# VAR - good or bad for the game?



## swee'pea99 (28 Oct 2019)

Have to declare right up front that I was never an enthusiast. For me the bottom line was that incorrect decisions are an unavoidable part of the game, and that unless you doubt the honesty of the officials, you just accept that some will go your way and some won't, and get on with the game.

So no great surprise that I remain unpersuaded.

Admittedly it's early days...there are bound to be teething troubles. But things don't seem to be improving. We seem to have lurched from 'mustn't overrule the ref' to 'must show we're not afraid to overrule the ref' to an extent that even by the supposed rules governing VAR makes no sense. And certainly any hopes that VAR would ensure 'the correct decision' seem to have been dashed. As far as I can see, we're seeing as many contentious decisions as we ever did...we're just killing the rhythm of games, for no real benefit. (Even the ones that VAR definitively _does _get right - offsides that by the rules of physics weren't, by 2.3mm - don't actually benefit football. What's wrong with 'some you win, some you lose'?)

Personally I'd like to see the whole thing dropped, as a failed (arguably inherently doomed) attempt at Guaranteed Correct Decisions, and get back to having the officials adjudicate to the best of their abilities, in real time, and play up play up and play the game. It won't happen, of course, for a number of reasons - not least the amount of face that needs to be saved.

So, what do you think? On the whole, one thing & another, good for the game, or should be returned to sender with a note saying 'thanks but no thanks'?


----------



## greenmark (28 Oct 2019)

After the numerous VARs used in the Rugby WC, I'd say it's good for the game.

It does indeed slow down play. However, the pause is filled with its own type of tension and intrigue, so it is a good pause.


----------



## dan_bo (28 Oct 2019)

No. 

As soon as acronyms are introduced to a sport, it's finished.


----------



## Fab Foodie (28 Oct 2019)

It can only be good. It works just fine in Rugby which has become a better and safer game as a result. Furthermore it has removed villification if the Ref. who has to make a split-second decision whilst the public get to decide by numerous replays.
More importantly is should help to remove the cynical cheating and play-acting that ruins the game. Anything that makes the much-moneyed game more honest is OK by me.

I would also get rid of yellow cards in favour of 15 mins in the sin-bin.

Football could learn a lot from Rugby which has cleaned-up its act significantly.


----------



## Starchivore (28 Oct 2019)

I don't get why they've made it so complicated. Surely it just needs to be the VAR team very quickly correcting the ref on any major errors he's made/major things he's missed?

What's with the long stoppages, and overturning goals based on a toe offside or a possible foul no one ever saw...? 

I think VAR can be good to catch a dive the ref thought was a pen, or if a tackle was a straight red or yellow.... but these marginal offsides, long waits... crazy.


----------



## Racing roadkill (28 Oct 2019)

As soon as it’s ‘settled in’ it will be a great addition, at the moment, it’s still finding its feet.


----------



## Tenkaykev (28 Oct 2019)

When anything new and possibly contentious is introduced my natural skepticism always tells me to " follow the money" 

With VAR the television broadcasters who hold the purse strings are setting up another advertising slot within the game. I believe that it is only a matter of time before " Just time for a quick word from our sponsors" is heard when a decision is referred to VAR.


----------



## Phaeton (28 Oct 2019)

What's football? How do you fit it to your bike?


----------



## ianrauk (28 Oct 2019)

Football did fine for over a hundred years + without it. Contentious decisions is what make football and pub discussions great. However, the stakes these days are so high money wise I can see why some clubs do want VAR. It needs a lot more work to get right.


----------



## MichaelW2 (28 Oct 2019)

Phaeton said:


> What's football? How do you fit it to your bike?


Why does Rugby need an excellent tyre lever?


----------



## Smudge (28 Oct 2019)

Anything that makes sport fairer and stops stumpy cheating Argies getting away with hand of god type incidents, is good by me.


----------



## Milkfloat (28 Oct 2019)

If they actually implement it correctly then it could improve it significantly. Right now, it is a bit of a farce.


----------



## AndyRM (28 Oct 2019)

It works fine in other sports and once it's bedded in will be fine in football.


----------



## Smokin Joe (28 Oct 2019)

Football is a fast flowing game. The time taken up checking VAR kills it, I hate it.


----------



## Milkfloat (28 Oct 2019)

Smokin Joe said:


> Football is a fast flowing game. The time taken up checking VAR kills it, I hate it.



Hockey is significantly faster than football and manages it pretty well.


----------



## Kempstonian (28 Oct 2019)

I was in favour of it until last night, when Arsenal's winning goal was ruled out by VAR, despite no protests coming from the Palace players and the referee appearing to give the goal. Chambers was clearly kicked by two defenders, which sent him stumbling int a third defender who was coming in to tackle him. If anything it should have been a penalty to Arsenal but the ball bounced out to Sokratis who scored.

This is what the Sky web page says, answering the question "So who did rule out Arsenal's winner?" :
"Jarred Gillett was the VAR official for Arsenal's clash with Palace. A 32-year-old Australian, Gillett has never taken charge of a Premier League game, with his refereeing experience in England limited to nine Football League fixtures."
Also this VAR guy overruled the ref in the first half to award Palace a penalty.

Having seen many other controversial VAR decisions this season, I don't think its done anything to improve the game.


----------



## Beebo (28 Oct 2019)

This just popped up on the BBC. 
the decision may be technically correct but it isn’t in the spirit of the game IMO, and would never have been spotted years ago. VAR seems to be searching for ever more tiny issues to inflate. 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/50203398


----------



## JoeyB (28 Oct 2019)

It seems like it should work but has been poorly implemented...the amount of inconsistency so far has been unreal.


