Video Assistant Referees (VAR)

[Guest neesy111]

I think it's a half measure tbh and I hate the stopping of the game all the time.  We have the technology to automate offside calls and goal line decisions so they should be out of the referees hands.  The rest just leave up to the referee imo.

 

Get rid of VAR and implement a player and ball tracking system which needs no unnecessary stoppages, instant decision and accurate.

 

This 100%.

[bigfella]

I think one of the worst things as a fan of a club is that VAR will strip away the excitement and adrenaline rush of your team scoring a goal.

 

The joy that comes with a last minute winner?  Don’t bother anymore because even if the officials on the field give it, your joy might be pulled back and even if it is given you’ve got to hang around while it is confirmed to celebrate which won’t feel instinctive.

 

This is the truth. Football is the best game in the world, because good sport from the spectator's point of view, is all about tension and release.

[Mike]

Wolves' disallowed goal feels dead harsh.

[mrmojorisin75]

I think it's a half measure tbh and I hate the stopping of the game all the time.  We have the technology to automate offside calls and goal line decisions so they should be out of the referees hands.  The rest just leave up to the referee imo.

 

Get rid of VAR and implement a player and ball tracking system which needs no unnecessary stoppages, instant decision and accurate.

 

This 100%.

 

The fuck are you two daft cunts on about man?

 

 

[LFEE]

Wolves' disallowed goal feels dead harsh.

 

Just seen it. Another VAR classic. Wonder if someone will bring a compilation DVD out of the best ones

[sbnufc]

[Happinesstan]

It's absolutely shite, but it's here to stay and the rules will be adapted to fit the technology.

[duo]

Why such the push for VAR? What's it achieved? Instead of discussing a ref decision where discussing how poor VAR is.

[jdckelly]

the fundamental problem I have with it boils down to does it make football more enjoyable to watch, thus far the definitive answer for myself has been hell fucking no

[duo]

the fundamental problem I have with it boils down to does it make football more enjoyable to watch, thus far the definitive answer for myself has been hell fucking no

This^

 

Absolute shit what happened yesterday at Man City - takes the joy out the game for a decision no one would have questioned before.

[Happinesstan]

Won't be long before you can bet on the outcome of VAR.

[TheNE40]

The problem with VAR is that we asked for it. We wanted to reach the correct decisions. What it's taking away (as others correctly identify) is the drama behind it. Yes it was the correct decision in the Man City game, but we need to work out where we want the balance, either with VAR and getting decisions right (with reduced drama / enjoyment for viewers) or the reverse. Also throw into the mix that a referee also has discretion to refer / not refer certain incidents to VAR and the picture gets even more complicated.

[Wullie]

It was only the "correct decision" because the laws have been changed this summer for the purposes of accommodating VAR.

[Wullie]

It wasn't the correct decision anyway tbh, I don't know what I'm on about there. Even reading the new law, it simply was not.

[TheNE40]

It wasn't the correct decision anyway tbh, I don't know what I'm on about there. Even reading the new law, it simply was not.

 

If you read the 4th bullet point from the bottom on this link highlighting the changes to the Laws of the Game, you'll find it does. In that situation, it hit the attacking player's (Laporte's) arm. Whilst accidental it hit his arm and under this definition it was the correct decision to rule the goal out.

 

For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of the new law change, but the decision based on the reading of the law in this instance was correct. I believe the overriding rationale behind provisions like this is that they don't want attackers to be seen to be scoring with their hand/arm (although they have taken this to an extreme here).

[TheNE40]

It wasn't the correct decision anyway tbh, I don't know what I'm on about there. Even reading the new law, it simply was not.

 

If you read the 4th bullet point from the bottom on this link highlighting the changes to the Laws of the Game, you'll find it does. In that situation, it hit the attacking player's (Laporte's) arm. Whilst accidental it hit his arm and under this definition it was the correct decision to rule the goal out.

 

For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of the new law change, but the decision based on the reading of the law in this instance was correct. I believe the overriding rationale behind provisions like this is that they don't want attackers to be seen to be scoring with their hand/arm (although they have taken this to an extreme here).

 

Helpfully I've forgotten the link, here it is: http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/786/111531_110319_IFAB_LoG_at_a_Glance.pdf

[Wullie]

• a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm

and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity

 

How does that in any way describe what happened on Saturday?

