VAR next season

[kwsaint]

Been announced that Premier league will use VAR from next season. About time given the events of last Saturday.

 

Your thoughts?

[Beachcombers Windowsill]

About time - just a shame we won't be there to enjoy it.

[simo]

Cheers Charlie!

[Micky]

VAR is not some magic wand that eradicates all poor decisions from the game. It merely allows officials the chance to review various situations within the game - there is still the human factor. After looking at Charlie Austins 'goal' last week, seen it analysed on TV, I still heard various different versions as to whether it was or was not a 'goal', it's purely opinion in a lot of cases.

 

It should clear up 'obvious' errors, I grant you, but there will still be contention within the game (and rightly so).

[Shroppie]

It's overdue, but I'm not sure there's clarity on how it will work.

 

There are three forms of VAR used effectively in different sports, but I get the feeling that football wants to be different, rather than following any existing model.

 

Tennis, for example, uses a purely player-driven appeal system. There is no video umpire, just technology. The umpire cannot call for a review. But that doesn't work so well in a team sport.

 

Cricket has, in my opinion, a very successful hybrid system. The umpire can call for a review on, for example, a catch or run out, but the teams have limited reviews of their own, lost if the review fails. Procedures are clear and an underlying principle that if there is doubt, the on-field umpire's decision stands. I think I'm right in saying that even if it's an umpire referral, the umpire still gives a "soft" decision.

 

RU probably has the most complicated system. No appeals from players but both the ref and video ref can review pretty-well anything leading up to a try, or foul play. The ref can ask closed or open questions. IMO it's good for getting things right, but can be too slow.

 

I would like something similar to cricket to be used. The ref should be able to refer anything to the video ref if he is unsure. Not just penalties and offsides. As with cricket, with a soft decision to stand unless there is clear evidence. I don't favour the video ref being able to intervene independently. To me this is too confusing as players and spectators seem unaware of a review taking place. But why not a limited number of team reviews per game, where the ref hasn't chosen to review an incident?

 

Play doesn't necessarily need to stop for a review, unless it's successful and play needs to be brought back for a penalty, free kick or whatever. But if a review starts during a break, or a break occurs during a review, obviously play doesn't restart until it's resolved. I'd like to see a time limit on the review. Communication both with players and spectators is critical. Not sure if the video being reviewed needs to be on the big screen, but a message needs to be there, eg "Review - penalty?"

 

Ok, shoot me down!

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Window Cleaner]

It's overdue, but I'm not sure there's clarity on how it will work.

 

There are three forms of VAR used effectively in different sports, but I get the feeling that football wants to be different, rather than following any existing model.

 

Tennis, for example, uses a purely player-driven appeal system. There is no video umpire, just technology. The umpire cannot call for a review. But that doesn't work so well in a team sport.

 

Cricket has, in my opinion, a very successful hybrid system. The umpire can call for a review on, for example, a catch or run out, but the teams have limited reviews of their own, lost if the review fails. Procedures are clear and an underlying principle that if there is doubt, the on-field umpire's decision stands. I think I'm right in saying that even if it's an umpire referral, the umpire still gives a "soft" decision.

 

RU probably has the most complicated system. No appeals from players but both the ref and video ref can review pretty-well anything leading up to a try, or foul play. The ref can ask closed or open questions. IMO it's good for getting things right, but can be too slow.

 

I would like something similar to cricket to be used. The ref should be able to refer anything to the video ref if he is unsure. Not just penalties and offsides. As with cricket, with a soft decision to stand unless there is clear evidence. I don't favour the video ref being able to intervene independently. To me this is too confusing as players and spectators seem unaware of a review taking place. But why not a limited number of team reviews per game, where the ref hasn't chosen to review an incident?

 

Play doesn't necessarily need to stop for a review, unless it's successful and play needs to be brought back for a penalty, free kick or whatever. But if a review starts during a break, or a break occurs during a review, obviously play doesn't restart until it's resolved. I'd like to see a time limit on the review. Communication both with players and spectators is critical. Not sure if the video being reviewed needs to be on the big screen, but a message needs to be there, eg "Review - penalty?"

 

Ok, shoot me down!

