Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[Neil86]

On the whole VAR chat, and how long it takes to come to a decision, could you put in some sort of limit. Say 30 seconds?

If a decision is clear and obvious, you will see that within 30 seconds. Watching the same thing, multiple times, from multiple angles really boils down to the referee not having a clue. 

A reasonable time limit surely takes away a lot of the things the fans hate, ie time taken to get the game restarted, Games being re-refereed etc, i suppose it gives the referee the chance to see it once more and to make a decision, as opposed to freeze frames, slo mo replays and the likes

The offside one is difficult, as far as I am aware, it is the one thing the system gets 100% right all of the time, albeit I have certainly debated a few. And as we seen in the Prem, it still comes down to officials not making a pigs ear of it. But 2-3 minute delays to draw lines when we are really talking toe nails surely isn't the answer, saying that, I don't know what the answer is.

[JamesP_81]

@Neil86has just made the point I was going to make about the time limits. I've said in the past that if a decision cannot be decided upon within a minute or so then it can't be clear or obvious, it certainly feels a lot of the time like they are making decisions just so that they can have stats that say 'look VAR has come to the rescue in x amount of incidents in x amount of games'. I know that I would much rather lose a game because an opponent has scored a goal that should perhaps have been chopped off but the ref didn't clearly see any incident than losing a game because a perfectly legal goal has been chopped off due to a microscopic misdemeanor that has been replayed and freezeframed for 5 minutes.  

End of the day as long as the ugly sisters both believe there is a systemic agenda against them then we'll be stuck with whatever technology is available that 'levels the playing field'. 

[thisGRAEME]

11 hours ago, crazylegsjoe_mfc said:

If I was offering any suggestions on how to improve it - why don't they cut out the on field review by the referee? I know there have been a few since, but weren't we stuck on one instance of Willie Collum sticking to his guns for ages? I don't know why they're so hung up on the match referee being the one making the decision.

Actually agree with this, tbh. Having a fucking omnipotent all seeing eye wading into games willy-nilly is somehow even worse. Referees actually dealing with the players throughout the game should be making the ultimate decision.

11 minutes ago, Neil86 said:

On the whole VAR chat, and how long it takes to come to a decision, could you put in some sort of limit. Say 30 seconds?

Not a nip at you, but all the "well the rules need to change in X,Y,Z way" drives me daft. It's the same with people wanting offside changed in some way because they wanted definitive answers to offside, got definitive answers to offside, then replied "Actually no we don't want that!".

Just get rid, it's fucking boring, makes the game actively worse as a matchday experience, and gives additional oxygen to the worst people in the world arguing about it. I said from the off that people thought VAR would genuinely just give them decisions they want, which is a very football fan way to approach this, but that's an absolutely mad way to approach anything. Get rid.

[Desp]

12 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:

Just get rid, it's fucking boring, makes the game actively worse as a matchday experience, and gives additional oxygen to the worst people in the world arguing about it. I said from the off that people thought VAR would genuinely just give them decisions they want, which is a very football fan way to approach this, but that's an absolutely mad way to approach anything. Get rid.

As a TV Personality & Celebrity 'Well fan, don't you have any influence here?

Get the finger oot! 

[thisGRAEME]

17 minutes ago, Desp said:

As a TV Personality & Celebrity 'Well fan, don't you have any influence here?

Get the finger oot! 

Is there a lower bar to clear than Celebrity 'Well Fan currently in existence?

I'll pull some strings.

[Swello]

9 hours ago, AnderooMFC said:

The real issue with both decisions that went against us, and many others I've seen since it's introduction, isn't VAR. It's the actual rules themselves

I think you're partly right - but what we have now is a situation where the rules and VAR are completely intertwined. The main contention at the moment generally is handball, which is the best example. The rule itself has been *completely* mangled to game ruining levels by IFAB, with defenders now running about with their hands behind their back and penalties given for a ball being blasted off someone's arm from 10cm away.

No matter how absurd the handball rule now is, it simply couldn't reach the level of genuine farce we're at without VAR - things are now being given that are practically impossible for referees to see with the naked eye and are 100% reliant on (a badly flawed implementation of) technology and an offsite referee.

It's worth actually thinking back to football of five years ago (or watch a Championship game on a Friday night) to really appreciate how bad things now are.

[Ron Aldo]

My view on VAR, which has probably already been said, is that it's mostly utter shite. 

Goal line technology improved the game and VAR for black and white decisions (e.g. - offsides) would be fine. Where it falls down massively is when it comes to objective decisions such as Theo's handball at the weekend. 

The poor standard of refs we have up here were getting a lot wrong pre-VAR but you could just about give them the benefit of the doubt (sometimes) given that they only had one look and a split second to make a decision. 

