Jump to content

Our goal last night is the exact reason we must oppose VAR


Recommended Posts

What's fair is fair. If the rules didn't matter you can also argue against goal-line tech. 

 

It's a bit silly to say that VAR would deprive us of something when just as easily it could provide us with a favourable/fair outcome. 

 

My primary concern with VAR is how it slows down the game. But maybe they've figured that part out. I don't follow much football besides Wednesday. How's VAR fairing in the Premier League?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like VAR, when you see Premier League games it can take up to 3 minutes to come to a decision which doesn't sound a lot but kills the who momentum of the games. Think the rules also are that fans in the stadiums are not allowed to watch replays on the big screen so just sat around waiting for someone 100 miles away to make up they minds.

Also think mistakes by the officials are part of the game being debated later.

 

Think in cricket the DRS system adds to the game with its natural breaks and tactics involved as you only get 2 appeals to the system. People watch the replays same time as the officials on big screens.

But in football  big fat no to me with VAR. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sturutter said:

At the time, lucky enough to be free from VAR, we had joy, relief, pandemonium. The feelings that make it all worthwhile. With VAR, yes, you still celebrate, but it can never be the same. As soon as a goal goes in, the purity we have in the lower leagues is replaced under VAR by a mental calculation- "will it stand, what are the chances it gets looked at?"

 

You could also take the view that sometimes with VAR you actually get to celebrate a goal twice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put it on the big screen, have the conversations on speaker. All decisions explained.

 

Train proper VAR ops, take them from film school or wherever, somewhere that teaches camera work and angles.

Half of the issue is refs being useless with it.

 

No decision in 30 seconds, ref's decision stands.

 

It works in rugby, why can't it work here.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, sturutter said:

No, it's not at all that VAR would have overruled the goal;  it was of course onside. 

 

It is that we wouldn't have known that.

 

Behind all the arguments about where the line goes and what is clear and obvious, the true tragedy of VAR is that, with every goal comes doubt. Our goal was perfectly fine, but there is no way at all of knowing that in the ground. Not even with the perfect view, and definitely not from behind the goal.

 

At the time, lucky enough to be free from VAR, we had joy, relief, pandemonium. The feelings that make it all worthwhile. With VAR, yes, you still celebrate, but it can never be the same. As soon as a goal goes in, the purity we have in the lower leagues is replaced under VAR by a mental calculation- "will it stand, what are the chances it gets looked at?" One massively misunderstood point is that, yes, there is hope that the process may improve and the decisions become better, but with that, this fundamental problem does NOT change.

 

Even if VAR one day becomes perfect, you still have the doubt.  As soon as it comes down to us, our experience of the most crucial moments of a football match are changed for ever; and only for the worse. That is really sad. 

 

We must oppose it before it comes in. Seperate all the arguments about how well it works from the crucial argument, that the damage it does to the moment of a  goal cannot be avoided. Fight against it; we will regret it once it comes.

 

 No with VAR we would have had a penalty for the assault on Hutch. If that was anywhere else on the pitch it’s a foul. Why not in the area? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, sturutter said:

No, it's not at all that VAR would have overruled the goal;  it was of course onside. 

 

It is that we wouldn't have known that.

 

Behind all the arguments about where the line goes and what is clear and obvious, the true tragedy of VAR is that, with every goal comes doubt. Our goal was perfectly fine, but there is no way at all of knowing that in the ground. Not even with the perfect view, and definitely not from behind the goal.

 

At the time, lucky enough to be free from VAR, we had joy, relief, pandemonium. The feelings that make it all worthwhile. With VAR, yes, you still celebrate, but it can never be the same. As soon as a goal goes in, the purity we have in the lower leagues is replaced under VAR by a mental calculation- "will it stand, what are the chances it gets looked at?" One massively misunderstood point is that, yes, there is hope that the process may improve and the decisions become better, but with that, this fundamental problem does NOT change.

