A charter for the rescue of VAR

[wolvesjoe]

The problem with doing away with VAR is straightforward: we go back to poor calls and bias towards the top clubs.

There is a strong argument for saying that will still be better than the ****show the fans are now having to witness
on a regular basis. At least, the euphoria of celebrating a goal will be restored properly, and the game will flow again
much more. I accept that.

But, just maybe, the VAR system can be recalibrated to be a useful, less disruptive means to ensure correct decision-making.

A proposal, and any other ideas are welcome:

1. Do away with the clear and obvious criterion. This, in my view, is the most important change necessary as it has locked
referees into a cycle of lack of logic. The ref makes a poor decision, passes it onto VAR, who then pass it back to the ref, as
it is not a clear and obvious error. (If it was a clear and obvious error, then the referee would probably not have made it.)

Let VAR simply decide on those specific game situations where it is involved. If there is genuine doubt from the VAR perspective, then
the ref's decision stands.

2. To lessen the subjective element in the decisions, add some simple conditions that follow the spirit of the game.
With offside calls, the attacker gets the benefit of the doubt. With penalty calls, the defender gets the benefit of the
doubt.

.Good refereeing has always been based on the application of these prinicples, but they clearly need reinstating now.

There may be other relatively simple adjustments, but the overall goal is one that all can support: less soft penalties and red cards
that change the direction of the game and undermine its competitive integrity. And less disruption during games.

Managers and players also bear responsibility for achieving these aims, in reducing the amount of pressure applied to referees to
make calls in their favour.

 

[Gold67]

Agree as far as it goes.
But by & large mirroring the processes in Rugby Union would solve an awful lot.
And installing VAR officials that have no links whatsoever with the POGMOL monkeys, so are totally independent of them - so have no inclination to 'watch their backs'.

Mind you, sacking 90+% of the current POGMOL lame ducks, and advertising for suitable replacements (world wide) would likely be the most effective method.

 

[wolvesjoe]

Some quite perceptive comments from Keen and Judah:

'The constant incompetence of match officials is disgusting!' Liam Keen & Nathan Judah on Wolves defeat - WATCH

The visitors dominated the first half and created several openings, without truly testing the Blades goal.

www.expressandstar.com

 

[old wittonian]

The problem with doing away with VAR is straightforward: we go back to poor calls and bias towards the top clubs.

There is a strong argument for saying that will still be better than the ****show the fans are now having to witness
on a regular basis. At least, the euphoria of celebrating a goal will be restored properly, and the game will flow again
much more. I accept that.

But, just maybe, the VAR system can be recalibrated to be a useful, less disruptive means to ensure correct decision-making.

A proposal, and any other ideas are welcome:

1. Do away with the clear and obvious criterion. This, in my view, is the most important change necessary as it has locked
referees into a cycle of lack of logic. The ref makes a poor decision, passes it onto VAR, who then pass it back to the ref, as
it is not a clear and obvious error. (If it was a clear and obvious error, then the referee would probably not have made it.)

Let VAR simply decide on those specific game situations where it is involved. If there is genuine doubt from the VAR perspective, then
the ref's decision stands.

2. To lessen the subjective element in the decisions, add some simple conditions that follow the spirit of the game.
With offside calls, the attacker gets the benefit of the doubt. With penalty calls, the defender gets the benefit of the
doubt.

.Good refereeing has always been based on the application of these prinicples, but they clearly need reinstating now.

There may be other relatively simple adjustments, but the overall goal is one that all can support: less soft penalties and red cards
that change the direction of the game and undermine its competitive integrity. And less disruption during games.

Managers and players also bear responsibility for achieving these aims, in reducing the amount of pressure applied to referees to
make calls in their favour.

Have the VAR officials totally independent from the onfield officials and even PGMOL.
Stop them protecting their mates.

 

[GoldenHorseshoe]

Clear and obvious is the biggest load of crap in the whole crap show.

Designed to protect the ref and his biases.

 

[bigwolf]

The problem with doing away with VAR is straightforward: we go back to poor calls and bias towards the top clubs.

There is a strong argument for saying that will still be better than the ****show the fans are now having to witness
on a regular basis. At least, the euphoria of celebrating a goal will be restored properly, and the game will flow again
much more. I accept that.

But, just maybe, the VAR system can be recalibrated to be a useful, less disruptive means to ensure correct decision-making.

