Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

VAR


Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Goal line technology is based on fact, VAR is based on opinion and therefore not an exact science. Mistakes will still be made even though there is a chance to re referee incidents.

Personally I don't want it as I can accept mistakes (however infuriating) from players, managers and officials.

Yes, I hadn’t thought of the fact and opinion aspect. Very good point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a few major VAR errors, it will still be opinion based as correctly stated in others recent posts, PL Clubs will be pushing for timeouts and an incident review process similar to that in cricket. 3 reviews per Club per game as starters? A farce but on the cards with so much cash at state especially in the PL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VAR system shouldnt come in. 

Paul's post is stop why it shouldnt come in and he posted it in such a good way I couldnt do that. 

Ive watched some of the Ashes series and they still be mistakes from umpires even with all technology available and far too many 50/50 calls being made. 

You cannot make sport 100% decisions correct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soon we will be able to text in at two quid a time to decide whether it was a penalty or not.

Not in favour of this. Is there going to be any point of even having a referee anymore apart from blowing his whistle at the command of a security guard watching cctv?

Dodgy refs, dodgy decisions - thats part and parcel of football and keeps the debate open.

Edited by JacknOry
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be easier if a referee could 'refer' an incident to three other referees watching live camera only? Majority decision wins? At least that way theres still an element of 'human' involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, J*B said:

Wouldn't it be easier if a referee could 'refer' an incident to three other referees watching live camera only? Majority decision wins? At least that way theres still an element of 'human' involved.

That would need 30 extra people back weekend to cover this and don't forget there is also a specialist VAR appointed to cover incidents involving the assistant referee. In the recent league match between Liverpool and Everton a really soft penalty was awarded to Everton which Allardyce supported. In last weeks FA Cup match another soft penalty was given to Liverpool and Allardyce disputed it. My point is that most managers will be critical of game changing decisions which go against them so in that respect nothing will change.

For me it's going to be an expensive folly which will be intrusive in what should be a game played with as few stoppages as possible. The majority of fans will debate referees decisions as they have done for time immemorial. It's all part of the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, J*B said:

Wouldn't it be easier if a referee could 'refer' an incident to three other referees watching live camera only? Majority decision wins? At least that way theres still an element of 'human' involved.

You forget the element of the arrogant referee who is never wrong, a prime example last night in the Perth Glory v Melchester City game, dubious penalty given after a player fell over in the box, prime for referal to VAR, did not happen, in the system that is currently running in the A league the person viewing the VAR can not ask the referee to review it, but can only bring it to the refs attention if an incident involves a penalty that as not been given.

The incident was replayed on the big screen from three different angles whilst the players were arguing with the ref, personally did not think it was a penalty (80/20)*, a couple of glory players away from the initial incident , remonstrations were watching the big screen replays ran over to the ref straight away gesturing to the ref to look at the replays .

The referee last night has form for odd decisions. Mind you A league refereeing seems on par with League 1  if not slightly worse. 

As mentioned in posts above an expensive waste of time , wonder if FiFA are on a % like the goal line technology :)

Can see it being used in the future as a good excuse for advertising for tv companies even two 30 second ads in a big game can rake in the cash, whilst the VAR is reviewing the decision

*Only seen it at the game and left my specs in the car  so could be wrong :)  

 

Edited by perthblue02
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Backroom

Yep a friend just pointed out to me that now any time a player is flagged off he's going to go and try and finish to make a case

The old adage 'play to the whistle' may not ring true 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More chance of seeing a goal? Less chance of fakery?

Less stoppages could be a good thing. Especially if they are incorrect.

More honest players might mean more accurate referees.

Allow play to continue and only stop play after the goal to review VAR if the referee feels he is not sure. The ‘phase of play’ rule that was brought in for offsides might need to be gotten used to. In other words a goal must be scored within a reasonable (and pretty damned short) time frame from the flag going up for it to be considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stuart said:

More chance of seeing a goal? Less chance of fakery?

Less stoppages could be a good thing. Especially if they are incorrect.

More honest players might mean more accurate referees.

Allow play to continue and only stop play after the goal to review VAR if the referee feels he is not sure. The ‘phase of play’ rule that was brought in for offsides might need to be gotten used to. In other words a goal must be scored within a reasonable (and pretty damned short) time frame from the flag going up for it to be considered.

Grey, complicated areas.

I preferred it when the linesman put his flag up - and then it was offside tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, S8 & Blue said:

Grey, complicated areas.

I preferred it when the linesman put his flag up - and then it was offside tbh.

Depends how old you are. When I was growing up there was nothing worse than a ‘technical offside’. A player could be stood by the corner flag, injured or scratching his backside but with play going on around him as soon as a team mate was played through, it was offside. It was then that ‘not interfering with play’ was born (much to Brian Clough’s annoyance) and the slippery slope.

The perfect game of football would only have stoppages for goals and to change ends. Anything else is a failure and a requirement to restart play from somewhere.

