The two faces of VAR.

[MadAmster]

We saw both faces (and maybe more) of VAR in the 2018 WC Final. I will address two individual moments.

FACE #1

VAR is limited in its permitted use and that is, IMO, the bad face of VAR.

Let's take a look at the Griezmann "free kick". He conned the ref and got away with it because free kicks in open play are outside of the jurisdiction of VAR. Griezmann took the free kick and Mandzukic diverted it into his own net. 1-0 France.

If VAR had been allowed to be used then the free kick would have been rescinded and Griezmann would have got a yellow card for simulation.

This, IMO, is the embodiment of VAR's failings. I believe it should allowed to be used in all situations. ALLOWED being the important word here. I would never advocate its use in ALL situations as you would get 47 VAR situations in every game and a match would last 3 hours.

How would I use it then?

Allow it to be used all over the pitch for any kind of issue. However, its use should be rationed. The officials should be allowed to call for VAR if they are uncertain of what happened. Was it a goal or not? Should I give a penalty or not? Free kicks (Griezmann's for instance) and corners that could lead to goals, did I get it right? Game changing moments.

I would also give the teams a ration each. Two or maybe three "challenges" per half. If you challenge and was right then you don't lose a challenge. I would probably err on 2 per half as this would prevent spurious challenges designed to do litlle more than take the momentum out of the game. I realise that, late in a half and with both challenges still available teams may well take a spurious gamble. That would remain a "loophole" in the system but only a minor one. Unless of course teams lost one automatically after 35 minutes or so........ If you had already wasted 1 then you wouldn't have any left. That might be sufficient to stop misuse of the system. I fully expect more suggestions from you guys and gals.



FACE #2

It gets used in a situation that IS permitted by the VAR guidelines/rules/Laws.

The penalty. I only saw the replay as I had just nipped into the kitchen to get drinks for some of my guests and walked back out into the garden to see half a dozen or so happy looking French players with their hand above their heads. Some of them appeared to be clapping. My first thought was "bugger, they've scored". Then the replay kicked in and I said, as did everybody in my garden, penalty. The ref had a dialogue with the VAR official(s) and then drew an imaginary square in the air. He then ran off to watch his personal TV. Having seen the footage he gave the penalty. Penalty was the correct decision.

That giving of the penalty was an objective decision based on what actually happened. In this particular case it was a match in which I had no real vested interest.

The acid test for me is, would I accept the VAR decision if it meant a penalty beign awarded against Derby? The answer there is a resounding yes. I want Derby to win but I also want them to win fairly and deservedly. For instance, the Jerome yellow card at home to Bristol City that should have been a penalty to us. Reverse the situation and I may well mutter "bloody VAR" under my breath but, IMO, proper use of VAR will stop almost all, if not all, of the shenannigins and give all teams the right decision.

There you have it. The basis of the discussion. VAR is here to stay. The big question is where/how to use it. Should it have been allowed to be used to correct the wrongly given free kick that led to France's first. That it wasn't is 100% correct under the current Laws of VAR use. I think it should be allowed to disallow wrongly given free kicks.

Over to you my friends.

[Andy_Faber]

We saw both faces (and maybe more) of VAR in the 2018 WC Final. I will address two individual moments.

FACE #1

VAR is limited in its permitted use and that is, IMO, the bad face of VAR.

Let's take a look at the Griezmann "free kick". He conned the ref and got away with it because free kicks in open play are outside of the jurisdiction of VAR. Griezmann took the free kick and Mandzukic diverted it into his own net. 1-0 France.

If VAR had been allowed to be used then the free kick would have been rescinded and Griezmann would have got a yellow card for simulation.

This, IMO, is the embodiment of VAR's failings. I believe it should allowed to be used in all situations. ALLOWED being the important word here. I would never advocate its use in ALL situations as you would get 47 VAR situations in every game and a match would last 3 hours.

How would I use it then?

