VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

[mancboy]

Ederson didn’t get away with many of his wild lunges did he?

Ederson didnt get away with it arsenal, strange that isnt it

 

[Saddleworth2]

Before VAR came in, 82% of decisions made by officials were correct.
Since VAR has been introduced, 96% of decisions made have been correct.

It was always needed but we need to entice and train a better talent pool of officials because the current crop and depth of talent aren’t/isn’t good enough.

The technology itself is fine.

Are those % independently calculated or are they from POGMOL?

 

[.db.]

Stats eh, can prove anything. Law interpretation is subjective so, one person's right is another's wrong
Aside from the recently introduced offside tech, there is little technology with VAR it's just a ref or two watching the match, using slow motion and freeze frame to identify offenses or not.

Who has provided those stats because the only stats I see are all issues by pgmol and always show their product as being an improvement. Not only that's its all subjective, not factual. Not only that, the majority of match going fans are fed up with it. Where are those stats?

That supposed improvement has cost the game in so many other ways.

Are those % independently calculated or are they from POGMOL?

They were PL stats. A group of European leagues combined their data to show that theirs had gone up from 92.1% to 98.3% since it was introduced.

Decisions have been analysed for a long time with a consensus across a panel agreeing/disagreeing on decisions being right/wrong. Just like all team sports have (yet nobody would question either code of rugby coming out with stats like that even though their Laws are just as open to interpretation and subjectivity). They’re the people who drive law changes in their sports as they see things that evolve or need amending and adapting over time.

Football is the biggest and richest sport in the world yet it was operated like some backwater minority sport when it didn’t have video technology and video refs for so long. Football was a bit of a joke, compared to the two codes of rugby, without video technology.

It took a quarter of a century for football to catch up with rugby league and was noticeably lagging behind in all that time. For years fans all over the world were sick to fucking death of the large number decisions that could be cleared up by a video ref that the pitch officials originally got wrong because they can only see things once, at one speed, from one angle.

As a rugby league fan, a line I used to say for a good twenty years when watching football was, ‘a video ref would clear that up’. Football was a backwards, old fashioned sport for far too long.

Both codes of rugby, where they’ve had video refs and much higher standard of officials (due to there being far less cheating by players and coaches and far more respect for officials) for decades, still get decisions wrong. So to expect football, who have had the technology for far less time and the standard of officials is poor (due to the amount of cheating by players and coaches and huge abuse from players and spectators at all levels down to young up-and-coming refs getting abused and threatened at amateur/junior games… no wonder the talent pool of refs is so poor, who the fuck would want to be a football referee?!), to be getting things right all the time is far fetched.

Football has more stoppages and the ball is in-play less than in rugby league (football BIP ~60% of the game; rugby league BIP ~70% of the game). So it’s not even like football has less scope for having VAR because it’s not even that much of a free flowing sport compared to rugby league.

Not long into the future, most football fans won’t remember a time before VAR and will view people who moan about it as old fashioned like people seemed for a few years after football transformed the offside Law in 2003 and most of the sport’s spectators used to moan about it… in 2003, you’d regularly hear old codgers saying, ‘oh, we don’t bloody know what’s onside or offside anymore, we don’t know the refs don’t know, just go back to “if you’re in an offside position, you’re offside”, and while we’re at it scrap that bloody back-pass Law n’all’.

It will, or should, get better as time progresses. But it will only improve to levels we should expect for a sport of this stature when the standard of officials improves. It’s not the technology that’s the issue with VAR in football, it’s the talent pool of referees. The officials will only improve when young lads wanting to be top referees stop being abused and threatened in amateur/junior football, and when the players and managers stop cheating at the top level.

Instead of moaning about VAR, we as a sport should be demanding higher standards of officials, have stricter rules in-place with regards to crowds and players at amateur and junior levels, bring in big punishment for all the cheating at the top level…

 

[Saddleworth2]

They were PL stats. A group of European leagues combined their data to show that theirs had gone up from 92.1% to 98.3% since it was introduced.

Decisions have been analysed for a long time with a consensus across a panel agreeing/disagreeing on decisions being right/wrong. Just like all team sports have (yet nobody would question either code of rugby coming out with stats like that even though their Laws are just as open to interpretation and subjectivity). They’re the people who drive law changes in their sports as they see things that evolve or need amending and adapting over time.

