VAR

[Maroon Sailor]

The whole VAR thing is garbage as it penalises the smallest of margins.

 

Have clear daylight for offsides

 

Have a bit of common sense at penalties

 

Have a bit of common sense when the ball smashes off an arm from close range 

 

 

Obvious infringements, shirt tugging, handballed goals etc.... are what the system was brought in for - leave it at that

 

 

[jumpship]

4 hours ago, graygo said:

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

So in doing that, the EPL acknowledges the decision last night was a f-ing farce 

[John Findlay]

More VAR nonsense in the Holland v Canada game. Bin it. It's an utter nonsense. Takes minutes for ref to decide to review and then takes minutes looking at a screen to make a final decision. I'm sorry but it is ruining football.

[AppleTarts]

7 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

More VAR nonsense in the Holland v Canada game. Bin it. It's an utter nonsense. Takes minutes for ref to decide to review and then takes minutes looking at a screen to make a final decision. I'm sorry but it is ruining football.

Would rather the few minutes it took to get to the correct decision rather than the football being ruined by an incorrect decision in this example.

[Phil Dunphy]

42 minutes ago, AppleTarts said:

Would rather the few minutes it took to get to the correct decision rather than the football being ruined by an incorrect decision in this example.

 

Football isn't being "ruined" by the odd incorrect decision among thousands.

 

But turning into a farce like last night absolutely is ruining football.

[merrymac]

2 hours ago, Maroon Sailor said:

The whole VAR thing is garbage as it penalises the smallest of margins.

 

Have clear daylight for offsides

 

Have a bit of common sense at penalties

 

Have a bit of common sense when the ball smashes off an arm from close range 

 

 

Obvious infringements, shirt tugging, handballed goals etc.... are what the system was brought in for - leave it at that

 

 

FIFA ? Common sense? nah never happen sorry

[Stupid Sexy Flanders]

1 hour ago, John Findlay said:

More VAR nonsense in the Holland v Canada game. Bin it. It's an utter nonsense. Takes minutes for ref to decide to review and then takes minutes looking at a screen to make a final decision. I'm sorry but it is ruining football.

 

I agree completely. 

[Robbo-Jambo]

1 hour ago, John Findlay said:

More VAR nonsense in the Holland v Canada game. Bin it. It's an utter nonsense. Takes minutes for ref to decide to review and then takes minutes looking at a screen to make a final decision. I'm sorry but it is ruining football.

Too right John. 

[upgotheheads]

It isn't  even certain that the original decision was correct, it certainly wasn't conclusive that contact wasn't made with the ball before the player.

[jumpship]

1 hour ago, AppleTarts said:

Would rather the few minutes it took to get to the correct decision rather than the football being ruined by an incorrect decision in this example.

But that's the thing, already we have seen decisions made using VAR that were wrong. Incidents ignored by VAR. 

 

And also the interpretation of the rules are different depending on who's playing. 

 

Remember the Aberdeen Celtic game, clear hand on the back of the Aberdeen player. Its debatable if that was enough for him to go down. 

There was no penalty, media said it was the correct decision as there was not enough contact. Yet you are guaranteed if it were the other way round. It would have been a penalty to celtic with the excuse being, contact player is entitled to go down... 

 

VAR is a joke....

[Seymour M Hersh]

Good article by Charlie Eccleshare in the Telegraph today. It's a premium so no point in linking but here's the headline.

"Scotland VAR controversy is natural consequence of putting football in the hands of pedants."

[whodanny]

18 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

Good article by Charlie Eccleshare in the Telegraph today. It's a premium so no point in linking but here's the headline.

"Scotland VAR controversy is natural consequence of putting football in the hands of pedants."

Headline says it all. I always remember the old Law of the game that said the referee's decision is final. In the case of last night's game she had three goes at a decision. First decision - no penalty !, second decision - penalty !, third decision - retake !. So which referee's decision is supposed to be final ?

[Scnorthedinburgh]

4 minutes ago, whodanny said:

Headline says it all. I always remember the old Law of the game that said the referee's decision is final. In the case of last night's game she had three goes at a decision. First decision - no penalty !, second decision - penalty !, third decision - retake !. So which referee's decision is supposed to be final ?

It's very easy to solve.

As in rugby make it a tool to help the ref and assistant.

If they are not 100% sure or in agreement, send it to var. But the ref must tell them what to check for and what they think is the issue.

Ref still in charge but can check tight or quick calls.

