VAR a shambles -Shearer

[Erithacus]

A lot of people (here and, I suspect, at football HQs around the world) are hoping that VAR will be a cure-all. It won't be. It will be applicable in some circumstances, not all. It cannot rid the game of speculation and debate - indeed it will increase it occasionally. If we can get our collective heads around this fundamental aspect then we may yet have something valuable. There will be a period of scrutiny and evaluation before it receives acceptance.

 

What annoys me, though, is that it is a specialised technology that only appears at the top levels of the Beautiful Game. Along with Goal Line Technology, I feel it is dividing football: if you can't have it on the park at a Sunday morning game, then it doesn't treat every player fairly.

[Paul G]

Hopefully what VAR will do is make players aware it is there if required and reduce the amount of cheating in the game. This way it makes it easier for the referee and a better spectacle for the supporters.

[Coupon]

Thanks everyone for making this an enjoyable topic I'm glad to see lots of you guys joining in.  I've been visiting the forum for years but not always contributed(hence the Newbie tag), however I love reading all of your comments, even if I don't always agree.  This one is helping me get through the flu virus by providing a welcome distraction

Slightly off track - it doesn't matter if you are a fan of VAR or not, imagine that it came in after England had won the World cup in 1966 following the controversy of GH's goal (so this game doesn't count)

What key decisions do you think would most likely have been overturned.  For me it was Maradona against Peter Shilton in 1986.  Deliberate handball, Maradona sent off, Argentina most likely out of that world cup. Who knows? we might have won it (or gone out later on penalties)

Looking forward your replies, thanks again

[Trueredsupporter]

19 hours ago, RedYoshi said:

I’m really struggling to see the arguments against VAR. Please help me out.

To summarise what I’ve read/heard:

”It will slow the game down” - Firstly, last night (which everyone seems to be complaining about) showed exactly the opposite. People are now actively complaining that the ref didn’t take time to consult a replay or anything. So the game carried on exactly as it would have done without VAR. The debate last night was simply about whether people thought it should have been a penalty - a debate people thought, apparently sadly, would disappear with VAR.

Also, with an offside goal incorrectly disallowed (i.e. Iheanacho’s) the time taken to sort it out pales in comparison to the annoyance people would feel to have a decent goal taken away from them. In Iheanacho’s case, it took a minute, and that was a marginal of marginal calls. I imagine others would be called quicker, and while some may take longer I doubt it would be any more of a stoppage than that caused by: most people celebrating having not noticed the offside flag, some players remonstrating with the referee, and the players finally getting back into position to restart from the free kick. We don’t mind about that.

“It will get rid of debatable decisions, which are part of the game” - Again, last night demonstrates this to be a non-issue. In fact, everyone debated the decision even more. I mean, look, even I’m writing some nonsense that no one cares about. People can’t be worried it will get rid of debatable decisions, and then criticise it when it creates a debatable decision (ignoring the fact that it actually didn’t, because the decision would have been the same without VAR).

“Every decision will be correct” - Aside from how bizarre I find this problem, it’s also not true. Once again, last night suggests otherwise, while your everyday, middle of the park fouls aren’t going to be referred, nor will the awarding of throw ins, or pretty much anything else that doesn’t result in a vital, game-changing moment (most of the time with a natural stoppage). I wouldn’t be able to count the number of times I’ve heard complaints along the lines of “well that wasn’t offside, so we should have equalised, which would have changed the game, it’s so unfair” (but with more colourful language)... I’m pretty sure we all want those decisions to be correct.

“We won’t be able to celebrate properly” - @Carey 6 mentions above about Korey’s goal, suggesting we’d have had to wait. For what? The assistant didn’t flag, he was correct, so there was no need to call anyone back for anything. Sure, the referee with the video would have been double checking, so I guess he doesn’t get to jump up and down in the office, but he’d have seen it was correct so wouldn’t have said anything to the on-pitch referee, and everything would’ve carried on precisely as it did. The on-pitch referee may have asked the video ref if it was correct... in which case he’d have asked the question quickly and quietly while we were all going mental, got the answer that it was fine, and carried on as normal. In fact, you seem to suggest we’d be waiting while Mourinho “challenged” it...which is precisely the system you advocate in your first paragraph... The system as it is would require no waiting for anything at all.

