VAR

[whelk]

Anyone changed their mind on wanting it in? Think I have as already bored with discussions.

[hypochondriac]

Yeah I don't think it works well St all in its current form. Should only be for specific decisions such as handball abd if it crossed the line. Any doubt at all and it should go back to the referees initial decision. They need to shown it on screens as well so the crowd know whats going on.

[S-Clarke]

Doesn't really work yet, in fact it has been pretty shambolic. The 'clear and obvious' line was played at the start, so why on earth are they stopping play to check every moment? You can see the ref' holding his hand to his ear after a foul or a corner etc.

 

The fact some decisions have taken a month of Sundays to resolve is a clear indication to me that they weren't 'clear and obvious' errors in the first place. It should only be used for something that takes no more than 5 seconds to spot and fix, otherwise all you're doing is basically employing a 2nd referee who can make his own personal judgement call on decisions. All that will do is undermine the refree, confuse players and frustrate everyone else.

[whelk]

Yeah I don't think it works well St all in its current form. Should only be for specific decisions such as handball abd if it crossed the line. Any doubt at all and it should go back to the referees initial decision. They need to shown it on screens as well so the crowd know whats going on.

 

I didn’t see the Spurs game but apparently 8mins extended as result and fans didn’t have a clue what was being discussed. It was fcking cold too

[LeBizzier69]

It's amazing that football is the only sport that can mess up something really quite simple to use. Frankly pathetic that simple decisions can't be checked quickly and easy. Rugby union is a much more complex game, but they manage it easily. Has a ball crossed a line, was someone offside, was it a clear penalty...really not difficult.

[Whitey Grandad]

Yeah I don't think it works well St all in its current form. Should only be for specific decisions such as handball abd if it crossed the line. Any doubt at all and it should go back to the referees initial decision. They need to shown it on screens as well so the crowd know whats going on.

 

Handball is a subjective decision so one person’s view will be different from another’s.

[Whitey Grandad]

It's amazing that football is the only sport that can mess up something really quite simple to use. Frankly pathetic that simple decisions can't be checked quickly and easy. Rugby union is a much more complex game, but they manage it easily. Has a ball crossed a line, was someone offside, was it a clear penalty...really not difficult.

 

“clear penalty”

 

Again, this is subjective and not definitive.

 

My views are well known. It is an abortion that ruins the tempo of the game. I used to enjoy watching rugby twenty years ago. Now it’s turned into American Football with all the stoppages. Totally unwatchable.

[hypochondriac]

Handball is a subjective decision so one person’s view will be different from another’s.

I meant for things like that Watford player against us. I also said if there is any doubt then it reverts to the referees original decision. It looks to me like the refs are judt calling in var to relinquish responsibility for their decisions at the moment.

[hypochondriac]

“clear penalty”

 

Again, this is subjective and not definitive.

 

My views are well known. It is an abortion that ruins the tempo of the game. I used to enjoy watching rugby twenty years ago. Now it’s turned into American Football with all the stoppages. Totally unwatchable.

It really isn't subjective. If a clear and obvious error has been committed then use it to rectify them. I'm thinking of Henry in the world cup qualifier for example which was a travesty of justice. If you used it in that way then most games it wouldn't even get used.

[Lighthouse]

It's good in principle but needs to be much better implemented than this. How we can see 3 replays of something on TV but when it cuts back to the live feed the ref is still discussing it with VAR I don't understand. The video ref SHOULD be checking every incident seconds after it happens, regardless of whether the ref calls for a review or not. At the moment it seems like he is sat there with his thumb up his a*se until the ref calls and then 'errrr... hang on a sec, let me have a look'.

[Whitey Grandad]

It really isn't subjective. If a clear and obvious error has been committed then use it to rectify them. I'm thinking of Henry in the world cup qualifier for example which was a travesty of justice. If you used it in that way then most games it wouldn't even get used.

 

A handball decision is always a subjective decision. Not as to whether there was any contact between the ball and the hand but there are a lot of other factors to be taken into consideration.

[hypochondriac]

A handball decision is always a subjective decision. Not as to whether there was any contact between the ball and the hand but there are a lot of other factors to be taken into consideration.

If someone punches the ball into the goal like docoure or Henry or Maradona then var would be useful to overturn those very obvious wrong decisions. Absolutely no one who watches those replays would have any doubt at all saying they should not have stood.

[LeBizzier69]

For years now they've been able to look at offside decisions, ball crossed the line, penalties etc from the commentary/pundits position using normal technology. There a few examples when it's less clear cut, but football is making a proper pigs ear of it. As for rugby...and cricket for that matter, it actually makes it more interesting for a lot of spectators and really doesn't impact on the time in a game. Maybe a couple of minutes but you can't compare it to watching a three hour ad-fest like American football.

