BlueHammer85
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 36,558
Considering how inconsistent and downright farcical the standard of refereeing is there is no way we can remove VAR. The blatant things they are missing wouldn't get resolved. We're seeing inconsistencies and that's where the issue is at the moment. There needs to be a specific team at VAR that operate it every week. You shouldn't have refs interchanging between onfield roles and VAR roles. There has to be independent people running the system. There's a hierarchy within refereeing and younger refs will bow to their superiors which isn't right but is to be expected.
There should be logic and common sense applied as well to clarify rules on handball's/penalties etc. It's a game played at a high pace, there will be some mistakes and inconsistencies as a result. But there shouldn't be so many game to game, week to week.
An added issue is games like derbies or at Anfield last weekend. The ref wants to let the game flow, knowing there's an edge. That's fine. If the ref had have been fully in control then Foden's goal counts. But then you have a system that spots a foul. And it was a foul in isolation. But it wasn't one that the ref was willing to award in a game played at high pace with a lot of 50/50 challenges. So the goal should have stood on that basis. That was Pep's issue. But with VAR unfortunately it was rightly ruled out. Really that decision should have been for the ref to come and look at - with VAR appreciating he'd let a few of those go.
VAR will always have issues, and those issues exist in other sports like cricket and rugby too. The difference is they're less often match-defining and there's better communication of decisions and a respect that things aren't always 100% correct. In football we'll always see one set of fans moaning, as has always been the case. But without VAR that's still the case and more decisions would be missed in my opinion.
For me the biggest issue is this pitchside monitor. You know if the ref goes to that what it means. So why does the ref need to go and look?! Why did the ref have to look to see Bernardo get tripped up? Why didn't he go and look at the Haaland one? Funnily enough I thought the Bernardo one was soft in fact, he was looking for it. And the Haaland one should have been given.
Good post