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

VAR - Love or Hate?

  • Total voters
    1,296
This is why they need to use the fecking pitchside monitors they've already installed at all the grounds.

A lot of subjective calls don't have clear cut right or wrong answers and a lot of bad calls could technically be argued to be correct, especially when under time pressure and instructions to intervene as little as possible.

As is the VAR only have two options, to say the ref was right or to say the ref was definitely wrong. Using the pitchside monitors would give them a third option for incidents that aren't that clear-cut, or where VAR thinks it's a red card but there's technically an argument that the ref was correct.

Given VAR have already admitted it was a mistake, one can safely assume the decision not to overturn was extremely marginal in the first place. In which case they shouldn't have been making it. Their job at that point should have been to say "we think it's a red but you could theoretically argue otherwise, take another look yourself".

This stupidity is by far the biggest issue with VAR, yet it's the seemingly correct and certainly consistent offside calls which seem to be generating the most ire.
 
duffer said:
They're all human errors though, aren't they? Unless the images VAR gives are distorted then it cant really make a mistake, can it?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Though you may be excused for thinking a couple of monkeys are manning it at times.
 
Just going to say it, VAR is being used to manipulate games in the premier league.

It's been an absolute disgrace all season and the two Chelsea games this week are the cherry on top.

Personally done with the league until it's admitted and fixed. Will watch other leagues instead.
 
darko said:
Why does a league with so much money only have one person reviewing? It should be a panel of three and perhaps the referee should have the final look and say.
Click to expand...

I don't think the on-field ref should even have the option. The rules are the rules regardless of if whatever ref is looking at the reply. Giving the on-field ref the option (or not) of going to check the replay just adds another layer of doubt.

Let the ref in the VAR booth advise the on-field ref. They should be a team.
 
duffer said:
I don't think the on-field ref should even have the option. The rules are the rules regardless of if whatever ref is looking at the reply. Giving the on-field ref the option (or not) of going to check the replay just adds another layer of doubt.

Let the ref in the VAR booth advise the on-field ref. They should be a team.
Click to expand...

Yep. I usually dislike the way that Rugby refereeing is used as a stick to beat football with; they have their own problems in this department. But at least their officials work in tandem. The conversation between the TMO and on-pitch referee is broadcast to the audience, too. This has to be a route under consideration, even if every decision is unlikely to be viewed at the screen. If the VAR is unsure himself, that’s fine; at least let us hear that conversation, which (should) lead to on-pitch referee consulting the off-pitch television.
 
It's like blaming the calculator after failing. It's a tool if used wrong, it will look shit
 
duffer said:
I don't think the on-field ref should even have the option.
Click to expand...
Of course he should. The majority are subjective decisions, you don't want a different ref with a different judgement change those calls
 
If the on the field ref looked at the monitor and said it wasn’t a red people would only have the same complaints.
 
VP89 said:
I think the below is the best answer to that odd logic:
Click to expand...

How is it odd logic? If VAR needs a human still to operate it it’s always going to be flawed- I dont really care about some calculator analogy as they’re not comparable
 
giorno said:
Of course he should. The majority are subjective decisions, you don't want a different ref with a different judgement change those calls
Click to expand...

Why not? What difference does it make if fully qualified Ref A or fully qualified Ref B makes the call?

Giving the on-field ref the option to walk over only puts pressure on him. Take that pressure away and we might get some decisions not influenced by players or the crowd.
 
Shark said:
Another shocking decision from the clowns standing over VAR, as others stated it’s not the system itself that’s the problem. However out will come the “you just hate VAR and want to fuel your agenda” brigade soon enough.
Click to expand...


It's not the dog, it's the owner, you mean?
 
Dec9003 said:
If the on the field ref looked at the monitor and said it wasn’t a red people would only have the same complaints.
Click to expand...

Aye but at that point VAR would still have done it's job correctly. As in it would have given the referee the best possible opportunity to make the correct decision. If he still makes the wrong call at that point then it's on him, as it would have been without VAR anyway.

Plus realistically the odds of him making a blatantly wrong decision decrease a lot at that point. Especially as he isn't restricted by technicalities in the same way as VAR is.
 
Rafaeldagold said:
How is it odd logic? If VAR needs a human still to operate it it’s always going to be flawed- I dont really care about some calculator analogy as they’re not comparable
Click to expand...

