Video Assistant Referees (VAR)

[RustyRef]

Given that people couldn't play properly in the Liverpool vs West Brom thread and got it closed, I thought I'd open a dedicated VAR thread based on recent experience.

WARNING: This one stays on topic. Anyone deliberately taking it off topic will face sanctions, so don't do it

Personally I think it is working well in England, and seems to be better than the other trials that have been done. Still very much work in progress though, and I think the following areas are possibilities for improvement ...

- Ditch the pitch side monitor, they need to let the VAR decide if the referee has made a clear and obvious mistake. If he hasn't the decision stands.

- Find a way of communicating it to the crowd and TV audience. I don't think miking up the referee is ever going to be viable due to the potential language, so ...
- let the crowd and TV hear what the VAR is saying but not the referee
- if the above can't be done, perhaps a link between the VAR and the stadium announcer so that something like "VAR decision under review" can be announced
- announcements on the big screen, but not sure that will work as some of the older grounds don't have them, and to install them would presumably result in the loss of seats.

Any thoughts, and as I said, keep them sensible. Going off topic, posting images, arguing, etc, will see posts removed. Let's have a proper and sensible chat amongst referees.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

How many PL grounds have visible TV screens for all fans (home and away)? Not been there since 2006 so i'm sure they've moved on!!!
Not sure why the remote VAR can't intervene when he wants if he sees something... Then everybody is involved, crowd, players, ref, VAR!!!

 

[one]

Thanks Rrusty I was about to start another thread.

While in concept it’s a good idea, IMO the process is killing the game and fundamentally flawed. I agree with some of your points.

The most common criticism of current system is the delays in the review and confusion it causes. For me this is because two of its main principles are contradictory.

• Only clear and obvious errors are reversed.
• Only the referee can initiate a review

These two contradict each other at times and cause the delay/confusion problems. For me its very simple. If an experienced referee in the VAR room has seen a CLEAR error, why does the referee have to review it? We are not talking about a 50-50 here. It’s a clear error, detected by an experienced referee at the same level of the one in the middle.

AND if it takes more than 15 or 20 seconds of review (by the VAR) to see an error then how can it be a CLEAR one. If you can’t see it within very short period and you need multiple replays and perhaps freeze frame or slow motion then its not a clear error.

So here is what I think the process should be:

Case 1

• Incident
• It’s believed referee has made a clear error
• VAR (on their own initiative or tipped by any other official) informs the referee and starts a video reviews. Less than 15-20 seconds after the referee’s decision the error is confirmed.
• VAR tells referee he made a clear error and the decision should be so and so
• Referee changes the decision. All within 30 seconds of the original decision.

Case 2:

• Incident
• It’s believed referee has made a clear error
• VAR (on their own initiative or tipped by any other official) informs the referee and starts a video reviews. VAR can’t confirm the error within 20 seconds.
• VAR tells referee no further action needed
• Game continues.

Keeping the time within 30 seconds which is common to other stoppages in play means the crowd doesn’t even need to know a review is taking place and its completely hidden. Any delay would feel as part of the normal game. The only communication they need is if a decision has been changed.

 

[RobOda]

How many PL grounds have visible TV screens for all fans (home and away)?

The one's in Swansea are awful, just spew adverts throughout the entire match. They take far too long to switch back to the action, which is aggravating when the play is up the other end of the pitch. Might have been better off investing in some binoculars for that day. >_>

If an experienced referee in the VAR room has seen a CLEAR error, why does the referee have to review it?

I guess the principle is that ultimately the referee on the pitch should have the final say. Having the video ref pick up on errors and pulling up reviews would be kind of like a passenger telling you how to drive, and potentially undermines the referee on the field?

Personally I think it should be down the referee's discretion, *but* VAR will simply open up a new series of arguments; For example: Why didn't the referee review this incident, like the pundits were moaning about in the Chelsea game a while back.

I don't really like VAR to be reviewing subjective calls, I don't mind technology being in place for goal line decisions, offside that sort of thing. I'm sure there'll be an incident at some point where it is very 50-50 and the referee and VAR takes 5+ minutes and the decision made is controversial. That'll be an interesting event to see.

