VAR

dsr-burnley said:
I reckon the quickest way to speed up VAR would be to go to the old offside rule - that if you're level, you're onside. That's still the rule in lower leagues, so why change it in the PL. However much they may say that they haven't changed the rule, they have - they have abolished the concept of "level" for offside.

Then for goals like Danny Ings' yesterday, they don't have to fanny about drawing lines on the pitch. They can look at one camera angle, one shot, agree that he was level, and give the goal. After all, when the law was changed 30 years ago to make level=onside, it was specific in the Lancashire FA guidelines for referees, and very probably in other similar publications too, that level meant to be judged by the human eye, not to fractions of an inch, and if a player appeared in nirmal human terms to be level, then he was level.
Click to expand...

I'd still prefer a time limit, as in rugby. If you can't see a clear error within 30 seconds (as an example) then the onfield decision stands. It would stop a lot of the delay, but doesn't get round the fact you can't celebrate until kick-off, I hadn't discovered the forum when VAR came in, but were people generally in favour? There is undoubtedly merit in removing clear and obvious errors, it is whether the baggage that comes with it is acceptable.
 
dsr-burnley said:
I reckon the quickest way to speed up VAR would be to go to the old offside rule - that if you're level, you're onside. That's still the rule in lower leagues, so why change it in the PL. However much they may say that they haven't changed the rule, they have - they have abolished the concept of "level" for offside.

Then for goals like Danny Ings' yesterday, they don't have to fanny about drawing lines on the pitch. They can look at one camera angle, one shot, agree that he was level, and give the goal. After all, when the law was changed 30 years ago to make level=onside, it was specific in the Lancashire FA guidelines for referees, and very probably in other similar publications too, that level meant to be judged by the human eye, not to fractions of an inch, and if a player appeared in nirmal human terms to be level, then he was level.
Click to expand...
Exactly Would stop this nonsense of offside by a fingernail
 
Kudos said:
https://www.skysports.com/football/...tatistics-behind-worldwide-use-show-positives

"VAR reviews only come into play roughly one in every three games"

"The median time taken for all incidents is 20 seconds, and the majority of checks take place while play continues or during 'normal' stoppages like goal celebration or when the ball out of play.

VAR-only reviews take a median time of 35 seconds, while on-field reviews take around 68 seconds."

"But here's the thing: the average time lost to VAR is 55 seconds, a small dent on game time in comparison with:

  • Free-kicks - 8m 51s
  • Throw-ins - 7m 2s
  • Goal-kicks - 5m 46s
  • Corners - 3m 57s
  • Subs - 2m 57s
    "
Click to expand...
They looked at it, but it never happened.

Football rule-makers to consider reducing games to 60 minutes | Football | The Guardian
 
dsr-burnley said:
I reckon the quickest way to speed up VAR would be to go to the old offside rule - that if you're level, you're onside. That's still the rule in lower leagues, so why change it in the PL. However much they may say that they haven't changed the rule, they have - they have abolished the concept of "level" for offside.

Then for goals like Danny Ings' yesterday, they don't have to fanny about drawing lines on the pitch. They can look at one camera angle, one shot, agree that he was level, and give the goal. After all, when the law was changed 30 years ago to make level=onside, it was specific in the Lancashire FA guidelines for referees, and very probably in other similar publications too, that level meant to be judged by the human eye, not to fractions of an inch, and if a player appeared in nirmal human terms to be level, then he was level.
Click to expand...
Without VAR the 'assistant referee' may have raised the flag - from radio , sounded like even Ings thought he was offside. But I believe they are encouraged to keep flag down if they think it is offside but close.

Level is still is onside. It's never been a question really of accuracy of eye sight but as the game gets quicker, the technology comes into play to better judge where the players are when the ball is kicked. The split second from observing the pass and then checking the line is very hard, and more easily results in more offsides being given which definitely takes away the joy of the game and goal celebrations. VAR works in favour of goals.

In terms of millimetre VAR offsides, that's not VAR, that's rules. The rules could be changed to apply offside only when say 10cm or 20cm gap. It's inconsequential to playing but would make everyone happier.
 
ChampagneCherry said:
Without VAR the 'assistant referee' may have raised the flag - from radio , sounded like even Ings thought he was offside. But I believe they are encouraged to keep flag down if they think it is offside but close.