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

Well as long as it doesn't get to the ridiculous red and yellow hanky throwing of the NFL or free kicks and the like getting moved forward or back 10 yards if a player dares to make any comment (as in Rugby Union) then I'm all for it. Far too many crass reffing errors and instead of cancelling themselves out over a season they seem to aways favour the big teams now.

[waylander]

No reason why they couldn't put a message up on the TV screens at either end of the ground to show a review is taking place.

[Shroppie]

No reason why they couldn't put a message up on the TV screens at either end of the ground to show a review is taking place.

Agreed. Could be quite exciting.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Charlie Wayman]

Typical vacillation from PL why not just introduce it now, why wait 'til next year? All the logistics & supply issue could be fulfilled by Amazon by Saturday...

[meatball]

It's overdue, but I'm not sure there's clarity on how it will work.

 

There are three forms of VAR used effectively in different sports, but I get the feeling that football wants to be different, rather than following any existing model.

 

Tennis, for example, uses a purely player-driven appeal system. There is no video umpire, just technology. The umpire cannot call for a review. But that doesn't work so well in a team sport.

 

Cricket has, in my opinion, a very successful hybrid system. The umpire can call for a review on, for example, a catch or run out, but the teams have limited reviews of their own, lost if the review fails. Procedures are clear and an underlying principle that if there is doubt, the on-field umpire's decision stands. I think I'm right in saying that even if it's an umpire referral, the umpire still gives a "soft" decision.

 

RU probably has the most complicated system. No appeals from players but both the ref and video ref can review pretty-well anything leading up to a try, or foul play. The ref can ask closed or open questions. IMO it's good for getting things right, but can be too slow.

 

I would like something similar to cricket to be used. The ref should be able to refer anything to the video ref if he is unsure. Not just penalties and offsides. As with cricket, with a soft decision to stand unless there is clear evidence. I don't favour the video ref being able to intervene independently. To me this is too confusing as players and spectators seem unaware of a review taking place. But why not a limited number of team reviews per game, where the ref hasn't chosen to review an incident?

 

Play doesn't necessarily need to stop for a review, unless it's successful and play needs to be brought back for a penalty, free kick or whatever. But if a review starts during a break, or a break occurs during a review, obviously play doesn't restart until it's resolved. I'd like to see a time limit on the review. Communication both with players and spectators is critical. Not sure if the video being reviewed needs to be on the big screen, but a message needs to be there, eg "Review - penalty?"

 

Ok, shoot me down!

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

This, in my opinion is exactly how it should be executed. I should add that only the captain would be able to request a review.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kelkel31]

It's overdue, but I'm not sure there's clarity on how it will work.

 

There are three forms of VAR used effectively in different sports, but I get the feeling that football wants to be different, rather than following any existing model.

 

Tennis, for example, uses a purely player-driven appeal system. There is no video umpire, just technology. The umpire cannot call for a review. But that doesn't work so well in a team sport.

 

Cricket has, in my opinion, a very successful hybrid system. The umpire can call for a review on, for example, a catch or run out, but the teams have limited reviews of their own, lost if the review fails. Procedures are clear and an underlying principle that if there is doubt, the on-field umpire's decision stands. I think I'm right in saying that even if it's an umpire referral, the umpire still gives a "soft" decision.

 

RU probably has the most complicated system. No appeals from players but both the ref and video ref can review pretty-well anything leading up to a try, or foul play. The ref can ask closed or open questions. IMO it's good for getting things right, but can be too slow.

 

I would like something similar to cricket to be used. The ref should be able to refer anything to the video ref if he is unsure. Not just penalties and offsides. As with cricket, with a soft decision to stand unless there is clear evidence. I don't favour the video ref being able to intervene independently. To me this is too confusing as players and spectators seem unaware of a review taking place. But why not a limited number of team reviews per game, where the ref hasn't chosen to review an incident?

 

Play doesn't necessarily need to stop for a review, unless it's successful and play needs to be brought back for a penalty, free kick or whatever. But if a review starts during a break, or a break occurs during a review, obviously play doesn't restart until it's resolved. I'd like to see a time limit on the review. Communication both with players and spectators is critical. Not sure if the video being reviewed needs to be on the big screen, but a message needs to be there, eg "Review - penalty?"

 

Ok, shoot me down!

