VAR

[TheBigIguana]

The debate whether it's "right" is where the interpretation is and where it falls down.

Just wait for a Salah special being given even though he's been pulled up in the past for "falling over unnaturally".

Or when one game calls a decision and the next game where the exact same thing happens, doesn't.

If you're gonna do it, do it properly or not at all. End of the day it's been around what, 3 years or longer? And still isn't "working".

That's no different from having referees make decisions normally though is it?

For me a big fix for the whole thing would be to give the ref a microphone NFL style and let him quickly explain what it is he sees and why he calls it. That way we can disagree but can at least no the logic of why something has or has not been given. And that will also make it clear to people that this is still the ref making a subjective call just instead of one look he is getting a few extra and therefore it doesn't have to be 100% agreed with by everyone.

 

[kenada_blue]

That's no different from having referees make decisions normally though is it?

For me a big fix for the whole thing would be to give the ref a microphone NFL style and let him quickly explain what it is he sees and why he calls it. That way we can disagree but can at least no the logic of why something has or has not been given. And that will also make it clear to people that this is still the ref making a subjective call just instead of one look he is getting a few extra and therefore it doesn't have to be 100% agreed with by everyone.

The ref is fully in control to the decisions he makes and tells the players in a normal game. Additionally, the refs aren't allowed to explain their actions to the media...which is essence is what you're doing on a live game if he's mic'd up

Also, the ref doesn't decided what to review, he's told. So technically, the VAR official is making the decision for him which then leads down to opinion and interpretation.

The problem is that you can't compared football to the NFL or Rugby as the rules are more clearly defined in those sports. They're mostly open to interpretation in football.

 

[TheBigIguana]

The ref is fully in control to the decisions he makes and tells the players in a normal game. Additionally, the refs aren't allowed to explain their actions to the media...which is essence is what you're doing on a live game if he's mic'd up

Also, the ref doesn't decided what to review, he's told. So technically, the VAR official is making the decision for him which then leads down to opinion and interpretation.

The problem is that you can't compared football to the NFL or Rugby as the rules are more clearly defined in those sports. They're mostly open to interpretation in football.

Maybe it's time that the refs did have to explain their decisions. A little transparency couldn't hurt. And the ref is told to review it but the system certainly could be made so that when buzzed he comes over and decides on his own. VAR doesn't have to influence the actual decision at all.

There are clearly problems but I also think that the people in charge aren't doing nearly enough to find solutions. I also think at the root of it all is that the interpretation of the laws has gone too far from what they actually say. For example using arms to grab or push players really isn't supposed to be allowed at all and isn't enforced to that strict standard at all anymore. Getting the code in line with how the game is played or bringing the game back to the laws would probably be helpful.

 

[SteChallinor]

The part you are leaving out is it is a competition and the competitors deserve the fairest system possible. It isn't perfect yet for fouls and handballs but the offside part of it is fantastic from a fairness perspective and turning away from it would honestly be corrupt at this point. The rest needs work but the work should be done instead of giving up.

The part you’re leaving out is that it’s primary purpose is to entertain, and so far in my opinion it makes a game less enjoyable to watch. That’s without the infuriating refusal to flag for blatant offsides so that VAR can rule it out if a goal is scored.

Do you genuinely believe an offside decision that exists of a big toe being 2 inches ahead of a defender is important enough to fundamentally interrupt a game which has existed perfectly happily for over a hundred years without it?

We’ve all benefited from a bad offside call. We’ve all been screwed over by one too.

I just don’t think it’s important enough for the negatives it brings.

I watch a lot of NFL, and their obsession with replay has left practically nobody even knowing what a catch is. The most fundamental part of the game, something which should be enormously simple, corrupted by the fans fervour for every decision being perfect.

The last several offseasons have seen them changing the wording of the catch rule (amongst other rules) to fit around what replay shows them, rather than the other way around.

