@floyd said:
VAR ruins the best thing about the game, the mad rush of joy and adrenaline that follows a goal.
I mean, assistants' flags also do that ?
Aye, but the assistant flags more or less instantly, and you’re not standing around watching the ref hold his hand to his ear wondering if someone’s toe was offside.
You hit the nail on the head there floyd. IMO there's nothing wrong with VAR in the way FIFA devised it and instructed it to be implemented. Just the 4 things that VAR may review. Any refereeing error has to be both clear and obvious or it can't be overturned. What does the FA/PL do? Buy in extremely expensive software that most Leagues can't afford and then take 5 minutes to decide that 2mm of toe were offside. IMO that is neither clear nor obvious. Give VAR a maximum of maybe 30 seconds to review. If it's not clear and obvious an error was made in that time then it's not clear or obvious and the original decision stands. As Punch might say, that's the way to do it.
I don't want to go again into the merits or otherwise of VAR. I suspect none of us will persuade others to change their minds. I don't really understand the "Umpires choice" argument.
However you write the offside rule or the handball rule there will always be incredibly close calls. That feels inevitable. VAR can give a referee a better picture of what actually happened rather than the often fleeting sometimes obscured view he will get "live".
Whether to have VAR or not is question 1).
If answer to question 1) is "yes" (and I know for many the answer would be no but lets move past that) you move on to question 2)
On really close decisions do you go with the referees decision having consulted VAR on which he is now 70% certain or do you stick with the referees initial 50-50 guess.?
I have never understood why you would choose the less certain option. Could someone explain their thinking.
@DevC said:
I don't want to go again into the merits or otherwise of VAR. I suspect none of us will persuade others to change their minds. I don't really understand the "Umpires choice" argument.
However you write the offside rule or the handball rule there will always be incredibly close calls. That feels inevitable. VAR can give a referee a better picture of what actually happened rather than the often fleeting sometimes obscured view he will get "live".
Whether to have VAR or not is question 1).
If answer to question 1) is "yes" (and I know for many the answer would be no but lets move past that) you move on to question 2)
On really close decisions do you go with the referees decision having consulted VAR on which he is now 70% certain or do you stick with the referees initial 50-50 guess.?
I have never understood why you would choose the less certain option. Could someone explain their thinking.
What would you have posted if you had wanted to go into the merits or otherwise of VAR?
It’s pretty simple - is the benefit of improved decision making worth the cost of the disruption to the game? I’d say no for the current version of VAR.
I don't know why some WW fans, and football fans in general, are opposed to VAR.
Most other major sports - NFL, Rugby (Union and League), Cricket, Tennis, etc. - use some form of video replay to ensure that critical on-field decisions are correct. Football, the world's most popular and richest team sport, seems to be stuck in the past.
One argument is that it 'interrupts the flow of the game'. If the views of opposition supporters can be believed, there is no flow when Wycombe are playing, as apparently the team can't string more than two passes together, and spend most of the match wasting time with various forms of shithousery.
I've also seen it suggested that, instead of 45 minutes each half with a random and unknown period of injury time added, there should be a 30-minute game clock, which is stopped whenever there is a stoppage in play. Again, this is a system adopted by other team sports, so that both sides know that when the clock counts down to zero, that's the end of the half. This seems an obvious and sensible suggestion.
I think the biggest issue with it is the lack of communication to the fans over what is happening or being viewed. With the sports you have mentioned, Rugby U & League & Cricket, there is a running commentary so that people at home and at the ground know what's happening and why it's being looked at. With Football, the FA / PGMOL have taken the voice away from Officials so everyone is guessing to what they have/haven't seen. If the running commentary was active, it would take away the confusion.
Another issue with VAR is that there isn't any "natural" stoppage in the game for these checks to take place unlike Cricket & Rugby. VAR has to interrupt the flow of the game to be used effectively.
I like "umpire's call" in cricket, because it retains an element of the traditional role of the umpire, and a specific amount of certainty is required to overturn it. This is, of course, on decisions where it's all hypothetical anyway, because of the very thing in question (e.g. would the ball have hit the stumps?) So if it's shown to be within the accepted definition of 'marginal', as assessed by technology, everyone then accepts the decision within the margins as made in real time by the umpire. When it's clearly wrong, then DRS sorts it out. Also, as a naturally start/stop game, cricket is much more suited to such an intervention.
