V A R

[room0035]

So its another pointless international break where most teams sit around and wait for the season to start again. By my reckoning we have lost 6 weeks now of the season to pointless international fixtures which could all be played at the end of the season when most people seasons are over. This would lead to more games on a Saturday and less fixture log jams but I digress.

 

I have read a lot of the controversy about the VAR decisions and heard yesterday they are now getting 90% of the decision correct surely this figure should be nearer to 100% as that's the point of VAR all decisions are correct.

 

Anyway to my fellow Owls if we have VAR in the championship would we currently have more or less points or about the same.

[ZicoSterland2]

Who knows.

[oldishowl]

Definitely less.

Swarbrick is in charge 

[camffiti]

Clubs like Liverpool are getting favourable VAR decisions and clubs like Sheff Utd appear to be shafted (  ) by VAR 

 

What does & doesn't get reviewed, changing definitions of rules ... VAR just looks like another tool in the refs box 

 

But it all evens itself out 

[OWLERTON GHOST]

Fat Steve's got swarbrick on earpiece & mic 

For VAR challenges...

[Mr. Tom]

christ, imagine the atmosphere if they removed any justification for booing the ref/linesman half the game, it’s about the only thing that gets us going these days

 

[Ethel The Tree]

I detest VAR and I'm only seeing it on the telly

Imagine how frustrating it must be for the crowd - do you go nuts or do you wait?

And the potential to influence results, even titles.  Let's not go there

 

I really hope they abolish it, but I doubt they will as it's turning refs and phantom video refs into national celebrities

They'll be asking for more money next

Right now it's about the only consolation I can think of for still being in the Championship

[Plonk]

I was a big advocate of it as I thought it would incompetent refs. Now we just have an incompetent VAR System too!!

Edited November 14, 2019 by Plonk

[sonofbert2]

We’d still be almostwank!

[alanharper]

1 hour ago, camffiti said:

Clubs like Liverpool are getting favourable VAR decisions and clubs like Sheff Utd appear to be shafted (  ) by VAR 

 

What does & doesn't get reviewed, changing definitions of rules ... VAR just looks like another tool in the refs box 

 

But it all evens itself out 

 

When have United been shafted by VAR? They've had a couple of offside goals ruled out, yes they were incredibly tight but ultimately they were offside so the decisions were correct. You can't allow a goal because it was only a tiny bit offside, that's like using the goal line technology and saying we won't allow this goal because it was only just over the line.

 

They've certainly had the rub of the green with penalty (non) decisions against them in recent weeks.

[Steve Down South]

34 minutes ago, alanharper said:

 

When have United been shafted by VAR? They've had a couple of offside goals ruled out, yes they were incredibly tight but ultimately they were offside so the decisions were correct. You can't allow a goal because it was only a tiny bit offside, that's like using the goal line technology and saying we won't allow this goal because it was only just over the line.

 

They've certainly had the rub of the green with penalty (non) decisions against them in recent weeks.

I thought United were very unlucky to get goal ruled out against Spurs - looked to me that line for position of last defender was drawn in wrong place.

 

As for “tiny bit offside”, I understand there is some evidence to suggest VAR is only accurate to within 20cm, meaning a call as tight as the one against United should not be made.  Personally, would prefer to see benefit of doubt going in favour of attacking team.

[tarn owl]

Some people seem to think VAR is like a magical figure who knows how to make decisions that everyone agrees with. VAR will improve decisions, but you will still have plenty where regardless of the amount of replays people disagree what the call should be.

 

We have all being there, you start shouting for a foul and then watch the replay with your mate and you think it's a foul and he thinks he dived. VAR works like this in all sports, pass interference calls still cause debate in the NFL, they have had video replay for decades, Rugby 2007 world cup final try for SA against England divided opinion, robot umpires in Baseball, etc etc. VAR was never going to be 100%. It's still just what does Swarprick think after watching the replay on TV.

 

The only issue is that it shouldn't take 3 minutes for them to figure out if someone was offside, if FIFA 20 can do it instantly i am sure we can just use that or something.

 

VAR will still cause plenty of debate, just speed it up!

[Mike Hunt]

Football is poo and basically and getting worse season by season .

