Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Just saw my first Video Ref decision...
- Thread starter Billy in Bristol
- Start date
And another topic of post match conversation gone, might as well just watch video games. Oh that's right, some mugs already are!
brightn'ove
cringe
That's a weird reason not to like video refs. Surely the post match discussion should only be about the football, not how shit the refs were.
Football for me is as much of a social occasion as a sporting event. A time to get together with like minded people, unite behind a common cause, ride an emotional roller coaster together, enjoy the highs, try to gloss over the lows if possible. If it were about logic then we would all choose to support Chelsea, Utd or Liverpool etc. I cannot get annoyed about the ref being spot on every time, I cannot uligise a player who I thought was a genius but the video shows he just got lucky, I cannot despair a about a correctly disallowed goal that cost us the game, I can if I think the ref was blind! Pre match discussion, post match argument, in play anger, these are things that make football what it is. The game may be more accurately refereed, but imagine if the England goal in the 66 WCF had been correctly disallowed, we would have only had the WWs to berate the Germans with. One hundred per cent technically correct decisions remove the passion in the longer term but that seems to be the way the game is going, less love more purchasing is the way forward according to marketing execs it seems. Oh well......
I'll be interested to know how it would work if a player is played through on goal and then flagged off side.
If the striker believes he is onside does he carry on to score? Do we then come back to the initial flagging? What would the defending team do?
If the striker believes he is onside does he carry on to score? Do we then come back to the initial flagging? What would the defending team do?
Seasider78
Well-known member
- Nov 14, 2004
- 5,937
Really not a fan of this there are enough stoppages in the game with free kicks being given for any physical contact and the increasing trend of constant time wasting so do not want anymore.
Also as others has said he controversial or human error element of the game is what keeps us all talking after the game with 'we were robbed' or in some cases getting away with decisions.
Also as others has said he controversial or human error element of the game is what keeps us all talking after the game with 'we were robbed' or in some cases getting away with decisions.
Mayonaise
Well-known member
Might stop some of the worse cases of players diving - that's Zaha out of a job 
studio150
Well-known member
What about the Zidane headbutt I have always thought that only the 4th official saw that and intervened to ensure a red card
Dorset Seagull
Once Dolphin, Now Seagull
I think the rules say the referees decision is correct or something so every decision he makes is the right one. You win some you lose some and move on. A goal maybe scored because in the move that led to it a player in the scoring team may have committed a sneaky foul several minutes earlier. Nobody notices it so nobody realises the goal shouldn't stand and it's not as obvious as a forward taking a dive for a penalty. Incidents happen all the time in a game that can affect outcomes all over the pitch at all times.
Leave the game as it is as it never will be perfect and the sneaky foul is just as wrong as the penalty diver.
Leave the game as it is as it never will be perfect and the sneaky foul is just as wrong as the penalty diver.
Common as Mook
Not Posh as Fook
- Jul 26, 2004
- 5,630
Offside is a tricky one I think. What's to stop a goalkeeper saying they didn't make a proper effort at a save because they saw the flag raised? Or a defender saying they pulled out of a challenge because of the same?
BensGrandad
New member
The only problem that I see is if a player is ruled offside from a through ball between the penalty box and centre circle players will go on and score and leave it to the video ref rather than stop with the whistle and say they didnt hear it.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
It's called The Beautiful Game, because it's not cluttered up with complicated rules. This is another step backwards from the simplicity that makes the game beautiful.
Inevitable, I guess, given the money that contaminates football these days.
Inevitable, I guess, given the money that contaminates football these days.
It could be like snooker. They could go back and place every player in the exact spot they were in when the linesman flagged offside. Every member of the crowd would have to be doing the same thing too.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Pandora's box, can of worms, thin end of the wedge, call it what you will. The ONLY thing technology should be used for in football is line-calls - did the ball cross the goal line or not ? No problem with that, its a black-and-white decision.
Everything else - be it fouls, dives, offsides (and its various nuances), is all open to interpretation. Sure, sometimes its pretty blatant and quite obvious from a replay. But on the other hand, how many incidents are very borderline, in that grey area, where you could conceivably give a different call according to the angle of the replay you're looking at ? People in studios argue the toss over some decisions endlessly and never reach a concensus, despite seeing the incident x number of times from however many angles. Yet we're expecting video replays to give us this utopia of perfect decision-making from the sidelines ? Come on.
