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

[cyan]

Part of me feels they knew it was handball when it happened but purposely left it for VAR to overturn in order highlight its importance.

No way both the ref and linesman didn't see it or the VAR official immediately call it handball over comms watching it in real-time but it provided a timely spotlight/showcase moment for why we need VAR.

The worry of returning to a non-VAR world is that they did not see it. I'm not sure where the referee was - the clips I've watched he is not in view - which puts him a good way outside the penalty area - looking through all the players in the box - whilst the linesman is doing the same from the touchline. You would hope that between them they spot it - but they didn't.

I've said elsewhere that I think PL referees when uncertain are waiting for VAR to make a decision for them, whereas earlier in their career they would have made some decisions by instinct. The instinct of many of us was that something was not right - but is that a good enough reason to give/not give what might have been a crucial goal?

I lean towards keeping VAR - but I want it to be quicker, and I want it to be transparent - so like in Rugby, Referees should be explaining the decision making process in real time.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

The worry of returning to a non-VAR world is that they did not see it. I'm not sure where the referee was - the clips I've watched he is not in view - which puts him a good way outside the penalty area - looking through all the players in the box - whilst the linesman is doing the same from the touchline. You would hope that between them they spot it - but they didn't.

I've said elsewhere that I think PL referees when uncertain are waiting for VAR to make a decision for them, whereas earlier in their career they would have made some decisions by instinct. The instinct of many of us was that something was not right - but is that a good enough reason to give/not give what might have been a crucial goal?

I lean towards keeping VAR - but I want it to be quicker, and I want it to be transparent - so like in Rugby, Referees should be explaining the decision making process in real time.

In a VAR world all of this shit STILL happened.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Bang on. Surely someone somewhere in that organisation should be saying this. It must be deliberate as even PGMOL are not that stupid

Maybe " stupidity " isn't PiGMOL's biggest problem ?

 

[cyan]

In a VAR world all of this shit STILL happened.

I know - and whether you have VAR or not you will not irridicate certain biases and pressures. I'm not into the conspiracy narratives - but I do know that Anfield generates enormous pressure on officials and it's no surprise that the only win we have there was in an empty stadium.

But if you can cut out the mistakes that are made because referees don't/can't see everything (like the West Ham handball on Sunday) - then you are part way towards acceptance of the decisions that they do come to. It's not the whole answer, it could be a lot better, and there will always be decisions that we are going to disagree with - but such is life.

 

[Bluemoonadam]

Scrap var and you can guarantee most people would be asking for if back after a week

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

According to the Times, PGMOL's solution for next season is for VAR to only intervene when the referee's decision is 'clearly wrong.'

As opposed to the current threshold of a 'clear and obvious error'.

Now I know they have some real geniuses working over at PGMOL, but to my understanding of the English language, that's the same fucking thing.

Either they're stupid, or they think everyone else is. Or both.

Putting language aside, why are they learning the wrong lessons again? Having VAR intervene even less won't make anyone happy. All the arguments against it will still apply, you'll just be making more errors.

So basically the VAR team now re referees games. This wasn’t what we were promised and is a bad development. Why don’t they sit down with fan player and manager groups and just build something better?

 

[Stephen230]

So basically the VAR team now re referees games. This wasn’t what we were promised and is a bad development. Why don’t they sit down with fan player and manager groups and just build something better?

Their intention is that VAR will intervene less not more. They are raising the bar even higher and intend for more subjective referees decisions to stand than currently is the case.

 

[supercity88]

I don't want it scrapped but it has to be improved. It either needs full disclosure by being communicated as it is in rugby and cricket, or go the UEFA way and you don't see replays you just get an automated offside pop up with no idea where the lines were drawn and no Twitter bots whinging.

That West Ham blatant handball goal was given on Sunday, so we need a review system in place.

 

[Kippax77]

I don't want it scrapped but it has to be improved. It either needs full disclosure by being communicated as it is in rugby and cricket, or go the UEFA way and you don't see replays you just get an automated offside pop up with no idea where the lines were drawn and no Twitter bots whinging.

That West Ham blatant handball goal was given on Sunday, so we need a review system in place.

What a finish that was as well.
Can see the rule makers rethinking the handball rule soon after the ref allowed that goal against us.
Teams can score with their hands if playing against City might be the way forward for Prem to try and give other teams a chance of the title.

 

[bluenova]

According to the Times, PGMOL's solution for next season is for VAR to only intervene when the referee's decision is 'clearly wrong.'

