Just 3 days to go and of course the first season with VAR, who thinks this will be a good thing or be a complete and utter disaster?

I like VAR personally, but not the time it takes. I have always said that there should be a time limit for the referee to make a decision, say 2 minutes, and if they can't make a decision in that time the original decision stands, but that can't work in every instance of course! Nightmare me thinks!

Disaster. It means different rules depending whether the cameras are there or not, it tries to judge offside by the inch when the technology isn't there to do it, and it will be even more random than it is now whether you get penalties for shirt pulling and marginal contact.

If they used it for clear and obvious errors, it would be fine. As they use it to re-referee the game and will overturn the ref's decision on a 51% probability, having taken 3-4 minutes to assess it, it will be a disaster.

Somewhere in the middle.

They’ll be improvements made along the way no doubt.

I'll wait and see but from what I've seen I think it could be one of the major factors in this being my last season as a regular fan.
I haven't really liked what I've seen on TV thus far and I'm really not looking forward to it being part of my matchday 'experience'

This first season will be a disaster.

I stand by my belief the video ref should call the ref, as an assistant ref would, and has 10-20 secs after an incident to call for the incident to be reviewed - by the ref if that's what really seems to get the FA going (don't get the deal with the ref being the one to 'have' to view it themselves).

My biggest concern is a crowd being reluctant to cheer a goal until it gets checked, after which point the moment has gone.

Not a fan of VAR, for me it takes away some of the drama/passion/emotion that spectators can go through during a game.

It provably reduces refereeing mistakes. It's brilliant.

Going to be interesting but hoping we get a fairer share of decisions so for us could be a good thing.

damo_whitehead wrote:Just 3 days to go and of course the first season with VAR, who thinks this will be a good thing or be a complete and utter disaster?

I like VAR personally, but not the time it takes. I have always said that there should be a time limit for the referee to make a decision, say 2 minutes, and if they can't make a decision in that time the original decision stands, but that can't work in every instance of course! Nightmare me thinks!

i agree, there needs to be a time limit but it depends who refers the decision. If the refs in the vidoe booth decide there's been an infringement & are inviting the on-field ref to have another look it should be pretty quick because the decision will already have been made by the video refs or there'd be no point involving the onfield ref, eg; offside decisions
If the onfield ref wants to have another look at something, say like a tussle in the penalty area, then it will probably take longer if the video refs aren't already looking at it, so a 2/3 minute time limit should be applied then.
It will all need practice & better communication though.

I'll tell you once the fuss has settled down.

I linked this on one of the many other VAR threads: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48953873" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PL have obviously seen the issues VAR has created in other competitions and want it used a bit more sensibly.

I find the fact a toe or a bent knee can be deemed an offside (impossible for a lino to spot) a bit ridiculous... but hey ho we will get used to it.
It will get faster .... the anticipation in the stands will be fun especially if an Arsenil Offside/Handball 94th minute goal is disallowed.....

damo_whitehead wrote:Just 3 days to go and of course the first season with VAR, who thinks this will be a good thing or be a complete and utter disaster?

I like VAR personally, but not the time it takes. I have always said that there should be a time limit for the referee to make a decision, say 2 minutes, and if they can't make a decision in that time the original decision stands, but that can't work in every instance of course! Nightmare me thinks!

I've said the same thing.
If they cant decide after seeing 3 replays of each angle then it cant be clear and obvious error

dsr wrote:Disaster. It means different rules depending whether the cameras are there or not, it tries to judge offside by the inch when the technology isn't there to do it, and it will be even more random than it is now whether you get penalties for shirt pulling and marginal contact.

If they used it for clear and obvious errors, it would be fine. As they use it to re-referee the game and will overturn the ref's decision on a 51% probability, having taken 3-4 minutes to assess it, it will be a disaster.

I tend to agree with this. Obvious errors by officials fine but if every goal is going to be looked at before fans can celebrate, well to me it just takes the edge off it.

