[Football] VAR to be used at the World Cup

AZ Gull said:

I stand to be corrected, but my understanding of it is that in the scenario you paint, once the ref blows the whistle (for offside) that ends the passage of play, so even if the striker still sticks the ball in the net there will be no VAR awarding of a goal because no goal has been scored (play was dead). In other words, once the ref's whistle blows, the ability to "alter" the incorrect offside decision by VAR is lost.

What this will lead to, perhaps, is referees allowing play to continue for a few seconds after an offside flag, just in case something like you say materialises.

Click to expand...

BensGrandad said:

[/B]


would that be a problem if refs allowed it to continue for 30 secs and then consulted the VAR.

Click to expand...

Albion my Albion said:

You may want to watch football that way but you already watch football with delays for injury. I think it very necessary that a call have a much better chance to be correct than now when many are wrong. Terribly wrong, and many here have continually protested calls are very wrong.

Click to expand...

Easy 10 said:

And if there's a millisecond between the whistle going, and the ball hitting the net ?.

Click to expand...

Easy 10 said:

Injuries are part and parcel, those delays are inevitable and unavoidable.

I actually think the principal of VARS is ok in theory - they're not looking to review EVERYTHING, only when (in the opinion of the VAR) there has been a clear error made by the on-pitch ref. My concern is that it opens up a whole spectrum of game-changing incidents for review, and I'm far from convinced that they'll still get it "right" to the opinion of everyone, even after standing around for however long looking at it. At the end of the day, its still another human, interpreting a decision by another human. And there's enough dispute on here, in pundit studios, wherever, that can't reach a consensus even after multiple replays.

You're just swapping one controversy for a whole bunch of new ones IMO. And on top of that, trying to shoe-horn it into a live game. Quickly.

Click to expand...

Easy 10 said:

If you saw and then read the post-match reaction from that Chelsea v Arsenal game, with the (extended) silent review of something that happened several minutes earlier, you'd know its a long way from ideal. You're sat there for a minute+ while the ref confers with the bloke in Heathrow, until they finally arrive at a verdict. And that was WITHOUT the ref even going to the pitchside monitor, which would've drawn it out even longer.

Sorry chap. Thats just not how I want to watch football.

Click to expand...

trueblue said:

Personally, although I can understand why refs want the on-field official to have the final say, I think it might be better if eventually the remote VAR's decision on contentious issues was treated as conclusive. After all, he has the best view of all and it would cause the least disruption.

Click to expand...

Easy 10 said:

Exactly what I was discussing with a mate the other day. The mantra is "you play to the whistle". So here's a scenario.

A player goes through on goal, and the lino (incorrectly) flags for offside. The whistle goes straight away to stop the game (as it does), but the player sticks the ball in the net anyway. The VAR says "hang on ref, you need to look at this - he was onside".

Whats the call ?

Click to expand...

Iggle Piggle said:

Here's one from the Dutch league

https://youtu.be/h9Z_dXhrPQU

Click to expand...

BadFish said:

Var isn't used in this scenario. It is used only in four distinct scenarios.

https://football-technology.fifa.com/en/media-tiles/video-assistant-referees-var/

Click to expand...

jimhigham said:

Yeah but...

View attachment 93378

I still don't honestly know how I feel about VAR right now but I remember being bloody enraged that afternoon.

Click to expand...

Easy 10 said:

It absolutely IS used in that scenario. Its a VARS call on a goal - see the Leicester one last week vs Fleetwood that was initially ruled out for offside, but subsequently (correctly) reinstated by VARS.

It worked extremely well that time, I'd be the first to admit it. But it ain't always going to play out like that...

Click to expand...

trueblue said:

Fair enough. I can see how it's confusing for events when it's a while before there's a break in play. However, that will be relatively rare overall and I'm sure if Albion had been blatantly denied a goal or wrongly had one awarded against us, we'd be pretty happy the officials reached the right decision. In most cases, it will just operate as a safety net in the background, helping refs make strong and bold decisions - which as one of the smaller clubs we should definitely welcome (as Saturday proved).

It's only going to be tedious if fans insist on kicking up a stink when it fails to resolve incidents that aren't clear and obvious, or moan that the referee didn't go to look at the pitch-side monitor. Strangely, a lot of those appear to be the same fans who simultaneously complain that they don't want play to be held up.

Personally, although I can understand why refs want the on-field official to have the final say, I think it might be better if eventually the remote VAR's decision on contentious issues was treated as conclusive. After all, he has the best view of all and it would cause the least disruption.

Click to expand...

Easy 10 said:

Thats bollocks though. Goal line technology is a simple line call. Its binary - either its over the line, or its not. The stuff VARS is being brought in for is for subjective decisions on fouls, many of which are a LONG way away from being simple black-and-white decisions. Its an interpretation - along with the added complication of the game not always being "dead" when its being called into play.

Of COURSE its possible to have one without the other. We've had it for a couple of seasons now !

Click to expand...

The video assistant referee (VAR) system has been accurate in 98.9% of decisions so far during its two-year worldwide trial, says the International Football Association Board

Key Ifab findings:
In the 804 matches there were 3,947 checks for possible reviewable incidents.
56.9% ofchecks were for penalty incidents and goals.
There was an average of fewer than five checks per match.
The median check time of the VAR is 20 seconds.
The median duration of a review is 60 seconds.
68.8% ofmatcheshad no review.
One decision in three matches is a "clear and obvious error".
In 8% ofmatches the VAR had a decisive impact on the outcome of the game.
24% of all matches were positively affected by the involvement of VAR (changing an initial incorrect decision by the referee).
The average time'lost' due to the VAR represents less than 1% of overall playing time.

Click to expand...

Simster said:

The fact is that if the World Cup 2018 was the goal for VAR, then this process should have started 2 years ago. Personally, I see it as a solution that simply HAS to be implemented. The only thing is, it has to be done properly. In many ways it reminds me of when the backpass rule was implemented - so many people high profile pundits moaned about that changing the way the game would be played because goalkeepers aren't good with their feet (Gary Lineker was a particularly harsh critic). But guess what, keepers learned and the game MASSIVELY improved as a spectacle once it was implemented.

Click to expand...