The pen one would never happen.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

1 hour ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

It's very easy to solve.

As in rugby make it a tool to help the ref and assistant.

If they are not 100% sure or in agreement, send it to var. But the ref must tell them what to check for and what they think is the issue.

Ref still in charge but can check tight or quick calls.

The pen one would never happen.

 

But it would still come back to people saying ‘but she was off her line so what’s the point in VAR if it doesn’t look at that.”

 

goalline technology should have been it. That’s genuinely valuable because it involves no interpretation whatsoever. It’s either over or it isn’t.

[Spellczech]

VAR could easily be very good.

Let the Assistants flag for obvious offside and let close calls go, but VAR can check them if a goal occurs. VAR should work fine for offside as offside is black & white.

Ditch this stupid usage for GKs on the line  at penalties - it is hard enough to save a penalty kick. Simply unnecessary. Leave it to referee's discretion.

Have a VAR clock. Give the figure to the 4th official at 88 mins... or later if necessary.

Ditch this daft rule about handball and put it back to the referee's decision if they have made a mistake. If they are clearly corrupt it will show in time...

Use a big screen.

 

 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Spellczech

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

That second USA goal - she is blatantly offside and interfering with play. WTF?

[Bazzas right boot]

That offside goal is a farce as well. 

 

So if the defender had missed it and she'd scored, It wouldn't have been a goal. 

 

Sweden punished for their defender getting the ball. 

Clearly part of play, clearly offside. 

 

It's turning into a farce. 

 

 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Olly Lee's left boot

[Bazzas right boot]

20 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

VAR could easily be very good.

Let the Assistants flag for obvious offside and let close calls go, but VAR can check them if a goal occurs. VAR should work fine for offside as offside is black & white.

Ditch this stupid usage for GKs on the line  at penalties - it is hard enough to save a penalty kick. Simply unnecessary. Leave it to referee's discretion.

Have a VAR clock. Give the figure to the 4th official at 88 mins... or later if necessary.

Ditch this daft rule about handball and put it back to the referee's decision if they have made a mistake. If they are clearly corrupt it will show in time...

Use a big screen.

 

 

 

 

That's what I thought until now, ref just blew that theory apart with a strange call. 

[Fozzyonthefence]

3 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

That second USA goal - she is blatantly offside and interfering with play. WTF?

 

Agreed, clearly interfering with play so I don’t understand how that isn’t  offside.  It seems these decisions are generally going in favour of the big teams, no doubt if it was Scotland it would have been given offside.

 

Offside shouldn’t be subjective, you either are or you’re not. Farcical!

[Jammy T]

Can any anti-VAR luddite explain why TMO is so successful in rugby?

 

”rugby is pish” is not a valid answer

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

14 minutes ago, Olly Lee's left boot said:

That offside goal is a farce as well. 

 

So if the defender had missed it and she'd scored, It wouldn't have been a goal. 

 

Sweden punished for their defender getting the ball. 

Clearly part of play, clearly offside. 

 

It's turning into a farce. 

 

 

 

But she was offside when the original pass was played so the touch is irrelevant. What a joke this is

[Fozzyonthefence]

Another thing that grinds my gears - are the co commentators not paid to give their opinion on things?  She just sat on the fence and waited on the decision rather than give her opinion.  Also, she’s only just realised that 2nd USA goal took a massive deflection when it was obvious in real time.  Pathetic!

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Additional problem is that none of these referees seem experienced/knowledgable enough 

[Bazzas right boot]

11 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

 

But she was offside when the original pass was played so the touch is irrelevant. What a joke this is

 

Exactly my point. 

 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

Every VAR decision needs to be explained afterwards, especially one like that offside call. It's not like refs making decisions in the heat of the moment. These guys are in a wee room with video equipment and no pressure.

 

Or does VAR work with the ref viewing what they show her on the screen and making the decision? I was assuming the people in the video room tell her the decision. If it's still the ref making the decision that's still open to mistakes or bias accusations or whatever.

Edited June 20, 2019 by ToqueJambo

[babywhalo]

20 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

Every VAR decision needs to be explained afterwards, especially one like that offside call. It's not like refs making decisions in the heat of the moment. These guys are in a wee room with video equipment and no pressure.

 

Or does VAR work with the ref viewing what they show her on the screen and making the decision? I was assuming the people in the video room tell her the decision. If it's still the ref making the decision that's still open to mistakes or bias accusations or whatever.

