I’ve seen some laughable decisions by officials and there are some refs that just don’t seem to like us but It’s as @M3G says it evens it self out over a season. These other sports cricket, rugby, gridiron and hockey have natural breaks for video interpretation the beauty of football is the flow and as @eric_plant said the moment.
It just sounds like someone at the FA has got carried away with new technology.
I can't ever foresee it working in a satisfactory way. Too many decisions are subjective, that's the nature of football. Players will soon learn to take advantage and and will be harranging the referee after every corner with all the holding and shirt pulling that takes place. There's now very little incentive for players to stay on their feet when feeling the slightest touch or shirt pull, they may as well go to ground knowing they can get a review and most likely a penalty.
Also, what decisions are reviewed and what which are not? Is it just the vital penalty area calls? If so, that's no help if you have a dubious free kick awarded against you on the edge of the box and someone pings it in the top corner! But review every decision and the game becomes unwatchable.
Met a Shrewsbury fan before Christmas. First thing he said to me was about the Ainsworth ‘goal’ against them. Apparently to a man they are really still bitter and hateful about that, something that I had forgotten about VAR and goal line technology would take that hate away. Such a shame.
I'm not in favour of VAR. Spoils the moment horribly. Goal line is acceptable as it is instant. I could also see a scenario in future where technology become good enough to computerise offsides. I could also tolerate a video in the 4th officials area, to be used at his or her discretion in the event of blatant cheating or foul play missed by the referee.
The current 'review' system is often a farce, however, and can really spoil the spectacle.
Just how often are these massive mistakes match changing? I've just seen Tom Curran get an LBW decision overturned in the ODI in Perth. It was a bad umpiring decision but he had a safety net. For me VAR just makes officials lazy. We should concentrate on helping them get better, not giving them a second chance.
Lazy as in there is no consequence to their decision. The safety net is there. Cricket umpires give more not out that are reversed than the other way because saying not out gives umpires call to the batsman and means they have benefit of the doubt.
VAR also means players can question the officials and I think the decision should be final.
VAR is just another top-down `innovation' as higher level football becomes more about money. A bad refereeing decision can cost someone like Chelsea millions (in their eyes) so obviously they feel that needs ironing out and to hell with decades of tradition or the spirit that makes football football. How long before clubs have lawyers pitchside to issue writs to officials.
Let's be honest, as @TheAndyGrahamFanClub points out, memories and rivalries often revolve around `mistakes'. We win some (Shrewsbury, Ainsworth's handball goal v ColU) and we lose some. We dwell on them, rage against them and they become part of our collective culture. Much of which is already being polished away by money-driven people in the game.
I agree that the players have to be stopped harassing the referee while he is trying to make sense of something hat is new to him. As for why it was introduced I recall seeing many managers and commentators asking for it. Now it has arrived it should be allowed to remain on trial and, hopefully. the snags will be ironed out.
@Right_in_the_Middle batsmen have always been given the benefit of the doubt though, that’s got nothing to do with video replays.
I just don’t see what laziness has got to do with it. Making the right decision doesn’t require any more effort. Maybe you are saying that it encourages them to be more risk averse? In any case I don’t believe this is true.
But without giving any reasons for thinking that, @Right_in_the_Middle, it doesn't take the conversation very far. Are you able to explain your thinking in a way that argues past what @chris says about the right decision being as easy to make as the wrong one. Is your point the one about risk aversion that he mentions? I'd be interested to hear and discuss.