@LeedsBlue I'd like this to happen in Football where the officials (Ref or Assistant) earn their money and give an on-field opinion before going to the screen. They can give a soft signal and it's for the VAR official to see if it can be over-turned
@Chris said:
It’s pretty simple - is the benefit of improved decision making worth the cost of the disruption to the game? I’d say no for the current version of VAR.
That is a perfectly valid question Chris and one I suspect neither of us will persuade the other on. That's fine.
My question though is about "umpires call". If you have accepted that VAR will exist and the delay happened to check the incident, why would you then choose if VAR improved certainty on a decision but wasn't 100% sure to ignore it and go with the initial referee decision which was even more uncertain.
I don't understand the logic of that in any sport and wondered if you could explain the thinking.
Taking the cricket analogy, VAR concludes that the ball would probably have clipped the stumps, the umpire really doesnt know and is 50-50, Wouldn't it be better to follow the probably right VAR decision rather than the 50-50 Umpire guess? @LeedsBlue says no for tradition reasons which is a perfectly valid view of course.
@DevC What if the clubs were allowed between 2 & 5 reviews a match and they would have to use these through the 4th Official? They would have a 10 second window after an incident (like with Cricket) when the referral can be made. Then the managers can't argue or complain if they waste their's on incidents because the don't have any referrals left?
Honestly I think that just increases the number of VAR referrals in a match and increases likelihood of them being misused. You would still have to decide whether to go with an uncertain VAR decision or stick with referees "guess" for a very close decision.
I am interested in the umpires call question - where I don't really understand other viewpoint - rather than overall should we have or not have VAR where I understand others viewpoint even if I don't agree.
No need @ReturnToSenda but my helicoptering days are are long over (long being the operative word). There were some examples of it at an away game versus Ixford a few seasons ago.
Pure chance that I saw your comment. When I saw that there were 85 new comments I originally intended to go straight to the last page but glad I didn’t. I would have missed a couple of @Wendoverman gems. I’m still on the fence. I think I will swing between for it and against it according to which side benefits. My kind of pragmatism.
@Otter87 if we must have VAR the option of Reviews is certainly my preferred option. Captain makes the decision on the field. BUT you only have 1 review per game so you’ll only be reviewing something you genuinely feel wronged about, i.e., a terrible decision. And even then, only a clear and obvious mistake would be overturned.
I agree on umpires call, if the technology makes better decisions and you’ve already gone through the hassle of using it then just go with the technology.
The point about "umpire's call" is where the technology makes a potentially different, but not necessarily better, decision simply because there is margin for error in both the technology and the umpire because it is a hypothetical judgement. The technology is using what is programmed into it to decide where it thinks the ball would've gone after it has hit the pad, but no-one can ever know if its, or the umpire's, judgement was correct - so when dealing with marginal decisions of up to half a ball's width, the values and traditions of the game are adhered to and the umpire's judgement, in the moment, is the accepted outcome.
@DevC said:
I don't want to go again into the merits or otherwise of VAR. I suspect none of us will persuade others to change their minds. I don't really understand the "Umpires choice" argument.
However you write the offside rule or the handball rule there will always be incredibly close calls. That feels inevitable. VAR can give a referee a better picture of what actually happened rather than the often fleeting sometimes obscured view he will get "live".
Whether to have VAR or not is question 1).
If answer to question 1) is "yes" (and I know for many the answer would be no but lets move past that) you move on to question 2)
On really close decisions do you go with the referees decision having consulted VAR on which he is now 70% certain or do you stick with the referees initial 50-50 guess.?
I have never understood why you would choose the less certain option. Could someone explain their thinking.
Strictly speaking, there's no such thing as less certain. You're either certain or your not.
For calls which aren't 100% either way you're just changing who's guessing
@DevC said:
I don't want to go again into the merits or otherwise of VAR. I suspect none of us will persuade others to change their minds. I don't really understand the "Umpires choice" argument.
