FA Cup VAR for or against?

[eraser]

Watching Liverpool v WBA - what do people think of VAR?

 

[ZeroTheHero]

It would be OK ..

If those in the ground (the actual supporters who pay their money and turn up) knew what was happening, and it was explained why (via the big screens they all have) the decision was made as it was...

.. and If they came to a conclusion a LOT quicker.

As it is, it is sucking the drama out of goals when everyone stands around for the best part of five minutes after they think they have scored.

 

[eraser]

The decisions were correct which is what fans want but my feeling is if you've got VAR then assistants should never flag offside. If they don't flag and a goal is scored then it will be ruled out but if they flag incorrectly when a striker is through 1 on 1 with the keeper there's no recourse if the ref stops the game.

 

[eraser]

Unfortunately there's too much money involved at the top level. It's no longer a game for enjoyment - it's business! I just hope someone gets relegated on a VAR decision one day

 

[Gary Baldi]

Sports that have good VAR are the ones where the fans can hear the decision being made and understand why. When it happens with no context, it comes across very badly. The lack of trust of officials in football doesn't help

 

[eraser]

Sports that have good VAR are the ones where the fans can hear the decision being made and understand why. When it happens with no context, it comes across very badly. The lack of trust of officials in football doesn't help

I think it;s harsh to say lack of trust in officials - everyone makes mistakes in a high tempo environment. I think officials try their best regardless of ability. However in football there are very few "Black & White" decisions. Fouls, including penalties are subjective - put it on a video screen and half the crowd will agree and the other half disagree - that's human nature when supporting and are biased to your team.. IMO VAR should only be used to decide if a goal scored is legitimate. Like a dismissal in cricket if there's no reason to overturn the decision - it stands. Any doubt remains as On Field Referees call.

 

[eraser]

Maybe use the same system as Tennis and Cricket and let the team captain make a challenge and limit them to 1 or 2 per half? If nobody is arguing - why waste time reviewing...as seemed to happen tonight.

 

[Maggiesdad]

I am 56 years old, and watching on television, not actually at the game, that is the end of football as we know it.... regardless of the correctness of the decision....any decision....

 

[HeyMcAleny]

Even though VAR seems to be getting decisions correct, my impression is that people are mostly unhappy with the delays and confusion it causes. I heard from someone who attended a VAR match and they said it was a rubbish experience being in the ground and not knowing what's going on.

Clearly the protocols can improve, but I hope there's a willingness at the end of the trial to consider dropping the idea for a while, and take time to address the concerns raised.

As a side note, the NFL introduced wireless microphones as long ago as 1975 to address the problem of spectator confusion, and whilst it sounds inconceivable (and possibly heresy) to suggest using it in footy, over the years their match officials have become increasingly comfortable and skilled with it. Although the idea sounds horrific, I'm not sure how else spectators can be kept informed. The notion of installing giant screens into every ground and even showing the VAR's footage sounds equally beset with problems and implications.

 

[eraser]

The only real BIG decision is goal or no goal. Penalties can be missed as was proven tonight. Use VAR to check for offside and if the team captain challenges but don't use it for every decision. Sterilises the game and we have nothing to talk about in the pub. Robbie Savage will be screwed if he can't slag off the ref..

 

[Marked Ox]

I'm against it but could accept each team having one challenge per match.

Another problem with VAR for me is it will separate the game even further. The top leagues will have it but lower levels won't, so the interpretation of laws will be based on VAR football (as that will get the most coverage) which will influence non VAR football and how laws are written long term.

This will also give big teams a further advantage in cup games where VAR is used over time once they get used to it whereas lower league players won't, apart from the odd occasion maybe, have any experience.

 

[Morris Oxford]

The stop start element of VAR is just not suitable for the game of football.

Sports where there are natural breaks in play such a short cricket and tennis are where it works best. I’m not a particular fan of rugby (so don’t really care!) but it’s made rugby a less exciting game, constantly breaking up play.

Goal line technology I can live with but overall let’s keep the human element of officials making mistakes and letting the game flow.

Seems to me that fans who make the effort, financial sacrifices and actually attend games are being taken for granted (as usual by the governing bodies) Stop ruining the game we love just to appease the premier league clubs, money men and sky sports armchair fans.

 

[HeyMcAleny]

Playing devil's advocate on the notion of challenges...

In tennis and cricket, where challenges are used, the players can use their skill and judgement to decide whether a challenge is warranted.

