VAR The Premier League

[LBA_Blade]

https://www.skysports.com/premier-l.../chelsea-2-0-fulham-premier-league-highlights

Whilst this forum has not exactly turned toxic against firstly the owners and always Selles. The Wilder lovers still think he is the best manager on the planet, apart from 2.0 negative football. However putting that aside this is the type of competitive league we are wanting to put ourselves in where referees look at a foul and don’t make the call on the half way line, let the play carry on and 3 passes later Fulham score for VAR to intervene and rule it out for I am not quite sure. The referee again was bang in line with the handball and didn’t see it in real time. Without VAR that game potentially finishes
1-1 with it 2-0 Chelsea. Not forgetting the academy players and the squad we have now are struggling in the Championship, if we brought back Wilder like some people want or any other coach with Championship experience can the board seriously afford to not only replace majority of the starting side but also a full bench for added quality too. To compete it isn’t unrealistic saying we need at least 10 incomings of Premier League quality we could be looking at £200-300millon spend which we can’t afford. If we bring in Mee next week, our end of window transfer activity is the free market. Which isn’t the worst place to be looking but Mee said weeks ago he was looking for a new club, we should have been bringing him in then so he had already played 2 or 3 for us now rather than still not sure if he is signing or not

1st priority this season is get our 1st point(s)
2nd priority get enough to be out of a relegation scrap
3rd Stabilise the club

 

[Bath Blade]

I’ve watched the disallowed goal countless times and still can’t see how it’s a foul. And even if it was, it definitely doesn’t count as a clear and obvious error. VAR is still ruining the game, and thankfully for us they don’t have VAR in league one.

 

[Bladesman]

 

[Jimmy Fleck]

At least next season in league one we’ll be nowhere near VAR.

 

[Bladesman]

 

[PrestwichBlade]

Game's gone

 

[Tickhill Blade]

Clear and obvious errors, and err...... careless challenges

 

[Blade59]

Just saw it on MOTD. Possibly the worst VAR decision I have ever seen. If I was Howard Webb I would be telling the ref (Rob Jones) and the VAR (Michael Salisbury) that they can ref in the park on Sunday morning's for the foreseeable if that is their level of understanding of the game.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

Fans don't want it

Survey reveals three quarters of fans oppose use of VAR - as majority believe it has killed joy of Premier League

The poll of nearly 8,000 supporters found that more than 97% disagreed that VAR makes watching football more enjoyable.

news.sky.com

 

[mattbianco1]

Fans don't want it

Survey reveals three quarters of fans oppose use of VAR - as majority believe it has killed joy of Premier League

The poll of nearly 8,000 supporters found that more than 97% disagreed that VAR makes watching football more enjoyable.

news.sky.com

It won't go now. It's used worldwide, not just in the PL.

Our officials do need to apply it better. The decision time in Champions League and the International Tournaments are far quicker

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

It won't go now. It's used worldwide, not just in the PL.

Our officials do need to apply it better. The decision time in Champions League and the International Tournaments are far quicker

I don't think it will.
Changing how it impacts the flow game of the game is the key.

 

[georgebernardshaw]

The Times this morning:

 

[YES Blade]

There is nothing wrong with VAR in principle, it’s just that they are useless at using it!

 

[Lord Eddard Muir]

The Times this morning:

View attachment 234104

These are all incredible given that they're loaded statements designed to encourage agreement, but 85% strongly disagreeing that "VAR makes watching football more enjoyable" is a thing of beauty

 

[SwissBlade]

The Times this morning:

View attachment 234104

It’s going nowhere but it’s one of many things in today’s game which is ruining the game and making it dull to watch

 

[calcalcal]

Var is crap because our officials are crap
Apparently this is 85% toxic but id say 85% accurate
Give var 30 sec if they cant overturn the original decision in 30sec then the decision has to stand
Simples

 

[Selly]

On the assumption that Pandoras Box is indeed open and isn`t getting reclosed, I still think that the right implementation of VAR is:

• allow teams 2 appeals per game
• If successful you retain the appeal
• Appeals must be made by the captain of the team giving a "T" signal (as per Cricket) - the game immediately stops
• Appeals must be made within 10 seconds of the incident
• Appeals must be made regarding an incident that occurred within the preceding 10 second prior to the appeal
• Appeals must be specific, for example
  • Player x was held by player y
  • Player x was offside when the ball was played by player y
  • Player x used his hand to control the ball
• Appeals are judged by the referee only at the monitor - it remains solely their decision
• Replays are played at full speed only - no slow motion (which always makes everything look worse)
• A failed appeal results in the loss of an appeal, and the opposition receiving an indirect free kick from the point at which the ball was when play was stopped (or the appealing team "kick off" if they were appealing for a goal to be ruled out for a foul)

