VARargh

[TightEnd]

Cricket, rugby union, rugby league, NFL - you can hear either the officials or the video ref or both. What do they say to each other in football that demands secrecy?

There urgently needs to be some way to keep the crowd in the ground informed too.

[arbboy]

Everyone i have spoke to who watches the NFL can't understand why each manager in soccer doesn't just get a 'flag' for each half.  One challenge and it is up to the managers (and their teams in the stand via ear piece) to decide when to challenge.  If the manager has no issue with a decision made at the time why does the ref feel the need to get involved and change it?  Isn't this just so simple it should be obvious?

[Chompy]

It works really well doesn't it?

Decisions are generally right using the VAR?

TV broadcasts seem intent on calling VAR decisions and the time they take 'controversies' when what they really mean is we needed the controversies that bad decision making brought so we could talk about it for days. Now they are getting them right we will pretend that adding 5 mins in added time per half is really bad in exchange for getting the decisions right.

Any fan that goes to a match or watches one on TV that has the VAR system but still complains knowing  there is likely to be 5-10 minutes added to each half just needs to wake up IMO. The right decisions are being made. Why does it matter if a half of football last for 50 or 55 minutes in those games?

isnt it incredible that a sport/Fans/TV channels that have complained for years  over bad decisions changing games are now complaining because the decisions are now being made correctly but it takes 5 minutes?

A 1hour NFL game takes 3 hours to play. And people are moaning  because as 90 minute football match might take 100 minutes to play but be reffed in a much fairer way. How does that make sense?

Any football decision that takes more than about 10 seconds is almost certainly not achieving the objective which was to overturn ridic decisions. Spending 2 mins trying to determine if someones thigh is offside is just changing the game too much imo. It actually ruins the watching and I can't see how any person who actually likes watching football could think otherwise

If you're a fan attending the games you really don't spend yr money to watch the ref fk about and adding 10 mins to 'correct' such marginal decisions doesn't add anything to the game or the spectacle.

NFL is a game of a hundred set plays, like cricket, like Baseball, of course no one cares if it takes 3 hours because that's the norm.

It might turn out fine but needs a lot of tweaks to make it worth the intrusion

Dinosaur.

[tikay]

It works really well doesn't it?

Decisions are generally right using the VAR?

TV broadcasts seem intent on calling VAR decisions and the time they take 'controversies' when what they really mean is we needed the controversies that bad decision making brought so we could talk about it for days. Now they are getting them right we will pretend that adding 5 mins in added time per half is really bad in exchange for getting the decisions right.

Any fan that goes to a match or watches one on TV that has the VAR system but still complains knowing  there is likely to be 5-10 minutes added to each half just needs to wake up IMO. The right decisions are being made. Why does it matter if a half of football last for 50 or 55 minutes in those games?

isnt it incredible that a sport/Fans/TV channels that have complained for years  over bad decisions changing games are now complaining because the decisions are now being made correctly but it takes 5 minutes?

A 1hour NFL game takes 3 hours to play. And people are moaning  because as 90 minute football match might take 100 minutes to play but be reffed in a much fairer way. How does that make sense?

I agree with most of that, Phil, the only thing I'd say is that in football they need to communicate better what is happening, as they do in NFL, where the Zebra bloke has a microphone & a set of agreed hand signals to let everyone know what's going off.

It's just so easy for the TV Commentators to sit & diss everything, but they don't have to make decisions & have the world & his wife second-guessing & aftertiming.

[Jon MW]

It works really well doesn't it?

Decisions are generally right using the VAR?

TV broadcasts seem intent on calling VAR decisions and the time they take 'controversies' when what they really mean is we needed the controversies that bad decision making brought so we could talk about it for days. Now they are getting them right we will pretend that adding 5 mins in added time per half is really bad in exchange for getting the decisions right.

Any fan that goes to a match or watches one on TV that has the VAR system but still complains knowing  there is likely to be 5-10 minutes added to each half just needs to wake up IMO. The right decisions are being made. Why does it matter if a half of football last for 50 or 55 minutes in those games?

isnt it incredible that a sport/Fans/TV channels that have complained for years  over bad decisions changing games are now complaining because the decisions are now being made correctly but it takes 5 minutes?

A 1hour NFL game takes 3 hours to play. And people are moaning  because as 90 minute football match might take 100 minutes to play but be reffed in a much fairer way. How does that make sense?

Any football decision that takes more than about 10 seconds is almost certainly not achieving the objective which was to overturn ridic decisions. Spending 2 mins trying to determine if someones thigh is offside is just changing the game too much imo. It actually ruins the watching and I can't see how any person who actually likes watching football could think otherwise

If you're a fan attending the games you really don't spend yr money to watch the ref fk about and adding 10 mins to 'correct' such marginal decisions doesn't add anything to the game or the spectacle.

