How VAR will be used in The Premier League

[Sothall_Blade]

Sheffield United: I had my reservations over VAR... but after going through its finer points, why I think it'll be a success in the Premier League

It's probably the most contentious issue to hit the volatile world of football for some time - and it's heading for a collision course with the Premier League, and Sheffield United.

www.thestar.co.uk

“In 2019/20, VAR will concentrate only on 'match-changing' circumstances; penalties, goals and direct red cards, as well as instances of mistaken identity. Each goal will be checked and when a review is underway, the big screen at grounds - including Bramall Lane - will be used to keep fans involved, with the onus on protecting fans' matchday experience as well as getting the decisions right.” ETC

If they really stick to that I think VAR will be a very good thing and should help protect us from the usual big club bias

P.S. Danny04. It was Rob Styles. Still time to change it before anyone notices

 

[LoughboroBlade]

P.S. @Danny04. It was Rob Styles. Still time to change it before anyone notices

He couldn’t wait to give the penalty.

In contrast to our game at Old Trafford that season, where Shelton was taken out in the one of the clearest penalties (and red cards) never given, and Styles did nothing.

 

[Bladesthorpe]

Var will ruin football as we've known and enjoyed it for years, sad day.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

He couldn’t wait to give the penalty.

In contrast to our game at Old Trafford that season, where Shelton was taken out in the one of the clearest penalties (and red cards) never given, and Styles did nothing.

Rob Styles = Blatant Cheat. There I’ve said it.

Still he got to ref an FA Cup Final in 2005 and you don’t get awarded those if you’ve annoyed the likes of Alex Ferguson

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

Var will ruin football as we've known and enjoyed it for years, sad day.

Yes, but it's great TV.

 

[grafikhaus]

Var will ruin football as we've known and enjoyed it for years, sad day.

Don't totally agree but the standards of the match officials has been so poor that something had to be done. All that will happen is players like Mo Salah will 'refine' their diving techniques so there will always be doubt and any decision for the big teams against the like of the Blades will get the usual 'I've seen them given' from the lickspittles back in the studio.

Cricket - which is far easier to subject to replays - still gets it wrong (Stokes v NZ).

 

[YES Blade]

Sheffield United: I had my reservations over VAR... but after going through its finer points, why I think it'll be a success in the Premier League

It's probably the most contentious issue to hit the volatile world of football for some time - and it's heading for a collision course with the Premier League, and Sheffield United.

www.thestar.co.uk

“In 2019/20, VAR will concentrate only on 'match-changing' circumstances; penalties, goals and direct red cards, as well as instances of mistaken identity. Each goal will be checked and when a review is underway, the big screen at grounds - including Bramall Lane - will be used to keep fans involved, with the onus on protecting fans' matchday experience as well as getting the decisions right.” ETC

If they really stick to that I think VAR will be a very good thing and should help protect us from the usual big club bias

P.S. Danny04. It was Rob Styles. Still time to change it before anyone notices

This big club bias is just a myth. It should be obvious why a team like Man U in the Premier League era, have been awarded more penalties than they have conceded.

VAR will just make sure more decisions and correct and therefore probably more penalties for the big teams.

 

[Cerberus Blade]

I'm not convinced by the arguments for VAR. We've seen it used badly on several occasions now and it's one thing for a game to go against you on a human error of judgement, it's even worse when the human's have this kind of technology to support them and they still get it wrong! Rather than enhancing decision making, it has the potential to worsen it!

We should be clear, the purpose of VAR is not to improve decision making and fairness in the game. It's to have wider appeal to a television audience. Don't underestimate that. It's the TV companies who are pumping money into the game who want this kind of footage because it makes their product even more marketable. We'll be seeing re-runs of controversial moments, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades after the event. It's highly "newsworthy" stuff. The TV companies will be able to capture it and sell it on to a worldwide audience, across many different types of media. It will have other marketable uses too. Gaming technology for a start. It's gold dust to them - and the beauty of it is - most fans cannot see that this is the reason behind it. They are taking the game away from us as we know it - and most fans are going..."great, yeah...help yourself", because they think that the TV companies are trying to "improve" things! The TV companies are only interested in one thing - making more money. That should be your starting point when evaluating VAR. Start there, then work back from there as to why they are doing it, and you might come to the right conclusion?