It's odd logic because you're taking a concept which is broadly subjective and turning it into something black and white. Take today out as an example and look at the countless VAR decisions world wide that would polarize opinion. There's no way anyone outside of a human can make the final decision, which is why your logic is odd. Computers work for scientific decisions, which the topic of fouls isn't.
 
sullydnl said:
Aye but at that point VAR would still have done it's job correctly. As in it would have given the referee the best possible opportunity to make the correct decision. If he still makes the wrong call at that point then it's on him, as it would have been without VAR anyway.

Plus realistically the odds of him making a blatantly wrong decision decrease a lot at that point. Especially as he isn't restricted by technicalities in the same way as VAR is.
Click to expand...
You’re probably right regarding the technicalities especially.
Do European leagues use the monitor a lot? I think the problem we’ll always have with VAR is the referees in England aren’t all that.
 
duffer said:
They're all human errors though, aren't they? Unless the images VAR gives are distorted then it cant really make a mistake, can it?
Click to expand...
I wold be fine with that kind of mistake if the ref had taken a look and made the mistake. Not some anonymous guy sitting in a bus somewhere.
 
Dec9003 said:
You’re probably right regarding the technicalities especially.
Do European leagues use the monitor a lot? I think the problem we’ll always have with VAR is the referees in England aren’t all that.
Click to expand...
In general, other leagues don’t use VAR as much as in the PL.
 
duffer said:
Why not? What difference does it make if fully qualified Ref A or fully qualified Ref B makes the call?
Click to expand...
Consistency. These are subjective calls - and players get used to the ref's and react accordingly
 
A-man said:
In general, other leagues don’t use VAR as much as in the PL.
Click to expand...
Really? Is it because they’re more confident in their referees or is it just a difference in the way the technology is used?
 
man - - - > shit decision

man - - - > tech - - - > 2nd man - - - > shit decision

conclusion - involvement of extra man and tech is a waste of time
 
Dec9003 said:
You’re probably right regarding the technicalities especially.
Do European leagues use the monitor a lot? I think the problem we’ll always have with VAR is the referees in England aren’t all that.
Click to expand...

Yes, the PL took an unusual (i.e. stupid) policy of light-touch intervention on subjective decisions.

For example, not a single penalty was awarded by VAR in the first 90 games of this season. As opposed to the Bundesliga, in which 12 penalties were awarded in the first 72 games. Obviously the notion that not a single penalty was missed in 90 games is stupid beyond belief, but the PL decided that having as few interventions as possible was their priority.

That ethos extends to the use of the pitchside monitors too. So even though they're in place at all the grounds, even though IFAB protocol is to use them when required and even though other leagues use them, the PL don't. Mostly because their priority is to have as few delays as possible.
 
sullydnl said:
Yes, the PL took an unusual (i.e. stupid) policy of light-touch intervention on subjective decisions.

For example, not a single penalty was awarded by VAR in the first 90 games of this season. As opposed to the Bundesliga, in which 12 penalties were awarded in the first 72 games. Obviously the notion that not a single penalty was missed in 90 games is stupid beyond belief, but the PL decided that having as few interventions as possible was their priority.

That ethos extends to the use of the pitchside monitors too. So even though they're in place at all the grounds, even though IFAB protocol is to use them when required and even though other leagues use them, the PL don't. Mostly because their priority is to have as few delays as possible.
Click to expand...
That’s pretty interesting isn’t it, I wonder if next season they’ll try to change it to be more in line with how Europe are using the technology, surely they’ll have to at this point.
 
Dec9003 said:
That’s pretty interesting isn’t it, I wonder if next season they’ll try to change it to be more in line with how Europe are using the technology, surely they’ll have to at this point.
Click to expand...

They've already lowered the threshold for penalty overturns this season, which is why the pattern of that first 90 days didn't continue. So I guess they're (sort of) open to changing some things at least.

I've read that the Bundesliga tried to do something similar with pitchside monitors in the past before dropping the idea when it clearly wasn't working. I suspect the same realisation will dawn on the PL at some point.

Though given the PL was one of the last major leagues to adopt VAR, it's pretty striking how bad they were at learning from what other leagues have tried.
 
R'hllor said:
Ding ding ding
Click to expand...

This is so frustrating. If the system needs the refs & human error still then it’s not & never will be a good system. You’re just adding more time & delays to a process to still at the end of the day have a human make a subjective call.
 
Rafaeldagold said:
This is so frustrating. If the system needs the refs & human error still then it’s not & never will be a good system. You’re just adding more time & delays to a process to still at the end of the day have a human make a subjective call.
Click to expand...

