Get rid of VAR NOW! We want our game back! (...or not, some are happy)

VAR - Love or Hate?

  • Total voters
    1,296
I almost feel like posting in this thread is pointless now, because both sides are entrenched in their positions (pro/anti VAR), and I'm also writing this as a City fan whose just seen VAR decisions go against my team. Anyway, for what it's worth, I fully understand that City's 3rd goal had to be disallowed by VAR because the handball rule leaves open no interpretation for whether a handball is deliberate/accidental. It hit Laporte's arm and deflected to Jesus so the ball was correctly ruled out according to the rules. Laporte was not deliberately seeking an advantage, and the contact was accidental, but those are the rules. Meanwhile, in the first half, we have Lamela dragging down Rodri by the neck, in the penalty area. Lamela was deliberately seeking an advantage, the contact was deliberate, and it was a foul. But VAR didn't give City a penalty because that rule breach is subjective and apparently was not "clear and obvious" enough to overturn the original decision. So effectively VAR within a game is subjective on some decisions and objective on others. I don't think it's right to have differentiation in the level of interpretation that can be applied to rules. All rules should be of equal value.

There's multiple posts in this thread mocking posters who say they now won't celebrate goals, as if that can't possibly be a legitimate reason to be anti VAR. I will say I celebrated neither City goal because I knew both had close offside calls in build-up (I was unsure if Sterling was offside for header on first goal, and unsure if KDB was offside before assist for second goal), and I also didn't celebrate the potential last-minute winner. Taking that goal-scoring passion out of the game in order to adjudicate on often minuscule infractions just isn't worth the price for me.

Finally, there's also multiple posts saying that VAR just needs time, and its implementation will keep on being tweaked to improve it. VAR went through mock trials starting in 2012, had first live trials in 2016, and has been in live use since 2017. I don't see any proof that the system has improved in any way in that time. Its implementation was an absolute mess and still is an absolute mess.
 
It was a nonsense decision but to be fair it says more about the current state of the handball law that it does VAR. Played football at decent levels and lower for 30 years and that has never been a handball at any point, the same way that these 1mm offside calls are really not offside on how the game has been played for decades. I understand the desire for greater accuracy in decisions but I would have preferred we focused on improving the training of officials, experimenting with extra ones rather than moving towards this sterile version of the game.
 
DixieDean said:
By far the biggest fundamental change to football since I started watching and I hate it.

Honestly, football does this shit, yet still won't stop the clock for stoppages?
Click to expand...
Bro, United might have never won the treble. So, I hope they never change it.
 
andyox said:
I almost feel like posting in this thread is pointless now, because both sides are entrenched in their positions (pro/anti VAR), and I'm also writing this as a City fan whose just seen VAR decisions go against my team. Anyway, for what it's worth, I fully understand that City's 3rd goal had to be disallowed by VAR because the handball rule leaves open no interpretation for whether a handball is deliberate/accidental. It hit Laporte's arm and deflected to Jesus so the ball was correctly ruled out according to the rules. Laporte was not deliberately seeking an advantage, and the contact was accidental, but those are the rules. Meanwhile, in the first half, we have Lamela dragging down Rodri by the neck, in the penalty area. Lamela was deliberately seeking an advantage, the contact was deliberate, and it was a foul. But VAR didn't give City a penalty because that rule breach is subjective and apparently was not "clear and obvious" enough to overturn the original decision. So effectively VAR within a game is subjective on some decisions and objective on others. I don't think it's right to have differentiation in the level of interpretation that can be applied to rules. All rules should be of equal value.

There's multiple posts in this thread mocking posters who say they now won't celebrate goals, as if that can't possibly be a legitimate reason to be anti VAR. I will say I celebrated neither City goal because I knew both had close offside calls in build-up (I was unsure if Sterling was offside for header on first goal, and unsure if KDB was offside before assist for second goal), and I also didn't celebrate the potential last-minute winner. Taking that goal-scoring passion out of the game in order to adjudicate on often minuscule infractions just isn't worth the price for me.

Finally, there's also multiple posts saying that VAR just needs time, and its implementation will keep on being tweaked to improve it. VAR went through mock trials starting in 2012, had first live trials in 2016, and has been in live use since 2017. I don't see any proof that the system has improved in any way in that time. Its implementation was an absolute mess and still is an absolute mess.
Click to expand...

Perfect summary!
 
