What's the point of VAR?

[Corky]

I can see why the penalty was given and if that had been an opposition player in the Burnley area I, and I suspect others on here, would have wanted a penalty. Good to see that it hasn't stopped debate. So all is well with the world.

[houseboy]

It survived a very long time based on the concept that it was a sport, and cheating was frowned on.
When it became a business everything changed, too much money hinges on the result. I doubt the refs are any worse than they ever have been, but their job gets harder season on season

'Nail' and 'head' come to mind. Whatever anyone posts on this thread there will never be a truer word on the situation. Of course there have always been cheats in the game (Franny Lee?) but not to the extent we have now, cheating is endemic in the game and not only does no-one in power try to do anything about it seems to be encouraged by managers and even the media have taken to calling it 'simulation' instead of what it actually is, cheating. The phrase 'who'd be a referee' has never been truer. Last night's game was saved from being a farce by two great goals in the second half. As Shearer said if it had stayed at 2-1 it would have been a gross injustice to Croatia - a goal conceded from a free kick that should never have been (when the ever so slight contact was made he was already heading South) and a very clear 'accidental' handball given as a penalty after the VAR consultation. Even allowing for the two second half goals if the first two hadn't been given the whole pattern of the game would have been different and the outcome might have changed.

[NottsClaret]

Simplify the handball rule - if the hand alters the direction of the ball, free kick. If it denies a goal scoring opportunity, penalty and red card. This removes all debate about deliberate or accidental and removes subjectivity and punishes 50/50 handball calls with a less severe penalty.

Why couldn't that work? It's pretty much how it works outside the penalty area where plenty of accidental handballs are given as free kicks with barely a peep from anyone.

Because you don't deserve to be sent off and lose a game because someone blasts a ball at you from 2 yards away.

[duncandisorderly]

Because you don't deserve to be sent off and lose a game because someone blasts a ball at you from 2 yards away.

I haven't advocated that. Denying a goalscoring opportunity, like any other offence, is a red card if there's clearly no attempt to play the ball.

If you're stood on the goal line with your arms out and you stop the ball going in with your arms - that's always been a red card.

[Spijed]

The problem is, it's physically impossible to move in certain ways without lifting your arms - jumping more than a couple of inches, or sliding in a tackle for example can't be done with your arms by your side.

Unless you can defy science!

[DustyBawls]

I thought overall VAR was very good during the World Cup. And there was some sort of statstic saying something like 98% of decisions were correct.

[Spijed]

I thought overall VAR was very good during the World Cup. And there was some sort of statstic saying something like 98% of decisions were correct.

Except the obvious ones such as Harry Kane being rugby tackled or the Serbian guy have the shirt ripped off his back!

[Rileybobs]

I thought overall VAR was very good during the World Cup. And there was some sort of statstic saying something like 98% of decisions were correct.

Who decides whether the decisions are correct?

Does that statistic account for decisions not given as well as for those given?

[DustyBawls]

Who decides whether the decisions are correct?

Does that statistic account for decisions not given as well as for those given?

Not sure. But I'd be surprised if anybody genuinely thinks that VAR has been a failure this World Cup. I think it's been obviously a hit. Some debatable suggestions, but more often than not, the clear correct decision.

[Imploding Turtle]

Who decides whether the decisions are correct?

Does that statistic account for decisions not given as well as for those given?

Probably the same people who decided if decisions were correct before VAR.

[Rileybobs]

Not sure. But I'd be surprised if anybody genuinely thinks that VAR has been a failure this World Cup. I think it's been obviously a hit. Some debatable suggestions, but more often than not, the clear correct decision.

I think VAR failed in the final, that alone for me renders it a failure in the tournament as a whole.

We have seen VAR used both successfully and unsuccessfully, but we see referees make decisions on their own that are both correct and incorrect so on that basis I haven’t seen a net benefit.

A big issue is the fact that when a referee is told to review a decision they are immediately under pressure to go with the views of the VAR assistants. Another issue is when is a decision looked at? To me this appears to be based on how much a team appeals for the decision to be reviewed. The penalty incident yesterday was waved away and only reviewed after the French team caused a scene.

What about decisions which are clearly incorrect but perhaps on the edge of the box as opposed to inside the box? What about a corner being incorrectly given that lead to a goal?

In summary, there is probably a higher percentage of correct decisions given as a result of VAR but the system and its application
is totally flawed. A few more correct decisions don’t make VAR worthwhile in my opinion, it has fundamentally changed a game that is loved worldwide with little benefit.

And watching the World Cup on the TV is entirely different from being at the ground. We at least get a small entertainment factor from the review system when watching at home. What about when we’re at the Turf and don’t have a clue what’s going on?

[Rileybobs]

Probably the same people who decided if decisions were correct before VAR.

I would suspect that every VAR decision in this World Cup has been concluded as being correct in the 98% statistic.

[Imploding Turtle]

I would suspect that every VAR decision in this World Cup has been concluded as being correct in the 98% statistic.

Why?

[Rileybobs]

Why?

