VAR - The use of the monitor

[CentralQuay]

It's what a lot have been crying out for and was used tonight.....Not convinced by the way they did it though.

They spent a good 2 minutes looking through replays, then suggested to the ref to have a look.
That already convinces the ref imo, that he's made the wrong call.
The ref then spent about 15 seconds and just 1 or 2 replays looking at it, nowhere near the time VAR spent.

The argument for making the ref use the monitor is to make it look to the fans like the ref on the field is still making the decision.
That was not the case tonight, even with him looking at the monitor.


What's worrying is that we've just had a long, albeit unprecedented break, and the system still looks as incoherent as before.

 

[Rufus Smalls]

True, but at least the correct decision was made by the ref. after reviewing the monitor. Not a malicious tackle but under today’s directive it was a red card.

 

[Champagneblade]

Which begs the question...Villa

 

[What the Hecky]

They spent 2 days looking at something that I saw the instant the replay came on I noticed that they didn't spend two weeks checking to see if there was an offside in the build up to the Arsenal goal as it did look like a toe was offside

 

[HoodedClaw]

What's worrying is that we've just had a long, albeit unprecedented break, and the system still looks as incoherent as before.

I'm not sure what you were expecting with Mr Mike Riley is in charge of it. A shocking referee in his time, but has the responisbility for implementing VAR. I'm surprised it's working as well as it.

 

[TJB.]

Two big improvements;

1) Relay the audio to the stadium/TV comms for transparency as is done in rugby. We can see how they're coming to their conclusions in real time which hopefully promotes better understanding of the system

2) When the VAR system needs to be used, it should be mandatory for the referee to go over to the monitor and review the footage himself at the same time as Stockley Park are doing so. This helps removes the notion that the man in the middle is being dictated to from a studio (as Mourinho alluded to last week).

Implement those two elements and I think you'll get people a bit more on board. I think it's ridiculous that the pitchside monitors only appear to be used when the ref is prompted to do so, or when he remembers it's there.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

Two big improvements;

1) Relay the audio to the stadium/TV comms for transparency as is done in rugby. We can see how they're coming to their conclusions in real time which hopefully promotes better understanding of the system

2) When the VAR system needs to be used, it should be mandatory for the referee to go over to the monitor and review the footage himself at the same time as Stockley Park are doing so. This helps removes the notion that the man in the middle is being dictated to from a studio (as Mourinho alluded to last week).

Implement those two elements and I think you'll get people a bit more on board. I think it's ridiculous that the pitchside monitors only appear to be used when the ref is prompted to do so, or when he remembers it's there.

Problem with 2) is Stockly are reviewing all the stuff right through. He cant go over for all the reviews. Just needs to be the decision ones.

As has been said, the time taken is ridiculous. 2 minutes for an offside / not that can be seen in 2 seconds.
Needs a big shake up.

 

[SK10Blade]

Isn't the wording for VAR "Clear and obvious"? If that's the case then if they cannot decide within a set time scale then (say 30 seconds) then it's not clear and obvious and the ref's decision should stand.

 

[Cassius Kray]

I don't agree that the ref should always view the monitor. The time taken is already a major alienating factor and that would make it even worse. I don't really see why it's a problem that the ref is being 'dictated to' by people who have had a better view (but it is a problem that refs no longer have confidence in their own judgements).

VAR would be significantly better if it were used as an appeal process. The game goes back to how it used to be, with the ref/linesmen making the decisions, but each manager has two opportunities a game to appeal against a wrong decision. That way we get back much of the lost momentum, officials aren't constantly second guessing themselves, and yet we also have leeway to overturn the worst mistakes. If the ref and manager don't catch something - play on.

 

[Snowflake]

As was said by many at the beginning if you cannot see within one minute that a clear and obvious error has been made, then it is not “clear and obvious “.

 

[Rudders]

Nketiah's challenge was similar but slighty worse than Sharp's redcard against Southampton. He can have no complaints.
The Vardy studding incident was a complete sporting accident, no foul play there.
Arteta shouldn't be mouthing off about VAR, he has benefited from it enormously recently mainly through the cheating and diving of Lacazette. Who was at it again last night. Also Arteta basing his touchline behaviour on the antics of people like Karl Robinson and Billy Davies is not a good look. He needs to wind his neck in a bit the spoilt child in his silly chinos. Also Arsenal were really poor second half and quite lucky not to lose, better decision making from Leicester attackers last night would have resulted in more goals for the Foxes.

