That's what I thought @Malone . Somebody saying that was a pen rather than someone saying we've had a look and we think you should have a look and see what you think.
I thought that when the ref makes the "TV" signal was him requesting a VAR. Surely it can't be someone else decides that the ref has to take a look at VAR. That would undermine the whole status of the referee as the one making the decision.
Isn't it up to the ref to decide if his original decision was correct or not after he reviews the evidence?
Unless they can significantly improve the process and shorten the time taken, then it will kill attending live football for me. If, and I see that as a big IF, VAR survives, then I hope it never makes it below the top flight games.
@Twizz and @floyd , i'm sure you both have it correct. In fairness I've tried to steer clear of all talk on it, as I don't like it one bit.
A good part of the debate is the hard done by factor and getting away with stuff! In future, what are we going to have? Robot gladiators thrashing it out at 100mph, with instant techno decisions on every single little decision?
Whatever the process is for going to VAR, the truth is it still come down to the referee and maybe a VAR official looking at a piece of action and making a judgement if it's a foul.
VAR may help them to see the action again, in slow motion and from a different angle. It can never with 100% certainty tell them intent and in any case they still have to interpret what they see.
Personally I'm not in favour of VAR because if you suck the fun out of football - and moaning at the officials for making a wrong decision is part of the fun, even when that costs you matches - then you might as well start watching two people play chess.
Message in ear of ref along the lines of (as a relevant example) "strong evidence that it could be a penalty, you may want to take another look"
Whistle blows, TV signal made, ref strolls over to screen to review replays (I presume this can only happen if play has stopped and not restarted, opening a whole new quickly taken goal kick shaped can of worms)
TV signal made again, ref either sticks with decision or overturns it
Yeah? The only variation to this is if it's so blatant (e.g. clear trip or push in box) or black and white (clear offside) that the ref won't bother to review evidence, instead just making the TV signal and overturning the original decision.
That's my understanding anyway. And I thinks it's basically terrible. It only works in any way for me if play carries on as normal until the ref blows his whistle upon being informed that wrong decision has definitely been made, immediately overturning the original decision. Obviously if offside has been given, play has already stopped and the decision can't be overturned.
@YorkExile , that last point is a good one. Unless players now just play on irrespective of offside flags, in a bid to see if it's offside after, then you still can't get all the big decisions right. Which is supposedly the whole aim.
If attacking players do play on, defensive players are so inbuilt to stop on a linesman's flag that you have an even bigger mess to clear up.
Don't like VAR. It's just not in-keeping with football I enjoy. If you want to use technology I'm in favour of goal-line systems plus I also like the idea of video evidence being used retrospectively for cheating and off the ball incidents. Monday morning an email could be sent to those offenders telling them they were banned. In-play VAR, just makes referees afraid of making decisions knowing they can fall-back on the video evidence. Make referees professional in all four leagues, don't spend the cash on VAR.
I'm not entirely against the idea of VAR. I am definitely against the way it has been implemented so far. Unfortunately, football seems to have a history of ill thought out ideas.
Out of interest, does anyone see last nights events as being a compelling argument in favour of VAR. Amazing comeback from 3-0 down, quarter final of what the club would regard as the most important tournament of the year, ref awards a 50-50 last minute penalty based on one look at speed potentially from a less than ideal position. One teams dreams and potential place in history shattered.
Not saying he has got the decision wrong, but VAR would have given him more opportunity to judge the situation and as far as we technically can ensure that decision was correct.
As always no decision is black or white, always shades of grey.
I see last night is a compelling argument AGAINST VAR. It probably was a penalty but it is still a subjective call and no amounts of replays changes this. It's effectively an 'umpire's call' decision. If he (as he did) had given the penalty having watched it back he would have kept to his decision. If he hadn't given it, I personally don't think there was sufficient evidence for him to reverse his decision (although I thought the same at the England game recently).
