VAR

[The White Cockade]

Was happy when VAR was being talked about as I thought it would benefit the game and stop incorrect decisions 

but having seen it in action particularly at the Women’s Wirld Cup I’d be happy to see it scrapped

Huge delays and arbitrary decisions still made and still errors being made

Its ok in cricket and rugby where the game is stop / start anyway but you can’t have a football match stopped for 6 minutes while they decide if it’s a penalty or not

[Footballfirst]

13 minutes ago, The White Cockade said:

Was happy when VAR was being talked about as I thought it would benefit the game and stop incorrect decisions 

but having seen it in action particularly at the Women’s Wirld Cup I’d be happy to see it scrapped

Huge delays and arbitrary decisions still made and still errors being made

Its ok in cricket and rugby where the game is stop / start anyway but you can’t have a football match stopped for 6 minutes while they decide if it’s a penalty or not

I have some sympathy about your views on the time taken for VAR decisions. However, claims that football is not stop start is wrong. Every free kick, goal kick, corner and throw in all take time out the game. The ball is not in play for around 30 minutes of most games.

 

I've just watched the England opening goal in today's WWC game. Between the indirect free kick being awarded (@ 11:11) and it being taken (@13:57) was a 2 minute 46 second stoppage in play with no VAR involved.  All free kicks around the box inevitably take in excess of a minute.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Footballfirst

[Footballfirst]

England's second goal, awarded with the aid of VAR, showed both the good and the bad aspects of working with VAR.

 

The initially disallowed goal was at 3:05 in first half stoppage time.  VAR corrected the error and the goal was awarded at 4:20, one minute and 15 seconds to make the correction which is just about acceptable.

 

The bigger problem is that the Cameroon players wouldn't restart the game until 7:14.  It was the failure to accept the VAR decision that caused the bulk of the delay.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

Blimey. Ref should have booked all players there and then and told the captain she's off if they don't restart.

[davemclaren]

4 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

Blimey. Ref should have booked all players there and then and told the captain she's off if they don't restart.

Should just have restarted. 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

3 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Should just have restarted. 

 

Like the infamous "only one team in Tallin" Scotland game! Except I suppose a Cameroon player had to touch the ball first to do the kickoff.

Edited June 23, 2019 by ToqueJambo

[Footballfirst]

Cameroon goal now disallowed by VAR, again correctly in fairly quick time, but the players not accepting the decision once more creating most of the delay. 

Edited June 23, 2019 by Footballfirst

[Tommy Brown]

Tough one on Cameroon there.

 

it really all depends on the the frame they stop at. really finite decisions.

[jumpship]

For me VAR only seems to be helping the bigger nations... 

 

With that in mind, I'm thinking VAR in Scotland would only help the old firm..

[Gambo]

5 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Cameroon goal now disallowed by VAR, again correctly in fairly quick time, but the players not accepting the decision once more creating most of the delay. 

Technicalities on millimetres is just not football. Does the attacker no longer get the benefit of doubt when it is that close?

[davemclaren]

9 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Like the infamous "only one team in Tallin" Scotland game! Except I suppose a Cameroon player had to touch the ball first to do the kickoff.

True. ?

[cb1874]

You'd be raging if you were on the wrong end of too many VAR decisions. 

What's going on these days though....can a ref not just make a damn decision?

[Footballfirst]

5 minutes ago, Gambo said:

Technicalities on millimetres is just not football. Does the attacker no longer get the benefit of doubt when it is that close?

 

Offside is a matter of fact, not one that offers the benefit of doubt, one millimetre or 10 metres you are still offside. The correct decision was made.

 

Edit: The VAR decision on the Cameroon offside took 1:23.  The arguments afterwards took another 2:34 before the game was restarted.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Footballfirst

[jumpship]

2 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

Offside is a matter of fact, not one that offers the benefit of doubt, one millimetre or 10 metres you are still offside. The correct decision was made.

