Who is VAR for?

They are over-complicating it though by going on about phases. A player is either offside or not, they either interfere with play or not. Mount was offside and did interfere with play, so the goal was rightly ruled out. The issue was that there were a few more seconds (far from 30) of play and the decision was close. I don’t think people were prepared for the precision of VAR.

Remember the assistant ref's are told that if it's a really tight offside call they are to keep their flags down and let play continue and VAR will decide the correct decision so I would argue that VAR has worked as it should have with that offside goal.

Off course you might simply get to the stage where the assistant refs are going to really only call the obvious offsides because if they flag incorrectly, play has to stop and any subsequent goal is ruled out even if the player was well onside.
 
Remember the assistant ref's are told that if it's a really tight offside call they are to keep their flags down and let play continue and VAR will decide the correct decision so I would argue that VAR has worked as it should have with that offside goal.

Off course you might simply get to the stage where the assistant refs are going to really only call the obvious offsides because if they flag incorrectly, play has to stop and any subsequent goal is ruled out even if the player was well onside.
Yes, I suppose it keeps defenders honest, gives refs assistants an easy out and gives some fans a chance to moan about VAR.
 
Sides will use challenges spuriously to break up play, especially late in games. Rugby and the NFL are more stop start than football. Doesn’t work for me.
I get where you are coming from. Maybe a rule is can only challenge when ball becomes dead but that also raises a load of issues.
I think if used similar to rugby and it is used quicker then it could be good.
 
We have it over here in the MLS and it has been a bit of a shit-show so far. Most frustrating is when a foul/handball that is obvious to the majority of the people in the stadium fails to be reviewed.
 
I know what VAR is I suppose, but I don't know the real ins and outs, the real nitty gritty as in who is in charge of using said technology.

Up here would it be the SFA and their hand picked officials who operate it? Because if it is, it will be an unmitigated disaster, which will benefit one team and one team only.

For instance yesterday, if you have a team in charge of VAR, who are cheats, cowards and scumbags like Dallas, who's to say they would have given the stonewall penalty yesterday?

As I say I don't know who is picked to do the VAR job, but objectivity, impartiality and neutrality up here simply will not happen.
 
Last edited:
Certainly not fans anyway. Seeing people try to argue for it is just desperate as it quite clearly doesn't work.

It will never work in football.
 
It's the first step towards adverts during breaks in play.

2 x 45 mins restricts potential ad revenue.

It helps crack the US, a market that football still struggles to gain decent market share.
That's some leap, VAR to ad breaks during each half, then you actually think about it and it wouldn't really be a surprise
 
People cried for video technology for years, now they get it they all want rid of it.

Personally, I think it has its place but it’s being overused to the extent it’s sucking the life out of the game.

Most calling for it didn't know what it involved.

Many on here still believe if we get it we win the league at a canter for some odd reason.
 
We’ll agree to disagree mate. For me getting the correct decision, irrespective of how it comes, is the best option.

Your first point though was that it missed a correct decision and awarded the Napoli penalty? How is that reaching the correct decision?

What about the Spurs game? Can you honestly say that was without doubt offside? I think it's far too close to tell, by the FAs own admission they can't be 100% accurate when it's that close.

Then you have to look at the Bournemouth and Villa penalties denied.

99% really?
 
They go on about needing to be a clear and obvious error then chop of goals for millimetres like the Tottenham goal at the weekend.

I like the idea of teams having one challenge per half each. Kind of like happens in Tennis.
 
I have 2 queries how far back do they check? Say yesterday the Chelsea game had the ball been passed around for say a minute then Chelsea scored would they have gone back saw mount was offside and disallowed it?

Then there's our game if they had gone to var to check the st johnstone "goal" at the time or after we had scored?

My opinion is football is based on emotion for tge fans scoring a goal then celebrating is a great feeling. With var that's being sucked out of the game
 
I detest it. If it must be used i’d Limit it to 1 call per half per team.
If the manager calls for a VAR check and is proved correct he keeps his 1 check for the rest of the half or until he call a wrong check.
Also I’d charge teams £10,000 for each wrong call to cut down on teams using it to time waste.
It’d make the manager really think about each challenge .

Goal line technology is the only tech I’d allow , much prefer to allow the ref to do his job .
The Hawkeye / number of calls system works well in tennis (albeit that’s a game with more natural breaks and fewer discrepancies to consider- I.e was the ball in our out?).
Giving managers say 3 ‘challenges’ per match would work well, and also add a bit of drama to the matches that would see VAR as quite an appealing aspect of the game for fans.
 
I have reffed before, albeit at a low level, and watching a video of a game back, I missed so much. In the professional game the lino was able to help the ref if he saw something from his position that the refs angle didn't show. I expected VAR to be an additional help for things the ref missed, but we see clear penalties and clear red cards still not given. The way it is being used is wrong for me so far, but it may evolve.
 
