Video Assistant Referees (VAR)

[Stifler]

Why can't they just stick a screen on the refs arm?  He presses a button and it plays back the last 10 seconds in slow-mo.  There's really no need for this to be done off the pitch.

 

It's fucking stupid anyway, just play the game.

Why can’t they just train up decent referee’s and Linesmen?

 

A professional sport where the players get millions at the others levels, possibly the most money in anyway sport. You then have referee’s who meet up to train once a week, even at the grassroutes level you have to pay for expensive courses to become an official. There is no programme to invest in and train officials.

 

Also all this talk about the game being too fast is fucking bullshit. How come the players have been able to keep up to speed with their reactions for challenges etc. Keepers have kept up to speed with the speed of attacking players and the change in movement modern balls make. Managers can keep up to speed with tactics and have no problem seeing challenges, offsides etc, the fans are the same. The only person who hasn’t kept up to speed is the referee’s and officials, and at the highest level it’s very much a case of them being bothered to work to do so.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

They are decent man, fans just love to blame them.

[Figures 1-0 Football]

So, VAR was in use yesterday and a perfectly good goal was still ruled out. Great stuff.

 

Never a foul in a million years on the keeper.

[Guest NobbyOhNobby]

I really hope VAR never gets used in the premier league. Goal line technology is great, but VAR is a step too far and just isn't needed. The premier league is fast-paced theatre, refereeing mistakes add to the drama, whilst VAR slows the game down and makes it far less of a spectacle.

 

1/10 WNB

[thomas]

 

sounds like VAR is cool and good ya'll. it's going to happen. imo it doesn't have to be utterly faultless to be used, just better than bobby madley. incremental improvements and the like.

[Figures 1-0 Football]

 

sounds like VAR is cool and good ya'll. it's going to happen. imo it doesn't have to be utterly faultless to be used, just better than bobby madley. incremental improvements and the like.

 

105 decisions changed and 17 of them were wrongfully changed? Even after watching it over and over again?

 

So 16% of VAR decisions are wrong? Aye, it’s been a great success then.

[thomas]

 

sounds like VAR is cool and good ya'll. it's going to happen. imo it doesn't have to be utterly faultless to be used, just better than bobby madley. incremental improvements and the like.

 

105 decisions changed and 17 of them were wrongfully changed? Even after watching it over and over again?

 

So 16% of VAR decisions are wrong?

No? :lol:

[Figures 1-0 Football]

 

sounds like VAR is cool and good ya'll. it's going to happen. imo it doesn't have to be utterly faultless to be used, just better than bobby madley. incremental improvements and the like.

 

105 decisions changed and 17 of them were wrongfully changed? Even after watching it over and over again?

 

So 16% of VAR decisions are wrong?

No? :lol:

 

Those that are changed, aye?

[Kaizero]

 

sounds like VAR is cool and good ya'll. it's going to happen. imo it doesn't have to be utterly faultless to be used, just better than bobby madley. incremental improvements and the like.

 

105 decisions changed and 17 of them were wrongfully changed? Even after watching it over and over again?

 

So 16% of VAR decisions are wrong?

No? :lol:

 

Those that are changed, aye?

 

Literally says: "error rate: 6,05% without VAR, 0,98% with VAR – decrease of fouls (–8,8%), protests (–19,3%), simulations (–43%) – increase of penalties (+4,3%)" in the title

[Figures 1-0 Football]

Am I missing something simple here?

 

It states that 105 decisions were changed on the basis of a VAR review, 17 of them were wrongfully changed.

 

Therefore, when a decision is changed by VAR, it has a 16% chance of being wrongfully changed?

 

The rest of the stats are pointless really, the increase in penalties and decrease in fouls could be coincidental and not necessarily an impact of VAR. You’d have to measure those over a good few seasons to get any decent data.

[Kaizero]

The error rate with VAR is 0.98% vs 6.05% without VAR. That's the take away here, man

[Figures 1-0 Football]

The error rate with VAR is 0.98% vs 6.05% without VAR. That's the take away here, man

 

Would be interested to see what data they are using to calculate that.

 

But that’s not the point I was and still am making. The error rate of the referee still fucking up and changing the decision incorrectly is 16%, which is ridiculous and adds to the point I made a few weeks ago where the referee on the pitch is influenced by the VAR referee as soon as they tell them to check a decision.

[Kaizero]

The error rate with VAR is 0.98% vs 6.05% without VAR. That's the take away here, man

 

Would be interested to see what data they are using to calculate that.