Because in most instances the referee has gone with the opinion of the ‘men upstairs’. If 5 match officials make a unanimous decision then who is the person that concludes whether it was incorrect afterwards?

[Corky]

As I understand it the referee still has the final decision. VAR is there to help or hinder him depending on your point of view.

[Rileybobs]

As I understand it the referee still has the final decision. VAR is there to help or hinder him depending on your point of view.

Yes the referee has the final decision. But if you’re a referee officiating a World Cup final, on your own in the middle of a full huge stadium with hundreds of millions of people watching worldwide, and four people sat in a room watching the game on TV tell you through your earpiece that you may want to review a decision that you’ve made, do you not think that subconsciously you will be swayed into thinking that you’ve made the wrong decision?

[South West Claret.]

One of the most difficult penalty decisions to have to make for sometime I thought which is why the ref took so long.

Whilst the arm did come down to meet the ball the hand was floppy and not firm which if intentional would have been firm.

On first viewing I thought no penalty and still do, but as I say not easy.

All VAR does is give the ref a second chance to view something again that probably happened in a flash originaly.

So on the whole I'm for VAR.

[NRC]

It wasn’t the protests of the French players that got it reviewed. The VAR team have a word, literally in the ref’s ear to say “this is worth a review” and the ref says ok.

The VAR panel then give him their majority position I guess (does anyone know if it has to be unanimous?}. He then reviewed for himself for a final déclin. What was interesting is that he started to move away from the monitor, decision taken, then went back to it to look again. He had a small lack of doubt that he subsequently dismissed.

The hand did naturally come down having been up from jumping. Did he move his hand to the ball? No IMO it was going to where it should be. That happened to be in the same spot as to where the ball was traveling. So now ignore that the hand had been up and come down as nobody but the player will ever know if it was calculated. Now we ve a situation where the hand is out somewhat wide from the body. The ball struck it. It’s not hand to ball but equally perhaps not in a natural position. Maybe it was but it wasn’t in a “cautious” position as today we see players deliberately pin their at,s to their body when turning to hopefully deflect a shot. His hand affected the situation, and I guess that’s the pivot the referee called it on.

What’s fascinating is that in spite of 5 VAR, a referee, and the opinions of the watching world, we STILL have a split decision, so in conclusion we’re arguing with more detail, but still arguing

[Rileybobs]

It wasn’t the protests of the French players that got it reviewed. The VAR team have a word, literally in the ref’s ear to say “this is worth a review” and the ref says ok.

The VAR panel then give him their majority position I guess (does anyone know if it has to be unanimous?}. He then reviewed for himself for a final déclin. What was interesting is that he started to move away from the monitor, decision taken, then went back to it to look again. He had a small lack of doubt that he subsequently dismissed.

The hand did naturally come down having been up from jumping. Did he move his hand to the ball? No IMO it was going to where it should be. That happened to be in the same spot as to where the ball was traveling. So now ignore that the hand had been up and come down as nobody but the player will ever know if it was calculated. Now we ve a situation where the hand is out somewhat wide from the body. The ball struck it. It’s not hand to ball but equally perhaps not in a natural position. Maybe it was but it wasn’t in a “cautious” position as today we see players deliberately pin their at,s to their body when turning to hopefully deflect a shot. His hand affected the situation, and I guess that’s the pivot the referee called it on.

What’s fascinating is that in spite of 5 VAR, a referee, and the opinions of the watching world, we STILL have a split decision, so in conclusion we’re arguing with more detail, but still arguing

I completely agree with your final sentence, hence what is the real point of VAR?

However, I disagree with your first sentence. The French players' appeals to the referee alerted the VAR officials who obviously looked at the incident and told the referee to take another look at it. If there hadn't been any French appeals then I can almost guarantee that incident wouldn't have been reviewed. Wasn't Lingard fouled in the box against Croatia? It looked innocuous in real time and there were no appeals from England but on seeing replays it appeared to be a foul.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

The worst thing about the decision for me is the fact that it only happened because the French player missed his header! He failed miserably and won a penalty because of it, after a VAR review in which it appeared that the referee was dismissing it until, possibly, being requested to return and have another look and then changing his decision.
I agree with you rileybobs that he was placed under tremendous, unnecessary pressure to change his decision just so that FIFA's new toy could take its place in history ---nobody will convince me of anything different.

[South West Claret.]

What’s fascinating is that in spite of 5 VAR, a referee, and the opinions of the watching world, we STILL have a split decision, so in conclusion we’re arguing with more detail, but still arguing

Yes understandable when you consider it was such a very very difficult situation to come to a definite correct (in everybody's view) ruling.

[duncandisorderly]

I agree with you rileybobs that he was placed under tremendous, unnecessary pressure to change his decision just so that FIFA's new toy could take its place in history ---nobody will convince me of anything different.

