VAR: Sponsored by Chelsea

[MartyFunkhouser]

Did you make up the 98%?

In my mind referees measured on the laws of the game would put them at maximum 80%. If the denominator was the laws and the numerator was the referees getting the match to adhere to them, can you imagine what score they would come up. Every match I see referee's turning blind eyes to fouls, yellows, reds. I then see the big incidences being called incorrectly.

Football decisions using tech isn't as subjective as we're making out. That is if the laws are your guide.

We don't need to get rid of VAR, the technology. We need to be firing people left, right and centre at PGMOL. It needs lifting and shifting back to the FA and it needs new leadership and a proper segmentation of roles. We don't need on-pitch referees sitting in Stockley park. We need them to focus on being better at their specialist discipline. We need proper analysts who live and breathe the laws of the game to be the guide to the refs at Stockley. A team that isn't taking the same KPI's as the referees.

I want to see huge disruption in officiating because we won't see the adjustment on the players and managers side until it happens. We definitely won't be seeing entertaining football with the current officiating. The PL quality has plummeted since Webb took over.

No Sky did a short report of Refs before VAR, ref success rates over an entire season was around 96-98% of making correct decisions

I am not interested in this strive to stop the game for videos in a search for absolute truths about football, I want to see a return to an organic game which is also not so painful to watch.

I don't want to see a disruption in officiating, disruption and complication is why we are where we are, I want the laws and officiating stripped back to how it was and for people to just grow up and stop acting like man children because the ref in the middle made a decision that both sides would be able to argue either way about it being a foul or not.

There is a major flaw with video technology that impacts a game like football and its fundamental aspects of being a contact sport, when I say contact I am not talking about 1960s style fouls I am just talking generic contact which in every single slowmo or freezeframe looks a foul and is punishing simple aspects of play that are not fouls. Its become an absolute joke of a tool

The impact on the viewing experience is horrendous and the games become hugely sanitised with it.

Edit: here is the transcript from the report I saw on Sky

 

[DeanoAustin]

Totally agree, I think we all hope VAR would reduce errors and inconsistency, it's done neither. Referees appear to have been given a free hand with what laws they enforce and still seem to interpret them whichever way they like.
This has allowed managers and players to cheat repeatedly knowing theres a good chance of getting away with it.
This issue has been ignored by the football authorities, clubs and media as their interests are in protecting the product, to my mind it's one of the good things social media has bought to the game as the noise generated by the volume of disapproval on in has forced the issue.

It definitely has. Doesn't mean officials are getting everything right or that there is even a 100% correct decision possible in some instances but, without any doubt, it has reduced errors.

Whether the cost of that reduction is worth the hassle that goes with it is another debate entirely.

 

[Rorschach]

One thing they should immediately stop is the pitch-side review, IMO. If the guys in the studio with a big fudge off monitor and associated tech can't see what's what, then a small screen at the side of the pitch will not illuminate matters any better. Let the VAR tacos make the call.

 

[Lost Mango]

The time it takes is not worth it.

People are much more accepting of one human's error at the speed of the game than 4 humans' errors still at the end of 3 minutes of slow-mo and a dozen camera angles. The subjectivity and innate bias that refs have (too early for a card, he is on a card so can't give him a second yellow yet etc) all remains even if they are not in the heat of the game.

The overall number of decisions being got right has increased but given the number they were getting wrong anyway was so small this hasn't made a significant difference.

And it is also the limitations of when VAR can intervene - can't call back clear and obvious errors for a given or missed yellow card even though that could lead to a red card later for example. It should be all or nothing, and I favour nothing. Just because we have the tech doesn't mean it automatically makes it better or should be used.

 

[Rorschach]

The time it takes is not worth it.

People are much more accepting of one human's error at the speed of the game than 4 humans' errors still at the end of 3 minutes of slow-mo and a dozen camera angles. The subjectivity and innate bias that refs have (too early for a card, he is on a card so can't give him a second yellow yet, it's Spurs etc) all remains even if they are not in the heat of the game.

The overall number of decisions being got right has increased but given the number they were getting wrong anyway was so small this hasn't made a significant difference.

And it is also the limitations of when VAR can intervene - can't call back clear and obvious errors for a given or missed yellow card even though that could lead to a red card later for example. It should be all or nothing, and I favour nothing. Just because we have the tech doesn't mean it automatically makes it better or should be used.

fixed that for you

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

Whether the cost of that reduction is worth the hassle that goes with it is another debate entirely.

Its also making scores of mistakes a season.

There used to be a weekly report on errors from Stockley Park, one journo used to produce it and some weeks it was 5-10 mistakes, recently they admitted 5 errors in one weekend. Its an absolute shocker

Its 100% not worth the faff in my opinion, there was not so much broke about the game for it and given that tech is being used I find it astonishing that its made the game feel worse for it, which I think undoubtedly it has, not just because of the added discourse but the time it is taking to make sometimes the wrong decisions

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

The time it takes is not worth it.

