VAR

[Blootoon87]

It's shite.

[Paco]

Tonight was an absolute calamity. Not all VAR’s fault, of course, but shows the system as it is needs adjustment.

That isn’t news, of course. Tonight will be a case study on how not to use VAR moving forward. Shame for the teams involved though.

[Steve McQueen]

Was there 2 sets of var officials tonight?

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

On 24/06/2018 at 10:16, Dee Man said:

No one seems to mention that within a second of Kane being rugby tackled the ball fell to Lingard (I think) about 6 yards out in the middle of the box with a clear shot at goal who once again sclaffed his shot. If the ref awarded the penalty England would've had had two chances to score. 

The mad thing about the Kane one was that that scramble was checked by VAR and nothing was given.

[peasy23]

The mad thing about the Kane one was that that scramble was checked by VAR and nothing was given.

And even worse was the one against Mitrovic where he was tag teamed by 2 defenders but the foul went against him.

[Musketeer Gripweed]

It encourages cuntish behaviour from too many sources. Not a fan.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

8 minutes ago, peasy23 said:

28 minutes ago, Carl Cort said:

The mad thing about the Kane one was that that scramble was checked by VAR and nothing was given.

And even worse was the one against Mitrovic where he was tag teamed by 2 defenders but the foul went against him.

He should have been awarded about 5 penalties. They actually lifted him off the ground! 

[Dunning1874]

1 hour ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

Why are people criticising VAR for that penalty decision? It was the human error of a rubbish referee that caused the issue, not any failing with the VAR system.

Indeed. Tonight was the first time a game has descended into farce, but that was 100% down to the referee on the pitch contriving to get decisions wrong after taking minutes to watch replays - minutes which he completely failed to make up for with stoppage time - rather than VAR.

Much like VAR being a shambles in England, it's down to the referee on the pitch being clueless rather than any flaw in the system.

[Guest Flash]

9 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

Indeed. Tonight was the first time a game has descended into farce, but that was 100% down to the referee on the pitch contriving to get decisions wrong after taking minutes to watch replays - minutes which he completely failed to make up for with stoppage time - rather than VAR.

Much like VAR being a shambles in England, it's down to the referee on the pitch being clueless rather than any flaw in the system.

Might be an idea for the VAR team to only allow the ref to watch the replay that they consider shows the incident clearly. And he then gets to watch it a maximum of 3 times. Ideally, he would get to see it once. Then the pitchside tv is switched off. This would cut down on the time and also mean that only clear errors are corrected, not ones that require viewing 5 different super slow motion replays about 10 times before being able to decide.

 

[Salvo Montalbano]

Indeed. Tonight was the first time a game has descended into farce, but that was 100% down to the referee on the pitch contriving to get decisions wrong after taking minutes to watch replays - minutes which he completely failed to make up for with stoppage time - rather than VAR.
Much like VAR being a shambles in England, it's down to the referee on the pitch being clueless rather than any flaw in the system.

The problem of course is that the referee, having correctly not awarded the penalty, the VAR team told him he'd made a clear and obvious error. Clearly in that circumstance, in a World Cup in front of millions of TV viewers (and I dare say in the majority of cases VAR is used), the ref was under severe pressure to change his mind. It would take a very strong ref to be told he'd made a clear and obvious mistake, view the monitor and then say "Nope, I was right and you were wrong." Allowing on-field referees to refer things like they do in rugby or having challenges like in tennis and cricket might make some sort of sense, but the current method just leads to the VAR team refereeing the game rather than the on field ref.

[nsr]

It is still unclear to me why the VAR team are picking up on certain incidents and ignoring certain others.

[forameus]

After watching last night's hilarity, am I the only one that actually enjoys the absolute chaos it's bringing?  After the game last night, Shearer alternated between fits of incandescent rage and the sort of tone of voice you use for reporting on a stand collapsing.  Sure it turned it into a bit of a farce, but had the referee made the correct decision and stood by his original, the game would have petered out into a boring 1-0 for Portugal.  What happened was much more entertaining to me, as a neutral.  Of course, once it becomes your own team in that situation, it becomes less funny, but given we're Scottish it doesn't really affect us.