Football is very different. (1) Offside decisions are incredibly hard to judge and get right. Teams would often just be guessing when they made their challenge. (2) Fouls are subjective unlike the objectiveness of hawkeye, snickometer etc. So you would have the frequent situation where a team uses up their challenges incorrectly, then we all see later in the game when they have been harshly treated but can then do nothing about it.

The current VAR concept is to cut out obvious mistakes, and last night we saw that happen twice. The challenge method would not achieve this goal.

 

[Followtheox1]

I have no idea why they need the monitor by the side of the pitch for the ref to go and view adding more time. Surely the video ref can just make the decision and move on.

 

[Marked Ox]

Playing devil's advocate on the notion of challenges...

In tennis and cricket, where challenges are used, the players can use their skill and judgement to decide whether a challenge is warranted.

Football is very different. (1) Offside decisions are incredibly hard to judge and get right. Teams would often just be guessing when they made their challenge. (2) Fouls are subjective unlike the objectiveness of hawkeye, snickometer etc. So you would have the frequent situation where a team uses up their challenges incorrectly, then we all see later in the game when they have been harshly treated but can then do nothing about it.

The current VAR concept is to cut out obvious mistakes, and last night we saw that happen twice. The challenge method would not achieve this goal.

To counter that, players and management would learn to use the challenge more effectively over time as they have in cricket.

 

[Sarge]

Maybe, radical though it may be, matchday officials become 100% professional, as well as fit, and consistent with their interpretation and application of the rules and n regs of Association Football?

Would VAR be required if football had fit, competent and capable match officials?

 

[horseman]

Firstly if it is to be implemented then should be across the board not just prem clubs...
Alan Pardew could still be seen shaking his head and afterwards still insisted dawsons header should have stood

i know i am likely in minority but i believe let the officials do their job, didn't let players get away with constant abuse and circling them venting anger and STOP tv replays and accept the officials decision is final..

 

[Marked Ox]

Firstly if it is to be implemented then should be across the board not just prem clubs...
Alan Pardew could still be seen shaking his head and afterwards still insisted dawsons header should have stood

i know i am likely in minority but i believe let the officials do their job, didn't let players get away with constant abuse and circling them venting anger and STOP tv replays and accept the officials decision is final..

I agree but you'll never stop TV replays.

 

[horseman]

I agree but you'll never stop TV replays.

Everyone mostly accepted decisions until TV got involved and took over control of the game, i believe i am right in saying replays of certain incidents are not allowed inside the ground so why not have it across the board.

 

[Marked Ox]

Everyone mostly accepted decisions until TV got involved and took over control of the game, i believe i am right in saying replays of certain incidents are not allowed inside the ground so why not have it across the board.

I agree and understand but TV has too much power; and the media would never stop ranting about it because of the armchair viewers that now take precedence over people going to games.

 

[Gary Baldi]

I think it;s harsh to say lack of trust in officials - everyone makes mistakes in a high tempo environment. I think officials try their best regardless of ability. However in football there are very few "Black & White" decisions. Fouls, including penalties are subjective - put it on a video screen and half the crowd will agree and the other half disagree - that's human nature when supporting and are biased to your team.. IMO VAR should only be used to decide if a goal scored is legitimate. Like a dismissal in cricket if there's no reason to overturn the decision - it stands. Any doubt remains as On Field Referees call.

It is, but we see week on how unbelievably inconsistently games are officiated. I have no trust the officials will get it right, nor that the FA will be consistent either. I think football should keep it at goal line technology because there is no interpretation going on.

 

[Marked Ox]

Just watched an absolute farce of a VAR decision in the Napoli/Bologna game. The ref gave a penalty to Napoli which was frankly a dive. The defender's hand was on the Napoli player's shoulder but there was clearly no push or pull to cause him to fall. The penalty was laughably still confirmed by the VAR official.

Likewise, in the Chelsea game if it had been a VAR game then it demonstrated a large flaw. Hazard was flagged offside when clean through and it was given even though it wasn't. If he had gone through and scored it could then be checked by VAR but as the decision was given it can't be checked. So same situation different result, not guaranteeing the right decision which is the reason for VAR.

 

[OUFCGav]

I think they are saying to they want to go from 96% correct for Elite Group refs to 98% correct with VAR. Is that 2% worth the level of change in the game?
For the technology to work it has to be quick/seamless. The delays to the game of 2mins for the ruled out West Brom goal, and 4mins for the Liverpool penalty (according to read sources, I haven't taken a stopwatch to it) are far far too long (especially as 6 mins weren't added on).
The communication also has to be better. Whoever thought that the referee putting his finger to his ear was good enough in a 50000+ capacity stadium is clearly an idiot. Then to make a small rectangle motion before running off seems pointless. Then for there to be no explanation of what has gone on (especially after such a delay) and why the decision has been made is very strange. Its as annoying as referees not being allowed to say publicly why a decision has been made after the game.