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

I fully agree that the VAR referee should not be able to review anything without a firm instruction from pitchside, with that in mind i have also always thought that there should also be the opportunity for managers to make limited appeals , with success meaning an appeal is retained, using all appeals in a game meaning a punishment for the next, maybe less appeals or even touchline ban.

[LeBizzier69]

Great system. Shame our officials probably won’t be able to use it properly, if the WC was anything to go by.

[Micky]

Talking of officials, how many do you need to run a single VAR centre? It's difficult enough finding decent refs and linos to officiate the games, where are ask the VAR operators / officials going to come from?

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

[Cabbage_Face]

Will we have that portocabin of refs in full gear looking at TVs, like the World Cup? That was the best part.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aintforever]

I thought it worked OK at the World Cup, no doubt they will make a mess of it here though.

[Turkish]

The premier league Have listened to Charlie Austin he speaks for all premier league clubs

 

This shall now be known as Charlies rule.

[Heisenberg]

I actually think overall we are generally lucky with ref decisions. Sure we get the occasional one like against watford but generally think overall we win more than we lose and actually with VAR we'd be worse off.

[simo]

I actually think overall we are generally lucky with ref decisions. Sure we get the occasional one like against watford but generally think overall we win more than we lose and actually with VAR we'd be worse off.

 

You mean like Watford this and last year and Chelsea last year oh and the efl final??????

[Heisenberg]

You mean like Watford this and last year and Chelsea last year oh and the efl final??????

 

The fact you can only think of 3-4 examples over 2 years kinda emphasises my point.

[Dark Munster]

About bloody time.

[niceandfriendly]

The fact you can only think of 3-4 examples over 2 years kinda emphasises my point.

 

Huddersfield at home, Newcastle away, Tottenham at home, Man Utd away, West Ham home, Leicester home... then there's also the other ones, the big games where the VAR would have given us the three points. Endless almost, in fact there's games where the entire 90 minutes should be VAR'd - and will be!

[Secret Site Agent]

Well as long as it doesn't get to the ridiculous red and yellow hanky throwing of the NFL or free kicks and the like getting moved forward or back 10 yards if a player dares to make any comment (as in Rugby Union) then I'm all for it. Far too many crass reffing errors and instead of cancelling themselves out over a season they seem to aways favour the big teams now.

 

I am all for it.

 

I would disagree with the above.

 

Anyone but Captain talking to the ref is first warned, then yellow card

Waving of imaginary cards by the team infringed, the free kick, if awarded, moved back 10 metres

The demonstrations of the infringing team, except the captain, around the referee, the free kick is moved forwards 10 m, until it is on the 'D', then becomes an automatic penalty.

 

3 challenges per team per half, for any incident that has stopped play.

An automatic review of all penalty decisions

On Field Ref has final say

 

Review ref team to also have 1 representative of each team, in an observational and guiding role only, in the box with them

Managers to have access to screens to review incidents

Put it on the big screen as well.

 

Bring it on please

[Wurzel]

It's overdue, but I'm not sure there's clarity on how it will work.

 

There are three forms of VAR used effectively in different sports, but I get the feeling that football wants to be different, rather than following any existing model.

 

Tennis, for example, uses a purely player-driven appeal system. There is no video umpire, just technology. The umpire cannot call for a review. But that doesn't work so well in a team sport.

 

Cricket has, in my opinion, a very successful hybrid system. The umpire can call for a review on, for example, a catch or run out, but the teams have limited reviews of their own, lost if the review fails. Procedures are clear and an underlying principle that if there is doubt, the on-field umpire's decision stands. I think I'm right in saying that even if it's an umpire referral, the umpire still gives a "soft" decision.

 

RU probably has the most complicated system. No appeals from players but both the ref and video ref can review pretty-well anything leading up to a try, or foul play. The ref can ask closed or open questions. IMO it's good for getting things right, but can be too slow.

 

I would like something similar to cricket to be used. The ref should be able to refer anything to the video ref if he is unsure. Not just penalties and offsides. As with cricket, with a soft decision to stand unless there is clear evidence. I don't favour the video ref being able to intervene independently. To me this is too confusing as players and spectators seem unaware of a review taking place. But why not a limited number of team reviews per game, where the ref hasn't chosen to review an incident?

