Agree - but only 2 challenges. The reduction would limit frivolous referrals. Difficulty is that should all reasonable, but unsuccessful challenges be 'lost'? If not (which, like in cricket, seems fairer) who would determine frivolity? VAR or the ref?
Some reports suggesting VAR delays during play does or could increase muscle injuries to players. Standing and getting cold during VAR checks is not good practice for athletes who are stretching themselves to the limits. Apparently VdV did his hamstring following a VAR break of 7 minutes. I haven't actually checked that but if true coaches need to take steps to keep players active during these enforced breaks. Another downside of VAR. I would have no hesitation of getting rid of it tomorrow. The drawbacks far outweigh the pluses IMO.
I would be happy to keep VAR if they restricted it's use to goal line and offside decisions. Leave all the rest to referees as it has always been. OR stop using slow motion which distorts the look of fouls. This damage is all down to the media and their pundits examining ref decisions after the event. It increases the pressure on refs. and quite probably alters their decision making process. If they continue with VAR (as I expect them to) it will change the game completely and not for the better.
I agree. I would also add (as I’ve said earlier) that the laws cannot be properly and consistently enforced as they are not properly drafted; this needs sorting out. Handball, offside and tackling all contain ambiguities which need eliminating. Until that happens, there is a large element of subjectivity, which will not go away however good the technology is. In fact, as you have alluded to, technology adds another layer of uncertainty and confusion as things can look very different depending on the camera angle, slo-mo replays, freezing the image etc.
Breaks for injuries are usually longer than VAR breaks and more frequent. Data from various leagues show that key decisions being wrong is in the range 5 to 10% and VAR corrects around 80% of them. That essentially means that the approx ten random points per club per season scattered around by refereeing mistakes is reduced to two. That's massively important.
You are presenting this case like a politician. 95% of key decisions are wrong. Do you mean 95% of decisions VAR apparent during the game are wrong? Even that sounds dubious. It's also nonsense because when a decision is overturned by VAR it them claims 'right' When the rules have already been changed to suit VAR around handballs, for example. When many of these decisions are subjective using right and wrong is misleading to say the least.
Massive mistake in my post... 90 to 95% are right. Still leaves a lot wrong. VAR mistakes are very rare and VAR never makes subjective decisions as they are always referred back to the onfield Ref
I've posted many times on here that the Laws need rewriting to remove Subjectivity. But it remains the case that all non binary decisions are referred back to the onfield referee so the VAR Never makes one
I wouldn't call it a ridiculous decision, but the VAR decision to disallow Rice's goal sums up a major problem. Kane is standing in an offside position but trying to get out of the way, the keepers view usnot obstructed and he dives unhindered, not does he complain. That should be sufficient to allow the goal. I can't help thinking if you had a respected former top level professional footballer assisting the VAR decision-making then many of these errors would be avoided. (And yes, I appreciate trying to convince a multi-millionaire retiree to take up a new career might be a challenge...)
Clattenburg thinks that the players have lost faith in VAR: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67713418 No, they've lost faith in the clowns running it, like the rest of us have.
Here are some interesting numbers concerning VAR: Tottenham: 1 pen given (tied for second least in the PL), 5 conceded (tied for second most). Fouled 14.6 times per game (most in the PL, and 1.7 more than any other team), fouls: 10.9 (#11th in the PL) Chelsea: 8 pens given (most in the PL, and 2 more than any other team), 3 conceded (tied for seventh); fouled 11.9 times per game (#6 in the PL), fouls: 12.6 (fourth most) So normal service has been resumed, after what I remember as a brief interlude where VAR tended to correct some of the more egregious match fixing. It's also learned to turn a blind eye to clear red card offenses like Chelsea's yesterday. Based on fouls vs. fouling, Spurs ought to have something like four or five more pens given then conceded. Instead they have four more conceded than given. Chelsea ought to have 0 to 1 more pens conceded than given. Instead, they're +5. I have fond memories of the considerable number of fans who pointed out that Pochettino's style didn't get pens because it didn't tend to send players in on goal (a generalization which has some truth to it), when discussing why Spurs weren't given pens at anything like the rate of similarly successful clubs in the Pochettino era. As we can see, however, the real problem regarding penalty winning and Pochettino's style was the color his teams wore. Once it changed from white to royal blue, the pens rained down--even though the team wearing royal blue were crap compared to the ones who wore white. How many points would Spurs have if they were +8 or +9 in GD, as they should be? How many points would they have if they hadn't gone down to 9 men and consequently suffered two severe injuries to key players the game after Klopp chewed out the officials for not giving Liverpool sufficient help? As Al Capone once said about the stock market. "It's a racket. They're crooked."
Just commented on same on the Rival thread only because I'm not even sure that VAR looked at the Willian foul
You would have trouble finding a more classic example of a garden variety red card-worthy offense. Chelsea's desperate need of a helping hand and Spurs' league lead and momentum required the heavy artillery to be wheeled out this year. But things look to be settling down to a situation not far off what the biggest clubs want. The heroic officiating interventions required in the first half of the year will in all likelihood be dialed back considerably in the second, and possibly even reversed a bit, if the table allows.
Agreed. Given the level of officiating and VARring, as I've said, why let the clowns tumble out of the clown car twice? They can screw things up perfectly adequately in one go. I think the way forward is tennis and cricket. Make the challenge and the replay part of the entertainment. It works because everybody buys it. Never mind it's a simulation. It provides an answer which on the face of it is unbiased, which is all people want. Those things you can't replay you can't VAR. First guess, best guess on pens, in other words.
