Lessons from other sports re: VAR

[JJFearnley]

The NFL instituted replays in the 80s. If the officials in the booth saw something they weren't happy with the game stopped and the decision was looked at. After a few years and far too many delays the system was scrapped.

When they brought it back they did so as a challenge system. It was now up to the coaches to request a review. The system works well and has been in place with only minor tinkering for 20 years.

Cricket brought in review for all decisions and let the umpire decide to review things. They would give someone 'not out' but then request a review on their own decision. After too many incorrect decisions weren't reviewed they knew the system needed changing.

They took the reviews out of the hands of the umpires and gave it to the players. They had to ask for a review if they thought a mistake had been made. This system has been in place for many years now with minor tinkering to improve it.

The tennis referral system on line calls works because the players ask for them, not the umpire or line judge.

The field hockey referral system works because the players ask for them, not the officials.

The NHL review system works because the coaches request the reviews.

So, here's what needs to be done in football: VAR needs to be called for by the players themselves.

Like hockey, I favour one challenge per game. You keep it if you are right but lose it if you're wrong.

If you have been fouled but the ref says no then call for VAR. No need to surround the ref, just make the signal. If you were certain they were offside then call for VAR. It's designed to stop howlers, the players should know when a decision is clearly wrong.

This method stops (or at least hugely reduces) complaining by players. If you think the decision is wrong you ask VAR.

Like the other sports, there will be tinkering and refinements needed but I am certain that this is the route to go down. The sports with the best review systems are the ones where the players/coaches request them, not where the officials do it.

 

[TCsLoveChild]

The NFL instituted replays in the 80s. If the officials in the booth saw something they weren't happy with the game stopped and the decision was looked at. After a few years and far too many delays the system was scrapped.

When they brought it back they did so as a challenge system. It was now up to the coaches to request a review. The system works well and has been in place with only minor tinkering for 20 years.

Cricket brought in review for all decisions and let the umpire decide to review things. They would give someone 'not out' but then request a review on their own decision. After too many incorrect decisions weren't reviewed they knew the system needed changing.

They took the reviews out of the hands of the umpires and gave it to the players. They had to ask for a review if they thought a mistake had been made. This system has been in place for many years now with minor tinkering to improve it.

The tennis referral system on line calls works because the players ask for them, not the umpire or line judge.

The field hockey referral system works because the players ask for them, not the officials.

The NHL review system works because the coaches request the reviews.

So, here's what needs to be done in football: VAR needs to be called for by the players themselves.

Like hockey, I favour one challenge per game. You keep it if you are right but lose it if you're wrong.

If you have been fouled but the ref says no then call for VAR. No need to surround the ref, just make the signal. If you were certain they were offside then call for VAR. It's designed to stop howlers, the players should know when a decision is clearly wrong.

This method stops (or at least hugely reduces) complaining by players. If you think the decision is wrong you ask VAR.

Like the other sports, there will be tinkering and refinements needed but I am certain that this is the route to go down. The sports with the best review systems are the ones where the players/coaches request them, not where the officials do it.

That my friend is an excellent idea. UTB

 

[Headshrinker]

The NHL review system works because the coaches request the reviews.

It doesn't work anymore though. Not since they brought in offsides. Now you have a lot of mm calls like Lundstram's yesterday.

 

[JJFearnley]

But in football I don't think those ones would get reviewed. Spurs wouldn't have reviewed that yesterday.

 

[BettingBlade]

But in football I don't think those ones would get reviewed. Spurs wouldn't have reviewed that yesterday.

Would anyone have even noticed if it wasn’t checked though? The point is I think Spurs would have accepted that if they didn’t challenge it knowing it was so close.

I think we all accept that VAR was brought in to stop the monumental cock ups made by referees. The problem is now is that it’s interfering in a way that the fans, players, pundits and even the referees themselves didn’t ask it to.

 

[KeyffSmyff]

Been saying this for some time but it is the managers job to refer. Incorrectly hassel your own manager for a review and you are going to be doing laps of the training ground on Monday.

