VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

There are some facts in life that need no explanation.
Like how this thread would only be on the page 4 if it wasn't for a spammer.
 
The state we are in.


Fenerbahce coach Jose Mourinho said the Video Assistant Referee went from being the invisible man to the most important man on the pitch after several controversial decisions went against his side in their 3-2 Super Lig win at Trabzonspor on Sunday.

Trabzonspor were awarded two penalties in the second half following VAR interventions, and with the score tied a 2-2 late in the game Mourinho was incensed when a challenge on Bright Osayi-Samuel went unpunished.

The Portuguese coach suggested the VAR, Atilla Karaoglan, had missed the incident as he was drinking coffee.

"The referee was just a little boy that was there on the pitch, but the referee was Atilla Karaoglan, so man of the match," Mourinho told beIN Sports Turkiye.

A very little boy indeed running over to the monitor, doing as he's told by back room match manipulators. Shambles!!
 
Phil1 said:
If they’re saying VAR is wank then so do I.
Click to expand...

:) I never understood the clamour for getting off-side calls "correct" to the mm when the guidance for other offences is moving to "referee's call" unless it is clearly wrong. Just do the same for offsides, for Christ's sake, and save a few million and a lot of time.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
shameful, tech in place to rule this goal out in seconds.
the game is gone if we allow goals like this to stand.

www.skysports.com

Preston vs Bristol City: Yu Hirakawa scores with blatant handball

Bristol Citys goal against Preston stands after blatant handball from Yu Hirakawa.
www.skysports.com www.skysports.com
Click to expand...
You're right, this situation would have been swiftly reversed by VAR had it been in play. But situations like this when something this blatant is missed are incredibly rare. I mean, this is Henry handball territory.

What I would say is that something like this, which might happen once in a blue moon, does not justify the monstrosity that VAR is that causes all kinds of problems in other areas.

I could live with an occasional howler like this if it meant that we had free flowing football. I would also say that if VAR was only limited to catching clear "intentional" handballs like this that were missed in real-time, that led to goals, I could probably live with it.

It's all the other nonsense that VAR looks at which isn't "clear or obvious". For example, evaluating fouls or tackles with VAR, or for seeing the ball hit off a hand inadvertently then using that to rule out goals, when it wasn't intentional, that's very different and that's what drives people up a wall about VAR.

So I agree with you here, VAR would be very effective and catching something blatant like this Yu Hirakawa handball. And it would only need to be looked at if it led to a goal. If this didn't lead to a goal, then play on. No stoppage needed.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
You're right, this situation would have been swiftly reversed by VAR had it been in play. But situations like this when something this blatant is missed are incredibly rare. I mean, this is Henry handball territory.

What I would say is that something like this, which might happen once in a blue moon, does not justify the monstrosity that VAR is that causes all kinds of problems in other areas.

I could live with an occasional howler like this if it meant that we had free flowing football. I would also say that if VAR was only limited to catching clear "intentional" handballs like this that were missed in real-time, that led to goals, I could probably live with it.

It's all the other nonsense that VAR looks at which isn't "clear or obvious". For example, evaluating fouls or tackles with VAR, or for seeing the ball hit off a hand inadvertently then using that to rule out goals, when it wasn't intentional, that's very different and that's what drives people up a wall about VAR.

So I agree with you here, VAR would be very effective and catching something blatant like this Yu Hirakawa handball. And it would only need to be looked at if it led to a goal. If this didn't lead to a goal, then play on. No stoppage needed.
Click to expand...

Correcting clear mistakes, like the Henry handball, was the justification for introducing VAR (iirc the others included the non-goal when the United keeper clearly scooped the ball from a couple of feet behind the line, and the crazy offside, was it United again?, when the linesman had a brain fart) but it quickly morphed into the behemoth that leads, for example, to the stupid handball and offside rules we have now.

If VAR worked in the background and just corrected obvious errors like those that were used as justification for it in the first place no-one would have a problem with it. If VAR can't see it's a complete cock-up in five seconds and two normal speed replays, then on with the game. And yes, for offsides as well. Anything at all that delays the game more than that should be a no-no imho.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
Anything at all that delays the game more than that should be a no-no imho.
Click to expand...

Then scrap subs and leave players injured on the floor - loads more in the game takes longer than a VAR review which most of the time is done in seconds as the game is flowing.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
Then scrap subs and leave players injured on the floor - loads more in the game takes longer than a VAR review which most of the time is done in seconds as the game is flowing.
Click to expand...

Subs should be hurried up yes. They don't have to take a minute each. And don't stop the game unless it's a serious injury, trainers on-pitch in-play if they have to come on. And never, ever stop a game for cramp. And there are plenty more ways to speed the game up.

But none of that is anything to do with VAR, which is what we are talking about.
 
The Ipswich CEO now wants it binned. He said, regarding the recent vote, that he voted for it to stay after listening to the PL. He know says he was wrong.
 
halfcenturyup said:
:) I never understood the clamour for getting off-side calls "correct" to the mm when the guidance for other offences is moving to "referee's call" unless it is clearly wrong. Just do the same for offsides, for Christ's sake, and save a few million and a lot of time.
Click to expand...

I don’t think there ever was a clamour for getting off sides correct to the millimetre. There was a clamour for getting blindingly obvious errors overturned. The trouble is, once you’ve got the technology, they are always going to use it to the best of its abilities.

You hear people saying, have one look and if it’s not clearly a wrong decision, let the on field decision stand. But are fans really going to be happy to see goals ruled out, when replays prove it was narrowly but definitely on side? I’m not so sure.
 
Stephen230 said:
I don’t think there ever was a clamour for getting off sides correct to the millimetre. There was a clamour for getting blindingly obvious errors overturned. The trouble is, once you’ve got the technology, they are always going to use it to the best of its abilities.