Mrs Smoker said:
Hope they never ever stop for stoppages.
Click to expand...
Me too but by the sounds of it people just want the right decisions and to feck with everything else. Injury time is never accurate so the next stop will be to get rid of it, and I can see people lapping that up unfortunately
 
njred said:
The snowflake generation has won. Nothing you can do. They grew up on tech and if it was up to them VAR would exist even if every ref's decisions before VAR was correct. What get's me is the VAR lovers claiming it's new and will only get better and decisions will become easier to spot. That just means more control. If you can't spot mistakes now, how are they going to be easier? How can a ref in front of a big screen with time get a VAR call wrong?
Click to expand...

Kind of undermines the usual anti-VAR "we're not just old luddites" argument if you start a post by complaining about young people and their new fangled technology.

Though you are pretty much correct. A large part of what will see VAR continue is the fact that people (particularly younger generations who will increasingly become the dominant fan demographic) like and use technology to such a degree. It would be strange if it didn't spread to football when it is in every other aspect of life and indeed other sports. In some ways you might as well be arguing against cashier-less banks or the self service tills in supermarkets. It's the way of the world.

Though given you aren't part of the snowflake generation I'm sure you'll happily bare this negative turn with minimum fuss or complaint. :p
 
Bobski said:
It was a nonsense decision but to be fair it says more about the current state of the handball law that it does VAR. Played football at decent levels and lower for 30 years and that has never been a handball at any point, the same way that these 1mm offside calls are really not offside on how the game has been played for decades. I understand the desire for greater accuracy in decisions but I would have preferred we focused on improving the training of officials, experimenting with extra ones rather than moving towards this sterile version of the game.
Click to expand...
It was the correct decision according to the new rules. If you have a problem with it it's the rule that may be flawed not VAR.
 
Zlatan 7 said:
Me too but by the sounds of it people just want the right decisions and to feck with everything else. Injury time is never accurate so the next stop will be to get rid of it, and I can see people lapping that up unfortunately
Click to expand...
Taking injury time away from the jurisdiction of the refree would be wonderful and it would improve the game 10 fold. It would be a huge step in bringing play acting to an end.
 
andyox said:
I almost feel like posting in this thread is pointless now, because both sides are entrenched in their positions (pro/anti VAR), and I'm also writing this as a City fan whose just seen VAR decisions go against my team. Anyway, for what it's worth, I fully understand that City's 3rd goal had to be disallowed by VAR because the handball rule leaves open no interpretation for whether a handball is deliberate/accidental. It hit Laporte's arm and deflected to Jesus so the ball was correctly ruled out according to the rules. Laporte was not deliberately seeking an advantage, and the contact was accidental, but those are the rules. Meanwhile, in the first half, we have Lamela dragging down Rodri by the neck, in the penalty area. Lamela was deliberately seeking an advantage, the contact was deliberate, and it was a foul. But VAR didn't give City a penalty because that rule breach is subjective and apparently was not "clear and obvious" enough to overturn the original decision. So effectively VAR within a game is subjective on some decisions and objective on others. I don't think it's right to have differentiation in the level of interpretation that can be applied to rules. All rules should be of equal value.

There's multiple posts in this thread mocking posters who say they now won't celebrate goals, as if that can't possibly be a legitimate reason to be anti VAR. I will say I celebrated neither City goal because I knew both had close offside calls in build-up (I was unsure if Sterling was offside for header on first goal, and unsure if KDB was offside before assist for second goal), and I also didn't celebrate the potential last-minute winner. Taking that goal-scoring passion out of the game in order to adjudicate on often minuscule infractions just isn't worth the price for me.

Finally, there's also multiple posts saying that VAR just needs time, and its implementation will keep on being tweaked to improve it. VAR went through mock trials starting in 2012, had first live trials in 2016, and has been in live use since 2017. I don't see any proof that the system has improved in any way in that time. Its implementation was an absolute mess and still is an absolute mess.
Click to expand...

1 - Yes, very much. They do seem to be getting the objective ones (generally) right, though. (after a bit of rule tweaking). Although Utd at PSG and the CL Final still seem like nonsense to me. And the overhead kick the other night seemed to ignored on the grounds of 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Lots are & will be right, though.

2 - this one doesn't bother the neutral tv audience, it's just enhanced dramatic viewing for them

I was even thinking (2) about the cricket last week when one umpire was just getting everything wrong, but the way the challenges go there, wasn't helping at all. But for 'the spectacle' - why should people sat at home care all that much? Stuff happening is good for the viewing figures, it doesn't really matter what it is.