People are much more accepting of one human's error at the speed of the game than 4 humans' errors still at the end of 3 minutes of slow-mo and a dozen camera angles. The subjectivity and innate bias that refs have (too early for a card, he is on a card so can't give him a second yellow yet etc) all remains even if they are not in the heat of the game.

The overall number of decisions being got right has increased but given the number they were getting wrong anyway was so small this hasn't made a significant difference.

And it is also the limitations of when VAR can intervene - can't call back clear and obvious errors for a given or missed yellow card even though that could lead to a red card later for example. It should be all or nothing, and I favour nothing. Just because we have the tech doesn't mean it automatically makes it better or should be used.

This, well said

There are decisions that can only be made in real time IMO given the nature of the sport in which slow mo and still shots make looks fouls when they are not. There have been countless "contact" red card decisions taken either way that look identical because the ref in the video room has made his decision based on his opinion, hence why so many that have been given reds have been identical to those only given Yellow, how does that change from just given that decision to the ref and moving on??? I just don't think it does.

 

[DeanoAustin]

Its also making scores of mistakes a season.

There used to be a weekly report on errors from Stockley Park, one journo used to produce it and some weeks it was 5-10 mistakes, recently they admitted 5 errors in one weekend. Its an absolute shocker

Its 100% not worth the faff in my opinion, there was not so much broke about the game for it and given that tech is being used I find it astonishing that its made the game feel worse for it, which I think undoubtedly it has, not just because of the added discourse but the time it is taking to make sometimes the wrong decisions

There are always going to be mistakes because you have human beings making decisions under huge pressure on incidents that can be interpreted subjectively. It was never going to be perfect. I think I'm correct in saying that they have a 5 person panel evaluating whether the officials got a given decision right or wrong and that often ends up in a 4-1 or 3-2 vote from the news reports I've seen.

So these experts sit and watch it endless times without any pressure and still can't agree.

Officiating is an impossible job and you're being pilloried by people trying to deflect from their own shortcomings no matter what you do.

Personally, at this point, I'd scrap it for everything other than offsides. That will lead to more inaccurate decision making but everything that goes with VAR just isn't worth the hassle for me.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

There are always going to be mistakes because you have human beings making decisions under huge pressure on incidents that can be interpreted subjectively. It was never going to be perfect. I think I'm correct in saying that they have a 5 person panel evaluating whether the officials got a given decision right or wrong and that often ends up in a 4-1 or 3-2 vote from the news reports I've seen.

So these experts sit and watch it endless times without any pressure and still can't agree.

Officiating is an impossible job and you're being pilloried by people trying to deflect from their own shortcomings no matter what you do.

Personally, at this point, I'd scrap it for everything other than offsides. That will lead to more inaccurate decision making but everything that goes with VAR just isn't worth the hassle for me.

I think there is also a human element that is impacting with VAR thats being often over looked and thats the nature of second guessing someones work live on TV as the game plays out, not by Sky but by colleagues and bosses, its one thing have an assessment after that game with your peers to improve, its another to have your work marked in play, there is absolutely no shock therefore that refs are now second guessing their own decision and in some cases not making decisions at risk of it being highlighted as a mistake and allowing VAR to make it for them

I don't know anyone in their work who would love to work in that environment, it would be a shocker.

 

[glasgowspur]

No Sky did a short report of Refs before VAR, ref success rates over an entire season was around 96-98% of making correct decisions

I am not interested in this strive to stop the game for videos in a search for absolute truths about football, I want to see a return to an organic game which is also not so painful to watch.

I don't want to see a disruption in officiating, disruption and complication is why we are where we are, I want the laws and officiating stripped back to how it was and for people to just grow up and stop acting like man children because the ref in the middle made a decision that both sides would be able to argue either way about it being a foul or not.

There is a major flaw with video technology that impacts a game like football and its fundamental aspects of being a contact sport, when I say contact I am not talking about 1960s style fouls I am just talking generic contact which in every single slowmo or freezeframe looks a foul and is punishing simple aspects of play that are not fouls. Its become an absolute joke of a tool

The impact on the viewing experience is horrendous and the games become hugely sanitised with it.

Edit: here is the transcript from the report I saw on Sky

View attachment 22332

I wouldn't trust sky for any info.
Also I would like to know what these decisions are, most decisions made by officials are routine, throw in, goal kicks, corners standard fouls etc, you should expect those to be correct. That pushes the % high.
But then there's the other side, pulling the shirt is supposedly a yellow card, don't think that happens more than 1 in 5, professional foul is the same.
It's when it gets to the really big decisions that the % fall down. Some of those are atrocious.
Mistakes will be made and we need to accept that.
What don't need to and shouldn't accept is the inconsistency and the tbh absolute gaslighting of PGMOL.
If it's a foul one week it's a foul the next week, the spurious and almost 1984 levels of changing the rules every week to fit the decision is incredible.
PGMOL should not reffing the game and running VAR, it should be two different, competing bodies.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

It definitely has. Doesn't mean officials are getting everything right or that there is even a 100% correct decision possible in some instances but, without any doubt, it has reduced errors.

