VAR Discussion

[jbyrne]

The latter is not a VAR issue. Refs are allowed to give yellow cards for taking too long to take throw ins and have done in the past to all sorts of teams. The question should be, does a player need 20 seconds to take a throw in? It's not really the most difficult discipline in the game. It's not really the wisest thing to do if you're already on a yellow, and he can have no complaints about getting booked for it.

he can. It was after 36 minutes and was ridiculous in the circumstances. we have all seen players taking far longer and not getting booked. do you believe a french or german etc player would get booked in the circumstances?

As for the goal above, the VAR applied the rules as they stand. You're not offside if you receive the ball from an opponent, never have been, never will be. It's another example of why you keep the flag down until the end of the move, to see how it plays out.

at least previously, not sure now, Mbappe would've been offside immediately once the ball was kicked by his own player passing to him while he was in an offside position. ie the player was offside once the ball was played forward rather than when the player received the ball

[mypost]

Under the rules, the player becomes onside when the opponent plays the ball, so there's no reason for the VAR to not give a goal. The rule can be changed if people want it changed, but all the VAR did was apply the rule as it stands. That's what he's there for.

You can be booked after 36 seconds, 36 minutes, or 96 minutes. I don't know why it took him 20 seconds to do something that he should be able to do in 2 seconds flat, but If you take that long to take a throw in, you run the risk of getting a yellow card and yellow cards have been given for it in the past. If he didn't get himself booked earlier, nobody would have said a word about it. In any case, it's not a VAR matter.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Yeah, like a lot of VAR controversies, it seems the real controversy is over application of the rules. In both instances I would say the application was correct, albeit in the second instance it comes from rules that are only ever selectively enforced, so anger is justified.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Perhaps a change might come of it: https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2021...efa-ref-chief/

[osarusan]

Perhaps a change might come of it: https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2021...efa-ref-chief/

That's good. It's something that pretty much everybody would feel 'should' be offside.

[NeverFeltBetter]

I think somewhere in this thread I posited if there could be some kind of automated offside technology in the future, and here's a step towards that: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/59461288

I'm not sure if this will speed the process up as much as they think it will, it might save a few seconds maybe.

[NeverFeltBetter]

I was half-thinking of writing an essay here, but the effort is too much for me this time of year, so some bullet points instead:

-The system hasn't improved enough in the time since it was introduced. Four years on decisions should be quicker especially, and indeed the whole thing should just be better in terms of clarity over what is happening and why.

-FIFA/FA's needs to be more willing to try things out with it, like in tertiary competitions like League Cups. Challenge systems, miked up refs, the availability of VAR post-match reports for public consumption, etc. See what works and what doesn't.

-We need to end the sanctity of the on-pitch referee. This "OFR" stuff is a sop to that and patently unnecessary. Let the people in the booth - who have the replays, the experience (I would presume), the lack of screaming fans and players in their ears and the advantage of having not run around a field for a while beforehand to make a call and instruct the ref. Other sports do it that way just fine.

-While it is not a direct cause, VAR cannot be divorced entirely from those instances where it is the laws that are the issue - offside and handball especially - and not them being reviewed. Offside's measured in inches or less seems to go against the spirit of the law for lack of a better term, and could do with a refining (a "daylight" amendment seems the most obvious) while handballs still seem too much down to how the ref is feeling on any particular day (as noted in the WC thread, there were instances where guidelines in the laws were clearly not being followed. Is there need for more clarification of what a handball is, or maybe instead a simplification (like "hand-to-ball"?)). The problem is that distrust from fans and players over how those decisions are being made has fed a distrust/disdain for VAR.

-I get the idea behind linesmen being told to wait to put the flag up, but there are moments when that gets a bit silly. Kai Havertz against Japan was a great example, where he knew he was offside, but the flag never went up, so he went through the rigmarole of a half-hearted celebration with his teammates while he waited for a decision we all knew was coming. Again that's not strictly a VAR issue, but they are connected.

-Enough of "the game is gone". The game will never again be like it was when you were younger commentators/pundits. The game has changed a bit, as it tends to do and will again.

