|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 25, 2024 8:00:17 GMT
It’s absolutely shite.
You have officials that are scared to make decisions.
You have decisions that take 2/3/4 minutes to check and it just kills any joy in a moment.
I’m not sure how you can like football and want VAR.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 25, 2024 8:51:23 GMT
90 seconds for the VAR team to make a decision (only exceptions being offsides if there’s some kind of technology delay), if they can’t come to a conclusion in that time it’s not clear and obvious therefore the refs decision is final.
Simple…..
|
|
|
Post by idle on Mar 25, 2024 9:59:18 GMT
90 seconds for the VAR team to make a decision (only exceptions being offsides if there’s some kind of technology delay), if they can’t come to a conclusion in that time it’s not clear and obvious therefore the refs decision is final. Simple….. 90 seconds is way too long. Even 30 seconds is. The only thing I could accept was if it was immediatly and clearly shown, for example on the scoreboard, if a VAR has seen a "clear and obvious" infringement that the ref missed. Just like the linesmen do (or rather did) for offsides. No time to check millimetre handballs or offsides, and no time to check if he grazed his opponents balls with his hair in the box. That way we keep the immidiacy, and we get rid of the video distortion making fouls make look worse than they are and we keep the flow of the game, the temperature and the VAR understands the level of strictness the ref has set for the game. Everything must happen in real time, or it's destroying the moment and the flow of the game. Offsides also don't need the video treatment. The VAR can see the game from a TV perspective and find those the ref misses. The offside rule used to be much easier to understand: "If you're nearer the goal than 2 players from the oppsing team AND gain an advantage from your position, you're offside". Now it's 0,4 inches from the back foot or armpit or something just as dumb. No need to complicate the game to account for VAR idiocy.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 25, 2024 10:23:34 GMT
90 seconds for the VAR team to make a decision (only exceptions being offsides if there’s some kind of technology delay), if they can’t come to a conclusion in that time it’s not clear and obvious therefore the refs decision is final. Simple….. 90 seconds is way too long. Even 30 seconds is. The only thing I could accept was if it was immediatly and clearly shown, for example on the scoreboard, if a VAR has seen a "clear and obvious" infringement that the ref missed. Just like the linesmen do (or rather did) for offsides. No time to check millimetre handballs or offsides, and no time to check if he grazed his opponents balls with his hair in the box. That way we keep the immidiacy, and we get rid of the video distortion making fouls make look worse than they are and we keep the flow of the game, the temperature and the VAR understands the level of strictness the ref has set for the game. Everything must happen in real time, or it's destroying the moment and the flow of the game. Offsides also don't need the video treatment. The VAR can see the game from a TV perspective and find those the ref misses. The offside rule used to be much easier to understand: "If you're nearer the goal than 2 players from the oppsing team AND gain an advantage from your position, you're offside". Now it's 0,4 inches from the back foot or armpit or something just as dumb. No need to complicate the game to account for VAR idiocy. I think you have to be realistic, some incidents may require 2/3 different camera angles and not sure 30 seconds would be enough for that. Either way pick a number that's realistic and that should be the limit.....
|
|
|
Post by Absolution on Mar 25, 2024 10:27:29 GMT
In some respects, I don't mind the fractional offside decisions being made by VAR. Offside is offside, and it's factual. I've also long held the opinion that linesmen can't physically and simultaneously be watching both the person playing the pass and the receiving player making the run. In a second, the runner could look 6 yards offside after starting his run while onside.
Other than that though, all other decisions are subject to the same bias or corruption or incompetence (suit yourselves which you believe it is) of the refs that VAR was supposedly brought in to override. Twatkinson in the VAR room would be as lethal for us as it was when he was on the pitch.
Overall, I'd get rid. The thought of scoring a euphoric last minute equaliser or winner in an important match, only to have it ruled out 5 minutes later, absolutely sickens me.