As opposed to the current threshold of a 'clear and obvious error'.

Now I know they have some real geniuses working over at PGMOL, but to my understanding of the English language, that's the same fucking thing.

Either they're stupid, or they think everyone else is. Or both.

Putting language aside, why are they learning the wrong lessons again? Having VAR intervene even less won't make anyone happy. All the arguments against it will still apply, you'll just be making more errors.

If we're being pedantic, the ref could make an error, but the decision still be arguably correct.

For example, a handball where the ref says he doesn't think it hit the hand. VAR could see that it hit the hand, which is a "clear and obvious error", but, even if they would have given it, unless it's one where there's going to be no debate, it's not "clearly wrong".

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

Their intention is that VAR will intervene less not more. They are raising the bar even higher and intend for more subjective referees decisions to stand than currently is the case.

Clearly wrong is someone else re refereeing there game. It’s not a tool for the ref, it is reffing by committee. Some people may prefer that - I am pointing out that it was not what was postulated when VAR was introduced

 

[TinFoilHat]

Scrap var and you can guarantee most people would be asking for if back after a week

As soon as the scum gets their first dodgy decision at their first fixture.

 

[SWP's back]

Their intention is that VAR will intervene less not more. They are raising the bar even higher and intend for more subjective referees decisions to stand than currently is the case.

Main issue with that is refs bottling decisions thinking that VAR will let them know if they got it wrong.

 

[Stephen230]

Clearly wrong is someone else re refereeing there game. It’s not a tool for the ref, it is reffing by committee. Some people may prefer that - I am pointing out that it was not what was postulated when VAR was introduced

If the VAR intervening when the referee has made a clearly wrong decision is not what the whole thing is about, I’m honestly not sure what you think the original use of a VAR was intended to do?

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

If the VAR intervening when the referee has made a clearly wrong decision is not what the whole thing is about, I’m honestly not sure what you think the original use of a VAR was intended to do?

VAR was said to be a tool to help the match referee make better decisions. The VAR team overturning something as clearly wrong isn't this - it is a group of people making a decision. I honestly don't think it is the best way to use VAR. It should be a tool that the ref (singular) - as sole arbiter of games - gets to use to help them make better decisions.

This article is helpful in terms of what I understand the case for the introduction of VAR was:

The inside story of how FIFA's controversial VAR system was born

The Dutch Refereeing 2.0 project created goal-line technology. Its next creation – VAR – has proven to be more divisive among footballers, fans and pundits at FIFA's Russia World Cup 2018

www.wired.com

"VAR was conceived as part of an ambitious project conducted by The Royal Netherlands Football Association (KNVB) called Refereeing 2.0. Its aim? To reinvent refereeing. "With all the 4G and Wi-Fi in stadia today, the referee is the only person who can’t see exactly what is happening and he’s actually the only one who should," says Lukas Brud, IFAB secretary at the International Football Association (IFAB). "We knew we had to protect referees from making mistakes that everyone can see immediately." Bold section relevant.

The "clearly wrong" clarification undermines the ref and exacerbates the already blurred boundaries of VAR. You saw that from the arsenal decision at the weekend. It is rare that a ref sticks with the decision they have made when sent to a monitor but in this case Oliver wouldn't have had any say on it under the new rules if the VAR team had of overturned it, which it appears they would have given the prevalence of overturns when refs get sent to monitors.

As I say, I don't personally think that is right. If others want to argue that a team of 5 or 6 people should make some form of consensus decision to get things right, then fine. But the new system doesn't even do that as it actually excludes the onfield ref. Their view is irrelevant.

 

[Stephen230]

It is rare that a ref sticks with the decision they have made when sent to a monitor but in this case Oliver wouldn't have had any say on it under the new rules if the VAR team had of overturned it…

I don’t know what you’re referring to with the ‘new rules’?

The only changes I’ve heard proposed come from a report in The Daily Mail that suggests their sources have heard that Premier League clubs will be pushing for better communication within the stadium. And for PGMOL to open up applications from overseas referees. Then there was a report in The Times that they are going to instruct VARs to let more onfiejd decisions stand, using a higher bar before they get involved.

None of this involves fundamental rule changes to VAR, which must come from FIFA via IFAB.

The overriding number one principle of VAR is that they are there to advise, not overrule. Where have you seen it suggested that a VAR can instruct a referee to change his decision against his will?

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

I don’t know what you’re referring to with the ‘new rules’?