Bring it in, and it'll cause more trouble and hassle than it solves. I'd far rather accept that there is occasionally an element of human error involved in football than I would see a whole RAFT of new legislation shoe-horned into the game to accommodate looking at replays for every major incident. Cos that's how it'd end up.
Everything else - be it fouls, dives, offsides (and its various nuances), is all open to interpretation. Sure, sometimes its pretty blatant and quite obvious from a replay. But on the other hand, how many incidents are very borderline, in that grey area, where you could conceivably give a different call according to the angle of the replay you're looking at ? People in studios argue the toss over some decisions endlessly and never reach a concensus, despite seeing the incident x number of times from however many angles. Yet we're expecting video replays to give us this utopia of perfect decision-making from the sidelines ? Come on.
Bring it in, and it'll cause more trouble and hassle than it solves. I'd far rather accept that there is occasionally an element of human error involved in football than I would see a whole RAFT of new legislation shoe-horned into the game to accommodate looking at replays for every major incident. Cos that's how it'd end up.
kevo
Well-known member
- Mar 8, 2008
- 9,094
One of the worst decisions I've ever seen (and I seem to remember one of the Sky pundits said the same). First of all, the incident was a good yard or so outside the box. Secondly, our defender was clearly fouled. Thirdly, the handball was actually by their player! Yet somehow it was a Bmuff pen. In about the fourth minute of added time, too. The decision was made by the lino, who was miles away so god knows how he could have seen what happened. But the referee gave the pen all the same. The ref that day, Darren Sheldrake, actually "rested himself" for a few games after that - he knew he'd made a gigantic howler. Still cost us two points though.
But Ron Challis and the Complete and Utter Shyster aside, worst ref status has to go to Phil Prosser for the two terrible late decisions that cost us the game against Sheff Utd at Withdean in about 2002. I bumped into Bobby Zamora in Covent Garden the evening after that game. He's a mild mannered chap, but shall we just say his assessment of Prosser's performance would not be broadcast before the watershed...
Last edited:
Zinedine Zidane might have something to say about that.
TSB
Captain Hindsight
Ever seen NFL? Every single contested or controversial decision goes to 1,000 replays and then the commentators are still shocked by the Umpire's decision.
Even forgetting the adverts, it makes the game 33% longer than it need be.
Even forgetting the adverts, it makes the game 33% longer than it need be.
Seasider78
Well-known member
- Nov 14, 2004
- 5,937
Great article from the racing post on this
https://www.racingpost.com/sport/vi...he-joy-in-calamitous-quest-for-justice/280144
Video refs set to kill all the joy in calamitous quest for justice
The Thursday Column
8:00PM, MAR 29 2017
Referee Felix Zwayer awards Spain's second goal against France after a review
The comparisons with Brexit are unavoidable, even though here at the Racing Post we like to provide you with a shield from politics and focus instead on fun stuff like racing, sport and betting.
But in the week the UK chose to leave Europe, football took a similarly seismic step towards exiting the traditional world of letting humans referee football matches, as the arbiter in the France v Spain friendly on Tuesday was instructed to deploy the services of a video assistant referee for certain decisions.
The use of video is, like Brexit, a source of hot debate, with the
pro-video camp urging the authorities to hurry up and introduce it and those who are keen for things to remain as they are equally vociferous in their opposition to its introduction.
I am passionate in my belief that video, having killed the radio star, will also kill, or at best seriously disfigure, the greatest sport that has ever been invented. Put simply, its introduction, now as inevitable as Brexit, will be a disaster for football.
Its advocates are already purring on the evidence of Tuesday’s game in Paris, when utilisation of the VAR caused a wrongly allowed French goal to be chalked off for offside and a wrongly disallowed Spanish goal to be given when replays showed the scorer was onside.
Why, you may then ask, am I or anyone else objecting to the use of video when it ensured two key result-influencing decisions were corrected?
It’s because football’s appeal is that it flows. It is fast-moving with a rhythm that entrances us. That beguiling tempo is already being affected by unnecessary stoppages for free kicks and substitutions but it faces being killed stone dead if additional pauses are introduced just so we can discover the referee and his assistants were either right or, occasionally, have made an error.
