| BCWYWF 05:56 - Oct 27 with 3362 views | BrianTablet |
Live by the sword, die by the sword...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63408599
Personally, I have always opposed VAR, except maybe for goal-line decisions.
Now that it is here though, managers shouldn't really complain when it goes against them, should they?
I still feel that it's killing the spontaneous joy of live football. [Post edited 27 Oct 2022 6:15]
|  |
| |  |
| BCWYWF on 07:29 - Oct 27 with 2741 views | norfsufblue |
That just seemed a ridiculous overkill of a situation...... Glenn Hoddle was dead right when he said fans will stop turning up if they can't celebrate a goal.....personally I think it should go back to the lino calling it.... if Var says he's made an error of more than a foot that's clear and obvious.. disallow it!..... BTW I hate VaR full stop |  | | |
| BCWYWF on 07:55 - Oct 27 with 2634 views | tonybied |
I don't understand why when judging decisions like this they don't allow for a margin of error and if within this margin of error the refs decision stands just like they do in crickets DRS system. Overturning decisions or refs relying on VAR for extremely close decisions is everything that is wrong with VAR. It's been in place long enough to have learned these lessons as well! |  | | |
| BCWYWF on 08:00 - Oct 27 with 2609 views | You_Bloo_Right |
Wasn't VAR brought in, at least in part, to bring more consistency and reduce the number of controversial decisions? Not worked if that is the case.
The technology is not advanced enough to make millimetre/microsecond decisions - TV in this country is filmed at 25 frames per second so freeze the action at one frame and "onside", freeze it at the next "offside" and yet lines are "drawn" on such a frozen frame and "analysis" undertaken.
The best thing they ever did IMO with the wicket reviews in cricket was to introduce the concept of "umpire's call" which not only allowed for the limitations of the technology but also protected the integrity of the on-field arbiter of the game.
If football is going to persist with VAR it needs quite a bit of an overhaul which allows the football equivalent of "umpire's call" as "clear and obvious error" just isn't cutting it as it stands.
Edit: Just seen Tony's reply [Post edited 27 Oct 2022 8:01]
|  |
| |
| BCWYWF on 08:04 - Oct 27 with 2578 views | norfsufblue |
| BCWYWF on 07:55 - Oct 27 by tonybied |
I don't understand why when judging decisions like this they don't allow for a margin of error and if within this margin of error the refs decision stands just like they do in crickets DRS system. Overturning decisions or refs relying on VAR for extremely close decisions is everything that is wrong with VAR. It's been in place long enough to have learned these lessons as well! |
I agree ... crickets DRS has been tinkered with over its short history and they now have it almost spot on..... should always be an umpires call in tight deci so the official remains the sole arbiter... stops them bailing out on making a decision too.
Once the ref gives that goal last night , VAR should only overturn if he's clearly offside and the fact is he wasn't.... should also bring back the very old law that your 'on' if a defender touches it.... if he's not trying to play it deliberately why get in the way? | | | |
| BCWYWF on 08:22 - Oct 27 with 2527 views | Churchman |
| BCWYWF on 08:04 - Oct 27 by norfsufblue |
I agree ... crickets DRS has been tinkered with over its short history and they now have it almost spot on..... should always be an umpires call in tight deci so the official remains the sole arbiter... stops them bailing out on making a decision too.
Once the ref gives that goal last night , VAR should only overturn if he's clearly offside and the fact is he wasn't.... should also bring back the very old law that your 'on' if a defender touches it.... if he's not trying to play it deliberately why get in the way? |
It’s good for cricket, tennis as those sports lend themselves to it.
The pace, spontaneous nature of football for me means there are more minuses to VAR than pluses. It delays the game far too much, first and foremost. Not only that some of the VAR decisions have been strange to say the least so where’s the benefit?
Human error has always been part of the game and the mk1 human eye has always been the best bit of kit available. For me, ditch VAR but keep goal line technology, which is quick and works with certainty. |  | | |
| BCWYWF on 08:28 - Oct 27 with 2501 views | norfsufblue |
| BCWYWF on 08:22 - Oct 27 by Churchman |
It’s good for cricket, tennis as those sports lend themselves to it.
The pace, spontaneous nature of football for me means there are more minuses to VAR than pluses. It delays the game far too much, first and foremost. Not only that some of the VAR decisions have been strange to say the least so where’s the benefit?
