VAR

[Somniloquism]

Most of our offsides are delay-flagged by the linos.

I feel that is almost a self fulfilling prophecy the same as Arsenal were back under Graham. We are so well drilled that linos call it anyway because they read we are really good at catching teams offside. VAR then confirms the decision in most cases. AFAIK, I don't think any goal called offside on the field has been overruled against us though.

[tomd2103]

As someone who works in technology, I'm always amused at people who think technology will solve problems.

The biggest problem for me is that there has never been any real clarity about what exactly it's role is in the game.  Video technology was brought in to sports to eliminate the 'howler' and then also to pick up things that the on field officials have missed.  It wasn't brought in for another level.of officiating to be in place and for them to have five minute conversations with the referee while everyone else in the ground waits.

If they wanted to, they could make it much more simple and eradicate a lot of the issues:

- Only look at the act of scoring and maybe the assist  leading directly up to it.  Anything before that can't be  checked. 

- VAR official only intervenes if ref confirms officials haven't seen an incident.  If they say they have, then the VAR official only gets involved if they believe that an absolutely clear and obvious mistake has been made (ie a penalty awarded for handball when it clearly hits a player's  chest).

- Introduce the semi automated system ASAP and again, only look at the direct act of scoring or a direct assist. 

[LeeB]

We could make it simpler still by giving someone a whistle and two other people flags.

[Somniloquism]

The biggest problem for me is that there has never been any real clarity about what exactly it's role is in the game.  Video technology was brought in to sports to eliminate the 'howler' and then also to pick up things that the on field officials have missed.  It wasn't brought in for another level.of officiating to be in place and for them to have five minute conversations with the referee while everyone else in the ground waits.

If they wanted to, they could make it much more simple and eradicate a lot of the issues:

- Only look at the act of scoring and maybe the assist  leading directly up to it.  Anything before that can't be  checked. 

- VAR official only intervenes if ref confirms officials haven't seen an incident.  If they say they have, then the VAR official only gets involved if they believe that an absolutely clear and obvious mistake has been made (ie a penalty awarded for handball when it clearly hits a player's  chest).

- Introduce the semi automated system ASAP and again, only look at the direct act of scoring or a direct assist.

Your first two points are pretty much what VAR is supposed to already be for. It is when they arbitrarily decide to go back several levels in one match and not do that in another. The only other VAR intervention currently in the rules is the missed red card offence and they only normally call the ref for that if he states he didn't spot the studs up challenge.

[Somniloquism]

As someone who works in technology, I'm always amused at people who think technology will solve problems.

Caravans classed as technology. New one on me.

[Smithy]

We’ve probably benefitted from VAR more than most clubs given we catch sides offside with our line so often. So there is value to it. It’s that now the people paid to make these decisions are taking an eternity to find ways to disallow goals and not give them. That seems to be their starting point. There needs to be clock introduced and the onfield decision needs to be the one that has to be clearly and obviously wrong to overturn. Also handball needs to be intentional not incidental. We may have to adjust our high line a bit or be even more precise but the game overall benefits. Right now VAR is absolutely killing it.

There is a table going around where they've used the results if VAR overturns had been ignored.  i.e. the "on the field" decision stood as if VAR didn't exist.  We were top of the league.  And that was before we were denied a winner at Everton.  We have not "benefitted" from VAR this season at all.  If these things balance out over a season, we are due a couple of absolutely stinkers in our favour.

But doesn't that table talk about goals scored or not versus just decisions related to VAR. We have caught teams offside miles more than our competitors. We definitely benefit from the marginal calls that on field officiating might miss.

It’s the same thing, because VAR gets involved in offside decisions ONLY if a goal is scored. So 95% of the time, us catching someone offside has no involvement of VAR at all.

That table going around includes goals for/against that were the result of a VAR intervention. So it includes goals chalked off by VAR that were given on the field (such as Moreno yesterday), and goals where it wasn’t given on the field but VAR intervenes to award it (for example, the lino gives offside after the ball goes in, but it wasn’t offside on review so VAR allows it, but pre VAR it would have been a disallowed goal).

