Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pete

Is VAR such a good idea?

Recommended Posts

After witnessing VAR decisions made at Womens World Cup and MLS in the US, some of which are difficult to believe and the proliferation of dismissals particularly in the MLS.  And the time it takes to make a decision.  Soon we will be hankering after the bad old days when we had to live with the occasional poor decision by referees and games not being delayed beyond reason.  Provided the leagues do not appoint the Hoopers and Ildertons as competent referees I could live without VAR.  Soon to be yearning for a return to the sanity of the championship.

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO it is being miss-used - it was meant to be for obvious mistakes, but for the Women’s World Cup it seems to have almost turned into a referee’s ‘comfort blanket’.

I think it just needs decent refs and to only have referrals of things that ‘need’ to be referred.  It worked well last summer, less so this.

My biggest bug-bear is that offsides should still have an element of giving the benefit of the doubt to the striker - the ‘lines on the pitch’ technology is all well and good but it doesn’t show the precise moment the ball left the passer’s foot, so a ‘paper thin’ offside a la Lingard should still be given as a goal.

Edited by Branston Pickle
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Cantiaci Canary said:

Would Cam's 'goal' against Palace be ruled out or awarded by VAR?

 

and that's the problem, there's no evidence that VAR will make a difference, unless it is used properly. 

 

34 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

It's got to be good for us. It should help smaller clubs getting decisions at places like Old Trafford and Anfield 

don't bank on it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

It's got to be good for us. It should help smaller clubs getting decisions at places like Old Trafford and Anfield 

Man U and Liverpool players will still get round the ref to influence him, there will still be a level of bias unfortunately 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t see how anyone can complain, it’s highlighted that when a critical decision is made by the ref like the penalty against the US, the offside and the hand ball last yesterday for the goal, each time the decision has been changed correctly instead of the wrong decision and a bad feeling being left in the game.

Its working and will take a few years to get perfect but really can’t see anyone being critical of VAR. The rules of the game have changed this season some of which are pretty stupid like the hand ball, as how can you say when a player has his hands outside his normal body profile when at speed or jumping or tackling, it should still be intentional handball.

I like it and feel happy to see cheating taken out the game, you guys won’t be so critical when Sterling falls over in our area looking for a penalty!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s when they say that a players foot is offside, drives me nuts, why isn’t it the torso rather than some random body part ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Indy said:

 

I like it and feel happy to see cheating taken out the game, you guys won’t be so critical when Sterling falls over in our area looking for a penalty!

we will if it's given. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, FenwayFrank said:

It’s when they say that a players foot is offside, drives me nuts, why isn’t it the torso rather than some random body part ?

Again the rule not VAR! Though I agree entirely!

 

16 minutes ago, splendidrush said:

we will if it's given. 

What a yellow for simulation? There’s a number of cheating players in the top sides who quote” used to win penalties by being clever” diving in effect, Sterling was one of the biggest cheats, this VAR used correctly will be positive in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Indy said:

Don’t see how anyone can complain, it’s highlighted that when a critical decision is made by the ref like the penalty against the US, the offside and the hand ball last yesterday for the goal, each time the decision has been changed correctly instead of the wrong decision and a bad feeling being left in the game.

Its working and will take a few years to get perfect but really can’t see anyone being critical of VAR. The rules of the game have changed this season some of which are pretty stupid like the hand ball, as how can you say when a player has his hands outside his normal body profile when at speed or jumping or tackling, it should still be intentional handball.

I like it and feel happy to see cheating taken out the game, you guys won’t be so critical when Sterling falls over in our area looking for a penalty!

That's the thing. I don't think anyone can argue that VAR is getting 99.9% right, but at what cost?It's nice winning games,lifting trophies, but it's the moments us as fans remember, not the end result.

That feeling of pukkis winner v Millwall Vrancic v sheff wed, Klose v ipswich, Jackson v derby, you can't get that feeling of a total explosion of emotion anywhere. VAR Dilutes that feeling because it adds doubt,it delays the decision.

I would rather keep football as a human game with all the human errors and human emotion than a robotic game

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the tiny drop of doubt that you will now have with every goal scored ... will it be reviewed and ruled out for something 3 mins later?!

However, it does seem to make it more likely that fair decisions will be made and that justice will be served.

The ref wouldn't have given England that late penalty on Tues evening because of the angle that she saw it. It would've been criminal to have not awarded that in a World Cup semi final BUT, in sport, do we secretly relish that burning sense of injustice or wicked smugness when something big goes your way that shouldn't have?

I suppose it boils down to whether you enjoy the talking point from a match being appalling decisions from refs or the performance of the players and coaches.

VAR would have ruled out England's 1966 and Maradona's 1986 goals ... are we bleaching the emotion / drama / poetry from the game or making it more just? 

Will the quest for 'perfectly' managed matches end in robot refs and eventually robot players and coaches?!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, glory.win or die. said:

That's the thing. I don't think anyone can argue that VAR is getting 99.9% right, but at what cost?It's nice winning games,lifting trophies, but it's the moments us as fans remember, not the end result.

That feeling of pukkis winner v Millwall Vrancic v sheff wed, Klose v ipswich, Jackson v derby, you can't get that feeling of a total explosion of emotion anywhere. VAR Dilutes that feeling because it adds doubt,it delays the decision.

I would rather keep football as a human game with all the human errors and human emotion than a robotic game

I’m not sure Webber or Farke would agree if on the final day of the season, Sterling dives, wins a penalty and sends us down, costing the club potentially 100 million, another season in the top flight and I’m pretty sure we would all like to see a fair result. VAR or reviews are used in pretty much all sports now and I believe a very good thing. But that’s just me, I’m sure we’re all different with different views no doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go on then, I'll bite. 

