VAR requires a huge re-write of the rules which were written solely from the perspective of having a human referee and assistants, not a game with an omnipresent camera analysing every second. It fundamentally changes the meaning of so many of the rules.
Anything involving contact, the offside rules, the handball rules, red/yellow card requirements, anything around unsportsmanlike contact or verbal abuse off the top of my head.
The offside rule ( I think) and the handball rule were changed in the summer to address perceived injustices ( long after var was introduced in some countries. Arguable whether they have got it right. Nothing to do with VAR.
Quite what red/yellow card requirements or verbal abuse has to do with it is a mystery......
@DevC, I'm not sure if you're deliberately choosing to ignore the point I made?
The implementation of VAR by the PL is itself an interpretation and may be argued to be "against the laws of the game".
The IFAB laws specifically state that the referee must make a decision and the decision will not be changed unless there is a clear and obvious error or a serious missed incident.
In the situation were a player's toe is judged to be a fraction of a mm beyond the second to last defender after a 2-3 minute delay where's the clear and obvious or serious incident?
If the law of the game says a goal shall not count if a forwards toe is ahead of the defender then surely if it can be determined that the forwards toe is ahead of the defender, the goal should not count?
Do we really disagree on that principle?
As a second question it would be fair to ask whether the time it takes to determine is justifiable but surely we have to decide the first question first.
@DevC said:
The offside rule ( I think) and the handball rule were changed in the summer to address perceived injustices ( long after var was introduced in some countries. Arguable whether they have got it right. Nothing to do with VAR.
Quite what red/yellow card requirements or verbal abuse has to do with it is a mystery......
@DevC said:
The offside rule ( I think) and the handball rule were changed in the summer to address perceived injustices ( long after var was introduced in some countries. Arguable whether they have got it right. Nothing to do with VAR.
Quite what red/yellow card requirements or verbal abuse has to do with it is a mystery......
By the letter of the law, I'm pretty sure half the players on the pitch could be booked by 5 minutes of every game if VAR
But @DevC the IFAB VAR law specifically states that the referee must make a decision and the decision will not be changed unless there is a clear and obvious error or a serious missed incident.
So to recap if a player's toe is in an offside position I'd argue that to deny a goal using a VAR review that takes 2-3minutes is itself against the law of the game.
By your own logic that must be wrong too, don't you agree?
Is that it for now? I’ve read every single word on this thread and much as I’d like to play @Devil’s advocate versus @DevC’s strongly held convictions I feel I might
be on a hiding to nothing.
The first hurdle to overcome in any argument for the abolition of VAR would surely be the difficulty of persuading billionaire/multi-millionaire owners that refereeing mistakes (whether benefitting or penalising their club) will even themselves out in the course of 38 matches.
The second would be to persuade them that the vast majority of refereeing decisions are either sufficiently clear cut to make referral to VAR adjudicators unjustifiable or are so finely balanced and/or difficult to interpret (eg because of factors of the kind mentioned earlier by @drcongo and the current limitations of the technology) that disproportionate time is usually required to resolve the issue, leading to unacceptable disruption to the flow of the game which in turn is a source of frustration to both players and fans alike.
However, with all the money invested in VAR and the ongoing income which I assume it generates for the manufacturers and operators, I fear it is probably here to stay. Let’s hope it doesn’t filter down to the Championship (!) or we don’t “do a Bournemouth”.
Trying to think how to compromise here and find a solution not ideal but satisfactory to all.
principles:
1) preferable to eliminate key refereeing errors where possible
2) VAR by giving referee chance to see what happened makes correct refereeing decisions more likely
3) Needs to be accepted that it cannot eliminate subjectiveness and therefore argument though
4) time delays need to be short
5) people in stadium need to know what is happening
compromise solution
1) VAR used on key decisions
2) guidance to VAR referee that target time for decisions no more than one minute
3) guidance to VAR ref that even complex decisions should take no more than two
4) action replay of VAR reviews to be shown on screens at ground
5) commentary of what he is looking at and what he is seeing fed into stadium PA during reviews.
The Straw Man misrepresents someone’s argument to make it easier to refute. I only quote that because I (and perhaps others) have never understood quite what that much bandied description meant.
The first hurdle to overcome in any argument for the abolition of VAR would surely be the difficulty of persuading billionaire/multi-millionaire owners that refereeing mistakes (whether benefitting or penalising their club) will even themselves out in the course of 38 matches.
exactly my point @micra and we'll see if a possibly very costly VAR decision is needed for or against a 'big' team and a 'little' team...which way it goes. I hope the referee in Newport Pagnall is also making sure the ref on the field is playing EXACTLY the right amount of extra time.
