I was extremely anti VAR but I’m probably now in the category of really hating it but not having an alternative.
Thought this was a good article in the guardian,
Redirect Notice
www.google.co.uk
i didnt celebrate any of the 4 goals yesterday as they hit the net,just looked and listened to see if VAR was going to be involved, when you realise its ok the goal is alowed the moment has gone so its 100% taken that 'yehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh' away from the fans which is what spectator sport is all about 'thats why we go' managers now calling it out for what its worth,at best if their going to keep it they have to keep it within the stadium and not to a 3rd party hundreds of miles away,the refs know the rules so all they need is the pitch side monitor to go to if its a hard decision and those rewinds of the incident should be shared with the fans on the large screens as the ref scrolls through them and thats it couldnt any more simple reallyIt´s killed the game. All the joy of celebrating is now rendered dead. Killed by a system the fans never wanted or asked for. The game had its bad decisions but that was part and parcel of the game. Football existed for 130 years without this shit. It needs fucking off. Completely.
Where are those statistics from. Seem out of kilter from what I’ve read. Can you provide a link?In 2018/19, before VAR was introduced, the percentage of correct key match decisions was 82 per cent. With the help of VAR in 2019/20, it rose to 94 per cent.
Over the course of 2019/20, over 2,400 incidents were checked and 109 decisions were overturned by the VAR, an average of an overturned decision every 3.5 matches.
can't find similar results for last season.
anyway, these stats don't make me an advocate for VAR, they are just the facts.
No one can argue you're personal emotional feeling towards it - me, i have some hope it will always improve but it will be a long process and i don't think we will ever rid of controversial decsions, but key black & white decisions, that is what refs with the help of VAR can get right and must do.
fair enough, but it happens and always will without VAR, refs and linos will incorrectly rule out perfectly good goals.
I watch that i think... well it could take a ref 30 seconds to go to a monitor and rule that out and book Henry.
I don't see why its so extreme to want that option.
however when a ref still watches a replay and doesn't get it right, then its anger all round and justifiably so.
It was a conscious decision not to have transparency. Not arroganceThe problem really is the implementation and not the concept.
I was thinking about this watching the Wales v Ireland 6 Nations game on Sunday.
Peter O'Mahoney went into a ruck and hit a Welsh prop sitting on the floor. Some players complain to the referee.
The first thing that happens is Wayne Barnes the referee says "I saw it as a fair clean out, carry on playing, it's getting checked". The game carries on until the ball goes dead. We (the TV audience) hear the TMO say "Check Check. Foul play Green number 6 at the ruck".
So Wayne Barnes stops, looks up at the big screen and sees the replays.
Then, with the TV audience hearing every word, he describes what he sees, and goes through the decision making process. So he says (I'm paraphrasing) "There's no attempt to bind with the arms, so it's an illegal hit to the ruck (This makes it a penalty). He extends his elbow in an almost chicken wing motion, so it's deliberate contact (this makes it a yellow), the contact is with the head, so it's a red card. It was at high speed, out of control and the player didn't change head height as he was on the floor. So there are no mitigating factors to bring it down to a yellow, the decision is a red card. Do you see anything differently?"
Everything was so clear. So precise. He took the audience and the players who can hear him as they're gathered round, through every step of the decision tree, including considering the options that would reduce the punishment.
And as a result, no one can argue with the decision. There's no guesswork.
Football could learn so much from TMO's in rugby and other sports, but they simply refuse to learn from people who've made mistakes and perfected a system over 20 years.
This didn't use to be the case in rugby, but over the years they've worked out a system where everything goes better - from the reaction of the players sent off, the players left on the pitch, to post-match, to coaches comments afterwards - if you just really clearly talk through the decision out loud and the audience hears it.
Where are those statistics from. Seem out of kilter from what I’ve read. Can you provide a link?
So from the premier league with no methodology on how they were compiled. Sounds legit!
The problem really is the implementation and not the concept.
I was thinking about this watching the Wales v Ireland 6 Nations game on Sunday.
Peter O'Mahoney went into a ruck and hit a Welsh prop sitting on the floor. Some players complain to the referee.
The first thing that happens is Wayne Barnes the referee says "I saw it as a fair clean out, carry on playing, it's getting checked". The game carries on until the ball goes dead. We (the TV audience) hear the TMO say "Check Check. Foul play Green number 6 at the ruck".
So Wayne Barnes stops, looks up at the big screen and sees the replays.
Then, with the TV audience hearing every word, he describes what he sees, and goes through the decision making process. So he says (I'm paraphrasing) "There's no attempt to bind with the arms, so it's an illegal hit to the ruck (This makes it a penalty). He extends his elbow in an almost chicken wing motion, so it's deliberate contact (this makes it a yellow), the contact is with the head, so it's a red card. It was at high speed, out of control and the player didn't change head height as he was on the floor. So there are no mitigating factors to bring it down to a yellow, the decision is a red card. Do you see anything differently?"
Everything was so clear. So precise. He took the audience and the players who can hear him as they're gathered round, through every step of the decision tree, including considering the options that would reduce the punishment.
And as a result, no one can argue with the decision. There's no guesswork.
Football could learn so much from TMO's in rugby and other sports, but they simply refuse to learn from people who've made mistakes and perfected a system over 20 years.
This didn't use to be the case in rugby, but over the years they've worked out a system where everything goes better - from the reaction of the players sent off, the players left on the pitch, to post-match, to coaches comments afterwards - if you just really clearly talk through the decision out loud and the audience hears it.
Amen.It doesn’t matter if VAR is 99% accurate. Taking away the spontaneity of a goal celebration makes the game so much poorer, and for that reason alone it should be scrapped.