NFL is a game of a hundred set plays, like cricket, like Baseball, of course no one cares if it takes 3 hours because that's the norm.

It might turn out fine but needs a lot of tweaks to make it worth the intrusion

The time it takes was precisely the problem I could see with VAR all along. In pretty much every game something like this has been introduced to it has started out as being something to avoid obvious errors but has ended up being routinely referred to make sure wrong decisions don't get made at all; the faster the game is to start with the more impact this is going to have.

Compare the attitude from before it was introduced:

The International Football Association Board (IFAB) – the body that makes rule-changing decisions in the sport – explains their aim is “not to achieve 100% accuracy for all decisions” but rather to swiftly remedy clear mistakes in match-changing situations

With Mourinho's comment a couple of weeks ago

It was close. There are teething problems with VAR - but if it takes 20 minutes, that's how long it should take.

I think if the idea that VAR has to be 100% correct takes hold then it's just going to get worse and worse - they really should be trying to steer it back to the original idea of fixing clear errors to keep the game on track.

[bunnydas8888]

It works really well doesn't it?

Decisions are generally right using the VAR?

TV broadcasts seem intent on calling VAR decisions and the time they take 'controversies' when what they really mean is we needed the controversies that bad decision making brought so we could talk about it for days. Now they are getting them right we will pretend that adding 5 mins in added time per half is really bad in exchange for getting the decisions right.

Any fan that goes to a match or watches one on TV that has the VAR system but still complains knowing  there is likely to be 5-10 minutes added to each half just needs to wake up IMO. The right decisions are being made. Why does it matter if a half of football last for 50 or 55 minutes in those games?

isnt it incredible that a sport/Fans/TV channels that have complained for years  over bad decisions changing games are now complaining because the decisions are now being made correctly but it takes 5 minutes?

A 1hour NFL game takes 3 hours to play. And people are moaning  because as 90 minute football match might take 100 minutes to play but be reffed in a much fairer way. How does that make sense?

Any football decision that takes more than about 10 seconds is almost certainly not achieving the objective which was to overturn ridic decisions. Spending 2 mins trying to determine if someones thigh is offside is just changing the game too much imo. It actually ruins the watching and I can't see how any person who actually likes watching football could think otherwise

If you're a fan attending the games you really don't spend yr money to watch the ref fk about and adding 10 mins to 'correct' such marginal decisions doesn't add anything to the game or the spectacle.

NFL is a game of a hundred set plays, like cricket, like Baseball, of course no one cares if it takes 3 hours because that's the norm.

It might turn out fine but needs a lot of tweaks to make it worth the intrusion

The time it takes was precisely the problem I could see with VAR all along. In pretty much every game something like this has been introduced to it has started out as being something to avoid obvious errors but has ended up being routinely referred to make sure wrong decisions don't get made at all; the faster the game is to start with the more impact this is going to have.

Compare the attitude from before it was introduced:

The International Football Association Board (IFAB) – the body that makes rule-changing decisions in the sport – explains their aim is “not to achieve 100% accuracy for all decisions” but rather to swiftly remedy clear mistakes in match-changing situations

With Mourinho's comment a couple of weeks ago

It was close. There are teething problems with VAR - but if it takes 20 minutes, that's how long it should take.

I think if the idea that VAR has to be 100% correct takes hold then it's just going to get worse and worse - they really should be trying to steer it back to the original idea of fixing clear errors to keep the game on track.

how or who refers it in the instance of a "clear" error? it's only clear to us as we get to see it over and over from different angles.

[Jon MW]

It works really well doesn't it?

Decisions are generally right using the VAR?

TV broadcasts seem intent on calling VAR decisions and the time they take 'controversies' when what they really mean is we needed the controversies that bad decision making brought so we could talk about it for days. Now they are getting them right we will pretend that adding 5 mins in added time per half is really bad in exchange for getting the decisions right.

Any fan that goes to a match or watches one on TV that has the VAR system but still complains knowing  there is likely to be 5-10 minutes added to each half just needs to wake up IMO. The right decisions are being made. Why does it matter if a half of football last for 50 or 55 minutes in those games?

isnt it incredible that a sport/Fans/TV channels that have complained for years  over bad decisions changing games are now complaining because the decisions are now being made correctly but it takes 5 minutes?

A 1hour NFL game takes 3 hours to play. And people are moaning  because as 90 minute football match might take 100 minutes to play but be reffed in a much fairer way. How does that make sense?

