VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

[ChicagoBlue]

VAR is supposed to question errors that are clear and obvious.

There was a brief experiment not that long ago where they had two extra officials monitoring the goal lines at each end of the pitch. It didn't seem to achieve anything and it was quickly abandoned.

Goal line technology made them redundant, didn’t it?

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Goal line technology made them redundant.

Their purpose for being there was not only to judge if the ball went over the line or not, as goal-line technology does, so that wouldn't have made them redundant. The idea was for them to be a "backup" set of eyes for the on-field referee, to see the action from a different angle, to alert the on-field referee to anything he may have seen that the referee missed, like a handball, or to advise the referee of his interpretation of a foul inside the box. He would be there to assist the referee in making a decision, but only if he approached the referee, or if the referee sought him out for a second opinion. So the extra official near the goal-line would be there watching everything, from a different angle. This would have been a critical lapse of judgement if it was thought that goal-line technology could replace the extra official on the goal-line.

They made a grave error in abandoning the two extra officials on the goal-line concept and deciding to rely on technology to make decisions. What a disaster it's been. Will they ever learn their lesson?

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Their purpose for being there was not only to judge if the ball went over the line or not, as goal-line technology does, so that wouldn't have made them redundant. The idea was for them to be a "backup" set of eyes for the on-field referee, to see the action from a different angle, to alert the on-field referee to anything he may have seen that the referee missed, like a handball, or to advise the referee of his interpretation of a foul inside the box. He would be there to assist the referee in making a decision, but only if he approached the referee, or if the referee sought him out for a second opinion. So the extra official near the goal-line would be there watching everything, from a different angle. This would have been a critical lapse of judgement if it was thought that goal-line technology could replace the extra official on the goal-line.

They made a grave error in abandoning the two extra officials on the goal-line concept and deciding to rely on technology to make decisions. What a disaster it's been. Will they ever learn their lesson?

Can’t agree that binning them was a bad thing. They never seemed to give a damned thing, because every one of them knew the Ref was “the man” and they didn’t want to ref the game from there.

IIRC, City had some stonewall penalty shouts turned down right in front of these officials with nothing being called. That’s when I knew it was a Jobsworth program.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Can’t agree that binning them was a bad thing. They never seemed to give a damned thing, because every one of them knew the Ref was “the man” and they didn’t want to ref the game from there.

IIRC, City had some stonewall penalty shouts turned down right in front of these officials with nothing being called. That’s when I knew it was a Jobsworth program.

They would only have been needed for select matches. You could have them there for every match but that could depend on the decisions of the competition that the match was being played under. If the mindset they had was to not get involved, but while they were there, were there any howlers??

Maybe just them being there added another layer of "security" to on-field decisions. Maybe them being there caused the referee to be more focused and more accurate. Would there not have been a certain comfort with them being there, even if they were statues, just their presence and their ability to intervene could have reduced howlers and resulted in better decisions from the on-field referee.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

IRC, City had some stonewall penalty shouts turned down right in front of these officials with nothing being called. That’s when I knew it was a Jobsworth program.

On this point specifically, I would say that to a certain extent, their reluctance to get involved on subjective penalty decisions for example would be appropriate, as there would have been a desire to have them respect the on-field referee in certain situations. They would be there primarily to see something like an Henry handball while the ref might be further down the field and not in position to see such a thing, rather than relying on him to assist a referee as it relates to whether to call a penalty or not.

I would be interested to take a look at the examples you have mentioned here. Can you pinpoint what you remember and if you can find video footage of such instance of "stonewall penalties" where the extra official did not intervene. What I would say is that, largely, i wouldn't expect them to, even on ones that fans disagreed with and thought the ref made a mistake. It's a slippery slope, and quite subjective, for how often they should get involved and in what capacity, and how all that would work. And I could see an impatience with their lack of involvement and fan outrage for them not getting involved. But again, that's sort of a similar phenomenon with VAR to an extent, but of course without the intrusions of VAR. If the idea is to prevent a "howler", then it would be them seeing something that the ref missed, rather than seeing what the ref saw "differently", which would be a different threshold on when they could or should be expected to intervene.

