[Technology] Players VAR ( and Pardew )

Lindfield by the Pond · Jan 28, 2018

Deportivo Seagull said:
The main problem is the players heckling the ref take this away and with a bit more practice it’ll be fine.

Agreed, I reckon half the time taken was used up by the ref not being able to listen to the VAR, but having to deal with the WBA players for whom the VAR could award a penalty. When the ref tells a player to step away, why can't they? Needs to get his book out. It would soon stop, and the game would start sooner.

WilburySeagull · Jan 28, 2018

Acker79 said:
I think the criticism of VAR was predictable. It wasn't wanted by 100% of people, so it was obvious those that were against it would be criticising any implementation (Shearer being a prime example).

I don't consider myself to be smarter than most. But I knew ahead of the Brighton/Palace game basically how VAR worked. I knew the referee made a decision on the pitch, and there was someone in a studio looking at video footage who would inform him if he'd missed something/made a mistake, and that the guy in the studio would communicate with the ref through his ear piece. So when Murray's goal went in and the ref put his finger to his ear while the players celebrated I thought 'he's hearing from the video guy', when we got ready to take kick off, I assumed that meant there was nothing wrong with the goal. Is that really all that difficult? Why are people going on about football being taken away from those in the stadium? "It's fine if you're watching on TV - the commentators can explain things, but people in the stadium have no idea what's going on!" What non-sense. If people in the stadium can't don't understand what's going on, that's their fault. It's natural there are teething problems as everyone gets used to VAR, but people in the stadium not knowing what's going on isn't one of them. (When they showed the replay of Murray's goal on the big screen I thought "that looked handball, but it's been reviewed so it probably isn't')

What VAR is exposing is how little some people understand the laws of the game and how the implementation of those laws is 'right or wrong'. By that I mean, laws are mostly written as 'in the opinion of the referee'. A challenge isn't a foul because it fulfils set criteria, it is a foul because in the opinion of the referee it meets the criteria. It doesn't matter if players disagree, if expert analysts disagree, if 99/100 neutral fans disagree. If in the referee's opinion a challenge is a foul, it is a foul. That's how the laws work. This means if a decision goes to VAR, the video assistant isn't looking at the decision and asking 'would I have given that?', he is asking 'can I see why the referee has given that (an empathetic question referees will have a better grasp of than those who haven't received referee training and who aren't invested in one side or the other), if not is that because of a clear and obvious error (not being able to see something, not having all the information because things happening on the blind side or off the ball, etc)'. It's also why there's no need for players, managers or fans to see the replays.

This idea of the referee being the ultimate authority is why football's governing body has decided on this system of VAR (with the referee looking at the replay to make the final decision). If we have a system where someone watching the game on video screens can overrule the referee, then we're not playing in accordance with the laws of the game. I never really got behind the 'we can't have VAR because the game at grassroots level should be the same as the top level' argument because of there have always been differences in equipment, facilities, standards. But the one consistent at every level is the laws of the game. While it would be quicker for the VAR to overrule the ref, I wouldn't be in favour of it for that reason.

Exactly right. Patience is required while VAR beds in.

Triggaaar · Jan 28, 2018

Seasider78 said:
Would rather focus on improving quality of human decisions

Which is what we've been trying to do for the last 100 years, and we've hit a wall. The refs just can't do it well enough.

Seasider78 · Jan 28, 2018

Deportivo Seagull said:
What natural flow of the game? Goal kicks that take 30secs plus, goalkeepers wasting time, free kicks that take at least a minute if not more. According to the commentary the penalty took three minutes ... a whole 30 secs longer than normal, about the time of a goal kick when goal keepers are being arses. Football has delusions of grandeur.

Only football could take a perfectly good idea and f**k it up!

The main problem is the players heckling the ref take this away and with a bit more practice it’ll be fine.

All the things you mention could be eradicated by better officiating and clamping down with bookings to speed the game up. The answer to the existing time wasting is not to add more in the form of VAR.

I want less interruption in the 90min I pay to see not more. I want to celebrate a goal when the referee points to the centre circle not be worrying in the back of my head what some bloke in a room in Heathrow makes of it.

We are becoming obsessed with every single decision being perfect and are sleepwalking into the game we know and love become a stop and start borefest

Creaky · Jan 28, 2018

It may cause more problems but it would make it far more interesting for the fans and quiet some of the player protests if the big screens showed what the ref was reviewing - as they do in rugby league.

