VAR - Would we want to play with VAR doing what it does

[WTF11]

Thread title says it all

[BelfastAndy]

Lotta ballix

[WTF11]

I'm with Garth Crooks

[asturianblanco]

spoiling the game, no we dont need it.

[alfinyalcabo]

Even though it went for us yesterday,I hate it.. You will find out next season when you can't celebrate a goal until they have checked it with VAR. The game has been ruined by it ..

[WTF11]

Even though it went for us yesterday,I hate it.. You will find out next season when you can't celebrate a goal until they have checked it with VAR. The game has been ruined by it ..

I'd agree but is this how it is wherever VAR is used (thinking of the European leagues)?

[pete1967b]

VAR is the biggest load of b o l l o k s ever to come into football by the so called bigwigs,

It has spoilt our beautiful game, i do not know one person who i speak to about it that thinks it is any good,

Some will argue that it needs tweaking here and there until they get it right,

But for me it can f u k right off,

Do i want to get to the Prem, too right i do, Do i want VAR, no thanks, but looks like its here to stay unfortunately.

[Tichi1]

Even though it went for us yesterday,I hate it.. You will find out next season when you can't celebrate a goal until they have checked it with VAR. The game has been ruined by it ..

Agree 100% Alf
Went to St Marys to see Southampton v Spurs, Game ruined as you say - the automatic reaction when a goal goes in has now become diluted/muted imediately after as you wait for VAR to dissallow a perfectly good goal.. takes away spontenaety.

I think it has completely ruined the game. Ought to use it like at tennis - two challenges per game or something similar IMO

[spaldy]

I agree with the exception of a goal line cam. pretty simple to do with modern technology. ball crosses the line it's a goal. otherwise play goes on. This does not come up very often in games and it's one area when even the best linesmen/ref can't be on top of the play to spot it. You can also do this real quickly without ruining the flow of the game.

[WTF11]

I agree with the exception of a goal line cam. pretty simple to do with modern technology. ball crosses the line it's a goal. otherwise play goes on. This does not come up very often in games and it's one area when even the best linesmen/ref can't be on top of the play to spot it. You can also do this real quickly without ruining the flow of the game.

Championship has the goal line stuff, just not the constant second guessing on every decision in open play that VAR seems to be used for. I thought it was there for decisions the match officials had difficulty with, not to review everything (like what happened to Bournemouth against Bumley, disgraceful treatment and I can only imagine what Eddie Howe would LIKED to have said in the post match interview, he was very restrained!)

[alfinyalcabo]

Both decisions were correct to the letter of the Var law,I wouldn't have been happy though if it had been the other way round.. The question is " where do you draw the line between the arm and the shoulder..

[WTF11]

Both decisions were correct to the letter of the Var law,I wouldn't have been happy though if it had been the other way round.. The question is " where do you draw the line between the arm and the shoulder..

Not just that though Alf, it's what does the match official team actually do? The ref waved play on for the "hand ball" that ended up cancelling out Bournemouth equaliser and gave the penalty to your lads, surely it's a case of "play to the whistle" in such circumstances and VAR has no role to play?

[alfinyalcabo]

Not just that though Alf, it's what does the match official team actually do? The ref waved play on for the "hand ball" that ended up cancelling out Bournemouth equaliser and gave the penalty to your lads, surely it's a case of "play to the whistle" in such circumstances and VAR has no role toplay?

what about this for a scenario WTF,if Bournemouth hadn't scored straight after and Burnley went back upfield and scored ,would VAR have disallowed the goal and given Burnley the penalty ..What a strange one that would have been.lol

[WTF11]

what about this for a scenario WTF,if Bournemouth hadn't scored straight after and Burnley went back upfield and scored ,would VAR have disallowed the goal and given Burnley the penalty ..What a strange one that would have been.lol

Seems to me that VAR isn't worth the benefits it was supposed to give us, unless and until they "tune" the technology and amend the rules it supports.

[Dubbag]

Seems to me that VAR isn't worth the benefits it was supposed to give us, unless and until they "tune" the technology and amend the rules it supports.

I rarely watch PL football and even less now with VAR.....I can only hope they have a rethink as to its implementation for next season. I doubt if they will scrap it now....but a blind man on a galloping horse can see it has not worked in its present form....
It needs a serious overhauling and decisions need to be made quicker. Also,it is used for too much in a game...far too much. But the rules are as much to blame for that as well.....ball to hand....or hand to ball....sounds like a bit to intimate to me...O:)

[wortleygirl]

VAR stands for Video ASSISTANT Referee. The clue is in the word Assistant. It is supposed to assist the referee not make the decisions for them.