A proposal, and any other ideas are welcome:

1. Do away with the clear and obvious criterion. This, in my view, is the most important change necessary as it has locked
referees into a cycle of lack of logic. The ref makes a poor decision, passes it onto VAR, who then pass it back to the ref, as
it is not a clear and obvious error. (If it was a clear and obvious error, then the referee would probably not have made it.)

Let VAR simply decide on those specific game situations where it is involved. If there is genuine doubt from the VAR perspective, then
the ref's decision stands.

2. To lessen the subjective element in the decisions, add some simple conditions that follow the spirit of the game.
With offside calls, the attacker gets the benefit of the doubt. With penalty calls, the defender gets the benefit of the
doubt.

.Good refereeing has always been based on the application of these prinicples, but they clearly need reinstating now.

There may be other relatively simple adjustments, but the overall goal is one that all can support: less soft penalties and red cards
that change the direction of the game and undermine its competitive integrity. And less disruption during games.

Managers and players also bear responsibility for achieving these aims, in reducing the amount of pressure applied to referees to
make calls in their favour.

Good attempt but the solutions won't resolve the problems as it does not address the subjectivity of the decision being made. And the reality is there is no solution to that problem. Fans have to suck it up whether we like it or not.

On point one I agree it is the obvious one that should make some positive difference but it will not resolve everything. Let's take the arsenal goal at the weekend. The push. Many pundits and fans thinks it a penalty. Many don't. It will be the same with refs. Some will and some won't. Your solution does not resolve that subjectivity problem.

On point two the 'benefit of the doubt' will not solve the problems. Again the subjectivity element we will still have fans and pundits screaming that it was or want a penalty.

On the offside but that solution is relatively easy. You make it tech based. Like goal line technology. The goal line decision works so well is because it is realtime and the are no delays. Apply same approach to offside. Ball is played and player is offside. Buzzer goes and whistle stops play. Fans and players will accept it as it is black and white.

The tech is there to make it happen.

 

[maws]

Just seen Ten Hag moaning they’ve been on the wrong end of lots of decisions! I nearly punched the tv, United should be 2 points z worse off and us a point better off the ****

 

[SakosRightFoot]

Good attempt but the solutions won't resolve the problems as it does not address the subjectivity of the decision being made. And the reality is there is no solution to that problem. Fans have to suck it up whether we like it or not.

On point one I agree it is the obvious one that should make some positive difference but it will not resolve everything. Let's take the arsenal goal at the weekend. The push. Many pundits and fans thinks it a penalty. Many don't. It will be the same with refs. Some will and some won't. Your solution does not resolve that subjectivity problem.

On point two the 'benefit of the doubt' will not solve the problems. Again the subjectivity element we will still have fans and pundits screaming that it was or want a penalty.

On the offside but that solution is relatively easy. You make it tech based. Like goal line technology. The goal line decision works so well is because it is realtime and the are no delays. Apply same approach to offside. Ball is played and player is offside. Buzzer goes and whistle stops play. Fans and players will accept it as it is black and white.

The tech is there to make it happen.

It's pretty simple. Make all teams install at least one big screen visible from the pitch, make the var show the on field referee any incidents that require him to look again and mic the whole process up, basically like rugby and cricket. Don't have to stop the game just have the referee tell the var he wants to review next time ball goes out of play. VAR has the incident ready, couple of angles maximum 1 minute to make a decision together and away we go.

On a pedantic point, I wish people would stop claiming VAR makes them not celebrate goals like they used, my shins get destroyed when we score from my mate pushing me forwards into the row in front haha the limbs you see at games doesn't suggest people aren't celebrating, unless we all think it was probably offside or a foul in which case that always happened before VAR anywayl, like when a player used to turn to the linesman to see if he was flagged offside or not you knew he knew so didnt go as mad

 

[Contrarian]

Good attempt but the solutions won't resolve the problems as it does not address the subjectivity of the decision being made. And the reality is there is no solution to that problem. Fans have to suck it up whether we like it or not.

On point one I agree it is the obvious one that should make some positive difference but it will not resolve everything. Let's take the arsenal goal at the weekend. The push. Many pundits and fans thinks it a penalty. Many don't. It will be the same with refs. Some will and some won't. Your solution does not resolve that subjectivity problem.