However you write the offside rule or the handball rule there will always be incredibly close calls. That feels inevitable. VAR can give a referee a better picture of what actually happened rather than the often fleeting sometimes obscured view he will get "live".
Whether to have VAR or not is question 1).
If answer to question 1) is "yes" (and I know for many the answer would be no but lets move past that) you move on to question 2)
On really close decisions do you go with the referees decision having consulted VAR on which he is now 70% certain or do you stick with the referees initial 50-50 guess.?
I have never understood why you would choose the less certain option. Could someone explain their thinking.
Strictly speaking, there's no such thing as less certain. You're either certain or your not.
For calls which aren't 100% either way you're just changing who's guessing
Not sure that is the case there are degrees of certainty based on possible options and evidence available.
Should refs never best guess and only award fouls based on absolute certainty, maybe but they'd have to let an awful lot go and people still wouldn't be happy
@DevC said:
I don't want to go again into the merits or otherwise of VAR. I suspect none of us will persuade others to change their minds. I don't really understand the "Umpires choice" argument.
However you write the offside rule or the handball rule there will always be incredibly close calls. That feels inevitable. VAR can give a referee a better picture of what actually happened rather than the often fleeting sometimes obscured view he will get "live".
Whether to have VAR or not is question 1).
If answer to question 1) is "yes" (and I know for many the answer would be no but lets move past that) you move on to question 2)
On really close decisions do you go with the referees decision having consulted VAR on which he is now 70% certain or do you stick with the referees initial 50-50 guess.?
I have never understood why you would choose the less certain option. Could someone explain their thinking.
Strictly speaking, there's no such thing as less certain. You're either certain or your not.
For calls which aren't 100% either way you're just changing who's guessing
Not sure that is the case there are degrees of certainty based on possible options and evidence available.
Should refs never best guess and only award fouls based on absolute certainty, maybe but they'd have to let an awful lot go and people still wouldn't be happy
Of course refs should award based on their judgment beyond being certain, and that's fine, what's the point overturning that judgement for another judgement by someone else which is also far from certain.
For offsides I can accept var has a use
The way it's used for fouls and handball is a complete nonsense
@DevC said:
I don't want to go again into the merits or otherwise of VAR. I suspect none of us will persuade others to change their minds. I don't really understand the "Umpires choice" argument.
However you write the offside rule or the handball rule there will always be incredibly close calls. That feels inevitable. VAR can give a referee a better picture of what actually happened rather than the often fleeting sometimes obscured view he will get "live".
Whether to have VAR or not is question 1).
If answer to question 1) is "yes" (and I know for many the answer would be no but lets move past that) you move on to question 2)
On really close decisions do you go with the referees decision having consulted VAR on which he is now 70% certain or do you stick with the referees initial 50-50 guess.?
I have never understood why you would choose the less certain option. Could someone explain their thinking.
Strictly speaking, there's no such thing as less certain. You're either certain or your not.
For calls which aren't 100% either way you're just changing who's guessing
Not sure that is the case there are degrees of certainty based on possible options and evidence available.
Should refs never best guess and only award fouls based on absolute certainty, maybe but they'd have to let an awful lot go and people still wouldn't be happy
Of course refs should award based on their judgment beyond being certain, and that's fine, what's the point overturning that judgement for another judgement by someone else which is also far from certain.
For offsides I can accept var has a use
The way it's used for fouls and handball is a complete nonsense
Obviously the idea was that the VAR ref gets a bit more time and better angles but you're never going to do this without adding time, alienating the crowd and making the ref doubt his original decision, you also double the whining afterwards as people review the decision and the review. Get it in the bin.
VAR’s aims are sound, but its implementation is uniformly dreadful.
It would be bad enough to have to play in a competition where VAR is standard but to impose it at the end of a 48 game season is ridiculous.
Neither team has experienced playing under VAR conditions, let alone in a match if such importance. PL teams play defence very differently with VAR and presumably this has to be drilled and coached. To thrust it on to us with a week to go seems preposterous to me.
Notwithstanding the above, the emotion it sucks out of football’s greatest moment, the goal, means it detracts way more than it adds.