Whilst I don't disagree, that last line is unhelpful, for want of a better word. I know youre an (ex?) ref so such a blanket statement doesn't help.
You've been against it from the word go, which is your prerogative of course, and I've not been a fan of VAR....if the laws of the game are so subjective then the laws need changing, not the officiating, IMO....but you still need to be open to change, surely? It's happened so often even in my limited football experience that the laws of the game has changed, so not accepting this is akin to not accepting the back pass rule, one man kick offs, offsides in the wrong half etc
Not all change is good though, so I'm not against your POV, but I don't think 'nobody will convince me of anything different' is helpful from someone with a proper birds eye view of the game.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

Whilst I don't disagree, that last line is unhelpful, for want of a better word. I know youre an (ex?) ref so such a blanket statement doesn't help.
You've been against it from the word go, which is your prerogative of course, and I've not been a fan of VAR....if the laws of the game are so subjective then the laws need changing, not the officiating, IMO....but you still need to be open to change, surely? It's happened so often even in my limited football experience that the laws of the game has changed, so not accepting this is akin to not accepting the back pass rule, one man kick offs, offsides in the wrong half etc
Not all change is good though, so I'm not against your POV, but I don't think 'nobody will convince me of anything different' is helpful from someone with a proper birds eye view of the game.

Just to clarify, duncandisorderly, my statement was :- I agree with you rileybobs that he was placed under tremendous, unnecessary pressure to change his decision just so that FIFA's new toy could take its place in history ---nobody will convince me of anything different.

What I am saying it that the referee was placed under pressure to change his decision in order to justify the presence and use of VAR having its place in a World Cup Final and nobody will convince me that that was not the case.
I do not like VAR, as you correctly state, however, I accept that it will take its place in the game, just as i have accepted changes to the Laws in the past and have implemented them when officiating.
My argument about VAR is that it is just another opinion, whichever way you look at it. It will not be used throughout the game at every ground where football takes place --unlike The Laws of the Game which apply to every match played, therefore, they are saying that games without VAR are not important because, if they were, VAR would be being used.
I look forward to a parent or fan confronting a referee on a Sunday morning with a video of why his/her son or daughter was not offside or was fouled and expect the referee to change the decision as a result of it. Anything is possible these days --watch this space.

[Bordeauxclaret]

I look forward to a parent or fan confronting a referee on a Sunday morning with a video of why his/her son or daughter was not offside or was fouled and expect the referee to change the decision as a result of it. Anything is possible these days --watch this space.

Video technology has been used in Rugby and Cricket for years. Has there been any examples of parents contesting decisions with umpires or referees using their own videos?

[Ashingtonclaret46]

Video technology has been used in Rugby and Cricket for years. Has there been any examples of parents contesting decisions with umpires or referees using their own videos?

More than likely threre have not, however, players and fans at all levels of both sports you have mentioned are more respectful and willing to accept the decisions of those officiating.
I have played, refereed and umpired at football, cricket and hockey and I'll tell you the only sport out of those three that has very little respect for officialdom is football. In the main, the players do respect the job you are doing, many fans never will.
Go and watch a junior game from Under 10 to Under 16 and listen to the abuse a young referee gets from people on the line who should know better and this is countrywide. We lose more referees because of this than any other reason.
It is only a matter of time before a spectator switches on to using his own video at a junior match ---this was brought up at a young referees' mentoring session by an 18 year old referee who wanted to know the correct course of action. He was told to ignore the video, because it had no relevance, and then to get the name of the pitch invader and which club he was connected to and tell him that the incident was being reported to the County FA and that he did not want any further confrontation of any kind for the remainder of the game. If he experienced further problems with this person he should instruct him to leave the ground and ask the secretary of the home club to ensure that this happens. Failure to do so would result in the abandonment of the match!
As I said, this was brought up by a young referee at a meeting, it was not instigated by any of the old and bold so perhaps he has a much better knowledge of the use of technology than we old guys who are just trying to produce referees for the future of the game.

[Bordeauxclaret]

So essentially they have been told to tell any loser that tries it to do one.

Problem solved.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

So essentially they have been told to tell any loser that tries it to do one.

Problem solved.

On paper ---yes the problem is solved because this is a standard procedure for anyone at this level.
On the field could well be a different matter with the number of assaults on referees at grassroots level going up again last season. We live in hopes

[Bordeauxclaret]

Unfortunately you’ll always get losers who forget they are watching junior football. Sadly that’s not likely to change.
I can’t see VAR effecting that in any way.

[South West Claret.]

Penalty or no penalty?

http://www.fsf.org.uk/blog/view/and-fin ... borg-valur" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Imploding Turtle]

Three penalties give. VAR would probably have overturned all of them

[Imploding Turtle]

I had to watch here though cos the clip won't load on your link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wir_Psy5DkI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Spijed]

Three penalties give. VAR would probably have overturned all of them

You mean like the illogical handball decisions we saw in the World cup?

[Imploding Turtle]

You mean like the illogical handball decisions we saw in the World cup?

I mean the ball to hand, the header and the attempted but failed chesting.
Why, what do you mean?

[Ashingtonclaret46]

All penalties because the officials said so and no VAR available at European Champions League matches so they are obviously not important,
The same will apply for the coming season and they stress that it will make all the difference because the decisions must be correct.

[NRC]

two of those decisions are outrageous, but they evened out I guess. My main take-away though is how many of the Rosenborg players' family name is COOP