As it is currently, I think VAR is being used to make decisions, which I don't think is helpful. In cases like this the referee looks and thinks: 'can I give a penalty here' rather than 'is my original decision reasonable'. It would work far better I think if they did something like in Rugby where they ask the VAR referee 'is there any reason not to award the try/penalty/whatever' for which you need pretty conclusive evidence (i.e. stop motion of the defender's hand with half of Bayo's shirt in it).
It actually feels like the system being trialled is designed either by complete idiots who know nothing about the game or has been deliberately selected to fail (I probably favour the former) as its hard to imagine a worse process than the one they are currently trying to import.
Of course decisions like that are and always will be subjective. That is the nature of the game. But tv evidence and replays would have given the referee more information on which to judge his decision rather than the split second impression he has to base it on now.
That decision took away perhaps the only opportunity Juventus players will ever have to win the Champions league - arguably the highest prize in club football.
it may be that with VAR the officials would still have made the same judgement - but they would then have made that crucial judgement with all the information available not just some of it. it would still have been a judgement call not definitive but a better judgement call.
Does the use of VAR need to be improved, of course, that is the purpose of the trials underway across Europe, but the principle ? I'm still very much in the yes camp.
There was no definitive call last night. Everything looks like a foul when you slow it down. That's why we have human referees on the pitch making the decision.
If anyone thinks that minutes of waiting around looking at the ref with his hand on his ear would have been a preferable experience for people in the Bernabeu last night not only doesn't watch the team he supports but has forgotten what it's like to do so.
I’m opposed to VAR, in it’s current form, but I’d have thought any arguments in favour would be better supported by the disallowed Man City goal on Tuesday. When there’s a tackle in the penalty area it will very likely be a matter of opinion on whether it was foul, depending on the camera angle and whether it’s in slow motion. For the Man City ‘goal’ it had nothing to do with opinions, the ref (and linesman) simply got it wrong.
Surely the point about football is that it is all about humans reacting and making decisions in split seconds. The better quality the footballer the better their decision making and reactions to these split second choices is and the same SHOULD be true of referees.
Good referees usually make good decisions in real time. @Floyd's point about how slowing something down almost always makes things look worse than they do in real time is a valid and important point. More information will not always (or possibly even hardly ever) lead to 'better' decisions.
My main (well 1 of several) argument against VAR is that it will de-skill the referee. Why make a decision on the pitch when you can always stop play and ask to look at the replay for several minutes to make sure you reach a decision that the fewest people who see it will disagree with.
Actually, thinking about it, my main argument against VAR is that it would stop such delicious football watching/observing moments like Pep losing his cool and getting sent to the stands, which I still find immensely funny even though I have nothing against either him or Man City particularly.
If you are a genuine football supporter (sorry @DevC - I really don't mean you any disrespect by this comment) football should always be about the ups and downs of your own and other teams, railing against the injustices your team experience, revelling in those that your rivals suffer. Take those pleasures away from us and you take some of the fun (and despair) out of our lives.
I get VAR if you are a professional footballer, manager, chair. Yes. If I was someone whose livelihood depended on it I probably would want every decision that went against me to be reviewed time after time (the Chris Broad approach) in the hope that occasionally they'll change their mind.
Going back to the original point. Juventus didn't lose the tie because of VAR. If the foul (I think it was) hadn't have happened whoever it was would probably have scored because in that last minute their defence switched off (or their defenders made poor split second decisions to mark someone else) and left an opposition player in acres of space less than six yards from goal.
Sorry. Rant over.
When we lose out on automatic promotion due to a last minute penalty being denied us against Stevenage it will be all my fault as Karma bites me in the bum.
Richie will probably know...but didn't Michael Oliver (when he was a youngling) hand us a controversial/dodgy decision (a phantom goal/penalty) in a League match? I may be misremembering...
Comments
The ref jogging over to a screen wasn't how I thought this'd work.
Surely some geezer radio-ing it into him would cut times down?
After all, how has the ref been alerted to know something needs a review? Someone has told him, right?!
That's what I thought @Malone . Somebody saying that was a pen rather than someone saying we've had a look and we think you should have a look and see what you think.
After all, he's had a look to start with and not given it!
So it'd make most sense for someone else to say, you missed it, it's a pen.