In the Womens World Cup the VAR people looked at something and if they thought the Referee may possibly have made a different decision they told the Ref to come and look at the screen. In the PL our referees have decided they will not look at the pitchside screens and so have passed their responsibilities to folk sat looking at video replays miles away.

With regards to hand ball when I first started watching football it was deemed handball below the wrist. It seemed to evolve into below the elbow, which is fair enough. But now it seems to be anything from the shoulder down. Handball was also deemed to be the deliberate movement of the hand to the ball. If the ball was played onto the hand by an opposition player it was deemed to be ball to hand and therefore no foul.

Time they went back to the simple version of yesteryear. It would stop a lot of arguments and silly decisions, well probably :D

[WTF11]

VAR stands for Video ASSISTANT Referee. The clue is in the word Assistant. It is supposed to assist the referee not make the decisions for them.

In the Womens World Cup the VAR people looked at something and if they thought the Referee may possibly have made a different decision they told the Ref to come and look at the screen. In the PL our referees have decided they will not look at the pitchside screens and so have passed their responsibilities to folk sat looking at video replays miles away.

With regards to hand ball when I first started watching football it was deemed handball below the wrist. It seemed to evolve into below the elbow, which is fair enough. But now it seems to be anything from the shoulder down. Handball was also deemed to be the deliberate movement of the hand to the ball. If the ball was played onto the hand by an opposition player it was deemed to be ball to hand and therefore no foul.

Time they went back to the simple version of yesteryear. It would stop a lot of arguments and silly decisions, well probably :D

A-f00king-men!!!!!

[WTF11]

About time the authorities got a grip of reality ON the pitch as opposed to virtual f00king reality at Stockley f00king Park. Just my opinion like.

[Hugh_G_Rection]

The concept itself is a good one but it's been implemented very badly.
They should have been looking at how other sports have done it and learned from their mistakes.
Cricket started out with replays for every appeal but quickly learned that a system that was supposed to be for clear and obvious errors (sound familiar??) was being 'gamed' by the players to gain an advantage (either by winning a marginal decision in their favour or by slowing game down with continuous appeals.)
They ended up going with the umpires call but giving each side two appeals against a decision.
After looking at replays, if the umpire has made an error they overturn the decision and you get your appeal back.
If you tried to overturn a marginal decision and failed you lost your appeal.
The thinking was that if you used those appeals on marginal decisions that didn't go in your favour (i.e they were not used to correct a clear and obvious error but in hope of winning a close decision) then you had no grounds to complain if a poor decision was made after that as you had two appeals but wasted them.
Do exactly the same in football.
People - and I include the f.a etc - forget that it's only supposed to be for clear and obvious errors.
Go with the referee and linesmans call but give each side two appeals. If they waste them, they only have themselves to blame.
If guarantees there will won't be limitless v.a.r checks every game, hands the power of decision making back to the referee and ensures that each team has a fair opportunity to correct a clear and obvious error but punishes those trying to gain an advantage.
And while we're at it: they also need to look at rugby for discipline. No player other than captain allowed to say anything to referee or it's a yellow card (and a ten minute sin bin) .
Anything the captain says had to be respectful or it's a yellow card.
Be chaos for a couple of weeks but it would sort the problem very quickly.

[WTF11]

The concept itself is a good one but it's been implemented very badly.
They should have been looking at how other sports have done it and learned from their mistakes.
Cricket started out with replays for every appeal but quickly learned that a system that was supposed to be for clear and obvious errors (sound familiar??) was being 'gamed' by the players to gain an advantage (either by winning a marginal decision in their favour or by slowing game down with continuous appeals.)
They ended up going with the umpires call but giving each side two appeals against a decision.
After looking at replays, if the umpire has made an error they overturn the decision and you get your appeal back.
If you tried to overturn a marginal decision and failed you lost your appeal.
The thinking was that if you used those appeals on marginal decisions that didn't go in your favour (i.e they were not used to correct a clear and obvious error but in hope of winning a close decision) then you had no grounds to complain if a poor decision was made after that as you had two appeals but wasted them.
Do exactly the same in football.
People - and I include the f.a etc - forget that it's only supposed to be for clear and obvious errors.
Go with the referee and linesmans call but give each side two appeals. If they waste them, they only have themselves to blame.
If guarantees there will won't be limitless v.a.r checks every game, hands the power of decision making back to the referee and ensures that each team has a fair opportunity to correct a clear and obvious error but punishes those trying to gain an advantage.
And while we're at it: they also need to look at rugby for discipline. No player other than captain allowed to say anything to referee or it's a yellow card (and a ten minute sin bin) .
Anything the captain says had to be respectful or it's a yellow card.
Be chaos for a couple of weeks but it would sort the problem very quickly.

