VAR

[BR0B0T]

but if anyone can explain how the lads in the VAR booth couldn’t see that Pogba clearly dived before eventually manufacturing contact with Coasy’s foot I’d really appreciate it.

I don't think I've seen a team complain less about giving away a pen

[Hoop Blah]

I didn’t see all the weekend’s games so have no opinion on the Man City VAR “controversy” but if anyone can explain how the lads in the VAR booth couldn’t see that Pogba clearly dived before eventually manufacturing contact with Coasy’s foot I’d really appreciate it.

The review of Wolves’ goal was also bullshit but at least they somehow managed to get that one right, try as they might to give United a break

I think it's a foul, one that Pogba played for and got, but a foul all the same.

2 minutes to check the Wolves offside, which wasn't even really that close, was a bit rubbish though.

[Hendo]

but if anyone can explain how the lads in the VAR booth couldn’t see that Pogba clearly dived before eventually manufacturing contact with Coasy’s foot I’d really appreciate it.

I don't think I've seen a team complain less about giving away a pen

^this. Sometimes you can tell a lot from the opposition reaction and there was zero complaints from Coady.

[Hoop Blah]

Another joy-sapping moment from VAR yesterday.

I know fans of VAR will say it's the correct decision by the letter of the (revised) law, but that change to the interpretation has only been brought in because of the use of VAR, and, IMO, it's totally against the spirit of the game.

Such moments are not for the good for the game.

Saw an interesting thought on F365 I think, why should one teams fans joy being sapped be worth more than the other teams fans spending the next week (or however long) annoyed at a clear injustice.

I know this instance highlights the inadequecy of a new law but a goal being chalked off by VAR only ends joy slightly slower than those moments where your team have scored and you don't notice the whistle has blown.

Yeah, the joy angle is an absolute nonsense for me.

Joy in this respect is a largely unconscious response not a decision. You'll get the joy anyway, and then either disappointment or more joy. And as you say, it's largely the same - just a bit slower - when compared to looking across to see if the linesman had flagged offside or not.

The new system has flaws that need to be fixed. But that can be achieved incrementally and with experience. Some ambiguous decisions going a way you don't agree with is nothing different to without VAR. And with VAR you have far fewer glaring errors that should have been spotted by the referee or linesman but weren't.

With VAR, there'll never be another Maradona 'hand of god' moment. That is positive.

Agreed, no more hand of god, or Henry, moments is a positive, but I'm still not sure the negative impact on the flow of the game and (for example) the ruling out of goals that are millimetres offside (apparently, because I think the system is too flawed to be that accurate) is a price that's not really worth paying.

In terms to the joy, granted, it might never take away the real moment of elation when a goal is scored. In cricket there is still the joy of getting a wicket even though you know an lbw stands a good chance of being reviewed. It's still a little subdued for an lbw decision verses a knocking out a middle stump, but that could arguably have been the case since the dawn of time.

[Winston Biscuit]

I still want VAR out of the game

sack VAR off and change the offside rule back to the old one where if you are off you are off (rather than this phases of play nonsense)

[WestYorksRoyal]

VAR is a good thing, but it needs to be used more sparingly. Why did they waste time checking Wolves' equaliser yesterday when it was so obvious to everyone watching?

I also think the new handball rule is nonsense, but VAR is ensuring it's implemented properly and is therefore doing its job. The rule is the problem; not VAR.

[Winston Biscuit]

Red card for any player or substitute entering the VOR, even though the closest Premier League ground to the VOR location is 13 miles away

[John Madejski's Wallet]

Is there a running tally of how many goals have been denied by VAR compared to how many pens have been given (that wasn't originally given)?


Alongside sucking all the joy out of the game, is it making it a lower scoring game too?

[Nameless]

Red card for any player or substitute entering the VOR, even though the closest Premier League ground to the VOR location is 13 miles away

That’s a Law of the Game not a Premier League competition rule isn’t it ?
Can’t you just imagine someone like Fergie having a helicopter on standby and dashing down To Stockley Park to have a row with a video,official !

For what it’s worth I think VAR is quite likely to be the death of football. It’s unnecessary, badly implemented and grossly unfair.
Whilst goal line technology is a great addition to the game VAR is an abomination. Sooner they realise it is going to ruin what was a simple game the better.
I also agree that there is a desperate need to revisit and simplify the current offside law.