They'll no doubt get this right at some stage and we'll all be comfy
Might sort out diving Danny!
I thought that when the ref makes the "TV" signal was him requesting a VAR. Surely it can't be someone else decides that the ref has to take a look at VAR. That would undermine the whole status of the referee as the one making the decision.
Isn't it up to the ref to decide if his original decision was correct or not after he reviews the evidence?
That's what i thought @Twizz, but i'm happy to be corrected...
Unless they can significantly improve the process and shorten the time taken, then it will kill attending live football for me. If, and I see that as a big IF, VAR survives, then I hope it never makes it below the top flight games.
@Twizz and @floyd , i'm sure you both have it correct. In fairness I've tried to steer clear of all talk on it, as I don't like it one bit.
A good part of the debate is the hard done by factor and getting away with stuff! In future, what are we going to have? Robot gladiators thrashing it out at 100mph, with instant techno decisions on every single little decision?
I may well be wrong but I thought the ref got a message in his earpiece to review on var, if he (or she) had not decided to already.
Anyway what have the Romans ever done for us?
Whatever the process is for going to VAR, the truth is it still come down to the referee and maybe a VAR official looking at a piece of action and making a judgement if it's a foul.
VAR may help them to see the action again, in slow motion and from a different angle. It can never with 100% certainty tell them intent and in any case they still have to interpret what they see.
Personally I'm not in favour of VAR because if you suck the fun out of football - and moaning at the officials for making a wrong decision is part of the fun, even when that costs you matches - then you might as well start watching two people play chess.
Yeah? The only variation to this is if it's so blatant (e.g. clear trip or push in box) or black and white (clear offside) that the ref won't bother to review evidence, instead just making the TV signal and overturning the original decision.
That's my understanding anyway. And I thinks it's basically terrible. It only works in any way for me if play carries on as normal until the ref blows his whistle upon being informed that wrong decision has definitely been made, immediately overturning the original decision. Obviously if offside has been given, play has already stopped and the decision can't be overturned.
So yeah, not for me thanks.
Once the discussion becomes about whether that was a penalty or not the other night then for me it's got away from the crux of the matter
I genuinely can't believe that anyone who calls themself a football fan could possibly be anything other than completely against it
@YorkExile , that last point is a good one. Unless players now just play on irrespective of offside flags, in a bid to see if it's offside after, then you still can't get all the big decisions right. Which is supposedly the whole aim.
If attacking players do play on, defensive players are so inbuilt to stop on a linesman's flag that you have an even bigger mess to clear up.
Don't like VAR. It's just not in-keeping with football I enjoy. If you want to use technology I'm in favour of goal-line systems plus I also like the idea of video evidence being used retrospectively for cheating and off the ball incidents. Monday morning an email could be sent to those offenders telling them they were banned. In-play VAR, just makes referees afraid of making decisions knowing they can fall-back on the video evidence. Make referees professional in all four leagues, don't spend the cash on VAR.
Can they start rolling this out to fouls as well?
Anyone still in favour of var?
No, I hef orlvays bin a pacifist.
Nein.
I'm not entirely against the idea of VAR. I am definitely against the way it has been implemented so far. Unfortunately, football seems to have a history of ill thought out ideas.
Out of interest, does anyone see last nights events as being a compelling argument in favour of VAR. Amazing comeback from 3-0 down, quarter final of what the club would regard as the most important tournament of the year, ref awards a 50-50 last minute penalty based on one look at speed potentially from a less than ideal position. One teams dreams and potential place in history shattered.
Not saying he has got the decision wrong, but VAR would have given him more opportunity to judge the situation and as far as we technically can ensure that decision was correct.
As always no decision is black or white, always shades of grey.
he got the decision correct, but even if he hadn't it wouldn't be an argument in favour of VAR
No Dev, last night was football at it’s absolutely manic best.
I see last night is a compelling argument AGAINST VAR. It probably was a penalty but it is still a subjective call and no amounts of replays changes this. It's effectively an 'umpire's call' decision. If he (as he did) had given the penalty having watched it back he would have kept to his decision. If he hadn't given it, I personally don't think there was sufficient evidence for him to reverse his decision (although I thought the same at the England game recently).
