VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

[cyberman]

Interesting segment here, they (on purpose or not) have the ball exactly where it was when VAR interfered b Brighton



People may think it’s out but for it to be so stupidly close and given is outrageous

 

[Anustart89]

Another demotion inc?

You'd have to wonder why Taylor felt it was a yellow card once he'd given a penalty for that. Did he feel that the defender's action was a "genuine attempt to play the ball", which is the prerequisite for not doing the double jeopardy thing (pen + red for denial of goalscoring opportunity)? If so he's even more dumb than I previously thought.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I'm not even going into the differences in the tackles, but even assuming the tackles are equal surely you can admit that last night's decision (no foul, no card) is more wrong than a foul and a yellow card, which Casemiro received for his tackle.

Well yeah, one was seen by the ref on the pitch, one was missed. I real time I can understand the ref not noticing Romero's foul, as he got so much of the ball, whereas Casemiro only just clipped it. Both were red card tackles (in my opinion) but both red cards could have been the basis for moaning by the manager. Which was the point I was making.

 

[Anustart89]

Well yeah, one was seen by the ref on the pitch, one was missed. Both were red card tackles (in my opinion) but both red cards could have been the basis for moaning by the manager. Which was the point I was making.

And as such, assuming both tackles were equal (which they weren't), then surely it should be easier for the VAR to intervene on Romero than Casemiro. Yes, both could be red cards, but it's a false equivalence between the two incidents (and the reasons for the complaints) because the Romero tackle had a much more clearly and obviously wrong on-field decision.

The moaning about the Casemiro incident is because the VAR jumped in and recommended overturning what was an acceptable decision (yellow card) by law, just like Michael Oliver jumped in and decided the derby by overturning a decision that was called on the pitch like it is 99% of the time things like that happen. The Romero decision (no foul) cannot be defended by the laws of the game, which is exactly where the VAR is supposed to step in.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

And as such, assuming both tackles were equal (which they weren't), then surely it should be easier for the VAR to intervene on Romero than Casemiro. Yes, both could be red cards, but it's a false equivalence between the two incidents (and the reasons for the complaints) because the Romero tackle had a much more clearly and obviously wrong on-field decision.

The moaning about the Casemiro incident is because the VAR jumped in and recommended overturning what was an acceptable decision (yellow card) by law, just like Michael Oliver jumped in and decided the derby by overturning a decision that was called on the pitch like it is 99% of the time things like that happen. The Romero decision (no foul) cannot be defended by the laws of the game, which is exactly where the VAR is supposed to step in.

Dude, I've no interest in arguing the toss about these two decisions. I think they were both red cards. VAR is a pox on the game but helped achieve the correct outcome in both scenarios. I was responding to someone who said Ange had nothing to complain about. I disagree, as I think many managers (and fans) would complain about the Romero red if it happened to their player, on the basis that he got so much of the ball. They'd be wrong but they would complain.

 

[horsechoker]

Every single match devolves into a talk about VAR. Even if the decisions arent controversial its all about VAR.
Time to get rid of the damn thing.

It needs to be revamped.

Either go to the cricket system with one or two challenges to the refs decision allowed

Or

Have VAR only overturn the decision when it's clear and obvious, use a semi-automated system for offsides.

 

[Doracle]

The point about the ref not watching the same thing as the VAR is such an obvious one. Oliver was just standing around last night until told to go to the screen. Just have them both discussing it whilst watching at the same time, if it’s not straightforward.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Comments from Dermot Gallagher in today's Sky piece about the game last night really hammer home the issues for me, his focus is on bigging up his colleagues - there's no common sense applied to some of the decisions, no accountability or even suggestion that things could have been done better.

On the Udogie two footer:

"I think the right decision was reached. It's not a nice tackle, there's no doubt about that, but he's clearly missed the opponent.
"He goes in, gets some of the ball, which doesn't make it right, but he's not caught him with both feet. You see Sterling evades it, and that's what saves Udogie.
"If he hadn't done that, it would've been a red card. It's a lot about where the contact is, how it's made, the intensity, the distance he's come from."