|
|
|
Post by idle on Mar 25, 2024 10:37:27 GMT
90 seconds is way too long. Even 30 seconds is. The only thing I could accept was if it was immediatly and clearly shown, for example on the scoreboard, if a VAR has seen a "clear and obvious" infringement that the ref missed. Just like the linesmen do (or rather did) for offsides. No time to check millimetre handballs or offsides, and no time to check if he grazed his opponents balls with his hair in the box. That way we keep the immediacy, and we get rid of the video distortion making fouls make look worse than they are and we keep the flow of the game, the temperature and the VAR understands the level of strictness the ref has set for the game. Everything must happen in real time, or it's destroying the moment and the flow of the game. Offsides also don't need the video treatment. The VAR can see the game from a TV perspective and find those the ref misses. The offside rule used to be much easier to understand: "If you're nearer the goal than 2 players from the oppsing team AND gain an advantage from your position, you're offside". Now it's 0,4 inches from the back foot or armpit or something just as dumb. No need to complicate the game to account for VAR idiocy. I think you have to be realistic, some incidents may require 2/3 different camera angles and not sure 30 seconds would be enough for that. Either way pick a number that's realistic and that should be the limit..... Why do we need 2/3 angles? It just complicates the decision, and add time we as fans don't have when we go mental. The last two goals my local team scored I didn't even celebrate. Not that I don't care, I just don't trust VAR to get the decision right. Those games are now less interesting as a consequence. Luckily there's a 50/50 split between the clubs if we should even have VAR. Even the players are split 50/50. The fans in the stadiums are 70/30 against. In effect I'm saying get rid of the system as it is and install a "live video ref" in addition to the three on the pitch. If we can afford having a wanker holding up added on time and player shirt numbers, we can afford a bloke with a TV screen as another assistant for the main ref. Goal line tech is ok of course, but they still manage to get it wrong sometimes (see us vs. Watford some seasons ago when they pushed the goalie into the goal and the ref allowed it).
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Mar 25, 2024 10:42:49 GMT
The fact that VAR raises more discussion, discontent and even anger says to me that what’s the point in it. Get rid of it now, but of course that will need the consent of Prince Klippety Klopp and the rest of the mighty & righteous
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 25, 2024 11:05:59 GMT
I think you have to be realistic, some incidents may require 2/3 different camera angles and not sure 30 seconds would be enough for that. Either way pick a number that's realistic and that should be the limit..... Why do we need 2/3 angles? It just complicates the decision, and add time we as fans don't have when we go mental. The last two goals my local team scored I didn't even celebrate. Not that I don't care, I just don't trust VAR to get the decision right. Those games are now less interesting as a consequence. Luckily there's a 50/50 split between the clubs if we should even have VAR. Even the players are split 50/50. The fans in the stadiums are 70/30 against. In effect I'm saying get rid of the system as it is and install a "live video ref" in addition to the three on the pitch. If we can afford having a wanker holding up added on time and player shirt numbers, we can afford a bloke with a TV screen as another assistant for the main ref. Goal line tech is ok of course, but they still manage to get it wrong sometimes (see us vs. Watford some seasons ago when they pushed the goalie into the goal and the ref allowed it). Because you still want to eradicate clear and obvious errors, a ref sees a decision from one angle but the opposite angle may show the player clearly got the ball and not the man for example, refs are only human. One look per angle and if there's nothing clear and obvious stick with the refs decision and move the game along....
|
|
|
Post by idle on Mar 25, 2024 12:26:29 GMT
Why do we need 2/3 angles? It just complicates the decision, and add time we as fans don't have when we go mental. The last two goals my local team scored I didn't even celebrate. Not that I don't care, I just don't trust VAR to get the decision right. Those games are now less interesting as a consequence. Luckily there's a 50/50 split between the clubs if we should even have VAR. Even the players are split 50/50. The fans in the stadiums are 70/30 against. In effect I'm saying get rid of the system as it is and install a "live video ref" in addition to the three on the pitch. If we can afford having a wanker holding up added on time and player shirt numbers, we can afford a bloke with a TV screen as another assistant for the main ref. Goal line tech is ok of course, but they still manage to get it wrong sometimes (see us vs. Watford some seasons ago when they pushed the goalie into the goal and the ref allowed it). Because you still want to eradicate clear and obvious errors, a ref sees a decision from one angle but the opposite angle may show the player clearly got the ball and not the man for example, refs are only human. One look per angle and if there's nothing clear and obvious stick with the refs decision and move the game along.... Yeah, so give them another angle from a TV and call it a day. No need for 87 high-speed cameras and tele-lenses and a team of refs per game in a bus.
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Mar 25, 2024 12:33:03 GMT
For me should only be used for huge incorrect calls like the Maradona one although think that was accidental myself
As Prestwich says, quick look and if no huge error move on quickly. We shouldn't even be aware that it's being used
Goal line technology was a big necessity and that's working fine
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 26, 2024 14:52:03 GMT
For me should only be used for huge incorrect calls like the Maradona one although think that was accidental myself As Prestwich says, quick look and if no huge error move on quickly. We shouldn't even be aware that it's being used Goal line technology was a big necessity and that's working fine Goal line technology I can live with but the rest is just killing the game. I'd far rather have refs making bad decisions and the game carry on flowing. Shit happens - VAR has just created a whole new type of shit that's even shittier than the shit it replaced.
