Nah, it's garlic bread.

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48483152

This doesn't appear to be a failure of the VAR system.

Imploding Turtle wrote:This doesn't appear to be a failure of the VAR system.

VAR not working. Players not told that VAR not working. It's not reported what the rules say if VAR was intended to be used during the game, but it wasn't working. Maybe there are no rules.... Maybe the rules say "don't tell the players if VAR not working....."

Seems like this is a failure of the rule makers who are introducing the use of VAR...

VAR is garlic bread?

That explains a lot.

Clears up one controversy, creates others.

VAR is the most retrograde step that the game can take.

Slows the game down terribly.
VAR looks for things to award.
Still gets things wrong

I thought the decision to refer to VAR was the referee's or the VAR operators only? I was sure it wasn't supposed to be an appeals system like cricket!

Mind you, that'd cut down on the need for 4 people in the VAR box! And just think of the fun seeing Man U losing their appeals in the 1st 5 minutes!

The best route for Wydad surely would be to appeal the awarding of the result if they hadn't been told that VAR wasn't working beforehand? It says officials were informed but does that mean club officials?

I doubt that VAR would have seen the light of day if players didn't resort to cheating in order to attempt to gain an advantage. The amount of diving, feigning serious injury and general cheating is at such an extent now that it's virtually impossible for refs to do their job. Yes, there are some poor officials but it's the players who are ruining the game.

Interesting call made in the u20 world cup game between New Zealand and Columbia. In the penalty shootout the NZ keeper made a save but the VAR official ordered a retake as he thought the keeper was fractionally off his line as the kick was taken.
Which brings into question, will the same scrutiny be applied in the Premier League next season? Will successful penalties have to be retaken if another attacker even slightly encroaches in the penalty area as the kick is taken?

Haven’t seen it but I’ve heard complaints that the Colombian keeper also came off his line but went unpunished. Can’t comment on that particular incident but it exemplifies the fundamental flaw in VAR for me... how selectively it’s being used. If it isn’t even used consistently for both teams in one game, the inconsistencies over the course of a Premier League season are likely to take a real toll on points total of smaller clubs, like Burnley, at the end of the season.

Same as every VAR debate, it’s not about ‘the technology‘ making decisions, it’s a man looking at a telly forming an opinion open to interpretation. Much like a ref used to, but slower.

And now everything in football is handball.

Let's do away with VAR.



Next season, we can watch Jamie dy.

NottsClaret wrote:Same as every VAR debate, it’s not about ‘the technology‘ making decisions, it’s a man looking at a telly forming an opinion open to interpretation. Much like a ref used to, but slower.

And now everything in football is handball.

That's been the way in Ligue 1 all season, there was one the other week where a cross was deflected off another player, came up, hit a defender on the elbow while his back was turned..... deliberate handball apparently! & every bit of body contact/near contact is a foul.

rob63 wrote:That's been the way in Ligue 1 all season, there was one the other week where a cross was deflected off another player, came up, hit a defender on the elbow while his back was turned..... deliberate handball apparently! & every bit of body contact/near contact is a foul.

Watching the Toulon Tournament yesterday and lots of physical contact was being penalised, some were really good tackles but deemed to be dangerous. Portugal were awarded a penalty towards the end of the England game when the defender was making a challenge for the ball in the air but turned his back slightly and the ball hit his arm, which was down by his side, when he was jumping and going out of the box.
Unfortunately, this is the future of the game and it will become too sterilised to watch at the top levelwith VAR taking over everything.

I've got serious concerns over the implementation of VAR but I'll reserve judgement until I've seen it's effect in the Premier League, both positive and negative. Would be interesting to know what ALL the Premier League managers think of it. I know Dyche & Guardiola are very much in favour while Pochettino is very much against.

Big reservations too - especially with what’s happening with the handball rule there will be lots stoppages and lots of penalties for incidents that simply do not warrant a team being rewarded with virtually a goal. If somebody stops a goal bound shot deliberately with their hand that’s fine - if they get the ball wacked at them from 2 foot at the edge of the area that’s not !

