I like the idea of a time limit imposed for sure. I also think that I decision needs to be blatantly wrong to be overturned. So none of this 'well on the 6th angle in super slow mo there was a slight touch' bollocks.
The Watford goal could have been done my way, in 10 seconds with nobody knowing until the referee blew his whistle and seated us a free kick. If we have minutes involved, I think it will kill the game.
It's been hugely encouraging so far. Not perfect, but hugely encouraging. In my view it works better at this early stage than it did in cricket, and a few years down the line it now works fine in cricket. A tweak here and there - indeed, only just recently, they tweaked it a little more - to constantly improve it. I see no reason why football wouldn't do the same. The fundamental key aspect is the 'clear and obvious mistake' aspect. This does two things. Firstly, it forces the referee to continue to have a make a decision. They can't just shirk out, and wait for technology to give an answer. Secondly, it means that the marginal decision don't get overturned, leaving circa half of fans confused (ie those who agreed with the original decision). Re-refereeing decisions that are hugely subjective, with a real differing of opinion, just does not work. Cricket has proved that. Only if the decision is clearly wrong, does it get overturned.
This is my post from pool board last night for those interested: As you can probably tell () I'm not keen on it at all but if it is to come in I would follow these basic set of rules: - Only the officials can initiate a review. - The final decision rests with the official on the pitch. - Only clear errors should be overturned, nothing too subjective. - Refs should be discouraged from using it reguarly. - None of this reviewing every single goal bollocks. - Players asking for a decision to be reviewed should be booked immediately and refs should take a no warning, no tolerance approach to this. - Keep it to basic decisions. Even then I'd still rather not have it as I don't understand how far you can look back to look for a mistake in awarding a goal for example. Could be farcical with offsides too as discussed on here the other day.
Primarily after the event for retrospective action. The VAR thing itself just seems so simple to fix I find it hard to credit how badly it's been introduced in the first place.
In the NFL they have "booth reviews" where an Umpire sitting in the stadium has multiple angles to look at a play, and then can make a call down to the on field Umpire to have a look. Yes the NFL is a 3 hour long game and people are used to that with multiple stoppages, but there can be many reviews in a game that are often sorted out quickly. Yes it may take the joy out of scoring a goal at first, but I bet it feels a whole lot better when the opposing teams scores in stoppage time only for it to be overturned.
I'm not against it, but for the Liverpool WBA game there was some oddities: - who picks the angles? Salah looked a pk at the side angle but not as much on the wider angle imo. - were they watching it in slo-mo (as per the tv) which is odd as it distorts everything. That said, gonna be bored of players doing the VAR review signal anytime anything happens!
Not disagreeing, how would this have prevented the Watford 'goal' the ref didn't seem to think twice in awarding it.
The poor communication with the crowd is the biggest problem so far and even the TV commentators don’t seem to have a clue what is going on. The refs need to have a crowd mic like in Rugby/NFL to say that the incident is being reviewed and the reason for that review. They can then announce the decision to everyone once the review is complete. If it can be shown on the TV screens then even better, lets treat everyone like adults.
Not sure exactly and maybe it wouldn't but something that basic should be spotted by the match officials anyway, which brings me to the biggest problem imo.
I don't want to stay in the ground up to ? (10 or more) Minutes after the end just because those watching on telly want the game sanitised. Live sport for me warts n'all. I voted no but maybe I should want it,so long as non league doesn't get roped in.
