VAR

[ClaretTony]

It's certainly going to take some time to settle down but there has to be a better system to let people in the grounds know what's going on and it has to be speeded up somewhat. Pawson was taken far too long at Anfield. Having said that, VAR will be good for Pawson because he doesn't get much right without it.

[Sidney1st]

I didn't see the game, but was it the ref taking too long or the players continuously badgering him about it?
That's what they media are suggesting was the issue.

[edison]

It's certainly going to take some time to settle down but there has to be a better system to let people in the grounds know what's going on and it has to be speeded up somewhat. Pawson was taken far too long at Anfield. Having said that, VAR will be good for Pawson because he doesn't get much right without it.

Exactly - Pawson didn't award the penalty and allowed the goal to begin with.

[ClaretTony]

I didn't see the game, but was it the ref taking too long or the players continuously badgering him about it?
That's what they media are suggesting was the issue.

From what's been said, and the little I saw on MOTD, it was the referee taking time. He went over to watch it on a screen at one point which delayed things even longer.

[RocketLawnChair]

I didn't see the game, but was it the ref taking too long or the players continuously badgering him about it?
That's what they media are suggesting was the issue.

Both Sid,

People who think it will be speeded up in time are in cloud cuckoo land. Once the on field official decides he is going to use VAR to reach the correct decision it will take as long as it takes as in Cricket Rugby Tennis etc, You cannot have a compromise that says this is taking too long **** it. The cost of this system is the flow continuity and spontaneity of the game like all the other sports.

[edison]

I suppose players will argue anything for the sake of it. it is second nature to them. But I can also see people arguing about whether or not the right decision was made even after watching VAR - I mean, look how many times people argue different sides when looking at the same replays generally.

[RocketLawnChair]

I suppose players will argue anything for the sake of it. it is second nature to them. But I can also see people arguing about whether or not the right decision was made even after watching VAR - I mean, look how many times people argue different sides when looking at the same replays generally.

On Saturday night IMO edision the excitement of a 5 goal thriller packed with potential controversy mistakes and incidents along with a big 6 club exiting a cup competition was killed stone dead as a spectacle because of the use of VAR.

[Darthlaw]

Its speed of play vs correct decisions at the end of the day.

I'm not altogether convinced that those who say get rid because it takes the passion out of the game would remain of that opinion when it's their side that get's done over.

That is unless the one's who were happy with Arsenal's winner last season at the Turf or (going back, admittedly) Maradona's handball, say they enjoyed the 'debate' after the game. That's just masochistic.

They do need to sort out a microphone to the ref, so that the crowd can hear as per rugby. It'll certainly take the 'what's going on?' element out of it which currently exists, whilst also helping to get rid of the abuse at ref's when players are caught swearing at them and subsequently banned. Also from rugby, allow the game to continue, if there is an off the ball incident with the video ref alerting the referee to look at it at the next break in play. This allows the video ref to get the appropriate clips together which best show any infraction in the rules and lessen the delay in the game.

[edison]

On Saturday night IMO edision the excitement of a 5 goal thriller packed with potential controversy mistakes and incidents along with a big 6 club exiting a cup competition was killed stone dead as a spectacle because of the use of VAR.

Oh, I agree. It definitely killed the excitement

[ClaretTony]

I'm not altogether convinced that those who say get rid because it takes the passion out of the game would remain of that opinion when it's their side that get's done over.

I think that's spot on. So far, we can be objective about it because it hasn't affected us, but we'd certainly have had two draws against Arsenal last season rather than two defeats if VAR had been in use and then we'd probably all be singing its praises.

[quoonbeatz]

didn't see the liverpool game but VAR should only be used with challenges - each team having a limited number.

nobody wants to see the game stopped for anything more than 30-60 seconds and that waiting around after a goal for the VAR to be checked takes away the excitement and brings the game down to rugby's level.

let the game flow and if a team thinks they've been hard done to by a decision, let them challenge it using VAR. otherwise, sack it off.

[edison]

Otherwise...what...jeees...oh...you said sack. Sack

[Falcon]

Some seriously jerky knees on this thread. Talking about giving up footy after decades just because of a new rule which actually stops cheaters from benefitting, pull yourselves together.