Seasider78 · Jan 28, 2018

Triggaaar said:
Which is what we've been trying to do for the last 100 years, and we've hit a wall. The refs just can't do it well enough.

We have not hit a wall we have just become obsessed with pouring over every decision to fix a perceived injustice rather than accepting this as part of the game.

The beauty about the current system is Gary Neville and his chums can spend hours upon hours watching replays and telling us all what should have happened and we can just switch them off and enjoy the debate a bit of controversy causes.

PILTDOWN MAN · Jan 28, 2018

Acker79 said:
I think the criticism of VAR was predictable. It wasn't wanted by 100% of people, so it was obvious those that were against it would be criticising any implementation (Shearer being a prime example).

I don't consider myself to be smarter than most. But I knew ahead of the Brighton/Palace game basically how VAR worked. I knew the referee made a decision on the pitch, and there was someone in a studio looking at video footage who would inform him if he'd missed something/made a mistake, and that the guy in the studio would communicate with the ref through his ear piece. So when Murray's goal went in and the ref put his finger to his ear while the players celebrated I thought 'he's hearing from the video guy', when we got ready to take kick off, I assumed that meant there was nothing wrong with the goal. Is that really all that difficult? Why are people going on about football being taken away from those in the stadium? "It's fine if you're watching on TV - the commentators can explain things, but people in the stadium have no idea what's going on!" What non-sense. If people in the stadium can't don't understand what's going on, that's their fault. It's natural there are teething problems as everyone gets used to VAR, but people in the stadium not knowing what's going on isn't one of them. (When they showed the replay of Murray's goal on the big screen I thought "that looked handball, but it's been reviewed so it probably isn't')

What VAR is exposing is how little some people understand the laws of the game and how the implementation of those laws is 'right or wrong'. By that I mean, laws are mostly written as 'in the opinion of the referee'. A challenge isn't a foul because it fulfils set criteria, it is a foul because in the opinion of the referee it meets the criteria. It doesn't matter if players disagree, if expert analysts disagree, if 99/100 neutral fans disagree. If in the referee's opinion a challenge is a foul, it is a foul. That's how the laws work. This means if a decision goes to VAR, the video assistant isn't looking at the decision and asking 'would I have given that?', he is asking 'can I see why the referee has given that (an empathetic question referees will have a better grasp of than those who haven't received referee training and who aren't invested in one side or the other), if not is that because of a clear and obvious error (not being able to see something, not having all the information because things happening on the blind side or off the ball, etc)'. It's also why there's no need for players, managers or fans to see the replays.

This idea of the referee being the ultimate authority is why football's governing body has decided on this system of VAR (with the referee looking at the replay to make the final decision). If we have a system where someone watching the game on video screens can overrule the referee, then we're not playing in accordance with the laws of the game. I never really got behind the 'we can't have VAR because the game at grassroots level should be the same as the top level' argument because of there have always been differences in equipment, facilities, standards. But the one consistent at every level is the laws of the game. While it would be quicker for the VAR to overrule the ref, I wouldn't be in favour of it for that reason.

Problem was last night the commentators and pundits wanted to make out it was controversial, which it wasn't, if fact it removed any controversy.

The only time I can see is if a player is given offside the ref stops blows up as he hits the ball into the net, goalkeeper doesn't bother going for it and it's proved to be a wrong decision.

Ref's have got to allow the play to continue to its natural conclusion before making a decision. The first time this happens they in the studio will have a w@nkfest over it.

Triggaaar · Jan 28, 2018

Seasider78 said:
We have not hit a wall we have just become obsessed with pouring over every decision to fix a perceived injustice rather than accepting this as part of the game.

I don't accept that it's just part of the game, you do. You didn't want VAR. Tough titties.

jimhigham · Jan 28, 2018

Something that isn't being discussed much yet is the possibility that VAR might just improve players' conduct over time. If there's a far greater chance of pushing, pulling, diving, spitting and the like getting picked up then maybe they'll stop dicking around and pack it in.

That sort of change would probably take years though and would only be in response to an established, effective VAR system being in place but hey! It could happen.

PILTDOWN MAN · Jan 28, 2018

Seasider78 said:
We have not hit a wall we have just become obsessed with pouring over every decision to fix a perceived injustice rather than accepting this as part of the game.

