V.A.R

[Esmarelda]

Never been a fan of proposed VAR. I think it creates a higherarchy of rules. A decision about a throw in or a corner that leads to a killer pass that leads to a penalty has just as much impact on a game as the penalty decision but isn't reviewable (it's only our perception of the impact that's different). If it's not to be implemented for all decisions which it clearly can't be it shouldn't be implemented for any in my opinion. 

Surely some is better than none?

I didn't see the Mata incident. What happened? Teething and communication problems are hardly a reason to do away with it. If it sorts out some key decisions then I'm all for it.

I disagree because it makes the injustice of the ones it doesn't sort out even greatenso there is no net gainr. For me there's no justification for allowing review of some decisions but not allowing review of others. Particularly when it comes to decisions that are purely matter of fact and not matters of interpretation.

Really?

You don't think, for argument's sake, that it's better that a referee gets three goal decisions correct but misses a handball in the centre circle rather than get all four wrong?

[David McKeown]

Never been a fan of proposed VAR. I think it creates a higherarchy of rules. A decision about a throw in or a corner that leads to a killer pass that leads to a penalty has just as much impact on a game as the penalty decision but isn't reviewable (it's only our perception of the impact that's different). If it's not to be implemented for all decisions which it clearly can't be it shouldn't be implemented for any in my opinion.

Do the refs have an instruction to allow play to develop pending a review? Take for example the Mo Salah penalty that was awarded against WBA. If the ball had not went out of play immediately (I think for a gola kick) and WBA had broke to score at the other end which in theory that could be five-six minutes later? If the VAR officials did not pick up on the initial tug immediately because they were watching the  developing attack, but then noted it in the aftermath of the WBA goal, would the tug on Salah have been reviewed, the WBA goal chalked off and Liverpool awarded a penalty? Also, what happens with that five minutes of play??

Is there any sort of "reset" like NFL where if the attacking team get another play off, any previous play cannot be reviewed? All seems to point towards Soccer not being suited to VAr as there are limited defined stoppages. The games that it works best in are the ones like cricket/tennis/NFL where there are multiple, regular stoppages.

That happened in a game in Holland earlier in the season. A goal was disallowed because in the previous attack by their opposition their was a foul in the area that was not picked up on until the goal had been scored.

[David McKeown]

Never been a fan of proposed VAR. I think it creates a higherarchy of rules. A decision about a throw in or a corner that leads to a killer pass that leads to a penalty has just as much impact on a game as the penalty decision but isn't reviewable (it's only our perception of the impact that's different). If it's not to be implemented for all decisions which it clearly can't be it shouldn't be implemented for any in my opinion. 

Surely some is better than none?

I didn't see the Mata incident. What happened? Teething and communication problems are hardly a reason to do away with it. If it sorts out some key decisions then I'm all for it.

I disagree because it makes the injustice of the ones it doesn't sort out even greatenso there is no net gainr. For me there's no justification for allowing review of some decisions but not allowing review of others. Particularly when it comes to decisions that are purely matter of fact and not matters of interpretation.

Really?

You don't think, for argument's sake, that it's better that a referee gets three goal decisions correct but misses a handball in the centre circle rather than get all four wrong?

It's very hard to deal with a hypothetical like that because you simply don't know what might have changed had that handball been given the other way. The Spurs v Utd match a few weeks ago was great potential example of that. Spurs kick off and Harry Kane has encroached by 4 or 5 yards. Such an offence in not reviewable. By virtue of that encroachment Kane was able to get his head on a long ball s finds later. That flick on resulted in a goal for Spurs which completely changed the game. Why should the initial encroachment not be reviewable, because it happens in midfield?

[Esmarelda]

Never been a fan of proposed VAR. I think it creates a higherarchy of rules. A decision about a throw in or a corner that leads to a killer pass that leads to a penalty has just as much impact on a game as the penalty decision but isn't reviewable (it's only our perception of the impact that's different). If it's not to be implemented for all decisions which it clearly can't be it shouldn't be implemented for any in my opinion. 

Surely some is better than none?

I didn't see the Mata incident. What happened? Teething and communication problems are hardly a reason to do away with it. If it sorts out some key decisions then I'm all for it.

I disagree because it makes the injustice of the ones it doesn't sort out even greatenso there is no net gainr. For me there's no justification for allowing review of some decisions but not allowing review of others. Particularly when it comes to decisions that are purely matter of fact and not matters of interpretation.

Really?

You don't think, for argument's sake, that it's better that a referee gets three goal decisions correct but misses a handball in the centre circle rather than get all four wrong?

It's very hard to deal with a hypothetical like that because you simply don't know what might have changed had that handball been given the other way. The Spurs v Utd match a few weeks ago was great potential example of that. Spurs kick off and Harry Kane has encroached by 4 or 5 yards. Such an offence in not reviewable. By virtue of that encroachment Kane was able to get his head on a long ball s finds later. That flick on resulted in a goal for Spurs which completely changed the game. Why should the initial encroachment not be reviewable, because it happens in midfield?

I understand completely but that's what my initial reply to you was about. It's not perfect, but surely it's better to get the obvious ones than none at all.

[David McKeown]

See I don't agree because that one in the example was obvious but not reviewable under VAR whereas Spurs likely would have had a penalty later in that game had there been VAR. So you would have had a scenario where a team is punished not because VAR isn't available and not because it's not clear but simply because of an arbitrary decision of when it can and can not be used. For me that would make the injustice of not using it for certain decisions considerably greater than not using it all.

[Esmarelda]

See I don't agree because that one in the example was obvious but not reviewable under VAR whereas Spurs likely would have had a penalty later in that game had there been VAR. So you would have had a scenario where a team is punished not because VAR isn't available and not because it's not clear but simply because of an arbitrary decision of when it can and can not be used. For me that would make the injustice of not using it for certain decisions considerably greater than not using it all.

Yes, if the only realistic alternative is to have no VAR.

[Denn Forever]

People say that they think they should be informed why hen there is a VAR decision. The game is spoiled by the interuption.  I suppose they the delay due to  of the players surrounding the ref.

Before the VAR there was never a reason given of what happened unless the guy beside you had an opinion.

[David McKeown]

See I don't agree because that one in the example was obvious but not reviewable under VAR whereas Spurs likely would have had a penalty later in that game had there been VAR. So you would have had a scenario where a team is punished not because VAR isn't available and not because it's not clear but simply because of an arbitrary decision of when it can and can not be used. For me that would make the injustice of not using it for certain decisions considerably greater than not using it all.

Yes, if the only realistic alternative is to have no VAR.

I'm not a complete Luddite but for me I haven't seen a better technological solution than no technology. I also don't like goal line technology for the same reason but I'm definitely in the minority on that.

[Esmarelda]

Happy to agree to disagree.

[David McKeown]

As am I. As I say I know I'm in the minority but i don't think I'd lie sport as much if there wasn't the odd controversy

[Ball Hopper]

Feed shuts off after 30 seconds.  Enough to see if a player was well offside or not.  If very close, have to stick with the onfield decision. 

Are PA announcers on the sideline?  If so, ref gets him/her to announce "goal is good" or "number 9 was offside therefore no goal".

[David McKeown]

I see the IFB have approved VAR anyway. The other thing I meant to ask was why were England using a different form of VAR. Any of the other implementations I saw a VAR ref would inform the ref on the pitch something was up, in turn they would then go and watch a monitor pitch side and it would then be up to the referee on the pitch. The way they seemed to do it in England was the VAR ref seemed to make the decision and told the on pitch referee what it was.