VAR trial - France v Spain

J79 said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's a very simplistic view.

Taking your argument literally, you could justify reviewing EVERY challenge/incident in a game to make sure LOTG are applied "correctly" - clearly that's not practical.

Although media are gushing over the France v Spain examples, less coverage given to the example we have seen on here where it took 4 1/2 minutes to arrive at a penalty decision, which included 2 minutes of play while waiting for the ball to go out of play.

PinnerPaul said:

Taking your argument literally, you could justify reviewing EVERY challenge/incident in a game to make sure LOTG are applied "correctly" - clearly that's not practical.

Click to expand...

True, was just about to edit the post, adding "within reasonable limits", "key decisions", etc.

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...

of course we 'd want VAR/goal line tech at every level, but as @GraemeS says, this is obviously not feasible for various reasons. they don't have referral systems at every rugby / cricket / tennis game and they work fine.

do you not think they should though? This actually happened to me on saturday. the away team came upto us in the bar after the game and showed us video evidence that we'd missed a handball on the line at 2-3 in a game that ended 3-3. Had we got that decision right then the chances are the away team would have won the game. We, as a team, were gutted we'd got the decision so badly wrong.

I don't see the problem in using technology to rectify howlers. i don't see the problem with technology to overcome genuine errors.

as i keep on saying, it works perfectly fine in cricket / rugby / tennis etc where obvious errors are rectified routinely and without issue.

es1 said:

of course we 'd want VAR/goal line tech at every level, but as @GraemeS says, this is obviously not feasible for various reasons. they don't have referral systems at every rugby / cricket / tennis game and they work fine.

do you not think they should though? This actually happened to me on saturday. the away team came upto us in the bar after the game and showed us video evidence that we'd missed a handball on the line at 2-3 in a game that ended 3-3. Had we got that decision right then the chances are the away team would have won the game. We, as a team, were gutted we'd got the decision so badly wrong.

I don't see the problem in using technology to rectify howlers. i don't see the problem with technology to overcome genuine errors.

as i keep on saying, it works perfectly fine in cricket / rugby / tennis etc where obvious errors are rectified routinely and without issue.

Click to expand...

Did you deliberately miss the handball? No? Well then you made a mistake? How many players made mistakes during the game? Did anybody take the time to confront them after the game with videos of their **** ups?

Human beings referee football matches, human beings make mistakes....deal with it. Stop whinging and get on with the game.

Cricket, rugby & tennis....all games with far far more breaks in play/slower pace overall that are conducive to a review system......football isn't. Football requires that the game is halted while a review is carried out which will increase game length through the need to add the time taken......60 minute halves on the horizon.......

It's the technical equivalent of piles......get rid of it now before it takes hold.

To answer your questions: Are the top players held to account for their mistakes? Yeah, I think most of them are - they will review tapes afterwards and probably have their training programs modified to try and correct mistakes in technique or decision making.

Also, I don't really know why the idea of longer halves particularly horrifies you? TV reviews don't have to be for every incident, but even if they are....so what?

Padfoot said:

Did you deliberately miss the handball? No? Well then you made a mistake? How many players made mistakes during the game? Did anybody take the time to confront them after the game with videos of their **** ups?

Human beings referee football matches, human beings make mistakes....deal with it. Stop whinging and get on with the game.

Cricket, rugby & tennis....all games with far far more breaks in play/slower pace overall that are conducive to a review system......football isn't. Football requires that the game is halted while a review is carried out which will increase game length through the need to add the time taken......60 minute halves on the horizon.......

It's the technical equivalent of piles......get rid of it now before it takes hold.

Click to expand...

that is absolutely a fair point and one that needs to be suitably addressed as it currently is the elephant in the room

the first part, why should we deal with it?! why should we accept it?! we want 100% accuracy of decisions, i think we should look at every opportunity to get a little closer to achieving that.

if it turns out that the systems proposed lead to a reduction in enjoyment of football / an increase in game length / reduced passion / excitement (or whatever) then get rid. but right now i think we need to do all we can to embrace the technology and give it every opportunity to work

When the players make zero mistakes in a game, when managers make zero mistakes in their role, when pundits/media make zero mistakes in their roles, then maybe they can expect officials to make zero mistakes.