They would surely have caught that Henry handball, or maybe even situations where the extra official felt the need to at least approach the ref and explain what he saw, but to leave the final decision with the on-field referee. That could have worked quite well if the correct balance could be found, to respect the referee's decisions but approach him when obliged to. And had it not been abandoned so soon, we could have seen somewhat of an evolution to their intervention and their willingness to approach the referee over time, but we never saw such evolution because it wasn't allowed to succeed, and unfortunately it has been replaced with goal-line technology which led to VAR, surely out of a realization (after the fact) that goal-line technology indeed couldn't replace the extra official since the human eye could see more and know when the ref may have missed something. I am glad this extra official was brought up, I believe this is a crucial piece of the puzzle that needs to be revisited and reevaluated if we are to find a way forward.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

There are several other fallacies worth mentioning here that have contributed to this current dilemma. One is that the implementation of goal-line technology gave them a false sense of security, in that goal-line technology worked so well and was so universally hailed as a success that it emboldened them to "go further" which is where the problems started. In addition to that, you had HDTVs becoming the standard, with their high definition and their clearer picture, that gave them more false confidence to think they'll never miss anything with this higher resolution. All these factors caused them to overplay their hand and think that something like VAR could work. They simply went too far. And you could even have goal-line technology and the extra official, with the goal-line technology freeing the extra official to focus on looking for other things like handballs. There are many ways in which the extra official could work and be the final solution to prevent howlers and actually raise the standard of officiating. They could position themselves on either side of the goal. With the benefit of hindsight, seeing where we are now, the extra official on the goal-line was definitely the way to go and would have been far better than this charade. Lets face it, the extra official was the cure for the "howler", without all the negative aspects of VAR. The one area that the extra official near the goal-line wouldn't be used for would be offsides, but then again the linos have a responsibility and they should be striving to make as accurate decisions as possible, without having the VAR nonsense in the back of their mind causing them to keep the flag down in borderline situations, which compounds the problem. And without the re-interpretation of what offsides is for VAR.

It's important to always remember as it relates to offsides that VAR is inherently unable to practically deal with offsides because allowing play to continue when the lino wouldn't have without VAR, for every time you catch something on VAR after the fact, you've already created a situation that shouldn't exist to begin with. Anotherwords, there's no equivalency between a lino correctly raising the flag in real-time and the play stopping then and there to allowing play to continue only for something to happen and then for that sequence to be possibly erased following a VAR review. The difference is several agonizing minutes of unnatural waiting every time to resolve something that may not have needed to be resolved in the first place. They're essentially just creating a problem that didn't exist before and then thinking that correcting the problem that they created is progress. It's not, you can never correct an offside decision with VAR that was ruled not offsides on the pitch as well as it would have been had the lino raised the flag when he should have. And on the other hand, for situations in which the lino's flag goes up and the VAR sees that the lino made a mistake, you can never get back what would have happened had the play been allowed to continue without the flag going up. This is why I see the offsides dilemma as it relates to VAR just a complete absurdity, not only are you obsessing over toenails, but VAR can never correct the situation as well as a correct real-time decision could have, so even when you correct an "error" it still doesn't give you what it should have been, had the decision been made correctly on the field. You've already lost that continuation of the run of play, or now have situations of the play continuing when you're not sure if what is happening has any meaning due to not knowing if the offsides decision will be looked at. So it's farcical either way as it pertains to VAR trying to correct offsides decisions. And it's aggravating that ever since VAR we seem to be pretending that VAR can sufficiently correct offsides. Even if the correct decision is made, you can't bring it back to what it would have been.