 

If Wednesday was not ingrained in my rapidly ageing DNA don't think I would bother at all 

[trev]

22 minutes ago, tarn owl said:

Some people seem to think VAR is like a magical figure who knows how to make decisions that everyone agrees with. VAR will improve decisions, but you will still have plenty where regardless of the amount of replays people disagree what the call should be.

 

We have all being there, you start shouting for a foul and then watch the replay with your mate and you think it's a foul and he thinks he dived. VAR works like this in all sports, pass interference calls still cause debate in the NFL, they have had video replay for decades, Rugby 2007 world cup final try for SA against England divided opinion, robot umpires in Baseball, etc etc. VAR was never going to be 100%. It's still just what does Swarprick think after watching the replay on TV.

 

The only issue is that it shouldn't take 3 minutes for them to figure out if someone was offside, if FIFA 20 can do it instantly i am sure we can just use that or something.

 

VAR will still cause plenty of debate, just speed it up!

That's the thing though. If it can't be 100% accurate due to so many decisions being opinion based. What's the point?

 

Just leave it up to the ref to decide as before.

[BowOwl]

Just remove VAR for offsides. 
Such a harsh rule as it is. Punishes teams for pushing forward and attacking, which is really anti-football.

Every now and then yes a goal will be from a slightly offside position, but majority of the time that's not the sole reason for a goal.

Handball can still be VAR, ONLY if a goal has been scored or in the area, as it should be pretty clear cut you would hope.  
Dangerous tackles etc can always be looked back on as the game continues, and if uncertain the ref should give a yellow. A red can come a minute later if it's deemed worthy.
Edge of area fouls can be VAR as the games stopped already.


 

Edited November 14, 2019 by BowOwl

[Jimothy]

If they decided that they would judge offside position on say the hips or chest of a player, and stuck to that, a toe or quiff would not come into it, make a sensible ruling and then so what if body angle was odd, hips were level so not offside, simple for var to see and rule on

[Guest The Claw]

It's varlocks 

[alanharper]

40 minutes ago, Steve Down South said:

I thought United were very unlucky to get goal ruled out against Spurs - looked to me that line for position of last defender was drawn in wrong place.

 

As for “tiny bit offside”, I understand there is some evidence to suggest VAR is only accurate to within 20cm, meaning a call as tight as the one against United should not be made.  Personally, would prefer to see benefit of doubt going in favour of attacking team.

 

That potential 20cm margin, which is pretty huge when it comes to offsides, was an extreme example based on Raheem Sterling at full sprint. Pretty much every offside situation will in reality have a far, far smaller margin for error than that.  Until they can get VAR cameras with frame rates which are much more accurate they can only use the technology that they have - so yes their player who was adjudged to be a few centimetres offside may have actually been onside, but on the other hand he could have actually been a few cm more offside than he appeared.

 

It's the failure to award what ought to be clear cut decisions to avoid making their mates look bad which I find more annoying than the tight offside decisions, some of the blatant penalties that VAR still hasn't awarded this season have been laughable whilst soft penalty awards have been allowed to stand.

[tarn owl]

16 minutes ago, trev said:

That's the thing though. If it can't be 100% accurate due to so many decisions being opinion based. What's the point?

 

Just leave it up to the ref to decide as before.

Should be for clear and obvious errors. If you can't decide in 20 seconds that something is clearly wrong. Example no contact made on penalty call (dive), Handball that didn't hit the hand, an offside that clearly CLEARLY isn't. It should be for that only. Armpits and toes being offside is just wrong.

 

If VAR improves decisions then it's worth doing. Just needs tweaking and making more clear.

[trev]

18 minutes ago, tarn owl said:

Should be for clear and obvious errors. If you can't decide in 20 seconds that something is clearly wrong. Example no contact made on penalty call (dive), Handball that didn't hit the hand, an offside that clearly CLEARLY isn't. It should be for that only. Armpits and toes being offside is just wrong.

 

If VAR improves decisions then it's worth doing. Just needs tweaking and making more clear.

It's too difficult to decide what is clear and obvious though...thats the problem.

 

The only way I can see it working is if the ref is the only one who makes a decision based on using the screen by the pitch.

 

If he's unsure on something he asks to use the screen. Only he can make the final decision though.

 

But I suppose then he would just get hounded by players constantly to look at the screen after every single thing.