VAR

[Lineker]

But it's not an advantage that means anything to anyone apart from the other team in the same game, who should have the same advantage. It has no effect on the integrity of the competition.

I've made this point multiple times myself...never seen a counterargument that makes sense.

 

[Lineker]

Suggested this the other day after the game....

Think 3 per team would be too much. 6 checks, each lasting 3 minutes takes too much time IMO. 2 per team would be ok.

Plus, only the ref asks for help. No "help" given without request.

Or, if VAR are to stay "active", and in order that it remains limited to "clear and obvious" mistake. VAR can only review in real time. Ref may ask for slow motion, not VAR slowing and telling.

Perhaps would help.

This method is used in American Football, and has worked quite well for a number of years, that is, each team has a number of appeals that can be made. The appeal is only used up if the on-field decision is not overturned, i.e. if you turn out to be correct to challenge the decision, you shouldnt lose the ability to appeal future decisions.

It makes sense to do it this way, as you can rely upon teams to save their challenges for when it counts most, but also for when they feel they have a good chance of getting the original decision overturned. This solves the issue of var checks being made or not being made in the hands of dodgy match officials, but not the actual decision...so, half the problem resolved.

 

[bluenorthwarrior]

Imo, VAR should be used only for the following incidents:

- Off the ball incidents, or non tackling violent behaviour.
- Offside, if no part of the attackers body is level with the defender. If the attacker is even marginally level, then it's not that clear and obvious, is it?
-Penalties where no contact has been made
-instances of the ball going out of play

This is the most sensible thing re VAR I've read yet.

So simple to understand, so easy to implement, so clear for teams to not be able to complain about how VAR treated them. And so, so unlikely to be anything like what actually happens unfortunately.

 

[MACCA75]

I've made this point multiple times myself...never seen a counterargument that makes sense.

The counter argument is the same competition should have the same rules. Not some games lasting 100 minutes because of VAR, not some games being stop/start. Some games having human error and referees being swayed by a home crowd and some not.

 

[Lineker]

No they wont, it will be just another one of those kick in the gonads that only applies to us

I've gone and "liked" this post, but now feel like I may have endorsed us getting a kick in the gonads. We need an "ain't that the truth" reaction-emoji.

 

[Lineker]

The counter argument is the same competition should have the same rules. Not some games lasting 100 minutes because of VAR, not some games being stop/start. Some games having human error and referees being swayed by a home crowd and some not.

...100 minutes vs 95 happens literally every game that differing amounts of time are added on, because the time is added on to replace time used for non-footballing reasons.

not some games being stop/start.

Both teams deal with the same issue

Some games having human error

Are you suggesting that all of the games have referees that are equally good/error prone? Or do some games have different match officials than others, some of which are better than others...

swayed by a home crowd and some not

Are you suggesting that the pressure on the referee is the same at Mordor as it is at Oxford Utd?

 

[Gilbert..]

Imo, VAR should be used only for the following incidents:

- Off the ball incidents, or non tackling violent behaviour.
- Offside, if no part of the attackers body is level with the defender. If the attacker is even marginally level, then it's not that clear and obvious, is it?
-Penalties where no contact has been made
-instances of the ball going out of play

I genuinely think thats what it was for originally. But they've gone on a complete power trip with it and lost the plot. Its all about them now and they love being the centre of attention despite what they claim.

 

[Lineker]

what does that matter. So if for example sunderland scored here at 0-0 and its chalked off incorrectly. Then newcastle win a replay and by the same token because of a VAR decision and then go on to win the cup they've gained an advantage because the away game didnt have VAR but the home game did way back in the 3rd round when they should have been knocked out.
Surely every game in the same competition has to either have it or not. You dont get some premier league games having it and some not.

what does that matter. So if for example sunderland scored here at 0-0 and its chalked off incorrectly

What if Newcastle get robbed by VAR? Both teams are facing the same conditions.

an advantage because the away game didnt have VAR

Neither team had VAR in this game, so face the same conditions that impacts their ability to win or lose the game.

Some pitches are nicer than others...should the teams that are playing on a muddy field in sleet up north complain because some team down south is playing a different team in nicer conditions?

 

[Gilbert..]

What if Newcastle get robbed by VAR? Both teams are facing the same conditions.

Neither team had VAR in this game, so face the same conditions that impacts their ability to win or lose the game.

Some pitches are nicer than others...should the teams that are playing on a muddy field in sleet up north complain because some team down south is playing a different team in nicer conditions?

I Know where you are coming from. You are talking about an individual game where both teams can either gain or lose out. But thats not the point. The flaw in the system is the example that a team can go on to win the cup over a replay that they should have been knocked out in the first tie but wasnt because there was no VAR but went through in the second game because there was. You've got to take that flaw out.

 

[Lineker]

I Know where you are coming from. You are talking about an individual game where both teams can either gain or lose out. But thats not the point. The flaw in the system is the example that a team can go on to win the cup over a replay that they should have been knocked out in the first tie but wasnt because there was no VAR but went through in the second game because there was. You've got to take that flaw out.

Agree to disagree...

 

[Gilbert..]

Agree to disagree...

Im fine with that. But you see it week in week out in the premier league. Games are so often decided by VAR. But at least its every game. you cant have that in another competition and its only decided if VAR is used because of how the ball is drawn out of the bag.

 

[MACCA75]

...100 minutes vs 95 happens literally every game that differing amounts of time are added on, because the time is added on to replace time used for non-footballing reasons.


Both teams deal with the same issue

Are you suggesting that all of the games have referees that are equally good/error prone? Or do some games have different match officials than others, some of which are better than others...

Are you suggesting that the pressure on the referee is the same at Mordor as it is at Oxford Utd?

I’m unconvinced I’m afraid. VAR should have no part in the FA Cup.

 

[roydo]

I’m unconvinced I’m afraid. VAR should have no part in the FA Cup.

I am ok with it at the SF and final; all 4 teams benefit/get sawn off.

 

[Gilbert..]

I am ok with it at the SF and final; all 4 teams benefit/get sawn off.

Thats exactly it. Id rather not have it at all but if it has to be used then at that stage only.

 

[DanEFC92]

Do Premier League referees ever overrule the VAR? The data show it's rare - but it does happen

Sean Dyche questioned the purpose of referees being called to the monitor after Dominic Calvert-Lewins controversial red card in the FA Cup; but the Everton striker actually benefitted from one of the few examples of VAR being overruled in the Premier League...

www.skysports.com