So basically, Sterling has to take the hit for them to properly punish a crazy challenge. Bolded bit is so off, it's almost like he's not even watched it.

On Romero kick:

"It's petulant, there's no doubt about that, it's unnecessary. It's not violent. It's almost shin against calf, it's not like he's caught him with a stud or really kicked out at home.
"I think the referee sees it and it's a yellow, but when the VAR sees it all he can say to the referee is that it's not an act of violent conduct.
"There's a difference between petulance and violence."

So a kick off the ball is fine when petulant, if you properly leather someone though, that's not ok.

This quote about how great VAR were for spotting the Romero challenge, which is surely their bread and butter, even got a comical footnote from Sky because it is so ludicrous.

Ref Watch has also paid credit to VAR John Brooks for the "fantastic spot" in a "crowded penalty area" when he called attention to Romero's high tackle on Enzo Fernandez.
For balance, we should note that Fernandez was laid prone for several minutes after the tackle.

 

[NotChatGPT]

I mean yeah, it's good he said that - but then he could hardly have a pop at VAR/the Refs after that? Both red cards were nailed on.

Not sure i get his point either way, but in the larger scheme of things:

The lack of respect / loss of authority is a result of years of underperforming referees in combination with a complete lack of transparacy. Referee underperforms and fecks up decisions, shouldn’t be talked about in public and suddenly they get to referee in a lower division for a weekend or two until they’re back in the PL, but obviously it’s not a punishment for fecking up because that never happened and here’s a fine for talking negatively about the refs performance.

Then, in relation to VAR, they’ve introduced a system that, by focusing on clear and obvious, has made things even worse. Identical situations have had completely different outcomes depending on referees and the VAR has even managed to completely feck up the most obvious situations because they aren’t very clever, like drawing incorrect lines or not being able to identify clear fouls that should be red cards (Pickford on VVD) because they are checking something else.

The solution isn’t demanding more respect, the solution is earning respect.

Football is played at a high pace, unless we’re playing, and things happen fast. The only way to implement a system like VAR properly is to completely open up the tolerance levels, ignore clear and obvious, and have more of an open discussion about what the referee on the pitch saw and what VAR is seeing on the replay, then if needed watch the entire clip instead of the segments that VAR carefully picks up to highlight their point. They’ve introduced a system where half the discussion isn’t about getting the correct decisions, but if the thresholds have been met in order for VAR to get involved. How on earth is it more important if it was correct for VAR to get involved rather than reaching the correct decision? It’s a bit like the golden days where they’d issue retrospective red cards if the ref didn’t see a specific situation during the match, but an identical situation where the ref issued a yellow card wasn’t to be touched because it had been dealt with, just not correctly, only now we have the tools to actually sort it out properly and it isn’t being used correctly.

Completely ignore Webb’s insane focus on the referee on the pitch and not re-refereeing matches, focus on consistently reaching the same conclusions so that teams won’t find themselves on the extreme end of the scale where one minute a goal is given against you that should be disallowed, and later in the match you score a goal that is less of a foul but gets disallowed and VAR won’t intervene because the thresholds for clear and obvious hasn’t been met.

Comments from Dermot Gallagher in today's Sky piece about the game last night really hammer home the issues for me, his focus is on bigging up his colleagues - there's no common sense applied to some of the decisions, no accountability or even suggestion that things could have been done better.

On the Udogie two footer:

So basically, Sterling has to take the hit for them to properly punish a crazy challenge. Bolded bit is so off, it's almost like he's not even watched it.

On Romero kick:

So a kick off the ball is fine when petulant, if you properly leather someone though, that's not ok.

This quote about how great VAR were for spotting the Romero challenge, which is surely their bread and butter, even got a comical footnote from Sky because it is so ludicrous.

Dermot is useless and half the time he ignores the actual rules. His take on the Udogie two foot lunge at Sterling is absolutely mental from every perspective there is.

 

[Doracle]

Comments from Dermot Gallagher in today's Sky piece about the game last night really hammer home the issues for me, his focus is on bigging up his colleagues - there's no common sense applied to some of the decisions, no accountability or even suggestion that things could have been done better.