 

But that’s not the point I was and still am making. The error rate of the referee still fucking up and changing the decision incorrectly is 16%, which is ridiculous and adds to the point I made a few weeks ago where the referee on the pitch is influenced by the VAR referee as soon as they tell them to check a decision.

 

It's not, though. The error rate goes down to 0.98% over 6.05% - even though there still is an error percentage in the decisions they make using VAR. The numbers they'll have used will be the decisions where VAR has been used vs decisions where VAR has not been used, clearly.

 

I'm not a fan at all of VAR in the form it is currently being used, but I'll still not argue against it clearly being more correct than refs usually are. It's just used wrong and slows down games unnecessarily.

[Figures 1-0 Football]

The error rate with VAR is 0.98% vs 6.05% without VAR. That's the take away here, man

 

Would be interested to see what data they are using to calculate that.

 

But that’s not the point I was and still am making. The error rate of the referee still fucking up and changing the decision incorrectly is 16%, which is ridiculous and adds to the point I made a few weeks ago where the referee on the pitch is influenced by the VAR referee as soon as they tell them to check a decision.

 

It's not, though. The error rate goes down to 0.98% over 6.05% - even though there still is an error percentage in the decisions they make using VAR. The numbers they'll have used will be the decisions where VAR has been used vs decisions where VAR has not been used, clearly.

 

I'm not a fan at all of VAR in the form it is currently being used, but I'll still not argue against it clearly being more correct than refs usually are. It's just used wrong and slows down games unnecessarily.

 

A random stat on Reddit could be based on the square root of fuck all like As I said, if someone presents me with some random numbers, I’d like to see the actual data behind them.

 

The difference between those %s could be based on 1000 decisions or 10 decisions, massively altering the impact. Stats on their own are worthless at times, without being put into context.

 

I could tell you that Mitrovic has been our most successful striker this season with some stats and %’s, which doesn’t actually tell you the true story.

 

Wrongfully changing 17 out of 105 decisions is shameful and further evidence that VAR should fuck off, imo. The only way I would ever accept it is if decisions were instant and there was a near enough 100% success rate in making a decision with it. Why slow the game down at all if there still remains a relatively high error rate with decisions made.

[Kaizero]

The error rate with VAR is 0.98% vs 6.05% without VAR. That's the take away here, man

 

Would be interested to see what data they are using to calculate that.

 

But that’s not the point I was and still am making. The error rate of the referee still fucking up and changing the decision incorrectly is 16%, which is ridiculous and adds to the point I made a few weeks ago where the referee on the pitch is influenced by the VAR referee as soon as they tell them to check a decision.

 

It's not, though. The error rate goes down to 0.98% over 6.05% - even though there still is an error percentage in the decisions they make using VAR. The numbers they'll have used will be the decisions where VAR has been used vs decisions where VAR has not been used, clearly.

 

I'm not a fan at all of VAR in the form it is currently being used, but I'll still not argue against it clearly being more correct than refs usually are. It's just used wrong and slows down games unnecessarily.

 

A random stat on Reddit could be based on the square root of fuck all like

 

It's a fucking hyperlink, man.

 

https://www.gazzetta.it/Calcio/Serie-A/23-04-2018/var-cartellini-simulazioni-club-serie-a-lezione-rizzoli-260774711797.shtml

[thomas]

The error rate with VAR is 0.98% vs 6.05% without VAR. That's the take away here, man

 

Would be interested to see what data they are using to calculate that.

 

But that’s not the point I was and still am making. The error rate of the referee still fucking up and changing the decision incorrectly is 16%, which is ridiculous and adds to the point I made a few weeks ago where the referee on the pitch is influenced by the VAR referee as soon as they tell them to check a decision.

 

It's not, though. The error rate goes down to 0.98% over 6.05% - even though there still is an error percentage in the decisions they make using VAR. The numbers they'll have used will be the decisions where VAR has been used vs decisions where VAR has not been used, clearly.

 

I'm not a fan at all of VAR in the form it is currently being used, but I'll still not argue against it clearly being more correct than refs usually are. It's just used wrong and slows down games unnecessarily.

 

A random stat on Reddit could be based on the square root of fuck all like As I said, if someone presents me with some random numbers, I’d like to see the actual data behind them.

 

The difference between those %s could be based on 1000 decisions or 10 decisions, massively altering the impact. Stats on their own are worthless at times, without being put into context.

 

I could tell you that Mitrovic has been our most successful striker this season with some stats and %’s, which doesn’t actually tell you the true story.

 

Wrongfully changing 17 out of 105 decisions is shameful and further evidence that VAR should fuck off, imo. The only way I would ever accept it is if decisions were instant and there was a near enough 100% success rate in making a decision with it. Why slow the game down at all if there still remains a relatively high error rate with decisions made.

