Tristan Cork VAR Widening Divide

[REDOXO]

I know this is an oxymoron, however a very good article by This bloke on Bristol Live,, highlighting the difference between VAR and Non VAR football and they way the game is progressing on different paths. Of course using our recent game to underline the difference. 
 

Worth a read!

Edited January 18 by REDOXO

[White Stripe]

Good news for the Forest game!

[Markthehorn]

2 hours ago, REDOXO said:

I know this is an oxymoron, however a very good article by This bloke on Bristol Live,, highlighting the difference between VAR and Non VAR football and they way the game is progressing on different paths. Of course using our recent game to underline the difference. 
 

Worth a read!

Yes - West Ham were really annoyed VAR wasn't around on Tuesday.

Can tell they didn't like you getting stuck in etc. 

The same fans that will probably be complaining about VAR in their next league game.

 

[Rocking Red Cyril]

It is the stupidity with Var. If it's coming in then all bloody grounds .not just some.

[Silvio Dante]

12 minutes ago, Rocking Red Cyril said:

It is the stupidity with Var. If it's coming in then all bloody grounds .not just some.

I think this in part, or at least it has to be in or out in a competition. So that means out in the FA cup for me.
 

Neil Critchley had a similar moan to West Ham yesterday in that their first game against Forest had VAR but the replay didn’t and he felt the winner was offside.

Interestingly, in the Middlesbrough-Chelsea semi final in the league cup both legs (including the one at Stamford Bridge) won’t have VAR so the whole tie is played under the same conditions. Totally logical and that they didn’t follow that logic in the FA Cup is madness.

[cityal]

26 minutes ago, Rocking Red Cyril said:

It is the stupidity with Var. If it's coming in then all bloody grounds .not just some.

Can VAR cameras be fitted to temporary structures like tents and cowsheds? - asking for a friend

[Denbury Red]

10 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

I think this in part, or at least it has to be in or out in a competition. So that means out in the FA cup for me.
 

Neil Critchley had a similar moan to West Ham yesterday in that their first game against Forest had VAR but the replay didn’t and he felt the winner was offside.

Interestingly, in the Middlesbrough-Chelsea semi final in the league cup both legs (including the one at Stamford Bridge) won’t have VAR so the whole tie is played under the same conditions. Totally logical and that they didn’t follow that logic in the FA Cup is madness.

That's because the FA Cup game at West Ham was only "scheduled" to be one game - had there been a result.  With the Lg Cup semi-final it is always two legs hence the decision not to use VAR as both grounds haven't got VAR - for a Semi-final involving two Premier Lg clubs no doubt VAR would be used.

But I agree that a whole competition should be with or without - hence both the FA Cup and Lg Cup's in England should be without VAR!

[Silvio Dante]

5 minutes ago, Denbury Red said:

That's because the FA Cup game at West Ham was only "scheduled" to be one game - had there been a result.  With the Lg Cup semi-final it is always two legs hence the decision not to use VAR as both grounds haven't got VAR - for a Semi-final involving two Premier Lg clubs no doubt VAR would be used.

But I agree that a whole competition should be with or without - hence both the FA Cup and Lg Cup's in England should be without VAR!

Yeah aware of the rationale (and you are correct that Liverpool-Fulham will have VAR). Think we’re on the same page - as a minimum for me any tie has to be conducted on the same basis for its entirety, and there can’t be an assumption it will finish in one game.

[Port Said Red]

I think VAR has highlighted some of grey areas in the rules. Offside for example would only be given where it was clear and obvious, and even when people analysed it after they would often say, "well, he's level at best, but it's difficult for the linesman". Now it's taken apart frame by frame and that apparently means it's now "obviously offside", which it never was. 

To me, if it's "clear and obvious" the decision was wrong then it should take 15-30 seconds to show that. If it takes longer then it's not clear and obvious (the original reason for VAR), and the game should continue.

[Denbury Red]

The overriding comment from last weekend when I was listening to some commentaries on the radio was the fact that so many pundits were saying how great it was NOT to have VAR, as the players just got on with it, played to the referee's whistle and if it was shown later that they got it wrong - then tough, that was just one of those things.

It would be interesting to see how much "additional time" was played on Saturday in games with no VAR, compared to those with VAR!

My brother spends half his life in Germany where they have had VAR for much longer than the UK and long winded decisions just don't happen - why can't we learn from them!!

[Markthehorn]

29 minutes ago, Denbury Red said:

The overriding comment from last weekend when I was listening to some commentaries on the radio was the fact that so many pundits were saying how great it was NOT to have VAR, as the players just got on with it, played to the referee's whistle and if it was shown later that they got it wrong - then tough, that was just one of those things.

It would be interesting to see how much "additional time" was played on Saturday in games with no VAR, compared to those with VAR!

My brother spends half his life in Germany where they have had VAR for much longer than the UK and long winded decisions just don't happen - why can't we learn from them!!

Fortunately in the league cup and FA cup there were any really controversial decisions that affected a teams result it seems so everyone was happy but what will be the reaction of a team if they get knock due to a poor decision which VAR might have corrected?

Having said that there is no certainty that the “right decision “would be made of-course with it !

And I think there lies in the problem of the process - people expected it to be perfectly done with no inconsistency or debates .

