VAR in the Premier League

[Vinnie]

This coming season, VAR will be used in the Premier League down south.  But the way it will be used will be different to what we've seen so far. 

Im not a fan of VAR to date, and Im not sure I ever will be, but this sounds like a step in the right direction if VAR is to be a permanent addition to the law. 

[Vinnie]

So far so good. 

Watched the Liverpool game and there was little need for it so the game ran uninterupted.

Watched City at West Ham.  Full of incidents, and I think VAR got everything right with little disruption.  

 

[SanguinePar]

3 hours ago, Vinnie said:

So far so good. 

Watched the Liverpool game and there was little need for it so the game ran uninterupted.  

 

Apart from that utter farce at the start of the second half you mean?

[Vinnie]

But it didnt disrupt the flow of the game when play resumed.

 

[Andycarp]

Don't like it in football and don't want it. Leave the controversy for the fans to debate later.

[SanguinePar]

12 hours ago, Vinnie said:

But it didnt disrupt the flow of the game when play resumed.

 

The very fact that play couldn't start despite everyone in the ground being ready to go was the farce. It's just not acceptable for the game to be so beholden to this thing.

What if the comms had gone down midgame? Would they have stopped play until the headsets were working again?

[SanguinePar]

Or this utter nonsense from yesterday. That's never a handball.

VARGTF

[Vinnie]

Thats not VARs fault, thats the fault of lawmakers ****ing about with the laws of the game.

Its a handball under the laws, not that I agree with the laws.  I think the laws are too rigid, created by folks who maybe havent played top level sport.  VAR was applied correctly.

Im not a convert to VAR yet.  But its use has been less intrusive compared to the World Cup and CL last season.

[Digs]

At first I thought the introduction of VAR would hep the refs ad therefore improve the game, but there is now plenty evidence to the contrary. 

The Women's World Cup was a bit of a shambles, and decisions like the one yesterday when Raheem Sterling was adjudged to be offside because his shoulder was about 3 mm ahead of that of the attacker, is an absolute joke. What happened to the attacker being given the advantage? We want to see more goals, as that is what the game is about, not using technology to rule them out!

No-one will ever convince me decisions like that are good for, nor improve, the game.

[the saline hill puma]

I'm glad it will never be in Scottish football

[Vinnie]

37 minutes ago, Digs said:

Raheem Sterling was adjudged to be offside because his shoulder was about 3 mm ahead of that of the attacker, is an absolute joke. What happened to the attacker being given the advantage? We want to see more goals, as that is what the game is about, not using technology to rule them out!

No-one will ever convince me decisions like that are good for, nor improve, the game.

There will always be examples of it working for some teams and not others.  The Pars could have done with it against Dundee for the second penalty, and perhaps the first (although the by the new rules that one would probably still have been given). 

Im not convinced it will work in the long term.  Camera angles dont always allow for decisions to be conclusive, there will still always be elements of interpretation.  

[Digs]

6 minutes ago, Vinnie said:

There will always be examples of it working for some teams and not others.  The Pars could have done with it against Dundee for the second penalty, and perhaps the first (although the by the new rules that one would probably still have been given). 

Im not convinced it will work in the long term.  Camera angles dont always allow for decisions to be conclusive, there will still always be elements of interpretation.  

That's the point of it though isn't it, to limit mistakes and help the ref make the correct decision? As far as I can tell, it only adds to the arguments, and actually, you could argue that 'wrong' (by that I mean technically correct, but possibly unfair/ridiculous ones like the one above) are worse than a ref just making an  hoest mistake based on  his interpretation. It's actually putting more of a spotlight on  the refs rather than assisting them.

[Salvo Montalbano]

1 hour ago, Digs said:

At first I thought the introduction of VAR would hep the refs ad therefore improve the game, but there is now plenty evidence to the contrary. 

The Women's World Cup was a bit of a shambles, and decisions like the one yesterday when Raheem Sterling was adjudged to be offside because his shoulder was about 3 mm ahead of that of the attacker, is an absolute joke. What happened to the attacker being given the advantage? We want to see more goals, as that is what the game is about, not using technology to rule them out!

No-one will ever convince me decisions like that are good for, nor improve, the game.

I've never been a fan of VAR but I couldn't agree more with the gist of the post above. For one thing, who is to say where the shoulder starts and the arm ends? When are we judging the ball being played - the moment it's first touched or when the ball leaves the foot? When it is a matter of millimeters, these things become important as does technical details like the frame rate and when the live picture is frozen. Is that really what we want? I think VAR is here to stay sadly, so if it has to be used, either give the attacker the benefit of any doubt or have the same system as in cricket when close decisions are "Umpire's call" and any original decision stands. As for the handball, while that isn't the fault of the VAR system, why did it take that long to decide that it did hit his arm, when any touch - accidental.or otherwise - would mean the goal would be disallowed? 

[Vinnie]

18 minutes ago, Digs said:

That's the point of it though isn't it, to limit mistakes and help the ref make the correct decision? As far as I can tell, it only adds to the arguments, and actually, you could argue that 'wrong' (by that I mean technically correct, but possibly unfair/ridiculous ones like the one above) are worse than a ref just making an  hoest mistake based on  his interpretation. It's actually putting more of a spotlight on  the refs rather than assisting them.

I think this is where expectation and reality fall out of sync.  And for me, thats why Im not a fan of it.  

I think that for it to work fairly and properly, its right to expect that 100% decisions will be correct.  Whereas, if camera angles and/or interpretation mean that decisions are only correct 75% of the time, the reality is that it doesnt work.  

Folk will say that if you get the majority of decisions right then its a good thing, but that view will be biased by how it works for your club.  I imagine Leicesters forums and message boards love VAR today.  Next week, the week after, or even a month down the line when its worked against, perhaps they'll like it less. 

 

[Digs]

9 minutes ago, Vinnie said:

Folk will say that if you get the majority of decisions right then its a good thing, 

 

...and we already had that with referees! As much as there are refs who I think are hopeless, the majority of decisions most refs make are correct 100% of the time.