I agree VAR should have got involved, Cucarella couldn’t defend cross properly as he was yanked back by Haaland, clear ‘triangle’ of a shirt pull.On field call was penalty so VAR should have got involved to highlight the first foul by the attacker.
I’m no VAR expert (although everyone seems to be nowadays), but I sometimes feel like a better solution would be to give the VAR the option to send the referee to the screen purely if they disagree with the decision. Currently we’re asking VARs to make two judgements, first whether they agree, and second whether they disagree enough to intervene.Admittedly biased as a Chelsea fan but surely they're pulling each other there. Should really set out what is a "clear and obvious error" as it seems to be the cause of most controversies.
I’d like to see it tried - also saves referees from some of the criticism when teams are out of challenges because they shouldn’t have wasted them in the first placeMakes me think even more that a challenge-based system is at least worth trialling.
Chelsea put in their challenge, AT had a look and wither stands by his decision or changes it. Simples.
Pretty much one of the points I put forward when we discussed this on another thread.I’d like to see it tried - also saves referees from some of the criticism when teams are out of challenges because they shouldn’t have wasted them in the first place
I think it would be interesting to try. Maybe a hybrid system would be better - VAR can intervene if needed but if they decide not to a team can then challenge, forcing the referee to go to the monitor?Makes me think even more that a challenge-based system is at least worth trialling.
Chelsea put in their challenge, AT has a look and either stands by his decision or changes it. Simples.
Not sure that would solve anything. As VAR would still check everything they do now, which was one of the bones of contention about this in another thread as all the checks just slow the game down.I think it would be interesting to try. Maybe a hybrid system would be better - VAR can intervene if needed but if they decide not to a team can then challenge, forcing the referee to go to the monitor?
I think there’s about a million ways a challenge system could be implemented, all of which have their pros and cons. If you were to give the responsibility for a review directly to the teams it would prevent confusion but teams would complain if they ran out of reviews and then a shocking decision was made. Alternatively like you say letting VAR still intervene when necessary would defeat the idea of speeding the game up, but would prevent situations such as the City penalty as Chelsea would have made AT go to look at the screen. You could have it so that in addition to team challenges the on-field referee can request to review a decision, but then that communicates when there is doubt about a decision.Not sure that would solve anything. As VAR would still check everything they do now, which was one of the bones of contention about this in another thread as all the checks just slow the game down.
If its going to be checked anyway, there's not much point in the clubs checking it.
So the bit in bold is exactly how I'd do it. Whether you give them 1,2 or 3 challenges is something for them to discuss, but if the clubs challenge is ruled as correct, they don't lose the challenge. This would prevent them challenging anything & everything.I think there’s about a million ways a challenge system could be implemented, all of which have their pros and cons. If you were to give the responsibility for a review directly to the teams it would prevent confusion but teams would complain if they ran out of reviews and then a shocking decision was made. Alternatively like you say letting VAR still intervene when necessary would defeat the idea of speeding the game up, but would prevent situations such as the City penalty as Chelsea would have made AT go to look at the screen. You could have it so that in addition to team challenges the on-field referee can request to review a decision, but then that communicates when there is doubt about a decision.
Having thought about it maybe in such a trial they could give teams say 3 review requests per game, however they only lose one of these requests if it results in the on-field decision being maintained. That way they can’t blame running out of requests on poor officiating.
On the bit in bold..... this would be the maximum amount of times the referee would go to the screens. The vast majority of the times, you would not see that number. As things are, the referee could go to the screen an infinite amount of times.OMG. 3? We really want the R going to the screen 6 times in a game?!? The end of the game is going to look like a basketball game. (But just think, there‘S a revenue option here . . . We guarantee the review will take at least a minute, and the TV folks get to run a commercial--those commercials would be a hot commodity as they would come at a critical time of the matche.
As I noted in another thread, trialing something with challenges could be interesting. The sports I’m familiar with have a cost of being wrong—typically losing a time out, which of course we don’t have, and losing a sub seems an awfully stiff price to pay. If I were to design the trial, it would look like this:
with only one challenge, we’re only going to see it used where the team thinks it is highly likely to prevail or at a late game critical moment
- Objective calls remain as they are (OSP, interfering with play/touching ball, ball out of play, the fact of whether a ball hit a hand)
- Challenges used for subjective decisions only (including OS active involvement by interfering with an opponent as well as fouls)
- Same decisions as today subject to review (though I could be convinced to let a team challenge a caution or other foul give the next bullet)
- Teams get one challenge; if they prevail they get a second
I think they would, as teams would use it as a tactic to break up play and slow the game down. Or at least the team leading the score would.On the bit in bold..... this would be the maximum amount of times the referee would go to the screens. The vast majority of the times, you would not see that number. As things are, the referee could go to the screen an infinite amount of times.
With the rest of the other stuff you mentioned, think we're along the same lines. There's stuff to iron out on how many challenges, what can be challenged, the process for it etc. But it's worth a go.
In its current state, it is a load of poo. And by saying that, I may be the first person on this site to use the term poo.