I’m not looking forward to it but have decided to reserve judgement until I’ve seen how things go. If this were cricket and I was the umpire my soft signal for VAR would be out. Time will tell whether I change my mind.

Cricket and rugby embraced technology shame football fans are so anti

Scott Arfield's Swag wrote:I'll wait and see but from what I've seen I think it could be one of the major factors in this being my last season as a regular fan.
I haven't really liked what I've seen on TV thus far and I'm really not looking forward to it being part of my matchday 'experience'

That!

It could well suck all the joy out of the game!

Watched The Debate on Sky last night and they had Neil Swarbrick on, who's in charge of training officials on VAR. He mentioned that they would show replays of VAR ruled incidents on video screens within the stadiums so the fans would know what's going on. Also said that all goals are reviewed by the time the teams are lining up for the kick-offs, so there would be no delay at all in most cases.

They've had all the Premier League managers down to the control centre to talk them through how it works and it seems to have gone down well. Charlie Nicholas was on, who's a typical old school, "better in my day" type and he said he'd been won over after visiting the control centre and having it fully explained.

Local cricketer wrote:Cricket and rugby embraced technology shame football fans are so anti

But both cricket and rugby are stop/start games.

Spijed wrote:But both cricket and rugby are stop/start games.

The point is that they delay the restart of the games too. Rugby is no more stop/start than football btw.

Alot of people are also missing the point that the Premier League and the PGMOL are fully aware of the concerns over the amount of time it can take to come to a decision and have announced that the referee/VAR can only look at 3 replays when reviewing the decision.

Bosscat wrote:I find the fact a toe or a bent knee can be deemed an offside (impossible for a lino to spot) a bit ridiculous... but hey ho we will get used to it.
It will get faster .... the anticipation in the stands will be fun especially if an Arsenil Offside/Handball 94th minute goal is disallowed.....

It might seem a bit ridiculous, but there has to be a clear distinction between offside and onside somewhere, and no matter where that distinction is, being 1cm offside will always seem a bit ridiculous. Like being 1mm out in tennis. Or 1mm in.

Local cricketer wrote:Cricket and rugby embraced technology shame football fans are so anti

Because it’ll supposedly ruin the match day experience for fans.

Which whilst it might, it doesn’t matter what fans think tbh. It’s top level sport with top level athletes. As long as the correct decisions are made it doesn’t matter if fans can’t celebrate for 2 minutes or whatever.

It’ll be far far better in the PL than it has been in the WC and other competitions.

Foshiznik wrote:The point is that they delay the restart of the games too. Rugby is no more stop/start than football btw.

Alot of people are also missing the point that the Premier League and the PGMOL are fully aware of the concerns over the amount of time it can take to come to a decision and have announced that the referee/VAR can only look at 3 replays when reviewing the decision.

Rugby has distinct phases of play though. For instance when a try has possibly been scored the outcome is always going to be a new phase of play. In football the same phase of play can be continuing.

aggi wrote:Rugby has distinct phases of play though. For instance when a try has possibly been scored the outcome is always going to be a new phase of play. In football the same phase of play can be continuing.

Fair point, but when the ball hits the back of the net, there is always going to be a new phase of play also.

Local cricketer wrote:Cricket and rugby embraced technology shame football fans are so anti

You can’t compare with cricket where EVERY decision is objective. That’s not going to be the case in football. Also cricket can deal with long delays, football can’t.

Imploding Turtle wrote:It might seem a bit ridiculous, but there has to be a clear distinction between offside and onside somewhere, and no matter where that distinction is, being 1cm offside will always seem a bit ridiculous. Like being 1mm out in tennis. Or 1mm in.

In tennis they have the technology to judge 1 mm out or in. In cricket they don't, so if it's that close, it's not out. In football they don't have the technology to judge but they apply it as if they did.

Foshiznik wrote:The point is that they delay the restart of the games too. Rugby is no more stop/start than football btw.

