| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews 12:54 - Apr 26 with 7069 views | saint901 |
I may have this wrong but I thought VAR was there to be used to "correct" any "clear and obvious" mistakes by officials.
Perhaps the rules have changed but it now seems to be used for checking the legitimacy of goals - regardless of whether an error has been made - and to revisit situations in which no decision was made but the VAR official has "spotted" something.
Either way, VAR officials continue to get things wrong even with the advantage of slow motion and three/four minutes for a decision a ref made in half a second. It seems that the "sanction" for such official error is to miss a game or two. With respect, not much of a sanction.
VAR has also robbed the game of spontaneity. Can you celebrate a goal when you have to wait three minutes for a check? It slows the game down, costs time that does not seem to be added on and leads to as much debate in the pub afterwards as not having it would over some "dodgy" decisions.
Personally I think the experiment has failed.
In cricket, a VAR decision does not really disrupt the timing or pace of the game and it's pretty obvious 99% of the time what the right decision is. In rugby (league and union) the rules are much more strict as to what is legal and illegal and as such TMO (limited as it is to try scoring etc) is perhaps easier. (Also rugby refs can be heard on the pitch discussing their decisions with their assistants, which helps).
In football, as I said, it's disruptive, remains uncertain, does not take away the judgement of officials (quite the opposite as on field refs seem to feel obliged to change their mind if summoned by VAR) and does not reduce controversy but creates it.
Time to say goodbye to a failed experiment in my view. |  | | |  |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 13:57 - Apr 26 with 5908 views | Wints76 |
Yep, bin it (though it's not going to happen). The offside calls where there is a centimetre of arm below the T Shape (ffs!) are pathetic. At least use ref/lino call like they do in cricket for such decisions. It is draining what fun remains out of the game.
Plus, moaning about a crap decision is part and parcel of the game. So is losing heavily and not being refunded. |  | | |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 14:20 - Apr 26 with 5895 views | SFC_Referee |
Yeah but “clear and obvious” is a term like “reckless”, “careless”, “seriously endangering the opponent”, “intervening with play” etc…
As they’re all footballing LOTG terms that at the end of the day, are opinionated. As they’ve all got incidents where practically everyone will agree fulfils the terms and ones where everyone agrees they do not, but there’s also ones where not everyone agrees on it and ones where you’re gonna get debate over what people see those coming under.
As yes VAR was brought in for clear and obvious errors, and to a certain degree it’s done that. It’s just what it’s not done is get them always right, and also intervene for things that aren’t clear and obvious. But at the same time, some may argue the vice versa to that, as what’s seen as a clear and obvious mistake at the end of the day is opinionated.
As in my books all offsides, ball in and out of play, whether it’s inside or outside the box etc… are always clear and obvious where there’s a correct restart and an incorrect one, irrelevant of how close it may have been as they’re all black and white decisions. Yet according to many that’s not always the case, and that if you can’t see it with the naked eye then you shouldn’t intervene with them. So which one do you pick? What is clear and obvious? What comes under each category? This is where you get the issues with that term.
And saints901 you say that VAR get things wrong, which they do, but they also get things right. And quite often they get them right under law, but many fans like yourself don’t know the laws, so just because it’s not what you agree with/think the law should be, simply say it must be wrong. As since VAR has come in it’s literally a fact that the amount of officiating mistakes has decreased by a major amount, getting many more decisions correct under the LOTG, than they previously were.
It’s just what many now seem to expect is that they get every decision right, which at the end of the day isn’t going to ever happen, as refs are humans and mistakes are inevitable, combined with many decisions being debatable for what the outcome should be, or if they’re clear and obvious.
But yes VAR does still mess up sometimes on things that practically everyone agrees they got wrong, but for how rare they are in comparison to how often they get them right, it’s quite a large gap, and for how little it’s highlighted when they get their decisions correct, it’s a pretty unfair comparison. As I know you and many others seem to think that nothing happens, but I can tell you for a fact that it does, it’s just when a refs demoted to the championship/not given games, it’s never the front page news like when a manager gets sacked or a player leaves a team. As it’s usually kept fairly quiet where only people in the refereeing industry know of it, meaning that quite often many fans like yourself don’t ever see it so simply think nothing ever happens to them (as that AR’s scruff with Robertson, and missing the next few games is probably the most attention I’ve ever seen one get!). And even then, for the jobs that refs have, and the lack of them that there is, it’s hardly like we’ve got millions of top quality refs ready to take over and replace any that some don’t deem as “good enough” due to the lack of refs at grassroots due to many factors that I’ve previously highlighted before.
