VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

[shemnel]

I was surprised villa didn't get a penalty at forest when nil nil, for a tug on the arm. Looked blatant.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

And one other thing, on the challenge, the referee upon receiving the challenge request does not have to immediately stop play. It would be at the referee's discretion as to when to stop play to grant the challenge and initiate a review. If there is a missed foul in the run of play for example, and the manager decides to challenge the tackle, he could signal to the referee that he is requesting a challenge and the referee could wait until the ball goes out of play, until there is a lull in the action, or he could decide to stop play immediately. It would be completely up to the referee's discretion as to when to stop play and do the review.

Depending on the situation, the manager would have to make his challenge request in a set time frame. i.e. if he wants to challenge a corner kick / goal kick or foul / non-foul decision that directly led to a goal, he would have to inform the referee before the ensuing kick off.

For challenges that did not lead directly to goals, i.e. no-foul decisions in which they play on, he could make his request during the run of play, and the referee would have the discretion to decide when to stop play grant the review. But the challenge would have to be requested by the manager within a certain set amount of time from when the incident occurred.

As far as offside / no-offside decisions, this is something that perhaps shouldn't be handled through challenges but rather through a semi-automated offside process. Anotherwords, every offside decision automatically gets reviewed. Managers shouldn't have to waste a challenge on an offside or no-offside decision.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

I was surprised villa didn't get a penalty at forest when nil nil, for a tug on the arm. Looked blatant.

Where is the VAR? – Villa boss Unai Emery fumes over penalty incident at Forest

The Spaniard believes his side were denied a clear penalty in the first half when Morgan Rogers appeared to be pulled down by Elliot Anderson.

www.independent.co.uk

Aston Villa’s Morgan Rogers denied ‘clear penalty’ in ‘massive mistake’ by VAR – Unai Emery

Unai Emery says Aston Villa were denied a “clear penalty” following their 2-1 defeat at Nottingham Forest. Morgan Rogers had appeals waved away by referee Sam Barratt after the half-hour mark, having gone to ground inside the box from Elliott Anderson’s pull on his left arm. VAR checked the...

www.nytimes.com

This is a good example of why a challenge system would be better than VAR. In a challenge system as I outlined, the manager could request a challenge and force a review. As opposed to VAR which is not only tasked with reviewing decisions but also deciding what should be reviewed.

This is a fatal flaw of VAR and why a challenge system would be an improvement. The manager could force a review under a challenge system and compel the referee to take another look.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Where is the VAR? – Villa boss Unai Emery fumes over penalty incident at Forest

The Spaniard believes his side were denied a clear penalty in the first half when Morgan Rogers appeared to be pulled down by Elliot Anderson.

www.independent.co.uk

Aston Villa’s Morgan Rogers denied ‘clear penalty’ in ‘massive mistake’ by VAR – Unai Emery

Unai Emery says Aston Villa were denied a “clear penalty” following their 2-1 defeat at Nottingham Forest. Morgan Rogers had appeals waved away by referee Sam Barratt after the half-hour mark, having gone to ground inside the box from Elliott Anderson’s pull on his left arm. VAR checked the...

www.nytimes.com

This is a good example of why a challenge system would be better than VAR. In a challenge system as I outlined, the manager could request a challenge and force a review. As opposed to VAR which is not only tasked with reviewing decisions but also deciding what should be reviewed.

This is a fatal flaw of VAR and why a challenge system would be an improvement. The manager could force a review under a challenge system and compel the referee to take another look.

Id rather the ref referees the game than the managers.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The more I think about this, you have a point. That towards the end of a match the losing team could challenge random things like throw-ins just to prolong the match. There should be limits to what can be challenged to avoid this problem.

On the other hand, there should also be a wider scope of decisions that should be allowed to be challenged that VAR does not allow to be challenged, particularly on decisions that lead to goals being scored. And unlike with VAR, with a challenge, you should be allowed challenge a corner kick / goal kick decision or a foul / non-foul decision that led to the goal even after a goal was scored.

Managers should be allowed to challenge pretty much anything (throw-ins, corner/goal kick decisions) as long as it directly leads to a goal. So if a decision, even a small decision like a throw-in, does not immediately lead to a goal, then they shouldn't be allowed to challenge it. This would avoid petty pointless late game challenges by the side that is losing.