 

[skyjam]

Been saying this for some time but it is the managers job to refer. Incorrectly hassel your own manager for a review and you are going to be doing laps of the training ground on Monday.

fuck it all off

 

[skyjam]

fuck it all off

how much more do we need to tweak how the match goes ffs

 

[KeyffSmyff]

Why not fuck offside off? What would have been the reaction to it's introduction? VAR is currently crap but only because of the incompetency of its implementation.

 

[Greystones Blade]

I think Gary Linneker had a point last night on MOTD when he said the VAR officials should have just 1 minute to make a decision and if they couldn't decide in 1 minute it must be too close to overturn the on-field decision and they should go with the Ref's decision. Worth a try.

 

[YES Blade]

The NFL instituted replays in the 80s. If the officials in the booth saw something they weren't happy with the game stopped and the decision was looked at. After a few years and far too many delays the system was scrapped.

When they brought it back they did so as a challenge system. It was now up to the coaches to request a review. The system works well and has been in place with only minor tinkering for 20 years.

I could be wrong as I'm not a big NFL fan, but I thought they reviewed every important play such as touchdowns and fumbles, with these not being coach's challenges?

 

[nicksufc]

How long would the players have to decide whether to review?
Which decisions would they be allowed to review?
Who has the final say in whether to review?
Is the game stopped whilst players decide if they want to review?
Would players not use reviews tactically to time waste and cheat?

Would this really reduce the number of incorrect decisions in football? Most of the time the players go crazy and want a decision overturned regardless. This system is totally unworkable because in all of the other sports you mention, there are lots of natural breaks in play and subsequently a chance for people to review. Sorry, but this review thing just would not work.

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

I think Gary Linneker had a point last night on MOTD when he said the VAR officials should have just 1 minute to make a decision and if they couldn't decide in 1 minute it must be too close to overturn the on-field decision and they should go with the Ref's decision. Worth a try.

Wouldn’t you just get rushed decisions?

 

[JJFearnley]

How long would the players have to decide whether to review?
Which decisions would they be allowed to review?
Who has the final say in whether to review?
Is the game stopped whilst players decide if they want to review?
Would players not use reviews tactically to time waste and cheat?

Would this really reduce the number of incorrect decisions in football? Most of the time the players go crazy and want a decision overturned regardless. This system is totally unworkable because in all of the other sports you mention, there are lots of natural breaks in play and subsequently a chance for people to review. Sorry, but this review thing just would not work.

I'll take those questions one by one.

You have until the game restarts to ask for your review. If the decision is play on but you want it brought back for a foul then you have until the game restarts after the next break in play.
This is where the tinkering can come in. Different sports have added/removed what can and can't be reviewed. Do a proper consultation and decide from there. I think the current set of things that can be reviewed is pretty fair.
Any player can ask for a review. The player who was fouled should know if they genuinely were fouled so it's up to them. We don't need to bring a captain over or ask the manager. The point of VAR is to overturn howlers. They players involved with the incident will know instantly if they've been wronged.
As for point one, you have to get on with it. If it's an obvious mistake you don't need 15 seconds to chat about it.
If you only get one wrong review per game you won't waste it on a risky, marginal decision. Players who do will very quickly become very unpopular with the manager and captain. Joel Wilson didn't get as much criticism as he otherwise would in the Headingley test for giving Stokes not out - that went to Tim Paine for a frivolous wasted review the over before. Can't blame the umpire when the players made the same mistake themselves.
You can try time wasting with it if you have a review left in the final few minutes of a game but if there's nothing worth reviewing then it'll take one replay to show it was nonsense and then you can restart the game. The time will be added on anyway and you've lost the chance to review anything that might happen on the next passage of play. Just like Tim Paine.

We are only trying to remove the howlers. VAR is currently checking minutiae.

The best example of this system working is field hockey, a game with a similar flow to football in many ways. You can review anything inside the 23m line that would result in a goal, penalty corner or penalty stroke. The 'wronged' player has up to 5 seconds to make the 'T' signal. They cannot look at the coaches on the sidelines for advice. You know if it did/didn't hit your foot/back of stick etc so it's on you to call it right away.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

But in football I don't think those ones would get reviewed. Spurs wouldn't have reviewed that yesterday.

