VAR - cricket

1finny

1finny

Well-known member
Seems to work well doesn’t it?
3 reviews, you win you keep them, every time you lose, you lose one.
On top of that all wickets are reviewed automatically for a no ball.

Yesterday - Crawley stayed in to bat despite being ‘out’. No review but the slo mo showed he touched the ball.

Everyone clearly understands what’s going on and there is no chew.

I wonder how (if at all) this could work in footy?
There may be too many variables - a penalty for instance. Inside/outside the box; handball or not; did the keeper move before saving it; was there encroachment before it went in…….
 
I don't think it would change the complaints though.

Teams would always use the review with a critical goal, and they'd still be ruled out for the same reasons they are now, which people take issue with.

Linesmen would obviously be flagging for offside again, whether they're right or wrong, if the use of VAR was limited to interventions from the teams in question.
Teams would still appeal if it was tight.
 
I don’t think it would work.

It’s used in cricket and tennis and works well, but there are natural breaks after each ball or point.

Too open to abuse in football. Team on the break, have the game stopped to use one of your challenges etc.

Also the decisions in cricket and tennis are much more defined and assisted by technology. Ball is in or out. Touched the bat or didn’t.

Too much interpretation in many football decisions.
 
TeaCider said:
I don't think it would change the complaints though.

Teams would always use the review with a critical goal, and they'd still be ruled out for the same reasons they are now, which people take issue with.

Linesmen would obviously be flagging for offside again, whether they're right or wrong, if the use of VAR was limited to interventions from the teams in question.
Teams would still appeal if it was tight.
Click to expand...
Don’t follow the bit about offside. The argument about waiting until the end of the move if it’s close is the same or even possibly stronger. You see what happens, you give your best “guess”, the aggrieved party can challenge. You can’t usefully challenge an incorrect flag if play has been stopped before you scored anyway.
 
FishofContemplation said:
Don’t follow the bit about offside. The argument about waiting until the end of the move if it’s close is the same or even possibly stronger. You see what happens, you give your best “guess”, the aggrieved party can challenge. You can’t usefully challenge an incorrect flag if play has been stopped before you scored anyway.
Click to expand...

Teams will still challenge for offside if the linesmen don't flag and they think it's off.

So the only "improvement" would be that some incorrectly called offside goals would sneak through if teams don't challenge.
 
FishofContemplation said:
Yeah but they can’t challenge if he does and he’s wrong. Or they can, but if play has been stopped anyway it’ll do them no good.
Click to expand...

Goals would be flagged for offside as they go in.
Teams would appeal.

Moves wrongly flagged in the build up would just be highlighted as wrong by coverage.

So no improvements on the current situation when it comes to VAR and offside.
 
The way that football is played vs cricket or tennis makes it very difficult. Even rugby has set periods of play and natural breaks which makes the intervetion less of a problem. They also use it well.

VAR was introduced for the wrong reasons and they've tinkered with both VAR and the laws of the game to accomodate it.

If there are 10% of games getting potentially wrong results then it might be worth more tinkering.

If it's less than 1% then just bin VAR in footy.
 
TeaCider said:
Goals would be flagged for offside as they go in.
Teams would appeal.

Moves wrongly flagged in the build up would just be highlighted as wrong by coverage.

So no improvements on the current situation when it comes to VAR and offside.
Click to expand...

I may have a disconnect of understanding about what you’re suggesting. But you indicated what I thought was a change to the practice of not flagging close offsides until the end of the move so that play was instead stopped immediately like “in the old days”.

At the moment these are not flagged until the end of the move. Than they are. Unless a goal was scored (or there was a penalty incident) the free kick is given. But IF a goal is scored (or there was a penalty incident) it’s reviewed. And if the Lino was wrong it’s corrected. One of these happens in the Prem most weeks. So most weeks a what would have been a wrongly disallowed goal stands.

If I’ve read you right you appear to suggest that we ditch that, the Lino flags and play is stopped. So that makes things worse. All those wrongly disallowed goals stay disallowed (or, mostly, don’t happen in the first place). The mistake can’t be challenged and the injustice corrected as it’s now a fait accompli. How is that better?

Correcting these wrong offside calls is one of the few unambiguous VAR benefits for me. It benefits the attacking side, it benefits goal scoring, and it benefits justice. What’s not to like?
 
I'm not calling for it, I'm pointing out that it's a big downside of the method 1finny is suggesting in the OP.

I'm fine with the current method.
 
TeaCider said:
Goals would be flagged for offside as they go in.
Teams would appeal.

Moves wrongly flagged in the build up would just be highlighted as wrong by coverage.

So no improvements on the current situation when it comes to VAR and offside.
Click to expand...

I may have a disconnect if understanding about what you’re suggesting. But you indicated what I thought was a change to the practice of not flagging close offsides until the end of the move so that play was instead stopped immediately like “in the old days”.

At the moment these are not flagged until the end of the move. Than they are. Unless a goal was scored (or there was a penalty incident) the free kick is given. But IF a goal is scored (or there was a penalty incident) it’s reviewed. And if the Lino was wrong it’s corrected. One of these happens in the Prem most weeks. So most weeks a what would have been a wrongly disallowed goal stands.

If I’ve read you right you appear to suggest that we ditch that, the Lino flags and play is stopped. So that makes things worse. All those wrongly disallowed goals stay disallowed (or, mostly, don’t happen in the first place). The mistake can’t be challenged and the injustice corrected as it’s now a fait accompli. How is that better?

Correcting these wrong offside calls is one of the few unambiguous VAR benefits for me. It benefits the attacking side, it benefits goal scoring, and it benefits justice. What’s
TeaCider said:
I'm not calling for it, I'm pointing out that it's a big downside of the method 1finny is suggesting in the OP.

I'm fine with the current method.
Click to expand...
my apologies.
 
I still think the offside line is not as unambiguous as we are lead to believe for a number of reasons.

One that annoys me is why can’t the lines be in the colour of the kit.. often I am unsure which line relates to which team.

The angle of the pitch never quite looks in line, and we only see a shot of what is deemed to be the point of been offside. This does not show the point when ball is kicked on many occasions, so for these tight calls to me the evidence is not there
 
FishofContemplation said:
I take it you missed the World Test Championship final then 🤣
Click to expand...

Howay fella, you know what I mean - in footy VAR is an issue every week. In cricket, rarely.

Back on point - one of the problems that comes to mind is the ‘subjectivity’ in footy. Less so in cricket (no doubt apart from one game or two which I’ve forgotten 👍)
 
FishofContemplation said:
........................
Correcting these wrong offside calls is one of the few unambiguous VAR benefits for me. It benefits the attacking side, it benefits goal scoring, and it benefits justice. What’s not to like?
Click to expand...
Last season VAR ruled out 35 goals for offsides 'not given' and allowed 14 goals for offsides 'given'. You can be certain a fair proportion of those 35 were a toe, or a heel, or an elbow offside. Maybe correct but hardly in the spirit of the law. So it doesn't benefit goal scoring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top