[Sanguine]

Is there a running tally of how many goals have been denied by VAR compared to how many pens have been given (that wasn't originally given)?


Alongside sucking all the joy out of the game, is it making it a lower scoring game too?

Review here of the success or otherwise of VAR across European Leagues. Dataset not really yet large enough, but this stood out from Italy - Number of incidents correctly overturned after review last season: 117 (59 penalties, 16 red cards, 42 goals). The number of mistakes without VAR would have been 5.75 percent, whereas with it, this dropped to 0.89 percent. Also, over the course of the season, the average time for VAR decisions improved from 1 minute 22 seconds in the first three games to 31.5 seconds over the whole season.

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/blog/es ... his-season

Also good to read that more broadly, VAR appears to have 'pacified' the game, with fewer yellow cards for diving and dissent.

[Hendo]

Red card for any player or substitute entering the VOR, even though the closest Premier League ground to the VOR location is 13 miles away

That’s a Law of the Game not a Premier League competition rule isn’t it ?
Can’t you just imagine someone like Fergie having a helicopter on standby and dashing down To Stockley Park to have a row with a video,official !

For what it’s worth I think VAR is quite likely to be the death of football. It’s unnecessary, badly implemented and grossly unfair.
Whilst goal line technology is a great addition to the game VAR is an abomination. Sooner they realise it is going to ruin what was a simple game the better.
I also agree that there is a desperate need to revisit and simplify the current offside law.

How is it unfair?

[Winston Biscuit]

For what it’s worth I think VAR is quite likely to be the death of football. It’s unnecessary, badly implemented and grossly unfair.
Whilst goal line technology is a great addition to the game VAR is an abomination. Sooner they realise it is going to ruin what was a simple game the better.
I also agree that there is a desperate need to revisit and simplify the current offside law

I dont think it will be the death or think it's unfair, but it's just so utterly sh*t that it will change football to a point where it is even further from the game I enjoy.

[Hoop Blah]

Is there a running tally of how many goals have been denied by VAR compared to how many pens have been given (that wasn't originally given)?


Alongside sucking all the joy out of the game, is it making it a lower scoring game too?

There's a definite imbalance to the way it negatively effects things. The City/Spurs game being a perfect example because they chalked off a goal through the systematic checking of all goals but didn't give the penalty for City because it apparently wasn't a clear and obvious error (in my opinion it was).

Same thing happened at the World Cup when everyone said VAR was a total success. I think England should've had a couple of penalties for fouls that VAR should've awarded but didn't.

[Franchise FC]

Should be renamed GPS - the Goal Prevention System

Just checked my previous posts with VAR - apparently, not the first time I've posted that, either

[Four Of Clubs]

VAR is a good thing, but it needs to be used more sparingly. Why did they waste time checking Wolves' equaliser yesterday when it was so obvious to everyone watching?

I also think the new handball rule is nonsense, but VAR is ensuring it's implemented properly and is therefore doing its job. The rule is the problem; not VAR.

...tweet from our 'secret' friend

https://twitter.com/i/status/1163767835165974528

...hope it's not a 'Dodderick'

[Sanguine]

Is there a running tally of how many goals have been denied by VAR compared to how many pens have been given (that wasn't originally given)?


Alongside sucking all the joy out of the game, is it making it a lower scoring game too?

There's a definite imbalance to the way it negatively effects things. The City/Spurs game being a perfect example because they chalked off a goal through the systematic checking of all goals but didn't give the penalty for City because it apparently wasn't a clear and obvious error (in my opinion it was).

Same thing happened at the World Cup when everyone said VAR was a total success. I think England should've had a couple of penalties for fouls that VAR should've awarded but didn't.

I know I'm repeating myself here, but that's a problem with your perception of what VAR should do, or is designed to do. It gives referees an opportunity to make a 'better' subjective decision - that you happen to think the City incident was a penalty is irrelevant. The referee didn't, subjectively, think that it was, and the VAR officials didn't think that that was a 'clear and obvious' error, subjectively, when they reviewed it. The emphasis remains on disproving the referee's original decision. VAR won't, and isn't designed to, remove all subjectivity from decision-making, or produce only decisions that we can all agree with. It should produce more decisions that we can all agree are correct, by adjusting the obvious errors.

