Weird. Haven’t you got anything else to talk about?
Get rid of VAR NOW! We want our game back! (...or not, some are happy)
- Thread starter RedFish
- Start date
Weird. Haven’t you got anything else to talk about?
It does make sense, it's fairer, it's progress, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. But you're right maybe this should be included, it's not like we have 24 penalties a game, they could check it too. We'd have a lot of penaltys retaken for a few weeks and eventually the keepers will stop trying to be clever.
And just like that every incident that's missed by VAR would be called for to be added leading to All incidents.
Like in our game last weekend, VAR was used to confirm that rashford for offside, he was. But Pogba was fouled just right outside the box when he passed to rashford. A TV ref is looking right at it and can't give it as foul because, its not included in VAR.
Last edited:
They have a get-around for how much they look at. Or an excuse for missing stuff, depending on your point of view.
If the defence has a chance to 'reset' then it's all fine.
Adrian was 2 steps off his line each time, maybe only 1 1/2 steps for the one Abraham biffed straight at him, tbf.
Penalties just need completely looking at rule-wise I think. How realistically enforceable anything is atm - by whoever, I don't know, I think it's very difficult.
If the defence has a chance to 'reset' then it's all fine.
Adrian was 2 steps off his line each time, maybe only 1 1/2 steps for the one Abraham biffed straight at him, tbf.
Penalties just need completely looking at rule-wise I think. How realistically enforceable anything is atm - by whoever, I don't know, I think it's very difficult.
And replying to myself.
There is no real reason why they can't look at everything all the time if the VAR Official can press his red button at any time for anything (clear & obvious?)
But no one wants to stop the game do they?
More & accurate rule enforcement - fewer or the same number of stoppages. I think this is a totally contradictory position you can't ever achieve, really.
Unless you play stuff out & will then be prepared to bring it all back, which they aren't atm.
Yeah but the topic will turn around to football especially after a match.
Well, no. That's a big reach. But in the situation you describe what would you find acceptable ?And just like that every incident that's missed by VAR would be called for to be added leading to All incidents.
Like in our game last weekend, VAR was used to confirm that rashford for offside, he was. But Pogba was fouled just right outside the box when he passed to rashford. A TV ref is looking right at it and can't give it as foul because, its not included in VAR.
That Rashford scored while offside and put it on the linesman for missing it ? As it is, goal disallowed, FK for Chelsea ? Go further back, FK for United because it happened before the offside ? And of course switch the teams and imagine United is the team defending.
To me the way it's been dealt with is the fairer if you take into account the authority of the ref. Their ability to judge something as close as an offside is "taken away" from him to help him but he's still responsible in judging wether players are commiting fouls in front of him.
This is the crux of the problem.when you pick and chose on what to review, it creates a bias. I don’t care if this was against united or any other team. I am just mentioning the scenario. And this is the sequence of events.
I think around 33:00 minutes.
1) pogba is fouled, as he passes to rashford and he is offside.
2) ref flags it, and VAR is used to confirm. But while seeing the replay, pogba is clearly fouled. But that’s not part of VAR.
3) free kick to Chelsea and from that Barkley nearly misses the goal.
If he had scored, how is that fair on United.a TV ref saw a clear foul and cannot do anything about it.
Because of the nature of football, every decision influences the flow of the game. So just saying that we will use VAR for goal changing decisions doesn’t make it any fairer.
Let’s take a scenario. Player in team A, clear handball outside the box, ref misses, VAR cannot rule against it and moves on. Player from team B after 5-10 mins, does the same but inside the box, penalty to team A through VAR. how is the game fairer in this instant? Things like this happens every other game.
Last edited:
Challenge system solves that.
Let teams challenge calls, whatever they may be. If they feel they want to risk losing a challenge on a throw-in in the opponent's half, then so be it. If a team feels aggrieved by a call that was committed two cm outside the box they should be able to force a check.
Have VAR check what it checks now, and then give each team one to two challenges for any call. If they successfully overturn the decision, challenge is kept.
We should just expand goal-line technology to flag if the keeper moves off his line. It is something that hardly needs any deliberation and can be instantaneous justice.
That doesn’t make the game more fair. One team could be unfortunate enough to have a couple of really close calls go against them and use their challenges before getting another decision against them that was wrong. But they’ve used their challenges so tough shit. While the other team could be fortunate enough to get a penalty because they haven’t had any close calls to challenge before it.
And this is a big problem for VAR in this situation and offsides.
Depending on which freeze frame image you use it can alter if offside or not.
