VAR

[Silver Fox]

So why isn’t VAR being used at Cardiff? Is it because Lawro is confused enough?

[From Despair To Where?]

Has Lawro put on a German accent and said "Don't mention the VAR" yet?

[John Smith]

Has Lawro put on a German accent and said "Don't mention the VAR" yet?

Excellent.

VAR is a failure and it must stop

[handbags_harris]

The penalty took time because it was a hard call to make.

What didn't help this at all was Pawson ambling off to the side while in debate with the Liverpool players, reviewing and then ambling back on in debate with the WBA players. It should be made unequivocal that if a referee is in discussion with the VAR players are to shut their mouths and allow them to converse, and once the decision is reached they accept it as highly likely to be the correct one.

All for it, but plenty of teething problems to be ironed out.

[RoyalinBracknell]

The penalty took time because it was a hard call to make.

What didn't help this at all was Pawson ambling off to the side while in debate with the Liverpool players, reviewing and then ambling back on in debate with the WBA players. It should be made unequivocal that if a referee is in discussion with the VAR players are to shut their mouths and allow them to converse, and once the decision is reached they accept it as highly likely to be the correct one.

All for it, but plenty of teething problems to be ironed out.

Agreed. I thought it was a shame that Craig Pawson wasn't stronger on sanctioning the players surrounding him - and additionally that more stoppage time was not added to account for the delays.

I'm also in favour. There are some aspects to improve but I don't think that any of it is insurmountable.

[Hoop Blah]

https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/boavista-var-portugal-flag-offside-goal/

[Franchise FC]

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.

For me you've hit the nail squarely on the head (and probably not in the way you think)

VAR should be re-acronymed GPS (Goal Prevention System)

Your two examples are when goals are ruled out for wrong decisions.
In the first one, what about when the assistant referee wrongly rules the ball out of play denying a goal scoring opportunity. Imagine the defenders anger when they stop because the whitestone goes, a striker taps the ball in and on review the ball wasn't out.

In the second one, the Leicester goal will be by far the minority. What will happen is that the assistant referee will flag, get it wrong and the striker won't go on the put the ball in. Then what - all that's happened is the attacking side have been denied a scoring opportunity. If the striker carries on to put the ball in he runs the very real risk of being booked for kicking the ball away.

I'm definitely OUT.

[double d]

Yesterday's var diagram was thoroughly embaressing.

Why cannot they just use the exact same system they have for rugby? It really isn't hard

[Ascotexgunner]

Yesterday's var diagram was thoroughly embaressing.

Why cannot they just use the exact same system they have for rugby? It really isn't hard

Is that the one that couldn't work out that a welsh hand had put downward pressure on the ball for a try.

[Snowflake Royal]

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.

For me you've hit the nail squarely on the head (and probably not in the way you think)

VAR should be re-acronymed GPS (Goal Prevention System)

Your two examples are when goals are ruled out for wrong decisions.
In the first one, what about when the assistant referee wrongly rules the ball out of play denying a goal scoring opportunity. Imagine the defenders anger when they stop because the whitestone goes, a striker taps the ball in and on review the ball wasn't out.

In the second one, the Leicester goal will be by far the minority. What will happen is that the assistant referee will flag, get it wrong and the striker won't go on the put the ball in. Then what - all that's happened is the attacking side have been denied a scoring opportunity. If the striker carries on to put the ball in he runs the very real risk of being booked for kicking the ball away.

I'm definitely OUT.

1) I'm assuming you've had whistle auto-corrected to whitestone? Why do you think VAR would rule a goal in that circumstance? If the whistle has gone and play has stopped, I can't see how that could possibly be the case.

2) Clearly the sensible thing to do is for the assistant refs to dial back and pull up only the really clear cases, allowing VAR to rule out the marginal ones, and maybe the ref to hold off blowing up until the striker has shot (where that's not a significant delay).

Your objections seem very easily avoided, very niche and not very well thought out. Even if VAR is only used to rule out goals that shouldn't have stood, that's a good improvement, it means teams won't lose out to dodgy goals. Something that happens fairly regularly at present.

[Franchise FC]

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.

For me you've hit the nail squarely on the head (and probably not in the way you think)

VAR should be re-acronymed GPS (Goal Prevention System)

Your two examples are when goals are ruled out for wrong decisions.
In the first one, what about when the assistant referee wrongly rules the ball out of play denying a goal scoring opportunity. Imagine the defenders anger when they stop because the whitestone goes, a striker taps the ball in and on review the ball wasn't out.

In the second one, the Leicester goal will be by far the minority. What will happen is that the assistant referee will flag, get it wrong and the striker won't go on the put the ball in. Then what - all that's happened is the attacking side have been denied a scoring opportunity. If the striker carries on to put the ball in he runs the very real risk of being booked for kicking the ball away.

I'm definitely OUT.

1) I'm assuming you've had whistle auto-corrected to whitestone? Why do you think VAR would rule a goal in that circumstance? If the whistle has gone and play has stopped, I can't see how that could possibly be the case.

2) Clearly the sensible thing to do is for the assistant refs to dial back and pull up only the really clear cases, allowing VAR to rule out the marginal ones, and maybe the ref to hold off blowing up until the striker has shot (where that's not a significant delay).

