VAR Vote

[HeCanDoMagic]

I have always thought it wrong that it is the VAR room in the referee’s ear telling them to check something or giving advice.

I think there would be an improvement if it was the on field officials team that had to specifically request be checked.

 

[Selly]

I have always thought it wrong that it is the VAR room in the referee’s ear telling them to check something or giving advice.

I think there would be an improvement if it was the on field officials team that had to specifically request be checked.

I agree with this, except in the case of Serious Foul Play - specifically violence.

If someone lamps an opponent and the ref doesn`t see it, it should absolutely be brought to his/her attention and sanction made.

Everything else should be:

"I'd like to take a look at whether there was a handball in the build up there by No 17"

"Can you show me the angles of that tackle by 27 in the box please"

So not only does the ref retain the final decision, he has to think there was something to look at in the first place.

I appreciate that this will almost certainly lead to every tackle in the box with even a hint of a penalty being looked at by the ref.

Personally, I'd scrap it - but if its here to stay it has to change.

 

[jt64]

I appreciate that this will almost certainly lead to every tackle in the box with even a hint of a penalty being looked at by the ref.

Well if they were being consistent, they'd give penalties at every other corner

 

[Badger Blade]

I wouldn't scrap it but would change how its used to put more power in the hands of the on-field official to ask VAR for advice rather than VAR dictating to him.

If the on-field referee is convinced that there is a goal and nothing untoward has gone on, he awards it and that's that.

If he's fairly sure but there's an element of doubt about something in the build up - "Hello VAR, is there any obvious reason why I can't award a goal"

Tackle goes in and the players are all going off - "there has been some foul play, what would be the appropriate punishment?"

VAR can step in with things like violent conduct, things that have gone off behind the ref's back, yellow/red card for a tackle but leave most of it to the man in the middle.

Maybe have some kind of referral system like they have in cricket or tennis too when the players are convinced that something has been missed, like an obvious corner or foul that's been missed. It might also stop the surrounding of officials if the players get to have a say and can ask the question and feel like they're being heard.

 

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

The kids watch Italian and Spanish football, granted it's a different pace of game but very very few issues or delays since the early days. As others have stated it's not the technology but the interpretation i.e. the officials.

I'm still not a fan but I watched a lot of the rugby WC, and really enjoyed it. So refreshing not to see histrionics from the players and no back chat to the ref. Also, the clarity of the video checks, everyone in the ground and on TV can hear the discussion. Transparency. It works.

Also, excellent system for a ten minute review of yellows to reds when appropriate, the game continues and the player is punished proportionately.

Like with cricket, the two big positives - the audio for fans (ground / back home) and the fact that all the officials are ex-players. When will an ex footballer ever ref or run the lines, or be in VAR studio? Until that changes it will never be as good as it should be.

So Danny Murphy saying Baldock dived and should have been carded is a good example of this?

This is the Baldock that went down, didn't start rolling around like the sniper in the stands had got him, stood up and was ready to slot the ball home and he thought that was a dive?

 

[jt64]

It might also stop the surrounding of officials if the players get to have a say and can ask the question and feel like they're being heard.

We don't need a tweak of VAR to do that. The referee has enough tools in his arsenal to stop that already - they just choose not to use them

 

[Karaoke Blade]

The offside decisions have always bugged me. You're talking fractions between players but how can they be so accurate as to when the ball was actually kicked?

 

[NuddysGloves]

The offside decisions have always bugged me. You're talking fractions between players but how can they be so accurate as to when the ball was actually kicked?

The automated technology (that the Premier League declined to use) has sensors in the balls so the exact moment the ball is kicked can be pinpointed.

 

[HeCanDoMagic]

I agree with this, except in the case of Serious Foul Play - specifically violence.

If someone lamps an opponent and the ref doesn`t see it, it should absolutely be brought to his/her attention and sanction made.

Everything else should be:

"I'd like to take a look at whether there was a handball in the build up there by No 17"

"Can you show me the angles of that tackle by 27 in the box please"

So not only does the ref retain the final decision, he has to think there was something to look at in the first place.

I appreciate that this will almost certainly lead to every tackle in the box with even a hint of a penalty being looked at by the ref.

Personally, I'd scrap it - but if its here to stay it has to change.

Totally agree with you, some great points raised.

 

[Iffy Onuora's Shiny Head]

For a penalty, handball or offside it should be VAR assistant 1 showing VAR assistant 2, ONE replay at full speed.

If he cannot see something clear and obvious then you go with the onfield decision.

Then add in a rule about diving for a penalty gives you a 6 game ban or something.

 

[dsr-burnley]

I think ultimately the positives outweigh the negatives. Imagine all the offside goals we would've seen this season without VAR. There have been some bad referee decisions, but without VAR there would've been many more.

Most of the "offside" goals wouldn't have been offside if VAR didn't exist, because the players were level to the human eye. Son's "goal" for Spurs v Chelsea being a case in point. Does anyone really think the game is improved by disallowing that goal?

