VAR trial - France v Spain

assistants won't bother putting the flags up anymore for anything but stonewallers. No one wants their decision overturned.

assistants will eventually just have ball in and out of play, until hawk eye sorts that one too.

es1 said:

sure, in an ideal world the mistakes would not have been made in the first place but we see mistakes like this every match day. we'll never eradicate them all with better training etc. so we need to use tools like this to help

Click to expand...

But would you consider both of these decisions mistakes? The Spain goal was a really close offside/not offside decision which assistants have to judge every game. With a video replay this one showed the Spain attacker to be fractionally onside but in real time for the assistant, I for one wouldn't be calling it a mistake. I know better training wouldn't help any assistant in such a situation; this guy was up with play, ideally placed and made a split second decision (the job he was appointed to do, on merit, following years of training) which the VAR then overruled.
My opinion is that I don't like the idea at all. It has the potential to hang assistants out to dry, then the media would be happy!

I just watched the three clips. Hard to tell what the VAR advised with #2 the penalty - I think pen is an easy sell there as Kosc was nutmegged and jumped in.

I think the ref signals really need work. If the ref blows and points for a post goal kick off - and then starts listening to the ear piece - as happened here - it looks a mess. If there is any indication that there will be a review, the ref should not signal goal and should signal wait/VAR - with the "square" or some other agreed signal.

I agree partially with the Right Honourable Member for @Padfoot West that #3 in particular is meat for the lions. Like a mistimed tackle or a goalkeeper fumble, that kind of split hair decision (mistake!) is what football is all about. And to reverse that AR decision is massively counter productive. When we get one of those a week in the Prem we will have to deal with untold hell with every offside decision at lower levels. It WILL also play on the minds of some ARs and affect their decision-making - and lead to non-decisions. On one hand this could give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker in more cases - but I just think it will mean in reduction in correct offside decisions by ARs.

VAR incident #1 - well, that's a different story - it looks like the far side AR really should have got that one right and has dropped a clanger there - perhaps not wanting to raise the flag because of the VAR!!! No, I think that is a "friendly" mistake. Actually, the more I look at it, the more I think that is a bad one. The AR body shape seems awkward somehow... maybe lost it for a moment...

Overall, on the basis of this, leave the technology for ball over goal line and nothing else thank you very much.
And ditch the goal line AARs - if they can't spot that Suarez dive they are a joke (aaaargh)

PP62 said:

But would you consider both of these decisions mistakes? The Spain goal was a really close offside/not offside decision which assistants have to judge every game. With a video replay this one showed the Spain attacker to be fractionally onside but in real time for the assistant, I for one wouldn't be calling it a mistake. I know better training wouldn't help any assistant in such a situation; this guy was up with play, ideally placed and made a split second decision (the job he was appointed to do, on merit, following years of training) which the VAR then overruled.
My opinion is that I don't like the idea at all. It has the potential to hang assistants out to dry, then the media would be happy!

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, they were both very tight, but the decisions made were wrong. You can't have an umpires call equivalent in football as there's nothing it could translate to. It's either offside or its not and when it proves the official wrong, if you're using technology, you have to overrule them.

es1 said:

I understand what you're saying, they were both very tight, but the decisions made were wrong. You can't have an umpires call equivalent in football as there's nothing it could translate to. It's either offside or its not and when it proves the official wrong, if you're using technology, you have to overrule them.

Click to expand...

But by overruling them you are destroying their credibility........and as has been mentioned previously, it will just lead to AR's not flagging for anything but the most blatant of offences, referees who don't trust their AR's for anything but the most obvious of offences and ultimately the loss of the superb quality that we have currently in our elite match officials.
Who cares whether the AR is up with play? Or makes the right decision? The VAR will simply correct the mistakes from the luxury of a warm cosy box, with the benefit of several different angles and as many replays as they want.....none of which the AR or referee gets.

It's complete capitualtion to media hype dressed up as progress.

Padfoot said:

But by overruling them you are destroying their credibility........and as has been mentioned previously, it will just lead to AR's not flagging for anything but the most blatant of offences, referees who don't trust their AR's for anything but the most obvious of offences and ultimately the loss of the superb quality that we have currently in our elite match officials.
Who cares whether the AR is up with play? Or makes the right decision? The VAR will simply correct the mistakes from the luxury of a warm cosy box, with the benefit of several different angles and as many replays as they want.....none of which the AR or referee gets.