----------



## Tenkaykev (28 Oct 2019)

JoeyB said:


> It seems like it should work but has been poorly implemented...the amount of inconsistency so far has been unreal.



Perhaps they could have a second VAR unit to reconcile any contentious decisions made by the first. 😉


----------



## nickyboy (28 Oct 2019)

I'm all for it on the basis that I'd rather the game was slowed down and correct decisions made than not. the idea that poor decisions balance themselves out over the season is nonsense. 

However, I think we will see a shift in the rules now that VAR has highlighted just how much goes on that potentially infringes the rules. Stuff on non-deliberate handballs, non-deliberate contact in the penalty box etc. We will also see the continuing evolution of how the game is played to take account of VAR (such as the modern way to defend crosses with hands behind the back to prevent accidental handballs)


----------



## Kempstonian (28 Oct 2019)

JoeyB said:


> It seems like it should work but has been poorly implemented...the amount of inconsistency so far has been unreal.


Maybe because they use well qualified referees on the pitch and rank amateurs in the VAR room?


----------



## Smokin Joe (28 Oct 2019)

Milkfloat said:


> Hockey is significantly faster than football and manages it pretty well.


It seems a hell of a lot slower to me.


----------



## Milkfloat (28 Oct 2019)

Smokin Joe said:


> It seems a hell of a lot slower to me.



Have you ever watched a game? Apart from penalty corners there is no break of more than a couple of seconds in a game.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (28 Oct 2019)

I think it is a huge move in the right direction - anything to ensure the rules are applied correctly and that rules out cheating as far as possible is a bonus in my book.

Too many games in the past have been won/lost due to bad decisions.

It's all very well saying that pre-VAR was great as poor decisions were great for pub conversations but at the end of the day what is better - your club winning a game with a correctly given goal or drawing because it was incorrectly ruled out? Would you prefer the correct result or the wrong as it afforded you a good crack over a pint?

There was a VAR decision at Burnley vs Chelsea on Saturday and it went against us (Chelsea) and it really didn't take long for the decision to be made. The crowd enjoyed it imo doing the raised hands waggly fingers thing whilst VAR was running the check.

It may not be perfect yet, and it really isn't that imperfect, but it works fine for me. For sure some mistakes have been made but there have been a lot more correct decisions made than wrong.

Seems to work well in other top leagues but I think we must be a country populated with a minority of vocal Luddites the way the media, some fans and some managers etc have been bitching about the system but thankfully the pro-VAR voices seem to be louder. I'd hate to turn the clock back and lose it.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (28 Oct 2019)

Beebo said:


> This just popped up on the BBC.
> the decision may be technically correct but it isn’t in the spirit of the game IMO, and would never have been spotted years ago. VAR seems to be searching for ever more tiny issues to inflate.
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/50203398



I think that that is in the spirit of the game - for too long sub's have been allowed to encroach on the touchline and sometimes over it. Especially annoying when opposition players are warming up very close to a player taking a throw in etc. Players should be aware of the rules (god knows they are paid enough to be professionals and understand the game) and act appropriately - if they transgress the rules then tough; they pay the penalty.


----------



## Smudge (28 Oct 2019)

I guess nothing is totally infallible, but would VAR make as many bad decisions as a ref ?
I dont believe it would, in fact i reckon bad ref calls would outnumber bad VAR calls by a massive amount.


----------



## nickyboy (29 Oct 2019)

Smudge said:


> I guess nothing is totally infallible, but would VAR make as many bad decisions as a ref ?
> I dont believe it would, in fact i reckon bad ref calls would outnumber bad VAR calls by a massive amount.


I guess you can look at the development of decision-making technology in cricket. It has massively improved the game. Previously umpires made plenty of really poor decisions. These are largely out of the game now at the top level. In addition, players have had to adapt their techniques to reflect that fact that they probably were "out" a lot in the past, just the umpires didn't use to give them out
Players are going to have to change how they play in the VAR era. Shirt tugging, diving, violent conduct all will get the treatment they deserve


----------



## downesy (29 Oct 2019)

In its present format it's shite


----------



## swee'pea99 (29 Oct 2019)

nickyboy said:


> I guess you can look at the development of decision-making technology in cricket. It has massively improved the game.
> ...Shirt tugging, diving, violent conduct all will get the treatment they deserve



I think 'massively improved the game' is rather overstating the case but I have to admit Hawkeye & 'snicko' have introduced a new fun element - but there is the significant difference that football is, as someone said upthread, a free and fast-flowing game, whereas cricket is stops & starts from kickoff to final whistle - waiting for referral decisions doesn't spoil the momentum, because there's none to spoil. The other big difference of course being that cricket's electronic adjudicators give definitive answers: was there a snick? Yes or no. Judging whether that was a foul or a dive is far less clear-cut, and...


Smudge said:


> I guess nothing is totally infallible, but would VAR make as many bad decisions as a ref ?
> I dont believe it would, in fact i reckon bad ref calls would outnumber bad VAR calls by a massive amount.


...ignores the fact that VAR calls _are _ref calls - just refs equipped with slow motion video replays, who, as we saw only too clearly this weekend, can still make some really awful calls. (The upthread third Arsenal goal being just one glaring example.)

I do think there's something in the argument that it might ease foul play out of the game, in a way that's healthy for the game, and also the one that says it may shield referees from fans' abuse, but personally I'd prefer to see less interruption and more retrospective action - VAR used to spot and flag up foul play for later retribution, rather than interfering with games during the game.


----------



## PK99 (29 Oct 2019)

nickyboy said:


> Players are going to have to change how they play in the VAR era. *Shirt tugging, diving, violent conduct all will get the treatment they deserve*



I agree whole heatedly with the bits I've bolded.