I think VAR just recommends the ref to review their decision. The ref makes the decision. 

[Bellion]

56 minutes ago, Jammy T said:

Can any anti-VAR luddite explain why TMO is so successful in rugby?

 

”rugby is pish” is not a valid answer

Three reasons, off the top of my head: 

 

1. The structure and flow of the game are totally different to football. Rugby stops and starts much more frequently and fairly naturally. There are a larger number of set pieces when half the players aren't directly involved, and more frequent injuries.  Long stoppages aren't so jarring when the game already involves a lot of them and the fans are used to it. 

 

2. They are good at using technology in rugby.  A huge part of the TMO's role is to do with whether a score was legit (was there downward pressure, did the scorer step out of play etc. - also, it is actually pretty hard to make an accurate judgment on this stuff without video evidence).  I don't see them spending aeons going back and forth over minutiae to see whether a try can be disallowed for some triviality, as is increasingly happening in football.  Having time to adjust to the technology helps, but early signs with VAR are not encouraging.  

 

3. Scores in rugby are far more frequent, so each has less of a direct impact on the result.  When you get 3 goals a game on average, it's totally fair that supporters would want to know whether or not a goal stands without a long delay.  

 

Football as a spectacle is enormously reliant on fluidity.  The more ways you find to break up the action, the less interesting it is.  Other sports are different, so different rules apply.

 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Bellion

[Scnorthedinburgh]

1 hour ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

 

But it would still come back to people saying ‘but she was off her line so what’s the point in VAR if it doesn’t look at that.”

 

goalline technology should have been it. That’s genuinely valuable because it involves no interpretation whatsoever. It’s either over or it isn’t.

Goal line tech looks for a ball over the line. The var penalty is looking for the keeper having one foot on the goal line as the ball is kicked.

No human can watch both at the same time and be correct.

Rugby version is, I think his foot went into touch can you check if I can give the try.

Last night the ref would never of sent it to var.

[Nookie Bear]

4 minutes ago, Bellion said:

Three reasons, off the top of my head: 

 

1. The structure and flow of the game are totally different to football. Rugby stops and starts much more frequently and fairly naturally. There are a larger number of set pieces when half the players aren't directly involved, and more frequent injuries.  Long stoppages aren't so jarring when the game already involves a lot of them and the fans are used to it. 

 

2. They are good at using technology in rugby.  A huge part of the TMO's role is to do with whether a score was legit (was there downward pressure, did the scorer step out of play etc. - also, it is actually pretty hard to make an accurate judgment on this stuff without video evidence).  I don't see them spending aeons going back and forth over minutiae to see whether a try can be disallowed for some triviality, as is increasingly happening in football.  Having time to adjust to the technology helps, but early signs with VAR are not encouraging.  

 

3. Scores in rugby are far more frequent, so each has less of a direct impact on the result.  When you get 3 goals a game on average, it's totally fair that supporters would want to know whether or not a goal stands without a long delay.  

 

Football as a spectacle is enormously reliant on fluidity.  The more ways you find to break up the action, the less interesting it is.  Other sports are different, so different rules apply.

 

 

[Scnorthedinburgh]

3 minutes ago, Bellion said:

Three reasons, off the top of my head: 

 

1. The structure and flow of the game are totally different to football. Rugby stops and starts much more frequently and fairly naturally. There are a larger number of set pieces when half the players aren't directly involved, and more frequent injuries.  Long stoppages aren't so jarring when the game already involves a lot of them and the fans are used to it. 

 

2. They are good at using technology in rugby.  A huge part of the TMO's role is to do with whether a score was legit (was there downward pressure, did the scorer step out of play etc. - also, it is actually pretty hard to make an accurate judgment on this stuff without video evidence).  I don't see them spending aeons going back and forth over minutiae to see whether a try can be disallowed for some triviality, as is increasingly happening in football.  Having time to adjust to the technology helps, but early signs with VAR are not encouraging.  

 

3. Scores in rugby are far more frequent, so each has less of a direct impact on the result.  When you get 3 goals a game on average, it's totally fair that supporters would want to know whether or not a goal stands without a long delay.  

 

Football as a spectacle is enormously reliant on fluidity.  The more ways you find to break up the action, the less interesting it is.  Other sports are different, so different rules apply.

 

Tmo in rugby is most often used to check if a try can be given, and to confirm if it should be red or yellow after a penalty.

