Premier league clubs to vote on scrapping VAR

[Ric Flair]

Those that compete in Europe year on year will vote to keep it as it'll remain in Europe anyway. 

 

 

[ealingfox]

I'd say keeping it as a challenge system is a reasonable compromise. Each manager gets 1 review per half or something like that.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

I hope we don't get a vote, we would absolutely vote in favour of keeping it. 

[kenny]

21 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Those that compete in Europe year on year will vote to keep it as it'll remain in Europe anyway. 

 

 

It's implemented better everywhere else.

 

Hopefully it's scrapped even if it's there in Europe.

 

Hopefully the fan groups can apply enough pressure to get rid of it. I wonder what percentage of the 27% of fans that want to keep it don't attend matches. Its hard to see there will be any support from match goers.

[lcfc_forever]

Know if cliched but it’s not the technology, it’s the referees. It’s been successful in other countries, with the likes of Serie A embracing more tech and transparency. 
 

The incentives are not right for VAR in the PL currently - pay the refs more to attract higher quality, separate the VAR team from match referees so it’s less looking after each other, and reward better performers with bigger matches and bonuses. The PL is the richest major league in the world, so surely they can pay better money for refs/VAR staff? 
 

If they don’t get that right, it’s not going to live up to its potential.
 

Before getting rid of it all, they could just use it for offsides (the semi automated system will help), ball crossing the line or whether an infringement took place inside the penalty area or not. And then give both sides one appeal each per half for things that VAR covers now that they retain if the appeal is upheld - means less interruptions and sides will only appeal if they think the ref’s made a serious error which is what it’s there for anyway. 

[Phube]

24 minutes ago, foxfanazer said:

There's nothing to suggest we wouldn't have won it

We were starting to get battered towards the end of the match, no way we were going survive extra-time!

 

Also imagine if we missed out on promotion to Leeds by a point knowing we should have gone 2-0 up at there place.

 

I can’t help being one of those fans who prefers a correct decision, I find it easier to accept.

 

And all those who say it’s part and parcel of the game and makes a talking point - let’s not forget how long we were all bitter about Chelsea in 97. The ref was threatened I believe! 

[Nalis]

Decisions should have a 30 second limit. Referee makes an on field decision and VAR have 30 seconds to find compelling evidence to overturn it. If they can't then the on field decision stands.

Edited 15 May by Nalis

[Fear Of The Fox]

35 minutes ago, Chelmofox said:

The technology is the issue. There isn't a working system to make decisions instantly, especially for offsides. A system that requires the official to manually work out the 'frame' in which the ball was struck, and where the lines need to be drawn (they decide the frickin body part there and then) is a technology that isn't fit for purpose.

 

Furthermore, all VAR ads to handballs and fould is the abilty to slow motion. Anything around intent, and position of the arm etc is down to interpretation.

 

The tech doesn't work.

So you're telling me to scrap the VAR and keep the same rule of handball? Good luck with that, refs will slaughter us. The tech doesn't work because of a combination of other issues. 

The tech for semi or even auto offside is there. It has been there for nearly 30 years but it's now easier to implement with the optical based cams and the quicker processing of data. People think it's a new technology, a revolution but any decent IT specialist can debunk this easily. 

[foxfanazer]

5 minutes ago, Phube said:

We were starting to get battered towards the end of the match, no way we were going survive extra-time!

 

Also imagine if we missed out on promotion to Leeds by a point knowing we should have gone 2-0 up at there place.

 

I can’t help being one of those fans who prefers a correct decision, I find it easier to accept.

 

And all those who say it’s part and parcel of the game and makes a talking point - let’s not forget how long we were all bitter about Chelsea in 97. The ref was threatened I believe! 

That's fair and I do get it. What it takes away from the game outweighs it for me. It won't be scrapped anyway 

Edited 15 May by foxfanazer

[foxer]

They're asking the wrong people. It will stay, but the fact it's a conversation is great news.

[Vlad the Fox]

Prem fans groups need to make themselves seen and heard this weekend. Send out a message to the authorities and their clubs. 

[Chelmofox]

21 minutes ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

So you're telling me to scrap the VAR and keep the same rule of handball? Good luck with that, refs will slaughter us. The tech doesn't work because of a combination of other issues. 

The tech for semi or even auto offside is there. It has been there for nearly 30 years but it's now easier to implement with the optical based cams and the quicker processing of data. People think it's a new technology, a revolution but any decent IT specialist can debunk this easily. 

I didn't say anything about the rule for handball. I said all the technology does is offer slow motions which means there is no other data available to make a decision. The slow mo's only offer the officials the ability to interpret whatever the rules are now.  I presume the rules change to try and appease the fact the technology doesn't really do anything.

 

With your point about optical based cameras, if there is a solution that works then that great, but the fact it's not being used meant that the current technology implemented is not good enough, so my original point makes sense.

[sishades]

I went to see BMG play Frankfurt on Saturday. Not a single VAR decision was needed.

[Fear Of The Fox]

1 minute ago, Chelmofox said:

I didn't say anything about the rule for handball. I said all the technology does is offer slow motions which means there is no other data available to make a decision. The slow mo's only offer the officials the ability to interpret whatever the rules are now.  I presume the rules change to try and appease the fact the technology doesn't really do anything.

 

With your point about optical based cameras, if there is a solution that works then that great, but the fact it's not being used meant that the current technology implemented is not good enough, so my original point makes sense.

Idk mate, I don't get it, have you watched the clear pen by Amrabat earlier? The tech shows it's a blatant pen but the officials for some bizarre reason can't see it. The slow mo is there to correct this kind of mistakes that can happen in a fast paced sport. The officials are just rubbish, incompetent and quite possibly corrupted. So you first need to fix the people, then the rules and the tech will "magically" work. 