I agree with your point on clear errors etc though.

 

[one]

Having the video ref pick up on errors and pulling up reviews would be kind of like a passenger telling you how to drive, and potentially undermines the referee on the field?

Good analogy but not quite. It will be more like telling the driver he has made a clear mistake and he should fix it. If my passenger who is just as familiar with the area tells me I took the wrong turn or I am clearly driving in the wrong direction of a one way street, I would have no issue turning back without having to look at the street directory or the GPS nowadays (although i know some drivers who would . that would be due to ego rather that authority). If the referee makes the final decision, so be it but it would have to be with no further discussions or dialog about the accuracy of the change of decision. Dialogs and re-reviews by the referee cause delays. and given the argument about "clear and obvious error" I don't see any reason for the referee to ever not accept the VAR direction.

I'm sure there'll be an incident at some point where it is very 50-50 and the referee and VAR takes 5+ minutes and the decision made is controversial. That'll be an interesting event to see.

My main point is that 50-50 decision should never get past the VAR. Subjective decision will only be changed if error is beyond doubt and non-debatable (clear error).
Like the tackle on Sane in FA cup last night. No decent referee would have debated it is not a red. So that incident would have been something like

1. Referee cautions
2. VAR 10-15 second video review (while the free kick is being set up)
3. VAR tells Mason, "mate that tackle was a clear red"
4. Mason. "Thanks mate".
5. Mason changes yellow to a red with a TV signal.

All over within 20 seconds. Spectators and TV pundit are not left in suspense about what is happening. They would only realise there was a review after the new decision is communicated. They wont even know there was a review if there is no change in the decision.

Here is another similar incident I posted in the other thread.
https://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/article/2018/01/28/brama-awaits-fate-x-rated-tackle-gameiro

 

[Padfoot]

3 minutes plus for the penalty decision, 2 minutes for the disallowed goal......yet only 4 minutes additional time shown......with 2 subs as well......

Then the ridiculous consultation over the 3rd WBA goal......the AR never flagged so the decision was 100% before the consultation.......so are we going to see VAR for every decision that is potentially match changing? Just so the referee can cover their arse?

The penalty.....Pawson had already signalled a goal kick......and was moving away until the Liverpool players appealed for the VAR....something which they are not supposed to be able to do? So, Pawson concedes to their demands and consults the VAR......for nearly 4 minutes.......before reversing his goal kick decision and awarding a penalty.
So now we will see players appealing for VAR at every "contentious" decision.......and you can bet your bottom dollar that the PGMOL referees will go with it because can you imagine the backlash if they didn't and it turned out to be the wrong decision?

Absolutely destroying the game....needs to get shelved ASAP, before football just turns into the UK equivalent of American Football.......a 90 minute game taking 2 hrs to complete.......but then again, they are obviously not adding the time on correctly, so it will just be a 90 minute game with 70 minutes of actual football and 20 minutes of people staring at screens and sticking their fingers on an earpiece.

Of course, it allows the referee to completely shirk any responsibility for making a tough call, because they can just go the VAR and use it to get out of jail.

Pathetic.

 

[AlexF]

The penalty.....Pawson had already signalled a goal kick......and was moving away until the Liverpool players appealed for the VAR....something which they are not supposed to be able to do? So, Pawson concedes to their demands and consults the VAR......

Problem is, this is what it LOOKED like.

In reality, it was "signal for the goal kick, begin moving away, VAR talks in his ear and says something like 'hold up the restart for a moment, we may have a problem'. Then tells him 'I see a clear and obvious error on the restart,' and asks him if he wants to consult on it."

 

[Padfoot]

Problem is, this is what it LOOKED like.

In reality, it was "signal for the goal kick, begin moving away, VAR talks in his ear and says something like 'hold up the restart for a moment, we may have a problem'. Then tells him 'I see a clear and obvious error on the restart,' and asks him if he wants to consult on it."

And this is exactly what is wrong with it. It should only be used if the referee decides he wants to review something. They shouldn’t be chirping down the earpiece.

