VAR disallowing goals

[reddogkev]

For me this has to be stopped - too many good goals being disallowed for the most pathetic of infringements.

The disallowed Arsenal goal against Palace yesterday was a total disgrace.

Why invent something that takes the entertainment and the thrill out of the game?  VAR is a cruel intervention in the current way it is being used.  Instead of accepting it, we have to oppose it and somehow force change.  Otherwise there will come a time when fans and players stop celebrating goals, until the dreaded review is complete.  Where's the fun in that? 

My question is, why is it being used to review every single goal scored? Are we really that desperate to disallow a goal?  This is not in the nature of the beautiful game, mistakes and dubious talking points are a huge part of the appeal of the sport.  The people in charge of VAR need to understand this is not a game for robots and flaws should remain, it adds to the drama and the excitement.  Having a goal stolen by a harsh VAR decision must be soul-destroying.   It should be up to the referee to use the replay if he is uncertain about a possible infringement.

What are your thoughts at the moment on the subject?

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

I agree but it's not VAR it's the rules and how they are applied.  What needs to be done is people need to be shown what is clear and obvious and what's not.  Forgive the pun it should be obvious and it's making me feel indifferent to games and robbed sometimes.  

[downendcity]

18 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

I agree but it's not VAR it's the rules and how they are applied.  What needs to be done is people need to be shown what is clear and obvious and what's not.  Forgive the pun it should be obvious and it's making me feel indifferent to games and robbed sometimes.  

How could VAR decide that it was clear and obvious that the Arsenal player fouled the defender prior to their disallowed goal yesterday, but did not think it clear and obvious that the Spurs player fouled the Watford player for a penalty last week-end?

Manager and fans moan about the lack of consistency by referees, but it is nothing compared to the inconsistency VAR is managing to achieve. 

[Lrrr]

The worst part for me was missing Krul being a few feet off his line for the first penalty, it was apparently looked at and given the all clear..... how?

[sh1t_ref_again]

I feel it should be a short time limited period, maybe 30 seconds, where VAR decides if there is a very clear rules infringement and if a close call or subjective the decisions stays with the refs original call. This over analysing from multi angles to see that someone's nose may have been offside is ridiculous (offside should be just where the feet are). 

[Red-Robbo]

I was in favour of VAR when it was first mooted, but because of the way it is implemented and the poor quality of assessment using it, I now only think it should be used - as an option - if a ref isn't sure about a penalty or a sending off decision. It shouldn't even be automatic there. Only if the ref didn't get a clear view, to help with the decision making process.

In short, I agree with @reddogkev

[And Its Smith]

I hated the idea of VAR and now hate VAR itself. Getting the correct decision is not the most important thing in football. 

[Robbored]

4 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

I was in favour of VAR when it was first mooted, but because of the way it is implemented and the poor quality of assessment using it, I now only think it should be used - as an option - if a ref isn't sure about a penalty or a sending off decision. It shouldn't even be automatic there. Only if the ref didn't get a clear view, to help with the decision making process.

I completely agree RR.

VAR is still in its infancy and it’s teething problems are there for all to see. Let’s hope the powers that be can refine it and shorten the time it takes to verify or overrule the referees decision.

 In Liverpool’s match yesterday against Spurs the ref awarded a penalty which was immediately review by VAR which confirmed that the ref had made the right call. Had there been a dive that would have been spotted by VAR. 

 

[Lanterne Rouge]

Get rid of it now, it`s destroying the game we all love.

[Northern Red]

1 hour ago, hodge said:

The worst part for me was missing Krul being a few feet off his line for the first penalty, it was apparently looked at and given the all clear..... how?

The award of that penalty itself was just as bad. He was then off his line again for the second penalty and it was let go.

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, hodge said:

The worst part for me was missing Krul being a few feet off his line for the first penalty, it was apparently looked at and given the all clear..... how?

Yesterday's VAR official.

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

I was in favour of VAR when it was first mooted, but because of the way it is implemented and the poor quality of assessment using it, I now only think it should be used - as an option - if a ref isn't sure about a penalty or a sending off decision. It shouldn't even be automatic there. Only if the ref didn't get a clear view, to help with the decision making process.