Human error has always been part of the game and the mk1 human eye has always been the best bit of kit available. For me, ditch VAR but keep goal line technology, which is quick and works with certainty. |
All in all have to agree... the tinkering I referred to in the case of football should be to ditch it!..... I'd keep it for checking a red card though... that always holds up a game but I would just make the ref go have a look at his own decision without "advice".... he could also review a yellow if he's not sure.... | | | |
| BCWYWF on 08:42 - Oct 27 with 2444 views | tonybied |
| BCWYWF on 08:28 - Oct 27 by norfsufblue |
All in all have to agree... the tinkering I referred to in the case of football should be to ditch it!..... I'd keep it for checking a red card though... that always holds up a game but I would just make the ref go have a look at his own decision without "advice".... he could also review a yellow if he's not sure.... |
Pretty much agree. Keep it for massively wrong decisions, a chance for a referee review if serious foul play was suspected but not witnessed by an official. I would also allow a challenge each half for each team if they feel a goal/penalty decision has been unfairly awarded but as said previously with a margin of error for the refs call. This would be lost if spurious and kept if correct and would have to be decided by the Manager within a short time limit of the decision. [Post edited 27 Oct 2022 8:44]
| | | |
| BCWYWF on 09:15 - Oct 27 with 2335 views | norfsufblue |
| BCWYWF on 08:42 - Oct 27 by tonybied |
Pretty much agree. Keep it for massively wrong decisions, a chance for a referee review if serious foul play was suspected but not witnessed by an official. I would also allow a challenge each half for each team if they feel a goal/penalty decision has been unfairly awarded but as said previously with a margin of error for the refs call. This would be lost if spurious and kept if correct and would have to be decided by the Manager within a short time limit of the decision. [Post edited 27 Oct 2022 8:44]
|
Yes I think the majority of fans would get behind that as a package.... make the captain appeal.... that would stop players running to the ref and hounding their own captain instead hopefully? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| BCWYWF on 10:16 - Oct 27 with 2230 views | Guthrum |
Gives managers something else to blame when their team fails.
Plus there's not much 'spontaneous joy' in losing a game through a poor reffing decision. |  |
| |
| BCWYWF on 11:25 - Oct 27 with 2118 views | BlueNomad |
| BCWYWF on 10:16 - Oct 27 by Guthrum |
Gives managers something else to blame when their team fails.
Plus there's not much 'spontaneous joy' in losing a game through a poor reffing decision. |
Yes, we are still unhappy at Barnsley and Shedd Weds decisions |  | | |
| BCWYWF on 11:36 - Oct 27 with 2082 views | WeWereZombies |
| BCWYWF on 08:42 - Oct 27 by tonybied |
Pretty much agree. Keep it for massively wrong decisions, a chance for a referee review if serious foul play was suspected but not witnessed by an official. I would also allow a challenge each half for each team if they feel a goal/penalty decision has been unfairly awarded but as said previously with a margin of error for the refs call. This would be lost if spurious and kept if correct and would have to be decided by the Manager within a short time limit of the decision. [Post edited 27 Oct 2022 8:44]
|
The limited number of challenges happens in tennis, doesn't it? Seems to have brought some of the playacting on court under control, and I think the mobbing of referees and over reaction to physical challenges is what puts some spectators off football. So rather than introduce long holdups to games (which in itself will favour a weakening team who can benefit from recovery time) it would have been preferable to use VAR to improve conduct as well as decisions. Unless the thinking behind VAR was to get a number of opportunities for ad breaks at high interest moments into televised games ? |  |
| |
| BCWYWF on 12:28 - Oct 27 with 2005 views | Chrisd |
I'd like to do a quick poll with top league managers/coaches and see if they would scrap VAR and simply go back to what the rest of us have to deal with most Saturday afternoons. Lets be fair, there's plenty of moaning on here about refereeing decisions, however I feel this process sits more comfortably with me, you expect mistakes to be made. Ultimately, VAR is the same principal and still remains subjective, but it is a longer drawn out process with the aid of video footage and if anything where it should've got decisions right, it has ultimately over complicated football and muddied the waters.