The distinction for how far back you should be able to challenge something like an out of play decision (throw-in, corner/goal kick) after a goal is scored should be something like, if the ball (i.e. from an incorrectly awarded corner or throw-in) was cleared out of the defensive half of the pitch, or if the defense gains possession of the incorrectly awarded throw-in or corner and completes a number of passes.

This would have to be thought out by the powers that be, and I have no confidence that they'll craft it in a way that avoids problems. But if you're asking me how I would design the challenge system in football to replace VAR, I would make sure to set boundaries of what is allowed to be challenged to avoid undesirable or petty challenges whilst increasing the breadth of what could be challenged within certain constraints as compared to VAR.

In addition to challenges being allowed if an incorrect decision like a corner or a throw-in leads directly to a goal. I would allow a manager to challenge a missed non-carded foul in the opponents half that would have resulted in a goal scoring opportunity free kick.

It's a slippery slope on what could be allowed and what couldn't in such a system, and we would need to think long and hard about how best to design such a system. I would also allow a manager to challenge an incorrectly given goal kick if he so desires, but he would have to be quick about it, like if he sees an appeal from a player who signals to the manager that it should have been a corner. Maybe in a stoppage time situation that could give the team down by a goal a corner that was incorrectly ruled a goal kick.

In thinking about this, maybe do something like this. Allow each manager exactly 1 challenge per half, and if the manager wins the challenge then he is allowed 1 additional challenge that half, that would not carry over to the 2nd half or extra time. If you use up the one challenge you have, challenging anything you want, then you would have no more challenges that half.

Naah. You are doing what you accuse PGMOL of - making it more complicated than it has to be to solve a minor problem.

Two challenges at any time. Failed challenge, lose it. Throw-in the last minute, who cares? It can genuinely affect the game and if you don't allow it you will get the same trouble as now: why only decisions that lead directly to a goal? Keep it simple.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Naah. You are doing what you accuse PGMOL of - making it more complicated than it has to be to solve a minor problem.

Two challenges at any time. Failed challenge, lose it. Throw-in the last minute, who cares? It can genuinely affect the game and if you don't allow it you will get the same trouble as now: why only decisions that lead directly to a goal? Keep it simple.

OK fair point, note that while typing that I was brainstorming on how best to craft a challenge system with an emphasis on maintaining a natural flow to the match while also limiting match disrupting petty challenges that could disrupt or extend the match in response to BlueHammer85's point.

There's a way to achieve this without sacrificing a manager's ability to challenge anything at any time. Anotherwords, I would make a distinction for the ability to challenge what led to a scored goal after the goal was scored. So if a foul or a corner was given, which led directly to a goal, the manager who's side had the goal scored upon then would be able to challenge a decision that led to the goal, after the goal was scored.

But to be clear, yes I would agree that managers should be allowed to challenge any decision at any time, even if the decision did not lead to goal. But my point is that they would have to be quick about it. Anotherwords, they should only get like 20 or 30 seconds from the time of the non-goal scoring incident to request a review, particularly if it's a missed foul no-call play on and the manager wants a review of the tackle that he thinks should have been a foul. There needs to be a set amount of time that he has to make that request, and also if the play is still going while a challenge is made by the manager, the referee would then have the discretion on when to stop the action to do the review.

So we agree that everything should be allowed to be challenge, but specifically after goals were scored, I am proposing a longer window backward to challenge what led to that goal. Do you agree with that and the part about challenging non-foul no calls with play continuing as a challenge is requested?

I was trying to be mindful of BlueHammer85's comment about possible petty challenges to time waste. As I was thinking about that I would say to you that having only 1 challenge each half would be better than 2 over both halves because that goes directly to BlueHammer85's point. That if managers were given 2 over both halves and they didn't challenge anything they could aggressively delay the end of the match with 2 or possibly more challenges on every little thing just because they can and delay the end to the game. That could lead to undesirable prolonged stoppages to end the match.

By limiting each manager to only 1 guaranteed challenge request per half, that reduces the possibility of what BlueHammer85 was concerned about. I agree that if you win a challenge you should have another opportunity to challenge but it shouldn't be endless as you were suggesting. I would put limits on it, like 3 challenges max per match and perhaps 2 per half max. So I would provide 1 guaranteed challenge per half, if you win a challenge in the 1st half you could challenge something else in that half. Or maybe you could save it for another possible challenge in the 2nd half, if lets say you lose a challenge in the 2nd half, but had already won 1 in the first half. Maybe you could have a 3rd. I would be OK with that but we can't have endless challenges even if you keep winning them.