 

[BlueHammer85]

The state of confusion caused by VAR and delays like this are unacceptable. These pauses are an affront to the flow of football and simply cannot be "explained away". I don't want to hear about all their excuses for how unsatisfactory VAR is but you seem to think all this is beneficial in some way. I'm afraid you've lost the plot my VAR loving friend. This is not how football is supposed to be played and this improper way of playing and administering football simply must be put to an end. The only question left for us is what should it be replaced with. I would be in favor of two extra officials being placed on the goal-line to see anything perhaps missed by the on-field referee, but there can be no video review involved. Refereeing is about paying attention to what happened on the pitch when it happens, not after, not to be obsessed over. The two extra officials on the goal-line idea was perfectly pragmatic and acceptable but was done away with for some odd reason. Whatever that reason was, it was the wrong decision because of the state of what that decision created, this VAR monstrosity. It is curious that you can't see the harm that VAR has done to football, but by aligning yourself with VAR you are on the side of football being reduced and that is a side that I can not go to. Football is too important to be done right. And even when I brought up the need for a forward kickoff, it was seen as some kind of a joke. No my friends that was not a joke either. Football has been turned into a joke and however small the incorrect change needs to be called out and reverted to normalcy, as football should be played properly and not in this farcical manner in which it currently exists under VAR. It is a shame what has been done to football and there needs to be a concerted effort to return the sport back to its normal unimpeded state for the pleasure and harmony of all.

Ok, let's back up a bit here - I already mentioned that particular delay is unacceptable but lets not pretend that long is normal and happens every match - the average VAR check now takes 40 seconds - last season the average was 1 minute and 6 seconds - who would have thought that in time it can be speeded up ? now with Semi Automated being introduced then there's a possibility we can ensure accuracy and speed is even better - For the sake of a very rare 20-30 second check in a tight marginal calls i would want the correct outcome - I don't want the likes of Man Utd scoring last minute winners clearly offside and being allowed to stand - you do. i don't.

Whilst you adamantly think extra officials on the pitch would be more beneficial you don't speak for everyone - Most fans wouldn't welcome this, it would likely still result in more inaccurate decisions than the aid of VAR and cause more confusion.

Football has been turned into a joke - last weekend we had no VAR - Man Utd scored a goal from offside, Newcastle celebrated a goal that didn't cross the line, Leyton Orient player made a clear red card challenge and didn't get sent off... all of this could have been prevented and this is just one weekend. Do you not see how some can now consider football without VAR a joke? I would love to scrap VAR for one month to see you and angry Mist and others just 'suck up' these farcical decisions on a far rate of scale than what we have under VAR.

The latest YouGov poll from fans think - A clear majority (64%) think VAR should continue to be used so long as reforms are made. One in five fans (22%) say VAR should be scrapped entirely.

You and others on here are the 1 in 5, The minority of fans that want it scrapped completely. I'm in the camp that wants to keep it and look at ways to improve it to ensure speedier and accurate outcomes. It's easy to scream and demand answers every time there's a controversial decision and delay, anyone can jump in on the bandwagon - bigger picture though and vast majority of games are absolutely fine, even better now more injustices are being ruled out and VAR holding back intervening as much to avoid delays - exactly what many demanded.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Ok, let's back up a bit here - I already mentioned that particular delay is unacceptable but lets not pretend that long is normal and happens every match - the average VAR check now takes 40 seconds - last season the average was 1 minute and 6 seconds - who would have thought that in time it can be speeded up ? now with Semi Automated being introduced then there's a possibility we can ensure accuracy and speed is even better - For the sake of a very rare 20-30 second check in a tight marginal calls i would want the correct outcome - I don't want the likes of Man Utd scoring last minute winners clearly offside and being allowed to stand - you do. i don't.

Whilst you adamantly think extra officials on the pitch would be more beneficial you don't speak for everyone - Most fans wouldn't welcome this, it would likely still result in more inaccurate decisions than the aid of VAR and cause more confusion.

