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

VAR - Love or Hate?

  • Total voters
    1,296
U-N-I-T-E-D said:
Not a fan of this argument as it doesn't hold for me.

Let's say Team A lose the league to Team B by a point (or a CL spot, relegation battle etc etc). Team A are given a goal that shouldn't have stood when they were 3-0 up - ends 4-0 instead of 3-0 and they receive the same points.

The next week they have a decision go against them at 1-1, perfectly good goal given offside. Game ends 1-1 rather than 2-1 and they lose 2 points.

With VAR making the CORRECT decisions Team A would win the league.
Without, the wrong decisions stand and they finish a point behind Team B.

Those decisions aren't equal.
Click to expand...

You're right if you're going to compare 1-2 game scenarios perhaps at the end of the season where the stakes are great. (although your example of two bad decisions going against them in 2 games is very rare in a scenario like that, but I'll still go with it) Then I can see in that sense VAR being amazing and useful.

But if it ruins a season of 38 games by slow play or absolute fine margin offside decisions where it looks ridiculous, I'm not sure it's worth it.
 
ForestRGoinUp said:
The new normal is only ever going to be subdued celebrations. In an event built for entertainment.
Click to expand...
Yep. We sure are seeing players not celebrating goals. Look at McGinn and the Villa players not celebrating...
 
SteveJ said:
They probably think that 'VAR' is a cryptic anagram of 'EU'.
Click to expand...

Most of the defence of the stupid "offside" calls are basically people saying "but it's the rule!" even though it's clearly not a rule that's fit for purpose when applied to the letter. It's basically like those people who defend ICE raids and concentration camps because "they broke the law".

Essentially, there are people with shitty right wing though processes on both sides.
 
RochaRoja said:
Most of the defence of the stupid "offside" calls are basically people saying "but it's the rule!" even though it's clearly not a rule that's fit for purpose when applied to the letter. It's basically like those people who defend ICE raids and concentration camps because "they broke the law".

Essentially, there are people with shitty right wing though processes on both sides.
Click to expand...
You may have taken what @SteveJ said a tad too seriously there
 
Joga Bonito said:
I think it's great move myself.



And why does it bother you if viewing figures are going to go down or if bloody City can't sell out. Unless it's related to United I don't really see why you need to get so invested in it. Right up there with slowing 'football growth' :lol:.



Then do that, no one's going to stop you. People will throw a fuss about anything these days.
Click to expand...

Stupid comment. So one can't comment about an issue in football unless it directly impacts a team you support?
 
kouroux said:
You may have taken what @SteveJ a tad too seriously there
Click to expand...

Tbh I just wanted to rant about nerds who use the rules to defend things that are clearly a load of bollocks. His post provided a convenient segue.

VAR could actually be good but the common sense aspect of it has been thrown out of the window so quickly it's absolutely making the game worse. Unfortunately so many people are willing to defend the indefensible aspects of it that we'll probably be stuck with it the way it is.
 
U-N-I-T-E-D said:
Surely their fans cheered again?

3 cheers for the price of one - bargain.
Click to expand...

You'd have thought, but it just sort of died down.

VAR has the possibility of killing those instant highs. That's a big problem.

I always look to the linesman before celebrating as it is. If we know have to wait 30secs to make sure some gnome in a room is ok with each goal it's not great.
 
RochaRoja said:
Tbh I just wanted to rant about nerds who use the rules to defend things that are clearly a load of bollocks. His post provided a convenient segue.

VAR could actually be good but the common sense aspect of it has been thrown out of the window so quickly it's absolutely making the game worse. Unfortunately so many people are willing to defend the indefensible aspects of it that we'll probably be stuck with it the way it is.
Click to expand...
Yeah but your segue is a bit extreme. Rules in sports and the law being applied strictly in immigration situation have nothing in common. One is about life/death situation and the other is sports.
 
Fooza said:
Was VAR even needed for leagues? I understand cup competitions referee decisions can be important where knockouts are involved. But over a span of 38 league games incorrect referee decisions often even out.

Having said that I'm neither here or there for VAR, my motto is usually if it ain't broke don't fix it, but I guess we have to accept VAR is here now and we go with it!
Click to expand...
The problem is that even if the amount of calls for/against even out (which I doubt since smaller clubs are shafted regularly) there’s a big difference between a goal incorrectly allowed against you to make it 1-1 in a game vs a rival and getting a goal for you in a 3-0 victory. And I’ve not even begun to go into momentum gained/lost from incorrect goals.