Why is this better:

• It eliminates the "find any reason to disallow the goal" which is currently prevalent (Burrows at Wembley)
• It, broadly, eliminates the instances where the error is not "clear and obvious" because do you burn a review on something that isn`t (Lundstrum offside at Spurs)
• It should eliminate players crowding the ref to give a decision - as they can simply say if you are confident review it (Every single prem team ever)

 

[Selly]

These are all incredible given that they're loaded statements designed to encourage agreement, but 85% strongly disagreeing that "VAR makes watching football more enjoyable" is a thing of beauty

I've seen elsewhere that "75% of fans want VAR to remain with improvements" according to the Premier League

However I suspect that was also a loaded question along the lines of:

Do you want:

• VAR to remain as is
• VAR to remain with improvements

You can get ANY answer you want if you construct the question correctly.

<inserts Sir Humphrey Opinion Poll clip>

 

[Wapping Blade]

There is nothing wrong with VAR in principle, it’s just that they are useless at using it!

There is a whole lot wrong with VAR in principle, mainly ruining the in ground experience. I'm happy to sacrifice some marginal "improvements" in decision making for a far less stilted and manufactured match day.

 

[SwissBlade]

There is a whole lot wrong with VAR in principle, mainly ruining the in ground experience. I'm happy to sacrifice some marginal "improvements" in decision making for a far less stilted and manufactured match day.

I can’t recall a single case of VAR intervention where I’ve thought that I’m glad we’ve got var

In the championship, even with crap refs, worse Lino’s, which has been the case since I started going to football as a kid in the 90’s, I’ve not once thought if only we had var

 

[Selly]

I can’t recall a single case of VAR intervention where I’ve thought that I’m glad we’ve got var

West Ham at home.

BUT thats an extremely small silver lining to a hurricane sized cloud system.

It's also football fan bias and I fully acknowledge that.

There's no doubt that as a club we have had more VAR go against us than for us - and therefore our opposition to it probably isn't a surprise.

But if it's 75% of fans overall want it gone, that's probably a more representative sample...

 

[calcalcal]

On the assumption that Pandoras Box is indeed open and isn`t getting reclosed, I still think that the right implementation of VAR is:

• allow teams 2 appeals per game
• If successful you retain the appeal
• Appeals must be made by the captain of the team giving a "T" signal (as per Cricket) - the game immediately stops
• Appeals must be made within 10 seconds of the incident
• Appeals must be made regarding an incident that occurred within the preceding 10 second prior to the appeal
• Appeals must be specific, for example
  • Player x was held by player y
  • Player x was offside when the ball was played by player y
  • Player x used his hand to control the ball
• Appeals are judged by the referee only at the monitor - it remains solely their decision
• Replays are played at full speed only - no slow motion (which always makes everything look worse)
• A failed appeal results in the loss of an appeal, and the opposition receiving an indirect free kick from the point at which the ball was when play was stopped (or the appealing team "kick off" if they were appealing for a goal to be ruled out for a foul)

Why is this better:

• It eliminates the "find any reason to disallow the goal" which is currently prevalent (Burrows at Wembley)
• It, broadly, eliminates the instances where the error is not "clear and obvious" because do you burn a review on something that isn`t (Lundstrum offside at Spurs)
• It should eliminate players crowding the ref to give a decision - as they can simply say if you are confident review it (Every single prem team ever)

A challenge system like this or tennis is fair. But I suspect it'd lead to farce in practice. Still beats current mess though

 

[WorkingtonBlade]

On the assumption that Pandoras Box is indeed open and isn`t getting reclosed, I still think that the right implementation of VAR is:

• allow teams 2 appeals per game
• If successful you retain the appeal
• Appeals must be made by the captain of the team giving a "T" signal (as per Cricket) - the game immediately stops
• Appeals must be made within 10 seconds of the incident
• Appeals must be made regarding an incident that occurred within the preceding 10 second prior to the appeal
• Appeals must be specific, for example
  • Player x was held by player y
  • Player x was offside when the ball was played by player y
  • Player x used his hand to control the ball
• Appeals are judged by the referee only at the monitor - it remains solely their decision
• Replays are played at full speed only - no slow motion (which always makes everything look worse)
• A failed appeal results in the loss of an appeal, and the opposition receiving an indirect free kick from the point at which the ball was when play was stopped (or the appealing team "kick off" if they were appealing for a goal to be ruled out for a foul)

