They have a very useful piece of technology and they can't use it properly. What is the point of having it available and it being up to the referee to initiate a review. When are these dimwits going to learn? VAR is getting criticised but it isn't the VAR that is the problem, it's the idiots who have decided how to use it.
They MUST give the captains 3 referrals, as in tennis and cricket (I think). It has just been conclusively proven that the decision to refer cannot be left to the referee alone
In American Football, the coaches can dispute a decision and force a video review. If the coach’s challenge is successful, then obviously the decision is amended. If the coach’s challenge is unsuccessful, then the team loses one of its timeouts; hence, challenges are pretty rare and are usually initiated when somebody watching the game up in the stands tells the coach via his headset that the call is wrong.
In cricket, both sides have two challenges per inning. If a challenge is successful, the decision is overturned and the challenge option is retained. There is no penalty for an unsuccessful challenge other than losing that challenge, with the exception that the challenge is not forfeited if an lbw decision is “umpire’s call” on Hawk-Eye.
At Wimbledon, there are three challenges for each player per set and I believe that unsuccessful challenges are lost.
So what penalty would be imposed if coaches and/or players could challenge in football? Looking at how often players surround referees for just about any decision, I would expect that three challenges would last about ten minutes of a football game as the dimwits would not stop to think whether their challenge had any chance of success, they would just do it. Ten seconds thinking time is way longer than most footballers can manage.
Also has to be said that in the football, how many referees have the balls to go and watch the replay and overturn their original call?
