That won't happen. It'll come good in time, but that'll probably be too much time for most - although it doesn't exactly help that it's not being used in the right way at all over here. At least we don't have to worry about it. Yet.
Why are you confident it will "come good"? Something intrinsically bad can't come good. What you probably mean is we'll eventually get used to it and adjust the way we watch football accordingly.
Like not really celebrate goals (the very best thing about watching football) because you won't ever know if it will be given. Imagine that, we'll be programmed to not celebrate goals.
Like Eric, I had serious misgivings about VAR right from the start and after what I’ve seen this season, they’ve got a whole lot worse. Killing moments of joy, causing confusion amongst fans and players and leading to unnecessary delays might all be acceptable if VAR had consistently corrected refereeing errors, but it hasn’t. Sadly, though, I fear that it’s here to stay.
I attended the Arsenal game as a neutral yesterday. First time I've been inside a stadium with VAR and it was appalling.
Paying supporters at the game have less idea of what is going on than armchair fans the other side of the globe. Decisions reversed after 3 or 4 minutes of celebrating and then waiting.
Absolute dogshit. Thank god it isn't viable at this level.
I may be in the minority (and with the world as it now is therefore will be abused for it) but it worth stating the case for VAR. Like most of us, I cant say I have experienced it in the stadium - so a purely TV based view.
Two points worth focusing on
1) Whether you agree with the principle or not of VAR, if you are going to have it surely it makes sense for the decision to be taken by a referee with access to the best picture rather than the pitch referee squinting at a pitchside monitor. Indeed this was a fair criticism at the recent World Cups arguing exactly that. I don't understand the argument that it should be the pitch referee.
2) The argument continues to come down to a judgment about whether the priority is speed of decision or accuracy of decision. Yesterday Crystal Palace were initially denied a penalty based on a referees snap judgement of a fast moving incident probably from afar possibly with a player running across his vision at the key moment. When a referee was shown what actually happened rather than his brief impression of what happened, the informed judgement was that it was a penalty. Later the referee allowed an Arsenal goal based on a snap judgement of a fast moving incident from afar. When a referee was shown what actually happened he judged a foul had been committed.
VAR cannot ever definitively state whether an incident is a foul or not. That will forever be a matter of judgement and matters of judgement can always be debated. That will never change. What it does do though is allow the referees to have an objective look at what actually happened and make their judgement on that rather than having to make their judgement on a split second impression.
Yesterday Crystal Palace earned a vital point away at Arsenal. But for VAR, in the opinion of the referees two refereeing misjudgements would have almost certainly resulted in them being denied a point they earned. Is that a good thing - surely yes. Is it worth a couple of minutes delay - that is a judgement call but in my view yes.
@eric_plant said:
At this point, VAR is so obviously the worst thing to have ever happened to football that anyone still defending it is by definition a troll.
We said it would ruin football, we knew it would ruin football, and it has.
Ditch it now.
Dangle that carrot and the troll comes rumbling along.
VAR is here to stay whether we like it or not, sadly.
It should be used for offsides, mistaken identity and blatant foul play only.
There are too many contentious decisions being overturned against the referee when they are very much debatable and it needs to stop as it isn't working.
Until the last couple of weekends, it seemed like they didn't want to go against the ref, despite there being penalties that should have been given.
This last weekend had a few examples where it went against the ref.
The worst bit for me, is where a player has a wild shot, it cannons off for a corner, and all the players crowd the ref begging for a replay and pen.
Meaning a tedious delay of pure lotto for everyone involved
@DevC Would you, in the interests of fairness, have been happy to see Ainsworth's goals against Col U (handball) and Shrewsbury (didn't even go in) disallowed? Or do you, like many of us I suspect, revel slightly in them and how they've shaped our folklore and rivalries?
I think the stupid rule that a toe or a foot or a nose offside when a ball is kicked is ridiculous and VAR adds to the mix. VAR was sold as a tool for the referee to check any decisions he thought were borderline or to settle anything contentious...but now it seems someone else is second guessing everything to ensure the rich clubs don't get 'robbed'. Luckily it will never make it down to proper football but will they be using it in the FA Cup?