It's complete capitualtion to media hype dressed up as progress.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that's a good enough reason not to use VARs. Why should we be ok with getting the majority of decisions right?

There's so many sports (some comparatively minor) all using technology to correct errors made by umpires/referees, and it ruin their credibility when they get overruled.

I'm certain it would lead to changes in the ARs current role and responsibilities, but if that helps get us to a point where 99 out of 100 decisions are now correct from 98 then I really don't see the issue.

es1 said:

I understand what you're saying, they were both very tight, but the decisions made were wrong. You can't have an umpires call equivalent in football as there's nothing it could translate to. It's either offside or its not and when it proves the official wrong, if you're using technology, you have to overrule them.

Click to expand...

You're a level 4 referee and act as assistant at a really good standard of football. You make these close calls every contrib game you're on; I know because I've been there. Would you beat yourself up over such tight calls such as the Spain goal? My guess is you wouldn't even think about it afterwards because you would have confidence in your ability, awareness and accuracy and I for one would share your confidence. Why complicate the game with this kind of interference?
As I said earlier, I'm not a fan of it. Just my opinion.

At the top levels of the game we are already evaluated and assessed by video technology. Every decision can and is pawed over after the game. The feeling when you review it and get a match changing decision wrong is frankly awful, worsened still by the impact from the match observer's report!

Ultimately, like it or not, the game at the top level is crying out for video review to put right factual errors (such as the ones last night) made by match officials that materially affect the outcome of the game. The more difficult area is clearly the subjective decisions, where no matter how many replays, opinion will be split.

Padfoot said:

But by overruling them you are destroying their credibility.

Click to expand...

No, by getting the decision wrong the credibility is already shot.
Changing it to the correct decision actually restores credibility.
The insistent position that incorrect match-changing decisions are acceptable is just no longer tenable.
Overrule the offside decision was an excellent application - it was fast, referee stayed on the field, it was great.

I would guess that the AR missed that one maybe because there were a few players in line, making it harder to see the player who interfered.

Padfoot said:

40 seconds to destroy the ARs credibility.....yeah, great success.

Click to expand...

Except I'm not sure it did, or at least certainly not for the first decision where the AR, as far as I could tell, kept his flag down, probably because he was unsure whether the ball had come off an attacker or a defender to the eventual 'goal' scorer. After the VAR confirmed it was the attacker in an offside position who headed it, the correct decision was given.

It did make the AR look a little foolish for the second one, though.

ASM said:

At the top levels of the game we are already evaluated and assessed by video technology. Every decision can and is pawed over after the game. The feeling when you review it and get a match changing decision wrong is frankly awful, worsened still by the impact from the match observer's report!

Ultimately, like it or not, the game at the top level is crying out for video review to put right factual errors (such as the ones last night) made by match officials that materially affect the outcome of the game. The more difficult area is clearly the subjective decisions, where no matter how many replays, opinion will be split.

Click to expand...

That is a good post. The demand for VAR is clearly there.

would credibility be maintained if it was made known that it was the NAR calling for the VAR assistance
i.e "i've given / not given offside here but i'm not 100 percent sure"

CapnBloodbeard said:

No, by getting the decision wrong the credibility is already shot.
Changing it to the correct decision actually restores credibility.
The insistent position that incorrect match-changing decisions are acceptable is just no longer tenable.
Overrule the offside decision was an excellent application - it was fast, referee stayed on the field, it was great.

I would guess that the AR missed that one maybe because there were a few players in line, making it harder to see the player who interfered.

Click to expand...

Wrong. The credibility isn't already shot....because there is no definitive proof that the decision was wrong.....by stopping the game to review a decision you are focusing all attention on that official......and when the decision is reversed....you have just announced to everyone that that official made a mistake and basically cannot be trusted.......
So, can we expect to see AR's removed from games because they had a decision overruled in their last game?