As it is currently, I think VAR is being used to make decisions, which I don't think is helpful. In cases like this the referee looks and thinks: 'can I give a penalty here' rather than 'is my original decision reasonable'. It would work far better I think if they did something like in Rugby where they ask the VAR referee 'is there any reason not to award the try/penalty/whatever' for which you need pretty conclusive evidence (i.e. stop motion of the defender's hand with half of Bayo's shirt in it).
It actually feels like the system being trialled is designed either by complete idiots who know nothing about the game or has been deliberately selected to fail (I probably favour the former) as its hard to imagine a worse process than the one they are currently trying to import.
Of course decisions like that are and always will be subjective. That is the nature of the game. But tv evidence and replays would have given the referee more information on which to judge his decision rather than the split second impression he has to base it on now.
That decision took away perhaps the only opportunity Juventus players will ever have to win the Champions league - arguably the highest prize in club football.
it may be that with VAR the officials would still have made the same judgement - but they would then have made that crucial judgement with all the information available not just some of it. it would still have been a judgement call not definitive but a better judgement call.
Does the use of VAR need to be improved, of course, that is the purpose of the trials underway across Europe, but the principle ? I'm still very much in the yes camp.
No.
There was no definitive call last night. Everything looks like a foul when you slow it down. That's why we have human referees on the pitch making the decision.
If anyone thinks that minutes of waiting around looking at the ref with his hand on his ear would have been a preferable experience for people in the Bernabeu last night not only doesn't watch the team he supports but has forgotten what it's like to do so.
No issues at all. It was a pen. So no debate needed.
Whether or not the decision turned out to be right or wrong is completely irrelevant
I’m opposed to VAR, in it’s current form, but I’d have thought any arguments in favour would be better supported by the disallowed Man City goal on Tuesday. When there’s a tackle in the penalty area it will very likely be a matter of opinion on whether it was foul, depending on the camera angle and whether it’s in slow motion. For the Man City ‘goal’ it had nothing to do with opinions, the ref (and linesman) simply got it wrong.
Surely the point about football is that it is all about humans reacting and making decisions in split seconds. The better quality the footballer the better their decision making and reactions to these split second choices is and the same SHOULD be true of referees.
Good referees usually make good decisions in real time. @Floyd's point about how slowing something down almost always makes things look worse than they do in real time is a valid and important point. More information will not always (or possibly even hardly ever) lead to 'better' decisions.
My main (well 1 of several) argument against VAR is that it will de-skill the referee. Why make a decision on the pitch when you can always stop play and ask to look at the replay for several minutes to make sure you reach a decision that the fewest people who see it will disagree with.
Actually, thinking about it, my main argument against VAR is that it would stop such delicious football watching/observing moments like Pep losing his cool and getting sent to the stands, which I still find immensely funny even though I have nothing against either him or Man City particularly.
If you are a genuine football supporter (sorry @DevC - I really don't mean you any disrespect by this comment) football should always be about the ups and downs of your own and other teams, railing against the injustices your team experience, revelling in those that your rivals suffer. Take those pleasures away from us and you take some of the fun (and despair) out of our lives.
I get VAR if you are a professional footballer, manager, chair. Yes. If I was someone whose livelihood depended on it I probably would want every decision that went against me to be reviewed time after time (the Chris Broad approach) in the hope that occasionally they'll change their mind.
Going back to the original point. Juventus didn't lose the tie because of VAR. If the foul (I think it was) hadn't have happened whoever it was would probably have scored because in that last minute their defence switched off (or their defenders made poor split second decisions to mark someone else) and left an opposition player in acres of space less than six yards from goal.
Sorry. Rant over.
When we lose out on automatic promotion due to a last minute penalty being denied us against Stevenage it will be all my fault as Karma bites me in the bum.
Richie will probably know...but didn't Michael Oliver (when he was a youngling) hand us a controversial/dodgy decision (a phantom goal/penalty) in a League match? I may be misremembering...