Where do you draw the line? Are we going to wait for the all clear from the VAR on throw ins?

 

[Ciley Myrus]

If you have ever done a live game, million viewers worldwide and as AR you give a tight offside, or (here we dont have GLT), a goal/non goal call, 15 mins in, I can assure you, despite whatever coaching you have had, and despite textbook being to forget about it and move on, ALL you can think about is that half time whistle when you find out from texts/playback either on tv or phone, if indeed you have called it correctly. Granted this can work to the negative but, as we are trying to establish positives, the sheer elation and confidence you gain factually knowing you got it correct ( the unflagged WBA goal on Sat for example) sets you up nicely for the rest of the game, the players retain complete trust in you, as do the other officials on the game.
Some refs adopted a no phones dressing room policy in the past to try to avoid knowledge on a wrong call in fear would affect the rest of the game however with technology as it is, even lower league games, the correct call is known in seconds.
To know you correctly awarded ball over line for only goal of the game makes your weekend, you have got the KMI correct and played your part.

 

[es1]

And this is exactly what is wrong with it. It should only be used if the referee decides he wants to review something. They shouldn’t be chirping down the earpiece.

Where do you draw the line? Are we going to wait for the all clear from the VAR on throw ins?

i would prefer football not to bother at all with VAR, i think this system has so many flaws it's ridiculous. I'm really not looking forward to going to the league cup final for my first experience of a city game being refereed with VAR.

That said i think it's here to stay so it's important we find a solution that works for all stakeholders (referees, fans, players, coaches, media etc)

there's a few options i can see:

a challenge based system (like cricket/tennis)

A referral system solely initiated by the referee to check fouls play etc. but with the option for a VAR to help the ref out with mistaken identity and missed violent conduct

 

[GraemeS]

As with Padfoot, I'm going to C&P my thoughts from the other thread as well:

This game neatly shows why the current VAR system is both a good and bad thing:

If Liverpool had scored the penalty, VAR would have facilitated a swing from 1-3 based on wrong decisions to 2-2 based on correct ones. That's a significant impact and if Liverpool hadn't been so poor as to collapse anyway, it would have been game-defining - and although I don't thnik it's currently the case at Liverpool we can all think of managers who's jobs have been saved or lost based on cup runs. I'm baffled how getting these decisions objectively right could possibly be considered a bad thing for football or refereeing standards in isolation.

But, as many have pointed out already, it has significant flaws too. Time used up carrying out reviews is too significant and is clearly not being added on correctly, it looks absolutely rubbish to those in the ground and not much better to those watching on TV at home, and perhaps most importantly to those of us on this forum, it's coming dangerously close to affecting the actual decisions referees are making.

The last point I think will be less of a factor if a review system is implemented - referees won't want to have a manager overturn their decision, so extra incentive to get decisions right rather than taking the "safe" option that can be easily reviewed. Perhaps we need to consider an independant timekeeper as well, as referees clearly can't be trusted to stop their watches correctly at the moment. And the issue of why replays can't be show in stadiums and we can't be allowed to listen to the referee's communication is a much bigger one than just VAR....

 

[NorthLondonRef]

Good analogy but not quite. It will be more like telling the driver he has made a clear mistake and he should fix it. If my passenger who is just as familiar with the area tells me I took the wrong turn or I am clearly driving in the wrong direction of a one way street, I would have no issue turning back without having to look at the street directory or the GPS nowadays (although i know some drivers who would . that would be due to ego rather that authority). If the referee makes the final decision, so be it but it would have to be with no further discussions or dialog about the accuracy of the change of decision. Dialogs and re-reviews by the referee cause delays. and given the argument about "clear and obvious error" I don't see any reason for the referee to ever not accept the VAR direction.



My main point is that 50-50 decision should never get past the VAR. Subjective decision will only be changed if error is beyond doubt and non-debatable (clear error).
Like the tackle on Sane in FA cup last night. No decent referee would have debated it is not a red. So that incident would have been something like

1. Referee cautions
2. VAR 10-15 second video review (while the free kick is being set up)
3. VAR tells Mason, "mate that tackle was a clear red"
4. Mason. "Thanks mate".
5. Mason changes yellow to a red with a TV signal.