Which England goal in 66 would have been ruled out because of var? Also, even if that were the case, I would rather we won it in 86 because I actually saw that world cup, and I think with maradonna sent off then we would have done...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cornish sam said:

Go on then, I'll bite. 

Which England goal in 66 would have been ruled out because of var? Also, even if that were the case, I would rather we won it in 86 because I actually saw that world cup, and I think with maradonna sent off then we would have done...

The 3rd England goal would have been disallowed by goal line technology, not by VAR. 

England could easily have knocked Argentina out in the hand ball game even without VAR. But there were some very good sides other than Argentina in that competition and I doubt England would have got to the final. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VAR will be used ever more increasingly because it will become a vehicle for in game advertising. 

'This in game verdict is brought to you in association with Tenaman pant wetting technology.'. Or similar. 

It is going to spoil football. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, glory.win or die. said:

That's the thing. I don't think anyone can argue that VAR is getting 99.9% right, but at what cost?It's nice winning games,lifting trophies, but it's the moments us as fans remember, not the end result.

That feeling of pukkis winner v Millwall Vrancic v sheff wed, Klose v ipswich, Jackson v derby, you can't get that feeling of a total explosion of emotion anywhere. VAR Dilutes that feeling because it adds doubt,it delays the decision.

I would rather keep football as a human game with all the human errors and human emotion than a robotic game

Agree. After every crucial goal, there will be the wait for it to be reviewed - some of the euphoria is likely to disappear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Indy said:

What a yellow for simulation? There’s a number of cheating players in the top sides who quote” used to win penalties by being clever” diving in effect, Sterling was one of the biggest cheats, this VAR used correctly will be positive in my opinion.

Salah was criticised a lot last season for going down too easily and/or diving, but in nearly all cases there was minimal contact. VAR wouldn't overturn those decision and book him for diving because there was, admittedly minimal, contact.

The good thing about VAR is that it eliminates the shockers. Some decisions are clearly wrong, whether it's an offside call, a straight red card (given or not given) or a clear penalty decision (given or not given). 

The 50-50 calls without VAR are generally also 50-50 decisions with VAR too. We've seen many times where the pundits in the studio can't agree even after umpteen replays. These are the decisions that need to be kept as they are and not reviewed, as they spoil the flow of the game. I think in most countries with VAR (certainly in Italy) that it was used a bit too much in the beginning as they were reviewing these borderline decisions but after a couple of months it settled down and they only started reviewing the clear errors. As long as we stick to this principle then it should be OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Badger said:

Agree. After every crucial goal, there will be the wait for it to be reviewed - some of the euphoria is likely to disappear?

Thing is it will cut both ways - there will be times when we think we've lost to a last minute sickener only for it to be reviewed in our favour - think how those Spurs fans felt when Sterling's 'late winner' was ruled out in the Champs League quarter final.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Thing is it will cut both ways - there will be times when we think we've lost to a last minute sickener only for it to be reviewed in our favour - think how those Spurs fans felt when Sterling's 'late winner' was ruled out in the Champs League quarter final.

True ... but I fear we might miss those occasional moments of ecstasy that only* football can bring

* well almost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The 3rd England goal would have been disallowed by goal line technology, not by VAR. 

England could easily have knocked Argentina out in the hand ball game even without VAR. But there were some very good sides other than Argentina in that competition and I doubt England would have got to the final. 

*might* have been disallowed

the camera wasn´t on the goal line, so it is difficult to tell if the ball was on or over the line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The 3rd England goal would have been disallowed by goal line technology, not by VAR.

7 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

*might* have been disallowed

the camera wasn´t on the goal line, so it is difficult to tell if the ball was on or over the line

 

It doesn't matter, we would still have won 3-2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, splendidrush said:

It doesn't matter, we would still have won 3-2.

Yeh but the most famous quote in English football would never have been heard! Some people are on the pitch they think it’s all over! It is now it’s four!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, splendidrush said:

It doesn't matter, we would still have won 3-2.

Really?

Anyway, the third goal, whilst officially inconclusive, is generally accepted to be one which shouldn't have stood. It's just the English really who keep trying to find 'evidence' to say it was legit.

Edited by Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The 3rd England goal would have been disallowed by goal line technology, not by VAR. 

England could easily have knocked Argentina out in the hand ball game even without VAR. But there were some very good sides other than Argentina in that competition and I doubt England would have got to the final. 

I assumed that was the intended one and I would have also countered with that would be Hawkeye (excuse the source but sky have "proven" that it was "definitely" a goal https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3384366/Geoff-Hurst-s-goal-against-West-Germany-DID-cross-line-Sky-Sports-finally-prove-linesman-right-award-controversial-strike-1966-World-Cup-final.html)

As for 86, had we beaten Argentina we would have faced Belgium in the semi, who whilst a good team, we were better. With the final being against the west Germans tho you probably have a point....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

https://vimeo.com/151903603

It didn't cross the line

Is that from the original footage? Although the ball doesn't look completely across the line when it's turned into a computer graphic, that picture is when the ball is at ground level. To me, it looks like the ball travels through the plane of the goal line after it hits the underside of the crossbar and then curves back slightly as it drops to the ground.

It looked like a goal to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FenwayFrank said:

It’s when they say that a players foot is offside, drives me nuts, why isn’t it the torso rather than some random body part ?

This is what concerns me - a player is deemed offside because their boot is beyond the last defender in the freeze frame, but this all depends on the point in the two players’ strides at which they freeze it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...