[Hoop Blah]

I know I'm repeating myself here, but that's a problem with your perception of what VAR should do, or is designed to do. It gives referees an opportunity to make a 'better' subjective decision - that you happen to think the City incident was a penalty is irrelevant. The referee didn't, subjectively, think that it was, and the VAR officials didn't think that that was a 'clear and obvious' error, subjectively, when they reviewed it. The emphasis remains on disproving the referee's original decision. VAR won't, and isn't designed to, remove all subjectivity from decision-making, or produce only decisions that we can all agree with. It should produce more decisions that we can all agree are correct, by adjusting the obvious errors.

The imbalance exists because they have to check every goal for every possible infringement and will over rule some.

As you say, they don't do that unless a goal is scored, so there is an imbalance. And rightly so really, because otherwise the game really would be ruined.

In terms of the City penalty claim, apparently it wasn't given because the ref felt the contact wasn't enough to bring him down and, because he fell forward (to my mind the way his momentum and the pressure from the defender would push him), he concluded that it wasn't a foul. The VAR checked his thinking with him and said yeah, fair enough. I think that's a clear and obvious error because I don't agree with it, and neither have most people I've heard talk about it.

It is a subjective decision. This takes us back to the initial conversations around this where you said it would only be clear and obvious errors, but clear and obvious to who? They maintaining the refs position which is great, but if VAR is there to bring in more consistency and accuracy to decisions, then they'll need to come up with a better definition IMO.

[Sanguine]

I know I'm repeating myself here, but that's a problem with your perception of what VAR should do, or is designed to do. It gives referees an opportunity to make a 'better' subjective decision - that you happen to think the City incident was a penalty is irrelevant. The referee didn't, subjectively, think that it was, and the VAR officials didn't think that that was a 'clear and obvious' error, subjectively, when they reviewed it. The emphasis remains on disproving the referee's original decision. VAR won't, and isn't designed to, remove all subjectivity from decision-making, or produce only decisions that we can all agree with. It should produce more decisions that we can all agree are correct, by adjusting the obvious errors.

The imbalance exists because they have to check every goal for every possible infringement and will over rule some.

As you say, they don't do that unless a goal is scored, so there is an imbalance. And rightly so really, because otherwise the game really would be ruined.

In terms of the City penalty claim, apparently it wasn't given because the ref felt the contact wasn't enough to bring him down and, because he fell forward (to my mind the way his momentum and the pressure from the defender would push him), he concluded that it wasn't a foul. The VAR checked his thinking with him and said yeah, fair enough. I think that's a clear and obvious error because I don't agree with it, and neither have most people I've heard talk about it.

It is a subjective decision. This takes us back to the initial conversations around this where you said it would only be clear and obvious errors, but clear and obvious to who? They maintaining the refs position which is great, but if VAR is there to bring in more consistency and accuracy to decisions, then they'll need to come up with a better definition IMO.

Clear and obvious to the officials - my point on this is consistent. It is respect for referees' decisions that is the problem here. Broadly speaking, you suggest you expect VAR, if it worked properly, to agree with all of your opinions, and that therefore because it can't, VAR isn't suitable for football. Which is bizarre.

For the hundredth time, VAR gives officials the opportunity to make better subjective decisions. That doesn't mean you'll always agree with them. But at the same time the technology will correct absolute howlers and/or stuff the on-pitch officials don't see. Which is a good thing.

[Hoop Blah]

Clear and obvious to the officials - my point on this is consistent. It is respect for referees' decisions that is the problem here. Broadly speaking, you suggest you expect VAR, if it worked properly, to agree with all of your opinions, and that therefore because it can't, VAR isn't suitable for football. Which is bizarre.

For the hundredth time, VAR gives officials the opportunity to make better subjective decisions. That doesn't mean you'll always agree with them. But at the same time the technology will correct absolute howlers and/or stuff the on-pitch officials don't see. Which is a good thing.

If it's not agreeing with me, then it's clearly wrong. Surely that's obvious.

[Sanguine]

Separately, I think over time fans will come to understand and accept more and more what VAR is for and when it will be used.

A slightly different idea I had that might help this is a VAR app that fans could download, and to which VAR decisions (I think I read it is broadly 11-12 reviews a game) can be uploaded in real time. Understanding the process behind the scenes and the reasoning behind decisions made would help fans get a grasp on what is occurring on the pitch.