Your verdict on VAR

[swaledale]

Another stunning application of VAR in the Wolves game last night (NOT!). Who are these idiots running the English game?

[MadAmster]

Firstly, he WAS offside so the VAR got that bit right. However,

1. It took way too long
2. it was another of those 2mm decisions which, to me, is not clear and obvious

The goal should have stood due to there bieng no clear and obvious error by the officials.

[swaledale]

Firstly, he WAS offside so the VAR got that bit right. However,

1. It took way too long
2. it was another of those 2mm decisions which, to me, is not clear and obvious

The goal should have stood due to there bieng no clear and obvious error by the officials.

Exactly!

[MadAmster]

Exactly!

The PL have announced they will be reviewing the way they use VAR over the summer. Some have said do it now and change the use now. I am for looking at it now but I am of the opinion that they should keep it the way it is for the rest of the season so that the last game is played under the same circumstances as the first.

The changes I would make are:

1. Have the ref check the video himself if the VAR thinks he got it wrong, FIFA Laws say he should so he should.
2. Ditch the costly software that no other League can afford that allows these stupid "1mm" decisions.
3. Put a time limit of maybe 30 seconds on the VAR. If the VAR hasn't been able to see a "clear and obvious" error within that time then there probably isn't one.

Off the top of my head I can't think of any other changes necessary to have VAR work as designed.

[macstheman]

The problem is our administrators will never acknowledge their ****-ups so don't expect much change.
VAR should be standardised across all FIFA controlled football areas, simple as but no our shower have to buy some special software to complicate things! I wonder who sold them that???!!!!

[Manofpride]

Agree with Tricky on this and as mista says they've over complicated it.

[Rattea]

Personally I think they do a cracking job for the area and community....

https://www.varutland.org.uk/transport

[ramAnag]

Doubts raised about VAR must surely have been confirmed yesterday. How can a system which somehow gets interpreted as giving Mane offside in the build up to Liverpool’s disallowed ‘winner’ not even be called upon to look at Pickford’s season ending tackle on van Dijk?
The technology is there...in one case it was misinterpreted...in the other, just ignored.

[MadAmster]

Logic would see, in the minds of many, the failure to look at the van Dijk incident as a dereliction of duty. Logic would be right.

VAR is to be used only for “clear and obvious errors” or “serious missed incidents” in four match-changing situations: goals; penalty decisions; direct red-card incidents; and mistaken identity.

I would argue that Pickford's "tackle" was a serious missed incident which should have resulted in a penalty decision.

Was the VAR involved at all in the incident? I don't think it was as the penalty would have been given if they had used the VAR.

There has been talk of Virgil being offside and that that was the first incident so it's the one that counts. If that was true I would disagree with that "decision". The ref hadn't blown so play was still going on. Pickford then made that "tackle". Had Virgil, indeed, been offside and the new advice to Assistant refs to flag late was the reason it hadn't yet been signalled then offside should have been given as that was first offence. However, that would mean that Pickford had taken Virgil out "off the ball". Still a red card offence but no penalty as the offside had already happened.

I've also seen pundits say that, even if he was offside, the penalty should have been given as it's the more serious offence. They are wrong. They may have been misled by this from Law 5.

The referee punishes the more serious offence, in terms of sanction, restart, physical severity and tactical impact, when more than one offence occurs at the same time

Any offside by Virgil happened prior to the "tackle", not simultaneously. Ergo, the ref should ave awarded an indirect free kick to Everton if van Dijk had been offside and then shown Pickford the red card.

[MadAmster]

Logic would see, in the minds of many, the failure to look at the van Dijk incident as a dereliction of duty. Logic would be right.

VAR is to be used only for “clear and obvious errors” or “serious missed incidents” in four match-changing situations: goals; penalty decisions; direct red-card incidents; and mistaken identity.

I would argue that Pickford's "tackle" was a serious missed incident which should have resulted in a penalty decision.

Was the VAR involved at all in the incident? I don't think it was as the penalty would have been given if they had used the VAR.

There has been talk of Virgil being offside and that that was the first incident so it's the one that counts. If that was true I would partially
disagree with that "decision". The ref hadn't blown so play was still going on. Pickford then made that "tackle". Had Virgil, indeed, been offside and the new advice to Assistant refs to flag late was the reason it hadn't yet been signalled then offside should have been given as that was first offence. However, that would mean that Pickford had taken Virgil out "off the ball". Still a red card offence but no penalty as the offside had already happened.

I've also seen pundits say that, even if he was offside, the penalty should have been given as it's the more serious offence. They are wrong. They may have been misled by this from Law 5.

The referee punishes the more serious offence, in terms of sanction, restart, physical severity and tactical impact, when more than one offence occurs at the same time

Any offside by Virgil happened prior to the "tackle", not simultaneously. Ergo, the ref should ave awarded an indirect free kick to Everton if van Dijk had been offside and then shown Pickford the red card.