I'm not sure VAR is really the issue; isn't the concern consistency, whatever decision-making tools are used? Brazil have apparently asked FIFA to explain why VAR wasn't used in their game against Switzerland, will be interesting to hear how they respond.
I'm still not in favour of VAR. But, as a possible explanation for why no penalties were awarded for the fouls on Kane.
In the first half incident Stones can also be seen to push the defender as the corner comes in and so which foul do the official give the free kick/penalty for? Since both teams commit an offence correct decision is play on.
In the second half incident Kane is also holding the defenders arm so again since both players are committing an offence correct decision is play on.
Not sure you will ever get consistency in what is inevitably a judgemental decision, Wig.
What hopefully you will get is less decisions that are just wrong.
I think their are tweaks to be made (Tennis style appeals?, final decision to be VAR ref not on pitch, eventually abandoning two men running along the side of pitch communicating by semaphore to a screen electronic communication system.). it will be an improvement overall IMHO, but I suspect those who have made up their mind to oppose will now blame all ills on it.
VAR just seems to have added a level of cluster ==== to matches. I think FIFA missed a trick with video technology in using it wider for citation of foul play and more retrospective action against cheating. Personally if I look at what irks me more during a season cheating is far worse than the occasional missed penalty award.
On a broader point I am always staggered that these players are not aware that there are multiple TV cameras on them so when they get 'fouled' and clutch the wrong body part the whole world think they are idiots.
@DevC said:
If VAR didn't exist, Ref would have still given Tunisia a penalty.
If VAR didn't exist, ref would still not have given Kane a penalty.
VAR made no discernible difference to the game.
Justifiable argument against VAR is that the disruption to flow of game is not worth the times when it corrects bad referring decisions. Not sure I'd agree but I understand the point.
An argument that we should ditch VAR because it only corrects some not all bad referring decisions seems illogical to me.
Dev, you shimmering ape, VAR was brought in specifically to correct bad decisions. It failed to do that on at least one occasion.
It it made no dicernable difference, why have it there in the first place? It was brought it to make a dicernable difference and therefore a failure.
As it seems to have made absolutely no difference I am softening towards VAR . And i salute the people who have flogged it to over-rich and credulous football organisations.
Thanks for the abuse. Always makes an argument ore convincing..............
VAR was bought in to correct clear errors, not marginal ones. If you expect it to eliminate controversy and to give all decisions how you see them, it will not meet your expectations.
In the England game, the Tunisia penalty was marginal. The way VAR is set up, I suspect VAR wouldn't have corrected the refs decision whichever way the ref called it. Re kane's incident, football seems to have got itself confused what level of wrestling is allowed at corners and free kicks. It needs to address it. A problem for the rules and their application not the system.
VAR will correct some bad but important decisions, but by no means every game, as it already has done this world cup. If you are expecting VAR to correct every bad decision you will be disappointed. Is that a reason to abandon it? Well only if you feel that the Police should be discontinued because they solve some murders but not all.
you may feel that the cost to flow of game is not worth getting those corrected decisions right. That is a judgement call. Cant honestly see much impact on flow of game so far this world cup.
It does answer the point I made. It maybe doesn't answer the point you thought I made.
Not every error can be corrected.....
In the England game it made no discernible difference. because in the opinion of the VAR referees, no clear major error in refereeing occurred. It will not make a discernible difference in every game, in most games even, that's not its there for. It will correct a major error every now and then.
your house didn't burn down last year (I presume). your insurance policy made no discernible difference to your life last year. Does that mean you should not bother insure your house this year? Or is it there, for the rare occasions when it is needed?
But had my house burnt down, I had insurance to fix it/replace my things. It made my life more relaxed knowing of the worst happened I just need to get my wife and kids out and everything else would be fine. I dont need to worry too much about it.
Harry Kane was rugby tackled to the ground twice (the proverbial house burnt down twice) and the insurance policy did nothing.
That's VAR for you. Its there to make watching football matches more relaxing knowing that if the worst refereeing decisions were made, you wouldn't need to worry too much about it, VAR would step in and everything would be fine.
