from the fact the whole experience takes away from what football is about. 

 

Football isn't about waiting around for 8 minutes to get to a decision, only to play 5 minutes of added time. 

 

It doesn't need ‘ironed out’, it needs binned. If you want to watch a sport that lives and dies behind someone watching on a screen, get yourself into rugby. 

[Robbo-Jambo]

5 minutes ago, babywhalo said:

They only need a foot on the line when its hit, not when they save it. 

 

So, to answer your question, I dont know how many have a foot on the line when they save it, and it doesn't matter anyway. 

Well it will matter more now because whether there is VAR or not I think refs will be paying a lot more attention to the goalies every movement at a penalty with the new rules.

 

Therefore there might be more retakes because I have seen hundreds of penalties saved where the goalie has been well off the line at the point of contact with the ball or the actual save and they have got away with it.

 

That is all I am trying to point out.

[graygo]

Well there's a surprise. The EPL have announced that var will not be used to check the goalkeepers movement.

[Pistol1874]

1 hour ago, Hearts_fan said:

VAR should have been used to review the referee's decision to commence play before the substitution was completed. 

 

The whole debacle last night stank of corruption.

Corruption makes no sense. Scotland were 3-0 up, then the right back’s disastrous evening goes full on tragedy, our keeper can’t even touch the ball over the crossbar and the replacement right back is worse than the first.

VAR did its job perfectly well, if slowly.

 

The referee, on the other hand, was an abomination(for both sides, don’t forget she missed that penalty, which was as obvious as you will ever see) as well as mistakes against Scotland and her timekeeping was atrocious. That should be her last game at the tournament.

 

If VAR is here to stay, it may well be worth considering an independent timekeeper.

 

[Bellion]

1 minute ago, Pistol1874 said:

Corruption makes no sense. Scotland were 3-0 up, then the right back’s disastrous evening goes full on tragedy, our keeper can’t even touch the ball over the crossbar and the replacement right back is worse than the first.

VAR did its job perfectly well, if slowly.

 

The referee, on the other hand, was an abomination(for both sides, don’t forget she missed that penalty, which was as obvious as you will ever see) as well as mistakes against Scotland and her timekeeping was atrocious. That should be her last game at the tournament.

 

If VAR is here to stay, it may well be worth considering an independent timekeeper.

 

I think if they're going to keep it, they should have to stop the clock for as long as they're dicking around watching replays.  Too much time in football is wasted already.  Other sports which have allowed themselves to be ruined by technology have at least got this bit correct.  Stop the clock as soon as the ref signals that VAR is going to be used. 

 

Still think the most sensible thing is to bin it entirely.  It's rancid. 

[jambosdad]

VAR from what I have seen gives our refs even more chance to favour sides. They can ignore our call for VAR use but use to suit purpose. Last night Scotland should have won. England got a VAR penalty against us and we didn’t even get a review on similar incident. Against Japan same no VAR despite this being a clear penalty.

VAR could be a good system if used right and fairly. In Scotland no chance of that. In cup final Baine took ball from touch line to his box to take free kick. Linesman, 4th Official and extra official did not call him back to touch line where foul took place, result winning goal, aided and abetted by our defence.

[Phil Dunphy]

Ian Brines once refused to rescind a red card given to Zaliukas at Pittodrie, despite seeing clear video evidence that he had been head butted by Lee Miller. 

 

Anyone who thinks referees in Scotland will suddenly become fair because of a guy in a hut, watching the game on telly is deluding themselves. 

[Robbo-Jambo]

44 minutes ago, graygo said:

Well there's a surprise. The EPL have announced that var will not be used to check the goalkeepers movement.

Has that just been announced today? 

[graygo]

5 minutes ago, Robbo-Jambo said:

Has that just been announced today? 

 

Yes, just heard it on Sky news.

 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11745438/no-var-in-premier-league-for-goalkeepers-position-at-penalties

 

VAR will not rule on the goalkeeper’s position at penalties in the Premier League next season, the PGMOL have confirmed

VAR will be used in England's top flight for the first time from August but a goalkeeper's position at penalty kicks will be left to the on-field officials during the match, the Professional Games Match Officals Limited have confirmed.

 

The Premier League want to avoid a situation where every penalty could be reviewed to check the goalkeeper's position.

 

The new FIFA law, which requires at least one foot to be on the line, came into force before the Women's World Cup and has proven controversial.

 

It played a big part in Scotland's exit from the tournament in France. A retaken injury time penalty from Argentina to make it 3-3 eliminated the Scots after they had led the match 3-0.