VAR is coming in so best we can hope is they learn lessons from other sports in terms of communication to crowd and making a bit of drama in the decision etc and that we also learn from mistakes last year and the game does not stop for long periods.

I think next year could be carnage though

It's going to be entertaining if you're watching it on TV, particularly if you've no strong allegiance to the teams playing. It's going to be crap if you're watching it at the ground though.

Slow motion makes the incident look vastly different to real-time, especially in the case of a foul and handball.

It’s the end of football as we know it - it really is.

VAR is great if properly and quickly applied - but at the moment the decisions seem to be the reverse of what you see on screen so it’s difficult to have any confidence in it

Add in the ridiculous new handball rule and it’s a recipe for disaster

If it does become a stop start load of technological rubbish then I'm off to watch Rammy United they don't do VAR there unless it's to evaluate pie quality, useful technology.

Hmm this could cause some interesting crowd reactions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48534031

tiger76 wrote:Hmm this could cause some interesting crowd reactions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48534031

Except Liverpool & Man U haven't got big screens

The shocking decline in refereeing standards has left little choice unfortunately.

"If the VAR believes there is a definitive video clip which helps explain an overturned decision to fans, it will be broadcast on giant screens," the Premier League said in a statement

What is definitive? That’s going to be interesting when they pick and choose what to show.

claptrappers_union wrote:"If the VAR believes there is a definitive video clip which helps explain an overturned decision to fans, it will be broadcast on giant screens," the Premier League said in a statement

What is definitive? That’s going to be interesting when they pick and choose what to show.

The phrase that comes to mind is "a can of worms",never mind the fans what will the managers do if they perceive an injustice,and the replay backs them up,it's going to be fun watching some of the reactions.

Bordeauxclaret wrote:The shocking decline in refereeing standards has left little choice unfortunately.

I doubt standards have gone down, just that there is far more scrutiny on officials these days.

I'd love to see the training regime of a referee in the 60's & 70's for example.

Probably consisted of a fag and a pint beforehand.

Nah, it's shite

Spijed wrote:I doubt standards have gone down, just that there is far more scrutiny on officials these days.

I'd love to see the training regime of a referee in the 60's & 70's for example.

Probably consisted of a fag and a pint beforehand.

Very true spijed, well almost!
Officials these days go through lots of fitness tests which are very stringent and push them to the limit.
They meet to discuss key match incidents etc.,etc. and work very hard to maintain their status within the game.
They do it because they love the game and that is the bottom line.

I think that the modern officials are placed under too much scrutiny by people who do not fully understand the game and who have certainly never officiated at any level.

The game is going to the dogs, aided and abetted by UEFA and FIFA and now by our own FA --never mind ---it will keep the modern fan happy!
Plenty of penalties, lots of cards, no tackling or physical contact ---boredom ad nauseam!

Forget about VAR, why not have two refs?

Seems to be working fine in Africa now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48533905

claptrappers_union wrote:"If the VAR believes there is a definitive video clip which helps explain an overturned decision to fans, it will be broadcast on giant screens," the Premier League said in a statement

What is definitive? That’s going to be interesting when they pick and choose what to show.

And equally relevant - if there isn't a definitive video clip that explains it, then why would they overturn the decision?

Not in the African Champions League Final. They had a Var box on the side of the pitch, but it was a commandeered ice cream vendor underneath.

Handball-------Given!

It's not helping this England match.

It works very well in cricket, but cricket is already a much slower game anyway and a completely different set of issues to be reviewed and resolved. It's actually lent itself well to cricket and tbh has been an enhancement, BUT as it stands it's pretty much ruining football because it takes so long, often still leaves loads of room for argument and interpretation and I can see a situation where in certain games it could be every 5 minutes and that will just be a total and complete turn off.

That offside decision is exactly the reason why VAR is not right. Under the laws of the game, the offside rules have not changed, and therefore under the rules of the game, the goal should have stood. The players were level.