-I don't necessarily want to re-hash the whole debate again, but I do want to say that I still think despite all of the above VAR is a net benefit to the game. But it needs to be able to evolve beyond the current laws governing it, and needs to spark changes to the laws that it shines a light on.

[NeverFeltBetter]

VAR decisions will be relayed to watching crowds in some form as a trial at the Club World Cup next month: https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2023...rial-rejected/

[osarusan]

Interesting moment in the final moments of the Ghent West Ham game just now.

A West Ham player (Paqueta I think) gets onto a loose/slack pass and heads towards the box. Defender slides in, gets a nick on the ball about a foot outside the box, flattens Paqueta on the follow through. Ref does not see the slight nick, gives a free kick and a straight red card. I think it was a straight red, but I'm not sure and he had already been booked.

Now this is where it gets interesting. The referee was invited to the sideline monitor because of a 'potential penalty check', even though there was no way the ball was ever inside the box at the time - whatever else the ref got wrong, not giving a penalty wasn't one. Ref checks the monitor, sees it wasn't a foul, and rescinds the red card and cancels the free kick.

Right result, not sure about the way it was achieved though.

If it had been a straight red, then I'm sure why he wasn't asked to review a red card offence rather than a penalty. So perhaps it was a second yellow, rather than a red, and there was thus nothing that was reviewable, so they fudged a penalty check.

[EalingGreen]

I've never liked VAR, and I like it less every week it operates, even after a weekend where it benefited my own team, Spurs (vs Liverpool).

At best it merely holds up the flow of the game (exacerbated by the FA's ridiculous extension of the FIFA World Cup time-wasting protocol to English club football).

And at worst, it adds new, off-field controversies to those which occur naturally on the field from time to time.

Or would anyone honestly miss VAR were it scrapped, never to be spoken of again?

[NeverFeltBetter]

Within a week of VAR being removed in England a ref would make a mistake it could have caught and people would start clamouring for it to be re-introduced. The problem in England is a cottage industry of pundits and media screaming blue murder about officials non-stop.

[John83]

The officials aren't exacrly making things easy for themselves with situations like the recent Liverpool incident: the VAR officials confirmed the player was not offside, but communicated that so badly that the disallowed goal remained disallowed. The audio is doing the rounds now: https://www.reddit.com/r/LiverpoolFC...side_decision/ The guy asking them if they're sure and is the only non-referee in the room.

[EalingGreen]

Within a week of VAR being removed in England a ref would make a mistake it could have caught and people would start clamouring for it to be re-introduced. The problem in England is a cottage industry of pundits and media screaming blue murder about officials non-stop.

All very true.

As against that, we had exactly the same situation before VAR was ever heard of, yet all VAR has done is to add extra controversies, not eliminate them.

I mean, consider the Liverpool "goal" on Saturday. With no VAR, you'd have had Klopp* moaning after the game that it should have stood; on MOTD on Saturday night Lineker would have mumbled something bland about Liverpool being unlucky; the Sunday papers would have run with it the next morning (tucked in amongst the Ryder Cup and the RWC etc) - and all would have been forgotten by Monday.

Whereas here we are, several days later and VAR is still dominating the headlines and making the pundits' week an easy one. Still, it keeps retired refs in a nice, cushy job in a warm studio, where they can extend their career of screwing up as before, only without the inconvenience of thousands of fans shouting in their ear every time they blow their whistle or raise their flag.

* - Like he ever needs another excuse to moan.

[EalingGreen]

The officials aren't exacrly making things easy for themselves with situations like the recent Liverpool incident: the VAR officials confirmed the player was not offside, but communicated that so badly that the disallowed goal remained disallowed. The audio is doing the rounds now: https://www.reddit.com/r/LiverpoolFC...side_decision/ The guy asking them if they're sure and is the only non-referee in the room.

Part of the problem is that since VAR was introduced, it lead to long delays where no-one in the studio knew what the hell was going on, thereby destroying the flow of the game. This has been made worse by the FA/PL adopting the FIFA World Cup protocol on adding extra minutes to address time-wasting (even despite UEFA saying they shouldn't).