By the by, the fact that umpires and referees in other sport may well have adopted a more conservative decision-making process is, I suggest, a consequence of their understanding that the review system is there to support the process. Their decisions may properly be different to the ones they would make without the review system if they make it more likely that the correct decision will be reached. For example, before reviews, rugby referees would necessarily often include some measure of conjecture in decisions about whether the ball had been grounded in the try-scoring process if there was some number of bodies around the carrier as the ball-carrier crossed the line. Those same referees would be less likely to award the try now since they can send it for review and take the opportunity to look for any sign that the ball may not have been properly grounded. As a result, more decisions will be correct. This is a real advantage, not to be ignored lightly. The main cost is the interruption to the flow of the game. A decision made instantly assists the flow of a game but is more likely to be incorrect. The correct balance between those competing interests is something to talk about here, but the fact that players, managers or fans will complain about the process should not be a consideration. The question of player discipline and of the behavioural ethos of the game must be separate to the matter of how best to adjudicate the game or judgements on each will necessarily be clouded.
Lets face it we exist in a football world where players do their best to trick the officials and managers refuse to condemn their players for doing so. Then both parties feel they have the right to criticise the officials for not doing their job properly. Stop cheating, condemn the cheats and then lets see how much support the officials REALLY need. And when I say cheating that starts at diving and goes all the way through to appealing for a decision you know you have no right to be awarded. DECEPTION = CHEATING.
@Chris for an example of how it encourages laziness look at cricket and the no ball. Umpires now don’t appear to look for it routinely and consequently don’t pick up the mistakes of bowlers until it actually matters - ie a wicket. Doesn’t take too much imagination to see something similar occurring in football with offsides for example.
Thanks for the affirmation, @bookertease. Your example about no balls is an interesting one. My understanding is that it is very difficult for umpires both to watch the bowler's front foot sufficiently closely as to adjudicate on no balls and to watch what happens at the business end of the pitch. Thus, I believe they have unofficially switched off their observations of the bowler's front foot the better to see other things necessary to the exercise of their functions. They have done this knowing that the video system is able to flag up any crucial oversights. I don't think this is necessarily laziness so much as a potentially valuable expediency that could only be possible with the video system in place. At least arguably.
I’m sure you’re right about the front foot no-ball situation @HCblue. It is extremely rare in my experience for the bowler’s end umpire to call/signal no-balls for overstepping unless it is in clear breach.
Imagine if after Tyson had scored our 3rd on Tuesday instead of jumping around, going mental and hugging strangers we'd all had to wait while a referee 200 miles away had to check 4 slow motion replays before we knew if it was a goal or not
That's pretty much the whole debate in a nutshell for me, and for anyone who has any understanding of what it is to be a football fan there can surely be only one conclusion.
Imagine if Tyson's goal had been incorrectly ruled out for offside by some bloke with a flag whose view may have been obscured at the critical moment. Would that have improved the experience for you?
Many years ago, the only way we had to make splitsecond decisions that critically affect the match was some fat bloke with a whistle and a couple of lags with fields. Now at last we may have a better way to get those decisions right.
Will it work? No idea. Will it take some time to get right? yes. Can change sometimes be good? yes. Can change sometimes be bad? Yes. Is it worth an experiment? Yes. Can we judge that experiment before it is completed? No.
you don't go to games so you wouldn't understand, but in answer to your question then yes, putting up with the occasional incorrect decision is easily a price worth paying for not having the best thing about football ruined
ps if Tyson had been flagged for offside and play stopped then a "goal" would never have been scored given that play would have stopped long before he even got to take a shot
From my understanding we are years away from Nathan Tyson's goal being reviewed by a video referee. That is unless we make it in to the multi millionaires league quicker than currently planned. On top of @eric_plant 's arguments that I agree with completely surely rules should be for all football and not just the privileged few?
The emotion of the sport is removed by any video assistance. I've been to rugby, NFL, cricket and hockey matches where moments that would normally bring joy now bring a muted response from players and fans. Watching players of all sports openly question the referee or umpire is poor too as these protests now have an outlet rather than just a vent.
More right decisions doesn't make for better sport. I'm not even sure you get enough of these referrals right in any case. Anyone following the 'is it a catch' debate in the NFL?
I don't buy the argument, Mr Middle, that because technology cant get all decisions right, it is not worth getting some more decisions right. That doesn't seem to make any sense at all.
