VAR

[Winston Biscuit]

VAR is f*cking sh*t

[Sanguine]

Another bad night for VAR last night, White's goal should have been given, there has to be a margin of error and the advantage given to the attacker when it's that close, the pictures and frame speed literally aren't available to definitively say she was offside there.

As for the penalty, absolutely crazy that there's nearly five minutes between the "foul" and the penalty actually being taken for an incident that was hardly definitive.

It's going to ruin the football watching experience

Disagree it was a bad night for VAR.

What VAR has shown is that the offside rule is pehaps no longer fit for purpose given the update in Tech. Did White really gain an advantage by being a toe ahead of the defence, if VAR is here to stay then the rule probably needs to be revisited - i.e. maybe a player needs to half a metre ahead for them to be offside or all of a players body needs to be off rather than just half a foot.

As for the foul - agreed the time was stupid but there was also a substitution in that time. No reason why the ref couldn't have viewed the replays whilst that was taking place - 4th official can control the sub. Also, it was clear from the first replay that White's foot was caught by the USA defender's knee - so why they wasted time showing other inconclusive angles, I'll never know.

Agree on both points - I think we're likely to see a 'refinement' of the offside rule to fit the accuracy of the tech.

I've gone into the VAR 'process' on here repeatedly so won't again but the time it takes can be massively reduced if it is used only based on strict protocols.

[Silver Fox]

Refining the existing laws to make VAR work is just admitting that VAR doesn't work

[The Enfield Royal71]

Another bad night for VAR last night, White's goal should have been given, there has to be a margin of error and the advantage given to the attacker when it's that close, the pictures and frame speed literally aren't available to definitively say she was offside there.

As for the penalty, absolutely crazy that there's nearly five minutes between the "foul" and the penalty actually being taken for an incident that was hardly definitive.

It's going to ruin the football watching experience

Disagree it was a bad night for VAR.

What VAR has shown is that the offside rule is pehaps no longer fit for purpose given the update in Tech. Did White really gain an advantage by being a toe ahead of the defence, if VAR is here to stay then the rule probably needs to be revisited - i.e. maybe a player needs to half a metre ahead for them to be offside or all of a players body needs to be off rather than just half a foot.

As for the foul - agreed the time was stupid but there was also a substitution in that time. No reason why the ref couldn't have viewed the replays whilst that was taking place - 4th official can control the sub. Also, it was clear from the first replay that White's foot was caught by the USA defender's knee - so why they wasted time showing other inconclusive angles, I'll never know.

Agree on both points - I think we're likely to see a 'refinement' of the offside rule to fit the accuracy of the tech.

I've gone into the VAR 'process' on here repeatedly so won't again but the time it takes can be massively reduced if it is used only based on strict protocols.

Yep. They need a minute max for it then the original decision stands

[John Madejski's Wallet]

I've gone into the VAR 'process' on here repeatedly so won't again but the time it takes can be massively reduced if it is used only based on strict protocols.

But it won't be.

It's use will be perpetually expanded, these things are always thin edges of a web. I remember when they first started talking about goal line tech and pundits and officials rubbishing the idea that it would be used outfield and that would be ridiculous. But once the tech is there, people will feel aggrieved if they lose a game and there was a minor incident that wasn't VAR'd

[The Enfield Royal71]

Another bad night for VAR last night, White's goal should have been given, there has to be a margin of error and the advantage given to the attacker when it's that close, the pictures and frame speed literally aren't available to definitively say she was offside there.

As for the penalty, absolutely crazy that there's nearly five minutes between the "foul" and the penalty actually being taken for an incident that was hardly definitive.

It's going to ruin the football watching experience

Disagree it was a bad night for VAR.

What VAR has shown is that the offside rule is pehaps no longer fit for purpose given the update in Tech. Did White really gain an advantage by being a toe ahead of the defence, if VAR is here to stay then the rule probably needs to be revisited - i.e. maybe a player needs to half a metre ahead for them to be offside or all of a players body needs to be off rather than just half a foot.

As for the foul - agreed the time was stupid but there was also a substitution in that time. No reason why the ref couldn't have viewed the replays whilst that was taking place - 4th official can control the sub. Also, it was clear from the first replay that White's foot was caught by the USA defender's knee - so why they wasted time showing other inconclusive angles, I'll never know.