Of course football decisions are subjective. And no one seems to know what the rules are at corners and set pieces. So what you perceived as a serious error and a penalty, the referee and the VAR referees did not. But you can sleep easy in the knowledge that at least it was watched by a referee with a clear view of the incident on which to form his judgement.
Your view on my metaphors, being a clear error of judgement, has been overturned on review, I am afraid.
Relevant rules of a direct free kick awarded, from a link on the same page:
Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
charges
jumps at
kicks or attempts to kick
pushes
strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
tackles or challenges
trips or attempts to trip
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:
handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
holds an opponent
impedes an opponent with contact
bites or spits at someone
throws an object at the ball, opponent or match official, or makes contact with the ball with a held object
See also offences in Law 3
I can count several things those rugby tackles were on that list. But i’ll Settle with “Holds an opponent”.
VAR Is there to make sure extra pairs of eyes spotted this. It/they didn’t. It failed
VAR will correct some bad but important decisions, but by no means every game, as it already has done this world cup. If you are expecting VAR to correct every bad decision you will be disappointed. Is that a reason to abandon it? Well only if you feel that the Police should be discontinued because they solve some murders but not all.
I’ve actually been pleasantly surprised by how well VAR has worked so far in the World Cup, but the disbenefits still outweigh the benefits as I currently see it.
Using the police analogy, we could expand the logic to a position where intrusive CCTV (or equivalent) surveillance of all citizens would stop or solve all murders and crimes so therefore we should introduce it - if the sole intent is to stop or reduce crime. If we also consider the experience of the citizen however most sane people realise that their daily lives would be poorer for it.
If the sole intent of VAR is to correct blatantly wrong decisions, in isolation it probably makes sense. If you factor in spectator experience, deskilling refs and linesman, etc there is at least an argument against it.
yak.
We are repeating ourselves now. You are seeing a failure of refereeing in knowing how to deal with wrestling from both sides at corners as a failure of VAR. it's not. They are two different things.
Booker/Eric
You have a defendable case that the price of flow of the game is not worth the benefit of not depriving teams their just rewards (another one in the late game this evening). That is a judgement call.
Serious question. Do you think VAR has materially affected flow of the game at this World Cup?
Bunch of arse, too subjective in its use. Either drive consistency or scrap it. Personally I like those opinionated discussions in the bar after the game.
@DevC is it not abundantly obvious that there has been a clear directive to minimise disruption to the flow of the game, but that this has come at the expense of it actually being used effectively? For all you argue that any failure is down to the interpretation of the the laws, I have not seen a single person argue that the referee should not have had another look at one or both of the Kane incidents at the very least. Is this not a failure of VAR?
In my opinion it is quite evidently not fit for purpose with regards to implementation. Would you agree that without question it should NOT have been used at this World Cup? Does it bother you that it is dominating so much of the conversation in what has so far actually been (VAR aside) a very enjoyable World Cup indeed? Has VAR enhanced your enjoyment of the World Cup and eliminated travesties of justice that would otherwise have sullied your experience and unfairly damaged the chances of certain teams?
@DevC As an answer to your question, no I don't. It has actually worked very well I think, unlike the trials we had in this country last season.
I do have other concerns however, principally how it will affect referees and referee assistants. As an example, the guidance to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker in a potentially offside situation and then correct any error at the end of the 'play' (god that sounds like American Football) is sensible in the context where all games are equally subject to VAR. If that referee's assistant then runs the line at a non-VAR game but has the mental model of giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, that COULD lead to more injustices.
But as you say, judgement calls and ultimately I doubt that I really care enough either way as much as I would like to see Wycombe playing regularly at the sort of levels where it will end up being brought in, I'm not convinced that it will happen soon.
@YorkExile said: @DevC is it not abundantly obvious that there has been a clear directive to minimise disruption to the flow of the game, but that this has come at the expense of it actually being used effectively? For all you argue that any failure is down to the interpretation of the the laws, I have not seen a single person argue that the referee should not have had another look at one or both of the Kane incidents at the very least. Is this not a failure of VAR?