I'm not bothered about the offside calls. Keepers of their lines and crap like that... it's the interpretation of the rules that bother me. 

 

A hand on the back. Player goes down. 

Referee 1, There was contact, penalty.

Referee 2,  there was contact but not enough warrant a penalty. 

[Bellion]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

I have some sympathy about your views on the time taken for VAR decisions. However, claims that football is not stop start is wrong. Every free kick, goal kick, corner and throw in all take time out the game. The ball is not in play for around 30 minutes of most games.

 

I've just watched the England opening goal in today's WWC game. Between the indirect free kick being awarded (@ 11:11) and it being taken (@13:57) was a 2 minute 46 second stoppage in play with no VAR involved.  All free kicks around the box inevitably take in excess of a minute.

That’s not a good reason to make it even worse and take the ball out of play for even longer.  There will always be pauses in a game for set pieces etc, but football is different to many games in that it’s meant involve one continuous stream of action, not many individual points or plays.  It’s easier to break those games up, so lengthy video reviews sit more naturally.  That’s all that’s meant by the stop/start argument, and it’s pretty obviously true. 

 

If football is going to go down this route, I’d rather see two halves of 30 mins with the clock stopping whenever the ball’s out of play. 

 

Re the delays being caused by players not accepting the decision, they want certainty.  Goals are rare enough.  You shouldn’t have to wait a relative age to find out if your goal is valid once you’ve scored one.  It must be absolutely brutal not knowing what’s going on. 

[Tommy Brown]

6 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

Offside is a matter of fact, not one that offers the benefit of doubt, one millimetre or 10 metres you are still offside. The correct decision was made.

 

Edit: The VAR decision on the Cameroon offside took 1:23.  The arguments afterwards took another 2:34 before the game was restarted.

 

I would disagree FF. As my last post, it's all about when they freeze frame the moment of impact. Milliseconds can make a difference.

Cameroon girl facing her own goal, offside (correct) because her trailing in mid air is off.  Bloody tough.

 

 

[Footballfirst]

1 minute ago, jumpship said:

I'm not bothered about the offside calls. Keepers of their lines and crap like that... it's the interpretation of the rules that bother me. 

 

A hand on the back. Player goes down. 

Referee 1, There was contact, penalty.

Referee 2,  there was contact but not enough warrant a penalty. 

 

I agree 100% with the above.  VAR is refereeing the games rather than assisting the officials to correct "clear and obvious errors".

 

I'd prefer the limited "challenge" facility offered in cricket and tennis, with a restricted time (before any replay) to make a challenge and only for a limited range of incidents, e.g. those affecting goals, penalties and red cards. Like cricket, you should retain your challenge if you correctly reverse an on field decision.

[hughesie27]

Bizarre use of VAR there. Penalty check where nobody even claimed for it.

 

No pen given.

[jumpship]

Would be interesting to know 

 

Which team has benefitted the most from VAR.. my guess is England... 

[Footballfirst]

Just now, hughesie27 said:

Bizarre use of VAR there. Penalty check where nobody even claimed for it.

 

No pen given.

 

In that instance, if there was a challenge system in operation, then Phil Neville could have challenged the decision, had it reviewed, then lost it. I can understand the ref being unwilling to change her decision in that instance. Was the contact of the defender hitting the attacker on the toe sufficient for her to throw herself to the ground (possibly with a squeal) and to award a penalty. That is a subjective decision, so open to interpretation, so I think the ref was right not to change her initial decision.

[beerbandit]

Who decides when VAR is used. Scotland had 3 dodgey penalties awarded against them using VAR, yet against Japan we had one shout for a pentalty that might have been given and a stonewaller for arm ball which was not given In each case VAR was not used. Why was it not used?

[The White Cockade]

1 minute ago, beerbandit said:

Who decides when VAR is used. Scotland had 3 dodgey penalties awarded against them using VAR, yet against Japan we had one shout for a pentalty that might have been given and a stonewaller for arm ball which was not given In each case VAR was not used. Why was it not used?

