Your alternative sounds great but there have been a few occasions when there have been three possible issues with a goal, each of which needs to be checked. Personally I don't see the issue with the players getting cold, nothing is stopping them running around while they wait for a decision and the longest VAR waits are shorter than some injury breaks.
Completely agree with the in-house comment. When VAR was first mooted I was assuming it would be crewed by specialists... or retired referees with a good reputation (if there are any!) In many ways rotating the refs in and out of the booth when they know the situation could be reversed the next week is the worst way of implementing it. Even if a decision is impartial I think it should be seen to be impartial. Hence the need for a different set of officials, or as I said it's a pathway for older refs that perhaps can't run around for 90 mins to still contribute their experience. So yes, make it independent, and probably a slightly different discipline from onfield reffing.
Why, though? Why aren't they happy that the officials are getting decisions right? The ref doesn't get pissed off when a linesman points something out. What's the difference? Why are these useless ****s getting upset about being helped?
I maintain that the problem with applying VAR consistency and effectively is the rules themselves. Most VAR concern the rules for offside, handball and tackling. There are subjective elements to those rules and the application of them. Frequently, the decisions are marginal and ironically, technology often hinders rather than helps - for example slowing down footage, which often distorts it, giving a false impression that a player had more time - and therefore was able to form an intention - re tackling or handball. Or the frame for not be frozen at exactly the right time on trying to establish if a player is a toenail offside. Against that background, it’s hardly surprising so many decisions are controversial, even before you consider whether the officials are competent and impartial. So there needs to be some further thought about the rules first. Simplification may help.
I think that this is one issue, but the major one is a focus on the initial decision. The same thing can happen twice in a match and end up with two different results. That's just silly and doesn't satisfy anyone. The officials should be trying to get things right, not trying to avoid upsetting their mate.
The criteria for a VAR intervention shouldn't be a clear and obvious error...it should be that the decision is inconsistent with the usual application of the laws. Making the laws clearer would help a lot though, as would abolishing awarding a penalty for a foul in the penalty area. Penalties should only be awarded for Dogso or serious foul play anywhere on the pitch.
There a certainly far too many mistakes. I’m not sure I accept that there is widespread bias, although pressure may play a part. Knowing that your decisions will be scrutinised and criticised and that you will get a lot of flak and abuse makes the easy option a lot more likely.
Although I think Forest’s spending was crazy and probably done without much consideration of the rules, the Johnson transfer is a factor which shouldn’t have been overlooked. Selling him when Spurs met their asking price was just considered to be a “business decision”. But aren’t the rules about making sensible business decisions? Had Forest sold him before 30th June for a lesser sum, the transfer would have been taken into account in calculating any losses. As he was sold months later for a higher fee, it wasn’t. But Forest were surely sensibly minimising their losses by waiting, as by doing so they obtained the higher fee nearer to the end of the transfer window. Clubs do this all the time to maximise transfer fees - ask Daniel Levy. It also puts smaller clubs at a further financial disadvantage because it weakens their bargaining position. The message to Forest is that they should have sold for a much lesser fee before 30th June. Ironically therefore, the rules are helping strengthen the financial clout of richer clubs - which is surely not what they should be doing.
To be fair, I once got a DWP letter telling me I needed to attend an interview in 1968 It's amazing that my letter in response was legible due to dripping with so much sarcasm
Even more ludicrous, not one of the numbers was in the correct year But apart from missing the wrong year, decade, century and millennium...
Another way of looking at this is that Forest defrauded Spurs by not complying with the rules in time for the deadline thus allowing for a higher price afterwards. They clearly knew exactly what they were doing and got caught. The rules might need a bit of tweaking but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be enforced. I've understood for a while that the FFP rules are about stopping the historical Big clubs being knocked off their perch....they were just too late to catch Chelsea and Man City.
Funnily enough, from what I've read it seems that Forest's entire defense rests on this argument. It's even being called the 'Johnson Mitigation', which may sound like a cheap adult spy flick, but is actually a serious legal position.
The absurdity of their argument is that they held off on selling Brennan before the June 30th cut off because they 'knew' they'd be able to sell him for even more money later on. Which is absolute nonsense as there was every chance his move to us (or anyone else) would have collapsed at the eleventh hour for any number of reasons and they wouldn't have made a penny to balance the books. This is exactly the sort of reckless, cavalier thinking FFP is trying to stamp out.
If Forest knew they needed to sell him before 30th June to avoid breaking the rules then they should have. Holding off for a higher price and hoping to get around FFP is risky and they’ve paid the price. You say Levy would hold off for the best price but I’m sure he wouldn’t if it meant a points deduction.
Their argument is basically that they were Offside but trying to get onside. Since they were finally onside two months later the Offside law should have been interpreted to say they were always onside.