Moreover, the unalloyed joy of a goal being scored, which, when all is said and done is the essence of why we support football teams, risks being contaminated in a way that will rob us of the euphoria we feel when the opposition net bulges.
When your team scores you go mad. It’s as simple as that. You forget the drudgery of your job, the shelves that need putting up tomorrow and the impending visit of the mother-in-law, and for a few blissful seconds you are the happiest person on the planet.
Every once in a while you feel a bit of a tit because the bloke next to you is nudging you and nodding towards the linesman’s raised flag that you were the last to notice, but mostly it’s a rare opportunity to put the worries of the world to one side and feel bloody brilliant.
When video replays are introduced that will not be how it works. You will not be able to shout and scream and leap around like a madman because you will be checking to see if the ref is holding is finger to his ear as he asks his colleague in the booth to look again.
And even if the decision to let the goal stand is upheld, the moment will have gone. The magic will be lost. You’ll cheer and punch the air but it won’t feel quite the same, and while what I’m saying might sound like a flimsy argument when put up against someone logically championing the virtues of getting every decision right, I shall be keeping a cutting of this column in my drawer, ready to brandish when those who are currently convinced we should be using videos suddenly express a desire to return to the good old days.
And they will. I shook my head in disbelief at how many people thought events in Paris on Tuesday proved the merits of video refereeing beyond doubt. They didn’t mind that each visit to the man with the monitors took 40 seconds, which is actually a long time when nothing is happening and those in the ground aren’t even able to see what the VAR can see.
They will certainly mind when these things last upwards of two minutes, as they do in rugby. And they will mind when the bloke in the booth still can’t come up with a clear decision, as would have been the case, for example, when Damien Delaney was adjudged to have brought down Christian Benteke last season.
Games will take well over two hours to complete and players will go from waving imaginary cards at refs to making imaginary screen gestures in their faces, like they are involved in some frantic game of charades.
Accuracy levels will nudge up slightly but at a price that is far higher than people are currently prepared to acknowledge. And once it starts, no doubt with some hollow reassurances that it will be for only a small number of situations, it will creep and creep into every decision a referee makes.
It will transform football matches into an unsatisfactory series of a huge number of short segments of action punctuated by stoppages, reviews and restarts.
But we will get justice, as I have heard a few people say as the debated has heated up. Don’t give me that. Do not talk about justice.
This is not a jury being forced to decide whether a defendant is guilty or innocent of murder, it’s a game of football. If the ref makes the odd mistake, that’s fine by me.
Referees do a superb job and it is not their ability to get things right that is forcing through this stupid decision to bring in the video ref, it is the failure of spectators, participants and the media to accept the officials cannot be perfect that is the cause of this impending farce.
The failure of the pro-video brigade to realise just how disruptive their plans will be to football’s exquisite cadence worries me greatly.
Before we take the plunge it would be irresponsible not to at least, at domestic level, experiment with extra officials behind each goal line. They would make a real difference without affecting the flow of the game.
Sadly, though, it appears football’s equivalent of Article 50 will be triggered any time now, and that makes for a decidedly uncertain future for those of us who wish things would remain as they are.
https://www.racingpost.com/sport/vi...he-joy-in-calamitous-quest-for-justice/280144
Video refs set to kill all the joy in calamitous quest for justice
The Thursday Column
8:00PM, MAR 29 2017
Referee Felix Zwayer awards Spain's second goal against France after a review
The comparisons with Brexit are unavoidable, even though here at the Racing Post we like to provide you with a shield from politics and focus instead on fun stuff like racing, sport and betting.
But in the week the UK chose to leave Europe, football took a similarly seismic step towards exiting the traditional world of letting humans referee football matches, as the arbiter in the France v Spain friendly on Tuesday was instructed to deploy the services of a video assistant referee for certain decisions.
The use of video is, like Brexit, a source of hot debate, with the
pro-video camp urging the authorities to hurry up and introduce it and those who are keen for things to remain as they are equally vociferous in their opposition to its introduction.
I am passionate in my belief that video, having killed the radio star, will also kill, or at best seriously disfigure, the greatest sport that has ever been invented. Put simply, its introduction, now as inevitable as Brexit, will be a disaster for football.