You can call Salah out for diving all you want, but at the end of the day the WBA player pulled him back and stopped him from having a chance to score, so Liverpool were entitled to a penalty whether he dived or not.

If a player dives and it goes to the video ref and it wasn't a foul, then he doesn't benefit and presumably picked up a yellow.

[Paul Waine]

VAR - great step forward in giving the referee the assistance she/he needs to make the right decisions.

Video replays need to be shown on big screens at the game - so that all the fans (and the players) can see how the ref is making the decision.
Ref needs to be mic'd so that decision can be explained at the time.
If some decisions take a little more time and a few camera angles need to be viewed, no problem. We can all see/hear what is going on, we can all support the ref seeking to make the right decision.

Any player "interfering" with the ref's decision - yellow card - including asking ref to look at VAR, or approaching ref when viewing VAR.

Of course, ensure that the right amount of time is added on - if that means 10-15 mins added for some games, then that's good.

As for goal celebrations - I was celebrating for a good minute when we got our first at Stamford Bridge - only it was ruled out for offside.

And, what was that decision at Cardiff v City yesterday? A perfectly good goal ruled out because there was no VAR for ref to view.

UTC

[KRBFC]

This morning I shall be out watching football when the referee's decision will be final and accepted, although sometimes with protests, and the game will be played and discussed in the bar afterwards with all its inconsistencies.
In the main, those participating will accept the situation as it is, however, the referee could well be a young lad who is working his way up the ladder, so how does he view his prospects?
He has to accept that, should he gain promotion to the upper echelons of football, his decisions will no longer be final, they will be scrutinised by another official by means of a tv screen to decide whether or not he is correct and that will only depend on the opinion of the other official. This will only happen at the top levels of the game, however, the relevant Law 5 relating to referees will need to be rewritten to accommodate the use of VAR, however, it will not apply to well over 95% of referees who officiate every week.
It is the biggest can of worms introduced into the game since they messed around with the Offside Law and its interpretation for the World Cup in the USA in 1994. We are now almost 24 years down the line and this is still causing controversy in the game at all levels.
Why don't they get rid of the onfield officials and do everything by VAR --they seem to put so much stock on getting things right so this is the only real way forward. They would then be able to review every decision which is surely what they are wanting to do because they are saying that they can no longer rely on onfield officials making correct decision.
The game is disappearing up its own backside.

Agree 100%, the decisions good/bad bring up debate and opinion amongst fans, it's what the game is all about IMO. I'll take a bad decision against Arsenal to lose a point in exchange for an awful one to gain us 3 points like the one at home to Leicester last year. One of the most famous goals ever shouldn't have stood (The hand of god). There's a reason I don't watch American sports because they're all stop and start it's naff. The VAR will completely remove all excitement from scoring a goal while everyone stands around for 5 minutes waiting for the opinion of a referee. The game's all about opinions, VAR won't stop it no matter how hard it tries too.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

Some seriously jerky knees on this thread. Talking about giving up footy after decades just because of a new rule which actually stops cheaters from benefitting, pull yourselves together.

You can call Salah out for diving all you want, but at the end of the day the WBA player pulled him back and stopped him from having a chance to score, so Liverpool were entitled to a penalty whether he dived or not.

If a player dives and it goes to the video ref and it wasn't a foul, then he doesn't benefit and presumably picked up a yellow.

Not jerky knees involved in my decision not to do the 300 mile round trip which I have done for years.
The FA/PL/TV seem to have decided that referees can no longer do the job they are paid to do without constant referral to technology. At the end of the day, that referral to technology just involves another human being's opinion on an incident which happens in a spit second on the pitch and, on which, the match official gives his honest opinion which, like it or not, has always sufficed, whether it be the hand of Maradonna, the ball over the line or not --which saw England win a World Cup.
If they want to rely on technology for decisions then they should go the whole hog and dispense entirely with onfield officials, in that way, there is nothing to overrule as it will all be observed off the field and decisions relayed to the players. Would you enjoy watching a game like that?
If the answer is no, then why are you pressing so hard for the use of technology in order to make decisions which have been made by the officials delegated to control the game.
The constant use of VAR will just undermine respect for the onfield officials and will not stop the harrassment they get from players.
I have seen many changes in the game throughout 65 years watching, playing, coaching, managing, refereeing and administering local league football and I can see no good coming out of VAR as far as grassroots football is concerned.
We are being selfish in wanting something implementing at a level which affects our club but which will take for ever, if it ever does, to filter down
to the other 72 league clubs --not to mention the thousands below that level.
That is why I have become disillusioned to the extent that I shall save my money in future.

