VAR in the Premier League

[Burning Gold]

19 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

Please just go back to normal football with the odd refereeing error. Much better than all this bollocks, still with refereeing errors. 

VAR is essentially just another human opinion anyway. Fuck it off.

Proper Brexit stuff, this. We're talking about a trained referee with the benefit of replays, slow-motion, alternative angles, tech to allow him to measure offsides, and several assistants. But it's just "some other fella's opinion"

[Burning Gold]

17 minutes ago, Bluewolf said:

Well the rules state that a penalty can be given if the hand or arm is beyond the natural silhouette of the body 'regardless of intent'  In the City v Spurs game a goal was ruled out for 'accidental handball' and I say handball, it wasn't even that was it.. but you can't rule a goal out for that if the accidental or unintentional handball rule applies surely??? this is the horrible grey area we are talking about here! make it clear, if it touches the hand or arm regardless of intent it's either a penalty or disallowed goal... 

It's already clear. A goal can be disallowed for any contact with the hand or arm; for anything else, the other criteria apply. You might not like it, but it's quite clear

[LFCMadLad]

49 minutes ago, Burning Gold said:

Proper Brexit stuff, this. We're talking about a trained referee with the benefit of replays, slow-motion, alternative angles, tech to allow him to measure offsides, and several assistants.

And they still get it wrong!

I don't know one single person that thinks VAR has improved football as a spectacle. 

I've said it numerous times but for me personally.. I preferred footbal the way it was before VAR. 

It's not like it's even improved the decision making anyway. Barely if at all.

Still shit decisions are being made even with an extra human opinion.

Edited September 2, 2019 by LFCMadLad

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Burning Gold said:

I'm with you on this. If anyone watched the Man United game on the weekend, they would've seen the explanation of how VAR works at the moment with contact fouls. Basically, the on-field referee tells the video assistant referee what he thinks has happened, and the VAR will only overturn the decision if the pictures don't match the referee's account. But I guarantee the description is getting lost in translation every time. Even if a referee is mistaken on what's happened, there's no way to describe an incident with enough precision to allow the VAR to definitively decide he's got it wrong as opposed to just having a different interpretation of the incredibly vague rules.

Only the on-field referee genuinely knows what he thinks has happened, so only he can say whether he's got that wrong (we'll save the chat about what the rules are and whether they're being correctly applied for another day). Let the referees review their own decisions live and I guarantee we'll see a lot more overturned. Obviously keep having their performances independently assessed afterwards

This is what I think could be a better system. If the referee sees something that he thinks may be a penalty instead of asking var he runs straight over to the monitor and has a look himself. If he is sure it is or shore it isn't a penalty he doesn't do it. I will feel confident that if a referee was certain of a decision he would be right most of the time. Before var referees were only supposed to give penalties if they were certain but I would imagine they probably went more on what they thought was more likely. I doubt they were certain that many times so I would feel confident that if they were certain they would be right most times.

I don't think this would take much longer than the current system.

Part of VAR is getting used to it though. At the moment people don't like any delays but I don't think it will bother us in a few years. Football isn't formula 1 though. You do get delays in it anyway

[LFCMadLad]

Why dont we just go full American and have half naked cheerleaders waving pom poms at half time with Pepsi adverts on the big screen?

Apparently VAR has increased correct decisions by 5%.... All this bollocks for 5% 

 

Edited September 2, 2019 by LFCMadLad

[RandoEFC+]

It's a bit crazy how many people seem to call things "VAR's fault". Do we need to clarify that anything to do with VAR is actually just mistakes by people not using the availability of new technology to make decisions?

Some people talk as if VAR is some sort of sentient being hell bent on ruining football. It's like blaming the linesman's flag for an offside call or the referee's whistle for a dodgy penalty.

[LFCMadLad]

17 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

It's a bit crazy how many people seem to call things "VAR's fault". Do we need to clarify that anything to do with VAR is actually just mistakes by people not using the availability of new technology to make decisions?

Some people talk as if VAR is some sort of sentient being hell bent on ruining football. It's like blaming the linesman's flag for an offside call or the referee's whistle for a dodgy penalty.

So basically then VAR will never work because the humans making the calls are incompetent blurts?

Nothings changed then 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, RandoEFC said:

It's a bit crazy how many people seem to call things "VAR's fault". Do we need to clarify that anything to do with VAR is actually just mistakes by people not using the availability of new technology to make decisions?

Some people talk as if VAR is some sort of sentient being hell bent on ruining football. It's like blaming the linesman's flag for an offside call or the referee's whistle for a dodgy penalty.

This argument is getting tiresome.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, LFCMadLad said:

Why dont we just go full American and have half naked cheerleaders waving pom poms at half time with Pepsi adverts on the big screen?

