VAR

[graygo]

28 minutes 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 

 

You would like to think that was the case but it didn't seem to be last night looking at those photos.

[Byyy The Light]

Not got a problem with the concept of a video ref. The implementation here is the problem.

 

I’d go more of a cricket/tennis route. Give the power to the teams to make 3 challenges a game for any decisions they feel are wrong.

 

Can appeal absolutely anything.

 

 

[Nookie Bear]

9 hours ago, kila said:

 

We've had a taster from the compliance officer role already, that is bad enough

 

 

 

Our VAR guys wouldn’t work on Saturdays, unless celtic needed a quick decision 

[The Internet]

Just now, Byyy The Light said:

Not got a problem with the concept of a video ref. The implementation here is the problem.

 

I’d go more of a cricket/tennis route. Give the power to the teams to make 3 challenges a game for any decisions they feel are wrong.

 

Can appeal absolutely anything.

 

 

 

Yeah that's the only way I can see it working in football. Even then there's probably some loophole that players and managers can exploit but I can't think of any. 

[babywhalo]

8 hours ago, Robbo-Jambo said:

If that is the case from now on in there is going to be a hell a lot of retakes. 

 

Have a look at a load of penalties that are saved and both the goalies feet are mostly off the line but the save stands. 

 

It's maybe the rules but how often do you see it implemented in games? 

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

[kila]

7 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

Our VAR guys wouldn’t work on Saturdays, unless celtic needed a quick decision 

 

Would be 24 frames per second video, standard definition.

 

Though the quality last night was debatable as to its worth! Easy to pick a camera angle that gives the outcome desired. Think that needs work, even if unintentional.  

[Rudy T]

The new rules around penalties are a disgrace, be as well just awarding a goal. Any handball is penalty and then a keeper isn’t allowed any forward momentum until the ball is struck. Have these fuds that make the rules ever played a game of football let alone at professional level? 

 

I blame the half and half scarf brigade, they don’t understand the game and just want to see the goal kicker score a net kick! Fifa are pandering to these soccer tourists in order to line their pockets as usual!

[babywhalo]

12 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

You would like to think that was the case but it didn't seem to be last night looking at those photos.

No idea what photos you are referring to, but I watched the game & the keeper looked clearly off her line when the ball was struck

[The Treasurer]

For me the concept of VAR is a good idea.

From what I've seen the problems are:

1, it takes too long for a decision to be made or even to decide if there is a need for a review.

2. there seems to be no set criteria for when it is or isn't used, it just seems very random at the moment.

 

Going back to last nights game, the two decisions were probably correct under the new rules, but I think the rule about keepers needing to have a foot on the line is ridiculous and should be dropped before the season gets under way.

[Ribble]

The argument for VAR is to reduce mistakes, last night proved that VAR as it stands is not fit for purpose

[hughesie27]

I dont understand this ruining the game chat.

 

If the wrong call is made during the match THAT ruins games. VAR got both decisions right last night and Scotland W team has themselves to blame.

 

It's a horrible way to "lose" a match but the fair outcome and Sport wins.

 

The added time was a joke however.

 

[ecjambo]

8 hours ago, Maroon Sailor said:

I've said before there is not much point in having an onfield referee now.

 

They can make the decisions for little fouls in the middle of the park but anything in the penalty area is scrutinised on TV monitors to the nth degree for an enternity.

 

Every single penalty now has to be reviewed for encroachment by a big toe or the goalkeeper moving a millimetre off their line 

 

But if an incorrect decision in the middle of the park leads to a goal, ie punt a free kick into the box and they score from it, would the free kick decision be reviewed? Highly unlikely. 

 

Ive been against VAR from the start and nothing I’ve seen from it so far is changing my opinion. The beautiful game is becoming a lot less beautiful. 

[hughesie27]

5 minutes ago, The Treasurer said:

For me the concept of VAR is a good idea.

From what I've seen the problems are:

1, it takes too long for a decision to be made or even to decide if there is a need for a review.

 

Too long for who/what? The ref took the time she needed and got the right call. The decision proved crucial as it was the difference between a team earning their place in the next stage of the World Cup preventing another team from getting their or not.