I'm finding that a goal scored is now a mixture of emotions.It doesn’t matter if VAR is 99% accurate. Taking away the spontaneity of a goal celebration makes the game so much poorer, and for that reason alone it should be scrapped.
Some of the gripes around VAR are definitely based around its concept, the spontaneity of the goal celebration for example has definitely been diminished and I'm not sure how this can be altered its just a part of football now. On the other hand, the offside part of the debate where players are getting goals ruled out for millimeters is down more to implementation issues and can possibly be worked on.The problem really is the implementation and not the concept.
I was thinking about this watching the Wales v Ireland 6 Nations game on Sunday.
Peter O'Mahoney went into a ruck and hit a Welsh prop sitting on the floor. Some players complain to the referee.
The first thing that happens is Wayne Barnes the referee says "I saw it as a fair clean out, carry on playing, it's getting checked". The game carries on until the ball goes dead. We (the TV audience) hear the TMO say "Check Check. Foul play Green number 6 at the ruck".
So Wayne Barnes stops, looks up at the big screen and sees the replays.
Then, with the TV audience hearing every word, he describes what he sees, and goes through the decision making process. So he says (I'm paraphrasing) "There's no attempt to bind with the arms, so it's an illegal hit to the ruck (This makes it a penalty). He extends his elbow in an almost chicken wing motion, so it's deliberate contact (this makes it a yellow), the contact is with the head, so it's a red card. It was at high speed, out of control and the player didn't change head height as he was on the floor. So there are no mitigating factors to bring it down to a yellow, the decision is a red card. Do you see anything differently?"
Everything was so clear. So precise. He took the audience and the players who can hear him as they're gathered round, through every step of the decision tree, including considering the options that would reduce the punishment.
And as a result, no one can argue with the decision. There's no guesswork.
Football could learn so much from TMO's in rugby and other sports, but they simply refuse to learn from people who've made mistakes and perfected a system over 20 years.
This didn't use to be the case in rugby, but over the years they've worked out a system where everything goes better - from the reaction of the players sent off, the players left on the pitch, to post-match, to coaches comments afterwards - if you just really clearly talk through the decision out loud and the audience hears it.
And the explanation from the commentary team as that was happening ? " Mitrovic is trying to explain to the ref that it wasnt a sending off" I thought " If he hadnt gone down holding his face like hed been shot in the first place maybe it wouldnt have even been an issue" the problem we have now with var is we have numerous players cheating the system by going down holding their faces without being touched , diving as soon as they get into the box and screaming with every tackleWe were informed that it would help spot off the ball incidents, hell it can't even spot on the ball ones as West Ham will testify. Violent conduct!!!! The opposition player should have been done for acting like a silly girl, but var said there was a clenched fist!!!!!
I agree totally about players holding their faces feigning injury but we have a var screen. The idiot went and looked at it and still made the wrong decision. I could accept var a little bit more if he had gone back and booked the defender for simulation but he didnt. I assume the var controller told him it was violent conduct and therefore he had to go. How can he make two huge mistakes in one week with the help of the technology ?And the explanation from the commentary team as that was happening ? " Mitrovic is trying to explain to the ref that it wasnt a sending off" I thought " If he hadnt gone down holding his face like hed been shot in the first place maybe it wouldnt have even been an issue" the problem we have now with var is we have numerous players cheating the system by going down holding their faces without being touched , diving as soon as they get into the box and screaming with every tackle
Get the defensive strike in early ;-)Mike Dean + Mason got it very wrong, they had VAR with clear replays and still got it wrong. that doesn't mean the system needs replacing, it means the officials do.
Nice, mate, but it does seem that football officials aren‘t in the same understand/refine process as they did in rugby, they have decided that they have the perfect system and are very stubborn to change. The question is, why?The problem really is the implementation and not the concept.
I was thinking about this watching the Wales v Ireland 6 Nations game on Sunday.
Peter O'Mahoney went into a ruck and hit a Welsh prop sitting on the floor. Some players complain to the referee.
The first thing that happens is Wayne Barnes the referee says "I saw it as a fair clean out, carry on playing, it's getting checked". The game carries on until the ball goes dead. We (the TV audience) hear the TMO say "Check Check. Foul play Green number 6 at the ruck".
So Wayne Barnes stops, looks up at the big screen and sees the replays.
Then, with the TV audience hearing every word, he describes what he sees, and goes through the decision making process. So he says (I'm paraphrasing) "There's no attempt to bind with the arms, so it's an illegal hit to the ruck (This makes it a penalty). He extends his elbow in an almost chicken wing motion, so it's deliberate contact (this makes it a yellow), the contact is with the head, so it's a red card. It was at high speed, out of control and the player didn't change head height as he was on the floor. So there are no mitigating factors to bring it down to a yellow, the decision is a red card. Do you see anything differently?"
Everything was so clear. So precise. He took the audience and the players who can hear him as they're gathered round, through every step of the decision tree, including considering the options that would reduce the punishment.
And as a result, no one can argue with the decision. There's no guesswork.
Football could learn so much from TMO's in rugby and other sports, but they simply refuse to learn from people who've made mistakes and perfected a system over 20 years.
This didn't use to be the case in rugby, but over the years they've worked out a system where everything goes better - from the reaction of the players sent off, the players left on the pitch, to post-match, to coaches comments afterwards - if you just really clearly talk through the decision out loud and the audience hears it.
A few rare exceptions apart, rugby referees are far more honest and far more respected. Plus, you argue with the referee you're getting ten minutes to cool down at best. Different culture. Plus, the likes of the dippers fans and their conspiracy theories and their player's cheating and play acting wouldn't be tolerated.Nice, mate, but it does seem that football officials aren‘t in the same understand/refine process as they did in rugby, they have decided that they have the perfect system and are very stubborn to change. The question is, why?