VAR 11:42 - Sep 4 with 5533 views | mylittletown | As Tony Pulis says: "It's not VAR - let me get this correct. VAR just records the TV footage, it's the people who are running VAR. It's those human beings who are making the decisions. It's the referees stuck in that office, wherever they are, making the decisions." If they were poor referees on the pitch, like Lee Mason, for instance, they are just as poor on the VAR desk. Some of the decisions in the Newcastle, Leeds and Chelsea games were ludicrous. At least Michael Oliver, who is a very good referee, had the bottle to ignore VAR and stick by his original decision in the Forest game. |  | | |  |
VAR on 15:03 - Sep 6 with 631 views | mylittletown |
VAR on 14:56 - Sep 6 by Garv | The people administering it are the same people refereeing the games in the first place, what did everyone expect? It's hilariously stupid. |
Exactly. That's why I think it should be administered by people like Pulis. But the underlying problem is that a lot referees are not very good at their job. |  | |  |
VAR on 15:17 - Sep 6 with 614 views | Bury_St_Edmundson |
VAR on 14:08 - Sep 4 by J2BLUE | By about 3cm. We were told VAR was for clear and obvious errors. When you need to draw lines and use specialist software to create the angles etc it's obviously not clear and obvious. Get rid of VAR for offsides and bring it back when it's fully automated and instant. |
If a video showed an opponent for us, 3cm offside, most of us would be aggrieved. I'm all in favour of VAR, just not it's current implementation. I think there should be: Open comms, like Rugby, so we all know what's going on A number of reviews, like cricket (possibly with a refresh on succesful reviews?) but above all, some blooming consistency |  | |  |
VAR on 15:30 - Sep 6 with 610 views | Radlett_blue | VAR has worked fine at international tournament finals. It seems the way the PL administer it is seriously flawed. Mike Riley has been head of PGMOL for 13 years. He was an irritating, pedantic referee & he seems to have taken the same level of pedantry to VAR. There should be a time limit & if this is exceeded, the original decision stands as it was not a clear & obvious error. VAR should also be restrained from searching for tiny reasons to disallow a goal. Howard Webb is supposed to replace Riley in a few months & we can only hope that this excellent former referee brings some sanity to VAR. |  |
|  |
VAR on 15:33 - Sep 6 with 611 views | Cotty | The rules of football are subjective, so no amount of technology can lead to definitive decisions. And that means that sometimes people, in particular pundits who make their living out of hyperbolic outrage, will disagree with decisions. I would suggest that the percentage of bad decisions has gone down markedly since introducing VAR. For some reason pundits expect it to be right 100% of the time, because it is "technology". |  | |  |
VAR on 15:47 - Sep 6 with 605 views | itfcjoe |
VAR on 15:30 - Sep 6 by Radlett_blue | VAR has worked fine at international tournament finals. It seems the way the PL administer it is seriously flawed. Mike Riley has been head of PGMOL for 13 years. He was an irritating, pedantic referee & he seems to have taken the same level of pedantry to VAR. There should be a time limit & if this is exceeded, the original decision stands as it was not a clear & obvious error. VAR should also be restrained from searching for tiny reasons to disallow a goal. Howard Webb is supposed to replace Riley in a few months & we can only hope that this excellent former referee brings some sanity to VAR. |
Howard Webb has by most accounts done a good job of implementing VAR in the MLS |  |
|  |
VAR on 15:54 - Sep 6 with 581 views | Radlett_blue |
VAR on 15:33 - Sep 6 by Cotty | The rules of football are subjective, so no amount of technology can lead to definitive decisions. And that means that sometimes people, in particular pundits who make their living out of hyperbolic outrage, will disagree with decisions. I would suggest that the percentage of bad decisions has gone down markedly since introducing VAR. For some reason pundits expect it to be right 100% of the time, because it is "technology". |
I get the point of VAR on offiside, which is often a matter of fact, but only if you can put up with the endless deliberation over hair's breadth decisions, where any sane person would say that the attacker was effectively level & so onside. It can be useful for deciding if an offence was committed inside or outside the penalty area. But, as you say, many decisions in football are subjective & a group of pundits often disagree after seeing several replays. VAR is worse than useless in those situations. |  |
|  |
VAR on 15:57 - Sep 6 with 580 views | mylittletown |