Edited January 18 by Markthehorn

[RedLionLad]

7 hours ago, REDOXO said:

I know this is an oxymoron, however a very good article by This bloke on Bristol Live,, highlighting the difference between VAR and Non VAR football and they way the game is progressing on different paths. Of course using our recent game to underline the difference. 
 

Worth a read!

@Tristan Cork

[eardun]

Excellent article. Hadn’t really thought about it in these terms - different games, one with VAR and one without - but having thought about it, this really sums up why I don’t like VAR. Link to article here: 

Bristol City vs West Ham, VAR, and the clear divide that is widening in football - Tristan Cork - Bristol Live

[chinapig]

6 hours ago, Markthehorn said:

The same fans that will probably be complaining about VAR in their next league game.

It seems that if you don't have VAR and you lose it's because you don't have VAR. And if you have VAR and you lose it's because you have VAR.

[Ian M]

7 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

I think this in part, or at least it has to be in or out in a competition. So that means out in the FA cup for me.
 

Neil Critchley had a similar moan to West Ham yesterday in that their first game against Forest had VAR but the replay didn’t and he felt the winner was offside.

Interestingly, in the Middlesbrough-Chelsea semi final in the league cup both legs (including the one at Stamford Bridge) won’t have VAR so the whole tie is played under the same conditions. Totally logical and that they didn’t follow that logic in the FA Cup is madness.

Just excuses. Ball was played backwards to Danilo who tried to drive forward but was tackled by Blackpool and the ball fell to Yates who it could be argued was borderline offside but as I said, it was Blackpool who played the ball to him. Yates then crossed it backwards to Wood who converted.

[Markthehorn]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

It seems that if you don't have VAR and you lose it's because you don't have VAR. And if you have VAR and you lose it's because you have VAR.

Makes me laugh when players , managers and fans say they would rather not have VAR and will just accept the refs decision on the pitch even if was wrong /an error .

That never used to happen and won’t change even if VAR went tomorrow.

Football is too tribal for the rugby type “refs call is final so get on with it “

But obviously VAR needs to change its level of use and better communication.

Don’t think you can really ever get the consistency and reliability on decision some crave as it’s all too subjective as it always was before VAR.

 

Edited January 19 by Markthehorn

[sephjnr]

Ten seconds to ask for a review, one minute with the referee reviewing the play.

It's the people who are the issue.

[Tinmans Love Child]

5 hours ago, Markthehorn said:

Makes me laugh when players , managers and fans say they would rather not have VAR and will just accept the refs decision on the pitch even if was wrong /an error .

That never used to happen and won’t change even if VAR went tomorrow.

Football is too tribal for the rugby type “refs call is final so get on with it “

But obviously VAR needs to change its level of use and better communication.

Don’t think you can really ever get the consistency and reliability on decision some crave as it’s all too subjective as it always was before VAR.

 

One of my pet hates is rugby fans banging on that the players call the ref Sir and all that, who cares!

[Sir Geoff]

13 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

I think VAR has highlighted some of grey areas in the rules. Offside for example would only be given where it was clear and obvious, and even when people analysed it after they would often say, "well, he's level at best, but it's difficult for the linesman". Now it's taken apart frame by frame and that apparently means it's now "obviously offside", which it never was. 

To me, if it's "clear and obvious" the decision was wrong then it should take 15-30 seconds to show that. If it takes longer then it's not clear and obvious (the original reason for VAR), and the game should continue.

Totally agree. 30 seconds maximum to decide if it's clear and obvious. After that advantage should be given to the attacking team. 

[Slack Bladder]

In cricket they have umpires call on reviews

If the umpire says it's not out, then on the review the whole ball must be hitting the stumps, if it’s partial, then umpires call stands

[The Bard]

8 hours ago, Markthehorn said:

Makes me laugh when players , managers and fans say they would rather not have VAR and will just accept the refs decision on the pitch even if was wrong /an error .

That never used to happen and won’t change even if VAR went tomorrow.

Football is too tribal for the rugby type “refs call is final so get on with it “

But obviously VAR needs to change its level of use and better communication.

Don’t think you can really ever get the consistency and reliability on decision some crave as it’s all too subjective as it always was before VAR.

 

It's not because of being tribal. It was tribal in the 60s but the players didn't abuse referees and managers didn't just blame refs after the game.

It's more about how every day standards of respect etc have gone. People don't now how to behave. Being a moron seems to be socially acceptable. 

 

[Markthehorn]

9 hours ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

One of my pet hates is rugby fans banging on that the players call the ref Sir and all that, who cares!

And in reality I bet they don’t so much now.

You just don’t get a load suddenly surrounding the officials as most of them are on the floor on top of each other !

 And heard pundits/players and coaches going on about getting the ref on side etc as much as they try to in football .

[eardun]

It’s bigger than just the problems with VAR. The article is highlighting that the game is splitting into two different games - one with VAR and one without. We were playing a different way to West Ham because they are used to VAR and we aren’t. There were some things that we did that we would not have survived VAR. I much prefer it without VAR. 

[Maesknoll Red]

Thought provoking article, interesting and concerning at the same time.  One thing I'd like to see changed is the offside rule, I'd like to see clear daylight between the players before offside is given, i.e. the advantage to the attacking team.