Football has been turned into a joke - last weekend we had no VAR - Man Utd scored a goal from offside, Newcastle celebrated a goal that didn't cross the line, Leyton Orient player made a clear red card challenge and didn't get sent off... all of this could have been prevented and this is just one weekend. Do you not see how some can now consider football without VAR a joke? I would love to scrap VAR for one month to see you and angry Mist and others just 'suck up' these farcical decisions on a far rate of scale than what we have under VAR.

The latest YouGov poll from fans think - A clear majority (64%) think VAR should continue to be used so long as reforms are made. One in five fans (22%) say VAR should be scrapped entirely.

You and others on here are the 1 in 5, The minority of fans that want it scrapped completely. I'm in the camp that wants to keep it and look at ways to improve it to ensure speedier and accurate outcomes. It's easy to scream and demand answers every time there's a controversial decision and delay, anyone can jump in on the bandwagon - bigger picture though and vast majority of games are absolutely fine, even better now more injustices are being ruled out and VAR holding back intervening as much to avoid delays - exactly what many demanded.

A clear majority (64%) think VAR should continue to be used so long as reforms are made.

That's a nonsense statement. Clearly it depends on what reforms are made and on what should happen if those reforms aren't made.

Personally, I am reasonably happy with how VAR has worked this season, apart from the offsides. That doesn't mean I think it has been a benefit to the game. And, it's a yougov poll for crying out loud. It means nothing.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

so 64% are not happy with it and 22% want it gone? fuck me the way they twist the stats.

VAR has changed the game. they've tried to define everything when all the fans wanted was the major fuck-ups to be stopped.

We used to know what handball was- It was a referee's judgement and that was it. Same with fouls etc. Now there are so many refs that we dont know what the correct decision is. The correct decision used to be whatever the ref says.

There are ALWAYS going to be mistakes, and thats because it is an opinion (Within guidelines) from the ref. We can either have 5 refs giving their opinion or we can go back to just the ref... The mistakes wont stop but the politics, the delays, the death threats, the spotlight on all decisions, the sensationalism, erosion of referee's skillset, peter fkin walton, pgmol plausible deniability.... all the things that annoy the fans, all of that would stop.

I remember when the ref was important, teams understanding the ref and if he gives cards or if he is lenient. It was part of the game, planning around that and working with it. Whilst that leads to inconsistnecy I would argue very strongly that consistecy will never exist in this scenario, in football decision making.

And I think that is geting traction now, there are a few pundits saying the same and bringing the spotlight on how the game has changed for thwe worse. I dont think they will ever take it away but I do think they are slowly going to phase out, or minimise its use over the next few years. I think they know they have fucked up, or maybe I dream.

 

[its grim up north]

Their purpose for being there was not only to judge if the ball went over the line or not, as goal-line technology does, so that wouldn't have made them redundant. The idea was for them to be a "backup" set of eyes for the on-field referee, to see the action from a different angle, to alert the on-field referee to anything he may have seen that the referee missed, like a handball, or to advise the referee of his interpretation of a foul inside the box. He would be there to assist the referee in making a decision, but only if he approached the referee, or if the referee sought him out for a second opinion. So the extra official near the goal-line would be there watching everything, from a different angle. This would have been a critical lapse of judgement if it was thought that goal-line technology could replace the extra official on the goal-line.

They made a grave error in abandoning the two extra officials on the goal-line concept and deciding to rely on technology to make decisions. What a disaster it's been. Will they ever learn their lesson?

Maybe, but what has always confused me is why was he positioned on the same side of the pitch as the lino?

 

[johnnytapia]

Ok, let's back up a bit here - I already mentioned that particular delay is unacceptable but lets not pretend that long is normal and happens every match - the average VAR check now takes 40 seconds - last season the average was 1 minute and 6 seconds - who would have thought that in time it can be speeded up ? now with Semi Automated being introduced then there's a possibility we can ensure accuracy and speed is even better - For the sake of a very rare 20-30 second check in a tight marginal calls i would want the correct outcome - I don't want the likes of Man Utd scoring last minute winners clearly offside and being allowed to stand - you do. i don't.