And yeah I do agree as a fan who’s also at St Mary’s every other weekend, that VAR can ruin that feelings you get when you score a goal, but unfortunately that’s not really VAR’s or the officials fault, but simply the way it all works. As irrelevant of whether they take 5 minutes to 20 seconds to do, if we’ve got VAR in place it’s always going to be the case. As Cricket and rugby and quite different for firstly how less important a single point, wicket, try can be in those sports compared to a goal, as footballs a much lower scoring sport meaning that fans don’t celebrate or are as bothered by VAR intervening when they’re scored. As a single point very rarely makes a difference in those sports whilst in football it makes the difference to most games. And the only reason why crickets soo much more consistent is because almost all their decisions are factual whilst footballs is not, meaning that it’s a lot easier for them to make their decisions. And rugby it goes back to the point of them having more points as well as more time with it to understand how it all works and have been able to evolve around it.
As I personally think that VAR should simply be reduced to those black and white decisions like the ones I mentioned before, as then there isn’t any reasons for debates and all decisions are black and white, therefore leading to less controversy, quicker decisions and more consistency, which will make its better. But at the same time that’s not going to happen as VAR’s here to stay for the major TV audiences at home, which these days is what footballs all about! |  |
| |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 14:26 - Apr 26 with 5892 views | SFC_Referee |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 13:57 - Apr 26 by Wints76 |
Yep, bin it (though it's not going to happen). The offside calls where there is a centimetre of arm below the T Shape (ffs!) are pathetic. At least use ref/lino call like they do in cricket for such decisions. It is draining what fun remains out of the game.
Plus, moaning about a crap decision is part and parcel of the game. So is losing heavily and not being refunded. |
Ok but those offsides, he’s still closer to the goaline than the second to last defender, so how’s that fair on the defender? As if your gonna let them go, then where do you start saying he’s offside again? 2 centimetres, 3, 4, a metre? As even then if you wanna give them a bit of leeway, you’ll still get close ones at that, so it’ll do absolutely nothing for the game whatsoever in reducing that.
And why all this hassle around offsides for such close calls but not goal line calls/the ball being in or out of play? As they’re the exact same at the end of the day, yet you don’t hear people complaining about those decisions.
As look I agree that it can make the in the stadium experience a lot worse, but at least for things like offsides, it’s a lot fairer and more consistent, as it’s very rare for them to mess up for one of those calls, and many are just backtracking what they originally said before VAR came in, as no matter what you do for things like offsides, goaline decisions, there’ll always be a right and a wrong decision, so why not simplify it and just keep it so that at least the delay means the correct outcome is made. As they’re literally making tech right now that can determine offsides as quickly as goaline calls, meaning that we won’t have to wait soo long in the future for these calls. | |
| |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 14:29 - Apr 26 with 5894 views | saint901 |
A passionate defence with some decent points but the underlying purpose of VAR was (and remains?) to remove the controvercy of poor decisions (in the top leagues) and in that respect even the few times it has clearly failed are too many.
If we're going to use it, then use it.
Look at incidents such as false head injuries, i.e. players going down in an attempt to halt play, off the ball incidents, time wasting, etc and do it post match and give the teams demerit points which lead to league point deductions if enough are accumulated. | | | |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 14:40 - Apr 26 with 5884 views | DorsetIan |
VAR has obviously failed.
It's very simple: it has removed the spontaneity for every single game and it gets as many decisions wrong as it was meant to correct.
A complete disaster. | |
| |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 14:46 - Apr 26 with 5878 views | SFC_Referee |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 14:29 - Apr 26 by saint901 |
A passionate defence with some decent points but the underlying purpose of VAR was (and remains?) to remove the controvercy of poor decisions (in the top leagues) and in that respect even the few times it has clearly failed are too many.
If we're going to use it, then use it.
Look at incidents such as false head injuries, i.e. players going down in an attempt to halt play, off the ball incidents, time wasting, etc and do it post match and give the teams demerit points which lead to league point deductions if enough are accumulated. |
Yes but mistakes are inevitable, simple as. Your never going to get anything that works 100% of the time, and even more so for debatable decisions where sometimes it doesn’t matter what you give as 50% of people will see it as wrong whilst another 50% see it as right.
