VAR

[John Smith]

People recoil at the concept of following rugby's lead, but TMO works perfectly. Essentially the TMO operates first independently of the referee, so when a decision is made, TMO might say 'ref, you should have a look at this again, I think his foot went out of play'. Second, TMO acts as an assistant if a referee wants to check something - 'I don't know if his foot went out of play'.

TMO is used once or twice a game as I recall. How is that 'stopping the flow' of anything? It will take some time for VAR to bed in, but evidence from Italy is that it works.

As noted above, the time from Ineacho's shot hitting the net, and the referee awarding the goal by VAR was 67 seconds. That's not bad anyway in a game which sees two minutes lost because someone gets a bump on the shin, nevermind for a system in its infancy.

It drives me nuts that so many ex-pros...

a) don't know the rules of the game

On this, I don't know who the co-commentator was last night, but it makes my eye twitch to hear anyone (on analysing the Morata penalty shout) say 'he has a right to go down there.' If he wasn't tripped or pushed over, why the hell is he falling over? He threw himself to the ground because the Norwich defender put his arm on him.

It was Jermaine Jenas.

I am anti VAR

[Sanguine]

And some people were anti-backpass rule, and as I read yesterday, some people were even anti-crossbar when it was introduced in the late 19th century.

[6ft Kerplunk]

Lets face facts VAR will slow up the game less than players falling over at the slightest touch and having to keep the act up by getting the physio to come on and wipe a bit of mud off that stupid sock bit sewn onto their boots.

[genome]

I'm not sure why I feel this way, but shit refereeing decisions are part of football for me. I enjoy the controversy, the debating down the pub with your mates, arguing and shouting at the ref at matches.

If we can keep that, then I'm on board. But I think they need to make it clearer to fans/pundits what exactly the system will be used for, otherwise players are going to start badgering the ref to use it for everything.

[John Smith]

And some people were anti-backpass rule, and as I read yesterday, some people were even anti-crossbar when it was introduced in the late 19th century.

I think I'm also anti having you on this forum.

Go and sign up to the Rotherham United board instead or something

[Winston Biscuit]

I'm not sure why I feel this way, but shit refereeing decisions are part of football for me. I enjoy the controversy, the debating down the pub with your mates, arguing and shouting at the ref at matches

right with you on that, but then we follow a club who don't compete for the top prizes so maybe it's easier to think this way. The way I see it, many of our type go to football because it's our local club, we know they will never be among the best but we enjoy the cut and thrust of being at a live match, the fact the season doesn't pan out as we hope doesn't matter so much, it's more about getting together with your mates of a weekend and watching a match. The controversies and talking points just add to the occasion.

I guess it's diffo for your Man Utd's, Liverpool's and Man City's who place a much higher value on winning matches, trying to be the best and securing trophies, and correct decision making would then maybe be more of an emotional thing.

[Winston Biscuit]

We need a spin off sport. One where we pick a date of when football rules were just about right and stick with it, we can then let modern football have all the changes it wants

[Sanguine]

And some people were anti-backpass rule, and as I read yesterday, some people were even anti-crossbar when it was introduced in the late 19th century.

I think I'm also anti having you on this forum.

Go and sign up to the Rotherham United board instead or something

Bless you.

[Sanguine]

I'm not sure why I feel this way, but shit refereeing decisions are part of football for me. I enjoy the controversy, the debating down the pub with your mates, arguing and shouting at the ref at matches.

If we can keep that, then I'm on board. But I think they need to make it clearer to fans/pundits what exactly the system will be used for, otherwise players are going to start badgering the ref to use it for everything.

As I suggested above, the way rugby uses it works perfectly. It isn't for the players to request at all and that is understood. The TMO and referee simply talk to each other over things they feel need to be referred, and that's it. I agree it needs some clarification. For example on the Leicester goal awarded this week - why did the referee refer it? Because he was unsure, or did the linesman get in his ear and say 'I think I fcuked up there'?

[genome]

I do think Rugby is slightly different though. With Football, I'd say the majority of the decisions that would be referred to VAR should have been spotted by the referee or linesmen in the first place, and often they could be seen as subjective. With Rugby, the majority of the decisions that are referred are clear cut decisions, but were impossible for the referee to see in normal play, so he needs it.

Subtle difference IMO.

[BR0B0T]

I do think Rugby is slightly different though. With Football, I'd say the majority of the decisions that would be referred to VAR should have been spotted by the referee or linesmen in the first place, and often they could be seen as subjective. With Rugby, the majority of the decisions that are referred are clear cut decisions, but were impossible for the referee to see in normal play, so he needs it.

Subtle difference IMO.

Not sure I agree from that explanation...you may have to elaborate

[Sanguine]

Fair enough - I think you're under-estimating how slick and unintrusive VAR could be though in the end.

Winger hoiks a ball back from the by-line and striker taps it in. VAR watches it back and sees the ball went out of play, missed by the officials. Gets in referees ear and a goal-kick is given.

Referee gives a penalty and VAR sees clear daylight between the defender's outstretched leg and the attacker. Asks the referee to reverse his decision and book the player.

All this can happen in seconds, and would ensure, for example, that Ireland aren't knocked out of a playoff by a handball goal.

Look at the last week - Leicester correctly had a goal ruled out when the ball had gone out of play, correctly had an 'offside' goal awarded. The goals in the Brighton game were reviewed, and no action taken, whilst the players celebrated, leading to no delays.

At the same time, without VAR, Watford scored a handball equaliser and Swansea were denied a stonewall penalty.

