VAR

[Hoop Blah]

[Players mostly won't like it as they can't get away with some of the things they could get away with prior to it's introduction.

Agreed on the players agenda, although conversely they may be all for it to stop them being cheated out of a match or tournament too.

[Snowflake Royal]

I read a lot about 'it will disrupt the flow of the game', but is there any evidence in its use so far that it 'disrupts the flow of the game', any more so that the time is has taken to correct a wrong decision, or ensure a decision is correct?

It took 67 seconds from Ineacho's shot hitting the net for the goal to be awarded by VAR. Celebration of the goal in the stadium when it went in weren't mooted, and you could argue that it takes a minute to restart the game after a goal anyway*. And I've seen no evidence in other sports (such as rugby or cricket) of fans not celebrating a win or a wicket or a try or whatever as vociferously in case it is overturned.

*and in that respect, like for goals, I'd guess that any time used for VAR is added at the end.

I think one of the criticisms from the players in Germany and, to a lesser extent Italy, is that it's already disrupting the flow of games.

I'm all for the pilot programme but my fear remains that it'll have a negative effect long term for little gain in terms of correcting decisions. It'll very much be dependant upon the implementation but I do think it'll open the door to more intrusive reviews over time. This will just be the tip of the iceberg.

I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments. Put together a clear mission statement for it's purpose and what constitutes too far or unacceptable compromises and assertively defend against mission creep. It's not like there isn't plenty of opposition to rally even where it seems to be minimal disruption for decent gains.

[BR0B0T]

I read a lot about 'it will disrupt the flow of the game', but is there any evidence in its use so far that it 'disrupts the flow of the game', any more so that the time is has taken to correct a wrong decision, or ensure a decision is correct?

It took 67 seconds from Ineacho's shot hitting the net for the goal to be awarded by VAR. Celebration of the goal in the stadium when it went in weren't mooted, and you could argue that it takes a minute to restart the game after a goal anyway*. And I've seen no evidence in other sports (such as rugby or cricket) of fans not celebrating a win or a wicket or a try or whatever as vociferously in case it is overturned.

*and in that respect, like for goals, I'd guess that any time used for VAR is added at the end.

I think one of the criticisms from the players in Germany and, to a lesser extent Italy, is that it's already disrupting the flow of games.

I'm all for the pilot programme but my fear remains that it'll have a negative effect long term for little gain in terms of correcting decisions. It'll very much be dependant upon the implementation but I do think it'll open the door to more intrusive reviews over time. This will just be the tip of the iceberg.

Put together a clear mission statement for it's purpose and what constitutes too far or unacceptable compromises and assertively defend against mission creep.

sounds like management babble to give the impression you can control things in an open system

[RoyalinBracknell]

Alan Shearer spot on last night. VAR should only be used for matter of fact. Ball in and out of play. Inside box, outside box, offside etc.

Everyone on numerous media feeds are still debating whether they were penalties or not. That in itself says it won’t work.

I think that the premise behind VAR is more akin to what the likes of Shearer are suggesting than I realise. The concept behind it seems to be that it is only used on clear cut decisions rather than the borderline debatable ones. It was said right from the start of it being introduced in England that a high threshold would be applied for its use to prevent regular interruptions or referees having to spend 5 minutes watching the footage back for 50/50 decisions.

I think it needs to be applied to matters of opinion decisions to some degree. Think of an incident such as De Jong's challenge in the 2010 World Cup final. Howard Webb only produced a yellow card at the time but I think the vast, vast majority would say it should have been a red card - and Webb has said since that he wishes he'd had the chance to review it and he would have shown a red card if he'd been able to see a replay from a better angle. So, whilst technically that incident was a matter of opinion, there was conclusive evidence for what the correct decision should have been.

I think the suggestion that VAR will disrupt the flow of the game is sometimes overplayed. I think statistics have suggested that the ball is generally in player for less than 60 minutes of most games, so the notion that football is a free-flowing, non-stop 90 minute game is a bit exaggerated. We're all used to seeing games stopped for injuries or substitutions or to warn players not to push each other before corners or because a replacement ball is needed or because a fan has run on the pitch and so on.

It's been used in five games in English football so far. These matches have seen 10 goals scored; 8 of these have been clearly fine, celebrated as normal and there's been no suggestion of VAR involvement. There was some doubt about the Murray goal in the Brighton V Palace game, as to whether he handled it or if there was an offside. The VAR came to the decision pretty quickly that there was no conclusive evidence that the referee had got it wrong. The Leicester goal would not have been given without the VAR.