All over within 20 seconds. Spectators and TV pundit are not left in suspense about what is happening. They would only realise there was a review after the new decision is communicated. They wont even know there was a review if there is no change in the decision.

Here is another similar incident I posted in the other thread.
https://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/article/2018/01/28/brama-awaits-fate-x-rated-tackle-gameiro

I like the bold bit and your thinking. That's exactly what I've been advocating for a while. I don't like the pantomime aspect of the whole thing i.e making a drama of it, putting the finger to the ear and creating a massive delay. Are our referee's not able to multitask anymore? In the current system, there is no way that happens in my opinion. The ref would create a drama over the whole thing, have his finger to his ear and they'll be going back and forwards in conversation. I don't even know why ref's are even engaging in so much conversation with the VAR. It's not a debate. The whole thing needs to be streamlined dramatically.

 

[Padfoot]

If you have ever done a live game, million viewers worldwide and as AR you give a tight offside, or (here we dont have GLT), a goal/non goal call, 15 mins in, I can assure you, despite whatever coaching you have had, and despite textbook being to forget about it and move on, ALL you can think about is that half time whistle when you find out from texts/playback either on tv or phone, if indeed you have called it correctly. Granted this can work to the negative but, as we are trying to establish positives, the sheer elation and confidence you gain factually knowing you got it correct ( the unflagged WBA goal on Sat for example) sets you up nicely for the rest of the game, the players retain complete trust in you, as do the other officials on the game.
Some refs adopted a no phones dressing room policy in the past to try to avoid knowledge on a wrong call in fear would affect the rest of the game however with technology as it is, even lower league games, the correct call is known in seconds.
To know you correctly awarded ball over line for only goal of the game makes your weekend, you have got the KMI correct and played your part.

And the other side of that coin?

Carrying on the game after having your decision overturned by the VAR, thus destroying your credibility with players, managers and spectators.......

 

[alexgr]

And the other side of that coin?

Carrying on the game after having your decision overturned by the VAR, thus destroying your credibility with players, managers and spectators.......

The best way to enhance your credibility is by getting decisions right. In my opinion, spectators/coaches/players don’t care about individual credibility but collective credibility - how often have we heard “oh the ref can’t see it but the lino should have”. Eventually, all managers etc are going to remember is that the right decision has been reached, and they can’t reach for the ‘blame the ref’ excuse any longer. There are flaws for sure, but I don’t think reducing credibility is up there

 

[NorthLondonRef]

The best way to enhance your credibility is by getting decisions right. In my opinion, spectators/coaches/players don’t care about individual credibility but collective credibility - how often have we heard “oh the ref can’t see it but the lino should have”. Eventually, all managers etc are going to remember is that the right decision has been reached, and they can’t reach for the ‘blame the ref’ excuse any longer. There are flaws for sure, but I don’t think reducing credibility is up there

They can blame the ref when the decisions are still open to opinion. Salah was very very close to making too much of that foul. If the defender's touch had been slightly less, and Salah's dive slightly more, that's a dive and free-kick the other way. Similarly, if Barry had gone down like Salah on the offside West Brom goal from the corner, that's a penalty if Salah's is a penalty.

A coach I know was told by a referee assessor on his pro license course that 60% of yellow cards would be overturned to red if the challenges were viewed in slow motion. If VAR has to be somehow introduced without question, then let's use it to rule out offside goals, handball goals etc, mistaken identity, violent conduct and red cards, but it can't continue to be the pantomime that it is.

And I disagree with the notion that the ref should be the one to insitgate the VAR. It should be the opposite i.e VAR informing the ref he's missed something or "that's a clear red". Forgot the mother's meeting on the pitch, forget running to the sideline to watch a TV. Just clear and simple instructions. I always thought with the availability of replays, decisions could be make much quicker i.e the VAR get's the replay's as quick as possible, looks at it, and makes a decision as quick as possible and tell's the referee. "We want to ensure the decisions are correct".....yeah brilliant, but this is a live game, it's not a analysis or evaluation session where you are sitting in a classroom.