On point two the 'benefit of the doubt' will not solve the problems. Again the subjectivity element we will still have fans and pundits screaming that it was or want a penalty.

On the offside but that solution is relatively easy. You make it tech based. Like goal line technology. The goal line decision works so well is because it is realtime and the are no delays. Apply same approach to offside. Ball is played and player is offside. Buzzer goes and whistle stops play. Fans and players will accept it as it is black and white.

How will that work when attackers overrun and then have to return from an offside position? How can tech determine if a player is interfering with play? Currently, this would have the buzzer going off almost continually. Presumably would need yet more rules adjustments to fit the technology - and I'm increasingly thinking that approach is a big part of current problems. The game will end up more like American Football and Rugby with short bursts of play in between frequent stoppages. Many games are already turning into that, for example when a team is hanging onto a one goal lead and spends the entire second half breaking up play.

For me, the single biggest problem in the game is players trying to cheat. Not the offside rule, anyway. Yet the officials don't seem to see it as a problem, they see a toenail offside as something that needs immediate addressing, but not that there are twice as many penalties as 20 years ago, primarily due to dives.

 

[Ned]

I would rather a charter for the destruction of VAR.

 

[Hanbury_Wolf]

We might as well get rich whilst getting shafted

 

[Frank Lincoln]

I would rather a charter for the destruction of VAR.

I would gladly second any such proposal.

 

[Sussex Wolf]

It's pretty simple. Make all teams install at least one big screen visible from the pitch, make the var show the on field referee any incidents that require him to look again and mic the whole process up, basically like rugby and cricket. Don't have to stop the game just have the referee tell the var he wants to review next time ball goes out of play. VAR has the incident ready, couple of angles maximum 1 minute to make a decision together and away we go.

On a pedantic point, I wish people would stop claiming VAR makes them not celebrate goals like they used, my shins get destroyed when we score from my mate pushing me forwards into the row in front haha the limbs you see at games doesn't suggest people aren't celebrating, unless we all think it was probably offside or a foul in which case that always happened before VAR anywayl, like when a player used to turn to the linesman to see if he was flagged offside or not you knew he knew so didnt go as mad

I agree completely. I’d add in the removal of the “clear and obvious” from the OP, and simply ask the VAR to determine whether they agree with the onfield decision or not, and if not, then tell the onfield ref, and at the next break in play, show the replay as you describe, all miked up so the review is transparent to the players and crowd. Obviously if play has already stopped, such as for a goal, then the review should be completed before play restarts. All time taken for stoppage due to VAR reviews is added to ET at the end of that half. Keep the existing restrictions on which type of decision VAR reviews.

At all times the onfield ref is in control of the final decision, but the VAR has the authority to tell the onfield ref when a review is required, forcing the miked up replay in full view of the players and crowd. No ambiguity about what’s going on, either to the players, crowd or tv audience.

As I said in a prior post where I suggested the need for this, there should be no excuses from clubs who don’t have a suitable screen to show the replay, just as there aren’t any for other PL stadium standards which the likes of Luton have spent big having to comply with.

 

[Sedgers]

Get rid. Just to be clear. Get rid. How any football fan can think VAR has improved football is honestly beyond me. Football is all about the joy of goals. VAR ruins that joy. It's like sex without an orgasm. Miserable.

 

[Supadavewolf]

we go back to poor calls and bias towards the top clubs

When you say "we go back to ... ", don't you mean "we continue with... "?

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Said this elsewhere, but here's the problem with getting rid of 'clear and obvious' (which I don't think they can do as it's IFAB's law) or lowering the bar (which is what I think Webb will do).

In January (remember all the way back to January?) the big idea was that VAR was getting involved too much and we needed to raise the bar. There's only so many times you can try to tweak something to make it work better before you have to admit it's just knackered.

 

[Jefe]

As I've said umpteen times, I'd much prefer a challenge system that returns the spontaneous and free-flowing feel to the game that we used to have, but one that gives managers a measure of authority to challenge particularly contentious decisions. If we accept that this is not going to happen, and must instead seek to reform VAR into something approximating a working state, I would like to see the obvious criticisms addressed:

Clear and Obvious: As has been stated at length, the "clear and obvious error" standard is the most broken thing about VAR at present, particularly when it comes to poor on-field decisions made subjectively (penalties, straight reds etc). We have too often seen the circular farce of a referee not giving a decision (e.g. Nick Pope on Raul) probably because he wasn't sure owing to a limited view of the incident, and the VAR officials not intervening because they don't think he's made a clear and obvious error. Do away with it and allow the VAR official to overrule the referee with a fresh perspective; simply, was it a penalty or not? No more time sink pantomime of having the ref go to a monitor. Which leads to...