 

Play doesn't necessarily need to stop for a review, unless it's successful and play needs to be brought back for a penalty, free kick or whatever. But if a review starts during a break, or a break occurs during a review, obviously play doesn't restart until it's resolved. I'd like to see a time limit on the review. Communication both with players and spectators is critical. Not sure if the video being reviewed needs to be on the big screen, but a message needs to be there, eg "Review - penalty?"

 

Ok, shoot me down!

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

Agree with all that. X number of reviews per team per game, but a successful one doesn't reduce the number available.

 

As for BIB, big screens not exciting enough. With today's technology Captain/manager/designated appealer could indicate an appeal to ref electronically for any incident whilst play continues, and the goal posts could turn orange whilst a review is happening, then red or green depending on the outcome. Players and spectators alike wouldn't be able to miss that and imagine the extra excitement/hope if you've just scored/conceded in an orange goal.

[simo]

I can't see any downsides to var except players making a square with their fingers every time a decision goes against them !

[StDunko]

I can't see any downsides to var except players making a square with their fingers every time a decision goes against them !

 

Straight red cards for anyone (other than the ref) that makes the VAR hand signal during the game.

[The9]

Hate it, doesn't improve decisions, ruins live atmosphere and undermines referees. Worst idea ever, worse in execution.

[ando]

We have it in the A league in Australia. We still seem to have as many controversial decisions, lots of incidents are not clear cut even with a myriad of camera angles. Decisions have taken as long as 5 minutes once they decide on a review with the game being stopped and everyone waiting.

 

My guess is we will have similar discussions and rants about VAR as we do referees.

[niceandfriendly]

Hate it, doesn't improve decisions, ruins live atmosphere and undermines referees. Worst idea ever, worse in execution.

 

You make interesting points but on the contrary, VAR corrects wrong decisions, improves the live atmosphere by increasing suspense and supports the referees. So whilst I respect your points they're all wrong and you should consider a retraction of your comments.

[niceandfriendly]

We have it in the A league in Australia. We still seem to have as many controversial decisions, lots of incidents are not clear cut even with a myriad of camera angles. Decisions have taken as long as 5 minutes once they decide on a review with the game being stopped and everyone waiting.

 

My guess is we will have similar discussions and rants about VAR as we do referees.

 

Controversies in the A League are down 68% since VAR came in. The longest a decision by VAR has taken was 2 minutes and 57 seconds (info from A League official website) and approval ratings from fans for the system so far is up at 84%. Those are pretty decent stats and it has gone down superbly in Australia, attendances also dramatically increased since VAR came in.

[Shance]

It won't effect us as we will be in the championship.

[Saint Without a Halo]

To stop constant interruptions each captain should be given say two opportunities to ask the ref for a review if wrong he loses a life. This way we limit each side asking for a review at every opportunity and breaking up play like in the world cup

[ando]

Don’t think attendances are the result of VAR, I believe there have been longer decisions than 2.57.

 

What I am saying is that if you think it will solve all of the referee decision problems it is my opinion you are mistaken.

[igsey]

About time. The biggest criticism of VAR is usually that decisions take too long. I would happily have a 2 minute delay if it means 3 points instead of 1 against Watford, or if it means Gabbi's goal stands in a cup final.

 

Things will get better as refs become more practiced with the tech.

[Charlie Wayman]

The premier league Have listened to Charlie Austin he speaks for all premier league clubs

 

This shall now be known as Charlies rule.

 

Should be worth a regular starting place for that alone.

 

Wonder why the PL's lawyers ducked sanctioning him... was it because he was telling the truth?

[SaintMB]

Don’t think attendances are the result of VAR, I believe there have been longer decisions than 2.57.

 

What I am saying is that if you think it will solve all of the referee decision problems it is my opinion you are mistaken.

 

It's not about every decision being perfect. It's about it being better than it would otherwise be.

[striker]

VAR is not some magic wand that eradicates all poor decisions from the game. It merely allows officials the chance to review various situations within the game - there is still the human factor. After looking at Charlie Austins 'goal' last week, seen it analysed on TV, I still heard various different versions as to whether it was or was not a 'goal', it's purely opinion in a lot of cases.

 

It should clear up 'obvious' errors, I grant you, but there will still be contention within the game (and rightly so).

