World Cup VAR

[I'm With Stupid]

Today, we had one where it was probably still debatable after the VAR decision, and people act like that's a reason to throw the whole thing out. How many incorrect decisions would be have been talking about today if VAR wasn't there?

VAR doesn't have to be flawless to be worth having, it just has to be better than the alternative.

 

[Armaan]

Love VAR. The correct decision will get made more often than not, how can you complain?

 

[Idontpullout]

Love VAR. The correct decision will get made more often than not, how can you complain?

Because my team lost out due to it so its shit and should be abolished.
Until it goes our way next match. Them im all for it.

 

[BlueHammer85]

I still like the idea the manager or captain has 1 or 2 appeals in the whole match and the ref reviews on his advice. Probably some flaws in this though.

 

[the plasterer]

I still like the idea the manager or captain has 1 or 2 appeals in the whole match and the ref reviews on his advice. Probably some flaws in this though.

We were discussing this the other night, 1 appeal each half, if correct, then still have 1 appeal remaining, if wrong, then accept any other decisions and get on with it

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Love VAR. The correct decision will get made more often than not, how can you complain?

Those who criticise VAR are those who suggest it has to be perfect and get the decision correct every time. If it only gets one decision right in ten it would be an improvement on what we have now. I cannot understand those who would maintain the present system of a ref making decisions, some of which are guessed and some of which are blatantly wrong. Teams have been relegated on such decisions, and I suspect, present club excepted(!), teams have won titles and silverware!

 

[peter.evans]

Totally disagree. The Sterling incident if it had gone to VAR, would have been given. It's Exactly the same as the Griezmann incident earlier. Ref missed it in real time, quick review and original decision would have been over turned, as it was today. Peru non pen exactly the same. Having seen VAR in action today specifically in the Griezmann /Peru case, how can you say it would be a waste of space in this type of situation? It's proved itself to work already in those type of instances.

As for the Argentina non pen, which it clearly was I agree. This wasn't VAR or the technology itself that was at fault. But the idiot operating it. How that wasn't reviewed was poor. But it's early stages, they will improve the process further as it becomes established. And it's helping get more correct decisions than the old system. What's not to like?

As for delays, it's been minimal... a fraction of the time lost for subs or throw ins, it's a total red herring. if anything it adds to the drama too...

The point I am making us that all of these so called "correct" decisions made by VAR overturns are just a subjective matter of opinion like yours, whereas in my opinion you are wrong. The Griezman one was never a pen he just fell over and the defender clearly played the ball first with no intention to foul. As many pundits said VAR failed to reverse the Argentina pen when they failed to reverse the decision as Neville said it was never a pen and I agree .Also Argentina should have had a pen and VAR failed to give it, etc,etc. These are just a few incidents and in my opinion this happens all the time with around 80per cent of VAR decisions. The point being that we are replacing a subjective decision by a ref with a subjective decision by machines and adding totally unnecessary delays. As for the Sterling one I do not agree that it would have been given. Maybe it would but again it was subjective. VAR is already being shown to be making many mistakes in the opinion of many purely because it is subjective. Therefore it is a complete waste if time for anything other than offsides and where incidents take place.

 

[peter.evans]

Those who criticise VAR are those who suggest it has to be perfect and get the decision correct every time. If it only gets one decision right in ten it would be an improvement on what we have now. I cannot understand those who would maintain the present system of a ref making decisions, some of which are guessed and some of which are blatantly wrong. Teams have been relegated on such decisions, and I suspect, present club excepted(!), teams have won titles and silverware!

If it only gets one in ten right that means it is getting nine out of ten wrong and overturning correct decisions by the referees or failing to correct a mistake of the refs ! Farcical.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

The point I am making us that all of these so called "correct" decisions made by VAR overturns are just a subjective matter of opinion like yours, whereas in my opinion you are wrong. The Griezman one was never a pen he just fell over and the defender clearly played the ball first with no intention to foul. As many pundits said VAR failed to reverse the Argentina pen when they failed to reverse the decision as Neville said it was never a pen and I agree .Also Argentina should have had a pen and VAR failed to give it, etc,etc. These are just a few incidents and in my opinion this happens all the time with around 80per cent of VAR decisions. The point being that we are replacing a subjective decision by a ref with a subjective decision by machines and adding totally unnecessary delays. As for the Sterling one I do not agree that it would have been given. Maybe it would but again it was subjective. VAR is already being shown to be making many mistakes in the opinion of many purely because it is subjective. Therefore it is a complete waste if time for anything other than offsides and where incidents take place.