As to VAR "helping clubs like us" - that's just typical "victim mentality" speak. We are no more hard done to than any other club when it comes to refereeing decisions. I know it feels like it sometimes - but we're not. Every fan of every club will have their tales to tell - and they'll all feel that they've been hard done to and received rough justice more than the next one. But even if you don't subscribe to that view, even if you think that Sheffield United Football Club is unusually cursed in these matters, then VAR is not the great White Knight that will rid us of such a curse and balance up the odds in our favour. It will not help us any more than the next club.

The biggest problem with VAR though, for me, is that it's the thin end of the wedge. It may start out by just being for "match-changing" circumstances, but we will see it's use increase to more and more situations. In any case...what is a "match-changing" situation? It says above that it's for things like penalty decisions, goals, red cards, mistaken identity. OK that's just 4 things is it? There are many other situations which can lead to "match-changing" situations. So you can bet your life that the list will grow - because it will. And who is deciding whether something is a "match-changing" situation? A human being. The one's who apparently we can't trust to do the job without VAR in the first place.

Will it slow the game down? Yes it will. I see the excuses are already being made that "it won't take much longer out of the game than a goal celebration". Just stop and think about that for a moment. You may be of the opinion, as I am, that some goal celebrations are excessive already and do take unnecessary time from the game. Then again, I don't suppose any of us get too upset about that, when it's our team that have just scored. But think back to when it's been the other way round and we've been chasing the game and the other team take an age to celebrate a goal, or walk back at snail's pace for the kick off. Not nice is it? And what they are saying about VAR is that it won't take "much longer" than this. Is that really good news? I read a stat somewhere last season and, if my memory serves me correct, it was something like out of 90 miinutes the fans are actually only seeing the ball in play for less than 60 of them. So we are now introducing a system that will reduce that further.

It is only a matter of time before VAR runs the game. We won't need any offiicals on the pitch - and we won't even need any supporters in the stands. It will be a TV product - parcelled up and marketed to obese couch-potato TV audiences around the world - because that's how they'll make the easiest money.

And our gullible fans are stood on the side now, watching this happen, and applauding it.

(Just an alternative viewpoint for you to consider perhaps?)

 

[Whiston Blade]

Var will ruin football as we've known and enjoyed it for years, sad day.

But it won't. I take it you hated the 2018 world cup? Give it a couple of years to bed-in and you'll get over it.

 

[You Fill Up My Senses]

Could be worse, It might end up like F1 and we find out the next day whether we won or not!

 

[Rollerball]

I'm with Cerberus Blade on this, if a big change or decision is being implemented, follow the money and find out who actually gains financially from it.
How long before we get like American football, a game of "4 halves" with adverts at every storage in play?
"Soccer" may just be on the brink of collapse, bad decision, consult VAR, don't like the decision that sends the team out of a cup or worse relegated, gotta be worth an attempt at suing premier league, shy, FIFA or UEFA , this has the makings of chaos that eclipses the Bosman ruling into insignificance.
Will betting on VAR decisions be scrutinised? Who watches the watchers?
Can of works or Pandora's box we wait and see.

 

[PokerBlade]

Yes, but it's great TV.

If you watched any of the Women's World Cup, it ruined it on TV too.

FIFA used to have the right attitude to technology - they said it should be 100% and instant. That's why we didn't get goal-line technology for so long. The goal-line tech we have now is wonderful. No fuss, no argument, no waiting.

VAR is a major irritation. It's slow and even after we get decisions we're still not in agreement over them. Some of the handballs given have been absolutely ridiculous. Some of the women's games had 15 minutes extra on them because of VAR time.

We all know how painful it is to lose on incorrect decisions but at least the game is exciting. Football's bad enough for stoppages killing the pace of the game thanks to the failure to crack down on timewasting and feigning injury. VAR is an extra layer of big stoppages for little benefit.

 

[Dkc]

I'm not convinced by the arguments for VAR. We've seen it used badly on several occasions now and it's one thing for a game to go against you on a human error of judgement, it's even worse when the human's have this kind of technology to support them and they still get it wrong! Rather than enhancing decision making, it has the potential to worsen it!