If they want to change the laws and remove the word level, so that one player will always be ahead of the other whether by an inch, or a hundredth of an inch, or a thousandth of an inch, or a millionth of an inch. In practice, they are never level, and if they want the laws to reflect that, they should be changed.

And it's no use saying that they can't measure who is in front to a millionth of an inch, because they don't care about that. They can't measure to three inches either, but it doesn't stop them making a guess. The picture they used to judge the offside today, wth those overlapping lines with the red line a fraction further forward - how do they know that the picture was taken at the exact moment the ball first touched the passer's boot? Not a hundredth of a second earlier or later - exactly the moment, to better than a hundredth of a second accuracy. It looked to me like the ball wasn't touching the passer's boot on that photo. Can they prove that it was, and that a two hundredth of a second earlier it wasn't?

How far does a player run in a hundredth of a second? Three inches. How far does the defender run? Another three inches. How far does their boot travel in that time? Between zero and three inches, depending on stride. How far was Lingard offside? Less than the camera can actually measure. These players were level, and what VAR does is refuse to accept that they are level, and instead uses inadequate technology to take a guess.

Oh, and the other thing about VAR was that the non-penalty took far too long to decide. One look was enough to see that it probably didn't hit his arm, and if it did it was a very marginal deflection before it hit his back, and again if it did it's obviously impossible to put the top of your arm anywhere but attached to your shoulder. Ridiculous to take a minute.)

Players will soon stop celebrating goals. You just end up looking like a dick. Then fans will. Until the camera says it's OK. By which time, meh...

Somehow, somewhere, the accountants took over.

dsr wrote:That offside decision is exactly the reason why VAR is not right. Under the laws of the game, the offside rules have not changed, and therefore under the rules of the game, the goal should have stood. The players were level.

If they want to change the laws and remove the word level, so that one player will always be ahead of the other whether by an inch, or a hundredth of an inch, or a thousandth of an inch, or a millionth of an inch. In practice, they are never level, and if they want the laws to reflect that, they should be changed.

And it's no use saying that they can't measure who is in front to a millionth of an inch, because they don't care about that. They can't measure to three inches either, but it doesn't stop them making a guess. The picture they used to judge the offside today, wth those overlapping lines with the red line a fraction further forward - how do they know that the picture was taken at the exact moment the ball first touched the passer's boot? Not a hundredth of a second earlier or later - exactly the moment, to better than a hundredth of a second accuracy. It looked to me like the ball wasn't touching the passer's boot on that photo. Can they prove that it was, and that a two hundredth of a second earlier it wasn't?

How far does a player run in a hundredth of a second? Three inches. How far does the defender run? Another three inches. How far does their boot travel in that time? Between zero and three inches, depending on stride. How far was Lingard offside? Less than the camera can actually measure. These players were level, and what VAR does is refuse to accept that they are level, and instead uses inadequate technology to take a guess.

Oh, and the other thing about VAR was that the non-penalty took far too long to decide. One look was enough to see that it probably didn't hit his arm, and if it did it was a very marginal deflection before it hit his back, and again if it did it's obviously impossible to put the top of your arm anywhere but attached to your shoulder. Ridiculous to take a minute.)

Whilst I agree with your general point, offside is now black or white. It’s decided on the video frame where the ball leaves the boot. I agree entirely that this doesn’t necessarily give a 100% accurate call but it gives consistency. You’re either offside by a frame or onside by a frame.

Rileybobs wrote:Whilst I agree with your general point, offside is now black or white.

It'll still cause issues when a player who doesn't touch the ball is considered or not to be offside.

dsr wrote:That offside decision is exactly the reason why VAR is not right. Under the laws of the game, the offside rules have not changed, and therefore under the rules of the game, the goal should have stood. The players were level.

If they want to change the laws and remove the word level, so that one player will always be ahead of the other whether by an inch, or a hundredth of an inch, or a thousandth of an inch, or a millionth of an inch. In practice, they are never level, and if they want the laws to reflect that, they should be changed.