The ref can take as long as she wants in my book to make the right call there.

 

 

[babywhalo]

9 hours ago, Jeff said:

Thought VAR was only to step in for OBVIOUS refereeing errors?

 

 

It steps in for obvious refereeing errors when the decision is open to interpretation, but it steps in all the time when it is a matter of fact decision (like offside).

 

Whether you think the decision to award the penalty is a clear & obvious error is another arguement

[The Treasurer]

12 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

 

Too long for who/what? The ref took the time she needed and got the right call. The decision proved crucial as it was the difference between a team earning their place in the next stage of the World Cup preventing another team from getting their or not.

The ref can take as long as she wants in my book to make the right call there.

 

 

In this particular case the time taken was around 10-12 minutes, the additional time played was just over 5 minutes, so there's clearly a problem as to timekeeping.

If  an incident takes that long to decide one way or the other then it is not a "clear foul".

Where do you draw the line ?

It's not the first time that Sky or whoever have gone over decisions using all the technology at their disposal and, after lengthy analysis have shown a decision to be wrong.

[TexasAndy]

22 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

 

Too long for who/what? The ref took the time she needed and got the right call. The decision proved crucial as it was the difference between a team earning their place in the next stage of the World Cup preventing another team from getting their or not.

The ref can take as long as she wants in my book to make the right call there.

 

 

So you are happy to see the game descend in to farce as it did last night?  Also still footage show the goalies feet still on the line when the first pen was taken.  They got that one wrong.  Maybe the two teams can also meet up sometime to play out the remaining 6-7 minutes.  VAR = Joke.  

[hughesie27]

11 minutes ago, TexasAndy said:

So you are happy to see the game descend in to farce as it did last night?  Also still footage show the goalies feet still on the line when the first pen was taken.  They got that one wrong.  Maybe the two teams can also meet up sometime to play out the remaining 6-7 minutes.  VAR = Joke.  

What farce? It took longer than it tearfully slid have but so what? The time should get added on at the end. 

[hughesie27]

23 minutes ago, The Treasurer said:

In this particular case the time taken was around 10-12 minutes, the additional time played was just over 5 minutes, so there's clearly a problem as to timekeeping.

If  an incident takes that long to decide one way or the other then it is not a "clear foul".

Where do you draw the line ?

It's not the first time that Sky or whoever have gone over decisions using all the technology at their disposal and, after lengthy analysis have shown a decision to be wrong.

It was about 5-6 minutes. Too long but again, it was definitely a penalty. No excuse for why the tef too as long as she did but she came to the right conclusion so I don't really care. I'd be happier going to a game knowing both teams were getting an equal crack at it regardless of how long it takes to reach important decisions.

 

[Fozzyonthefence]

1 hour ago, babywhalo said:

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

 

It wasn’t implemented in the England v Argentina game when it should have

[Bellion]

6 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

It was about 5-6 minutes. Too long but again, it was definitely a penalty. No excuse for why the tef too as long as she did but she came to the right conclusion so I don't really care. I'd be happier going to a game knowing both teams were getting an equal crack at it regardless of how long it takes to reach important decisions.

 

Absolutely no guarantee of that though. The ref can still get 99% of decisions wrong and they won’t be submitted for review. Even when they are, it’s still subjective & subject to the ref’s interpretation. Last night was pretty clearly a foul. There will be many more marginal ones in future. 

[Fozzyonthefence]

4 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

It was about 5-6 minutes. Too long but again, it was definitely a penalty. No excuse for why the tef too as long as she did but she came to the right conclusion so I don't really care. I'd be happier going to a game knowing both teams were getting an equal crack at it regardless of how long it takes to reach important decisions.

 

 

I think the real problem is that the game only lasted 88 minutes and that the retake was much more debatable than the actual penalty yet the ref didn’t even check the latter.  And looks like the VAR room possibly got that wrong.  So, far too much time spent on an easy penalty  decision and not nearly enough time spent on the contentious retake.

 

If this was the first time I’d seen VAR I’d be totally against it.  However, it worked very well (for the most part) in the men’s World Cup, so it would appear that the referees and the people in the VAR room are the important factors.