 

Under what scenario could Austin's not have been a goal?

[danjosaint]

^^^ ive not heard any reports suggesting it was the correct decision

[davefoggy]

The day that VAR is introduced is the day that the game is finished. Watching a live game of football will be a completely different experience from now on. Think I'm done with it

[Sheaf Saint]

Under what scenario could Austin's not have been a goal?

 

The main argument would be that Yoshida's presence in an offside position in the 6-yard box influenced the keeper's positioning and judgement, and therefore he could be deemed to be interfering with play.

[Useful Idiot]

The main argument would be that Yoshida's presence in an offside position in the 6-yard box influenced the keeper's positioning and judgement, and therefore he could be deemed to be interfering with play.

 

Offside offence:

 

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

 

interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or

interfering with an opponent by:

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or

challenging an opponent for the ball or

clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or

making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

or

gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:

rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent

been deliberately saved by any opponent

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.

 

A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area).

 

1) Yoshida was out of the keeper's eyeline when Austin struck his shot and was thus not interfering.

 

2) The keeper was on the opposite side of the goal to Yoshida, he had to be to cover his near post when Redmond ran into the box. Therefore Yoshida did not interfere with the keeper's position. If the ball had gone behind Yoshida and into the goal, then there would have been an argument for disallowing it, but that didn't happen.

 

Yoshida did not interfere with play according to the offside rule as currently written. If he had done, then Austin would have been sanctioned by the FA for his comments after the match.

 

This seems to indicate that those who believe there is an 'argument' for Austin's goal being ruled out by Yoshida's position don't fully understand the offside rules as they are currently stand.

[Micky]

Under what scenario could Austin's not have been a goal?

Under the scenario that he was in an offside position, and in the eyeline of the goalkeeper, and therefore active and interfering with play.

 

As I was driving back from the game on Sunday morning, it was being discussed on a radio program (talk sport I think) and all three presenters thought that the referee got it right.

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

[Saint IQ]

Under the scenario that he was in an offside position, and in the eyeline of the goalkeeper, and therefore active and interfering with play.

 

As I was driving back from the game on Sunday morning, it was being discussed on a radio program (talk sport I think) and all three presenters thought that the referee got it right.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

 

All 3 are morons then. How on earth was Yoshida in Fosters eye line?

[Micky]

All 3 are morons then. How on earth was Yoshida in Fosters eye line?

No, they are not morons, they just hold a different opinion to you. Yoshida does not have to be exactly between Foster and Austin to be in close peripheral vision. Dont forget, he did lean away to ensure he didn't touch the ball.

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

[danjosaint]

He wasnt as foster watched it all the way and yoshi was only in his direct vision after he'd dived hence why he didn't claim for the offside

[Graffito]

No, they are not morons, they just hold a different opinion to you. Yoshida does not have to be exactly between Foster and Austin to be in close peripheral vision. Dont forget, he did lean away to ensure he didn't touch the ball.

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

 

Couple of questions:

 

1. What is “close peripheral vision” and does it appear in the laws of football?

 

2. Did the referee say he disallowed the goal because he thought Yoshida touched the ball, but later admitted he was wrong?

[benjii]

No, they are not morons, they just hold a different opinion to you. Yoshida does not have to be exactly between Foster and Austin to be in close peripheral vision. Dont forget, he did lean away to ensure he didn't touch the ball.

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

 

Pretty sure they're morons, pal.

[Pamplemousse]

They're definitely morons, Yoshida was nowhere near interfering with Foster's eyeline, peripheral or otherwise

[saintalan]

Wasn't there a game a few seasons ago (Watford's in the back of my mind) where there was an opposition player laying injured in front of our keeper when they scored?

[Shroppie]

Wasn't there a game a few seasons ago (Watford's in the back of my mind) where there was an opposition player laying injured in front of our keeper when they scored?

Maybe Arsenal?

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[aintforever]

No, they are not morons, they just hold a different opinion to you. Yoshida does not have to be exactly between Foster and Austin to be in close peripheral vision. Dont forget, he did lean away to ensure he didn't touch the ball.

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

 

You’re talking nonsense, the law states “clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision” - being in someone’s peripheral vision is not obstructing the line of vision.