Whilst you adamantly think extra officials on the pitch would be more beneficial you don't speak for everyone - Most fans wouldn't welcome this, it would likely still result in more inaccurate decisions than the aid of VAR and cause more confusion.

Football has been turned into a joke - last weekend we had no VAR - Man Utd scored a goal from offside, Newcastle celebrated a goal that didn't cross the line, Leyton Orient player made a clear red card challenge and didn't get sent off... all of this could have been prevented and this is just one weekend. Do you not see how some can now consider football without VAR a joke? I would love to scrap VAR for one month to see you and angry Mist and others just 'suck up' these farcical decisions on a far rate of scale than what we have under VAR.

The latest YouGov poll from fans think - A clear majority (64%) think VAR should continue to be used so long as reforms are made. One in five fans (22%) say VAR should be scrapped entirely.

You and others on here are the 1 in 5, The minority of fans that want it scrapped completely. I'm in the camp that wants to keep it and look at ways to improve it to ensure speedier and accurate outcomes. It's easy to scream and demand answers every time there's a controversial decision and delay, anyone can jump in on the bandwagon - bigger picture though and vast majority of games are absolutely fine, even better now more injustices are being ruled out and VAR holding back intervening as much to avoid delays - exactly what many demanded.

“Most fans wouldn't welcome this,” ha ha ha ha ha. Absolutely brilliant.

 

[BlueHammer85]

“Most fans wouldn't welcome this,” ha ha ha ha ha. Absolutely brilliant.

Its a yougov poll from fans taken last season, only 1 in 5 would scrap it completely. fact.

 

[johnnytapia]

It’s a yougov poll from fans taken last season, only 1 in 5 would scrap it completely. fact.

I was laughing at you saying most fans wouldn’t welcome additional linesmen/ refs on pitch - like they’d ever be asked.
Same with VAR.
let’s ask the fans - every season ticket holder at every ground. Simple yes or no to VAR.
You and I both know what the outcome would be. It’d be a landslide to get rid.

 

[BlueHammer85]

I was laughing at you saying most fans wouldn’t welcome additional linesmen/ refs on pitch - like they’d ever be asked.
Same with VAR.
let’s ask the fans - every season ticket holder at every ground. Simple yes or no to VAR.
You and I both know what the outcome would be. It’d be a landslide to get rid.

Oh right, fair enough. additional linesmen/refs on the pitch i wouldn't be against but still be confident they'd screw up far more than a ref getting tech help.

Ask the fans to keep VAR and implement it better or scrap it completely. I don't think it would be a landslide. You keep saying this - why don't you set this up and find out.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

The latest YouGov poll from fans think - A clear majority (64%) think VAR should continue to be used so long as reforms are made. One in five fans (22%) say VAR should be scrapped entirely.

What exactly does "so long as reforms are made" even mean? That's a high misleading and open-ended suggestion.

Essentially, that 64% doesn't agree that VAR should continue in its current form. 64%+22%=86%. So are we to infer that only 14% want VAR to continue in its current form? That would be a lower % of those who want VAR to exist as is than those who want to scrap it completely, and by a considerable margin. If the majority would rather see VAR improved than either scrapped or staying as is, then what does that tell you? It means that the system as it exists is highly unpopular.

It means that only a small minority are happy with VAR as it exists. It's a damning indictment that only such a tiny % of fans are satisfied with VAR. And what do you think is the reason that 64% are unwilling to scrap it completely? Probably due to the issue of not knowing what it could be replaced with. Anotherwords, that 64% may be worried about what would happen if you scrap it completely. That 64% may be frustrated with VAR, but still don't want to see howlers. That's the hang up, they may agree with VAR in theory, but are frustrated by how it is working. Any way you slice it, that's far from a ringing endorsement. What is clear is that the vast majority do not like VAR as it currently exists and that more fans want it scrapped than want it to continue as is. And the other thing to keep in mind is that by "as is" we're talking about a system that for 5+ years has already had reform after reform, tweaks changes, etc. So it's not as if "as is" is the system as it was originally designed, it's the system after years and years of changes and tweaks to supposedly make it work better.