[Nookie Bear]

37 minutes ago, The Treasurer said:

In this particular case the time taken was around 10-12 minutes, the additional time played was just over 5 minutes, so there's clearly a problem as to timekeeping.

If  an incident takes that long to decide one way or the other then it is not a "clear foul".

Where do you draw the line ?

It's not the first time that Sky or whoever have gone over decisions using all the technology at their disposal and, after lengthy analysis have shown a decision to be wrong.

 

The outcomes of games are being decided in centimetres, with 5 men looking at video footage...and yet we do not know how long the game lasts for. The timekeeping needs taken out of the referees hands.

[Nookie Bear]

I can't wait for a penalty shootout, with every penalty being reviewed

[Fozzyonthefence]

13 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

What farce? It took longer than it tearfully slid have but so what? The time should get added on at the end. 

 

That was the farce - the time didn’t get added on which robbed both teams of a chance of qualifying. And it looks from the still photo that they may have got the retake wrong, again a farce if that’s the case.

 

For anyone wanting to take women’s football seriously, last night was an embarrassment on many counts.

[Nookie Bear]

1 minute ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

 

That was the farce - the time didn’t get added on which robbed both teams of a chance of qualifying. And it looks from the still photo that they may have got the retake wrong, again a farce if that’s the case.

 

For anyone wanting to take women’s football seriously, last night was an embarrassment on many counts.

 

I'm not sure anyone is looking unfavourably on women's football as a result of last night. It's all about VAR.

 

If anything, it showed the level of competitiveness in the game that many people perhaps thought it lacked.

[doctor jambo]

Var in sc final and we might have won.

im all for it

[gnasher75]

If the purpose of VAR is to correct clear and obvious refereeing mistakes, why wasn't it used when she blew for full-time with another 5-10 minutes to play?

 

Scotland and Argentina should be joining forces even now to demand a rematch.

[Byyy The Light]

1 hour ago, Mauricio Pinilla said:

 

Yeah that's the only way I can see it working in football. Even then there's probably some loophole that players and managers can exploit but I can't think of any. 

 

As long as you put rules in place around phases of play and not checking things until there was a break in play to stop them tactically making an appeal to stop an attack I can’t see many problems. 

[hughesie27]

4 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

 

That was the farce - the time didn’t get added on which robbed both teams of a chance of qualifying. And it looks from the still photo that they may have got the retake wrong, again a farce if that’s the case.

 

For anyone wanting to take women’s football seriously, last night was an embarrassment on many counts.

The time not being added on has nothing to do with VAR though? 

I've not seen stills from the pen to see if the keeper was on or off the line unfortunately.

 

Coincidentally Scotland, if they had won, would have actually benefitted from a retaken penalty for France the other night for the exact same situation. France scored the retaken pen which in turn helped our chances of progressing.

[busby1985]

1 hour ago, hughesie27 said:

I dont understand this ruining the game chat.

 

If the wrong call is made during the match THAT ruins games. VAR got both decisions right last night and Scotland W team has themselves to blame.

 

It's a horrible way to "lose" a match but the fair outcome and Sport wins.

 

The added time was a joke however.

 

Agree. 

 

I’ve said before on this that my problem with VAR is it needs to be all or nothing. We either have VAR for every decision or we don’t have it at all. After last night as well we need like a stop watch Rule as well. Penalty was awarded about 85 minutes in, open play didn’t resume until the 93rd minute and the ref blew for full time a minute later. 10 minutes VAR took all in which result in the game finishing before the game had actual made 90 minutes. That’s nuts. Also think they have to address how quickly these calls or reviews are making it to the ref. I actually think the game should stop instantly when the VAR room say they are checking a decision. Last night after the penalty check there was a pretty heavy looking challenge that was a free kick to Scotland and a booking, that went unpunished even tho the game was “in play” if that makes sense. VAR has some obvious flaws but I think it’s needed. 