We should be clear, the purpose of VAR is not to improve decision making and fairness in the game. It's to have wider appeal to a television audience. Don't underestimate that. It's the TV companies who are pumping money into the game who want this kind of footage because it makes their product even more marketable. We'll be seeing re-runs of controversial moments, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades after the event. It's highly "newsworthy" stuff. The TV companies will be able to capture it and sell it on to a worldwide audience, across many different types of media. It will have other marketable uses too. Gaming technology for a start. It's gold dust to them - and the beauty of it is - most fans cannot see that this is the reason behind it. They are taking the game away from us as we know it - and most fans are going..."great, yeah...help yourself", because they think that the TV companies are trying to "improve" things! The TV companies are only interested in one thing - making more money. That should be your starting point when evaluating VAR. Start there, then work back from there as to why they are doing it, and you might come to the right conclusion?

As to VAR "helping clubs like us" - that's just typical "victim mentality" speak. We are no more hard done to than any other club when it comes to refereeing decisions. I know it feels like it sometimes - but we're not. Every fan of every club will have their tales to tell - and they'll all feel that they've been hard done to and received rough justice more than the next one. But even if you don't subscribe to that view, even if you think that Sheffield United Football Club is unusually cursed in these matters, then VAR is not the great White Knight that will rid us of such a curse and balance up the odds in our favour. It will not help us any more than the next club.

The biggest problem with VAR though, for me, is that it's the thin end of the wedge. It may start out by just being for "match-changing" circumstances, but we will see it's use increase to more and more situations. In any case...what is a "match-changing" situation? It says above that it's for things like penalty decisions, goals, red cards, mistaken identity. OK that's just 4 things is it? There are many other situations which can lead to "match-changing" situations. So you can bet your life that the list will grow - because it will. And who is deciding whether something is a "match-changing" situation? A human being. The one's who apparently we can't trust to do the job without VAR in the first place.

Will it slow the game down? Yes it will. I see the excuses are already being made that "it won't take much longer out of the game than a goal celebration". Just stop and think about that for a moment. You may be of the opinion, as I am, that some goal celebrations are excessive already and do take unnecessary time from the game. Then again, I don't suppose any of us get too upset about that, when it's our team that have just scored. But think back to when it's been the other way round and we've been chasing the game and the other team take an age to celebrate a goal, or walk back at snail's pace for the kick off. Not nice is it? And what they are saying about VAR is that it won't take "much longer" than this. Is that really good news? I read a stat somewhere last season and, if my memory serves me correct, it was something like out of 90 miinutes the fans are actually only seeing the ball in play for less than 60 of them. So we are now introducing a system that will reduce that further.

It is only a matter of time before VAR runs the game. We won't need any offiicals on the pitch - and we won't even need any supporters in the stands. It will be a TV product - parcelled up and marketed to obese couch-potato TV audiences around the world - because that's how they'll make the easiest money.

And our gullible fans are stood on the side now, watching this happen, and applauding it.

(Just an alternative viewpoint for you to consider perhaps?)

Good post. Our games will be on US TV next season. I'm already expecting to see ads on NBC while the VAR decisions are made. It may take Sky a little longer.

 

[Harry's Game]

The new Handball interpretation is going to piss more people off than VAR.

 

[Geordie Blade]

I'm not convinced by the arguments for VAR. We've seen it used badly on several occasions now and it's one thing for a game to go against you on a human error of judgement, it's even worse when the human's have this kind of technology to support them and they still get it wrong! Rather than enhancing decision making, it has the potential to worsen it!

We should be clear, the purpose of VAR is not to improve decision making and fairness in the game. It's to have wider appeal to a television audience. Don't underestimate that. It's the TV companies who are pumping money into the game who want this kind of footage because it makes their product even more marketable. We'll be seeing re-runs of controversial moments, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades after the event. It's highly "newsworthy" stuff. The TV companies will be able to capture it and sell it on to a worldwide audience, across many different types of media. It will have other marketable uses too. Gaming technology for a start. It's gold dust to them - and the beauty of it is - most fans cannot see that this is the reason behind it. They are taking the game away from us as we know it - and most fans are going..."great, yeah...help yourself", because they think that the TV companies are trying to "improve" things! The TV companies are only interested in one thing - making more money. That should be your starting point when evaluating VAR. Start there, then work back from there as to why they are doing it, and you might come to the right conclusion?

