VAR Thoughts?

[Gym Beglin]

The danger is judging it before we know how to use it.

 

Give it 12 months and it’ll be part of the furniture and refs will be saying it’s the best thing ever.

[Gym Beglin]

That forest penalty was fine. If a player can do that on purpose then that’s different, but in essence it was an impediment to the player taking it, not an advantage.

 

There’s the intent of the law only, that’s to stop someone taking the piss.

[moof]

Will it help us to reach correct refereeing decisions more frequently? Yes.

Is it going to be perfect every time? No, obviously there will be some things that are missed and mistakes will still be made.

Just because something isn’t perfect doesn’t mean it isn’t worth persisting with. Referees need all the help they can get, especially Premier League referees. I don’t subscribe to that bollocks about it breaking up the ‘flow of the game’ either. There are already stoppages for all sorts of asinine reasons and most referrals are conducted in the background while the game carries on.

 

So, yes, it can’t come soon enough.

[Guest]

I just want Arsene Wenger to be happy.  I'm all for it.

VAR ArsenalFanTV style would be immense.

 

"Is it offside, Fam?"

 

"It's fucking onside, Blud"

[rubble-rouser]

I have a couple of objections - first it's too subjective. VAR would not have clarified anything about (for example) either of the recent Derby pens. Does that mean that (as in cricket) the ref sticks with his original decision unless it's proven to be incorrect? If not, it just  piles more pressure on a ref. Surely there is more chance of a ref giving a weak decision in favour of a big team if he's got Mourinho or Conte or even Klopp jumping up and down on the touchline as he reviews a decision that he will have given in the spur of the moment. The fact that almost every try that is anything but clear-cut is now reviewed in Rugby shows that officials are terrified of getting big calls wrong which will mean reviews after every goal or major incident a lot of standing around (except when Pulis or Mourinho are involved, of course).

 

Second, I think that if it is embraced it will lead to major changes in the way a match works and the way a game is experienced in the ground. Surely it will lead to the clock being stopped. You can be absolutely categorical about the amount of time that is lost to a review - if we are adding on precise minutes and seconds for reviews, why not be as precise about all other stoppages? One thing that is unattractive is that the crowd at the ground will have much less of an idea what is going on than the TV audience - OK,that already happens up to a point with replays etc, but you'd be pretty pissed off if you spent 10 minutes each half waiting for something to happen and not having a clue what was going on. At a minimum,I think that requires mic'd up refs with their discussions with the TMO broadcast in the ground.That then raises the question of replays on big screens. Logically the paying fan should be able to experience the same tension and scrutinising of the decision as the TV audience, but you can see it leading to more trouble - again, using the example of the Derby penalties, there would have been 45,000 reds feeling aggrieved in the league game and 8,000 very angry blues the other day. 

 

It feels like the thin end of the wedge that would make the game much more stop-go.There might need to be shorter matches (60 minutes of ball in-play time, which would eradicate some aspects of time wasting) and the possibility of live audiences getting much more access to TV pictures in the ground.  

 

I'm not sure that changes on that scale are worth it.

[Johnlj]

Offsides and goalline for me Clive. That is all.

 

But the PL love it as it opens up for commercial breaks during games like in the NFL. The day that happens is the last game I've watched.

[WhiskeyJar]

What does Vacuum Arc Remelted have to do with football?

[Remmie]

All other sports embracing replays and technology are far better for it, what makes football different? Who really gets pissed off waiting 30 seconds to ensure a correct decision is made?

 

Those opposing it get no right to complain when a ref makes a bad decision (without it) in my view.

[Pureblood]

All other sports embracing replays and technology are far better for it, what makes football different? Who really gets pissed off waiting 30 seconds to ensure a correct decision is made?

 

Those opposing it get no right to complain when a ref makes a bad decision (without it) in my view.

 

I've only just twigged the shocking irony in your stated location.

[Remmie]

They are the unbaked sort, natch

[No2]

All other sports embracing replays and technology are far better for it, what makes football different? Who really gets pissed off waiting 30 seconds to ensure a correct decision is made?

 

Those opposing it get no right to complain when a ref makes a bad decision (without it) in my view.

Football is one the few sports were cheating is considered an art form. Its different to other sports like that, its what makes it better.

 

VAR will eventually remove referees and destroy the game. It will stop future Luis Suarez's making it in the game, it will kill Italian defending. It would have ruled out the hand of god which for me makes it unacceptable. VAR gives Arsenal the 2001 FA Cup. That game was so much better than us routinely beating Sunderland 2-0. You win some you lose some,its football.

 

Who wants a bland game full of Theo Walcott's?

[WhiskeyJar]

Football is one the few sports were cheating is considered an art form. Its different to other sports like that, its what makes it better.

 

VAR will eventually remove referees and destroy the game. It will stop future Luis Suarez's making it in the game, it will kill Italian defending. It would have ruled out the hand of god which for me makes it unacceptable. VAR gives Arsenal the 2001 FA Cup. That game was so much better than us routinely beating Sunderland 2-0. You win some you lose some,its football.

