VAR Thoughts?

[Vincent Vega]

There is hope. 

 

[Barrington Womble]

On 24/04/2024 at 20:01, Vincent Vega said:

I read an article in The Times the other day about how VAR can be improved. They spoke with Peter Walton, Richard Scudamore, Jacqui Oatley and Connor Coady. These remarks from Peter Walton were pretty unbelievable in my view. I mean, the Rugby League refs are happy to do it and most of them sound like they’ve just walked out of a Victorian mill.

 

If anyone wants to read the article you can do so here.

 

https://archive.is/ecKEz

How communication can be improved

So it sounds like we could quite quickly shift the line back closer to the original VAR. But one of the big failings has been communication, particularly inside stadiums.

 

Oatley: “Yeah, this is such a key part because we spent the first part of this discussion talking about accuracy. Then we said, well actually it is 96 per cent accuracy after VAR. So it’s not actually accuracy that’s the problem, it’s the perception of this decision-making.” Fans inside a stadium can be left with very little information.

 

 

Walton: “IFAB is acutely aware of this. They are looking at various projects around the world in various leagues to see if they can come up with the answer to communication. One is the referee announces what the decision is and why. That’s fraught with danger of course because not everybody is articulate as the next person so you need almost a script to work to make sure you get the right wording through. That was something that we were looking at, and something that I think is worthy of a try.

 

“The other thing is that people want to see the incident. Yes, you can’t mandate every Premier League ground to have a screen. I don’t think Manchester United or Liverpool have got screens, but apart from them two everybody else that has got a screen why not show the still or why not show the actual action again in real time?”

 

 

 

Is a referee not supposed to be able to communicate, it's part of his job to talk to players? The referees who are at the absolute elite level of our sport, are paid as if they are specialists in what they do. The top refs are on a basic salary of 120k per year. They also get paid 1.5k for each game they ref, 4th official or VAR. Most refs do a game and a VAR per weekend. So if we say 3k for 30 match days, so in the region of another 90k. So more than 200k per year. That's before they do gigs for FIFA or UEFA. It's before they go and do their 2nd job for their Abu Dhabi paymasters. If any person, in any profession, earning around a quarter of a million per year can't articulate a decision they have made, they're in the wrong job and should immediately be fired. It's an astonishing excuse, especially as you see cocks like Walton queueing up to articulate for TV companies every week when they retire. 

 

8 hours ago, Vincent Vega said:

There is hope. 

 

This is fucking great. Let's hope this starts getting broader support. We will obviously never lead such a charge in this country, but it gives us hope this football destroying system can be binned. 

[Jennings]

Only PGMOL would recruit inarticulate referees.

[Mook]

11 hours ago, Vincent Vega said:

There is hope. 

 

 

Absolutely brilliant & just shows what can be achieved.

[Bob]

That Times article, like so much of this, just fundamentally misses the point in regard to the issues most fans have with VAR.

 

It's not about the accuracy.

It's not about the communicating. 

 

It's about the impact it has on your ability to watch and enjoy a game of footy, and the inconsistency by which that impact actually makes things any better anyway.

 

A decision being "correct" isn't worth the 3-5 minute delay, punctuation of joy and all that other stuff unless the original decision was significantly wrong to begin with.

 

If it is marginally wrong, the benefit doesn't outweigh the impact and if it's significantly wrong it shouldn't take the time it always does to correct it, and it shouldn't be hit and miss whether something marginally wrong will be righted anyhow.

[No2]

Fans of Ipswich, Leicester and Southampton will have seen Leeds score an offside goal the other night. I'd bet right now that they(their fans) are more willing to accept that mistake and keep the game as is rather than introducing the shit show that is VAR. 

[Jairzinho]

5 hours ago, Bob said:

That Times article, like so much of this, just fundamentally misses the point in regard to the issues most fans have with VAR.

 

It's not about the accuracy.

It's not about the communicating. 

 

It's about the impact it has on your ability to watch and enjoy a game of footy, and the inconsistency by which that impact actually makes things any better anyway.

 

A decision being "correct" isn't worth the 3-5 minute delay, punctuation of joy and all that other stuff unless the original decision was significantly wrong to begin with.

 

If it is marginally wrong, the benefit doesn't outweigh the impact and if it's significantly wrong it shouldn't take the time it always does to correct it, and it shouldn't be hit and miss whether something marginally wrong will be righted anyhow.

 

Decisions are now 0.3% more accurate than before VAR! 

 

And now I have almost no fucking interest in the sport. 

[Mudface]

What an absolute mess this is. Never mind the dreadful comms and leading the referee to a decision, how they can pretend offside decisions are in any way accurate is ridiculous.  There was a (nerd) discussion about the limits of VAR accuracy after one of Dave's reports- the consensus was 4-6 inches at best, I'm not even sure if it's that good judging by how the frame was picked and the lines drawn here. Scrap it, now.

 

 

[Jennings]

"Sonny" "Olly" ...just fuck off and get some professionals in.

[Mudface]

4 minutes ago, Jennings said:

"Sonny" "Olly" ...just fuck off and get some professionals in.

 

The fact they've released that suggests they actually think it was a 'good process' by the lads.

[Barrington Womble]

7 hours ago, No2 said:

Fans of Ipswich, Leicester and Southampton will have seen Leeds score an offside goal the other night. I'd bet right now that they(their fans) are more willing to accept that mistake and keep the game as is rather than introducing the shit show that is VAR. 

Funnily enough, 2 of my best mates in London support Ipswich and I had a pint with one of them yesterday lunch time. I didn't know about this Leeds goal, but he did mention how he isn't looking forward to VAR if they come up and he thinks it's shit. I'm out with the both of them on Wednesday, so I'll ask them directly, but I feel it'll be unlikely they'll have a different view. 