[ArcticJambo]

9 hours ago, CJGJ said:

I like the idea of VAR

 

I hate the way it seems to be used at present......far in excess of how it was sold to the public

 

I dislike incompetent officials who will not apply the rules and who fail to use their own judgement as well as considering VAR advice

 

Offside for example is pretty straight forward..you are or you are not offside

 

A foul is a judgement call not a factual call (though of course many are straightforward decisions)

 

Hand ball is a judgement even under the new stupidly brought in laws

I wholeheartedly agree, and have always applied my own in ma heid decisions based on intent. I know 'intent' is a supposed no-no when it comes to officiating but for anyone that has played/watched enough football you can pretty much spot cheating like a blinking neon sign on a dark night. To me it's not a pen for instance if the player gets a slight touch on the ball and then takes out the attacker as long as it isnt reckless.  And don't get me started on the hand-ball rule as its currently being applied.

 

The problem is that eejit suits who have barely set foot on a pitch together with a rampant cheating culture amongst the playing/coaching fraternity, and commentators including ex-players constantly deflecting around blatant cheating has created a situation where it's basically lawyers refffing the game.  It's messed.

Edited June 20, 2019 by ArcticJambo

[benny]

45 minutes ago, TexasAndy said:

So you are happy to see the game descend in to farce as it did last night?  Also still footage show the goalies feet still on the line when the first pen was taken.  They got that one wrong.  Maybe the two teams can also meet up sometime to play out the remaining 6-7 minutes.  VAR = Joke.  

Are you suggesting the var officials got the retaken penalty decision wrong because of some photographs on the internet.

[benny]

Is the cannot score from a rebound on penalties getting used in this tournament.

[sjh1874]

Andy Davis was using "VAR" years ago.

 

A new device to allow a more detailed corruption to take place. Favoured club backed with a wealthy associations drawing 0-0 and needing a goal to progress in European competition has a corner in injury time. Oh VAR has seen pushing and shoving in the box, penalty!

 

In principle it is a good idea but ultimately it comes down to someone no where near the game to decide what and what doesn't get looked at. If you are comfortable with that you really should back Shergar ridden by Lord Lucan for next years Scottish National.

[graygo]

1 hour ago, Byyy The Light said:

Not got a problem with the concept of a video ref. The implementation here is the problem.

 

I’d go more of a cricket/tennis route. Give the power to the teams to make 3 challenges a game for any decisions they feel are wrong.

 

Can appeal absolutely anything.

 

 

 

No teams appeal anything though, it's the video refs who do that.

[ArcticJambo]

2 hours ago, portobellojambo1 said:

 

I think maybe we in Scotland got a bit excited about the possible introduction of VAR given how poor/bent the standard of refereeing is up here. But as you say it isn't a system where, for example, a computerised system, with the laws of the game forming the basis of its programming, is refereeing the game at the same time as the onfield officials. It is a system operated by people looking at TV screens and making judgements based on their opinions of what happens. It is down to the interpretation of those watching the TV screens and possibly then telling the referees their interpretation of what they saw is different. In such a situation, if VAR is to go ahead then rather than every decision of the referee being questioned, which in itself could suggest that the general standard of refereeing is pretty crap, it might be better if it was worked on the same basis as the review options which exist in tennis and cricket for example, where the two players/teams are restricted to the number of reviews available to them, in one day cricket it is restricted to one per team while they are batting and bowling and in tennis I think the players have two or three challenges allowed, possibly per set. Up here the VAR people who are sitting in the studios watching the games will in the main have affiliations toward the OF, the breakdown of the population tends to govern that, so where VAR is used while we may have thought it might reduce the number of questionable decisions given in their favour it could potentially increase them.

This is what I was try to get at in my previous post, that interpretation is the real issue, that almost everybody has a different view on who was responsible for where a player is their right to their space on the field), who initiated the contact, dare I say it again, intent, etc.

 

If VAR is going to work, and refereeing to improve then the authorities are going to have to get serious about how the game is played, and go through the rules, explaining what is expected in each situation.  There also needs to be meaningful action wrt retrospective cheating.

[graygo]

1 hour ago, babywhalo said:

No idea what photos you are referring to, but I watched the game & the keeper looked clearly off her line when the ball was struck

 

[Byyy The Light]

7 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

No teams appeal anything though, it's the video refs who do that.

