| VAR in cricket 12:20 - Jul 15 with 3673 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
How good was that?
Can I see this? Done. Can I see that? Done. I'm checking this? Done. This is what I have given and you all know why.
Boom. Took no more than 15-30 seconds.
I appreciate the football dynamics are different. But if we used it for specific stuff there's no reason why that wouldn't work, albeit checking whilst play had potentially carried on. |  |
| |  |
| VAR in cricket on 12:22 - Jul 15 with 3116 views | Garv |
Different sport. Won't work. Doesn't work. |  |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 12:23 - Jul 15 with 3107 views | BryanPlug |
[content removed at owner's request] |  |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 12:26 - Jul 15 with 3090 views | WD19 |
Obviously works much better, but the 'ball tracking' takes a while to process so it always makes me laugh when they check everything else just to cover the dead time.
"Can we check the front foot please?" (when the bowler is clearly a yard behind the line).
"Can we check for bat please?" (bloke has missed it by a foot)
"Can we check ultra-edge please?" (in case him missing it by a foot was an optical illusion).
"OK, now the ball tracking tech is finally ready and the players have finished drinks can we go to that please?" |  | | |
| VAR in cricket on 12:27 - Jul 15 with 3084 views | SWGF |
It has taken a while to refine it, in cricket, but it does work very well.
The obvious difference is that there are defined stoppages in cricket. How does that work with football? A dubious handball at one end, the ball doesn't go out of play, other team counter-attacks and scores a goal which might have been offside. Nobody will know what the hell is going on. |  |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 12:36 - Jul 15 with 3042 views | Oldsmoker |
| VAR in cricket on 12:27 - Jul 15 by SWGF |
It has taken a while to refine it, in cricket, but it does work very well.
The obvious difference is that there are defined stoppages in cricket. How does that work with football? A dubious handball at one end, the ball doesn't go out of play, other team counter-attacks and scores a goal which might have been offside. Nobody will know what the hell is going on. |
...and cricket crowds are better behaved.
The sense of injustice on football terraces when decisions go against you is pratically feral. |  |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 12:42 - Jul 15 with 3019 views | SWGF |
| VAR in cricket on 12:36 - Jul 15 by Oldsmoker |
...and cricket crowds are better behaved.
The sense of injustice on football terraces when decisions go against you is pratically feral. |
As is mentioned elsewhere, cricket is pretty black/white, yes/no, line decisions. There's no interpretation. | |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 12:45 - Jul 15 with 3008 views | ParisBlue |
| VAR in cricket on 12:36 - Jul 15 by Oldsmoker |
...and cricket crowds are better behaved.
The sense of injustice on football terraces when decisions go against you is pratically feral. |
Cricket and VAR is an exact science. Same with tennis.
Aside from goal line technology, the VAR decisions in football are still largely open to the referees interpretation. |  |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 12:59 - Jul 15 with 2975 views | SenatorBlue |
There are two/three aspects that VAR could adopt however;
(1) Goal line tech already exists straight to refs watch - this now works well.
(2) VAR - allow each captain 1 review per game; if it's a correct review call they retain it, if it's an incorrect review they lose it - would stop second refereeing of every single thing and calling back - will limit VAR use/disruption.
(3) VAR - when the review is happening, open mike the thought process and decision making so the crowd can hear e.g. for a pen, not clear on this angle, go to "x" angle, I can see contact, run it through, contact pen. Opinions will always vary, and it wont always be back and white like cricket, but at least you would understand why they gave the decision they have. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| VAR in cricket on 13:02 - Jul 15 with 2956 views | Garv |
| VAR in cricket on 12:59 - Jul 15 by SenatorBlue |
There are two/three aspects that VAR could adopt however;
(1) Goal line tech already exists straight to refs watch - this now works well.
(2) VAR - allow each captain 1 review per game; if it's a correct review call they retain it, if it's an incorrect review they lose it - would stop second refereeing of every single thing and calling back - will limit VAR use/disruption.