Consequently, this mistake occurred from the VAR officials wanting to get the review over and done with in the quickest possible time. This was made worse by the operating rule that says once play has restarted, it cannot be stopped again. Which on balance is probably a good idea, (A) because stop/start/stop would be even worse than the present shambles; and (B) what if after the restart Spurs had eg gone straight up the field and scored themselves? The poor old ref would have had to tell 58k Spurs fans that their "goal" could not stand, but the Liverpool one would, meaning Spurs were now a goal behind, rather than a goal up?

"Heaping Pelion upon Ossa", as my old teacher would have said. Or "Sh1tting the bed, then trying to kick it out with your heel", as my old man would have put it.

[John83]

Spurs were faffing around with a throw-in, not threatening to score, and in any case a goal seems like a fairly big decision to decide to overlook. But all of that ignores that their communication protocol was pathetically unclear. All they need is to say: "Check complete, player was onside, goal stands." But no, these people thought it was totally unambiguous to say, "Check complete, check complete. That's fine. It's perfect." No chance of any abiguity there. You're defending the indefensible.

[osarusan]

yet all VAR has done is to add extra controversies, not eliminate them.

VAR has eliminated a huge number of potential controversies.

But what the released audio highlighted is the lack of protocol for the checks, the lack of standardised language - you would think that announcing the existing decision would be first, middle, and last in the process.

Instead the whole thing was shambolic and completely unstructured.

[EalingGreen]

VAR has eliminated a huge number of potential controversies.

Really?

I attend VAR games virtually every week and from my experience, games are at least as controversial, from the fans' pov, as they ever were. You know, delays and reviews, while no-one on the terraces has the slightest idea what is going on. (And quite a few in the VAR suite, too, it would seem)

Yes, it catches some things which might not have been picked up pre-VAR, but so what? Everyone* just got on with the game, knowing that they all equal themselves out by the end of the season. While if, in the absence of any other proper excuse, managers formerly used refereeing controversies in their post-match interviews to "justify" why their team lost etc, now they just use VAR instead (step forward Witness for the Prosecution, Herr Klopp).

Or as I asked earlier, does anyone genuinely think the game is better now than it was pre-VAR?

* - Bar a few d1ckheads like eg Neil Warnock, but like the poor, d1ckheads will always be with us, VAR or no VAR.

[seanfhear]

To Var ~ Or Not To Var ~ That is the question.

A job for Shakespeare ~ The Bard.

[osarusan]

Yes, it catches some things which might not have been picked up pre-VAR, but so what?

Every one of those things being picked up is a controversy eliminated.

Without question, the number of game-changing wrong decisions has been reduced. That is what VAR was brought in to achieve.

In Italy: https://www.calciomercato.com/en/new...duced-by-28514

In Spain: https://www.laliga.com/en-GB/news/va...liga-santander

In the EPL: https://www.skysports.com/football/n...premier-league

Certainly, there are VAR mistakes that simply should not happen, and fans not being informed is unfortunate.

But the idea that managers using VAR as yet another way to shift blame from their own failings is in itself a fault of VAR makes no sense.

Is the game better than it was pre-VAR in the sense that game-changing errors have been reduced? Absolutely.

[mypost]

Telling me a bad decision will even itself out is no consolation to me, I want the right decision NOW, because we need it now, not 6 months down the line when the score is already 4-0, and it doesn't affect the outcome. Our fans still remember Bulgaria 77 and Brussels 81, and Paris 09, as if it was yesterday. Those decisions have never evened themselves out.

VAR has helped to clean up the worst instances of cheating and diving, and is amazing when doing the job it's supposed to do. It hasn't added new controversies, it's highlighted more the few that still happen. 99% of VAR calls are correct, and like most things in life, it's the remaining 1% that hit the headlines.

One thing that most fans are happy with, is a more representative added time. If players don't want it, then they can do something about it. Stop taking 2 minutes for a goal kick, half a minute and walking 30 yards forward just to take a throw in, stop frantically hitting the hand on the ground after a brush of a toenail, stop feigning "head injuries" for a mere collision, stop taking minutes to dispute a red card/penalty decision, stop pulling the socks up just to take a penalty, and stop having 30 members of the squad and staff running down to the corner flag, and invading the pitch to celebrate a goal. Then you'll start seeing the time moderated to what it used to be. If a few minutes extra because of all that, affects your mental health, then you have issues outside football.