It's not the overall error rate though

 

VAR was USED TO CHECK A DECISION 1735 times

1631 out of 1735 it agreed (93.95%)

105 out of 1735 it overturned it (6.05%)

  17 out of 105 (or 16% of 6%) were overturned incorrectly.

 

Overall 17/1735 (0.98%) were overturned incorrectly.

 

[Figures 1-0 Football]

The error rate with VAR is 0.98% vs 6.05% without VAR. That's the take away here, man

 

Would be interested to see what data they are using to calculate that.

 

But that’s not the point I was and still am making. The error rate of the referee still fucking up and changing the decision incorrectly is 16%, which is ridiculous and adds to the point I made a few weeks ago where the referee on the pitch is influenced by the VAR referee as soon as they tell them to check a decision.

 

It's not, though. The error rate goes down to 0.98% over 6.05% - even though there still is an error percentage in the decisions they make using VAR. The numbers they'll have used will be the decisions where VAR has been used vs decisions where VAR has not been used, clearly.

 

I'm not a fan at all of VAR in the form it is currently being used, but I'll still not argue against it clearly being more correct than refs usually are. It's just used wrong and slows down games unnecessarily.

 

A random stat on Reddit could be based on the square root of fuck all like

 

It's a fucking hyperlink, man.

 

https://www.gazzetta.it/Calcio/Serie-A/23-04-2018/var-cartellini-simulazioni-club-serie-a-lezione-rizzoli-260774711797.shtml

 

Well I cant read Italian, so that doesn’t count.

 

The error data seems to relate to ‘before VAR’ and doesn’t state if they are microscoping every tackle, foul, offside, throw-in, corner etc. as opposed to specific match decisions with VAR.

 

English data stated referees have an error rate of 2%, it’s all judgemental and very difficult to measure. What they can measure though, is that mistakes are still made and that’s inexcusable for me if they have VAR.

[Figures 1-0 Football]

The error rate with VAR is 0.98% vs 6.05% without VAR. That's the take away here, man

 

Would be interested to see what data they are using to calculate that.

 

But that’s not the point I was and still am making. The error rate of the referee still fucking up and changing the decision incorrectly is 16%, which is ridiculous and adds to the point I made a few weeks ago where the referee on the pitch is influenced by the VAR referee as soon as they tell them to check a decision.

 

It's not, though. The error rate goes down to 0.98% over 6.05% - even though there still is an error percentage in the decisions they make using VAR. The numbers they'll have used will be the decisions where VAR has been used vs decisions where VAR has not been used, clearly.

 

I'm not a fan at all of VAR in the form it is currently being used, but I'll still not argue against it clearly being more correct than refs usually are. It's just used wrong and slows down games unnecessarily.

 

A random stat on Reddit could be based on the square root of fuck all like As I said, if someone presents me with some random numbers, I’d like to see the actual data behind them.

 

The difference between those %s could be based on 1000 decisions or 10 decisions, massively altering the impact. Stats on their own are worthless at times, without being put into context.

 

I could tell you that Mitrovic has been our most successful striker this season with some stats and %’s, which doesn’t actually tell you the true story.

 

Wrongfully changing 17 out of 105 decisions is shameful and further evidence that VAR should fuck off, imo. The only way I would ever accept it is if decisions were instant and there was a near enough 100% success rate in making a decision with it. Why slow the game down at all if there still remains a relatively high error rate with decisions made.

It's not the overall error rate though

 

VAR was USED TO CHECK A DECISION 1735 times

1631 out of 1735 it agreed (93.95%)

105 out of 1735 it overturned it (6.05%)

  17 out of 105 (or 16% of 6%) were overturned incorrectly.

Overall 17/1735 (0.98%) were overturned incorrectly.

 

Again... I’m not talking above the overall error rate, I’m talking about the bit in bold, which is unacceptable.

[thomas]

Says you. If you demand perfection from it before it's used then I think that's foolish.

[Figures 1-0 Football]

Says you. If you demand perfection from it before it's used then I think that's foolish.

 

Not perfection no, but that % is far too high to even consider slowing our game down even slightly, imo.

[Greg]

The error rate with VAR is 0.98% vs 6.05% without VAR. That's the take away here, man

 

Would be interested to see what data they are using to calculate that.

 

But that’s not the point I was and still am making. The error rate of the referee still f***ing up and changing the decision incorrectly is 16%, which is ridiculous and adds to the point I made a few weeks ago where the referee on the pitch is influenced by the VAR referee as soon as they tell them to check a decision.