It will be interesting to see how the World Cup goes in Qatar as it is heavily using technology for decision making for the officials, but perhaps with humans having less involvement this might simplify the the whole process and show that VAR can be effective. |  |
| |
| BCWYWF on 13:15 - Oct 27 with 1894 views | gtsb1966 |
Go back to the sensible days when offside was clear daylight an that's 75% of dodgy var decisions gone . |  | | |
| BCWYWF on 13:18 - Oct 27 with 1884 views | Dyland |
| BCWYWF on 07:29 - Oct 27 by norfsufblue |
That just seemed a ridiculous overkill of a situation...... Glenn Hoddle was dead right when he said fans will stop turning up if they can't celebrate a goal.....personally I think it should go back to the lino calling it.... if Var says he's made an error of more than a foot that's clear and obvious.. disallow it!..... BTW I hate VaR full stop |
Indeed. Calling foul for a hand or whatever being just offside is ridiculous and not in the spirit of the thing. If you can't automate the tech for calling offside it needs scrapping. VAR take over a minute a lot of the time so it's not an obvious error. Whoever is in charge of it either doesn't listen to reason or are buffoons, or both. |  |
| |
| BCWYWF on 13:29 - Oct 27 with 1818 views | X0Y0 |
Ultimately, I want games of football decided by legitmate goals. I have never prescribed to the view that 'fans enjoy debating whether a player was offside, as that's part of the game'. I haven't missed debating whether the ball went over the line, at all. I would rather save the discussion for more interesting topics about players, tactics, and half-time pies.
That doesn't mean that VAR is good. It's implementation has been terrible, in particular the people operating it. It should never take minutes to determine if something is 'clear and obvious'. However, VAR is here to stay and the technology will only get better over time. I believe they should have a 10 second limit with a panel of 3 VAR referees who vote on key decisions (when necessary). If all 3 vote against the original deicsion, or maybe a simple majority, then it is overturned. This should be operated in real time to minimise a delay (e.g. they should be watching with lines drawn for the last man).
I hate watching a referee jog across the pitch to watch a replay on their own small TV. There are fewer things less exciting and dramatic for a fan in the stadium. If they did not see enough at the time then it should be deferred to the VAR panel, with an on-field soft decision (as is the case in rugby). [Post edited 27 Oct 2022 13:33]
| | | |
| BCWYWF on 13:35 - Oct 27 with 1757 views | Guthrum |
| BCWYWF on 13:29 - Oct 27 by X0Y0 |
Ultimately, I want games of football decided by legitmate goals. I have never prescribed to the view that 'fans enjoy debating whether a player was offside, as that's part of the game'. I haven't missed debating whether the ball went over the line, at all. I would rather save the discussion for more interesting topics about players, tactics, and half-time pies.
That doesn't mean that VAR is good. It's implementation has been terrible, in particular the people operating it. It should never take minutes to determine if something is 'clear and obvious'. However, VAR is here to stay and the technology will only get better over time. I believe they should have a 10 second limit with a panel of 3 VAR referees who vote on key decisions (when necessary). If all 3 vote against the original deicsion, or maybe a simple majority, then it is overturned. This should be operated in real time to minimise a delay (e.g. they should be watching with lines drawn for the last man).
I hate watching a referee jog across the pitch to watch a replay on their own small TV. There are fewer things less exciting and dramatic for a fan in the stadium. If they did not see enough at the time then it should be deferred to the VAR panel, with an on-field soft decision (as is the case in rugby). [Post edited 27 Oct 2022 13:33]
|
It should work as in Rugby and American Football, where there needs to be clear evidence to overturn the on-field decision. If you're having to rewind the footage 15 times for a marginal call, that's not "clear evidence". | |
| |
| BCWYWF on 13:38 - Oct 27 with 1739 views | X0Y0 |
| BCWYWF on 13:35 - Oct 27 by Guthrum |
It should work as in Rugby and American Football, where there needs to be clear evidence to overturn the on-field decision. If you're having to rewind the footage 15 times for a marginal call, that's not "clear evidence". |
Agreed! | | | |
| BCWYWF on 13:40 - Oct 27 with 1711 views | Dyland |
| BCWYWF on 13:35 - Oct 27 by Guthrum |
It should work as in Rugby and American Football, where there needs to be clear evidence to overturn the on-field decision. If you're having to rewind the footage 15 times for a marginal call, that's not "clear evidence". |
I make you both right. It really isn't a tricky one. The people who run the show are unreasonable fools. | |
| |
| BCWYWF on 13:41 - Oct 27 with 1711 views | Vaughan8 |
I was all for VAR before it came in. However, I believed it was to stop CLEAR AND OBVIOUS errors like Maradona's handball, or Henry's handball vs Ireland etc.
The goalline technology worked so well.
The marginal offsides need to be scrapped. I would "make the lines thicker" so anything that is then overturned means they are a larger way offside (not just a toenail)
This handball rule needs amending.
Also as someone said above, why does the onfield ref have to look at a screen. Once it goes to VAR, the VAR should decide.
