Yampy
RefChat Addict
So, the less important, non match changing decisions can still be wrong?Whole point of VAR is to get the biggest, match-changing decisions correct.
So, the less important, non match changing decisions can still be wrong?Whole point of VAR is to get the biggest, match-changing decisions correct.
What's your point?So, the less important, non match changing decisions can still be wrong?
You use selective words like 'biggest' and 'match changing'. Surely, the whole point of VAR is to get all decisions correct.So, the less important, non match changing decisions can still be wrong?
Surely, the whole point of VAR is to get all decisions correct.
I could take the condescending route if you want but I think, I'm better than that.No the point of VAR is to correct the big decisions that are clearly wrong. Is this a new concept to you?
I could take the condescending route if you want but I think, I'm better than that.
A decision is only 'big' after the event. Each decision has equal merit until an outcome is determined by it. Three foul tackles happen in quick succession but the attacker continues, a ref plays advantage but possession is wasted. Which, is the bigger decision?
The aim of VAR from day one was 'minimum interference – maximum benefit'. Anything else and the main stakeholders, being professional clubs and national teams would not have accepted it. Minimum interference is particularly important. Changing the aim to getting ALL the decisions correct clearly would mean a lot of interference.You use selective words like 'biggest' and 'match changing'. Surely, the whole point of VAR is to get all decisions correct.
Yes. As the protocol summary released by the IFAB put it:So, the less important, non match changing decisions can still be wrong?
Match officials make hundreds of decisions in every match, including decisions that an offence has not occurred. It would be impossible, without completely changing football, to review every decision. Thus, the experiment limits the use of VARs to 4 categories of match-changing decisions/incidents
No - and this has been stated quite clearly from the very outset.Surely, the whole point of VAR is to get all decisions correct.
The aim of the experiment is NOT to achieve 100% accuracy for all decisions as there is no desire to destroy the essential flow and emotions of football which result from the game’s almost non-stop action and the general absence of lengthy stoppages.
They can check every decision. But a conscious decision has been made not to, for the sake of the flow of the game.There will be some mistakes still as not everything covered by VAR. Examples might include a goal from a free kick that shouldn't have been awarded, or a goal from a corner that should have been a goal kick. That's inevitable though as they cannot possibly check every decision.
For the sake of the game full stop.They can check every decision. But a conscious decision has been made not to, for the sake of the flow of the game.
AVAR1 always watches the live match in case something happens while the rest of the team is reviewing something else.
AVAR2 is an assistant referee who focuses on offside.
AVAR3 is focusing on communication between VAR and AVAR2 and helping the VAR evaluate an incident.
Maybe a bit overkill, but it's the World Cup and it keeps the refs busy between their two matches.
For VAR a "big decision" has been defined as a PK, red card, goal, or mistaken identity. I still can't tell if you don't understand this or if you're just talking about what you think should be within the scope of VAR.
Pundits, coaches, media, and fans have made a living out of blaming referees for all of their teams problems in football. Something had to change. At least VAR will make it less likely that a referee has to get police protection because their family gets death threats when a big decision goes wrong at a major event.
Those are not changes - they have been in the protocol from the beginning. Here are excerpts from the original protocol summary (the first such document released by the IFAB):Not quite. It say on the video 'or decisions leading up to a goal or a penalty' - that widens the scope considerably. Another subtle but important change, is that it states that referee does not have to look at incident himself. 2 important changes there.
For goals, penalty incidents and DOGSO offences, the referee can review the play as far back as the start of the attacking move which led to the incident and, if relevant, how possession of the ball was gained at the start of that phase of play.
[...]
Once the review is initiated, the referee has the option to make a decision based only on the information received from the VAR ...
I dont think that Fifa use the AARs in their competitions so should just be 4. Think there will likely be a reserve assistant but they have no role or responsibility unless called upon to act as AR.9 extra people in total, plus I think its 5'on the ground', could be 6 - so more 'officials' than in one team - utterly ridiculous and for what - chasing the impossible - a match without a wrong decision.
Those are not changes - they have been in the protocol from the beginning. Here are excerpts from the original protocol summary (the first such document released by the IFAB):
I dont think that Fifa use the AARs in their competitions so should just be 4. Think there will likely be a reserve assistant but they have no role or responsibility unless called upon to act as AR.