In short, I agree with @reddogkev

Goal line technology works fine because there is no interpretation of the laws involved - it crossed the line or it didn't. Accordingly, the only use I would advocate for VAR throughout a game is in determining offside decisions ( which is what I thought it was going to be used for at the outset). Even though it might infuriate when a player is offside by a gnat's whisker, it would at least be a black and white, non-contestable decision.

Otherwise, I reckon to allow each team a number of challenges per half ( bit like tennis or cricket) to check contentious decisions or if the ref misses something obvious. There would still be the issue of interpretation of the laws but teams would have to bite the bullett of they aren;t happy with the outcomes, and I still think it would be miles better than the mess we now have.

[Lrrr]

4 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Goal line technology works fine because there is no interpretation of the laws involved - it crossed the line or it didn't. Accordingly, the only use I would advocate for VAR throughout a game is in determining offside decisions ( which is what I thought it was going to be used for at the outset). Even though it might infuriate when a player is offside by a gnat's whisker, it would at least be a black and white, non-contestable decision.

Otherwise, I reckon to allow each team a number of challenges per half ( bit like tennis or cricket) to check contentious decisions or if the ref misses something obvious. There would still be the issue of interpretation of the laws but teams would have to bite the bullett of they aren;t happy with the outcomes, and I still think it would be miles better than the mess we now have.

Agree in essence, on Chambers tackle its very wrong how VAR official has made a subjective decision that differs from the on field refs subjective decision.  

[Red-Robbo]

7 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Goal line technology works fine because there is no interpretation of the laws involved - it crossed the line or it didn't. Accordingly, the only use I would advocate for VAR throughout a game is in determining offside decisions ( which is what I thought it was going to be used for at the outset). Even though it might infuriate when a player is offside by a gnat's whisker, it would at least be a black and white, non-contestable decision.

Otherwise, I reckon to allow each team a number of challenges per half ( bit like tennis or cricket) to check contentious decisions or if the ref misses something obvious. There would still be the issue of interpretation of the laws but teams would have to bite the bullett of they aren;t happy with the outcomes, and I still think it would be miles better than the mess we now have.

It's an option, though it might still be contentious.

I figured penalties and sendings off do hold up play anyway, so adding a minor check for unsighted refs - at their discretion - wouldn't break the flow of the game too much.

With offside goals etc, I've reluctantly come round to the point of view of people who say 'these things even themselves out over a season'.

What I would like to see is retrospective cards imposed for diving. All games should be retrospectively viewed by officials and yellows dished out accordingly, or, for dives in the penalty box, reds.

[22A]

1 hour ago, RedDave said:

I hated the idea of VAR and now hate VAR itself. Getting the correct decision is not the most important thing in football. 

To me the idea of VAR was right. However I feel it should be used like DRS in cricket.

If  the Ref is unsure, he can refer. If a team disagrees with a Ref's decision  they can appeal,  but as in cricket, would only  be allowed two wrong appeals per game.

[Meh]

I am happy with it provided it develops to always showing it on the big screens like they do in rugby.

We may not like the decision or even agree but at least we can see what the issue is (by we I mean fans in the ground as sky viewers obviously see many replays).

It is not great and needs development but nothing is worse than having a goal against you allowed because the ref has missed something obvious - how many threads has there been on here over the years asking how ref missed a blatant foul in the build up or handball or offside etc?

[BCFC Rich]

58 minutes ago, 22A said:

To me the idea of VAR was right. However I feel it should be used like DRS in cricket.

If  the Ref is unsure, he can refer. If a team disagrees with a Ref's decision  they can appeal,  but as in cricket, would only  be allowed two wrong appeals per game.

This for me, is they only wsy to apply it. 

[Red 90]

Do the VAR officials get the same checks as the refs? For instance an official from Manchester can't cover a game from either Man City or Man Utd as they may have a bias.

[Denbury Red]

The biggest problem with VAR at the moment is that the Ref is not using the ‘available’ screen at the side of the pitch. 

If he obtained advice from the VAR studio, and then consulted the screen, it should still be up to the match official whether or not he went with the advice given in his ear. In that way he would be able to use the on field ‘feel’ to help him come up with HIS decision. 
 

I just can’t understand why our Refs in the UK are not using the screen at the side of the pitch where in Europe they are. Just doesn’t make sense!