Isn't the issue that it doesn't make decision making more accurate? We are all annoyed that attackers are being penalised for offsides that don't given them any advantage and tacklers are being sent off because everything looks worse in slow motion? I genuinely think that the most effective way to administer the laws for the purpose they were intended is in real time
@OnOurWay said:
Isn't the issue that it doesn't make decision making more accurate? We are all annoyed that attackers are being penalised for offsides that don't given them any advantage and tacklers are being sent off because everything looks worse in slow motion? I genuinely think that the most effective way to administer the laws for the purpose they were intended is in real time
Exactly, the rules were written with a human referee in mind. They weren't intended to be applied using 10* slow-mo from every angle, for the slightest of brushes off the ball/ man.
If they had VAR and TV replays when writing the rules, they would likely be very different.
Comments
You hit the nail on the head there floyd. IMO there's nothing wrong with VAR in the way FIFA devised it and instructed it to be implemented. Just the 4 things that VAR may review. Any refereeing error has to be both clear and obvious or it can't be overturned. What does the FA/PL do? Buy in extremely expensive software that most Leagues can't afford and then take 5 minutes to decide that 2mm of toe were offside. IMO that is neither clear nor obvious. Give VAR a maximum of maybe 30 seconds to review. If it's not clear and obvious an error was made in that time then it's not clear or obvious and the original decision stands. As Punch might say, that's the way to do it.
I don't want to go again into the merits or otherwise of VAR. I suspect none of us will persuade others to change their minds. I don't really understand the "Umpires choice" argument.
However you write the offside rule or the handball rule there will always be incredibly close calls. That feels inevitable. VAR can give a referee a better picture of what actually happened rather than the often fleeting sometimes obscured view he will get "live".
Whether to have VAR or not is question 1).
If answer to question 1) is "yes" (and I know for many the answer would be no but lets move past that) you move on to question 2)
On really close decisions do you go with the referees decision having consulted VAR on which he is now 70% certain or do you stick with the referees initial 50-50 guess.?
I have never understood why you would choose the less certain option. Could someone explain their thinking.
You are on page #6 of people explaining why they don't want it.
What would you have posted if you had wanted to go into the merits or otherwise of VAR?
It’s pretty simple - is the benefit of improved decision making worth the cost of the disruption to the game? I’d say no for the current version of VAR.
I think the biggest issue with it is the lack of communication to the fans over what is happening or being viewed. With the sports you have mentioned, Rugby U & League & Cricket, there is a running commentary so that people at home and at the ground know what's happening and why it's being looked at. With Football, the FA / PGMOL have taken the voice away from Officials so everyone is guessing to what they have/haven't seen. If the running commentary was active, it would take away the confusion.
Another issue with VAR is that there isn't any "natural" stoppage in the game for these checks to take place unlike Cricket & Rugby. VAR has to interrupt the flow of the game to be used effectively.
I like "umpire's call" in cricket, because it retains an element of the traditional role of the umpire, and a specific amount of certainty is required to overturn it. This is, of course, on decisions where it's all hypothetical anyway, because of the very thing in question (e.g. would the ball have hit the stumps?) So if it's shown to be within the accepted definition of 'marginal', as assessed by technology, everyone then accepts the decision within the margins as made in real time by the umpire. When it's clearly wrong, then DRS sorts it out. Also, as a naturally start/stop game, cricket is much more suited to such an intervention.
@LeedsBlue I'd like this to happen in Football where the officials (Ref or Assistant) earn their money and give an on-field opinion before going to the screen. They can give a soft signal and it's for the VAR official to see if it can be over-turned
That is a perfectly valid question Chris and one I suspect neither of us will persuade the other on. That's fine.
My question though is about "umpires call". If you have accepted that VAR will exist and the delay happened to check the incident, why would you then choose if VAR improved certainty on a decision but wasn't 100% sure to ignore it and go with the initial referee decision which was even more uncertain.
I don't understand the logic of that in any sport and wondered if you could explain the thinking.
Taking the cricket analogy, VAR concludes that the ball would probably have clipped the stumps, the umpire really doesnt know and is 50-50, Wouldn't it be better to follow the probably right VAR decision rather than the 50-50 Umpire guess? @LeedsBlue says no for tradition reasons which is a perfectly valid view of course.