[Bob]

23 hours ago, Bob said:

That Times article, like so much of this, just fundamentally misses the point in regard to the issues most fans have with VAR.

 

It's not about the accuracy.

It's not about the communicating. 

 

It's about the impact it has on your ability to watch and enjoy a game of footy, and the inconsistency by which that impact actually makes things any better anyway.

 

A decision being "correct" isn't worth the 3-5 minute delay, punctuation of joy and all that other stuff unless the original decision was significantly wrong to begin with.

 

If it is marginally wrong, the benefit doesn't outweigh the impact and if it's significantly wrong it shouldn't take the time it always does to correct it, and it shouldn't be hit and miss whether something marginally wrong will be righted anyhow.

Here we go now. It's offside. We know itsnoffside. It's clear to anyone who has watched footy. Yet still, 2 minutes gone

[Bob]

16 hours ago, Mudface said:

 

The fact they've released that suggests they actually think it was a 'good process' by the lads.

Thing is, compared to some of what we've seen... it was.

 

At least they remembered to look at everything. At least they checked what the decision was supposed to be for. At least they remembered to look at all the things they said they wanted to look at.

 

It's still utter shit, but we've seen far worse from them.

[Bob]

16 hours ago, Mudface said:

 

The fact they've released that suggests they actually think it was a 'good process' by the lads.

Thing is, compared to some of what we've seen... it was.

 

At least they remembered to look at everything. At least they checked what the decision was supposed to be for. At least they remembered to look at all the things they said they wanted to look at.

 

It's still utter shit, but we've seen far worse from them.

[Dicko]

It still staggers me that people think VAR is the problem and not the people in charge of it.

Get rid of it and you'll still have the dickheads there.

 

Surely if you are under constant scrutiny and that to reach the level of a PL official you have to be excellent, doesn't that reinforce the fact that to see this many ludicrous and improbable decisions being made routinely seem increasingly unlikely?

It's got to the point that it's easier to believe they are bent than it is to believe they are this stupid?

 

[an tha]

22 hours ago, Mudface said:

What an absolute mess this is. Never mind the dreadful comms and leading the referee to a decision, how they can pretend offside decisions are in any way accurate is ridiculous.  There was a (nerd) discussion about the limits of VAR accuracy after one of Dave's reports- the consensus was 4-6 inches at best, I'm not even sure if it's that good judging by how the frame was picked and the lines drawn here. Scrap it, now.

 

 

Abysmal

[3 Stacks]

The audio for one of the Forest-Everton incidents was released and it really just confirms that the reason you cant implement something like VAR successfully is that some people are truly too stupid. 

[Binomial]

I've had enough of it personally, it doesn't work. Get rid.

 

Bring in semi automated VAR to make calls on offsides only and let the referee go back to making the calls as they see it live.

 

Goal line tech was brought in and was an instant success. Why? Because it was brought in for 1 purpose and 1 purpose only....no subjectivity around it, either the whole ball is over the line or it's not. Only 2 outcomes, either it's a goal or it's not.

 

Semi automated offside will work just as well, there is no subjectivity involved. It's either offside or it isn't. 

 

Fuck the whole "foul in the build up 50hours before the goal" off, fuck it off. We don't need it, we don't want it, we never asked for it. 

[VladimirIlyich]

1 minute ago, Binomial said:

I've had enough of it personally, it doesn't work. Get rid.

 

Bring in semi automated VAR to make calls on offsides only and let the referee go back to making the calls as they see it live.

 

Goal line tech was brought in and was an instant success. Why? Because it was brought in for 1 purpose and 1 purpose only....no subjectivity around it, either the whole ball is over the line or it's not. Only 2 outcomes, either it's a goal or it's not.

 

Semi automated offside will work just as well, there is no subjectivity involved. It's either offside or it isn't. 

I'd say semi automated is another disaster waiting to happen. The offside law is so fuckin complicated now that it would have to go back to 'anybody beyond it is offside' and fully automated. Semi automated doesn't fill me with any more confidence than the current clusterfuck.

[Binomial]

24 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

I'd say semi automated is another disaster waiting to happen. The offside law is so fuckin complicated now that it would have to go back to 'anybody beyond it is offside' and fully automated. Semi automated doesn't fill me with any more confidence than the current clusterfuck.

Not heard a single negative remark about it in the 2 years it's been going on during FIFA/UEFA tournaments. 

 

95% of offside offences are fairly straightforward to call as it's lining up 1 attacker against 1 defender at time the ball was played.

 

The other 5% it won't involve itself in if you take away VAR because that's the subjective element. That'll be to check any further incidents that may have occured before the offside, such as if it takes a nick off another defender on the way and he's judged to have deliberately played the ball or the offside while interfering with play bollocks. Get rid of VAR for those 2 subjective elements which the ref needs to make onfield and let the semi automated call the offside.

[VladimirIlyich]

6 hours ago, Binomial said:

Not heard a single negative remark about it in the 2 years it's been going on during FIFA/UEFA tournaments. 

 

95% of offside offences are fairly straightforward to call as it's lining up 1 attacker against 1 defender at time the ball was played.

 

The other 5% it won't involve itself in if you take away VAR because that's the subjective element. That'll be to check any further incidents that may have occured before the offside, such as if it takes a nick off another defender on the way and he's judged to have deliberately played the ball or the offside while interfering with play bollocks. Get rid of VAR for those 2 subjective elements which the ref needs to make onfield and let the semi automated call the offside.

I'm glad you are so confident but I will wait and see. Nothing is going to be perfect and the quest for that vision of perfection will continue to cause problems,in my view.