Off Topic IS VIDEO ASSISTANT REFEREE WORKING?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Video Assistant referee good or bad?

  • Stop using it

    Votes: 4 25.0%

  • Continue Using it?

    Votes: 12 75.0%

  • I don't really care

    Votes: 2 12.5%
  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .
HugoEkitikeN01

HugoEkitikeN01

Dribbles
May 31, 2011
39,269
6,822
113
London
<peacedove>When the VAR was first mentioned, there are lot of debates whether it is going to work or
not .ACON are not going to use it until the quarter final.In the recent Women World cup football
it has been using from day one.There have been so many bad decisions by VAR and some good calls too.
The premiership is coming soon, and it's going to be used from day one also.
What do you think?
 
Not too fussed we're going to win every game 3-0 next year anyway.
 
How VAR missed penalties for the Argentina Brazil game is beyond me

You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sucky
For me they have it the wrong way round.

Instead of predetermining which situations are going to be subject to VAR give each team a set number of VAR appeals each half, say 3. Similar to other sports if appeal successful then you don’t lose the appeal etc.

Then the onus is on the teams to appeal not the referee. Limit appeals to goals, bookings, sending offs and penalties.

Probably much less use of VAR and only on key issues which the teams pick. Problem solved.

Appeal has to be made within say 10 seconds of incident and VAR occurs when action next stopped naturally.and if no foundation ie just tactical then penalised at time by penalty against that team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jenners04
I am Groot returns said:
For me they have it the wrong way round.

Instead of predetermining which situations are going to be subject to VAR give each team a set number of VAR appeals each half, say 3. Similar to other sports if appeal successful then you don’t lose the appeal etc.

Then the onus is on the teams to appeal not the referee. Limit appeals to goals, bookings, sending offs and penalties.

Probably much less use of VAR and only on key issues which the teams pick. Problem solved.

Appeal has to be made within say 10 seconds of incident and VAR occurs when action next stopped naturally.and if no foundation ie just tactical then penalised at time by penalty against that team.
Click to expand...
Someone has been watching the cricket <laugh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: Magnet and HugoEkitikeN01
I am Groot returns said:
For me they have it the wrong way round.

Instead of predetermining which situations are going to be subject to VAR give each team a set number of VAR appeals each half, say 3. Similar to other sports if appeal successful then you don’t lose the appeal etc.

Then the onus is on the teams to appeal not the referee. Limit appeals to goals, bookings, sending offs and penalties.

Probably much less use of VAR and only on key issues which the teams pick. Problem solved.

Appeal has to be made within say 10 seconds of incident and VAR occurs when action next stopped naturally.and if no foundation ie just tactical then penalised at time by penalty against that team.
Click to expand...
That sounds okay until you consider it could mean 12 VAR breaks per game <yikes>
 
jenners04 said:
I think he's saying you get 1 call but if successful you keep appeal so in effect you could end up with that many calls.
Click to expand...
Ah yes - I just re-read his original post. So like the tennis then. It wouldn't work in football though, the games could end up twice as long with all the appeals.
 
Think its being over used.

Clear and obvious was the definition, not every time someone has a moan at the ref or has a fingernail offside.

Take the England (Womens) goal the other night, her hand was offside, just. First that was not clear and obvious and second you can't score with your hand. So VAR shouldn't have been used or the Ref shouldn't have been overruled by VAR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luvgonzo
RogerisontheHunt said:
Think its being over used.

Clear and obvious was the definition, not every time someone has a moan at the ref or has a fingernail offside.

Take the England (Womens) goal the other night, her hand was offside, just. First that was not clear and obvious and second you can't score with your hand. So VAR shouldn't have been used or the Ref shouldn't have been overruled by VAR.
Click to expand...
Offside does't come under the clear & obvious error as it is treated as a matter of fact despite them not having the tech to be that accurate. Part of the reaso for this is to "cancel out" the instruction to linos not to flag for offside if its a close call as they the attacking team would have no way of being recompensed for incorrectly called offside.
PS i was always of the opinion the clear & obvious error part would soon disappear in real life .
 
RogerisontheHunt said:
Think its being over used.

Clear and obvious was the definition, not every time someone has a moan at the ref or has a fingernail offside.

Take the England (Womens) goal the other night, her hand was offside, just. First that was not clear and obvious and second you can't score with your hand. So VAR shouldn't have been used or the Ref shouldn't have been overruled by VAR.
Click to expand...

This kind of **** is why I'm not looking forward to it. The refs are quite capable of making these **** ups themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bumps and Solid Air
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back