I think there is one significant difference between VAR in football, and the use of video replays in sports like cricket. In cricket for example, you take a call which is obviously close and hard to make, such as 'would it have hit the stumps', and the technology provides clarity. Goal-line tech in football does a similar thing, you can always tell when it's needed, and as such, no one ever complains about its use. But VAR in football doesn't necessarily add clarity to obviously unclear situations, it often takes minutes to add no additional clarity and after all the delays you end up with someone making a decision on a subjective call that's no better informed than the ref was when he made a subjective call on the same issue originally, and it seems to be just 50/50 as to which way he goes and the whole thing ends up looking like a farce. Sometimes, it even takes an issue that appears completely simple and adds complexity, like those goals where no one on the defending team has any complaint about it until VAR finds that there was a slight offside or a handball early in the buildup, although those ones seem to be less common than they were a couple of years ago admittedly. I don't think anyone has an issue with technology in general, and I think people would even accept short delays if it was strictly limited to providing clarity where it was lacking and wanted, but in football's format and ruleset there aren't many cases where technology can offer that. Goal line decisions were clearly one such case, but I don't think there are many more.
So VAR would only be used a maximum of 4 times per game? That seems a waste of tech and people - with the people at least they could cover more than one game at a risk of more delay
offside ball in or out of play fouls handball obviously there will still be subjective decisions but it still helps
The refereeing in the championship is even worse than that in the premier league when they decided referees needed help because of the speed of the game.I guess the championship game has progressed, but still stuck with the second grade refs. For me, we have the technology, so why not use it to some degree. Most supporters are of the opinion that VAR has ruined the game in its current format, because the ref is no longer refereeing the game now, which Hans a huge impact on the flow. It should be used to reduce the howlers.The referral system does seem to work in other sports. Not perfect, but better than no technology or the current system in the premier league
I'm not sure how a referral system would work in football but I think it should be looked into, if we are to persevere with VAR. One feature which could be replicated is 'umpire's call' from cricket. (Referee's call, I guess you'd call it). This is brilliantly simple, isn't actually technological at all, and maintains the authority of the on-field official. In the early trials of the use of technology in cricket it became obvious that some decisions were borderline, too close to call or impossible to adjudicate on with certainty. Instead of trying to impose a definitive answer on these calls (which led to arguments similar to subjective VAR decisions), someone had the genius idea of just sticking with what the umpire had called in the first place. Introducing this into VAR would eliminate that nonsense where the referee goes to the pitch side monitor and would be true to the laughably inaccurate claim that is made that VAR is there for clear and obvious errors. I'd still rather bin VAR completely but if it's here to stay then it needs a real overhaul not just slight tweaks and more mealy-mouthed words.
I think there should be a 30 second time limit on a VAR review, if no obvious error can be seen in that time, then the refs decision stands.
Most problems would be solved if people didn’t cheat. Conning the ref has become so common, it is now seen in children’s games. They should have clamped down on it years ago and given out bans. Or at least made a mockery of those players who do cheat. It has made the referee’s job almost impossible and they have become less respected because they will naturally get more decisions wrong. Why anyone would become a referee now astounds me! Don’t get me wrong, there are bad refs out there. But fans/people connected with the game often just need someone to blame on why their team didn’t win. When rugby used it, I used to just be thankful that my favourite sport didn’t. Now, as some have said, it is just inevitable. Anyway, got my dramatic rant out of the way. UTT.
This. 100%. We saw a near perfect example with Morton's sending off. 1 minute their player is acting like his legs broken, then next minute he's running around as normal. And he's got away with it, nothing done or said, other than likely praise from their camp for getting a player sent off. It's so wrong, whichever side does it.
Make all the extra people redundant then and do away with it, because as it stands it is adding very little to the game and taking away an awful lot.
I didn't mean that at all. As has already been said, it is simply another subjective interpretation particularly when it comes to fouls and hand ball. It's a ****ing joke. Over complicating something that doesn't need to be.
We don't know that, look at the incident in the Everton game, everyone knows it wasn't a sending off but VAR still didn't get it right.
It's subjective with the advantage of checking from various angles rather than one angle. It also has the advantage of looking at it at different speeds and more than once. As I have said, the Morton incident was correctly called after the referee understandably got it wrong.
Morton - they looked at it like they would with VAR Calvert-Lewin - I dont know it wasnt a sending off. His foot caught the leg. The question is by how much. It's still a very subjective decision.
I’m not sure about that one, only glancing contact but it was still dangerous. If Calvert Lewins foot is an inch to the side or Clynes leg is an inch further back that’s studs in and potential leg breaker. Remember the contact doesn’t even have to happen if a referee is satisfied that a challenge was reckless and endangered an opponent that in itself is grounds for a red card. I think the guidance referees work from would probably be leaning towards sending him off even if it is very soft. Will be interesting to see if an appeal is successful, I am not sure it will but wouldn’t like to call it, it’s definitely sitting bang in the middle of being subjective one way vs the other.
The big problem with VAR and sendings off, it’s still someone’s opinion, Morton looked like he caught the Wendy that’s why the ref sent him off, same with the Everton player, same with last night, the offside rule uses technology and even though it takes ages it’s correct,
I don’t think it would have been overturned with VAR at all. There’s a difference between a team of refs looking for a clear and obvious error by the on pitch team and a team reviewing the decisions at a later date with no time limit. I think Morton’s red card would have been one of those ones where VAR wouldn’t have sent him off if the ref didn’t spot it, but also wouldn’t have overturned a red card if the referee did send him off.
Maybe VAR should just be used for black & white, yes or no decisions. If it's an opinion then it's just left to the ref on the field
