VAR

Fitba' crazy, fitba' mad. But mostly mad. And angry
User avatar
Jeemo
Posts: 20944
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 23:17
Location: ????

Re: VAR

Postby Jeemo » 08 Jul 2019, 09:42

So instead of clarifying things. VAR now has different levels of interpretation depending on which country it's used in. I wont hold my breath waiting on a contentious decision going against someone in a European match because the referee is from a country that has a differing interpretation of the arms to body rule.

I didnt think the penalty given to the USA was correct. The Dutch player was trying to clear the ball not trying to impede the attacker.
Image So Long Kid, Take A Bow.

User avatar
Geezee
Posts: 12429
Joined: 24 Jul 2003, 10:14
Location: Where joy divides into vision

Re: VAR

Postby Geezee » 08 Jul 2019, 11:28

Jeemo wrote:So instead of clarifying things. VAR now has different levels of interpretation depending on which country it's used in. I wont hold my breath waiting on a contentious decision going against someone in a European match because the referee is from a country that has a differing interpretation of the arms to body rule.

I didnt think the penalty given to the USA was correct. The Dutch player was trying to clear the ball not trying to impede the attacker.


That has nothing to do with VAR though - that's just a different interpretation of the rules in general, and that has always be the case, with or without VAR. Things like diving, handballs, offside, yellow/red card offences etc often have different local flavours. Agree that it is not helpful, but some countries just interpret matters differently depending on how they want the game played - VAR is not creating this at all.

And of course it isn't just cultural or country differences - every sport will always have two people looking at the same thing and see something different. I'm still 100% in favour of VAR, and nothing that I've seen at the World Cup changes that. Sweden had the most glaring penalty you will ever see not given in the semifinals against the Dutch, and the ref did not even go to VAR to double-check. It almost certainly cost them a place in the final. Was that a problem with VAR? Of course not - decisions are still in the hands of the refs, and they'll still make mistakes. I'm just very glad that the option is there, and that it has undeniably led to incorrect decisions being overturned. Was there overzealous use of it? Perhaps, but again it's the very first time that it has been deployed at this level and inevitably it takes time to understand and find the right balance. Remember the changes to the offside rules? Created absolute chaos to begin with, but eventually settled down and became (I think) a widely accepted and good rule. In 94 world cup they completely changed the type of ball that they played with (to a much lighter one) and it led to professional footballers looking like absolute amateurs.
Smilies are ON
Flash is OFF
Url is ON

User avatar
Geezee
Posts: 12429
Joined: 24 Jul 2003, 10:14
Location: Where joy divides into vision

Re: VAR

Postby Geezee » 08 Jul 2019, 11:32

Diamond Dog wrote:but I'm producing facts here


:D :D

Image
Smilies are ON
Flash is OFF
Url is ON

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 68214
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: VAR

Postby Diamond Dog » 08 Jul 2019, 12:01

Chortle all you like. My opinion is based on 20 years of proven history and evidence. Yours is based on nothing more than your gut instinct.
Let's see how next season goes.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me
I don't like that man. I must get to know him better.
Is a dream a lie if it don't come true, Or is it something worse?

User avatar
Jeemo
Posts: 20944
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 23:17
Location: ????

Re: VAR

Postby Jeemo » 08 Jul 2019, 12:02

Geezee wrote:
Jeemo wrote:So instead of clarifying things. VAR now has different levels of interpretation depending on which country it's used in. I wont hold my breath waiting on a contentious decision going against someone in a European match because the referee is from a country that has a differing interpretation of the arms to body rule.

I didnt think the penalty given to the USA was correct. The Dutch player was trying to clear the ball not trying to impede the attacker.


That has nothing to do with VAR though - that's just a different interpretation of the rules in general, and that has always be the case, with or without VAR. Things like diving, handballs, offside, yellow/red card offences etc often have different local flavours. Agree that it is not helpful, but some countries just interpret matters differently depending on how they want the game played - VAR is not creating this at all.

And of course it isn't just cultural or country differences - every sport will always have two people looking at the same thing and see something different. I'm still 100% in favour of VAR, and nothing that I've seen at the World Cup changes that. Sweden had the most glaring penalty you will ever see not given in the semifinals against the Dutch, and the ref did not even go to VAR to double-check. It almost certainly cost them a place in the final. Was that a problem with VAR? Of course not - decisions are still in the hands of the refs, and they'll still make mistakes. I'm just very glad that the option is there, and that it has undeniably led to incorrect decisions being overturned. Was there overzealous use of it? Perhaps, but again it's the very first time that it has been deployed at this level and inevitably it takes time to understand and find the right balance. Remember the changes to the offside rules? Created absolute chaos to begin with, but eventually settled down and became (I think) a widely accepted and good rule. In 94 world cup they completely changed the type of ball that they played with (to a much lighter one) and it led to professional footballers looking like absolute amateurs.


VAR was supposed to eliminate clear errors by the referee. However its use in this tournament was nothing of the sort. It has been used to re-referee decisions.

Scotland had a clear penalty against Japan not given which could've lead to them qualifying for the group stages. No reference to VAR from the officials. The penalty not given was more of an offence than one given against Scotland also through VAR.

Var has lead to more confusion and poor decisions than before its introduction. How many times was VAR used and the decision remained the same? I cant remember any.
Image So Long Kid, Take A Bow.

