SlowDownDerek
UTC Legend
Tbf most rugby fans I've ever met are not really sports fans as I would describe them. Their team winning seems to be a pleasant addition to a lovely day out rather than the "let's go f*cking mental" football equivalent.
VAR
- Thread starter Forza Rossoneri!
- Start date
Tbf most rugby fans I've ever met are not really sports fans as I would describe them. Their team winning seems to be a pleasant addition to a lovely day out rather than the "let's go f*cking mental" football equivalent.
Druss_the_Legend
UTC Legend
Ah so because I say it works in other sports I need proof but others say it doesn't and ruined it for them thats ok? I get it.
DJ
Moderator
I don’t follow either Rugby or it’s American version, but I’ve seen plenty of articles about its controversial usage of the former and plenty of posts from our North American users about the latter, with very few positive comments.
It also somewhat ruined the World Cup final.
F1 is an odd example to give, the steward penalties are always debatable, even more so in years gone by. To say that is a success is like saying Brexit negotiations are easy to solve.
Tennis is a good example of when it does and can work, but it’s usage is limited and is only used for the black and white purpose of “in” or “out”, so basically goal line technology and not VAR.
SlowDownDerek
UTC Legend
Cricket is another example of it working really well, in fact it enhances the game and ands another layer of tactical strategy. They key is that the power to refer to the third umpire is in the hands of the captain and they only have themselves to blame if they waste their reviews. This has been suggested above for football and would certainly help to alleviate some of the criticisms.
The problem is that football isn't a stop/start sport like some of the others where it has been more successfully adopted. There is no easy way to allow captains or managers the power to ask for a review without disrupting the game.
The problem is that football isn't a stop/start sport like some of the others where it has been more successfully adopted. There is no easy way to allow captains or managers the power to ask for a review without disrupting the game.
simonhpieman
Star Player
Gather round children, let me spin you a vaguely related yarn.
I was recording some vocals in a recording studio recently along with another singer. We took it in turns and I went first.
I'd do a take and get asked over the headphones to go back and "fix" sections I'd fluffed. All standard stuff when aiming for perfect takes.
From a singer's point of view, it's really useful to have these fixes cued up really quickly so you're still in the zone and can get the take done nice and quickly. Time is money in studios, too.
Sadly, there were huge gaps between the recordings stopping and starting again (there were a lot of fixes this particular day!). I held myself back but was on the edge of asking what the bloody hell the engineer was doing. I assumed he must have been fiddling with something or other as 30 seconds, a minute went by. (This can and should take 10 seconds at most)
When it was the other singers turn, I got to sit in the control room as she did the same corrections and the reason for the delays became clear.
Nice as he was, this engineer with 40 years' experience and huge industry prominence was AWFUL at using his computer. You have to scroll left and right in the recording software to find the part of the song that you want to record over and he just took forever doing it. He couldn't find the right point from which to restart the recording. He manipulated the mouse as if in slow motion and stared at the screen as if he was looking beyond it into a daydream. I almost jumped up and grabbed it out of his hand, so frustrating it was to watch him.
This is how I fear VAR is being used. Old shaky-handed referee clicking his mouse and dragging it all over the desk in a vain attempt to make the computer do what he thinks he wants it to.
I worry the decision isn't taking ages, but the technology is taking ages.
There needs to be a team of ninja video editors in the control room (like the ones we get on live football coverage that can immediately bring up every angle under the sun at the click of a finger). These ninjas highlight anything that needs to be decided and the refs decide without touching a single bit of technology.
There is no VAR decision that requires more than 30 seconds to be made. It just needs enough people watching the match and more importantly, concentrating on what's going on for 45 full minutes at a time. The Burnley one from the weekend sounds to me like they were all gossiping about where they were going out that night and suddenly realised they should have been paying attention:
"****************! Look, Dave, it's a penalty to Burnley! Stop them taking it, shiiiiit! We should be reviewing this!!"
I was recording some vocals in a recording studio recently along with another singer. We took it in turns and I went first.
I'd do a take and get asked over the headphones to go back and "fix" sections I'd fluffed. All standard stuff when aiming for perfect takes.
From a singer's point of view, it's really useful to have these fixes cued up really quickly so you're still in the zone and can get the take done nice and quickly. Time is money in studios, too.
Sadly, there were huge gaps between the recordings stopping and starting again (there were a lot of fixes this particular day!). I held myself back but was on the edge of asking what the bloody hell the engineer was doing. I assumed he must have been fiddling with something or other as 30 seconds, a minute went by. (This can and should take 10 seconds at most)
When it was the other singers turn, I got to sit in the control room as she did the same corrections and the reason for the delays became clear.
Nice as he was, this engineer with 40 years' experience and huge industry prominence was AWFUL at using his computer. You have to scroll left and right in the recording software to find the part of the song that you want to record over and he just took forever doing it. He couldn't find the right point from which to restart the recording. He manipulated the mouse as if in slow motion and stared at the screen as if he was looking beyond it into a daydream. I almost jumped up and grabbed it out of his hand, so frustrating it was to watch him.
This is how I fear VAR is being used. Old shaky-handed referee clicking his mouse and dragging it all over the desk in a vain attempt to make the computer do what he thinks he wants it to.
I worry the decision isn't taking ages, but the technology is taking ages.
There needs to be a team of ninja video editors in the control room (like the ones we get on live football coverage that can immediately bring up every angle under the sun at the click of a finger). These ninjas highlight anything that needs to be decided and the refs decide without touching a single bit of technology.
