Off Topic IS VIDEO ASSISTANT REFEREE WORKING?

[Libby]

Oh I forgot about the completey wrong decision thing. Meanwhile, in Australia...

You must log in or register to see images

I'm sure you'll be dead pleased if a decision like that cost you the title next year despite var being in place.

 

[johnsonsbaby]

When you lose the title by 1 point it's easy to look for where it was lost as if the whole season hinged on one game but just to play along I can point to Mane's completely legitimate goal being ruled out at Arsenal. VAR would have picked it up and 'won' us the title.

Btw we've already had this discussion on here and the 'dived' for goals being ruled out would have made no difference points wise.

 

[Libby]

When you lose the title by 1 point it's easy to look for where it was lost as if the whole season hinged on one game but just to play along I can point to Mane's completely legitimate goal being ruled out at Arsenal. VAR would have picked it up and 'won' us the title.

Btw we've already had this discussion on here and the 'dived' for goals being ruled out would have made no difference points wise.

To be fair I was making an extreme example as he implied I was making up the completely wrong decisions.

I do wonder how all the advocates would feel if a decision like the above went against you in a season defining game though.

It's worth pointing out that people can whinge about past injustices but var won't completely eliminate that.

 

[johnsonsbaby]

To be fair I was making an extreme example as he implied I was making up the completely wrong decisions.

I do wonder how all the advocates would feel if a decision like the above went against you in a season defining game though.

I don't think you're making anything up mate, you talk a lot of sense. Tbf to the other poster he's allowed an opinion as well. I only pointed out Mane's goal because looking back it may not have been a season defining game but it was a season defining decision that definitely went against us. Funnily enough barely a word said about it on here

 

[Libby]

I don't think you're making anything up mate, you talk a lot of sense. Tbf to the other poster he's allowed an opinion as well. I only pointed out Mane's goal because looking back it may not have been a season defining game but it was a season defining decision that definitely went against us. Funnily enough barely a word said about it on here

Yeah I didn't mean that as a dig, against anyone, so apologies if it came across like that.

 

[johnsonsbaby]

Yeah I didn't mean that as a dig, against anyone, so apologies if it came across like that.

No it didn't come across like that at all. I only mentioned it because I didn't want to look like I was taking sides in this VAR debate because I haven't decided myself yet whether I'm in favour or not. Bit flaky me

 

[Superfirmino]

First point, yes it's down to the laws, so you agree it's not really viable with the laws of football then?

Not sure your point regarding Lamps 'goal'. I was all for GLT, no subjectivity and an instant decision that doesn't impact on the flow of the game.

You say bollocks, how many var matches have you attended? They review every goal so you have to sit around for 90 seconds plus staring at 22 men doing nothing while 5 officials micro manage the incident. By the time it's been awarded it's not the same, it kills all the emotion.

Squiggly line was me providing an example of var being farcical that wasn't related to the time taken - referring to this:

You must log in or register to see images

I've no problem with my logic, and I'm glad you mentioned Thierry Henry, as the var advocates will tell us this is the essential reason for implementing it.

The thing is though, how many types of those incidents do you see a year? A handful maybe. The issue is it's not going to be limited to that, it will be used more and more to micro-manage decisions which often doesn't give a true picture.

I've said nothing about arguing about decisions being part of my emotional entertainment, I'm talking about the atmosphere inside grounds and the general spectacle of watching a live match which will be changed beyond recognition.

But seeing as you agree that there'll still be arguments, then it follows that it doesn't really solve anything while damaging the game, so what's the point?

How will consistent officiating damage the game? It's poor and inconsistent officiating that has damaged it for years. Therefore it will be become more enjoyable due to correct decisions.

The video ref will offer assistance to the on-field officials, and there is nothing wrong with clarifying if unsure. It's better than guessing. Up until now regarding the difficult decisions, it's been all guess-work and there are things the naked eye cannot see. The video ref can go to the last millimetre when it comes to offsides. They have also changed the rules regarding hand-balls too. If it hits the arm when the arm is not in a natura position it's a hand-ball. However they will take into account proximity. However just to make sure, they will use video assistance.

