VAR - Any decision made on the field, can only be overturned on the field.

[CentralQuay]

I think it's the only way VAR can really be accepted by fans/players.....and maybe even referees too.

VAR should tell the referee with any decision that should possibly overturned that he should go over to the monitor.
I honestly believe even fans in the ground would be a bit more of accepting of the whole thing by actually seeing the referee looking at something, rather than just standing around like a lemon with a finger in his ear.

People are saying the way it's done currently gives the referee an excuse to take less responsibility.....
But I think the larger problem is that the referees also aren't given a full clear explanation of why the goal was disallowed, as they cannot see the footage either.




Maybe a system where VAR is only in direct contact with the 4th official, and not the referee.
Then the 4th official simply tells the referee to look at the monitor when VAR gets in touch with him, with no indication given to the referee of what the problem might be.

 

[Bladesman]

The ref should go over to the screen regardless of what VAR have told them. The ref needs to know why he is giving the decision and should see the evidence.

 

[CentralQuay]

The ref should go over to the screen regardless of what VAR have told them. The ref needs to know why he is giving the decision and should see the evidence.

For every decision/goal/free kick/corner etc?
Games would last 12 hours.

He simply needs an indication to go over to the monitor when VAR raises his attention.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

It's not just where the decision is made. It's the way the rules are applied, like somebody with no common sense or experience if the game would.
Yesterdays Spurs handball and Lunnys offside prime examples.
Re-introduction of common sense is needed, either at Stockly or on the pitch.

 

[Swannyblade]

It simple...VAR alerts ref of possible infraction, ref goes over to monitor to look at footage that is being reviewed by VAR (as opposed to standing there waiting for VAR to view the footage).
Wouldn't take any longer and the optics would be so much better if it looks like the ref is the one in control and making the decisions (even if he does still choose to confer with VAR over the mic)

 

[PokerBlade]

The refs making the VAR calls are the same refs as on the pitch. The only difference for the VAR team is that they're away from the pressure of players, managers, and a crowd that might sway them one way or another. That was supposed to be one of the big pluses to VAR so I don't know why we'd now want to do away with it.

It would also mean potentially longer stoppages to play if the ref has to go to the sidelines and review the footage and angles.

I don't see how this would be any improvement.

 

[Headshrinker]

Let the on-field ref and linos make the calls.

Have a central VAR with five people. In order for the on-field decision to be overruled all five VAR refs must vote for it, otherwise the call on the field is upheld.

 

[CentralQuay]

It simple...VAR alerts ref of possible infraction, ref goes over to monitor to look at footage that is being reviewed by VAR (as opposed to standing there waiting for VAR to view the footage).
Wouldn't take any longer and the optics would be so much better if it looks like the ref is the one in control and making the decisions (even if he does still choose to confer with VAR over the mic)

That was my suggestion.

 

[CentralQuay]

The 'Clear and obvious error' is a big problem for me too.

It adds more subjectivity, not less.

 

[Addison]

The simple fact is while Mike Riley is in charge of applying his version of VAR we will continue to have problems. Riley designed it to avoid ridicule for the ref on the pitch. Fifa don't agree with him.

VAR EPL style takes away responsibility from the man with the whistle and passes it to someone sat miles away in a room. Pitch side monitors should have been used from day one. Mourinho's comment last night about who referees games now was spot on.

Premier League is using VAR wrong for offside reviews, suggests Ifab

Lukas Brud has insisted the use of the Video Assistant Referee should be reserved for ‘clear and obvious’ errors and not numerous replays for marginal decisions

www.independent.co.uk

Reuters | Breaking International News & Views

Find latest news from every corner of the globe at Reuters.com, your online source for breaking international news coverage.

uk.reuters.com

 

[HVR]

I don’t like Rugby Union comparisons normally, but in the case of the Spurs goal, the ref would have asked TMO “is there any reason why I can’t give that goal?”
The TMO, would have run through it, ball crossed the line, not offside, oh, wait, possible handball, and a foul.
The decision would have been to award Spurs a free-kick for the initial foul, as you would not normally penalise a player who was fouled and then fell on the ball hitting it with his arm, by ignoring the foul and giving a free-kick for handball! It has been a bugbear of mine pre-VAR that the advantage should last a bit longer, and, like rugby, play be called back, if the advantage fizzles out too quickly.
Over the years I’ve seen countless times when a ref waves on play for advantage and the ball then hits the ankle of the forward and the opposition makes a break and nearly scores.
At that point there was no clear advantage and play should be stopped and a free-kick awarded for the initial foul, which is what should have happened last night.
Harry Kane thought it was a foul, and a free-kick, the ref said no, play on, take the advantage, Kane then scores, but the goal is chalked off for handball, caused by the foul!
But I think the goal should have been disallowed because, by the current rules, it was handball.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

The 'Clear and obvious error' is a big problem for me too.