Aside from goals, there have been a handful of penalty incidents that have necessitated a short delay whilst the VAR looked at these and maybe two challenges where a yellow card was shown and the VAR just had a double-check to make sure a red card wasn't required (e.g. the Moses tackle last night). I don't think that the volume of contentious incidents are as frequent as some people suggest.

[Hoop Blah]

Interestingly*, the commentators in last nights game were already suggesting that officials should start to adjust their decision making on offsides because the VAR was available. The suggestion was that they shouldn't flag as many tight ones as offside as it will be better to let the game go on and then review IF something like a goal then happens.

That's something that is likely to happen over time if VAR comes in, see the way cricket umpires have pretty much given up calling no-balls, and then we might see things change a little for the worse, IMO.

[Stranded]

Alan Shearer spot on last night. VAR should only be used for matter of fact. Ball in and out of play. Inside box, outside box, offside etc.

Everyone on numerous media feeds are still debating whether they were penalties or not. That in itself says it won’t work.

I think that the premise behind VAR is more akin to what the likes of Shearer are suggesting than I realise. The concept behind it seems to be that it is only used on clear cut decisions rather than the borderline debatable ones. It was said right from the start of it being introduced in England that a high threshold would be applied for its use to prevent regular interruptions or referees having to spend 5 minutes watching the footage back for 50/50 decisions.

I think it needs to be applied to matters of opinion decisions to some degree. Think of an incident such as De Jong's challenge in the 2010 World Cup final. Howard Webb only produced a yellow card at the time but I think the vast, vast majority would say it should have been a red card - and Webb has said since that he wishes he'd had the chance to review it and he would have shown a red card if he'd been able to see a replay from a better angle. So, whilst technically that incident was a matter of opinion, there was conclusive evidence for what the correct decision should have been.

I think the suggestion that VAR will disrupt the flow of the game is sometimes overplayed. I think statistics have suggested that the ball is generally in player for less than 60 minutes of most games, so the notion that football is a free-flowing, non-stop 90 minute game is a bit exaggerated. We're all used to seeing games stopped for injuries or substitutions or to warn players not to push each other before corners or because a replacement ball is needed or because a fan has run on the pitch and so on.

It's been used in five games in English football so far. These matches have seen 10 goals scored; 8 of these have been clearly fine, celebrated as normal and there's been no suggestion of VAR involvement. There was some doubt about the Murray goal in the Brighton V Palace game, as to whether he handled it or if there was an offside. The VAR came to the decision pretty quickly that there was no conclusive evidence that the referee had got it wrong. The Leicester goal would not have been given without the VAR.

Aside from goals, there have been a handful of penalty incidents that have necessitated a short delay whilst the VAR looked at these and maybe two challenges where a yellow card was shown and the VAR just had a double-check to make sure a red card wasn't required (e.g. the Moses tackle last night). I don't think that the volume of contentious incidents are as frequent as some people suggest.

Isn't the bit in bold part of the trial? i.e. the video ref can review where a red card offence has been committed and advise the ref accordingly, in case he missed it or didn't have the best view of it.

[Stranded]

Interestingly*, the commentators in last nights game were already suggesting that officials should start to adjust their decision making on offsides because the VAR was available. The suggestion was that they shouldn't flag as many tight ones as offside as it will be better to let the game go on and then review IF something like a goal then happens.

That's something that is likely to happen over time if VAR comes in, see the way cricket umpires have pretty much given up calling no-balls, and then we might see things change a little for the worse, IMO.

Surely this is just the obvious path the game should take isn't it? The old adage is that benefit of the doubt should be given to the attacker, so if an offside is tight, is it not better for the game that the flag stays down and play continues? How many times do we see offsides given where it can essentially only have been an educated guess - i.e. attackers head is the only part of his body offside or players are crossing? It is incredible really that the assistant refs get the vast majority of calls right.

If a goal results, then a quick double check and if he was off pull it back - I would hazard that we would see more goals scored that would currently have been chalked off rather than the other way round. Could also end the sight of the CB standing still with arm in the air hoping to get the decision as they know the striker is too quick for them.

[Hoop Blah]

I'm all for the advantage being given to the attacking team but I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest they're just guessing when they get so many right and train quite hard to do so too.

If they start to give more and more benefits of doubt then the game is potentially going to be more and more dependant on VAR and that's not the idea is it? So already we're seeing it change the way the game is played and officiated outside of it's intended use.

[RoyalinBracknell]

Alan Shearer spot on last night. VAR should only be used for matter of fact. Ball in and out of play. Inside box, outside box, offside etc.

Everyone on numerous media feeds are still debating whether they were penalties or not. That in itself says it won’t work.

