So, the ref does not get to check the decision? Just goes on the var crews opinion, is that what you mean?
I thought one of the fundamentals of the VAR set up was that the on-field ref has overall authority? VAR either confirms or refers. However they introduce it, there will be drama
What Toms saying was my belief too. I was hoping that meant that that mean the VAR officials would only doing something when they were sure a mistake had been made but that was only a hope.
How can it be, when nobody is sure? Fairly difficult to rule out with that massive grey area over head.
I remember in the Wolves v Man United FA Cup game the referee sent off Lindelöf (I think) and it was rescinded down to a yellow without the use of a monitor - he just went on the word of the VAR. VAR works better without a monitor pitchside.
It's not the VAR itself that's bad. It's the way they are integrating it into the game. Technically, the Spanish player made contact on the US player with her foot up/out and studs showing. To me, the point of VAR is to assess the actual quality of the contact. Like was it truly bad or was it a bare brush with the player then flopping like a fish? Instead they are using VAR to apply the rules literally. Like to confirm whether that foot was within 1/4 inch of a leg or if it actually touched a leg. If you're going to do that, then you have to VAR everything. But they don't. To me, I feel like you can just grab a player and wrestle them to the ground and if the ref misses it, they miss it. They're not going to VAR the obviously blown calls that could make someone look bad. They're going to VAR the really borderline calls so they can say "Yes, there was contact" or "No the player was .0001 inches onside." Those are actually the plays that are the least bad because they're so close to 50/50 in the first place. VAR isn't helping the officials or overturning awful calls, it's mostly just determining whether .5 +/.00001 should be rounded up or down.
The monitors cause the delay, but they allow the ref to check his decision. I think its more perverse a voice in his ear telling him something he's not sure of.
As said the other day, I think if you make a decision and someone says to you 'you may want to look at that again' then you're already looking for a reason to change your mind which ultimately ends up with with the slightest touch or a handball being given after about 90 seconds of starting at freeze frames on a monitor.
I can see the argument both ways. But imagine reffing a match with a doubt sowed in your mind. That sounds kinda dangerous.
I think they should just get rid of the on-field ref altogether, and have every decision announced by the VAR officials over the PA system. There could be mandatory stoppages every 30 seconds to review what’s just happened. This would allow huge increases in advertising revenue for televised matches, which would more than compensate for the complete absence of paying spectators.