And you did get to do a really great post about it.
 
DixieDean said:
Taking injury time away from the jurisdiction of the refree would be wonderful and it would improve the game 10 fold. It would be a huge step in bringing play acting to an end.
Click to expand...
It would improve the game? I struggle to agree sorry
 
I don't have a problem with today's goal being ruled out. It was the correct decision.

My problem is VAR in principle.
andyox said:
I almost feel like posting in this thread is pointless now, because both sides are entrenched in their positions (pro/anti VAR), and I'm also writing this as a City fan whose just seen VAR decisions go against my team. Anyway, for what it's worth, I fully understand that City's 3rd goal had to be disallowed by VAR because the handball rule leaves open no interpretation for whether a handball is deliberate/accidental. It hit Laporte's arm and deflected to Jesus so the ball was correctly ruled out according to the rules. Laporte was not deliberately seeking an advantage, and the contact was accidental, but those are the rules. Meanwhile, in the first half, we have Lamela dragging down Rodri by the neck, in the penalty area. Lamela was deliberately seeking an advantage, the contact was deliberate, and it was a foul. But VAR didn't give City a penalty because that rule breach is subjective and apparently was not "clear and obvious" enough to overturn the original decision. So effectively VAR within a game is subjective on some decisions and objective on others. I don't think it's right to have differentiation in the level of interpretation that can be applied to rules. All rules should be of equal value.

There's multiple posts in this thread mocking posters who say they now won't celebrate goals, as if that can't possibly be a legitimate reason to be anti VAR. I will say I celebrated neither City goal because I knew both had close offside calls in build-up (I was unsure if Sterling was offside for header on first goal, and unsure if KDB was offside before assist for second goal), and I also didn't celebrate the potential last-minute winner. Taking that goal-scoring passion out of the game in order to adjudicate on often minuscule infractions just isn't worth the price for me.

Finally, there's also multiple posts saying that VAR just needs time, and its implementation will keep on being tweaked to improve it. VAR went through mock trials starting in 2012, had first live trials in 2016, and has been in live use since 2017. I don't see any proof that the system has improved in any way in that time. Its implementation was an absolute mess and still is an absolute mess.
Click to expand...

This is a good post and sums up my feelings on it.
 
Zlatan 7 said:
Me too but by the sounds of it people just want the right decisions and to feck with everything else. Injury time is never accurate so the next stop will be to get rid of it, and I can see people lapping that up unfortunately
Click to expand...

I actually do think changing injury time would be a good idea. :nervous:
 
sullydnl said:
I actually do think changing injury time would be a good idea. :nervous:
Click to expand...
I can see it would be more accurate, I can see VAR would sometimes overturn an incorrect decision. I’m just really struggling with the changing of the passion for supporters celebrating and the injury time dramas and such. Maybe I’m just old and love the game I fell in love with.

I read a lot of these pro var posts and it just seems like neutrals happy with an ‘eastenders’ type drama added to the game and not just enjoy football for the game that it is.
 
I fear that the games would be much longer, that the stoppages themselves would be longer than usual, and eventually would lead to commercials during games, and again increasing the duration of games.
 
Id rather we didnt have it given what its turned into, it almost feels like its only called on to suit whatever mood the officials are in, you just need to look at the last penalty mid week with the line rule or the early decision today in the prem to see it really is not applied correctly. For the sake of employing some half decent referees or at least setting standards higher and punishing officials who are either poor or serving a hidden agenda, id rather it was binned off end of season.
 
Zlatan 7 said:
It would improve the game? I struggle to agree sorry
Click to expand...
Getting rid of time wasting would hugely improve the game.

Ask yourself how often you watch a game and can't believe how little time the ref has added on. It could be that they forgot about the player getting treatment for two mintues in the 89th minute, or not add 30 secs for the substitution earlier. It happens every single game to various degrees and it's a crime nothing has been done about it. Instead we have to put with changes like this VAR shite.
 
DixieDean said:
I don't have a problem with today's goal being ruled out. It was the correct decision.

My problem is VAR in principle.


This is a good post and sums up my feelings on it.
Click to expand...

City been done two games in a row by VAR, and new rule in second one. It should even out though, just been unlucky. As long as VAR used the same way every match. All teams will get these moments this season.

Thinking to last season in La Liga, can't remember teams having lots of goals disallowed. Real Madrid felt they got done on a couple of occasions though. Generally it was great imo.
 