I equally don't buy the argument that we shouldn't use whatever technology is available for some matches if it cant be available for all. Why not?. Limited benefit is surely better than no benefit at all.
I have seen no evidence that VAR increases players berating officials - I would have thought the opposite is the case.
Which brings us to the sole remaining question - is the benefit of getting more decisions right worth the cost, if any, of disrupting the flow and supporter enjoyment. Well that's the point of the trial I suppose. Lets see.
In defence of VAR I do recall two incidents - as it happens from the distant past when I watched Watford regularly. One season Watford reached the FA Cup Quarter final and were 2-1 up at highbury in the last minute. A cross came in and as the big club was losing the linesman flagged for a penalty. The ball broke to Blissett on the wing in his own half. Tony Adams and the rest of the Arsenal defence stopped and pointed at the lino as Blissett ran the length of the field and scored. Mass delight on the Watford terrace (remember the old clock end at Highbury?). The ref had to chose effectively which team would progress (odds were Arsenal would have won the replay). he consulted with the lino for what felt like several minutes before awarding the goal. Another dose of mass hysteria - two bouts of hysteria for one goal.
The following year (as I recall) in about rd 5, Watford took the then mighty Liverpool to a replay and were 1-0 up in injury time. As I recall Ian Rush (but it may have been Aldridge) took a dive and as the big team were losing, the ref gave a penalty. Liverpool won in extra time. Would I have wished VAR to get that decision right - absolutely.
Comments
I’ve seen some laughable decisions by officials and there are some refs that just don’t seem to like us but It’s as @M3G says it evens it self out over a season. These other sports cricket, rugby, gridiron and hockey have natural breaks for video interpretation the beauty of football is the flow and as @eric_plant said the moment.
It just sounds like someone at the FA has got carried away with new technology.
I can't ever foresee it working in a satisfactory way. Too many decisions are subjective, that's the nature of football. Players will soon learn to take advantage and and will be harranging the referee after every corner with all the holding and shirt pulling that takes place. There's now very little incentive for players to stay on their feet when feeling the slightest touch or shirt pull, they may as well go to ground knowing they can get a review and most likely a penalty.
Also, what decisions are reviewed and what which are not? Is it just the vital penalty area calls? If so, that's no help if you have a dubious free kick awarded against you on the edge of the box and someone pings it in the top corner! But review every decision and the game becomes unwatchable.
Met a Shrewsbury fan before Christmas. First thing he said to me was about the Ainsworth ‘goal’ against them. Apparently to a man they are really still bitter and hateful about that, something that I had forgotten about VAR and goal line technology would take that hate away. Such a shame.
VAR could seriously impact on the "raison d'etre" of footy forums though and that could be disastrous for the future of the Gasroom 2.0!
I'm not in favour of VAR. Spoils the moment horribly. Goal line is acceptable as it is instant. I could also see a scenario in future where technology become good enough to computerise offsides. I could also tolerate a video in the 4th officials area, to be used at his or her discretion in the event of blatant cheating or foul play missed by the referee.
The current 'review' system is often a farce, however, and can really spoil the spectacle.
Just how often are these massive mistakes match changing? I've just seen Tom Curran get an LBW decision overturned in the ODI in Perth. It was a bad umpiring decision but he had a safety net. For me VAR just makes officials lazy. We should concentrate on helping them get better, not giving them a second chance.
Lazy how? Either way they make the best call they can.
Lazy as in there is no consequence to their decision. The safety net is there. Cricket umpires give more not out that are reversed than the other way because saying not out gives umpires call to the batsman and means they have benefit of the doubt.
VAR also means players can question the officials and I think the decision should be final.
VAR is just another top-down `innovation' as higher level football becomes more about money. A bad refereeing decision can cost someone like Chelsea millions (in their eyes) so obviously they feel that needs ironing out and to hell with decades of tradition or the spirit that makes football football. How long before clubs have lawyers pitchside to issue writs to officials.