 

[Champagneblade]

Goes back to the Lunny one. When you're getting the protractor and spirit level out it ain't clear and obvious.

Did we get a clear and obvious advantage there? He cross was headed away then a totally different cross from the other side of the field was made by a different player and attacked by an unrelated player who scored.

It shouldn't be 'is there a way we can deny this goal?' it should be 'is there a significant error where an advantage is gained?'

Offside by a toe, an ankle etc is nonsense.

 

[TJB.]

I don't agree that the ref should always view the monitor. The time taken is already a major alienating factor and that would make it even worse. I don't really see why it's a problem that the ref is being 'dictated to' by people who have had a better view (but it is a problem that refs no longer have confidence in their own judgements).

It takes a maximum of twenty seconds for the referee to jog over to the touchline and look at his monitor. If it's done at the same time as Stockley Park are reviewing it, it should take no longer, and could in fact cut the time down.

Last night was a great example. Instead of the VAR looking at it and then asking the referee on the pitch to nip over, have a look and overturn the decision, why not have the man on the pitch looking over it at the same time and communicating/reviewing in unison? The game has been paused anyway, and it might mean a quicker conclusion.

The thing about being dictated to is more of a hearts-and-minds thing than owt. You have managers, fans and the media buying into the notion that the VAR is an evil overlord sat miles away punishing teams. Let's be honest, after the first season of having it, it's safe to say the majority of people aren't big fans of it. Steps need to be taken to get people more on board with it.

 

[Stevo]

I'm sure, somewhere there is a VAR drinking game in the offing

 

[sufcboy95]

VAR has been an absolute disaster from start to finish this season. Major changes need to be made next season, from the rules to the way the refs use it

 

[Conroy]

Two big improvements;

1) Relay the audio to the stadium/TV comms for transparency as is done in rugby. We can see how they're coming to their conclusions in real time which hopefully promotes better understanding of the system

2) When the VAR system needs to be used, it should be mandatory for the referee to go over to the monitor and review the footage himself at the same time as Stockley Park are doing so. This helps removes the notion that the man in the middle is being dictated to from a studio (as Mourinho alluded to last week).

Implement those two elements and I think you'll get people a bit more on board. I think it's ridiculous that the pitchside monitors only appear to be used when the ref is prompted to do so, or when he remembers it's there.

One final addition would be a time limit which effectively implements the clear and obvious rule. If the VAR office and referee cannot determine either way after 1-minute max reviewing time then original decision stands.

 

[Swannyblade]

Two big improvements;

1) Relay the audio to the stadium/TV comms for transparency as is done in rugby. We can see how they're coming to their conclusions in real time which hopefully promotes better understanding of the system

2) When the VAR system needs to be used, it should be mandatory for the referee to go over to the monitor and review the footage himself at the same time as Stockley Park are doing so. This helps removes the notion that the man in the middle is being dictated to from a studio (as Mourinho alluded to last week).

Implement those two elements and I think you'll get people a bit more on board. I think it's ridiculous that the pitchside monitors only appear to be used when the ref is prompted to do so, or when he remembers it's there.

Do they have the footage on the big screen in the stadium in Rugby during the review process?

 

[SB_90]

its only taken over 2 years but finally VAR is working like it should, because as jose mourinho said after us the referee is no longer is charge on the pitch. the huge irony that it was head referee mike riley have severely weakened the referee's position. ive seen a few spanish games VAR works alot better over there because like has been said they check most decision but if it a major decision ie offside, penalty, tech failure etc, then they tell the referee go to the screen & have a look. because everyone can see who is making the decision

 

[TJB.]

Do they have the footage on the big screen in the stadium in Rugby during the review process?

I don't know the answer to that as I don't partake in egg-chasing. But from what I've seen of it on the telly, you can at least hear the discussions between the refs reviewing the replays and the man on the pitch. That'd be a good step towards greater transparency.

I also agree with the calls for more accountability for referees, and something along these lines would go some way towards achieving that.

 

[Magic hat FC]

Do they have the footage on the big screen in the stadium in Rugby during the review process?

I think so, thats basically the refs pitch side monitor. Also you can hear the oohs and aahs from the crowd during the viewing.