@DevC said:
Trying to think how to compromise here and find a solution not ideal but satisfactory to all.
principles:
1) preferable to eliminate key refereeing errors where possible
2) VAR by giving referee chance to see what happened makes correct refereeing decisions more likely
3) Needs to be accepted that it cannot eliminate subjectiveness and therefore argument though
4) time delays need to be short
5) people in stadium need to know what is happening
compromise solution
1) VAR used on key decisions
2) guidance to VAR referee that target time for decisions no more than one minute
3) guidance to VAR ref that even complex decisions should take no more than two
4) action replay of VAR reviews to be shown on screens at ground
5) commentary of what he is looking at and what he is seeing fed into stadium PA during reviews.
@micra said:
The Straw Man misrepresents someone’s argument to make it easier to refute. I only quote that because I (and perhaps others) have never understood quite what that much bandied description meant.
I always wonder about the term "straw man" as my old boss used to use it in an entirely different way.
His "straw man" was more along the lines of "Brain-storming", so it always felt weird when he said, "let's do a straw man", and I thought, what, totally misrepresent his argument with something totally unrelated?! (ie Dev style)
I think if VAR was used when requested by a referee to decide if he's woried that he's made a mistake that would be fine, but I bet not a player or a manager would have been demanding that Sheff Utd goal be rescinded if it wasn't for VAR.
Also for those thinking...oh well the manager was not complaining...does anyone not believe PL Managers have been told to keep their Whinging traps shut about VAR?
Sorry @DevC but again your analogy of poorer refs at lower levels still doesn't stake up as the speed and level of player is equally poorer right down to grass roots U11s where dads will run the line. The game is slower which matches the standard of officiating. The same laws of the game apply and equal judgement should be made.
@DevC I think you are arguing on a set of “principles” that some (I’d actually guess most) on here disagree with, particularly no. 1.
You may (and obviously do) find it strange but honestly, not everyone agrees (or cares enough about) that it is “preferable to eliminate key refereeing errors where possible.”
I accept most managers, whose careers may rest on it, football chairs and their financiers and football pundits do agree but I would bet that the majority of normal fans don’t.
You are right of course @bookertease that if you don't care about (or even actively want) key refereeing errors (and the diving epidemic to try to cause them that I think really is in danger of killing the game) , then yes I agree , there would be no point to VAR.
Originally VAR was intended (in the Bundesliga at least) to intervene '...only in cases of "a clearly incorrect decision" in four specific areas (goals, penalties, straight red cards and cases of mistaken identity).
I can go with that but of course...what happened? Secret instructions from the League...
'VARs were instructed to contact the referee on the field whenever they thought he or she might have got something wrong, even if they weren’t sure.'
With the effect of:
'Far from supporting him or her, could having somebody (another qualified professional) in your ear questioning every or even just some 50-50 calls that you make, have really helped your confidence? That’s not to speak of the distraction in a job that requires an extremely high level of concentration - in front of thousands of partisan fans, pundits, and millions of would-be referees sitting at home on their chesterfields.'
Comments
It would surely be unfair to allow a goal that was scored contrary to the rules of the game.
As I said, we'll never agree.
VAR requires a huge re-write of the rules which were written solely from the perspective of having a human referee and assistants, not a game with an omnipresent camera analysing every second. It fundamentally changes the meaning of so many of the rules.
Which?
Anything involving contact, the offside rules, the handball rules, red/yellow card requirements, anything around unsportsmanlike contact or verbal abuse off the top of my head.
The offside rule ( I think) and the handball rule were changed in the summer to address perceived injustices ( long after var was introduced in some countries. Arguable whether they have got it right. Nothing to do with VAR.
Quite what red/yellow card requirements or verbal abuse has to do with it is a mystery......
@DevC, I'm not sure if you're deliberately choosing to ignore the point I made?
The implementation of VAR by the PL is itself an interpretation and may be argued to be "against the laws of the game".
The IFAB laws specifically state that the referee must make a decision and the decision will not be changed unless there is a clear and obvious error or a serious missed incident.
In the situation were a player's toe is judged to be a fraction of a mm beyond the second to last defender after a 2-3 minute delay where's the clear and obvious or serious incident?
It must surely be unfair for VAR to disallow a goal when it's implementation is arguably contrary to the laws of the game?
We have been over this point @Twizz .
If the law of the game says a goal shall not count if a forwards toe is ahead of the defender then surely if it can be determined that the forwards toe is ahead of the defender, the goal should not count?
Do we really disagree on that principle?
As a second question it would be fair to ask whether the time it takes to determine is justifiable but surely we have to decide the first question first.
By the letter of the law, I'm pretty sure half the players on the pitch could be booked by 5 minutes of every game if VAR
But @DevC the IFAB VAR law specifically states that the referee must make a decision and the decision will not be changed unless there is a clear and obvious error or a serious missed incident.
So to recap if a player's toe is in an offside position I'd argue that to deny a goal using a VAR review that takes 2-3minutes is itself against the law of the game.
By your own logic that must be wrong too, don't you agree?
Is that it for now? I’ve read every single word on this thread and much as I’d like to play @Devil’s advocate versus @DevC’s strongly held convictions I feel I might
be on a hiding to nothing.
