Referees/VAR in the Premier League

[Cicero]

4 minutes ago, Grizzly21 said:

The 2 elements needed for it to function need to work together, 

So why put blame on the element that actually works, vs one that doesn’t? 

[Stan]

5 minutes ago, Grizzly21 said:

I called it lazy because it's the only defence we hear against VAR these days. 

You bring up a strong example but all machines are made by somebody, and human interpretation is ultimately needed. I've said before that it's a good concept but if not executed properly then it means bugger all. The 2 elements needed for it to function need to work together, and honestly I think most people just see it as 1 although that is just a personal hunch.

Ironically you're the one that sees it as 1 though  

You think the concept of VAR can't work at all. End of. And now you're refusing to listen to anything in defence of the technology and process of it all. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Cicero said:

So why put blame on the element that actually works, vs one that doesn’t? 

Because both are needed to function within each other. If you don’t have 1 or the other it is pointless.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Stan said:

Ironically you're the one that sees it as 1 though  

You think the concept of VAR can't work at all. End of. And now you're refusing to listen to anything in defence of the technology and process of it all. 

I should probably bring up that I don’t only think the inept people in charge are the reason it will never work but also that I just think the sport is too fast at the moment. Most decisions were correct before VAR anyways but slowing the game down will just kill most of the spectacle. The game is nonstop action with a half time break in between. It works in American sports because there are stops in the game. Tennis is a whole different kettle of fish, it’s an individual sport and hard to compare. I don’t know enough about Rugby but from my gathering it is the only one comparable to footy as the time layout is similar.

[Stan]

4 minutes ago, Grizzly21 said:

The game is nonstop action with a half time break in between

Interesting you raise this point.

I remember a study or stats being revealed when it came to the amount of time the ball was in play in football...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40993250 (August 2017)
 

Quote

 

A 90-minute match but only 47 minutes and 40 seconds of actual football.

At Turf Moor on Saturday, Burnley and West Brom played out a game in which the ball was in play for only 160 seconds more than it was out.

Though these are early days, no Premier League match so far this season has seen less action.

Two months ago, football's lawmakers revealed they were considering scrapping 45-minute halves, instead introducing two periods of 30 minutes, during which the clock would be stopped every time the ball went out.

The proposal, the International Football Association Board said, was one of a number of options to deter football's "negativities".

So would the rule have benefited supporters at Premier League matches so far this season? In a word, yes.

Of 19 top-flight games across the opening two weekends of the campaign, the ball has been in play for more than an hour in only two of them.

And no game has featured more than 61 minutes of play.

How much time is the ball actually in play?

The five best so far this season - and the five worst

 

So while on the whole it appears non-stop, there's actually a lot of breaks in play in your average game. 

Bit more in-depth stuff from the same weekend:

https://en.onefootball.com/premier-league-saturday-ball-play-minutes/

It's not as non-stop as you think, basically.

American Football has plenty more stoppages, I don't disagree. 

[Guest]

Keep in mind though Stan that a game with many stoppages in football are deemed boring. That could be a lazy argument but I’ll follow that up and say that we want to watch action, not a decision being made in 5 minutes. This applies to non-VAR situations as well. However, that is me speaking as a fan. That probably applies in many sports but I get the idea that it’s less natural in football.

Also that stoppages are all referee decisions. Water breaks are the only exception. In basketball for example they are timeouts for a coaching decision if it’s not a refereeing decision or VAR. Their fans accepted that when choosing to follow the sport and are used to it. Us football fans are only used to short stoppages that are refing decisions.

We can agree to disagree if you want but I’m sure we’ll go at this at some point again later 

[Stan]

Just now, Grizzly21 said:

Keep in mind though Stan that a game with many stoppages in football are deemed boring. That could be a lazy argument but I’ll follow that up and say that we want to watch action, not a decision being made in 5 minutes. This applies to non-VAR situations as well. However, that is me speaking as a fan. That probably applies in many sports but I get the idea that it’s less natural in football.

Also that stoppages are all referee decisions. Water breaks are the only exception. In basketball for example they are timeouts for a coaching decision if it’s not a refereeing decision or VAR. Their fans accepted that when choosing to follow the sport and are used to it. Us football fans are only used to short stoppages that are refing decisions.