It's difficult to see how VAR isn't a better state of affairs.

[genome]

I do think Rugby is slightly different though. With Football, I'd say the majority of the decisions that would be referred to VAR should have been spotted by the referee or linesmen in the first place, and often they could be seen as subjective. With Rugby, the majority of the decisions that are referred are clear cut decisions, but were impossible for the referee to see in normal play, so he needs it.

Subtle difference IMO.

Not sure I agree from that explanation...you may have to elaborate

Often a rugby ref physically can't see that there's been a try because of a bundle of bodies, and you need TMO to see all the angles.
There was also the 2007 WC Final when an England player's foot was incredibly marginally out of touch when he scored a try, pretty much impossible to judge with the naked eye at speed.

The only thing I can really think that is similar to that in football is a goal/no goal, but we already have Hawkeye for that, and we don't need VAR.

[Sanguine]

Often a rugby ref physically can't see that there's been a try because of a bundle of bodies, and you need TMO to see all the angles.

That's exactly how VAR was used last week to rule out a Leicester goal. The officials had not seen the ball go out for a goal kick.

[genome]

Often a rugby ref physically can't see that there's been a try because of a bundle of bodies, and you need TMO to see all the angles.

That's exactly how VAR was used last week to rule out a Leicester goal. The officials had not seen the ball go out for a goal kick.

Maybe you could use Hawkeye for that, and get an instant decision, instead of going through the whole rigmarole of VAR. (I'm just spit-balling here though.)

Anyway as I said, I think they need to clearly define what it can and can't be used for, then I think the whole thing will be smoother.

[BR0B0T]

I do think Rugby is slightly different though. With Football, I'd say the majority of the decisions that would be referred to VAR should have been spotted by the referee or linesmen in the first place, and often they could be seen as subjective. With Rugby, the majority of the decisions that are referred are clear cut decisions, but were impossible for the referee to see in normal play, so he needs it.

Subtle difference IMO.

Not sure I agree from that explanation...you may have to elaborate

Often a rugby ref physically can't see that there's been a try because of a bundle of bodies, and you need TMO to see all the angles.
There was also the 2007 WC Final when an England player's foot was incredibly marginally out of touch when he scored a try, pretty much impossible to judge with the naked eye at speed.

The only thing I can really think that is similar to that in football is a goal/no goal, but we already have Hawkeye for that, and we don't need VAR.

right I get you...but there are so many things in football that happen at high speed with the officials sight lines blocked. It's much more dynamic than rugby which is more possession/territory orientated

[Snowflake Royal]

Also, an acceptance that VAR isn't going to be 100% accurate

decide what the level of improvement ('correct' decisions) makes up for the negatives

and whilst I'm at it, Alan Shearer is as fick as fcuk!

Oh yeah, there were some former player pundit berks pointing to VAR not proving conclusive on, Murray's goal being handball or not, of course not everything will be conclusive you morons, you don't have a perfect 3D scan of the entire incident from multiple angles you can run through a computer AI. Even if it was, one of you muppets would still claim it was wrong because you don't know the laws. It's a bloody improvement though isn't it.

If it's not going to prove conclusive then why have it? It's just the same as having a referee. I agree the cultural change needs to happen with more respect to the ref, especially from pundits, but this can only happen by going by the decision he thinks is right.

It's not going to be conclusive in ALL cases because some offences are inherently subjective involving things like intent and recklessness. Or incredibly marginal things. And as I said it doesn't give you perfect coverage.

But it does give you a second look, multiple angles, freeze frame, slow motion etc.

That's more than a ref has. If it reduces the number of clear injust decisions it's worth it.

Tech in cricket can't get 100% of decisions 100% correct, but you don't see people saying it shouldn't be used at all.

[BR0B0T]

Oh yeah, there were some former player pundit berks pointing to VAR not proving conclusive on, Murray's goal being handball or not, of course not everything will be conclusive you morons, you don't have a perfect 3D scan of the entire incident from multiple angles you can run through a computer AI. Even if it was, one of you muppets would still claim it was wrong because you don't know the laws. It's a bloody improvement though isn't it.

If it's not going to prove conclusive then why have it? It's just the same as having a referee. I agree the cultural change needs to happen with more respect to the ref, especially from pundits, but this can only happen by going by the decision he thinks is right.

It's not going to be conclusive in ALL cases because some offences are inherently subjective involving things like intent and recklessness. Or incredibly marginal things. And as I said it doesn't give you perfect coverage.

But it does give you a second look, multiple angles, freeze frame, slow motion etc.

That's more than a ref has. If it reduces the number of clear injust decisions it's worth it.

Tech in cricket can't get 100% of decisions 100% correct, but you don't see people saying it shouldn't be used at all.

xackly....it's a lot better than guessing.

Try it out and see how it works

[John Madejski's Wallet]

To backup other posters, VAR is only going to work if the commentators, press and players actually understand that Contact =/= Foul.
Otherwise we'll still be arguing about decisions.

As stated, for black and white decisions (inside/outside box) then maybe. But as always we will have continual mission creep and people calling for VAR over not awarding a goal because 35 passes before the ball may have gone out of play. Fukk that

[Hoop Blah]

Tech in cricket can't get 100% of decisions 100% correct, but you don't see people saying it shouldn't be used at all.

You mean apart from the biggest test playing nation resisting it as long as they can?

Cricket is an interesting example to bring it as it happens. DRS has largely been a success but in recent times I'd say the negative impacts are coming to the fore more and more as the behavioural changes it's caused start bedding in.