A&H

World Cup VAR

The Referee Store
Yampy said:
So, the less important, non match changing decisions can still be wrong?
Click to expand...
You use selective words like 'biggest' and 'match changing'. Surely, the whole point of VAR is to get all decisions correct.
VAR will only be of use the day it is scrapped and replaced by AI.
 
cwyeary said:
No the point of VAR is to correct the big decisions that are clearly wrong. Is this a new concept to you?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Yampy said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Yampy said:
You use selective words like 'biggest' and 'match changing'. Surely, the whole point of VAR is to get all decisions correct.
Click to expand...
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.

I think they have the balance right by having the four reviewable incidents only. As Rusty pointed out, a few hindsight big calls might slip through but that would be a small percentage and price we have to pay for the minimum interference criteria.

I get it that you don't like VAR. I was pretty much the same but it is growing on me. I still think it has some flaws but I think they are mostly in implementation and not the concept. Overall it is beneficial. That's not to say I wont criticise it when I see an issue with it. Nothing new there though. We all love the game but have a whinge about the LOTG every now and then.
 
We should get the first few assignments released today. It sounds like Ricci from Brazil is likely to have the opening match.
 
Yampy said:
So, the less important, non match changing decisions can still be wrong?
Click to expand...
Yes. As the protocol summary released by the IFAB put it:
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
Click to expand...
Yampy said:
Surely, the whole point of VAR is to get all decisions correct.
Click to expand...
No - and this has been stated quite clearly from the very outset.
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.
Click to expand...
 
Let’s hope VAR is superb and most of us are wrong!
I’m sure deep down, as referees, we all want correct outcomes to the LOTG, it may be brilliant, it may be a disaster, let’s wait and see, let the fun commence!
 
RustyRef said:
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.
Click to expand...
They can check every decision. But a conscious decision has been made not to, for the sake of the flow of the game.
 
cwyeary said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
cwyeary said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
cwyeary said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you really believe that this will stop people blaming referees ......... I'll keep it polite - I think you are being very very very optimistic!
 
PinnerPaul said:
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.
Click to expand...
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):
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 ...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
PinnerPaul said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Peter Grove said:
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):
Click to expand...

Apologies Peter, for being factually incorrect, but my reservations in the review process going back to when a team gained possession and started the move that led to a penalty/goal remain.
 
JamesL said:
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.
Click to expand...

13 or 14 then James - think my point is still valid in either case!:p

Maybe its just me but the term 'Assistant Video Assistant Referee' just makes me cringe.

As others have said above - we'll just have to wait and see how it all works.

It certainly isn't under resourced, so no excuses if it doesn't work out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top