Drama Vs Getting The Decision Correct

[Dr Markus]

Which would you rather?

Human errors (Usually by the ref/lines men) which leads to debate, banter and basically a bit of drama.

or

VAR - (forgetting about how long it takes to get to the correct decision) getting the decision right and justice being served.

[Diamond Dog]

You can't discuss VAR without taking into account how long the decision takes. It's a constituent part of the process - and one of the major cons of the system.

[The Modernist]

Of course you should do all you can to get the decision right. It has to be the most important thing.

Some of the issues with VAR right now are teething problems and as referees become more experienced at using it and communication systems are improved, I think we'll see the time VAR is taking cut down.

[Diamond Dog]

I follow American Football - a game that by its very nature should lend itself to instant replay by officials. They've been using it now for 31 years.

It is getting more controversial, not less. If that game cannot get it right, after that amount of time and with the inherent advantages of a game where there is a completely natural break in the play every 30 seconds or so, then I'm struggling to see how football will. Ever.

[Darkness_Fish]

I don't think VAR is at all appropriate for a game like football. With cricket, there's lot's of natural pauses, and the technology answers yes/no questions. With football, the rhythm of the game is so important, there's a lot that can be left to a referee's interpretation of an event, and there's always the likelihood that the decision given via video ignores some other transgression that happened in the build-up. Having been to a few rugby league games, where the video ref system has been in place for some time, I'd say it's a bad idea. Half the crowd don't know what's going on, why a decision is made, and half the time the decision is baffling or just plain wrong. I'm not some kind of luddite, the goal-line technology works, because there's a clear yes/no decision to be made on whether the ball crossed the line. Video is just going to make the decision making process slower and vaguer.

[The Modernist]

I fundamentally disagree with that. VAR is likely to provide more clarity not less.
I can't comment about its use in American Football, but I would say its use in Rugby Union has been a success.

[Diamond Dog]

I fundamentally disagree with that. VAR is likely to provide more clarity not less.
I can't comment about its use in American Football, but I would say its use in Rugby Union has been a success.

But, again, rugby has more natural stoppages than football. That's the main issue, for me - VAR heavily disrupts the flow of the game and will always do so. How long before we get adverts sold during those VAR breaks? Think about that!

The other objection to VAR as it currently stands is that no one, least of all the officials seemingly, know what it can and cannot be used for. In the NFL, the definition is very strict - and it doesn't change, game to game/ref to ref. And, as I said, 31 years on it still causes controversy.

[KeithPratt]

Yep I'm in agreement that it could cause more headaches than is worthwhile.

There's just too much going on in a football game to suggest that the referee will be able to get the decision right 100% of the time. It's just not possible and aiming for that sort of "clarity" I think is a chimera. The problem is that it will reduce the confidence and responsibility of on-pitch referees if there is a system off-pitch that they could "defer" to.

I'm struggling to see how many real injustices have been caused by significant referee errors. Clive Thomas's decision against Everton in the 1981 League Cup Semi. Maybe Maradona's goal against England in 1986, but they were the better team anyway. Maybe Lampard's goal could have hauled us back to 2-2 and we might have beaten Germany in 2010, but I doubt it. England probably would have gone on to beat W Germany in 1966.

[Rayge]

My problem with it is the idea that there is some kind of absolute truth about any situation that can be resolved by technology, but – and unlike the simple binary goal-line tech – even with dozens of replay angles available, many decisions, such as, but not exclusively, hairline offsides, degrees of 'contact', and recklessness, 'intent' and so on are still about human interpretation, and infinite shades of grey: ultimately, there is no singular 'truth' to be found, one man's 'obvious' is anothers 'problematic' and so on; human 'error' (for which read 'variation in perception') cannot be eliminated as long as humans are playing (and officiating) a game.

[the masked man]

I follow American Football - a game that by its very nature should lend itself to instant replay by officials. They've been using it now for 31 years.

It is getting more controversial, not less. If that game cannot get it right, after that amount of time and with the inherent advantages of a game where there is a completely natural break in the play every 30 seconds or so, then I'm struggling to see how football will. Ever.

Yes, as a Steelers fan I'm still seething about that disallowed TD against (who else?) the Patriots. Video replays do not rule out human error at all.

[The Red Heifer]

VAR's causing consternation out here too, but I reckon it's the fans who are the most trouble here. Everyone seems to have an absolute view on a contentious play, and even if it's a line ball 50/50 call, the other side of the argument will blow up like a balloon about how the refs are fucked and the game is fixed etc etc.

Refs are human, and fans need to just cop a bit of the rough stuff now and then, it all evens out.

As for application, in sports like league/union/NFL the video review serves well because, as Pete said, natural stoppages allow it too. In football, maybe it needs to take a more "on the run" approach if possible, play can go on while off field officials review the tape. Which might cause even more crap if a goal is scored then wiped off due to a VAR finding. It's tough.

[Dr Markus]

In fairness the yanks are used to a lot of stoppages compared to the rest of us. I'm a basketball fan for years but I have to record the games and watch it back so I can fast forward during time out and free throws etc. Can't watch live American football either.

[The Modernist]

But, again, rugby has more natural stoppages than football. That's the main issue, for me - VAR heavily disrupts the flow of the game and will always do so. How long before we get adverts sold during those VAR breaks? Think about that! .