Edited June 20, 2019 by graygo

[Seymour M Hersh]

4 hours ago, babywhalo said:

Yes. But not be touching the posts or the bar

 

That would be tough to do all at the same time! 

[Robbo-Jambo]

6 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Yes, just heard it on Sky news.

 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11745438/no-var-in-premier-league-for-goalkeepers-position-at-penalties

 

VAR will not rule on the goalkeeper’s position at penalties in the Premier League next season, the PGMOL have confirmed

VAR will be used in England's top flight for the first time from August but a goalkeeper's position at penalty kicks will be left to the on-field officials during the match, the Professional Games Match Officals Limited have confirmed.

 

The Premier League want to avoid a situation where every penalty could be reviewed to check the goalkeeper's position.

 

The new FIFA law, which requires at least one foot to be on the line, came into force before the Women's World Cup and has proven controversial.

 

It played a big part in Scotland's exit from the tournament in France. A retaken injury time penalty from Argentina to make it 3-3 eliminated the Scots after they had led the match 3-0.

Very interesting. 

 

Cheers for that. ?

[reaths17]

var will change nothing decision wise, it will still be someones opinion, whether to review, whether to change, whether to stick with on field decision. what it has done is opened a window for American style adverts, more dosh for the trough

[The Merse]

I still feel there has to be a place for VAR but if they continue to operate it like this then I would agree that I'd prefer it to be removed completely.

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, graygo said:

 

Yes, just heard it on Sky news.

 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11745438/no-var-in-premier-league-for-goalkeepers-position-at-penalties

 

VAR will not rule on the goalkeeper’s position at penalties in the Premier League next season, the PGMOL have confirmed

VAR will be used in England's top flight for the first time from August but a goalkeeper's position at penalty kicks will be left to the on-field officials during the match, the Professional Games Match Officals Limited have confirmed.

 

The Premier League want to avoid a situation where every penalty could be reviewed to check the goalkeeper's position.

 

The new FIFA law, which requires at least one foot to be on the line, came into force before the Women's World Cup and has proven controversial.

 

It played a big part in Scotland's exit from the tournament in France. A retaken injury time penalty from Argentina to make it 3-3 eliminated the Scots after they had led the match 3-0.

 

Common sense.

 

VAR is at times, and ultimately will be great but there's far too many things that need ironed out.

 

The pushing and shoving and handball decisions are so inconsistent and they'll no doubt be a huge issue again in the near future

[Jammy T]

Because you are all football fans you will mock anything that rugby does but TMO in rugby works brilliantly, as does the fact that every time there is an injury and/or TMO decision the official time clock for the match stops.

 

I agree that VAR is not the problem but that the operation of it needs to be better.

 

I have suggested on here that one thing that is needed is in stadium screens which show the decision being reviewed in real time in front of the fans - puts pressure and accountability on the ref to not get the final decision wrong.

 

The other thing I would do in Scotland is have the VAR officials be based outside of Scotland to avoid the bias card.

 

Wishful thinking I know.

 

However video and graphic technology has improved every sport it has been introduced to up to now.

 

If the biggest game in the world can’t make it work it’s a ****ing embarrassment 

[upgotheheads]

I always knew that VAR was going to turn out to be a can of worms, and so it has.

Edited June 20, 2019 by upgotheheads

[Horatio Caine]

2 hours ago, Normthebarman said:

Am I the only one who doesn't think it was a penalty? Looked to me the Scotland player just got to the ball first. 

No you're not. You can see the ball changes direction because the defender's foot makes contact with it before the opposing player.

 

[Sooperstar]

6 minutes ago, Horatio Caine said:

No you're not. You can see the ball changes direction because the defender's foot makes contact with it before the opposing player.

 

You're telling us that you can tell which player touched the ball? Nope, not having that. What I will say is that it is inconclusive and if it takes that long to make a decision then it isn't obvious enough for VAR to allow an overturn.

 

 

[babywhalo]

11 minutes ago, Horatio Caine said:

No you're not. You can see the ball changes direction because the defender's foot makes contact with it before the opposing player.

 

I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter if she kicked the ball or not at all these days.  I think the ref would call it a careless challenge and give a free kick (or penalty).

 

 

[benny]

If you cannot make a decision within a minute then the refs original decision stands.

 

[Horatio Caine]

4 minutes ago, babywhalo said:

I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter if she kicked the ball or not at all these days.  I think the ref would call it a careless challenge and give a free kick (or penalty).

