• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

VAR: Sponsored by Chelsea

"clear and obvious" is a terrible phrase to use, I can look at a Cuneo for 3 hours and not see the mouse, as soon as someone points it out to me it is clear and obvious from that point forward

the daylight suggestion is stupid, it just moves the line
 
jaysea67 said:
IFAB Principles : "1. A video assistant referee (VAR) is a match official, with independent access to match footage, who may assist the referee only in the event of a ‘clear and obvious error’ ..." http://www.theifab.com/projects/vars/principles-practicalities-protocol
Click to expand...

Ah that's interesting. On the radio yesterday someone mentioned that UEFA were so annoyed with the way it's been handled and rolled out that they were thinking of revoking some licences or something. I didn't really understand what they meant but I had always assumed it was just in England that we hated it/implemented it badly and other countries were handling it much better.
 
I don't know what the solution is to be honest. I do get annoyed when I hear people say stuff like "VAR is useless - look at the Maguire decision". That's not VAR, that's the referee and officials. All VAR does is give them a chance to review the incident.

I like the idea of "if the ref can't rule something offside when looking at the replay, goal stands". This drawing of lines is too technical for me. Problem is, that will invite the TV companies to draw lines when they are analysing the game to point out where the ref "got it wrong" and we'll also have inconsistencies because you're allowing interpretation from the ref.

There's no perfect solution here.
 
Scrap the offside rule altogether.
Stretch the game out, create space for
players to play, and reintroduce the obsolete art of goal hanging.
 
DeanoAustin said:
I don't know what the solution is to be honest. I do get annoyed when I hear people say stuff like "VAR is useless - look at the Maguire decision". That's not VAR, that's the referee and officials. All VAR does is give them a chance to review the incident.

I like the idea of "if the ref can't rule something offside when looking at the replay, goal stands". This drawing of lines is too technical for me. Problem is, that will invite the TV companies to draw lines when they are analysing the game to point out where the ref "got it wrong" and we'll also have inconsistencies because you're allowing interpretation from the ref.

There's no perfect solution here.
Click to expand...

The guy who heads it up on Europe said we get it wrong. Ultimately on decisions, if its taking you longer than 2 mins its not clear and obvious so the original decision stand. Thats what its there for and ultimately if that rule was simply applied on all of it there would be alot less issues.
 
galeforce said:
"clear and obvious" is a terrible phrase to use, I can look at a Cuneo for 3 hours and not see the mouse, as soon as someone points it out to me it is clear and obvious from that point forward

the daylight suggestion is stupid, it just moves the line
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure. The attacker times his run to be onside, by what he can see. As it stands he could be onside, but called offside based on the limits of technology. With the daylight suggestion, an on side will never be called offside, but a marginal offside could be onside which favours the attacking side. I think moving the line is a definite advantage in favouring the attacker.
I do however think players will master the art of jumping the offside trap whilst trailing a leg for as long as possible.
 
DeanoAustin said:
I don't know what the solution is to be honest. I do get annoyed when I hear people say stuff like "VAR is useless - look at the Maguire decision". That's not VAR, that's the referee and officials. All VAR does is give them a chance to review the incident.

I like the idea of "if the ref can't rule something offside when looking at the replay, goal stands". This drawing of lines is too technical for me. Problem is, that will invite the TV companies to draw lines when they are analysing the game to point out where the ref "got it wrong" and we'll also have inconsistencies because you're allowing interpretation from the ref.

There's no perfect solution here.
Click to expand...

that doesn't actually matter though
 
Aldo said:
Scrap the offside rule altogether.
Stretch the game out, create space for
players to play, and reintroduce the obsolete art of goal hanging.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see this tried, yes, teams will start by defending deep, but they'll have to attack or get drawn out at some point. It would change the tactics of defending quite a bit but evolution isn't a bad thing.
 
LemonadeMoney said:
I'm not so sure. The attacker times his run to be onside, by what he can see. As it stands he could be onside, but called offside based on the limits of technology. With the daylight suggestion, an on side will never be called offside, but a marginal offside could be onside which favours the attacking side. I think moving the line is a definite advantage in favouring the attacker.
I do however think players will master the art of jumping the offside trap whilst trailing a leg for as long as possible.
Click to expand...

firstly, I fundamentally hate the idea of anything that favours the attacker, defending is football too, there should be balance

secondly, your example works whether it's offside by daylight or mm lines, the decision making factor isn't being changed, merely stretched, also, you could have daylight at some elevations and not at others, feet, knees, waist, etc
 
galeforce said:
that doesn't actually matter though
Click to expand...

It does though because then you have TV analysts bemoaning inconsistencies and those with an agenda saying the same as now "VAR doesn't work".

Then you'll have managers, and ours would probably be the worst offender, using the inconsistencies to deflect blame from bad performances.
 
DeanoAustin said:
It does though because then you have TV analysts bemoaning inconsistencies and those with an agenda saying the same as now "VAR doesn't work".

Then you'll have managers, and ours would probably be the worst offender, using the inconsistencies to deflect blame from bad performances.
Click to expand...

It's just personal opinion, but I don't care what TV analysts think, or anyone who can't see the obvious benefit of VAR for that matter.

I don't care what Jose says or does as long as he gets the results.
 
So it is definitely a huge question mark about the decision making of the officials USING THE VAR TECHNOLOGY - the process, not the system.

Anyone with a basic understanding of processes knows that the best process can be undermined by poor execution. At that point you have to amend the process of it isn't suitable for human use and/or retrain/remove users.

At present, VAR is better than no VAR - there would be more errors without it than with it.

But it seems to me that it is being overused and out of scope,which increases the risk of errors in judgement. It is still a very quick piece of analysis that has to happen, with minimal thinking time.

I think it needs to go back to significant incidents the ref DIDN'T SPOT or a request service where the ref has SIGNIFICANT DOUBT.
This needs the football world to come with it and recognise it as an ASSISTANT, not a SOLVE ALL.
It is here to improve decisions, not police the game. (The design and application by the EPL made it the later, rather than sticking to script).

Sorry for all the caps, couldn't be varsed to use bold
 
monkeybarry said:
So it is definitely a huge question mark about the decision making of the officials USING THE VAR TECHNOLOGY - the process, not the system.

Anyone with a basic understanding of processes knows that the best process can be undermined by poor execution. At that point you have to amend the process of it isn't suitable for human use and/or retrain/remove users.

At present, VAR is better than no VAR - there would be more errors without it than with it.

But it seems to me that it is being overused and out of scope,which increases the risk of errors in judgement. It is still a very quick piece of analysis that has to happen, with minimal thinking time.

I think it needs to go back to significant incidents the ref DIDN'T SPOT or a request service where the ref has SIGNIFICANT DOUBT.
This needs the football world to come with it and recognise it as an ASSISTANT, not a SOLVE ALL.
It is here to improve decisions, not police the game. (The design and application by the EPL made it the later, rather than sticking to script).

Sorry for all the caps, couldn't be varsed to use bold
Click to expand...
I’ll tell you what it needs to stop doing ... using slow mo for foul play that the ref didn’t spot
Use it for offsides but for fouls it makes everything look worse and very very subjective
 
Bedfordspurs said:
I’ll tell you what it needs to stop doing ... using slow mo for foul play that the ref didn’t spot
Use it for offsides but for fouls it makes everything look worse and very very subjective
Click to expand...
That was part of my point re; using as a helping tool where the ref requests further information other than the split second he gets.
And completely agree re; no slow mo. If the benefit of a different angle or just seeing it again doesn't add to the information, then you carry on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back