Level is still is onside. It's never been a question really of accuracy of eye sight but as the game gets quicker, the technology comes into play to better judge where the players are when the ball is kicked. The split second from observing the pass and then checking the line is very hard, and more easily results in more offsides being given which definitely takes away the joy of the game and goal celebrations. VAR works in favour of goals.

In terms of millimetre VAR offsides, that's not VAR, that's rules. The rules could be changed to apply offside only when say 10cm or 20cm gap. It's inconsequential to playing but would make everyone happier.
Click to expand...

I honestly just can't see how you think VAR improves the enjoyment of the game or even that it is not to blame for the millimetre offside decisions. How can the lack of spontaneity improve anything even if it does result in more goals being awarded five minutes after the event by some bloke hundreds of miles away.

Offside is millimetres and split seconds by its nature - its the technology that ends up analysing it to the nth degree. Add any gap you like and you're still making split hair millimetre decisions.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Yes it was good enough for me when the ref made that mistake. Sh*t happens.

To answer your question it takes away part of the enjoyment of every single goal scored. There is always a feeling in the back of your mind that the goal you have just witnessed could be taken away by some guy hundreds of miles away. This takes away the feeling that you are part of an exhilarating live event and replaces it with one where you are watching something that isn't really happening in real time in front of you - everything you are watching comes with a 'subject to review' clause attached to it.

It's an absolute travesty that they have brought it in and our relegation to the Championship has been bliss by comparison. Even if VAR eradicated all refereeing mistakes, which is so painfully and obviously does not do, it would still be a massively negative change to the game.

I know that there are people out there that look at football (and often the world) as a science, where everything has a right and wrong answer that needs to be determined. Football is not science, it is art, that relies on skill and endeavour as well as justice and injustice all of which combine to form the most thrilling form of entertainment there is. VAR is an anathema to that and it needs to be binned.
Click to expand...
Good riposte.

Football is neither art not science for me, it's sport.

VAR is not about eradicating mistakes, but it's there to improve the game.

If you want to believe you can't celebrate any goal until the game kicks off again, then I will leave you to that. Meanwhile because only a small number are disallowed, and extra get scored because of VAR allowing more situations to play on, I will keep celebrating every goal and happily deal with ones ruled out as for most part they are rightly ruled out.

Your points fundamentally reinforce why VAR needs to be improved not abandoned. Only then will we get the balance right. I especially like your reference to a live exhilarating event, it is indeed, and VAR is another character in that theatre. But the high and lows within a match are so far less than the highs and lows most of us feel after the match.

As I said, top response, just wish we could be having these lively debates in the pub and could buy a beer, not on a forum :cheers:
 
Kudos said:
https://www.skysports.com/football/...tatistics-behind-worldwide-use-show-positives

"VAR reviews only come into play roughly one in every three games"

"The median time taken for all incidents is 20 seconds, and the majority of checks take place while play continues or during 'normal' stoppages like goal celebration or when the ball out of play.

VAR-only reviews take a median time of 35 seconds, while on-field reviews take around 68 seconds."

"But here's the thing: the average time lost to VAR is 55 seconds, a small dent on game time in comparison with:

  • Free-kicks - 8m 51s
  • Throw-ins - 7m 2s
  • Goal-kicks - 5m 46s
  • Corners - 3m 57s
  • Subs - 2m 57s
    "
Click to expand...
Interesting observations and stats. Do you have the figures on what percentage of goals were struck off and what percentage were possible / allowed when assistant referee puts up the flag (now after the goal is scored).

I saw something that suggests the vast majority can be celebrated, because very little are disallowed. These would take away the notion that we can't celebrate the magical moments.

Certainly something has to be done about the lost time above. There's an argument that says if you are the fitter team, then it's in your interest to keep the ball more in play just to wear down your opponent, quick free kicks, throw ins etc. Reducing the lost time by 6 mins broadly means the game is 10% more in play, and might help break down those teams who try to park the bus in the last (effectively extra 6 mins), not forgetting ref already adds on time for subs, re-starts, and VAR stoppages.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
I honestly just can't see how you think VAR improves the enjoyment of the game or even that it is not to blame for the millimetre offside decisions. How can the lack of spontaneity improve anything even if it does result in more goals being awarded five minutes after the event by some bloke hundreds of miles away.