But the position re offside is surely ridiculous?
The purpose off the offside rule, as introduced, was to stop "goal hanging", not to penalise someone for having a toenail beyond the last defender on the halfway line!

There are similar issues wrt accidental handball by defender and attacker being treated differently - not directly VAR but made worse.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (29 Oct 2019)

PK99 said:


> I agree whole heatedly with the bits I've bolded.
> 
> But the position re offside is surely ridiculous?
> The purpose off the offside rule, as introduced, was to stop "goal hanging", not to penalise someone for having a toenail beyond the last defender on the halfway line!
> ...



In which case the rule needs changing which is obviously nothing to do with VAR per se.

Re toenail - I know where you are coming from but there needs to be a cut off point somewhere.


----------



## gavgav (2 Nov 2019)

How on earth has that penalty been given for Watford, by VAR? It’s never a penalty in a million years. The ball was heading out of play and the delayed reaction from the player was pathetic. Football needs to go and see how it works for Rugby, where communication can be heard, the TMO and on field officials work together and everyone knows what is happening. Farcical


----------



## Bill Gates (3 Nov 2019)

Everyone is assuming that the technology is infallible. It's a video with something like 10 frames a second. With an offside it cannot be definitive to 1 or 2 cm in a fast moving situation. The result is ridiculous decisions are being made. There has to be a degree of error applied. Say within 2 cm either way. Personally I bloody hate it. The only way forward is to allow the referee to have another look at a pitch side monitor. At least the crowd know what's going on


----------



## StuAff (3 Nov 2019)

Firmino's strike against Villa was ruled out because his armpit- seriously- was deemed offside.


----------



## Dave7 (4 Nov 2019)

StuAff said:


> Firmino's strike against Villa was ruled out because his armpit- seriously- was deemed offside.


Andy Gray (anti Liverpool) stated it was clearly on side. I read one pundit today, publicly accusing Martin Atkinson of cheating by manipulating the graphics. I have to agree with him.


----------



## Milkfloat (4 Nov 2019)

Bill Gates said:


> Everyone is assuming that the technology is infallible. It's a video with something like 10 frames a second. With an offside it cannot be definitive to 1 or 2 cm in a fast moving situation. The result is ridiculous decisions are being made. There has to be a degree of error applied. Say within 2 cm either way. Personally I bloody hate it. The only way forward is to allow the referee to have another look at a pitch side monitor. At least the crowd know what's going on



Actually the ultra motions cameras are at between 50 and 340 fps depending on the camera.


----------



## booze and cake (4 Nov 2019)

In my view its been rubbish so far, there have been issues with VAR every week it seems, and for all the wrong reasons. That Firminio strike should definitely have been a goal, being off by an armpit is ridiculous, if its close they should just say the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker and leave it at that.

Also in the Spurs game yesterday the VAR ref had to replay about 20 times to check if Alli had hand balled it. If it takes 20 views at a challenge on replay with multiple angles to check if its legit, its obviously not a clear and obvious is it. Get on with the game FFS. I am all for it in principle but its been released before its ready, and its still open to personal interpretation, so is not the magic pill everyone was hoping for. I say back to the drawing board, its causing more issues than its resolving.


----------



## Bill Gates (4 Nov 2019)

Milkfloat said:


> Actually the ultra motions cameras are at between 50 and 340 fps depending on the camera.


Thanks


Milkfloat said:


> Actually the ultra motions cameras are at between 50 and 340 fps depending on the camera.


Thanks for that👍


----------



## Bill Gates (4 Nov 2019)

booze and cake said:


> In my view its been rubbish so far, there have been issues with VAR every week it seems, and for all the wrong reasons. That Firminio strike should definitely have been a goal, being off by an armpit is ridiculous, if its close they should just say the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker and leave it at that.
> 
> Also in the Spurs game yesterday the VAR ref had to replay about 20 times to check if Alli had hand balled it. If it takes 20 views at a challenge on replay with multiple angles to check if its legit, its obviously not a clear and obvious is it. Get on with the game FFS. I am all for it in principle but its been released before its ready, and its still open to personal interpretation, so is not the magic pill everyone was hoping for. I say back to the drawing board, its causing more issues than its resolving.


After Son was sent off I turned the TV off. I was going to blow a gasket if I had continued go watch the game. Common sense has gone out of the window


----------



## swee'pea99 (4 Nov 2019)

Bill Gates said:


> After Son was sent off I turned the TV off. I was going to blow a gasket if I had continued go watch the game. Common sense has gone out of the window


The Son red card was perhaps the most ridiculous decision of the season so far, tho' I don't believe VAR was involved.

Alli's handball was surely a handball, however inadvertent. Wasn't there an explicit rule change from the start of this season that contact is enough, period. I'm sure I remember hearing something along those lines.

Interesting that this thread's poll has been pretty much 50/50 throughout.


----------



## booze and cake (4 Nov 2019)

@swee'pea99 yes I thought they had explicitly said any handball in the area is a pen, which makes is very strange it was not given straight away. I think the mandatory pen for handball in the area is a ridiculous rule too by the way. In my view it needs to be deliberate, they seemed to have scrapped the 'ball to hand' rule which was a good one. If a striker shoots from 2 yards and it hits a hand of a defender who may have his back to a strike, I think its stupid and unfair to give a pen.

Alli's one yesterday was tricky, his hand was up and not where it should have been, and it hit his hand, so by the letter of the law it should have been a pen. Personally I don't think it was, he was nudged in the air just before impact, which when the player is in the air will have an affect. Alli was also clearly not looking so could not have seen the ball, but most importantly the ball seemed to deflect of Mina's shoulder and then hit Alli's hand from close range, but this was barely detectable, even on replay. When played back in real time there is no way Alli could have avoided the handball, so giving a pen for that seemed harsh.