The beauty about the current system is Gary Neville and his chums can spend hours upon hours watching replays and telling us all what should have happened and we can just switch them off and enjoy the debate a bit of controversy causes.

Those that really don't want this in the game are those who most will perceive to be the losers. These are the big teams who have had all the big decisions go their way for far too long. Dodgy awards by refs under pressure from these big clubs will now have their decisions questioned by another ref sitting in the comfort of an office with no berating players around.

amexer · Jan 28, 2018

Var for goal lines and offsides. ,handball, diviing and.fouls should be opinion of ref. We all have different opinions all over pitch if something is a foul or should or should not be booked. We have also seen wrong throw ins and corners given What next Vars for them. Sorry but like players refs make mistakes

Seasider78 · Jan 28, 2018

PILTDOWN MAN said:
Those that really don't want this in the game are those who most will perceive to be the losers. These are the big teams who have had all the big decisions go their way for far too long. Dodgy awards by refs under pressure from these big clubs will now have their decisions questioned by another ref sitting in the comfort of an office with no berating players around.

Will it though I have seen the penalty and I am still not convinced it was 100% a penalty. Not sure Pawson was either as he watched it about 30 times before giving it. Salah has a hand on his shirt but goes down like he has had his legs removed at the knees yet the decision still goes to Liverpool.

The other thing I am not sure about is do all clubs have consistent camera angles for review or will bigger clubs who provide more camera positions be at an advantage?

PILTDOWN MAN · Jan 28, 2018

Seasider78 said:
Will it though I have seen the penalty and I am still not convinced it was 100% a penalty. Not sure Pawson was either as he watched it about 30 times before giving it. Salah has a hand on his shirt but goes down like he has had his legs removed at the knees yet the decision still goes to Liverpool.

The other thing I am not sure about is do all clubs have consistent camera angles for review or will bigger clubs who provide more camera positions be at an advantage?

Does it matter if you believe it was 100% or not. The ref looked at it and in all probability it was a penalty so gave it. Thing was the WBA player showed intent in stopping him against the laws of the game. I'd criticize him over the decision.

As far as the cameras they would work for both teams so can't see the benefit to one side and all PL clubs should be able to provide the same coverage

Seasider78 · Jan 28, 2018

PILTDOWN MAN said:
Does it matter if you believe it was 100% or not. The ref looked at it and in all probability it was a penalty so gave it. Thing was the WBA player showed intent in stopping him against the laws of the game. I'd criticize him over the decision.

As far as the cameras they would work for both teams so can't see the benefit to one side and all PL clubs should be able to provide the same coverage

No my opinion does that matter but I think if 10 referees view that incident in the game and then again on a video they would all be split on whether it is a penalty or not. And that is the problem the referee has an opinion on how he views an incident so VAR does not remove the inconsistency

theboybilly · Jan 28, 2018

Seasider78 said:
VAR is ruining the flow of the game and should be binned in my view. Last night was farcical and the decisions referred to VAR should have been able to be made by a competent referee and linesman not always referred to VAR otherwise what’s the point in the man in the middle.

Would rather focus on improving quality of human decisions than referring to technology to solve all of the games problems

Absolutely - VAR will not completely remove errors and will only succeed in slowing the game down. Human error is part and parcel of the game, always has been alway will

PILTDOWN MAN · Jan 28, 2018

Seasider78 said:
No my opinion does that matter but I think if 10 referees view that incident in the game and then again on a video they would all be split on whether it is a penalty or not. And that is the problem the referee has an opinion on how he views an incident so VAR does not remove the inconsistency

Being able to review it takes out the exaggerated fall but still highlights the defender's intent. He pulled him back, once the ref confirmed this he awarded the penalty. Might stop diving as it will be apparent when viewed on a screen.

jessiejames · Jan 28, 2018

clapham_gull said:
Absolutely hilarious the players (and management) appear to be unhappy about the VAR replay.

The arguing has moved on from:

1) The ref got it wrong

to

2) The ref(s) got it right but we aren't allowed to see the video.

Maybe the ref should get all the players into the middle of pitch, wait for it to be uploaded to You Tube and have a vote round his phone.

Much prefer a poll.

Machiavelli · Jan 28, 2018

Acker79 said:
I think the criticism of VAR was predictable. It wasn't wanted by 100% of people, so it was obvious those that were against it would be criticising any implementation (Shearer being a prime example).