 

Who wants a bland game full of Theo Walcott's?

By that argument goal line technology should not have been introduced as it would have counted against us with the Garcia ghost goal against Chelsea.

 

It's a flawed logic that suits a flawed argument just because you want to see drama on the pitch.

[No2]

By that argument goal line technology should not have been introduced as it would have counted against us with the Garcia ghost goal against Chelsea.

 

It's a flawed logic that suits a flawed argument just because you want to see drama on the pitch.

I'm not a fan of goal line technology either. I can accept it but i don't want to go beyond that. I'm not a fan of anything that changes the rules for the wealthy teams/leagues only. What annoys me most about it is the argument is always phrased as how much that decision cost x y or z. I don't care about how much money it cost, football is about glory or matter what level you watch or play at.

[WhiskeyJar]

I'm not a fan of goal line technology either. I can accept it but i don't want to go beyond that. I'm not a fan of anything that changes the rules for the wealthy teams/leagues only. What annoys me most about it is the argument is always phrased as how much that decision cost x y or z. I don't care about how much money it cost, football is about glory or matter what level you watch or play at.

What if I put it to you that the lack of VAR cost us a Premier League title whilst the lack of goal line technology gifted the PL to United?

 

Sod money this is about trophies, earning them, winning them because you are the best not because of a human error.

 

I am glad to see this is happening. It's the only way we can see the best of players and not the worst of them, Suarez included.

[Numero Veinticinco]

I can’t see a legit argument against it.

[No2]

What if I put it to you that the lack of VAR cost us a Premier League title whilst the lack of goal line technology gifted the PL to United?

 

Sod money this is about trophies, earning them, winning them because you are the best not because of a human error.

 

I am glad to see this is happening. It's the only way we can see the best of players and not the worst of them, Suarez included.

I'd say that's football. Its littered with controversial decisions down the years, its what makes it great.

 

The goal line technology I can live with, the reason I was initially against it was because it would open the flood gates. Say we score a goal from a corner or free kick that was incorrectly awarded, should you go back that far, what about if it was a throw in? This is the direction its heading in. You see in rugby they nearly verify every try, the idea of celebrating a goal 40 seconds after the ball has hit the net is not that appealing to me.

[Ranxerox]

I like the goal line tech because it's instantaneous and does not involve someone making a judgement call. The ball either goes over or not, play is not disrupted...end of.

 

I don't see VAR as being as smooth. It will be disruptive to the flow of play and some decisions will remain controversial as more often than a judgment call will still have to be made.

[Baltar]

JAR > VAR

[WhiskeyJar]

I'd say that's football. Its littered with controversial decisions down the years, its what makes it great.

 

The goal line technology I can live with, the reason I was initially against it was because it would open the flood gates. Say we score a goal from a corner or free kick that was incorrectly awarded, should you go back that far, what about if it was a throw in? This is the direction its heading in. You see in rugby they nearly verify every try, the idea of celebrating a goal 40 seconds after the ball has hit the net is not that appealing to me.

So your biggest argument is delay?

 

Would rather it took 30 seconds to be decided correctly than it to be discussed repeatedly over the next 30 days.

[Funkasy]

Var does not bennefit the rich teams it actually works against them, mufc got about 7 offside goals in january-february last year and Rojo, Fellaini and Herrera would be out for at least 6-9 games each.

[moof]

Crackpot referees and erroneous decisions are not what makes football great.

[Hades]

Crackpot referees and erroneous decisions are not what makes football great.

The British tabloid media and their vast British readership sell football as controversy. You're laughing if you don't think banter and controversy aren't a big part of why British people watch the sport.

[Numero Veinticinco]

The British tabloid media and their vast British readership sell football as controversy. You're laughing if you don't think banter and controversy aren't a big part of why British people watch the sport.

That isn’t what he said.

[WhiskeyJar]

That isn’t what he said.

It's a vicious cycle though where one feeds the other. "Clean" games don't sell as much as games with controversial decisions, diving and melodramatic managers.

[Barnesey]

My issue is very much with the disruption to the flow of the game. We have yet to see it fully operational but even a 30 second delay will change the dynamic.

 

And the view is that it is worth it if we get the decisions correct. But, for the most part, it wont. Every penalty decision debated on MOTD has two opposite views. We will end up waiting a lot longer than 30 seconds for another debatable decision that really isn't in anyone's interests. We might as well go with the ref on the spot.

 

I watch a fair bit of rugby. The delays often run into minutes and, at the end of it, no one is any the wiser. Referees bottle out of making a decision because the technology exists and they don't want (understandably) to be shown to be wrong so we wait another 2-3 minutes whilst someone else makes a best guess based on a few more camera angles.

 

I think we should just grow up - players make mistakes, managers do and so do referees. It is part of the game and rarely significant. Awarding or not awarding a goal changes the game so no one can say what would have happened if the decision had gone the other way. Get over it and leave the game alone.