Because the whole thing is a farce 

[Bazzas right boot]

Tmi in rugby because the ref asks specifically to check something and the guy with the computer checks only what the ref asks and confirms it. 

 

VAR seems a bit random. 

This could be solved by the 3 challenge rule similar to tennis. Also takes away the emphasis of the ref calling it and the claims he is biased and calling  for one team over an other. 

 

Also, on the call either the ref reviews it and then calls it or the guy in the VAR room calls it, not a mixture of both. 

Saves time and is more clear. 

 

VAR in principle is fine imo, but the refs in the wwc have not handled it well, clarity on what is called is non existent, when it's reviewed it's far too lengthy and ofc the standard of the actual referring and decision making has been poor and in some cases bizarre. 

 

VAR with  time also help root out poor officials, another benefit of it, maybe the most promising one, if not entirely planned. 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2019 by Olly Lee's left boot

[jumpship]

Why was VAR not used for the England player elbowing just outside the box but they are happy to view the late challenge? 

[beerbandit]

11 minutes ago, The White Cockade said:

Because the whole thing is a farce 

Agree   

[campbell]

22 minutes ago, beerbandit said:

Who decides when VAR is used. Scotland had 3 dodgey penalties awarded against them using VAR, yet against Japan we had one shout for a pentalty that might have been given and a stonewaller for arm ball which was not given In each case VAR was not used. Why was it not used?

 

7 minutes ago, jumpship said:

Why was VAR not used for the England player elbowing just outside the box but they are happy to view the late challenge? 

VAR is used all game they look over every part of a match, they then decided whether 1 the ref has made a clear mistake 2 to then alert the ref to that potential mistake for her to review 

[gashauskis9]

Lesson here is don’t implement this if you don’t have experienced and capable refs who can use it properly.  For that reason, keep it the feck away from Scotland.

[Maroon Sailor]

VAR should be there if the ref wants it.

 

These dickheads in a control room are operating the match to a farcical level.

 

[kila]

More VAR guidelines needed as it is clearly there to be used at whatever detail the refs desire going against the spirit of the game.

 

Hopefully VAR doesn't wreck the next generation of referees.

[upgotheheads]

VAR, get rid.

[Gambo]

VAR is not and NEVER WILL BE football.

 

It is a shame that this Women's World Cup will be remembered for VAR and not the football, it was the women's time to show how they have progressed yet all we will remember is VAR.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Gambo

[The White Cockade]

It’s reducing the role of the refs and linesmen 

they are scared to give any decisions now 

and this crap with offside if somebody is 5 yards offside just put the flag up 

it’s like the officials aren’t trusted now but in reality before VAR probably 90% plus if decisions were right and as long as mistakes are honest mistakes then so be it

This competition is farcical with all the VAR delays and changed decisions

[Boghell51]

Wow!! Don’t know what’s worse var causing carnage at women’s World Cup or Jonathan Pearce’s totally biased commentary 

[babywhalo]

1 hour ago, campbell said:

 

VAR is used all game they look over every part of a match, they then decided whether 1 the ref has made a clear mistake 2 to then alert the ref to that potential mistake for her to review 

I really wish more people would get this part

[Jamboelite]

Interesting one in the France game

[hughesie27]

Goalies get far too much protection. 

[Phil Dunphy]

43 minutes ago, Gambo said:

VAR is not and NEVER WILL BE football.

 

It is a shame that this Women's World Cup will be remembered for VAR and not the football, it was the women's time to show how they have progressed yet all we will remember is VAR.

 

This. VAR doesn’t fit the game of football. It’s been tried, it doesn’t work. 

 

But FIFA won’t see it that way. Whatever helps those corrupt ****ers drain even more money out of the game is ok by them. 

[JamboGraham]

2 hours ago, Olly Lee's left boot said:

Tmi in rugby because the ref asks specifically to check something and the guy with the computer checks only what the ref asks and confirms it. 