[1bristolcity]

Terrible mess this VAR is, it takes away the instant excitement of a goal, for the scorer team and crowd, it's why we love football, for that moment. As far as yesterday was concerned as highlighted on here, the Arsenal goal was good,  Krul was off his line, and Liverpool cheated a pen. 

Scrap it.  

[Portland Bill]

10 hours ago, RedDave said:

I hated the idea of VAR and now hate VAR itself. Getting the correct decision is not the most important thing in football. 

I hated the idea of it, I don’t want any technology in football at all, tv cameras and companies are now running the game. 

The only thing I like about VAR,is that the majority who wanted it now can see just how farcical it is. 

Just let the officials get back to officiating,, yes mistakes happen, but does anyone really want the game to be perfect. It never has been, but we all still enjoyed it. 

[miser]

Before - the ref has a split second to get it wrong. Now an idiot in front of a screen has 2 minutes to get it wrong. Doesn't seem like progress. Should be scrapped.

[reddogkev]

Bloody good responses, cheers all.

VAR seriously needs to be modified or scrapped, as some others have said, seems even a fair few of the professionals agree.

Why do we need it?  Only Tech the game really needed was goal line technology.  The VAR intervention is unnecessary and goes against the Spirit of the Game.

Perhaps a group should be formed to protest against it. 

S.A.V.I  supporters against VAR intervention - or something else of similar note.

[downendcity]

27 minutes ago, reddogkev said:

Bloody good responses, cheers all.

VAR seriously needs to be modified or scrapped, as some others have said, seems even a fair few of the professionals agree.

Why do we need it?  Only Tech the game really needed was goal line technology.  The VAR intervention is unnecessary and goes against the Spirit of the Game.

Perhaps a group should be formed to protest against it. 

S.A.V.I  supporters against VAR intervention - or something else of similar note.

Why do we need it?

Firstly, the more detailed Tv coverage means that post game an incident can be viewed from every conceivable angle and in super slo mo, so that TV pundits can then demonstrate the referees glaring errors and point out how hard done by a team has been as a result. MOTD usually goes straight into discussion of a contentious decision once the match highlights have been shown.

Secondly, as the above has happened more and more in recent years, during which time other sports ( e.g. tennis, cricket and rugby) have utilised technology in relatively successful ways, and as increasingly more is at stake in top flight football i.e. money, there has been a growing clamour among wronged managers that technology should be introduced to help the hard pressed and much maligned referees - that last sentence was very much with tongue in cheek sarcasm!

It now seems we have reached the "be careful what you wish for" situation, and those that called for it's introduction are it's biggest critics.

 

[JamesBCFC]

On 28/10/2019 at 13:17, downendcity said:

Goal line technology works fine because there is no interpretation of the laws involved - it crossed the line or it didn't. Accordingly, the only use I would advocate for VAR throughout a game is in determining offside decisions ( which is what I thought it was going to be used for at the outset). Even though it might infuriate when a player is offside by a gnat's whisker, it would at least be a black and white, non-contestable decision.

Otherwise, I reckon to allow each team a number of challenges per half ( bit like tennis or cricket) to check contentious decisions or if the ref misses something obvious. There would still be the issue of interpretation of the laws but teams would have to bite the bullett of they aren;t happy with the outcomes, and I still think it would be miles better than the mess we now have.

Offsides and goal line tech is apples and oranges.

One of them is cut and dry. The other is completely impossible without blanket sensors/cameras along either side of the pitch that can fully show the distinction between the parts of the two players being measured for offside AND requires technology that can determine and pause an image at the precise moment the ball was played.

 

The latter part of that is something we quite simply do not have, so while we can see extremely tight offside calls, as we cannot pinpoint the exact time the ball was played, that player who was a gnats whisker offside might have been a gnats whisker onside five hundreths of a second earlier.

The offsides ARE NOT black and white, even if the rules on it were to me made so. Whether the ball crossed the line or not is.

[downendcity]

Just now, JamesBCFC said:

Offsides and goal line tech is apples and oranges.

One of them is cut and dry. The other is completely impossible without blanket sensors/cameras along either side of the pitch that can fully show the distinction between the parts of the two players being measured for offside AND requires technology that can determine and pause an image at the precise moment the ball was played.