I think the VAR person also concluded after dozens of replays, it was handball but was not clear and obvious on Alli's part, and would have been harsh to give a pen. So despite being a pen by the letter of the law, the video ref overturned protocol it seemed. It's the lack of common sense and lack of consistency that has always been our beef with referees, and yet despite having VAR we are still having inconsistencies and common sense bypasses. There is a lack of clarity on exactly how they are going to interpret each decision, so instead of clarity we get more muddy waters, and we're still getting individual human based judgement calls, and human error.


----------



## Drago (4 Nov 2019)

VAR isn't ruining the game. What's ruining it is overpaid primadonnas laying on the ground pretending to have a broken spine to in order to gain momentary tactical advantage, and 20 seconds later running around perfectly healthy. Its that kind of twittishness that is unsporting, ruins the flow, and detracts from the game. Anyone hurt that bad should be sent off and not allowed to return until they've had a full physical front an independent doctor. Professional football has some very fundamental, long running problems that the games authorities seem reluctant to address, and VAR isn't one of them.


----------



## Mark68 (4 Nov 2019)

Depends on how you think about it. Examples being the recent RWC in Japan showing dangerous play. 
Maybe it could be used in football to highlight the cheating habits of players rolling around on the floor as if something major has happened to them. Sometimes it's just embarrassing watching. Holding their face when the opposing sides player touches their arm. Makes me laugh.
But overall I think it's a good thing.


----------



## nickyboy (5 Nov 2019)

Mark68 said:


> Depends on how you think about it. Examples being the recent RWC in Japan showing dangerous play.
> Maybe it could be used in football to highlight the cheating habits of players rolling around on the floor as if something major has happened to them. Sometimes it's just embarrassing watching. Holding their face when the opposing sides player touches their arm. Makes me laugh.
> But overall I think it's a good thing.


It is a good thing. However we are in a transition period. VAR has shown that there were lots of previously incorrect decisions when you apply the current rules rigorously. But the current rules weren't designed for such intense scrutiny (offside rule, I'm looking at you). So I think we will see a relaxing in the wording of certain rules, which VAR will then rigorously apply.

I think we will see a change in the offside rule, for example to say that both the attacking players feet must be offside. It tips the balance in favour of the attacker which counteracts the intense VAR scrutiny. I'm sure there will be others


----------



## Smokin Joe (5 Nov 2019)

Watching Nuremburg v Someone else on BT last night and another three minutes wasted while VAR checked out an obvious offside. It is a crap idea, because the VAR operators will get flamed if the get it wrong so no matter how clear the decision is they will check, check, and check again from every conceivable angle to cover their arses. 

It just causes too many hold ups and kills the game.


----------



## PaulB (6 Nov 2019)

It's absolutely hideous. The very essence of football has been taken away with this abomination. Do they have it at Doncaster Rovers or Prescott Cables stadiums (it is, alright!) No, so why is it a different game once you descend the leagues?

But the main thing is the elimination of the main high of football, the orgasm-like WHOOOSHHHHH of your team scoring. Now, all the spontaneous joy has been stolen as you have to wait until you see what that hatchet-faced bastard-in-the-black is being told in his earpiece.

Now that the game's being officiated remotely, it won't be long until it's played remotely by Singaporean child-Gods from inside air-conditioned studios due to their ability on a games console.


----------



## stephec (17 Nov 2019)

Smudge said:


> Anything that makes sport fairer and stops stumpy cheating Argies getting away with hand of god type incidents, is good by me.


You forgot to add, 'druggie,' in there as well.


----------



## nickyboy (19 Feb 2020)

nickyboy said:


> It is a good thing. However we are in a transition period. VAR has shown that there were lots of previously incorrect decisions when you apply the current rules rigorously. But the current rules weren't designed for such intense scrutiny (offside rule, I'm looking at you). So I think we will see a relaxing in the wording of certain rules, which VAR will then rigorously apply.
> 
> I think we will see a change in the offside rule, for example to say that both the attacking players feet must be offside. It tips the balance in favour of the attacker which counteracts the intense VAR scrutiny. I'm sure there will be others


I see Wenger (who has some official capacity in football these days) has come out and said almost the same as this
He's suggesting that so long as any part of the attacker which could score a goal (ie not an arm) is in line with the defender, it isn't offside
There's nothing wrong with VAR determining whether some rule has been broken in scoring a goal. What's wrong is that the current offside rule favours the defender too much


----------



## swee'pea99 (8 Mar 2021)

Great comment from whoever was handling the Spurs match on last night's MOTD2 - so good I made the effort to go back and transcribe it word for word:

_"But VAR are playing their games here and looking to see whether a beautifully crafted moment of footballing joy should be snuffed out by a piece of miserable geometry."_

I thought 'miserable geometry' particularly fine! 
​


----------



## Drago (8 Mar 2021)

PaulB said:


> It's absolutely hideous. The very essence of football has been taken away with this abomination.


The very essence of football died when they ceased to be sportsmen and became thespians. Anyone rolling around in "_oh my god he smashed my pelvis_" agony, who is then running around quite happily less than a minute later, should be banned the rest of the season for attempting to fraudulently influence a game.

Until they can be trusted to behave likes sportsmen - or women - then the only way to ensure a fair and equitable result is some kind of external evidential assessment process. Start behaving themselves and conducting the game with good manners then the need for it disappears, the flow improves, and the whole affair becomes more sporting, comradely and enjoyable. If a marginal call by a ref is accepted with good grace, instead of face offs and even violence, then the need for such measures disappears. This is why other team sports manage to do nicely without it.

The footballists brought it upon themselves, and seem to have forgotten in their feigned indignation that they're the ones with the ability to make it go away. It's the players themselves killing the flow and momentum, and nothing else.