[aintforever]

Whilst it's bound to have teething problems I think it is great. Should help the smaller club's like us get marginal decisions at the big grounds where refs are under so much pressure to give it to the home side.

 

No way would Rochdale have had that Spurs goal disallowed if it wasn't for VAR - it was obviously the correct decision and usually the ref would have pussied out.

[davefoggy]

VAR will kill the game. Doesn't need it. Might work for other sports but football is different

[Whitey Grandad]

If someone punches the ball into the goal like docoure or Henry or Maradona then var would be useful to overturn those very obvious wrong decisions. Absolutely no one who watches those replays would have any doubt at all saying they should not have stood.

 

? Henry didn’t punch the ball into the goal. It bounced up an his hand happened to be there and could be said to have controlled the ball but he was wide of the goal and stuck it in with his foot.

[Lighthouse]

VAR will kill the game. Doesn't need it. Might work for other sports but football is different

 

[Whitey Grandad]

Whilst it's bound to have teething problems I think it is great. Should help the smaller club's like us get marginal decisions at the big grounds where refs are under so much pressure to give it to the home side.

 

No way would Rochdale have had that Spurs goal disallowed if it wasn't for VAR - it was obviously the correct decision and usually the ref would have pussied out.

 

‘Obviously the correct decision’?

 

Many disagreed with the VAR overruling the goal.

[hypochondriac]

? Henry didn’t punch the ball into the goal. It bounced up an his hand happened to be there and could be said to have controlled the ball but he was wide of the goal and stuck it in with his foot.

And the other two decisions? Regardless the Henry goal should jot have stood, it was a clear and obvious decision that no one would give having seen the replay. That's what VAR is for.

[aintforever]

‘Obviously the correct decision’?

 

Many disagreed with the VAR overruling the goal.

 

Many pundits who just want to make a big fuss out of it to make a story - I bet not many refs think the goal should have stood.

[Whitey Grandad]

Many pundits who just want to make a big fuss out of it to make a story - I bet not many refs think the goal should have stood.

 

Where was the foul? Many reports thought the same and the closest officials to it didn’t have a problem with it.

[aintforever]

Where was the foul? Many reports thought the same and the closest officials to it didn’t have a problem with it.

 

Llorente clearly pulled the Rochdale defender causing him to fall over.

[davefoggy]

 

that needs a linesman with eyes, not VAR

[Lighthouse]

that needs a linesman with eyes, not VAR

 

And yet here we are.

[Baird of the land]

Got to say i think they should just stick with goal line technology & not use VAR.

VAR seems to create delays, confusion & often ends up making as many contentious decisions as a regular ref on the spot because the sorts of decisions it is analysing are more complex than simple over line/not over line.

[East Kent Saint]

The rules will need to be changed if VAR is the way forward , giving off side when a player is a few millimeters more forward than the defender is daft . The rule was brought in to stop attackers goal hanging , it should not be a photo finish over an imaginary line which is determined by when the ball is played . How accurate is is the moment the ball is played anyway ??

At least in American football the ref announces his decisions with an explanation , even at college level . In tennis everyone seems to accept the hawkeye line calls and the crowd get to watch it in action. In rugby the game suffers from delays while they try to see if the ball is grounded and also was it a forward pass / offside etc in the build up. They show the slow mo on the big screen but the crowd doesn't always agree with with the decision , so not good plus England had 2 disallowed tries which would have been given in the past so even worse !

[nta786]

For years now they've been able to look at offside decisions, ball crossed the line, penalties etc from the commentary/pundits position using normal technology. There a few examples when it's less clear cut, but football is making a proper pigs ear of it. As for rugby...and cricket for that matter, it actually makes it more interesting for a lot of spectators and really doesn't impact on the time in a game. Maybe a couple of minutes but you can't compare it to watching a three hour ad-fest like American football.

 

 

I love the DRS system in cricket- especially at the games in some ODIS where you can actually here the TV Umpire before hearing an out or not out!

Same applies in tennis- in fact the only time the atmosphere is raised in tennis is when review is being used.

 

As for VAR in football- still a good concept but they need to stop doing it for every moment, and it should be the TV ref watching the game who prompts it- not the ref on the pitch- and again shoild only be with clearcut decisions- so not something like Mata’s ruled out goal the other week.