(3) VAR - when the review is happening, open mike the thought process and decision making so the crowd can hear e.g. for a pen, not clear on this angle, go to "x" angle, I can see contact, run it through, contact pen. Opinions will always vary, and it wont always be back and white like cricket, but at least you would understand why they gave the decision they have. |
In a loud football stadium? It'd be pointless.
Plus, I'm going to watch footballers play football, not over the top theatrics about whether the defender 'made himself bigger' or 'whether it was an intentional headbutt', or whatever nonsense they use VAR for. | |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 13:06 - Jul 15 with 2945 views | WD19 |
| VAR in cricket on 12:59 - Jul 15 by SenatorBlue |
There are two/three aspects that VAR could adopt however;
(1) Goal line tech already exists straight to refs watch - this now works well.
(2) VAR - allow each captain 1 review per game; if it's a correct review call they retain it, if it's an incorrect review they lose it - would stop second refereeing of every single thing and calling back - will limit VAR use/disruption.
(3) VAR - when the review is happening, open mike the thought process and decision making so the crowd can hear e.g. for a pen, not clear on this angle, go to "x" angle, I can see contact, run it through, contact pen. Opinions will always vary, and it wont always be back and white like cricket, but at least you would understand why they gave the decision they have. |
Whilst i instinctively like the idea of #2, the subjective nature of it all makes things impossible.
On that basis it is #1 and #1 only for me, but can't see football being bold enough to abandon the rest of the VAR project now they have got this far. | | | |
| VAR in cricket on 13:11 - Jul 15 with 2935 views | Guthrum |
Wasn't always so smooth - and faced a lot of opposition in the early days (still does from the Indians).
Cricket has worked hard on refining the system, limiting its arbitrary useage (only one or two elective reviews per innings) and has the basic principle that there is an on-field decision, which there must be clear evidence to overturn. That is how VAR could be in a few years time, if handled with common sense and a determination not to let it be derailed by hysteria. |  |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 13:22 - Jul 15 with 2905 views | Guthrum |
| VAR in cricket on 12:42 - Jul 15 by SWGF |
As is mentioned elsewhere, cricket is pretty black/white, yes/no, line decisions. There's no interpretation. |
Not sure looking on replays at contact for a foul is that different to a marginal call as to whether a fielder got his fingers under the ball for a low catch.
Many of the decisions in football ought to be quite mechanical: Was the ball over the line? Did the ball hit the player's arm/hand? was the player with the ball impeded? It's mainly the grey areas of interpretation and rule exploitation which are making a mockery of the system, e.g. "intent" with handballs, or players falling down at the lightest contact. That is where subjectivity has been introduced. | |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 13:22 - Jul 15 with 2907 views | factual_blue |
The checks are all of facts, not opinion. Was it a no ball? Was it line? Was it hitting the stumps? |  |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 13:29 - Jul 15 with 2886 views | Guthrum |
| VAR in cricket on 13:22 - Jul 15 by factual_blue |
The checks are all of facts, not opinion. Was it a no ball? Was it line? Was it hitting the stumps? |
So are most in football: Was the ball across the line? Was the player offside? Was there a contact foul? Was someone the last defender? Did the ball hit the player's hand? | |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 13:58 - Jul 15 with 2842 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
As others have already covered it works well in cricket because the game naturally has a pause anyway and the decisions they are looking for are more fixed and clear cut, rather than fouls/handballs in football which are more subjective. That means the review process can be done a lot quicker than in football
