VAR (PL introduction 2019)

From the VAR Handbook

The aim of the experiment is NOT to achieve 100% accuracy for all decisions as there is no desire to destroy the essential flow and emotions of football which result from the game’s almost non-stop action and the general absence of lengthy stoppages. The philosophy is:
‘minimum interference – maximum benefit’

To ensure that the referee (not the VAR) is the key match official, the referee will ALWAYS make a decision (except a ‘missed’ usually ‘off the ball’ incident), including the decision that no offence has occurred. The referee’s decision can ONLY BE CHANGED if the video review shows a CLEAR ERROR i.e. not ‘was the decision correct?’ but:

‘was the decision clearly wrong?’

Principles
There are twelve principles which are the foundation of the VAR experiment:
1. Video technology will only be used to correct clear errors and for missed serious incidents in defined match-changing decisions: goal, penalty/no penalty, direct red card and mistaken identity (e.g. the referee cautions/sends off the wrong player).
2. The final decision will always be taken by the referee.
3. Video Assistant Referees (VARs) are match officials - any information the VARs
provide to the referee will be treated by the referee in the same way as information
received from an assistant referee, additional assistant referee or the fourth official.
4. The referee must always make a decision regardless of the existence of VARs i.e. the referee is not permitted to give ‘no decision’ and refer the situation to the VAR. If the referee decides not to stop play for an alleged offence, the decision (to allow play to continue) can be reviewed. On rare occasions, when it is unclear whether a penalised cautionable (YC) offence is a sending-off (RC), or who should receive the
sanction, the referee may consult the VAR.
5. The original decision given by the referee will not be changed unless the video
review clearly shows that the decision was clearly wrong.
6. Only the referee can initiate a review; the VAR (and the other match officials) can
only recommend a review to the referee.
7. Whatever the review process, there is no time pressure to review the decision quickly
as accuracy is more important than speed.
8. The players and team officials must not surround the referee or attempt to
influence if a decision is reviewed, the review process or the final decision. A player who uses the ‘review signal’ will be cautioned (YC).
9. The referee should, as far as possible, remain ‘visible’ during the review process to ensure transparency.
10. If play continues after an incident which is then reviewed, any disciplinary action taken/required during the post-incident period is not cancelled, even if the original decision is changed (except a caution/send-off for stopping a promising attack or DOGSO).
11. There is a maximum period before and after an incident that can be reviewed.
12. The VAR protocol, as far as possible, conforms to the principles and philosophy of
the Laws of the Game.

More here
https://www.knvb.nl/downloads/bestand/9844/var-handbook-v8_final
 
I've been for VAR but the circus of our game where the monitor was broken and they gave the ref a description to go on,i mean WTF,stitched right up,now yesterday where it took time for the faceless men then the ref looking at it for a while,neither was a pen,from now on just wack the ball at the defender and you'll get a pen,this is encouraging a whole new way for teams to get an advantage,they really have not thought this through
 
Blue Til Death said:
VAR is a complete and utter fuck up, it will ruin the game for sure, it makes no fuckin difference whatsoever to teams like us who are still not getting stonewall pens with it.. Its FFP on video and fuck all else...!
Click to expand...

Instead of bringing in a whole new era of decisions being based on what has actually happened on the pitch we are now seeing VAR used in a way that allows governing bodies and competitions to arrive at results they would like before a game kicks off. Since day one of its introduction in football the system has buggered up so many times it just beggars belief. I don't follow other sports too much but I would think that the use of technology in their sport doesn't come anywhere near the bollox being played out on the world's footy pitches that have VAR as part of the game.
 
Gordyola said:
From the VAR Handbook

The aim of the experiment is NOT to achieve 100% accuracy for all decisions as there is no desire to destroy the essential flow and emotions of football which result from the game’s almost non-stop action and the general absence of lengthy stoppages. The philosophy is:
‘minimum interference – maximum benefit’

To ensure that the referee (not the VAR) is the key match official, the referee will ALWAYS make a decision (except a ‘missed’ usually ‘off the ball’ incident), including the decision that no offence has occurred. The referee’s decision can ONLY BE CHANGED if the video review shows a CLEAR ERROR i.e. not ‘was the decision correct?’ but:

‘was the decision clearly wrong?’