Live Feeds: As soon as a check commences, the audio and video feed of the check should be played on the big screen in the stadium. A great deal of frustration over VAR is that the fans have been kept in the dark about the thought process behind decisions.

Offsides: When fans advocated for the introduction of video replays, we did not envisage some peabody obsessing over a digital protractor to see if a player was offside five passes before the ball is in the net! The lines, often arbitrary in width and slow to implement, the ever shifting guidance on what part of the body is or isn't offside, they all lead to absurd three, four minute checks.
-Either, offsides should be assessed with the naked eye, preferably with a time limit that defaults to the linesman's call if no judgement can be reached. Or, introduce the successful semi-automated technology that we have seen in international and European competitions.

Old Boys Club: Mike Dean admitted recently that he witnessed a major incident missed by Anthony Taylor in a game between Chelsea and Tottenham. He refused to make Taylor go to the monitor for the reason that he's a friend, and he didn't want to give him additional grief for highlighting an initial call he had gotten wrong. A staggering admission that referees value looking out for their own over correctly applying the law. In the interest of public trust, segregate on-field PGMOL officials from VAR officials by way of creating a dedicated separate body.

Stop the Clock: Rather than the galling sight of seeing 12 on the fourth official's board, stoppages owing to a VAR check should stop the match timer, allowing for a normal old-fashioned amount of injury time like 4 or 5 at the end.

 

[old wittonian]

Clear and obvious is the biggest load of crap in the whole crap show.

Designed to protect the ref and his biases.

Well said. Totally agree.
That let's them off the hook.
No one really knows what it means and I sense they don't want you to.

 

[old wittonian]

As I've said umpteen times, I'd much prefer a challenge system that returns the spontaneous and free-flowing feel to the game that we used to have, but one that gives managers a measure of authority to challenge particularly contentious decisions. If we accept that this is not going to happen, and must instead seek to reform VAR into something approximating a working state, I would like to see the obvious criticisms addressed:

Clear and Obvious: As has been stated at length, the "clear and obvious error" standard is the most broken thing about VAR at present, particularly when it comes to poor on-field decisions made subjectively (penalties, straight reds etc). We have too often seen the circular farce of a referee not giving a decision (e.g. Nick Pope on Raul) probably because he wasn't sure owing to a limited view of the incident, and the VAR officials not intervening because they don't think he's made a clear and obvious error. Do away with it and allow the VAR official to overrule the referee with a fresh perspective; simply, was it a penalty or not? No more time sink pantomime of having the ref go to a monitor. Which leads to...

Live Feeds: As soon as a check commences, the audio and video feed of the check should be played on the big screen in the stadium. A great deal of frustration over VAR is that the fans have been kept in the dark about the thought process behind decisions.

Offsides: When fans advocated for the introduction of video replays, we did not envisage some peabody obsessing over a digital protractor to see if a player was offside five passes before the ball is in the net! The lines, often arbitrary in width and slow to implement, the ever shifting guidance on what part of the body is or isn't offside, they all lead to absurd three, four minute checks.
-Either, offsides should be assessed with the naked eye, preferably with a time limit that defaults to the linesman's call if no judgement can be reached. Or, introduce the successful semi-automated technology that we have seen in international and European competitions.

Old Boys Club: Mike Dean admitted recently that he witnessed a major incident missed by Anthony Taylor in a game between Chelsea and Tottenham. He refused to make Taylor go to the monitor for the reason that he's a friend, and he didn't want to give him additional grief for highlighting an initial call he had gotten wrong. A staggering admission that referees value looking out for their own over correctly applying the law. In the interest of public trust, segregate on-field PGMOL officials from VAR officials by way of creating a dedicated separate body.

Stop the Clock: Rather than the galling sight of seeing 12 on the fourth official's board, stoppages owing to a VAR check should stop the match timer, allowing for a normal old-fashioned amount of injury time like 4 or 5 at the end.

Take time keeping away from the referee. In rugby he signals to stop and start the clock. It's not rocket science.

 

[SakosRightFoot]

Take time keeping away from the referee. In rugby he signals to stop and start the clock. It's not rocket science.

Yeah the time thing is proper weird, i'm more annoyed at 9 minutes added on time than anything to do with VAR. If you're defending a lead like the man city game and you can see the clock getting closer to 90 minutes you feel you're almost there and then they add on ridiculous numbers that no one really has a clue how its calculated. If the ref just ordered the clock stopped at certain moments like in rugby we'd all be a lot clearer how longs left

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

The problem with doing away with VAR is straightforward: we go back to poor calls and bias towards the top clubs.

There is a strong argument for saying that will still be better than the ****show the fans are now having to witness
on a regular basis. At least, the euphoria of celebrating a goal will be restored properly, and the game will flow again
much more. I accept that.

But, just maybe, the VAR system can be recalibrated to be a useful, less disruptive means to ensure correct decision-making.

A proposal, and any other ideas are welcome:

1. Do away with the clear and obvious criterion. This, in my view, is the most important change necessary as it has locked
referees into a cycle of lack of logic. The ref makes a poor decision, passes it onto VAR, who then pass it back to the ref, as
it is not a clear and obvious error. (If it was a clear and obvious error, then the referee would probably not have made it.)

Let VAR simply decide on those specific game situations where it is involved. If there is genuine doubt from the VAR perspective, then
the ref's decision stands.

2. To lessen the subjective element in the decisions, add some simple conditions that follow the spirit of the game.
With offside calls, the attacker gets the benefit of the doubt. With penalty calls, the defender gets the benefit of the
doubt.

.Good refereeing has always been based on the application of these prinicples, but they clearly need reinstating now.

There may be other relatively simple adjustments, but the overall goal is one that all can support: less soft penalties and red cards
that change the direction of the game and undermine its competitive integrity. And less disruption during games.

Managers and players also bear responsibility for achieving these aims, in reducing the amount of pressure applied to referees to
make calls in their favour.

All penalty decisions, red cards and offsides, must be reviewed at the monitor and not just listening to the corrupt var squad at stockley towers. Where refs can make up their own mind

 

[old wittonian]

All penalty decisions, red cards and offsides, must be reviewed at the monitor and not just listening to the corrupt var squad at stockley towers. Where refs can make up their own mind

Exactly. After all the decision of the referee is final.

 

[Frank Lincoln]

Take time keeping away from the referee. In rugby he signals to stop and start the clock. It's not rocket science.

I think in Football, the laws state that the referee is the sole timekeeper. So that would have to be changed. And it should be. Referees are busy enough, so timekeeping should be taken away from them. But sadly it won’t be

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

Exactly. After all the decision of the referee is final.

Should be mandatory. To listen to some corrupt goons in an office makes no sense. Should be checked by everyone and decided by the person on the pitch not a tippy tappy keyboard merchant

 

[wwfc9]

The problem with doing away with VAR is straightforward: we go back to poor calls and bias towards the top clubs.

There is a strong argument for saying that will still be better than the ****show the fans are now having to witness
on a regular basis. At least, the euphoria of celebrating a goal will be restored properly, and the game will flow again
much more. I accept that.

But, just maybe, the VAR system can be recalibrated to be a useful, less disruptive means to ensure correct decision-making.

A proposal, and any other ideas are welcome:

1. Do away with the clear and obvious criterion. This, in my view, is the most important change necessary as it has locked
referees into a cycle of lack of logic. The ref makes a poor decision, passes it onto VAR, who then pass it back to the ref, as
it is not a clear and obvious error. (If it was a clear and obvious error, then the referee would probably not have made it.)

Let VAR simply decide on those specific game situations where it is involved. If there is genuine doubt from the VAR perspective, then
the ref's decision stands.

2. To lessen the subjective element in the decisions, add some simple conditions that follow the spirit of the game.
With offside calls, the attacker gets the benefit of the doubt. With penalty calls, the defender gets the benefit of the
doubt.

.Good refereeing has always been based on the application of these prinicples, but they clearly need reinstating now.

There may be other relatively simple adjustments, but the overall goal is one that all can support: less soft penalties and red cards
that change the direction of the game and undermine its competitive integrity. And less disruption during games.

Managers and players also bear responsibility for achieving these aims, in reducing the amount of pressure applied to referees to
make calls in their favour.