Why is this better:

• It eliminates the "find any reason to disallow the goal" which is currently prevalent (Burrows at Wembley)
• It, broadly, eliminates the instances where the error is not "clear and obvious" because do you burn a review on something that isn`t (Lundstrum offside at Spurs)
• It should eliminate players crowding the ref to give a decision - as they can simply say if you are confident review it (Every single prem team ever)

If we have to have VAR, I’m generally supportive of a challenge system - it’s the only way I can think of to cut out the endless VAR reviews of everything and focus the benefit (such as it is) on cases where the team on the field actually think something’s gone wrong.

Would VAR still be restricted to reviews of goals, or could you review anything? There are situations in every game where a player knows 100% that a decision is factually wrong (e.g. a throw-in given the wrong way) so if anything can be reviewed then teams would review things like that (nothing to lose, they know they’re right) and we’d end up with more VAR reviews. I think, therefore, reviews would still have to be restricted to goals/penalties, but in that case two reviews feels too many. I’d allow one (incorrect) review per team, to be made within 5 seconds of the incident (to prevent teams having someone checking a replay before indicating to their captain whether to call a review).

The game shouldn’t be stopped immediately - it’s too open to abuse. If a player’s clean through on your goal you give the ‘T’ signal for nothing, and they just get an indirect free-kick instead of a clear goal-scoring opportunity. You lose an appeal, but it’s worth it. When an appeal’s made when the ball’s in play the game should continue until the ball’s out of play or the referee judges that neither team is in a significantly advantageous position.

I’d allow use of slow-motion for the replay. For some incidents, played at normal speed, you can see almost nothing on the footage. It’s just as impossible to decide as it was from watching the original incident! I agree a full-speed replay should be available for decisions about severity of tackles etc, but slow-motion has its place too.

• Appeals must be made within 10 seconds of the incident
• Appeals must be made regarding an incident that occurred within the preceding 10 second prior to the appeal

Don’t these two mean the same thing?!

 

[The Fox]

Its here to stay unfortunately.

Ultimately so many VAR decisions are still subjective which is just as you were , the others like offside by a inch are just daft.

It needs re visiting but in the top flight , gone are the days of celebrating a last minute winner or worldy whilst some bloke in a shed looks at every reason to dissalow it.

 

[Selly]

Would VAR still be restricted to reviews of goals, or could you review anything? There are situations in every game where a player knows 100% that a decision is factually wrong (e.g. a throw-in given the wrong way) so if anything can be reviewed then teams would review things like that (nothing to lose, they know they’re right) and we’d end up with more VAR reviews. I think, therefore, reviews would still have to be restricted to goals/penalties, but in that case two reviews feels too many. I’d allow one (incorrect) review per team, to be made within 5 seconds of the incident (to prevent teams having someone checking a replay before indicating to their captain whether to call a review).

I think this is fair. Goals/penalties/red cards only. 1 incorrect review per team.

The game shouldn’t be stopped immediately - it’s too open to abuse. If a player’s clean through on your goal you give the ‘T’ signal for nothing, and they just get an indirect free-kick instead of a clear goal-scoring opportunity. You lose an appeal, but it’s worth it. When an appeal’s made when the ball’s in play the game should continue until the ball’s out of play or the referee judges that neither team is in a significantly advantageous position.

Also a good point and I agree but I'd leave it until the next natural stoppage. Remove as much "subjectivity" as possible.

I’d allow use of slow-motion for the replay. For some incidents, played at normal speed, you can see almost nothing on the footage. It’s just as impossible to decide as it was from watching the original incident!

That's sort of the point - if you can't tell from a full speed replay whether the original decision was wrong, then it wasn't. Clear and obvious.

• Appeals must be made within 10 seconds of the incident
• Appeals must be made regarding an incident that occurred within the preceding 10 second prior to the appeal

Don’t these two mean the same thing?!

Yes they do - they are a hangover from me starting with a proposal that you had to review at the next stoppage rather than immediately - then I realised that there would be situations where the "incident" occurred more than 10 seconds before the stoppage.