Alot of people are also missing the point that the Premier League and the PGMOL are fully aware of the concerns over the amount of time it can take to come to a decision and have announced that the referee/VAR can only look at 3 replays when reviewing the decision.

Didn't know about the 3 replay thing, does that mean 3 angles or literally 3 clips of video, or will we see the picture being rolled back and forth for ages like the women's world cup?

Haven’t seen it yet but Neil Swarbrick was on Sky giving a lot of info.

dsr wrote:In tennis they have the technology to judge 1 mm out or in. In cricket they don't, so if it's that close, it's not out. In football they don't have the technology to judge but they apply it as if they did.

My point exactly

damo_whitehead wrote:Didn't know about the 3 replay thing, does that mean 3 angles or literally 3 clips of video, or will we see the picture being rolled back and forth for ages like the women's world cup?

From an article on this:-

"It has emerged one referee at the FIFA Women's World Cup over the summer watched 29 replays of an incident before making a decision – holding up play for over four-and-a-half minutes.

That has led to those in charge of the Professional Game Match Officials Ltd to issue guidelines to their officials to keep their analysis short this season.

Each time a VAR is used the official will watch the incident three times at full speed first to gain a perspective of what happened in real time.

If they believe something needs greater scrutiny they can then zoom in on slow motion – but only three times.

It is the belief of PGMOL bosses that if a VAR cannot spot something wrong after this time then there is not a clear an obvious error, so they should then let play continue without overruling any decision."

disaster...there is no debate


it will destroy the soul of football,
it will move the game even more towards a non contact sport
it is still subjective to the person reviewing... offside to the inch.. ridiculous
there will be even more inconsistency on contact in the box
.

see no good at all coming from it. it is only being introduced because of the money involved in the prem..as years go by the prem will be less and less representative of real football.

i remember the ball going in the net at Preston hitting the back section and coming out before the referee saw it..clear goal not given, but thats what becomes part of the history of the game

Goalposts wrote:disaster...there is no debate


it will destroy the soul of football,
it will move the game even more towards a non contact sport
it is still subjective to the person reviewing... offside to the inch.. ridiculous
there will be even more inconsistency on contact in the box
.

see no good at all coming from it. it is only being introduced because of the money involved in the prem..as years go by the prem will be less and less representative of real football.

i remember the ball going in the net at Preston hitting the back section and coming out before the referee saw it..clear goal not given, but thats what becomes part of the history of the game

There is clearly a debate as I, and many others disagree with you wholeheartedly!

If your best argument against VAR is a clear goal not being seen by the ref becomes history, then I'm glad its being brought in this season!

At the end of the day, it is technology that gives the referees another set of eyes. How is that a bad thing?!

The only issues are how VAR is used and the intricacies.

Foshiznik wrote:From an article on this:-

"It has emerged one referee at the FIFA Women's World Cup over the summer watched 29 replays of an incident before making a decision – holding up play for over four-and-a-half minutes.

That has led to those in charge of the Professional Game Match Officials Ltd to issue guidelines to their officials to keep their analysis short this season.

Each time a VAR is used the official will watch the incident three times at full speed first to gain a perspective of what happened in real time.

If they believe something needs greater scrutiny they can then zoom in on slow motion – but only three times.

It is the belief of PGMOL bosses that if a VAR cannot spot something wrong after this time then there is not a clear an obvious error, so they should then let play continue without overruling any decision."

Thanks for that. Certainly makes me think better about the situation!

it will be borderline horrific this season, once they learn how to use it it will be superb though and should hopefully help cut out a lot of the diving by Maddison, Vardy and Zaha

Vegas Claret wrote:it will be borderline horrific this season, once they learn how to use it it will be superb though and should hopefully help cut out a lot of the diving by Maddison, Vardy and Zaha

Imagine how many Arsenal goals against us would have been disallowed if VAR came in 10 years ago.

Local cricketer wrote:Cricket and rugby embraced technology shame football fans are so anti

But both those sports are stop/start games far more than football, so lend themselves to hold ups far better.

It wont be Brilliant or a Disaster but it will be controversial.