We really need to put an emphasis on limiting stoppages and only using it as a means to overturn the rare howler. But I agree with you about being able to challenge anything, anything at all, even decisions that aren't covered by VAR like corner kick / goal kick decision or throw-ins. But on the other hand, in my view, we really should limit the amount of possible challenges and possible stoppage to ensure that managers are very strategic about when to request a challenge. It's something that ideally should only happen rarely. If you give managers too many opportunities to challenge, the match will lose flow and there will be too many stoppages.

I'm just throwing out ideas here whilst brainstorming on how I would craft the system. But I am just thinking out loud, I want to hear your input as well and what you agree or disagree about my proposal. I am not saying my design of it is the be all end all, but one thing is clear, PGMOL and FIFA need help crafting their system after their debacle of VAR. PGMOL and FIFA cannot be trusted to design a challenge system that best serves the sport. So I am putting my thoughts on there on how I would craft this system, since it's being talked about and considered to replace VAR.

Whether or not it will replace VAR is unclear at this point, but at the very least we should talk about it here and discuss all the limits and parameters of how it would work best. I think the idea of allowing corner kick / goal kick decisions or throw-ins is an important one. And the point about only allowing challenges for goals scored, by the I meant only to be able to challenge any decisions that led to the goal. The manager would also have the ability to challenge a corner kick decision at any time, even before the corner kick. But he would have to be quick to do that, and in the event that he does not challenge in time he should be able to let the corner kick be taken, and if the ball is cleared out then he wouldn't have to use a challenge.

The idea of this caveat is to avoid unnecessary stoppages that do not change the trajectory of the match. So to be clear, the manager could challenge for corner kick / goal kick or throw-in decision at any time right then and there. But the idea is to keep the game flowing and making managers very mindful of when to use a challenge. But allowing them to challenge what led to a goal after the fact would work into the calculus of the strategy of the manager on deciding what to challenge.

These parameters would lead to limited disruptions of the flow of the match and reduce the amount of petty challenges late in a match.

 

[halfcenturyup]

OK fair point, note that while typing that I was brainstorming on how best to craft a challenge system with an emphasis on maintaining a natural flow to the match while also limiting match disrupting petty challenges that could disrupt or extend the match in response to BlueHammer85's point.

There's a way to achieve this without sacrificing a manager's ability to challenge anything at any time. Anotherwords, I would make a distinction for the ability to challenge what led to a scored goal after the goal was scored. So if a foul or a corner was given, which led directly to a goal, the manager who's side had the goal scored upon then would be able to challenge a decision that led to the goal, after the goal was scored.

But to be clear, yes I would agree that managers should be allowed to challenge any decision at any time, even if the decision did not lead to goal. But my point is that they would have to be quick about it. Anotherwords, they should only get like 20 or 30 seconds from the time of the non-goal scoring incident to request a review, particularly if it's a missed foul no-call play on and the manager wants a review of the tackle that he thinks should have been a foul. There needs to be a set amount of time that he has to make that request, and also if the play is still going while a challenge is made by the manager, the referee would then have the discretion on when to stop the action to do the review.

So we agree that everything should be allowed to be challenge, but specifically after goals were scored, I am proposing a longer window backward to challenge what led to that goal. Do you agree with that and the part about challenging non-foul no calls with play continuing as a challenge is requested?

I was trying to be mindful of BlueHammer85's comment about possible petty challenges to time waste. As I was thinking about that I would say to you that having only 1 challenge each half would be better than 2 over both halves because that goes directly to BlueHammer85's point. That if managers were given 2 over both halves and they didn't challenge anything they could aggressively delay the end of the match with 2 or possibly more challenges on every little thing just because they can and delay the end to the game. That could lead to undesirable prolonged stoppages to end the match.

By limiting each manager to only 1 guaranteed challenge request per half, that reduces the possibility of what BlueHammer85 was concerned about. I agree that if you win a challenge you should have another opportunity to challenge but it shouldn't be endless as you were suggesting. I would put limits on it, like 3 challenges max per match and perhaps 2 per half max. So I would provide 1 guaranteed challenge per half, if you win a challenge in the 1st half you could challenge something else in that half. Or maybe you could save it for another possible challenge in the 2nd half, if lets say you lose a challenge in the 2nd half, but had already won 1 in the first half. Maybe you could have a 3rd. I would be OK with that but we can't have endless challenges even if you keep winning them.