Whether the cost of that reduction is worth the hassle that goes with it is another debate entirely.

I disagree, its resolved errors in some decisions but ignore some situations completely, many decisions particularly in offsides have caused more controversy than at any time in the history of the game. Would many spectators think goals should be disallowed due centimetres of a players anatomy over the line, a few years ago we'd say it was tight and let it go, has that improved the game and does it seem fair

 

[Muttley]

No Sky did a short report of Refs before VAR, ref success rates over an entire season was around 96-98% of making correct decisions

I am not interested in this strive to stop the game for videos in a search for absolute truths about football, I want to see a return to an organic game which is also not so painful to watch.

I don't want to see a disruption in officiating, disruption and complication is why we are where we are, I want the laws and officiating stripped back to how it was and for people to just grow up and stop acting like man children because the ref in the middle made a decision that both sides would be able to argue either way about it being a foul or not.

There is a major flaw with video technology that impacts a game like football and its fundamental aspects of being a contact sport, when I say contact I am not talking about 1960s style fouls I am just talking generic contact which in every single slowmo or freezeframe looks a foul and is punishing simple aspects of play that are not fouls. Its become an absolute joke of a tool

The impact on the viewing experience is horrendous and the games become hugely sanitised with it.

Edit: here is the transcript from the report I saw on Sky

View attachment 22332

Ah, I get it

This is the fox watching over the hen house way of measuring yourself. Refs don't make 5 errors per game if you know the laws of the game. They make absolutely tons of them. Mike Riley came up with these KPIs when he had the job before Webb. There was a load of push back then and there should be now as well. I remember Riley saying after week 6 of the PL one season that there had only been 4 errors. The guy is an absolute disgrace.

Where we may disagree is that I think you can use technology to get back to the spirit of the game if it is used correctly. For a short period you almost need the officials to be quite draconian with it based on the laws. Then you'll see a massive wave of change through the managers and players.

Simplest example is shirt pulling. Just get the video refs to instruct the on pitch refs to hand out yellows for any spotted shirt pull based on what they see using the tech. Let's see how long shirt pulling lasts in the game. I'd give it about 2 weeks if those players knew that they would get caught every time.

Eventually we will get to a really skilful and attractive game if the tech is used proactively. Surely, nobody wants entire matches, league campaigns and even world cups changed by referees incompetence. They are actually changing history when you think about it. It is likely to change our own history this season. Is that fair?

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

I wouldn't trust sky for any info.
Also I would like to know what these decisions are, most decisions made by officials are routine, throw in, goal kicks, corners standard fouls etc, you should expect those to be correct. That pushes the % high.
But then there's the other side, pulling the shirt is supposedly a yellow card, don't think that happens more than 1 in 5, professional foul is the same.
It's when it gets to the really big decisions that the % fall down. Some of those are atrocious.
Mistakes will be made and we need to accept that.
What don't need to and shouldn't accept is the inconsistency and the tbh absolute gaslighting of PGMOL.
If it's a foul one week it's a foul the next week, the spurious and almost 1984 levels of changing the rules every week to fit the decision is incredible.
PGMOL should not reffing the game and running VAR, it should be two different, competing bodies.

The info was from the PGMOL TBF

I don't think it really matters all told, decisions are decisions are decisions, if your getting 96-98% of all decisions right I think you are doing well in a real time scenario.

Ultimately we put far too much gravitas on managers and fans slating refs before VAR which led people to be massively onboard about it and think VAR was some level of decision making Utopia.

Offside and goal line tech, leave it there and let the adults in the room enjoy the game for what it should be

 

[Lost Mango]

@Muttley I don't disagree but do you need the 'live' technology to do this?

If refs and the assistant refs became draconian during the game and retrospective punishments were issued via a panel after then you would achieve the same thing without the delays.

Rugby first used technology for citings after games and it cleaned up a lot of the 'dark arts' around the edges of rucks, mauls and scrums because players knew that it could be seen later, even if missed in a match. Remember Dallaglio talking about it way back and how he had had to adapt his game because there were cameras on the other side on play from the ref.

It could work with tech in game play, but you would need your Stockley Park person to be all over the monitors rather than casually watching for when the ball is in in the area or for issues highlighted by Sky/TNT/Amazon. The camera coverage (and commentary? do VAR have the commentary on or do they listen in silence?) would have to be scrutinised to make sure it was consistent and even then as with the Maddison penalty/dive it remains inconclusive on some things.