 

 

Thing is though - the ref didn't give it initially.

Edited June 20, 2019 by Horatio Caine

[Jammy T]

1 minute ago, benny said:

If you cannot make a decision within a minute then the refs original decision stands.

 

Not a bad idea IMO

[Bull's-eye]

VAR is simple to implement. It was sold to everybody as a help to referees and was to stop blatant errors. 

The rules should have stayed the same and the referee should still be in charge of the game. 

 

Unfortunately the whole system has grown arms and legs and they're now changing the rules to suit VAR. 

 

The hand balls recently have made them realise what every football supporter has known for decades, its actually quite a grey area and the rules on hand ball are open to interpretation. No, can't have that, its pretty much now, everything that hits the arm is a Goal, that's because they've realised (again something football supporters have known for decades, keepers move off the line). Keepers getting Yellow cards for attempting to save the ball???? 

Absolutely farcical and all because VAR has highlighted certain rules that we've all known about. 

 

Linesman not flagging when it's a clear offside, batshit mental..

 

Let the referee have control back and only interfere when it's absolutely necessary. It's really very simple.

 

[The Continental Op]

18 minutes ago, Horatio Caine said:

No you're not. You can see the ball changes direction because the defender's foot makes contact with it before the opposing player.

 

Doesn't matter if the follow through is judged to be reckless (yellow card) or just careless (still a free kick/penalty)

[Footballfirst]

The change to the rule on penalty kicks reads as follows:

Penalty Kick - Law 14

Changes

• The team’s penalty taker can have (quick) treatment/assessment and then take the kick
• The goalkeeper must not be touching the goalposts/crossbar/nets; they must not be moving 
• The goalkeeper must have at least part of one foot on/in line with the goal line when the kick is taken; cannot stand behind the line

Explanation

• It is unfair if the kicker needs assessment/treatment and then has to leave the field and cannot take the penalty kick.
• The referee must not signal for the penalty kick to be taken if the goalkeeper is touching the goalposts, crossbar or net, or if they are moving e.g. the goalkeeper has kicked/shaken them
• Goalkeepers are not permitted to stand in front of or behind the line. Allowing the goalkeeper to have only one foot touching the goal line (or, if jumping, in line with the goal line) when the penalty kick is taken is a more practical approach as it is easier to identify if both feet are not on the line. As the kicker can ‘stutter’ in the run, it is reasonable that the goalkeeper can take one step in anticipation of the kick.

Looking at a freeze frame I think it could be argued that part of Lee Alexander's left foot is still above the line when the ball is struck.

 

 

The laws of the game also note (at least for offsides), the first contact with the ball is when a judgement is made.

*The first point of contact of the ‘play’ or ‘touch’ of the ball should be used

[Jammy T]

6 minutes ago, Artful Dodger said:

VAR is simple to implement. It was sold to everybody as a help to referees and was to stop blatant errors. 

The rules should have stayed the same and the referee should still be in charge of the game. 

 

Unfortunately the whole system has grown arms and legs and they're now changing the rules to suit VAR. 

 

The hand balls recently have made them realise what every football supporter has known for decades, its actually quite a grey area and the rules on hand ball are open to interpretation. No, can't have that, its pretty much now, everything that hits the arm is a Goal, that's because they've realised (again something football supporters have known for decades, keepers move off the line). Keepers getting Yellow cards for attempting to save the ball???? 

Absolutely farcical and all because VAR has highlighted certain rules that we've all known about. 

 

Linesman not flagging when it's a clear offside, batshit mental..

 

Let the referee have control back and only interfere when it's absolutely necessary. It's really very simple.

 

 

Re offside - you just need some fairly basic software and GPS device added to the ball and the data-pack that every pro player wears these days to nail wrong offside decisions.

 

With current technology there should be no wrong offside decisions with or without VAR.

 

VAR itself could also have relatively simple AI programmed into software as part of the video analysis which would sort things out and remove human “error”.

Edited June 20, 2019 by Jammy T

[graygo]

Another thing I find strange is why do they still have the goal line assistants when var does the same job?

[graygo]

2 minutes ago, Jammy T said:

 

Re offside - you just need some fairly basic software and GPS device added to the ball and the data-pack that every pro player wears these days to nail wrong offside decisions.

 

With current technology there should be no wrong offside decisions with or without VAR.

 

VAR itself could also have relatively simple AI programmed into software as part of the video analysis which would sort things out.

 

It might be fairly basic software but there is no GPS receiver that is that accurate I'm afraid, about 3m is the best you can get.