 

Laporte did not gain control or possession of the ball at any point. The only way you can get that paragraph to disallow the goal on Saturday is to add extra meaning to the words that aren't there, "oh yeah they meant if it goes to a teammate obvs". If they meant that, they should have written it.

[TheNE40]

• a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm

and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity

 

How does that in any way describe what happened on Saturday?

 

Laporte did not gain control or possession of the ball at any point. The only way you can get that paragraph to disallow the goal on Saturday is to add extra meaning to the words that aren't there, "oh yeah they meant if it goes to a teammate obvs". If they meant that, they should have written it.

 

The bold part applies here. By Laporte's handball and touch onto Jesus, it created a goalscoring opportunity from which Jesus scored.

[Wullie]

He has to gain control or possession of the ball first, before that part of the sentence applies.

[TheNE40]

He has to gain control or possession of the ball first, before that part of the sentence applies.

 

'New handball rules introduced this season state that any goal resulting from handball, accidental or otherwise, must be ruled out and Man City found out to their cost just how strictly these laws will be applied.'

 

Taken from the post-match report from BBC Sport (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49302583).

 

As I said before, I don't agree with these rules, but they are what they are and will be enforced to the letter of the law.

[Wullie]

We're reading the laws themselves, why are you quoting a BBC article at me?

 

"By the letter of the law" which is what we're talking about, that goal was entirely legal. Laporte did not gain control or possession and BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW he (personally) has to do that, before scoring or creating, for it to be an offence. He did not, therefore it wasn't.

[TheNE40]

We're reading the laws themselves, why are you quoting a BBC article at me?

 

"By the letter of the law" which is what we're talking about, that goal was entirely legal. Laporte did not gain control or possession and BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW he (personally) has to do that, before scoring or creating, for it to be an offence. He did not, therefore it wasn't.

 

Because the BBC (and their writers) are aware of the laws and their contents and wouldn't go out to misinform their readership.

 

I'll agree to disagree on this one. Looks like both myself, the refereeing team (Michael Oliver and the VAR crew) and anyone else who think it was correct to deny the goal were all wrong !

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

 

Sounds class. Must be even better when the game isn’t even on TV.

Are stadiums in England also not showing any replays of VAR incidents to supporters? To me, this was the biggest problem at the World Cup with VAR. For the most part, people in the crowd didn't have any idea what was going on outside of the VAR review notification and the end result. During Argentina-Nigeria, a header by Rojo flicked off his arm in the box (would have been a clear penalty under the new rules I believe), but it wasn't anything noticeable for me, sat closer to the other end. Between our players crowding the ref, the referee having to communicate to the VAR official, and the actual review; there was probably a three-four minute break in the match, during which we received no clear explanation as to what was happening. The experience with it is much worse for people who are actually at the match compared with those watching at home or in the pub, which is not acceptable. If this is the way forward, they need to go full Yankee with this and at least engage the crowd and keep them informed.

 

 

I would think it would be even worse in the Premier League when an incident we did not see is then adjudicated by some third party we also cannot see. It should be the referee for any judgement based decision.

Does it though?

 

 

Read the thread.

This is pretty reflective of my views of the VAR calls for players offside by a millimetre or two. We are reviewing the position of a minimum of three bodies (two players and a ball) that are in motion and stopping time at the indeterminable point in time that a ball is "passed". The idea that this is an exact science is laughable and ruinous to the game of football. Offside is at its essence a simple rule, now we are using freeze-frame and trying to determine the point where Raheem Sterling's scapula turns into his humerus. This is what replay does in a sport. In the NFL, we are stopping the game to determine if the ball touched one blade of grass, and in the NBA we are stopping the game to see if a player's fingernail contacted the ball. Football will head the same way. It is inevitable.

[Jimburst]

It's a question of grammar there like. I'm not English expert but I'd have read it like Wullie has.

[Wullie]

I have absolutely no doubt what the law is meant to be doing, and the referees and the press are all going off how the law should have been written for what it is intended, not what it actually is.

 

Ignore the BBC, Michael Oliver, whoever - read the words that have been written down. There's a typo in there for good measure ("touches", should be touched). It's appallingly written, which is ironic seeing as the whole thing has been done solely for the benefit of people obsessed with accuracy and the LETTER OF THE LAW.