@DevC What if the clubs were allowed between 2 & 5 reviews a match and they would have to use these through the 4th Official? They would have a 10 second window after an incident (like with Cricket) when the referral can be made. Then the managers can't argue or complain if they waste their's on incidents because the don't have any referrals left?
Honestly I think that just increases the number of VAR referrals in a match and increases likelihood of them being misused. You would still have to decide whether to go with an uncertain VAR decision or stick with referees "guess" for a very close decision.
I am interested in the umpires call question - where I don't really understand other viewpoint - rather than overall should we have or not have VAR where I understand others viewpoint even if I don't agree.
No need @ReturnToSenda but my helicoptering days are are long over (long being the operative word). There were some examples of it at an away game versus Ixford a few seasons ago.
Pure chance that I saw your comment. When I saw that there were 85 new comments I originally intended to go straight to the last page but glad I didn’t. I would have missed a couple of @Wendoverman gems. I’m still on the fence. I think I will swing between for it and against it according to which side benefits. My kind of pragmatism.
@Otter87 if we must have VAR the option of Reviews is certainly my preferred option. Captain makes the decision on the field. BUT you only have 1 review per game so you’ll only be reviewing something you genuinely feel wronged about, i.e., a terrible decision. And even then, only a clear and obvious mistake would be overturned.
From VAR to penis jokes in 6 pages... The Gasroom truly is the gift that keeps on giving!
I agree on umpires call, if the technology makes better decisions and you’ve already gone through the hassle of using it then just go with the technology.
The point about "umpire's call" is where the technology makes a potentially different, but not necessarily better, decision simply because there is margin for error in both the technology and the umpire because it is a hypothetical judgement. The technology is using what is programmed into it to decide where it thinks the ball would've gone after it has hit the pad, but no-one can ever know if its, or the umpire's, judgement was correct - so when dealing with marginal decisions of up to half a ball's width, the values and traditions of the game are adhered to and the umpire's judgement, in the moment, is the accepted outcome.
VAR dials down the catharsis, and it should be binned for that alone.
Strictly speaking, there's no such thing as less certain. You're either certain or your not.
For calls which aren't 100% either way you're just changing who's guessing
Not sure that is the case there are degrees of certainty based on possible options and evidence available.
Should refs never best guess and only award fouls based on absolute certainty, maybe but they'd have to let an awful lot go and people still wouldn't be happy
Of course refs should award based on their judgment beyond being certain, and that's fine, what's the point overturning that judgement for another judgement by someone else which is also far from certain.
For offsides I can accept var has a use
The way it's used for fouls and handball is a complete nonsense
Fuck VAR
Obviously the idea was that the VAR ref gets a bit more time and better angles but you're never going to do this without adding time, alienating the crowd and making the ref doubt his original decision, you also double the whining afterwards as people review the decision and the review. Get it in the bin.
I love a good VAR row. Just don't love VAR.
VAR’s aims are sound, but its implementation is uniformly dreadful.
It would be bad enough to have to play in a competition where VAR is standard but to impose it at the end of a 48 game season is ridiculous.
Neither team has experienced playing under VAR conditions, let alone in a match if such importance. PL teams play defence very differently with VAR and presumably this has to be drilled and coached. To thrust it on to us with a week to go seems preposterous to me.
Notwithstanding the above, the emotion it sucks out of football’s greatest moment, the goal, means it detracts way more than it adds.
...And the FA Cup Final should be the last game of the season and the only game of the tournament played at Wembley.
Isn't the issue that it doesn't make decision making more accurate? We are all annoyed that attackers are being penalised for offsides that don't given them any advantage and tacklers are being sent off because everything looks worse in slow motion? I genuinely think that the most effective way to administer the laws for the purpose they were intended is in real time
Exactly, the rules were written with a human referee in mind. They weren't intended to be applied using 10* slow-mo from every angle, for the slightest of brushes off the ball/ man.
If they had VAR and TV replays when writing the rules, they would likely be very different.
Agree that tackles look terrible in slow motion. Good point @OnOurWay
If VAR were to be abandoned then slow-motion replays on TV should not be allowed. They are what brought about the demand for it in the first place.