Football is the biggest and richest sport in the world yet it was operated like some backwater minority sport when it didn’t have video technology and video refs for so long. Football was a bit of a joke, compared to the two codes of rugby, without video technology.

It took a quarter of a century for football to catch up with rugby league and was noticeably lagging behind in all that time. For years fans all over the world were sick to fucking death of the large number decisions that could be cleared up by a video ref that the pitch originally got wrong because they can only see things once, at one speed, from one angle.

Both codes of rugby, where they’ve had video refs and much higher standard of officials (due to there being far less cheating by players and coaches and far more respect for officials) for decades, still get decisions wrong. So to expect football, who have had the technology for far less time and the standard of officials is poor (due to the amount of cheating by players and coaches and huge abuse from players and spectators at all levels down to young up-and -coming refs getting abused and threatened at amateur/junior games… no wonder the talent pool of refs is so poor, who the fuck would want to be a football referee?!).

Football has more stoppages and the ball is in-play less than in rugby league (football BIP ~60% of the game; rugby league BIP ~70% of the game). So it’s not even like football has less scope for having VAR because it’s not even that much of a free flowing sport compared to rugby league.

Not long into the future, most football fan won’t remember a time before VAR and will view people who moan about it as old fashioned like people seemed for a few years after football transformed the offside Law in 2003 and most of the sport’s spectators used to main about it.

It will, or should, get better as time progresses. But it will only improve to levels we shouldn’t see when the standard of officials improves. It’s not the technology that’s the issue with VAR in football, it’s the talent pool of referees. The officials will only improve when young lads wanting to be top referees stop being abused and threatened in amateur/junior football, and when the players and managers stop cheating at the top level.

So I agree with most of what you say. I watch a great deal of Rugby Union and it is streets ahead of football in terms of transparency of decision making. I have always argued that it isn’t the technology it is the officials using it that are poor or biased. My eyes tell me that more mistakes are made than are ‘officially sanctioned’ and of course it is just chance that many of them favour red shirted teams. PGMOL is rotten from the head down.

 

[.db.]

So I agree with most of what you say. I watch a great deal of Rugby Union and it is streets ahead of football in terms of transparency of decision making. I have always argued that it isn’t the technology it is the officials using it that are poor or biased. My eyes tell me that more mistakes are made than are ‘officially sanctioned’ and of course it is just chance that many of them favour red shirted teams. PGMOL is rotten from the head down.

…and yet fans of those clubs think exactly the same as we do.

Fans of every club think they are on the end of some conspiracy against their club and in favour of their rivals.

City and United fans; Liverpool and Everton fans; Newcastle and Sunderland fans; Exeter and Plymouth fans… all think officials are biased against them and in favour of their rivals.

Remember this one from a few years ago:

https://tribuna.com/amp/en/blogs/2025-01-05-exposing-pep-guardiolas-manchester-city-202122-ti/

Yet ask any City fan from the same season and we can list all the decisions we think Liverpool got that we think was corrupt:
Foden not getting penalty at Anfield
Milner not getting a second yellow at Anfield
Thiago not getting a second yellow at the Etihad
Fabinho not getting a straight red at the Etihad
Jota being awarded a penalty at Fulham for a dive

 

[pauls]

Are those % independently calculated or are they from POGMOL?

Ask them for the audio on the Rashford/Fernando's goal manipulation and you'll get your answer, or lack of one.

 

[Saddleworth2]

…and yet fans of those clubs think exactly the same as we do.

Fans of every club think they are on the end of some conspiracy against their club and in favour of their rivals.

City and United fans; Liverpool and Everton fans; Newcastle and Sunderland fans; Exeter and Plymouth fans… all think officials are biased against them and in favour of their rivals.

Remember this one from a few years ago:

https://tribuna.com/amp/en/blogs/2025-01-05-exposing-pep-guardiolas-manchester-city-202122-ti/

Yet ask any City fan from the same season and we can list all the decisions we think Liverpool got that we think was corrupt:
Foden not getting penalty at Anfield
Milner not getting a second yellow at Anfield
Thiago not getting a second yellow at the Etihad
Fabinho not getting a straight red at the Etihad
Jota being awarded a penalty at Fulham for a dive

and?
Are you saying that there is no bias?

