VAR - A Suggestion

The simple solution is to bin it off or make the money available for it to be available to all.
It's not even a simple them and us situation now as VAR is implemented differently across different countries.

We have one set of laws globally being administered differently.
 
We've always had that.

Laws can be interpreted differently, and they are. Countries deal with handball, diving etc. differently. Watch the Champions League or International football and see fouls that are given that wouldn't be in the PL. Or even watch League 1/2 and see the physical challenges that players can get away with compared to the protection in the PL. Every single referee will interpret the same thing differently. There is no difference between having different referees vs VAR if the laws themselves are the same, which they are.

The problem isn't with VAR, it is with fan's lack of understanding of the rules and referees showing how poor they are when not being able to hide behind the split second decision excuse.
 
If it was never a rule, we don't know do we? It would result in less VAR calls I think, although yes there could still be marginal calls.

TBH anything's better than the sh1t show we have now.

How would it result in less VAR calls? It would be exactly the same, the rules would just have been shifted. You could still be a mm offside.
 
You're still not really answering the question, your way just leaves even more grey area for fans to argue about because they'll be saying "well this was given offside last week and deemed to be a bad infringement but this one wasn't". At least at the moment we can see exactly what the process is with the offside.

Because there will be toenail decisions given one week and not the next.

Let the referee decide whether or not an infringement is worthy or not of blowing the whistle.
 
How would it result in less VAR calls? It would be exactly the same, the rules would just have been shifted. You could still be a mm offside.
Its 'harder' to stay onside when you're not allowed a toenail though, than if you're allowed daylight, isn't it? I mean theoretically there'd just be less offsides period, so therefore less VAR calls. The proportion of which are marginal would stay the same though, I agree. But 60% of 3 is less than 60% of 6 (obviously).
 
Its 'harder' to stay onside when you're not allowed a toenail though, than if you're allowed daylight, isn't it? I mean theoretically there'd just be less offsides period, so therefore less VAR calls. The proportion of which are marginal would stay the same though, I agree. But 60% of 3 is less than 60% of 6 (obviously).

But instead of keeping themselves level attackers would keep themselves a step ahead and try and leave a heel or whatever level to be onside. They wouldn't stick to the same behaviour if you moved where offside starts. The number of decisions would be the same.
 
But instead of keeping themselves level attackers would keep themselves a step ahead and try and leave a heel or whatever level to be onside. They wouldn't stick to the same behaviour if you moved where offside starts. The number of decisions would be the same.
Not sure I fully agree with you there Mike, it would take a long time to learn that strategy effectively. Staying 'onside' as it is can be tricky, but leaving one part of your body onside purposefully and the rest offside, I'm not sure that sounds so easy. There are surely ways and means to reduce the number of offsides in a match?
 
There's yet another decision that has been overturned incorrectly.

Fred pushes Cesar into Williams....VAR gave a foul on Cesar into Williams. Goal disallowed.

Farce!

Suppose it's Chelsea so we shouldn't mind :LOL:
 
There's yet another decision that has been overturned incorrectly.

Fred pushes Cesar into Williams....VAR gave a foul on Cesar into Williams. Goal disallowed.

Farce!

Suppose it's Chelsea so we shouldn't mind :LOL:

Again, this isn't the fault of VAR but the fault of awful officials.
 
That isn't the technology's fault though. We need better officials. VAR should be helping them make the right decision more often. The fact that it doesn't speaks volumes about their ineptitude.

Getting rid of VAR because the referees are rubbish is like taking the mirrors out of a car because even though they are there to help the driver is rubbish and will crash anyway. Get better drivers, don't blame the tech.
 
That isn't the technology's fault though. We need better officials. VAR should be helping them make the right decision more often. The fact that it doesn't speaks volumes about their ineptitude.

Getting rid of VAR because the referees are rubbish is like taking the mirrors out of a car because even though they are there to help the driver is rubbish and will crash anyway. Get better drivers, don't blame the tech.
No Mike. The implementation is fundamentally flawed, the conceit that technology can remove incorrect decision making was driven by the narrative of constant TV dissection of refereeing decisions. In fact, refereeing at the top level is remarkably free from significant errors.

