[Football] Dortmund's Bellingham 'disallowed goal' at Man City

[PILTDOWN MAN]

With the Dunk incident, wasn't it a case of VAR being consulted until they established that the ref had blown his whistle again (before the ball had crossed the line) and therefore VAR couldn't intervene to change the original decision (no goal, despite Mason subsequently giving the goal, before reverting to his original decision).

So it was a case of VAR determining that VAR had no jurisdiction and therefore couldn't be used to alter the ref's original course of action (so you're both right really)

All this does is show what a monumental farce the Lee Mason incident was

Problem with the VAR saying the second whistle cancelled the gaol out was when that whistle sounded. Most people reckon the ball had crossed the line before the whistle but is open to debate, what is certain the whistle made no difference to the ball going in, nobody stopped. As the timing was so debatable it stinks of a bodged cover up.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

The sentence I have bolded is, for me, the fundamental problem with VAR.

In principle, I think most people would say the ability to review critical decisions, to ensure there are no serious miscarriages of justice (ie things like Thierry Henry's handball for France against Ireland, or close offsides such as our ruled-out effort against Millwall in the FA Cup) could only be a good thing. But with the exception of offsides, most of the instances that come under review are subjective, which means you are now adding a second referee's opinion into the mix. By definition, with VAR, you have now completely undermined the assumption that the referee is the final decision-maker in all matters.

Despite initially being in favour of VAR, given the problems that VAR itself has introduced (the lack of transparency for stadium spectators, the delays, the loss of spontaneous goal celebrations), I think I have shifted in my view and now feel that overall VAR probably isn't worth the hassle (or maybe should be used ONLY for offside decisions and anything else that is purely a matter of fact).

Pretty much sums up where I am. I've been in favour of VAR, but some of the decisions – and referrals – are ruining the game. I'm afraid it goes back to what I said at the beginning: you can't expect to launch something as radical as VAR in such a high-profile league without a decent test and evaluation period and expect it to run smoothly...

 

[blue-shifted]

I reckon refs don't help themselves with their air of aloofness and infallibility.

In rugby, I love it where the ref says something like "sorry fellas, I got that one wrong. We have to reset with a scrum" Players are annoyed of course but just accept it. The miked up conversations in rugby are great to listen to.

In football, the ridiculous contorted logic that the TV panel refs have to go through in order to back up their infallible mates decision is the opposite. Utterly infuriating.

The Bellingham "goal" was a pure referring error. VAR couldn't have saved it, for the reasons mentioned previously, that you can't have a situation where players know that if they play on after the whistle, they might get awarded something on VAR

 

[Badger Boy]

That sounds like a recipe for endless reviews, replays, technical interventions, appeals, counter-appeals and referrals to monitors. For me that would destroy the rhythm of the game and create a disjointed and technocratic version of football that I would have no interest in watching.

This pursuit for 100% perfection risks destroying everything that make football so brilliant.

There does need to be a balance between allowing the game to be a game and for every decision to be 100% correct all of the time. Personally, I don't think anything that happens between the boxes needs constant review by the on pitch referee - that's the job of the VAR. The on pitch referee is going to get the majority of decisions correct and it's only when there's a question that a game-stopping review would be required.