The other reason it works well which I don’t think anyone has mentioned is the umpires call aspect - so only changing a decision when it’s clear cut. If football is going to insist on pushing VAR I think it could learn from this, as most of the recent controversies seem to be where more marginal calls have been overturned. That sort of logic should also speed the process up as not spending minutes analysing whether someone’s toenail is offside
Still feel you’ve inadvertently hit the nail on the head though, as to exactly why VAR can’t work in football |  |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 14:05 - Jul 15 with 2832 views | Guthrum |
| VAR in cricket on 13:58 - Jul 15 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
As others have already covered it works well in cricket because the game naturally has a pause anyway and the decisions they are looking for are more fixed and clear cut, rather than fouls/handballs in football which are more subjective. That means the review process can be done a lot quicker than in football
The other reason it works well which I don’t think anyone has mentioned is the umpires call aspect - so only changing a decision when it’s clear cut. If football is going to insist on pushing VAR I think it could learn from this, as most of the recent controversies seem to be where more marginal calls have been overturned. That sort of logic should also speed the process up as not spending minutes analysing whether someone’s toenail is offside
Still feel you’ve inadvertently hit the nail on the head though, as to exactly why VAR can’t work in football |
Think how frequently a football match stops because the Ref has blown his whistle. This ideal of an uninterrupted flow doesn't entirely reflect the reality on the pitch. | |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 14:31 - Jul 15 with 2803 views | Guthrum |
| VAR in cricket on 14:05 - Jul 15 by Guthrum |
Think how frequently a football match stops because the Ref has blown his whistle. This ideal of an uninterrupted flow doesn't entirely reflect the reality on the pitch. |
Just for a bit of analysis, looking at our last League game, against Leeds:
There were 22 fouls (11 each side)
13 corners
Probably around 20 goal kicks (given there that many shots which did not result in corners)
Five goals were scored
Even before considering throw-ins, injuries, pauses while the 'keeper has ball in hand, etc., that's at least 60 stoppages, which works out as an average of an halt in play every minute-and-a-half.
Football is much more stop-start than people think. | |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 15:04 - Jul 15 with 2766 views | Garv |
| VAR in cricket on 13:29 - Jul 15 by Guthrum |
So are most in football: Was the ball across the line? Was the player offside? Was there a contact foul? Was someone the last defender? Did the ball hit the player's hand? |
Fouls aren't black and white, nor handball.
'Did the ball hit the player's hand?' - Well yes, but does that mean a foul should be given? In most cases, no. | |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 15:07 - Jul 15 with 2759 views | Garv |
| VAR in cricket on 14:31 - Jul 15 by Guthrum |
Just for a bit of analysis, looking at our last League game, against Leeds:
There were 22 fouls (11 each side)
13 corners
Probably around 20 goal kicks (given there that many shots which did not result in corners)
Five goals were scored
Even before considering throw-ins, injuries, pauses while the 'keeper has ball in hand, etc., that's at least 60 stoppages, which works out as an average of an halt in play every minute-and-a-half.
Football is much more stop-start than people think. |
It's stop, and start again fairly quickly. Granted, there's a lot of stoppages as you say, but it's not 'normal' for a football game to stop for 2,3,4 minutes unless there's a bad injury or a big goal/celebration. | |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 15:07 - Jul 15 with 2757 views | ParisBlue |
| VAR in cricket on 14:31 - Jul 15 by Guthrum |
Just for a bit of analysis, looking at our last League game, against Leeds:
There were 22 fouls (11 each side)
13 corners
Probably around 20 goal kicks (given there that many shots which did not result in corners)
Five goals were scored
Even before considering throw-ins, injuries, pauses while the 'keeper has ball in hand, etc., that's at least 60 stoppages, which works out as an average of an halt in play every minute-and-a-half.