As to VAR "helping clubs like us" - that's just typical "victim mentality" speak. We are no more hard done to than any other club when it comes to refereeing decisions. I know it feels like it sometimes - but we're not. Every fan of every club will have their tales to tell - and they'll all feel that they've been hard done to and received rough justice more than the next one. But even if you don't subscribe to that view, even if you think that Sheffield United Football Club is unusually cursed in these matters, then VAR is not the great White Knight that will rid us of such a curse and balance up the odds in our favour. It will not help us any more than the next club.

The biggest problem with VAR though, for me, is that it's the thin end of the wedge. It may start out by just being for "match-changing" circumstances, but we will see it's use increase to more and more situations. In any case...what is a "match-changing" situation? It says above that it's for things like penalty decisions, goals, red cards, mistaken identity. OK that's just 4 things is it? There are many other situations which can lead to "match-changing" situations. So you can bet your life that the list will grow - because it will. And who is deciding whether something is a "match-changing" situation? A human being. The one's who apparently we can't trust to do the job without VAR in the first place.

Will it slow the game down? Yes it will. I see the excuses are already being made that "it won't take much longer out of the game than a goal celebration". Just stop and think about that for a moment. You may be of the opinion, as I am, that some goal celebrations are excessive already and do take unnecessary time from the game. Then again, I don't suppose any of us get too upset about that, when it's our team that have just scored. But think back to when it's been the other way round and we've been chasing the game and the other team take an age to celebrate a goal, or walk back at snail's pace for the kick off. Not nice is it? And what they are saying about VAR is that it won't take "much longer" than this. Is that really good news? I read a stat somewhere last season and, if my memory serves me correct, it was something like out of 90 miinutes the fans are actually only seeing the ball in play for less than 60 of them. So we are now introducing a system that will reduce that further.

It is only a matter of time before VAR runs the game. We won't need any offiicals on the pitch - and we won't even need any supporters in the stands. It will be a TV product - parcelled up and marketed to obese couch-potato TV audiences around the world - because that's how they'll make the easiest money.

And our gullible fans are stood on the side now, watching this happen, and applauding it.

(Just an alternative viewpoint for you to consider perhaps?)

So you're saying that it will ruin it for the fans, but that it's driven by TV companies who are doing it for more money (i.e. wanting to getting more fans to watch)?

I don't think your line of argument is as clever as you think it is. Unless what you're actually saying is that most other people will like it, but you don't. That would be fair enough, but it's not right to accuse other people of being gullible just because they value things differently to you.

 

[8lade]

This big club bias is just a myth.

Intent to foul.

 

[I should coco]

Intent to foul.

"The Sheffield player"

 

[Stanthemanfan]

Have already seen bad/wrong decisions already with var
Just a matter of time before we get shafted me thinks

 

[Bladesman]

Have already seen bad/wrong decisions already with var
Just a matter of time before we get shafted me thinks

Knowing our luck the VAR screen will break.

 

[Blade for Sale]

He couldn’t wait to give the penalty.

In contrast to our game at Old Trafford that season, where Shelton was taken out in the one of the clearest penalties (and red cards) never given, and Styles did nothing.

In the interest of balance, the most blatant penalty I've ever seen not given was Simon Tracey on Ryan Giggs in the 1st Premier League goal game. Giggs was literally booted cartwheeling into the air by Tracey, the ball several yards away, and it wasn't given. We were given a penalty in that game, which was the correct decision but less clear. The 2nd most blatant was Paddy Kenny v Hull (promotion season) when he grabbed the Hull player by the ankles and didn't let go for about 5 seconds. Again, nothing given.

 

[ChipButtyBlade]

If you watched any of the Women's World Cup, it ruined it on TV too.

FIFA used to have the right attitude to technology - they said it should be 100% and instant. That's why we didn't get goal-line technology for so long. The goal-line tech we have now is wonderful. No fuss, no argument, no waiting.

VAR is a major irritation. It's slow and even after we get decisions we're still not in agreement over them. Some of the handballs given have been absolutely ridiculous. Some of the women's games had 15 minutes extra on them because of VAR time.

We all know how painful it is to lose on incorrect decisions but at least the game is exciting. Football's bad enough for stoppages killing the pace of the game thanks to the failure to crack down on timewasting and feigning injury. VAR is an extra layer of big stoppages for little benefit.

I watched to Womens WC and i thought VAR enhanced the tension,it becomes a farce when the other team dont accept the desision like Cameroon's players did'nt you have to have a strong referee.