Until then, it's just whinging, scapegoating etc etc.....man the **** up and get on with it.

es1 said:

of course we 'd want VAR/goal line tech at every level, but as @GraemeS says, this is obviously not feasible for various reasons. they don't have referral systems at every rugby / cricket / tennis game and they work fine.

do you not think they should though? This actually happened to me on saturday. the away team came upto us in the bar after the game and showed us video evidence that we'd missed a handball on the line at 2-3 in a game that ended 3-3. Had we got that decision right then the chances are the away team would have won the game. We, as a team, were gutted we'd got the decision so badly wrong.

I don't see the problem in using technology to rectify howlers. i don't see the problem with technology to overcome genuine errors.

as i keep on saying, it works perfectly fine in cricket / rugby / tennis etc where obvious errors are rectified routinely and without issue.

Click to expand...

"without issue"? I don't think so. Didn't ****stan refuse it in their test matches for quite a while. Also there are only a set number referrals allowed by each side in cricket so you often see wrong decisions highlighted that are not corrected, simply because the rules don't allow it.

There have been plenty of controversies in Rugby and a few in tennis as well. To simply say/imply that all decisions will now be correct iwith "technology" and that all issues will disappear is naive in the extreme IMHO.

Padfoot - it does seem that you are stuck in "the dark ages". Progress happens all around, for progress not to be made in Football just echos the archaic nature of the FA and its members. There will obviously need to be a limit on the use of technology, but until the limitations are tested, we need to embrace and support progress. Yes at grassroots some of these will never be implemented, however should this prevent the use at higher levels? I personally do not think so. Just my 2 pence worth!

PinnerPaul said:

"without issue"? I don't think so. Didn't ****stan refuse it in their test matches for quite a while. Also there are only a set number referrals allowed by each side in cricket so you often see wrong decisions highlighted that are not corrected, simply because the rules don't allow it.

There have been plenty of controversies in Rugby and a few in tennis as well. To simply say/imply that all decisions will now be correct iwith "technology" and that all issues will disappear is naive in the extreme IMHO.

Click to expand...

that's not at all what i'm saying and i say as much in several other posts in this thread!

how other sports choose to implement video decisions systems is up to them. this wont get 100% of decisions correct, and nor will we ever get 100% of decisions correct (in any sport - aside from maybe tennis when they could just use hawk eye for every point, but that's another topic) but for the sake of getting from 98 to 99% of decisions correct it has to be worth it

Padfoot said:

When the players make zero mistakes in a game, when managers make zero mistakes in their role, when pundits/media make zero mistakes in their roles, then maybe they can expect officials to make zero mistakes.

Until then, it's just whinging, scapegoating etc etc.....man the **** up and get on with it.

Click to expand...

this isn't about players and managers though...

anyways, we're just going round in circles here!

es1 said:

that's not at all what i'm saying and i say as much in several other posts in this thread!

how other sports choose to implement video decisions systems is up to them. this wont get 100% of decisions correct, and nor will we ever get 100% of decisions correct (in any sport - aside from maybe tennis when they could just use hawk eye for every point, but that's another topic) but for the sake of getting from 98 to 99% of decisions correct it has to be worth it

Click to expand...

Don't want to get into a row es, but you've back tracked a little there!

You said it was used "without issue" in other sports, but now say how they use it is of no relevance?

As I said above, you're never going to get anywhere near 98 - 99% correct, with or without technology!

PinnerPaul said:

Don't want to get into a row es, but you've back tracked a little there!

You said it was used "without issue" in other sports, but now say how they use it is of no relevance?

As I said above, you're never going to get anywhere near 98 - 99% correct, with or without technology!

Click to expand...

an argument is not what i want! so just to clarify...