[MAY-Z]

Less than a minute into tonight’s a-league match Melbourne victory scored an offside goal - VAR fixed that

 

Anyone who says getting less decisions wrong is a bad thing just likes to moan for the sake of it

 

Of course there will be problems with new things

[CylonKing]

I think it is a very important point that nta786 has made. It should be the VAR ref highlighting to the referee any decisions and not the on-pitch ref requesting something to be looked at again. That would mean only the key decisions would stop the game and only if an offence had occurred. The game would flow much, much better in that instance.

[Whitey Grandad]

Llorente clearly pulled the Rochdale defender causing him to fall over.

 

Nothing clear about it. None of the players raised even an eyebrow. Clattenburg has an article about VAR in The Times today and refers to that Llorente decision:

 

‘Érik Lamela’s early “goal” for Spurs was ruled out after a lengthy discussion between Paul Tierney, the referee, and Graham Scott, his VAR, because of a foul by Fernando Llorente, but I didn’t think that was a clear and obvious error. It was a judgment call by the referee.

 

In that instance, Tierney should be left to make that decision. VAR should not be advising on what I’d term a “soft foul”. Was it a foul or not? People are still arguing about it. The referee had already made his decision on the pitch and he didn’t think it was a foul. You may think it was, one of my colleagues may think the same, but it’s not one you can clear up with VAR. So it should stay on the pitch — that’s football.’

[Saint-Fred]

VAR is not the issue. The issue is that so much cheating goes on that it is being exposed massively by the technology. The decisions ultimately have been right. (Give or take a difference in opinion on a couple of touch and go ones.)

 

i was actually against it but I now think it will be good for the game if it stops cheating which refs turn a blind eye to normally because they are "big clubs"

[hypochondriac]

Nothing clear about it. None of the players raised even an eyebrow. Clattenburg has an article about VAR in The Times today and refers to that Llorente decision:

 

‘Érik Lamela’s early “goal” for Spurs was ruled out after a lengthy discussion between Paul Tierney, the referee, and Graham Scott, his VAR, because of a foul by Fernando Llorente, but I didn’t think that was a clear and obvious error. It was a judgment call by the referee.

 

In that instance, Tierney should be left to make that decision. VAR should not be advising on what I’d term a “soft foul”. Was it a foul or not? People are still arguing about it. The referee had already made his decision on the pitch and he didn’t think it was a foul. You may think it was, one of my colleagues may think the same, but it’s not one you can clear up with VAR. So it should stay on the pitch — that’s football.’

 

What abiout the the decisions I highlighted earlier that you have ignored?

[Whitey Grandad]

What abiout the the decisions I highlighted earlier that you have ignored?

 

Ignored, or dismissed?

 

Are we going to discuss every decision ever made, including fouls that were given but shouldn’t have been? There are hundreds of decisions in a match and we can’t second-guess all of them. Leave it to the officials and get on with the game.

[hypochondriac]

Ignored, or dismissed?

 

Are we going to discuss every decision ever made, including fouls that were given but shouldn’t have been? There are hundreds of decisions in a match and we can’t second-guess all of them. Leave it to the officials and get on with the game.

So the answer is you are going to ignore them then. All you did was quibble over semantics about Henry and ignored my overall point and the other examples I gave. I think it's really obvious that there are some decisions that aren't debatable and I gave you a couple of examples to illustrate that. Debatable decisions shouldn't use var to decide but travesties of justice like Maradona should absolutely be overturned, particularly when the stakes are so high and so much is riding on it. To have a game decided by blatant cheating is totally wrong and I support measures which would remove that sort of thing from the game. Edited 2 March, 2018 by hypochondriac

[Fan The Flames]

Nothing clear about it. None of the players raised even an eyebrow. Clattenburg has an article about VAR in The Times today and refers to that Llorente decision:

 

‘Érik Lamela’s early “goal” for Spurs was ruled out after a lengthy discussion between Paul Tierney, the referee, and Graham Scott, his VAR, because of a foul by Fernando Llorente, but I didn’t think that was a clear and obvious error. It was a judgment call by the referee.

 

In that instance, Tierney should be left to make that decision. VAR should not be advising on what I’d term a “soft foul”. Was it a foul or not? People are still arguing about it. The referee had already made his decision on the pitch and he didn’t think it was a foul. You may think it was, one of my colleagues may think the same, but it’s not one you can clear up with VAR. So it should stay on the pitch — that’s football.’

 

Well Clattenburg knows **** all, well that's no surprise. VAR is used to check every goal regardless, it had nothing to do with whether it was a clear and obvious error.

[hypochondriac]

Well Clattenburg knows **** all, well that's no surprise. VAR is used to check every goal regardless, it had nothing to do with whether it was a clear and obvious error.

That's the problem then in that case. It shouldn't be used in matters which are 50/50.