 

[Bladesman]

 

[FatPaul]

Time for an advert or two between the check me thinks

 

[sheff_blade90]

VAR offside decisions under review

Football’s lawmakers are to review the VAR system’s approach to offsides to see whether the rules should be changed so that video officials intervene only when there is a clear error.It is understood that the International FA Board (Ifab) will study the protocol of VARs and offsides and it will be d

www.thetimes.co.uk

this sounds good because after the FA cup 3rd round Southampton v derby, Womens world cup, Nations League & West ham v Man city. im glad they are looking at changing the offside law. because the current interpretation offside rule is changing because sterling like so many in the previous 4 incidents that I can remember are punished even though they didnt realistically gain an advantage because they saying that if he was 1.3mm to left man city wouldn't have scored is a laughable suggestion. some people defending Offside/VAR are insinuating

I don't see how they can call that an error from the linesman when it is humanly impossible to see that

 

[Cerberus Blade]

The biggest problem with VAR though, for me, is that it's the thin end of the wedge. It may start out by just being for "match-changing" circumstances, but we will see it's use increase to more and more situations. In any case...what is a "match-changing" situation? It says above that it's for things like penalty decisions, goals, red cards, mistaken identity. OK that's just 4 things is it? There are many other situations which can lead to "match-changing" situations. So you can bet your life that the list will grow - because it will. And who is deciding whether something is a "match-changing" situation? A human being. The one's who apparently we can't trust to do the job without VAR in the first place.

Will it slow the game down? Yes it will.

(Just an alternative viewpoint for you to consider perhaps?)

I'm glad that Frank agrees with me! It is already starting to encroach more and more into the game and being used for non-match-changing circumstances - just like I said.

VAR in 'really dangerous place' - Lampard

Chelsea manager Frank Lampard warns that the current use of VAR could be "dangerous" for the Premier League.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Cerberus Blade]

So you're saying that it will ruin it for the fans, but that it's driven by TV companies who are doing it for more money (i.e. wanting to getting more fans to watch)?

I don't think your line of argument is as clever as you think it is. Unless what you're actually saying is that most other people will like it, but you don't. That would be fair enough, but it's not right to accuse other people of being gullible just because they value things differently to you.

Only just seen your response to this old thread - but happy to provide more clarity for you.

So what I was saying is that VAR would ruin the game for the fans, i.e. those fans that go to watch matches live because it will slow the game down and be misused. I was saying that the TV companies are driving this - which they are, fact, because it gives them more footage that they can make money out of .

The motive of TV companies is to make more profits. That's the only reason they want to get more "fans" to watch - because it increases their revenues - do you not understand that? Do you think that the TV companies want more fans to watch because they are nice people and they want to do what's best for mankind?

I didn't think my line of argument was "being clever". I think my line of argument is expressing a personal opinion. And I don't know where the evidence is that most fans will like it but I don't?

I think that it is obvious how VAR will be misused and I think it is obvious why it is being introduced - it's not about being for the benefit of the fans at all. And I think fans who welcome VAR with open arms, thinking it will be a good thing for the game, are failing to see the real reason behind its introduction.

When people are hoodwinked or conned into thinking something is going to be good for them, when it's actually the opposite, then I consider that they have shown gullibility. Gullibility doesn't mean someone is thick or stupid, it means that they are "easily persuaded to believe something". And I think that's what has happened here. Some people, not all, and not the majority as you suggest, have too easily accepted VAR as being a good thing without actual giving full consideration to the motives behind it and how it will affect the game.

That's my opinion. You don't have to agree with it. It doesn't make you stupid or me clever if you don't. It's just a point of view. One, which I think, will become increasingly shared by others as VAR exerts its negative influence on our game.

And if you were at Bramall Lane yesterday, you'll recall that Burnley had a shout for "handball" in our area. The ball then went out for a throw-in, and the ref held up play, whilst he waited and listened on his earpiece, as to whether the mysterious VAR referee, thought it was a handball. Meanwhile, over 30,000 people were just left in limbo, with no information about what was going on, and the game was delayed by the best part of a minute, just for that one, "Non-incident".

No. I don't like it.

 

[Geordie Blade]

Only just seen your response to this old thread - but happy to provide more clarity for you.

So what I was saying is that VAR would ruin the game for the fans, i.e. those fans that go to watch matches live because it will slow the game down and be misused. I was saying that the TV companies are driving this - which they are, fact, because it gives them more footage that they can make money out of .

