VAR

[Sean Ashley]

The argument that it works in other sports is pointless though because other sports are different so its not a direct comparison.

This is a good example of what i'm talking about. You can't have a review system where the call is subjective though because it won't work. If you get given out caught behind in cricket and you KNOW you didn't hit it you review it they'll check whether you did or not and if theres clear evidence that you didn't then it gets overturned its as simple as that theres no need for subjective interpretation. In football you could review something where you KNOW you got kicked in the box and so you're 100% sure you should get a penalty but they can still look at it and see the contact but decide its not a pen. This is the whole issue with VAR people want objective decisions in a sport which doesn't really have them.

The subjective nature of football is an issue. The only similar subjective call I think off the top of my head is caught where the ball may have bounced first and the third umpire has to make that judgement call.

Football does need to remove most if not all subjective calls and state clearly in the rule book what will happen in each situation, as subjective calls is what allows "big" teams to get away with favourable decisions.

 

[JimmyK]

The subjective nature of football is an issue. The only similar subjective call I think off the top of my head is caught where the ball may have bounced first and the third umpire has to make that judgement call.

Football does need to remove most if not all subjective calls and state clearly in the rule book what will happen in each situation, as subjective calls is what allows "big" teams to get away with favourable decisions.

That can't happen realistically though without saying that no contact at all is allowed and I doubt anybody wants to see that. Its just part of the game that sometimes things get given and sometimes they don't its annoying but I don't think it can be avoided without making massive changes to how the game is actually played.

 

[Goodison87]

Think Anthony Gordon summed VAR up well yesterday, “Get rid or get better”.

 

[LEONARD]

 

[Sean Ashley]

That can't happen realistically though without saying that no contact at all is allowed and I doubt anybody wants to see that. Its just part of the game that sometimes things get given and sometimes they don't its annoying but I don't think it can be avoided without making massive changes to how the game is actually played.

Your probably right it won't happen, but I think refs and lawmakers try and overcomplicate the game. Just have a ref makes a decision and if one of the teams and not the VAR room thinks a wrong call has been made VAR uses technology to see if a there was an clear error that needs overturning. Going to the screen is pointless, as they don't overturn their mates.

 

[JimmyK]

Your probably right it won't happen, but I think refs and lawmakers try and overcomplicate the game. Just have a ref makes a decision and if one of the teams and not the VAR room thinks a wrong call has been made VAR uses technology to see if a there was an clear error that needs overturning. Going to the screen is pointless, as they don't overturn their mates.

I agree I think theres a place for VAR as a safety net to stop absolute travesties but it just doesn't work when its used to pretty much re referee the game. If someone can watch a replay and say you've missed a clear foul or offside you need to change it then great but nobody wants a situation where you just don't know whats going on for 5 minutes every time a goal is scored.

 

[Tipp blue]

There should be a time limit to VAR checks say 20 seconds with a few angles angles, then the screen goes blank if they cant make a decision that quickly then it's not clear and obvious so the call on the field stands, as for offside if you cant tell without drawing a line then it's not offside, the VAR should have the benefit of pausing it for offside but no lines on screen just eyeball it should be able to do a far better job with that benefit than a linesman can do with play going on at full speed.

 

[Tipp blue]

I agree I think theres a place for VAR as a safety net to stop absolute travesties but it just doesn't work when its used to pretty much re referee the game. If someone can watch a replay and say you've missed a clear foul or offside you need to change it then great but nobody wants a situation where you just don't know what's going on for 5 minutes every time a goal is scored.

If there is VAR issued red cards being overturned on appeal (DCL) then there is a major issue with it and needs a massive overhaul.

 

[JimmyK]

If there is VAR issued red cards being overturned on appeal (DCL) then there is a major issue with it and needs a massive overhaul.

I don't think that particular one was evidence of a flawed system it was more just a terrible individual decision you do still get the odd one of those even in sports where it generally works well.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Think Anthony Gordon summed VAR up well yesterday, “Get rid or get better”.

If they did scrap it he would never "win" a penalty again.

 

[PeregrineT]

I mean getting rid of VAR just lets the bad people win. Why did we want VAR? Because refereeing was so bad, and so biased towards certain teams that people felt there HAD to be a review for it to correct obviously wrong decisions.

What has been the known issue with VAR? That the referees(who were so bad that VAR was demanded) are upset with having their calls reviewed and so try not to change any calls even when it seems obvious. That and they have in some cases decided to use it to make bad calls.

Removing VAR just lets them win. They refused to use it in most cases, and now they get it taken away. They are the literal reason its been implemented. They are also the only constant with bad refereeing. THEY are the problem. VAR has just shined a new spotlight on their incompetence(and IMHO corruption/bias). They will hate VAR continuing and that's just what we should want. I think that if VAR persists for another 2-3 years there will have to be a change in the way referees operate and are judged, leading to long term positive change.

 

[Lee Smith]

Wolves' reasons for binning VAR.

Can’t really disagree with any of that at all. All valid points.

 

[JimmyK]

Wolves' reasons for binning VAR.

I like their little pop at Notts Forest at the bottom!

 

[Bclay]

I hate VAR as it currently exists and I don't trust the individuals in charge to make the right adjustments so that the good outweighs the bad. So I'm all for getting rid of it completely.

Prior to VAR, I don't remember objectively wrong calls occurring that often. Maybe once every 20 games, if that, and even then it was usually a close offside call in a complex sequence which isn't that egregious to me. It was rare that the ref ever made a massive unquestionable mistake (like sending off Gibbs instead of Oxlade-Chamberlain). I'd much rather have things like that happen once every 100 games if it means the flow of the game ceases to be interrupted by VAR, and if referees will no longer be influenced by slow motion replays of a sport that's played in real time.

That's not to say refs didn't make wrong calls more often than that, but most of those wrong calls that we complained about pre-VAR were subjective to whatever degree. And it's clear that VAR isn't solving those issues; the same subjectivity is still being applied and calls are still being complained about. If anything, these calls are actually being complained about more now, because there's an expectation that with replays and extra time to think it over, refs can do a better job. But they're not.

If VAR were implemented correctly, you'd only ever hear of it once every couple games at most. Not the 5+ times a game we have now.

 

[marsh]

The majority of decisions are opinion based anyway so VAR is then abit pointless