And it wasn't fast.....nearly a minute. So...4 or 5 reviews each game will add 4 or 5 minute additional time.......we'll be having 60 minute halves before long.

The overriding principle has always been that the referee's decision is final, except when it's not.

Peter Grove said:

Except I'm not sure it did, or at least certainly not for the first decision where the AR, as far as I could tell, kept his flag down, probably because he was unsure whether the ball had come off an attacker or a defender to the eventual 'goal' scorer. After the VAR confirmed it was the attacker in an offside position who headed it, the correct decision was given.

It did make the AR look a little foolish for the second one, though.

Click to expand...

We are removing the "human" element from the game......it will just become a clinical sterile experience, where eventually every decision will be reviewable because the players want that, or the TV want that etc etc
Players will have no incentive to learn to accept the "rub of the green" because they will just get any decision they don't like reviewed, and have a 50/50 chance of getting their own way.

It's a cancerous intrusion in to the game and needs to bugger off before it ruins it.

richard ramjane said:

would credibility be maintained if it was made known that it was the NAR calling for the VAR assistance
i.e "i've given / not given offside here but i'm not 100 percent sure"

Click to expand...

Nope.....confidence in your decision is a key to selling it.

Players, managers and the media need to stop being whiny little bitches trying to blame officials when things don't go their way and try focusing on the countless mistakes that they make compared to the 1 or 2 that the officials might make at the elite level.

Padfoot said:

Wrong. The credibility isn't already shot....because there is no definitive proof that the decision was wrong..

Click to expand...

but everyone watching on TV will know, the managers will be told and they'll let the officials know at half / full time.

I think you're being selfish and far too overprotective with your views. Football isn't about referees, it's the teams, the fans, the leagues, the other stakeholders getting the results they deserve and in some instances, due to obvious errors that can be corrected by the use of VAR, this can be aided.

if it proves to have an adverse impact on the flow of the game, the appeal of the game once fully implemented in the top leagues (which i assume it will be before too long) to the extent that those same stakeholders decide they want to go back to where we are now, then so be it.

es1 said:

but everyone watching on TV will know, the managers will be told and they'll let the officials know at half / full time.

I think you're being selfish and far too overprotective with your views. Football isn't about referees, it's the teams, the fans, the leagues, the other stakeholders getting the results they deserve and in some instances, due to obvious errors that can be corrected by the use of VAR, this can be aided.

if it proves to have an adverse impact on the flow of the game, the appeal of the game once fully implemented in the top leagues (which i assume it will be before too long) to the extent that those same stakeholders decide they want to go back to where we are now, then so be it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, because of course officials take notice of what a whinging manager complains about at half/full time?

By your principle then, we will see the introduction of GLT and VAR at grassroots level? Or aren't those teams, fans, leagues and other stakeholders entitled to the results they deserve?

Padfoot said:

Yeah, because of course officials take notice of what a whinging manager complains about at half/full time?

By your principle then, we will see the introduction of GLT and VAR at grassroots level? Or aren't those teams, fans, leagues and other stakeholders entitled to the results they deserve?

Click to expand...

In an ideal world, yes, you would introduce it at all levels. Why wouldn't you?

Cost is of course the limiting factor, plus availability of trained VAR's. But I don't think that stops it being a good thing.

A "trained VAR" .....you mean a referee?

What other training could you possibly need to stab a colleague in the back?

It's first of all about applying the LOTG. And then about justice. And at top level, about a lot of money. To put it a little blunt: the discussion can't be centered around the feelings or pride of a few (think majority is clearly in favour) referees or linesmen possibly being hurt.

Football has laws and the game should be played according to those laws. So the outcome of a game should be (as much as possible) the "LOTG outcome", not the "What-officials-see-or-not-see outcome". And everything that can help to get closer to the LOTG outcome should be welcomed. Can't see how anyone can be against the LOTG being applied.

Padfoot said:

A "trained VAR" .....you mean a referee?

What other training could you possibly need to stab a colleague in the back?

Click to expand...

Drama much? I'm a trained referee, but I personally wouldn't have the first clue how to load, view and rewind raw TV footage in the back of a TV van, or operate radio comms equipment to get that decision back to the referee. That's specialist training above and beyond what we get as a "standard" referee.