VAR: Sponsored by Chelsea

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Whats the stats so far on successfully reviewed decisions? In that I mean decisions the Ref got wrong that were overturned?

There have been a number of decisions VAR has missed, we have had 2 in one England game alone which were not debatable were both pure penalties. I would imagine the decisions correctly overturned are pretty much on par with the things missed, which for me is a huge hole in the system and why it was introduced.

Good idea, badly implemented, BADLY

I dont have stats to hand, and am not sure about decisions being overturned.

What I am sure about is decisions being made and being validated as correct.

Kanes 3rd yesterday, relying on the linesman was a 50/50 offside call. VAR confirmed it was a completely legitimate goal. Without VAR it could go either way, with its been given correctly.

I think more penalties are being given, legitimately, that again would have been 50/50 otherwise.

But, I agree, there have also been a number of glaring omissions - and that the implementation is poor. Little point me saying what I think should happen for the nth time, its in here enough - but I am pleased it is at least a degree better than what we had in the league cup earlier this year.

Im hoping a proper review post the WC will lead them to further sensible improvements.

 

[mudshark]

Not being used in the PL next season. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43755203

I thought I read something recently that said it was going to be used after all. Maybe it was from 2019-20 they were talking about.

 

[r-u-s-x]

The game is disrupted anyway. VAR really isnt adding anything in that respect. If a decision is debatable, how long to players spend arguing with and crowding the ref?

At least with VAR the decision is more conclusive. And yes, while mistakes are still made, they are significantly reduced.

We don't go into new phases and call decisions back for example VAR is changing the game and when it picks up some obvious things and not others it's more frustrating than when mistakes are made presently.

You and many others look at the way VAR has performed and think its proved you right, me and many others see the same performance and think its proved that it doesn't work.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

It is not uncommon now for refs to let play develop after a foul and then call the game back to that point when that phase is over. So whats the difference?

I dont think its proved me "right". I think it is highly flawed. However, I seem to be one of only a few that isnt looking at it right now thinking that is the final product.

Im a big advocate of the whole point of it - IE - more correct decisions.

That makes for a fairer game, and, IMHO, a better game.

Ive argued in its favour here based upon that, and the fact most of the arguments against are frankly nonsense. They dont stack up.

"The game doesnt flow any more" - it doesnt anyway. The game is more stopped than started now, particularly due to gamesmanship and arguing with refs, two things VAR should put straight.

"Its not getting everything right" - who thought it would? Especially at this point, that was never going to happen. It is, however, getting MORE right, and the results have been a fair reflection of that (IMO).

"The stoppages are too long" - no, they arent. Kane waited near 3 minutes to take a penalty yesterday, and that was nothing to do with VAR. The game is constantly stopped and stalled. And you know what? Even if is does take a minute to get something right - its worth it for the right outcome.


Clearly there are issues. Refs arent adopting it consistently, and they still have this silliness around the on field ref being the only decision maker - but I think this WC has already proven the value of VAR. We just need to find an implementation that works better.


For me:
1) open mic communication between the refs, lets hear why decisions are made
2) video ref is a qualified ref, he is part of the team, let him make decisions - its faster
3) video ref can call things out in real time, or indeed the on field ref can ask for verification on things. As I said, its a team game.

 

[Gutter Boy]

A lot of these attempted 'patches' still screws over the most important fans - those inside the ground

The only thing VAR gives them is an opportunity to go for a nice long brick 3 or 4 times during the match, without having to miss anything

 

[r-u-s-x]

It is not uncommon now for refs to let play develop after a foul and then call the game back to that point when that phase is over. So whats the difference?

I dont think its proved me "right". I think it is highly flawed. However, I seem to be one of only a few that isnt looking at it right now thinking that is the final product.

Im a big advocate of the whole point of it - IE - more correct decisions.

That makes for a fairer game, and, IMHO, a better game.

Ive argued in its favour here based upon that, and the fact most of the arguments against are frankly nonsense. They dont stack up.

"The game doesnt flow any more" - it doesnt anyway. The game is more stopped than started now, particularly due to gamesmanship and arguing with refs, two things VAR should put straight.

