I actually don’t know what point you are trying to make? That conversation still goes on even with the introduction of VAR. Hasn’t it been brought up many times with some of the Dan James incidents?
Agreed. It’s just one ref’s opinion (on pitch) against another (VAR) and often it’s the on pitch ref’s correct decision in real time that gets overturned by the VAR ref trying to show he’s clever (e.g. Mike Dean) It’s no better with VAR, there are still decisions that could go either way however many times incidents are viewed, so may as well get rid of it and leave it to the on field ref and his assistants.
Half this thread is about the quality of the refs and being hard done by. It’s no different now compared to 30 years ago, in fact despite opinion it’s better now as refs know they’ll be scrutinised, 30 years ago a bad decision would go unnoticed
how about another virtual ref to oversee the video assistant ref who is overseeing the ref !!!......tech isn't it great when it works and a pain in the ass when it ain't....get rid
The same evidence when a player is not up to it.... The old peepers. Believe me there were some shockers 60s and 70s.world cup refs were bent as hell.
Var was supposed to take the doubt away and has not worked. Be far easier for a team to appeal to the ref and he goes to the screen and makes the decision soley. No var ref just a tech running the gear too many cooks as they say.
I didn’t say there were no poor decisions, there still are, just no evidence that refereeing is better now.
Agree. Main issue is if var intervenes it’s always over-turned… which would be fine if they only intervened on clear and obvious rather than vague and spurious. they could learn from cricket or american football maybe. You could give a captain 2 appeals a game to review. If the review is successful you don’t lose it. I also think the cricket concept of umpire’s call is a good one for off-sides. It’s ridiculous to try to assess the precise moment the ball left the passers foot… and then work out if someone’s armpit or nose hair was in front of a defenders bootlace. It was meant to be brought in for clear errors. So you go with linesman or refs original decision, allowing for a reasonable margin for error… whatever that may be… a foot? 18inches? Offside-onside-refs call. Simple’s. They must have looked at these options and concluded they wouldn’t work, but what they have brought in doesn’t.
Let's just go back to how it was, no VAR, ref makes the decision rightly or wrongly Then it's the same for everyone, whether it's a world cup final, sunday league or a bunch of lads on a beach in Brazil.
Thirty years ago a referee was not scrutinised like they are today, they came off the pitch and didn't care, now they know that pundits are going to look at every decision and debate it. Today they have to be fitter, becoming one is harder, they were part timers still up until 2001. Lets flip it, are you saying referees were better 30 years ago? The main point I am trying to make is they are certainly no worse today, it is just modern media has made it easier to complain, debate and scrutinise
The games are much faster today than even say 10 years ago. It's a much harder game to referee nowadays. They do need help and spending vast amounts of time watching rugby league and the way the video refs help I know it can work and work efficiently and quickly. VAR is a shambles of a system.
And this was about as clear as the "hand of god" incident appeared to anybody watching on a 1980's TV. Now picture definition is so much better
Cricket and Tennis, I love the format, like you or someone else pointed out earlier, you get two appeals and you don't lose it if it's successful and cricket with Umpires call is an exceptional way of doing it. I "did" love the way Rugby League operated but they are slowly going downhill with the length of time they are taking. I agree though VAR is a bit of a shambles in its current format.
The other thing I like about rugby league is that a player committing an offence is sin-binned during the game therefore giving an advantage to the team he has offended against and not a subsequent team.
VAR in a test match isn't really an issue, take as long as you want to review the decision, I'll just go and get another beer. In football limiting VAR reviews to clear and questionable decisions would be great rather than every decision. Like it or not refs get their calls right most of the time but everybody can make mistakes and these should be able to be reviewed, as Milky suggests if the captain or manager ask the 4th official with a 15 second time frame.
One of the best uses in rugby league is the video ref can talk to the on field ref directly. For example, the Llorente foul that gave Burnley a free kick on Sunday. The video ref would look at that and just tell the on field ref that it was actually the other way.
