Chelsea v Man Utd

[Kes]

[QUOTE="Mr Dean, post: 187786, member: ]Just give each team one 'challenge' each and let them decide when VAR should intervene - I guarantee they'll only use the challenge in 'clear and obvious' situations.
[/QUOTE]

I very much doubt that. Football culture isn't like that.
There would be a challenge whenever a late or potentially match-deciding goal was scored - irrespective of whether or not anything was "clear and obvious".

 

[es1]

[QUOTE="Mr Dean, post: 187786, member: ]Just give each team one 'challenge' each and let them decide when VAR should intervene - I guarantee they'll only use the challenge in 'clear and obvious' situations.

I very much doubt that. Football culture isn't like that.
There would be a challenge whenever a late or potentially match-deciding goal was scored - irrespective of whether or not anything was "clear and obvious".
[/QUOTE]

so? if it's justified, change the decision, if not, stick with it

 

[ladbroke8745]

Considering no Manchester United player appealed for a penalty kick, I wonder if Manchester United would've used a 'challenge' if football had a challenge system like tennis. I think not.

And, that's the underlying problem with VAR: unnecessary delays to forensicaly analyse a situation which no team has asked for. Just give each team one 'challenge' each and let them decide when VAR should intervene - I guarantee they'll only use the challenge in 'clear and obvious' situations.

Only issue is, as we've found out, it can be slow and take the sting out if the game. A team winning 1-0 will use it to slow the game and regroup.

 

[es1]

Only issue is, as we've found out, it can be slow and take the sting out if the game. A team winning 1-0 will use it to slow the game and regroup.

i dont think you'd ever just stop the game dead (in this hypothetical world where managers/captains can challenege decisions!)

you'd throw your challenge flag (or whatever) and the play would be under review while the ball was in play and, if it went out of play, the restart would be halted until a decision was reached (pretty much as it is now)

 

[GraemeS]

And if the 10th wicket is LBW and they have a review left, they'll always review regardless and no one cares.

People love to act as if football is this special unique flower of a sport, while also managing to completely ignore the fact that the one benefit of it being miiiiiiiiiiles behind the curve on the use of technology is that all the other sports have asked and answered all these questions already. Which is why it's even more amazing how badly wrong they've managed to get VAR!

 

[es1]

And if the 10th wicket is LBW and they have a review left, they'll always review regardless and no one cares.

People love to act as if football is this special unique flower of a sport, while also managing to completely ignore the fact that the one benefit of it being miiiiiiiiiiles behind the curve on the use of technology is that all the other sports have asked and answered all these questions already. Which is why it's even more amazing how badly wrong they've managed to get VAR!

 

[Kes]

so? if it's justified, change the decision, if not, stick with it

My point was, that the "challenge" scheme as applied in other sports, such as rugby 10s for example is based on a degree of sportsmanship and a genuine belief that a technical or law-based infringement has occurred.
Professional football culture isn't like that. I just can't see how you'd introduce a scheme that is culturally at odds with the game, ie cheating, appealing for something that you know to be wrong, time wasting etc.
All it would do (IMO) is provide another mechanism for players to indulge in the above.
A fairly cynical view I know ...

 

[es1]

My point was, that the "challenge" scheme as applied in other sports, such as rugby 10s for example is based on a degree of sportsmanship and a genuine belief that a technical or law-based infringement has occurred.
Professional football culture isn't like that. I just can't see how you'd introduce a scheme that is culturally at odds with the game, ie cheating, appealing for something that you know to be wrong, time wasting etc.
All it would do (IMO) is provide another mechanism for players to indulge in the above.
A fairly cynical view I know ...

as per @GraemeS's reply though, this scenrio happens in cricket all the time no matter how obvious and lbw or caught behind is for the 10th wicket.

 

[GraemeS]

as per @GraemeS's reply though, this scenrio happens in cricket all the time no matter how obvious and lbw or caught behind is for the 10th wicket.

Plus, I always think you could look to the NFL for inspiration - it's required there to have a timeout free before you can challenge, which you lose if the challenge is incorrect. We obviously don't have timeouts in our sport, but what is a valuable currency that we could penalise a manager with if he puts forward a frivolous challenge? A substitution perhaps - you can waste our time with a late wrong challenge or a late sub (as they currently do), but not both!

 

[es1]

Plus, I always think you could look to the NFL for inspiration - it's required there to have a timeout free before you can challenge, which you lose if the challenge is incorrect. We obviously don't have timeouts in our sport, but what is a valuable currency that we could penalise a manager with if he puts forward a frivolous challenge? A substitution perhaps - you can waste our time with a late wrong challenge or a late sub (as they currently do), but not both!

yeah you could forfeit a sub if you have any left or the opposition team get another one?

 

[Kes]

as per @GraemeS's reply though, this scenrio happens in cricket all the time no matter how obvious and lbw or caught behind is for the 10th wicket.

I don't get to read what he writes (through personal choice).

I don't understand (or care about) cricket either. Like I said, modern-day top flight football is all about trying to out-cheat the other team. It's culturally at odds with the ethos of a "challenge system" and would simply evolve into more disruption and pi55 taking.

 

[es1]

I don't get to read what he writes (through personal choice).