 

VAR seems a bit random. 

This could be solved by the 3 challenge rule similar to tennis. Also takes away the emphasis of the ref calling it and the claims he is biased and calling  for one team over an other. 

 

Also, on the call either the ref reviews it and then calls it or the guy in the VAR room calls it, not a mixture of both. 

Saves time and is more clear. 

 

VAR in principle is fine imo, but the refs in the wwc have not handled it well, clarity on what is called is non existent, when it's reviewed it's far too lengthy and ofc the standard of the actual referring and decision making has been poor and in some cases bizarre. 

 

VAR with  time also help root out poor officials, another benefit of it, maybe the most promising one, if not entirely planned. 

 

 

 

I think much of the VAR controversy and frustration has been caused by football not learning from other sports who have successfully used similar technology for a lot longer. You make a number of very key points for me...

 

Use of VAR should be driven by people in the stadium. I.e. the ref asking for assistance if unsure...but it’s a clear and specific question from the ref to VAR. Also to avoid the frequent calls of injustice after each match, each bench can have a number of challenges. This can be on anything.

 

No reason why tech can’t work...

 

Goal line Tech = good.

VAR to Check each goal/penalty for offside in the build up. Alert ref if clear and obvious error. Need agreement on how far back you can go in the build up?

Challenges given to he bench, lost if not upheld. Again agreement needed on how far back you can go?

Everything else only if ref asks for assistance, transparency on what they are asking assistance on. (Allowing a challenge if a bench feels the ref is asking the wrong question!). 

[Bazzas right boot]

7 minutes ago, JamboGraham said:

 

I think much of the VAR controversy and frustration has been caused by football not learning from other sports who have successfully used similar technology for a lot longer. You make a number of very key points for me...

 

Use of VAR should be driven by people in the stadium. I.e. the ref asking for assistance if unsure...but it’s a clear and specific question from the ref to VAR. Also to avoid the frequent calls of injustice after each match, each bench can have a number of challenges. This can be on anything.

 

No reason why tech can’t work...

 

Goal line Tech = good.

VAR to Check each goal/penalty for offside in the build up. Alert ref if clear and obvious error. Need agreement on how far back you can go in the build up?

Challenges given to he bench, lost if not upheld. Again agreement needed on how far back you can go?

Everything else only if ref asks for assistance, transparency on what they are asking assistance on. (Allowing a challenge if a bench feels the ref is asking the wrong question!). 

 

 

Agreed.

 

Other sports use it, Tennis, American football, Rugby to name a few .

All have helped improve the game.

 

No need to reinvent the wheel.

 

 

[Smoked-Glass]

Get it out of here.  Goal line aside its p1sh. 

[Morph]

On 21/06/2019 at 17:12, hughesie27 said:

I've already said, No. Every decision does not need to be scrutinised. Key events change games. Penalties etc on a regular basis which then have a big impact on the result. Typically a throw in doesn't. I can't think of the last time I seen an incorrect throw in lead to a goal.

A quick free kick before a sub is fully made isn’t a key event but it still led to the penalty in the women’s game. 

 

I don’t want VAR completely gone but currently its use is hugely damaging the enjoyment of the sport.  I’d say use it for things that can only be given as a black or white decision and leave the other calls to the ref.  If they need to go to the wee screen or whatever for some stuff that’s fine but this variation of the game randomly stopping because someone in a room somewhere seen something is torture. 

 

I think the whole “bench gets 3 VAR calls” is a terrible idea as well.  Keep that away from football. 