The first hurdle to overcome in any argument for the abolition of VAR would surely be the difficulty of persuading billionaire/multi-millionaire owners that refereeing mistakes (whether benefitting or penalising their club) will even themselves out in the course of 38 matches.
The second would be to persuade them that the vast majority of refereeing decisions are either sufficiently clear cut to make referral to VAR adjudicators unjustifiable or are so finely balanced and/or difficult to interpret (eg because of factors of the kind mentioned earlier by @drcongo and the current limitations of the technology) that disproportionate time is usually required to resolve the issue, leading to unacceptable disruption to the flow of the game which in turn is a source of frustration to both players and fans alike.
However, with all the money invested in VAR and the ongoing income which I assume it generates for the manufacturers and operators, I fear it is probably here to stay. Let’s hope it doesn’t filter down to the Championship (!) or we don’t “do a Bournemouth”.
Oh don’t worry @micra. I’ll be the first to complain about it when it disallows us a goal away to Liverpool in a top of the table clash.
But by that time my soul will be blackened from Lucifer turning it over a blazing fire so I’ll cease to worry
https://www.instagram.com/tv/B4dPgIwB0Af/?igshid=10vgrptuut8oq
This chap has seen a game or two. Also chips in on the myth that it's working abroad given time
Meanwhile, 473 identical DevC posts later he’s still not listening to anything anyone says and posting the same old straw man arguments.
Trying to think how to compromise here and find a solution not ideal but satisfactory to all.
principles:
1) preferable to eliminate key refereeing errors where possible
2) VAR by giving referee chance to see what happened makes correct refereeing decisions more likely
3) Needs to be accepted that it cannot eliminate subjectiveness and therefore argument though
4) time delays need to be short
5) people in stadium need to know what is happening
compromise solution
1) VAR used on key decisions
2) guidance to VAR referee that target time for decisions no more than one minute
3) guidance to VAR ref that even complex decisions should take no more than two
4) action replay of VAR reviews to be shown on screens at ground
5) commentary of what he is looking at and what he is seeing fed into stadium PA during reviews.
Here's mine:
Get rid of VAR, it's terrible
The Straw Man misrepresents someone’s argument to make it easier to refute. I only quote that because I (and perhaps others) have never understood quite what that much bandied description meant.
I’ll look up Snowflake next!
exactly my point @micra and we'll see if a possibly very costly VAR decision is needed for or against a 'big' team and a 'little' team...which way it goes.
I hope the referee in Newport Pagnall is also making sure the ref on the field is playing EXACTLY the right amount of extra time.
Oh noooooo!!!!! Who hit the DevC restart button?
I always wonder about the term "straw man" as my old boss used to use it in an entirely different way.
His "straw man" was more along the lines of "Brain-storming", so it always felt weird when he said, "let's do a straw man", and I thought, what, totally misrepresent his argument with something totally unrelated?! (ie Dev style)
easy - someone who doesn't agree with you when you're being an over opinionated gimp (that's the royal "you", not you you, of course.
I think if VAR was used when requested by a referee to decide if he's woried that he's made a mistake that would be fine, but I bet not a player or a manager would have been demanding that Sheff Utd goal be rescinded if it wasn't for VAR.
Also for those thinking...oh well the manager was not complaining...does anyone not believe PL Managers have been told to keep their Whinging traps shut about VAR?
Sorry @DevC but again your analogy of poorer refs at lower levels still doesn't stake up as the speed and level of player is equally poorer right down to grass roots U11s where dads will run the line. The game is slower which matches the standard of officiating. The same laws of the game apply and equal judgement should be made.
@DevC I think you are arguing on a set of “principles” that some (I’d actually guess most) on here disagree with, particularly no. 1.
You may (and obviously do) find it strange but honestly, not everyone agrees (or cares enough about) that it is “preferable to eliminate key refereeing errors where possible.”
I accept most managers, whose careers may rest on it, football chairs and their financiers and football pundits do agree but I would bet that the majority of normal fans don’t.
You are right of course @bookertease that if you don't care about (or even actively want) key refereeing errors (and the diving epidemic to try to cause them that I think really is in danger of killing the game) , then yes I agree , there would be no point to VAR.
Jesus wept...
This is an interesting article. And perfectly outlines my particular concerns.
https://www.dw.com/en/var-secret-instructions-and-gagging-orders-the-bundesligas-refereeing-controversy/a-41245862
Originally VAR was intended (in the Bundesliga at least) to intervene '...only in cases of "a clearly incorrect decision" in four specific areas (goals, penalties, straight red cards and cases of mistaken identity).
I can go with that but of course...what happened? Secret instructions from the League...
'VARs were instructed to contact the referee on the field whenever they thought he or she might have got something wrong, even if they weren’t sure.'
With the effect of:
'Far from supporting him or her, could having somebody (another qualified professional) in your ear questioning every or even just some 50-50 calls that you make, have really helped your confidence? That’s not to speak of the distraction in a job that requires an extremely high level of concentration - in front of thousands of partisan fans, pundits, and millions of would-be referees sitting at home on their chesterfields.'
sound familiar?