It is not used for offside, hands on the ball, not releasing, the run of the mill always happen things.

And the ref is in charge of what they check.

This football free flowing rubbish is why car is crap. They check things as play is going on, that the ref has already waved play on.

Sorry for the rant.

[obua]

28 minutes ago, babywhalo said:

I think VAR just recommends the ref to review their decision. The ref makes the decision. 

Not at the scotland penalty, the ref didn’t look at the screen before the retake.

[stranraer-jambo]

6 minutes ago, Bellion said:

Three reasons, off the top of my head: 

 

1. The structure and flow of the game are totally different to football. Rugby stops and starts much more frequently and fairly naturally. There are a larger number of set pieces when half the players aren't directly involved, and more frequent injuries.  Long stoppages aren't so jarring when the game already involves a lot of them and the fans are used to it. 

 

2. They are good at using technology in rugby.  A huge part of the TMO's role is to do with whether a score was legit (was there downward pressure, did the scorer step out of play etc. - also, it is actually pretty hard to make an accurate judgment on this stuff without video evidence).  I don't see them spending aeons going back and forth over minutiae to see whether a try can be disallowed for some triviality, as is increasingly happening in football.  Having time to adjust to the technology helps, but early signs with VAR are not encouraging.  

 

3. Scores in rugby are far more frequent, so each has less of a direct impact on the result.  When you get 3 goals a game on average, it's totally fair that supporters would want to know whether or not a goal stands without a long delay.  

 

Football as a spectacle is enormously reliant on fluidity.  The more ways you find to break up the action, the less interesting it is.  Other sports are different, so different rules apply.

 

 

Also the referee can specify what to look for. 

 

For example during the scoring of a try he can ask either

1. Try, yes or no. If inconclusive try is not awarded. Only awarded if seen. 

2. Any reason I cannot award the score. If inconclusive try is awarded. Only disallowed if seen. 

 

It is a  black or white call, no interpretation. 

 

[Bellion]

Just now, stranraer-jambo said:

 

Also the referee can specify what to look for. 

 

For example during the scoring of a try he can ask either

1. Try, yes or no. If inconclusive try is not awarded. Only awarded if seen. 

2. Any reason I cannot award the score. If inconclusive try is awarded. Only disallowed if seen. 

 

It is a  black or white call, no interpretation. 

 

Totally agree.  While I'm on this particular rant,  another reason why it works is that the broadcasters have got the hang of it and the refs are miked up, so everyone understands what's happening in real time. 

 

There have been several occasions lately where this "VAR check" thing has appeared on screen and the commentators don't seem to understand why, then we have several minutes of speculation while the ref watches the replays. 

 

For the supporter, is totally different having Nigel Owens or Jerome Garces asking the TMO specific questions and hearing the TMO's response.  It's part of the action and you're not removed from it.  And they're not surrounded by wailing players because the culture's different.  It's just different, and that's fine.  We don't need to try to copy it.  

[stranraer-jambo]

8 minutes ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

Tmo in rugby is most often used to check if a try can be given, and to confirm if it should be red or yellow after a penalty.

It is not used for offside, hands on the ball, not releasing, the run of the mill always happen things.

And the ref is in charge of what they check.

This football free flowing rubbish is why car is crap. They check things as play is going on, that the ref has already waved play on.

Sorry for the rant.

 

It can be used for run of the mill things up to two phases leading up to a try. 

 

The following article shows the extent to TMO use in rugby. It really is quite straightforward, unlike the VAR which seems to muddy the waters more rather than clarify things. 

 

https://www.rugbyworld.com/news/what-is-the-tmo-in-rugby-88934

[Guest ToqueJambo]

9 minutes ago, obua said:

Not at the scotland penalty, the ref didn’t look at the screen before the retake.

 

This is what is confusing me. Who makes the final decision?

[Bellion]

1 minute ago, stranraer-jambo said:

 

It can be used for run of the mill things up to two phases leading up to a try. 

 

The following article shows the extent to TMO use in rugby. It really is quite straightforward, unlike the VAR which seems to muddy the waters more rather than clarify things. 

 

https://www.rugbyworld.com/news/what-is-the-tmo-in-rugby-88934

The very fact that rugby has phases helps to prove the point.  It's a much more structured game than football.  It's way easier to define what should and shouldn't be reviewed. 

[Maroon Sailor]

Don't they stop the clock in rugby as well ?

[obua]

2 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

This is what is confusing me. Who makes the final decision?

