This is why it doesn't work. Decision are not black and white. People are debating whether it was the correct decision. Some saying yes others saying no.
In which case just get rid of it and debate the original decision.
On the contrary. That shows precisely the value of VAR. it's the World Cup final, the biggest game in all 28 players careers and the referee has to make a critical decison.
And because of VAR he could make that decision knowing rather than guessing what happened. It's still a judgement of course and you may disagree with the referees judgement but at least he made an informed judgement.
Thi World Cup has been destroyed by Var,it's all geared for the bigger countries to win as every decision seems to go against the smaller countries. If it starts in The Premier League i couldn't give a toss as i don't even watch MOTD i just hope it doesn't come down to Leagues 1 & 2 or i'll give up watching proper football and watch my local village team instead.
The old rule was "deliberate" handball, but I'm not sure how many are ever deliberate bar goal line ones.
Most seem to be about hands in "Unnatural" positions, or moving towards the ball.
Today's was very much the latter.
@robin, that's nonsense. That's like saying the big clubs get more penalties, when in reality the big teams and clubs do more attacking, so of course get into more situations they might get a VAR decision.
I'm not sure many situations referred to VAR actually came out as non pens looking back.
Only real one I can remember was Kompany fouling someone v France and getting away with it.
He's not used VAR under the precedent that it's there for. It's not a clear and obvious decision.
If he's unsure about all of his decisions he should've checked the free kick that led to France's first goal.
With respect DJ, you appear to be misunderstanding the premise of VAR.
VAR cannot eliminate subjectivity nor is it designed too.
VAR can and does provide the maximum possible information on which the referee then makes his subjective decision.
Today's game is a classic example. The incident happened quickly while the ref would also have been watching for fouls at the back post in case of flick-on. VAR allowed him to see what happened and then form an informed but subjective judgement.
Used well and generally it was in this tournament it is a big step forward.
I have warmed slightly to the principles of VAR so am less anti than a few weeks ago.
Genuine question @DevC. Do you think a referee seeing an incident where some subjectivity could be involved could potentially be influenced by 50,000 Man U fans, for example, seeing the same thing he (or one day she) is seeing?
There is obviously potential as indeed there is now for large home crowds to influence referees. In a VAR situation only if the incident was shown on a screen.
Actually I would change VAR system so that the guy behind the screen instructs the ref on what decision to give. I don't see the point in the pitch ref running to a screen to see the action that another ref has already reviewed. If anything that as a side benefit reduces the risk of influence from crowd compared to now.
I agree it would be much more effective for the video ref to give the final decision.
This would put it in line with cricket, where for instance the on field umpire makes a soft signal as to when there is a disputed catch. If the on field umpire thinks in real time it was a valid catch the third umpire has to witness CLEAR evidence that the ball hit the ground before the fieldsman grabbed it and vice versa.
The ref's position is watered down if he's not the one with the final decision. That's the big flaw with the ideas above.
We already had linesmen being told not to give offsides unless very obvious. We'd probably end up with refs not actually giving any pens in real time, unless someone has caught the ball, as they know the vid ref has their back.
That isn't what this is supposed to be.
Ref misses some stuff, a gang of randoms sit in a room and flag it to him. Simples.
What is unclear, is whether it's always their word that makes the ref have a look, or whether it's the mass protest from players and bench that makes him review it.
Comments
Spot on uncle T and Micra the application of the use is so subjective it ruins the credibility of the whole system.
Well, the jury has been out for me on VAR but that was the worst possible decision on the biggest stage in the world. #nomorevar
All about opinions. He had his arm out, and gave the ball a good pat. You're risking it if you do that.
No way deliberate, no way clean cut, #nomorevar
This is why it doesn't work. Decision are not black and white. People are debating whether it was the correct decision. Some saying yes others saying no.
In which case just get rid of it and debate the original decision.
On the contrary. That shows precisely the value of VAR. it's the World Cup final, the biggest game in all 28 players careers and the referee has to make a critical decison.
And because of VAR he could make that decision knowing rather than guessing what happened. It's still a judgement of course and you may disagree with the referees judgement but at least he made an informed judgement.