And with it being soo new, it will take time for it to improve and get to the standard that many expect it to be at, but without the many years of experience, training and improvements that it needs, which other sports have had, it was always going to start off a bit… “shaky”.
And I’m a tad bit confused as to why your bringing up the fake head injuries, time wasting etc… as VAR can’t do anything about that, and really the PGMOL can’t either, as it’s the leagues and footballing corporations like FIFA, UEFA, the FA, Prem etc… that are the ones that can do stuff about it, but for one reason or another choose not to. But that’s certainly not down to that ref with the whilst in their hands for the 90 minutes.
As VAR will get better over time, it’s just what some need to except is that mistakes are going to happen, and there will be some decisions that are guaranteed to upset some no matter the outcome and that it will unfortunately ruin the experience for fans at the stadiums. But there’s very little the PGMOL or actual refs can do about most of that, as yeah it’s got those negatives but it does still make things more fair than it was before, will get better over time and will eventually be edited/adapted to make it the best it can be for the players, fans and LOTG. But that’s not gonna be tomorrow and we’ll have a fair bit of time to wait until those days come | |
| |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 14:57 - Apr 26 with 5872 views | SFC_Referee |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 14:40 - Apr 26 by DorsetIan |
VAR has obviously failed.
It's very simple: it has removed the spontaneity for every single game and it gets as many decisions wrong as it was meant to correct.
A complete disaster. |
I agree that VAR is ruining the experiences for those at the grounds, definitely, but the rest about it messing up soo often is just complete waffle. As I remember reading the other day that it was estimated that refs got around 82% of major calls right in the prem before VAR was introduced, but since it’s been introduces it’s now at around 93%.
So that’s an increase of 11%, of correct decisions since it’s come in. Which is certainly an improvement, so what your saying there’s just nonsense, but like I said before, what your saying about the experience for those at the games isn’t, and that’s where we hit opinionated argument of is that 11% improvement worth the difference it’s bright for the match day experienced we now get in the stands?
As that’s the major question at the end of that day, is the 11% improvement by VAR, worth everything it’s given/cost us? As it’s certainly made the game more fair, but is that 11% more fairness worth the difference it’s brought for the game as a whole | |
| |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 15:23 - Apr 26 with 5868 views | saint901 |
I mentioned false head injuries etc because the thread title includes post match reviews to spot players cheating and visits the consequences on the club in the form of demerit points and league points deductions.
I mention VAR because a lack of clarity over when it can and cannot and should and should not be used is creating uncertainty and confusion and frustration in the grounds.
On offsides, make it simple. Put trackers in players' boots and measure offside from where the attackers feet are in relation to the defenders. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 23:42 - Apr 26 with 5776 views | DorsetIan |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 14:57 - Apr 26 by SFC_Referee |
I agree that VAR is ruining the experiences for those at the grounds, definitely, but the rest about it messing up soo often is just complete waffle. As I remember reading the other day that it was estimated that refs got around 82% of major calls right in the prem before VAR was introduced, but since it’s been introduces it’s now at around 93%.
So that’s an increase of 11%, of correct decisions since it’s come in. Which is certainly an improvement, so what your saying there’s just nonsense, but like I said before, what your saying about the experience for those at the games isn’t, and that’s where we hit opinionated argument of is that 11% improvement worth the difference it’s bright for the match day experienced we now get in the stands?
As that’s the major question at the end of that day, is the 11% improvement by VAR, worth everything it’s given/cost us? As it’s certainly made the game more fair, but is that 11% more fairness worth the difference it’s brought for the game as a whole |
Maybe there is somehow an 11% improvement, the point is VAR has generated its own new set of howlingly ridiculous decisions - particularly around offsides and penalties - which we never existed before.
For example. Stones was clearly offside tonight. But the stupid line drawing held him to be on. And the number of players who are level who have been ruled off is ridiculous.
Is an 11% improvement worth the way the spontaneity has been ripped out of the game? No, of course it’s not.