Its advocates are already purring on the evidence of Tuesday’s game in Paris, when utilisation of the VAR caused a wrongly allowed French goal to be chalked off for offside and a wrongly disallowed Spanish goal to be given when replays showed the scorer was onside.
Why, you may then ask, am I or anyone else objecting to the use of video when it ensured two key result-influencing decisions were corrected?
It’s because football’s appeal is that it flows. It is fast-moving with a rhythm that entrances us. That beguiling tempo is already being affected by unnecessary stoppages for free kicks and substitutions but it faces being killed stone dead if additional pauses are introduced just so we can discover the referee and his assistants were either right or, occasionally, have made an error.
Moreover, the unalloyed joy of a goal being scored, which, when all is said and done is the essence of why we support football teams, risks being contaminated in a way that will rob us of the euphoria we feel when the opposition net bulges.
When your team scores you go mad. It’s as simple as that. You forget the drudgery of your job, the shelves that need putting up tomorrow and the impending visit of the mother-in-law, and for a few blissful seconds you are the happiest person on the planet.
Every once in a while you feel a bit of a tit because the bloke next to you is nudging you and nodding towards the linesman’s raised flag that you were the last to notice, but mostly it’s a rare opportunity to put the worries of the world to one side and feel bloody brilliant.
When video replays are introduced that will not be how it works. You will not be able to shout and scream and leap around like a madman because you will be checking to see if the ref is holding is finger to his ear as he asks his colleague in the booth to look again.
And even if the decision to let the goal stand is upheld, the moment will have gone. The magic will be lost. You’ll cheer and punch the air but it won’t feel quite the same, and while what I’m saying might sound like a flimsy argument when put up against someone logically championing the virtues of getting every decision right, I shall be keeping a cutting of this column in my drawer, ready to brandish when those who are currently convinced we should be using videos suddenly express a desire to return to the good old days.
And they will. I shook my head in disbelief at how many people thought events in Paris on Tuesday proved the merits of video refereeing beyond doubt. They didn’t mind that each visit to the man with the monitors took 40 seconds, which is actually a long time when nothing is happening and those in the ground aren’t even able to see what the VAR can see.
They will certainly mind when these things last upwards of two minutes, as they do in rugby. And they will mind when the bloke in the booth still can’t come up with a clear decision, as would have been the case, for example, when Damien Delaney was adjudged to have brought down Christian Benteke last season.
Games will take well over two hours to complete and players will go from waving imaginary cards at refs to making imaginary screen gestures in their faces, like they are involved in some frantic game of charades.
Accuracy levels will nudge up slightly but at a price that is far higher than people are currently prepared to acknowledge. And once it starts, no doubt with some hollow reassurances that it will be for only a small number of situations, it will creep and creep into every decision a referee makes.
It will transform football matches into an unsatisfactory series of a huge number of short segments of action punctuated by stoppages, reviews and restarts.
But we will get justice, as I have heard a few people say as the debated has heated up. Don’t give me that. Do not talk about justice.
This is not a jury being forced to decide whether a defendant is guilty or innocent of murder, it’s a game of football. If the ref makes the odd mistake, that’s fine by me.
Referees do a superb job and it is not their ability to get things right that is forcing through this stupid decision to bring in the video ref, it is the failure of spectators, participants and the media to accept the officials cannot be perfect that is the cause of this impending farce.
The failure of the pro-video brigade to realise just how disruptive their plans will be to football’s exquisite cadence worries me greatly.
Before we take the plunge it would be irresponsible not to at least, at domestic level, experiment with extra officials behind each goal line. They would make a real difference without affecting the flow of the game.
Sadly, though, it appears football’s equivalent of Article 50 will be triggered any time now, and that makes for a decidedly uncertain future for those of us who wish things would remain as they are.
I'm sure there is a more recent thread on VAR, but that is three letters - too small for the search - and 'video' 'assistant' and 'referee' are all too common words used on here.
I just read this article http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/the-case-against-instant-replay-all-instant-replay.html from an American website about the downside of video replays, having had them for a while in US sports. Is it a sign of things to come as we get more involved in video replays?
I just read this article http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/the-case-against-instant-replay-all-instant-replay.html from an American website about the downside of video replays, having had them for a while in US sports. Is it a sign of things to come as we get more involved in video replays?