User avatar
Geezee
Posts: 12429
Joined: 24 Jul 2003, 10:14
Location: Where joy divides into vision

Re: VAR

Postby Geezee » 08 Jul 2019, 17:11

Jeemo wrote:
VAR was supposed to eliminate clear errors by the referee.


Nowhere have i seen that this was the purpose of VAR, although it's clear that this is what many in the public have expected of it. It will never eliminate anything, and as DD has rightly pointed out in some cases it will even lead to more controversies, simply because again the same two, three or a million people can look at the same incident 100 times and still come to different conclusions - and no revision of the rulebook or technology is ever going to change that, in fact it just gets heightened because suddenly there is an expectation of "perfection" when you can slow the incident down and review 100 times. Still won't be the case, and there will still even be cases were downright awful decisions will be made even after video review.

But what it does provide is another tool for the referee to help them ultimately make the right decision, or make less mistakes. And, if you look especially since the 2nd round onwards, I think the application of VAR has been pretty close to perfect - it eliminated goals that would otherwise have stood, and correctly gave penalties that were otherwise missed. There's the case of the poor decision in the Sweden-Netherlands semifinal not to go to VAR (let alone not to give the penalty int he first place) - but to me that is not at all a problem with VAR itself (it's in fact precisely the opposite, VAR provided a wonderful opportunity to review the incident). Same with the Scotland incident that you refer to. Nothing on this earth will ever "eliminate clear errors by the referee" and you can't blame VAR for that. Then there were a couple of cases that were debatable. For example was England's handball that prevented an equiliser against Sweden clear and obvious? It seems to me to be a handball, but is it clearly and obviously deliberate upon VAR review? Not according to Dion Dublin. To me it's the correct decision, and precisely what VAR is for, but in this instance i may be biased so likely doesn't count for much.
Smilies are ON
Flash is OFF
Url is ON

User avatar
Geezee
Posts: 12429
Joined: 24 Jul 2003, 10:14
Location: Where joy divides into vision

Re: VAR

Postby Geezee » 08 Jul 2019, 17:46

Diamond Dog wrote:Chortle all you like. My opinion is based on 20 years of proven history and evidence. Yours is based on nothing more than your gut instinct.
Let's see how next season goes.


I look forward to seeing the publication of your peer-reviewed study on this in "Journal of Diamond Dog's Mind".

You've presented nothing that can even be remotely be called evidence. All you've done is called attention to mistakes, which again, however awful they were, by no means undermine the argument of having video checks. Indeed the examples you cite in the NFL have not been deemed atrocious enough to remove them from the game. They have been reformed and tinkered with as you'd expect, but they are still there as a key part of refereeing. I may not have watched much American football (thank god) but I've watched rugby and ice-hockey go through the same process with the TMO/instant replays over the last 30 years (so HA! I have more "history and evidence" than you!). Again, there many decisions there that are highly questionable (including in World Cup finals), but it has certainly helped make decisions a) far more understandable (because you can hear the dialogue) and b) more accurate.

Then one can of course argue that rugby (and American football..and maybe - maybe - icehockey) has more natural stops to use video, versus more free-flowing football. That's a different, and certainly valid, issue - but again it seemed to me they got started getting that balance right as the matches wore on. It also underestimates the fact that in rugby the video ref does often interrupt play - of course it's not great, but again it is readily accepted as part of the game.

I expect a huge number of VAR controversies in the coming season. Of course there will be - because football loves its controversies, and will blow them out of all proportion because that's what they do. And Gary Lineker will look into the monitor on MOTD and smirk sarcastically "VAR eh? Gotta love it" after Ian Wright and Mark Lawrenson have spent 20 minutes arguing at what a travesty this is for the beautiful game after the 0-0 Wolves-Spurs game. And after the third time that Leicester have a clearcut penalty that didn't go to VAR Brendan Rodgers will inevitably say exasperatedly into the camera "What's the point of having VAR anyway". And when people have such entirely overinflated expectations of what VAR is meant to bring, inevitably it is going to lead to complete meltdowns.
Smilies are ON
Flash is OFF
Url is ON

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 68214
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: VAR

Postby Diamond Dog » 08 Jul 2019, 18:23

Grow up.

You decide to almost completely ignore that the main reason VAR is terrible for football in comparison to the NFL is exactly that the game doesn't have natural breaks. That's the single main reason it kills this game much more than the NFL.

The fact that VAR is still going - and yet managed to commit the worst VAR travesty ever in an enormously important game only last season- doesn't make its longevity a success! That actually means it hasn't worked and will probably never work.

Think about that.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me
I don't like that man. I must get to know him better.
Is a dream a lie if it don't come true, Or is it something worse?

User avatar
Jeemo
Posts: 20944
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 23:17
Location: ????

Re: VAR

Postby Jeemo » 09 Jul 2019, 00:03

Geezee wrote:
Jeemo wrote:
VAR was supposed to eliminate clear errors by the referee.


Nowhere have i seen that this was the purpose of VAR


From the Telegraph

What are the rules of VAR being used?

VAR only intervenes in the course of a match when the officials have made a 'clear and obvious error' in one of four key areas.

From FIFA

“Minimum interference for maximum benefit”
With direct experience now at both the refereeing and video review ends of the process, several new points were emphasised to those in attendance. The over-riding philosophy was “Minimum interference for maximum benefit” with a focus on how to address “clear errors in match-changing situations.”


But you haven't seen it............
Image So Long Kid, Take A Bow.