"Its not getting everything right" - who thought it would? Especially at this point, that was never going to happen. It is, however, getting MORE right, and the results have been a fair reflection of that (IMO).

"The stoppages are too long" - no, they arent. Kane waited near 3 minutes to take a penalty yesterday, and that was nothing to do with VAR. The game is constantly stopped and stalled. And you know what? Even if is does take a minute to get something right - its worth it for the right outcome.


Clearly there are issues. Refs arent adopting it consistently, and they still have this silliness around the on field ref being the only decision maker - but I think this WC has already proven the value of VAR. We just need to find an implementation that works better.


For me:
1) open mic communication between the refs, lets hear why decisions are made
2) video ref is a qualified ref, he is part of the team, let him make decisions - its faster
3) video ref can call things out in real time, or indeed the on field ref can ask for verification on things. As I said, its a team game.

it is very uncommon for a ref to allow the play to go into another phase and call the ball back, in fact once you are into another phase in fact the laws seem to say the next few seconds https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_5_the_referee_en_47411.pdf

Why would VAR mean less arguing and gamesmanship? Do you think there has been less of this in this WC?

You do not agree but many see it as being less fair if it is only able to correct some decisions, ask the Serbs if they think that VAR made their game fairer.

yes it does take too long - just because it took 3 minutes for Kanes penalty that is something to fix not use as justification to make similar length stoppages.

 

[milo]

A lot of these attempted 'patches' still screws over the most important fans - those inside the ground

The only thing VAR gives them is an opportunity to go for a nice long brick 3 or 4 times during the match, without having to miss anything

The same fans who often see the wrong player punished or fouls go unpunished.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

it is very uncommon for a ref to allow the play to go into another phase and call the ball back, in fact once you are into another phase in fact the laws seem to say the next few seconds https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_5_the_referee_en_47411.pdf

Why would VAR mean less arguing and gamesmanship? Do you think there has been less of this in this WC?

You do not agree but many see it as being less fair if it is only able to correct some decisions, ask the Serbs if they think that VAR made their game fairer.

yes it does take too long - just because it took 3 minutes for Kanes penalty that is something to fix not use as justification to make similar length stoppages.

Im not going to argue about phases, thats a level of pedantry I just havent the interest in. The point was - the ref will allow play to develop and call it back now. I really dont see the difference.

If, when things are working properly, the "eye in the sky" punishes the gamesmanship, it will reduce as a consequence. Players get away with only what they can.

Why would there be less arguing? Because if the decision is proven, what is there to argue about? All the time the on field ref is doing everything alone, he is fallible and potentially unsure of himself. VAR removes that, there is no argument, move along.

Of course, these are things that will take a little time to really make an effect, but they are an inevitable consequence IMO.

The idea of fairness makes no sense to me, some teams havent had the benefit, so lets throw it all out? Baby and bathwater? Come on, thats weak. Logically, the longer VAR continues, the more it is refined, the less these things happen.

I would rather the Serbs were unfortunate, but other teams got better decisions, than everyone was stuck with the lottery of poor refereeing as it stands. Especially while holding the belief it should improve further still.

Not all VAR stoppages have been excessive, and Ive found the wait worth it in most cases. Though, as Ive already argued, with time and refinement it should happen faster - so that basically nullifies the argument anyway. There are already excessive stoppages in games without VAR, I dont really see why people are so up in arms on this.

As Ive said, I dont think the implementation is especially good right now. I do think its running better than we saw domestically, and should continue to improve - so Im willing to take a little rough right now in the hope of better times ahead.

 

[milo]

Why would there be less arguing? Because if the decision is proven, what is there to argue about? All the time the on field ref is doing everything alone, he is fallible and potentially unsure of himself. VAR removes that, there is no argument, move along.

One possible advantage that occurred to me earlier is that decisions being taken/referred to an official who isn't in the ground may reduce the effectiveness of the ref being influenced / intimidated by players, managers and fans.