Who goes to a game to see a great referee? 82% is just fine. And if not, find a way to improve it without screwing up the whole game. | |
| |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 00:05 - Apr 27 with 5763 views | SFC_Referee |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 23:42 - Apr 26 by DorsetIan |
Maybe there is somehow an 11% improvement, the point is VAR has generated its own new set of howlingly ridiculous decisions - particularly around offsides and penalties - which we never existed before.
For example. Stones was clearly offside tonight. But the stupid line drawing held him to be on. And the number of players who are level who have been ruled off is ridiculous.
Is an 11% improvement worth the way the spontaneity has been ripped out of the game? No, of course it’s not.
Who goes to a game to see a great referee? 82% is just fine. And if not, find a way to improve it without screwing up the whole game. |
Ok look Dorsetlan I’m not sure if you’ve got a soft spot for Arsenal or something, but no he was onside, and that’s a fact. As White is the one that’s playing him on, and it certainly is close, but he’s onside. And quite often I see many people going on about giving the benefits to the attackers, but your now contradicting yourselves by saying that this goal should be offside.
As yeah Stones’s arm is offside, but you can’t be offside from the arm as you can’t score with it, which is exactly why it’s measured from his shoulder which is why he was onside and the goal stood. As the only times VAR has messed up with offsides have been for whether a player was/wasn’t intervening with play or for the odd occasions where they didn’t check (like that Arsenal Brentford game a while back). But for whether they were in an offside position or not for players they’ve checked, I’ve not seen them mess up once since VAR came in.
But look you’ve got a fair point around the 11% improvement for what it’s cost and I don’t disagree with some of the stuff your saying there, and am a bit more in the middle for it, but can at least understand where you and many others are coming from. But all I will say is that you might be happy now with it being at 82%, but unfortunately many others aren’t and will always backtrack in situations like this. [Post edited 27 Apr 2023 0:07]
| |
| |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 06:33 - Apr 27 with 5710 views | saintwizzler |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 00:05 - Apr 27 by SFC_Referee |
Ok look Dorsetlan I’m not sure if you’ve got a soft spot for Arsenal or something, but no he was onside, and that’s a fact. As White is the one that’s playing him on, and it certainly is close, but he’s onside. And quite often I see many people going on about giving the benefits to the attackers, but your now contradicting yourselves by saying that this goal should be offside.
As yeah Stones’s arm is offside, but you can’t be offside from the arm as you can’t score with it, which is exactly why it’s measured from his shoulder which is why he was onside and the goal stood. As the only times VAR has messed up with offsides have been for whether a player was/wasn’t intervening with play or for the odd occasions where they didn’t check (like that Arsenal Brentford game a while back). But for whether they were in an offside position or not for players they’ve checked, I’ve not seen them mess up once since VAR came in.
But look you’ve got a fair point around the 11% improvement for what it’s cost and I don’t disagree with some of the stuff your saying there, and am a bit more in the middle for it, but can at least understand where you and many others are coming from. But all I will say is that you might be happy now with it being at 82%, but unfortunately many others aren’t and will always backtrack in situations like this. [Post edited 27 Apr 2023 0:07]
|
Hun, if we don’t win tonight then we won’t have to worry about VAR for the foreseeable future. x
WE MARCH ON |  |
| |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 07:37 - Apr 27 with 5670 views | DorsetIan |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 00:05 - Apr 27 by SFC_Referee |
Ok look Dorsetlan I’m not sure if you’ve got a soft spot for Arsenal or something, but no he was onside, and that’s a fact. As White is the one that’s playing him on, and it certainly is close, but he’s onside. And quite often I see many people going on about giving the benefits to the attackers, but your now contradicting yourselves by saying that this goal should be offside.
As yeah Stones’s arm is offside, but you can’t be offside from the arm as you can’t score with it, which is exactly why it’s measured from his shoulder which is why he was onside and the goal stood. As the only times VAR has messed up with offsides have been for whether a player was/wasn’t intervening with play or for the odd occasions where they didn’t check (like that Arsenal Brentford game a while back). But for whether they were in an offside position or not for players they’ve checked, I’ve not seen them mess up once since VAR came in.
But look you’ve got a fair point around the 11% improvement for what it’s cost and I don’t disagree with some of the stuff your saying there, and am a bit more in the middle for it, but can at least understand where you and many others are coming from. But all I will say is that you might be happy now with it being at 82%, but unfortunately many others aren’t and will always backtrack in situations like this. [Post edited 27 Apr 2023 0:07]
|
My position on VAR offsides is this.