No its not, in my opinion. There has to be a balance between how often to use VAR and how often not to. I think the balance has been struck pretty well. I note Booker agrees with that element to, for which I salute his honesty.
The reality is that referees have lost control of corners and similar free kicks. At just about every single one, there are several fouls from both sides. There was in the Kane incident. Referees have decided to let a freeforall go. Thats a matter for FIFa in how they get control back. The Kane incident was reviewed I understand. The referees decided that the kane foul and the fouls committed by England players were covered by the unwritten freeforall policy. VAR can only show referees what happened. It cant force them to interpret incidents in any way.
In my opinion it is quite evidently not fit for purpose with regards to implementation. Would you agree that without question it should NOT have been used at this World Cup?
No
Does it bother you that it is dominating so much of the conversation in what has so far actually been (VAR aside) a very enjoyable World Cup indeed?
Its new. Its bound to be spoken about. I don't think it is in any way spoiling a decent if unexceptional world cup. Its enabled a number of key wrong decisions to be corrected.
Has VAR enhanced your enjoyment of the World Cup and eliminated travesties of justice that would otherwise have sullied your experience and unfairly damaged the chances of certain teams?
Yes. It awarded penalties that the referee didn't spot in at least three games out of 17. Of course at the moment they are just group games. soon VAR will be used in knock out games.
it will never be perfect, and I can see some obvious tweaks but overall I think so far it has been a good thing for the world cup and will be for the game overall.
Booker, I note your concerns that referees used to VAR will struggle without it. I am not convinced that will be the case. if that becomes a problem, we would have to look at ways to alleviate it later.
Hypothetically @DevC, if the entire game could be played out in a spreadsheet with predictable Excel formulae making every decision, would that make the game more enjoyable for you?
@DevC . Is your device unable to reproduce usernames or is it sheer bloody-mindedness on your part? I may be alone but I find your own versions of usernames irritating, especially when they differ sufficiently from the Gasroom standard version to make it necessary to scroll back through screeds.
Fixture release day tomorrow, so Dev is presumably warming up to tell us that it doesn't matter in what order the games are played. But you've gotta play the hits, it's what people come for.
Comments
I'm not sure VAR is really the issue; isn't the concern consistency, whatever decision-making tools are used? Brazil have apparently asked FIFA to explain why VAR wasn't used in their game against Switzerland, will be interesting to hear how they respond.
I'm still not in favour of VAR. But, as a possible explanation for why no penalties were awarded for the fouls on Kane.
In the first half incident Stones can also be seen to push the defender as the corner comes in and so which foul do the official give the free kick/penalty for? Since both teams commit an offence correct decision is play on.
In the second half incident Kane is also holding the defenders arm so again since both players are committing an offence correct decision is play on.
Not sure you will ever get consistency in what is inevitably a judgemental decision, Wig.
What hopefully you will get is less decisions that are just wrong.
I think their are tweaks to be made (Tennis style appeals?, final decision to be VAR ref not on pitch, eventually abandoning two men running along the side of pitch communicating by semaphore to a screen electronic communication system.). it will be an improvement overall IMHO, but I suspect those who have made up their mind to oppose will now blame all ills on it.
VAR just seems to have added a level of cluster ==== to matches. I think FIFA missed a trick with video technology in using it wider for citation of foul play and more retrospective action against cheating. Personally if I look at what irks me more during a season cheating is far worse than the occasional missed penalty award.
On a broader point I am always staggered that these players are not aware that there are multiple TV cameras on them so when they get 'fouled' and clutch the wrong body part the whole world think they are idiots.
Dev, you shimmering ape, VAR was brought in specifically to correct bad decisions. It failed to do that on at least one occasion.
It it made no dicernable difference, why have it there in the first place? It was brought it to make a dicernable difference and therefore a failure.
As it seems to have made absolutely no difference I am softening towards VAR . And i salute the people who have flogged it to over-rich and credulous football organisations.
Thanks for the abuse. Always makes an argument ore convincing..............
VAR was bought in to correct clear errors, not marginal ones. If you expect it to eliminate controversy and to give all decisions how you see them, it will not meet your expectations.