 

I know that. I’m saying I think that’s the wrong way to do it. 

[Phil Dunphy]

2 hours ago, loveofthegame said:

 

I actually think Tom English was spot on - VAR isn’t the problem, it’s the folk that use it.

 

VAR will remove all common sense from referees and move us to a system where the rules must be followed to an absolute. 

 

It’s just not how football works. 

[Bellion]

2 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

VAR will remove all common sense from referees and move us to a system where the rules must be followed to an absolute. 

 

It’s just not how football works. 

Correct. It's too fluid a game. Take the goal England had disallowed the other week against Switzerland when Wilson (?) shoved the centre half as the cross came in. He could have done that earlier in the same move 30 yards out and it would have been just as much of a foul, but wouldn't get reviewed. The way it's going, every goal is going to get looked at to the nth degree for any possible infraction. The process takes way too long and ruins the flow of the game. Bin it. 

[graygo]

6 minutes ago, Byyy The Light said:

 

I know that. I’m saying I think that’s the wrong way to do it. 

 

I see that now.

[Nookie Bear]

11 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

 

If Hearts missed a pen and the keeper had done that, i wouldn;t have batted an eyelid.

[Nookie Bear]

1 minute ago, Bellion said:

Correct. It's too fluid a game. Take the goal England had disallowed the other week against Switzerland when Wilson (?) shoved the centre half as the cross came in. He could have done that earlier in the same move 30 yards out and it would have been just as much of a foul, but wouldn't get reviewed. The way it's going, every goal is going to get looked at to the nth degree for any possible infraction. The process takes way too long and ruins the flow of the game. Bin it. 

 

That was the word i was going to use.

 

Replays can work in other sports like baseball and tennis because of their stop/start nature. In football, a throw in taken 10 yards further up the pitch from where the ball went out can lead to a goal 30 seconds later. It's unworkable.

[benny]

7 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

VAR will remove all common sense from referees and move us to a system where the rules must be followed to an absolute. 

 

It’s just not how football works. 

The ref last night had no common sense at all though last night.

[skinnybob72]

VAR takes away the ‘moment’ when your team score. No point cheering when the ball hits the net as it could take a minute or two to make sure nobody has a toenail offside, etc, etc, and in the end it could be chalked off.

 

Out game here might be shite / corrupt but VAR is even worse.  

[Bellion]

Just now, Nookie Bear said:

 

That was the word i was going to use.

 

Replays can work in other sports like baseball and tennis because of their stop/start nature. In football, a throw in taken 10 yards further up the pitch from where the ball went out can lead to a goal 30 seconds later. It's unworkable.

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.  

[BRY]

36 minutes ago, busby1985 said:

Agree. 

 

I’ve said before on this that my problem with VAR is it needs to be all or nothing. We either have VAR for every decision or we don’t have it at all. After last night as well we need like a stop watch Rule as well. Penalty was awarded about 85 minutes in, open play didn’t resume until the 93rd minute and the ref blew for full time a minute later. 10 minutes VAR took all in which result in the game finishing before the game had actual made 90 minutes. That’s nuts. Also think they have to address how quickly these calls or reviews are making it to the ref. I actually think the game should stop instantly when the VAR room say they are checking a decision. Last night after the penalty check there was a pretty heavy looking challenge that was a free kick to Scotland and a booking, that went unpunished even tho the game was “in play” if that makes sense. VAR has some obvious flaws but I think it’s needed. 

 

Absolutely this!

If the VAR is so good, why didn't they speak to the ref and tell her that there should have been more minutes left to play...

[Phil Dunphy]

10 minutes ago, benny said:

The ref last night had no common sense at all though last night.

 

Lurching from one absolute to the other. 

 

VAR doesn’t suit the game of football. VAR is meant to take the debate out of it and here we are. Discussing it again. 

 

And not for the right reasons. 

[Hearts_fan]

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.

[babywhalo]

9 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

Lurching from one absolute to the other. 

 

VAR doesn’t suit the game of football. VAR is meant to take the debate out of it and here we are. Discussing it again. 

 

And not for the right reasons. 

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