And just like that every incident that's missed by VAR would be called for to be added leading to All incidents.
Like in our game last weekend, VAR was used to confirm that rashford for offside, he was. But Pogba was fouled just right outside the box when he passed to rashford. A TV ref is looking right at it and can't give it as foul because, its not included in VAR.
That wasn’t given our way as the offside occurred before the foul. As soon as Pogba plays the ball, Rashford is offside.
I don't know if it's even a foul before VAR. Playing the ball to someone offside always seems to overule anything else.
Much like if a ref gives advantage, and you play it to a player offside the offside stands and you don't get your freekick the advantage for the original foul.
Rashford is offside when he becomes active. If he lets that ball go through his legs then he's not offside.
It’s not. If a player is fouled while passing to a player in offside position, it’s still a foul.
Last edited:
Doesn't sound like such a big problem. Just needs consistent handling. For instance, consistent rule could be that benefit of the doubt always goes to the attacker. Or anything else as long as it is consistent.
By the way, there are cameras that can capture 250 frames per second. That's like, each frame could capture fraction of a centimeter even at Usain Bolt's top speed.
As mentionned by other posters maybe the ref just played advantage and playing it to an offside player once advantage is given will be a free-kick for the opposing team every time.
About your scenario it falls down to the authority of the ref again. He missed the handball outside the box, that's on him. It's harder to justify this as an injustice, team A could have gotten a chance at a very good FK while team B gets an obvious penalty. Should we write off VAR and miss clear penalties for the sake of hypothetical free-kicks (be it on the edge of the box or 60yd from the goal) ?
Penalty box (fouls, handballs, encroachement, keeper position) + Offsides + Violent conduct = VAR
Any other infraction = Referees
The most important game-changing situations are being watched while the reste during the flow of the game is for the ref to judge.
Offside or not, a foul before passing to a player is still a foul. I have posted the videos above to prove it.
You are basically saying if the ref misses it outside the box, tough luck, deal with it. How is that fair to any team?.
Because of the nature of the game, every decision dictates the flow of the game. Even a wrong throw in call can lead to a goal and has done in the past.So, I don’t agree that only the decisions in the box are crucial.
I am not saying don’t use VAR for making penalty call. I am saying if you are using VAR for one decision, why not use it for others.
The proponents of VAR won’t agree on this, because it basically takes the referee out of the game and will lead to more stoppages.
Well yeah, that's why. A lot of people against VAR are saying that going from 92% to 99% correct decisions is not worth it. That the game is fine with average referees and is still growing. If you want VAR to check absolutely everything their heads will explode.
It is "tough luck" because the alternative is not happening, even as a pro-VAR i don't want it to fully replace the ref. Trading 45s for rare incidents to get to 99% correct decisions is more than fair to me. Having 250 VAR checks per half to gain that last percent is not. So, again, yes they should add the keeper thing into VAR because it will be absolutely seamless once keepers learn to deal with it. For everything else, we're gonna have to rely on the referee's ability as we did for the last 100 years. They have to be accountable for something.
Going off of this why not change the positions of the referees that they added around the box. With VAR they are now litteraly useless. Stick to 1 main ref, and 2 for each half on each side. This way you have 2 sets of eyes looking at both directions in every half + the main ref. They're all in communication and can point out a missed handball.
UEFA are going to VAR dealing with GKs leaving the line during pens being taken when it is clear & obvious.
Which is I suppose is going to be when the GK saves one that wouldn't have hit him anyway.
You could deal with encroachment easily enough by making ordinary pens like shootout pens - ie: not part of the actual play.
I had a thought last night about replacing pens with a 2 touch shot from the D - GK & attacker can do what they like once the whistle is blown. But the 'taker' is limited to a touch & an effort on goal. Would be more exciting & interesting I thought. GK can move out to cut the angle but might get outwitted doing this.
Which is I suppose is going to be when the GK saves one that wouldn't have hit him anyway.
You could deal with encroachment easily enough by making ordinary pens like shootout pens - ie: not part of the actual play.
I had a thought last night about replacing pens with a 2 touch shot from the D - GK & attacker can do what they like once the whistle is blown. But the 'taker' is limited to a touch & an effort on goal. Would be more exciting & interesting I thought. GK can move out to cut the angle but might get outwitted doing this.
Clear/obvious game changing decisions can & do occur all over the park at any time.
''OK, but we're only going to look at a few.''
''We weren't looking at a lot of them, anyway.''
I don't know.
Favours the territorially dominant team again.
''OK, but we're only going to look at a few.''