Why don’t we just want the correct calls to be made?
 
The “we won’t be able to celebrate goals anymore” is so shit.
 
Fully Fledged said:
https://www.fourfourtwo.com/us/feat...eree-fix-clear-obvious-mistakes-interview-mls
This article for one goes on about VAR being clear and obvious multiple times but never once says that offside was the exception to that rule.
Click to expand...

Your argument (as far as I can make out) was that you were told that VAR would only look at clear and obvious errors, including only offsides that were subjectively clear and obvious.

The article you posted doesn't say that, at all.

It lists the areas in which they will look for "clear and obvious errors", offside not being mentioned. It also points out that there will be several non-subjective or obvious calls made without any need for the referee to use the monitor. That's it.

At no point does it say they will only consider offside calls where there was a clear and obvious mistake, which is what they would need to have said to back your "shifting goalposts" argument.

Offside is a yes/no decision and was already considered a yes/no decision before VAR was implemented. At no point did those introducing VAR pretend that it was a subjective call by insisting that only clear and obvious offsides would be considered. The fact that you weren't aware that offside was a black & white decison is neither here nor there.
 
Fully Fledged said:
No that would have never have been offside live.
Click to expand...
And it would have been the wrong decision every time. Same as how Chelsea's 4 or so penalties against Barca weren't ruled as penalties 'live'.

The entire point of VAR is for the decisions which are wrong 'live' to be overruled. Congratulations for finally realizing that!
 
Fully Fledged said:
There is one in the other thread. I think it's 3:1 in favour of VAR. At least it was the last time I checked.
Click to expand...
A little less than 30% opposed so far. If a third of them start spending less time watching or stop altogether that’s just the 10% hit on ratings and engagement. Hardly insignificant
 
sullydnl said:
Your argument (as far as I can make out) was that you were told that VAR would only look at clear and obvious errors, including only offsides that were subjectively clear and obvious.

The article you posted doesn't say that, at all.

It lists the areas in which they will look for "clear and obvious errors", offside not being mentioned. It also points out that there will be several non-subjective or obvious calls made without any need for the referee to use the monitor. That's it.

At no point does it say they will only consider offside calls where there was a clear and obvious mistake, which is what they would need to have said to back your "shifting goalposts" argument.

Offside is a yes/no decision and was already considered a yes/no decision before VAR was implemented. At no point did those introducing VAR pretend that it was a subjective call by insisting that only clear and obvious offsides would be considered.
Click to expand...
My post said that there was no mention to offside being an exception to the clear and obvious rule.
 
Revan said:
And it would have been the wrong decision every time. Same as how Chelsea's 4 or so penalties against Barca weren't ruled as penalties 'live'.

The entire point of VAR is for the decisions which are wrong 'live' to be overruled. Congratulations for finally realizing that!
Click to expand...
It was supposed to be clear and obvious. They changed the goalposts on offside. That I don't agree with.
 
kouroux said:
Besides there is no way to prove that decisions even themselves like that.
Click to expand...
It is one of the most idiotic cliches that exist. Sure, some decisions go in favour of some team, and some against it, but they don't even up. More might go in one way than in other, and consequently, titles, UCL places and relegations might be decided by bad referee decisions.
 
They are not looking at offsides where the lino doesn't put his flag up & the incident is early in a move - even when it leads to a goal. The defence gets the opportunity to 'reset' allegedly. Linos don't want to put their flag up because they don't want to be made to look mugs.

That's a pile of nonsense & might even make things worse.

I also suspect that they won't overturn the opinion stuff unless they really have to. So that will make most reviews fairly pointless. Those offsides they do spot though - how exciting & fantastic, I suppose.

And all the soppy penalties we are about to see. Or the less good sides not able to defend unfairly - which is often all they have to try & hold on with.

More mismatches but more goals? Depends what you want to watch, I suppose.
 
Fully Fledged said:
It was supposed to be clear and obvious. They changed the goalposts on offside. That I don't agree with.
Click to expand...
No it wasn't.

Offsides by definition are binary choices, it is either offside or it isn't offside. There is no subjectivity there, there is no half-offside or soft offside. Either it is offside, or it isn't. Today it was offside, the refs missed it, VAR overruled them as it is supposed to do when refs make wrong decisions.
 