On the Udogie two footer:

So basically, Sterling has to take the hit for them to properly punish a crazy challenge. Bolded bit is so off, it's almost like he's not even watched it.

On Romero kick:

So a kick off the ball is fine when petulant, if you properly leather someone though, that's not ok.

This quote about how great VAR were for spotting the Romero challenge, which is surely their bread and butter, even got a comical footnote from Sky because it is so ludicrous.

You can absolutely guarantee that if Udogie had been sent off for that challenge, Dermot would have explained it was a clear red, dangerous/reckless two footed challenge, and that it was lucky that Sterling had managed to avoid it.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

You can absolutely guarantee that if Udogie had been sent off for that challenge, Dermot would have explained it was a clear red, dangerous/reckless two footed challenge, and that it was lucky that Sterling had managed to avoid it.

Yeah, he always chooses the version of events which defends the decision that's been made. But that's the whole Catch 22 with VAR. Football fans cling to this misguided notion that incidents like these can somehow be interpreted on a factual basis, without any need for interpretation or subjectivity. Which is a nonsense Almost every call is subjective and will be interpreted differently by different people. Especially people with skin in the game, such as fans and managers. Which is why the whole thing has got so incredibly toxic now we've been mis-sold VAR as a tool to remove subjectivity.

 

[tomaldinho1]

You can absolutely guarantee that if Udogie had been sent off for that challenge, Dermot would have explained it was a clear red, dangerous/reckless two footed challenge, and that it was lucky that Sterling had managed to avoid it.

Exactly this. First priority is how great refs are, second is the actual laws of the game.

 

[Jeppers7]

Dude, I've no interest in arguing the toss about these two decisions. I think they were both red cards. VAR is a pox on the game but helped achieve the correct outcome in both scenarios. I was responding to someone who said Ange had nothing to complain about. I disagree, as I think many managers (and fans) would complain about the Romero red if it happened to their player, on the basis that he got so much of the ball. They'd be wrong but they would complain.

Stepping in when the on field ref who saw the incident in real time and showing him a slow mo is unusual at best. Far worse have been ignored by VAR and continue to be because either way the ref decides is not a clear and obvious error. That being said it’s Casemiro so it fits your agenda to want to perpetuate the red card argument.

 

[Oranges038]

It needs to be revamped.

Either go to the cricket system with one or two challenges to the refs decision allowed

Or

Have VAR only overturn the decision when it's clear and obvious, use a semi-automated system for offsides.

That wording is the biggest problem with it, it's too subjective. What's clear and obvious today for one ref isn't clear and obvious tomorrow or next week for another.

Think the issue with the semi automated offside is the nike ball and the use of the technology.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Yeah, he always chooses the version of events which defends the decision that's been made. But that's the whole Catch 22 with VAR. Football fans cling to this misguided notion that incidents like these can somehow be interpreted on a factual basis, without any need for interpretation or subjectivity. Which is a nonsense Almost every call is subjective and will be interpreted differently by different people. Especially people with skin in the game, such as fans and managers. Which is why the whole thing has got so incredibly toxic now we've been mis-sold VAR as a tool to remove subjectivity.

There's some truth to this but then you can look at the big calls from last night and I don't think there's that much that up for genuine debate? Without the emotion of the game I'd say the outcomes to all the big calls are quite clear cut.

 

[rimaldo]

var is working exactly as is intended. post game fan engagement has never been higher. pages and pages, days and days after games are filled with controversy and articles about games. beforehand you’d just tell your mate the ref was bent and then we’d move on to other things before the next game. nowadays by the time the dust has settled, it’s time to do it all over again.

don’t for one minute think that the people at the premier league aren’t sitting around a table, talking about “the product” and how they can increase fan engagement or widen interest. they’re the same types of wankers that can be found at facebook or twitter. it’s a business that’s only goal is to increase revenue and market share, at all costs.

the walk across to the tv screen from the ref is so hollywood that it makes you sick, it’s done for twitter engagement, reaction videos, highlight reels. every other sport has managed to adopt it to improve the spectacle or the number of “right” calls. premier league football is one of the last sports to adopt any kind of video refereeing and it’s done its level best to ignore any of the ideas and improvements that it brought about in any of those sports. var, in this incarnation, has been implemented as a marketing tool, not a tool to improve referee’s lives or performances.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

There's some truth to this but then you can look at the big calls from last night and I don't think there's that much that up for genuine debate? Without the emotion of the game I'd say the outcomes to all the big calls are quite clear cut.