Apparently VAR has increased correct decisions by 5%.... All this bollocks for 5% 

 

It was already at 93% or some stupidly high number. The consensus that referees were already incompetent is bollocks. All VAR has done was slow the game down for minimal improvement.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Burning Gold said:

Proper Brexit stuff, this. We're talking about a trained referee with the benefit of replays, slow-motion, alternative angles, tech to allow him to measure offsides, and several assistants. But it's just "some other fella's opinion"

exactly! A trained referee who shouldn’t need the use of handicap only to get it wrong again. 

[Stan]

7 hours ago, Grizzly21 said:

exactly! A trained referee who shouldn’t need the use of handicap only to get it wrong again. 

But sometimes that handicap gets stuff right

 

[Mel81x+]

I don’t think we can compare VAR to goal-line tech for the simple fact that goal-line tech is linear technology. It’s a ball and a line, no X factors, no did he touch it with his hand, no angles are required, nothing. And that also happens to be the one thing that is driving people up the wall about it and sparking debate. I do think it slows the game down with all the decision making time  required and that should change but we’re still in its infancy and I imagine its going to get a lot better faster than we think it will.

Using it in a few tournaments and saying its shit doesn’t even encompass 10% of the failures we’re going to see along the way and that will come with rectification. It is technology after all and universal adoption is the ‘only’ way anything gets better. Sure, we’re going to see it fail numerous times in our lifetime and I highly doubt the people who want this to succeed are going to let all the pitfalls its showcasing to be the way to kill the tech but these are the early days of the adoption process and its going to be crazy.

The biggest downfall of this technology is how its adopted and the rules governing its adoption process as well. Standardisation of practices has always benefited anything new introduced into any sport and its seems like here its all about appeasing people to introduce the technology versus using the technology effectively to govern the rules of the sport across every instance of its existence.

[Bluewolf]

On 18/08/2019 at 13:27, nudge said:

Good idea for a thread. 

 

On 18/08/2019 at 13:39, Happy Blue said:

Thank you Mistress! 

Nothing like the royal seal of approval to keep us peasants happy is there... 

[DeadLinesman]

I just love how it’s 3 games in and “ItS nEvEr gOnNa wOrK” is being shouted from the rooftops. 

[LFCMadLad]

2 hours ago, DeadLinesman said:

I just love how it’s 3 games in and “ItS nEvEr gOnNa wOrK” is being shouted from the rooftops. 

Would you agree referees are shite?

Well all VAR is, is another referee with more tools to be shite.

[DeadLinesman]

1 hour ago, LFCMadLad said:

Would you agree referees are shite?

Well all VAR is, is another referee with more tools to be shite.

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?

[Guest]

4 hours ago, DeadLinesman said:

I just love how it’s 3 games in and “ItS nEvEr gOnNa wOrK” is being shouted from the rooftops. 

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

[Guest]

44 minutes 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?

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?

[Stan]

2 minutes 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?

Incorrect.

The technology works. 

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

[Guest]

Just now, Stan said:

Incorrect.

The technology works. 

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

It can work all you want, but if you don't have a human, it won't have a say. VAR isn't a robot.

[Cicero]

1 minute ago, Grizzly21 said:

It can work all you want, but if you don't have a human, it won't have a say. VAR isn't a robot.

But it works....which is the point?

Whats interesting is that you find it more logical to get rid of it when it isn’t the issue, it’s human interpretation. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Cicero said:

But it works....which is the point?

Whats interesting is that you find it more logical to get rid of it when it isn’t the issue, it’s human interpretation. 

The technology could be fine, but what is actually the point if a human can't put it to use? Saying that VAR isn't to blame but humans are is just a lazy excuse to defend the system. It's getting tiresome hearing that argument. VAR is a good concept but there are just so many issues surrounding it that it's not even worth it I think.

[Cicero]

1 minute ago, Grizzly21 said:

The technology could be fine, but what is actually the point if a human can't put it to use? Saying that VAR isn't to blame but humans are is just a lazy excuse to defend the system. It's getting tiresome hearing that argument. VAR is a good concept but there are just so many issues surrounding it that it's not even worth it I think.

YOU think it’s a lazy argument, but actual logic and reasoning goes against what you think. It’s actually concerning seeing you going against basic rational thought and instead calling it ‘lazy’. 

You don’t blame an anesthetic machine if someone wakes up during surgery. You blame the anesthesiologist. 

 

[Stan]

11 minutes ago, Cicero said:

YOU think it’s a lazy argument, but actual logic and reasoning goes against what you think. It’s actually concerning seeing you going against basic rational thought and instead calling it ‘lazy’. 

You don’t blame an anesthetic machine if someone wakes up during surgery. You blame the anesthesiologist. 

 

It's like a drunk driver smashing in to a parked car.

The car is fine and in fully functional working order.

The driver is not.

But it must be the car's fault that it hit a stationary car.

@Grizzly21 it's not a lazy excuse at all. 

[Guest]

Just now, Cicero said:

YOU think it’s a lazy argument, but actual logic and reasoning goes against what you think. It’s actually concerning seeing you going against basic rational thought and instead calling it ‘lazy’. 

You don’t blame an anesthetic machine if someone wakes up during surgery. You blame the anesthesiologist. 

  

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.