I also think the fact you've had to use so many words to describe two simple split second judgement calls by a ref shows exactly why it is against every tradition in the game.
The feeling has gone and when laws have to be changed to make VAR easier the game has gone.
I have it on good authority that on the telly highlights they edit the wait out @DevC and live they get people to talk over it so it's not so boring. I haven't been to a game with VAR but I like the ones I go to without.
well I could @OxfordBlue but then that applies to probably 90% plus of posters on this board.
@MindlessDrugHoover , obviously as a WWFC supporter I will take and cherish any goals awarded to WWFC but I think football is a good enough game that it should be remembered for moments of skill by players not for errors by referees. As I recall them neither of those goals should have been awarded.
1) Where possible refereeing decisions should be correct
2) Some referring decisions (eg whether contact is enough for a foul) will inevitably be judgemental.
3) Nonetheless the referee is more able to give an informed judgemental decision when he sees what actually happened than he possibly can when he has to make a snap decision based on real life high speed view (often from afar and often partially obscured)
4) A matter of judgement whether getting more decisions right is worth the time delay caused.
I can understand we may differ on 4. Surely 1-3 are self evident?
@Wendoverman , I cant honestly say what happens in a stadium or what is allowed. I would have thought it desirable that as (I believe) in rugby the action under review is shown on a screen at the stadium (admittedly not visible to all) with ideally a miked up conversation between the pitch and the TV referee. Don't know if this is what happens.
The use of the TMO in the rugby world cup has been excellent.
TMO starts with either the TMO informing the ref he has missed something BIG or the REF confirming he doesn't believe he has missed anything so can he award the try.
They then review on big screen - TMO, Ref and assistants - and all confirm they are in agreement before overturning a decision. If there is not alignment the REF makes the final decision, regardless.
It very rarely takes longer than a couple of minutes.
Matches of 80 minutes tend to take 90 minutes. Plus 15 minutes for half-time. 10 minutes of additional time is normally made up of TMO decisions/conversations, injuries and substitutions.
We could learn a lot from rugby in how the TMO is used, the "soft" decision e.g ref advising try or no try to TMO and then how the players respect the decision.
The rugby comparison is false imo, the games and cultures are so different. The calls in Rugby are often much more technical right and wrongs, with much less gamesmanship. The subjective decisions coupled with it being unrealistic to mic up football refs without ending games by half time.
That's before even getting into the effect on the crowds celebrations.
your post highlights to me two of the most positive contributions VAR can make @Username.
The culture of gamesmanship ( by which I presume you mean diving and otherwise trying to con the referee) feels to me the biggest threat posed to the game of football as a worthwhile spectacle. If technology can reduce or eliminate that, it will be a major step forward.
If as a side benefit it can also eliminate the culture of abuse of referees that would also be good (although I am hopeful that the dissent sinbinning being trialled to good effect in the lower leagues as we speak may sort out that issue).
I see football as a game of feeling, emotions and amazing highs and lows. I can experience refereeing errors in the same way as a great goal or an awful goalie howler. It is to be lived in the moment.
VAR takes all this away. For me I lose far more than I gain
I agree that football as a game of feeling, emotions and amazing highs and lows. @Right_in_the_Middle. I think the elimination of key refereeing errors and elimination (or at least reduction) in diving and other cheating is worth the odd short delay.
I fully respect your right to differ in that view. As always advantages and disadvantages to each. Finding the right balance is the key.
Comments
At this point, VAR is so obviously the worst thing to have ever happened to football that anyone still defending it is by definition a troll.
We said it would ruin football, we knew it would ruin football, and it has.
Ditch it now.
It seemed to work better in the world cup with the screens at the side of the pitch.
This decisions made by faceless randoms sitting in a box somewhere all feels very farcical.
They need to bring in the pitchside monitor - very odd that we don't have them here.