 

[parklane1]

A lot of these attempted 'patches' still screws over the most important fans - those inside the ground

The only thing VAR gives them is an opportunity to go for a nice long brick 3 or 4 times during the match, without having to miss anything

The fans inside the ground do not seem to matter to some folks, those couch potatoes sat in their living room eating Pizza and drinking cans of beer etc are probably more informed about what the hell is happening, at least the TV is trying to work out what is happening to keep them abreast of the latest fudge up/decision.

Those sat at the game do not know what is happening most of the time with this VAR nonsense but A who gives a brick about those who actually go to games, its all about keeping the couch potatoes happy. Saying that i do know a few who do not go to matches anymore and they are of the same opinion, VAR does not add to the game.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Im not going to argue about phases, thats a level of pedantry I just havent the interest in. The point was - the ref will allow play to develop and call it back now. I really dont see the difference.

If, when things are working properly, the "eye in the sky" punishes the gamesmanship, it will reduce as a consequence. Players get away with only what they can.

Why would there be less arguing? Because if the decision is proven, what is there to argue about? All the time the on field ref is doing everything alone, he is fallible and potentially unsure of himself. VAR removes that, there is no argument, move along.

Of course, these are things that will take a little time to really make an effect, but they are an inevitable consequence IMO.

The idea of fairness makes no sense to me, some teams havent had the benefit, so lets throw it all out? Baby and bathwater? Come on, thats weak. Logically, the longer VAR continues, the more it is refined, the less these things happen.

I would rather the Serbs were unfortunate, but other teams got better decisions, than everyone was stuck with the lottery of poor refereeing as it stands. Especially while holding the belief it should improve further still.

Not all VAR stoppages have been excessive, and Ive found the wait worth it in most cases. Though, as Ive already argued, with time and refinement it should happen faster - so that basically nullifies the argument anyway. There are already excessive stoppages in games without VAR, I dont really see why people are sop in arms on this.

As Ive said, I dont think the implementation is especially good right now. I do think its running better than we saw domestically, and should continue to improve - so Im willing to take a little rough right now in the hope of better times ahead.

there really is no argument regarding phases of play, if you have seen something called back after 5 seconds (tops) share otherwise demonstrably this is a key difference to how we are currently reffed and its detrimental to the game - i do see a difference.

a lot of your conclusions seem to be how it will be used in the future rather than now - in this future the good gets better while the bad gets removed, I think the opposite is as likely so probably best to judge on what we are seeing. VAR was used yesterday and still 3 minutes of arguing for the penalty, there is more gamesmanship in this WC than others - VAR is being used. Where contact equals foul the use of slow motion and replays are more likely to see this contact so more diving.

you want to bring in a system that changes the game as much as VAR does then the positives need to outweigh the negatives for me and many others this WC has shown that it does not.

 

[milo]

How many VAR decisions at this World Cup have taken longer than a West Brom goal kick?

 

[r-u-s-x]

How many VAR decisions at this World Cup have taken longer than a West Brom goal kick?

so you sort that out - enforce / reintroduce 5 seconds - this is not an argument for VAR.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

there really is no argument regarding phases of play, if you have seen something called back after 5 seconds (tops) share otherwise demonstrably this is a key difference to how we are currently reffed and its detrimental to the game - i do see a difference.

a lot of your conclusions seem to be how it will be used in the future rather than now - in this future the good gets better while the bad gets removed, I think the opposite is as likely so probably best to judge on what we are seeing. VAR was used yesterday and still 3 minutes of arguing for the penalty, there is more gamesmanship in this WC than others - VAR is being used. Where contact equals foul the use of slow motion and replays are more likely to see this contact so more diving.

you want to bring in a system that changes the game as much as VAR does then the positives need to outweigh the negatives for me and many others this WC has shown that it does not.

If the result is the correct decision being made, I can live with the game being called back. Genuinely doesnt bother me, and I think if you are honest it wouldnt bother you enough to not have VAR if the system was effective.

Why, when the implementation has already improved from our domestic use to the WC use, would further improvement not be likely? There is nothing to back it up, other than the conclusion you have decided you prefer.

The system is new, it will take time to be accepted (clearly, look at this thread!). Why do you look at this very small sample as conclusive?