Yeah, last night's game was a little unusual in that basically all of the big calls were clear cut (other than the usual irritation with tight offside calls) but even so, the matchday thread had plenty of comments saying that Romero's sending off wasn't a red card offence.

I think that’s harsh

Didn’t think it was a pen, let alone a red

That's not a red, is a pen. But he should have been off 5 minutes ago.

Horrific decision.

Make the rules clear that you can’t do a follow through tackle… because Neville is absolutely wrong on that.

When even an obvious decision like that one divides opinions, you can see why there's been so much moaning about corruption and incompetence since VAR was rolled out. It's all become incredibly toxic. A horrendous atmosphere in which to be referee. Which I'm sure will only make the abuse aimed at grass roots referees even worse.

 

[Powderfinger]

Not sure i get his point either way, but in the larger scheme of things:

The lack of respect / loss of authority is a result of years of underperforming referees in combination with a complete lack of transparacy. Referee underperforms and fecks up decisions, shouldn’t be talked about in public and suddenly they get to referee in a lower division for a weekend or two until they’re back in the PL, but obviously it’s not a punishment for fecking up because that never happened and here’s a fine for talking negatively about the refs performance.

Then, in relation to VAR, they’ve introduced a system that, by focusing on clear and obvious, has made things even worse. Identical situations have had completely different outcomes depending on referees and the VAR has even managed to completely feck up the most obvious situations because they aren’t very clever, like drawing incorrect lines or not being able to identify clear fouls that should be red cards (Pickford on VVD) because they are checking something else.

The solution isn’t demanding more respect, the solution is earning respect.

Football is played at a high pace, unless we’re playing, and things happen fast. The only way to implement a system like VAR properly is to completely open up the tolerance levels, ignore clear and obvious, and have more of an open discussion about what the referee on the pitch saw and what VAR is seeing on the replay, then if needed watch the entire clip instead of the segments that VAR carefully picks up to highlight their point. They’ve introduced a system where half the discussion isn’t about getting the correct decisions, but if the thresholds have been met in order for VAR to get involved. How on earth is it more important if it was correct for VAR to get involved rather than reaching the correct decision? It’s a bit like the golden days where they’d issue retrospective red cards if the ref didn’t see a specific situation during the match, but an identical situation where the ref issued a yellow card wasn’t to be touched because it had been dealt with, just not correctly, only now we have the tools to actually sort it out properly and it isn’t being used correctly.

Completely ignore Webb’s insane focus on the referee on the pitch and not re-refereeing matches, focus on consistently reaching the same conclusions so that teams won’t find themselves on the extreme end of the scale where one minute a goal is given against you that should be disallowed, and later in the match you score a goal that is less of a foul but gets disallowed and VAR won’t intervene because the thresholds for clear and obvious hasn’t been met.



Dermot is useless and half the time he ignores the actual rules. His take on the Udogie two foot lunge at Sterling is absolutely mental from every perspective there is.

Great post.

The crazy thing is that other sports provide very obvious models for doing video assisted review in a competent way that doesn’t overly slow the game. This isn’t some inscrutable and massively complex problem that can’t be solved. It’s just incompetence and defensiveness from PGMOL, nothing more.

 

[jadaba]

It needs to be revamped.

Either go to the cricket system with one or two challenges to the refs decision allowed

Or

Have VAR only overturn the decision when it's clear and obvious, use a semi-automated system for offsides.

'Clear and obvious' seems intuitive, but in practice a VAR team usually spends minutes minutes discussing it before making a decision--and the decision is later disputed by half the people watching, so it is totally illogical by definition that there could have been a clear and obvious error.