They need to get rid of it completely
That won't happen. It'll come good in time, but that'll probably be too much time for most - although it doesn't exactly help that it's not being used in the right way at all over here. At least we don't have to worry about it. Yet.
Why are you confident it will "come good"? Something intrinsically bad can't come good. What you probably mean is we'll eventually get used to it and adjust the way we watch football accordingly.
Like not really celebrate goals (the very best thing about watching football) because you won't ever know if it will be given. Imagine that, we'll be programmed to not celebrate goals.
Get it in the bin, for good, now
Like Eric, I had serious misgivings about VAR right from the start and after what I’ve seen this season, they’ve got a whole lot worse. Killing moments of joy, causing confusion amongst fans and players and leading to unnecessary delays might all be acceptable if VAR had consistently corrected refereeing errors, but it hasn’t. Sadly, though, I fear that it’s here to stay.
I attended the Arsenal game as a neutral yesterday. First time I've been inside a stadium with VAR and it was appalling.
Paying supporters at the game have less idea of what is going on than armchair fans the other side of the globe. Decisions reversed after 3 or 4 minutes of celebrating and then waiting.
Absolute dogshit. Thank god it isn't viable at this level.
At least in the world cup, the ref still had the final say.
Now, the refs look like mere puppets, with someone else deciding the decision.
It's still subjective which somewhat defeats the object, and the Arsenal decision was laughable.
I may be in the minority (and with the world as it now is therefore will be abused for it) but it worth stating the case for VAR. Like most of us, I cant say I have experienced it in the stadium - so a purely TV based view.
Two points worth focusing on
1) Whether you agree with the principle or not of VAR, if you are going to have it surely it makes sense for the decision to be taken by a referee with access to the best picture rather than the pitch referee squinting at a pitchside monitor. Indeed this was a fair criticism at the recent World Cups arguing exactly that. I don't understand the argument that it should be the pitch referee.
2) The argument continues to come down to a judgment about whether the priority is speed of decision or accuracy of decision. Yesterday Crystal Palace were initially denied a penalty based on a referees snap judgement of a fast moving incident probably from afar possibly with a player running across his vision at the key moment. When a referee was shown what actually happened rather than his brief impression of what happened, the informed judgement was that it was a penalty. Later the referee allowed an Arsenal goal based on a snap judgement of a fast moving incident from afar. When a referee was shown what actually happened he judged a foul had been committed.
VAR cannot ever definitively state whether an incident is a foul or not. That will forever be a matter of judgement and matters of judgement can always be debated. That will never change. What it does do though is allow the referees to have an objective look at what actually happened and make their judgement on that rather than having to make their judgement on a split second impression.
Yesterday Crystal Palace earned a vital point away at Arsenal. But for VAR, in the opinion of the referees two refereeing misjudgements would have almost certainly resulted in them being denied a point they earned. Is that a good thing - surely yes. Is it worth a couple of minutes delay - that is a judgement call but in my view yes.
Dev taking the opposite view.
I for one am shocked!
Dangle that carrot and the troll comes rumbling along.
VAR is here to stay whether we like it or not, sadly.
It should be used for offsides, mistaken identity and blatant foul play only.
There are too many contentious decisions being overturned against the referee when they are very much debatable and it needs to stop as it isn't working.
Until the last couple of weekends, it seemed like they didn't want to go against the ref, despite there being penalties that should have been given.
This last weekend had a few examples where it went against the ref.
The worst bit for me, is where a player has a wild shot, it cannons off for a corner, and all the players crowd the ref begging for a replay and pen.
Meaning a tedious delay of pure lotto for everyone involved
@DevC Would you, in the interests of fairness, have been happy to see Ainsworth's goals against Col U (handball) and Shrewsbury (didn't even go in) disallowed? Or do you, like many of us I suspect, revel slightly in them and how they've shaped our folklore and rivalries?
I think the stupid rule that a toe or a foot or a nose offside when a ball is kicked is ridiculous and VAR adds to the mix. VAR was sold as a tool for the referee to check any decisions he thought were borderline or to settle anything contentious...but now it seems someone else is second guessing everything to ensure the rich clubs don't get 'robbed'. Luckily it will never make it down to proper football but will they be using it in the FA Cup?