The two penalties we have had against us the last 2 weeks shouldn’t even need to the ref to go and have a look , var could say in seconds sorry mate change that decision it’s not a penalty … The main problem with the pgmol is they are all a bunch of ego-maniacs, they will side with their onfield friend more often than not so as not to show him up in a full stadium that will berate him even more !!! They can take all the online stick in the world during the aftermath because it’s meaningless and not the same as being put under that intense pressure during the game , all gets brushed under the carpet after they’ve spent a week in the championship and then becomes yesterdays chip paper , nothing will change …

 

[wwfc9]

Good attempt but the solutions won't resolve the problems as it does not address the subjectivity of the decision being made. And the reality is there is no solution to that problem. Fans have to suck it up whether we like it or not.

On point one I agree it is the obvious one that should make some positive difference but it will not resolve everything. Let's take the arsenal goal at the weekend. The push. Many pundits and fans thinks it a penalty. Many don't. It will be the same with refs. Some will and some won't. Your solution does not resolve that subjectivity problem.

On point two the 'benefit of the doubt' will not solve the problems. Again the subjectivity element we will still have fans and pundits screaming that it was or want a penalty.

On the offside but that solution is relatively easy. You make it tech based. Like goal line technology. The goal line decision works so well is because it is realtime and the are no delays. Apply same approach to offside. Ball is played and player is offside. Buzzer goes and whistle stops play. Fans and players will accept it as it is black and white.

The tech is there to make it happen.

I’ve said this from day one , offsides should never have been implemented into var unless it was a blatant mistake and the goalscorer is clearly off to the naked eye , until the day comes when a buzzer can go off in the linesman’s ear and he can raise his flag showing a visual to the paying crowd straight away it shouldn’t have been a thing … tried to run before they could walk and ruined the whole point of why you go to football …

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

As I've said umpteen times, I'd much prefer a challenge system that returns the spontaneous and free-flowing feel to the game that we used to have, but one that gives managers a measure of authority to challenge particularly contentious decisions. If we accept that this is not going to happen, and must instead seek to reform VAR into something approximating a working state, I would like to see the obvious criticisms addressed:

Clear and Obvious: As has been stated at length, the "clear and obvious error" standard is the most broken thing about VAR at present, particularly when it comes to poor on-field decisions made subjectively (penalties, straight reds etc). We have too often seen the circular farce of a referee not giving a decision (e.g. Nick Pope on Raul) probably because he wasn't sure owing to a limited view of the incident, and the VAR officials not intervening because they don't think he's made a clear and obvious error. Do away with it and allow the VAR official to overrule the referee with a fresh perspective; simply, was it a penalty or not? No more time sink pantomime of having the ref go to a monitor. Which leads to...

Live Feeds: As soon as a check commences, the audio and video feed of the check should be played on the big screen in the stadium. A great deal of frustration over VAR is that the fans have been kept in the dark about the thought process behind decisions.

Offsides: When fans advocated for the introduction of video replays, we did not envisage some peabody obsessing over a digital protractor to see if a player was offside five passes before the ball is in the net! The lines, often arbitrary in width and slow to implement, the ever shifting guidance on what part of the body is or isn't offside, they all lead to absurd three, four minute checks.
-Either, offsides should be assessed with the naked eye, preferably with a time limit that defaults to the linesman's call if no judgement can be reached. Or, introduce the successful semi-automated technology that we have seen in international and European competitions.

Old Boys Club: Mike Dean admitted recently that he witnessed a major incident missed by Anthony Taylor in a game between Chelsea and Tottenham. He refused to make Taylor go to the monitor for the reason that he's a friend, and he didn't want to give him additional grief for highlighting an initial call he had gotten wrong. A staggering admission that referees value looking out for their own over correctly applying the law. In the interest of public trust, segregate on-field PGMOL officials from VAR officials by way of creating a dedicated separate body.

Stop the Clock: Rather than the galling sight of seeing 12 on the fourth official's board, stoppages owing to a VAR check should stop the match timer, allowing for a normal old-fashioned amount of injury time like 4 or 5 at the end.

Agree with some of that, but the 'clear and obvious' and 'offside' points illustrate the problem.

We want the right decision e.g. on our last two bad penalty calls. So slow it down and check it, both looked like pens to me live (although to be fair Silva was a long way away), even on one full speed replay I wouldn't have wanted to call them. So let's do that, and make sure we get the right decision.