I don't consider myself to be smarter than most. But I knew ahead of the Brighton/Palace game basically how VAR worked. I knew the referee made a decision on the pitch, and there was someone in a studio looking at video footage who would inform him if he'd missed something/made a mistake, and that the guy in the studio would communicate with the ref through his ear piece. So when Murray's goal went in and the ref put his finger to his ear while the players celebrated I thought 'he's hearing from the video guy', when we got ready to take kick off, I assumed that meant there was nothing wrong with the goal. Is that really all that difficult? Why are people going on about football being taken away from those in the stadium? "It's fine if you're watching on TV - the commentators can explain things, but people in the stadium have no idea what's going on!" What non-sense. If people in the stadium can't don't understand what's going on, that's their fault. It's natural there are teething problems as everyone gets used to VAR, but people in the stadium not knowing what's going on isn't one of them. (When they showed the replay of Murray's goal on the big screen I thought "that looked handball, but it's been reviewed so it probably isn't')

What VAR is exposing is how little some people understand the laws of the game and how the implementation of those laws is 'right or wrong'. By that I mean, laws are mostly written as 'in the opinion of the referee'. A challenge isn't a foul because it fulfils set criteria, it is a foul because in the opinion of the referee it meets the criteria. It doesn't matter if players disagree, if expert analysts disagree, if 99/100 neutral fans disagree. If in the referee's opinion a challenge is a foul, it is a foul. That's how the laws work. This means if a decision goes to VAR, the video assistant isn't looking at the decision and asking 'would I have given that?', he is asking 'can I see why the referee has given that (an empathetic question referees will have a better grasp of than those who haven't received referee training and who aren't invested in one side or the other), if not is that because of a clear and obvious error (not being able to see something, not having all the information because things happening on the blind side or off the ball, etc)'. It's also why there's no need for players, managers or fans to see the replays.

This idea of the referee being the ultimate authority is why football's governing body has decided on this system of VAR (with the referee looking at the replay to make the final decision). If we have a system where someone watching the game on video screens can overrule the referee, then we're not playing in accordance with the laws of the game. I never really got behind the 'we can't have VAR because the game at grassroots level should be the same as the top level' argument because of there have always been differences in equipment, facilities, standards. But the one consistent at every level is the laws of the game. While it would be quicker for the VAR to overrule the ref, I wouldn't be in favour of it for that reason.

Isn't it interesting that this cogent argument has received no thumbs ups (beyond the one I've just given), whereas the somewhat predictable ones have been awarded multiples. I thought Pawson used VAR brilliantly last night, and got all the controversial decisions right. This is in contrast to the ref for the Chelsea-Norwich game (Graham Scott?) who lost it, and didn't refer his (bad) decisions on the pitch up to the VAR.
VAR will improve the decision-making process for referees, who are honest, fallible human beings trying to do a very difficult job, that has become even more difficult because of,the speed and intensity of the contemporary game, the multiple camera angles offered by TV coverage, and several other factors.

Machiavelli · Jan 28, 2018

theboybilly said:
Absolutely - VAR will not completely remove errors and will only succeed in slowing the game down. Human error is part and parcel of the game, always has been alway will

Can you not think beyond absolutes? VAR means that more (not all) key decisions will improve. That's a good thing in my book. You're welcome to think differently, but don't come on here moaning about, for instance, Mike Dean awarding Stephens a red card, or Murray not being given a penalty when Shawcross hacks him down in the area.

Deportivo Seagull · Jan 28, 2018

Seasider78 said:
All the things you mention could be eradicated by better officiating and clamping down with bookings to speed the game up. The answer to the existing time wasting is not to add more in the form of VAR.

I want less interruption in the 90min I pay to see not more. I want to celebrate a goal when the referee points to the centre circle not be worrying in the back of my head what some bloke in a room in Heathrow makes of it.

We are becoming obsessed with every single decision being perfect and are sleepwalking into the game we know and love become a stop and start borefest

If the fa can’t get VAR to work then they have the square root of f**k all chance of eradicating the rest.

VAR works very well in rugby league and that is a fast flowing game, so it can work it just needs to worked on.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Technology] Players VAR ( and Pardew )

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Je Suis Rhino

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Never late in a V8

Well-known member

Well-known member

I should coco

Share this page