[aggi]

I don't like VAR but it's going to come in.

It's another step in prioritising and enhancing the experience of those not attending the game over those that do. It's justifiable in many ways, for most matches the "crowd" watching on TV is higher than those at the match and, although indirectly, they contribute more money.

VAR when watching on TV is reasonably entertaining, you get to see the replays, pundits and ex-refs can give their view, you can debate it with those you're with, etc. At the ground you're just sat there with no idea what is going on.

[Spijed]

Those saying Var would have given us two extra points off Arsenal need to remove the Claret tinted specs.

What about thr two handballs by Sam Vokes - Swansea away and Leicester at home?

[Rowls]

It is though.

From Law 12, on the FA's website (emphasis mine):

Only the top line is the definition of a foul.

The rest is explanation of different kinds of foul. Contact is not necessary to commit a foul and its mpresence does not automatically equate to a foul.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

Only the top line is the definition of a foul.

The rest is explanation of different kinds of foul. Contact is not necessary to commit a foul and its mpresence does not automatically equate to a foul.

Except if you are a pundit!!

[superdimitri]

Don't buy taking away the excitement at all, quite the contrary. More exciting waiting for the decision! Adds suspense.

No different to when there's a delay giving a goal by the officials as it is.

[Spijed]

Don't buy taking away the excitement at all, quite the contrary. More exciting waiting for the decision! Adds suspense.

No different to when there's a delay giving a goal by the officials as it is.

Trouble is that if teams get two appeals per game, let's say, they could very well use one to simply relieve the pressure.

[RocketLawnChair]

I'm not altogether convinced that those who say get rid because it takes the passion out of the game would remain of that opinion when it's their side that get's done over..

I have seen decisions go for and against Burnley for nearly 40 years. I have seen action replays proving we have been wronged and action replays proving we have had the rub of the green and I have got on with my life every single day after. Like when Arsenal had there three dodgy winners over us in the last couple years I recovered within a couple of hours, Just like I forgot within about 10 minutes that Sheffield United should have had two penalties against us at Wembley. Just get over it and get on with it.

[Darthlaw]

I have seen decisions go for and against Burnley for nearly 40 years. I have seen action replays proving we have been wronged and action replays proving we have had the rub of the green and I have got on with my life every single day after. Like when Arsenal had there three dodgy winners over us in the last couple years I recovered within a couple of hours, Just like I forgot within about 10 minutes that Sheffield United should have had two penalties against us at Wembley. Just get over it and get on with it.

On a thread where folk are crowing about ditching the game and the decisions for and against teams that we have no link to, it would seem you are in the minority to not be that bothered.

Then again, when Lampard's goal crossed the line against Germany I'm sure you just shrugged it off, eh? There'll be another world cup in four years, anyway...

[ElectroClaret]

Trouble is that if teams get two appeals per game, let's say, they could very well use one to simply relieve the pressure.

Good point. And doing that would become the equivalent of the diving and other cheating
currently employed at the moment. Which would p!ss fans off just as much.

[quoonbeatz]

Don't buy taking away the excitement at all, quite the contrary. More exciting waiting for the decision! Adds suspense.

No different to when there's a delay giving a goal by the officials as it is.

its more exciting waiting for a decision than celebrating at the moment a goal is scored? each to their own but you'd be better off watching rugby.

instances of there being a delay in the officials giving a goal are few and far between, yet there's been a few already in a small number of test games with var.

[RocketLawnChair]

On a thread where folk are crowing about ditching the game and the decisions for and against teams that we have no link to, it would seem you are in the minority to not be that bothered.