It adds more subjectivity, not less.

There's got to be subjectivity. Letter of the law, Spurs goal is disallowed. Common footballing sense lets it stand.
That's one of the things that makes the difference between a good ref and a bad one.

 

[1066blade]

VAR was meant to improve decision making and fairplay. It hasn't.
Scrap it. Go back to the drawing board, come back in a couple of seasons with something that works.

 

[sheff_blade90]

Fully agree i dont understand why stockley park was built is not needed the Referee should go to the screen if he thinks that there has been something dodgy. other than VAR trying to find a way to get disallow a goal. but only football could take this technology that so many sports have enhanced the sports & football has ruin it.

as looking at NFL & Rugby they use the clear & obvious rule it works very well. in super bowl & rugby world cup. at no point did they start rewinding they just looked at the assist & scorer. nothing else

 

[HoodedClaw]

The refs making the VAR calls are the same refs as on the pitch. The only difference for the VAR team is that they're away from the pressure of players, managers, and a crowd that might sway them one way or another. That was supposed to be one of the big pluses to VAR so I don't know why we'd now want to do away with it.

It would also mean potentially longer stoppages to play if the ref has to go to the sidelines and review the footage and angles.

I don't see how this would be any improvement.

The simple fact is while Mike Riley is in charge of applying his version of VAR we will continue to have problems. Riley designed it to avoid ridicule for the ref on the pitch. Fifa don't agree with him.

VAR EPL style takes away responsibility from the man with the whistle and passes it to someone sat miles away in a room. Pitch side monitors should have been used from day one. Mourinho's comment last night about who referees games now was spot on.

Premier League is using VAR wrong for offside reviews, suggests Ifab

Lukas Brud has insisted the use of the Video Assistant Referee should be reserved for ‘clear and obvious’ errors and not numerous replays for marginal decisions

www.independent.co.uk

Reuters | Breaking International News & Views

Find latest news from every corner of the globe at Reuters.com, your online source for breaking international news coverage.

uk.reuters.com

Interestingly according to the Premier League, the on field Ref is supposed to make the final decision:

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1297368

 

[Bladesman]

For every decision/goal/free kick/corner etc?
Games would last 12 hours.

He simply needs an indication to go over to the monitor when VAR raises his attention.

No, I mean for critical decisions such as red cards, penalties and goal decisions.

 

[Jonboy60]

Didn’t he wave play on, and would have given the goal if var hadn’t intervened.
I think that’s why the ref didn’t go back for the free kick.

 

[PokerBlade]

Interestingly according to the Premier League, the on field Ref is supposed to make the final decision:

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1297368

Well, he does, but it's in name only. The ref on the pitch makes the decision under the advice of a VAR team that he's obviously going to listen to. Same way that linesmen don't award free kicks for offside, the ref chooses whether to blow his whistle but if a flag goes up he's going to go with it. I don't really have a problem with that. The ref can report what he's been told and it's just the same info you'd get if he'd indicated a decision himself. I don't see that it matters though. The VAR teams are also the ones on the pitch in the next game, so it's not like the people making the decisions have changed.

One ref reviewing his own decision doesn't seem to be any improvement over another ref reviewing his decision, so I don't know why people keep suggesting it.

 

[HoodedClaw]

Well, he does, but it's in name only. The ref on the pitch makes the decision under the advice of a VAR team that he's obviously going to listen to. Same way that linesmen don't award free kicks for offside, the ref chooses whether to blow his whistle but if a flag goes up he's going to go with it. I don't really have a problem with that. The ref can report what he's been told and it's just the same info you'd get if he'd indicated a decision himself. I don't see that it matters though. The VAR teams are also the ones on the pitch in the next game, so it's not like the people making the decisions have changed.

One ref reviewing his own decision doesn't seem to be any improvement over another ref reviewing his decision, so I don't know why people keep suggesting it.

Not sure I agree with that. I don't see how you can make a decision without checking the video evidence yourself, the only thing the on field ref is doing is relaying the VAR refs decision.

For me the integrity of of the decision should lie with the on-field Ref, but this can only be done if he evaluates the evidence himself. Not all refs will give the same decision for the same infringement.

I don't know what the convesations are like between Stockley Park and the refs, but for me the only thing that should be said to the on field Ref is that there might be an issue that you might want to look at, I wouldn't even tell him what it is that may have been spotted. The more info he's given the more the decision is already influenced.

