VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

[Gordyola]

Okay, tell me a time where no incidents happen on the pitch where we get to the nd of a game and things could be utilised? I've heard this argument before and it's just not based on real aspects of modern football. I mean, how long is cramp? How many times can a keeper go down before being forced to swap out the keeper?

So what if a challenge is used at the end of a game? This could be amended to weed this out as time goes on. By your own logic has the game flowed or not, which is what you wanted? 'Challenge' is a tweak. Refs talking on the pitch or after the game is a tweak I would add.

Accountability is the result we, as fans, want when it comes to decisions.

time where no incidents happen on the pitch where we get to the nd of a game and things could be utilised?
The derby on Sunday Wolves at home Saints at home just a few examples there will be lots more
I mean, how long is cramp?
Its not the time its the breaking up the momentum
How many times can a keeper go down before being forced to swap out the keeper?
As often as they want they can't be forced Missing the point again its used to stop momentum and allow a time out
This could be amended to weed this out as time goes on
How?
Challenge' is a tweak
Its more than a "tweak"
Refs talking on the pitch or after the game is a tweak
This would have to be approved by IFAB and is much more than a "tweak" The refs shouldn't be put under pressure by the media to explain their decisions what would be the benefit of this?

 

[Bluesince1979]

The trouble with ditching VAR is that every single fuckin microscopic decision is still dissected by MOTD and managers etc.

Rather than ditch VAR , i would keep it for black/white decisions only.

Ball in/out
Offsides (once they have the tech bang on, which it isnt now).
Foul in/out of area.

Every other subjective decisions leave to the ref.
Trouble with VAR l getting involved in what is/isnt a foul is you just have more incompetent's making mistakes

 

[Bigga]

time where no incidents happen on the pitch where we get to the nd of a game and things could be utilised?
The derby on Sunday Wolves at home Saints at home just a few examples there will be lots more
I mean, how long is cramp?
Its not the time its the breaking up the momentum
How many times can a keeper go down before being forced to swap out the keeper?
As often as they want they can't be forced Missing the point again its used to stop momentum and allow a time out
This could be amended to weed this out as time goes on
How?
Challenge' is a tweak
Its more than a "tweak"
Refs talking on the pitch or after the game is a tweak
This would have to be approved by IFAB and is much more than a "tweak" The refs shouldn't be put under pressure by the media to explain their decisions what would be the benefit of this?

It's a choice to use a challenge. You don't have to. Same as in tennis.

Pointless speaking about 'breaking up momentum', it happens now!

Yes, the keeper situation is my point about breaking momentum happening now!

New rules are always tweaked looking at pros and cons. This argument is a non-starter.

'Challenge" is a tweak to the unofficial query on the pitch to make official!!

In rugby, refs explain decisions. Are they given pressure afterwards? No, not really as they're explaining reasoning on the pitch or after.

 

[Gordyola]

It's a choice to use a challenge. You don't have to. Same as in tennis.

Pointless speaking about 'breaking up momentum', it happens now!

Yes, the keeper situation is my point about breaking momentum happening now!

New rules are always tweaked looking at pros and cons. This argument is a non-starter.

'Challenge" is a tweak to the unofficial query on the pitch to make official!!

In rugby, refs explain decisions. Are they given pressure afterwards? No, not really as they're explaining reasoning on the pitch or after.

Of course its not pointless it would be another tool to do so, should be looking at reducing not adding
Make a player receiving cramp treatment leave FoP regardless of who administrated treatment
Head injuries, used as a means to stop the game, should mean a 10minute concussion break with a temp sub if desired pending upon diagnosis
What is the unofficial query? you mean players speaking to the ref? Surely it would have to be a more robust process than that?
Rugby is not comparable to football as its a minority sport v the biggest global sport Yes the ref should be missed up to say what a decision is but not justifying it ir being interviewed post match

 

[Bigga]

Of course its not pointless it would be another tool to do so, should be looking at reducing not adding
Make a player receiving cramp treatment leave FoP regardless of who administrated treatment
Head injuries, used as a means to stop the game, should mean a 10minute concussion break with a temp sub if desired pending upon diagnosis
What is the unofficial query? you mean players speaking to the ref? Surely it would have to be a more robust process than that?
Rugby is not comparable to football as its a minority sport v the biggest global sport Yes the ref should be missed up to say what a decision is but not justifying it ir being interviewed post match

Okay, so points of agreement as to where the game is slowed down, it could be looked at. Cramp should moved off the pitch? Agreed.