The latter part of that is something we quite simply do not have, so while we can see extremely tight offside calls, as we cannot pinpoint the exact time the ball was played, that player who was a gnats whisker offside might have been a gnats whisker onside five hundreths of a second earlier.

The offsides ARE NOT black and white, even if the rules on it were to me made so. Whether the ball crossed the line or not is.

I accept the offside evaluation is not as exact as with goalline technology and your point about when the ball was played is very relevant. However, and accepting that limitation,  at least once the "offside line" is superimposed onto the tv footage there is  no element of interpretation of the laws, it is merely a judgement as to whether the attacker is in front of the last defender - even if by a tiny amount.

By comparison, handball decisions, Chambers' "foul" and penalty decisions left right and centre seem to be shambolic because of the huge variation in interpretation of the laws by the VAR panels, leaving fans baffled, bemused and angry

[JamesBCFC]

Just now, downendcity said:

I accept the offside evaluation is not as exact as with goalline technology and your point about when the ball was played is very relevant. However, and accepting that limitation,  at least once the "offside line" is superimposed onto the tv footage there is  no element of interpretation of the laws, it is merely a judgement as to whether the attacker is in front of the last defender - even if by a tiny amount.

By comparison, handball decisions, Chambers' "foul" and penalty decisions left right and centre seem to be shambolic because of the huge variation in interpretation of the laws by the VAR panels, leaving fans baffled, bemused and angry

Point is though. If we can provide an precise reading of whether someone is past an offside line, but cannot determine accurately when the ball is played, then the reading of whether someone is on or offside itself cannot truly be accurate at the point of the ball being played is the event that someone is offside from.

Current handball rules are a bit of a shambles all around.

 

I'd also add this.

 

[RobintheRed Red]

On 28/10/2019 at 10:52, reddogkev said:

For me this has to be stopped - too many good goals being disallowed for the most pathetic of infringements.

The disallowed Arsenal goal against Palace yesterday was a total disgrace.

Why invent something that takes the entertainment and the thrill out of the game?  VAR is a cruel intervention in the current way it is being used.  Instead of accepting it, we have to oppose it and somehow force change.  Otherwise there will come a time when fans and players stop celebrating goals, until the dreaded review is complete.  Where's the fun in that? 

My question is, why is it being used to review every single goal scored? Are we really that desperate to disallow a goal?  This is not in the nature of the beautiful game, mistakes and dubious talking points are a huge part of the appeal of the sport.  The people in charge of VAR need to understand this is not a game for robots and flaws should remain, it adds to the drama and the excitement.  Having a goal stolen by a harsh VAR decision must be soul-destroying.   It should be up to the referee to use the replay if he is uncertain about a possible infringement.

What are your thoughts at the moment on the subject?

Very true its getting rediculous my Man City mate has had season tickets for years travelling to places like the Ukraine he told me could be his last season with these rules as after scoring a goal you have to wait five minutes to celebrate only to have it struck off . All the joys taken away.

[ZiderEyed]

The average check takes 29 seconds - scrap it.

I'm at university doing Football Studies and recently had to have a seminar discussion on the pros and cons of VAR. Those of us who didn't support PL clubs were vehemently against it, those supporting the big 6 were vehemently pro, and those who supported any of the other 14 PL clubs were largely nonplussed about it, and only wanted it to be part of the game because they felt referees had an unfair bias towards the big 6 clubs.

I think it shows an interesting split between football fans.

On 28/10/2019 at 11:48, sh1t_ref_again said:

I feel it should be a short time limited period, maybe 30 seconds, where VAR decides if there is a very clear rules infringement and if a close call or subjective the decisions stays with the refs original call. This over analysing from multi angles to see that someone's nose may have been offside is ridiculous (offside should be just where the feet are). 

Theres a good deal of academic papers on how slow motion adversely affects the referees ability to make a correct decision.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170627114829.htm

[South Somerset Red]

Football is a game at the end of the day and should be reffed by a someone in live time, decisions swing is roundabouts. why do we have to be so accurate now that offside is given for millimetres? Offside was bought into the game to prevent goal hanging and its stopped that. The ones that get me the most are fouls that happened before the goal, surly that's the refs call not var? Get rid it is rubbish, takes away a lot of the banter in football and to those who say it works in american football or rugby, go watch those sports then. Football is a fast flowing game and this is just stopping it and making it into a load of shite