I watched an Italian game last season. There was 3 minutes added on and a penalty was awarded in the 93rd minute (there can only have been half a minute of added time left) and the pen was finally taken and scored in the 103rd minute. A full ten minutes and I’m still not convinced it was a pen.....

We shall see as to how fair it is to smaller clubs given our one in the cup that was vetoed on the same day Man U had something very similar awarded as a pen.

They do seem to take their time making decisions. I think if it is not immediately obvious, after a couple of looks from different angles, then you should go with the ref's initial decision. That won't happen though.

As I understand it, we spectators will only see the video evidence AFTER the VAR decision has been made by the video officials and the ref. Just as well, because otherwise both sets of fans would be howling their opinion as to what the video evidence shows. The trouble I see is the delay to our being sure whether or not to celebrate. One set of fans or the other is always going to look stupid. Infact I am really not convinced that the benefits of getting the odd wrong decision overturned by VAR will in anyway outweigh the damage done to the spontaneity and excitement of reacting to events (especially goals) in real time. Actually I predict some very angry reactions from the fans.

It’s going to be ******* shite

Foshiznik wrote:There is clearly a debate as I, and many others disagree with you wholeheartedly!

If your best argument against VAR is a clear goal not being seen by the ref becomes history, then I'm glad its being brought in this season!

At the end of the day, it is technology that gives the referees another set of eyes. How is that a bad thing?!

The only issues are how VAR is used and the intricacies.

there is no debate, Your Just wrong,
unless you are advocating changing the soul of the game completely changing the way players play and tackle , well then we are , but i would argue thats not football, Hence my reference that real football will become more and more only played in the lower leagues ,

then it will be fascinating to see how prem teams cope in the cups with no var and football played the traditional way

Leisure wrote:But both those sports are stop/start games far more than football, so lend themselves to hold ups far better.

Think off it as getting more for your money. Game lasts longer tickets become better value, getting a longer product for your money.

Until next season when they clock on and put prices up

Football is a game played by humans. Humans, by their very nature, make mistakes. It is probably what we're best known for. Mistakes can be endearing, until they begin to pile up. When they pile up humans get ****** off - the thing we're probably second best known for - and throw a fit.

Football has always been a game defined as much by human error than by human skill. For every galaxy brain pass and every awe-inspiring goal, there are about 20 mistakes. It's what makes the game the way it is. At least it was.

When video assistant refereeing (VAR) was introduced to professional football in 2017 it was done so with the intention of cutting out mistakes. Mistakes had been acceptable in the past, but increasing levels of money in the game mean that errors by referees no longer just affect fans and players, but shareholders and venture capitalists thousands of miles away.

It's fine for a mistake to occasionally decide a game, but not potentially affect a good investment.

Whatever cynicism people understandably hold towards FIFA, it's not naive to believe that the intentions behind VAR's implementation were pure.

Fewer mistakes. More correct decisions. Fewer unjustified defeats. Simple. Except it hasn't been.

It was hoped that VAR would eliminate the costs of human error in the game, to do away with players and coaches furiously protesting poor decisions and fans swarming on social media to flood timelines with abuse. You can't argue with science.

But when a system is created by, implemented by and overseen by humans, mistakes are never far away. Humans set the guidelines for VAR's use and human officials dictate how and when it's used during matches. VAR doesn't make all the decisions on a football pitch; officials - be they on the pitch or in an external location - purely refer to it, so we are left with a horrible combination of mistakes remaining in the game and a VAR system which will fix them, eventually, after an often excruciating amount of time.
This has led to a key complaint from many in the game is that VAR has killed the celebration. Scoring a goal is a beautiful feeling, one that makes the player, their teammates and their fans erupt with passion.

What VAR will do is paralyse that passion. So indoctrinated are we already by the idea that our celebration will be followed by an interruption to go the video ref that goals are increasingly being met with muted responses.
It is not a situation that is killing the sport, but it is one which is killing the fun, and it's something that needs to be considered in future discussions by those in charge.