A time limit would be good as well. if it takes over 90 seconds it isn't clear and obvious! | | | |
| BCWYWF on 13:42 - Oct 27 with 1711 views | Trequartista |
This example seems to be more of an issue of an interpretation of the offside law rather than VAR.
VAR should remain for 'objective' decisions and removed for 'subjective' decisions, and as offside is an 'objective' decision (in quotes because its not quite objective) it should be changed so there is daylight between attacker and last defender to be offside. Then if a goal is ruled out by the tiniest sliver of daylight, the attacking team can't feel so aggrieved, as the attacker will be clearly offside.
The concept of "only reverse clear and obvious decisions" is nonsense. Clear and obvious to whom? You are just moving the subjective area along the sliding scale. [Post edited 27 Oct 2022 13:46]
|  |
| |
| BCWYWF on 13:49 - Oct 27 with 1663 views | Trequartista |
| BCWYWF on 13:41 - Oct 27 by Vaughan8 |
I was all for VAR before it came in. However, I believed it was to stop CLEAR AND OBVIOUS errors like Maradona's handball, or Henry's handball vs Ireland etc.
The goalline technology worked so well.
The marginal offsides need to be scrapped. I would "make the lines thicker" so anything that is then overturned means they are a larger way offside (not just a toenail)
This handball rule needs amending.
Also as someone said above, why does the onfield ref have to look at a screen. Once it goes to VAR, the VAR should decide.
A time limit would be good as well. if it takes over 90 seconds it isn't clear and obvious! |
The examples you cite are clear and obvious, but there will be examples that are not so clear and obvious, but are still a bit clear and a bit obvious. In other words, it will be open to interpretation just as it would be if there was no clear and obvious. All you've done is moved the grey area along the sliding scale. It's a concept that doesn't work. | |
| |
| BCWYWF on 13:54 - Oct 27 with 1656 views | Trequartista |
| BCWYWF on 13:35 - Oct 27 by Guthrum |
It should work as in Rugby and American Football, where there needs to be clear evidence to overturn the on-field decision. If you're having to rewind the footage 15 times for a marginal call, that's not "clear evidence". |
Example, Bernardo Silva is clearly tripped by a defender's leg on the VAR screen last week. There is no doubt at all about the contact. Referee says penalty, it is clear and obvious to him.
Match of the Day - Danny Murphy suspects Bernardo Silva is looking for the leg to trip over. Not so clear and obvious.
There is no definition of clear and obvious. It's a nonsense. [Post edited 27 Oct 2022 13:54]
| |
| |
| BCWYWF on 15:57 - Oct 27 with 1510 views | BrianTablet |
| BCWYWF on 10:16 - Oct 27 by Guthrum |
Gives managers something else to blame when their team fails.
Plus there's not much 'spontaneous joy' in losing a game through a poor reffing decision. |
The problem is it kills ALL spontaneous joy as you are waiting for VAR to kick in and reverse the goal, penalty, etc. | |
| |
| BCWYWF on 16:22 - Oct 27 with 1465 views | ronnyd |
| BCWYWF on 13:54 - Oct 27 by Trequartista |
Example, Bernardo Silva is clearly tripped by a defender's leg on the VAR screen last week. There is no doubt at all about the contact. Referee says penalty, it is clear and obvious to him.
Match of the Day - Danny Murphy suspects Bernardo Silva is looking for the leg to trip over. Not so clear and obvious.
There is no definition of clear and obvious. It's a nonsense. [Post edited 27 Oct 2022 13:54]
|
For once i agree with Murphy, Silva sticks his left peg out to initiate the contact. | | | |
| BCWYWF on 21:07 - Oct 27 with 1333 views | Guthrum |
| BCWYWF on 13:54 - Oct 27 by Trequartista |
Example, Bernardo Silva is clearly tripped by a defender's leg on the VAR screen last week. There is no doubt at all about the contact. Referee says penalty, it is clear and obvious to him.
Match of the Day - Danny Murphy suspects Bernardo Silva is looking for the leg to trip over. Not so clear and obvious.
There is no definition of clear and obvious. It's a nonsense. [Post edited 27 Oct 2022 13:54]
|
Seems fairly clear to me: A suspicion that Silva was looking to draw the foul - which was then actually committed by the defender - is not good reason to overturn the on-field decision. Unless he was seen to blatantly change direction in order to aim for that leg.
Simulation is where the player goes down without sufficient (or any) contact having been made. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