We can agree to disagree if you want but I’m sure we’ll go at this at some point again later 

I agree that we all want to watch action.

But name me the last VAR decision that took about 5 minutes? As far as I'm aware, the longest stoppage in the Premier League so far has been between 2 and 3 minutes? Granted, that's still too long but it never gets mentioned that some VAR decisions happen so quickly that there's not even a stoppage required. I think in the Leicester vs Bournemouth game at the weekend, Callum Wilson was adjudged to have dived and the referee gave a yellow card. The decision was checked in an instant and VAR agreed with the referee and play continued pretty much as it would have done without VAR. The gripe that I have, along with many others, is that none of us in the stadium knew if it had been checked but to be honest that one in that scenario is a moot point because play continued as normal. The point being is that VAR probably took a matter of seconds to check it but conveniently that never gets talked about because apparently everything takes ages!

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Stan said:

I agree that we all want to watch action.

But name me the last VAR decision that took about 5 minutes? As far as I'm aware, the longest stoppage in the Premier League so far has been between 2 and 3 minutes? Granted, that's still too long but it never gets mentioned that some VAR decisions happen so quickly that there's not even a stoppage required. I think in the Leicester vs Bournemouth game at the weekend, Callum Wilson was adjudged to have dived and the referee gave a yellow card. The decision was checked in an instant and VAR agreed with the referee and play continued pretty much as it would have done without VAR. The gripe that I have, along with many others, is that none of us in the stadium knew if it had been checked but to be honest that one in that scenario is a moot point because play continued as normal. The point being is that VAR probably took a matter of seconds to check it but conveniently that never gets talked about because apparently everything takes ages!

 

I was exaggerating with the 5 minute comment mate. I didn’t time the actual figure.

[DeadLinesman]

1 hour ago, Grizzly21 said:

It's been around for 3 years and it's just as shite as it was when it was first introduced.

It’s been in the Premier League for 4 games. My bad. 

1 hour ago, Grizzly21 said:

Again, this whole argument is getting tiresome. Why is it so hard to understand that in order for the technology to work, a human decision is needed. You can absolve blame of the technology all you want, but it's not going to function on its own, is it?

The camera captures the action and instantly replays it to a human. That human then has to implement the rules of the game within their interpretation when it comes to foul play etc. In referee handbooks, the section on interpretation is larger than the actual rules. That isn’t the fault of the technology. That’s like blaming goal line technology for not working because it wasn’t plugged in before the game. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said:

It’s been in the Premier League for 4 games. My bad. 

I know what you meant but what I was saying is that the ones who don’t only follow the PL were already sick of it beforehand. That’s why it’s getting a negative reaction from certain people.

[Cicero]

I would say that a good thing about VAR is that it will actually expose how terrible officiating is in this league. 

Dont officials get evaluated by a committee? Hopefully there’s some sackings or demotions. 

[LFCMadLad]

5 hours ago, DeadLinesman said:

Not really. VAR is technology. If a referee can’t use the technology to make the right decision, it’s not the technologies fault is it?

VAR technology is useless without a human. Seeing as the humans controlling it are absolute gimps.....

[LFCMadLad]

4 hours ago, Stan said:

Incorrect.

The technology works. 

Human interpretation is the issue. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

That's the point, human interpretation will always be needed where VAR is concerned. Therefore VAR will never work because the humans in control of it are blurts. 

Football got bye without all this shite since the 1800's. VAR has improved decisions by a poultry 5%. In my opinion we should revert back to how things were. There wasnt half the debates.

Saying that, I'm aware VAR is going nowhere so I'm just going to have to suck it up and get used to it. Like it or lump it as they say.

Edited September 3, 2019 by LFCMadLad

[LFCMadLad]

3 hours ago, Cicero said:

I would say that a good thing about VAR is that it will actually expose how terrible officiating is in this league. 

 

How will it? They still cant get decisions right between them, and everyone already knows that before VAR the officiating was crap. 

All VAR is exposing is the human that is in control of it, but we already knew they'd be shite anyway. 

It's just doubled the shitness, simple as that.