[aintforever]

Nothing clear about it. None of the players raised even an eyebrow. Clattenburg has an article about VAR in The Times today and refers to that Llorente decision:

 

‘Érik Lamela’s early “goal” for Spurs was ruled out after a lengthy discussion between Paul Tierney, the referee, and Graham Scott, his VAR, because of a foul by Fernando Llorente, but I didn’t think that was a clear and obvious error. It was a judgment call by the referee.

 

In that instance, Tierney should be left to make that decision. VAR should not be advising on what I’d term a “soft foul”. Was it a foul or not? People are still arguing about it. The referee had already made his decision on the pitch and he didn’t think it was a foul. You may think it was, one of my colleagues may think the same, but it’s not one you can clear up with VAR. So it should stay on the pitch — that’s football.’

 

I disagree, the ref watching VAR had the benefit of slow motion, different angles and replays - he should make the call.

 

I can't believe after years of being on the ****ty end of decisions against big clubs some Saints fans want the one tool that could work in our favour taken away. We could be holding our second major trophy had it been used last year. Once the teething problems are sorted out it will be an excellent addition to the game.

 

Anyway, how did Clattenburg know what the ref saw of the pull by Llorente?

Edited 2 March, 2018 by aintforever

[waylander]

Persist with it, it will come right and be worthwhile

[Whitey Grandad]

I disagree, the ref watching VAR had the benefit of slow motion, different angles and replays - he should make the call.

 

I can't believe after years of being on the ****ty end of decisions against big clubs some Saints fans want the one tool that could work in our favour taken away. We could be holding our second major trophy had it been used last year. Once the teething problems are sorted out it will be an excellent addition to the game.

 

Anyway, how did Clattenburg know what the ref saw of the pull by Llorente?

 

Clattenburg saw as much as the video ref did. As did I.

 

Slow motion tells you nothing.

[aintforever]

Clattenburg saw as much as the video ref did. As did I.

 

Slow motion tells you nothing.

 

But if the ref didn't see the pull then it wasn't a judgement call. VAR did, told the ref, goal rightly disallowed.

[saintalan]

Perhaps we need another refereendum:)

[Roo1976]

It's amazing that football is the only sport that can mess up something really quite simple to use. Frankly pathetic that simple decisions can't be checked quickly and easy. Rugby union is a much more complex game, but they manage it easily. Has a ball crossed a line, was someone offside, was it a clear penalty...really not difficult.

 

yup agree they try and complicate the simple game that is football .

[Hatch]

it's not the technology or the moments it's being used for , it's the users that are the problem.

 

they are ****ing idiots

[Lets B Avenue]

Clattenburg saw as much as the video ref did. As did I.

 

Slow motion tells you nothing.

 

The VAR has different replays to the host broadcaster. So, unless Clattenburg was sitting next to Scott in the VAR room, he didn't and you certainly didn't.

 

Slow motion shows clearly when cheating cvnts lie Deli Ali are diving.

 

it's not the technology or the moments it's being used for , it's the users that are the problem.

 

they are ****ing idiots

 

Absolutely.

[Charlie Wayman]

Compared to Tennis or Cricket, Football is a bloody difficult sport to manage from a VAR standpoint. Technically the ref can seek help anywhere on the pitch so every action anywhere on the pitch has to be covered by multiple cameras from many angles. If one thinks seriously about that and the technical challenges it presents you wouldn't get brain-dead loudmouths such as Shearer dissing the whole thing after one dodgy incident. I hate bloody Shearer, HTF did he ever get a job in media spouting his special brand of meaningless crap?

 

Let's hope VAR is here to stay, it might not be up to scratch just yet but they'll get there one day and don't forget the hidden benefit of players knowing that if they cheat they could be found out, in that sense VAR can act as deterrent and help clean up the game just like speed cameras succeed in slowing people down

[Batman]

Can't believe some are writing off VAR already..... Just after 13 games (in this country anyway)

[whelk]

Can't believe some are writing off VAR already..... Just after 13 games (in this country anyway)

 

A lot longer than you give players or managers!

[Stud mark of doom]

At present, the cure is much worse than the disease.

 

I’m not sure what is wrong with the odd awful decision. They go both ways.

[hypochondriac]

At present, the cure is much worse than the disease.

 

I’m not sure what is wrong with the odd awful decision. They go both ways.

Because if its in a world cup final or a playoff final, cheating can be worth hundreds of millions.

[waylander]

At present, the cure is much worse than the disease.

 

I’m not sure what is wrong with the odd awful decision. They go both ways.

 

And I'm sure you thought that after our game against Utd at Wembley last year