There is no VAR decision that requires more than 30 seconds to be made. It just needs enough people watching the match and more importantly, concentrating on what's going on for 45 full minutes at a time. The Burnley one from the weekend sounds to me like they were all gossiping about where they were going out that night and suddenly realised they should have been paying attention:
"****************! Look, Dave, it's a penalty to Burnley! Stop them taking it, shiiiiit! We should be reviewing this!!"
DJ
Moderator
Not without controversy again though. Some countries refused to adopt aspects of it, some refused to use it at all for years.
It also crucially uses an “element of doubt” to how accurate the technology actually is. Rather than believing it’s accurate to the cm, which football technology is assuming with its drawn on lines for offside calls.
It works well in matters of fact eg line calls in tennis. I can recall a few occasions in the autumn rugby internationals when there was controversy (offside or not and was the ball cleanly grounded)
I do think VAR will sort out some wrong decisions, not all and I think as others have said if you are at a match it will spoil spontaneous enjoyment. If you are watching on tv with a beer it doesnt matter so much
Druss_the_Legend
UTC Legend
Rugby, you dont follow? I do, it works very well.
NFL, you dont follow? I do, it works very well. In fact one of the best implementations of it. The head coach able to challenge a decision is a good one although not something we would use in Football. Its very popular and widely accepted.
F1. So are you suggesting that VAR is not used extensively and successfully in F1? Stewards still have to make decisions, some you might not agree with but the use of it is obvious. Just of the top of my head, Verstappen cut the second from last corner to overtake in the US GP. Easy decision using video to penalise him. I admit, the also can use information like the angle of the steering wheel and throttle level etc so it goes beyond video but the thought of the sport not using it now is almost impossible.
Tennis. Agreed, its mainly goal line like technology. But you were against that too before it came in?
RobTrent
UTC Legend
I was against GLT too but have been impressed with it. Mostly because I see it being used swiftly and it really is just a one-subject deal. Its not about possible cheating diving players, or intentional v unintentional handball.
Plus I think the ability to see something and change ones opinion given the evidence is a sign of maturity. ;-)
Plus I think the ability to see something and change ones opinion given the evidence is a sign of maturity. ;-)
Kenya Cherrie
UTC Legend
The one that annoys me is when the linesman gives offside when it isn't.
The chance of a break and a goal scoring chance has gone, plus the team defending gets a free kick they can then hit into the area and score from. If in doubt let play carry on, the game is all about scoring goals, not defending.
The chance of a break and a goal scoring chance has gone, plus the team defending gets a free kick they can then hit into the area and score from. If in doubt let play carry on, the game is all about scoring goals, not defending.
SlowDownDerek
UTC Legend
It doesn't work very well in rugby it ruins key moments of the game as I've said above.
F1 is so far removed from football as a sport that I don't think it is a useful comparison whatsoever.
Clearly it's debatable as to whether it is acceptable in American Football given some of the comments we've seen on here from North Americans but it doesn't have the issue of disrupting the game that proper football would have given the stop/start nature. Same with cricket, where it does work extremely well in my opinion.
DJ
Moderator
The point you initially made was that it worked well, not that it was in use!
DJ
Moderator
Well, I’m far less fickle, sorry mature and still stand by my first post on page 1 of this thread
Druss_the_Legend
UTC Legend
DJ
Moderator
Toronto John
Fans' Favourite
I suppose this is one of the two threads where we can risk going all-smhinto and repeating ourselves .... Brexit being the other, although on that one I get so confused that I'm not sure who stands for what!
I have posted on "instant replay" in North American sports before, but for NFL specifically ......
1) when it works, it works - this past weekend was the first round of playoffs and it came into use a number of times at critical stages.
2) it doesn't fix an ambiguous rule. Earlier on this tread, hand-ball was mentioned as something that is unclear by nature. Same in the NFL. They have struggled with a "legal catch" definition for a few years, is still a problem. So even if you see it a number of times on replay, it is still subject to interpretation.
3) And not everything is reviewable, which can be very disconcerting when an incorrect call is allowed to stand because it is not, by the laws of the game, subject to review.
4) agree that NFL is stop/start, but it is also a game of momentum. A team on offense might have the opposition on the run, defense tired. The QB hurries the team up to the line, but then the whistle gets blown for a replay look.
5) NFL games run at least 3 hours already ... replay does add a few minutes to that.
6) there is an element of anti-climax when replay is required, especially on a touchdown - did ball break the plane of the goal line or not? As someone said, can be a big let-down or lead to a double celebration.
7) NFL teams can call three time-outs per half (wouldn't that be something for Eddie to have in his back pocket when we are having one of our defensive "spells"). A coach's challenge, if shown to be wrong, costs one of those time-outs.
8) Officials are slowly figuring out that the play should be allowed to run - only blow the whistle when certain the play is dead. This allows replay to correct errors (replay is looked at in the background for all scoring plays and turnovers ... i.e. no coach's challenge required). Linos should definitely take this approach when VAR comes in.
9) NFL has 7 on field officials. On questionable plays - in/out of bounds being a good one, penalty calls being another - the officials do huddle to try to get it right.
All in all, as I said at the top, when it works, it works. But will not fix all ills.
cockbeard
Fans' Favourite
That's one of the biggest things, the decisions need to be communicated to the crowd. You need screens and someone with a mic to tell folk what's going on, and if anyone should have a mic it's the referee. The one VAR moment against Brighton, whilst I can't recall if the decision was right, the execution was perfect. The ref was returning to the middle of the pitch before restarting the game and you saw him listening to the VAR truck, he dismissed it and carried on. No impact, no issue.