I

 

[Libby]

How will consistent officiating damage the game? It's poor and inconsistent officiating that has damaged it for years. Therefore it will be become more enjoyable due to correct decisions.

The video ref will offer assistance to the on-field officials, and there is nothing wrong with clarifying if unsure. It's better than guessing. Up until now regarding the difficult decisions, it's been all guess-work and there are things the naked eye cannot see. The video ref can go to the last millimetre when it comes to offsides. They have also changed the rules regarding hand-balls too. If it hits the arm when the arm is not in a natura position it's a hand-ball. However they will take into account proximity. However just to make sure, they will use video assistance.

I

Why do you think it will bring consistency?

Reference handball, the definition of 'natural position' will be different to different people. What's too close in terms of proximity, is there an actual definition or is it down to an individual's judgement?

With offsides, one man's definition of interfering in play could be very different to another's, same as phases of play etc.


The rules are extremely open to interpretation so I don't see how you can think that suddenly looking at them again will clarify everything and bring consistency.

 

[Klopp's Mannschaft]

Why do you think it will bring consistency?

Reference handball, the definition of 'natural position' will be different to different people. What's too close in terms of proximity, is there an actual definition or is it down to an individual's judgement?

With offsides, one man's definition of interfering in play could be very different to another's, same as phases of play etc.


The rules are extremely open to interpretation so I don't see how you can think that suddenly looking at them again will clarify everything and bring consistency.

So what you're saying seems to be mostly that the rules in football are ****e and subjective rather than VAR will be ****e - albeit slow.

Regarding Rugby and Football, there's subjective decisions in both. Rugby make more of a spectacle of it in the big games with the screens showing what the video ref is seeing (none of this hilarious ref running over to a tiny TV in the stands no one can see like football does) and tension builds. 90% of the time it's quick and done.

The biggest gripe people have with football these days tend to be diving, arguing with officials and offside - two of those impact goal decisions and therefore wins/points. VAR will help towards solving two of those problems (not completely, but certainly help). So long as they decide on a proper way to use VAR and don't be muppets about it, it's a forward step to making football more 'real' so that false decisions don't take away from the 'deserving side'.

Sadly, I happen to also think that the powers that be are muppets and they will slow the game down and make it a farcical affair - but that's not VAR's fault, that's the users. It could be seemlessly introduced quite easily imo without slowing the game down.

 

[Libby]

So what you're saying seems to be mostly that the rules in football are ****e and subjective rather than VAR will be ****e - albeit slow.

Regarding Rugby and Football, there's subjective decisions in both. Rugby make more of a spectacle of it in the big games with the screens showing what the video ref is seeing (none of this hilarious ref running over to a tiny TV in the stands no one can see like football does) and tension builds. 90% of the time it's quick and done.

The biggest gripe people have with football these days tend to be diving, arguing with officials and offside - two of those impact goal decisions and therefore wins/points. VAR will help towards solving two of those problems (not completely, but certainly help). So long as they decide on a proper way to use VAR and don't be muppets about it, it's a forward step to making football more 'real' so that false decisions don't take away from the 'deserving side'.

Sadly, I happen to also think that the powers that be are muppets and they will slow the game down and make it a farcical affair - but that's not VAR's fault, that's the users. It could be seemlessly introduced quite easily imo without slowing the game down.

Some interesting points there and I partially agree in regards to the rules but that's a different debate really. I've long thought the both the offside and handball rule need amending though I'm far from convinced that this new 'natural silhouette' handball thing clarifies things anymore really.

I can't see how it's going to help arguing with the officials or diving to be honest, at the world cup it seemed to encourage diving as players know any contact has a good chance of getting a pen on a var review. Players will still argue with the ref and surround him drawing TV screens and pointing at the dugouts.

We're in agreement that they'll **** it up but I don't think you can have it without slowing the game down. Reviewing every goal is ****e too and kills the buzz completely. The key lies in the 'clear and obvious' that it should only be used for.

I'm obviously against it but I think a decent starting point would be:

- Ditch the TV monitors, if it's a clear mistake then the var official can just tell the ref that and there shouldn't be need for them to watch it again.

