VAR versus the Cricket reviews.

[Oldgold Wolfcub]

Watching some of the cricket highlights it was interesting to note that when a review was being checked the process was being aired so all could hear how it was arrived at. Boy would that change the way VAR worked. Doubt though it would happen in football as it would make the referees accountable for their decisions.

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

Has to happen IMO

why shouldn’t we hear there corrupt conversations

 

[Ewok vs Wolf]

I watched a bit of mls the other day and during the VAR review could hear the conversation, worked well

 

[kennyB]

Top 6 wouldn't allow it!

 

[Hot Fuss]

Cricket decisions are black and white.

2 blokes can watch the same tackle in football and one thinks it’s a foul, the other doesn’t.

 

[whitnash wolf ex.dewsbury]

Cricket decisions are black and white.

2 blokes can watch the same tackle in football and one thinks it’s a foul, the other doesn’t.

at least we would get to hear the chat and confirm the refs are useless

 

[rincewind]

The cricket review is excellent as they step through the process. Football authorities wouldn't like that. Imagine explaining the free kick against us last week or yesterday's where Arsenals keeper clearly caught the ball outside the box.

 

[Norman Bell]

The main difference is the third umpire is not afraid to overturn the decision of the on field umpires. The on field umpires do not have the ego of a Jon Moss ( any pretentious prat who has " Mossy " on his boots clearly has an ego the size of Canada ! ) or Mike " you have all tuned in to watch me " Dean so unlike the Premier League where every decision is a cover up at the Kremlin ( Stockley Park ) the third umpire can make a correction knowing it is the right one.

Of course the idea of the on field referee talking to Pravda ( another name for Stockley ) is how it should be but as things stand it will not happen while Mike Riley is involved. Conversations along the lines of " What the hell have you given there Jon / Mike / Stuart or many other names but don't worry we have your back so let us go into ' Operation no chance of an Overturn ' otherwise known as ' If your names not on the Sky select Six list ' your goal is not going in ! " is not what they want you to hear !

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

Cricket decisions are black and white.

2 blokes can watch the same tackle in football and one thinks it’s a foul, the other doesn’t.

They aren’t .
If lbw is too close to call they stick with original decision .

Should be the same in football with offside. If it ain’t clear with the naked eye ( forget your lines) then stick with original decision . Likewise if the ref hasn’t made a massive blunder , stick with original decision .

supported with verbal justification

It isn’t hard but they’ve made it such a mess

 

[Hot Fuss]

They aren’t .
If lbw is too close to call they stick with original decision .

Should be the same in football with offside. If it ain’t clear with the naked eye ( forget your lines) then stick with original decision . Likewise if the ref hasn’t made a massive blunder , stick with original decision .

supported with verbal justification

It isn’t hard but they’ve made it such a mess

you’re right, I totally agree. Offside is a joke.

 

[WickedWolfie]

Cricket decisions are black and white.

2 blokes can watch the same tackle in football and one thinks it’s a foul, the other doesn’t.

LBW is not always black and white.

 

[WW1963]

The cricket review is excellent as they step through the process. Football authorities wouldn't like that. Imagine explaining the free kick against us last week or yesterday's where Arsenals keeper clearly caught the ball outside the box.

"Is it a foul - I was unsighted"

"Could do with a Chelsea win, mate. Yes it was a blatant foul - book the player whilst you are at it"

"Received. Over."

 

[Oldskooldayz]

Cricket has got it sorted, anything that's borderline sides with the on field officials decision but the decisions are more black and white in cricket. It has to be acknowledged that the review system in cricket has evolved over a number of years to get to its current form, we're still in var infancy so fingers crossed over the next few years it can get to the same standard.

 

[Oldgold Wolfcub]

The cricket review is excellent as they step through the process. Football authorities wouldn't like that. Imagine explaining the free kick against us last week or yesterday's where Arsenals keeper clearly caught the ball outside the box.

That is exactly the point. If the VAR ref is saying that although the keeper was outside the box his hands and the ball were inside we would know why he has made the decison. Even Mike Read would not want to be shown up to be wrong too many times. If VAR was checking the Burnley incident and had to say that the attempt of the overhead kick was fair then he would be accountable for the reason of it was wrong.
True that it would not change the decision but it would make the refs more mindful.

 

[JadeWolf]

The cricket review is excellent as they step through the process. Football authorities wouldn't like that. Imagine explaining the free kick against us last week or yesterday's where Arsenals keeper clearly caught the ball outside the box.

Agree, I saw some the other week and they talked through the whole decision, even someone like me who has no cricket knowledge knew what was going on.

Should be the same in football, if the VAR has to actually talk through it, might be less inclined to just stick up for his mate.

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

Agree, I saw some the other week and they talked through the whole decision, even someone like me who has no cricket knowledge knew what was going on.

Should be the same in football, if the VAR has to actually talk through it, might be less inclined to just stick up for his mate.

Exactly .

unfortunately it won’t change and these ridiculous decisions will continue

 

[Jonzy54]

We all know there are problems regarding VAR but that is mainly because there are many more incidents that they can/should/don’t need to view .In cricket it mainly concentrates on dismissals be it caught ,run out ,stumped ,no balls and lbw. Whereas most are clear and definitive we should remember lbw relies on Hawkeye using a predictive path judgement for the ball and not the third umpire making the judgment but it does work really well.