It gets 100% of the offside goals correctly ruled out so not really subjective is it. Unless you're suggesting we go back to having incorrect offside goals counted in games

 

[BlueHammer85]

We were discussing this the other night, 1 appeal each half, if correct, then still have 1 appeal remaining, if wrong, then accept any other decisions and get on with it

Could managers abuse this as a time wasting tactic ?
Other than that I don’t see many downsides

 

[peter.evans]

It gets 100% of the offside goals correctly ruled out so not really subjective is it. Unless you're suggesting we go back to having incorrect offside goals counted in games

No im Not talking about offside s which VAR can be used correctly for as with where fouls take place. I'm talking about subjective penalty decisions which are a matter if opinion and in a very high percentage of those that i have seen VAR has got it wrong ( in my opinion ) which is why it can't work for subjective decisions.

 

[M18CTID]

If implemented correctly then VAR is a very useful tool IMO. Thing is, it’s not always being implemented correctly and the argument about subjective penalty decisions is spot on for me. VAR is supposed to be there to overturn only those decisions that are blatantly wrong so those penalties where half the people reckon it was a pen and half don’t should remain with the on-field ref’s decision. However, if a ref hasn’t given a pen and it clearly is one then VAR should come into play.

Example: Saints away a few seasons back - Aguero was cleaned out by a Saints player in the box and it was a stonewall penalty. However, somewhat astonishingly the ref booked Sergio for diving. If VAR was in place, then the yellow card would’ve been rescinded and City would’ve been awarded a penalty, and not a single person on this planet would’ve had an issue with VAR regarding that decision.

That’s what it’s supposed to be there for - to get rid of the utter howlers and not to change unclear decisions. That’s what was communicated to us when I attended a workshop on VAR last summer which was fronted up by ex-ref Neale Barry. He also said if any ref refused to overturn a clearly incorrect decision then he’d be struck off so, for example, when David Luiz committed a professional foul on Aguero to deny him a clear goalscoring opportunity a couple of seasons back and a certain Altrincham fan from Wythenshawe inexplicably allowed play to continue, if said Alty fan was asked by the VAR team to review the footage but decided to stick with his 100% incorrect on-field decision instead of sending Sideshow Bob off, then the only Altrincham fan ever to come from Wythenshawe would be finished as a referee.

 

[stonerblue]

Sums up my thoughts nicely;
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ess-video-assisted-refereeing-experiment-now/

 

[Bigga]

No im Not talking about offside s which VAR can be used correctly for as with where fouls take place. I'm talking about subjective penalty decisions which are a matter if opinion and in a very high percentage of those that i have seen VAR has got it wrong ( in my opinion ) which is why it can't work for subjective decisions.

But... that's nonsense in any form you look at it simply cos it's... subjective!!

A game with no VAR where the ref gives or doesn't give a pen is based on their 'subjective' opinion of how that situation arrived, so your point holds no logic!!

VAR, at least, tries to put together the facts, not opinion...

 

[Bigga]

Sums up my thoughts nicely;
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ess-video-assisted-refereeing-experiment-now/

This is just the same nonsense!!

All sport is subjective! All!

Does that mean when two horses or two athletes cross the line at the same time we should just use our own eyes otherwise we take the fun out of the sport?

No, cos that's plainly stupid!

Introduction of tech has lessened the argument and provided what the right outcome is 99% of the time! The other 1% is subjective and can't be separated and that's fine, we agree to disagree as nothing is 100% accurate all the time.

Football has a little more nuance to it, which is why it shouldn't left to outside opinion, but left to the field of play to challenge certain decisions. That's 'subjective' on the field of play and within the realms of the game as players protest shit all the time.

