A&H

Drawbacks of the VAR system

I don't agree with the VR to be the head referee. It creates more problems than it solves. For starters I cant get my head round where do you put your best referee, on the field or behind the screen?

But I do think the VAR should get a lot more powers given to him by protocol and by the center referee who should remain the head referee.
 
The Referee Store
On a sidenote, I don't agree with the "referee mistakes are part of the game" theory. No, they're not. Yes, football is a game of mistakes... but mistakes made by the players. Good and bad decisions/skills by the players should decide a match, not those by the referee, who is just there to make sure the game is played by the rules.
That makes no logical sense. "Just" making sure the game is played according to the laws involves making judgement calls. Human judgement is necessarily fallible. Mistakes are an inevitable part of human endeavour in all walks of life.
Extra: there should be more and clear punishments for referees who still mess up, there are (in a lot of cases) no excuses anymore.
Again I'm not following your train of thought here. Are you actually saying that referees must be punished more often and more stringently for making mistakes because we now have VAR technology that can spot things they cannot?
 
I don't agree with the VR to be the head referee. It creates more problems than it solves. For starters I cant get my head round where do you put your best referee, on the field or behind the screen?

But I do think the VAR should get a lot more powers given to him by protocol and by the center referee who should remain the head referee.
Video referee would make the key decisions, so you'll need your best people behind the screen. Also have to say the best field referee will not always be the best video referee. These are two different jobs that demand a different set of skills (and a different training). You can be a top field referee and a mediocre video referee, and the other way around.

Again I'm not following your train of thought here. Are you actually saying that referees must be punished more often and more stringently for making mistakes because we now have VAR technology that can spot things they cannot?
No, of course not. I meant to say, if they make a mistake after having watched the images. And maybe you can add: "if a referee doesn't ask for replay when he clearly should have", but that's a more tricky issue.
 
Give each side on appeal a la Cricket and Tennis.

Simple.

You can use it on anything from a throw in to violent conduct. State your case. Off you go!

I have mentioned on sites that a challenge should come with a forfeit, like in the NFL. Make a incorrect challenge lose a substitution - that would focus the managers before time wasting. So they make a challenge incorrectly in the first half, only 2 substitutes for the second half.

I don't agree with the VR to be the head referee. It creates more problems than it solves. For starters I cant get my head round where do you put your best referee, on the field or behind the screen?

But I do think the VAR should get a lot more powers given to him by protocol and by the center referee who should remain the head referee.

The biggest question is the quality of the VAR's. In Rugby Union, they tend to be from level 2 countries or younger less experience referees, so the on field referee needs to make the final decision. Would we want the top EPL referees acting as VAR for one potential decision a game?

One solution is to use referees that have just left the EPL or EFL as VAR, but that then takes them from being observers / coaches to the younger referees. They would have the seniority to recommend actual action, not just "have another look at".

The fracas caused by VAR would arrive in the World Cup, when a official from a "lesser" country was appointed as VAR to somebody like Howard Webb. How much confidence would the "on field" referee have in the ability of the VAR to make the right decision, giving what we have seen at other tournaments. The quality of the VAR is real concern about making it work.
 
In A-League recently retI red referees and other A-League referees do VAR duties. So quality wise there is no issue. There is no issue of trust either. It's a matter of refining the protocol to make the system more appealing.
It's simple. Field referee is still the head referee and if he can trust his ARs to allow or disallow goals on offside or ball over the line decisions when VAR is not used, why can't he trust his VAR on similar or other major decisions when they are used?
 
As we've already discussed before on the forum and as is again said by some in this topic, two key changes should be made :

1) Video referee becomes head referee and makes the calls, on-field referee is basically just another assistant referee.
2) Teams should get a couple of VAR requests.

That'd solve many of the current problems. Problems we've for sure all predicted and that apparently only the (I suppose well-paid) IFAB experts couldn't see coming. Belgium started with VAR this season (not in all games though), they've evaluated it last week and they will officially ask IFAB to let the video referee make the calls. Let's see if IFAB can acknowledge their mistake and change this ahead of the World Cup.

