VAR - For or Against

[Frozen Horse]

First, I really didn't have a problem with the game before VAR.

There are many, many hours of football broadcasting to fill, and they will always find some controversy in the application of the rules to fill it. Let's not be fooled into think there will ever be a time when there is no controversy arounf officiating.

Of the options there, I'd bin it.
However, my preference would be to give each manager a challenge to review a decision. If you win that challenge, you keep your right to challenge. If you've used it and lost, well that's your fault, isn't it?
It would lead to a lot of late goals being optimistically challenged (as a lot of Test matches now end on a challenge).
However, I think it would allow the use of technology without making it too obtrusive, and might limit some of the ref bashing by managers if they were themselves required to take some responsibility for the use of VAR

 

[Muttley]

 

[TeaCider]

Is this really going to be the case? Would be able to accept it a lot more were this to happen but there's no way it will be as immediate as the goal line technology. You're still going to have those moments of fans celebrating a goal only for it to be ruled out

The same way it was for decades before VAR.

I've been stood next to people this season alone who've taken an age to realise the flag's been raised.
Celebrating a good 20 seconds before they noticed.

 

[BoroPhil]

I don't really get the celebrating argument, yes it must have been pretty awful for the Coventry fans yesterday but rather that than knowing you've lost because of an absolute howler.

 

[B_G]

I don't really get the celebrating argument, yes it must have been pretty awful for the Coventry fans yesterday but rather that than knowing you've lost because of an absolute howler.

But it wasn't a howler.

 

[BoroPhil]

But it wasn't a howler.

yeah I don't mean that particular example, I mean as a general principle for having VAR or not.

 

[B_G]

yeah I don't mean that particular example, I mean as a general principle for having VAR or not.

It would happen far less often and in my opinion people would be more accepting of it if it was only howlers that were being turned over.
The problem is, most people would rather live with the howlers than the farce we have now where decisions as marginal as yesterday are being overturned and the amount of time taken to get to that decision.

 

[changingman]

I went for the first option (currently a minority of three)

I would actually like to see VAR go further, hand in hand with more technology being used to issue correct decisions in real-time. If this happened, it would arguably speed up the game, not slow it down.

The crux of the argument has always been subjective decisions (such as penalties, red cards etc). We can have a million cameras in the stadium and all the tech we want but we will still be left with a) a poorly codified set of rules and b) a human being interpreting them.

For these decisions currently, VAR gives that human a better chance of adjudicating them correctly, as they can look at multiple angles, speeds, views etc to understand exactly what happened and how the law would interpret it (or not!) People will still disagreed, but these are largely subjective decisions with limited guidance for those individuals making them.

I like VAR and will defend it but it's not difficult to argue that we've almost got "half a solution" at the moment. Further use of AI/tech to automate decisions and codification of the rules would go a long way to improving matters in my opinion.

 

[MickaelDebevePhenomenal]

A lot of what VAR gets stick for, is the implementation of rules that have become so needlessly complexed. The Handball rule being one. If the rules were simplified, the "clear and obvious" errors the VAR was designed to detect, would be a much more streamlined process.

 

[NYboro]

The same way it was for decades before VAR.

I've been stood next to people this season alone who've taken an age to realise the flag's been raised.
Celebrating a good 20 seconds before they noticed.

I never understand that. First thing I do after jumping up is to look over at the lino.

 

[Frozen Horse]

A lot of what VAR gets stick for, is the implementation of rules that have become so needlessly complexed. The Handball rule being one. If the rules were simplified, the "clear and obvious" errors the VAR was designed to detect, would be a much more streamlined process.

Do you think the rule has become more complex BECAUSE of VAR?
To me, it's now so complex that it's almost impossible to apply in real time. I suspect it would not have been so altered if it weren't for VAR.

 

[exeterboro]

I would only use it for offsides and also keep the goal line technology for uncertain goal mouth scrambles like last night in the el classico. Any other decisions are open to interpretation and inconsistency even with VAR.

 

[Nano]

These discussions really highlight the fact that people are unhappy with referees decisions and they don't really know what they want as a solution.

People want consistency but that means allowing the VAR team to make the decision every time. That takes much longer and brings subjectivity to it (and who's subjectivity).

People want the referee to make a decision and VAR to only correct it if it's a clear and obvious error. That means similar incidents like the handballs have different outcomes.

People like the technology used for goal line decision making and trust it completely but don't trust the same Hawkeye technology for offside.

People want perfection and yet also want margin for error.

I'm not really convinced anyone is happy with no VAR at all because they still complain about referees. The majority of things would be massively better if referees were better at their jobs. If they were getting major decisions correct then VAR wouldn't need to intervene.

I think all of the VAR "supporters" would agree that it isn't perfect and could be improved if the people in charge were better at their jobs. I would also like to see it used retrospectively to really punish diving, cheating, dissent etc to make their job easier.

 

[Humpty]

One of the principal reasons i hate VAR is the constraint it puts on that initial burst of spontaneity celebrating a goal. It's one of the best feelings in football. I hate anything that interferes with that feeling.

 

[Angelmatty]

Goal line technology was needed i personally only think VAR should be used for incidents in the penalty box. Could be a great tool for a ref but they have taken it to far but on the flip side the amount of money in football now with promotion and relegation it could see a club go bust.

 

[h_m_boro]

Also hate the assistant ref raising their flags after the player has run through on goal, stopped, passed the ball about 20 times..... THEN the flag is raised for an incident that happened several minutes previous.

JUST FLAG IMMEDIATELY FFS!!

 

[B_G]

Also hate the assistant ref raising their flags after the player has run through on goal, stopped, passed the ball about 20 times..... THEN the flag is raised for an incident that happened several minutes previous.

JUST FLAG IMMEDIATELY FFS!!

They aren't allowed to because of.............

 

[B_G]

People want consistency but that means allowing the VAR team to make the decision every time. That takes much longer and brings subjectivity to it (and who's subjectivity).

People want the referee to make a decision and VAR to only correct it if it's a clear and obvious error. That means similar incidents like the handballs have different outcomes.

People like the technology used for goal line decision making and trust it completely but don't trust the same Hawkeye technology for offside.

People want perfection and yet also want margin for error.

The vote says different. The majority of people don't want VAR at all. They would rather accept the human error

 

[exeterboro]

These discussions really highlight the fact that people are unhappy with referees decisions and they don't really know what they want as a solution.

People want consistency but that means allowing the VAR team to make the decision every time. That takes much longer and brings subjectivity to it (and who's subjectivity)

1) The 1st paragraph is a generalisation written according to your intreptation of other people's attitudes, I don't see myself fitting into your narrow intreptation, I see VAR as evolving but that may mean reducing it's areas of influence, because as I said...
2) you are never going to get consistency even with only the VAR team deciding,. You just have to read every thread on VAR on here to realise no one agrees and that is with constant re-showing, experts in the studio giving their opinion as well. What this controversy about VAR has highlighted is....

3) how difficult the refs job is, I hope I have more tolerance to their ' bad' decisions in the future if they do scrap VAR( which they won't).

 

[Nano]

The vote says different. The majority of people don't want VAR at all. They would rather accept the human error

I'm not convinced that anyone thinks the non-VAR version of the game is perfect. That's not the same as a binary yes/no vote on whether VAR is good or not. It has already been accepted on other threads that it is the waiting around that is the problem and not the decisions themselves.

Also, 50 people on a messageboard with an average age of watched their first world cup in black and white, for a club that has never even played in a league with VAR, isn't particularly valid as a representative sample.