From what everyone has seen, VAR still has many many issues in terms of what we use it for and how we use it. It should still be trialled and played around with for years before it's introduced, but there seems to be some sort of agenda where it's being fast-tracked and thrust into use way too quickly. What a lack of regard for the game and sport when they are pushing this through so frivolously

Goal Line tech was great. Nobody even had an opinion on it because it's so simple. Ball crosses line, watch beeps, get on with the game. VAR needs to get in the bin and stay there. Pro player's hate it.

 

[santa sangria]

As per the other threads I think it is a disaster so far. I am listening intently to Ciley's comment above. I haven't run the line on a televised game. John Nic-style anecdote/analogy alert: I have mimed playback in a band in front of 25,000 people. When you are miming you can't play a bum note, you are not really a musician anymore, and the rush of performing turns into the agony of embarrassment as the days and weeks unfold and you at last see the TV footage. I would rather play with the risk of error - Freddie, Bruce, Bono have all made awful SNAFUs on the biggest stage - and experience the performance with all it's thrills and constant connection, than do playback or have midi parts overriding any improvisation. However, I am quite happy to have a bit of reverb on - and have the front of house engineer mix the levels and stop unwanted feedback.

(PS I am not Chris Martin, just an unknown schmuck )

...and this "debate" about VAR is just obscuring the "real problem" of lack of respect, particularly in televised games (Wayne).

 

[PinnerPaul]

Its been stated by PGMOL that referees get 96% of decisions correct. Of the 4% that are wrong, I'm guessing, that, as this includes ALL decisions, that the wrong decisions that are KMIs can't be more than say 20% of the 4% - so less than 1% of decisions that have an impact on the game.

Plus as we have seen not all VAR decisions are 'correct' either. Given those stats, is it really worth the money and changes to the game - not in my opinion.

From comments from some commentators at the weekend - they seem to expect VAR to result in the 'perfect' match as far as decisions are concerned - never going to happen - its chasing the impossible.

One thing that struck me over the weekend - one benefit of VAR was that it was supposed to stop dissent - so I didn't see 7 WBA players surround the referee after that penalty decision then?!

 

[Ciley Myrus]

And the other side of that coin?

Carrying on the game after having your decision overturned by the VAR, thus destroying your credibility with players, managers and spectators.......

Well I guess not just in refereeing but in life in general, some folk focus on positives, some folk on negatives.
As far as I know, the AR who flagged offside at the Leicester? game has not been hung drawn and quatered, nobody has demoted him and nobody threw rotten fruit at him. The general consensus was, hey, you flagged, it was close, turns out you were wrong but no harm was done as legal goal was given.

To put it into personal perspective, I once gave ball over line in a top league match after 7 mins which was due for delayed rerun later that night. My credibilty would be through the roof if I was able to confirm it was a goal.
As it was, you end up with 4000 fans in the one stand behind me, (total crowd 12k) but this ground has a big touchline stand, not sure if you have made the correct call

Turns out later that night it was a goal. Positives. Correct decisions.

If we always concentrated on the negatives some of us would not wake up on match day

 

[JamesL]

Its been stated by PGMOL that referees get 96% of decisions correct. Of the 4% that are wrong, I'm guessing, that, as this includes ALL decisions, that the wrong decisions that are KMIs can't be more than say 20% of the 4% - so less than 1% of decisions that have an impact on the game.

Plus as we have seen not all VAR decisions are 'correct' either. Given those stats, is it really worth the money and changes to the game - not in my opinion.

From comments from some commentators at the weekend - they seem to expect VAR to result in the 'perfect' match as far as decisions are concerned - never going to happen - its chasing the impossible.

One thing that struck me over the weekend - one benefit of VAR was that it was supposed to stop dissent - so I didn't see 7 WBA players surround the referee after that penalty decision then?!

I noted the offender wasn't one of them.

 

[PinnerPaul]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/foo...otball…/ar-BBIo6M8?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp

This article sums up the debate brilliantly I think.

Thoughts?