Allow it to be used all over the pitch for any kind of issue. However, its use should be rationed. The officials should be allowed to call for VAR if they are uncertain of what happened. Was it a goal or not? Should I give a penalty or not? Free kicks (Griezmann's for instance) and corners that could lead to goals, did I get it right? Game changing moments.

I would also give the teams a ration each. Two or maybe three "challenges" per half. If you challenge and was right then you don't lose a challenge. I would probably err on 2 per half as this would prevent spurious challenges designed to do litlle more than take the momentum out of the game. I realise that, late in a half and with both challenges still available teams may well take a spurious gamble. That would remain a "loophole" in the system but only a minor one. Unless of course teams lost one automatically after 35 minutes or so........ If you had already wasted 1 then you wouldn't have any left. That might be sufficient to stop misuse of the system. I fully expect more suggestions from you guys and gals.



FACE #2

It gets used in a situation that IS permitted by the VAR guidelines/rules/Laws.

The penalty. I only saw the replay as I had just nipped into the kitchen to get drinks for some of my guests and walked back out into the garden to see half a dozen or so happy looking French players with their hand above their heads. Some of them appeared to be clapping. My first thought was "bugger, they've scored". Then the replay kicked in and I said, as did everybody in my garden, penalty. The ref had a dialogue with the VAR official(s) and then drew an imaginary square in the air. He then ran off to watch his personal TV. Having seen the footage he gave the penalty. Penalty was the correct decision.

That giving of the penalty was an objective decision based on what actually happened. In this particular case it was a match in which I had no real vested interest.

The acid test for me is, would I accept the VAR decision if it meant a penalty beign awarded against Derby? The answer there is a resounding yes. I want Derby to win but I also want them to win fairly and deservedly. For instance, the Jerome yellow card at home to Bristol City that should have been a penalty to us. Reverse the situation and I may well mutter "bloody VAR" under my breath but, IMO, proper use of VAR will stop almost all, if not all, of the shenannigins and give all teams the right decision.

There you have it. The basis of the discussion. VAR is here to stay. The big question is where/how to use it. Should it have been allowed to be used to correct the wrongly given free kick that led to France's first. That it wasn't is 100% correct under the current Laws of VAR use. I think it should be allowed to disallow wrongly given free kicks.

Over to you my friends.

adopt the NFL option of the head coach aka manager 'throwing a flag', with a limit on the number of flags allowed. Seems to work well. See the wiki entry for the history of NFL reviews

[Geoff Parkstone]

One of the reasons the NFL system works though is the existence of time outs, and the loss of a time out for a falsely tossed flag is a significant disadvantage

Imagine where our season might have gone if Rowett could have thrown a flag when Jerome went down, or likewise if McLaren could when Martin went down against Burnley back in the day

[Andy_Faber]

One of the reasons the NFL system works though is the existence of time outs, and the loss of a time out for a falsely tossed flag is a significant disadvantage

Not pretending its perfect and the stop start nature of NFL makes it a better fit, but it does introduce an element of skill/judgement into the equation

[Romanis]

We saw both faces (and maybe more) of VAR in the 2018 WC Final. I will address two individual moments.

FACE #1

VAR is limited in its permitted use and that is, IMO, the bad face of VAR.

Let's take a look at the Griezmann "free kick". He conned the ref and got away with it because free kicks in open play are outside of the jurisdiction of VAR. Griezmann took the free kick and Mandzukic diverted it into his own net. 1-0 France.

If VAR had been allowed to be used then the free kick would have been rescinded and Griezmann would have got a yellow card for simulation.

This, IMO, is the embodiment of VAR's failings. I believe it should allowed to be used in all situations. ALLOWED being the important word here. I would never advocate its use in ALL situations as you would get 47 VAR situations in every game and a match would last 3 hours.

How would I use it then?

Allow it to be used all over the pitch for any kind of issue. However, its use should be rationed. The officials should be allowed to call for VAR if they are uncertain of what happened. Was it a goal or not? Should I give a penalty or not? Free kicks (Griezmann's for instance) and corners that could lead to goals, did I get it right? Game changing moments.