 

[ghandi]

Fully agree i dont understand why stockley park was built is not needed the Referee should go to the screen if he thinks that there has been something dodgy. other than VAR trying to find a way to get disallow a goal. but only football could take this technology that so many sports have enhanced the sports & football has ruin it.

as looking at NFL & Rugby they use the clear & obvious rule it works very well. in super bowl & rugby world cup. at no point did they start rewinding they just looked at the assist & scorer. nothing else

It's been built (numerous buildings) for years the VAR mob just rent some space.

 

[Sheffsteel]

Agree regards opinion based stuff like penalties.

However factual stuff like the Harry Kane disallowed goal shows how good VAR is.
Its spotter a factual accidental handball and using the rules it cant be a goal..

Another issue is that if the ref has the final say when looking at the camera
Then expect ref intimidation and over rowing whilst he walks over to the camera.
VAR protects refs from abuse.

 

[PokerBlade]

Not sure I agree with that. I don't see how you can make a decision without checking the video evidence yourself, the only thing the on field ref is doing is relaying the VAR refs decision.

For me the integrity of of the decision should lie with the on-field Ref, but this can only be done if he evaluates the evidence himself. Not all refs will give the same decision for the same infringement.

I don't know what the convesations are like between Stockley Park and the refs, but for me the only thing that should be said to the on field Ref is that there might be an issue that you might want to look at, I wouldn't even tell him what it is that may have been spotted. The more info he's given the more the decision is already influenced.

I don't get the integrity thing. The VAR call is coming from the same guy that was on the field last week. It's not like there's special refs who only do VAR.

If we want more integrity then we should actually make it so refereeing decisions are properly explained after the game. All we get for now is pundits that don't even understand the rules half the time and silence from the officials.

 

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

Should use it in the same way they do in rugby.

Let the referee decide when it's needed, not be told what happened by some nobody in a darkened room.

As Mr Mourinho said yesterday, "The referee is in a room in London, not here on the pitch" or something similar.

How right he is.

I still think back to the Lunny offside; no referee in their right mind would have called that offside.

Too many errors all over the league to justify it carrying on in its present form.

 

[CentralQuay]

I don't get the integrity thing. The VAR call is coming from the same guy that was on the field last week. It's not like there's special refs who only do VAR.

If we want more integrity then we should actually make it so refereeing decisions are properly explained after the game. All we get for now is pundits that don't even understand the rules half the time and silence from the officials.

That has nothing to do with VAR.

Same before VAR, as it is now.

 

[PokerBlade]

That has nothing to do with VAR.

Same before VAR, as it is now.

It has everything to do with the post I replied to. If people want more integrity, that's a way to actually get it. The ref viewing the monitor by the side of the pitch provides better optics without being a solution or improvement to anything.

 

[CentralQuay]

It has everything to do with the post I replied to. If people want more integrity, that's a way to actually get it. The ref viewing the monitor by the side of the pitch provides better optics without being a solution or improvement to anything.

What do you expect refs to say about wrong decisions?

 

[Bladedog]

You have all the pundits on sky slating it now..but their the same people who were demanding it was brought in..wankers!
Personally I fuckin hate it

 

[Harrisblade]

The simple fact is while Mike Riley is in charge of applying his version of VAR we will continue to have problems. Riley designed it to avoid ridicule for the ref on the pitch. Fifa don't agree with him.

VAR EPL style takes away responsibility from the man with the whistle and passes it to someone sat miles away in a room. Pitch side monitors should have been used from day one. Mourinho's comment last night about who referees games now was spot on.

Premier League is using VAR wrong for offside reviews, suggests Ifab

Lukas Brud has insisted the use of the Video Assistant Referee should be reserved for ‘clear and obvious’ errors and not numerous replays for marginal decisions

www.independent.co.uk

Reuters | Breaking International News & Views

Find latest news from every corner of the globe at Reuters.com, your online source for breaking international news coverage.

uk.reuters.com

I think that using VAR for offsides in the way it is being used is our FA's own decision.
UEFA goes with the 'clear and obvious error" use for ruling on offsides which is what it was designed for.

 

[Brian Deane]

It has everything to do with the post I replied to. If people want more integrity, that's a way to actually get it. The ref viewing the monitor by the side of the pitch provides better optics without being a solution or improvement to anything.

No wonder the refs are relying on VAR if there gerrin pissed during the match. Can't believe they're serving shorts at side of pitch

 

[PokerBlade]

What do you expect refs to say about wrong decisions?

Why they awarded them, what their interpretation of the event was, what factors they took into account, their understanding of the laws of the game. Because that might lead to a better understanding of the game on the part of fans, as well as leading to more understanding of the ref's position.

Some of the decisions we've seen from VAR this season are baffling, but that's no different to refereeing decisions in the past. What might help us all would be to understand the whys and wherefores.