Offside is millimetres and split seconds by its nature - its the technology that ends up analysing it to the nth degree. Add any gap you like and you're still making split hair millimetre decisions.
Click to expand...
Trouble is I can see and understand what irks you, I just don't agree with it. I enjoy almost all sport. Technology is part of most sports now.

We don't except line judges making errors in Tennis, and accept the infinite precision of technology even though that's in the middle of play when it's a serve.

If you don't like the delay, then the technology improves to reduce and eliminate it, not just give up and accept decisions that undermine the integrity of fair play by accepting the randomness of mistakes like some embrace of chaos theory.
 
ChampagneCherry said:
Good riposte.

Football is neither art not science for me, it's sport.

VAR is not about eradicating mistakes, but it's there to improve the game.

If you want to believe you can't celebrate any goal until the game kicks off again, then I will leave you to that. Meanwhile because only a small number are disallowed, and extra get scored because of VAR allowing more situations to play on, I will keep celebrating every goal and happily deal with ones ruled out as for most part they are rightly ruled out.

Your points fundamentally reinforce why VAR needs to be improved not abandoned. Only then will we get the balance right. I especially like your reference to a live exhilarating event, it is indeed, and VAR is another character in that theatre. But the high and lows within a match are so far less than the highs and lows most of us feel after the match.

As I said, top response, just wish we could be having these lively debates in the pub and could buy a beer, not on a forum :cheers:
Click to expand...

If nothing else VAR is certainly a decent pub conversation that's for sure.
:cheers:

I think it's fundamentally a issue of personality differences and what you think is important. If I was to try and present my personality type positively I'd say the edge-of-your-seat exhilaration of instantly supporting goals is miles more important than a slavish obsession with accuracy that kills the moment.

In the flip side there's no doubt that part of my dislike is because I watch football with a large degree of pessimism that I know is shared by many other fans. If the opposition brings on a shite striker with five minutes to go I'm convinced he'll score, likewise if they get a corner in injury time. Most of the time these things don't happen but they've happened enough for me to convince myself every time that they'll happen again.

VAR brings this feeling into every goal. We've scored, I want to go nuts and celebrate but the football pessimist in me is convinced they'll find a reason to chalk it off. No improvement in VAR will rid people like me of this feeling and as time goes by the horror shows that we experience like at Burnley and Southampton last year.

At the end of the day accuracy isn't that important, sh*t happens and sometimes you get a bum decision just like sometimes Harry Arter sticks a last minute penalty into the Solent.
 
ChampagneCherry said:
Trouble is I can see and understand what irks you, I just don't agree with it. I enjoy almost all sport. Technology is part of most sports now.

We don't except line judges making errors in Tennis, and accept the infinite precision of technology even though that's in the middle of play when it's a serve.

If you don't like the delay, then the technology improves to reduce and eliminate it, not just give up and accept decisions that undermine the integrity of fair play by accepting the randomness of mistakes like some embrace of chaos theory.
Click to expand...

It doesn't affect other sports as negatively because they can at least incorporate a review system that makes it tactical and puts the blame on the team or player. That and the fact that other sports have natural breaks in play where review don't ruin it.

It's not even the length of the delay that is the problem. If it's not instant it's just not as good.
 
ChampagneCherry said:
Trouble is I can see and understand what irks you, I just don't agree with it. I enjoy almost all sport. Technology is part of most sports now.

We don't except line judges making errors in Tennis, and accept the infinite precision of technology even though that's in the middle of play when it's a serve.

If you don't like the delay, then the technology improves to reduce and eliminate it, not just give up and accept decisions that undermine the integrity of fair play by accepting the randomness of mistakes like some embrace of chaos theory.
Click to expand...
I have given the North American experience before, but will repeat that the introduction of "replay" as it is called over here has had different impacts on different sports. In hockey, for example, rule changes have been the result, as replay has pointed out flawed rules. If only football could get the handball rule (law?) fixed this way. In baseball, which is a pastoral and fairly slow-moving game, replay has made a long day longer. In American football, replay was started for a few specific calls, but expanded to include more and more calls as it became clear that officials can make egregious game-changing calls on some of the more minor transgressions

Just be glad that you have not yet succumbed to in-game advertising while replay is being examined .... "this VAR moment brought to you by the good people at Tesco"!!
 