Only checking for offences after a goal is scored, and where there is some genuine doubt, would be the better option.

Pandora has been out of herself box since about 1992 and since then everyone has been trying to avoid eye contact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve watched the 3 minute highlights on the BBC website and read the BBC match report from which I quote:

But referee Jonathan Moss liaised with video official Mike Jones, who told him Nathan Pond's trailing foot was keeping Iheanacho onside, and the goal was awarded 67 seconds after it hit the back of the net.”

”Trailing foot?” Come on let’s have a bit of common sense. Goal line technology, yes, I get that though there seem to be very, very few ocassions when it’s required. A trailing foot? We are being conned this is taking the mick. Presumably the 67 seconds are added to the end of the match? If all six substitutes *** are used in a game this adds 3 minutes, a couple of injury stoppages can add another 2-3 minutes,  add two VARs for another 2 minutes and it doesn’t take long for games to regularly have 7-8 minutes of extra time. How long is it going to take before fans get very unhappy over their team losing matches in the 98th minute?

*** I know the calculation relies on six subs in the second half but 4-5 is not uncommon.

Excessive transfer fees. Disgusting wages. Idiot motor mouth managers. Ridiculous levels of over analysis. Agents. Endless idiot pundits. Cheating players. Poor officials. Now VAR and trailing legs. 

The game has lost itself in blur of incredible sums of money most of which is totally wasted on transfer fees, agents and wages. 

VAR is just another nail in a coffin which for me was sealed and buried several years ago.

I’ll always support the Rovers but that’s all. Totally lost interest in any other football. 

Apologies but I needed to rant about the destruction of the once beautiful game. 

Edited by Paul
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uwe Rosler said it best for me after the game -

 “Can they really say it was onside, or are they guessing?” he said. “Sometimes even VAR is not clear. In general – don’t complicate football too much. The game is beautiful. Let it be pure.”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, S8 & Blue said:

Uwe Rosler said it best for me after the game -

 “Can they really say it was onside, or are they guessing?” he said. “Sometimes even VAR is not clear. In general – don’t complicate football too much. The game is beautiful. Let it be pure.”

There is a real danger the game is going to become too sterile. It's not uncommon now to see 25-35 free kicks in a game which really stifles the flow which denies the paying customer seeing what they pay for. When I was refereeing it didn't take me long to realise that a lot of minor infringements in insignificant areas can be overlooked for the benefit of the game and a lot of my colleagues at that time thought the same way. I used to explain this to the players and generally they were fine with it. I would be be disappointed if I gave more than 15 free kicks in a game. A colleague of mine once refereed a match in the Football League and only gave two free kicks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Backroom
25 minutes ago, Paul said:

I’ve watched the 3 minute highlights on the BBC website and read the BBC match report from which I quote:

But referee Jonathan Moss liaised with video official Mike Jones, who told him Nathan Pond's trailing foot was keeping Iheanacho onside, and the goal was awarded 67 seconds after it hit the back of the net.”

”Trailing foot?” Come on let’s have a bit of common sense. Goal line technology, yes, I get that though there seem to be very, very few ocassions when it’s required. A trailing foot? We are being conned this is taking the mick. Presumably the 67 seconds are added to the end of the match? If all six substitutes *** are used in a game this adds 3 minutes, a couple of injury stoppages can add another 2-3 minutes,  add two VARs for another 2 minutes and it doesn’t take long for games to regularly have 7-8 minutes of extra time. How long is it going to take before fans get very unhappy over their team losing matches in the 98th minute?

*** I know the calculation relies on six subs in the second half but 4-5 is not uncommon.

Excessive transfer fees. Disgusting wages. Idiot motor mouth managers. Ridiculous levels of over analysis. Agents. Endless idiot pundits. Cheating players. Poor officials. Now VAR and trailing legs. 

The game has lost itself in blur of incredible sums of money most of which is totally wasted on transfer fees, agents and wages. 

VAR is just another nail in a coffin which for me was sealed and buried several years ago.

I’ll always support the Rovers but that’s all. Totally lost interest in any other football. 

Apologies but I needed to rant about the destruction of the once beautiful game. 

But that decision last night was correct, he was onside whether by an inch or a foot it was a correct call to overrule the linesman.

Difficult where to draw a line on this really 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tom said:

But that decision last night was correct, he was onside whether by an inch or a foot it was a correct call to overrule the linesman.

Difficult where to draw a line on this really 

The line with VAR has to be deciisions that are fact and not opinion. Is it over the line? Is it offside etc.

Cant have was it a foul or a dive etc as they are still interpretation and opinion calls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Paul said:

I’ve watched the 3 minute highlights on the BBC website and read the BBC match report from which I quote:

But referee Jonathan Moss liaised with video official Mike Jones, who told him Nathan Pond's trailing foot was keeping Iheanacho onside, and the goal was awarded 67 seconds after it hit the back of the net.”