 

[SadlerMUFC]

It is only a controversy because United fans thinks there is an conspiracy against them. It is literally right there in the rules, you just chose to interpret the rules in a way (or maybe just thinks the rules should be something they are not) that makes you think it is not offside.

The key word here is "interpret". And the way the rules are, refs are indeed looking for reasons to interpret plays differently for United. This isn't a conspiracy. It's a fact. We score, and they look for reasons to disallow the goal. If Maguire had kept the Fulham player from getting to the ball, I'd completely agree and say that it was offside. But he didn't. He just went for a ball that he couldn't get to. No interference. This is why the goal has to stand. But once again, and you are proving it yourself, people look for reasons to disallow our goals

 

[Powderfinger]

'Clear and obvious' seems intuitive, but in practice a VAR team usually spends minutes minutes discussing it before making a decision--and the decision is later disputed by half the people watching, so it is totally illogical by definition that there could have been a clear and obvious error.

Even more fundamentally, if you’re only overturning “clear and obvious” errors (whatever that means) then the system from the start hasn’t been designed with the goal of arriving at correct decisions. You’ve fecked it from the beginning because you’re worried more about protecting the referees than the integrity of the game.

 

[SadlerMUFC]

Here’s when You are considered to be offside

Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

• interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
• interfering with an opponent by:
  • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
  • challenging an opponent for the ball or
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

So did he challenge for the ball ?
Did he attempt to play the ball ?
Did he make an obvious action?

Answer yes to any one of those and he is active and therefore offside

Challenge an opponent for the ball. No.
Attempt to play a ball which impacts an opponent. No
Make an obvious action which impacts an opponent. No

you should go into politics. Your intellectual dishonesty is next level. There are some key words you left out there bud...

 

[Abizzz]

var is working exactly as is intended. post game fan engagement has never been higher. pages and pages, days and days after games are filled with controversy and articles about games. beforehand you’d just tell your mate the ref was bent and then we’d move on to other things before the next game. nowadays by the time the dust has settled, it’s time to do it all over again.

don’t for one minute think that the people at the premier league aren’t sitting around a table, talking about “the product” and how they can increase fan engagement or widen interest. they’re the same types of wankers that can be found at facebook or twitter. it’s a business that’s only goal is to increase revenue and market share, at all costs.

the walk across to the tv screen from the ref is so hollywood that it makes you sick, it’s done for twitter engagement, reaction videos, highlight reels. every other sport has managed to adopt it to improve the spectacle or the number of “right” calls. premier league football is one of the last sports to adopt any kind of video refereeing and it’s done its level best to ignore any of the ideas and improvements that it brought about in any of those sports. var, in this incarnation, has been implemented as a marketing tool, not a tool to improve referee’s lives or performances.

I always thought your jesting and joking is disturbing but it's when you're serious that you cause nightmares.

For what it's worth I think you are 100% correct.

 

[Pexbo]

Another demotion inc?

This kinda shows how the horse has left the stable with VAR now.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

This kinda shows how the horse has left the stable with VAR now.

The really hilarious thing about that is - VAR probably wouldn't overturn it!

 

[jadaba]

Even more fundamentally, if you’re only overturning “clear and obvious” errors (whatever that means) then the system from the start hasn’t been designed with the goal of arriving at correct decisions. You’ve fecked it from the beginning because you’re worried more about protecting the referees than the integrity of the game.

It often feels like referees have some sort of contempt for fans for not knowing obscure technicalities of the rulebook that may justify certain decisions. The way that VAR is currently being employed is essentially leaving fans behind. We don't know the justification for decisions and they are not meaningfully explained to us, having some referee go on TV days later and give no insight beyond 'yeah the ref got that one right' does nothing to combat the feeling that they're protecting referees rather than getting everyone else on board with why such and such decision was made.

 

[Mmm-Qatarian]

I think a time limit on VAR reviews would go at least some way to solving the issues we're seeing.

There would still be inconsistencies, and there always will be, but a big part of the problem is that some incidents are given far more scrutiny than others on a seemingly arbitrary basis.