Main problem that will remain will probably be "ball in play after VAR incident".

On a sidenote, I don't agree with the "referee mistakes are part of the game" theory. No, they're not. Yes, football is a game of mistakes... but mistakes made by the players. Good and bad decisions/skills by the players should decide a match, not those by the referee, who is just there to make sure the game is played by the rules.

Extra: there should be more and clear punishments for referees who still mess up, there are (in a lot of cases) no excuses anymore.

VAR referees the game from his monitor and makes ALL calls - really? ..........REALLY?!!!!
 
Your other post says VAR makes 'the calls' and 'key decisions' - but you don't really say how its decided and by who, what are 'VAR calls'?
I was talking about what are VAR calls now, the 4 categories of "match-changing decisions/incidents" according to IFAB (goal, penalty, direct red, mistake identity), but now that we're talking about it, that's in fact also I think should be changed (I know it won't happen anytime soon). Scoop should be broadened, so that for example also yellow card situations (certainly second yellow) should be double-checked by the video referee. Because what is a more "match-changing" incident:

a) possible direct red card at 5-0 in the 90th minute of the game, or
b) possible first yellow card for a center back at 0-0 in the 5th minute of the game?

Guess we can all agree that a center back having to play 85+ minutes on a yellow will have a bigger influence on the result of the game than the red card. But for IFAB the red card is a match-changing situation that deserves to be looked at, while the yellow card is not.

Play shouldn't even be stopped for this (if not second yellow card situation), game goes on, video referee checks images, and next time the ball is out of play the yellow card is given (or not) or withdrawn (or not).
 
Last edited:
I was talking about what are VAR calls now, the 4 categories of "match-changing decisions/incidents" according to IFAB (goal, penalty, direct red, mistake identity), but now that we're talking about it, that's in fact also I think should be changed (I know it won't happen anytime soon). Scoop should be broadened, so that for example also yellow card situations (certainly second yellow) should be double-checked by the video referee. Because what is a more "match-changing" incident:

a) possible direct red card at 5-0 in the 90th minute of the game, or
b) possible first yellow card for a center back at 0-0 in the 5th minute of the game?

Guess we can all agree that a center back having to play 85+ minutes on a yellow will have a bigger influence on the result of the game than the red card.

Play shouldn't even be stopped for this (if not second yellow card situation), game goes on, video referee checks images, and next time the ball is out of play the yellow card is given (or not) or withdrawn (or not).

I think your card scenario is exactly why I disagree with you. Yellow cards are rarely - excuse the pun - black and white.

One man's reckless, is another man's careless.

One man's foul tips the point to persistent, is another man's public warning.

One man's dissent is another man's 'all part of the game' - how DOES a VAR judge dissent/offinabus btw?! - by expanding his role, its complicating things at best & changing/ruining game at worse,.
 
I think your card scenario is exactly why I disagree with you. Yellow cards are rarely - excuse the pun - black and white.

One man's reckless, is another man's careless.

One man's foul tips the point to persistent, is another man's public warning.

One man's dissent is another man's 'all part of the game' - how DOES a VAR judge dissent/offinabus btw?! - by expanding his role, its complicating things at best & changing/ruining game at worse,.
Rarely, but some are black/white. And some of those black/white situations are now being judged wrongly and some of those mistakes have a big influence on the outcome of a game. Video referee has the best info (except for dissent) so he can make the best judgment (and rectify where needed). As for the grey, we can only ask for as much consistency as possible (which I think should also come from clearer, more detailled instructions, for example in the case of dissent), but that has nothing to do with VAR.

On a sidenote, how crazy is it that IFAB says that a direct red card is a match-changing incident that deserves to be looked at, but that a second yellow card is not? Hearing so little complaints about that aspect of VAR, while it's just total madness. (Although I think I get why they do it, as it would kind of open the door to having to use VAR for all yellow cards, because if you do it for one, why not for all...)
 