And it's no use saying that they can't measure who is in front to a millionth of an inch, because they don't care about that. They can't measure to three inches either, but it doesn't stop them making a guess. The picture they used to judge the offside today, wth those overlapping lines with the red line a fraction further forward - how do they know that the picture was taken at the exact moment the ball first touched the passer's boot? Not a hundredth of a second earlier or later - exactly the moment, to better than a hundredth of a second accuracy. It looked to me like the ball wasn't touching the passer's boot on that photo. Can they prove that it was, and that a two hundredth of a second earlier it wasn't?

How far does a player run in a hundredth of a second? Three inches. How far does the defender run? Another three inches. How far does their boot travel in that time? Between zero and three inches, depending on stride. How far was Lingard offside? Less than the camera can actually measure. These players were level, and what VAR does is refuse to accept that they are level, and instead uses inadequate technology to take a guess.

Oh, and the other thing about VAR was that the non-penalty took far too long to decide. One look was enough to see that it probably didn't hit his arm, and if it did it was a very marginal deflection before it hit his back, and again if it did it's obviously impossible to put the top of your arm anywhere but attached to your shoulder. Ridiculous to take a minute.)

^^This is spot on. What happened to the clear and obvious also?

I'm also prepared to accept losing to "incorrect" marginal decisions like this if it reduces how much the game is interrupted and moments of celebration spoiled. The price of reviewing every millimetre is too high.

Stevie Morgan wrote:^^This is spot on. What happened to the clear and obvious also?

Good question.

The offside decision was marginal at best but 'clearly and obviously offside' - no way.

I also think that VAR decisions like that give a physcological boost to the team that have 'got away with one' whilst delivering a kick in the nuts to the other team.

Was it a coincidence that Netherlands seem to lift their game after they should have been 2-0 down and out of it whilst England looked totally deflated?

As I said last season the offside rule now needs an urgent overhaul as it's now not fit for purpose due to VAR. I feel one possibly should be there now should be open water between the players involved in an offside as opposed the the minuscule margins we have now. Also what's happened to the "clear and obvious mistske" rule? If an official is having to watch an incident be run and rewound 20 times or more over 90 second period its neither clear nor obvious.

Also perhaps more of a cricket version could be implemented where unless the decision is blatantly wrong the decision stays with the onfield officials.

can you imagine a young kid next season on a Saturday
"Mum, can you pick me up after the game"
"Sure, what time"
"Sometime between 4:45 and 8pm, depends on VAR"

I think VAR will have a detrimental affect on football. It's going to affect spontaneity, the'll be no flow, and more importantly it will take the passion out of the game. As someone alluded to further up the thread, players and fans won't celebrate until a decision has been confirmed. What about FA cup games. Some clubs using it, others outside the PL not. If its in for one it's got to be in for all including non league clubs entering the competition.

The whole point of the offside rule is to stop teams leaving a player on his own upfront and lumping the ball to him over everybody else. Does it really matter if his foot is further ahead of the defender? This VAR nonsense ensures the TV companies are indispensable and ignores the original intention of the rules. Unless there is a camera exactly in line with the last defender it is still guesswork and we end up with the silly graphics. As another poster also said, how can we tell when the ball was played? I think the Lingard goal should have stood and I'm a Wales fan!!!

What I’d like to know is how the line is drawn. Is there any science or technology behind it or does someone just give it their best shot by lining it up with the grass cutting lines? The line last night was dubious.

I don’t think it’ll be long until we look back at this method of calculating offside as archaic. It already looks well behind the times. For the system to work accurately we need a camera running along either side line at pitch level which keeps on line with the last man.

Rileybobs wrote:I don’t think it’ll be long until we look back at this method of calculating offside as archaic. It already looks well behind the times. For the system to work accurately we need a camera running along either side line at pitch level which keeps on line with the last man.

Most players wear trackers already?
Goal line tech works out exact position of the ball from a number of cameras, could do same for players?

Or just have a guy who's run the line for years and gets it right 95% of the time?

Rileybobs wrote:For the system to work accurately we need a camera running along either side line at pitch level which keeps on line with the last man.

But what about the last man who isn't supposedly interfering with play?