[Jammy T]

3 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

It might be fairly basic software but there is no GPS receiver that is that accurate I'm afraid, about 3m is the best you can get.

 

What is the tech/computer graphic that drives goal line and tennis ball line challenges then - whatever that is.

Edited June 20, 2019 by Jammy T

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

2 hours ago, Phil Dunphy said:

Ian Brines once refused to rescind a red card given to Zaliukas at Pittodrie, despite seeing clear video evidence that he had been head butted by Lee Miller. 

 

Anyone who thinks referees in Scotland will suddenly become fair because of a guy in a hut, watching the game on telly is deluding themselves. 

This

[Notts1874]

Telling that the EPL have said that they will not use VAR on keepers at penalty kicks. Looking forward to a keeper being sent off during a penalty shoot out during this World Cup for moving from her line twice.

[Hearts_fan]

2 hours ago, Pistol1874 said:

Corruption makes no sense. Scotland were 3-0 up, then the right back’s disastrous evening goes full on tragedy, our keeper can’t even touch the ball over the crossbar and the replacement right back is worse than the first.

VAR did its job perfectly well, if slowly.

 

The referee, on the other hand, was an abomination(for both sides, don’t forget she missed that penalty, which was as obvious as you will ever see) as well as mistakes against Scotland and her timekeeping was atrocious. That should be her last game at the tournament.

 

If VAR is here to stay, it may well be worth considering an independent timekeeper.

 

 

I agree that time should be properly adjudicated. 

 

The idea of corruption which I raised isn't invalidated by poor decisions or performances from Scotland. The 86th minute penalty award resulted in a goal recorded at 90+4 minutes. The full-time whistle was blown at 90+6. 

 

It is beneficial to the World Cup's commercial activities that Japan qualified.   

[graygo]

37 minutes ago, Jammy T said:

 

What is the tech/computer graphic that drives goal line and tennis ball line challenges then - whatever that is.

 

Don't think that uses gps, more a triangulation of several camera images. It's doable because the lines don't move unlike players in an offside situation. Goal line technology will be similar.

 

Edit: I've been out of the gps game for a wee while now but there is a new satellite system that is maybe out now, won't bore you with the details but it is called Galileo if you want to look it up.

Edited June 20, 2019 by graygo

[babywhalo]

51 minutes ago, Horatio Caine said:

Thing is though - the ref didn't give it initially.

She didn't. 

 

But I'm surprised that folk think just because a player gets a touch in the ball, they can then slide into another player and not get penalised for it. 

[TheBigO]

4 hours ago, graygo said:

 

And here's the problem.  VAR is to correct obvious errors.  VAR intervened, overturned the call, and we're still debating whether she was on or off her line.  If it's a tight call, the call should stand.  But sometimes it will, sometimes it won't, rendering VAR totally pointless, as we get the same inconsistency and debate as we had without it.

 

Also, it hasn't been hammered home enough on this thread: the clear foul which led to Argentina's opener.  If an incident leads directly to a goal, it is meant to be looked at.  Why wasn't it??

 

So in this world cup, we've had:

 

A penalty in each match given against us by VAR, and a saved penalty ordered retaken by VAR.  3 of those 4 decisions were wrong in my opinion, and at the very least undeniably debatable.

 

But at the same time, we've had two very strong penalty appeals and a foul on a defender which led to a goal, none of which were looked at.  And why not?

 

It's a farce and we've simply been cheated.  Not cos we're Scotland, not any conspiracy, but we've fallen foul of all that is wrong with this shambles.  No other team can surely have had it this tight in the tournament?

 

As for those who say we shat it.  Yes, to a degree.  But the old cliché rings true: goals change games.

 

In the England game, we actually started the better team, they got the dodge pen, we took until 2nd half to recover.  Similar story v Japan, though Japan we admittedly on top, we were doing OK until the penalty.

 

Last night we were cruising, then the goal they shouldn't have got due to the foul and the momentum totally shifted and we bowed and cracked under the pressure.  The pressure only came because of a foul though.

 

If you've played, or if you're paid attention, these goals matter.  The best teams in the world (look at Barcelona) have fallen to momentum shifts, and it's happened at all levels since the dawn of football.  I'd suggest an unjust goal makes it even harder mentally.

 

That was a longer post that I'd set out to do!  Think I'm pretty pissed off!!!!!  I love football, really love it.  Just hate how it's going.

[Jammy T]

Well at least we are all talking about woman’s football And lots of people pissed off about getting ****ed over.

 

Progress in some sense I guess.