The motive of TV companies is to make more profits. That's the only reason they want to get more "fans" to watch - because it increases their revenues - do you not understand that? Do you think that the TV companies want more fans to watch because they are nice people and they want to do what's best for mankind?

I didn't think my line of argument was "being clever". I think my line of argument is expressing a personal opinion. And I don't know where the evidence is that most fans will like it but I don't?

I think that it is obvious how VAR will be misused and I think it is obvious why it is being introduced - it's not about being for the benefit of the fans at all. And I think fans who welcome VAR with open arms, thinking it will be a good thing for the game, are failing to see the real reason behind its introduction.

When people are hoodwinked or conned into thinking something is going to be good for them, when it's actually the opposite, then I consider that they have shown gullibility. Gullibility doesn't mean someone is thick or stupid, it means that they are "easily persuaded to believe something". And I think that's what has happened here. Some people, not all, and not the majority as you suggest, have too easily accepted VAR as being a good thing without actual giving full consideration to the motives behind it and how it will affect the game.

That's my opinion. You don't have to agree with it. It doesn't make you stupid or me clever if you don't. It's just a point of view. One, which I think, will become increasingly shared by others as VAR exerts its negative influence on our game.

And if you were at Bramall Lane yesterday, you'll recall that Burnley had a shout for "handball" in our area. The ball then went out for a throw-in, and the ref held up play, whilst he waited and listened on his earpiece, as to whether the mysterious VAR referee, thought it was a handball. Meanwhile, over 30,000 people were just left in limbo, with no information about what was going on, and the game was delayed by the best part of a minute, just for that one, "Non-incident".

No. I don't like it.

I don’t disagree about VAR itself. What I don’t understand is why people think it’s driven by TV wanting to make profits. If football fans really don’t like VAR, then surely its introduction will mean fewer people tuning in.

I get that there’s a difference between being at the game and watching on TV (I was there yesterday, and the pause for the penalty review didn’t bother me, as it happens, but it did annoy me after the goal against Arsenal), but how does VAR add profits to the TV companies? Surely they don’t get more viewers because of it. Maybe you think that they hang onto viewers a bit longer for more post-match analysis? They do that anyway, with or without VAR - there’s always plenty for them to dissect.

Can you clarify how you think VAR translates to TV profits?

 

[blade67]

I don’t disagree about VAR itself. What I don’t understand is why people think it’s driven by TV wanting to make profits. If football fans really don’t like VAR, then surely its introduction will mean fewer people tuning in.

I get that there’s a difference between being at the game and watching on TV (I was there yesterday, and the pause for the penalty review didn’t bother me, as it happens, but it did annoy me after the goal against Arsenal), but how does VAR add profits to the TV companies? Surely they don’t get more viewers because of it. Maybe you think that they hang onto viewers a bit longer for more post-match analysis? They do that anyway, with or without VAR - there’s always plenty for them to dissect.

Can you clarify how you think VAR translates to TV profits?

I'll have a go at this. VAR is a TV drama isn't it? Where it adds to the on screen drama whilst people who attend the game live are effectively "locked out" of the drama. It therefore tilts the fans towards watching the TV drama just a little more and that is good for TV profits.

I'm surprised that you are doubting that the introduction of using TV cameras to review decisions isn't totally media driven. It puts them even further centre stage, gives them more to debate etc. etc. and moves watching sport more even more to being a TV event.

 

[Yellarbellyblade]

The simple fact is that at the moment it’s a complete dogs breakfast.
It’s either setting the bar too high or too low. Offside by a fraction of an inch or actually onside but because the linesman flagged its off

It’s hurting my head

 

[Bath Blade]

I'll have a go at this. VAR is a TV drama isn't it? Where it adds to the on screen drama whilst people who attend the game live are effectively "locked out" of the drama. It therefore tilts the fans towards watching the TV drama just a little more and that is good for TV profits.

I'm surprised that you are doubting that the introduction of using TV cameras to review decisions isn't totally media driven. It puts them even further centre stage, gives them more to debate etc. etc. and moves watching sport more even more to being a TV event.

Driven for TV but not by the TV companies. The Premier League wants to make their product as appealing as possible to TV audiences so TV companies will pay more for it (and we, the fans at the match, aren’t a factor in that, unless attendances start declining).