You hear people saying, have one look and if it’s not clearly a wrong decision, let the on field decision stand. But are fans really going to be happy to see goals ruled out, when replays prove it was narrowly but definitely on side? I’m not so sure.
Click to expand...

I suppose that was the situation before VAR came in, although I guess it was more likely to be the opposite: goals standing that were marginally offside.

Maybe I am remembering my own approach: it was just onside but it's difficult to see and they are only human (possibly after a bit of a sweary rant). Maybe it was more generally: why can't we have the technology to get it right? Especially with idiot commentators and pundits analysing every incident to the nth degree and coming out with absolute bollocks for reasons of controversy.

Personally, I preferred the former but I get that some people may prefer the latter.

I am old, I prefer the flow of the game, the spirit of the game, and the benefit of doubt to beautiful goals, all of which to me make the game what it is, rather than robotic accuracy. People lamenting the in-stadium experience these days? Then disallowing great goals for a toenail is part of the problem, imho.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I suppose that was the situation before VAR came in, although I guess it was more likely to be the opposite: goals standing that were marginally offside.

Maybe I am remembering my own approach: it was just onside but it's difficult to see and they are only human (possibly after a bit of a sweary rant). Maybe it was more generally: why can't we have the technology to get it right? Especially with idiot commentators and pundits analysing every incident to the nth degree and coming out with absolute bollocks for reasons of controversy.

Personally, I preferred the former but I get that some people may prefer the latter.

I am old, I prefer the flow of the game, the spirit of the game, and the benefit of doubt to beautiful goals, all of which to me make the game what it is, rather than robotic accuracy. People lamenting the in-stadium experience these days? Then disallowing great goals for a toenail is part of the problem, imho.
Click to expand...

I think what most fans would like ideally is some kind of system where absolute clangers are overturned and anything marginal left to the referee.

But once you’ve opened up the box, it’s impossible to achieve and retain some kind of consistency. It’s easy to point at something like the Walker offside for Tottenham against City and say, that’s what we want VAR for. But where do you stop exactly?

It’s easy to give an example of a clanger. It’s a lot trickier to define one. You’re always going to get clanger + or - 1cm.

We do have an offside system at the moment with an in built in tolerance level. I believe it’s about 5cm. You could extend that to 10cm or 20cm. But then you’re on the wrong end of one that’s 20.1 cm and the whole world is against you again.

Although the clamour at the moment seems to be to bring in the SAOT, which doesn’t have any tolerance level at all.
 
Stephen230 said:
I think what most fans would like ideally is some kind of system where absolute clangers are overturned and anything marginal left to the referee.

But once you’ve opened up the box, it’s impossible to achieve and retain some kind of consistency. It’s easy to point at something like the Walker offside for Tottenham against City and say, that’s what we want VAR for. But where do you stop exactly?

It’s easy to give an example of a clanger. It’s a lot trickier to define one. You’re always going to get clanger + or - 1cm.

We do have an offside system at the moment with an in built in tolerance level. I believe it’s about 5cm. You could extend that to 10cm or 20cm. But then you’re on the wrong end of one that’s 20.1 cm and the whole world is against you again.

Although the clamour at the moment seems to be to bring in the SAOT, which doesn’t have any tolerance level at all.
Click to expand...

No clamour from me :)

There is so much subjectivity on every offence. Every decision can be debated. Just give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker and do away with offside calls that can't possibly be made on-field, that's all I am asking.

And people will soon realise SAOT isn't the messiah when it's introduced, it will be just another naughty boy.
 
Match officials Mic’d Up on now.

City’s last minute winner at Wolves is being shown. Should be interesting. Particularly what exactly was said during the 30 odd seconds it took to give the initial off side decision.
 
Stephen230 said:
Match officials Mic’d Up on now.

City’s last minute winner at Wolves is being shown. Should be interesting. Particularly what exactly was said during the 30 odd seconds it took to give the initial off side decision.
Click to expand...
I need to know what David Coote said :-)

Do you mean a programme on Sky is doing this ?
If so why ? the match was weeks ago.
 
Blue Mist said:
I need to know what David Coote said :-)

Do you mean a programme on Sky is doing this ?
If so why ? the match was weeks ago.
Click to expand...

It’s on Sky and TNT.

It’s a monthly programme showing the most contentious decisions of the previous few weeks. It’s being going since the start of last season.
 
Watched the programme once. It’s a load of shit designed to create a narrative. Won’t be watching again, Howard Redd is a twat and always will be.
 
TonyColemansbagofapples said:
Watched the programme once. It’s a load of shit designed to create a narrative. Won’t be watching again, Howard Redd is a twat and always will be.
Click to expand...

It’s not compulsory. But there was a lot of people confused about exactly what went on around that Stones goal at Wolves.

There’s also people constantly calling for VAR audio to be released. It’s not ideal because it only covers four or five incidents per month. But it’s a start and I find it reasonably interesting for one at least.
 
It covers (from the one programme I watched) incidents that were easily explainable, even to the thickest football watcher. Waste of time with the sole intention of showing how great an innovation VAR is and how it's run by totally impartial officials. Absolute shite.
Let's do what cricket and other sports with a fraction of the money available do. Let everyone see exactly what has happened and hear the comments for all decisions, not just a select, handpicked few.
 
Stephen230 said:
It’s not compulsory. But there was a lot of people confused about exactly what went on around that Stones goal at Wolves.

There’s also people constantly calling for VAR audio to be released. It’s not ideal because it only covers four or five incidents per month. But it’s a start and I find it reasonably interesting for one at least.
Click to expand...
The audio being released ages after the incident proves it isn't credible
 
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