It looked as if the ref made the first decision then done as she was told for the retake.

[stranraer-jambo]

5 minutes ago, Bellion said:

Totally agree.  While I'm on this particular rant,  another reason why it works is that the broadcasters have got the hang of it and the refs are miked up, so everyone understands what's happening in real time. 

 

There have been several occasions lately where this "VAR check" thing has appeared on screen and the commentators don't seem to understand why, then we have several minutes of speculation while the ref watches the replays. 

 

For the supporter, is totally different having Nigel Owens or Jerome Garces asking the TMO specific questions and hearing the TMO's response.  It's part of the action and you're not removed from it.  And they're not surrounded by wailing players because the culture's different.  It's just different, and that's fine.  We don't need to try to copy it.  

 

You are definitely right here. Being miked up keeps everyone in the loop as to what is happening and what the refs thoughts or reasons are. 

Also the big screen in the stadium gives the fans at the match an insight into the decision. 

[stranraer-jambo]

1 minute ago, Maroon Sailor said:

Don't they stop the clock in rugby as well ?

They do. 

None of the nonsense like in the game last night when not enough time was added on. 

[babywhalo]

20 minutes ago, obua said:

Not at the scotland penalty, the ref didn’t look at the screen before the retake.

VAR would have told the ref that the keeper was off her line. As it was a factual decision the ref took VAR advice and ordered the retake. If it was a subjective decision (like the penalty) the ref looks at the screen and then makes the decision 

[babywhalo]

14 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

This is what is confusing me. Who makes the final decision?

The on field ref makes all the final decisions 

[obua]

1 minute ago, babywhalo said:

VAR would have told the ref that the keeper was off her line. As it was a factual decision the ref took VAR advice and ordered the retake. If it was a subjective decision (like the penalty) the ref looks at the screen and then makes the decision 

So they really just make it up as they go along.

[ri Alban]

VAR seems to have been a godsend to the WWC. Otherwise, people would be talking about how shite they are at football.

[Jammy T]

8 hours ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

Tmo in rugby is most often used to check if a try can be given, and to confirm if it should be red or yellow after a penalty.

It is not used for offside, hands on the ball, not releasing, the run of the mill always happen things.

And the ref is in charge of what they check.

This football free flowing rubbish is why car is crap. They check things as play is going on, that the ref has already waved play on.

Sorry for the rant.

 

Sorry, but it IS also used for:

 

offside

forward pass

obstruction

general foul play

 

And the TMO ref can interrupt the ref to highlight something he has missed. The rules of rugby are more complex and there are more players on the pitch.

 

It is correct to say the majority of TMO decisions relate to whether it is a try, but ‘whether it is a try’ is nearly always about something other than ‘did he ground the ball?’

 

The reason it works IMO is that - it has had time to bed in; the TMO refs know their stuff and (apart from de minimis examples) appear to be entirely unbiased (and the ref is miked up and people know what the review is for); the clock is stopped whilst the review goes on; the time taken is generally under 90 seconds or so and the incident in question is played in stadium so the crowd knows what is going on.

 

Nothing that can’t be done in football.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Jammy T

[Jammy T]

8 hours ago, Bellion said:

The very fact that rugby has phases helps to prove the point.  It's a much more structured game than football.  It's way easier to define what should and shouldn't be reviewed. 

 

Rugby and its rules are more complicated and I wouldn’t describe the structure of the game as something that indicates camera assisted decisions would work in rugby but not football.

[Jammy T]

8 hours ago, stranraer-jambo said:

 

You are definitely right here. Being miked up keeps everyone in the loop as to what is happening and what the refs thoughts or reasons are. 

Also the big screen in the stadium gives the fans at the match an insight into the decision. 

 

Agreed. And can replicated in football.

[Bellion]

30 minutes ago, Jammy T said:

 

Rugby and its rules are more complicated and I wouldn’t describe the structure of the game as something that indicates camera assisted decisions would work in rugby but not football.

It's much easier to implement these things in a game that quite often stops for long periods anyway.  Not sure what relevance there is in how complicated the rules are.  

[TexasAndy]

23 hours 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. 

Football is not a stop start game like Rugby and American Football.   VAR will kill the game as a spectator sport if they don't speed up the decision process.  

[TexasAndy]

22 hours ago, benny said:

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

Not once in the retaken analysis was a still shot shown the moment the player struck the ball.  The still camera pics show that keepers foot was still touching the line.