VAR compared to cricket's review system

[Contrarian]

No they are not, how many times I've watched and they get the snickometer out it takes ****in ages to sort out to see if he has edged it or if his bat touched his pads instead. It's not as you think.

That is an objective decision, even though it is hard to establish in some cases. Either the ball did or didn't hit the bat. Decisions like "is the arm in an unnatural position? " are different. There is always an element of subjectivity. And that's not even the worse. There are incidents in footbally every 10 minutes, where it is impossible to determine who intitiated contact, whether it was *enough* contact and so on.

The cricket incidents are more like goal line and offside decisions. Does cricket have any VAR type decisions where being "careless" or "reckless" is written in the rule? How do you measure "recklessness" subjectively with technology?

 

[Brockmoorwolf]

Goal line technology has been fantastic for football. So clear so concise.

I dont think football and var are compatable imho.

 

[Deleted member 8455jwf]

No they are not, how many times I've watched and they get the snickometer out it takes ****in ages to sort out to see if he has edged it or if his bat touched his pads instead. It's not as you think.

So it eventually gets sorted out then because it has clear defined rules and it isn't subjective. Thanks for agreeing

 

[Brockmoorwolf]

So it eventually gets sorted out then because it has clear defined rules and it isn't subjective. Thanks for agreeing.

For right or wrong yes.

Eventually.

 

[Deleted member 8455jwf]

For right or wrong yes.

Eventually.

Yeah that's my point, I agree with you on the speed but you can argue the amount of contact in a penalty till the cows come home.

 

[Norman Bell]

Goal line technology has been fantastic for football. So clear so concise.

Apart from that one malfunction at Villa Park that kept those jammy swines up

 

[bigbluewolf]

If its a mistake then its a mistake. Why does it have to be clear and obvious.

Because at the moment, that is the ruling.

 

[Brockmoorwolf]

Yeah that's my point, I agree with you on the speed but you can argue the amount of contact in a penalty till the cows come home.

Which is why var doesnt work with contact sport as there are so many variables.

 

[Deleted member 8455jwf]

Which is why var doesnt work with contact sport as there are so many variables.

I think it can work to a degree, the offsides seem fine now mostly with yeh thicker lines and for stuff like violent conduct but they should remove it for penalties

 

[old wittonian]

Because at the moment, that is the ruling.

I realise that but believe it's wrong. A mistake is a mistake.

 

[glorybox]

A review system still leaves it wide open for patently wrong decisions to be made by refs. I’m all for VAR to be run by a fully independent but qualified organisation. No history of connections with the clubs or players. No cosy club.

 

[Fenrir_]

Cricket does it really well, but cricket is a stop/start game and there are a lot of factual things taken into account. In football we can't use hotspot or snicko to see whether there was contact (... or can we?!). Too many decisions in football are subjective, you can determine contact but now we have the level of intent or whether the contact was sufficient for a player to go down, and that stuff is hard to judge at the best of times. Technology for football should just be used for whether the ball has crossed lines and offsides, they've shown beyond doubt that they can't use VAR to iron out glaring errors on the pitch, so unless these primadonna refs can start admitting they get things wrong, **** it off

 

[Stratman Wolves]

Upon Further Review… | NFL Football Operations

The NFL has come to embrace instant replay, but its history in football is filled with stops and starts, missteps and controversy, and modifications and improvement.

operations.nfl.com

Read this and understand how far behind england and the sport of football is overall.

 

[BlahBlah]

If the brief from the Premier League had been...
"Look, lads, we want you to come up with a system that'll **** the fans off, that'll make us look like fools, that'll have fans thinking we're bent in favour of the big six and that will actively make people think the Premier League isn't worth watching any more."
...They'd have come up with VAR in its present form

That's exactly what they did do. but not sure it's for the reasons you said.

Mike Riley interpreted the VAR rules just for England, if you remember the first season Europe were doing it much better, and Australia did it with far more interaction and microphones, taking the lead from Rugby League where you can hear all the discussions, and watch the replays in real time as they make a decision. England was criticised for taking a working, tested system, and then changing it to suit themselves.....to allow Riley to criticise the whole concept and say it wasd a technology problem. It was pointed out that the testing was invalid if he wasn't following the same interpretations...but he was trying to prove the opposite and kill the idea stone dead.

Riley's perspective was that he was annoyed that technology was taking over from the pitch referree, so rather than try and make it work he made it all about the technology and tried to prove how it could ruin a game. He didn't have to do it, he wanted to.

 

[bigbluewolf]

I realise that but believe it's wrong. A mistake is a mistake.

Completely agree. But what can we do? Our voices don't seem to be heard when it comes to VAR.

 

[WasStefan]

You cant compare. Third umpire in cricket is cut and dry. 99% it’s either out or it’s not.

Football is about interpretation of the rules. Which is why it doesn’t work in football.

 

[old wittonian]

You cant compare. Third umpire in cricket is cut and dry. 99% it’s either out or it’s not.

Football is about interpretation of the rules. Which is why it doesn’t work in football.

I think the rules must be written in an obscure foreign language, known only to them, when you see some of the interpretations our referees come up with

 

[northnorfolkwolf]

You cant compare. Third umpire in cricket is cut and dry. 99% it’s either out or it’s not.

Football is about interpretation of the rules. Which is why it doesn’t work in football.

I accept this but in the Moutiho incident if fans/tv/the world could have heard the live discussion between VAR and ref I think there is every chance the decision would have been overturned. It's too easy for the refs now to pal-up in their secret, cosy VAR world.

 

[Wolfman jack]

Personally I’m at the point where my view would just be scrap VAR altogether. I don’t like it, I don’t think it’s used properly and I don’t think it adds anything to the game. Let’s just go back to trusting referees to get most decisions right and accept that they get things wrong from time to time.

Just go bank to only clear and obvious errors being picked up and leave the rest to linos and refs.

 

[Watfordfc]

Just go bank to only clear and obvious errors being picked up and leave the rest to linos and refs.

I think the issue is they all seem to have different levels of what is clear and obvious and it’s almost pot luck each week - particularly with handballs.

The only conclusive thing is over the line if not.

 

[northnorfolkwolf]

I think the issue is they all seem to have different levels of what is clear and obvious and it’s almost pot luck each week - particularly with handballs.

The only conclusive thing is over the line if not.

Nice to see you on this/my thread. Are you a Wolves fan now?