- Stick a 30 second time limit on it, if you can't see a reason to overturns the ref decision in that time then it's not clear and obvious.

- Don't use it for handballs, if you watch any 'handball' in slow motion or frame by frame enough times it will start to look deliberate.


I am dreading it this season though, it's even worse than I thought it would be.

 

[Superfirmino]

Why do you think it will bring consistency?

Reference handball, the definition of 'natural position' will be different to different people. What's too close in terms of proximity, is there an actual definition or is it down to an individual's judgement?

With offsides, one man's definition of interfering in play could be very different to another's, same as phases of play etc.


The rules are extremely open to interpretation so I don't see how you can think that suddenly looking at them again will clarify everything and bring consistency.

Let's use the offside and the handball situation in the same scenario. Some are obvious and some aren't and provide examples. Firstly the blatant hand-ball, the Moussa Sissoko hand-ball in the CL final was blatant and obvious.

There was no need for a second opinion and only complete idiots said it wasn't a hand-ball. I've had it said to me that it was soft and harsh. It was in it's ****, it was blatant. Those that say otherwise know sweet **** all about the game.

Now for the less obvious and it was the VAR decided hand-ball between Man United and PSG. On first glance it appeared to be harsh. However after close examination it turns out it was the correct call. It was a blatant hand-ball. VAR came to the correct decision.

If there were no VAR, that may have been decided by guess-work. You cannot guess decisions like that, the same applies to off-sides. Unless you're 100% sure or 99.99% at least you do not give it,. VAR will ensure there is no doubts and no guess-work.

It will also put an end to this rubbish that decisions even themselves out. You will get wgat you deserve and that's all you get. It will also ensure that this crap that the bigger clubs get more favours than small clubs like Spurs and Chelsea.

 

[Klopp's Mannschaft]

Some interesting points there and I partially agree in regards to the rules but that's a different debate really. I've long thought the both the offside and handball rule need amending though I'm far from convinced that this new 'natural silhouette' handball thing clarifies things anymore really.

I can't see how it's going to help arguing with the officials or diving to be honest, at the world cup it seemed to encourage diving as players know any contact has a good chance of getting a pen on a var review. Players will still argue with the ref and surround him drawing TV screens and pointing at the dugouts.

We're in agreement that they'll **** it up but I don't think you can have it without slowing the game down. Reviewing every goal is ****e too and kills the buzz completely. The key lies in the 'clear and obvious' that it should only be used for.

I'm obviously against it but I think a decent starting point would be:

- Ditch the TV monitors, if it's a clear mistake then the var official can just tell the ref that and there shouldn't be need for them to watch it again.

- Stick a 30 second time limit on it, if you can't see a reason to overturns the ref decision in that time then it's not clear and obvious.

- Don't use it for handballs, if you watch any 'handball' in slow motion or frame by frame enough times it will start to look deliberate.


I am dreading it this season though, it's even worse than I thought it would be.

See, we're basically on the same page here. Those changes, or similar, would be fine and make VAR workable and more importantly, useful!

VAR is a valuable tool and could/should improve the game, we're just blessed with morons at the top of the decision making table who'll implement it wrongly.

Regarding diving and harassing the ref, there's easy solutions if the FA or FIFA grew a pair of balls. Talk to the ref and you're not a captain, booked. Job done. Former players don't help the diving situation when they defend players by saying "entitled to go down there" or "there was contact". Divers and minimal contact faller-overs need to be ridiculed publicly and allow more contact in the game.

 

[THE FOOL]

Some interesting points there and I partially agree in regards to the rules but that's a different debate really. I've long thought the both the offside and handball rule need amending though I'm far from convinced that this new 'natural silhouette' handball thing clarifies things anymore really.

I can't see how it's going to help arguing with the officials or diving to be honest, at the world cup it seemed to encourage diving as players know any contact has a good chance of getting a pen on a var review. Players will still argue with the ref and surround him drawing TV screens and pointing at the dugouts.

We're in agreement that they'll **** it up but I don't think you can have it without slowing the game down. Reviewing every goal is ****e too and kills the buzz completely. The key lies in the 'clear and obvious' that it should only be used for.