1. It should be there to correct glaring errors only.
2. Any offside decision should be judged from the perspective of an official running the line.
3. No official running the line is in a position to draw minute lines to make the decision.
4. Since whenever, officials have had a split second to decide ‘behind or level ?’ = onside. ‘In front’ = offside.
5. That should not have changed. But now there is no such thing as ‘level’. The drawing of lines creates a binary choice.
And there have been many many VAR offside decisions where no competent official in the universe could have called the decision that VAR made. Most where players are - on any sensible view - level but where they have been called off.
Last night, no competant official, viewing the action from the line, could have thought that Stones was onside.
The drawing of lines on a screen is too artificial for a football game and should play no part in the decision making. This has changed the game and not for the better. | |
| |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 07:58 - Apr 27 with 5652 views | JaySaint |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 07:37 - Apr 27 by DorsetIan |
My position on VAR offsides is this.
1. It should be there to correct glaring errors only.
2. Any offside decision should be judged from the perspective of an official running the line.
3. No official running the line is in a position to draw minute lines to make the decision.
4. Since whenever, officials have had a split second to decide ‘behind or level ?’ = onside. ‘In front’ = offside.
5. That should not have changed. But now there is no such thing as ‘level’. The drawing of lines creates a binary choice.
And there have been many many VAR offside decisions where no competent official in the universe could have called the decision that VAR made. Most where players are - on any sensible view - level but where they have been called off.
Last night, no competant official, viewing the action from the line, could have thought that Stones was onside.
The drawing of lines on a screen is too artificial for a football game and should play no part in the decision making. This has changed the game and not for the better. |
judging offside from a potentially out of position official is hilarious.
what next, goal line technology to be used from the ref's perspective?
If someone is offside,they are offside, regardless of the perspective | |
| |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 09:24 - Apr 27 with 5605 views | DorsetIan |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 07:58 - Apr 27 by JaySaint |
judging offside from a potentially out of position official is hilarious.
what next, goal line technology to be used from the ref's perspective?
If someone is offside,they are offside, regardless of the perspective |
You're missing the point.
Offside should be judged from the perspective of an official in line with the play but who is watching from the touchline.
And you might find it hilarious but it seems to work in every other form of the game where VAR is not being used.
And all this 'offside is offside' stuff is nonsense. There is also a question of *how* the decision is made. In my opinion, it should continue to be made from the perspective of someone viewing the game from the line and the same questions - 'behind, level, in front?' - should simply be asked. Since the introduction of VAR, the concept of a player being 'level' has completely disappeared. And before VAR and in all non-VAT forms of the game, no one is ever judged on or offside based on the relative positions of body parts. The game is moving too quickly for anyone on the line to possibly see that - and that's how it should be. | |
| |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 09:52 - Apr 27 with 5582 views | BuenosSaint |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 09:24 - Apr 27 by DorsetIan |
You're missing the point.
Offside should be judged from the perspective of an official in line with the play but who is watching from the touchline.
And you might find it hilarious but it seems to work in every other form of the game where VAR is not being used.
And all this 'offside is offside' stuff is nonsense. There is also a question of *how* the decision is made. In my opinion, it should continue to be made from the perspective of someone viewing the game from the line and the same questions - 'behind, level, in front?' - should simply be asked. Since the introduction of VAR, the concept of a player being 'level' has completely disappeared. And before VAR and in all non-VAT forms of the game, no one is ever judged on or offside based on the relative positions of body parts. The game is moving too quickly for anyone on the line to possibly see that - and that's how it should be. |
You write good sense. This is the essence of it and why VAR fails even if it is a binary black n white decision.
All the stuff that goes on as a result of the tech being used (be it offsides or otherwise) had worsened the game for most. Not bettered it. | |
| |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 09:56 - Apr 27 with 5576 views | obelisk |
Interesting discussion.
One thing I'd like to add to the offside debate and the drawing of lines is that we should pay more attention to when the ball is played. Just how exact is that?
On a personal note I'd like to see VAR decisions limited to, say, a 30 second time limit. If a decision can't be made in that time then nothing is clear and obvious so go with the on-field decision. | | | |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 10:55 - Apr 27 with 5557 views | Messysaints |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 09:24 - Apr 27 by DorsetIan |
You're missing the point.