”Trailing foot?” Come on let’s have a bit of common sense. Goal line technology, yes, I get that though there seem to be very, very few ocassions when it’s required. A trailing foot? We are being conned this is taking the mick. Presumably the 67 seconds are added to the end of the match? If all six substitutes *** are used in a game this adds 3 minutes, a couple of injury stoppages can add another 2-3 minutes,  add two VARs for another 2 minutes and it doesn’t take long for games to regularly have 7-8 minutes of extra time. How long is it going to take before fans get very unhappy over their team losing matches in the 98th minute?

*** I know the calculation relies on six subs in the second half but 4-5 is not uncommon.

Excessive transfer fees. Disgusting wages. Idiot motor mouth managers. Ridiculous levels of over analysis. Agents. Endless idiot pundits. Cheating players. Poor officials. Now VAR and trailing legs. 

The game has lost itself in blur of incredible sums of money most of which is totally wasted on transfer fees, agents and wages. 

VAR is just another nail in a coffin which for me was sealed and buried several years ago.

I’ll always support the Rovers but that’s all. Totally lost interest in any other football. 

Apologies but I needed to rant about the destruction of the once beautiful game. 

so its ok to be offside with part of your foot but not ok to be onside by the same distance the decision was correct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Tom said:

But that decision last night was correct, he was onside whether by an inch or a foot it was a correct call to overrule the linesman.

Difficult where to draw a line on this really 

 

17 minutes ago, had.e.nuff said:

so its ok to be offside with part of your foot but not ok to be onside by the same distance the decision was correct

In both cases this is not my point. The introduction of this technology  does not, for me, improve the game but serves to further disrupt what was once a very simple thing. The only driving force here is money. If it was other, such as improving fairness and honesty, there are cheaper and better solutions. If you’re happy with watching a game frequently stopped for a minute or more for VAR that’s fine but I’m not. Think about how much time is already lost in a game and just how much football do we actually see. 

It wont be long before VAR provides the opportunity for “a word from our sponsor” while the referee makes a decision. Seriously. The TV companies will jump at a chance to switch away from the match and show an advert.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Backroom
1 hour ago, S8 & Blue said:

Uwe Rosler said it best for me after the game -

 “Can they really say it was onside, or are they guessing?” he said. “Sometimes even VAR is not clear. In general – don’t complicate football too much. The game is beautiful. Let it be pure.”

It's comments like these that are making people look stupid. 

Yes, they really can say it was onside (was clear for us all to see with the lined replay), and no, they are not guessing. 

Have listened for decades to managers moaning about wrong decisions costing their team results, and we get the first ever official goal awarded through VAR with a 100% correct decision, and guess what - a manager is moaning and questioning it. Just because the goal was against his team. 

 

19 minutes ago, Paul said:

 

 If you’re happy with watching a game frequently stopped for a minute or more for VAR that’s fine but I’m not. Think about how much time is already lost in a game and just how much football do we actually see. 

 

https://talksport.com/football/average-ball-play-time-each-premier-league-side-201718-season-171127263506

It's exactly because of the time already lost that I don't understand why people are moaning about a few minutes here and there for the odd VAR decision. 

The link above shows the ball is in play for less than 60 mins of a Premier League match. That's almost half an hour of inactive time in a 90 mins match. 

So, to me, VAR is going to have minimal impact in relation to that dead time. 

There are tons of things authorities could do to try and reduce this wasted time - speed up throw ins, stop goalkeepers taking forever, stop players surrounding refs for ages complaining etc, etc. 

I would prefer to concentrate on cleaning up some of those areas of the game, and increase time that way, and leave a few minutes here and there to use VAR to make sure match determining decisions are made as accurately as possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Backroom
8 minutes ago, Silas said:

It's comments like these that are making people look stupid. 

Yes, they really can say it was onside (was clear for us all to see with the lined replay), and no, they are not guessing. 

Have listened for decades to managers moaning about wrong decisions costing their team results, and we get the first ever official goal awarded through VAR with a 100% correct decision, and guess what - a manager is moaning and questioning it. Just because the goal was against his team. 

 

https://talksport.com/football/average-ball-play-time-each-premier-league-side-201718-season-171127263506

It's exactly because of the time already lost that I don't understand why people are moaning about a few minutes here and there for the odd VAR decision. 

The link above shows the ball is in play for less than 60 mins of a Premier League match. That's almost half an hour of inactive time in a 90 mins match. 

So, to me, VAR is going to have minimal impact in relation to that dead time. 

There are tons of things authorities could do to try and reduce this wasted time - speed up throw ins, stop goalkeepers taking forever, stop players surrounding refs for ages complaining etc, etc. 

I would prefer to concentrate on cleaning up some of those areas of the game, and increase time that way, and leave a few minutes here and there to use VAR to make sure match determining decisions are made as accurately as possible. 

I think VAR is great! It's simple, it's modern and long overdue.

Personally would like to see weekly wage fines (by the FA) to any player seen hounding the ref after he's made a decision and the money donated to grassroots.

Let the referee referee!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.