VAR on 15:33 - Sep 6 by Cotty | The rules of football are subjective, so no amount of technology can lead to definitive decisions. And that means that sometimes people, in particular pundits who make their living out of hyperbolic outrage, will disagree with decisions. I would suggest that the percentage of bad decisions has gone down markedly since introducing VAR. For some reason pundits expect it to be right 100% of the time, because it is "technology". |
Absolutely. The subjectivity is more common and more complicated than in cricket, but the implementation of DRS has gone from a rather flaky start, to the point where India refused to use it, to having become an essential part of the International game. VAR will get better, pundits will find it harder to challenge and it will eventually lead to a vast improvement in the standard of refereeing. It was very unfortunate that Mike Riley who was a very poor referee was put in charge of VAR. Howard Webb an altogether different calibre of ref might well play a big part in refining the use and administration of the technology. |  | |  |
VAR on 16:00 - Sep 6 with 580 views | itfcjoe |
VAR on 15:54 - Sep 6 by Radlett_blue | I get the point of VAR on offiside, which is often a matter of fact, but only if you can put up with the endless deliberation over hair's breadth decisions, where any sane person would say that the attacker was effectively level & so onside. It can be useful for deciding if an offence was committed inside or outside the penalty area. But, as you say, many decisions in football are subjective & a group of pundits often disagree after seeing several replays. VAR is worse than useless in those situations. |
In Europe they just use thicker lines, so if very tight it will be given as onside and they've loosened it here a bit this season |  |
|  | Login to get fewer ads
VAR on 07:49 - Sep 7 with 492 views | tractorboy1978 |
VAR on 15:33 - Sep 6 by Cotty | The rules of football are subjective, so no amount of technology can lead to definitive decisions. And that means that sometimes people, in particular pundits who make their living out of hyperbolic outrage, will disagree with decisions. I would suggest that the percentage of bad decisions has gone down markedly since introducing VAR. For some reason pundits expect it to be right 100% of the time, because it is "technology". |
I honestly don't remember the number of rank bad decisions being high before VAR. As you say, a lot of the rules are subjective and we had differences of opinion but VAR hasn't solved that. It should always have been used just for goal line decisions and offsides (with thicker lines, more leniency and the traditional 'advantage to the attacker'). [Post edited 7 Sep 2022 7:49]
|  | |  |
VAR on 09:52 - Sep 7 with 474 views | Cotty |
VAR on 07:49 - Sep 7 by tractorboy1978 | I honestly don't remember the number of rank bad decisions being high before VAR. As you say, a lot of the rules are subjective and we had differences of opinion but VAR hasn't solved that. It should always have been used just for goal line decisions and offsides (with thicker lines, more leniency and the traditional 'advantage to the attacker'). [Post edited 7 Sep 2022 7:49]
|
I also think using it for players lamping each other when the referee's back is turned is fair. I'm not overly sure that super slow motion videos of robust tackles really helps anyone though. |  | |  |
VAR on 07:52 - Sep 8 with 394 views | IpswichKnight | Teams should be allowed 2 reviews a game if they think and injustice has happened they can use a review then VAR can come into play. It should also be used to identify red card incidents that the ref might have missed or got wrong. |  | |  |
VAR on 09:03 - Sep 8 with 383 views | NthQldITFC |
VAR on 09:52 - Sep 7 by Cotty | I also think using it for players lamping each other when the referee's back is turned is fair. I'm not overly sure that super slow motion videos of robust tackles really helps anyone though. |
Except never at Accrington. |  |
|  |
VAR on 09:07 - Sep 8 with 381 views | NthQldITFC |
VAR on 15:54 - Sep 6 by Radlett_blue | I get the point of VAR on offiside, which is often a matter of fact, but only if you can put up with the endless deliberation over hair's breadth decisions, where any sane person would say that the attacker was effectively level & so onside. It can be useful for deciding if an offence was committed inside or outside the penalty area. But, as you say, many decisions in football are subjective & a group of pundits often disagree after seeing several replays. VAR is worse than useless in those situations. |
As you say, quite literally worse than useless in the subjective decisions as there can by definition never be an absolutely correct decision. VAR just creates bigger arguments in those cases. Better to leave it to a single referee to get it 'wrong' on those, and let technology handle line-crossing events, ball or player. |  |
|  |
| |