Offside should be judged from the perspective of an official in line with the play but who is watching from the touchline.
And you might find it hilarious but it seems to work in every other form of the game where VAR is not being used.
And all this 'offside is offside' stuff is nonsense. There is also a question of *how* the decision is made. In my opinion, it should continue to be made from the perspective of someone viewing the game from the line and the same questions - 'behind, level, in front?' - should simply be asked. Since the introduction of VAR, the concept of a player being 'level' has completely disappeared. And before VAR and in all non-VAT forms of the game, no one is ever judged on or offside based on the relative positions of body parts. The game is moving too quickly for anyone on the line to possibly see that - and that's how it should be. |
If you are behind your onside right? if your level you are also onside, so the question is simple, are they onside or off.
So yes, offside is offside, the rest is onside. | | | |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 11:15 - Apr 27 with 5547 views | DorsetIan |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 10:55 - Apr 27 by Messysaints |
If you are behind your onside right? if your level you are also onside, so the question is simple, are they onside or off.
So yes, offside is offside, the rest is onside. |
behind = onside
level = onside
in front = offside
I would put it like this:
If, when viewed by a competent official from the side of the pitch, the player is, by the naked eye, clearly in front of the defenders when the ball is played, then he's offside. Otherwise he's onside.
And unless the decision made by the onfield official is - by the same criteria - clearly wrong, it should be left alone. | |
| |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 13:28 - Apr 27 with 5511 views | Messysaints |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 11:15 - Apr 27 by DorsetIan |
behind = onside
level = onside
in front = offside
I would put it like this:
If, when viewed by a competent official from the side of the pitch, the player is, by the naked eye, clearly in front of the defenders when the ball is played, then he's offside. Otherwise he's onside.
And unless the decision made by the onfield official is - by the same criteria - clearly wrong, it should be left alone. |
na i cant agree, gives room for manipulation / interpretation / opinions. black and white is always better. | | | |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 13:46 - Apr 27 with 5501 views | DorsetIan |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 13:28 - Apr 27 by Messysaints |
na i cant agree, gives room for manipulation / interpretation / opinions. black and white is always better. |
I guess that's a personal preference.
I see the contortions that VAR goes through to try to get a 'black and white' decision on offsides, frankly ridiculous. I just don't think football is that sort of game. Or at least I don't think it should be.
If's usually pretty obvious whether a player is behind, level or in front. That is if you just look at the players instead of analysing their body parts. | |
| |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 15:44 - Apr 27 with 5461 views | GasGiant |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 14:20 - Apr 26 by SFC_Referee |
Yeah but “clear and obvious” is a term like “reckless”, “careless”, “seriously endangering the opponent”, “intervening with play” etc…
As they’re all footballing LOTG terms that at the end of the day, are opinionated. As they’ve all got incidents where practically everyone will agree fulfils the terms and ones where everyone agrees they do not, but there’s also ones where not everyone agrees on it and ones where you’re gonna get debate over what people see those coming under.
As yes VAR was brought in for clear and obvious errors, and to a certain degree it’s done that. It’s just what it’s not done is get them always right, and also intervene for things that aren’t clear and obvious. But at the same time, some may argue the vice versa to that, as what’s seen as a clear and obvious mistake at the end of the day is opinionated.
As in my books all offsides, ball in and out of play, whether it’s inside or outside the box etc… are always clear and obvious where there’s a correct restart and an incorrect one, irrelevant of how close it may have been as they’re all black and white decisions. Yet according to many that’s not always the case, and that if you can’t see it with the naked eye then you shouldn’t intervene with them. So which one do you pick? What is clear and obvious? What comes under each category? This is where you get the issues with that term.
And saints901 you say that VAR get things wrong, which they do, but they also get things right. And quite often they get them right under law, but many fans like yourself don’t know the laws, so just because it’s not what you agree with/think the law should be, simply say it must be wrong. As since VAR has come in it’s literally a fact that the amount of officiating mistakes has decreased by a major amount, getting many more decisions correct under the LOTG, than they previously were.
It’s just what many now seem to expect is that they get every decision right, which at the end of the day isn’t going to ever happen, as refs are humans and mistakes are inevitable, combined with many decisions being debatable for what the outcome should be, or if they’re clear and obvious.