98/99% is just a figure plucked from my head to illustrate the point

the without issue part is possibly an error on my part, i didn't make clear it was in reference to impacting umpires / referees credibility (by overruling them).

other sports use technology to best suit themselves. they could review every ball in cricket or every shot in tennis (probably with very little impact to the game) for umpiring errors but they choose not to, likewise football will not review every foul / offside / ball in and out of play decision, just those they want to (time etc).

Padfoot said:

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.......

Click to expand...

Really? Because somebody who acknowledges a mistake is far more trustworthy than somebody who ignores their mistake or doesn't care that they've made one. The former shows far more integrity than the latter.


So, can

Padfoot said:

we expect to see AR's removed from games because they had a decision overruled in their last game?

Click to expand...

Utter nonsense. You know that too, just trolling as usual.

Padfoot said:

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.

Click to expand...

More nonsense. Referees spend longer than that dealing with goal celebrations and arguing players. In fact, this was occurring during this minute. So the actual time inflicted upon the match purely by the VAR was much less than a minute.

Padfoot said:

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

Click to expand...

Yes, thank you captain obvious. Nothing has changed here.

Padfoot said:

We are removing the "human" element from the game...

Click to expand...

Cop-out. Upholding blatantly incorrect decisions is simply not tenable. Also, the vast majority of hundreds of decisions in a game are still human and not subject to VAR - and even many VAR incidents will remain controversial. This is a black and white decision that an AR should have gotten correct, but missed. 'human element' as an excuse for 'let's keep getting major, match-changing decisions wrong' is a cop out. The referee's pride is far from the most important thing in the match.



Players will h

Padfoot said:

ave 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.

Click to expand...

That's simply not how VAR works.

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...

This is just ridiculous and puerile.

I think perhaps everybody commenting on this thread that has not done so (and it is pretty obvious that some have not) should go back and read the VAR protocol document. Some of the points being made and objections being raised seem to be based on a complete mis-characterisation and/or misunderstanding of the way VAR's are to be used.

For instance, use of the VAR's is strictly limited to specific types of match-changing incident: Goals, Penalty/ no penalty decisions, Direct red cards (not 2nd yellow cards), Mistaken identity.

Also only the referee can initiate a review (although the VAR and other match officials can recommend them). So the implication that this will allow for any and every decision to be reviewed, or challenged by players and managers, or for AR's to avoid making any marginal calls is somewhat wide of the mark and should not play any part in this discussion.

However if does seem as if the protocol is not being fully and correctly followed in all instances. In the game under discussion here for example, the referee did not follow the instruction from the IFAB that:

The referee must clearly indicate that the review process has been initiated by visually showing the outline of a TV screen; a decision can not be changed unless the review signal has been shown.

Click to expand...

I should also point out that I am overall not in favour of using VAR's - I think that, to paraphrase Virgil, "the remedy is worse than the disease" but that is still no excuse for leveling criticisms at the ongoing trials based on things that the current protocol neither contains nor allows for.

I am on the fence about VARs at the moment.

However, without these test/trials we will never know whether it will be viable and whether there are elements which need changing/streamlining.

Its unlikely ill ever officiate at a level that will have VARs and Gillingham are unlikely to make it to the level of football where it might be used, so the only way this will affect me is watching a random game on tv.

I can't wait for the day when I logon to this forum to check the new posts and there's nothing there because the VAR has decided everything for us and we've nothing left to discuss/argue/agree with (delete as appropriate).

Actually, that'll never happen because there will always be someone asking when the new Nike kit is available. And what colour to have.

And you'll get an incident like the late handball shout at the Emirates yesterday where a player with hand outstretched touches the ball. In cases like that the VAR can't decide intent. You can see the problem from this description of the incident (Daily Mail):
"The ball was in the air, and Monreal had lost his bearings beneath it. It dropped on his arm. He tried to move his arm away, but too late. Far from retrieving the situation he succeeded only in flicking the ball back towards goal. It looked an accident but, as cliche dictates, we've all seen them given. Using video replay, it is hard to see how it wouldn't have been." To be given, you'd think it would have to look not like an accident!