For me I'm not too sure what the fourth officials role is apart from holding up a couple of boards and getting sworn at my managers. Is it too much to expect him to watch the game on video pitchside (rather than some office near Gatwick) and straight away pick up on incidents
This fence is a bit sore! Considering we've had two major mistakes which could've been fixed by VAR I still find myself resistive to it's introduction. It needs to be limited defined on field events with only the ref able to instigate it. A VAR official should be monitoring events and able to communicate quickly to the ref. If it takes 10 looks and 3+ mins to make a decision it's probally best not to have instigated it and gone with thr ref's original one. If players or managers make the 'box' sign they should be booked (mind you I reckon thay should be booked for making the 'card' sign). This is not Cricket, American fancy dan footy, Rugby or Tennis. Learn but don't think you can just transfer tech and stuff across directly (eg the attitude of Football players to the ref is sadly very different to those in other sports). Make retospective punishments for cheating, I don't believe allowing someone whos scored a goal with their hand then sought the acclaim of his team and supporters should be let off scott free and allowed to keep the goal as his. We shouldn't change results but try to limit the rewards. And as I said on 'pools thread, DON'T let the Jose Ms of this world anywhere near the process.
I was at the game on Saturday night with a huge group of family/friends all of whom are Liverpool fans (my thanks to Jay for making my day!). We all agreed that we couldn't quite get whether a) the ref was making a decision which may then have been upheld or over turned and b) whether one of the teams had to ask for a review. As we know this is the cricket system. The first of these points is important, as the default is "ref's decision" and should only be overturned if that decision is unequivocally wrong. This is where FLT's quick review comes in. The second point is equally important. Take the West Brom "goal" that was disallowed. Obviously, every Red supporter was claiming a foul, or handball, or offside or the revival of the Shearer rule - any goal scored against Liverpool at the Kop end should be disallowed. The Liverpool players were appealing for something, but it wasn't clear what. Now come on, when David Beckham scored from his own half there were opposition players claiming he was offside! The raising of an arm, and appealing to the ref is standard practice from defenders when a goal is scored. I want refs to make decisions, not fanny about. If a 4th official watching a video screen can whisper in his ear that he is wholly wrong then great. The Watford handball was a case in point. Someone could have told the ref that the guy had handled it while the Watford players were still having a group snog. As for appeals from players, these should be ignored. In cricket you ask the umpire to make a decision through an appeal. Technically, the bowler could splatter the stumps, but if there is no appeal the batsman is not out. So there is a logic in having the review system work as it does. Incidentally, the older heads in our party on Saturday thought the system was awful. As they said, if every incident in the box is going to be examined minutely as the Liverpool penalty was, we could be in for some long matches with a lot of penalties. There was equally a consensus that it didn't effect the result. West Brom deserved to win, and Liverpool were not disrupted by the VAR system. But it was a farce.
Most, if not all, Premier League stadiums have big screens. If the decision goes to VAR why not show the replay on the big screen? At least that way we can all see the ball was over the line, the striker was offside, the defender didn't get the ball, etc.
Not sure it should be shown in the stadium...can wind up the fans who still won't agree with the ref/VAR. A sign saying VAR being consulted should be all that goes up. Decision to appeal down to ref and he should be over ruled only if decision shocking....not if it is just a matter of opinion. No decision should take longer than seconds...if it takes minutes, it is a matter of opinion. Penalties will be the worst....some are obviously wrong, but some only look dodgy in slo mo....have to trust the ref who is there. VAR used by reasonable human beings to clarify things...great....but VAR is going to be misused. The game will end up ruined, but with time people who remember how football should be played will have died out and the protests will die with them. Prepare yourselves for soccer, lads....because that is what is coming. The next stage will be postmatch reviews with results decided 2 days later....because after all, we want the real proper result so it doesn't matter how long it takes.
First response is to see this as absurd, but let's think. Results are now so significant with the money sloshing around in the game, some may argue that we need something. Take the now infamous Watford game. A panel review the game and rule out the equalising goal,awarding Saints a 2-1 win. But then Watford ask for a review of the penalty shout that they had. The panel decide in Watford's favour. So do they then look at the stats of Watford's penalty success? Obviously at this point Saints play their joker and Eddie Waring declares that the penalty has to be taken in a custard bath with two goalkeepers ... I think leave well alone and leave us fans to enjoy our deep feeling of injustice is the way forward.