Take the "Wolves goal" vs Leicester, no-one on the pitch appealed for anything, it was a goal and then... it wasn't. The implementation makes it worse in that we then had to wait for (about) two minutes before this hitherto unremarked transgression was officially corrected. No-one in the ground (without perhaps a radio) would know why the goal had been ruled out. The drama was removed from the game. That is what is killing the game. Killing it as an entertainment or spectacle. Given that we can never have instantaneously reviewed and corrected refereeing then the logical call is simply to abandon it.

Sadly that isn't going to happen, the genie is out of the bottle, the only logical step I can think of is to make it a challenge option in which once or twice per game the captain or coach/manager can challenge a refereeing decision. These "offside" goals would rarely be challenged as no-one would be certain of overturning a decision and if you lose/use your challenge you may not be able to challenge a later mistake that are sure is wrong, This works well in cricket and NFL. It isn't ideal but it would address the "clear and obvious" mistakes that the technology was touted as a solution to. Of course late goals would always be challenged but perhaps that is the price to pay?
 
Like I've said before. Technology will call these in real time in the not too distant future so the time taken won't be an issue.

The challenge idea is awful. Why would a player, manager etc have a better view than the referee or linesman? And what happens if more than the allotted number of challenges are needed? It's a terrible idea and your example of cricket proves it where England won the World Cup over the summer when had NZ had a challenge left then they would have won the World Cup. England won because NZ had used them all.
 
That isn't the technology's fault though. We need better officials. VAR should be helping them make the right decision more often. The fact that it doesn't speaks volumes about their ineptitude.

Getting rid of VAR because the referees are rubbish is like taking the mirrors out of a car because even though they are there to help the driver is rubbish and will crash anyway. Get better drivers, don't blame the tech.

It isn't like that at all.
VAR is reliant on the human referee monitoring the footage. Without a human referee you don't have VAR. Therefore any errors that the human referee makes are inherently part of the problem with VAR.

And the solution "get better referees". Perhaps we should solve our troubles at the bottom of the league by being better at football. Amazed no one's thought of that before.

Get better referees is the aim of the system. What's the point of a system that just directs you back around to the problem it's being brought in to solve.

Problem bad referees. Solution bring in a system reliant on bad referees.

The deal we have made with VAR is that we will swap enjoyment for correctness. It's not even correct.
 
Like I've said before. Technology will call these in real time in the not too distant future so the time taken won't be an issue.

The challenge idea is awful. Why would a player, manager etc have a better view than the referee or linesman? And what happens if more than the allotted number of challenges are needed? It's a terrible idea and your example of cricket proves it where England won the World Cup over the summer when had NZ had a challenge left then they would have won the World Cup. England won because NZ had used them all.
Let go of the idea that all decisions need to be correct. Sport doesn't work that way cannot, should not.

This isn't a spreadsheet, it is an entertainment. If you watched the drama of the Cricket World Cup you might understand that the important thing was not the result but the drama and that was enhanced by the way in which NZ burned their last challenge. Unlike the VAR system, the team is involved in the drama it unfolds before your eyes.

If you take the cricket example as an answer to how would a player have a better view than the ref. Well it shouldn't happen in cricket with the two umpires in "perfect" position to call stumpings, LBW, etc. but it does. That's where the clear and obvious criteria comes in. I've been at games where I have been certain that a player had been wrongly flagged offside and I've been right and I'm sure professional footballers have a better eye than me.

As for these decisions being instantaneous in the near future... No chance the modelling of a fluid environment like the movement of 22 players and a ball contains so many variables that it would be incredibly expensive to install. But say it is possible then implement that system and ditch this pile of carp.
 
Arsene Wenger now suggesting a tweak to the law

"you will not be offside if any part of the body that can score a goal is in line with the last defender, even if other parts of the attacker's body are in front".

I'm not sure that is even workable (or quite what it means). Does that mean if the attacker's left foot is in line with the last defender his right foot can be in front? Is this just a slight adjustment to the "clear daylight" thing?

It's definitely a mess. Watching Liverpool last night in the Champions League even though there was VAR available it didn't seem to be used at all. Now I don't watch the group stages of the CL (dull) so this is the first I have watched. Is this a typical CL game?
 
Back
Top