Principles
There are twelve principles which are the foundation of the VAR experiment:
1. Video technology will only be used to correct clear errors and for missed serious incidents in defined match-changing decisions: goal, penalty/no penalty, direct red card and mistaken identity (e.g. the referee cautions/sends off the wrong player).
2. The final decision will always be taken by the referee.
3. Video Assistant Referees (VARs) are match officials - any information the VARs
provide to the referee will be treated by the referee in the same way as information
received from an assistant referee, additional assistant referee or the fourth official.
4. The referee must always make a decision regardless of the existence of VARs i.e. the referee is not permitted to give ‘no decision’ and refer the situation to the VAR. If the referee decides not to stop play for an alleged offence, the decision (to allow play to continue) can be reviewed. On rare occasions, when it is unclear whether a penalised cautionable (YC) offence is a sending-off (RC), or who should receive the
sanction, the referee may consult the VAR.
5. The original decision given by the referee will not be changed unless the video
review clearly shows that the decision was clearly wrong.
6. Only the referee can initiate a review; the VAR (and the other match officials) can
only recommend a review to the referee.
7. Whatever the review process, there is no time pressure to review the decision quickly
as accuracy is more important than speed.
8. The players and team officials must not surround the referee or attempt to
influence if a decision is reviewed, the review process or the final decision. A player who uses the ‘review signal’ will be cautioned (YC).
9. The referee should, as far as possible, remain ‘visible’ during the review process to ensure transparency.
10. If play continues after an incident which is then reviewed, any disciplinary action taken/required during the post-incident period is not cancelled, even if the original decision is changed (except a caution/send-off for stopping a promising attack or DOGSO).
11. There is a maximum period before and after an incident that can be reviewed.
12. The VAR protocol, as far as possible, conforms to the principles and philosophy of
the Laws of the Game.

More here
https://www.knvb.nl/downloads/bestand/9844/var-handbook-v8_final
Click to expand...
They forgot number 2 in Schalke.
 
What exactly is the difference between a referee 'initiating' a review and some clown with a screen offsite 'recommending' a review. If the ref wasn't gonna bother, as in Otters' 'handball', how come we get the review. The 'initiation', if anyone at Uefa understand the meaning of English words, comes from the goon with the screen! The whole business of VAR in football is just one gross subterfuge! It allows a game to reach a conclusion before a ball is kicked!!
 
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:
What exactly is the difference between a referee 'initiating' a review and some clown with a screen offsite 'recommending' a review. If the ref wasn't gonna bother, as in Otters' 'handball', how come we get the review. The 'initiation', if anyone at Uefa understand the meaning of English words, comes from the goon with the screen! The whole business of VAR in football is just one gross subterfuge! It allows a game to reach a conclusion before a ball is kicked!!
Click to expand...

Aye. To ask a ref to review, implies he was wrong in the first place. Are you sure mr referee, think you need to look at that again or
think you need to change your mind on that one, buddy ;-)
 
prestonibbo_mcfc said:
Aye. To ask a ref to review, implies he was wrong in the first place. Are you sure mr referee, think you need to look at that again or
think you need to change your mind on that one, buddy ;-)
Click to expand...

And it's notable in rugby that when there's a strong referee like Nigel Owens, he takes control of the process himself, watching the replay, and making his own decision and not bottling it.
 
VAR skewed to try and make the Rag's relevant again - Shock horror!

Anyone surprised?

No?

Might as well just accept it, cos it ain't going to change.

We'll just have to beat the f*ck out of teams and take corruption out of the equation.
 
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:
What exactly is the difference between a referee 'initiating' a review and some clown with a screen offsite 'recommending' a review. If the ref wasn't gonna bother, as in Otters' 'handball', how come we get the review. The 'initiation', if anyone at Uefa understand the meaning of English words, comes from the goon with the screen! The whole business of VAR in football is just one gross subterfuge! It allows a game to reach a conclusion before a ball is kicked!!
Click to expand...
And in the Otamendi one, the person who has decided it should be looked at (presumably because he/she thinks it should be a pen) speaks to the ref to say you need to have a look at this. Then the screen isn't working so the ref makes a decision on the basis of an oral description given by the person who told him he should be having another look. That isn't the VAR **** just initiating a review that is him making the decision.
 
I hate VAR, and think it is bad for the game…but I’m a realist and it’s inevitable. My “manifesto” for a better VAR would be as follows:

1. Learn from the pilots

Lots of versions in play now. FIFA should refuse permissions for associations to use it next season and use the full year to evaluate the various pilots of it and come up with one definitive version, based on the best of what the evaluation of the pilots suggest. Going forward, Associations must use that, or not use VAR at all.

2. Access

My preference would be that it is only called into play when the Ref asks for it. We shouldn’t have people whispering in referees’ ears. They are in charge of the game.

If not, the only time when VAR should proactively get involved is to ask a question to clarify what a ref saw, rather than suggest a decision is wrong (see 3 and 4 below).

3. Be transparent and keep things focussed

The Schalke stuff (monitor broken) was crazy, and this shouldn’t be allowed to happen. Just accept that you need to do without VAR for that game.

The Refs and VAR team need to be miked as they are in all other sports which use this tech, so we can hear specifically what is going on.

Let’s keep things as tight as possible in terms of reviews. This creates the parameters by which VAR should operate which helps players and fans understand it, and mitigates against VAR going looking for things.

We could go to the lengths that Rugby does (“is there any reason I can’t award a goal”) but I worry about that a bit. Football is more fluid, and it would cause big delays in terms of looking back over prolonged periods of time. Our derby goal against the Rags this year was a long passage of play and we don’t want to look at “phases” in detail, it will take too long and ruin the flow of games.