 

[Swannyblade]

Just from memory when watching the occasional egg being chased, I'm sure the on-field ref tells the TMO what he has seen/is seeing and is requesting confirmation from the TMO that they are correct.
We should definitely be allowed to listen in because it helps to understand why a decision has been made and helps with accountability (even if we might not agree). It would be good to hear the thought process of the officials

 

[Magic hat FC]

I don't know the answer to that as I don't partake in egg-chasing. But from what I've seen of it on the telly, you can at least hear the discussions between the refs reviewing the replays and the man on the pitch. That'd be a good step towards greater transparency.

I also agree with the calls for more accountability for referees, and something along these lines would go some way towards achieving that.

I think the reason you can hear the rugby refs is because they're treated with respect from the players and don't swear and scream at them, much if at all.
And regards the transparency, the TMO and ref are watching the same pictures at the same time, but rugby laws seem to be less subjective.

 

[John Street West Terrace]

Goes back to the Lunny one. When you're getting the protractor and spirit level out it ain't clear and obvious.

Did we get a clear and obvious advantage there? He cross was headed away then a totally different cross from the other side of the field was made by a different player and attacked by an unrelated player who scored.

It shouldn't be 'is there a way we can deny this goal?' it should be 'is there a significant error where an advantage is gained?'

Offside by a toe, an ankle etc is nonsense.

Couldn’t agree more CB

 

[CentralQuay]

Goes back to the Lunny one. When you're getting the protractor and spirit level out it ain't clear and obvious.

Did we get a clear and obvious advantage there? He cross was headed away then a totally different cross from the other side of the field was made by a different player and attacked by an unrelated player who scored.

It shouldn't be 'is there a way we can deny this goal?' it should be 'is there a significant error where an advantage is gained?'

Offside by a toe, an ankle etc is nonsense.

It's certainly something that needs to be looked at come the end of the season.

The Lundstram one is not something you want to see preventing a goal, I think Wolves have been unfortunate enough to have 2 like that which were pretty much an identical fractional difference.

 

[CentralQuay]

I think the reason you can hear the rugby refs is because they're treated with respect from the players and don't swear and scream at them, much if at all.
And regards the transparency, the TMO and ref are watching the same pictures at the same time, but rugby laws seem to be less subjective.

But as we have seen on here, we seem unhappy when non-subjective decisions are made.
The Lundstram toe and the two Wolves ones (Moutinho and Neto I think), were both objective decisions, by the letter of the law, correct.


I'm not sure there's a solution which appeases everyone.

 

[Magic hat FC]

But as we have seen on here, we seem unhappy when non-subjective decisions are made.
The Lundstram toe and the two Wolves ones (Moutinho and Neto I think), were both objective decisions, by the letter of the law, correct.


I'm not sure there's a solution which appeases everyone.

But the Lundstram toe was subjective as to when the phases of play were reset, the ball was touched by a Spurs player with a clearing header, just because it didn't get to half way shouldn't mean the phase can't be reset because of it.
Let's put it this way, if an attacking player is in an offside position when the ball is played to him, but it gets a deflection from a defending player is he still offside?

 

[CentralQuay]

But the Lundstram toe was subjective as to when the phases of play were reset, the ball was touched by a Spurs player with a clearing header, just because it didn't get to half way shouldn't mean the phase can't be reset because of it.
Let's put it this way, if an attacking player is in an offside position when the ball is played to him, but it gets a deflection from a defending player is he still offside?

Yes.

I think that supports the opposition of your point in all honesty.

 

[PokerBlade]

A lot of the decisions we bicker over in football are difficult decisions that rage on even after the match and the benefit of replays. It was never going to happen that a couple of replays would either lead to quick decisions or significantly better ones. In other games that's far less intrusive to the overall pace of the sport.

I suppose my big question is this, what have we seen from VAR so far to make us think it's going to be a significant improvement over previous seasons? Decisions don't seem to be any more accurate overall, it's added huge delays to the game, it's ruined goal celebrations, it's crossing out goals that we'd like to see stand, and it's left fans feeling even more detached from the game.

The sensible thing to do would be to call it a failure, scrap it, and revisit it for trials in cups and such in the future.

 

[Magic hat FC]

Yes.

I think that supports the opposition of your point in all honesty.

But why should a defenders touch effectively reset the play for someone in an offside position, yet not reset it if an offside has been missed?

 

[CentralQuay]

But why should a defenders touch effectively reset the play for someone in an offside position, yet not reset it if an offside has been missed?

It doesn't.