Think that's the point.

 

[Toronto Blade]

In NHL hockey the coaches have a monitor on the bench to watch a replay of the offside.The rules changed they can challenge the call but if they are wrong they get a 2 minute penalty so they they have to be sure when challenging a call. It does work, usually when they challenge a goal for offside they are quite confident that it is offside.

 

[nicksufc]

I'll take those questions one by one.

You have until the game restarts to ask for your review. If the decision is play on but you want it brought back for a foul then you have until the game restarts after the next break in play.
This is where the tinkering can come in. Different sports have added/removed what can and can't be reviewed. Do a proper consultation and decide from there. I think the current set of things that can be reviewed is pretty fair.
Any player can ask for a review. The player who was fouled should know if they genuinely were fouled so it's up to them. We don't need to bring a captain over or ask the manager. The point of VAR is to overturn howlers. They players involved with the incident will know instantly if they've been wronged.
As for point one, you have to get on with it. If it's an obvious mistake you don't need 15 seconds to chat about it.
If you only get one wrong review per game you won't waste it on a risky, marginal decision. Players who do will very quickly become very unpopular with the manager and captain. Joel Wilson didn't get as much criticism as he otherwise would in the Headingley test for giving Stokes not out - that went to Tim Paine for a frivolous wasted review the over before. Can't blame the umpire when the players made the same mistake themselves.
You can try time wasting with it if you have a review left in the final few minutes of a game but if there's nothing worth reviewing then it'll take one replay to show it was nonsense and then you can restart the game. The time will be added on anyway and you've lost the chance to review anything that might happen on the next passage of play. Just like Tim Paine.

We are only trying to remove the howlers. VAR is currently checking minutiae.

The best example of this system working is field hockey, a game with a similar flow to football in many ways. You can review anything inside the 23m line that would result in a goal, penalty corner or penalty stroke. The 'wronged' player has up to 5 seconds to make the 'T' signal. They cannot look at the coaches on the sidelines for advice. You know if it did/didn't hit your foot/back of stick etc so it's on you to call it right away.

Right, so we could still be waiting a few minutes for the ball to go out of play, then the players have something like 30 seconds to decide, then the VAR spends another 3 minutes analysing it. So the issue of the flow of the game being disrupted probably gets worse.

And you might be absolutely certain that your hand was in a natural position when the ball hit it, but if the VAR disagrees then teams would still be complaining that they're missing howlers. A clear and obvious error itself is highly subjective. Having this review system would only complicate things more and doesn't get to the crux of the issue: these decisions remain subjective and so 'mistakes' are always going to be made in some people's eyes.

 

[Akinbiyi]

Wouldn’t you just get rushed decisions?

No, if they can't make the call confidently it isn't a clear and obvious error (which is what VAR was brought in for, apparently) so you go with the onfield ref's original decision

 

[Selly]

I could be wrong as I'm not a big NFL fan, but I thought they reviewed every important play such as touchdowns and fumbles, with these not being coach's challenges?

They do, they review:

• All scoring plays
• All turnovers (i.e. interceptions/fumbles)

Additionally coaches cannot challenge in the last 2 mins - it has to be a booth instigated review.

And finally, there is a penalty for an unsuccessful challenge - in that you lose a Time Out - it's difficult to explain to anyone who doesn`t watch NFL just how big a penalty this could be - the best equivalent I would see in football would be to remove a substitution.

Personally I'd like to see the referee decide whether something needs reviewing - much like in rugby - use the big screens in the stadium and broadcast the conversation. Clarity of thinking - no stupid imprecisely drawn lines being used to decide precision items - and final decision is with the ref.

 

[YES Blade]

They do, they review:

• All scoring plays
• All turnovers (i.e. interceptions/fumbles)

Additionally coaches cannot challenge in the last 2 mins - it has to be a booth instigated review.

And finally, there is a penalty for an unsuccessful challenge - in that you lose a Time Out - it's difficult to explain to anyone who doesn`t watch NFL just how big a penalty this could be - the best equivalent I would see in football would be to remove a substitution.