4. Get it to support referees, not undermine them

This was supposedly a big driver of VAR – get tech to help refs out. I think it is undermining them now tho.

Way to tackle this is to have a “refs call” and, in cases where there are very fine margins (milometers for offsides, subjective views as to whether there is a foul or not), we should be supporting referees and accepting that humans aren’t perfect. I don’t want a VAR which says “disallow that goal because the striker’s big toe might have been offside if our camera angle and lines on the video are right”. All this stuff about microchips in shirts and boots and stuff – total red herring.

The Ref should stay in control at all times.

As an example, in the case of a goal following a clear offside, the VAR team could legitimately say “You gave onside but the video shows the striker appears to be offside, do you want to view the footage?”. The Ref, and no-one else, gets to decide, and we hear their explanation for whether they decide to review or not.

As a further example, if a ref gives a pen and the guy has not been touched and dived then VAR should rightly try and clear this up, but in a way which emphasies that the ref is in charge. Eg, “Did you think there was contact there Ref, as there may not have been?”. Ref then gets chance to see for themselves and decide whether their decision was right. Equally, if a player appears to have fouled someone but the ref plays on then VAR could check whether the Ref saw it. If a Ref says “yes I saw contact between 2 players and I was alright with that” then the Ref’s view should prevail.

What we don’t want is subjectivity like “you gave a foul there but we disagree”. We shouldn’t be replacing the subjective view of one person with anothers. If we want to do that, then get rid of Refs and do it all through a booth.
 
Gordyola said:
If you read further then they have this covered The pitch side review isn’t mandatory in the ref making his decision it is sufficient for the VAR to describe
Click to expand...
"So what's happened?"
"Well, he's pulled out a samurai sword and decapitated several players, then he turned into a bat and flew away"
 
Don,t think handball decisions should be viewed in slow-motion.With slow motion you automatically think “he,s had enough time to move out of the way”.OK use slow o to see if it’s actually hit the hand/arm,then make a decision at real speed.Just a thought.
 
Gordyola said:
From the VAR Handbook

The aim of the experiment is NOT to achieve 100% accuracy for all decisions as there is no desire to destroy the essential flow and emotions of football which result from the game’s almost non-stop action and the general absence of lengthy stoppages. The philosophy is:
‘minimum interference – maximum benefit’

To ensure that the referee (not the VAR) is the key match official, the referee will ALWAYS make a decision (except a ‘missed’ usually ‘off the ball’ incident), including the decision that no offence has occurred. The referee’s decision can ONLY BE CHANGED if the video review shows a CLEAR ERROR i.e. not ‘was the decision correct?’ but:

‘was the decision clearly wrong?’

Principles
There are twelve principles which are the foundation of the VAR experiment:
1. Video technology will only be used to correct clear errors and for missed serious incidents in defined match-changing decisions: goal, penalty/no penalty, direct red card and mistaken identity (e.g. the referee cautions/sends off the wrong player).
2. The final decision will always be taken by the referee.
3. Video Assistant Referees (VARs) are match officials - any information the VARs
provide to the referee will be treated by the referee in the same way as information
received from an assistant referee, additional assistant referee or the fourth official.
4. The referee must always make a decision regardless of the existence of VARs i.e. the referee is not permitted to give ‘no decision’ and refer the situation to the VAR. If the referee decides not to stop play for an alleged offence, the decision (to allow play to continue) can be reviewed. On rare occasions, when it is unclear whether a penalised cautionable (YC) offence is a sending-off (RC), or who should receive the
sanction, the referee may consult the VAR.
5. The original decision given by the referee will not be changed unless the video
review clearly shows that the decision was clearly wrong.
6. Only the referee can initiate a review; the VAR (and the other match officials) can
only recommend a review to the referee.
7. Whatever the review process, there is no time pressure to review the decision quickly
as accuracy is more important than speed.
8. The players and team officials must not surround the referee or attempt to
influence if a decision is reviewed, the review process or the final decision. A player who uses the ‘review signal’ will be cautioned (YC).
9. The referee should, as far as possible, remain ‘visible’ during the review process to ensure transparency.
10. If play continues after an incident which is then reviewed, any disciplinary action taken/required during the post-incident period is not cancelled, even if the original decision is changed (except a caution/send-off for stopping a promising attack or DOGSO).
11. There is a maximum period before and after an incident that can be reviewed.
12. The VAR protocol, as far as possible, conforms to the principles and philosophy of
the Laws of the Game.

More here
https://www.knvb.nl/downloads/bestand/9844/var-handbook-v8_final
Click to expand...

Interesting, ta. Which of the versions of VAR currently in play does this apply to, do you know?
 
Principle 5 of the Var handbook states that the original decision given by the ref will not be changed unless the video review clearly shows that the decision was clearly wrong.

How can the penalty decision last night be justified then? Last night's penalty decision was subjective and not clearly correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top