 

[JadeWolf]

We all know there are problems regarding VAR but that is mainly because there are many more incidents that they can/should/don’t need to view .In cricket it mainly concentrates on dismissals be it caught ,run out ,stumped ,no balls and lbw. Whereas most are clear and definitive we should remember lbw relies on Hawkeye using a predictive path judgement for the ball and not the third umpire making the judgment but it does work really well.

There is absolutely no reason why they couldn’t broadcast the conversation between the referee and the VAR though.

 

[Jonzy54]

There is absolutely no reason why they couldn’t broadcast the conversation between the referee and the VAR though.

I won’t argue against that but as I said there is so much more to view in football and often fail to do so because of the ridiculous protocols and the fact that that football is a dynamic game that continues until the ball goes dead which could be ages whereas cricket is ‘dead’ after every ball and easier to make the calls.

 

[JadeWolf]

I won’t argue against that but as I said there is so much more to view in football and often fail to do so because of the ridiculous protocols and the fact that that football is a dynamic game that continues until the ball goes dead which could be ages whereas cricket is ‘dead’ after every ball and easier to make the calls.

Once people are trusting with VAR you can change the protocols, at the minute everyone thinks it’s either rubbish or a fix, they’ve gotta sort that out first before anything else. Make it more clear to the fans and players what’s going on.

 

[Jonzy54]

Once people are trusting with VAR you can change the protocols, at the minute everyone thinks it’s either rubbish or a fix, they’ve gotta sort that out first before anything else. Make it more clear to the fans and players what’s going on.

They need to change the protocols first .They need them to be prescriptive and totally definitive .They need to to be road tested to destruction and not having to introduce new measures part of the way through because they failed to think of something.
The first thing has to be that there is an insistence on viewing the pitch side monitor and not just as an option .Make the Referee own a decision not a faceless fool at Stockley Park

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Trouble is, just to take one example, they tried to take the subjectivity out the handball rule by not asking the ref to judge intent, that didn't go too well.

I think the whole thing was over-sold as it really doesn't suit football and has been used for picky decisions on matters of fact (like Jonny's offside) while ignoring glaring errors (like Doc's handball). Once IFAB are taken out of it and FIFA are in control it will be better (crazy as that might sound!).

 

[wallace]

VAR has added nothing to the game. Clear and obvious takes on another dimension under the way its being used by officials.

 

[Jonzy54]

Trouble is, just to take one example, they tried to take the subjectivity out the handball rule by not asking the ref to judge intent, that didn't go too well.

I think the whole thing was over-sold as it really doesn't suit football and has been used for picky decisions on matters of fact (like Jonny's offside) while ignoring glaring errors (like Doc's handball). Once IFAB are taken out of it and FIFA are in control it will be better (crazy as that might sound!).

Plus getting rid of the idiot Riley

 

[paulhick]

Needs a similar system as the tmo in rugby when you can actually hear them communicating and showing the reasons on the big screen in real time.

 

[Oldgold Wolfcub]

Plus getting rid of the idiot Riley

Paul Gladon will return to us and score thirty goals a season before Riley would go unfortunately.

 

[Leamwolf]

You only need to see how well it is used in rugby.

The referee watches it on the big screen in the ground and they talk through the protocols of the big call together to come to the decision.

Sat in packed games and the crowd accept it, even winning tries you accept it because a strong process is followed and you know EXACTLY how they came to the decision. And also they want to give the benefit to the attacking side as they know people pay to see tries.

 

[manchesterwolf17]

Some well thought out and intelligent comments on here, but it isn't half exhausting to consider.

I still stand by the point that whilst VAR exists in any form, no matter how many tweaks or improvements they make to it over the years, celebrating a goal will never be the same. And when you factor that in, you really have to ask yourself if it's really worth it, for the odd decision being better?

 

[rincewind]

Some well thought out and intelligent comments on here, but it isn't half exhausting to consider.

I still stand by the point that whilst VAR exists in any form, no matter how many tweaks or improvements they make to it over the years, celebrating a goal will never be the same. And when you factor that in, you really have to ask yourself if it's really worth it, for the odd decision being better?

You live in an area of the country that probably feel its definitely worth it!

 

[WickedWolfie]

You live in an area of the country that probably feel its definitely worth it!

Nah, if it was Guildford or Woking Wolf perhaps....

 

[Contrarian]

One big difference is that there is nowhere near as much money in cricket. They don't have an oligarchy of 3 or 4 counties backed by billions, who have rotated the County Championship title between themselves for the past 30 years.

 

[manchesterwolf17]

You live in an area of the country that probably feel its definitely worth it!

Live in Macclesfield now mate haha.

 

[Cart78]

Don't compare to cricket reviews compare to Rugby video ref. When it gets refered it is shown on the big screen, the on field ref watches and talks to the video ref (any more angles, can we zoom in etc). The onfield ref then says what he sees and what he thinks he should give. The video ref will agree or say Ehang on we have another angle" or "watch it again I think so and so did xxx" and then the onfield ref still makes the final call. Decisions aren't always universally agreed as some are still up for interpretation. But everyone understands what the ref has given, why it was given and his reasoning.

If we did that in football it would be much better and the live crowd are part of it.