And another a-f00king-men to all the above.

[MrsORichSenior]

VAR ?
That's entertainment for some but not for me folks.
Maybe great for neutrals watching on Tv but footballs not a TV games show or is it now ?
If it is a 'show' then a fair few will have to pay up for its presentation won't they.
https://www.thelocal.es/20191115/why-watching-football-at-your-local-bar-in-spain-could-soon-end


FOC entertainment courtesy of a generous sound recording studio for you below.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=In_PjqoZmh4

Keep football & music action 'Live' as you see it warts and all,IMO !

MOT

[asturianblanco]

lol, agree of course, but cant help thinking it's another dig at those who can't go....

[norfolk white]

Seems to me that when a goal is scored they use var to find any way of disallowing it.

[WTF11]

Seems to me that when a goal is scored they use var to find any way of disallowing it.

Precisely, not what VAR was intended for.

[Tichi1]

lol, agree of course, but cant help thinking it's another dig at those who can't go....

Specifically those living in Spain..

[Orgoner]

My opinions on VAR have evolved a little this season, but I can't see it going away now that that it's arrived.

I've yet to go to a football match with VAR, but I suspect it must be really frustrating for attending spectators, especially if there is nothing (or very little?) shown on the on-stadium videoscreen.

It is, however, much more satisfactory for neutral viewers on TV where you're often more interested in "what happened" than the traditional flow of the game, which is an important part of the immersive experience when actually attending a game. I've not spoken with any players about this, but extended breaks in play only serve to disrupt concentration and possibly could result in muscle problems?

A little sideways but, as some of you know, I get to most of the home games of the New England Patriots and, even there, it is not always totally apparent what is going on even when the jumboscreens ARE being used. Don't get me wrong, I'd still rather go to the game for the adrenaline and banter, but I have the sneaking feeling that I might be getting a more complete idea of the American version when watching on the idiot box.

Anyway, back to real football.

There were three VAR incidents this past weekend that definitely caught my eye for different reasons.

The first two concern tha same incident in the Burnley v Bournemouth game.

1) It was extremely early on in the play, but with the new instructions in the LOTG demanding that an "unlawful" body part (intentional or otherwise) cannot be allowed in any continuous possession resulting in a goal, the Bournemouth "goal" against Burnley was rightfully chalked off.

2) It's not clear to me if the handball was already being flagged for VAR review before Bournemouth put the ball in the net at the other end, or if it was flagged afterwards when looking through the lead-up to their "goal".

If it was being checked before, then the penalty possibly makes some sense (if a bit harsh - was it fully intentional, especially as it didn't seem to interfere with Burnley's attacking move?).

If it was only "found" after checking the run up to the Bournemouth goal, then it should be used to disallow the goal, in which case a goal kick to Burnley should've been given.

3) I watched the whole Chelsea v Spurs game and VAR totally blew an obvious stamp by Lo Celso on Azpilicueta (Lo Celso been a bit reckless even before that challenge). They compounded this original error by supposedly acknowledging they'd got it wrong about twenty minutes later when the game was still being played.

Chelsea still won (so arguably no harm done), but it seems mental that this error couldn't have been flagged to the referee and a red card belatedly shown during the game.

I'm guessing Lo Celso will still receive a ban, but how does that help Chelsea? Not that I have any urge to help them, but I'm sure you get my drift.

It's here top stay, but it does need to get sorted out and on-field referees should take the time to look at the video review for a subset of the decisions.

I'm glad the games I referee here aren't anywhere near as complicated!

[Orgoner]

A quick addition to the overly verbose nonsense I wrote above.

I rarely see macthes here as they happen, so I've often exercised my own personal version of VAR when something has caught my eye and I'm able to immediately rewind (or the digital equivalent thereof!) to check for myself. I also rewatch games to check on the positioning of individual players, playing units (e.g. how defenses react individually or collectively) and, even more questionably, the movement of referees,

The big question about VAR is whether it's attempting to "get things correct" at the expense of the match-going public.

Given where the funds for the top leagues originate (TV/broadcasting) I fear the attending supporters are the ones that will suffer.

[Billyni]

The rules are made. Then some jobsworth sets out to goldplate them and make them even more stringent. Typically English.

Just hope they have them sorted out better for us next season :cool::cool:

[MrsORichSenior]

lol, agree of course, but cant help thinking it's another dig at those who can't go....


Nah,nothing against Spain,you or anyone - honest. O:)
Fully paid up non-dom mercenary me now - presently for Estonia promotion company Metal Storm in Moscows Tohn 16 heavy metal venue.
Great gig but bloody freezing 24/7 ................. XD
MOT



Sent from my iPhone

[asturianblanco]

Your working for this promo company then MrsO?
i work a lot of metal festivals selling Merch, you will have to let me know if something interesting comes up, dont mind the cold!

[cherrypie7]

My opinions on VAR have evolved a little this season, but I can't see it going away now that that it's arrived.

I've yet to go to a football match with VAR, but I suspect it must be really frustrating for attending spectators, especially if there is nothing (or very little?) shown on the on-stadium videoscreen.

It is, however, much more satisfactory for neutral viewers on TV where you're often more interested in "what happened" than the traditional flow of the game, which is an important part of the immersive experience when actually attending a game. I've not spoken with any players about this, but extended breaks in play only serve to disrupt concentration and possibly could result in muscle problems?

A little sideways but, as some of you know, I get to most of the home games of the New England Patriots and, even there, it is not always totally apparent what is going on even when the jumboscreens ARE being used. Don't get me wrong, I'd still rather go to the game for the adrenaline and banter, but I have the sneaking feeling that I might be getting a more complete idea of the American version when watching on the idiot box.

Anyway, back to real football.

There were three VAR incidents this past weekend that definitely caught my eye for different reasons.

The first two concern tha same incident in the Burnley v Bournemouth game.

1) It was extremely early on in the play, but with the new instructions in the LOTG demanding that an "unlawful" body part (intentional or otherwise) cannot be allowed in any continuous possession resulting in a goal, the Bournemouth "goal" against Burnley was rightfully chalked off.

2) It's not clear to me if the handball was already being flagged for VAR review before Bournemouth put the ball in the net at the other end, or if it was flagged afterwards when looking through the lead-up to their "goal".

If it was being checked before, then the penalty possibly makes some sense (if a bit harsh - was it fully intentional, especially as it didn't seem to interfere with Burnley's attacking move?).

If it was only "found" after checking the run up to the Bournemouth goal, then it should be used to disallow the goal, in which case a goal kick to Burnley should've been given.

3) I watched the whole Chelsea v Spurs game and VAR totally blew an obvious stamp by Lo Celso on Azpilicueta (Lo Celso been a bit reckless even before that challenge). They compounded this original error by supposedly acknowledging they'd got it wrong about twenty minutes later when the game was still being played.

Chelsea still won (so arguably no harm done), but it seems mental that this error couldn't have been flagged to the referee and a red card belatedly shown during the game.

I'm guessing Lo Celso will still receive a ban, but how does that help Chelsea? Not that I have any urge to help them, but I'm sure you get my drift.

It's here top stay, but it does need to get sorted out and on-field referees should take the time to look at the video review for a subset of the decisions.

I'm glad the games I referee here aren't anywhere near as complicated!
I dont like VAR for every goal. I think managers should be able to request a review but only for offside resulting in a goal.
I have the philadelphia beagles here. Not worth supporting. Although i did enjoy them beating the Patriots, in the superbowl a couple of years ago. Patriots win too much for me to root for them. I root for buffalo bills as my wife and her family are from those parts and are fans.

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

FIFA and the prem league could learn a lot from rugby about using video more selectively and only where there is doubt in the mind of the on pitch match officials

[WTF11]

FIFA and the prem league could learn a lot from rugby about using video more selectively and only where there is doubt in the mind of the on pitch match officials

I thought that was what it was supposed to be, video "ASSISTED", not video "ALL THE TIME" ?

[denver11]

We could probably be doing with VAR tomorrow. Keith Stroud is the ref, the k nob who didn't give the blatant pen v Brentford away last season when Bamford was brought down right in front of him. Wee rat