We're now in a situation where officials are getting multiple views of things and are STILL making awful decisions. To be honest I'm surprised more refs (not just in Scotland) aren't calling for VAR to be binned as in the eyes of many it leaves them with no excuse for some of the decisions being made on a weekly basis.

[Busta Nut]

I don't understand the "it's not VAR, it's the people using it" chat.

They aren't really a separate thing. 

VAR is a bag of shite. Get rid of it. 

Refs aren't 100% spot on either but at least when there is a mistake it doesn't bore us to death either checking it or the long shite chat about the checking of it. 

[Mr Waldo]

1 hour ago, Neil86 said:

The offside one is difficult, as far as I am aware, it is the one thing the system gets 100% right all of the time, albeit I have certainly debated a few. And as we seen in the Prem, it still comes down to officials not making a pigs ear of it. But 2-3 minute delays to draw lines when we are really talking toe nails surely isn't the answer, saying that, I don't know what the answer is.

Make the defender line ten times thicker than the attackers?

['WellDel]

VAR as it was originally pitched/intended should have been a positive addition to the game. A quick check against any clear and obvious infringement missed by the on field ref. If you're scrutinising for eons and over analysing, you're doing it wrong.

As it is being implemented in reality, you have incompetent fools sitting in a room miles away picking to death, for instance, possible miniscule contraventions of a ludicrous handball rule and then awarding the most baffling and infuriating decisions. 

You could have a one armed centre half, and they'd still find a way to award a penalty for the ball striking the stump where his limb used to be. It's as much the operators making a cnut of it as it is the system itself. It's taking away so much from the enjoyment and flow of the match day experience and, more importantly, often negatively impacting the outcome of games. Get It To Fcuk.

[Cedrics Mighty Well Army]

They don't have all-league votes: they ask the Bigot Brothers their opinion, and if they agree with each other, that's it.

I am not David Icke but...

[VincentGuerin]

1 hour ago, Neil86 said:

On the whole VAR chat, and how long it takes to come to a decision, could you put in some sort of limit. Say 30 seconds?

If a decision is clear and obvious, you will see that within 30 seconds. Watching the same thing, multiple times, from multiple angles really boils down to the referee not having a clue. 

A reasonable time limit surely takes away a lot of the things the fans hate, ie time taken to get the game restarted, Games being re-refereed etc, i suppose it gives the referee the chance to see it once more and to make a decision, as opposed to freeze frames, slo mo replays and the likes

The offside one is difficult, as far as I am aware, it is the one thing the system gets 100% right all of the time, albeit I have certainly debated a few. And as we seen in the Prem, it still comes down to officials not making a pigs ear of it. But 2-3 minute delays to draw lines when we are really talking toe nails surely isn't the answer, saying that, I don't know what the answer is.

 

1 hour ago, JamesP_81 said:

@Neil86has just made the point I was going to make about the time limits. I've said in the past that if a decision cannot be decided upon within a minute or so then it can't be clear or obvious, it certainly feels a lot of the time like they are making decisions just so that they can have stats that say 'look VAR has come to the rescue in x amount of incidents in x amount of games'. I know that I would much rather lose a game because an opponent has scored a goal that should perhaps have been chopped off but the ref didn't clearly see any incident than losing a game because a perfectly legal goal has been chopped off due to a microscopic misdemeanor that has been replayed and freezeframed for 5 minutes.  

End of the day as long as the ugly sisters both believe there is a systemic agenda against them then we'll be stuck with whatever technology is available that 'levels the playing field'. 

Time limits don't work because with a lot of decisions you need to check more than the incident itself.

For example, if an attacking team is awarded a penalty for a handball, they also need to check that there wasn't an offence committed by the attacking team in the build-up to that, which would mean no penalty.

You often just can't do that quickly. So, a time limit would mean delaying the game and getting inaccurate decisions, making the whole thing just completely pointless.

Say Motherwell are awarded a penalty for hanball, but VAR doesn't bother to go back and check to realise that two Motherwell players were offside before that or that there was a foul by a Motherwell player. Giving the penalty in a rush would be even worse than what we have now.

Of course, the whole thing should just be in the bin.

[Neil86]

1 hour ago, thisGRAEME said:

Actually agree with this, tbh. Having a fucking omnipotent all seeing eye wading into games willy-nilly is somehow even worse. Referees actually dealing with the players throughout the game should be making the ultimate decision.

Not a nip at you, but all the "well the rules need to change in X,Y,Z way" drives me daft. It's the same with people wanting offside changed in some way because they wanted definitive answers to offside, got definitive answers to offside, then replied "Actually no we don't want that!".

Just get rid, it's fucking boring, makes the game actively worse as a matchday experience, and gives additional oxygen to the worst people in the world arguing about it. I said from the off that people thought VAR would genuinely just give them decisions they want, which is a very football fan way to approach this, but that's an absolutely mad way to approach anything. Get rid.