''We weren't looking at a lot of them, anyway.''
I don't know.
Favours the territorially dominant team again.
No var in Europa league games tonight anarchy is back
Some grounds not equipped or practical, I reckon.
Yes probably that's it
You are struggling to grasp the idea of what's I mean as fair. Just because the number of right decisions increases doesn't make the game fair, when we apply the technology to only a subset of decisions. If we are going to concentrate the VAR in the penalty box alone, then it will heavily be biased against the attacking teams as @montpelier pointed out.
Last edited:
Then we have a different definition of fair or at least of "fairer". We apply it on a subset of decisions because the real and big issues apply to this subset. Yes i get that it's possible that a throw-in can lead to a goal 10s later but again VAR is here to help the ref not fully replace him.
If increasing the number of right decisions doesn't make the game fairer then what does ? Going back to leaving everything in the hands of one out of shape dude and just pray that he doesn't blink at the wrong time ? You already said you don't want VAR to control it all and you seem to like some of the VAR benefits so what in your opinion should be done to get as close as possible to the fairest solution ? If the game wasn't fair before and still isn't now what can be done ?
VAR isn't here to help defending or attacking teams, i understand your view but scoring goals is the objective, that's where everything leads to so of course it's at this crucial moment and end of the field that we want the decisions to be correct. If rubbish team A plays against Barcelona and gets "done" by the VAR, they should not begrudge the system that found out they gave away a handball or a foul in the box. That's a completely different issue and it relies mainly on them not being good enough, making mistakes and paying for it as they should, no matter the name under the badge.
This is in the spirit of VAR. Changes to the way penalties are taken. Will be a different sport in a decade.
I knew half the response to the idea of not including 3/4 of the field in the project would be ''we don't care'' - which is essentially what you are saying. Perhaps that is reasonable though, I don't know. It depends what kind of game the audience are happy watching - and just for the goals probably. I say 3/4 because, any less good side is not being helped to get to that end at all, are they?
I do feel that your side of the debate is not seeing that 'correct' & 'fair' are different things. I play at one end & get the help of correct decisions, we aren't interested in what your needs are at all because you're crap. Bad luck, that.
I feel like I have argued this fairly stupidly but that it does contain some truthful points.
It's totally different from what I watched in the 1980s. Someone said the anti VARs were 'old farts.' Only speaking for myself, but I think they might be right in my case.
But 25 offsides in a game is no great loss, that's for sure. Although most of them were correct, according to the rules in force at the time. Possibly more corect than they are getting it now when they do it without VAR.
You contradict yourself there. Again, as I have reiterated so many times, because of the nature of the game, EVERY decision determines the flow of the game. Harry Kane's goal against United couple of seasons ago, when he crossed the half before the kick off, would still have been allowed under current VAR rules, because it concerns only "Big issues". This is just an example to show that even a small decision such as seeing if a player crossed could influence the game. and i could go on and give so many of examples of how "small issues" have lead to goals.
So just saying that penalties and red cards are the only important decisions in football is against the nature of the game.
But you are willing to leave it to the dude/ette, other "insignificant" decisions?. I never said, I don't want VAR to control it all. I advocate either use it for everything or don't at all. Its just that people advocating for VAR cannot accept that they need to be used for everything, because it means more stoppages as I previously said.
But if Barcelona commit fouls repeatedly, which go unnoticed by the ref/VAR because its outside the box, shouldn't team A feel begrudged about it?. They should just move on, it doesn't matter busquets was already on a yellow!!!
I never said "we don't care" i'm saying that these decisions still rely on the ref's ability. The same one that you seem to trust enough to give 100% of the decision power. I hate seeing teams wasting time when my team is losing and love it when my team does it. I'm as fickle as it gets but when you start talking about audience numbers, growth and stuff like that, i'm sorry but it just makes me laugh. I've been watching football for 25 years, good luck making me stop now, VAR or not.
I understand the nuance you're getting at, nothing is stupid in what you wrote but, again, my side is if something can be improved, do it. No, it does not fix everything, yes it create other issues but when you add it all up, imo, you have a fairer game and a better product (ugh...)
In an ideal world nobody should "need help", these are the rules, here's the ball, let's go. But in practice it's obvious the referees can't do it. The better teams are not getting the help of correct decisions, they are getting what they are due according to the written rules ! Nobody is being extra nice giving a red card because some player gave an elbow behind the ref's back. I don't get what these lower-skilled teams need ? The ball crossed the line, there was a handball in the build-up or whatever, this can happen to both teams and that's on the ref. Yes they are more often defending than attacking but that was already the case before and you're basically advocating a VAR-less game so at least the small teams can sometimes benefit from the ref's inaptitude. I think that's the wrong way to look at it.
