So, noone want to talk about VAR?

[roger_ramjet]

Did anyone watch the Spurs Rochdale game last night on TV? Robbie Savage whining on about how long it takes?

I just don't understand what all the moaning was about. 4 "goals" to be checked and a penalty decision. With the exception of the first disallowed goal, I'd say VAR got it right, and the first one was very much a judgement call - could have gone either way. Without VAR i suspect it would have been allowed, with VAR it wasn't.

But to listen to Savage whining on about the time it took (about a minute a referral) you would have thought half an hour had been added to the game. In fact 5 minutes added time in first half, so maybe 4 of these were down to VAR.

Who cares if it adds a few minutes to the game? In rugby union where checks are made on scores etc by a video ref, the game seems to be stopped for even longer. But speaking personally I would sooner the right decision was made, and the game goes on for a couple of minutes longer than a wrong decision ruin the game's outcome.

One thing I would suggest though is that the match clock be stopped when a referral is made and not restarted until that decision is enacted. I know this take part of time management out of the ref's hands, but it might aid in "fan management".

[Andy_Faber]

Did anyone watch the Spurs Rochdale game last night on TV? Robbie Savage whining on about how long it takes?

I just don't understand what all the moaning was about. 4 "goals" to be checked and a penalty decision. With the exception of the first disallowed goal, I'd say VAR got it right, and the first one was very much a judgement call - could have gone either way. Without VAR i suspect it would have been allowed, with VAR it wasn't.

But to listen to Savage whining on about the time it took (about a minute a referral) you would have thought half an hour had been added to the game. In fact 5 minutes added time in first half, so maybe 4 of these were down to VAR.

Who cares if it adds a few minutes to the game? In rugby union where checks are made on scores etc by a video ref, the game seems to be stopped for even longer. But speaking personally I would sooner the right decision was made, and the game goes on for a couple of minutes longer than a wrong decision ruin the game's outcome.

One thing I would suggest though is that the match clock be stopped when a referral is made and not restarted until that decision is enacted. I know this take part of time management out of the ref's hands, but it might aid in "fan management".

Jury's out for me RR, I think they have the method wrong. I think it should work more like the cricket method where each team have two appeals per game and five seconds to decide, I don't think the ref should be the decision maker at all. And regarding Rugby, I was astonished that video review (and preparing scrums) results in sooooo much dead time and subduing of the crowd. Those dead periods are taken up by the equiv of Savage rattling on on TV, but there's nothing when watching at the game, very strange

[mistaram]

Here's me thinking it stands for Virgins Are Rare gutted

[Romanis]

Did anyone watch the Spurs Rochdale game last night on TV? Robbie Savage whining on about how long it takes?

I just don't understand what all the moaning was about. 4 "goals" to be checked and a penalty decision. With the exception of the first disallowed goal, I'd say VAR got it right, and the first one was very much a judgement call - could have gone either way. Without VAR i suspect it would have been allowed, with VAR it wasn't.

But to listen to Savage whining on about the time it took (about a minute a referral) you would have thought half an hour had been added to the game. In fact 5 minutes added time in first half, so maybe 4 of these were down to VAR.

Who cares if it adds a few minutes to the game? In rugby union where checks are made on scores etc by a video ref, the game seems to be stopped for even longer. But speaking personally I would sooner the right decision was made, and the game goes on for a couple of minutes longer than a wrong decision ruin the game's outcome.

One thing I would suggest though is that the match clock be stopped when a referral is made and not restarted until that decision is enacted. I know this take part of time management out of the ref's hands, but it might aid in "fan management".

If Ramsmanifink was here, he'd love to talk to you about this....

[Andy_Faber]

If Ramsmanifink was here, he'd love to talk to you about this....

or himself

[MadAmster]

Fans' reaction to VAR is thought provoking. We have all spent our lives complaining about wrong decisions like the 2 penalties we were denied at hame against Bristol City and so many more decisions down the years.

FIFA eventually decides to introduce it and there is a general acceptance of it. Fans then proceed to lambast how long it takes etc. FFS guys and gals. It's new. It will have teething problems. Officials will need time to get used to it. All part of a natural process.

I don't see a problem or issue that fans couldn't have predicted prior to its use. The good thing is that it is being used in a few selected Cup ties to look at how it (doesn't) work successfully and where improvements could be made. There are places where it is already used successfully. It might have been better if the VAR "refs" in the "studio" had been sent on a month ( or longer) course in a country where it is now fully in use. They would then see how it is used effectively and could then come back and train their colleagues.

[ramAnag]

Nice to have a proper football based debate. Agree with Rog and MA...better to get the correct decision and have to wait a minute or two and let’s not judge according to the reaction of the lowest common denominators i.e. those with the concentration span of a gnat.
Been used really well in RL and cricket but unfortunately I think those responsible in Rugby Union have done the system no favours recently. England’s crucial game changing try against Argentina in the autumn should never have been given and Wales’ against England a couple of weeks ago was a certain touch down. This comes down to the wrong questions being asked imo but if we’re going to have it...and I’m in favour...it’s got to be used properly as, sadly, it actually was in Scotland last Saturday for England’s second disallowed ‘try’.

[AdiSalisbury]

For me, refereeing decisions are part of the game, and they should remain that way. It's not meant to be perfect, but quite often it's a decision that gets the game and atmosphere going. It's one thing to sit at home with a book with MoTD on the telly, and observe a perfect spectacle, it's another to be there and be off your feet at a messy decision. Other sports are different. Rugby is stop start, and the players / refs sleep with each other anyway. Cricket is 98% stop, and an umpire has to make a decision on a 90mph red blur, it makes sense to use any tools available - noting that the crowd aren't going to be able to see it with any clarity unlike at a football game.

I watched the rugby a couple of years ago with the VAR being called every decision, and it made it more boring than it already was. At least football has a bit of passion in it's locker.

[ramAnag]

‘The players/refs sleep with each other anyway’?
Honestly, I think RL is the most ‘action packed’ sport going and it works well there.
Wonder if Leeds fans would agree with you - and Mr. Tinkler - over that decisive and still astonishing decision against WBA which decided the title about two hundred years ago. Mind you, it was the Bremner/Revie Leeds, so that still makes me laugh and perhaps you have a point.

[roger_ramjet]

So is the general feeling that it creates too much "stop start" in the game, which then kills the passion of the crowd and perhaps the momentum in the game? Clearly it has been successful in games with natural breaks - American sports being the prime example where, for example, in the NFL the breaks make a 3 hour game out of 60 minutes gametime. Cricket is full of natural breaks, rugby (the real one not the northern *******isation) tends to be very stop start, So in these sports fans have become accustomed to breaks in action and thus accepting of VAR breaks.

So why is football different? Is it just because the fans are resistant to change and so do not accept breaks in continuous play. How do such fans mentally handle injury stoppages - or is that too something that "has always been there". I am sure that VAR can simply become part of the way the game is in time - its just that people are always naturally resistant to change and new things.

Perhaps the answer is to rebrand VAR time outs as social media breaks, this allowing fans at the stadium time to tweet etc their vacuous opinions to the world without missing a moment in play. Can those complaining about the VAR break be the same fans who somehow find time mid game to broadcast their thoughts via their mobiles?

And lets not lose sight of the fact that it wont be long before Sky etc realise that they can flog a short 20 second advert in the VAR pause in the game. The next iteration will be that, if there has not been a VAR break after 30 minutes, then an advertisers time out will be called (see NFL) to guarantee Sky their break.