 

[halfcenturyup]

So I agree with most of what you say. I watch a great deal of Rugby Union and it is streets ahead of football in terms of transparency of decision making. I have always argued that it isn’t the technology it is the officials using it that are poor or biased. My eyes tell me that more mistakes are made than are ‘officially sanctioned’ and of course it is just chance that many of them favour red shirted teams. PGMOL is rotten from the head down.

I don't agree with what was said at all. When football scores are up in the region of 30 goals to 20 over 90 minutes and individual VAR cock-ups aren't responsible for deciding a whole match, then I will listen to comparisons to other sports.

And do we know who is on the "independent panel" who decides right and wrong decisions and who pays them? I think we do. All fluff to convince people it's working. It isn't.

 

[Gazza]

If their stats get any better they'll have a 120% success rate. It's all bollocks to fool the masses. Anyone who has dealt with statistics knows that.

60% of PGMOL don't know what the other half are doing.

 

[Saddleworth2]

I don't agree with what was said at all. When football scores are up in the region of 30 goals to 20 over 90 minutes and individual VAR cock-ups aren't responsible for deciding a whole match, then I will listen to comparisons to other sports.

And do we know who is on the "independent panel" who decides right and wrong decisions and who pays them? I think we do. All fluff to convince people it's working. It isn't.

so you think its the technology at fault rather than the people?

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I follow Keith Hackett on Twitter (I know...). He suggested Mark Halsey should be brought into the PGMOL setup to help them sort out the mess.

Would that be the very same Mark Halsey who admitted he was told to alter his match report, and then suddenly went very quiet about it when those at the PGMOL clearly reminded him of the ramifications of breaching his NDA?

They are all either corrupt or complicit.

 

[halfcenturyup]

so you think its the technology at fault rather than the people?

How long do you have? I'll just say technology for technology's sake isn't needed when the LOTG and how they are "interpreted" are so subjective they aren't at all technology friendly.

 

[johnnytapia]

They were PL stats. A group of European leagues combined their data to show that theirs had gone up from 92.1% to 98.3% since it was introduced.

Decisions have been analysed for a long time with a consensus across a panel agreeing/disagreeing on decisions being right/wrong. Just like all team sports have (yet nobody would question either code of rugby coming out with stats like that even though their Laws are just as open to interpretation and subjectivity). They’re the people who drive law changes in their sports as they see things that evolve or need amending and adapting over time.

Football is the biggest and richest sport in the world yet it was operated like some backwater minority sport when it didn’t have video technology and video refs for so long. Football was a bit of a joke, compared to the two codes of rugby, without video technology.

It took a quarter of a century for football to catch up with rugby league and was noticeably lagging behind in all that time. For years fans all over the world were sick to fucking death of the large number decisions that could be cleared up by a video ref that the pitch originally got wrong because they can only see things once, at one speed, from one angle.

As a rugby league fan, a line I used to say for a good twenty years when watching football was, ‘a video ref would clear that up’. Football was a backwards, old fashioned sport for far too long.

Both codes of rugby, where they’ve had video refs and much higher standard of officials (due to there being far less cheating by players and coaches and far more respect for officials) for decades, still get decisions wrong. So to expect football, who have had the technology for far less time and the standard of officials is poor (due to the amount of cheating by players and coaches and huge abuse from players and spectators at all levels down to young up-and-coming refs getting abused and threatened at amateur/junior games… no wonder the talent pool of refs is so poor, who the fuck would want to be a football referee?!), to be getting things right all the time is far fetched.

Football has more stoppages and the ball is in-play less than in rugby league (football BIP ~60% of the game; rugby league BIP ~70% of the game). So it’s not even like football has less scope for having VAR because it’s not even that much of a free flowing sport compared to rugby league.

Not long into the future, most football fan won’t remember a time before VAR and will view people who moan about it as old fashioned like people seemed for a few years after football transformed the offside Law in 2003 and most of the sport’s spectators used to main about it… in 2003, you’d regularly hear old codgers saying, ‘oh, we don’t bloody know what’s onside or offside anymore, we don’t know the refs don’t know, just go back to “if you’re in an offside position, you’re offside”, and while we’re at it scrap that bloody back-pass Law n’all’.