[Stan]

43 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

There wasnt half the debates.

I'm inclined to disagree. There were constant discussions about controversies and talking points from games.

In fact, I remember fans' biggest concern and disdain about VAR was that 'there'll be nothing to talk about in the pub any more'.

And although this isn't your literal pub, look at us, talking away days after any incident has happened . 

The good thing about human interpretation is that it can get better with time. In the PL, at least, it's only been a few weeks in use. The more it gets used, I'm hoping that officials will become more fluid and experienced with it.

One thing that I don't think was picked up over the weekend was that a brand new ref (Peter Banks?) was at our game against Bournemouth at the weekend (apologies for going on about that game but, you know, I was there so can talk about it first-hand...). He was 'paired up' with a very experienced ref back at Stockley Park in the form of Martin Atkinson - some fans may hate him because of past matches, but no-one can question his experience. VAR at the game worked well. The Tielemans incident took a bit too long for my liking and communication within the stadium could have been improved. That's literally the only gripe I had from the game.

All 4 goals were checked and checked quickly. The Callum Wilson dive was checked instantaneously. All checks came to the right outcome.

But hey, VAR is always wrong isn't it? (not a dig at you, just generally!) 

[LFCMadLad]

13 minutes ago, Stan said:

I'm inclined to disagree. There were constant discussions about controversies and talking points from games.

In fact, I remember fans' biggest concern and disdain about VAR was that 'there'll be nothing to talk about in the pub any more'.

And although this isn't your literal pub, look at us, talking away days after any incident has happened . 

The good thing about human interpretation is that it can get better with time. In the PL, at least, it's only been a few weeks in use. The more it gets used, I'm hoping that officials will become more fluid and experienced with it.

One thing that I don't think was picked up over the weekend was that a brand new ref (Peter Banks?) was at our game against Bournemouth at the weekend (apologies for going on about that game but, you know, I was there so can talk about it first-hand...). He was 'paired up' with a very experienced ref back at Stockley Park in the form of Martin Atkinson - some fans may hate him because of past matches, but no-one can question his experience. VAR at the game worked well. The Tielemans incident took a bit too long for my liking and communication within the stadium could have been improved. That's literally the only gripe I had from the game.

All 4 goals were checked and checked quickly. The Callum Wilson dive was checked instantaneously. All checks came to the right outcome.

But hey, VAR is always wrong isn't it? (not a dig at you, just generally!) 

I just think the small benefits VAR bring aren't really worth it. But hey ho, I'll get used to it in time. I'll have to. 

Edited September 3, 2019 by LFCMadLad

[Stan]

1 minute ago, LFCMadLad said:

I just think the small benefits VAR bring aren't really worth it. But hey ho, I'll get used to in time. I'll have to. 

@Grizzly21 be wise and be like @LFCMadLad  

[Dr. Gonzo]

I think eventually VAR will be run by AI and it’ll be better than any shit ref.

[Happy Blue]

Looks like it's doing ok now, are the calls getting better?

[LFCMadLad]

2 hours ago, Happy Blue said:

Looks like it's doing ok now, are the calls getting better?

No 

Watching the match last night without VAR was like a breath of fresh air. 

[Happy Blue]

7 hours ago, LFCMadLad said:

No 

Watching the match last night without VAR was like a breath of fresh air. 

What's happened recently with VAR? I only watch City games

[LFCMadLad]

18 minutes ago, Happy Blue said:

What's happened recently with VAR? I only watch City games

The referees controlling it are making just as many fuck ups as the on pitch referees. Basically its changed nothing.

[Stan]

6 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

The referees controlling it are making just as many fuck ups as the on pitch referees. Basically its changed nothing.

Not strictly true though is it.

[LFCMadLad]

4 minutes ago, Stan said:

Not strictly true though is it.

Ok I admit, its improved offside decisions. Nothing else though and that's a fact.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, LFCMadLad said:

Ok I admit, its improved offside decisions. Nothing else though and that's a fact.

Come on, be reasonable. I despise VAR but whether it improved this or that is a matter of opinion. The 5% improvement is a fact but it’s up to you to decide on what it has improved at least until more statistics come at us.