Football is much more stop-start than people think. |
Especially if Keith Stroud is the referee... [Post edited 15 Jul 2019 15:23]
| |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 15:17 - Jul 15 with 2745 views | Reuser_is_God |
| VAR in cricket on 13:58 - Jul 15 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
As others have already covered it works well in cricket because the game naturally has a pause anyway and the decisions they are looking for are more fixed and clear cut, rather than fouls/handballs in football which are more subjective. That means the review process can be done a lot quicker than in football
The other reason it works well which I don’t think anyone has mentioned is the umpires call aspect - so only changing a decision when it’s clear cut. If football is going to insist on pushing VAR I think it could learn from this, as most of the recent controversies seem to be where more marginal calls have been overturned. That sort of logic should also speed the process up as not spending minutes analysing whether someone’s toenail is offside
Still feel you’ve inadvertently hit the nail on the head though, as to exactly why VAR can’t work in football |
Yeah, the best thing about DRS (as it's known in cricket) is that their is no interpretation involved. It's clear cut because of the umpire giving his original decision & DRS only overturning a clear mistake.
VAR has a long way to go before being anywhere near as good as DRS, I doubt it'll ever get there to be honest & that may well be just down to the faster nature of football as a game compared to cricket. |  |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 15:30 - Jul 15 with 2728 views | Guthrum |
| VAR in cricket on 15:07 - Jul 15 by Garv |
It's stop, and start again fairly quickly. Granted, there's a lot of stoppages as you say, but it's not 'normal' for a football game to stop for 2,3,4 minutes unless there's a bad injury or a big goal/celebration. |
But only a very small proportion of those stoppages (ought to) justify VAR intervention.
One of the problems with the way it was utilised at the Women's World Cup was that the video team was effectively looking over the on-field Ref's shoulder, seeking out little (sometimes marginal) things she might have missed, then stopping play some time after to deal with them. That's what Assistant Refs are for. VAR referrals should be limited to requests by the Ref for clarification, blatant off-the-ball incidents and perhaps a couple of decision appeals available to each Captain or Manager.
Things like checking offside or the ball crossing the goal line should take seconds, with modern technology. | |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 15:44 - Jul 15 with 2716 views | Radlett_blue |
It's interesting that it appears that the on-field umpires made an error yesterday, when the 4 overthrows via Stokes's outstretched bat should have made England's score from that ball 5, not 6. Overthrows should only be added to runs where the batsmen have crossed before the fielder released the ball and Stokes & partner hadn't crossed at that time. So 6 should have become 5 & who knows what the outcome would then have been.
Credit to the Kiwis for not making a big deal over a controversial, unfortunate incident at the time & apparently not whingeing about if afterwards. |  |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 15:45 - Jul 15 with 2709 views | Guthrum |
| VAR in cricket on 15:04 - Jul 15 by Garv |
Fouls aren't black and white, nor handball.
'Did the ball hit the player's hand?' - Well yes, but does that mean a foul should be given? In most cases, no. |
But there exists a set of criteria based upon which the handball is either a foul or not. It isn't purely arbitrary. A trained, experienced referee can make quick decisions based on running through that mental checklist ("Was his arm out?" "How far was he from the kicker?" etc.). All those criteria are defined and clarified, if not in the rules themselves, at least in the pre-season Referees' briefings.
That checklist can be used with a VAR referral as easily as the on-field Ref doing it, but with the advantages of being able to replay the incident. | |
| |
| VAR in cricket on 15:59 - Jul 15 with 2691 views | Radlett_blue |
| VAR in cricket on 15:45 - Jul 15 by Guthrum |
But there exists a set of criteria based upon which the handball is either a foul or not. It isn't purely arbitrary. A trained, experienced referee can make quick decisions based on running through that mental checklist ("Was his arm out?" "How far was he from the kicker?" etc.). All those criteria are defined and clarified, if not in the rules themselves, at least in the pre-season Referees' briefings.
That checklist can be used with a VAR referral as easily as the on-field Ref doing it, but with the advantages of being able to replay the incident. |
Disagree. While there have long been guidelines issued to referees as to when a ball striking a player's arm is handball, including the distance from the ball and to whether he could have avoided contact, this will always be contentious & open to interpretation. e.g. A player may have his arm out, but the ball strikes his arm after a deflection.
I hate the new interpretation directive on handball as it will lead to far more absurd penalty kicks being given when a goal was highly unlikely to result. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