Anustart89 said:
Why don’t we just want the correct calls to be made?
Click to expand...

The "correct calls" are designed for the game before the existence of VAR though. Leeway was always given and some common sense was applied. Before VAR, an absolutely miniscule number of people would have complained about that goal being given. Correct calls based on logical rules that take into account how pedantic VAR can be would be fine. This is crap.

Refereeing mistakes are frustrating but a marginal offside being given isn't even a refereeing mistake. It's just the best outcome for an almost impossible rule to apply in practice that hasn't needed to exist in its current form since the 1950s.
 
The best argument against VAR is the one where people want to allow 10cm (or any other amount) of leeway, like that won’t just lead to the discussion of whether the guy was 9.9cm or 10.1cm off, and whether the measuring tool is precise enough to calculate the distance. :lol:
 
montpelier said:
They are not looking at offsides where the lino doesn't put his flag up & the incident is early in a move - even when it leads to a goal. The defence gets the opportunity to 'reset' allegedly. Linos don't want to put their flag up because they don't want to be made to look mugs.

That's a pile of nonsense & might even make things worse.

I also suspect that they won't overturn the opinion stuff unless they really have to. So that will make most reviews fairly pointless. Those offsides they do spot though - how exciting & fantastic, I suppose.

And all the soppy penalties we are about to see. Or the less good sides not able to defend unfairly - which is often all they have to try & hold on with.

More mismatches but more goals? Depends what you want to watch, I suppose.
Click to expand...
Smalling will be more fecked than ever.
 
Anustart89 said:
The best argument against VAR is the one where people want to allow 10cm (or any other amount) of leeway, like that won’t just lead to the discussion of whether the guy was 9.9cm or 10.1cm off, and whether the measuring tool is precise enough to calculate the distance. :lol:
Click to expand...

"Can you see space between the attacker and defender?"

Yes - offside
No - onside

You wouldn't need to measure millimeters, just use the human eye and common sense.
 
adexkola said:
Stupid comment. So one can't comment about an issue in football unless it directly impacts a team you support?
Click to expand...

There's a difference between commenting and overreacting. The key word being invested, in case you missed it. If you looked at the comments of the poster whom I was replying to, you'd probably understand what I'm getting at.
 
Fully Fledged said:
My post said that there was no mention to offside being an exception to the clear and obvious rule.
Click to expand...

Actually your second post said:

Fully Fledged said:
It was all said to be clear and obvious even offside
Click to expand...

Which is different. Them failing to point out that offside didn't count as a subjective decision isn't the same as them telling you that offside would count as a subjective decision before later changing their mind.

As I said, offside was already considered to be a black & white decision at that point. Maybe they could have made that clear to people who didn't realise that was the case but there was no shifting the goalposts as they never promised anything different in regards to offsides.
 
VAR is clunky as it is but necessary - cheats and refereeing blunder have had way too much an impact on this game - and also I'm sure it will get better. They should look to hockey to be honest they do it without too much disruption to the game - but either way people will get used to it.

RochaRoja said:
Most of the defence of the stupid "offside" calls are basically people saying "but it's the rule!" even though it's clearly not a rule that's fit for purpose when applied to the letter. It's basically like those people who defend ICE raids and concentration camps because "they broke the law".

Essentially, there are people with shitty right wing though processes on both sides.
Click to expand...

So in your brain being pro offside and happy to see it enforced with some consistency is the same as being pro mass killings - and you also deem having a goal disallowed an equal offense to that of being murdered? Sir - I believe you've lost the plot. You should rewind and start from the beginning - because what you think is right is actually completely bonkers :lol:
 
RochaRoja said:
"Can you see space between the attacker and defender?"

Yes - offside
No - onside

You wouldn't need to measure millimeters, just use the human eye and common sense.
Click to expand...
“Was there space or was there 0.2cm of overlap?”

You don’t think the daylight rule favours the attackers waaaay too heavily, considering the pace of the game?
 
Anustart89 said:
The best argument against VAR is the one where people want to allow 10cm (or any other amount) of leeway, like that won’t just lead to the discussion of whether the guy was 9.9cm or 10.1cm off, and whether the measuring tool is precise enough to calculate the distance. :lol:
Click to expand...
As I have said multiple times just make it clear and obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.