Let's be honest, as @TheAndyGrahamFanClub points out, memories and rivalries often revolve around `mistakes'. We win some (Shrewsbury, Ainsworth's handball goal v ColU) and we lose some. We dwell on them, rage against them and they become part of our collective culture. Much of which is already being polished away by money-driven people in the game.
I agree that the players have to be stopped harassing the referee while he is trying to make sense of something hat is new to him. As for why it was introduced I recall seeing many managers and commentators asking for it. Now it has arrived it should be allowed to remain on trial and, hopefully. the snags will be ironed out.
@Right_in_the_Middle batsmen have always been given the benefit of the doubt though, that’s got nothing to do with video replays.
I just don’t see what laziness has got to do with it. Making the right decision doesn’t require any more effort. Maybe you are saying that it encourages them to be more risk averse? In any case I don’t believe this is true.
I think it encourages laziness @Chris . You don't. That's about it isn't it?
But without giving any reasons for thinking that, @Right_in_the_Middle, it doesn't take the conversation very far. Are you able to explain your thinking in a way that argues past what @chris says about the right decision being as easy to make as the wrong one. Is your point the one about risk aversion that he mentions? I'd be interested to hear and discuss.
By the by, the fact that umpires and referees in other sport may well have adopted a more conservative decision-making process is, I suggest, a consequence of their understanding that the review system is there to support the process. Their decisions may properly be different to the ones they would make without the review system if they make it more likely that the correct decision will be reached. For example, before reviews, rugby referees would necessarily often include some measure of conjecture in decisions about whether the ball had been grounded in the try-scoring process if there was some number of bodies around the carrier as the ball-carrier crossed the line. Those same referees would be less likely to award the try now since they can send it for review and take the opportunity to look for any sign that the ball may not have been properly grounded. As a result, more decisions will be correct. This is a real advantage, not to be ignored lightly. The main cost is the interruption to the flow of the game. A decision made instantly assists the flow of a game but is more likely to be incorrect. The correct balance between those competing interests is something to talk about here, but the fact that players, managers or fans will complain about the process should not be a consideration. The question of player discipline and of the behavioural ethos of the game must be separate to the matter of how best to adjudicate the game or judgements on each will necessarily be clouded.
Lets face it we exist in a football world where players do their best to trick the officials and managers refuse to condemn their players for doing so. Then both parties feel they have the right to criticise the officials for not doing their job properly. Stop cheating, condemn the cheats and then lets see how much support the officials REALLY need. And when I say cheating that starts at diving and goes all the way through to appealing for a decision you know you have no right to be awarded. DECEPTION = CHEATING.
Fouling is also cheating of course.
@Chris for an example of how it encourages laziness look at cricket and the no ball. Umpires now don’t appear to look for it routinely and consequently don’t pick up the mistakes of bowlers until it actually matters - ie a wicket. Doesn’t take too much imagination to see something similar occurring in football with offsides for example.
And sorry just read @HCblue’s excellent post which articulates it far better than I could
Thanks for the affirmation, @bookertease. Your example about no balls is an interesting one. My understanding is that it is very difficult for umpires both to watch the bowler's front foot sufficiently closely as to adjudicate on no balls and to watch what happens at the business end of the pitch. Thus, I believe they have unofficially switched off their observations of the bowler's front foot the better to see other things necessary to the exercise of their functions. They have done this knowing that the video system is able to flag up any crucial oversights. I don't think this is necessarily laziness so much as a potentially valuable expediency that could only be possible with the video system in place. At least arguably.
I’m sure you’re right about the front foot no-ball situation @HCblue. It is extremely rare in my experience for the bowler’s end umpire to call/signal no-balls for overstepping unless it is in clear breach.