Rarely, but some are black/white. And some of those black/white situations are now being judged wrongly and some of those mistakes have a big influence on the outcome of a game. Video referee has the best info (except for dissent) so he can make the best judgment (and rectify where needed). As for the grey, we can only ask for as much consistency as possible (which I think should also come from clearer, more detailled instructions, for example in the case of dissent), but that has nothing to do with VAR.

On a sidenote, how crazy is it that IFAB says that a direct red card is a match-changing incident that deserves to be looked at, but that a second yellow card is not? Hearing so little complaints about that aspect of VAR, while it's just total madness. (Although I think I get why they do it, as it would kind of open the door to having to use VAR for all yellow cards, because if you do it for one, why not for all...)
Yes because if a second yellow was a mandatory and the 1st a subjective deceision iootr or wrong you cant go back and change the 1st 1 90 mins later.
 
links are likely to be geoblocked to Australia

If you want to see the drawbacks of the VAR system, just watch...well, pretty much any Australian A-League match. It's the worst thing that's ever happened.

Now, to start with, our HAL refs are not great, not great at all. There are massive systemic issues with referee development, training and progression from grassroots, and it's not nearly as merit-based as it should be.

Significant, match-changing errors are, sadly, seen more often than not - and the officials are not held accountable.

So, we were optimistic when the VAR came in. But, incredibly, it's made a bad situation worse.

Most of the VAR decisions have been wrong.

There is no consistency, no rhyme or reason for when an incident goes to a VAR review. Sometimes the ref calls the VAR, but usually the VAR gets in the ref's ear and says 'hold up play mate, let's have a look'. But no consistency. Plenty of red card offences and clear penalties are drawing no attention from the VAR.

Although, it depends on which team is playing.

It's become very, very clear that some teams will get VAR decisions, and some won't. Because it's happened again. And again. And again. And again.

I've never heard so many fans talk about our national sporting body and referees being corrupt as I have since the VAR has come in. And, well, crap, it's so bad, and so one-sided that I can't even defend against those allegations. VAR in Australia is so bad that cheating, sadly, has become the only explanation that makes sense for what we're seeing.

And that's why VAR needs to go.

And this is just one weekend - heck, there's still another game to go. Just one single weekend.

Every weekend has seen inexplicable VAR controversy, sadly.
See, when it's a ref, we've all been angry at a ref, we've all had our team screwed over by a ref having a shocker and having the major decisions go one way. But there's still that faith that they're probably at least trying to be impartial, maybe they're just having 'one of those games', maybe they were unsighted, maybe they just made an honest mistake in the heat of the moment.

But when there's a clear wrong decision by the referee and the VAR is SUPPOSED to get involved and doesn't. Or when the VAR does get involved and gets the decision wrong. And when those 2 things occur time and time again. And the same teams, over and over again are benefiting - and the same teams, over and over again, are copping the raw end....well, there's no explanation that makes sense. They can't be justified as simple errors.

Last week we were fortunate enough to see perhaps the most black-and-white example of this. It's very, very rare that '2 tackles are the same', but here it was. A player was cautioned for stomping on an opponent's foot. Fair enough.

Minutes later, same player did the EXACT same thing again. Only difference? It was in the PA. Ref saw it, did nothing (ball went out after, by the way). Now, a player goes down hurt screaming that he got stepped on, you're going to check with your AR if you didn't see it - or VAR if you have it. He didn't, so he did see it, but chose to be inconsistent. But, given the previous decision, it's a 'clear and obvious' error, and a penalty decision, so VAR should have become involved, gone to a ref review at least. VAR didn't so much as look at it.

Now, this weekend - the HAL has probably lost a lot of viewers, because this weekend has been an absolute farce with the VAR.

Last night, a player is clearly caught on camera, completely off-the-ball, lifting a leg and stamping his studs back into the shin of an opponent.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/footba...m/news-story/a1e2e26a5647dde83ec03ff204eea629

VAR (the same VAR who was in the stomping incident) said it could be yellow or red so wasn't a 'clear and obvious' error. Ludicrous. Also, the blue team (the offending team) are the team that has benefited from a LOT of VAR decisions.