I don't understand (or care about) cricket either. Like I said, modern-day top flight football is all about trying to out-cheat the other team. It's culturally at odds with the ethos of a "challenge system" and would simply provide more disruption and pi55 taking.

fair enough and i see your point, but i'd hope with time and understanding players and clubs could learn to use a challenge based system, particularly if there were procedures in place to make it not worthwhile going for a totally frivolous review

 

[PinnerPaul]

[QUOTE="Mr Dean, post: 187786, member: ]Just give each team one 'challenge' each and let them decide when VAR should intervene - I guarantee they'll only use the challenge in 'clear and obvious' situations.

I very much doubt that. Football culture isn't like that.
There would be a challenge whenever a late or potentially match-deciding goal was scored - irrespective of whether or not anything was "clear and obvious".
[/QUOTE]
I agree - defenders appeal for 'something' after nearly every goal at that level!

 

[dinoray11]

If I was walking (unnaturally), they would not spread their arms in front of me. You can even argue that it is above shoulder level which is slightly / unnaturally excluded.

 

[RefIADad]

I very much doubt that. Football culture isn't like that.
There would be a challenge whenever a late or potentially match-deciding goal was scored - irrespective of whether or not anything was "clear and obvious".

I'm OK with those types of challenges late in the game. Even in the National Football League, where you lose a timeout if you lose your challenge, you'll see a late-game situation where the coach challenges a situation where he's likely going to lose because it's more of a "what do you have to lose" type of situation. The challenge will occur, it will be decided quickly, and we get on with the match.

The only possible way I could see a situation where you remove this type of incentive would be something like the manager/head coach receives a caution for a challenge that is not successful (with the related caution going toward card accumulations leading to suspensions). But I don't really think that's a major deterrent except that maybe coaches wouldn't act up to get cautions in matches so they can "save up" their card accumulations for challenges like that. Plus, I think it's pretty harsh to caution a coach for a truly legitimate challenge.

 

[GraemeS]

I'm OK with those types of challenges late in the game. Even in the National Football League, where you lose a timeout if you lose your challenge, you'll see a late-game situation where the coach challenges a situation where he's likely going to lose because it's more of a "what do you have to lose" type of situation. The challenge will occur, it will be decided quickly, and we get on with the match.

The only possible way I could see a situation where you remove this type of incentive would be something like the manager/head coach receives a caution for a challenge that is not successful (with the related caution going toward card accumulations leading to suspensions). But I don't really think that's a major deterrent except that maybe coaches wouldn't act up to get cautions in matches so they can "save up" their card accumulations for challenges like that. Plus, I think it's pretty harsh to caution a coach for a truly legitimate challenge.

But this is the point behind the substitution cost. If it's a truly frivolous challenge then the time required to check will be about the same time it currently takes when a player is subbed off in the 93rd minute and manages to kill 60 seconds by walking 70 yards and clapping all 4 corners of the stadium as they go. So remove that sub and you're at a net equal.

 

[bester]

VAR is currently awful. Any misuse of a challenge system will be far less destructive to the game than the status quo.

 

[socal lurker]

Challenge systems are far from a panacea. Unless they are unlimited, there is no way to prevent the horrible, game-changing mistake that comes after the challenge(s) is/are used up. The more permitted, the more they mess up the game; the fewer permitted, the less likely they are to actually solve anything. We'll also see really quick restarts on plays to end the time to challenge--or are we going to start permitting changes in decisions after restarts? (Probably need to ban replays in the stadium until after the time to challenge, or the home team can game the system to show plays their team might want to challenge and not the other way.) That said, it may suck less than the current system . . .

But linking to subs is, IMO, wholly untenable. That means either (1) teams have to use one fewer sub to be able to have a challenge in the waning minutes of a close game or (2) we face the horrible mistake in the 88th minute that can't be challenged because the team used its final sub.

Hmm, maybe give teams 5 per season or 2 for a tournament, and they really have to see an awful mistake before they waste them . . .

 

[one]

VAR concept is great. Mitigate the clanger referee decision. Challenge system could possibly be better than the current one. But we want it because referees have made a total meal of the current system. To want the challenge system is to assume players can use the system better than referees currently do. Big assumption. It may be worth an experiment in a league somewhere though.

 

[GraemeS]

VAR concept is great. Mitigate the clanger referee decision. Challenge system could possibly be better than the current one. But we want it because referees have made a total meal of the current system. To want the challenge system is to assume players can use the system better than referees currently do. Big assumption. It may be worth an experiment in a league somewhere though.

No, to want the challenge system is to assume that the game will be healthier overall if the players/manager share some of the blame for misuse of VAR, rather than heaping it all on referees and lawmakers. I honestly don't really care how successful the player's challenge % ends up being, that's very much not a factor.

@socal lurker tries to paint some horror scenarios where due to their own actions (using up challenges/failing to have a spare sub), a team doesn't have a challenge available to correct a terrible mistake late in the game. Yes. That's the point. Again, we only need to look at cricket, tennis, NFL etc - when that happens in those sports, the commentators then look at the earlier occasion where a team wasted a challenge on a low% overturn and blame the player for that earlier poor decision - pressure is immediately removed from the officials, because if the player hadn't gambled earlier on something unlikely or inconsequential, the opportunity to fix a clear mistake would have remained.