 

[TheBigIguana]

The part you’re leaving out is that it’s primary purpose is to entertain, and so far in my opinion it makes a game less enjoyable to watch. That’s without the infuriating refusal to flag for blatant offsides so that VAR can rule it out if a goal is scored.

Do you genuinely believe an offside decision that exists of a big toe being 2 inches ahead of a defender is important enough to fundamentally interrupt a game which has existed perfectly happily for over a hundred years without it?

We’ve all benefited from a bad offside call. We’ve all been screwed over by one too.

I just don’t think it’s important enough for the negatives it brings.

I watch a lot of NFL, and their obsession with replay has left practically nobody even knowing what a catch is. The most fundamental part of the game, something which should be enormously simple, corrupted by the fans fervour for every decision being perfect.

The last several offseasons have seen them changing the wording of the catch rule (amongst other rules) to fit around what replay shows them, rather than the other way around.

At a minimum the rules are the rules regarding offside and I think the players are ok with the rules being enforced to the letter of the law in this area.

 

[SteChallinor]

At a minimum the rules are the rules regarding offside and I think the players are ok with the rules being enforced to the letter of the law in this area.

I’m not a player though. I’m a fan. The players are happy throwing themselves on the floor holding their face when a stray arm catches their shoulder, so I’m not sure I need to make my decisions based on what the players are happy with.

With that said, I don’t actually mind it being used for offside.

As you say, it is or it isn’t. If we are going to have it, that’s the only area that should be clear cut, and worthwhile.

I’d just far rather not have it at all.

I enjoy watching football matches, for the football. The perfection of one or two decisions is a pretty minor factor for me.

 

[TheBigIguana]

I’m not a player though. I’m a fan. The players are happy throwing themselves on the floor holding their face when a stray arm catches their shoulder, so I’m not sure I need to make my decisions based on what the players are happy with.

With that said, I don’t actually mind it being used for offside.

As you say, it is or it isn’t. If we are going to have it, that’s the only area that should be clear cut, and worthwhile.

I’d just far rather not have it at all.

I enjoy watching football matches, for the football. The perfection of one or two decisions is a pretty minor factor for me.

This is the problem for me. People are mad because they don't like VAR when in reality it is put in place to protect the integrity of the game for the players. So to me it is up to them to say we want it out. If they are ok with it then it should stay.

Or fans can leave the game in mass. But that isn't happening.

 

[kenada_blue]

Maybe it's time that the refs did have to explain their decisions. A little transparency couldn't hurt. And the ref is told to review it but the system certainly could be made so that when buzzed he comes over and decides on his own. VAR doesn't have to influence the actual decision at all.

There are clearly problems but I also think that the people in charge aren't doing nearly enough to find solutions. I also think at the root of it all is that the interpretation of the laws has gone too far from what they actually say. For example using arms to grab or push players really isn't supposed to be allowed at all and isn't enforced to that strict standard at all anymore. Getting the code in line with how the game is played or bringing the game back to the laws would probably be helpful.

It's already a pressurised job so that wouldn't help if they had to explain decisions. They have to do it to their bosses at the end of a game anyway so there's no need to explain to fans.

VAR already influences the decision somewhat by flagging up an incident the ref had missed or needs to review or over turn his original decision.

Now, if the power was given to the ref to use to confirm decisions or help him rather than the other way around, it would work better and help.

 

[TheBigIguana]

It's already a pressurised job so that wouldn't help if they had to explain decisions. They have to do it to their bosses at the end of a game anyway so there's no need to explain to fans.

VAR already influences the decision somewhat by flagging up an incident the ref had missed or needs to review or over turn his original decision.

Now, if the power was given to the ref to use to confirm decisions or help him rather than the other way around, it would work better and help.

There has to be something beyond the ref wants to check for it to get activated imo. And explaining it out loud puts no extra pressure on them if they already have to do it later on anyway. And there is a massive need for the fans to know what is going on. It's honestly the best way to get VAR more accepted. Let the fans know what's happening.