Your objections seem very easily avoided, very niche and not very well thought out. Even if VAR is only used to rule out goals that shouldn't have stood, that's a good improvement, it means teams won't lose out to dodgy goals. Something that happens fairly regularly at present.

So, 'even if VAR is only used to rule out goals' means that you agree it should be renamed the Goal Prevention System

[Sanguine]

The problems with VAR continue to be how the officials are using it, and not the concept itself.

[Snowflake Royal]

For me you've hit the nail squarely on the head (and probably not in the way you think)

VAR should be re-acronymed GPS (Goal Prevention System)

Your two examples are when goals are ruled out for wrong decisions.
In the first one, what about when the assistant referee wrongly rules the ball out of play denying a goal scoring opportunity. Imagine the defenders anger when they stop because the whitestone goes, a striker taps the ball in and on review the ball wasn't out.

In the second one, the Leicester goal will be by far the minority. What will happen is that the assistant referee will flag, get it wrong and the striker won't go on the put the ball in. Then what - all that's happened is the attacking side have been denied a scoring opportunity. If the striker carries on to put the ball in he runs the very real risk of being booked for kicking the ball away.

I'm definitely OUT.

1) I'm assuming you've had whistle auto-corrected to whitestone? Why do you think VAR would rule a goal in that circumstance? If the whistle has gone and play has stopped, I can't see how that could possibly be the case.

2) Clearly the sensible thing to do is for the assistant refs to dial back and pull up only the really clear cases, allowing VAR to rule out the marginal ones, and maybe the ref to hold off blowing up until the striker has shot (where that's not a significant delay).

Your objections seem very easily avoided, very niche and not very well thought out. Even if VAR is only used to rule out goals that shouldn't have stood, that's a good improvement, it means teams won't lose out to dodgy goals. Something that happens fairly regularly at present.

So, 'even if VAR is only used to rule out goals' means that you agree it should be renamed the Goal Prevention System

No.

[Hoop Blah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43202295

VAR not impressing UEFA yet.

[Sanguine]

Two key elements for me are that a) referees aren't yet using it properly (to only overturn obvious errors) b) fans can't necessarily see what is going on. It works at rugby where the thing the referee wants to see is replayed on the big screen. It helps fans understand how decisions are made, and would be an improvement, in my view.

[Hoop Blah]

Two key elements for me are that a) referees aren't yet using it properly (to only overturn obvious errors) b) fans can't necessarily see what is going on. It works at rugby where the thing the referee wants to see is replayed on the big screen. It helps fans understand how decisions are made, and would be an improvement, in my view.

I still think the biggest issue is that as it's not issues of fact that are being looked at. Even the decision to review is a judgement call on whether or not it's a clear and obvious error.

[Sanguine]

Two key elements for me are that a) referees aren't yet using it properly (to only overturn obvious errors) b) fans can't necessarily see what is going on. It works at rugby where the thing the referee wants to see is replayed on the big screen. It helps fans understand how decisions are made, and would be an improvement, in my view.

I still think the biggest issue is that as it's not issues of fact that are being looked at. Even the decision to review is a judgement call on whether or not it's a clear and obvious error.

I don't really get the problem, to be honest. I think there's a lot of very precious football fans who just can't countenance 'their' game changing.

I think your last sentence is a little wrong - VAR should be used to overturn clear and obvious errors, you evidently can't decide if the error is clear and obvious before you have had a look at it.

As I've said a hundred times on here, this will only work properly where the 'VAR official' is, like rugby's TMO, reviewing replays in real time and communicating with the referees.

- referee blows for a penalty
- VAR official reviews replays and sees a dive
- VAR official communicates with referee, who views the footage
- they agree to reverse the decision and book the attacker.

It should be simple.

[John Madejski's Wallet]

- referee blows for a penalty
- VAR official reviews replays and sees a dive
- VAR official communicates with referee, who views the footage
- they agree to reverse the decision and book the attacker.

It should be simple.

Will only work if we get away from all this CONTACT = PEN bollox (we won't).

Unless we set the rules clearly that footy will forever more be a non contact sport. Otherwise pens are still going to be open to interpretation.

[Sanguine]

- referee blows for a penalty
- VAR official reviews replays and sees a dive
- VAR official communicates with referee, who views the footage
- they agree to reverse the decision and book the attacker.

It should be simple.

Will only work if we get away from all this CONTACT = PEN bollox (we won't).

Unless we set the rules clearly that footy will forever more be a non contact sport. Otherwise pens are still going to be open to interpretation.

Not where the 'clear and obvious error' rule is applied.

Referee gives a penalty - VAR should only overturn the decision where the footage shows no contact, or the player going down before contact is made.
Referee does not give a penalty - VAR should only overturn the decision where the footage shows a clear foul, i.e. not just a 'touch'.

[BR0B0T]

Morata offside 'goal' on Sunday.

Possibly was onside, can't tell it's so marginal

Ref blew, Utd players reacted to it, Morata puts ball in back of net

Just need to make it clear to fans what the system is actually supposed to do