In the England game, the Tunisia penalty was marginal. The way VAR is set up, I suspect VAR wouldn't have corrected the refs decision whichever way the ref called it. Re kane's incident, football seems to have got itself confused what level of wrestling is allowed at corners and free kicks. It needs to address it. A problem for the rules and their application not the system.
VAR will correct some bad but important decisions, but by no means every game, as it already has done this world cup. If you are expecting VAR to correct every bad decision you will be disappointed. Is that a reason to abandon it? Well only if you feel that the Police should be discontinued because they solve some murders but not all.
you may feel that the cost to flow of game is not worth getting those corrected decisions right. That is a judgement call. Cant honestly see much impact on flow of game so far this world cup.
That doesn’t answer the point you made:
“It made no decernable difference”
If it made no decernable difference, why have there at all? (At a tremendous cost btw)
It exists to make a decernable difference. It’s literally the point of it.
It does answer the point I made. It maybe doesn't answer the point you thought I made.
Not every error can be corrected.....
In the England game it made no discernible difference. because in the opinion of the VAR referees, no clear major error in refereeing occurred. It will not make a discernible difference in every game, in most games even, that's not its there for. It will correct a major error every now and then.
your house didn't burn down last year (I presume). your insurance policy made no discernible difference to your life last year. Does that mean you should not bother insure your house this year? Or is it there, for the rare occasions when it is needed?
But had my house burnt down, I had insurance to fix it/replace my things. It made my life more relaxed knowing of the worst happened I just need to get my wife and kids out and everything else would be fine. I dont need to worry too much about it.
Harry Kane was rugby tackled to the ground twice (the proverbial house burnt down twice) and the insurance policy did nothing.
Also, your metaphors are awful.
That's VAR for you. Its there to make watching football matches more relaxing knowing that if the worst refereeing decisions were made, you wouldn't need to worry too much about it, VAR would step in and everything would be fine.
Of course football decisions are subjective. And no one seems to know what the rules are at corners and set pieces. So what you perceived as a serious error and a penalty, the referee and the VAR referees did not. But you can sleep easy in the knowledge that at least it was watched by a referee with a clear view of the incident on which to form his judgement.
Your view on my metaphors, being a clear error of judgement, has been overturned on review, I am afraid.
But Dev, the worse refereeing decisions did happen. And it DIDNT step in. At least Twice.
It is the insurance policy that failed. You can’t dismiss it as “ah, that’s VAR for you.
It failed in its very purpose and reason it was introduced.
Oh, and to help you out here are the rules about penalties:
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-14---the-penalty-kick
The first 17 words are key. Read them.
Relevant rules of a direct free kick awarded, from a link on the same page:
Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
charges
jumps at
kicks or attempts to kick
pushes
strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
tackles or challenges
trips or attempts to trip
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:
handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
holds an opponent
impedes an opponent with contact
bites or spits at someone
throws an object at the ball, opponent or match official, or makes contact with the ball with a held object
See also offences in Law 3
I can count several things those rugby tackles were on that list. But i’ll Settle with “Holds an opponent”.
VAR Is there to make sure extra pairs of eyes spotted this. It/they didn’t. It failed
I’ve actually been pleasantly surprised by how well VAR has worked so far in the World Cup, but the disbenefits still outweigh the benefits as I currently see it.
Using the police analogy, we could expand the logic to a position where intrusive CCTV (or equivalent) surveillance of all citizens would stop or solve all murders and crimes so therefore we should introduce it - if the sole intent is to stop or reduce crime. If we also consider the experience of the citizen however most sane people realise that their daily lives would be poorer for it.
If the sole intent of VAR is to correct blatantly wrong decisions, in isolation it probably makes sense. If you factor in spectator experience, deskilling refs and linesman, etc there is at least an argument against it.
This is so boring now I can't even be arsed to read it all... can this thread be closed ?
Don't read it then
yak.
We are repeating ourselves now. You are seeing a failure of refereeing in knowing how to deal with wrestling from both sides at corners as a failure of VAR. it's not. They are two different things.
