I know we had a thread about VAR at the World Cup, but I have just read this; https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/49057675 Interesting and pleased to see it is being introduced on a two year trial and but the video assisted refs will be miles from the grounds, all situated at a centre in London. Not sure if I think having the refs far away is logical, as it takes them completely away from the situation they are assessing, or if it makes no sense as it is just a further obstacle. Thoughts?
It’s ****e. There’s no chance it will be trialled and deemed to be ****e. It’s here to stay. Anyone who wants it is ****ing clueless. This is football AIDS.
There are clear problems with it. However, I trust that everyone who hates it and doesn't want it, won't complain when points are lost to bad decisions. We've had years and years of terrible referees costing results and very loud calls for them to be helped. I think I'd like to keep VAR with a few tweaks. Assistants should flag immediately for offside and it should only be checked if there is a goal. I'm not sure there's any escaping the let down when a goal has been scored and then it's ruled out. Perhaps make a line on VAR that means that if a player is less than 6 inches offside he's deemed to be level or something like that.
I can accept losing to a really marginal call. We shouldn’t need VAR to avoid errors like the penalty given against us on the last day of the season. That was just incompetent refereeing. They need to limit the time to review calls to 30 seconds and stop looking at fouls in agonising slow motion where you lose all perspective on the challenge. It’s quite interesting in a way when it’s not your team and you aren’t there but sounds crap for the matchgoing fan paying to watch a referee chat for two minutes.
I agree that there are problems. We shouldn't need it to avoid stupid decisions but unfortunately there are more and more made. A lot of that is due to the game getting quicker and the refs aren't the athletes that the players are. Not sure what the answer is, but the standard of referring is poor.
There will always be complaints that it's too slow. However that can be dealt with by clear rules and time limits for the ref to make a decision. Also judge them at the end of each season on their accuracy and speed. I'm sure that when it becomes known that renewal of their authority to ref the biggest games will be determined by stats as to their success rate and their speed, it will resolve many of these complaints. Far better that decisions are right. Finally, it's in the hands of the clubs and the players. The most enjoyable part of the womens' world cup was the fact that there was far less cynicism . gamesmanship, dissent, intimidation of referees and deliberate foul play than in the men's game. Drop the attitude epitomised by Shearer that any forward who feels the slightest touch is entitled to go down in order to win a penalty. Punish those responsible heavily and we will make referees jobs a lot easier.
We can’t uninvent the tech, but arguing about bad or often misunderstood decisions has always been a part of being a fan. I’d like a tennis/cricket approach where each coach has a couple of challenges per half, and that’s it. Allowing refs to use it when they have doubts will just mean they use it all the time to avoid criticism. Using it automatically in certain situations, as they seemed to be doing in the women’s World Cup, slows the game down way too much.
As it's only in the Premier League it has no interest further down the food chain where we will continue to be on the wrong end of crap decisions. Where I really found it annoying was in the FA Cup where the Premier League clubs had the 'advantage' of VAR as if they didn't have enough of an advantage already. I guess there's not much chance of it filtering down the leagues in the near future with so many clubs on the financial brink...
Can't be that difficult to change the software so that those lines that we see on screen are adjusted by a few inches? I think we all thought Lingard looked onside and those should be allowed to stand imo. I don't like the idea of giving teams a limited amount of VAR appeals. All that will happen is that the bench will see instant replays on their tablets and will inform the players.
There was a "handball" in the box in the WWC that hit a point where the arm joins the chest. They looked at close up reruns for about 4 minutes and don't think they were any the wiser! Think she was given the benefit of the doubt and no handball, which was correct I reckon.
I'd be happy if it was scrapped altogether, but that's plainly not going to happen. Technology works perfectly for goal-line decisions because it is immediate, but the time taken over VAR at the moment is killing the spontaneity of the game. Its use must be limited in my opinion and I would go along with the idea of appeals from the bench, perhaps one per team allowed each half. If I thought it would help to eradicate diving, I would be more in favour, but it seems to me that 'contact' will still be deemed sufficient to warrant a penalty, with no regard to whether the contact was sufficient to make the player fall over, or to hamper in any way. As to close line calls, why not try the idea of 'umpires call' as in cricket, whereby the decision has to shown to be wrong by a certain margin, say 6 inches?