This would also go some way to operationalizing the "clear and obvious" aspect of the reviews. You can quantifiably say that if the referee cannot be determined to have made an error upon a review of a minute and a half, then a clear and obvious error has not been made and the decision made by the on-field referee stands.

 

[Pexbo]

I think a time limit on VAR reviews would go at least some way to solving the issues we're seeing.

There would still be inconsistencies, and there always will be, but a big part of the problem is that some incidents are given far more scrutiny than others on a seemingly arbitrary basis.

This would also go some way to operationalizing the "clear and obvious" aspect of the reviews. You can quantifiably say that if the referee cannot be determined to have made an error upon a review of a minute and a half, then a clear and obvious error has not been made and the decision made by the on-field referee stands.

The trouble with a time limit is that you will see VAR assistants accused of slow-walking decisions in favour of certain teams so obvious decisions are not made because they are checking too many angles are are not certain in the given time frame.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

They just need to get rid of freeze framing and slow motion replays. If something is clear and obvious it should be immediately so based on normal speed replays - people want VAR to intervene when referees make huge feckups, not when someone's toenail is offside.

 

[NotChatGPT]

I think a time limit on VAR reviews would go at least some way to solving the issues we're seeing.

There would still be inconsistencies, and there always will be, but a big part of the problem is that some incidents are given far more scrutiny than others on a seemingly arbitrary basis.

This would also go some way to operationalizing the "clear and obvious" aspect of the reviews. You can quantifiably say that if the referee cannot be determined to have made an error upon a review of a minute and a half, then a clear and obvious error has not been made and the decision made by the on-field referee stands.

Surely the solution here isn’t to introduce even more barriers that prevents us from reaching correct decisions, and further increases the likelyhood of same situations but vastly different outcomes.

 

[Mmm-Qatarian]

The trouble with a time limit is that you will see VAR assistants accused of slow-walking decisions in favour of certain teams so obvious decisions are not made because they are checking too many angles are are not certain in the given time frame.

That's a fair shout but I honestly don't think there's a solution where you won't see some people crying foul besides just abolishing it, and even then we'll just go back to people accusing the refs themselves or being biased.

For me the benefits of a time restriction in terms of improving the flow of the game and putting a quantifiable definition on the term "clear and obvious" outweigh the potential drawbacks.

 

[Mmm-Qatarian]

Surely the solution here isn’t to introduce even more barriers that prevents us from reaching correct decisions, and further increases the likelyhood of same situations but vastly different outcomes.

I don't think VAR in its current state has really brought us any closer to reaching the "correct" decisions, except where offsides are concerned. I think a time restriction would at least improve consistency.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

That's a fair shout but I honestly don't think there's a solution where you won't see some people crying foul besides just abolishing it, and even then we'll just go back to people accusing the refs themselves or being biased.

For me the benefits of a time restriction in terms of improving the flow of the game and putting a quantifiable definition on the term "clear and obvious" outweigh the potential drawbacks.

Sometime the best solution of all is already right there, lodged in your subconscious....

 

[Licha-Vidic]

What do we make of this

 

[SadlerMUFC]

This kinda shows how the horse has left the stable with VAR now.

Best part about that is if it's a penalty, it should also be a red card (not saying that it should be a penalty). There is no attempt to play the ball, so if he gives the spot kick, he also has to send the player off. Just shows how poor the refs are that he doesn't even know that

 

[Smithy89]

Refs are clueless, worst bunch I've ever seen in the prem.

 

[Taribo's Gap]

What do we make of this

This is also a bad angle. It's just the flip side of the opposite angle. This one is more likely to make the ball appear as if it is in, whereas the other one is more likely to make the ball appear as if it is out. Straight down the line is the most helpful, but even then it can still be hard to tell if it's just a situation where the edge of the sphere is straddling the line.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Yeah, last night's game was a little unusual in that basically all of the big calls were clear cut (other than the usual irritation with tight offside calls) but even so, the matchday thread had plenty of comments saying that Romero's sending off wasn't a red card offence.