They are not the only ones but the ones that provoke the most outrage. They're the most visible and the ones that have a very direct consequence.
I tried looking for the goal you're talking about, i couldnt find it, if you have a link i'd love to see it.
Of course, we have to, there's no other choice. I already told you i don't think anyone wants a fully VAR-controlled game. You're asking me if i trust a referee and his assistants to give the throw-in to the right team more than i trust them to judge a close offside call. The answer is yes because it's easier and more likely to have a smaller consequence if a mistake is made. You said that you could provide so many of examples of how "small issues" have lead to goals but you have to admit that it's a lot more rare than a "bigger" decision about an offside.
I absolutely do not understand how you can refuse some proven improvements with a minimal cost and go back to nothing at all ? You're seeing black and white on a fully grey issue that is going to need several passes of adjustments.
If there's no VAR, the ref is responsible, team A should be angry at him.
If there's VAR but every single actor of the game has been told and know the rules: the ref is responsible "by law" so team A should still be angry at him.
They can move on, moan about it, it makes no difference. The guy supposed to blow his whistle did not when he was supposed to, why are you blaming the wrong guy ?
You were told VAR would not intervene, VAR guy was told not to intervene, VAR guy don't intervene to save you ->
Once more, please try to offer solutions to fix what you think is the issue. If you genuinely think you'd rather see a game with offside goals, violent acts go unpunished etc then fine, you're entitled to your opinion but i do feel time will pass, everyone will adjust to it and it will hopefully evolve to correct its biggest quirks.
It's pointless to think every league will drop it because a handball was not spotted outside the box or the ball went out once every weekend.
I‘m undecided about VAR, but I think one of the key issues to discuss and/or solve is time.
The footy clock never stops and the added injury time already doesn‘t compensate for time wasted. Wasting time has become such a strong tactical element of the game that I think rule changes like subs leaving the pitch via the closest sideline just aren‘t sufficient.
I don‘t know how many other sports using a VAR of their own stop the clock or aren‘t limited in time at all. But footy seems to be the odd one out here.
So far I haven't been impressed. The main problem is them calling handball for clear ball-to-hand instances, like the goal that was called off for Wolves again Leicester, which I think should have stood. The player in question was an inch away, with his arms up to balance his own header attempt. In the Copa America there were several such goals, when I would have hoped that VAR would eliminate ball-to-hand instances being called as fouls.
I was glad to see that Christensen wasn't called for one in the Super Cup for Chelsea. But then they didn't manage to call off the penalty for the dive by Abraham. Hopefully it gets better with review. But it seems to me another way to get things wrong.
I was glad to see that Christensen wasn't called for one in the Super Cup for Chelsea. But then they didn't manage to call off the penalty for the dive by Abraham. Hopefully it gets better with review. But it seems to me another way to get things wrong.
It was eriksen who scored actually. I couldnt find the video, but heres the link
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/foot...-united-tottenham-eriksen-goal-half-kick-off/
It doesn't matter how often these "small issues" happen or how important the consequence is, if a wrong call is made and technology can be used to prove it, it should be.
And if these small mistakes are rare as you seems to suggest, maybe using VAR to correct these mistakes is not going to take much time then.
If there's no VAR, the ref is responsible, team A should be angry at him.
If there's VAR but every single actor of the game has been told and know the rules: the ref is responsible "by law" so team A should still be angry at him.
They can move on, moan about it, it makes no difference. The guy supposed to blow his whistle did not when he was supposed to, why are you blaming the wrong guy ?
You were told VAR would not intervene, VAR guy was told not to intervene, VAR guy don't intervene to save you ->
The rules you have set for VAR are biased when it can protect in one instant and not in the others.
Its like why should chelsea fans/players moan about Adrian being off the line, They know that the VAR is not going to check on him, right? Just get on with it!
I don't think refereeing is an issue. Honestly, referring mistakes are overblown.93-95% accuracy which the refs achieve is good enough. At the end of the day, the VAR is just another ref,verifying what the on field ref thinks. Fans/managers who think their team got shafted by the ref are only deflecting the real issue, their team was not good enough on the day. Fans hardly remember a bad refereeing in a game which their team wins.
And its disingenious of you to suggest that offside goals are more common than a wrong foul call outside the box. The only reason we remember more of the former is that it made a change in the result.