But yes VAR does still mess up sometimes on things that practically everyone agrees they got wrong, but for how rare they are in comparison to how often they get them right, it’s quite a large gap, and for how little it’s highlighted when they get their decisions correct, it’s a pretty unfair comparison. As I know you and many others seem to think that nothing happens, but I can tell you for a fact that it does, it’s just when a refs demoted to the championship/not given games, it’s never the front page news like when a manager gets sacked or a player leaves a team. As it’s usually kept fairly quiet where only people in the refereeing industry know of it, meaning that quite often many fans like yourself don’t ever see it so simply think nothing ever happens to them (as that AR’s scruff with Robertson, and missing the next few games is probably the most attention I’ve ever seen one get!). And even then, for the jobs that refs have, and the lack of them that there is, it’s hardly like we’ve got millions of top quality refs ready to take over and replace any that some don’t deem as “good enough” due to the lack of refs at grassroots due to many factors that I’ve previously highlighted before.
And yeah I do agree as a fan who’s also at St Mary’s every other weekend, that VAR can ruin that feelings you get when you score a goal, but unfortunately that’s not really VAR’s or the officials fault, but simply the way it all works. As irrelevant of whether they take 5 minutes to 20 seconds to do, if we’ve got VAR in place it’s always going to be the case. As Cricket and rugby and quite different for firstly how less important a single point, wicket, try can be in those sports compared to a goal, as footballs a much lower scoring sport meaning that fans don’t celebrate or are as bothered by VAR intervening when they’re scored. As a single point very rarely makes a difference in those sports whilst in football it makes the difference to most games. And the only reason why crickets soo much more consistent is because almost all their decisions are factual whilst footballs is not, meaning that it’s a lot easier for them to make their decisions. And rugby it goes back to the point of them having more points as well as more time with it to understand how it all works and have been able to evolve around it.
As I personally think that VAR should simply be reduced to those black and white decisions like the ones I mentioned before, as then there isn’t any reasons for debates and all decisions are black and white, therefore leading to less controversy, quicker decisions and more consistency, which will make its better. But at the same time that’s not going to happen as VAR’s here to stay for the major TV audiences at home, which these days is what footballs all about! |
You could say that VAR works in cricket and rugby because those sports are not populated by cheats who set out to deliberately con the referee, where Premiership players will spend as much training time practising how to dive as they do for their dumb little celebration antics when they do manage to score. The second reason it works in cricket and rugby is that players in those sports respect the referee/umpire and regardless of what they might think will not abuse or threaten the officials and if they do they will be immediately dismissed and then subject to a huge disciplinary penalty afterwards. Football Authorities have tolerated ever more abuse of officials on the pitch and once again the reason for that tolerance (as with VAR) is that it adds to the "theatre" of the moment. Perhaps the third reason is the behaviour of the supporters. In rugby, "Respect the Kicker" is often observed to the letter, in cricket, most fans will applaud a century even by an opposition player. In football you get moronic partisan bawling from stubble covered slapheads with replica shirts stretched over bellies sponsored by Uber Eats. [Post edited 27 Apr 2023 15:54]
| | | |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 16:10 - Apr 27 with 5450 views | Messysaints |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 13:46 - Apr 27 by DorsetIan |
I guess that's a personal preference.
I see the contortions that VAR goes through to try to get a 'black and white' decision on offsides, frankly ridiculous. I just don't think football is that sort of game. Or at least I don't think it should be.
If's usually pretty obvious whether a player is behind, level or in front. That is if you just look at the players instead of analysing their body parts. |
If they can score from said body part, then it should be counted, players dont like being caught offside, do what they used to do and time your run better.
goals are black and white, do you want to add some interpretation to them? | | | |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 17:22 - Apr 27 with 5420 views | SFC_Referee |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 07:37 - Apr 27 by DorsetIan |
My position on VAR offsides is this.
1. It should be there to correct glaring errors only.
2. Any offside decision should be judged from the perspective of an official running the line.
3. No official running the line is in a position to draw minute lines to make the decision.
4. Since whenever, officials have had a split second to decide ‘behind or level ?’ = onside. ‘In front’ = offside.
5. That should not have changed. But now there is no such thing as ‘level’. The drawing of lines creates a binary choice.