 

Even if VAR one day becomes perfect, you still have the doubt.  As soon as it comes down to us, our experience of the most crucial moments of a football match are changed for ever; and only for the worse. That is really sad. 

 

We must oppose it before it comes in. Seperate all the arguments about how well it works from the crucial argument, that the damage it does to the moment of a  goal cannot be avoided. Fight against it; we will regret it once it comes.

 


I don’t know what your personal opinion was before VAR was introduced, but the vast majority wanted to eliminate incorrect decisions. And that’s what VAR (usually) does. The impact on the fan in the stand was clearly predicable, and I argued against VAR consistently, but we got what we asked for. If we abolish VAR, fans will soon be moaning about conceding a goal that was “miles offside”. And you can be sure that Sky will highlight the “offside by a toenail” incidents as well.

 

On the issue of time delay for VAR reaching decisions (not offside reviews, but penalties, red card issues), I don’t understand the point of the pitch ref using the TV monitor. The VAR is a fully qualified premier league referee having a stint in the studio, so if VAR says to the pitch ref “I think you’ve made a clear and obvious mistake” that should be it. It’s not as though VAR is a trainee Sunday league ref and his query needs to be reviewed on the monitor by the more experienced pitch ref.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tamworthowl said:

On the issue of time delay for VAR reaching decisions (not offside reviews, but penalties, red card issues), I don’t understand the point of the pitch ref using the TV monitor. The VAR is a fully qualified premier league referee having a stint in the studio, so if VAR says to the pitch ref “I think you’ve made a clear and obvious mistake” that should be it. It’s not as though VAR is a trainee Sunday league ref and his query needs to be reviewed on the monitor by the more experienced pitch ref.

 

I'm guessing it's to do with allowing the on-field referee to retain some sort of integrity. The on-field ref is far more likely to shy away from making any big decisions if they know the video ref is the one always having the final say. The on-field ref also has, in theory, a better understanding of the context of the game too, being the one who's actually there in person amongst the players. The difference with the offside rule is that (in theory at least) it should be a relatively straightforward "right or wrong" answer, whereas penalties and sendings-off are more open to interpretation.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tewkesbury said:

Put it on the big screen, have the conversations on speaker. All decisions explained.

 

Train proper VAR ops, take them from film school or wherever, somewhere that teaches camera work and angles.

Half of the issue is refs being useless with it.

 

No decision in 30 seconds, ref's decision stands.

 

It works in rugby, why can't it work here.

Exactly this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, punkskaphil said:

 

I'm guessing it's to do with allowing the on-field referee to retain some sort of integrity. The on-field ref is far more likely to shy away from making any big decisions if they know the video ref is the one always having the final say. The on-field ref also has, in theory, a better understanding of the context of the game too, being the one who's actually there in person amongst the players. The difference with the offside rule is that (in theory at least) it should be a relatively straightforward "right or wrong" answer, whereas penalties and sendings-off are more open to interpretation.


I appreciate the integrity point, and the desire to avoid undermining the authority / respect of the pitch referee, but the process dictates that VAR is always reviewing and checking and to give the pitch ref the final say, to save face, is, for me, a pointless waste of time.

 

If VAR thinks that a “clear and obvious mistake” may or may not have occurred but is not sure enough to “overrule” the pitch ref, then it is not “clear and obvious” and there is no need to review on the monitor.

But if VAR is certain that a “clear and obvious” mistake has been made, then equally there is no need to review.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

VAR as intended for clear and obvious errors was the intention, 2mm decisions on offside is not clear nor obvious. 

My an issue is the stndard of refs, O'Nien should have been sent off in both games, his challenge on Bannan in the first game was late reckless and dangerous, Shaw got sent off for less last year, and deserved at least two bookings in the second game, couple for his challenges and his attempt to get Windass sent off for headbutting when he threw himself to the floor. 

Edited by elyowl1
Missed end of comment
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, sturutter said:

No, it's not at all that VAR would have overruled the goal;  it was of course onside. 

