V.a.r : the myth, the farce and how to save it.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well it didn't happen on Saturday did it? The ref should have been asked to look at the hand ball and make a decision.
Chris Kavanagh was the one who made the decision.

In the light of that why the "F" do we have referees and lines men ?
 
From a transparency point of view VAR is great - might not change the biased decisions but its clear for all to see that bias exists.
For this reason alone I wouldn't want to get rid of it.

Facts for the prosecution - if that happened near the kop end the ref would have walked over to the VAR monitor; the post scrutiny in the media would have compelled him to; and the ref's masters would have been pleased for more box office engagement.

VAR enables transparency and is not the problem; its the non transparency, the lies and corruption behind it, that is.
 
Leave it to the ref to use it.

Simple.

He wants to look at something he's unsure with, he'll ask. Not the other way around.

Games are now dictated by people miles away rather than the people on the pitch.

You have 2 linesman, 1 referee, and a 4th official. How it needs referees in Stockley Park to overrule the 4 professionals in the stadium is ridiculous as an idea.
 
The ref definitely signalled for an offside. I know Lampard said afterwards they didn’t but that is what Tierney pointed for.
the game was stopped for an offside after the handball

the ref didn't blow his whistle after the handball so the play still went on and after the handball an everton player passed to someone on the wing who was stood offside and the game stopped and then they did the VAR review and when VAR said no the ref gave city the free kick for the offside from where the play resumed

the offside incident involving richy was before the handball happened and the ref did not blow his whistle for offside and VAR reviewed it and told Frank that richy was not offside
 
If after all this time blatant decisions are not made using var and it's only used to a large extent to rule goals out on a technicality then what is the point?

It's been said over and over but it's killing the game. How on earth after all this time can you take the handball on Saturday , put it next to some of the worst disallowed goals and justify having it?

May sound conspiracy theory level but no way was that decision on Saturday done with the rules of the game in mind. You can't look at that and honestly say it's anywhere near in doubt that it could not have been.
 

Leave it to the ref to use it.

Simple.

He wants to look at something he's unsure with, he'll ask. Not the other way around.

Games are now dictated by people miles away rather than the people on the pitch.

You have 2 linesman, 1 referee, and a 4th official. How it needs referees in Stockley Park to overrule the 4 professionals in the stadium is ridiculous as an idea.
Wouldn't work, every time the ref goes to monitor he always gives it
 
Wouldn't work, every time the ref goes to monitor he always gives it

The only reason he gives a decision is because Stockley Park tell him too. It's a myth he goes to check the monitor to "make a decision". They've told him he's missed something and to look at what he's missed.

It's taken the trust away from the ref. I'd rather 1 person in charge gets something wrong (which happens) than 6 or 7.
 
In the new 'us against them' campaign I've just emailed the Monday Night Club on 5Live and received universal support in the penalty debate live on air.
 
Many of the issues with borderline calls basically boils down to the standard of officiating. Refs are still scared of making the big calls against the top 4-6 teams. VAR was never going to solve the subjectivity of interpretation, and better training/vetting of refs is the answer there.

The people who run footy are so arrogant and I genuinely can't believe that they haven't just borrowed some basic techniques from other sports who have used video tech for longer:
- From rugby; mike up the refs and display the replay on stadium screens. Refs don't need to be sent to the touchline. Have some transparency over the conversation that is taking place and the rationale behind the decisions. The decision should always be made by the on field referee, with the TMO merely providing the images and a second pair of eyes to help him work through that decision.
- From cricket; have a margin for error on offsides. If it looks like over 50% of the player's body is offside, then it is offside. If he is level by 50% or more then go with the 'umpires call', and the original decision by the linesman stands. How one judges 50% or not should be a matter of instant reaction, no measurement required. There will still be some marginal calls in there, but drawing lines and trying to quantify it to the nearest millimetre is king cnut stuff.

It's literally that simple.
id agree with that largely but with the offices, whenever you define it as you have done, you are just moving the problem. If the call is close and players are overlapping, go with the original onfield decision (this would mean liners go back to flagging straight away for offsides.
 

I didn't realise until tonight that the VAR has an assistant. So it would appear that what Mark Clattenburg described as the most blatant handball not given, was actually missed by one ref, one assistant ref, one VAR and one assistant VAR.

Who knew the human factor could be so compound.
 
I didn't realise until tonight that the VAR has an assistant. So it would appear that what Mark Clattenburg described as the most blatant handball not given, was actually missed by one ref, one assistant ref, one VAR and one assistant VAR.

Who knew the human factor could be so compound.
they were all tying their laces?
 
Its funny that the one and only argument and problem we all had against it was it would make football a bit dull and it would take the controversy out.

How wrong were we.
The media don't want it to be fair, where all the decisions are agreeable and everyone goes home happy. The referees have sabotaged the process because they are insecure individuals in the main with big egos and love to court controversy, We have a 4th official and 2 linesman to sort out what happened on Saturday. VAR should only be used for Goal line technology and offsides. Tennis has hawkeye for line calls which is performed by a computer. We have some meff drawing lines to which I'm afraid can be manipulated. Give the VAR job to computer which has no allegiance a ball struck and if some ones offside it will pick it up and show it on a big screen and have done with.
 
The media don't want it to be fair, where all the decisions are agreeable and everyone goes home happy. The referees have sabotaged the process because they are insecure individuals in the main with big egos and love to court controversy, We have a 4th official and 2 linesman to sort out what happened on Saturday. VAR should only be used for Goal line technology and offsides. Tennis has hawkeye for line calls which is performed by a computer. We have some meff drawing lines to which I'm afraid can be manipulated. Give the VAR job to computer which has no allegiance a ball struck and if some ones offside it will pick it up and show it on a big screen and have done with.
Could the reviews have the players shown as silhouettes? That way the corrupt, er, I mean consummate professionals doing the review would have absolutely NO idea which teams were involved and would be concentrating only on the incident in question.
That would sort the bias. That would also reduce their untaxed income. Job Done.

A question if I may, but is football the only industry to employ more people to do the same job when introducing technology? Whist at the same time doing it worse than before said technology.
 
2 refs on the pitch who are always separate. That should negate one of them saying his view was obstructed. Otherwise the only way to fix it is to become LFC, City and whatever the darling of the day it
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top