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Mar 26, 2024 15:03:19 GMT
For me should only be used for huge incorrect calls like the Maradona one although think that was accidental myself As Prestwich says, quick look and if no huge error move on quickly. We shouldn't even be aware that it's being used Goal line technology was a big necessity and that's working fine Goal line technology I can live with but the rest is just killing the game. I'd far rather have refs making bad decisions and the game carry on flowing. Shit happens - VAR has just created a whole new type of shit that's even shittier than the shit it replaced. Yep, starting to think a bit like that as well On the other hand, there are decisions 40 odd years ago that still get discussed and upset fans as were so bad. World Cup games are so important for me and some players only get that one hit at it and to be eliminated by one poor decision shouldn't happen Not just talking Maradona as with VAR England would have had 10 men but are others that aren't discussed as much like a Spanish goal V Brazil that no one saw cross the line , finished 0-0,
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 26, 2024 15:10:04 GMT
90 seconds for the VAR team to make a decision (only exceptions being offsides if there’s some kind of technology delay), if they can’t come to a conclusion in that time it’s not clear and obvious therefore the refs decision is final. Simple….. Simple if you want a guaranteed way to increase the number of errors made, yes
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Mar 26, 2024 15:15:14 GMT
For me should only be used for huge incorrect calls like the Maradona one although think that was accidental myself As Prestwich says, quick look and if no huge error move on quickly. We shouldn't even be aware that it's being used Goal line technology was a big necessity and that's working fine Goal line technology I can live with but the rest is just killing the game. I'd far rather have refs making bad decisions and the game carry on flowing. Shit happens - VAR has just created a whole new type of shit that's even shittier than the shit it replaced. Won't happen though as Sky have a boner for all the additional air filling time it gets out of this. And I must admit I've found myself sucked into it all at times. But if I had to decide right now I'd say fuck it off..
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 26, 2024 15:21:33 GMT
90 seconds for the VAR team to make a decision (only exceptions being offsides if there’s some kind of technology delay), if they can’t come to a conclusion in that time it’s not clear and obvious therefore the refs decision is final. Simple….. Simple if you want a guaranteed way to increase the number of errors made, yes Anything beyond a couple of minutes is blatantly not clear and obvious providing there's no glitch with the technology. There's no correlation between VAR taking more time and reaching the right decision in my eyes, if anything they just tie themselves more and more in knots.......
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 26, 2024 15:27:50 GMT
Simple if you want a guaranteed way to increase the number of errors made, yes Anything beyond a couple of minutes is blatantly not clear and obvious providing there's no glitch with the technology. There's no correlation between VAR taking more time and reaching the right decision in my eyes, if anything they just tie themselves more and more in knots....... Adding more time pressure to an already high-stress situation will result in more errors, it stands to reason. Imagine some of the decisions they'll blurt out in the last ten seconds because they're 62% sure and feel they have to do the "right" thing. We saw the consequences rushing things can have with that Liverpool goal that was incorrectly disallowed last year..
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 26, 2024 15:38:09 GMT
Anything beyond a couple of minutes is blatantly not clear and obvious providing there's no glitch with the technology. There's no correlation between VAR taking more time and reaching the right decision in my eyes, if anything they just tie themselves more and more in knots....... Adding more time pressure to an already high-stress situation will result in more errors, it stands to reason. Imagine some of the decisions they'll blurt out in the last ten seconds because they're 62% sure and feel they have to do the "right" thing. We saw the consequences rushing things can have with that Liverpool goal that was incorrectly disallowed last year.. So what continue to have 4/5/6 minute delays in play? For me a line has to be drawn somewhere. The Liverpool incident was more down to the fact that none of them were listening to each, talking over each other and generally making a pigs ear of the situation........
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Mar 26, 2024 15:58:27 GMT
If clear and obvious then it can be seen on a quick replay without a wait. That's the problem with it for me
The review should take no longer than during a goal celebration etc not a few minutes
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Mar 26, 2024 17:02:00 GMT
I've never understood how such a simple game as football needed such technology. If the rules can't be applied in a park game on Sunday they are not fit for purpose.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 26, 2024 18:09:43 GMT
Goal line technology I can live with but the rest is just killing the game. I'd far rather have refs making bad decisions and the game carry on flowing. Shit happens - VAR has just created a whole new type of shit that's even shittier than the shit it replaced. Yep, starting to think a bit like that as well On the other hand, there are decisions 40 odd years ago that still get discussed and upset fans as were so bad. World Cup games are so important for me and some players only get that one hit at it and to be eliminated by one poor decision shouldn't happen Not just talking Maradona as with VAR England would have had 10 men but are others that aren't discussed as much like a Spanish goal V Brazil that no one saw cross the line , finished 0-0, Yes but has VAR stopped the controversy? This list of calamities suggests not www.goal.com/en-gb/lists/var-worst-decisions-premier-league-ranked/bltc091041f327e8c83#csb65a284a98c5add3It's only a matter of time before a major international tournament has a VAR related Maradonna moment.
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Mar 27, 2024 9:48:13 GMT
Goal line technology I can live with but the rest is just killing the game. I'd far rather have refs making bad decisions and the game carry on flowing. Shit happens - VAR has just created a whole new type of shit that's even shittier than the shit it replaced. Yep, starting to think a bit like that as well On the other hand, there are decisions 40 odd years ago that still get discussed and upset fans as were so bad. World Cup games are so important for me and some players only get that one hit at it and to be eliminated by one poor decision shouldn't happen Not just talking Maradona as with VAR England would have had 10 men but are others that aren't discussed as much like a Spanish goal V Brazil that no one saw cross the line , finished 0-0, With VAR 1966 may well have finished differently
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Mar 27, 2024 9:56:36 GMT
Yep, starting to think a bit like that as well On the other hand, there are decisions 40 odd years ago that still get discussed and upset fans as were so bad. World Cup games are so important for me and some players only get that one hit at it and to be eliminated by one poor decision shouldn't happen Not just talking Maradona as with VAR England would have had 10 men but are others that aren't discussed as much like a Spanish goal V Brazil that no one saw cross the line , finished 0-0, With VAR 1966 may well have finished differently I think many WCs and Euros to be fair.
|
|
|
Post by rowleyscfc on Mar 27, 2024 11:08:29 GMT
Quite frankly it just adds a extra spotlight on how awful officials are in this country, best league system in the world, worst refs
|
|
|
Post by Gob Bluth on Mar 27, 2024 18:36:46 GMT
I’m in the minority but the idea of trying to improve the accuracy of decisions is good. It’s frustrating that the VAR are also people and make mistakes but it’s still filtering out some bad decisions.
I like Prestwich’s idea of putting a time limit on it but can also see clubs complaining.
The big change for me is to make the refs take responsibility for their mistakes and the referee bodies and football governing bodies to stop pretending like they’re doing a great job. We live in a free country but people can’t call out mistakes for bringing ‘football’ into disrepute, like it’s some kind of mediaeval monarch. It’s Putin levels of propaganda and it’s utterly ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 27, 2024 18:45:58 GMT
I don’t think slow motion should be used at all. Two or three camera angles at full speed. If you can only see it slowed down it can’t be obvious. It’s a farce and I prefer the controversy of old. Keep goal line technology.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Mar 27, 2024 18:49:37 GMT
Yep, starting to think a bit like that as well On the other hand, there are decisions 40 odd years ago that still get discussed and upset fans as were so bad. World Cup games are so important for me and some players only get that one hit at it and to be eliminated by one poor decision shouldn't happen Not just talking Maradona as with VAR England would have had 10 men but are others that aren't discussed as much like a Spanish goal V Brazil that no one saw cross the line , finished 0-0, With VAR 1966 may well have finished differently Goal line technology would have sorted it...still no need for var
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Mar 27, 2024 19:09:28 GMT
I don’t think slow motion should be used at all. Two or three camera angles at full speed. If you can only see it slowed down it can’t be obvious. It’s a farce and I prefer the controversy of old. Keep goal line technology. It's a good point. The rules of the game were drawn up long before super slo-mo came along and therefore in a full speed spirit.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 27, 2024 19:13:28 GMT
I don’t think slow motion should be used at all. Two or three camera angles at full speed. If you can only see it slowed down it can’t be obvious. It’s a farce and I prefer the controversy of old. Keep goal line technology. It's a good point. The rules of the game were drawn up long before super slo-mo came along and therefore in a full speed spirit. To be honest mate I’m surprised you’ve even heard of VAR😉
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Mar 28, 2024 7:20:29 GMT
Each team has three VAR appeals that they can use per game for serious incidents such as red cards or penalties. Captains have 60 seconds after an incident to tell the referee that they are appealing.
If a team is appealing for a penalty or to get an opponent sent off, then spurious or tactical appeals are discouraged by a punishment for unproven appeals. If a clear decision cannot be made in favour of the appeal, then one of the team's players (the captain? The one involved in the incident? Somebody chosen by the opposition?) is sent off and a penalty awarded against his team.
Easy.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Mar 28, 2024 7:27:01 GMT
I'd get rid other than goaline tech it's ruining the game for me.
|
|