Thi World Cup has been destroyed by Var,it's all geared for the bigger countries to win as every decision seems to go against the smaller countries. If it starts in The Premier League i couldn't give a toss as i don't even watch MOTD i just hope it doesn't come down to Leagues 1 & 2 or i'll give up watching proper football and watch my local village team instead.
The old rule was "deliberate" handball, but I'm not sure how many are ever deliberate bar goal line ones.
Most seem to be about hands in "Unnatural" positions, or moving towards the ball.
Today's was very much the latter.
@robin, that's nonsense. That's like saying the big clubs get more penalties, when in reality the big teams and clubs do more attacking, so of course get into more situations they might get a VAR decision.
I'm not sure many situations referred to VAR actually came out as non pens looking back.
Only real one I can remember was Kompany fouling someone v France and getting away with it.
He's not used VAR under the precedent that it's there for. It's not a clear and obvious decision.
If he's unsure about all of his decisions he should've checked the free kick that led to France's first goal.
My understanding is VAR can be used for penalties, but not for free kicks.
The whole premise of VAR simply does not work as things are subjective. Goal line technology and perhaps offside are where things should stop.
It was a tawdry, unedifying spectacle which marred the biggest match the sport has to offer
I long for the day it is consigned to the scrapheap of history where it belongs
With respect DJ, you appear to be misunderstanding the premise of VAR.
VAR cannot eliminate subjectivity nor is it designed too.
VAR can and does provide the maximum possible information on which the referee then makes his subjective decision.
Today's game is a classic example. The incident happened quickly while the ref would also have been watching for fouls at the back post in case of flick-on. VAR allowed him to see what happened and then form an informed but subjective judgement.
Used well and generally it was in this tournament it is a big step forward.
I have warmed slightly to the principles of VAR so am less anti than a few weeks ago.
Genuine question @DevC. Do you think a referee seeing an incident where some subjectivity could be involved could potentially be influenced by 50,000 Man U fans, for example, seeing the same thing he (or one day she) is seeing?
There is obviously potential as indeed there is now for large home crowds to influence referees. In a VAR situation only if the incident was shown on a screen.
Actually I would change VAR system so that the guy behind the screen instructs the ref on what decision to give. I don't see the point in the pitch ref running to a screen to see the action that another ref has already reviewed. If anything that as a side benefit reduces the risk of influence from crowd compared to now.
Thanks. The latter suggestion works better for me
Might also stop the ridiculous arguing post-VAR decision!!
I agree it would be much more effective for the video ref to give the final decision.
This would put it in line with cricket, where for instance the on field umpire makes a soft signal as to when there is a disputed catch. If the on field umpire thinks in real time it was a valid catch the third umpire has to witness CLEAR evidence that the ball hit the ground before the fieldsman grabbed it and vice versa.
The ref's position is watered down if he's not the one with the final decision. That's the big flaw with the ideas above.
We already had linesmen being told not to give offsides unless very obvious. We'd probably end up with refs not actually giving any pens in real time, unless someone has caught the ball, as they know the vid ref has their back.
That isn't what this is supposed to be.
What is it supposed to be @Malone because I'm not sure?
Ref misses some stuff, a gang of randoms sit in a room and flag it to him. Simples.
What is unclear, is whether it's always their word that makes the ref have a look, or whether it's the mass protest from players and bench that makes him review it.
Give me strength.
And stability.
How's VAR doing these days? As terribly as most sensible fans predicted?
100% behind it, can't believe it took soo long to come in. Been working great in rugby league for years.
Hi @Walms. Have you joined this forum exclusively to extol the virtues of VAR? Are you a VARbot? Are you Peter Walton?
Unsurprisingly, VAR is still an absolute shambles Eric. But I think you knew that.
Ha, each to their own I guess.
Less chance of £100's getting wasted on weekends due to a bad ref decision.
If spending £100's getting wasted on weekends I find it gets past the point where I care about the ref.'s decisions, bad or otherwise.
Sometimes the opportunity to shout at the ref is the only thing that makes a game worth the entry price.
anyone not now in favour of VAR?