VAR

[Alanbileysfeathercut]

Ref watch missing on sky sports listing

 

[Deulofeumygod]

Ref watch missing on sky sports listing

All too busy fapping over the RS getting Isak

 

[Alanbileysfeathercut]

All too busy fapping over the RS getting Isak

It seems so

 

[HTCHERO]

Who was the ref last year that was arguing with VAR and went against VAR for us? Wasn't it like the first time a ref went against VAR?

 

[wandyr79]

I thought the referee was in charge of officiating the game. So if I understand this statement, the referee decides what decisions are made, unless the VAR wants to get involved and add a twist to the game. Should the VAR at most be advising the ref to take a look at a decision on the screen and not deciding that the ref has made a mistake and over rule his decision.

That is spot on. The mistake VAR made was wasting everybody's time by referring it for another look. They did not make the mistake of overturning the decision, that was all the refs. It is not hard to understand that the idea of VAR and what it is meant to be used for is not a bad idea.

This case demonstrates that, a competent human in the VAR booth would have said that it was not a clear and obvious error (if an error at all). Game continues and goal correctly stands. Let's say that the human does incorrectly refer the ref to review it. A competent ref would see the different angles, etc. and deem it a non event and allow the goal to stand.

It is all down to the incompetence of the humans, and dare we say the corruption of humans, as the reason why VAR is such a mess.

 

[Timbucktoo]

That is spot on. The mistake VAR made was wasting everybody's time by referring it for another look. They did not make the mistake of overturning the decision, that was all the refs. It is not hard to understand that the idea of VAR and what it is meant to be used for is not a bad idea.

This case demonstrates that, a competent human in the VAR booth would have said that it was not a clear and obvious error (if an error at all). Game continues and goal correctly stands. Let's say that the human does incorrectly refer the ref to review it. A competent ref would see the different angles, etc. and deem it a non event and allow the goal to stand.

It is all down to the incompetence of the humans, and dare we say the corruption of humans, as the reason why VAR is such a mess.

It seems that anytime a ref is asked to review a decision that they seem to overturn their original decision. even the commentators know that its nearly 99% that when a ref sees the replay he changes his mind.

 

[wandyr79]

It seems that anytime a ref is asked to review a decision that they seem to overturn their original decision. even the commentators know that its nearly 99% that when a ref sees the replay he changes his mind.

This is the funny thing, for me, this should probably be the right percentage. At the end of the day, the idea behind it is to remove poor decisions or things that were missed.

In Rugby, that percentage is probably about the same but the percentage of controversy and apologies, after the fact, is much much lower.

So the theory is that, if the VAR humans have seen something that the ref has missed, VAR is working correctly. Thinking about it, maybe this is an added issue. The powers that be want it to be working, so stupidly think that if VAR sends it to the ref it has to be deemed as the correct decision to do this, as the decision needs to be overturned. Therefore, the on field ref is pressurised into siding with VAR, to 'prove' that VAR is useful.

The issue with football is that there is a level of corruption/club badge element to the decision making process. Add in the incompetence of the humans in control and it is just a mess of a system.