I have heard several times over the past couple weeks during telecasts that it won’t be used to “re referee the game”, so much so it has to be a point of emphasis in the production meetings. Yet, that is exactly what is happening. A few of these offside reviews are so close it really depends on where they freeze it. Who determines that and how? Being in and around video editing for the last 15 years I know there are several frames that go by from the time the ball hits a players foot to the time it leaves. Enough that in at least some occasions a player could be onside or offside depending on when the image is frozen. It’s here to stay but it really is a flawed system and is, imo, being overused here in the beginning. That and the linesman not raising the flag when there is an OBVIOUS offsides are my biggest gripes atm.
 
NecssryEvil said:
I have heard several times over the past couple weeks during telecasts that it won’t be used to “re referee the game”, so much so it has to be a point of emphasis in the production meetings. Yet, that is exactly what is happening. A few of these offside reviews are so close it really depends on where they freeze it. Who determines that and how? Being in and around video editing for the last 15 years I know there are several frames that go by from the time the ball hits a players foot to the time it leaves. Enough that in at least some occasions a player could be onside or offside depending on when the image is frozen. It’s here to stay but it really is a flawed system and is, imo, being overused here in the beginning. That and the linesman not raising the flag when there is an OBVIOUS offsides are my biggest gripes atm.
Click to expand...

Yep, Andy Gray made this exact point last week. Deciding on a tight offside is basically now determined by which frame is chosen to use: .
 
NecssryEvil said:
I have heard several times over the past couple weeks during telecasts that it won’t be used to “re referee the game”, so much so it has to be a point of emphasis in the production meetings. Yet, that is exactly what is happening. A few of these offside reviews are so close it really depends on where they freeze it. Who determines that and how? Being in and around video editing for the last 15 years I know there are several frames that go by from the time the ball hits a players foot to the time it leaves. Enough that in at least some occasions a player could be onside or offside depending on when the image is frozen. It’s here to stay but it really is a flawed system and is, imo, being overused here in the beginning. That and the linesman not raising the flag when there is an OBVIOUS offsides are my biggest gripes atm.
Click to expand...

All I know about the system is that the VA referee is given three frames choose from (presumably the tech guy isolates the relevant ones). The rules state that it's the moment the ball makes contact with the passing player's foot that counts (as opposed to any other time before it leaves his foot) so the VA ref has to select the first frame of the three where that is the case.
 
Love how many people can’t see the knock on effect of, more or less, removing a significant portion of luck in the sport. How that narrows the variety of feelings, conversations, and emotions around sports.

When they finally get around to nailing this whole VAR thing you’ll leave games with only a couple things possibly on your mind: we were good enough or we weren’t.

How boring. How basic.
 
Bobski said:
It was a nonsense decision but to be fair it says more about the current state of the handball law that it does VAR. Played football at decent levels and lower for 30 years and that has never been a handball at any point, the same way that these 1mm offside calls are really not offside on how the game has been played for decades. I understand the desire for greater accuracy in decisions but I would have preferred we focused on improving the training of officials, experimenting with extra ones rather than moving towards this sterile version of the game.
Click to expand...
Totally understand your concern about hand balls, but there was a definitive advantage gained through the ball striking the hand. It has been the intent portion of the previous rule that caused all the horseshit in my opinion. If advantage is gained through the ball striking the hand, play should be stopped. I am glad that the rule has changed.
Couldn't agree more with your offside call thought, even as a goalkeeper, I want more ability to allow attackers the change to score. I feel that if there is any connection between the two bodies when the ball is played (connection meaning that there is overlap between the last defender & the attacker when the assistant referee views them when the ball is played), it should not be offsides. We now see offside calls for an arm ahead of the play, let's have it swing to the complete opposite & allow far more play to continue.
 
I have always been against VAR and I think a proper tech system that gets decisions right to make the game fair cannot be enforced in football.

I agree that VAR made the right call in ruling out the goal, but at the same time, it didn’t award a pen to city in the first half. Because of this, it creates a bias with technology and the game today got an unfair result.

But when the FA is going to release the metric at the end of the season, all we would see is that VAR rightly overturned the goal and report it as a success for the system brushing aside the “non-decision”(the pen call). And this is where I think the metrics reported from other leagues about var is and will be skewed.

So in two weeks, we learn that VAR cannot overrule subjective decisions, VAR cannot overrule most decision outside the box. But for every goal we are going to see if a attacker was offside by a mm or if the ball grazed someone’s arm, because they are “clear and obvious errors” and they are only important decisions in the game.

