"Only 18.3% of the respondents in the survey believe VAR has improved accuracy."
Really wind me up with the world in general. Why are people being asked at all if they "believe" VAR has improved accuracy. The fact of the matter is that it HAS improved accuracy, that is indisputable and entirely objective.
I really do despise this idea that seems to be quite common now that facts can be treated as opinions. It is like looking out the window, seeing rain pouring down, and saying "I believe it is a lovely, sunny day outside," when the evidence is quite clearly there that it is not!
Frustration with the general state of the world aside though, I do think that VAR as it is currently implemented is very far from ideal but removing it entirely would be an enormous mistake and would lead to far more frustration with incorrect referee calls than we have currently.
I think a challenge system for everything outside of goal-line and offside calls would be far better. I would say one call per half (which you keep if successful) rather than one per game but either way it would be much better than how VAR is currently used. It puts the onus onto the coach of the team making the call to actually point to something specific rather than just hoping that "something" has happened to disallow a goal or to give a penalty or a red card. It would also stop the forensic analysis of most goals to try to find a reason to disallow it that we have currently.
I think it would also help massively if VAR was not operated by other referees but instead by an independent group. That way you cut out the current situation where referees do not want to undermine their friends and make contentious calls.
Challenges? lord please no! Goal line and offside tech seems to work. Reviewing gross errors should work. By gross I mean Howard Webb forgetting the first yellow card. Otherwise make the call and play the game.
Outside the US you probably do t know that mlb has implemented balls and strike challenges. Given the pace of baseball this should work ok and it may just may force the evaluation of deficient umpires and may force improvement in some. It may also force mlb to acknowledge that the position of the umpires affects the calling of balls and strikes.
Soccer is too fast with too many decisions too allow challenges.
VAR in England was deliberately badly implemented by Mike Dean because the ref's didn't want it, it is so 'amateurish' with 'yeah, Tayls, wot have you got...' The Spurs vs Liverpool fiasco being an obvious example at the lack of clear communication...
It's not helped by the TV punditry continually twisting and turning depending on what narrative they are trying to push... ie 'It's a man's game / you can't push people at corners if you're Arsenal...'
I just want to see consistency, from game to game, and when i see a decision, will have a pretty good chance of predicting the outcome.....
To get this, you sit all the refs in a room, and show them a 1,000 different incidents, until they start to agree on what is / isn't a red card or penalty you don't let them out untill they get 999 correct.
The other issue, the large part of a ref's skill is 'game management' ie, and you've all heard it, book someone in the 1st minute, and his made a rod for his own back....no, the player who committed a cautionable offence has !!!! This works at the lower levels, were refs come from, and how the learn to climb the greasy poll, however, once you start reaching the lofy environs of the EPL, it goes out the window, and games should be reffed consistently, ( as they are in RFU )
So, to improve, a side may challenge a major decision, however, if unsuccessful, you lose a sub, if you have used your subs, you lose a player.....
This then bends the honesty threshold back against the player, if you've gone over soft, you just say, 'sorry ref, slipped, if you've been taken out, you go, 'sorry ref, i think you've made an error.....
Statements like this:
"Only 18.3% of the respondents in the survey believe VAR has improved accuracy."
Really wind me up with the world in general. Why are people being asked at all if they "believe" VAR has improved accuracy. The fact of the matter is that it HAS improved accuracy, that is indisputable and entirely objective.
I really do despise this idea that seems to be quite common now that facts can be treated as opinions. It is like looking out the window, seeing rain pouring down, and saying "I believe it is a lovely, sunny day outside," when the evidence is quite clearly there that it is not!
Frustration with the general state of the world aside though, I do think that VAR as it is currently implemented is very far from ideal but removing it entirely would be an enormous mistake and would lead to far more frustration with incorrect referee calls than we have currently.
I think a challenge system for everything outside of goal-line and offside calls would be far better. I would say one call per half (which you keep if successful) rather than one per game but either way it would be much better than how VAR is currently used. It puts the onus onto the coach of the team making the call to actually point to something specific rather than just hoping that "something" has happened to disallow a goal or to give a penalty or a red card. It would also stop the forensic analysis of most goals to try to find a reason to disallow it that we have currently.
I think it would also help massively if VAR was not operated by other referees but instead by an independent group. That way you cut out the current situation where referees do not want to undermine their friends and make contentious calls.
Challenges? lord please no! Goal line and offside tech seems to work. Reviewing gross errors should work. By gross I mean Howard Webb forgetting the first yellow card. Otherwise make the call and play the game.
Outside the US you probably do t know that mlb has implemented balls and strike challenges. Given the pace of baseball this should work ok and it may just may force the evaluation of deficient umpires and may force improvement in some. It may also force mlb to acknowledge that the position of the umpires affects the calling of balls and strikes.
Soccer is too fast with too many decisions too allow challenges.
ok, here's my 2'penneth...
VAR in England was deliberately badly implemented by Mike Dean because the ref's didn't want it, it is so 'amateurish' with 'yeah, Tayls, wot have you got...' The Spurs vs Liverpool fiasco being an obvious example at the lack of clear communication...
It's not helped by the TV punditry continually twisting and turning depending on what narrative they are trying to push... ie 'It's a man's game / you can't push people at corners if you're Arsenal...'
I just want to see consistency, from game to game, and when i see a decision, will have a pretty good chance of predicting the outcome.....
To get this, you sit all the refs in a room, and show them a 1,000 different incidents, until they start to agree on what is / isn't a red card or penalty you don't let them out untill they get 999 correct.
The other issue, the large part of a ref's skill is 'game management' ie, and you've all heard it, book someone in the 1st minute, and his made a rod for his own back....no, the player who committed a cautionable offence has !!!! This works at the lower levels, were refs come from, and how the learn to climb the greasy poll, however, once you start reaching the lofy environs of the EPL, it goes out the window, and games should be reffed consistently, ( as they are in RFU )
So, to improve, a side may challenge a major decision, however, if unsuccessful, you lose a sub, if you have used your subs, you lose a player.....
This then bends the honesty threshold back against the player, if you've gone over soft, you just say, 'sorry ref, slipped, if you've been taken out, you go, 'sorry ref, i think you've made an error.....
Simples....