Then again, when Lampard's goal crossed the line against Germany I'm sure you just shrugged it off, eh? There'll be another world cup in four years, anyway...

Dead right I didn’t give a flying one about 20 minutes after the game. I paid attention to more important things like my kids. Plus they’ve got a good system in now to avoid that happening based on fact not opinion.

The one thing that does really get my goat though isn’t a ref having the odd calamity or not be posistionef to see something, it’s multi millionaires cheating like ****. And I think it isn’t really VAR that’s getting people’s backs up after decades of support it’s the blatant cheating. VAR won’t stop that but that’s why it’s needed it’s double irony for me.

[Spijed]

And just like in cricket, the ref will refer the incident no matter how clear cut it is.

Even if a batsman is miles out of his crease the umpire will always refer it. The same will follow in football.

[superdimitri]

Relieving pressure? The ref decides when to use it, it's not like in basketball with time outs. There's no reason why it would favour one team over another by relieving pressure anyway.

Excitement? No different than it is without it except you know there's a much better chance if a goal is disallowed it's the correct decision.

If players were honest and they didn't try and trick referees and if the refs didn't fall for it then yeah, don't see the point. But there is a reason we regularly resort to "no one likes us". Not convinced at all about swings and roundabouts with decisions in the Premier League, especially when it tends to be when we play against more high profile opposition.

There are improvements to be made, but it will come with practice. I think there needs to be a microphone for the ref and replay screens for fans but it will make it a far, far better spectacle than waiting to watch our 3 min match of the day highlights only to learn we we're cheated of points.

It won't be perfect but it's a necessity in a game full of cheating, unfortunately.

[cricketfieldclarets]

The decisions were all right but it did take an eternity to reach them, it seemed.
Not sure why players were then arguing with the ref, knowing he has been watching a replay that they have not seen.

Because the dive from salah was clear for all to see

[cricketfieldclarets]

Oh, I agree. It definitely killed the excitement

And therein lies the problem

[cricketfieldclarets]

Video replays need to be shown on big screens at the game - so that all the fans (and the players) can see how the ref is making the decision.
Ref needs to be mic'd so that decision can be explained at the time.

UTC

So what you are saying is, currently we have decisions that may or may not be right because of human interpretation of a situation.

What we replace it with is a system that is still open to those exact same interpretations but on a big screen, to be scrutinised live by thousands of people. Will it prove 100 percent that decisions were right? No. In which case it causes more issues than it solves and adds even more time to the game.

The game will end up running as long as nfl with the same lack of action.

If its introduced permanently it wouldnt take long for me to lose interest in going any more.

[Paul Waine]

So what you are saying is, currently we have decisions that may or may not be right because of human interpretation of a situation.

What we replace it with is a system that is still open to those exact same interpretations but on a big screen, to be scrutinised live by thousands of people. Will it prove 100 percent that decisions were right? No. In which case it causes more issues than it solves and adds even more time to the game.

The game will end up running as long as nfl with the same lack of action.

If its introduced permanently it wouldnt take long for me to lose interest in going any more.

I enjoy watching football. I enjoy my team winning. I will be disappointed when my team loses because the ref makes a mistake with a decision - so, anything that reduces the risk of the ref making a mistake with a decision is good in my book. And, if there's something contentious and it is shown on the big screen and I can hear the ref explain what he's seeing and why he's making the decision he's made that works for me - even if I see the incident differently and even if the ref still makes a decision that goes against my team.

Anyone remember the Brighton game in our Championship season? The ref made a decision not to award Burnley a perfectly good goal - we all saw the ball had crossed the line. How would we have felt if we hadn't got the last minute goal? How would we have felt if we had missed out on promotion because the ref didn't award that goal?

Yes, there's a lot of subjectivity in the ref's decisions - but should we allow the game to be spoilt by all the "clever" divers and other "blind side" activities that can go on?

VAR can only make the game better - and if the top leagues are covered by VAR, there's a good chance that it will influence the way the youngsters learn to play the game and there will be better football and more integrity throughout the whole football pyramid.

