Forum | VAR by qprxtc | Loft For Words

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread

VAR 13:40 - Jun 16 with 12863 views

Take it away, far, far away and stick it up your bum. Absolute cobblers of a thing.

Ref makes a decision. That’s that. He’s either a w@nker or doesn’t know what he’s doing there and then. Don’t need another eight people taking ten minutes to confirm that.

Stick it up your bum.

VAR on 23:28 - Jun 19 with 1769 views

Benny_the_Ball

VAR on 21:55 - Jun 18 by Hunterhoop

Football has got VAR spectacularly wrong IMO. Not because video refereeing is wrong but because the theory that determines it’s use is wrong.

In NFL, tennis, and cricket they have nailed it. Every decision is the on pitch officials’ call. However, teams get a couple of chances to call for a TV review with the intention of overturning a shocker of a decision. Get it wrong, you lose the review. Get it right, you keep it. Embarrassing for the ref, yes. But other sports swallow that. We’d have had at least one pen today on this basis and deservedly won comfortably.

Good point. I would add to that that football is obsessed with the idea of the game flowing and therefore not disrupting the flow by completing VAR reviews within 20-30 seconds. This is insufficient time to adequately review all the camera angles particularly in situations where there's a lot going on (such as the Harry Kane wrestling incidents). Other sports such as rugby allow sufficient time for a proper review and it doesn't detract from the action; on the contrary it adds to the theatre.

VAR on 23:32 - Jun 19 with 1758 views

QPR_John

VAR on 23:28 - Jun 19 by Benny_the_Ball

But football is a flowing game and surely VAR is not there to change the nature of the game

VAR on 00:01 - Jun 20 with 1735 views

CiderwithRsie

VAR on 21:55 - Jun 18 by Hunterhoop

The other thing about cricket DRS is that the umpire makes a specific decision (or bundle of them) - was the ball hitting stumps, having pitched in line, did the batsman touch the ball with bat or hand? - and the technology is designed to detect/predict what happened in all those specifics and overturn a decision if it's clear the decision is wrong. It fits in with what you say below about the appealing side challenging a specific decision.

Football is inherently harder to referee due to subjective issues e.g. intent, "goalscoring chance" etc. If we're going to have VAR it'd be better if
(a) you had a specific right of challenge vested in the captain, possibly limited in number to stop frivolous appeals; and
(b) the VAR ref communicated their decision over the PA as they do in cricket and rugby e.g. the VAR would have to say out loud why they thought Kane getting wrestled to the ground wasn't a foul.

I also like the Rugby rule that only the captain can talk to the ref but with that comes the idea that the captain can do that e.g. he can say "look ref this guy is less than 10 yards back, I'll pace it out for you if I have to, what are you doing about it?"

[Post edited 20 Jun 2018 0:19]

VAR on 00:07 - Jun 20 with 1730 views

bob566

It can work but has to be challenged based. Like cricket and tennis. You get three challenges and when theyre used anything after that is what the ref decides if youve used your challenges up

VAR on 08:21 - Jun 20 with 1663 views

GroveR

It's fairly straightforward to me - a poor ref supported by VAR is the same as a poor ref without - a poor ref. You could fit Andy Hall with millimetre-band ball tracking radar, all weather infrared vision and echo-location hearing and all you've achieved is creating the $6m cÃ²ck.

VAR on 08:34 - Jun 20 with 1646 views

ElHoop

VAR on 00:07 - Jun 20 by bob566
It can work but has to be challenged based. Like cricket and tennis. You get three challenges and when theyre used anything after that is what the ref decides if youve used your challenges up

That's all well and good if you are watching on TV, but if you are at the game they're probably not going to to show you what's happening on the VAR and you won't have a bloody clue what's happening.

So a team is on the break in the last minute, desperate for an equaliser and the other team uses its challenge just to stop the game - will they stop the game for that? At best they'll use it instead of a player pretending to be injured or the subbed player going off in slow motion. Just another way of breaking up the game and wasting time.

You've got to think of the people who pay to watch the game at the ground. How much time wasting and confusion can they be expected to tolerate? It's not like cricket or tennis with just two players active at any particular point in time - there are 22 active players and there's so much more confusion as a result, even without VAR.

VAR on 09:32 - Jun 20 with 1592 views

BrianMcCarthy

VAR on 23:20 - Jun 19 by Benny_the_Ball
Indeed. It's supposed to eliminate debate for clear and obvious errors but it appears to have created even more contention.

Exactly. I think they overestimate how much the public cares about all this supposedly contentious crap though - red cards, yellows, penalties, now VAR.

All of that happens in every single game and I'm pretty bored with all the chat about it for years now. What I want, and what I get if I'm having a half-time pint, is chat about tactics, performances, what needs to change, our new pink kit....the important stuff!

	"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
Poll:	Player of the Year (so far)

VAR on 10:12 - Jun 20 with 1560 views

QPR_John

VAR on 00:01 - Jun 20 by CiderwithRsie

[Post edited 20 Jun 2018 0:19]

"(b) the VAR ref communicated their decision over the PA as they do in cricket and rugby e.g. the VAR would have to say out loud why they thought Kane getting wrestled to the ground wasn't a foul. "

You know that is never going to happen. FIFA would never open a referee up to having to explain their decision.

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread