I think VAR should stay, but to check offsides, or to check incidents like yellow or red cards. And penalties. Should be digital out off the sides tecnolology like out/in goal. But VAR should be used only if there is a obvious foul in the refs judgement. Not to take away goals that is given, then to look at everything to see if you can chalk it off. I also think that the rules should be set in stone, and the refs should strive for consistency. What is a pen on saturday 1230 is also a pen at sunday 1630. And also if given gameweek 1 will be given gameweek 38. Same with cardsz
Whilst I have read and understood all the pluses and minuses of VAR, for me it’s a philosophical choice. I personally preferred the game without VAR, warts and all; that’s my position but I appreciate others feel differently, which is fine. I do feel sad, though, when I watch “VAR -free” championship games and witness what we have lost. The funny thing is that the game is played at such a fast pace that when an incorrect decision is made e.g. an offside is flagged when the replay shows that it wasn’t, I’m not sure that people really care that much because the game is already in the next phase. It’s only at the end that these things are analysed. Personally speaking, I can live with this despite the obvious negatives - and mistakes.
Yes, decisions without VAR were sometimes “wrong”, but that really isn’t this point. Football is a strange sport in that – and I speak as somebody who has refereed the odd game – much of what goes on is about interpretation - about interpreting the laws. By way of example, two experienced referees could be within, say, 10 yards of an on field challenge and yet have different views on whether a foul had been committed and indeed by whom. That will always be the case: judgements have to be made, which is why I often cringe when the “C word” is mentioned: “consistency”. We really shouldn’t be focusing on consistency, we should be focusing instead on having excellent referees and excellent processes.
Technology certainly has a role and I’m a 100% advocate for technology assisting whether the ball is in or out of play. That’s a no-brainer. If VAR is to be retained (and of course it will be; I accept that) I would advocate its use be restricted to such binary matters - I would include offsides in this. Outside of these black-and-white decisions, VAR should be used only for “gross and egregious errors” probably because the referee was unsighted. I’m talking here about the situation where, for example, a defender clearly stops a goal by handling. For the rest of the decisions, let referees – who are at the end of the day are on the field of play and very close to the action – and assistant referees make the decisions. VAR could also be used if referees didn’t see a critical incident because they were unsighted – the on field referee could request VAR assistance at this stage, but it would be the referee’s decision whether to do this. VAR should definitely not be about re-refereeing a game. Just because VAR officials spot something the referee missed or got wrong when replaying an event does not legitimise VAR intervention: it’s simply a poor refereeing decision. And we have to live with that, just as we have to live with referees making umpteen “decisions” (judgements) during any game on whether or not a foul has been committed. So let’s make sure that referees are the best they can be. Anyone can referee a game: what we want are elite referees, which is a very different thing. Referees, and am thinking here of PGMOL in particular, frequently appear as analogues in a digital age, which is crazy considering we are looking at a billion-dollar game (business).
I think that there are many things in here I agree with. I can totally understand the preference for a game without VAR, it isn't mine but it is absolutely fine position.
I don't think many of the criticisms from that side convince me that it is the correct position but understand where they are coming from. I feel that the trade off for fewer big match altering mistakes, especially with continued to try and improve year on year, are worth the trade offs.
I think you are correct on the consistency point. One thing that I would be in massive favor of is having another on field referee. The game is just so fast these days that making one referee and one assistant (who is focused on offside) trying to cover half a field is crazy and makes it more likely that the angle for the referee might miss something. I think that is something that can make missed calls due to bad looks less likely.
I do generally like the high threshold and keeping things to often the call made on the field and with the referee. VAR should generally be pretty minimal and for the worse mistakes.
the NHL adding a second referee was met with a lot of fuss (especially on such a smaller surface than a football pitch), but it was a net benefit IMO. That second pair of eyes as confirmation would be key. The San Jose Quakes got jobbed by a horrific call from a ref this week in MLS, that wasnt even reviewed via VAR. I think the issues with VAR can be solved, and when solved (like time, what qualifies for review, using tech to automate, etc) will make VAR a net positive for most.
The Villa results are frustrating but they are far from the worst performances and that’s enough for me to not get overly frustrated with them with a bit of time and distance from them.