----------



## PaulB (8 Mar 2021)

Drago said:


> The very essence of football died when they ceased to be sportsmen and became thespians. Anyone rolling around in "_oh my god he smashed my pelvis_" agony, who is then running around quite happily less than a minute later, should be banned the rest of the season for attempting to fraudulently influence a game.
> 
> Until they can be trusted to behave likes sportsmen - or women - then the only way to ensure a fair and equitable result is some kind of external evidential assessment process. Start behaving themselves and conducting the game with good manners then the need for it disappears, the flow improves, and the whole affair becomes more sporting, comradely and enjoyable. If a marginal call by a ref is accepted with good grace, instead of face offs and even violence, then the need for such measures disappears. This is why other team sports manage to do nicely without it.
> 
> The footballists brought it upon themselves, and seem to have forgotten in their feigned indignation that they're the ones with the ability to make it go away. It's the players themselves killing the flow and momentum, and nothing else.


No, you're wrong. Its done much better here.... 
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqpJ6XYykHE


----------



## postman (8 Mar 2021)

Drago for FIFA President.I agree with you.


----------



## PaulB (10 Apr 2021)

Extremely bad last night and again today. The technocrats in charge have made football a laughing stock with the interpretation of this. The Dutch FA have shunned the FIFA directive and give 'buffer zones' of 5-10cm so if the supposed errant armpit is inside that zone, the beeswing of a difference doesn't matter and the goal stands. As it should.


----------



## Dave7 (10 Apr 2021)

LFC Vs Villa.
No way was that offside despite what VAR decided.


----------



## PaulB (11 Apr 2021)

Dave7 said:


> LFC Vs Villa.
> No way was that offside despite what VAR decided.


It was the season before last I think, same two teams at Villa Park when Bobby's ARMPIT was declared offside! His armpit! It was then we knew VAR had turned a much-loved sport into a total laughing stock.


----------



## The Crofted Crest (11 Apr 2021)

PaulB said:


> The Dutch FA have shunned the FIFA directive and give 'buffer zones' of 5-10cm



I've not heard that, Paul, and there's nothing about it on the Dutch FA's website.


----------



## VelvetUnderpants (11 Apr 2021)

Dave7 said:


> LFC Vs Villa.
> No way was that offside despite what VAR decided.



I didn't think it was offside, its ridiculous decisions like this which are ruining the game.

Cracking injury time goal 😭😭


----------



## PaulB (11 Apr 2021)

The Crofted Crest said:


> I've not heard that, Paul, and there's nothing about it on the Dutch FA's website.


I tried unsuccessfully to find it then but I read that yesterday in an online comment about the farce of VAR. It read something on the lines of the Dutch FA pay lip service to the directive but an official of theirs explained on national TV how it's actually interpreted. 

The HUGE problem with VAR is that it sucks the joy out of the game when you can't celebrate until every last nuance of the move is analysed. What's the world coming to? It's like waiting ages in a restaurant for your food and they bring it to your table - but prevent you from eating it until an official studies every ingredient's certification and validity before they let you eat it, cold. The diners at other tables cheer if the officials find an i hasn't been dotted and take your food off you.


----------



## The Crofted Crest (11 Apr 2021)

PaulB said:


> it sucks the joy out of the game



Exacerbated by the fact you're sat at home watching on TV, at least in the ground you can moan to your mates and relieve some of your frustrations.


----------



## PaulB (11 Apr 2021)

The Crofted Crest said:


> Exacerbated by the fact you're sat at home watching on TV, at least in the ground you can moan to your mates and relieve some of your frustrations.


No, it's worse in the ground. The main reason to go - psychologically - is the group orgasm of release when your team score and everyone jumps up fists pumping the air. You celebrate with thousands of like-minded individuals, all brought together on the most primal of all levels. The entrance fee and inconvenience of being there at some stupid time on some stupid day is justified in those moments. But now we've let a faceless official grant us permission to do that! Football's finished if this goes on.


----------



## Salad Dodger (25 Apr 2021)

For me, part of the "joy" of football is/was that the ref was right, even if he was wrong! Sometimes, the decision went in your teams favour, and sometimes it didn't. Whatever the ref decides, play on......
Now, it all has to be viewed frame by frame, and it takes the joy and the passion out of the game. 

The rugby ref J P Doyle was, until recently, a Premiership ref (where TV Match Officials continuously review play and can talk to the ref, and show him replays) but has now been "let go". He now plys his trade in America, where there is no TV backup, and said in a YouTube interview this week that he feels less pressure on him now, because there is no person or video to second-guess his decisions. He can just make the call that he believes to be correct, and the game can move on.....


----------



## PaulB (2 Jun 2021)

The fans? Pfft, what have the fans got to do with football, anyway?

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-thumbs-down-by-fans-for-premier-league-study


----------



## Profpointy (2 Jun 2021)

I'm reminded of the cricket umpire giving a very questionable LBW decision. The batsman remonstrates "that was never out"." Yes it was", says the umpire, "you can check in the paper tomorrow".


----------



## matticus (2 Jun 2021)

PaulB said:


> The fans? Pfft, what have the fans got to do with football, anyway?
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-thumbs-down-by-fans-for-premier-league-study


Oh dear!
"Only 26% of fans – of 33,000 surveyed – support use of VAR"

I wonder how many supported it during development?


----------



## PaulB (2 Jun 2021)

matticus said:


> Oh dear!
> "Only 26% of fans – of 33,000 surveyed – support use of VAR"
> 
> I wonder how many supported it during development?


None that I know of. Anyone that did support it was being massively hoodwinked and now they've seen it for its appalling reality, they hate it.