We really need to put an emphasis on limiting stoppages and only using it as a means to overturn the rare howler. But I agree with you about being able to challenge anything, anything at all, even decisions that aren't covered by VAR like corner kick / goal kick decision or throw-ins. But on the other hand, in my view, we really should limit the amount of possible challenges and possible stoppage to ensure that managers are very strategic about when to request a challenge. It's something that ideally should only happen rarely. If you give managers too many opportunities to challenge, the match will lose flow and there will be too many stoppages.

I'm just throwing out ideas here whilst brainstorming on how I would craft the system. But I am just thinking out loud, I want to hear your input as well and what you agree or disagree about my proposal. I am not saying my design of it is the be all end all, but one thing is clear, PGMOL and FIFA need help crafting their system after their debacle of VAR. PGMOL and FIFA cannot be trusted to design a challenge system that best serves the sport. So I am putting my thoughts on there on how I would craft this system, since it's being talked about and considered to replace VAR.

Whether or not it will replace VAR is unclear at this point, but at the very least we should talk about it here and discuss all the limits and parameters of how it would work best. I think the idea of allowing corner kick / goal kick decisions or throw-ins is an important one. And the point about only allowing challenges for goals scored, by the I meant only to be able to challenge any decisions that led to the goal. The manager would also have the ability to challenge a corner kick decision at any time, even before the corner kick. But he would have to be quick to do that, and in the event that he does not challenge in time he should be able to let the corner kick be taken, and if the ball is cleared out then he wouldn't have to use a challenge.

The idea of this caveat is to avoid unnecessary stoppages that do not change the trajectory of the match. So to be clear, the manager could challenge for corner kick / goal kick or throw-in decision at any time right then and there. But the idea is to keep the game flowing and making managers very mindful of when to use a challenge. But allowing them to challenge what led to a goal after the fact would work into the calculus of the strategy of the manager on deciding what to challenge.

These parameters would lead to limited disruptions of the flow of the match and reduce the amount of petty challenges late in a match.

All a bit premature as it probably won't happen, but I really don't think it needs to be so complicated. Most challenges would be when a ball is dead. Fouls given, yellow cards, red cards, corners, throw-ins, goal-kicks, corners, penalties, off-sides given, handballs given. The few others can be handled off-field and quickly by VAR when the ball is in play.

And as for a spate of frivolous appeals in the last few minutes, there could only be a maximum of two. And players spend half injury time rolling around with fake head injuries anyway. There are other problems to worry about. Also, the very first time a manager wastes his challenges in the last few minutes and has none to use when the referee misses a clear penalty in the last seconds, will be the very last time it happens.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Incidentally, ESPN are reporting that the SAOT, which was originally planned to be introduced in October or November and then pushed back to the New Year, is now :

“ Very unlikely to be this season now due to issues with reliability in testing.”

Translation:

The system still can't work out why a redshirt will always be onside whilst a city shirt isn't.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Id rather the ref referees the game than the managers.

A novel approach.

GPC
Wenger
Klopp

Had successfully reffed many matches between them. Farteta is trying his best to emulate.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Where is the VAR? – Villa boss Unai Emery fumes over penalty incident at Forest

The Spaniard believes his side were denied a clear penalty in the first half when Morgan Rogers appeared to be pulled down by Elliot Anderson.

www.independent.co.uk

Aston Villa’s Morgan Rogers denied ‘clear penalty’ in ‘massive mistake’ by VAR – Unai Emery

Unai Emery says Aston Villa were denied a “clear penalty” following their 2-1 defeat at Nottingham Forest. Morgan Rogers had appeals waved away by referee Sam Barratt after the half-hour mark, having gone to ground inside the box from Elliott Anderson’s pull on his left arm. VAR checked the...

www.nytimes.com

This is a good example of why a challenge system would be better than VAR. In a challenge system as I outlined, the manager could request a challenge and force a review. As opposed to VAR which is not only tasked with reviewing decisions but also deciding what should be reviewed.

This is a fatal flaw of VAR and why a challenge system would be an improvement. The manager could force a review under a challenge system and compel the referee to take another look.

You seriously believe that Webb and the PiGMOL crewe would go for such a system ?

They are able to control events on the pitch exactly how they want to, despite VAR as it currently is, and I doubt that Howard will be allowed to relinquish that by the main cabal members .