 

It is that we wouldn't have known that.

 

Behind all the arguments about where the line goes and what is clear and obvious, the true tragedy of VAR is that, with every goal comes doubt. Our goal was perfectly fine, but there is no way at all of knowing that in the ground. Not even with the perfect view, and definitely not from behind the goal.

 

At the time, lucky enough to be free from VAR, we had joy, relief, pandemonium. The feelings that make it all worthwhile. With VAR, yes, you still celebrate, but it can never be the same. As soon as a goal goes in, the purity we have in the lower leagues is replaced under VAR by a mental calculation- "will it stand, what are the chances it gets looked at?" One massively misunderstood point is that, yes, there is hope that the process may improve and the decisions become better, but with that, this fundamental problem does NOT change.

 

Even if VAR one day becomes perfect, you still have the doubt.  As soon as it comes down to us, our experience of the most crucial moments of a football match are changed for ever; and only for the worse. That is really sad. 

 

We must oppose it before it comes in. Seperate all the arguments about how well it works from the crucial argument, that the damage it does to the moment of a  goal cannot be avoided. Fight against it; we will regret it once it comes.

 

agree wholeheartedly VAR is abysmal. I would rather have wrong refereeing decisions than this VAR nonsense that is killing the game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, punkskaphil said:

 

I'm guessing it's to do with allowing the on-field referee to retain some sort of integrity. The on-field ref is far more likely to shy away from making any big decisions if they know the video ref is the one always having the final say. The on-field ref also has, in theory, a better understanding of the context of the game too, being the one who's actually there in person amongst the players. The difference with the offside rule is that (in theory at least) it should be a relatively straightforward "right or wrong" answer, whereas penalties and sendings-off are more open to interpretation.

Half of the issues is saving face for refs.

 

Man up and do your job.

 

In a rugby game I watched a while ago, thete was a controversial decision made, close to the end of a tight game. Emotions were high, so the captains ran up to the ref to see what was going on, they quietly asked, the ref immediately replied that yes, it was a penalty, however, just before it there had been a different incident, so it went the other way. While they were were with the ref, everyone else got into position to start play.

The aggrieved captain said OK, jogged back and they carried on. It was on speaker so the crowd was happy.

Took about 10 seconds from the decision to restarting play.

 

If that was football, there would have been a crowd of players, some shoving, poinging etc. and a minute wasted.

 

Same with video, they describe what they're looking at in real time, you can hear the conversation with the ref and everyone's happy.

 

Refereeing in rugby is completely transparent, everyone knows what and why, so the refs are respected and trusted.

In football, the ref's seem to be too self important, when it's the protecting themselves that erodes the trust in them. If they manned up and admitted to mistakes, as they do in rugby, everyone would be better off.

Edited by Tewkesbury
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tewkesbury said:

Put it on the big screen, have the conversations on speaker. All decisions explained.

 

Train proper VAR ops, take them from film school or wherever, somewhere that teaches camera work and angles.

Half of the issue is refs being useless with it.

 

No decision in 30 seconds, ref's decision stands.

 

It works in rugby, why can't it work here.

 

I'm not a big fan of rugby but feel football could learn a great deal from the way it is officiated in general.

 

Referees don't take any nonsense from players. 

 

Football officials need to be given the tools to stop decent, time wasting and games manship.

 

Until this happens we will have to continue to put up with teams conning the ref and wasting two thirds of the game.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, elyowl1 said:

VAR as intended for clear and obvious errors was the intention, 2mm decisions on offside is not clear nor obvious. 

My an issue is the stndard of refs, O'Nien should have been sent off in both games, his challenge on Bannan in the first game was late reckless and dangerous, Shaw got sent off for less last year, and deserved at least two bookings in the second game, couple for his challenges and his attempt to get Windass sent off for headbutting when he threw himself to the floor. 

Windass would have got a red for stamping on his foot.

 

Swings and roundabouts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...