Any football decision that takes more than about 10 seconds is almost certainly not achieving the objective which was to overturn ridic decisions. Spending 2 mins trying to determine if someones thigh is offside is just changing the game too much imo. It actually ruins the watching and I can't see how any person who actually likes watching football could think otherwise

If you're a fan attending the games you really don't spend yr money to watch the ref fk about and adding 10 mins to 'correct' such marginal decisions doesn't add anything to the game or the spectacle.

NFL is a game of a hundred set plays, like cricket, like Baseball, of course no one cares if it takes 3 hours because that's the norm.

It might turn out fine but needs a lot of tweaks to make it worth the intrusion

The time it takes was precisely the problem I could see with VAR all along. In pretty much every game something like this has been introduced to it has started out as being something to avoid obvious errors but has ended up being routinely referred to make sure wrong decisions don't get made at all; the faster the game is to start with the more impact this is going to have.

Compare the attitude from before it was introduced:

The International Football Association Board (IFAB) – the body that makes rule-changing decisions in the sport – explains their aim is “not to achieve 100% accuracy for all decisions” but rather to swiftly remedy clear mistakes in match-changing situations

With Mourinho's comment a couple of weeks ago

It was close. There are teething problems with VAR - but if it takes 20 minutes, that's how long it should take.

I think if the idea that VAR has to be 100% correct takes hold then it's just going to get worse and worse - they really should be trying to steer it back to the original idea of fixing clear errors to keep the game on track.

how or who refers it in the instance of a "clear" error? it's only clear to us as we get to see it over and over from different angles.

As above

...Any football decision that takes more than about 10 seconds is almost certainly not achieving the objective which was to overturn ridic decisions...

[4KSuited]

I could be wrong, but there does not seem to be a clear protocol in place. It seems that the VAR intervened in order to overrule the ref's decision to let the first goal stand. Today, pretty much every observer (including Keith Hackett) has said that VAR was not required and the goal should have stood.

Surely VAR should only be referred to if the ref specifically requests it; OR if the VAR is sure that the ref has missed (being unsighted, for example) a key event (goal/penalty/serious foul play) - and at this point the ref should have access to a monitor to view the key footage.

The worry in the meantime is that the players and managers will increasingly demand the use of VAR for all sorts. Games last last night's will only increase their inclination.

Finally, for the record, whilst it would be preferred that correct decisions could be made more quickly, I'd be prepared to wait a couple of minutes for the right decision. But if it takes a couple of minutes to arrive at the wrong decision (disallowing the first Spurs goal), this only undermines the stated goals of the VAR, and gives the anti-VAR brigade more of a case.

[MANTIS01]

I think VAR is complete rhubarb. Waiting a lifetime in silence for the Wizard of Oz to pass judgement on who knows what is plain boring. Mistakes and luck are part of the sport and part of the fun. Yeah but those decisions can cost a multi-million pound football club a million pounds. So what tho??

Sure enough all those other sports can grind to a halt to pursuit clinical technical correctness but why follow suit? EPL football is a high octane toboggan ride so just hang on and enjoy, be raw and authentic instead. My biggest worry is for the future of the most popular and passionate chants in the game. I mean "the referee's a wanker", "who's the wanker in the black" and "you don't know what you're doing" have been crowd favourites for years. Sad times.

[MANTIS01]

Oh and don't be surprised when the super quick commercial breaks for Deep Heat or whatever kick in during the decision making process.

[4KSuited]

LOL, MANTIS, so true.

But on the plus side, VAR has killed off the daft and rather embarrassingly contrived goal celebrations. My blood boiled as I pondered the amount of training ground time that must've been invested in these ridic routines.

[MANTIS01]

LOL, MANTIS, so true.

But on the plus side, VAR has killed off the daft and rather embarrassingly contrived goal celebrations. My blood boiled as I pondered the amount of training ground time that must've been invested in these ridic routines.

Yah, anybody who dabs can fuck off

But then again there was this...

[TightEnd]

VAR will be used at the World Cup in Russia this summer and forever more!

Great 😂 potential for epic cockups as it will be most of the referees' first experience of it

[MANTIS01]

Danny Murphy made a solid point on football focus today. Fans go to football to feel that fist-pump emotion of celebrating a goal. If we keep robbing them of that pleasure, overturning it, denying it in return for 'correct decisions' we are dicing with what made football successful in the first place. A few wrong decisions to fuel the passion seems a decent trade off to me cos dicking about with the magic formula is a dangerous business.

[Jon MW]

Saw a figure which said out of 46 VAR overturns in the Bundesliga 11 have been shown to be wrong.

It didn't say how long they were disrupting the game for when these decisions have been made but it's irrelevant either way.

If they're making quick VAR decisions which are wrong then they're obviously not clear mistakes and it's basically one referee deciding a different referee's judgement was wrong.

If they're taking a long time over it then there's really no excuse - disrupting the game for longer and still getting it wrong should completely kill it.