----------



## cisamcgu (2 Jun 2021)

I have said this before, and I will say it again. VAR for offside and ball crossing the line scenarios is excellent - it is cut and dried if it happened or didn't. Otherwise, it is like a devil on the shoulder of the referee saying "are you sure, are you sure ?"


----------



## Smokin Joe (2 Jun 2021)

PaulB said:


> None that I know of. Anyone that did support it was being massively hoodwinked and now they've seen it for its appalling reality, they hate it.


It can kill a game stone dead. No matter how clearcut a goal looks to have been you are always waiting for the dreaded "VAR check" message.


----------



## matticus (2 Jun 2021)

PaulB said:


> None that I know of. Anyone that did support it was being massively hoodwinked and now they've seen it for its appalling reality, they hate it.


My memory's rubbish, but I recall plenty of support for appeal systems from fans of almost every sport. By "plenty", I may mean a loud minority! I cannot quote figures ...


----------



## PaulB (2 Jun 2021)

matticus said:


> My memory's rubbish, but I recall plenty of support for appeal systems from fans of almost every sport. By "plenty", I may mean a loud minority! I cannot quote figures ...


But not fans of football. Not match-going fans anyway. Couch 'fans' or Commodores (once, twice, three times a season) might have not been against it but they're not actual fans. It's killing the game stone dead and as seen from that report above, 44% said it has stopped them wanting to go because of it. There's fans around me - seasoned lads who, like me, go back decades, same place in the ground - who've said they'd rather see a goal stand AGAINST us from a ref's perspective than seen one denied them after consultation with the VAR box. Anyone cheering the other team's denial is spoken to harshly and we don't see them again.


----------



## Dave7 (2 Jun 2021)

Watching the Blackpool vs Lincoln and the Morecambe games there were several instances when I thought "VAR would over rule that".
However I would rather do without it AND SCREAM at the tv.


----------



## Smokin Joe (2 Jun 2021)

Another thing I don't like is stopping the game because the ball hits the referee. It happened in the first half of the England game tonight. Just accept it and let the game carry on.


----------



## jowwy (3 Jun 2021)

PaulB said:


> But not fans of football. Not match-going fans anyway. * Couch 'fans' or Commodores (once, twice, three times a season) might have not been against it* _*but they're not actual fans*_. It's killing the game stone dead and as seen from that report above, 44% said it has stopped them wanting to go because of it. There's fans around me - seasoned lads who, like me, go back decades, same place in the ground - who've said they'd rather see a goal stand AGAINST us from a ref's perspective than seen one denied them after consultation with the VAR box. Anyone cheering the other team's denial is spoken to harshly and we don't see them again.


what a disgusting statement to make........so unless your a season ticket holder and spend thousands a year, your not a fan

and you say i give liverpool fans a bad name


----------



## matticus (3 Jun 2021)

Smokin Joe said:


> Another thing I don't like is stopping the game because the ball hits the referee. It happened in the first half of the England game tonight. Just accept it and let the game carry on.


I think they use their discretion on that? I've certainly seen both options used in the past (don't watch much in the last few years).


----------



## matticus (3 Jun 2021)

PaulB said:


> But not fans of football. Not match-going fans anyway.


Yeah, I can imagine there might be a difference between TV fans and fans at the grounds.

I've struggled to find an equivalent survey from *before* VAR, but this one suggests that many fans did want it, following the trials:
https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/80-of...ed-in-major-competitions-according-to-survey/


Spoiler: Feb 2018



*ALMOST four in five football fans believe a video assistant referee (VAR) should be introduced within major football competitions, according to a survey of 2,000 supporters.*

The survey, which asked fans whether VAR should be used in competitions such as the Premier League, FA Cup and Champions League, found 78% supported the idea, with just 8% of fans rejecting its use within football.

The findings from BonusCodeBets.co.uk also found that the main reason given for not using VAR in matches was a dislike of change within the game. 64% fans who do not want to see the introduction of VAR said this is because football should “stay true to its origins”.

Just half rejected use of the technology on the grounds that it causes too many stoppages during games (49%).

But a quarter of other VAR-sceptics would support its implementation if improvements were made to its current application.

According to fans, the main improvements they would like to see for VAR are:


37% would prefer a limit on the number of appeals teams can make
34% think video replays of the analysis should be played within stadiums
A quarter would like to see a stop-clock introduced in matches to prevent time being wasted by VAR
23% think referees should have a time limit to make decisions
One in five would like officials to explain their decisions to spectators, as with rugby or American football
Fans were able to form their opinions on the current use of VAR after the recent trials in cup fixtures and international friendlies, and these helped change the mind of nearly one in five fans, who expressed a newfound support for using video assistants (17%).


----------



## jowwy (3 Jun 2021)

matticus said:


> Yeah, I can imagine there might be a difference between *TV fans and fans* at the grounds.
> 
> I've struggled to find an equivalent survey from *before* VAR, but this one suggests that many fans did want it, following the trials:
> https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/80-of...ed-in-major-competitions-according-to-survey/
> ...


ive highlighted an issue with your response......why not just call them fans, why pigeon hole them into different groups???


----------



## matticus (3 Jun 2021)

jowwy said:


> ive highlighted an issue with your response......why not just call them fans, why pigeon hole them into different groups???


Because:
a) Paul was making a related point (unless he corrects me). And;
b) I imagine the experience on TV is quite different to that at the ground. Hence one's view of VAR may be different.

Just as TV fans might not appreciate their stadium's new roof, for example.