Last edited:
But it would though, because usually when a situation around or inside the box happens, it's often followed by a break in play: ball goes out, in, keeper make a save, 4 or 5 players stop playing and start shouting at the ref that something happened... That doesn't really happen when something happens in the middle of the pitch, there is still a live ball to play for. It's a natural reaction, the closer you are to the goal the more you want the right decision to be made. If i fail to pass you the ball on the halfway line, you get mad, if i do the same thing ala Kane to Sterling right in front of goal you go mental.
About the Eriksen goal here's the video:
At 0:38 you can see that in reality he slows down and adjust his run so that 2 extra steps sprinting does not really give him an advantage. If he managed to break the offside trap because of it then yeah but i feel like this is grasping at straws. 3 United players not paying attention to the best striker of the league 10s into the game...
At the same time, take out the far side assistant, you still have 2 ref who were given the task to check on this and they did not. They failed. Even if a goal is scored i'd still put that in the "small mistakes" box.
Same answer as before, if they knew VAR was not checking this sort of infraction, by all means, be mad have a moan but your target here is the ref who failed to take action, not the VAR.
He blows his whistle and then just has to check the keeper and if the ball crossed the line. He even have the help of his assistant to check if the ball crossed the line. He has no excuses.
It's absolutely not good enough. There is too much at stake. Realistically speaking there's a pretty good chance Spurs are not seeing another CL Final for quite some time. As funny as it would have been it would have been horrible for them to miss this historic chance at the biggest trophy in club football because "meh that's good enough, there was no mistakes in the Anderlecht-Sevilla game, we're fine" They would probably answer with a good "go feck yourself" and they'd be right to do so.
We can agree that with or without VAR, Liverpool was always going to destroy Norwich but in close games, these decisions are the difference. If you go 1-0 down from an offside goal at the 86' minute, is it because "you were not good enough on the day" ? Should they have scored earlier ? Or defended better ? Who's to know that if the offside was signalled they weren't going to score 3 minutes later and win that same game in which they were supposedly not good enough.
It is those decisions that "made a change in the reult" that needs to be adressed and corrected when possible.
The more I see VAR in action, the more I'm against it in its current form. And I was a strong advocate of it originally, and I've seen it implemented successfully in other sports that I also follow closely. And I think it can be an asset in football.
But, as it stands now, it takes too long, it robs supporters in the ground of an organic match-going experience, and it's being used in a pedantic fashion, attempting to identify microscopic errors in slow-motion, rather than eradicating clear mistakes, which is what the technology should be about.
You can't ever have completely fair officiating because VAR can't look at numerous things that happen in the game. For example, if a referee makes a bad mistake, and gives a free-kick while a team is on the break, and denies them a great counter-attacking opportunity, that is beyond the scope of VAR. As are numerous other things.
So, in my view, it makes no sense to be so ridiculously pedantic over other decisions either. What everyone wants to see, or wanted to see, was clear and obvious errors being eradicated. Not for games to be decided by poring over slow-motion footage of replays, in relation to goals that no-one on the field of play even contested.
But I appreciate that lots of people disagree with that. For me, the only reason to interrupt the game for two minutes and then change the decision is if there has been an absolute howler. Whereas if the City goal had stood, it's quite possible that no-one would even have complained. Certainly, without TV no-one would have known that it was a handball.
But, as it stands now, it takes too long, it robs supporters in the ground of an organic match-going experience, and it's being used in a pedantic fashion, attempting to identify microscopic errors in slow-motion, rather than eradicating clear mistakes, which is what the technology should be about.
You can't ever have completely fair officiating because VAR can't look at numerous things that happen in the game. For example, if a referee makes a bad mistake, and gives a free-kick while a team is on the break, and denies them a great counter-attacking opportunity, that is beyond the scope of VAR. As are numerous other things.
So, in my view, it makes no sense to be so ridiculously pedantic over other decisions either. What everyone wants to see, or wanted to see, was clear and obvious errors being eradicated. Not for games to be decided by poring over slow-motion footage of replays, in relation to goals that no-one on the field of play even contested.
But I appreciate that lots of people disagree with that. For me, the only reason to interrupt the game for two minutes and then change the decision is if there has been an absolute howler. Whereas if the City goal had stood, it's quite possible that no-one would even have complained. Certainly, without TV no-one would have known that it was a handball.
Yes!
My big (only maybe?) issue with it. Tech is not that good yet to know was it offside or not in that exact moment.
I love VAR
Unfortunately, your (our) view don't matter, the rules have been changed, irrespective of VAR. What's pedantic to you is a massive point for Tottenham.