Your verdict on VAR

[MadAmster]

The second of my 2 posts directly above this one has one word added to the first (I was too late to edit).

[Andy_Faber]

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.



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.

Agree with all that MA, well thought-through. I watched MOTD for the first time in years on Sat and I think you'd be a better pundit than what they have.

[swaledale]

What are your thoughts on how VAR has been used this season?

I was in favour of VAR, the game has become so fast, there is so much TV coverage and many players are adept at "gaming" the system that I thought it long overdue that football followed the footsteps of Rugby, Cricket and other sports. I could see it preventing clear "injustices" or the Henry hand ball goal for France.

However, as per usual the premier League have IMO implemented it in an inconsistent and incompetent fashion, such that instead of it being an aid and support to the on field referee, it is in fact undermining them and creating controversy that didn't exist before.

The principle of it being used where there is clear doubt seems to have gone by the wayside, with very marginal "offside" decisions being given. Referees decisions are being overruled often wrongly, IMO the referee should call for the use of VAR, when they are uncertain about a decision, not VAR call into question a decision. It seems that the ultimate referree is now those sat behind the VAR screens not the referee, this isn't good for their decision making or good for the game. They should also use the screens at the side of the pitch to judge for themselves.

I would also have given managers say 4 challenges per game, whereby they could request a VAR review. The supporters should also be given an explanation as to whats behind every decision.

For me a chance to improve the game has been bungled and its actually spoiling the game.

I completely agree with you, I was also in favour of VAR, as an aid to the referee when there were 50-50 decisions or even for off the ball incidents etc. Instead we have a complete and utter farce, especially with regard to offsides, which are being interpreted completely against the original spirit of the game when the benefit was always to the attacker.

The new handball rule is also completely bonkers but then the administrators of the game have always been eager to "improve"!

I also agree that as in tennis, managers should have a set number of challenges each game where they can ask for a review of a decision.

The match referee should be the one who decides whether to review a decision and he should sue the pitch side monitor and discuss with the video refs, but the final decision should be the match referees.

The only exception should be where an serious off the ball incident has occurred whereby the ref can be alerted and again view the incident for making a decision.

VA was supposed to tackle the issue whereby the referee missed a bad tackle a clear offside or handball etc. and had the opportunity to review it, not to essentially ref the game to within a millimeters, it is ruining the game at the moment.

[MadAmster]

Indeed Swale. They seem to have completely forgotten the "clear and obvious bit".

Britannia, or in this case FA/EPL waiving the rules.....

[AdiSalisbury]

Spoiling the game? Never saw that one coming.

[Andy_Faber]

Funny how footy can get it so badly wrong, every other sport I watch regularly that uses video aids make it work - NFL is probably closest to letting it get in the way, but hey they need ad breaks, in tennis its almost a non-issue, and in cricket IMO its added a new attractive dimension. Football has it SO wrong

[Geoff Parkstone]

It's fairly intrusive in golf I've found

[swaledale]

It's fairly intrusive in golf I've found

Must be when it picks up the loud jumpers they wear!