Meanwhile offsides, forensically analysed, like it or not the decision is probably right (apart from the odd **** up). But you want to go back to a quick naked eye check, which might turn out to be wrong later.

So the fix is always to do the opposite of what you're doing now - or maybe there just isn't a fix?

 

[Black Country Wanderer]

Good attempt but the solutions won't resolve the problems as it does not address the subjectivity of the decision being made. And the reality is there is no solution to that problem. Fans have to suck it up whether we like it or not.

On point one I agree it is the obvious one that should make some positive difference but it will not resolve everything. Let's take the arsenal goal at the weekend. The push. Many pundits and fans thinks it a penalty. Many don't. It will be the same with refs. Some will and some won't. Your solution does not resolve that subjectivity problem.

On point two the 'benefit of the doubt' will not solve the problems. Again the subjectivity element we will still have fans and pundits screaming that it was or want a penalty.

On the offside but that solution is relatively easy. You make it tech based. Like goal line technology. The goal line decision works so well is because it is realtime and the are no delays. Apply same approach to offside. Ball is played and player is offside. Buzzer goes and whistle stops play. Fans and players will accept it as it is black and white.

The tech is there to make it happen.

You can never take subjectivity out of sport,we have all gone along with it for 150 years with no great problems
Yes refs get it wrong, they are human, as do linesmen ,we used to moan, but accepted the human errors in the game

The problems now arise because we have compounded the errors with even more errors ,even though we are using technology that could, if used correctly ,put right the mistakes

The subjectivity is doubled by the "clear and obvious" law,which in itself is subjective
Remove that and just go with VAR, irrespective of the refs decision, and the vast majority of controversy will vanish

All we all want is fairness and clarity,its not too much to ask is it?

 

[Baboon]

There are now more controversies regarding decisions than before VAR was foisted on us. I don't believe that will change however much tinkering is done with it. Just get rid of it.

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

It is so straight forward. Copy rugby (to a degree)

Referee watches clips on the big screen on ground if he wants to check something, or if they suggest he checks something.

One single VAR is there for the referee to explain his decision making too.

Referee has 30 seconds to make a decision with a clock in the top right of screen to make his decision.

Alternatively, instead of the timer, each team get 1 opportunity to challenge per half.

 

[Jefe]

Agree with some of that, but the 'clear and obvious' and 'offside' points illustrate the problem.

We want the right decision e.g. on our last two bad penalty calls. So slow it down and check it, both looked like pens to me live (although to be fair Silva was a long way away), even on one full speed replay I wouldn't have wanted to call them. So let's do that, and make sure we get the right decision.

Meanwhile offsides, forensically analysed, like it or not the decision is probably right (apart from the odd **** up). But you want to go back to a quick naked eye check, which might turn out to be wrong later.

So the fix is always to do the opposite of what you're doing now - or maybe there just isn't a fix?

As counter intuitive as it may seem, one thing that VAR has showed me is that being technically correct, isn't necessarily or automatically the best thing for the health and spirit of the game.

If we take five minutes to get the lines out for a player who was literally less than an inch offside at an early phase in the build up, when no spotted it at the time or particularly cared (like Jonny at Anfield that one time), and the end result is to chalk off a wonderfully crafted, or incredibly dramatic goal... while technically this is correct, is it the best and most emotionally satisfying thing for us as humans and fans? Are such tiresome incidents likely to attract new people to the sport?

So I would happily take being technically wrong sometimes if a decision is measured using common sense, instinct, speed and consideration for the needs of fans, rather than micro-analysed to death by an anal managerial class of fools who don't even know how to operate the technology efficiently.

The abolition of "clear and obvious" for penalties as I envisage it would be exactly as you phrase it in your second paragraph; it would essentially put the final decision in the hands of the VAR official, who has the means to judge it from multiple angles and speeds. If he agrees with the ref, fair enough it goes on. If not, it gets overturned.

 

[lostwolf]

As counter intuitive as it may seem, one thing that VAR has showed me is that being technically correct, isn't necessarily or automatically the best thing for the health and spirit of the game.

