Off Topic IS VIDEO ASSISTANT REFEREE WORKING?

[johnsonsbaby]

The technology is capable of defining it as clear and obvious. The rule is any part of the body which can be used to score and it was my understanding it was her foot offside, not her hand. It looks clear and obvious to me. In the offside image, there's a red line, which could be her shoulder, which also counts for offside, but the blue line behind it is the onside line and White's foot is clearly and obviously beyond it, clarified by the foot of the US player next to her.

It was never clear and obvious with refs. We could see it week after week on slo-mo replays. If we won't allow the referees the technology, then the pundits and viewers should also be denied it. Don't hold your breath for that. It must be galling for refs to have pundits determining their incompetence week after week, then dismissing the solution, too.

The time it was taking in the WWC was too long but they sped that up with some common sense. (Nobody has a problem with a game being stopped for water breaks in heat and that takes longer. We'll see a lot more of that as the temps ramp up globally.) I doubt it was that they just weren't using VAR but it was being done in the background without bothering the ref until they had to. That makes more sense than any argument I've heard against it.

I keep going back to that Thierry Henry handball that kept Ireland out of the World Cup and wonder how long critics of VAR would've been happy to wait if it were their country. "However long it took" would be my guess. We'd never hear a pundit or fan saying, "Taking too long, get on with it, we're not qualifying, end of."

No doubt the use of referees took a while to evolve and VAR should be given time, too.

I liked your comment because it was well thought out and not necessarily because I agree with VAR.

 

[Zanjinho]

I liked your comment because it was well thought out and not necessarily because I agree with VAR.

He was rambling

 

[LuisDiazgamechanger]

Once the referee makes a call, very difficult to be reversed by VAR, example is the penalty in the champion league final against Tottenham.
Glen Hoddle never convinced it was a penalty, so also many Tottenham supporters.

 

[Bumps]

I have completely flipped on it
Just get rid
Tried it
Solved some ****
Ruined some ****
Let’s just get back to arguing about the offside rule

Don’t even trust goal line tech now as it depends when they stop the footage
So nope get rid of it all and get back to brown paper envelopes

 

[johnsonsbaby]

I was reading that they've suspended refs cautioning keepers for moving on the line for a penalty just until the women's WC is over. They said VAR will be a bigger deterrent than ref giving yellow .... go figure.

Also noticed the new rules coming in for next season say keeper isn't required to have both feet on the line for a penalty.

Edit: more rule changes ... (apologies if already posted)
Attacking players have to be 1m away from 'defensive wall'

At goal kick or free kick for defending team in their own penalty area, the ball is in play once it's kicked I.e. it doesn't have to leave the penalty area

Players being substituted have to leave the field at nearest point on boundary line

 

[Diego]

I was reading that they've suspended refs cautioning keepers for moving on the line for a penalty just until the women's WC is over. They said VAR will be a bigger deterrent than ref giving yellow .... go figure.

Also noticed the new rules coming in for next season say keeper isn't required to have both feet on the line for a penalty.

Edit: more rule changes ... (apologies if already posted)
Attacking players have to be 1m away from 'defensive wall'

At goal kick or free kick for defending team in their own penalty area, the ball is in play once it's kicked I.e. it doesn't have to leave the penalty area

Players being substituted have to leave the field at nearest point on boundary line

The new rules all seem ok to me and will help the game. The only one they have wrong is the off-side rule, this was meant to stop a player getting an unfair advantage (think Allan Clarke) by "goal hanging" permanently.
These days it penalises players who just happen to be a bit faster or sharper off the mark than their opposite defender, one toe off side is not trying to gain an unfair advantage, neither is a player running toward goal at a free kick when the defenders are running out. These are examples of poor defending and nothing more.

 

[jenners04]

Once the referee makes a call, very difficult to be reversed by VAR, example is the penalty in the champion league final against Tottenham.
Glen Hoddle never convinced it was a penalty, so also many Tottenham supporters.

ex spurs player

really!! so if other way round and they got decision, not a pen then?!!!!

was a pen any day, you don't raise your arm in the area for any reason, wasn't even jumping, so cant use that as a piss poor excuse either!