----------



## jowwy (3 Jun 2021)

matticus said:


> Because:
> a) Paul was making a related point (unless he corrects me). And;
> b) I imagine the experience on TV is quite different to that at the ground. Hence one's view of VAR may be different.
> 
> Just as TV fans might not appreciate their stadium's new roof, for example.


that's because he has a dim witted view of football fans and thinks only fans in the stadiums are TRUE fans......by giving your response you've allowed that view to happen......by trying to differentiate between the two.

FANS are FANS whether in the stadium, outside singing or sitting on the sofa.......not everyone has the ability to go to games whether it be a physical, financial issue or maybe because they actually play the game themselves and can't attend due to letting their own teams down

stop letting people like Paul have this pathetic view on what a true fan is


----------



## matticus (3 Jun 2021)

I didn't say anything about which experience (or group) was superior. That seems to be _your _battle, not mine.


----------



## jowwy (3 Jun 2021)

matticus said:


> I didn't say anything about which experience (or group) was superior. That seems to be _your _battle, not mine.


neither did i......i said he has a view of what a TRUE fan is....nothing to do with superior or experience


----------



## Smokin Joe (3 Jun 2021)

There are fans and there are supporters. Fans follow a club, often from the other side of the world, but supporters are the people who turn up every week to cheer their team on and contribute directly to the finances of the club. The game could exist without fans, but not without supporters.

I used to be a West Ham supporter, but now because I live 300 miles away I am a fan.


----------



## jowwy (3 Jun 2021)

Smokin Joe said:


> There are fans and there are supporters. Fans follow a club, often from the other side of the world, but supporters are the people who turn up every week to cheer their team on and contribute directly to the finances of the club. The game could exist without fans, but not without supporters.
> 
> I used to be a West Ham supporter, but now because I live 300 miles away I am a fan.


do fans not buy club merchandise, shirts, posters, bedding etc etc that supports the clubs??? even their sky, bt, amazon, subscriptions support the clubs too....without that TV revenue, you could say there would be no premier league....hey but they are not TRUE fans

and currently the game is existing without supporters.......but fans keep buying the jerseys, merchandise, subscriptions from all variety of places


----------



## Dave7 (3 Jun 2021)

Smokin Joe said:


> There are fans and there are supporters. Fans follow a club, often from the other side of the world, but supporters are the people who turn up every week to cheer their team on and contribute directly to the finances of the club. The game could exist without fans, but not without supporters.
> 
> I used to be a West Ham supporter, but now because I live 300 miles away I am a fan.


Interesting thought.
I recently read (maybe 2 years back) that because of sky/tv money clubs could actually do without what you call supporters.
I think Covid etc has dented that belief.


----------



## jowwy (3 Jun 2021)

Dave7 said:


> Interesting thought.
> I recently read (maybe 2 years back) that because of sky/tv money clubs could actually do without what you call supporters.
> I think Covid etc has dented that belief.


they just trot out what ever dross they want to support their pathetic view........gets right up my nostrils


----------



## Smokin Joe (3 Jun 2021)

jowwy said:


> and currently the game is existing without supporters.......but fans keep buying the jerseys, merchandise, subscriptions from all variety of places


On a temporary basis. There are clubs who could exist on TV and merchandise revenue alone, but they comprise only a handful at the very top of the league pyramid, both in this country and abroad. And if the game turned into a TV show for top clubs without the support structure down through the leagues and back to grass roots level it would soon die.


----------



## jowwy (3 Jun 2021)

Smokin Joe said:


> On a temporary basis. There are clubs who could exist on TV and merchandise revenue alone, but they comprise only a handful at the very top of the league pyramid, both in this country and abroad. And if the game turned into a TV show for top clubs without the support structure down through the leagues and back to grass roots level it would soon die.


more dross........fans/supporters are all the same, doesnt make you more special just cause you get a ticket every week or you get your season ticket handed down by a family member, so you dont have to wait in the que like every other fan......

anyways this is about VAR, so i will leave it now


----------



## PaulB (3 Jun 2021)

All football should be played by the same rules. If VAR is being used at Anfield, then it must also be used at United - Colchester United. And at Droitwich Town, Fort William and Marine.


----------



## jowwy (3 Jun 2021)

So should all leagues use goal line technology as well then….or do we pick and choose which ones to meet our own rhetoric


----------



## SpokeyDokey (4 Jun 2021)

I rather like VAR - can't stand games being lost, or even won, on the basis of an incorrect decision.

The process needs speeding up, consistency needs working on (but that applies even if we did not have VAR) and I agree it would be good for the Ref to be 'miked up'.

Doesn't bother me in the slightest that there are some inevitable delays whilst checks are being made.


----------



## PaulB (4 Jun 2021)

SpokeyDokey said:


> I rather like VAR - can't stand games being lost, or even won, on the basis of an incorrect decision.
> 
> The process needs speeding up, consistency needs working on (but that applies even if we did not have VAR) and I agree it would be good for the Ref to be 'miked up'.
> 
> Doesn't bother me in the slightest that there are some inevitable delays whilst checks are being made.


ALL games are lost or won on the basis of an incorrect decision. The decision of the goalie to dive to his left and the striker kicks it the other way. The winger passing to the centre forward but he's dispossessed while there was a player in a better position completely unmarked who would have scored. The manager picking the wrong player for that particular game. Loads more examples like that. 

So you're there at the ground willing your team on and after many frustrating attempts, your team score. That's good, isn't it? Well no it's not, not yet anyway because before you can cheer or shout or yell your joy at seeing it, you have to wait until they let you know if you're allowed to! It's an absolute disgrace where the very reason you go to watch your team (the overwhelming joy at seeing a goal) is now denied you. The match-going fan, the very essence of the game, the ones who give it the atmosphere the couchies are watching it for, is treated like an inconvenience by those who think the game should be played and decided by computer.  

It bothers me and everybody I know MASSIVELY that our reason to go to the games has been taken away from us.