[Paninistickers]

55 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

I hope we don't get a vote, we would absolutely vote in favour of keeping it. 

You could bet the mortgage on it. Whelan wants to be 'one of them'..

 

Lizard

[Koke]

It's not like life before VAR was wonderful. There are less bad decisions now than pre-VAR.

[Blarmy]

1 hour ago, Nalis said:

Decisions should have a 30 second limit. Referee makes an on field decision and VAR have 30 seconds to find compelling evidence to overturn it. If they can't then the on field decision stands.

They could play the Countdown music.

[Chelmofox]

24 minutes ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

Idk mate, I don't get it, have you watched the clear pen by Amrabat earlier? The tech shows it's a blatant pen but the officials for some bizarre reason can't see it. The slow mo is there to correct this kind of mistakes that can happen in a fast paced sport. The officials are just rubbish, incompetent and quite possibly corrupted. So you first need to fix the people, then the rules and the tech will "magically" work. 

Didn’t see the incident. Would it have been an incident where it wasn’t overruled because of the clear and obvious error rule? But again, if all that’s being is a slow mo then the term ‘blatant pen’ is still subjective, especially if it’s to overrule the infield decision.  Clear and obvious decision is too subjective in my opinion. 

[st albans fox]

People suggesting different ways it could be implemented are missing the point. It can only be used based on existing IFAB protocols. 
 

my understanding is that the people who matter - club owners, will want to retain it (apart from wolves and forest). Expect no change. 

[Chelmofox]

1 hour ago, Nalis said:

Decisions should have a 30 second limit. Referee makes an on field decision and VAR have 30 seconds to find compelling evidence to overturn it. If they can't then the on field decision stands.

Then the next conspiracy will be that you just wait that 30 seconds to get the decision you want. I mean, it takes them longer than that just to identify the frame where the player kicked the ball. 

Edited 15 May by Chelmofox

[Chelmofox]

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

People suggesting different ways it could be implemented are missing the point. It can only be used based on existing IFAB protocols. 
 

my understanding is that the people who matter - club owners, will want to retain it (apart from wolves and forest). Expect no change. 

Why is there a different tech used for offside in international games? Why can’t that be used domestically?

[st albans fox]

Just now, Chelmofox said:

Why is there a different tech used for offside in international games? Why can’t that be used domestically?

We will be using ‘auto offsides’ like they do in europe in next season’s  prem . 

[ParkerPen]

VAR is why I probably wont bother watching more than a handful of our games next season.

[Shev]

Wycombe fan here. I wrote this for our last fanzine edition ('The Wanderer'). 

 

NEWS FROM THE FUTURE: VAR CONTROVERSY FROM 2028

 

Nov 5th, 2028, Manchester: There was significant controversy during the match between Manchester United and Arsenal today, when a five minute period of non-stop football broke out between VAR checks. The embarrassing incident happened midway through the second half, and resulted in the commentary team awkwardly attempting to pass the time by talking about the unfolding play on the pitch as the pressure grew.

 

“It was completely unacceptable,” said Peter Drury afterwards. “We have now gotten to the point where we have VAR checks for everything, so for the ball to stay in play for that long without a foul, throw-in, corner, or goal needing to be checked as carefully as JFK conspiracy-theorists with the Zapruder film was nothing short of disgraceful. You really feel for the fans in all this, as they are the ones waiting patiently for the next VAR check to happen.”

 

“I wanted to go through the floor, to be honest with you,” added Jamie Carragher, who was on co-commentary duties. “Over the past few years we have made great strides in stamping out long periods of football, so for us to see that much of a gap between VAR uses felt like the dark ages all over again. I have never been known to be one to stand for good football being played, and I can guarantee that I never will be, either – you have my word on that.”

 

The nightmare scenario could have continued for even longer, but thankfully the “satellite look in” element of VAR, brought in just last season, spotted that a single cell on Bukayo Saka’s foot might be out of play when he crossed the ball for the reigning champions, and the TV feed was able to cut to the nine minute analysis of whether a goal kick should be awarded, as scientists from three continents pored over the satellite data at Stockley Park. After the game had finished, the Premier League quickly issued an apology and an assertion that they would work to prevent such scenarios from happening again.

 

“The Premier League understands our duty to the players, the fans, and the television companies, in holding our sport to the highest standards of accuracy and entertainment. We realize that we have let many people down today, and promise to do better in the future. No-one connected to the sport should ever have to sit through a display of free-flowing football by two talented teams when they could be enjoying the high stakes tension of inane pundits watching coloured lines being draw on screens by faceless football officials at a distant location.”

 

The supporters of both teams clearly agreed with the sentiments expressed by the commentary team and the Premier League, as they booed raucously through all nine minutes of the VAR check, presumably to register their displeasure with the five minutes of unbroken action they had been subjected to just before. When the VAR decision was given, the stadium erupted into completely unironic cheers.

 

In response to the controversial scenes, ‘VAR of the Day’ made the bold decision to avoid further offense by only showing highlights of VAR analysis in their famous program, and cutting out any scenes from the match itself aside from the VAR freeze-frames. Afterwards, Gary Lineker fought back tears as he vowed to be a standard bearer for change.

 

“I saw a young supporter outside the stadium today, carrying a sign saying ‘VAR needs to be binned off,’ said Lineker, emotionally. “which in the poor vocabulary of the masses I assume to be a kind of primitive slang for ‘needs to be further enhanced and extended to invade every corner of the matchday experience’. I want to be able to look that young child in the eye and tell him that no matter what, he’ll always have at least eighty minutes of VAR per match. Our children are counting on us, and I for one plan to rise to the challenge.”

Edited 15 May by Shev

[Leicesterpool]

Imagine we can celebrate a goal again without fear