VAR operating by itself, in some sort of hypothetical world where artificial intelligence is devoid of bias, would be perfect.
VAR operating alongside humans, with flawed offside rules created by humans, is quite clearly a mess.

The controversy and exasperation surrounding VAR will not go away anytime soon, especially with its impending introduction to the Premier League.

If it continues in this direction we'll reach a point where each of us - football fans, football players, coaches and administrators - will be faced with a sort of existential decision to make. What do we want from football? Correct decisions in every soulless, nervous and reluctant match or a game with passion, momentum and unadulterated heart?

Unfortunately, from the evidence that we've seen from VAR so far, the two cannot coexist.

add to the fact that fifa and uefa is now exploring VAR being sponsored so that when its used, an advert appears,before you go to it and you know where this will end ( the next world cup will have this and potentially the champions lge final in 2020)

just as an added thought

Each of the 20 premier lge clubs will have to pay FIFA £15,000 to install, test and receive the 'FIFA quality seal' for var camera-based system, this will be payable every year .
the cost of installing is expected to cost around £250,000 per premier league football club .

Goalposts wrote:disaster...there is no debate


it will destroy the soul of football,
it will move the game even more towards a non contact sport
it is still subjective to the person reviewing... offside to the inch.. ridiculous
there will be even more inconsistency on contact in the box
.

see no good at all coming from it. it is only being introduced because of the money involved in the prem..as years go by the prem will be less and less representative of real football.

i remember the ball going in the net at Preston hitting the back section and coming out before the referee saw it..clear goal not given, but thats what becomes part of the history of the game

You're content for referees to get big decisions wrong and then they can become part of the history of the game? What sort of ******* nonsense is that?

Neil Swarbrick admitted last night it wasn't perfect but a move in the right direction.

How would the anti-VAR lot have felt if we'd been relegated last season due to the wrongly disallowed goal at Watford, and the two stonewall penalties against Leicester and Southampton at home that weren't given?
Not to mention the United equaliser that was offside that VAR would've sorted?

Ah well, I suppose they'd have become part of the history of the game.

It could potentially ruin the whole match day experience. Imagine celebrating the goal then minutes later it’s over ruled.

Prediction from me. I think the big teams like Liverpool and Man City get more penaltys turned down than clubs like us. Because they often go on to win anyhow the decisions are not focused on where if we don't get a penalty we will nearly always look at it as a major turning point. This IMO is where the false notion that big teams get all the decisions come from

I therefore think when VAR comes in and refs give more decisions to the attacker like penalties we will see the big teams naturally benefit from it more than us.

This will come as a shock to a lt on here who think we are hard done to by the refs and so the conspiracy theories will switch from the refs being against us to VAR being rigged for the big teams

Don't expect many (if any) to agree now but that is my prediction to watch out for

Devils_Advocate wrote:Prediction from me. I think the big teams like Liverpool and Man City get more penaltys turned down than clubs like us. Because they often go on to win anyhow the decisions are not focused on where if we don't get a penalty we will nearly always look at it as a major turning point. This IMO is where the false notion that big teams get all the decisions come from

I therefore think when VAR comes in and refs give more decisions to the attacker like penalties we will see the big teams naturally benefit from it more than us.

This will come as a shock to a lt on here who think we are hard done to by the refs and so the conspiracy theories will switch from the refs being against us to VAR being rigged for the big teams

Don't expect many (if any) to agree now but that is my prediction to watch out for

You’re very likely correct , more chances in the box = more pen shouts .Though the top clubs are horrific cheats the VAR deduction of “what is” and what isn’t will likely give them a few more over a season . As for conspiracy theories about refs being against us , I doubt anyone over 18 really gives that horsesh1t any credence

Somewhere in the middle. The ‘fouls’ in the box with no contact will be easy -give them a yellow card. But the numerous ‘fouls’ where there is the absolute minimum of contact could suddenly become stone wall penalties because “they’re entitled to go down”.