 

[SteChallinor]

This is the problem for me. People are mad because they don't like VAR when in reality it is put in place to protect the integrity of the game for the players. So to me it is up to them to say we want it out. If they are ok with it then it should stay.

Or fans can leave the game in mass. But that isn't happening.

The integrity of the game argument being upheld for the players is daft. If the players didn’t seek to gain advantage by diving, I could take that, but they have for decades and decades, so that’s gone.

It’s also only ok to uphold integrity for the most high profile and highly paid players?

The game belongs to the fans. And conversely this is only happening because of the fans obsessiveness on social media and the like.

This is not happening because of the players. Full stop.

 

[TheBigIguana]

The integrity of the game argument being upheld for the players is daft. If the players didn’t seek to gain advantage by diving, I could take that, but they have for decades and decades, so that’s gone.

It’s also only ok to uphold integrity for the most high profile and highly paid players?

The game belongs to the fans. And conversely this is only happening because of the fans obsessiveness on social media and the like.

This is not happening because of the players. Full stop.

Ok. But even if you accept it is entirely for the fans, don't you think most are probably happy to have a system that prevents games from being decided by referees? I mean do we really come to watch the referee make decisions? This is taking it out of their hands as much as it can.

 

[kenada_blue]

There has to be something beyond the ref wants to check for it to get activated imo. And explaining it out loud puts no extra pressure on them if they already have to do it later on anyway. And there is a massive need for the fans to know what is going on. It's honestly the best way to get VAR more accepted. Let the fans know what's happening.

Which is more reasonable to let the ref be in control. The game would continue as it is for the most part and VAR would get used when the ref sees fit. You wouldn't need for the ref to explain his decision, he'll just make the signal and go to the TV.

Offsides are offsides. But everything else that the lino and ref debate gets sorted by VAR.

At least there's 1 person in control making the decisions rightly or wrongly. At the moment you'll got 9 officials per game and you still end up with arguements.

 

[TheBigIguana]

Which is more reasonable to let the ref be in control. The game would continue as it is for the most part and VAR would get used when the ref sees fit. You wouldn't need for the ref to explain his decision, he'll just make the signal and go to the TV.

Offsides are offsides. But everything else that the lino and ref debate gets sorted by VAR.

At least there's 1 person in control making the decisions rightly or wrongly. At the moment you'll got 9 officials per game and you still end up with arguements.

But if the fans could hear the argument wouldn't everything be much calmer at the end?

I really don't understand why you are so against communicating the decisions. It takes little time and works well in literally every single sport that does it.

 

[kenada_blue]

But if the fans could hear the argument wouldn't everything be much calmer at the end?

I really don't understand why you are so against communicating the decisions. It takes little time and works well in literally every single sport that does it.

Again, if you can name a sport on par with football where the rules are open to interpretation then I'll agree.

The ref doesn't explain his decisions now and fans get along with it just fine. Does he have to explain every foul or just the VAR decisions? I don't see how it helps the fans especially when it's supposed to appear on the in stadium screen.

VAR itself massacres crowd atmosphere anyway. The ref explaining things won't help that.

 

[TheBigIguana]

Again, if you can name a sport on par with football where the rules are open to interpretation then I'll agree.

The ref doesn't explain his decisions now and fans get along with it just fine. Does he have to explain every foul or just the VAR decisions? I don't see how it helps the fans especially when it's supposed to appear on the in stadium screen.

VAR itself massacres crowd atmosphere anyway. The ref explaining things won't help that.

Just because things are fine now doesn't mean they can't be better.

And the final in the Women's final was fine despite VAR making a decision. I disagree with that argument completely. Atmosphere is already crap 80% of the time as well. If anything listening to Mike Dean explain how Salah's dive was ok because someone scraped a fingernail on him would incite the crowd.

The point is to make the interpretation known to the fans so isn't it better than just letting things go? I'm still lost as to why the fans can't be made aware of what the ref is thinking.