Not sure how getting decisions right is bad for the sport. Offside isn't opinion, it's a matter of fact. My issue with it is referees reviewing footage and still getting decisions wrong (Napoli penalty).
 
Your first point though was that it missed a correct decision and awarded the Napoli penalty? How is that reaching the correct decision?

What about the Spurs game? Can you honestly say that was without doubt offside? I think it's far too close to tell, by the FAs own admission they can't be 100% accurate when it's that close.

Then you have to look at the Bournemouth and Villa penalties denied.

99% really?
That's not a problem with the technology, that's a problem with how it's being used/interpreted. The referees need all the help they can get.
 
That's not a problem with the technology, that's a problem with how it's being used/interpreted. The referees need all the help they can get.


Whether it's a problem with the technology or the way it's being used is irrelevant. It's still missing a lot of fouls and creating strange decisions. I would be happy to accept it if it were even close to 100% correct, but it's not. It should never have been introduced at the top level so quickly.
 
Whether it's a problem with the technology or the way it's being used is irrelevant. It's still missing a lot of fouls and creating strange decisions. I would be happy to accept it if it were even close to 100% correct, but it's not. It should never have been introduced at the top level so quickly.

The human side of things will always come into it even with the use of VAR - you get 10 people and show them footage of an incident and invariably 4 or 5 will see it one way and the others will see it completely different.

That's just life and nothing is ever 100% correct all the time - it is open to interpretation of whoever is operating the system on that day and who the ref is. This notion that VAR will resolve everything is completely naive as not everything is an open and shut case.
 
Match going fans hate it. Most, but not all, fans who can't attend matches hate it.

Is it to be part of the switch to pleasing worldwide armchair audience? Is it football as a Saturday night entertainment show?

It's already, within a year, nothing to do with checking clear and obvious errors. It's also utterly random : see Villa penalty claim at Emirates.

I haven't even touched on the farce of goals and emotions undone by millimetres, reviewed 10-15 times.

What is it supposed to be doing to improve football?

Its for the tv companies so that they can sensationalise technical titbits. They love it.
 
The human side of things will always come into it even with the use of VAR - you get 10 people and show them footage of an incident and invariably 4 or 5 will see it one way and the others will see it completely different.

That's just life and nothing is ever 100% correct all the time - it is open to interpretation of whoever is operating the system on that day and who the ref is. This notion that VAR will resolve everything is completely naive as not everything is an open and shut case.

Which is why I would just rather it was left down to the referee on the park. I don't like holding the game up just to get another persons opinion on it. If there was a way of making it black or white, like some sports, then there is a place for it. Unfortunately at this time it's not clearing up anything whatsoever. I don't know how people can defend it honestly. 6 games in to the EPL season and every week there has been a very strange decision.
 
And how’s that working out in Scotland?

Not great mate but i do think VAR is more open to “honest mistakes” for example looking for little niggles and fouls in the build up to goals . Any excuse to chop off goals .

At least with refs we can see who’s making decisions but VAR is some person well hidden away .

I think refs will start making fewer and fewer decisions and just wait for VAR to pick up any decisions .
 
Not for me I’m afraid. You could have a couple of really close calls that end up being judged wrong, then you lose your third call on a decision the ref gets wrong but you cannot challenge. I am huge NFL fan so I know the concept but it just doesn’t work in football. Sides will use it to break up a period of pressure from an opponent. Due to the stop start nature if the NFL, that’s not an issue,

Thats why i’d charge £10k for an incorrect challenge . Cant see directors being happy at managers using up £10k of there budget just to waste a few minutes at the end of a game
 
Which is why I would just rather it was left down to the referee on the park. I don't like holding the game up just to get another persons opinion on it. If there was a way of making it black or white, like some sports, then there is a place for it. Unfortunately at this time it's not clearing up anything whatsoever. I don't know how people can defend it honestly. 6 games in to the EPL season and every week there has been a very strange decision.

But there will always be strange decisions in football and some of them were glaringly obvious to the viewers at home when it was just the officials calling the shots. If VAR eradicates these glaring ones where players are offside or players should have been sent off that has got to be a good thing for the game in the long term.

It's not perfect however and never will be and is still very much work in progress.
 
11 VAR decisions in the PL so far, only 1 decision was favourable to a team, says it all really. As someone who follows Villa, they been done with it twice now.
 
But there will always be strange decisions in football and some of them were glaringly obvious to the viewers at home when it was just the officials calling the shots. If VAR eradicates these glaring ones where players are offside or players should have been sent off that has got to be a good thing for the game in the long term.

It's not perfect however and never will be and is still very much work in progress.

But it's not eradicating the glaringly obvious ones though.