If VAR were to be applied to make the game fairer, I think the Ref should look at replays of every possible decision on field and retain or retract it. But that’s never an option because the game would be unrecognizable.
 
ForestRGoinUp said:
Love how many people can’t see the knock on effect of, more or less, removing a significant portion of luck in the sport. How that narrows the variety of feelings, conversations, and emotions around sports.

When they finally get around to nailing this whole VAR thing you’ll leave games with only a couple things possibly on your mind: we were good enough or we weren’t.

How boring. How basic.
Click to expand...
You mean in terms of result ? If so I cannot agree, the nature of football will always have freak result where minnows will beat big teams. Spurs today didn't deserve to draw but they still did.
 
Bobski said:
It was a nonsense decision but to be fair it says more about the current state of the handball law that it does VAR. Played football at decent levels and lower for 30 years and that has never been a handball at any point, the same way that these 1mm offside calls are really not offside on how the game has been played for decades. I understand the desire for greater accuracy in decisions but I would have preferred we focused on improving the training of officials, experimenting with extra ones rather than moving towards this sterile version of the game.
Click to expand...

I also played amateur football for many years and I completely agree with you. I hate VAR..especially the petty way it's being implemented in the Premier League. It will ruin the game at the top level if it's allowed to carry on this way..as for the new handball rule, well it's just insane..also, back when I played the game, the general rule of thumb with offside was, if there's doubt give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking side..that VAR decision last week, Sterling's shoulder a couple of millimetres in front of the defender, just no no no, it's ridiculous..the game's being taken over by pendantic bureaucratic plodders sat in front of a screen. It's alright people laughing cos it's City suffering these decisions, but think on, it's gonna happen to us too, probably several times over the course of the season..we won't think it's funny then.
 
kouroux said:
You mean in terms of result ? If so I cannot agree, the nature of football will always have freak result where minnows will beat big teams. Spurs today didn't deserve to draw but they still did.
Click to expand...
Im just talking about luck. Getting away with something that the ref happened to miss. Or being on the other end of that. We’re trying to eliminate those instances, which in turn will close off certain ways we’ve always processed results, or justified them, or excused them.
 
ForestRGoinUp said:
Im just talking about luck. Getting away with something that the ref happened to miss. Or being on the other end of that. We’re trying to eliminate those instances, which in turn will close off certain ways we’ve always processed results, or justified them, or excused them.
Click to expand...
I see what you mean. I'd be glad if all those excuses disappeared from the game but I guess we all have our own appreciation level.
 
Instant replay has been around forever in the NFL. It is still crap. It hasn’t improved the game in any way that I can appreciate. So, if you are in the just give VAR time camp, I’ve got bad news for you.
 
The whole thing was invented for modern day snowflakes that can't handle a bad decision against them. Even if the technology was there in past era's i'm sure the idea would have been laughed out of the room if somebody suggested it.
 
It’s unfortunate that it’s been introduced at the same time as the stupid new handball rule which will ultimately result in gamesmanship and outright cheating to get penalties.
 
Waywestofthere said:
Instant replay has been around forever in the NFL. It is still crap. It hasn’t improved the game in any way that I can appreciate. So, if you are in the just give VAR time camp, I’ve got bad news for you.
Click to expand...

How quickly we forget... If it wasn’t for instant replay, New Orleans would have gotten screwed and not made it to the Super Bowl last year.
 
Zlatan 7 said:
Me too but by the sounds of it people just want the right decisions and to feck with everything else. Injury time is never accurate so the next stop will be to get rid of it, and I can see people lapping that up unfortunately
Click to expand...
If they do that football will become close to perfection. Just stop the clock when it goes out of play and reduce the minutes.
 
NecssryEvil said:
How quickly we forget... If it wasn’t for instant replay, New Orleans would have gotten screwed and not made it to the Super Bowl last year.
Click to expand...

I do forget quickly, that was the blown pass interference call? I.R. sucks—In fact I think it’s gotten worse the longer it’s been around. I don’t even understand what a completed catch is anymore.
 
That 61% in favour makes me hopeful they never remove VAR. Games have become more fairer already and it is only going to get better. If they also introduce bookings for cynical fouls via VAR that would be a great next step.
 
Great use of VAR. I spotted the handball as soon as it was played across but Neville and Tyler are too busy making up fake conversations between Aguero and Pep to even glance at the replays.
At what point does Laporte tell his teammates he handled the ball? He knows its going to be ruled yet he's over jumping on Jesus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.