Out of interest, the victim was later sent off by the VAR for an elbow.

Tonight though...same problems

Early on a WSW (Western Sydney Wanderers) player goes into a bad tackle and is booked. You can see on replay that the player actually deliberately throws his studs into the opponent's torso. Should be red - so the VAR should have intervened. Nothing.

Later on, a Central Coast Mariners (CCM) player is cautioned for stamping his studs onto an opponent's calf. Not overly hard, but he did it. The ref is less than 10 yards away, perfect view. Cautioned. Later calls the VAR, VAR tells the ref to check it on the sideline monitor, red card. Now, red card was probably correct. BUT - was it 'red' enough for a clear and obvious error? Well, bear in mind the other stomp from last night. See what I'm getting at?

Also, this is the player who copped the boot to the gut earlier.

A couple of minutes later, a WSW player comes flying in with an aerial scissors tackle. Easy red. Nope, cautioned, no hint of VAR involvement.

Later in the game, there's a fairly routine late tackle. There's a slight glance of studs across the shin, but he hasn't gone through the player, he came from side/behind angle (and studs were across the front and barely touched). It's a caution for a late tackle - we often see harder 'studs-on-the-shin' challenges every week and nobody talks about them.

Inexplicably the ref, after issuing the caution, goes to the VAR, who then seems to enjoy another moment in the spotlight, refers it back to the ref who inexplicably sends him off.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/video/football/a-league/mariners-cop-2nd-var-red!656770

The non-reds aren't in this video. Out of interest, shortly after the fitness coach from CCM was also shown the red card, and the active supporters group left in protest.

funnily enough, even the WSW players at the first one didn't want the whole VAR-red card debacle.


Now, I have found it problematic that the on-field ref is presented with 3 simultaneous loops from different angles in slow-motion. This is not a good system.

Also, in the game immediately before was this penalty:
https://www.foxsports.com.au/footba...m/news-story/779e55cc0702d80560a126eecf5a24db

Horrendous decision - clearly accidental handling. Inexplicably the ref gives it, and inexplicably the VAR is silent. And yet again we have the VAR appearing to follow a set hierarchy of which clubs benefit from VAR decisions.

and this is just the tip of the iceberg - but I've never seen soooo many people so disillusioned with the league and soooo fed up with the referee, and convinced that the referees are not being impartial, as I have since the VAR was introduced. Now, there are a whole heap of other problems down here with the body that runs football and how the competition is very badly managed, but the VAR has been a huge contributor. Because, frankly, the VAR is making it look like the league is rigged. The decisions and the inconsistency are just that bad. And when stacks of fans are believing that....well, people are stopping turning up to games or turning on their TV.

No idea how it's been going overseas, but here, it's a joke and it needs to go. But there are so many problems with the training, coaching and assessing of our HAL referees that I shouldn't be surprised. Some people are half convinced they're deliberately using it to make a mockery of the sport to taint the reports back to FIFA to stop it being brought in permanently.

It's reached the point where fans are expecting the VAR to define each match with an incorrect decision (whether it's incorrect in its own right, or not correcting an incorrect referee decision)
 
Now, I have found it problematic that the on-field ref is presented with 3 simultaneous loops from different angles in slow-motion. This is not a good system.
Not only is it 'not a good system' but it seems to go against the intent of the IFAB protocol which says that, "in general, slow motion replays should only be used for “point of contact” for physical offences and handball; normal speed should be used for the “intensity” of an offence ..."

Although not stated as such in the protocol, I think we all know that the reason why they say that slow motion should only be used to establish the point of contact and not to judge the intensity, is that as the common saying goes, things always look worse in slow motion. So if they are looking at all offences only in slow motion then I think they are doing it wrong.
 
Last edited:
Haven't read everything above , I will do though, but just let me say the VAR is an abortion of a system that is systematically ruining football here in Australia where they are trialing it.

It's a joke, a farce and any other descriptor you'd like to use. The role is ill-defined, it's guilty of mission creep, it creates more questions than answers, it's inconsistent and it takes far too long.