 

[InBiscanWeTrust]

Think this comes down to the offside rule actually being clear. For Example an Arm/hand should not be considered offside as they are non-scoring body parts.
And until VAR, this seemed to be the case.

Since VAR, the hand/arm have suddenly become offside again.

Linesmen have been told not to flag unless they are really sure, so its not them, its the VAR people who are interpreting the rules wrong imo.

Its not. You can only be offside with a part of s body that you can touch the ball with, so hands make no diff. The England one you’re referring to, her foot was in front of the defender which mad eher offside.

 

[InBiscanWeTrust]

The technology is capable of defining it as clear and obvious. The rule is any part of the body which can be used to score and it was my understanding it was her foot offside, not her hand. It looks clear and obvious to me. In the offside image, there's a red line, which could be her shoulder, which also counts for offside, but the blue line behind it is the onside line and White's foot is clearly and obviously beyond it, clarified by the foot of the US player next to her.

It was never clear and obvious with refs. We could see it week after week on slo-mo replays. If we won't allow the referees the technology, then the pundits and viewers should also be denied it. Don't hold your breath for that. It must be galling for refs to have pundits determining their incompetence week after week, then dismissing the solution, too.

The time it was taking in the WWC was too long but they sped that up with some common sense. (Nobody has a problem with a game being stopped for water breaks in heat and that takes longer. We'll see a lot more of that as the temps ramp up globally.) I doubt it was that they just weren't using VAR but it was being done in the background without bothering the ref until they had to. That makes more sense than any argument I've heard against it.

I keep going back to that Thierry Henry handball that kept Ireland out of the World Cup and wonder how long critics of VAR would've been happy to wait if it were their country. "However long it took" would be my guess. We'd never hear a pundit or fan saying, "Taking too long, get on with it, we're not qualifying, end of."

No doubt the use of referees took a while to evolve and VAR should be given time, too.

Agree with this. My main problem is when refs stop it to go over and look themselves. They’ve got how many officials in the VAR room? Like cricket if it’s referred to them, they should make the decision, tell the onfiekd ref the decision abd he can give it. No reason for the ref to go view it himself.

No no idea why that is the case, if it’s because the onfiekd refs will feel some what inferior for having their decision overridden then they need to get over thrmlseves. Works perfectly fine in cricket.

 

[Solid Air 2]

Agree with this. My main problem is when refs stop it to go over and look themselves. They’ve got how many officials in the VAR room? Like cricket if it’s referred to them, they should make the decision, tell the onfiekd ref the decision abd he can give it. No reason for the ref to go view it himself.

No no idea why that is the case, if it’s because the onfiekd refs will feel some what inferior for having their decision overridden then they need to get over thrmlseves. Works perfectly fine in cricket.

2 points about the cricket analogy
1. The 3rd umpire decisions are mainly matters of fact as decided by technology where ,as apart from offside, in football they are subjective
2. On LBW ,when it is borderline, you have umpires call decision which you could say is a similar attempt to keep the onfield official relevant.

 

[jenners04]

Agree with this. My main problem is when refs stop it to go over and look themselves. They’ve got how many officials in the VAR room? Like cricket if it’s referred to them, they should make the decision, tell the onfiekd ref the decision abd he can give it. No reason for the ref to go view it himself.

No no idea why that is the case, if it’s because the onfiekd refs will feel some what inferior for having their decision overridden then they need to get over thrmlseves. Works perfectly fine in cricket.

i agree, i think it's an ego thing personally (like some refs need encouragement lol) , oh look at me i'm going to look at var

 

[jenners04]

2 points about the cricket analogy
1. The 3rd umpire decisions are mainly matters of fact as decided by technology where ,as apart from offside, in football they are subjective
2. On LBW ,when it is borderline, you have umpires call decision which you could say is a similar attempt to keep the onfield official relevant.

yep, even if hitting wicket its the on field umpire who made decision so still stands, has worked both ways and players don't have a problem with it, pissed off decision didn't go there way, yes, but accept it. football too many grey areas creeping in

 

[johnsonsbaby]

Agree with this. My main problem is when refs stop it to go over and look themselves. They’ve got how many officials in the VAR room? Like cricket if it’s referred to them, they should make the decision, tell the onfiekd ref the decision abd he can give it. No reason for the ref to go view it himself.

