VAR

[chrisw1]

The main point that is being missed here is that the bar for reviewing a 'clear and obvious' error apparently has to be quite high. The contact by Ramsey or whether he was offside or not was the THIRD thing that was reviewed. How can that be a high bar for a clear and obvious error which is enough to justify asking the referee to review it? 

The answer to that is that offside doesn't have to be a clear and obvious error.  I'd guess the reason the ref was called to the monitor was to check he agreed that Ramsey interfered with play.

What was the first thing that was reviewed?

I don't want to sit here and defend the decison as I think it was bullshit.  But there's been a few posts above explaining what happened, take a look Smithy explains it pretty well.

I am just adding the point re clear and obvious for offsides as it is often missed.

.
I watched the game on Television and on the coverage I watched, the first thing that it showed that VAR was reviewing was a potential Ings hand ball - not an offside. The rule quoted on offside also talks about "impacting on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball." Smithy may have discussed this earlier, but are we saying that we think Cavani had a chance to play or challenge for the first ball that was delivered into the box? Because from memory, he was nowhere near it.

It's a stretch Leon, but yes they are saying Cavani woud have had an opportunity to track Konsas run and compete fro the ball.  He was arguably tracking the run when he got blocked.  I add once again here that I think it was a poor decision.

[LeeB]

I think people forget how angry we got about wrong decisions before VAR.

In theory, it should be a check and measure against a ref having a stinker or worse...   Notwithstanding that I think they are implementing it terribly and also that we have had some incredibly poor decisons against us, I suspect that overall they are still getting more decisions right than they used to.

I remain an advocate of the principal of VAR, but fuck me they are trying their best to kill it with incompetence.

People got angry, and they're still getting angry.

It's human nature to think technology will solve our problems. It doesn't. VAR will not make anything better, watching football is diminished by it.

[Drummond]

We need someone to start asking questions lik" I couldn't understand why VAR was not involved, especially when blood was coming from Konsa" and "  why were they looking at offside and couldn't find anything wrong, seems they were looking for a reason to disallow the goal", remember Alex Ferguson he was a mouthy  so and so

He got airtime whenever he wanted it and the media lapped it up. It's different for other managers.

[chrisw1]

I think people forget how angry we got about wrong decisions before VAR.

In theory, it should be a check and measure against a ref having a stinker or worse...   Notwithstanding that I think they are implementing it terribly and also that we have had some incredibly poor decisons against us, I suspect that overall they are still getting more decisions right than they used to.

I remain an advocate of the principal of VAR, but fuck me they are trying their best to kill it with incompetence.

People got angry, and they're still getting angry.

It's human nature to think technology will solve our problems. It doesn't. VAR will not make anything better, watching football is diminished by it.

It's all about opinions.  Rugby if far better with TMO.  Therer's absolutely no reason football can't be with VAR.  I don't acept the differences in the game make that much difference.  It's just about the implementation.  If they got that right you still may not like it, but it wouldn't be huge the issue it is now.

[Drummond]

The issue is that Cavani was arguably attempting to play the ball. Whether he'd have got there or not is another question. Our tactic (or Ramsey's) was clearly to get in the way and gain an advantage.

It's shit and semantics.

What VAR is doing though, is deflecting the fans' ire from the referee and blaming VAR. So for the referees etc it must be working well. I bet they don't get the same number of death threats etc now.

[LeeB]

Rugby is incredibly technical in some parts, and yes it works there but at international level, with elite refs, not the fucking chinless strapons we get courtesy of Mike Riley and David Ellery.

[LeonW]

The main point that is being missed here is that the bar for reviewing a 'clear and obvious' error apparently has to be quite high. The contact by Ramsey or whether he was offside or not was the THIRD thing that was reviewed. How can that be a high bar for a clear and obvious error which is enough to justify asking the referee to review it? 

The answer to that is that offside doesn't have to be a clear and obvious error.  I'd guess the reason the ref was called to the monitor was to check he agreed that Ramsey interfered with play.

What was the first thing that was reviewed?

I don't want to sit here and defend the decison as I think it was bullshit.  But there's been a few posts above explaining what happened, take a look Smithy explains it pretty well.

I am just adding the point re clear and obvious for offsides as it is often missed.

.
I watched the game on Television and on the coverage I watched, the first thing that it showed that VAR was reviewing was a potential Ings hand ball - not an offside. The rule quoted on offside also talks about "impacting on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball." Smithy may have discussed this earlier, but are we saying that we think Cavani had a chance to play or challenge for the first ball that was delivered into the box? Because from memory, he was nowhere near it.

It's a stretch Leon, but yes they are saying Cavani woud have had an opportunity to track Konsas run and compete fro the ball.  He was arguably tracking the run when he got blocked.  I add once again here that I think it was a poor decision.

Yeah that's the core bit that I think is causing disagreement and hence why the jury is still out on whether the decision was correct or not; VAR's view that Cavani could have had an 'opportunity.' Any one has an 'opportunity' but how realistic is that opportunity?

