MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
As far as I can see, there are 3 main question marks over VAR. They won't resolve all arguments, but will surely help understanding.
- the lack of transparency in what is reviewed and why decisions are made as they are.
A live tracker is impractical, but it could easily be issued after the game. Why did the ref not give something? What did they think they saw?
- the above could lead into a second point of are refs taking the easy way out, and letting VAR take the flak.
There do appear to be some shonky on-field decisions which seem inexplicable.
- the timing/interaction of TV/TV commentators and the VAR team
If you've tried listening to radio comms with TV pictures, there's a considerable delay involved. The comms team clearly hear some of the discussions, but it's unclear if it's only at one end.
I'm sure there was a statement in the past over what audio input VAR get, or whether they just get pictures.
- the lack of transparency in what is reviewed and why decisions are made as they are.
A live tracker is impractical, but it could easily be issued after the game. Why did the ref not give something? What did they think they saw?
- the above could lead into a second point of are refs taking the easy way out, and letting VAR take the flak.
There do appear to be some shonky on-field decisions which seem inexplicable.
- the timing/interaction of TV/TV commentators and the VAR team
If you've tried listening to radio comms with TV pictures, there's a considerable delay involved. The comms team clearly hear some of the discussions, but it's unclear if it's only at one end.
I'm sure there was a statement in the past over what audio input VAR get, or whether they just get pictures.