It’s been said for a very long time but we’ve now had almost a year of actually witnessing it.

Football is nothing without the fans.

That’s evident in front of empty stadiums, but the same stands for when football is played in front of lifeless supporters, which is what will happen when the passion, excitement and immediate adrenaline rush is sapped out of the game by VAR overseeing all of those moments of the game we pay to see and witness.

Watching football on the tv is a pale imitation to being there, that’s why we all go when we can, that’s why we support a club we can go and support. That’s why we spend an obscene amount of time and expense on away games, something you really can’t ever justify logically if someone asks you “why?”.

All of that goes the longer VAR is around. Football is a bug, once it’s gone it’s sometimes lost for quite some time, VAR is footballs vaccine to ever catching the bug in the first place.
 
ChampagneCherry said:
Trouble is I can see and understand what irks you, I just don't agree with it. I enjoy almost all sport. Technology is part of most sports now.

We don't except line judges making errors in Tennis, and accept the infinite precision of technology even though that's in the middle of play when it's a serve.

If you don't like the delay, then the technology improves to reduce and eliminate it, not just give up and accept decisions that undermine the integrity of fair play by accepting the randomness of mistakes like some embrace of chaos theory.
Click to expand...
It may be true that not many goals are disallowed, but it is also true that EVERY goal is reviewed by VAR. And its not just goals. Last seasons debacle at Burnley was the extreme granted, but is proof of how it is destroying the game.

The West Ham sending off V Fulham last week was another case in point. It just adds another layer of complexity into what is essentially a fast flowing game. It exists for tv viewers, not supporters in the main.
 
ChampagneCherry said:
Without VAR the 'assistant referee' may have raised the flag - from radio , sounded like even Ings thought he was offside. But I believe they are encouraged to keep flag down if they think it is offside but close.

Level is still is onside. It's never been a question really of accuracy of eye sight but as the game gets quicker, the technology comes into play to better judge where the players are when the ball is kicked. The split second from observing the pass and then checking the line is very hard, and more easily results in more offsides being given which definitely takes away the joy of the game and goal celebrations. VAR works in favour of goals.

In terms of millimetre VAR offsides, that's not VAR, that's rules. The rules could be changed to apply offside only when say 10cm or 20cm gap. It's inconsequential to playing but would make everyone happier.
Click to expand...
But are those the rules? When the rules were written to say that level is onside, it was explicitly stated that the purpose was to give the forward a better chance and to lead to more goals. Were they doing that because they thought the extra quarter of an inch would be a big benefit to the forward, or was it because they understood the rule had a certain leeway as to what "level" meant?

In the Olympic Games races, it is specified what parts of the body must cross the line in determining who finished first. Football never made this sort of specification, but in the absence of this specification, it has always been understood that "level" means in accordance with what the human eye can see.

As for keeping the flag down if it is close, that's only a short term thing to see what would have happened. Once play has stopped or the immediate goal chance has gone, they raise their flag if they think it was offside. Ing's goal was flagged offside and overturned, but we don't know whether the linesman was applying the VAR rule and thought on balance Ings was half an inch off rather than half an inch on, or whether he would have flagged under the old offside rule where Ings would have been onside without question.
 
In the uk are you allowed to pass to players in your own team, yes, although it may well look like it you are, it's not against the current rules of football.
 
Druss_the_Legend said:
This is a tough one. On one hand it took about 3 weeks too long for the VAR team to look at it. But at the same time, without VAR we would have been denied watching a spectacular goal which he truly deserved.

So it failed terribly but was also wonderfully effective. :bag:
Click to expand...
How is that a tough one. The on field officials were looking to rule it out and therefore no joyful celebration in the non-VAR world that so many prefer.

VAR ensures the right decision and then quite rightly the Chelsea lads get visible excited and celebrate a worldy, plus I bet many at home would have joined in.
 
ChampagneCherry said:
How is that a tough one. The on field officials were looking to rule it out and therefore no joyful celebration in the non-VAR world that so many prefer.

VAR ensures the right decision and then quite rightly the Chelsea lads get visible excited and celebrate a worldy, plus I bet many at home would have joined in.
Click to expand...
VAR does not ensure the right decision. It's still a human decision reviewing technology.

And yes, I would still prefer the officials on the pitch making their decision, rather than the morons in whatever caravan they're situated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;