"A system that relies on humans and is vulnerable to human error isn't and can never be a good system" is an argument against most institutions and/or human endeavour.

The world is full of systems that rely on humans and are vulnerable to human error. That doesn't mean they aren't useful, or that there isn't good/bad practice when setting them up, or that people should have given up on them when the first iterations weren't up to scratch.

Your argument seems to be that a) if it isn't perfect then it isn't worthwhile and b) whatever it is now, it can never be any better. Which isn't a position most people hold.
 
VP89 said:
I think the below is the best answer to that odd logic:
Click to expand...

It's not just a tool though. You'll always have a human who can make errors controlling the tool, and currently this is the best level humans in PL can produce.

In most cases the premier League referees are absolute tools too. They all have different ways to ref (light approach/tough approach), so there's gonna be inconsistency. Also It's difficult to follow the line of the main-ref as refs have subjective opinions.

Its a bizarre mix. Some offside situations are completely nazi/public hair objective, and then there is the subjective discrepancy of refs opinion on what is a red card/foul or not.

VAR has also taken away the excitement of the dying minutes. Every second corner needs some sort of check for illegal stuff in the heat of the moment before the game/corner can continue.

Imagine how much tempo and entertainment VAR could have sucked out of all our Fergie time victories
 
Mb194dc said:
Just going to say it, VAR is being used to manipulate games in the premier league.

It's been an absolute disgrace all season and the two Chelsea games this week are the cherry on top.

Personally done with the league until it's admitted and fixed. Will watch other leagues instead.
Click to expand...
It's better than pre-VAR.

People bitch about the offsides but they are close to 100% correct as you can get.

As for the other calls, it's still subjective but they can't say that they didn't see it.
 
sullydnl said:
"A system that relies on humans and is vulnerable to human error isn't and can never be a good system" is an argument against most institutions and/or human endeavour.

The world is full of systems that rely on humans and are vulnerable to human error. That doesn't mean they aren't useful, or that there isn't good/bad practice when setting them up, or that people should have given up on them when the first iterations weren't up to scratch.

Your argument seems to be that a) if it isn't perfect then it isn't worthwhile and b) whatever it is now, it can never be any better. Which isn't a position most people hold.
Click to expand...
I applaud your strenght to keep trying to argue with him.
 
montpelier said:
man - - - > shit decision

man - - - > tech - - - > 2nd man - - - > shit decision

conclusion - involvement of extra man and tech is a waste of time
Click to expand...
Exactly.

And it's easy to sing "who's the ba##ard in the black?!"

It loses impact if you have to sing "who's the unknown ba##ard looking at replays on a monitor in a hut in Stockley Park?!"
 
Just heard Nottingham Forest had a goal disallowed because the corner was taken with the ball in the wrong place. This was disallowed by VAR but I thought it was the linesman’s job to ensure correct positioning at corners. Are officials becoming lazy due to VAR? This is all making a good idea become a laughing stock because of poor decision making by the people at Stockley.
 
sullydnl said:
"A system that relies on humans and is vulnerable to human error isn't and can never be a good system" is an argument against most institutions and/or human endeavour.

The world is full of systems that rely on humans and are vulnerable to human error. That doesn't mean they aren't useful, or that there isn't good/bad practice when setting them up, or that people should have given up on them when the first iterations weren't up to scratch.

Your argument seems to be that a) if it isn't perfect then it isn't worthwhile and b) whatever it is now, it can never be any better. Which isn't a position most people hold.
Click to expand...

We’re only talking about VAR in football , not technology in any other institution.

A) it’s not that it isn’t perfect- it’s awful. It’s not even half good.

B) how can it get better?? It’s ALWAYS going to be another ref making a subjective decision after a replay. Please explain how this can be improved upon?
 
sullydnl said:
Your argument seems to be that a) if it isn't perfect then it isn't worthwhile and b) whatever it is now, it can never be any better. Which isn't a position most people hold.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, how big a sample size of games do you want before you think we have seen the best version and use of VAR?

IMO You cant just blame the people or put much more belief in the people behind the screens - after this many games there's not a great reason to think the refs behind it will get much better. Maybe this is actually about the level it can perform.

VAR currently has a sample size of about 300 games, which in statistics usually is a good amount to judge the true level of performance, so that "unlucky" and overrepresentations of errors can be ruled out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.