If the referee team was all that could make calls during games then that is equal across all matches. If all matches were then scrutinized by a panel that weren't marking their mates homework then that would improve outcomes after.

 

[Lost Mango]

and have some way to hold muppets like Arteta (and Wenger and Ferguson and Moaniho) to account for being so hypocritical over ref decisions.

 

[DeanoAustin]

I disagree, its resolved errors in some decisions but ignore some situations completely, many decisions particularly in offsides have caused more controversy than at any time in the history of the game. Would many spectators think goals should be disallowed due centimetres of a players anatomy over the line, a few years ago we'd say it was tight and let it go, has that improved the game and does it seem fair

There was more tolerance years ago for fine margins. You'd look at it and go "ah he's level, that's on". I never, in all my years, heard "his toe is offside there, how did they allow that". However, you also had some stinking offside decisions that you'd look at and say "that's miles offside, how the f**k are they missing that". They're human, trying to quickly decide with a split second view where the striker is at the point of the ball leaving the team mate's foot. It's incredibly difficult to do with the naked eye at that speed.

Unfortunately, offside isn't subjective. You either are or you aren't. VAR has made a massive improvement to the accuracy of those decisions. Sadly, it sucks some of the joy out of the game.

 

[Muttley]

@Muttley I don't disagree but do you need the 'live' technology to do this?

If refs and the assistant refs became draconian during the game and retrospective punishments were issued via a panel after then you would achieve the same thing without the delays.

Rugby first used technology for citings after games and it cleaned up a lot of the 'dark arts' around the edges of rucks, mauls and scrums because players knew that it could be seen later, even if missed in a match. Remember Dallaglio talking about it way back and how he had had to adapt his game because there were cameras on the other side on play from the ref.

It could work with tech in game play, but you would need your Stockley Park person to be all over the monitors rather than casually watching for when the ball is in in the area or for issues highlighted by Sky/TNT/Amazon. The camera coverage (and commentary? do VAR have the commentary on or do they listen in silence?) would have to be scrutinised to make sure it was consistent and even then as with the Maddison penalty/dive it remains inconclusive on some things.

If the referee team was all that could make calls during games then that is equal across all matches. If all matches were then scrutinized by a panel that weren't marking their mates homework then that would improve outcomes after.

It's an interesting concept.

One difference I often explain between football and rugby is substitutions. In rugby one player gets off the pitch quickly but the one that enters needs to be seen to be making an effort to get into position. If they don't then the game continues and it could cost them. Doesn't even occur to the players to time waste, get any adulation from the crowd or go to the point on the pitch that takes longest to head off the pitch. It's because rugby has way more class about it and the players and fans would get one their backs for not getting into position. I can remember a ref getting stick because he hadn't allowed a sub who was making every effort to get on the pitch time to set. It cost a try. That was such a rare moment.

I also like your point about retrospective action especially with yellows. I'm all for the video refs having a look at an incident and then advising the on pitch ref to brandish a yellows up to a minute later. Coud be as innocuous as kicking the ball or not retreating 10 yards when they know they should.

Whilst I'm really tough on the officials, I would be all over these players and managers if the officials went down the path of enforcing the laws. That is with or without tech. They simply don't seem to have the directive or motivation to do so.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

There was more tolerance years ago for fine margins. You'd look at it and go "ah he's level, that's on". I never, in all my years, heard "his toe is offside there, how did they allow that". However, you also had some stinking offside decisions that you'd look at and say "that's miles offside, how the f**k are they missing that". They're human, trying to quickly decide with a split second view where the striker is at the point of the ball leaving the team mate's foot. It's incredibly difficult to do with the naked eye at that speed.

Unfortunately, offside isn't subjective. You either are or you aren't. VAR has made a massive improvement to the accuracy of those decisions. Sadly, it sucks some of the joy out of the game.

Be a very simple solution to that, make the law to space between the bodies as with the whole ball must be over the line. There is no way calls should be made on the level of contact, I've been hit my falling wardrobe and stayed upright and felled by brushing a chair.

 

[Muttley]

Be a very simple solution to that, make the law to space between the bodies as with the whole ball must be over the line. There is no way calls should be made on the level of contact, I've been hit my falling wardrobe and stayed upright and felled by brushing a chair.

I think you just draw the 2 VAR lines and if it is 50cm (pick a number) or less then it is level. After all the laws of the game say level is onside. VAR has removed the ability to have level as onside. This should have been implemented from the start in my opinion.

 

[DeanoAustin]

I think you just draw the 2 VAR lines and if it is 50cm (pick a number) or less then it is level. After all the laws of the game say level is onside. VAR has removed the ability to have level as onside. This should have been implemented from the start in my opinion.

All you're doing is moving the threshold and giving a bit more leeway to the attacker. You'll still have people moaning that it's marginal so shouldn't be offside.