It can only possibly be conclusive if
a) it doesnt improve further, and
b) players continue to play under "old rules" and ignore it.

As Ive said, its already improved in the space of a year, so a) seems somewhat willfull rather than actual.

And b) will most certainly change if the authorities back the refs to enforce it. With a faster, more conclusive VAR system , I see no reason why it shouldnt.

Frankly, if it carried on as implemented now (and I hope not) I still see no reason why it shouldnt change the way players behave, providing refs enforce the law.

Ultimately the quality of refereeing is shocking. Poor decisions are made regualarly throughout every game, the ref is ill equipped to keep up with the pace of the game and keep 22 players in check and under watch.

We have been the victim of some absolute shockers. Just as we have seen the like of Clattenberg even admit to "managing the narrative" of a game (Im sure that was the term he used).

Who actually wants that brickshow to continue?

VAR is far from perfect right now, but if it leads to even just the big decisions being made right, then I am all for it.

 

[milo]

so you sort that out - enforce / reintroduce 5 seconds - this is not an argument for VAR.

I was being facetious.

As other have said, there are plenty of breaks in play already. Teams exploit them to regroup and disrupt the opposition. The best argument for VAR is that it will reduce the number of mistakes, which it is. It is early days, it will get better and we will get used to it.

 

[milo]

If the result is the correct decision being made, I can live with the game being called back. Genuinely doesnt bother me, and I think if you are honest it wouldnt bother you enough to not have VAR if the system was effective.

Why, when the implementation has already improved from our domestic use to the WC use, would further improvement not be likely? There is nothing to back it up, other than the conclusion you have decided you prefer.

The system is new, it will take time to be accepted (clearly, look at this thread!). Why do you look at this very small sample as conclusive?

It can only possibly be conclusive if
a) it doesnt improve further, and
b) players continue to play under "old rules" and ignore it.

As Ive said, its already improved in the space of a year, so a) seems somewhat willfull rather than actual.

And b) will most certainly change if the authorities back the refs to enforce it. With a faster, more conclusive VAR system , I see no reason why it shouldnt.

Frankly, if it carried on as implemented now (and I hope not) I still see no reason why it shouldnt change the way players behave, providing refs enforce the law.

Ultimately the quality of refereeing is shocking. Poor decisions are made regualarly throughout every game, the ref is ill equipped to keep up with the pace of the game and keep 22 players in check and under watch.

We have been the victim of some absolute shockers. Just as we have seen the like of Clattenberg even admit to "managing the narrative" of a game (Im sure that was the term he used).

Who actually wants that brickshow to continue?

VAR is far from perfect right now, but if it leads to even just the big decisions being made right, then I am all for it.

It will be interesting to see how its use improves in the knockout rounds. The poorer refs tend to drop away at the group stage and only the more experienced remain. A smaller group of more experienced referees should see greater consistency in its use.

 

[StephenH]

Still very early days for VAR.
Needs to be given time.

 

[milo]

Still very early days for VAR.
Needs to be given time.

And then a couple more minutes to review the decision

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

It will be interesting to see how its use improves in the knockout rounds. The poorer refs tend to drop away at the group stage and only the more experienced remain. A smaller group of more experienced referees should see greater consistency in its use.

I would certainly hope so. For England the ref yesterday seemed ok, let a bit much go for my liking but was generally good (Belgian, I think). The ref on the Tunisia game (Columbian?) was utterly shocking though.

With stronger/better refs Id like to see how it goes.

 

[Spur of the moment]

The Panama game seemingly raised one potentially unsuspected outcome following the introduction of the video assistant ref.

Every VAR decision that went against Panama was accompanied by an horrific but masterful display in the dark arts of gamesmanship. Maybe that is how they behave all the time, I wouldn't know, but it seemed like they took every VAR hold-up as an added Ghod-given opportunity to go into full-on obstreperous mode. They put so much into it I fear they may just have set a precedent for others to follow.

If VAR does end up opening the door to more of that sort of nonsense then the game will become considerably the poorer and we the fans will be the ones to suffer most.