• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

VAR: Sponsored by Chelsea

They keep doing that. They introduce clamp-downs on various rules, then get a ridiculous number of yellow cards in the first round of gamesand then abandoned the changes.

At least for VAR there there has been some trialling. I'm in favour of VAR but don't think it's ready for the world cup. Also the world cup includes some pretty crap referees.
 
jts1882 said:
They keep doing that. They introduce clamp-downs on various rules, then get a ridiculous number of yellow cards in the first round of gamesand then abandoned the changes.

At least for VAR there there has been some trialling. I'm in favour of VAR but don't think it's ready for the world cup. Also the world cup includes some pretty crap referees.
Click to expand...

The trail period in top level footall has not been long enough for me as we are not anywhere near ironing out the issues it has at the current level.

Its been bad in alot of what I have seen in the FA CUP.
 
the yanks have the best system, the umpire walks AWAY from the players to explain to the TV/crowd the decision, they give 2 challengers only to the managers and because they have their system down, it takes normally just a few seconds to do a scoring review and crucially some things are NOT reviewable.
 
Offside is not determined by the feet*, which was where the line was drawn, and Son was leaning forwards. It was not clear if it was offside from the video, so VAR made the right call (insufficint evidence to overturn the decision), but one can question whether the linesman should have called it offside in the first place. If he was positioned correctly he may have had a better angle than the video.


* It determined by parts of the body that can legally touch the ball.
 
They couldn't have retrospectively given the goal because the ref blew his whistle before the ball went in. So the Swansea GK could have claimed he had stopped playing. So the review was entirely pointless
 
I reckon instead of VARscicle football should adopt the ice hockey system of 2 referees - one for each half of the pitch.

Then a ref is always closer to play/has a different angle, and it would curtail the horrible personality of referees problem, as they would be diluted.
 
Gutter Boy said:
I reckon instead of VARscicle football should adopt the ice hockey system of 2 referees - one for each half of the pitch.

Then a ref is always closer to play/has a different angle, and it would curtail the horrible personality of referees problem, as they would be diluted.
Click to expand...


To me the way to improve it is to take the approach used in cricket - give each team 1 or 2 appeals which can be used for goals, red cards, penalties etc. If the appeal is successful then you keep it. That way you dont have endless appeals with virtually every goal being checked and teams would be wary of making a spurious appeal in case they got to the last 5 mins and had a blatant goal or penalty disallowed
 
Gutter Boy said:
I reckon instead of VARscicle football should adopt the ice hockey system of 2 referees - one for each half of the pitch.

Then a ref is always closer to play/has a different angle, and it would curtail the horrible personality of referees problem, as they would be diluted.
Click to expand...

Be very difficult to find two blokes equally inefficient, I think the Chuckle Brothers are too old to keep up with play. "From me to you"
 
Main areas for improvement:
1. Officials to use it correctly. In the Rochdale match they incorrectly used it to change decisions that weren't clearly wrong.
2. Speed the process up and therefore make it less intrusive. Partly this relates to the first point - if the assistant can't see an obvious mistake from a couple of replays then the decision can't have been clearly wrong.
3. Better communication with fans at the ground. Spectators should be informed when a decision is being reviewed and given an explanation if the original decision is changed.
 
Point 2, especially. If it is a clear and obvious mistake it shouldn't take long to see it. There is no reason for it to take more than 30-40 seconds. Restarts after goals and overly orchestrated celebrations, the jostling at corners, arguing about penalty decisions and red cards, and the lining up of the wall for free kicks all take longer.

In the rugby yesterday I noted that the players were lining up for the expected restart or conversion while the video reviews were still being conducted. When checking a goal the players can get ready for the kick-off. If the goal is ruled out they may have to move again, but as professional athletes this shouldn't be too taxing.

P.S. How long did the decision on Son's offside take? I only saw a video and it looked quick enough, but it might have been edited.
 
Offside shouldn't stop play, VAR can be reviewing it as play continues. If it's offside chop it off, if it's not nothing lost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back