Personally I'd like to see the referee decide whether something needs reviewing - much like in rugby - use the big screens in the stadium and broadcast the conversation. Clarity of thinking - no stupid imprecisely drawn lines being used to decide precision items - and final decision is with the ref.

I'm a casual NFL fan, so wasn't clued up enough to say with any certainty the review system so thanks for clarifying.

Using Rugby as the template is the way I think football should go, if the crowd can see the decision making process in action, no one will really mind a 5 minute delay to get to the correct decision. It's the fact that we're sat there not knowing what is happening is a big problem, matches at the Lane, the bloke who works the big screen doesn't even manage to get any VAR stuff on the screen half of the time.

 

[super_pig]

The NFL instituted replays in the 80s. If the officials in the booth saw something they weren't happy with the game stopped and the decision was looked at. After a few years and far too many delays the system was scrapped.

When they brought it back they did so as a challenge system. It was now up to the coaches to request a review. The system works well and has been in place with only minor tinkering for 20 years.

Cricket brought in review for all decisions and let the umpire decide to review things. They would give someone 'not out' but then request a review on their own decision. After too many incorrect decisions weren't reviewed they knew the system needed changing.

They took the reviews out of the hands of the umpires and gave it to the players. They had to ask for a review if they thought a mistake had been made. This system has been in place for many years now with minor tinkering to improve it.

The tennis referral system on line calls works because the players ask for them, not the umpire or line judge.

The field hockey referral system works because the players ask for them, not the officials.

The NHL review system works because the coaches request the reviews.

So, here's what needs to be done in football: VAR needs to be called for by the players themselves.

Like hockey, I favour one challenge per game. You keep it if you are right but lose it if you're wrong.

If you have been fouled but the ref says no then call for VAR. No need to surround the ref, just make the signal. If you were certain they were offside then call for VAR. It's designed to stop howlers, the players should know when a decision is clearly wrong.

This method stops (or at least hugely reduces) complaining by players. If you think the decision is wrong you ask VAR.

Like the other sports, there will be tinkering and refinements needed but I am certain that this is the route to go down. The sports with the best review systems are the ones where the players/coaches request them, not where the officials do it.

great idea . for the moment. until we get to the point that the players start querying every goal whether they thought it was legit or not. which they will

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

But in football I don't think those ones would get reviewed. Spurs wouldn't have reviewed that yesterday.

It would because you’d save them for all goals. If it’s not 100% you’d always appeal. Goals are too costly in football compared to points, wickets etc.
So it would be the same as now whereby the goal would be review and then not given.

 

[Zeblades34]

I think var should have 30-60 seconds to make a decision and if there still isnt a decision made then it's really not a "clear and obvious mistake" and go back to the referee's decision. Nearly 4 minutes on Saturday to decide whether it's offside or not, taking 4 minutes surely means it's not clear or obvious? All bobbar imo

 

[Selly]

I think var should have 30-60 seconds to make a decision and if there still isnt a decision made then it's really not a "clear and obvious mistake" and go back to the referee's decision. Nearly 4 minutes on Saturday to decide whether it's offside or not, taking 4 minutes surely means it's not clear or obvious? All bobbar imo

Just stop drawing lines. If its not obviously offside, or obviously onside if the linesman puts his flag up, stick with the on field decision.

 

[kop_blade9]

Thought for today
Every player wears a vest with a tracker in for the stats guys that show how far you have travelled and where you have been on the pitch.
How about we use this tracker to decide offside? So it would only apply to the chest where the attacker is. Not toe nails or hands.
They could then plot the players on screen and show on the big screens.
Probably still be arguments if the margin is small but it seems to be one way of using the technology that is already in the game instead of relying on the subjective opinion of an adjudicator who is miles away and watching it on a tv.

 

[guancheblade]

The NFL instituted replays in the 80s. If the officials in the booth saw something they weren't happy with the game stopped and the decision was looked at. After a few years and far too many delays the system was scrapped.