6 games in to the season there have already been plenty of wrong decisions. I'd rather a wrong decision made by a referee than a wrong decision made, went to VAR and upheld after about 3 minutes which is currently happening.
 
But it's not eradicating the glaringly obvious ones though.

6 games in to the season there have already been plenty of wrong decisions. I'd rather a wrong decision made by a referee than a wrong decision made, went to VAR and upheld after about 3 minutes which is currently happening.

Which glaringly obvious ones have been missed then??
 
I think the Clear and Obvious Error part is being mixed up with offside in many people's minds.

The C&OE refers to reviewing the 4 match changing situations - Goal, Penalty, Straight Red, Mistaken Identity.

Offside is absolute - you're either on or off, and given that it's already been stated that they review all goals, if someone is off then they're off. Doesn't matter if its a 'pubic hair offside', or 3 yards. It's not the distance if offside that's being reviewed, it's not saying that offside is a clear and obvious error, it's literally verifying if the player was factually on or offside.
 
I think Rangers would benefit from VAR up here. There's a certain other team who wouldn't.
It would only help with offsides or whether a ball is over the line. There’s no guarantee we’d benefit as we’d be relying on a referee in a room deciding what to review.
 
See both sides of VAR,and still not convinced!
Yesterday for example the game is better at our 3rd goal for the ref/linesman allowing play to continue,at their not over the line attempt, instead of stopping the game for VAR check, tight one
 
Which glaringly obvious ones have been missed then??

Chelsea penalty v Norwich
Bournemouth penalty on Friday night
Villa handball yesterday
City penalty not given v Bournemouth
Haller not getting a penalty v Norwich.

That's only a quick summary.
 
I think the Clear and Obvious Error part is being mixed up with offside in many people's minds.

The C&OE refers to reviewing the 4 match changing situations - Goal, Penalty, Straight Red, Mistaken Identity.

Offside is absolute - you're either on or off, and given that it's already been stated that they review all goals, if someone is off then they're off. Doesn't matter if its a 'pubic hair offside', or 3 yards. It's not the distance if offside that's being reviewed, it's not saying that offside is a clear and obvious error, it's literally verifying if the player was factually on or offside.

I agree a clear offside is absolute, but I don't think you can confirm factually if that Spurs goal was offside. I don't think there is any way to guarantee that the correct call was made. By the FAs own admission there is a margin for error.
 
I think the Clear and Obvious Error part is being mixed up with offside in many people's minds.

The C&OE refers to reviewing the 4 match changing situations - Goal, Penalty, Straight Red, Mistaken Identity.

Offside is absolute - you're either on or off, and given that it's already been stated that they review all goals, if someone is off then they're off. Doesn't matter if its a 'pubic hair offside', or 3 yards. It's not the distance if offside that's being reviewed, it's not saying that offside is a clear and obvious error, it's literally verifying if the player was factually on or offside.
I understand what you are saying, however I thought if you were level you were onside. Now you can never be a silhouette of the defender, so yes if your foot is closer to the goal than your opponent ( King v Southampton ) it's off, but the top of your arm ( Sterling ) come on, that is just too anal for my liking, he can't even legally score with that part of his body.
 
I think the Clear and Obvious Error part is being mixed up with offside in many people's minds.

The C&OE refers to reviewing the 4 match changing situations - Goal, Penalty, Straight Red, Mistaken Identity.

Offside is absolute - you're either on or off, and given that it's already been stated that they review all goals, if someone is off then they're off. Doesn't matter if its a 'pubic hair offside', or 3 yards. It's not the distance if offside that's being reviewed, it's not saying that offside is a clear and obvious error, it's literally verifying if the player was factually on or offside.

It is absolute, I agree. Furthermore, people are endlessly trotting out the ‘clear and obvious error’ line as if that’s it, there’s no more to it if it wasn’t a ‘clear and obvious error. The actual explanation of what the VAR will look at goes beyond that - yet folk repeatedly choose to ignore the second criteria. The following extract is from the EPLs own FAQ on the introduction of VAR:

What incidents does the VAR check?
VAR will be used only for “clear and obvious errors” or “serious missed incidents” in four match-changing situations: goals; penalty decisions; direct red-card incidents; and mistaken identity.

That second criteria makes a huge difference in practice. For me, a clear and obvious error is the referee making a wrong call on an incident whereas the serious missed incident is, by definition, one he doesn’t even see in order to make a judgement.

FWIW I thought the decision in the Spurs game was correct - he was offside, whatever the fine margin. In the Chelsea game, again the player was offside by a fine margin, but in that instance I thought they went too far back in the phase of play to rule the goal out.
 
VAR is for people who constantly moan about refereeing decisions and cannot accept that referees will get some things wrong in games, and that the variance introduced by their subjective decision making will occasionally influence the outcome of games.

If people were willing to accept refereeing mistakes, VAR would never have happened.
 
It's an absolute sham, end of story.