Yeah trying to speed things up is helpful but comes with draw backs and mistakes potentially too as the people can feel rushed and miss things (this is what caused the Brentford error last year)
Getting semi-automated offsides should help a lot. The offsides is where a lot of the time goes
And better, properly understood, processes - this should also make a big difference. (Even more so if they deign to let us - the great unwashed - know what what they are!)
changes i’d make
1. semi automated offsides
2. VAR can recommend yellow card OR red card OR no call on serious foul play reviews
3. automated out of bounds (if we have it for goalline, should be reasonable to add elsewhere)
I think VAR should stay, but to check offsides, or to check incidents like yellow or red cards. And penalties. Should be digital out off the sides tecnolology like out/in goal. But VAR should be used only if there is a obvious foul in the refs judgement. Not to take away goals that is given, then to look at everything to see if you can chalk it off. I also think that the rules should be set in stone, and the refs should strive for consistency. What is a pen on saturday 1230 is also a pen at sunday 1630. And also if given gameweek 1 will be given gameweek 38. Same with cardsz
Whilst I have read and understood all the pluses and minuses of VAR, for me it’s a philosophical choice. I personally preferred the game without VAR, warts and all; that’s my position but I appreciate others feel differently, which is fine. I do feel sad, though, when I watch “VAR -free” championship games and witness what we have lost. The funny thing is that the game is played at such a fast pace that when an incorrect decision is made e.g. an offside is flagged when the replay shows that it wasn’t, I’m not sure that people really care that much because the game is already in the next phase. It’s only at the end that these things are analysed. Personally speaking, I can live with this despite the obvious negatives - and mistakes.
Yes, decisions without VAR were sometimes “wrong”, but that really isn’t this point. Football is a strange sport in that – and I speak as somebody who has refereed the odd game – much of what goes on is about interpretation - about interpreting the laws. By way of example, two experienced referees could be within, say, 10 yards of an on field challenge and yet have different views on whether a foul had been committed and indeed by whom. That will always be the case: judgements have to be made, which is why I often cringe when the “C word” is mentioned: “consistency”. We really shouldn’t be focusing on consistency, we should be focusing instead on having excellent referees and excellent processes.
Technology certainly has a role and I’m a 100% advocate for technology assisting whether the ball is in or out of play. That’s a no-brainer. If VAR is to be retained (and of course it will be; I accept that) I would advocate its use be restricted to such binary matters - I would include offsides in this. Outside of these black-and-white decisions, VAR should be used only for “gross and egregious errors” probably because the referee was unsighted. I’m talking here about the situation where, for example, a defender clearly stops a goal by handling. For the rest of the decisions, let referees – who are at the end of the day are on the field of play and very close to the action – and assistant referees make the decisions. VAR could also be used if referees didn’t see a critical incident because they were unsighted – the on field referee could request VAR assistance at this stage, but it would be the referee’s decision whether to do this. VAR should definitely not be about re-refereeing a game. Just because VAR officials spot something the referee missed or got wrong when replaying an event does not legitimise VAR intervention: it’s simply a poor refereeing decision. And we have to live with that, just as we have to live with referees making umpteen “decisions” (judgements) during any game on whether or not a foul has been committed. So let’s make sure that referees are the best they can be. Anyone can referee a game: what we want are elite referees, which is a very different thing. Referees, and am thinking here of PGMOL in particular, frequently appear as analogues in a digital age, which is crazy considering we are looking at a billion-dollar game (business).
I think that there are many things in here I agree with. I can totally understand the preference for a game without VAR, it isn't mine but it is absolutely fine position.
I don't think many of the criticisms from that side convince me that it is the correct position but understand where they are coming from. I feel that the trade off for fewer big match altering mistakes, especially with continued to try and improve year on year, are worth the trade offs.
I think you are correct on the consistency point. One thing that I would be in massive favor of is having another on field referee. The game is just so fast these days that making one referee and one assistant (who is focused on offside) trying to cover half a field is crazy and makes it more likely that the angle for the referee might miss something. I think that is something that can make missed calls due to bad looks less likely.
I do generally like the high threshold and keeping things to often the call made on the field and with the referee. VAR should generally be pretty minimal and for the worse mistakes.
the NHL adding a second referee was met with a lot of fuss (especially on such a smaller surface than a football pitch), but it was a net benefit IMO. That second pair of eyes as confirmation would be key. The San Jose Quakes got jobbed by a horrific call from a ref this week in MLS, that wasnt even reviewed via VAR. I think the issues with VAR can be solved, and when solved (like time, what qualifies for review, using tech to automate, etc) will make VAR a net positive for most.
var checks need to be limited for time. less than a minute would probably get it done.
if it takes longer and more views, is it clear and obvious?
have two var refs, not one. one can look at a call, the other can look at build up.
why are there not 4 assistant refs(linesmen)?
you gotta look at the results against villa, especially at home, as defining moments. i wonder if we
had played city in the last couple of weeks, if arteta would have approached the game differently?
it seemed smart at the time, but now?
The Villa results are frustrating but they are far from the worst performances and that’s enough for me to not get overly frustrated with them with a bit of time and distance from them.
Yeah trying to speed things up is helpful but comes with draw backs and mistakes potentially too as the people can feel rushed and miss things (this is what caused the Brentford error last year)
Getting semi-automated offsides should help a lot. The offsides is where a lot of the time goes
And better, properly understood, processes - this should also make a big difference. (Even more so if they deign to let us - the great unwashed - know what what they are!)