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

[GaudinoMotors]

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.

Exactly the footballers union don't like their own being called cheats. They soon water their initial "gone down easily there" to "he's running at pace - the slightest touch....." and "he's felt a touch, you can't blame him for going down", plus the old favourite, "he's been clever there".

 

[halfcenturyup]

then refs simply have no chance.

Finally, we agree. :)

And why do they have no chance? Because, whereas before everyone complained but at least understood how difficult it was, now they are expected to get everything "right" and it is impossible because almost everything is so subjective.

Welcome to the dark side. :D

 

[bluenova]

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Dale Johnson's articles until I saw he gets input from PGMOL, so basically he says what they want, otherwise access withdrawn.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

Without opening that can of worms, a lot of referees came out and said that they could see why technically that was given. We didn't get an apology, but Webb said that, given the reaction from just about everyone who wasn't a referee, it wouldn't happen again.

 

[halfcenturyup]

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.

…

First, you don't know if those penalties would have been given without the VAR "safety net", although they wore red so it's possible.

Second, if you want VAR to say there wasn't enough contact to go down, you are just shifting the endless debates from "was there contact" to "how much contact was there?" That's even more subjective. It's all just a dog's breakfast.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Without opening that can of worms, a lot of referees came out and said that they could see why technically that was given. We didn't get an apology, but Webb said that, given the reaction from just about everyone who wasn't a referee, it wouldn't happen again.

Yes, I remember what was said. It didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now. My point about Dale Johnson remains, though.

 

[hello]

First, you don't know if those penalties would have been given without the VAR "safety net", although they wore red so it's possible.

Second, if you want VAR to say there wasn't enough contact to go down, you are just shifting the endless debates from "was there contact" to "how much contact was there?" That's even more subjective. It's all just a dog's breakfast.

They could simplify it by the var ref simply answering the question was it a fucking dive, if yes send the bald twat to the monitor to at least have to view the player blatantly taking the piss out of him so he has the choice of standing by original decision or booking the attacker.

 

[johnnytapia]

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 :)

This, exactly. Take the rough with the smooth and enjoy every goal like we used to.
VAR needs fucking off. Completely.

 

[Cassandra]

I think VAR should be a bonus to the game, but it clearly isn’t. In part this seems to be due to the way it is being operated, but I think also it showing up that the laws of the game are not fit for purpose and need completely rewriting to simplify them and relate more to the objective of each law and less on trying to over specify the detail of every situation.

 

[Stephen230]

They could simplify it by the var ref simply answering the question was it a fucking dive, if yes send the bald twat to the monitor to at least have to view the player blatantly taking the piss out of him so he has the choice of standing by original decision or booking the attacker.

This would only work if players were awarded penalties when they are clearly fouled but try to stay on their feet. Which traditionally very, very rarely happens.

Players know that by not ‘diving’ after contact, they are almost certainly giving up any chance of being awarded a penalty.

 

[hello]

This would only work if players were awarded penalties when they are clearly fouled but try to stay on their feet. Which traditionally very, very rarely happens.

Players know that by not ‘diving’ after contact, they are almost certainly giving up any chance of being awarded a penalty.

Yeah but we can't look to take them from woeful to competent in 1 step ;) It should be so simple to consider a player can stay on feet and still be fouled and contact does not make it a foul but with the clowns we have now it would be like teaching astrophysics to a chimpanzee.