----------



## jowwy (4 Jun 2021)

PaulB said:


> ALL games are lost or won on the basis of an incorrect decision. The decision of the goalie to dive to his left and the striker kicks it the other way. The winger passing to the centre forward but he's dispossessed while there was a player in a better position completely unmarked who would have scored. The manager picking the wrong player for that particular game. Loads more examples like that.
> 
> So you're there at the ground willing your team on and after many frustrating attempts, your team score. That's good, isn't it? Well no it's not, not yet anyway because before you can cheer or shout or yell your joy at seeing it, you have to wait until they let you know if you're allowed to! It's an absolute disgrace where the very reason you go to watch your team (the overwhelming joy at seeing a goal) is now denied you. The match-going fan, the very essence of the game, the ones who give it the atmosphere the *couchies* are watching it for, is treated like an inconvenience by those who think the game should be played and decided by computer.
> 
> It bothers me and everybody I know MASSIVELY that our reason to go to the games has been taken away from us.


Another pathetic statement………..liverpool dont need fans like you


----------



## SpokeyDokey (4 Jun 2021)

PaulB said:


> ALL games are lost or won on the basis of an incorrect decision. The decision of the goalie to dive to his left and the striker kicks it the other way. The winger passing to the centre forward but he's dispossessed while there was a player in a better position completely unmarked who would have scored. The manager picking the wrong player for that particular game. Loads more examples like that.
> 
> So you're there at the ground willing your team on and after many frustrating attempts, your team score. That's good, isn't it? Well no it's not, not yet anyway because before you can cheer or shout or yell your joy at seeing it, you have to wait until they let you know if you're allowed to! It's an absolute disgrace where the very reason you go to watch your team (the overwhelming joy at seeing a goal) is now denied you. The match-going fan, the very essence of the game, the ones who give it the atmosphere the couchies are watching it for, is treated like an inconvenience by those who think the game should be played and decided by computer.
> 
> It bothers me and everybody I know MASSIVELY that our reason to go to the games has been taken away from us.



The first para' of your reply is utterly absurd. The two sets of incorrect decisions are not comparable as you well know.

You don't like VAR then so be it. If you are content to prioritise spontaneous celebration over making the correct decision in circumstances that may well affect the final outcome of the game then, imo, that is a rather strange choice. 

I do find your attitude towards those who cannot get to matches to see their team rather arrogant.

Those 'couchies' that you refer to so disparagingly and who form LFC's global fan base pump far more money, directly or indirectly, into the club's coffers than those fans who attend matches on the day. Without them LFC and all the other EPL clubs would be dead in the water in their current format. .

I watched a large contingent of Nigerian fans celebrate our CL victory on Saturday and it was brilliant to watch and, to me at least, they are on an equal footing to the hard core of CFC fans who are STH's. CFC is as much their club as those who think their affiliation is hard wired into their DNA for whatever reason. Usually because they live within striking distance of the home ground or because their forebears supported the team.


----------



## Seevio (5 Jun 2021)

There is an argument that the "true" football fans watch on tv as they will get to see the actual football a whole lot better than those who just go to the ground for the matchday experience. The bigger the ground, the less you will see of the action.

I'm trolling of course. Just enjoy football however you want to enjoy it.


----------



## Seevio (5 Jun 2021)

With regards to VAR, the idea is good but the implementation is somewhat lacking. 

I like that judgment (as opposed to factual, like offside) decisions have been given back to the ref on the pitch. I like that the ref can check that their decisions are correct before doing something game changing. 

What I don't like is the situation where a goal is scored and celebrations have to be stopped while the remote gods consider the lead up. Sure, players have always celebrated a goal only to find that the linesmans flag is up but at least it was immediate.

Possibly an idea is to put a time limit on things. For example if VAR can't decide on an offside within 15 seconds of the incident or 10 seconds of a goal, then it was clearly too close to call and should stand.


----------



## PaulB (5 Jun 2021)

SpokeyDokey said:


> The first para' of your reply is utterly absurd. The two sets of incorrect decisions are not comparable as you well know.
> 
> You don't like VAR then so be it. If you are content to prioritise spontaneous celebration over making the correct decision in circumstances that may well affect the final outcome of the game then, imo, that is a rather strange choice.
> 
> ...


There's no point going further as clearly, football is not your game and you have no understanding of how it works. It's like trying to explain quantum physics to a melon.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (5 Jun 2021)

PaulB said:


> There's no point going further as clearly, football is not your game and you have no understanding of how it works. It's like trying to explain quantum physics to a melon.



🍉 😂


----------



## matticus (5 Jun 2021)

I DO think that ref mistakes are comparable to player mistakes. Sport is about humans, and they do make mistakes. In addition there will always be subjective decisions; when a corner is taken, how on earth does a rulebook define which of the dozens of argy-bargy moments are legal??
(This is why the technology works a little better in tennis; there are far fewer subjective rules.)

I find it absurd when a team's fans blame a ref for "_losing them the game_"; well here's some news - your players made a hundred mistakes* that led to them being one ref decision away from losing. And that's just the ones visible to the spectator.

You also need to allow for the massive role of _sheer bad luck _in sport. refs get things wrong, but it's like blaming the wind, or your star-player catching flu 2 days before the final. Just deal with it!!!


*I say the same thing about penalty shootouts. Don't blame they guy that missed - blame the other 10 that failed to win the game in full time. Pens are a lottery, the least worst system that makes better telly than a toin-coss. But I digress ...


----------



## jowwy (5 Jun 2021)

PaulB said:


> There's no point going further as clearly, football is not your game and you have no understanding of how it works. It's like trying to explain quantum physics to a melon.


You’re an embarrasment………


----------