I'm obviously against it but I think a decent starting point would be:

- Ditch the TV monitors, if it's a clear mistake then the var official can just tell the ref that and there shouldn't be need for them to watch it again.

- Stick a 30 second time limit on it, if you can't see a reason to overturns the ref decision in that time then it's not clear and obvious.

- Don't use it for handballs, if you watch any 'handball' in slow motion or frame by frame enough times it will start to look deliberate.


I am dreading it this season though, it's even worse than I thought it would be.

I like the idea of a time limit for descions, if it takes longer than 30 seconds then it's to close to call and should go with the refs original descion.

Should also do away with the ref running across to the screen, that is ridiculous, what's he going to see that the people watching havnt.

 

[Superfirmino]

I like the idea of a time limit for descions, if it takes longer than 30 seconds then it's to close to call and should go with the refs original descion.

Should also do away with the ref running across to the screen, that is ridiculous, what's he going to see that the people watching havnt.

What is the point of going back to the 'orginal refs decision' if it's the wrong one? However I do agree that the major problem is with how long it does to make a decision. It should only take as long as video reffing in rugby and a photo-finish in horse racing. As for 'what's he going to see what the viewers haven't'? This is 100% irrelevant because occasionally the viewers do need to have a second look. The naked eye can get things wrong.

I've seen stuff at first glance and needed a second look and the second look contradicted the first. This can happen. Example, Sadio Mane vs Porto away. I thought at first glance he was offside and had a second look following the VAR and he was clearly onside. The VAR made the correct call and Mane was onside by half a foot.

That's the margins that VAR can spot. It can go to millimetres. Imagine you're in a cup final and there is no VAR and it's a tense game and a opposing player is half a foot offside? The ref calls it onside due to guess-work. You'll feel hard done by because it's an incorrect call.

There are thin margins and VAR will eliminate those thin margins.

 

[THE FOOL]

What is the point of going back to the 'orginal refs decision' if it's the wrong one? However I do agree that the major problem is with how long it does to make a decision. It should only take as long as video reffing in rugby and a photo-finish in horse racing. As for 'what's he going to see what the viewers haven't'? This is 100% irrelevant because occasionally the viewers do need to have a second look. The naked eye can get things wrong.

I've seen stuff at first glance and needed a second look and the second look contradicted the first. This can happen. Example, Sadio Mane vs Porto away. I thought at first glance he was offside and had a second look following the VAR and he was clearly onside. The VAR made the correct call and Mane was onside by half a foot.

That's the margins that VAR can spot. It can go to millimetres. Imagine you're in a cup final and there is no VAR and it's a tense game and a opposing player is half a foot offside? The ref calls it onside due to guess-work. You'll feel hard done by because it's an incorrect call.

There are thin margins and VAR will eliminate those thin margins.

I've not one clue what your point was there.

 

[johnsonsbaby]

I've not one clue what your point was there.

Fine margins

 

[organic red]

I like the idea of a time limit for descions, if it takes longer than 30 seconds then it's to close to call and should go with the refs original descion.

Should also do away with the ref running across to the screen, that is ridiculous, what's he going to see that the people watching havnt.

Spot on, its utterly ridiculous. I suspect it is an attempt to move further towards an American football style thing with more lengthy stoppages.
More time for ads as far as their concerned .............bad for our game

 

[Superfirmino]

Spot on, its utterly ridiculous. I suspect it is an attempt to move further towards an American football style thing with more lengthy stoppages.
More time for ads as far as their concerned .............bad for our game

I disagree. Yes the time taken to make a decision should be reduced to no more than 30 seconds but going back to the original decision? That will just open a can of worms. We won't be any better off and it will cause more inconsistency. That's what we don't want.

 

[Superfirmino]

Fine margins

My point was entirely about fine margins and the difference between a correct and a wrong decision. Some look different after a second look and I provided examples.

 

[organic red]

I disagree. Yes the time taken to make a decision should be reduced to no more than 30 seconds but going back to the original decision? That will just open a can of worms. We won't be any better off and it will cause more inconsistency. That's what we don't want.

I was commenting on the 'running across to the screen' nonsense. The ref should just take the decision from what they are told by the person
in front of the monitor...simple and quicker