In THAT table, we’re top of the league. VAR owes us…

[baddowvillans]

I imagine that if you asked supporters of other Prem teams they would say that VAR has favoured Villa but that's largely just because of the high line which often needs VAR to confirm the decision.  The media don't help by saying Son scored a "hat trick" of disallowed goals against Villa.  No because if he's offside they aren't goals!

[Smithy]

I imagine that if you asked supporters of other Prem teams they would say that VAR has favoured Villa but that's largely just because of the high line which often needs VAR to confirm the decision.  The media don't help by saying Son scored a "hat trick" of disallowed goals against Villa.  No because if he's offside they aren't goals!

I'm also pretty sure that the linesman gave every one of them offside, so they'd all have been disallowed even without VAR.  Plus Ollie's first disallowed goal that was actually given on the field, but disallowed by VAR.  So even in THAT game, VAR screwed us over...

[Pat McMahon]

Most of our offsides are delay-flagged by the linos.

I feel that is almost a self fulfilling prophecy the same as Arsenal were back under Graham. We are so well drilled that linos call it anyway because they read we are really good at catching teams offside. VAR then confirms the decision in most cases. AFAIK, I don't think any goal called offside on the field has been overruled against us though.

The last one I can think of was Brighton against us back in May.

[tomd2103]

We could make it simpler still by giving someone a whistle and two other people flags.

True.  I do think it has a place and could benefit the game, but that it is being applied terribly at times. 

[Smithy]

Most of our offsides are delay-flagged by the linos.

I feel that is almost a self fulfilling prophecy the same as Arsenal were back under Graham. We are so well drilled that linos call it anyway because they read we are really good at catching teams offside. VAR then confirms the decision in most cases. AFAIK, I don't think any goal called offside on the field has been overruled against us though.

The last one I can think of was Brighton against us back in May.

Yep, I think it's that one too. Which just goes to show that the idea that VAR is saving our high-line strategy simply isn't correct.

[tony scott]

I think if we involve var it mustn’t take longer than 60 secs and if no definitive decsion is reached its referees call

[Simon Page]

But I don't see how any of that equates to money being the reason.

The easiest example is that football is a results driven business, and a few bad decisions on the pitch can be the difference between a win, draw or loss. These bad decisions can determine where teams end up in their final league positions or through to the next round of the cup, and therefore they can have financial consequences.

Across various answers to this we've moved from suggestions it ensures the status quo is maintained to it's about righting the wrongs of financially costly human error. With or without VAR, trophies and final league placings are based on wealth and financial trickery. The same type of clubs are winning everything, the league table is as was. I don't see a link between VAR and money, except for those who make and maintain the tech.

So it comes back to has it improved the game? As a sporting contest, emotional ride, fair competitive endeavour and just plain fun event, the answer is clearly no. In terms of ending the arguments about decisions, has it fck. The analysing goes on for days now. You'd hope it has reduced the number of errors (I have no idea on the figures) but is the cost to other aspects of the game worth it?

I think it's always been a solution looking for a problem. While I've never seen the ref on the pitch as a problem, fair enough to those who do. Having found a problem, we've learned the solution solves little and creates new issues. But apparently because it exists we simply must use it. I'd rather they spent the time perfecting it in private rather than stumbling around pretending all is fine and it just needs the odd tweak.

[DB]

Why hasn't the Prem implemented the automated offside system as UEFA have??? Much better than tedious of the drawing line method.

[rougegorge]

I think if we involve var it mustn’t take longer than 60 secs and if no definitive decsion is reached its referees call

Ideally that would be good. A minute should be enough, but in practice it could create more chaos in the decision making and more mistakes if they know they only have one minute.

It could also be open to suggestions of bias or favouritism if they take longer than a minute and then miss something.