I hear this a lot, but surely the obvious answer there is to restrict the amount of times it can be used in a game. Once each half for both sides seems fair. Admittedly some of the decisions have been taking too long, but I put this down to overcaution on behalf of the officials. They may need greater training to enable them to use the system more effciently ( it doesn't help that some of them are bloody thick!) but that shouldn't be beyond the authorities to achieve.

The other objection to VAR as it currently stands is that no one, least of all the officials seemingly, know what it can and cannot be used for. In the NFL, the definition is very strict - and it doesn't change, game to game/ref to ref. And, as I said, 31 years on it still causes controversy.

I agree it needs clear guidelines, but part of the point of trialing it is surely to help produce those guidelines, isn't that what a trial is for to improve how something works?
I do find it strange that so many are against just off the back of a few games.

[The Modernist]

My problem with it is the idea that there is some kind of absolute truth about any situation that can be resolved by technology, but – and unlike the simple binary goal-line tech – even with dozens of replay angles available, many decisions, such as, but not exclusively, hairline offsides, degrees of 'contact', and recklessness, 'intent' and so on are still about human interpretation, and infinite shades of grey: ultimately, there is no singular 'truth' to be found, one man's 'obvious' is anothers 'problematic' and so on; human 'error' (for which read 'variation in perception') cannot be eliminated as long as humans are playing (and officiating) a game.

I actually think the opposite Ray. If it's unclear whether enough contact has been made to give a penalty for example, then you don't give the penalty. You only give the decision when it is clear...so even when things are ambiguous it's helped you make the decision.

[The Modernist]

Yep I'm in agreement that it could cause more headaches than is worthwhile.

There's just too much going on in a football game to suggest that the referee will be able to get the decision right 100% of the time. It's just not possible and aiming for that sort of "clarity" I think is a chimera.

You're creating a false argument. I haven't heard anyone say it will make the referee get the decison right 100%. It may mean we can go up from 90% correct decisons to 95% though and that will be an improvement.

[The Modernist]

Refs are human, and fans need to just cop a bit of the rough stuff now and then, it all evens out.
.

It actually doesn't. Let's say you've had five decisions go for you in a season and seven go against you. That could be the difference that gets you relegated.

[The Modernist]

Y

I'm struggling to see how many real injustices have been caused by significant referee errors. Clive Thomas's decision against Everton in the 1981 League Cup Semi. Maybe Maradona's goal against England in 1986, but they were the better team anyway. Maybe Lampard's goal could have hauled us back to 2-2 and we might have beaten Germany in 2010, but I doubt it. England probably would have gone on to beat W Germany in 1966.

Oh come on Toby, that's the silliest argument of all. Referee's decisons don't affect the outcome of games..really?

[The Red Heifer]

Refs are human, and fans need to just cop a bit of the rough stuff now and then, it all evens out.
.

It actually doesn't. Let's say you've had five decisions go for you in a season and seven go against you. That could be the difference that gets you relegated.

If your team is in a precarious enough position that two iffy calls get you relegated perhaps there's bigger problems with the team itself.

[Diamond Dog]

But, again, rugby has more natural stoppages than football. That's the main issue, for me - VAR heavily disrupts the flow of the game and will always do so. How long before we get adverts sold during those VAR breaks? Think about that! .

I hear this a lot, but surely the obvious answer there is to restrict the amount of times it can be used in a game. Once each half for both sides seems fair. Admittedly some of the decisions have been taking too long, but I put this down to overcaution on behalf of the officials. They may need greater training to enable them to use the system more effciently ( it doesn't help that some of them are bloody thick!) but that shouldn't be beyond the authorities to achieve..

Ah now I assume you're talking about coaches challenges, as opposed to official's intervention, G? That's an entirely different subject - a coaches challenge I actually think could work.

With a challenge system, it would be the job of the coach to use it sparingly - if a rule was also brought in that any player or official could ask for the challenge, it would stop the ridiculous circus of players/coaches making whatever the signal is whenever they see fit. If the ruling is that once a player/coach makes the sign, that will be taken as used, you can bet your bottom dollar that the nefarious nonsense would stop imediately - and it would only ever get used in 'sensible' situations.

The other objection to VAR as it currently stands is that no one, least of all the officials seemingly, know what it can and cannot be used for. In the NFL, the definition is very strict - and it doesn't change, game to game/ref to ref. And, as I said, 31 years on it still causes controversy.

I agree it needs clear guidelines, but part of the point of trialing it is surely to help produce those guidelines, isn't that what a trial is for to improve how something works?
I do find it strange that so many are against just off the back of a few games.

Well I suppose you have a point there - but the problem is, they're trialling it in games that really matter. What they should have done is trial it in friendlies, then there would be a chance for the criteria to evolve.

I think so many are against it because its introduction has, thus far, been an unmitigated disaster - with neither the officials, players, coaches or fans seemingly having the slightest clue what the process is and when it can/can't be used.

[Jimbly]

Refs are human, and fans need to just cop a bit of the rough stuff now and then, it all evens out.
.

It actually doesn't. Let's say you've had five decisions go for you in a season and seven go against you. That could be the difference that gets you relegated.

If your team is in a precarious enough position that two iffy calls get you relegated perhaps there's bigger problems with the team itself.

my team was in a cup semi final. leading 1-0, player handles goal bound chance, referee doesn't give it. We don't get the chance to go 2 up early in the second half with the opposition down to 10 men.

We get our keeper sent off correctly, penalty given and the games 1-1. 10 men vs 11 men. We lose 3-2 in extra time. And lose out on the chance of a domestic treble.

tv showed we were denied a penalty and a sending off.

bring it on.