I think that the premise behind VAR is more akin to what the likes of Shearer are suggesting than I realise. The concept behind it seems to be that it is only used on clear cut decisions rather than the borderline debatable ones. It was said right from the start of it being introduced in England that a high threshold would be applied for its use to prevent regular interruptions or referees having to spend 5 minutes watching the footage back for 50/50 decisions.

I think it needs to be applied to matters of opinion decisions to some degree. Think of an incident such as De Jong's challenge in the 2010 World Cup final. Howard Webb only produced a yellow card at the time but I think the vast, vast majority would say it should have been a red card - and Webb has said since that he wishes he'd had the chance to review it and he would have shown a red card if he'd been able to see a replay from a better angle. So, whilst technically that incident was a matter of opinion, there was conclusive evidence for what the correct decision should have been.

I think the suggestion that VAR will disrupt the flow of the game is sometimes overplayed. I think statistics have suggested that the ball is generally in player for less than 60 minutes of most games, so the notion that football is a free-flowing, non-stop 90 minute game is a bit exaggerated. We're all used to seeing games stopped for injuries or substitutions or to warn players not to push each other before corners or because a replacement ball is needed or because a fan has run on the pitch and so on.

It's been used in five games in English football so far. These matches have seen 10 goals scored; 8 of these have been clearly fine, celebrated as normal and there's been no suggestion of VAR involvement. There was some doubt about the Murray goal in the Brighton V Palace game, as to whether he handled it or if there was an offside. The VAR came to the decision pretty quickly that there was no conclusive evidence that the referee had got it wrong. The Leicester goal would not have been given without the VAR.

Aside from goals, there have been a handful of penalty incidents that have necessitated a short delay whilst the VAR looked at these and maybe two challenges where a yellow card was shown and the VAR just had a double-check to make sure a red card wasn't required (e.g. the Moses tackle last night). I don't think that the volume of contentious incidents are as frequent as some people suggest.

Isn't the bit in bold part of the trial? i.e. the video ref can review where a red card offence has been committed and advise the ref accordingly, in case he missed it or didn't have the best view of it.

it is part of the trial yes. My point was that it's right that it should be included despite the argument from some (the likes of Paul and Alan Shearer) that VAR should only be used for matters of fact - I think there are some cases that, whilst technically matters of opinion, are so conclusive that 99% of people would probably hold the same viewpoint.

It seems to me that when people say it shouldn't be used for matter of opinion calls they are referring to those areas that are more of a 50/50 split but the principle behind VAR suggests that these decisions should not be reviewed.

[RoyalinBracknell]

I'm all for the advantage being given to the attacking team but I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest they're just guessing when they get so many right and train quite hard to do so too.

If they start to give more and more benefits of doubt then the game is potentially going to be more and more dependant on VAR and that's not the idea is it? So already we're seeing it change the way the game is played and officiated outside of it's intended use.

Yes, I think the assistant referees at the top level get a large proportion of offside decisions right as it is

Referees have been advised to slightly delay their whistle when there is an imminent likelihood of a goal being scored after a player has been given offside - a bit like we saw in the Leicester V Fleetwood game.

I don't think it would be feasible for an assistant to drastically change how they give offsides though - for instance, if they keep the flag down for a striker they think is offisde and the striker has a shot that is parried behind for a corner, then they will look a bit stupid if they then go back and put their flag up. Equally, if they don't give offside in the end and let the corner be taken, then they're going to look a bit stupid if a goal is scored.

I believe that the assessments of referees will still take into account their decisions before VAR is used, so the intention at this stage is for it to help out occasionally rather than be relied upon. Mark Clattenburg is now head of refereeing in Saudi Arabia and he said that in general he would be more likely to appoint referees more regularly if they used VAR just once every three or four games compared to those who needed to use it three or four times a game.

[double d]

I like var

[Winston Biscuit]

Can we at least agree whether we are being stubborn and sticking with 'vee ay arr' or have you all already given in to inevitably calling it 'var'?

[BR0B0T]

Can we at least agree whether we are being stubborn and sticking with 'vee ay arr' or have you all already given in to inevitably calling it 'var'?

I'm going with 'var'

[Hoop Blah]

I go with V A R, not var.

Anyway, any comments on how VAR played out during the Liverpool game? I haven't watched it but there's been plenty of negative feedback from the little I've read.

3 minutes to make a decision on the penalty? Teething problems with the process or just how it's going to be?

[tmesis]

3 minutes to make a decision on the penalty? Teething problems with the process or just how it's going to be?

I think the problem there was one of those where even after seeing what happened clearly, there was still doubt about the decision. Yes there was a bit of shirt held, but no, that grab did not cause the player to fall to the ground in the way he did.

It also didn't help that there were three VAR decisions in a short space of time.

[Victor Meldrew]

I go with V A R, not var.