 

[Stephen230]

Maybe, but what has always confused me is why was he positioned on the same side of the pitch as the lino?

It was at the referee’s discretion which side they were on. The odd one did try them on the opposite side to the linesman. But the consensus was they didn’t want them on ‘their’ side.

A referee will broadly speaking run a diagonal. Corner flag to corner flag, with the lineman on the opposite sides. So the they didn’t want them getting into their area when the action was down near the goal line.

 

[johnnytapia]

Oh right, fair enough. additional linesmen/refs on the pitch i wouldn't be against but still be confident they'd screw up far more than a ref getting tech help.

Ask the fans to keep VAR and implement it better or scrap it completely. I don't think it would be a landslide. You keep saying this - why don't you set this up and find out.

I don’t have access to every season ticket holder at every ground. I do know, however, the thoughts on the 30+ lads and lasses that travel on the Rusholme minibus to every game. 100% bin it. Completely.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

It was at the referee’s discretion which side they were on. The odd one did try them on the opposite side to the linesman. But the consensus was they didn’t want them on ‘their’ side.

A referee will broadly speaking run a diagonal. Corner flag to corner flag, with the lineman on the opposite sides. So the they didn’t want them getting into their area when the action was down near the goal line.

This image shows where they were positioned, just outside the inner box on the end line.

https://imgresizer.eurosport.com/unsafe/2400x1260/filters:format(jpeg)/origin-imgresizer.eurosport.com/2010/07/21/628320-21977611-2560-1440.jpg

Do you recall instances where they were positioned closer to the goal post, or further away? That would seem to be a good position, though maybe with both feet behind the end line rather than with one foot in play as depicted in that image so to not interfere with play. Of course he could move from his position if need be.

My memory is a little fuzzy on exactly how long this was trialed and in which competitions. I'm just trying to understand if there were any contentious decisions during that time, and how many instances were there of the extra goal-line official intervening and causing the on-field ref to change a decision.

 

[Stephen230]

This image shows where they were positioned, just outside the inner box on the end line.

https://imgresizer.eurosport.com/unsafe/2400x1260/filters:format(jpeg)/origin-imgresizer.eurosport.com/2010/07/21/628320-21977611-2560-1440.jpg

Do you recall instances where they were positioned closer to the goal post, or further away? That would seem to be a good position, though maybe with both feet behind the end line rather than with one foot in play as depicted in that image so to not interfere with play. Of course he could move from his position if need be.

My memory is a little fuzzy on exactly how long this was trialed and in which competitions. I'm just trying to understand if there were any contentious decisions during that time, and how many instances were there of the extra goal-line official intervening and causing the on-field ref to change a decision.

I can’t open that link but from memory it was just a UEFA thing used in their competitions. It certainly wasn’t used in England domestically.

I think ‘their area’ was generally the length of the goal line between the post and the edge of the box. But I don’t know if they had official parameters.

It used to be a weekly ritual on European nights that the co-commentator would have a little moan about how they just stand there doing nothing. But the truth is, we’ve no idea how helpful they were to the referee. They were miked up and would be in constant communication with each other. So the fact that they didn’t come running on to the pitch, pointing their little stick around, isn’t proof they weren’t of assistance to the referee.

But who knows how helpful they were?

 

[Bluekiwi]

My thoughts ...................

We have come too far with VAR to consider scrapping it. The powers that be should look at ways for improvement and eliminate any scrutiny that is clearly a little bit daft. For example, the offside scrutinies; get rid of the vertical lines and concentrate solely on the legs; specify a margin of a few centimetres; only go back a specific number of phases of play.