Booker/Eric
You have a defendable case that the price of flow of the game is not worth the benefit of not depriving teams their just rewards (another one in the late game this evening). That is a judgement call.
Serious question. Do you think VAR has materially affected flow of the game at this World Cup?
I was 100% against var. But seeing a room full of grown men dressed as FIFA referees watching television is highly amusing.
Bunch of arse, too subjective in its use. Either drive consistency or scrap it. Personally I like those opinionated discussions in the bar after the game.
@DevC is it not abundantly obvious that there has been a clear directive to minimise disruption to the flow of the game, but that this has come at the expense of it actually being used effectively? For all you argue that any failure is down to the interpretation of the the laws, I have not seen a single person argue that the referee should not have had another look at one or both of the Kane incidents at the very least. Is this not a failure of VAR?
In my opinion it is quite evidently not fit for purpose with regards to implementation. Would you agree that without question it should NOT have been used at this World Cup? Does it bother you that it is dominating so much of the conversation in what has so far actually been (VAR aside) a very enjoyable World Cup indeed? Has VAR enhanced your enjoyment of the World Cup and eliminated travesties of justice that would otherwise have sullied your experience and unfairly damaged the chances of certain teams?
Travesties of justice always sully.
@DevC As an answer to your question, no I don't. It has actually worked very well I think, unlike the trials we had in this country last season.
I do have other concerns however, principally how it will affect referees and referee assistants. As an example, the guidance to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker in a potentially offside situation and then correct any error at the end of the 'play' (god that sounds like American Football) is sensible in the context where all games are equally subject to VAR. If that referee's assistant then runs the line at a non-VAR game but has the mental model of giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, that COULD lead to more injustices.
But as you say, judgement calls and ultimately I doubt that I really care enough either way as much as I would like to see Wycombe playing regularly at the sort of levels where it will end up being brought in, I'm not convinced that it will happen soon.
In answer to your questions York.
No its not, in my opinion. There has to be a balance between how often to use VAR and how often not to. I think the balance has been struck pretty well. I note Booker agrees with that element to, for which I salute his honesty.
The reality is that referees have lost control of corners and similar free kicks. At just about every single one, there are several fouls from both sides. There was in the Kane incident. Referees have decided to let a freeforall go. Thats a matter for FIFa in how they get control back. The Kane incident was reviewed I understand. The referees decided that the kane foul and the fouls committed by England players were covered by the unwritten freeforall policy. VAR can only show referees what happened. It cant force them to interpret incidents in any way.
No
Does it bother you that it is dominating so much of the conversation in what has so far actually been (VAR aside) a very enjoyable World Cup indeed?
Its new. Its bound to be spoken about. I don't think it is in any way spoiling a decent if unexceptional world cup. Its enabled a number of key wrong decisions to be corrected.
Has VAR enhanced your enjoyment of the World Cup and eliminated travesties of justice that would otherwise have sullied your experience and unfairly damaged the chances of certain teams?
Yes. It awarded penalties that the referee didn't spot in at least three games out of 17. Of course at the moment they are just group games. soon VAR will be used in knock out games.
it will never be perfect, and I can see some obvious tweaks but overall I think so far it has been a good thing for the world cup and will be for the game overall.
Booker, I note your concerns that referees used to VAR will struggle without it. I am not convinced that will be the case. if that becomes a problem, we would have to look at ways to alleviate it later.
Hypothetically @DevC, if the entire game could be played out in a spreadsheet with predictable Excel formulae making every decision, would that make the game more enjoyable for you?
@drcongo - It depends if Dev personally formulated the spreadsheet!
@DevC you had me at "unwritten freeforall policy".
@DevC . Is your device unable to reproduce usernames or is it sheer bloody-mindedness on your part? I may be alone but I find your own versions of usernames irritating, especially when they differ sufficiently from the Gasroom standard version to make it necessary to scroll back through screeds.
......to discover to whom you are referring.
Forget VAR, the Gasroom ignore function is the single greatest technological step forward in football history
Magnificent
Fixture release day tomorrow, so Dev is presumably warming up to tell us that it doesn't matter in what order the games are played. But you've gotta play the hits, it's what people come for.