And there have been many many VAR offside decisions where no competent official in the universe could have called the decision that VAR made. Most where players are - on any sensible view - level but where they have been called off.
Last night, no competant official, viewing the action from the line, could have thought that Stones was onside.
The drawing of lines on a screen is too artificial for a football game and should play no part in the decision making. This has changed the game and not for the better. |
1: ok but like I said before, what’s classified as a “glaring error” as I according to myself and many others all offsides they get wrong (like yesterday before VAR intervened) are glaring errors, whilst many like yourself say that’s not one. As just like I said before, you can’t use terms like that, and it’s even more the case for black and white things like offside.
2/3: sorry but you don’t use VAR like that otherwise there’s no point in having it. As the whole point of it was so that the officials could see the different angles to the incidents and be able to see them a lot clearer then when they were watching it in real time when that yellow 8 was blocking half of the incident or that counter attack that caught the ref out of position meaning that he’s not in the best location to give the penalty call etc…
As if your not going to use VAR for the best angles and places where it can be used most effectively then there’s no point in having it (which I know you want, but if it’s staying then there’s no point of using it like that).
4/5: but that’s offside for you, and is the exact same for those goal line decisions, ball in/out of play, whether it’s a pen or a free kick etc… as these are all binary decisions that aren’t opinionated whatsoever. As you can’t have a ball both on and off the goalline, just the same as how a player can’t be on and offside. As this is the one area where VAR has done well, and yeah it may be frustrating for fans and others, but at the end of the day it’s still correct and you can’t really criticise VAR for it.
As it’s got nothing to do with competent officials but simply a factual decision which with the tech we have these days are usually given the correct outcome to. As if your gonna start complaining and questioning this then why not goal line tech as well, as other than the fact it’s gotta be played for an offside incident, it’s literally no different at all to an offside. | |
| |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 08:10 - Apr 28 with 5329 views | DorsetIan |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 17:22 - Apr 27 by SFC_Referee |
1: ok but like I said before, what’s classified as a “glaring error” as I according to myself and many others all offsides they get wrong (like yesterday before VAR intervened) are glaring errors, whilst many like yourself say that’s not one. As just like I said before, you can’t use terms like that, and it’s even more the case for black and white things like offside.
2/3: sorry but you don’t use VAR like that otherwise there’s no point in having it. As the whole point of it was so that the officials could see the different angles to the incidents and be able to see them a lot clearer then when they were watching it in real time when that yellow 8 was blocking half of the incident or that counter attack that caught the ref out of position meaning that he’s not in the best location to give the penalty call etc…
As if your not going to use VAR for the best angles and places where it can be used most effectively then there’s no point in having it (which I know you want, but if it’s staying then there’s no point of using it like that).
4/5: but that’s offside for you, and is the exact same for those goal line decisions, ball in/out of play, whether it’s a pen or a free kick etc… as these are all binary decisions that aren’t opinionated whatsoever. As you can’t have a ball both on and off the goalline, just the same as how a player can’t be on and offside. As this is the one area where VAR has done well, and yeah it may be frustrating for fans and others, but at the end of the day it’s still correct and you can’t really criticise VAR for it.
As it’s got nothing to do with competent officials but simply a factual decision which with the tech we have these days are usually given the correct outcome to. As if your gonna start complaining and questioning this then why not goal line tech as well, as other than the fact it’s gotta be played for an offside incident, it’s literally no different at all to an offside. |
Right on cue...
Che Adams, as a player, was ‘level’ with the other defenders. Only someone who doesn’t understand English could say differently.
He was given offside because of the position of his toe.
If you think this is reasonable, that’s that what people understand by the word ‘level’, that this isn’t a massive change from the many many years of how we understood the offside rule, and that this change is somehow a positive thing for the world of football, then I really can’t help you.
For me, and I think most people, this is complete and utter nonsense. A joke. It’s turned a robust common sense game into a video game from the early days of the ZX Spectrum...
...and in this case, it wiped of a perfectly good goal, denied us the chance of a barnstorming end to the game, and absolutely secured our relegation.
God I hate VAR and what it’s done to the game. Hate it. | |
| |
| VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 11:00 - Apr 28 with 5230 views | PaleRider |
It's very simple - it's poorly applied by idiots. Goodness only knows what the standard of refereeing is like in the lower leagues if these are our best referees.
Cue a 25 page poorly written essay! | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