If we take five minutes to get the lines out for a player who was literally less than an inch offside at an early phase in the build up, when no spotted it at the time or particularly cared (like Jonny at Anfield that one time), and the end result is to chalk off a wonderfully crafted, or incredibly dramatic goal... while technically this is correct, is it the best and most emotionally satisfying thing for us as humans and fans? Are such tiresome incidents likely to attract new people to the sport?

So I would happily take being technically wrong sometimes if a decision is measured using common sense, instinct, speed and consideration for the needs of fans, rather than micro-analysed to death by an anal managerial class of fools who don't even know how to operate the technology efficiently.

The abolition of "clear and obvious" for penalties as I envisage it would be exactly as you phrase it in your second paragraph; it would essentially put the final decision in the hands of the VAR official, who has the means to judge it from multiple angles and speeds. If he agrees with the ref, fair enough it goes on. If not, it gets overturned.

You've managed to articulate part of what I feel about VAR brilliantly in those first two paragraphs. Essentially, who frankly cares even in situations where VAR is 'technically' correct.

Where we differ is in our conclusions, as for me the bigger issue is that it kills the enjoyment simply by existing and us knowing that a goal may not be a goal. It just needs to go and I'm excited about the fact that this, initially extreme position, is fast becoming most people's attitude now that they've experienced it. I can live with the odd clear and obvious mistake, in the same way we did until the technocrats got hold of the game previously known beautiful.

 

[JadeWolf]

Scrap it.

 

[Chisels_n_ommers]

Clear and obvious is the biggest load of crap in the whole crap show.

Designed to protect the ref and his biases.

Anything that is Clear and 0bvious should take seconds to deal with.

Borrow the countdown clock and put any VAR decision on that, including any goals.

 

[Ned]

I simply can’t comprehend how any genuine fan can think that VAR is anything other than the single worst addition to the game there has ever been. It’s like a bunch of people have gotten together and asked themselves how they can ruin everything great about football then come up with VAR.

 

[SakosRightFoot]

I simply can’t comprehend how any genuine fan can think that VAR is anything other than the single worst addition to the game there has ever been. It’s like a bunch of people have gotten together and asked themselves how they can ruin everything great about football then come up with VAR.

To be fair I remember thinking the same about the backpass rule and bosman.

If you have competent officials no one really notices it. If you think about that pen gets given last week with or without VAR, the annoyance is the video ref was supposed to step in and didn't.

 

[jrpb-3]

most of the recent decisions that have gone against us have been down to the ref getting it wrong, then VAR not changing the decision, so if we got rid of VAR most of those decisions would still have gone against us.
A lot of potential fouls etc are difficult for the ref to judge accurately live and with no replays etc., so no surprise they get things wrong some of the time. VAR should be there to help out the ref, it shouldn't be seen as undermining the ref. None of this clear and obvious, if VAR sees it differently to the ref the get the ref to take a look on the monitor, ref should be able to ask for a view on monitor even without VAR recommendation

 

[Fenrir_]

VAR...

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

The 'clear and obvious' is just an easy excuse for us fans to cling on.

It doesn't actually mean anything. It's all still subjective. Look at City's penalty getting overturned at United, that happens all the time. Look at Brentford's at home to Spurs on the opening day.

They do get involved on minor fouls, but it's all subjective, so what can you do.

I still don't get why we're moaning about VAR to be honest.

It was quite funny, there was an Express & Star article today that discussed how Wolves had been wronged, and how the table would have a different feel if VAR wasn't in use.

Our difference? 0 points.

So what is our issue with VAR exactly?

Have our games dragged on to a ridiculous level because of VAR? I don't think so.
We've had no major delays that don't come with a big decision anyway. We've had no going to the monitors.

Our only problem with VAR is that it's available and hasn't been utilised properly. Yet, some of you want to scrap it?

This has been one of the worst periods I can remember as a Wolves fan for refereeing decisions. Four howlers in 11 games is incredible. It's hugely frustrating and it's deflating coming out of games when we've been cheated.

And it's entirely because we've been relying on refereeing decisions on the pitch.

Yet some want to get rid of VAR, or are blaming it.

The non-VAR world you crave has literally been shown in the first 11 games of the season, and it's absolutely terrible (IMO anyway).

I'm not saying the solution is more technology and input, but it's certainly not leaving it to refs.

 

[stever]

I believe in VAR but the whole thing boils down to incompetent operators, crap refs who are too weak to admit they are wrong and fundamentally big club biase (eg, United away)