Edit: though of course we now get a non-VAR game (Cardiff v Man City) with the ref & linesman taking an age having a chat about a decision, and then getting it wrong (Silva shot ruled out for offside against Sane).

 

[holdsteady]

As VAR is not in use in every game in the same competitions, it’s a bit of a farce.

I can see it dragging games out by 15 minutes eventually, if you look at Rugby they eventually just refer anything that isn’t nailed on, so night games with extra time and penalties will finish at gone 11, be fun for away fans who have work the next day.

Don’t think Cricket and Tennis are great comparisons as they are sports with a natural break in play after every bowl/point, football is such a fast flowing sport that I can see problems with stopping the game to check if a decision is correct when another team is on the counter.

 

[Marked Ox]

I think they are saying to they want to go from 96% correct for Elite Group refs to 98% correct with VAR. Is that 2% worth the level of change in the game?
For the technology to work it has to be quick/seamless. The delays to the game of 2mins for the ruled out West Brom goal, and 4mins for the Liverpool penalty (according to read sources, I haven't taken a stopwatch to it) are far far too long (especially as 6 mins weren't added on).
The communication also has to be better. Whoever thought that the referee putting his finger to his ear was good enough in a 50000+ capacity stadium is clearly an idiot. Then to make a small rectangle motion before running off seems pointless. Then for there to be no explanation of what has gone on (especially after such a delay) and why the decision has been made is very strange. Its as annoying as referees not being allowed to say publicly why a decision has been made after the game.

Edit: though of course we now get a non-VAR game (Cardiff v Man City) with the ref & linesman taking an age having a chat about a decision, and then getting it wrong (Silva shot ruled out for offside against Sane).

On the Cardiff/Man City game. While it was unfortunate I have no problem with that decision, as that was so so close whether an onside/offside position and the linesman didn't have a frozen picture with a line drawn on it to highlight it. As soon as the offside position was determined by the linesman then Sane was interfering as he was in front of the goalie taking his eyeline and blocking a view of the shot.

As for the time taken, it is once in a blue moon unlike the norm with VAR games I've seen where it is most games and often a couple of times a game.

 

[holdsteady]

My main problem with the Man City game was the bbc commentator not understanding it was disallowed even after the free kick for offside had been taken, not certain how that confused him so much.

 

[OUFCGav]

On the Cardiff/Man City game. While it was unfortunate I have no problem with that decision, as that was so so close whether an onside/offside position and the linesman didn't have a frozen picture with a line drawn on it to highlight it. As soon as the offside position was determined by the linesman then Sane was interfering as he was in front of the goalie taking his eyeline and blocking a view of the shot.

As for the time taken, it is once in a blue moon unlike the norm with VAR games I've seen where it is most games and often a couple of times a game.

I was saying it as much because it took so long to get to the decision even without VAR.

 

[OUFCGav]

My main problem with the Man City game was the bbc commentator not understanding it was disallowed even after the free kick for offside had been taken, not certain how that confused him so much.

i think they a) weren't properly paying attention, b) the ref did a bit of an arc thing with his arm whereby he was initially pointing towards the centre circle before carrying on to vertical for the indierect free kick - apparently at least one Man City player initially started celebrating.

 

[boogaloo]

I'm all for it, but unlike cricket or rugby there is no natural break in play. The solution I believe would be for the referee to refer it to the video official with what he believes is the correct decision, and the video official's role should be for clarification. Give them 15 maybe 30 seconds to make a decision, and if they can't decide, then it should be referee's call, which is what happens in cricket if the ball is just clipping one of the stumps.

Mistakes do happen - that's sport, but they need to be careful not to sending every little thing upstairs and delaying the game by 10 mins.

Also there's no reason the ref can't communicate to the stadium announcer what the hell is going on!

 

[eraser]

Just watched an absolute farce of a VAR decision in the Napoli/Bologna game. The ref gave a penalty to Napoli which was frankly a dive. The defender's hand was on the Napoli player's shoulder but there was clearly no push or pull to cause him to fall. The penalty was laughably still confirmed by the VAR official.

Likewise, in the Chelsea game if it had been a VAR game then it demonstrated a large flaw. Hazard was flagged offside when clean through and it was given even though it wasn't. If he had gone through and scored it could then be checked by VAR but as the decision was given it can't be checked. So same situation different result, not guaranteeing the right decision which is the reason for VAR.

Agree - there is no point in an assistant ever flagging offside with VAR