 

It's not, though. The error rate goes down to 0.98% over 6.05% - even though there still is an error percentage in the decisions they make using VAR. The numbers they'll have used will be the decisions where VAR has been used vs decisions where VAR has not been used, clearly.

 

I'm not a fan at all of VAR in the form it is currently being used, but I'll still not argue against it clearly being more correct than refs usually are. It's just used wrong and slows down games unnecessarily.

 

A random stat on Reddit could be based on the square root of f*** all like As I said, if someone presents me with some random numbers, I’d like to see the actual data behind them.

 

The difference between those %s could be based on 1000 decisions or 10 decisions, massively altering the impact. Stats on their own are worthless at times, without being put into context.

 

I could tell you that Mitrovic has been our most successful striker this season with some stats and %’s, which doesn’t actually tell you the true story.

 

Wrongfully changing 17 out of 105 decisions is shameful and further evidence that VAR should f*** off, imo. The only way I would ever accept it is if decisions were instant and there was a near enough 100% success rate in making a decision with it. Why slow the game down at all if there still remains a relatively high error rate with decisions made.

It's not the overall error rate though

 

VAR was USED TO CHECK A DECISION 1735 times

1631 out of 1735 it agreed (93.95%)

105 out of 1735 it overturned it (6.05%)

  17 out of 105 (or 16% of 6%) were overturned incorrectly.

Overall 17/1735 (0.98%) were overturned incorrectly.

 

Again... I’m not talking above the overall error rate, I’m talking about the bit in bold, which is unacceptable.

 

How do we know the person that checked these and came up with the number that are wrong got the decision that the decision was wrong correct? After all many of the laws of the game state 'if, in the opinion of the referee...'

[Figures 1-0 Football]

The error rate with VAR is 0.98% vs 6.05% without VAR. That's the take away here, man

 

Would be interested to see what data they are using to calculate that.

 

But that’s not the point I was and still am making. The error rate of the referee still f***ing up and changing the decision incorrectly is 16%, which is ridiculous and adds to the point I made a few weeks ago where the referee on the pitch is influenced by the VAR referee as soon as they tell them to check a decision.

 

It's not, though. The error rate goes down to 0.98% over 6.05% - even though there still is an error percentage in the decisions they make using VAR. The numbers they'll have used will be the decisions where VAR has been used vs decisions where VAR has not been used, clearly.

 

I'm not a fan at all of VAR in the form it is currently being used, but I'll still not argue against it clearly being more correct than refs usually are. It's just used wrong and slows down games unnecessarily.

 

A random stat on Reddit could be based on the square root of f*** all like As I said, if someone presents me with some random numbers, I’d like to see the actual data behind them.

 

The difference between those %s could be based on 1000 decisions or 10 decisions, massively altering the impact. Stats on their own are worthless at times, without being put into context.

 

I could tell you that Mitrovic has been our most successful striker this season with some stats and %’s, which doesn’t actually tell you the true story.

 

Wrongfully changing 17 out of 105 decisions is shameful and further evidence that VAR should f*** off, imo. The only way I would ever accept it is if decisions were instant and there was a near enough 100% success rate in making a decision with it. Why slow the game down at all if there still remains a relatively high error rate with decisions made.

It's not the overall error rate though

 

VAR was USED TO CHECK A DECISION 1735 times

1631 out of 1735 it agreed (93.95%)

105 out of 1735 it overturned it (6.05%)

  17 out of 105 (or 16% of 6%) were overturned incorrectly.

Overall 17/1735 (0.98%) were overturned incorrectly.

 

Again... I’m not talking above the overall error rate, I’m talking about the bit in bold, which is unacceptable.

 

How do we know the person that checked these and came up with the number that are wrong got the decision that the decision was wrong correct? After all many of the laws of the game state 'if, in the opinion of the referee...'

 

We don’t. Which is another reason VAR is crap, the fouls it attempts to make a decision on are very subjective.

[thomas]

Says you. If you demand perfection from it before it's used then I think that's foolish.

 

Not perfection no, but that % is far too high to even consider slowing our game down even slightly, imo.

this is another thing. football is hardly the non-stop cyclone of action everyone wants to pretend it is. there are so many stoppages that exist today it would hardly be noticed imo

[DJ_NUFC]

Basic statistics need to be taught more and at an earlier age in high school. Thomas is right, and F 1-0 F is wrong.

 

 

[Dave]

Tonight's match would have definitely been much more exciting if they'd stopped to check every goal, offside and the penalty decision IMO.