I think your post describes VAR pretty well @DevC
I also think the fact you've had to use so many words to describe two simple split second judgement calls by a ref shows exactly why it is against every tradition in the game.
The feeling has gone and when laws have to be changed to make VAR easier the game has gone.
Based on previous seasons, VAR only used at FA Cup games played at a Premier league ground (or Wembley).
You could have stopped there.
I have it on good authority that on the telly highlights they edit the wait out @DevC and live they get people to talk over it so it's not so boring. I haven't been to a game with VAR but I like the ones I go to without.
well I could @OxfordBlue but then that applies to probably 90% plus of posters on this board.
@MindlessDrugHoover , obviously as a WWFC supporter I will take and cherish any goals awarded to WWFC but I think football is a good enough game that it should be remembered for moments of skill by players not for errors by referees. As I recall them neither of those goals should have been awarded.
@Right_in_the_Middle and @DJWYC14 , I am not sure where our views split.
1) Where possible refereeing decisions should be correct
2) Some referring decisions (eg whether contact is enough for a foul) will inevitably be judgemental.
3) Nonetheless the referee is more able to give an informed judgemental decision when he sees what actually happened than he possibly can when he has to make a snap decision based on real life high speed view (often from afar and often partially obscured)
4) A matter of judgement whether getting more decisions right is worth the time delay caused.
I can understand we may differ on 4. Surely 1-3 are self evident?
@Wendoverman , I cant honestly say what happens in a stadium or what is allowed. I would have thought it desirable that as (I believe) in rugby the action under review is shown on a screen at the stadium (admittedly not visible to all) with ideally a miked up conversation between the pitch and the TV referee. Don't know if this is what happens.
The use of the TMO in the rugby world cup has been excellent.
TMO starts with either the TMO informing the ref he has missed something BIG or the REF confirming he doesn't believe he has missed anything so can he award the try.
They then review on big screen - TMO, Ref and assistants - and all confirm they are in agreement before overturning a decision. If there is not alignment the REF makes the final decision, regardless.
It very rarely takes longer than a couple of minutes.
Matches of 80 minutes tend to take 90 minutes. Plus 15 minutes for half-time. 10 minutes of additional time is normally made up of TMO decisions/conversations, injuries and substitutions.
We could learn a lot from rugby in how the TMO is used, the "soft" decision e.g ref advising try or no try to TMO and then how the players respect the decision.
The rugby comparison is false imo, the games and cultures are so different. The calls in Rugby are often much more technical right and wrongs, with much less gamesmanship. The subjective decisions coupled with it being unrealistic to mic up football refs without ending games by half time.
That's before even getting into the effect on the crowds celebrations.
Apart from offsides, bin it, bin it now.
bin it all, including offsides
The goal-line technology has been good, we'll keep that
your post highlights to me two of the most positive contributions VAR can make @Username.
The culture of gamesmanship ( by which I presume you mean diving and otherwise trying to con the referee) feels to me the biggest threat posed to the game of football as a worthwhile spectacle. If technology can reduce or eliminate that, it will be a major step forward.
If as a side benefit it can also eliminate the culture of abuse of referees that would also be good (although I am hopeful that the dissent sinbinning being trialled to good effect in the lower leagues as we speak may sort out that issue).
For me we differ on one point @DevC .
I see football as a game of feeling, emotions and amazing highs and lows. I can experience refereeing errors in the same way as a great goal or an awful goalie howler. It is to be lived in the moment.
VAR takes all this away. For me I lose far more than I gain
I agree that football as a game of feeling, emotions and amazing highs and lows. @Right_in_the_Middle. I think the elimination of key refereeing errors and elimination (or at least reduction) in diving and other cheating is worth the odd short delay.
I fully respect your right to differ in that view. As always advantages and disadvantages to each. Finding the right balance is the key.
I see no advantages to VAR
Apart from getting decisions correct...just that little aspect.