Dermot Gallagher Ref Watch.

[Toffeepot]

The on field referee has the final decision. So if the on field referee sees it and says no, there has to be a threshold reached where the VAR ref says you have missed something in order to send him to the touchline and review the video footage. If the VAR ref just disagrees with the on field referees decision, that does not automatically mean that the on field referee gets to review it again. Maybe it should be like that, but VAR is not used like that at the moment. This is why every time the on field referee goes to the touchline, he overturns the original decision.

Some penalties that have been given this season have been soft and, maybe with another look at VAR, the referee would change his mind but it is only there for the clear and obvious errors, not the ones where it could go either way.

yes it should be like that
'clear and obvious' is too subjective a premise to work from, and vague enough to hide behind
Any doubt, ref should be sent to the monitor...only way to work it

 

[Toffeepot]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a match of our's last season where VAR jumped in uninvited and tried to call a handball on us 2 plays back after we scored a goal?

VAR is totally useless!

And they need to show the match timer in the stadium, none of this "Fergie time" like crap anymore!

Agreed, it is, because it is being used incorrectly by a bunch of egomaniacs who don't want their power and influence passed to tech.
Rugby has no such problems in its use of video refereeing because they aren't a bunch of egomaniacs, they do what is best for the sport.
Somewhere along the line over the decades, the FA and the referees started to believe that their flag waving and whistle blowing was central to the beautiful game and the thought of relinquishing any of that somehow affects the sport negatively when clearly the opposite is true.
The same applies to match timer and no more mystery minutes added on. American football does it, seems much fairer as a result.
But but... the beautiful game...but the mystery...but but the opportunity for corruption etc

 

[Toffeepot]

I can't understand anyone persevering with SLY Sports in relation to football coverage anyway, infested with kopites,they don't even try to hide it, occasionally on my "cough, cough"box I have come across a SLY link and get it straight back off, for example I think before Covid,that lot were away at Wolves,pitchside they had Dogleads daughter hosting,Spitty C and Graeme Shoemess,no representative present of the home side,I have said on here before my subscription ended after our Man City home game in the Slippy season,I got home after the game hearing people saying Tyler was virtually in tears and questioning our integrity as a club, got the game on catch up, played it back and he had indeed, straight on, cancelled,never to return!!!

The Fox 'news' of Sports channels... pick a side and blow that trumpet continuously... non-bias reporting/hosting? No chance

 

[degsy]

...'clear and obvious' is too subjective a premise to work from, and vague enough to hide behind
Any doubt, ref should be sent to the monitor...only way to work

This.
And I'd go further...

VAR does not tell The Referee.
VAR is only there to work the tape machine

The Referee is in charge of the game, he has the sole power,  he asks the VAR...but only if  he has any doubts.
"Did I see what I thought I saw?"
VAR looks...
Puts it on the big screen
The Referee looks - we all look.
Maybe even looks a couple of times
The Referee announces his decision
On with the game.

#servantnotmaster

 

[street end]

Agreed, it is, because it is being used incorrectly by a bunch of egomaniacs who don't want their power and influence passed to tech.
Rugby has no such problems in its use of video refereeing because they aren't a bunch of egomaniacs, they do what is best for the sport.
Somewhere along the line over the decades, the FA and the referees started to believe that their flag waving and whistle blowing was central to the beautiful game and the thought of relinquishing any of that somehow affects the sport negatively when clearly the opposite is true.
The same applies to match timer and no more mystery minutes added on. American football does it, seems much fairer as a result.
But but... the beautiful game...but the mystery...but but the opportunity for corruption etc

A lot of rugby refs are also ex players, when they use VAR or TMO I think they call it everyone gets to hear, hence never any confusion.

 

[Tree13]

A lot of rugby refs are also ex players, when they use VAR or TMO I think they call it everyone gets to hear, hence never any confusion.

There are some ex-players in the ranks of rugby referees, but they are not the majority. And the best ones in recent years (Nigel Owens and Wayne Barnes) are not ex-players.