Once VAR decides to understand this part of the game, it will improve exponentially.

As has been suggested for multiple years now, 2 challenges in a game, run out and the ref has complete autonomy on decisions.

For example, Portugal may have hypothetically protested Pepe getting 'elbowed' before Costa scored and would lost that challenge, so therefore their next 'challenge' would have to be ultra careful(VAR sorted that anyway, mind). Or the [non] trip in the Argentina game would have been 'challenged' and be correctly awarded. As there was no right to appeal Argentina drew a game they could/ should have won, ultimately.

The fact that VAR protesters accepted tech in one sport and not others is weird!

Even MMA are employing tech now, ffs!!

 

[aguerrrroooooooooooo]

I'm happy with it so far, has it been absolutely perfect? No. But it's helped avoid a few incorrect decisions so far

 

[stonerblue]

This is just the same nonsense!!

All sport is subjective! All!

Does that mean when two horses or two athletes cross the line at the same time we should just use our own eyes otherwise we take the fun out of the sport?

No, cos that's plainly stupid!

Introduction of tech has lessened the argument and provided what the right outcome is 99% of the time! The other 1% is subjective and can't be separated and that's fine, we agree to disagree as nothing is 100% accurate all the time.

Football has a little more nuance to it, which is why it shouldn't left to outside opinion, but left to the field of play to challenge certain decisions. That's 'subjective' on the field of play and within the realms of the game as players protest shit all the time.

Once VAR decides to understand this part of the game, it will improve exponentially.

As has been suggested for multiple years now, 2 challenges in a game, run out and the ref has complete autonomy on decisions.

For example, Portugal may have hypothetically protested Pepe getting 'elbowed' before Costa scored and would lost that challenge, so therefore their next 'challenge' would have to be ultra careful(VAR sorted that anyway, mind). Or the [non] trip in the Argentina game would have been 'challenged' and be correctly awarded. As there was no right to appeal Argentina drew a game they could/ should have won, ultimately.

The fact that VAR protesters accepted tech in one sport and not others is weird!

Even MMA are employing tech now, ffs!!

Football is a rules based game. The only 'subjective' decision i can think of is the extremely fucking stupid 'interfering with play/ active or passive' nonsense.
VAR has not got 99% of decisions right.
The appeals idea is even more nonsense. You want the game stopping 4 times whilst players, managers and officials deliberate over a decision. Does the match going spectator nip out for a pie or do their nails whilst this is going on? Will we have to wait for the big screen to display GOAL ! before celebrating?
The only other sport i watch with var is snooker.

 

[Bigga]

Football is a rules based game. The only 'subjective' decision i can think of is the extremely fucking stupid 'interfering with play/ active or passive' nonsense.
VAR has not got 99% of decisions right.
The appeals idea is even more nonsense. You want the game stopping 4 times whilst players, managers and officials deliberate over a decision. Does the match going spectator nip out for a pie or do their nails whilst this is going on? Will we have to wait for the big screen to display GOAL ! before celebrating?
The only other sport i watch with var is snooker.

Well, have any of the current games in the World Cup stopped "4 times" or long enough for you to do your hair and make up whilst waiting for a decision??

Stupid hyperbole doesn't help your already stupid objections...

 

[Bigga]

Actually, let me add to that point @stonerblue, being completely honest, have you read anywhere on the forum, including anything you've printed, where VAR has disrupted 'the flow of the game'??

That seems to be the last thing on anyone's mind and therefore it impies a 'natural' acceptance in proceedings already.

The players seem to get on with it and so do the viewers.

 

[foggy1974]

People seem to have the wrong idea of how VAR works. The ref doesn't decide when VAR is used, he is told by the VAR officials if he has made a mistake. If they agree with his decision on the pitch the game carries on.

The Ref can at no point stop the game and ask to watch a replay.

On the Argentinian non penalty, in the studio they said that V.A.R. couldnt be used as play had restarted. So why doesnt the ref, who'd already decided it wasnt, not delay the goal kick. This is the bit that worries me as refs will screw us over in the premier.