When even an obvious decision like that one divides opinions, you can see why there's been so much moaning about corruption and incompetence since VAR was rolled out. It's all become incredibly toxic. A horrendous atmosphere in which to be referee. Which I'm sure will only make the abuse aimed at grass roots referees even worse.

I wonder if those posters still hold that view seeing the replays? I would argue he is unfortunate in a way, it's probably the one foul he didn't necessarily mean, but it's so bad when you see where and how the foot follows through. I would say it is very clear cut as a red and a peno.

 

[Longshanks]

Yeah, he always chooses the version of events which defends the decision that's been made. But that's the whole Catch 22 with VAR. Football fans cling to this misguided notion that incidents like these can somehow be interpreted on a factual basis, without any need for interpretation or subjectivity. Which is a nonsense Almost every call is subjective and will be interpreted differently by different people. Especially people with skin in the game, such as fans and managers. Which is why the whole thing has got so incredibly toxic now we've been mis-sold VAR as a tool to remove subjectivity.

That is the problem you can't remove the subjectivity from most of the decisions in football, even under video replay alot of penalties and red cards have people arguing about what is the right decision. Even offsides are controversial because they are trying to be so arbitrary about a law that was never meant to be so arbitrary you could say the same about handballs aswell.

It also doesn't help that the VAR is always going to subconsciously biased towards the onfield referees decision. Which ultimately creates inconsistency.

The whole VAR system is broken and currently mis-used. Perhaps rather than basically re-refereeing games which is what is happening at the moment. We need to take the cricket idea of giving the teams the ability to review certain decision. Maybe allow them two a game each to be called by captain or coach within a certain time (e.g. 30 seconds)of said decision.

On Top of that to remove any possible bias from the VAR we should probably have two compleatly separated VAR's who are also compleatly detached from the game and the onfield ref. They don't know the score, what has happened in the game or most importantly what the onfield refs decision is. All you do is show them the incident in question and they make what should an unbiased decision based on the video evidence alone.

Is the VARS return a split decision e.g. one says penalty and the other says no penalty then we go with the onfield decision because clearly there is no clear or obvious error. Obviously if they both decide the opposite to the onfield ref then the onfield refs decision is overturned. And if they all agree we obviously stick with the decision.

You could use it for offisides aswell forget this arbitrary idea of drawing lines, it will never be perfect even the semi-automatic system has a considerable margin of error. We still let the game play on, and then if a goal is scored the linesman makes his decision as usual, the VARS again unaware of anything including the linesman's decision watch the incident in full speed and then get to see the still frame closest to when the ball was released, then they make there decision and same as above in regards to split decisions etc.

I don't think it can carry on as it is. Its ruining the game IMO and if anything it's creating greater scrutiny and more controversy than pre VAR. Pre VAR there was an acceptance that the referee will make mistakes there only human after all. But some teams and managers are demanding perfection which is impossible with all the subjective decisions.

 

[redshaw]

They should get back to clear and obvious, they're micromanaging games again.

Casemiro's yellow card last season that turned into a red, wasn't a clear and obvious mistake, ref gave a yellow, if you slow it down and select the worse looking angle and call the ref over he may opt for a red but you can do this many times a game and come to a different decision.

If someone is yards offside and it's missed then yes, if a goal is scored by punching the ball. A player punched in the face.

A wider tolerance is needed for offside as we're not using the best tech with these silly lines on oblique low frame video. If most of the body is inline with the defender then it's goal. If you need minutes to determine then it's wrong and spoiling the game's flow and we're down to micromanaging games and coming across it's certain teams under the microscope.

How many players will start from an offside position and make a lunge for the ball jostling with a defender and get nowhere near it and someone else scores that is the intended target. They're flagging up highly subjective things when they want and letting similar things go. One could flag 20,30,50 indictments per game, fans want the rare and obvious sorted within seconds.

With this ball out of play thing, if zoom down any pitch at the byline it will waver in and out quite badly, same with the whole pitch so what is straight line for offside in a crooked outline. We'd need lasers at each corner and hawk eye tech to cover the pitch to make a virtual image.