No no idea why that is the case, if it’s because the onfiekd refs will feel some what inferior for having their decision overridden then they need to get over thrmlseves. Works perfectly fine in cricket.

The one unknown is what the var refs are saying to the onfield ref. They may instruct the ref to view it for themselves. Don't all 3 video refs have to agree before calling it,?

 

[Solid Air 2]

yep, even if hitting wicket its the on field umpire who made decision so still stands, has worked both ways and players don't have a problem with it, pissed off decision didn't go there way, yes, but accept it. football too many grey areas creeping in

but football has always been full of grey areas i.e. foul / fair tackle , backing in / climbing all over attacker etc

 

[jenners04]

but football has always been full of grey areas i.e. foul / fair tackle , backing in / climbing all over attacker etc

but cricket was until they brought var in, from lbw's that from replays shown hit bat etc first, so shouldn't have been given, it's how you use it that matters.

also the people who use var are they ex footballers experts etc, as in cricket they are usually ex umpires aren't they? makes a big dif if you ask me.

 

[jenners04]

The one unknown is what the var refs are saying to the onfield ref. They may instruct the ref to view it for themselves. Don't all 3 video refs have to agree before calling it,?

cluster **** cricket has only 1 person viewing and their opinion or fact.

 

[Solid Air 2]

but cricket was until they brought var in, from lbw's that from replays shown hit bat etc first, so shouldn't have been given, it's how you use it that matters.

also the people who use var are they ex footballers experts etc, as in cricket they are usually ex umpires aren't they? makes a big dif if you ask me.

the 3rd umpire makes no decision on LBW he just relays the answer provided by ultra edge , hawkeye etc .

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

its really simple lads.

cricket applies Common sense after a few efforts. so why reinvent the wheel

a) if foot over line or not. if yes not out straight off.

b) is ball pitching in line or not. yes or no. clearly visible.

c) use impact tech. hot spot or snicko. evidence of bat hitting ball or not. this takes longest.

d) final call. is it hitting or not. and here common sense is applied. umpire makes his call and the impact has to be very very clear not just a maybe. if it's marginal and umpire said out well tough you are out.

now compare to football.

a) fifa premise is the ref is god. from this perspective they force final decision to be refs and so demand refs see a screen etc

b) fifa tell linesmen to not flag.. thats just don't make a decision.

c) fifa create no margin of error so it takes several minutes of trying to make best guess to make a call and agree it.

Surely if the ref and linesmen make their calls and you develop a set of rules that demand clear evidence.

e.g.. this pen for handball ****. how close is too close. what is unnatural arm position. etc etc etc. define it and have common sense. if a guy is 2 or 3 yards away from ball then show a modicum of common sense.

or offside. draw your line but have some form of grey zone. if you are every close or down to debating who's toe or dick was closer to the goal then simply go with on field decisions.

I would stop reviewing everything now. it's getting farcical.

give each team a couple of reviews and let them decide what on field decision needs to be reviewed.

if a side chooses to waste them or not use them that's their own fault.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

the 3rd umpire makes no decision on LBW he just relays the answer provided by ultra edge , hawkeye etc .

I wouldn't go that far mate.

they go through a sequence and make a call. if they find a reason to over turn they tell on field umpire to overturn.

yes they are guided by the sequence but in the end the decision is no longer the on field umpire. he is either vindicated or over ruled and nobody thinks worse of him and it never undermines authority.

 

[Zanjinho]

Football isn't comparable to tennis or cricket, especially the offside rule.