When they brought it back they did so as a challenge system. It was now up to the coaches to request a review. The system works well and has been in place with only minor tinkering for 20 years.

Cricket brought in review for all decisions and let the umpire decide to review things. They would give someone 'not out' but then request a review on their own decision. After too many incorrect decisions weren't reviewed they knew the system needed changing.

They took the reviews out of the hands of the umpires and gave it to the players. They had to ask for a review if they thought a mistake had been made. This system has been in place for many years now with minor tinkering to improve it.

The tennis referral system on line calls works because the players ask for them, not the umpire or line judge.

The field hockey referral system works because the players ask for them, not the officials.

The NHL review system works because the coaches request the reviews.

So, here's what needs to be done in football: VAR needs to be called for by the players themselves.

Like hockey, I favour one challenge per game. You keep it if you are right but lose it if you're wrong.

If you have been fouled but the ref says no then call for VAR. No need to surround the ref, just make the signal. If you were certain they were offside then call for VAR. It's designed to stop howlers, the players should know when a decision is clearly wrong.

This method stops (or at least hugely reduces) complaining by players. If you think the decision is wrong you ask VAR.

Like the other sports, there will be tinkering and refinements needed but I am certain that this is the route to go down. The sports with the best review systems are the ones where the players/coaches request them, not where the officials do it.

Great research there pal, but I think a challenge system would have led to the same fiasco we saw on Saturday. If any team performing poorly manages to go a goal ahead and then immediately concede, they will challenge it all day long. Then we are back to square one, but this time with the added delay of the Spurs team executing their right to challenge.

The problem isn't the technology, it's the PEOPLE USING IT

Many have suspected corruption in the ranks of the EPL and the refs for donkeys years. What VAR is managing to do is expose this corruption.

VAR ref yesterday was trying any trick he could to secure three points for Spurs. When we equalised for a second time there was another two minute VAR check as they desperately looked for foul play. In the end they gave up cos it was 100% rock solid a goal. This is why you see the darlings of Liverpool getting VAR decisions for them that would have gone against a team like us the day prior.

 

[Ridgeway Blade]

Just stop drawing lines. If its not obviously offside, or obviously onside if the linesman puts his flag up, stick with the on field decision.

I agree. They don't do it in rugby union and it works ok. Even in Rugby World Cup final there was a potential forward pass in the build up to a NZ try. Neither the touch judge or ref called it. They replayed it a few times, no lines etc, wasn't clear or obvious to the TMO so went with on field decision which was to allow the try. Took about 45 secs max.

 

[jessop84]

The NFL instituted replays in the 80s. If the officials in the booth saw something they weren't happy with the game stopped and the decision was looked at. After a few years and far too many delays the system was scrapped.

When they brought it back they did so as a challenge system. It was now up to the coaches to request a review. The system works well and has been in place with only minor tinkering for 20 years.

Cricket brought in review for all decisions and let the umpire decide to review things. They would give someone 'not out' but then request a review on their own decision. After too many incorrect decisions weren't reviewed they knew the system needed changing.

They took the reviews out of the hands of the umpires and gave it to the players. They had to ask for a review if they thought a mistake had been made. This system has been in place for many years now with minor tinkering to improve it.

The tennis referral system on line calls works because the players ask for them, not the umpire or line judge.

The field hockey referral system works because the players ask for them, not the officials.

The NHL review system works because the coaches request the reviews.

So, here's what needs to be done in football: VAR needs to be called for by the players themselves.

Like hockey, I favour one challenge per game. You keep it if you are right but lose it if you're wrong.

If you have been fouled but the ref says no then call for VAR. No need to surround the ref, just make the signal. If you were certain they were offside then call for VAR. It's designed to stop howlers, the players should know when a decision is clearly wrong.

This method stops (or at least hugely reduces) complaining by players. If you think the decision is wrong you ask VAR.

Like the other sports, there will be tinkering and refinements needed but I am certain that this is the route to go down. The sports with the best review systems are the ones where the players/coaches request them, not where the officials do it.

That is actually very astute statto. I agree.

 

[Bladesman]

I bet no one is missing fucking VAR right now.