[Simon Page]

Granted I've always been a bit less bothered by poor refereeing decisions than most - I don't see the Vidic non-red card as being as big a factor as our inability to beat 11 men for example. But anger, joy, bitterness, ecstasy... they are what makes football a bit more enticing than a nice drama on the telly. The more you edge out error the more the game becomes stolid. Refs make so few errors anyway that VAR is less answering a problem as striving for uniformity. Come and watch the game - same as the last game.

[paul_e]

I have no doubt they came to a correct decision. What irritates me beyond belief is the very existence of VAR. A quest for perfection in decision-making sounds unarguably good in theory. In reality, it just diminishes the major pleasure of the game. I'll take refereeing errors any day over tedious delays while they slo-mo the shit out of my will to live. I even prefer managerial moaning in post-match interviews to having Gary Lineker read out rule 17b, Subsection VIII, Sub-clause Z at baffled pundits. Can the game not be enjoyably imperfect? It shouldn't attempt to be live-action FIFA.

I'm ok with VAR as a concept still but the implementation is shocking. I'd happily keep the offside stuff now that it's pretty much fixed, If they could automate it so that it's reviewed within a couple of seconds and sent to the refs watch as an alert (like goalline tech) then even better. Offside is, as Smithy says, a factual decision. It's when things get subjective that VAR becomes a problem and I suspect that's because it's being used for things it wasn't designed for. A clear error is something like a ref gives a penalty when there's no contact or a player trips an opponent outsides the refs eyeline. In those cases a simple alert from the VAR to say you've missed this, you should reverse the decision or penalise this player. If it's something the ref has seen and judged on and there's no immediate evidence he's wrong then it should stay with his decision.

How I'd implement it is to have a main 'live' stream and then 3-4 other angles that are 5-10 seconds behind. If you see something on live you switch to watching the others and if something jumps out as wrong you alert the ref within 15 seconds and you can rewatch it once, if you still think it's wrong you tell the ref to reverse it, if you're stil lnot sure play continues. That way things are being watched over and over, play isn't being stpped for long preiods and nothing is in slow-mo. I'd also add the option for the ref to ask for a review but again that would be 1-2 views at most. If you can't make a decision in 30 seconds then there's no reason to keep checking. This is where football and rugby differ and need different solutions, rugby naturally has longer breaks so taking their time (and crucially stopping the clock) is more suitable.

[paul_e]

Rugby is incredibly technical in some parts, and yes it works there but at international level, with elite refs, not the fucking chinless strapons we get courtesy of Mike Riley and David Ellery.

it's not just international level, TMO is required in all fully professional competitions.

[TonyD]

Football is about money.
Money is about eyeballs on the game.
VAR generates interest albeit negative and more eyeballs on the game. - for now.
So VAR makes money.

[Lsvilla]

And next up from Stockley Park - Mike Dean. With David Coote in the middle presumably Dean will see himself as the senior man on duty and therefore feel obliged to take charge.

[LeeB]

Rugby is incredibly technical in some parts, and yes it works there but at international level, with elite refs, not the fucking chinless strapons we get courtesy of Mike Riley and David Ellery.

it's not just international level, TMO is required in all fully professional competitions.

Fair enough I didn't realise that, but then I doubt many others did, as hardly anyone watches the game at that level.

And without making a dig at Rugby in general, it's a poor spectacle to watch unless you're invested in it. Why would football want to go down that path?

To answer myself, I reckon it's because further down the line they can use it to squeeze in ad breaks during play

[paul_e]

Rugby is incredibly technical in some parts, and yes it works there but at international level, with elite refs, not the fucking chinless strapons we get courtesy of Mike Riley and David Ellery.

it's not just international level, TMO is required in all fully professional competitions.

Fair enough I didn't realise that, but then I doubt many others did, as hardly anyone watches the game at that level.

And without making a dig at Rugby in general, it's a poor spectacle to watch unless you're invested in it. Why would football want to go down that path?

To answer myself, I reckon it's because further down the line they can use it to squeeze in ad breaks during play

The bold bit is true of almost any sport but I think you need to look into it a little more. English rugby in particular is in a fantastic place right now with match scores this season averaging the highest on record (I believe that's still correct, it was the case before christmas) and most games being between 2 teams determined to win rather than anyone just trying to hang in and sneak a result at the end like you often see in the football.

The problem rugby has is one of image, there are still to many people wo think of the sport as it was 30 years ago with teams full of amateur toffs from public schools. I promise you if you get to know the basic rules of the game and give it a chance the premiership is one of the most exciting leagues to watch in any sport in the world right now.

[martin o`who??]

It's improved nothing, worsened others, still just as many controversial decisions as before - just at another level - fans are left in limbo for minutes at a time and don't know whether they can celebrate or not, the spontaneity and joy has been drained from the game. players don't like it, fans don't like it, managers don't like it - get rid for God's sake.
Oh - and the whole decision-making process STILL seems to favour certain clubs.