VAR Discussion Thread - 2023/24 | PL clubs to vote on whether to scrap VAR (pg413)

Would you want VAR scrapped?

  • Total voters
    293
  • Poll closed .
Pingu the Penguin said:
Obviously no VAR tonight but that incident is a great example of how a ref led system could work. ref sees incident. Maybe not 100% sure so makes a TV signal indicating to VAR room that in next break of play I’m going to the screen to take a look so have the footage ready. When decision made ref says it was/was not a penalty making ref to the LOTG. It’s not hard
Click to expand...

Problem is, it's the safe option for referees now. Give the penalty and rely on VAR to correct any mistakes. But then the second problem is that VAR doesn't do that if there is the slightest possibility the referee was right. It's all a fuck-up.

The "elimination" of diving for penalties was one of the only positives I saw for VAR. That has been blown out of the water in the last couple of weeks. Once that myth was broken, all the usual suspects are at it again.
 
Pingu the Penguin said:
Obviously no VAR tonight but that incident is a great example of how a ref led system could work. ref sees incident. Maybe not 100% sure so makes a TV signal indicating to VAR room that in next break of play I’m going to the screen to take a look so have the footage ready. When decision made ref says it was/was not a penalty making ref to the LOTG. It’s not hard
Click to expand...

And if the next break in play is ten minutes away?

Just let the bloody referees and linesmen do their job as best they can on the pitch.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Given the 3 not overturned at the weekend, I’m not sure having VAR would have changed the call anyway.

The 4 calls are consistent. Wrong, but consistent.
Click to expand...
As explained ad nauseum, the VAR wouldn’t have been able to overturn last night, there was ‘contact’ no matter how bullshit that term is, and the ref gave it on the field, so there’s nothing they can do.
 
Iassel said:
As explained ad nauseum, the VAR wouldn’t have been able to overturn last night, there was ‘contact’ no matter how bullshit that term is, and the ref gave it on the field, so there’s nothing they can do.
Click to expand...
Contact does not equate to foul though. They need to stop being soft twats and call a dive a fucking dive not sucking the cock of their mate on the pitch just because it could be them next week. VAR needs to be a separate group of incompetent twats not the same group we've got on the pitch.
 
hello said:
Contact does not equate to foul though. They need to stop being soft twats and call a dive a fucking dive not sucking the cock of their mate on the pitch just because it could be them next week. VAR needs to be a separate group of incompetent twats not the same group we've got on the pitch.
Click to expand...

agree, if we can get them to that point then it's worth it right ?

if we just scrap VAR then not only will them softest of the soft be awarded pens on likely a far more regularly basis but even zero contact gets awarded penalties also.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
agree, if we can get them to that point then it's worth it right ?

if we just scrap VAR then not only will them softest of the soft be awarded pens on likely a far more regularly basis but even zero contact gets awarded penalties also.
Click to expand...
I've never been against VAR per se but always totally against the way pigmol have implemented it. They use it primarily as a means of validation of their mates decision as opposed to using it as a tool to get the right decision. The audio releases of the fuckups are a joke and the twats should be embarrassed by their unprofessionalism. The fact we can't have transparent communication in real time because ifab think the refs are not able to communicate professionally enough is a joke, its not a funny one though as folks on minimum wage in call centres etc act 20 times more professionally. In my mind VAR & referee are 2 distinct skillsets and should have been implemented and treated as such. Pigmol unfortunately have gone for a jack of all trades and not even close to master of any approach which has left it devoid of sporting integrity but gets the media talking about the premier league and gives more scope for the new winner ideology masters commented on which is good for £££ so I cant see them doing owt to fix the shambles that's been implemented.
 
Last edited:
BlueHammer85 said:
agree, if we can get them to that point then it's worth it right ?

if we just scrap VAR then not only will them softest of the soft be awarded pens on likely a far more regularly basis but even zero contact gets awarded penalties also.
Click to expand...

It's a balance isn't it?: getting more decisions right vs disruption to the game. The more I see of this nonsense, the more I come down on the side of scrap it, let the referees referee, let the game flow and let the fans vent at the referees again every game like we used to.