The only changes I’ve heard proposed come from a report in The Daily Mail that suggests their sources have heard that Premier League clubs will be pushing for better communication within the stadium. And for PGMOL to open up applications from overseas referees. Then there was a report in The Times that they are going to instruct VARs to let more onfiejd decisions stand, using a higher bar before they get involved.

None of this involves fundamental rule changes to VAR, which must come from FIFA via IFAB.

The overriding number one principle of VAR is that they are there to advise, not overrule. Where have you seen it suggested that a VAR can instruct a referee to change his decision against his will?

I think you do know what I'm referring to in terms of the "new rules" as you've correctly identified the "higher bar" point from the Times, which by definition is clearly and obviously (if you'll pardon the pun!) "new" as it is "higher" and therefore different than the current position.

We will see how it is interpreted but if you are suggesting that the referee won't, at the very least, be under massive pressure to change his decision when people in a room with replays say he is "clearly wrong" then, well, I'm surprised you think that to be honest.

Which takes me back to the point of the whole point of VAR being introduced on the premise that it was a tool to help the onfield ref, "the only person who should see [everything that happens on the field]" to paraphrase the IFAB secretary, subtly being lost. I presume you accept that point now that I've demonstrated it?

I can only repeat that if you think that is a good thing and want to defend decision making by committee (potentially not involving the onfield ref, as I suspect the "clearly wrong" thing will lead to) then fine. I don't agree.

Refs have a really tough job. We should help them, not undermine them. If they ask to see footage then show it them without comment to allow them to solidify their view. If there's something that a VAR crew think the ref might benefit from seeing again to solidify their view, then ditto. This would allow VAR to honour the important, historic role of the ref, improve the standard of decision making, and the enhance the confidence of the officials themselves.

 

[Stephen230]

I think you do know what I'm referring to in terms of the "new rules" as you've correctly identified the "higher bar" point from the Times, which by definition is clearly and obviously (if you'll pardon the pun!) "new" as it is "higher" and therefore different than the current position.

We will see how it is interpreted but if you are suggesting that the referee won't, at the very least, be under massive pressure to change his decision when people in a room with replays say he is "clearly wrong" then, well, I'm surprised you think that to be honest.

Which takes me back to the point of the whole point of VAR being introduced on the premise that it was a tool to help the onfield ref, "the only person who should see [everything that happens on the field]" to paraphrase the IFAB secretary, subtly being lost. I presume you accept that point now that I've demonstrated it?

I can only repeat that if you think that is a good thing and want to defend decision making by committee (potentially not involving the onfield ref, as I suspect the "clearly wrong" thing will lead to) then fine. I don't agree.

Refs have a really tough job. We should help them, not undermine them. If they ask to see footage then show it them without comment to allow them to solidify their view. If there's something that a VAR crew think the ref might benefit from seeing again to solidify their view, then ditto. This would allow VAR to honour the important, historic role of the ref, improve the standard of decision making, and the enhance the confidence of the officials themselves.

Time will tell but I think you’re reading too much in to this very slight change of wording mate.

I’m not even sure where The Times have got their info from as it’s subscription only. But assuming they’re correct and the Premier League VARs are going to be told to higher the bar slightly before they recommend an onfield review, I don’t see it changing much.

It certainly won’t be true that the referee won’t have the option to stick with his original decision.

Will the higher bar make him question himself a little more if he’s considering sticking with it? I suppose it’s possible. But the option is always there, if he’s convinced he’s right.

 

[jollylescott]

I see Wenger is pushing ahead with a proposal on the offside rule. He wants there to be clear daylight between the defender and attacker before it constitutes offside. This could be another recipe for controversy.

 

[MaineRoadMemories]

I see Wenger is pushing ahead with a proposal on the offside rule. He wants there to be clear daylight between the defender and attacker before it constitutes offside. This could be another recipe for controversy.

Wouldn't affect us too much as it already happens evert game, but I'd predict the main issue with this would be that even more defenders would go for a low block tactic whenever they are out of possession against every team they play.

For me, the easy change to the offside law is simply using the standing foot. If your standing foot is ahead of the defender’s, then you're offside. It's easy to measure as it's a fixed point on the grass, and more accurate than drawing lines from the mythical end of the shoulder sleeve they currently try to do.

Add in a thicker line to cater for the frame rate issues when pausing the action and it would be fairer. Still have the issue of when the VAR pauses the action though, if you play in red the ball is still firmly on the foot, play in blue and the ball has left the foot before they pause.