 

[YES Blade]

Most of the "offside" goals wouldn't have been offside if VAR didn't exist, because the players were level to the human eye. Son's "goal" for Spurs v Chelsea being a case in point. Does anyone really think the game is improved by disallowing that goal?

Why is it an issue that the rules are applied correctly? If a player is slightly offside he’s still offside and gaining an advantage over the defender.

Also, sometimes goals that were flagged offside are now given, surely that’s a good thing?

 

[Silent Blade]

Most of the "offside" goals wouldn't have been offside if VAR didn't exist, because the players were level to the human eye. Son's "goal" for Spurs v Chelsea being a case in point. Does anyone really think the game is improved by disallowing that goal?

The linesman did put his flag up!

 

[dsr-burnley]

Why is it an issue that the rules are applied correctly? If a player is slightly offside he’s still offside and gaining an advantage over the defender.

Also, sometimes goals that were flagged offside are now given, surely that’s a good thing?

When did the rule change, then? Because in 1990, when the offside rule was changed so that "level" meant onside where previously it was offside, it was specifically stated in the rule book that the change was to give attackers an advantage and to lead to more goals.

They did not say that because they thought an extra half inch was going to make a lot of difference. They said it because in the law as written and understood, "level" was a significant space between "in front" and "behind".

(And in the Lancashire guidance to referees, at least, and probably other counties as well, the guidance said that "level" was not to be judged to the nth degree. The quote I remember, subject to confirmation if anyone has the book, was "If the player appears to be level to the naked eye, then he is level".)

 

[dsr-burnley]

Why is it an issue that the rules are applied correctly? If a player is slightly offside he’s still offside and gaining an advantage over the defender.

Also, sometimes goals that were flagged offside are now given, surely that’s a good thing?

But because "level" has been reduced from a couple of feet to about half an inch. they are flagging a lot more. In the old days, if the linesman believed that one man's shoulder was an inch forward of the other's knee, they wouldn't have flagged. Now, they do. (After a short delay for a pointless passage of play to happen, of course.)

 

[YES Blade]

But because "level" has been reduced from a couple of feet to about half an inch. they are flagging a lot more. In the old days, if the linesman believed that one man's shoulder was an inch forward of the other's knee, they wouldn't have flagged. Now, they do. (After a short delay for a pointless passage of play to happen, of course.)

You’re either offside or you’re not, same with the ball crossing the line, it’s either crossed or it hasn’t. I really don’t see the issue, there is no debate it’s something that is a matter of fact.

 

[dsr-burnley]

You’re either offside or you’re not, same with the ball crossing the line, it’s either crossed or it hasn’t. I really don’t see the issue, there is no debate it’s something that is a matter of fact.

Do you genuinely believe that in the history of the game, the idea that "level" means offside or "level" means onside, actually makes no difference because "level" is bascially impossible? I promise you, linesman right up to Championship level make no attempt to judge whether one man's boot is an inch ahead of another's nose. They call it level, as per the rules.

Like I said, you may genuinely believe that when they changed level from offside to onside to give the attacker an edge, they literally meant that the attacker could have half an inch extra. But you would be in a minority.

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

ShockingBadBuy gets it. You are all arguing from the basis that this was introduced for the benefit of the game, it was only ever by TV, for TV. All the controversy about decisions was generated by TV, the demand for something to be done came from TV. It's great for the on-screen drama. Do tbis poll on Sky and you'd get the opposite result.

 

[Rusty view]

Happy Var day.

Still not over this!

 

[Toronto Blade]

Wolves boss vindicated as Premier League panel confirm second howler in a row

Gary O'Neil cut an exasperated figure in his post-match media commitments after watching his Wolves side lose 2-1 at Sheffield United following a controversial late penalty

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[dsr-burnley]

The PL have had a vote of their own, and surprise surprise, they find a majority of fans are in favour.

VAR: Premier League claims 96 per cent of referee decisions are correct - so what is future of technology in football?

The Premier League claim the “majority” of supporters are in favour of VAR and the technology has led to a 14 per cent increase in correct decisions; Sky Sports senior reporter Rob Dorsett sits down with Tony Scholes to discuss VAR’s performance and ideas for improvement

www.skysports.com

Mind you, they also find that Sander Berge's goal for Sheffield United against Forest in October should have been allowed. This would have put Sheffield United 2-1 up. (They have since corrected the team that he plays for, but they haven't corrected their opinion that he scored the goal. Berge crossed it for Foster to score.)

 

[diode_blade]

They should do what happens in cricket, each team captain allowed two appeals or perhaps one for footy, if captains decision is right you still keep the appeals allowed. If not you lose that appeal.
In my humble opinion.

 

[Selly]

The PL have had a vote of their own, and surprise surprise, they find a majority of fans are in favour.

"The details of that survey, conducted by the Premier League themselves, have not been made public,"

I'll bet they haven`t - I'd love to see the precise wording and context of the questions asked - I'll bet it included Goal Line Tech (which, despite our history with it, I don`t think anyone would argue we should get rid of) and had some horrendous questions prior to it to sway the answer..

A bit like this: