VAR

[deanolegend1989]

VAR should only be used for offside decisions. For example at the weekend that ball from tilimens to Vardy.

Clearly onside and the lino was right on this occasion but so often they put the flag up and you look back and it was on!

 

they should play on all time, if lino  thinks there’s an offside put flag up but continue to play on and if no goal comes of it then play on but if they do score from it, review it whilst the team in celebrating and if it was offside then disallow it.

this way it won’t cause long stoppages and would also be a ‘fact’ (on or off is usually clear and not much differentiate of opinions).

 

Back to var on these subjects, it shouldn’t be involved. Firstly because there would be stopping the game all the time asking ‘is this a free kick’ on every free kick.(or if just pens then that’s not consistent).

secondly because the opinions are so different so it will never be correct(I think this is never a penalty)

so VAR being used for every little foul/handball will just be ridiculous

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, deanolegend1989 said:

VAR should only be used for offside decisions. For example at the weekend that ball from tilimens to Vardy.

Clearly onside and the lino was right on this occasion but so often they put the flag up and you look back and it was on!

 

they should play on all time, if lino  thinks there’s an offside put flag up but continue to play on and if no goal comes of it then play on but if they do score from it, review it whilst the team in celebrating and if it was offside then disallow it.

this way it won’t cause long stoppages and would also be a ‘fact’ (on or off is usually clear and not much differentiate of opinions).

 

Back to var on these subjects, it shouldn’t be involved. Firstly because there would be stopping the game all the time asking ‘is this a free kick’ on every free kick.(or if just pens then that’s not consistent).

secondly because the opinions are so different so it will never be correct(I think this is never a penalty)

so VAR being used for every little foul/handball will just be ridiculous

Var does not rule on free kicks

[Wolfboy]

[TonyN11]

Boooo.

VAR Out!!!

[mozartfox]

Can it be used by FT members once the team is announced on matchdays i.e. we can turn over Brendan's selection and formations if say 10 of us are not happy?

[Farrington fox]

VAR will become a monster.

[ozleicester]

Thank goodness VAR has taken the confusion out of the game

[WigstonWanderer]

It ain’t perfect, nothing can be, but much better than the incompetent twats we’ve got reffing.

[shailen]

Technically that decision was correct based on the laws of the game but your hands have to be out by your side to jump. Try jumping with your hands behind your back or tucked in by your side. 

 

I think plenty of people have said there should be a former footballer on the VAR panel so that there is an element of common sense in some of these decisions. 

[Guest MattP]

If VAR is still going to be used for matters of opinion then it's completely pointless, that decision last night was absolutely insane given the circumstances. 

 

Stick to the obvious and it's fine.

[TonyN11]

2 minutes ago, shailen said:

Technically that decision was correct based on the laws of the game but your hands have to be out by your side to jump. Try jumping with your hands behind your back or tucked in by your side. 

 

I think plenty of people have said there should be a former footballer on the VAR panel so that there is an element of common sense in some of these decisions. 

Yep, Denis Wise or Julian Dicks

[HighPeakFox]

2 minutes ago, shailen said:

I think plenty of people have said there should be a former footballer on the VAR panel so that there is an element of common sense in some of these decisions. 

Yes, someone sane and rational like Paul Merson, or Chris Sutton.

 

Sorry @shailen, I do take your point in actual fact, but there are many former footballers out there with nothing of worth to offer.

[fuchsntf]

9 hours ago, Sampson said:

It was never a penalty, but it was a fault of the referee not VAR. VAR didn't make the decision.

 

9 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Wrong thread, but it's my main bugbear with VAR. It's doesn't change the interpretation of an individual that will depend on who the ref is.

Let's be honest.it was never going to be 100%.....but there is the other point,I beIieve we will see an higher %tag of correct decisions and poor  descision,

or none,that previously happened, improved on &corrected.Players a fans complain alike and lean towards the bias cheating side..Perspectives might change??

We will have to wait 3-5 seasons to see those great and  famous statistics,that will have every fan debating.....well until ever!!!

[davieG]

They'll never be agreement on these type of penalty decisions or whether a player has dived or been fouled.

Arguments will continue laws will be changed and tweaked and they will not resolve it.

In fact the more they try the harder it will get just like the off side one has.

[shailen]

6 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Yes, someone sane and rational like Paul Merson, or Chris Sutton.

 

Sorry @shailen, I do take your point in actual fact, but there are many former footballers out there with nothing of worth to offer.

I don't think they should just be let loose to make decisions but go through a training program to understand the rules of the game. I don't think Merse or Sutton should be anywhere near consideration lol.

 

For me that decision was correct based on the rules but in reality it was not intentional handball and there was no movement towards the ball. Think that's when a former player would be able to step in from their prior experience. 

[oadby.fox]

2 hours ago, Nicolo Barella said:

VAR is needed. It's not perfect, nor will it ever be, but it will improve. What it's not going to magically improve is our referees. They need to be trained better, vetted more, given a clearer career path, and helped with rule changes.

 

People using the world cup as an example of VAR's failure to add anything to the game amuses me. Have they forgotten the overwhelming number of decisions VAR ruled correctly, and the fact that it was the first time being implemented in the World Cup? I can agree with some that replays shouldn't be slow-mo, but I believe it will come with time. 

 

Agreed.

 

Does anyone remember when people were saying that VAR would suck controversy out of the game and all the drama of human error with it? They couldn't have been more wrong!

 

The reason being is that when it comes to handballs and penalties, some decisions are still going to be made subjectively anyway, no matter whether it is live or a replay. People are correct to point out whether it's appropriate to hone in on a handball at such slow motion without context, but for me the bigger problem is the ambiguity in the rules themselves that allow referees to make such decisions. Is it really VAR that we are moaning about or just the inconsistency in the application of the rules more generally?

 

We have all been to games where VAR has not been involved and seen soft penalties given for one team, whilst the other side doesn't get awarded a penalty or freekick for the exact same infringement. Similarly with handballs, (even though last nights would probably never have been given by any ref without VAR), we have also been on the receiving end of decisions that we felt were unfair to us because they penalised something that we felt wasn't a handball, and in other games we might experience the reverse. In my opinion, we need to clean up the rules and leave less room for subjectivity and referee discretion if we want to avoid controversial decisions. 

 

Personally, I can see handballs continuing to become less and less about just whether it was intentional and expanding to include a wider definition. Where to draw the line is difficult but I can understand how we got here. If it is a foul to touch the ball with your hand/arm then it is easy to envisage just how it might be unfair for a player to block a goalbound shot with that part of their body (irrespective of whether it was intentional or not). I think especially when you're making your body much bigger than it really is because of the extension of your arms and then block the ball with your arms, then there is a question of whether you have gained an unfair advantage, if say, this block cuts out a goal or goal scoring opportunity. The flip side is that this would hand the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team, when in many cases it might be quite hard to actually determine whether the shot would trouble the keeper, or lead to another opportunity in the second phase of play.

 

I think in cases like last nights, it could be preferable to award a free kick inside the area where the infringement occurred rather than a penalty (like they do for pass backs). That way a goal is less of a guarantee for the attacking team and the decision has an effect that might be fair relative to the infringement committed.  That would be a huge change though and it's a bit of a crazy idea.

[Horibbly Wrong]

I'm in the camp that says that ANY contact with arm/hand and ball is a foul

 

It takes all the subjectivity away about it being deliberate, unnatural position of arm, what mood the ref is in etc, etc..

[st albans fox]

17 minutes ago, Horibbly Wrong said:

I'm in the camp that says that ANY contact with arm/hand and ball is a foul

 

It takes all the subjectivity away about it being deliberate, unnatural position of arm, what mood the ref is in etc, etc..

You can have my seat then ........ have you watched any hockey btw ????

[davieG]

18 minutes ago, Horibbly Wrong said:

I'm in the camp that says that ANY contact with arm/hand and ball is a foul

 

It takes all the subjectivity away about it being deliberate, unnatural position of arm, what mood the ref is in etc, etc..

Attackers could just aim the ball at a defenders arm if they felt they weren't getting anywhere, they'll always be players that will try to take advantage.

[UniFox21]

18 minutes ago, Horibbly Wrong said:

I'm in the camp that says that ANY contact with arm/hand and ball is a foul

 

It takes all the subjectivity away about it being deliberate, unnatural position of arm, what mood the ref is in etc, etc..

The amount of times the ball hits an arm in a way that's completely non-deliberate due to range or a random deflection, having that rule and people will just start punting the ball at arms to get a foul or penalty.

[Vlad the Fox]

As others have mentioned there seems to be a problem when the referee goes to the pitch side monitor and it should be removed. In the World Cup referees would overturn good decisions because they had been told to look at the monitor, the pressure of the situation and the doubt set in their mind by the var team clearly effecting his judgement. If the var team can’t decide and need to suggest he looks again, it isn’t clear and obvious and the original decision should stand. 

 

I’d have been fuming if that decision had gone against us, var has cleared nothing up and only added controversy, maybe a consideration for handball should be advantage gained, the shot was clearly going well over the bar and none was gained.

Edited 7 March 2019 by Vlad the Fox

[davieG]

On the point of it being a goal bound shot, is this really the case.

 

Do they look at the original trajectory of the ball, do they check to see if there was another defender who could have blocked the shot legitimately, do they check to see if the goalkeeper could have saved it? No and who would want them to but unless you take that into account it's still highly subjective as to whether it was a truly goal bound effort.

 

Like the offside rule how accurate is the point of the ball leaving the players foot, we know that it's fine margins on many of the VAR offside decisions so it's just as important to get that right as it is as to whether a players sock was offside.

[Guest Col city fan]

What is clear around Var, is that it’s not going to do away with any of the controversy over decisions. In fact, it looks like there’ll be more controversy. It will bring to the attention incidents that a ref might have missed, but it’s still then down to that ref’s interpretation of events.

[Babylon]

Shame you can't have the football version of hawk eye, for me if that's a shot on target, then it's handball. If it's going wide, then what exactly is the handball stopping?

 

He was looking right at it and only turned his head afterwards, he clearly put his arms up into a blocking position and jumped so he knew he was getting into a position that might stop the ball, but his arms aren't in a position to protect his face / body so I can see why they gave it. But is it deliberate? Chances are it's just a bodged attempt to cover himself rather than stop the ball.

[RowlattsFox]

I think if a Fulham defender does that this weekend, we all scream hand ball. Fact is a penalty is a harsh punishment for something like that where he doesn't mean to handball it. Its not a clear and obvious error though, is that not what VAR is supposed to be for? 

 

Players will still cheat with VAR, any contact and they will go down and chances are they will get a penalty.