PS: Re your point about no-contact penalties, there are other ways to punish cheating. Off-line review of potential incidents and increasing retrospective punishment each offence, for example. Now that is a use of VAR I can get behind :)
 
Iassel said:
As explained ad nauseum, the VAR wouldn’t have been able to overturn last night, there was ‘contact’ no matter how bullshit that term is, and the ref gave it on the field, so there’s nothing they can do.
Click to expand...

Where does that come from? Afaik, there is nothing in IFAB's VAR protocol that says that. Imo, if the referee thinks there is enough contact to bring an attacker down, but the replays show the faintest of touches, two steps and then a falling over, they can review it on-field. Maybe they don't because of some idiot Webb guidelines, but they can according to the protocol in my view.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Where does that come from? Afaik, there is nothing in IFAB's VAR protocol that says that. Imo, if the referee thinks there is enough contact to bring an attacker down, but the replays show the faintest of touches, two steps and then a falling over, they can review it on-field. Maybe they don't because of some idiot Webb guidelines, but they can according to the protocol in my view.
Click to expand...

wouldn't it be refreshing for a ref to award that a penalty, have a look at monitor and despite the contact books the player that has dived. surely a ref somewhere has the balls to do that.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
wouldn't it be refreshing for a ref to award that a penalty, have a look at monitor and despite the contact books the player that has dived. surely a ref somewhere has the balls to do that.
Click to expand...

I suspect he would get crucified by all the idiot commentators, co-commentators and pundits who tell everyone there was contact so it has to be a penalty.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Where does that come from? Afaik, there is nothing in IFAB's VAR protocol that says that. Imo, if the referee thinks there is enough contact to bring an attacker down, but the replays show the faintest of touches, two steps and then a falling over, they can review it on-field. Maybe they don't because of some idiot Webb guidelines, but they can according to the protocol in my view.
Click to expand...
After the Jota incident there was a longish write-up on the ESPN Var review. You're right - the correct answer is the Webb guidelines - the bar for VAR to overrule on-field decisions is higher, so any contact, even if it's not enough for them to fall over, means it doesn't meet their current 'clear and obvious' error.

I assume next season the advice will be the opposite, and we'll get VAR being accused of re-refereeing games, and the clamour will be to "let the referee get on with his job".

When there is air time to fill, and columns to write, the status quo will never stir the pot enough to get the views and comments.

www.espn.co.uk

The VAR Review: Should Jota's penalty have been overturned?

Should the VAR be getting involved when players go down so easily to win penalties after Diogo Jota went down from Martin Dúbravka's challenge?
www.espn.co.uk www.espn.co.uk
 
bluenova said:
After the Jota incident there was a longish write-up on the ESPN Var review. You're right - the correct answer is the Webb guidelines - the bar for VAR to overrule on-field decisions is higher, so any contact, even if it's not enough for them to fall over, means it doesn't meet their current 'clear and obvious' error.

I assume next season the advice will be the opposite, and we'll get VAR being accused of re-refereeing games, and the clamour will be to "let the referee get on with his job".

When there is air time to fill, and columns to write, the status quo will never stir the pot enough to get the views and comments.

www.espn.co.uk

The VAR Review: Should Jota's penalty have been overturned?

Should the VAR be getting involved when players go down so easily to win penalties after Diogo Jota went down from Martin Dúbravka's challenge?
www.espn.co.uk www.espn.co.uk
Click to expand...

Yes, I used to read Dale Johnson's articles until I saw he gets input from PGMOL, so basically he says what they want, otherwise access withdrawn.

The final straw for me was the Rashford/Fernandes goal when he went with good goal according to the law. No point reading after that.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
agree, if we can get them to that point then it's worth it right ?

if we just scrap VAR then not only will them softest of the soft be awarded pens on likely a far more regularly basis but even zero contact gets awarded penalties also.
Click to expand...
Not sure how you come to this conclusion.
Players are going down now under the slightest touch in the hope that var will spot it. If you leave it to the ref then there has to be more contact for him to spot it.
 
stonerblue said:
Not sure how you come to this conclusion.
Players are going down now under the slightest touch in the hope that var will spot it. If you leave it to the ref then there has to be more contact for him to spot it.
Click to expand...

But a ref would have likely have awarded Bruno and Jota penalties without any contact at all, ZERO CONTACT. Like they did pre VAR.

That’s what it would go back too.

All we need now is VAR to clear up that not all contact in the box means a penalty - or even better the onfield ref to check monitor and have the balls to make that decision.

…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top