I don't see any player/ manager using head injury 'to stop a game'. As it stands, players are made to go off the pitch depending on type of injury, possibly causing them to sub or leave the team exposed. Not really sure about genius tactic of that move?!

As for rugby not being "comparable", it doesn't have to be or nobody would try anything innovative anywhere for anything. It's about trying to solve unfair actions and issues on the pitch, is it not?

Personally, I want to be represented on the pitch when some dirty oppo is clearly cheating, and that includes the ref, I want my capt to speak up for me about it.

 

[stonerblue]

The trouble with ditching VAR is that every single fuckin microscopic decision is still dissected by MOTD and managers etc.

Rather than ditch VAR , i would keep it for black/white decisions only.

Ball in/out
Offsides (once they have the tech bang on, which it isnt now).
Foul in/out of area.

Every other subjective decisions leave to the ref.
Trouble with VAR l getting involved in what is/isnt a foul is you just have more incompetent's making mistakes

That's wh it came in in the first place thanks to ski spports

 

[Gordyola]

I don't see any player/ manager using head injury 'to stop a game'. As it stands, players are made to go off the pitch depending on type of injury, possibly causing them to sub or leave the team exposed. Not really sure about genius tactic of that move?!

It happens a lot, eg v Palace Hughes went down in centre circle holding his head City were gaining momentum, ref stopped the game he made a remarkable recovery Absolute despicable to do that considering the implications of suck an injury merits a retrospective red card

 

[Bigga]

It happens a lot, eg v Palace Hughes went down in centre circle holding his head City were gaining momentum, ref stopped the game he made a remarkable recovery Absolute despicable to do that considering the implications of suck an injury merits a retrospective red card

But I agree with you that such blatant unsportsmanlike conduct should be punished. In any teething problems, such actions should be looked at and weeded out. If a player wants a retro red or club gets fined for sanctioning such actions, it would soon stop.

Then we can get on with the 'challenge' system.

Clearly, fringe issues can be rectified, can't they? Honestly, you're not making an impact full argument, but it's been an interesting discussion for me.

 

[Gordyola]

But I agree with you that such blatant unsportsmanlike conduct should be punished. In any teething problems, such actions should be looked at and weeded out. If a player wants a retro red or club gets fined for sanctioning such actions, it would soon stop.

Then we can get on with the 'challenge' system.

Clearly, fringe issues can be rectified, can't they? Honestly, you're not making an impact full argument, but it's been an interesting discussion for me.

I’m not making an impact full argument :)

I haven’t seen an explanation of how this challenge system would work except it would be the captain asking the ref, won’t work for numerous reasons
No explanation of how frivolous ones would be prevented etc

If we have to stick with VAR then my idea,this before it was even introduced, was to have 3 “judges”
Who would watch a match separately and any contentious incident would be looked at in real time, they would have 2 minutes to make a decision, then would hit a button to signal their verdict, the majority would stand and communicated to the ref who would then take the on-field action
Offsides? these would stay with Lino unless the off-field team spotted a very clear and obvious error, it would be clear by the naked eye without replay again communicated to the ref

To repeat get rid and to add an appeals process would make an already bad system much worse

 

[Bigga]

I’m not making an impact full argument :)

I haven’t seen an explanation of how this challenge system would work except it would be the captain asking the ref, won’t work for numerous reasons
No explanation of how frivolous ones would be prevented etc

If we have to stick with VAR then my idea,this before it was even introduced, was to have 3 “judges”
Who would watch a match separately and any contentious incident would be looked at in real time, they would have 2 minutes to make a decision, then would hit a button to signal their verdict, the majority would stand and communicated to the ref who would then take the on-field action
Offsides? these would stay with Lino unless the off-field team spotted a very clear and obvious error, it would be clear by the naked eye without replay again communicated to the ref

To repeat get rid and to add an appeals process would make an already bad system much worse

Hmm...

So, how would you know the 'judges' have no biases in doing their job? We know there are biased refs, so why not judges? Will the judges explain their decision making process? Will a dissenting judge or two get to explain why they chose to oppose? Do journos get to interview them?

To me, your system is far less immersive. It would mean we can't voice our own contention to decisions which is a natural part of the game that is football. In rugby, the self discipline is super high, so it would work there.

As I've said, I prefer representation on the pitch.