I would also give the teams a ration each. Two or maybe three "challenges" per half. If you challenge and was right then you don't lose a challenge. I would probably err on 2 per half as this would prevent spurious challenges designed to do litlle more than take the momentum out of the game. I realise that, late in a half and with both challenges still available teams may well take a spurious gamble. That would remain a "loophole" in the system but only a minor one. Unless of course teams lost one automatically after 35 minutes or so........ If you had already wasted 1 then you wouldn't have any left. That might be sufficient to stop misuse of the system. I fully expect more suggestions from you guys and gals.



FACE #2

It gets used in a situation that IS permitted by the VAR guidelines/rules/Laws.

The penalty. I only saw the replay as I had just nipped into the kitchen to get drinks for some of my guests and walked back out into the garden to see half a dozen or so happy looking French players with their hand above their heads. Some of them appeared to be clapping. My first thought was "bugger, they've scored". Then the replay kicked in and I said, as did everybody in my garden, penalty. The ref had a dialogue with the VAR official(s) and then drew an imaginary square in the air. He then ran off to watch his personal TV. Having seen the footage he gave the penalty. Penalty was the correct decision.

That giving of the penalty was an objective decision based on what actually happened. In this particular case it was a match in which I had no real vested interest.

The acid test for me is, would I accept the VAR decision if it meant a penalty beign awarded against Derby? The answer there is a resounding yes. I want Derby to win but I also want them to win fairly and deservedly. For instance, the Jerome yellow card at home to Bristol City that should have been a penalty to us. Reverse the situation and I may well mutter "bloody VAR" under my breath but, IMO, proper use of VAR will stop almost all, if not all, of the shenannigins and give all teams the right decision.

There you have it. The basis of the discussion. VAR is here to stay. The big question is where/how to use it. Should it have been allowed to be used to correct the wrongly given free kick that led to France's first. That it wasn't is 100% correct under the current Laws of VAR use. I think it should be allowed to disallow wrongly given free kicks.

Over to you my friends.

Disagree to both.
Questionable penalty. Benefit of doubt should have been given. I very much doubt the Reserve Referee Mr Kuipers (sp) would have given it.

The first - totally disagree. The referee was close to play and made his decision on what he saw. Case closed.

[MadAmster]

Disagree to both.
Questionable penalty. Benefit of doubt should have been given. I very much doubt the Reserve Referee Mr Kuipers (sp) would have given it.

The first - totally disagree. The referee was close to play and made his decision on what he saw. Case closed.

Glad you don't ref me then Rom.

Griezmann went down like a sack of spuds for absolutely no reason. The incident falls outside of VAR jurisdiction. VAR could not be used on it. My feelings are that it should. I hate cheating and diving and would accept any sensible idea that cut it out.

[Romanis]

VAR should not called for when an offence occurred under the referees's nose and he spotted the infringement.
He decided and that should be the way. He was conscious of it and even waved away protests. Are you saying there's no contact with the player?

Don't forget this is not in an area direct to goal. Free-kick may have been a soft decision but there was contact and not a huge advantage in that position.
The possibilty of a goal from there was not high. I would say less than 50% maybe even far lesser.
He did not give France any real advantage or the reverse against Croatia.
And mind you, I was supporting Croatia.

The penalty was wrong as it was more ball to hand than the reverse. He jumped for the ball which is natural that your hands come up and go down. The ball struck it. Was the hand in an unnatural position when jumping to meet the incoming ball on the way down?
I think many think not.
The usually nit picky English media and pundits also think the same.

Well that's my position. Obviously you have yours. You disagree with the first and agree to the 2nd . my position is exactly opposite.
Nothing wrong in the first and very soft penalty.

Obviously as a referee you know at the end of the day, different referees will react differently in the same scenario.
However once the referee made his decision, that's what we have to accept. In either case it comes to the area of his discretion. No outright right or wrong answer. Some may give, some may not.