Anyway, any comments on how VAR played out during the Liverpool game? I haven't watched it but there's been plenty of negative feedback from the little I've read.

3 minutes to make a decision on the penalty? Teething problems with the process or just how it's going to be?

About last night's game.
The VAR worked brilliantly as eventually incorrect decisions were rectified..
West Brom players just didn't get what it was all about (Pardew apparently said beforehand that he didn't want a tutorial on how it works!!) and harassed the referee in the style of Man Utd and Chelsea of old.
The penalty decision took too long.
Once again our referees are shown to be poor in what they see or don't see.

In time I suppose the incidents will be on the big screen so that fans can see why a referral has been made.
Overall, if the right outcome is what comes out of it then it means that it is a good idea.

[RoyalinBracknell]

I think it is worth considering what would have happened last night had VAR not been in place. I suspect Jurgen Klopp and Liverpool supporters would have been placing a lot of blame on Craig Pawson for the decisions. It would probably have been suggested that 'If the Dawson goal was disallowed for offside, we wouldn't have lost the game' or 'Salah should have got a penalty - we score that and we'd go on to win'.

Well, with VAR the correct decisions were reached (in the opinion of most) and we know what happened - Liverpool were rightfully given the chance to score a penalty; they missed. Dawson's goal was correctly disallowed but West Brom were good enough to still score a third.

There can't be any denying that West Brom deserved their win on blame but on to the officials. In this respect, it is an improvement.

I do think that the penalty decision took longer than was necessary to clear up, though I do think that the most important thing is getting the decision correct and I think the caveat should be applied that the officials will still be getting used to the system and are probably going to be wary of making an error so might want to look at an extra replay or two just to fully satisfy themselves rather than relying on their instinct.

I've heard both Graham Poll and Pat Nevin suggest that the production side of VAR is not as efficient as it needs to be. Apparently Poll has something like eight replay operators who are vastly experienced in television working with him in production on BT Sport but there are only two people to help out the VAR in the VAR centre, meaning that it's obviously likely to take more time for the best replays to be selected and made available to the VAR. it feels like that part of the process could probably be improved (again, it felt like West Brom's third goal took a bit longer to review than fully necessary but again I think it was worth it to get the decision right in the end.)

[TiagoIlori]

I am massively in favour of it. It absolutely drives me nuts that premier league footballers, who spend ridiculous hours in the gym every week yet go to ground rolling around like they’ve been shot just because someone poked them to attempt to win a penalty or force the referee to give a red card. The “removing talking points” statement is absolute bs, as far as I can recall, VAR has caused much more controversy than any referee decision that has been made since the infamous dive from Fred to win Brazil a penalty, so in itself has provided a major talking point. Players and associated parties need clarity on it, people seem to think every decision is going to be correct and that it can be used anytime, when in reality it can only be used in red cards, goals, penalties and clarifying identity. Usually it’s just one or two of those a game, not like it’s every single minute is it?

Find it funny a load of 15/16 year olds are screaming “modern football” at it, when they weren’t even alive to recall the pre-premier league era. Technology has to be welcomed to the game, I’m sure it’s not easy to be a middle aged bloke and trying to keep up with Bellerin, Walcott etc for 90 minutes then have a load of players screaming in your ear at any opportunity

[Snowflake Royal]

Thought VAR worked perfectly in the Liverpool match. The penalty took time becauseit was a hard call to make. There's definitely a pull, but Salah also clearly made a meal of it, so it's a subject call on how much of a pull was itand how much of a meal did hemake of it I think the right decision that it was just about a pen was spot on.

The areas for improvement are repeating the image on a big screen forthe crowd and / or better more explicit / earlier communication with managers and the crowd.

But once its been in and used regularly for a couple months everyone will just understand what's happening through familiarity.

Klopp's interview about it was probably the best comment from a manager in about a decade.

[BR0B0T]

Thought VAR worked perfectly in the Liverpool match. The penalty took time becauseit was a hard call to make. There's definitely a pull, but Salah also clearly made a meal of it, so it's a subject call on how much of a pull was itand how much of a meal did hemake of it I think the right decision that it was just about a pen was spot on.

The areas for improvement are repeating the image on a big screen forthe crowd and / or better more explicit / earlier communication with managers and the crowd.

But once its been in and used regularly for a couple months everyone will just understand what's happening through familiarity.

Klopp's interview about it was probably the best comment from a manager in about a decade.

Salah 'dive' on big screen...Liverpool fans scream for a pen, WBA claim he dives but admit there was contact but not enough.

offside is easy because it's binary rather than subjective

Found it weird that ref goes to the side in front of the home fans (filming him on phones etc) trying to make a subjective decision