Agree on both points - I think we're likely to see a 'refinement' of the offside rule to fit the accuracy of the tech.

I've gone into the VAR 'process' on here repeatedly so won't again but the time it takes can be massively reduced if it is used only based on strict protocols.

Thats exactly what i have been saying to the fa and fifa for a good few years. I would say more and elaborate on it and the specific technology and protocol that sanguine and i are talking about but I am bound by certain laws and NDAs so I can't.

[Royal Rother]

I've gone into the VAR 'process' on here repeatedly so won't again but the time it takes can be massively reduced if it is used only based on strict protocols.

But it won't be.

It's use will be perpetually expanded, these things are always thin edges of a web. I remember when they first started talking about goal line tech and pundits and officials rubbishing the idea that it would be used outfield and that would be ridiculous. But once the tech is there, people will feel aggrieved if they lose a game and there was a minor incident that wasn't VAR'd

Thin edge of a web? That’s a new one.

[Sanguine]

Wasn't quite my point re protocols, so I'll repeat what I've written in earlier posts - DD actually makes a good point for one, if a referee can't make their mind up after a minute or so, then a 'clear and obvious error' has not occurred.

I continue to believe VAR should be used only where the VAR official has taken a view that a clear and obvious error has occurred and that a decision should be changed. VAR officials pings the referee, and says 'I think that a red card incident has occurred'. Referee still makes the final judgement, but it is on the basis of guidance from the VAR officials.

So
- player is apparently tripped in the box
- VAR officials review, and conclude the player was (in their subjective view) fouled, and alerts referee
- Referee reviews incident and if in agreement, within set timeframe, reverses decision.
- If not, original decision stands.

It feels at the moment that VAR is being used where a referee 'might want to take a look at something', which is wrong.

[Whore Jackie]

Still think the interpretation of 'clear and obvious error' is the fundamental flaw in VAR. IMO, the VAR official should only contact the referee if either of these clearly definable issues has arised:

– goal should be overruled if an offside offence has occurred
– player sending off or booking should be overruled for mistaken identity

Everything else should be solely down to the on-field referee, bar goal-line technology.

[Hoop Blah]

Agree on both points - I think we're likely to see a 'refinement' of the offside rule to fit the accuracy of the tech.

I've gone into the VAR 'process' on here repeatedly so won't again but the time it takes can be massively reduced if it is used only based on strict protocols.

They're in place to make sure the decision they get to is correct and they examine all the angles enough times to make sure they don't f**k it up. That has to happen really otherwise there isn't a point in having VAR in the first place.

I agree they looked at the inconclusive angles far too much for the penalty decision though. That was just odd.

Refining the existing laws to make VAR work is just admitting that VAR doesn't work

Exactly, it would be changing the game for the worse to try and make the tech work in a sport that it doesn't really fit very well.

[Hoop Blah]

Wasn't quite my point re protocols, so I'll repeat what I've written in earlier posts - DD actually makes a good point for one, if a referee can't make their mind up after a minute or so, then a 'clear and obvious error' has not occurred.

As I said months, or maybe years, ago, clear and obvious is a massive grey area and is totally subjective.

Football, and it's laws, is based on opinions and once the tech is there it's unrealistic to expect a referee to not review a decision that one side, fan, pundit or journalist might see as clear and obvious as they're going to get absolutely hammered for it if they don't.

I don't think refs have generally taken too long in reviewing the actual footage when they've gone to watch the replays. It's the length of time to get there and have the right replays available that's caused the majority of the delay.

IMO it just doesn't fit and it's already had a negative effect on the game.

[Hoop Blah]

Still think the interpretation of 'clear and obvious error' is the fundamental flaw in VAR. IMO, the VAR official should only contact the referee if either of these clearly definable issues has arised:

– goal should be overruled if an offside offence has occurred
– player sending off or booking should be overruled for mistaken identity

Everything else should be solely down to the on-field referee, bar goal-line technology.

What's the point in not reviewing penalty decisions or goals that were scored (or not scored) because of other infringements though? If you're going to use it you have to use it don't you? Otherwise it'll just become a bit farce with too much focus placed the decisions than the game (which has been happening for years of course, and has only got worse since both VAR and more TV replays have been available).

[Sanguine]

Wasn't quite my point re protocols, so I'll repeat what I've written in earlier posts - DD actually makes a good point for one, if a referee can't make their mind up after a minute or so, then a 'clear and obvious error' has not occurred.

As I said months, or maybe years, ago, clear and obvious is a massive grey area and is totally subjective.

Yep. Not to the extent you suggest, but broadly I agree. A trip in the box, not noticed by the referee, is a clear and obvious error. A dive not picked up is a clear and obvious error. You seem to broadly support more definitive technology like goal-line cameras, but even they have a margin of error of 5mm. But I remain confused why people feel so negative about something that, at worst, gives officials more time and evidence by which to make those subjective decisions, whilst at the same time ensuring that the real howlers get noticed and corrected.

[Hoop Blah]

Wasn't quite my point re protocols, so I'll repeat what I've written in earlier posts - DD actually makes a good point for one, if a referee can't make their mind up after a minute or so, then a 'clear and obvious error' has not occurred.

As I said months, or maybe years, ago, clear and obvious is a massive grey area and is totally subjective.

Yep. Not to the extent you suggest, but broadly I agree. A trip in the box, not noticed by the referee, is a clear and obvious error. A dive not picked up is a clear and obvious error. You seem to broadly support more definitive technology like goal-line cameras, but even they have a margin of error of 5mm. But I remain confused why people feel so negative about something that, at worst, gives officials more time and evidence by which to make those subjective decisions, whilst at the same time ensuring that the real howlers get noticed and corrected.

I think the goal line tech is great. It may have a margin for error but its more accurate than a lino standing up to 100 yards away. It's definitive, it's factual, and it's instant.

I'm negative about VAR and tech that adds to the decision making process for subjective decisions because it interrupts the flow of the game and already has changed the way the game is officiated and will lead to more changes (changes that I see as negative). Some of the law changes had done that already, so it's not just VAR that's responsible for that but I just don't see the need for it in the first place and certainly not at the price I see the game paying in order to implement it.

[tmesis]

One of the reasons it seems so negative as its most common use seems to be to disallow goals, or maybe to see saved penalties retaken. It's cancelling out moments of excitement. It's not really giving much.

Goal-line technology is completely different. It's instant, and seems to resulting in goals being given where previously the defence would have got the benefit of the doubt. I really don't get anyone against it.

[John Madejski's Wallet]

One of the reasons it seems so negative as its most common use seems to be to disallow goals, or maybe to see saved penalties retaken. It's cancelling out moments of excitement. It's not really giving much.

Goal-line technology is completely different. It's instant, and seems to resulting in goals being given where previously the defence would have got the benefit of the doubt. I really don't get anyone against it.

That's pretty spot on tbf

[The Enfield Royal71]

Don't think I have ever seen anybody against goal line technology. Its not a subjective thing though with variables based on fine margins like VAR that the referee has to decide. Its either in or out.

[Snowflake Royal]

Another bad night for VAR last night, White's goal should have been given, there has to be a margin of error and the advantage given to the attacker when it's that close, the pictures and frame speed literally aren't available to definitively say she was offside there.

As for the penalty, absolutely crazy that there's nearly five minutes between the "foul" and the penalty actually being taken for an incident that was hardly definitive.

It's going to ruin the football watching experience

Bad call from the referee. Where else is her arm supposed to be?

Not clear and obvious in a million years.

Human element of Var is poor. Need much more training on what constitutes and referral, and once there, what it takes to overturn a decision.

Poor form.

[Snowflake Royal]

One of the reasons it seems so negative as its most common use seems to be to disallow goals, or maybe to see saved penalties retaken. It's cancelling out moments of excitement. It's not really giving much.

Goal-line technology is completely different. It's instant, and seems to resulting in goals being given where previously the defence would have got the benefit of the doubt. I really don't get anyone against it.

That's pretty spot on tbf

It's a good system being misapplied IMO.

Offsides, great. Although there needs to be a lino's call rule similar in cricket, that if it's within x margin it doesn't count. But when it's referred back to ref's they seem to think that the slightest hint of anything must be given.

So Var is picking up on tenuous claims the ref might have missed, and the ref is giving them purely because of slow mo and the opportunity to look 9 nine times.

If it's factual, don't ask the ref just overturn.

If it's not factual, then if the ref can't see a glaring mistake in two views, it can't be clear and obvious, don't change decision.

[Hendo]

Thinking of a BTTS bet for all Prem games on the opening weekend of the season, it’s going to be carnage, isn’t it?