Yeah, as mentioned, my only issue with offside is the length of time it takes, even clear offsides are taking minutes. But you can't argue with the technology, user error aside, it is correct 100% of the time.

on the other point, 'just get rid' whilst I 100% agree with that, and all your other points re matchday experience, making the game worse etc, I think it's fantasy land stuff. So coming up with ways to improve the use of it and ultimately get it working in a way, that supporters and clubs are accepting off, Happy probably to strong a word. 

I have no idea if it would be possible (someone somewhere must know) if there is a good v bad type stat, which is very subjective from club to club obviously.

I'd be over the moon to be proven wrong, I just can't see how the League/clubs would invest X amount and bin it so quickly. 

[Alanos]

I’m for VAR if used sensibly. 

Put me in an F1 car and I’ll crash it. Same with the current shitey refs running VAR.

Make it easier. Change the wording from ‘Clear and Obvious’ which puts pressure on the match day ref to ‘Give the Ref a second Look’ (or fancier wording). Less pressure and VAR ref can simply say have a Quick Look and see what you think. No complaints, ref as a second look with no pressure. 

Also, the laws need to catch up with technology. Make them simpler. Offside - You are only offside if there’s a clear visible gap between attacker and defender.

[Doctor Manhattan]

36 minutes ago, Swello said:

I think you're partly right - but what we have now is a situation where the rules and VAR are completely intertwined. The main contention at the moment generally is handball, which is the best example. The rule itself has been *completely* mangled to game ruining levels by IFAB, with defenders now running about with their hands behind their back and penalties given for a ball being blasted off someone's arm from 10cm away.

Yes.

37 minutes ago, Swello said:

No matter how absurd the handball rule now is, it simply couldn't reach the level of genuine farce we're at without VAR - things are now being given that are practically impossible for referees to see with the naked eye and are 100% reliant on (a badly flawed implementation of) technology and an offsite referee.

Yes.

38 minutes ago, Swello said:

It's worth actually thinking back to football of five years ago (or watch a Championship game on a Friday night) to really appreciate how bad things now are.

Hell, yes!

[Blink182]

6 minutes ago, Alanos said:

 

Also, the laws need to catch up with technology. Make them simpler. Offside - You are only offside if there’s a clear visible gap between attacker and defender.

There's the issue though. You'd still need to draw lines to check there's a gap of any sort. In theory it works but with technology it doesn't. Wenger wants to bring in the gap idea. But with VAR it won't speed anything up at all imo.

[well fan for life]

7 minutes ago, Alanos said:

‘Clear and Obvious’

They made a rod for their own back with this. If something takes 6 minutes of going frame by frame to work out if it hit someone's bicep and, if so, where abouts in relation to the "shirt line" then I'd suggest that the initial decision did not have anything clear nor obvious wrong with it. 

[Neil86]

5 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

 

Time limits don't work because with a lot of decisions you need to check more than the incident itself.

For example, if an attacking team is awarded a penalty for a handball, they also need to check that there wasn't an offence committed by the attacking team in the build-up to that, which would mean no penalty.

You often just can't do that quickly. So, a time limit would mean delaying the game and getting inaccurate decisions, making the whole thing just completely pointless.

Say Motherwell are awarded a penalty for hanball, but VAR doesn't bother to go back and check to realise that two Motherwell players were offside before that or that there was a foul by a Motherwell player. Giving the penalty in a rush would be even worse than what we have now.

Of course, the whole thing should just be in the bin? 

Was VAR not brought in with the understanding that games wouldn't be re-refereed?

again, I don't have any right or wrong answers, it's not my job. VAR over analyses every decision, could we strip it back to the basics, and let the referee and his officials deal with the rest of the game.

Would I want rid, absolutely, I just can't see it happening.

[VincentGuerin]

Just now, Neil86 said:

Was VAR not brought in with the understanding that games wouldn't be re-refereed?

again, I don't have any right or wrong answers, it's not my job. VAR over analyses every decision, could we strip it back to the basics, and let the referee and his officials deal with the rest of the game.

Would I want rid, absolutely, I just can't see it happening.

A lot of things were said about VAR. Few of them turned out to be true.

But I think we'd all agree that you can't award a penalty without checking you're not ignoring an obvious offence by the attacking team.

That means you simply have to take the time to check. You can't say "You've got 30 seconds" or there's no point.

[thisGRAEME]

15 minutes ago, Alanos said:

Also, the laws need to catch up with technology. Make them simpler. Offside - You are only offside if there’s a clear visible gap between attacker and defender.

No.

Offside is offside, that's what VAR is. It is a definitive decision on what is or isn't offside.

If you don't want a definitive definition of on or off, just get rid of offside, then.