The VAR debate rumbles on!

[oldfrenchhorn]

It has been announced that VAR will not be used in the Carabao Cup semi-finals as Middlesborough do not have the system installed at the Riverside. A Football League statement said: "Given the system is not installed at one of the participating semi-finalist clubs and to maintain fairness and consistency, VAR technology will not be used in the Carabao Cup semi-final stage this season."
The FA Cup is different though. If it is installed at a ground it can, or will, be used. So going by the League's statement, fairness and consistency don't really matter to the FA.

Before VAR, broadcasters were able to show that offences such as offside or handball had been missed by the officials. Since its introduction, broadcasters have been able to show that even with this technology, they still get it wrong. As for tackles that a referee sees as unworthy even of a free kick, suddenly becoming a red card offence because of a slow motion replay, brings the question, why do we need a referee? Does this have an effect on the referee? After a visit to the monitor, you don't see a ref sticking by his original decision.

The question that is difficult to answer, is how much we want technology to take over the game? Many years ago the referee was always right, even when he was wrong, and that gave us endless hours of discussion. Personally, I am not sure if moving that discussion to one about a faceless individual with a bank of screens in front of him has improved the matches.

 

[yorkshirehornet]

It has been announced that VAR will not be used in the Carabao Cup semi-finals as Middlesborough do not have the system installed at the Riverside. A Football League statement said: "Given the system is not installed at one of the participating semi-finalist clubs and to maintain fairness and consistency, VAR technology will not be used in the Carabao Cup semi-final stage this season."
The FA Cup is different though. If it is installed at a ground it can, or will, be used. So going by the League's statement, fairness and consistency don't really matter to the FA.

Before VAR, broadcasters were able to show that offences such as offside or handball had been missed by the officials. Since its introduction, broadcasters have been able to show that even with this technology, they still get it wrong. As for tackles that a referee sees as unworthy even of a free kick, suddenly becoming a red card offence because of a slow motion replay, brings the question, why do we need a referee? Does this have an effect on the referee? After a visit to the monitor, you don't see a ref sticking by his original decision.

The question that is difficult to answer, is how much we want technology to take over the game? Many years ago the referee was always right, even when he was wrong, and that gave us endless hours of discussion. Personally, I am not sure if moving that discussion to one about a faceless individual with a bank of screens in front of him has improved the matches.

It hasnt improved matches as it seem to be the nature of football for all sides to argue the toss plus sadly the guys who interpret the VAR images get it wrong which is crazy.

You have technology in Tennis and Cricket which IMO works very well.......

So ................. room for improvement,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

It hasnt improved matches as it seem to be the nature of football for all sides to argue the toss plus sadly the guys who interpret the VAR images get it wrong which is crazy.

You have technology in Tennis and Cricket which IMO works very well.......

So ................. room for improvement,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I am not sure that you can compare other sports with football. When you think about the vast sums of money involved for the top teams, then a wrong decision can cost them millions of pounds. No other game where VAR is used, that I can think of, can have such an expensive outcome when a technological decision is shown to be wrong. There is an understandable reason for the man in the middle to get it wrong, unsighted being one of them, and teams used to accept that, even when they didn't like it.

 

[yorkshirehornet]

I am not sure that you can compare other sports with football. When you think about the vast sums of money involved for the top teams, then a wrong decision can cost them millions of pounds. No other game where VAR is used, that I can think of, can have such an expensive outcome when a technological decision is shown to be wrong. There is an understandable reason for the man in the middle to get it wrong, unsighted being one of them, and teams used to accept that, even when they didn't like it.

Good point....the techhnology needs to be watertight..... to help the ref make the best decision....amnd... .the ref cant have 360 degree vision even with 2 linos

 

[F1Hornet]

I think they just need to re-think the process and be stricter on the "clear and obvious" threshold. It should mean exactly that: VAR only intervenes when there's been a clear and obvious error. And we've all seen them (especially when watching on TV) when something is clearly wrong even at first viewing, e.g. the wrong person being carded, an outrageous dive, an off-the-ball punch behind the ref's back, that Henry handball goal for France. VAR shouldn't be used in the sort of decision where after watching a replay, there would be any disagreement about the outcome, as by definition that's not a clear and obvious error. In reality, VAR should only rarely be needed. I have similar views about handball: it's only very rarely a player ever intentionally handles the ball, and it should be a once in a blue moon offence.

When it comes to offside, the problem is the rule was written for someone watching once, in real time, with the naked eye. What we would have previously just said was level is getting over-analysed by drawing lines etc., which doesn't really reflect the spirit of the rule. I would also apply the clear and obvious threshold here: If it's not clear and obvious that the on-field officials got it wrong when you have a still frame without lines drawn, then keep with the on field decision. This still means you catch egregious errors, but means you don't spend 5 minutes trying to figure out if someone's armpit was offside.