You're correct about the communication between the TMO (television match official) and the ref being heard by the tv-watching fans though - the refs are miked up so you can hear them all the way through the game, and you often hear the players closest to the ref as well. In the stadium the crowd can purchase a "ref-link" earpiece that allows you to hear whatever the ref's microphone picks up.

Rugby has rolled out the TMO system incredibly well, in my opinion.

The flaws in the VAR system are so obvious and so simple to fix that it can only be through deliberate choice that they have NOT been fixed. As others have said, VAR is there to facilitate corruption.

 

[Toffeepot]

A lot of rugby refs are also ex players, when they use VAR or TMO I think they call it everyone gets to hear, hence never any confusion.

Far better system! Fans also get to hear them explaining infringements etc to the players
The FA, FIFA, UEFA etc are too full of their own importance to take guidance from another sporting body though

 

[Kever10]

Far better system! Fans also get to hear them explaining infringements etc to the players
The FA, FIFA, UEFA etc are too full of their own importance to take guidance from another sporting body though

Yeah, but then they couldn't blatantly cheat like they do now.

 

[Dario Terracotta]

Always remember the incident that cost us in the cup at Millwall a couple of years back, no VAR but it was played in error on their big screen,the whole ground including the officials could see it, the Millwall boss screaming at them to take it off the screen, goal still given

 

[ToffeeDan]

VAR was brilliant at the last World Cup. Not one red card tackle because the players couldn't get away with it.. well unless you were Ronaldo.

 

[Blackwell Livermore]

Not thinking about VAR surly the defender stopped a goal scoring opportunity by giving the fowl away so surly a yellow but what was the difference with the braithwaite incident as he was sent off for preventing a goal scoring opportunity

 

[Lobster Johnson]

From the outset of VAR, I've never understood why it doesn't work like in Super League. Viewers on TV can hear the video referee asking directors for the angles and footage he needs to go through the process, the order of the checks is known so spectators in the ground can follow and understand the checks too. You'll always have decisions you disagree with, but at least with transparancy you can understand the logic.

 

[bring back the catt]

The on field referee has the final decision. So if the on field referee sees it and says no, there has to be a threshold reached where the VAR ref says you have missed something in order to send him to the touchline and review the video footage. If the VAR ref just disagrees with the on field referees decision, that does not automatically mean that the on field referee gets to review it again. Maybe it should be like that, but VAR is not used like that at the moment. This is why every time the on field referee goes to the touchline, he overturns the original decision.

Some penalties that have been given this season have been soft and, maybe with another look at VAR, the referee would change his mind but it is only there for the clear and obvious errors, not the ones where it could go either way.

CLEAR AND OBVIOUS you say.
You mean like the 'goal' chalked off for Richy after 4 minutes of studying slo-mo footage from every angle to declare his toe nail was offside.
Yeah, that is CLEAR AND OBVIOUS.

 

[bring back the catt]

To correct decisions that everyone unanimously agrees are obviously wrong.

Not all fouls are yellow cards and no matter what the rules say, a certain foul outside the area is not always a foul inside the area because of the threshold it must meet to be worthy of a penalty and likely a goal. The way VAR currently works is to give referees a second look at obvious errors. I can not recall one time where a referee went to the touchline to review the video and stuck with his original decision.

I think they could change the rules for VAR next season, as they changed the offside rules from last season, to review more things and allow the on field referees to stick with their original decisions.

You mean that the things that are SO OBVIOUSLY WRONG, or for things that are one's EVERYBODY UNAMINOUSLY AGREE ARE SO OBVIOUSLY WRONG.
For the first quote see my post regarding the toe nail offside by Richy.
For the second quote read the same post regarding how long it took them to spot this 'toe nail' offense. They checked for an eternity to find a fault, and only because they UNAMINOUSLY wanted to.

You are Mike Riley and I claim my £5.

 

[ToffeeTim]

From the outset of VAR, I've never understood why it doesn't work like in Super League. Viewers on TV can hear the video referee asking directors for the angles and footage he needs to go through the process, the order of the checks is known so spectators in the ground can follow and understand the checks too. You'll always have decisions you disagree with, but at least with transparancy you can understand the logic.

Hearing the discussions would create a level of accountability, and they absolutely do not want accountability in football.