“We should respect the referee’s decision” - Yes. 100% we should. Which is why we shouldn’t be arguing over his decision last night to not stop play and look at the replay. The video ref presumably said something like “I can’t be completely certain to overrule you, it’s up to you if you want another look” and he decided not to. So respect his decision. I honestly cannot see how this will change with VAR. We should still respect their decisions, some people still won’t, and thus all this change people are worried about won’t exist.

 

Honestly, I don’t get it. Half the arguments are contradictory (“it slows the game down!” - “why didn’t he stop the game?!”) and the others are either based on “what might happen” instead of what actually happens, or a strange emotional connection to incorrect decisions (which will still exist anyway).

If I’ve missed something, please explain to me, because I want to understand. There are probably other arguments I’ve not addressed which may sway me. But at the moment I’m at a loss.

For instance, the issue I can see arising is if someone is flagged offside and therefore doesn’t take the shot, unlike Iheanacho... When this is proven to be the wrong decision, what do we do? Similarly, as @Davefevs alludes to, even if they do take the shot and score, could the defending side not argue that they’d stopped playing and could’ve saved/tackled?

However, even with this, it’s evidence that VAR isn’t perfect and might need tweaks, or further explanation, but it doesn’t make the game worse.

i.e. Without VAR: every incorrect offside decision stands, whether it disallows a perfectly legitimate goal or not.

With VAR: most incorrect offside decisions will be rectified, allowing legitimate goals where previously they wouldn’t have been, while the grey area I highlighted will - at worst - result in the situation we’ve always had.

 

Sorry, I realise people don’t like reading. Oops.

 

One of the coaches on here pointed out that the game is the same for everyone at the moment as it is more or less, referees make less mistakes than players do not cheat but it is the refeeres who will be undermined and will have to change. The ref v Chelsea with var is being told by pros and managers he got it wrong. It will divide football into two and football has always had an element of luck to it and luck everyone  gets in equal measure whether you are Briz or Chelsea.

If you respect the referee var is not necessary. None of it.

[Lanterne Rouge]

6 hours ago, Coupon said:

Thanks everyone for making this an enjoyable topic I'm glad to see lots of you guys joining in.  I've been visiting the forum for years but not always contributed(hence the Newbie tag), however I love reading all of your comments, even if I don't always agree.  This one is helping me get through the flu virus by providing a welcome distraction

Slightly off track - it doesn't matter if you are a fan of VAR or not, imagine that it came in after England had won the World cup in 1966 following the controversy of GH's goal (so this game doesn't count)

What key decisions do you think would most likely have been overturned.  For me it was Maradona against Peter Shilton in 1986.  Deliberate handball, Maradona sent off, Argentina most likely out of that world cup. Who knows? we might have won it (or gone out later on penalties)

Looking forward your replies, thanks again

Lampard`s `goal` obviously.

When Rivaldo went down writhing in agony holding his face after the ball had hit his knee v Turkey in the World Cup getting Hakan Unsal sent off.

Thierry Henry`s handball in the World Cup playoff match v Ireland

Damiano Tomassi`s golden goal v South Korea which was disallowed for offside meaning Korea went through and Italy went out. Francesco Totti was sent off for diving as well when replays proved he hadn`t. The Koreans got a pretty dodgy penalty too. In fact, Italy were royally ****** over at that World Cup with four perfectly good goals disallowed in the group matches v Croatia and Mexico. They got out the group despite that only to be cheated out by the hosts and a dodgy ref.

One of the few times I`ve ever felt really sorry for Italy, they had a terrific side back then.

There are probably hundreds over the years.