Imagine if after Tyson had scored our 3rd on Tuesday instead of jumping around, going mental and hugging strangers we'd all had to wait while a referee 200 miles away had to check 4 slow motion replays before we knew if it was a goal or not
That's pretty much the whole debate in a nutshell for me, and for anyone who has any understanding of what it is to be a football fan there can surely be only one conclusion.
Spot on Mr Plant.
Imagine if Tyson's goal had been incorrectly ruled out for offside by some bloke with a flag whose view may have been obscured at the critical moment. Would that have improved the experience for you?
Many years ago, the only way we had to make splitsecond decisions that critically affect the match was some fat bloke with a whistle and a couple of lags with fields. Now at last we may have a better way to get those decisions right.
Will it work? No idea. Will it take some time to get right? yes. Can change sometimes be good? yes. Can change sometimes be bad? Yes. Is it worth an experiment? Yes. Can we judge that experiment before it is completed? No.
you don't go to games so you wouldn't understand, but in answer to your question then yes, putting up with the occasional incorrect decision is easily a price worth paying for not having the best thing about football ruined
absolute no brainer
ps if Tyson had been flagged for offside and play stopped then a "goal" would never have been scored given that play would have stopped long before he even got to take a shot
A sadly predictable response Eric.
Give the experiment a chance, Eric and judge it at the end. Who knows you may conclude it is an advantage. Change can sometimes be good.
You may even find that an occasional bit of a suspense while a tight decision is decided and the release when it goes your way adds to the experience.
cool
agree to (massively) disagree (on all points)
(except the predictable response bit, which is correct)
Just incredibly patronising @DevC
From my understanding we are years away from Nathan Tyson's goal being reviewed by a video referee. That is unless we make it in to the multi millionaires league quicker than currently planned. On top of @eric_plant 's arguments that I agree with completely surely rules should be for all football and not just the privileged few?
The emotion of the sport is removed by any video assistance. I've been to rugby, NFL, cricket and hockey matches where moments that would normally bring joy now bring a muted response from players and fans. Watching players of all sports openly question the referee or umpire is poor too as these protests now have an outlet rather than just a vent.
More right decisions doesn't make for better sport. I'm not even sure you get enough of these referrals right in any case. Anyone following the 'is it a catch' debate in the NFL?
Anyone who changes the club it supports, has no concept of what the emotions are of a genuine football fan.
I don't buy the argument, Mr Middle, that because technology cant get all decisions right, it is not worth getting some more decisions right. That doesn't seem to make any sense at all.
I equally don't buy the argument that we shouldn't use whatever technology is available for some matches if it cant be available for all. Why not?. Limited benefit is surely better than no benefit at all.
I have seen no evidence that VAR increases players berating officials - I would have thought the opposite is the case.
Which brings us to the sole remaining question - is the benefit of getting more decisions right worth the cost, if any, of disrupting the flow and supporter enjoyment. Well that's the point of the trial I suppose. Lets see.
In defence of VAR I do recall two incidents - as it happens from the distant past when I watched Watford regularly. One season Watford reached the FA Cup Quarter final and were 2-1 up at highbury in the last minute. A cross came in and as the big club was losing the linesman flagged for a penalty. The ball broke to Blissett on the wing in his own half. Tony Adams and the rest of the Arsenal defence stopped and pointed at the lino as Blissett ran the length of the field and scored. Mass delight on the Watford terrace (remember the old clock end at Highbury?). The ref had to chose effectively which team would progress (odds were Arsenal would have won the replay). he consulted with the lino for what felt like several minutes before awarding the goal. Another dose of mass hysteria - two bouts of hysteria for one goal.
The following year (as I recall) in about rd 5, Watford took the then mighty Liverpool to a replay and were 1-0 up in injury time. As I recall Ian Rush (but it may have been Aldridge) took a dive and as the big team were losing, the ref gave a penalty. Liverpool won in extra time. Would I have wished VAR to get that decision right - absolutely.