WORST of all the orgasmic joy when your team scored is now a muted 'lets wait and see' because chances are 10 passes before some minor indiscretion will be picked up and they'll disallow it.

The only good thing about the VAR is that Australia are winning the Ashes 2 nil currently.

Oh wait, that's the DRS.
 
Last edited:
Although, it depends on which team is playing.

It's become very, very clear that some teams will get VAR decisions, and some won't. Because it's happened again. And again. And again. And again.

Now I've read it all. (As in all the posts in this read, not as an insult.)

1000% agree with absolutely everything above this. (Apart from the comp being rigged. I think that's a huge overstatement.)

Anyone who thinks VAR is the answer need only spend a few weekends watching football here in Australia. They are wrecking the game from top to bottom.

Be careful what you wish for is all I can say.
 
Last edited:
Now I've read it all.

1000% agree with absolutely everything above this. (Apart from the comp being rigged. I think that's a huge overstatement.)

Anyone who thinks VAR is the answer need only spend a few weekends watching football here in Australia. They are wrecking the game from top to bottom.

Be careful what you wish for is all I can say.

You've misread my post - I haven't made an accusation of the comp being rigged at all - although as I've stated, VAR has certainly strengthened the appearance of a rigged system. Never before have so many fans talked about bias and corruption in the league. Never before have so many fans from one team in question left the game when there was still a recoverable deficit. Never before have so many fans - and many die hard fans - talked about how they just don't care about the league anymore, that it's just too much of a farce to bother investing in (and it's not JUST the VAR, it's the refereeing as a whole, but the VAR has brought the overall impact of the referees to the most appalling standard the league has ever seen. As I said before, it's the other political issues going on also contributing to this, but I think the VAR is a massive impact here).

But some teams frequently benefitting from VAR, and other teams frequently seeing nothing from the VAR when they should is a completely undeniable fact by now. That's a fact. Why that is occurring, that's up for debate. Maybe it is rigged - sadly that's not outside of the realm of possibility.

We all know that referees often and unintentionally do favour 'bigger' teams, that subconscious bias unfortunately does exist. Whether thats the crowd noise influencing decisions, or a subconscious bias, I don't think that's been documented, but it's come up in a number of studies. Though that would more explain tighter calls, not ones that are SO wrong that we're seeing.

But, if that's the issue, one would assume the VAR is separate from that. So why is it that, before the game you can pick which team will benefit from the VAR - and almost always be correct?

Not only is it 'not a good system' but it seems to go against the intent of the IFAB protocol which says that, "in general, slow motion replays should only be used for “point of contact” for physical offences and handball; normal speed should be used for the “intensity” of an offence ..."

Although not stated as such in the protocol, I think we all know that the reason why they say that slow motion should only be used to establish the point of contact and not to judge the intensity, is that as the common saying goes, things always look worse in slow motion. So if they are looking at all offences only in slow motion then I think they are doing it wrong.

I don't know if they're looking at all offences, but I noticed with the 2nd VAR red card that the TV camera got a view of the ref's screen (the VAR referred this one back to the field ref to check the screen), and by the time he ran over there were already 3 angles already in slow motion.

Although I'm still confused given it's slow motion that shows there was almost no contact, but I digress; whoever is viewing needs to have control. Backwards, forwards, speed (which is EASILY achievable with a dial).

I'm also concerned that not all available cameras get used in VAR. There have been a few instances early on when the VAR only reviewed an incident from one or two angles, when another camera would have shown it better. Sure, they may be a reason for that to occur.

Another problem is that goal line decisions are being made on VAR when the camera is not on the goal line. That hasn't been a problem yet, but it means a really tight call, VAR has no chance.

Similarly, offside. The sort of offside that is really difficult to judge on screen is when the attacker's feet are just onside of the defender's feet, but he's leaning forwards while the defender is upright. Trying to measure shoulder against feet - the digital line they draw doesn't really do enough for that, and when it's so tight that it may be a matter of a couple of inches, the TV camera just lacks the resolution to tell.
 
Back
Top