It's there at the moment to cancel goals, nothing else.

Why do we watch Football ? To be entertained, to see goals going in.

So what do the geniuses at the top implement? A way that we can see less goals! Yay!

The reality is that every 10 seconds or so there could be a debatable decision but it seems that unless a goal is scored it doesn't seem to matter.

What they have to do if they insist on adding technology to the game is offer a fair system for everyone. Challenge system, like in tennis. 3 challenges for each team, whenever a team thinks there is a decision to oppose, the captain has a word in the refs ear, or manager has a word with the 4th official(maybe even give that useless prick something to do!)

Best way to do it, this way if someone is offside by the length of a pubic hair and the linesman misses it and nobody is claiming for it, it's a goal!!!! As it should be!!!
 
VAR should only be used when.

Either team manger calls it like Hawkeye. 2 per half.

The ref can’t see a decision and ness to see it.
 
It's an absolute sham, end of story.

It's there at the moment to cancel goals, nothing else.

Why do we watch Football ? To be entertained, to see goals going in.

So what do the geniuses at the top implement? A way that we can see less goals! Yay!

The reality is that every 10 seconds or so there could be a debatable decision but it seems that unless a goal is scored it doesn't seem to matter.

What they have to do if they insist on adding technology to the game is offer a fair system for everyone. Challenge system, like in tennis. 3 challenges for each team, whenever a team thinks there is a decision to oppose, the captain has a word in the refs ear.

Best way to do it, this way if someone is offside by the length of a pubic hair and the linesman misses it and nobody is claiming for it, it's a goal!!!! As it should be!!!

What do you mean?

If it’s not a goal then it should not stand?
 
It is for TV companies and armchair fans, shows no concern for those that actually go to the game and has the potential to ruin matches when you could have repeated breaks for minutes on end (while the fans in the stadium get no chance to know what is going in)
 
What do you mean?

If it’s not a goal then it should not stand?

I am referring to offside 'goals' like in the Chelsea game yesterday, the linesman missed it, nobody claimed for it, so let it be!

VAR should never intervene, unless a team feels like they have been hard done. Hence why you should give them a certain number of challenges.

All IMO of course. If you are going to add technology to the game it has to be fairer than it is currently.
 
I'm all for goal-line technology as a goal should be a goal , but things that stop the flow of the game make it a poor spectacle for the people that pay to go to games ...........


armchair fans probably view VAR as a good time to go for a piss
 
I am referring to offside 'goals' like in the Chelsea game yesterday, the linesman missed it, nobody claimed for it, so let it be!

VAR should never intervene, unless a team feels like they have been hard done. Hence why you should give them a certain number of challenges.

All IMO of course. If you are going to add technology to the game it has to be fairer than it is currently.

Fair enough mate and good point.
 
VAR is great

The idiotic implementation in the Premiership however is stupid

Segregate the two statements, they are completely different arguments.

Take Ice Hockey in the UK, the referees can call for video review of a goal if they werent sure about something. The managers can call for a video review (Wimbledon Style) if they feel there was an infringement in the run up to the goal or something similar. They have limited times they can do this.

PS If the ref gave that St Johnstone goal yesterday and VAR reversed it, FF would be hailing it as the best thing since sliced bread
 
VAR is great

The idiotic implementation in the Premiership however is stupid

Segregate the two statements, they are completely different arguments.

Take Ice Hockey in the UK, the referees can call for video review of a goal if they werent sure about something. The managers can call for a video review (Wimbledon Style) if they feel there was an infringement in the run up to the goal or something similar. They have limited times they can do this.

PS If the ref gave that St Johnstone goal yesterday and VAR reversed it, FF would be hailing it as the best thing since sliced bread

Agreed.
 
VAR is being applied differently in England from the rest of Europe where it is in operations. In the EPL it is being applied rigidly, in effect Re-refereeing games for every major incident even although there is nothing readily apparent to warrant such scrutiny. How many referees EPL games have actually gone to the TV screen at the side of the pitch to see for themselves in order to review and make their own decision rather than simply accept the view of the VAR official in the studio? None as far as I am aware. In Europe referees see for themselves.
 
I guess it was for the fans and clubs that keep shouting like %^*& about decisions being wrong. However, it's just not being managed well at the moment. It can be a good thing but there needs to be a way to make it more fluid and have less of an impact on the flow of the game - how the hell they do that I have no idea.

The thing is, it's getting a lot of correct calls. Calls that it is totally understandable that refs missed. So, I guess everyone needs to decide whether they'd rather have the calls being correct which VAR will do or are they happy turning a blind eye and moaning a lot to get the flow of the game back right now.
 
My reasoning with the offside is I know it’s the right decision but two people stood still shoulder to shoulder can’t tell who’s a millimetre forward nevermjnd 2 people playing football
 
Back
Top