Edited June 23, 2019 by Morph

[The White Cockade]

4 hours ago, campbell said:

 

VAR is used all game they look over every part of a match, they then decided whether 1 the ref has made a clear mistake 2 to then alert the ref to that potential mistake for her to review 

They must all have been asleep during the Scotland v Jspan game when we should’ve had at least one penalty

[Hackney Hearts]

1 hour ago, The White Cockade said:

They must all have been asleep during the Scotland v Jspan game when we should’ve had at least one penalty

 

Exactly. But having seen it benefit the bigger football nations almost exclusively, at least we now know what VAR stands for:

 

Victimise Also Rans

[campbell]

8 hours ago, Hackney Hearts said:

 

Exactly. But having seen it benefit the bigger football nations almost exclusively, at least we now know what VAR stands for:

 

Victimise Also Rans

I think that’s a massive leap to claim it only benefits the big teams, in the tournaments it’s been part of I think it’s worked for most teams that fact is the bigger teams will have more of the ball and create more chances so there is more need times VAR reviews things in their favour 

[ArcticJambo]

14 hours ago, The White Cockade said:

It’s reducing the role of the refs and linesmen 

they are scared to give any decisions now 

and this crap with offside if somebody is 5 yards offside just put the flag up 

it’s like the officials aren’t trusted now but in reality before VAR probably 90% plus if decisions were right and as long as mistakes are honest mistakes then so be it

This competition is farcical with all the VAR delays and changed decisions

And those honest mistakes are often down to cheating by players.  Get serious about retrospective punishment and the 10% will drop further.

[Smoked-Glass]

Spfl doesn't currently have VAR right? 

[The White Cockade]

1 hour ago, ArcticJambo said:

And those honest mistakes are often down to cheating by players.  Get serious about retrospective punishment and the 10% will drop further.

Correct mate

teams can’t complain if their players are cheating 

hammer them for diving retrospectively if missed during game 

[Locky]

19 hours ago, Benzinho said:

I reckon it should be like hawkeye in tennis, and each team gets say two challenges per match. That way, the game's not being stopped constantly for every decision and the onus is on the teams rather than the ref or the VAR refs to call it. The manager would notify the 4th official, who would let the ref know and it would be checked. 

 

Teams would then have to be very careful not to waste their challenges, and it would still discourage diving because players would know they will get caught out and booked if the defending team calls it, or if the attacking team calls it for a penalty, they've wasted a challenge which could have been used for a genuine penalty/goal etc. 

Your top point is exactly where I'm at. Also, I don't believe there should be 4 video refs in the monitor room all with the ability to influence the ref.

 

For me, one or two 'technicians' should be present to communicate with the ref only to discuss what the ref needs to see on the monitor at their request. This way, the referee and assistants are still fully in control. At present, we're allowing the game to be ruled by video, and because the refs are being alerted to every little thing, we're being left with silly hair splitting decisions being made. I get why they have to be made in the end, but that's the problem with VAR at present, once it's on the monitor for all to see, a black or white decision must be made. No common sense at all can be applied.

[Hackney Hearts]

2 hours ago, campbell said:

I think that’s a massive leap to claim it only benefits the big teams, in the tournaments it’s been part of I think it’s worked for most teams that fact is the bigger teams will have more of the ball and create more chances so there is more need times VAR reviews things in their favour 

 

I'm just talking about this tournament. The 'more of the ball' argument doesn't wash - similar incidents have simply been treated in different ways. Scotland's two penalty claims Japan  were not flagged up by VAR - why not? Cameroon's 'offside' goal, France's retaken penalty against Nigeria - big decisions are (so far) always in favour of the hosts, or bigger nations. 

[Maroon Sailor]

23 minutes ago, Hackney Hearts said:

 

I'm just talking about this tournament. The 'more of the ball' argument doesn't wash - similar incidents have simply been treated in different ways. Scotland's two penalty claims Japan  were not flagged up by VAR - why not? Cameroon's 'offside' goal, France's retaken penalty against Nigeria - big decisions are (so far) always in favour of the hosts, or bigger nations. 

 

That French penalty took VAR to another level

 

She hit the post and got rewarded for the keeper being an inch off her line which had absolutely no bearing on her hitting a crap penalty.

 

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Maroon Sailor