It will, or should, get better as time progresses. But it will only improve to levels we should expect for a sport of this stature when the standard of officials improves. It’s not the technology that’s the issue with VAR in football, it’s the talent pool of referees. The officials will only improve when young lads wanting to be top referees stop being abused and threatened in amateur/junior football, and when the players and managers stop cheating at the top level.

Instead of moaning about VAR, we as a sport should be demanding higher standards of officials, have stricter rules in-place with regards to crowds and players at amateur and junior levels, bring in big punishment for all the cheating at the top level…

“As a rugby league fan”
I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Saddleworth2]

How long do you have? I'll just say technology for technology's sake isn't needed when the LOTG and how they are "interpreted" are so subjective they aren't at all technology friendly.

I think that is where we differ. The technology works in other sports. Its the idiots/cheats running it that are ruining the game. They always had opportunity to influence outcomes. Now they also use technology to do it.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I think that is where we differ. The technology works in other sports. Its the idiots/cheats running it that are ruining the game. They always had opportunity to influence outcomes. Now they also use technology to do it.

Possibly. But just out of interest, which other high-stakes sports in which a typical score is 1-0 do you think video technology works as a basis for review. There may be some, I suppose.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Possibly. But just out of interest, which other high-stakes sports in which a typical score is 1-0 do you think video technology works as a basis for review. There may be some, I suppose.

I'm not sure why 1-0 is relevant. There are many tight games in RU which I watch a lot of where the technology can define the outcome - a try being allowed/disallowed with seconds to go is not uncommon. The transparent scrutiny which happens live with multiple angles being shown of the incident and the referee and video ref discussion being transmitted to TV and live audiences in real time means wether you like the decision or not, you understand it. So yes, I firmly believe that if you have competent unbiased referees who apply the laws of the game and are capable of describing in detail their rationale for a decision live the technology supports them and the fairness of the game is enhanced. The arguments about the application of technology impacting the live spectacle is a different discussion, I'm simply arguing that under the correct environment it works.

 

[super_city_si]

Get rid of it and just keep the AI offside.

It takes way too long and is often wrong anyway as so many decisions are subjective.

 

[Gazza]

I'm not sure why 1-0 is relevant. There are many tight games in RU which I watch a lot of where the technology can define the outcome - a try being allowed/disallowed with seconds to go is not uncommon. The transparent scrutiny which happens live with multiple angles being shown of the incident and the referee and video ref discussion being transmitted to TV and live audiences in real time means wether you like the decision or not, you understand it. So yes, I firmly believe that if you have competent unbiased referees who apply the laws of the game and are capable of describing in detail their rationale for a decision live the technology supports them and the fairness of the game is enhanced. The arguments about the application of technology impacting the live spectacle is a different discussion, I'm simply arguing that under the correct environment it works.

Just a thought, how do the revenues compare between top division football and rugby union?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I'm not sure why 1-0 is relevant. There are many tight games in RU which I watch a lot of where the technology can define the outcome - a try being allowed/disallowed with seconds to go is not uncommon. The transparent scrutiny which happens live with multiple angles being shown of the incident and the referee and video ref discussion being transmitted to TV and live audiences in real time means wether you like the decision or not, you understand it. So yes, I firmly believe that if you have competent unbiased referees who apply the laws of the game and are capable of describing in detail their rationale for a decision live the technology supports them and the fairness of the game is enhanced. The arguments about the application of technology impacting the live spectacle is a different discussion, I'm simply arguing that under the correct environment it works.

It's relevant because a subjective judgement of an offence at any time in a football match can have a decisive effect on the result. Clearly if a try is awarded/disallowed at the death in a game of rugby it can affect the result, but what sort of offence would that likely be? Off-side, in touch, not grounding the ball properly? It's just not the same game, it's refereed completely differently.

I don't want to go on about it. We can agree to disagree. That's fine.

 

[Saddleworth2]

It's relevant because a subjective judgement of an offence at any time in a football match can have a decisive effect on the result. Clearly if a try is awarded/disallowed at the death in a game of rugby it can affect the result, but what sort of offence would that likely be? Off-side, in touch, not grounding the ball properly? It's just not the same game, it's refereed completely differently.

I don't want to go on about it. We can agree to disagree. That's fine.

Fair enough. Different rules and Rugbys are a damn site more complex. For me it shouldn’t matter. Whatever the game, all you need is competent unbiased referees who’s sole purpose is to uphold the laws of the game and technology that supports them in doing that.