I've been to a few rugby union games where there's been a question about whether the ball was grounded and a try was scored. All the stadium has watched as the movement has been replayed and replayed again. I'm not aware of anyone shouting "come on ref, get on with it..." Everyone waits excitedly to see what decision the ref will make - and, if the try is awarded it is celebrated just as enthusiastically as it was first celebrated when it looked like a try might have been scored.

[Sidney1st]

So what you are saying is, currently we have decisions that may or may not be right because of human interpretation of a situation.

What we replace it with is a system that is still open to those exact same interpretations but on a big screen, to be scrutinised live by thousands of people. Will it prove 100 percent that decisions were right? No. In which case it causes more issues than it solves and adds even more time to the game.

The game will end up running as long as nfl with the same lack of action.

If its introduced permanently it wouldnt take long for me to lose interest in going any more.

You haven't lost interest when other changes have been made, so why this?
We've got goal line tech, extra refs in certain European comps, Ref's using white spray for free kicks, off side rules changing etc.

[pureclaret]

I seam to remember a time in a far distant galaxy (past) when Burnley scored a goal against Milwall at turf moor, ball back of the net ref gave it 5 seconds, players celebrated 30 seconds, players from both teams get back in position to restart 30 seconds ref is a bout to blow for restart 5 seconds Lino flag waving ref does over to him 20 seconds discussion 30 seconds goal ruled out for onside offside onside stupid hand movements so 2 mins disruption.
So nothing new in time delays, and I think one of our players got booked for contesting what happened. That was what I noticed was players surrounding ref on decisions, I thought that that was supposed to have been stopped and cards given if they do. For me only captain should approach ref during the game. Not saying they cant talk to ref just not bending his ear all the time like city players constantly do and Young for utd spent more time with the ref than he did with the ball.

[Tall Paul]

I enjoy watching football. I enjoy my team winning. I will be disappointed when my team loses because the ref makes a mistake with a decision - so, anything that reduces the risk of the ref making a mistake with a decision is good in my book.

On the other hand, how do you feel when your team wins because the ref makes a mistake with a decision?

[Paul Waine]

On the other hand, how do you feel when your team wins because the ref makes a mistake with a decision?

I'm a Burnley fan. When has a ref ever made a mistake in our favour?

But, if VAR eliminated just one ref mistake that would have favoured Burnley, I'm fine with that.

[dsr]

I'm a Burnley fan. When has a ref ever made a mistake in our favour?

But, if VAR eliminated just one ref mistake that would have favoured Burnley, I'm fine with that.

Kurt Nogan's goal at Bristol City. And there may have been one or two since then!

[ClaretAndJew]

Vokes' handball that was given as a penalty for us against.. Swansea? I think, 2 years ago.

[ClaretTony]

Goal v Leicester last season was handball by Vokes as was O'Neil's against Leeds in 1966/67.

[ClaretAndJew]

Was there a penalty given in our favour for a handball by one of our players? Or am I thinking of the goal v Leicester? I thought it was a penalty.

[Tall Paul]

Was there a penalty given in our favour for a handball by one of our players? Or am I thinking of the goal v Leicester? I thought it was a penalty.

Both.

[cricketfieldclarets]

You haven't lost interest when other changes have been made, so why this?
We've got goal line tech, extra refs in certain European comps, Ref's using white spray for free kicks, off side rules changing etc.

But I have lost interest. Although I go to most games, I don't make the same effort I once did and don't have the same level of interest.

And this change is a catastrophic one (in my own humble opinion). Goal line technology has been fairly seamless. And has proved to be excellent technology that proves the right decision was given in seconds. VAR will neither prove it was the right decision as its still opinion based nor will it be decided in a split second. Its too much. Just leave the game as it is.

Whether people like it or not mistakes are part of the game. Players make them. Refs make them. The game is becoming completely sanitised.

VAR
Diving
Outlawing tackles
Pundits

All really affecting my enthusiasm.

I watched Liverpool tonight (on and off). Despite having BT Sport its the first full prem game I can remember watching live on TV for some time. I cant remember the last time I watched MOTD.

So, yes I have lost interest.

[Spijed]

No point in having any video technology when they can't even get it right!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43046791" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Falcon]

Definitely handball in the example above