 

[Bolton's Boots]

Good point....the techhnology needs to be watertight..... to help the ref make the best decision....amnd... .the ref cant have 360 degree vision even with 2 linos

Alternatively, the Laws of the game need to be less ambiguous and/or open to opinion on whether or not there was intent. In other sports, technology works because it clarifies what actually happened in any given situation - how would it cope with incidents such as handball where intent is part of a referee's decision making process? The only similarities to tennis/cricket in football are goal line technology - no players argue with decisions made by it because they can't, the technology makes it obvious if the ball was over the line of not. It's a sad fact that where there is ambiguity players will always cheat - man United's penalty against Wigan last night was a case in point. VAR said penalty because there was a trip whereas former players were arguing over whether or not the player went over too easily - both sides of the argument were probably right - and there's no way technology could properly decide.

I've no idea what the answer is, but I'm sure it's not VAR...

 

[yorkshirehornet]

I think the offside could be well dealt with with VAR......change the rules a tad to have a sensible width of a line grey area etc etc

 

[F1Hornet]

I think the offside could be well dealt with with VAR......change the rules a tad to have a sensible width of a line grey area etc etc

The problem is whatever the line is, it always ends at some point! Some people have argued the rule should change so that there needs to be daylight between players, or it should be if any body part is level it's onside, not just if a body part is beyond the defender. You'll just end up having an argument about a different line. Even if you have thicker lines to allow for a grey area, you start arguing about whether a player is just within that grey line area or not.

 

[yorkshirehornet]

The problem is whatever the line is, it always ends at some point! Some people have argued the rule should change so that there needs to be daylight between players, or it should be if any body part is level it's onside, not just if a body part is beyond the defender. You'll just end up having an argument about a different line. Even if you have thicker lines to allow for a grey area, you start arguing about whether a player is just within that grey line area or not.

Nightmare!

 

[Markthehorn]

The main problem is it’s all very subjective and seems to basically be a lottery depending on what x ref thinks on the day .

And for some reason the on field refs do seem keen to go against the VAR ref most of the time so they are basically re reffing the game .

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

Dominic Calvert-Lewin, the Everton striker, was given a red card on the say-so of the video ref. It seemed very harsh at the time, and has now been overturned on appeal. "Referee Chris Kavanagh originally took no action but reviewed the incident on the pitchside monitor following an intervention from video assistant referee (VAR) Michael Salisbury before showing Calvert-Lewin the red card in the 79th minute."
"I have no clue what that [monitor] is there for," said Everton manager Sean Dyche following the game.
"Every fan must be going, 'what is the point?' We all know the outcome, they are going to agree with everything they're being told.
"The chance of having something turned over is miniscule, so why even bother?

This is a classic example of where the ref on the pitch was correct, the one with the slow motion was wrong. So three parties involved over one incident in a single game, and it could have cost Everton the chance to progress in the FA Cup.

 

[Markthehorn]

Dominic Calvert-Lewin, the Everton striker, was given a red card on the say-so of the video ref. It seemed very harsh at the time, and has now been overturned on appeal. "Referee Chris Kavanagh originally took no action but reviewed the incident on the pitchside monitor following an intervention from video assistant referee (VAR) Michael Salisbury before showing Calvert-Lewin the red card in the 79th minute."
"I have no clue what that [monitor] is there for," said Everton manager Sean Dyche following the game.
"Every fan must be going, 'what is the point?' We all know the outcome, they are going to agree with everything they're being told.
"The chance of having something turned over is miniscule, so why even bother?

This is a classic example of where the ref on the pitch was correct, the one with the slow motion was wrong. So three parties involved over one incident in a single game, and it could have cost Everton the chance to progress in the FA Cup.

And a key player for 3 games .

Why did the ref think it was a red card after VAR asked him to look ?

Too scared to go against it .

 

[Markthehorn]

Double post

 

[F1Hornet]

I also worry that the nature of the replays the refs get shown pitchside aren't suitable. From what I can tell, the clips are too short and they don't necessarily get the full range of angles and speeds. As a TV viewer, we get to see a tackle in wider context.

 

[Markthehorn]

I also worry that the nature of the replays the refs get shown pitchside aren't suitable. From what I can tell, the clips are too short and they don't necessarily get the full range of angles and speeds. As a TV viewer, we get to see a tackle in wider context.

They all seem to be in slo-mo too so any tackles looks worse.