The problem I see with it is the extra power it seems to have given to players.  I'm already sick of the drawing a TV screen in the air stuff, and it has definitely led to an increase in playacting in the knowledge that even soft decisions can get players into trouble.  

[Savage Henry]

29 minutes ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

10 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

Indeed. Tonight was the first time a game has descended into farce, but that was 100% down to the referee on the pitch contriving to get decisions wrong after taking minutes to watch replays - minutes which he completely failed to make up for with stoppage time - rather than VAR.
Much like VAR being a shambles in England, it's down to the referee on the pitch being clueless rather than any flaw in the system.

The problem of course is that the referee, having correctly not awarded the penalty, the VAR team told him he'd made a clear and obvious error. Clearly in that circumstance, in a World Cup in front of millions of TV viewers (and I dare say in the majority of cases VAR is used), the ref was under severe pressure to change his mind. It would take a very strong ref to be told he'd made a clear and obvious mistake, view the monitor and then say "Nope, I was right and you were wrong." Allowing on-field referees to refer things like they do in rugby or having challenges like in tennis and cricket might make some sort of sense, but the current method just leads to the VAR team refereeing the game rather than the on field ref.

 

The VAR team didn't tell him he had made a clear and obvious error - that would be to predetermine the outcome of the review.  They merely referred to a possibility of an error.  I don't think it's happened yet, but the referee can over-rule the VAR team.  In fact, that pretty much happened with the Ronaldo yellow where the team flagged the possibility of a red card incident.

Honestly, I don't think any of those decisions last night were particularly bad.  I've seen penalties given for very similar handball incidents.  You could argue that one until the cows come home.  The Ronaldo yellow was the correct decision, and the Portugal penalty was the correct decision (I have no idea why the referee didn't give it originally)  .   The real problem was 1. three incidents in one coming up as a result of the referee missing them. 2. The referee taking far too much time to stop play.  3. The childish behaviour of both sides.    The poor performance of the referee resulted in in what seemed to be a farce.  Better, stronger referees deal with those incidents in a better, stronger way and the farce never happens, even if the referrals do.  

In short, the system worked fine.  The referee handled the game - and VAR - badly.

[The Stig]

the thing i don't like about it is that any time a player is now touch inside the box they are going down like they have been shot and then looking to refer to the VAR system.

When any reply is slowed down it can make any contact (and as the fuckwit pundits like to spout "If there's contact then it's a foul", which is a lot of nonsense) seem a lot greater and therefore there is a second chance for the penalty to be awarded.

I think it should only be used for 100% certain  calls i.e Offside, ball in out of play etc  or for subjective calls give the captain 2 refers to VAR during the game and if Unsuccessful the lose one, and if they are right they keep it.

[Paco]

The Iran penalty took nearly two minutes before the match referee even went over to the monitors. As bad as he was - and he was an absolute disaster - I presume that wasn't his call.  He can only go to the monitors when he's told to. 

2 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

 

The VAR team didn't tell him he had made a clear and obvious error - that would be to predetermine the outcome of the review.  They merely referred to a possibility of an error.

That is technically true and how the system works on paper. But VAR review things several times a game and don't flag the referee's attention for everything - obviously that would become a farce. But the very nature of reviewing things and not asking the match ref to take a look implies he's got that right - asking him to take a look conversely implies he's got it wrong. 

[banana]

12 hours ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

Why are people criticising VAR for that penalty decision? It was the human error of a rubbish referee that caused the issue, not any failing with the VAR system.

The VAR is run by humans.

[The Moonster]

For me it doesn't remove controversy, which is the whole reason it was brought in.  I can see it's worth when there is a clear cut decision to be made (such as the Spain offside/onside call last night) but when the ref takes about 7 minutes to give a deliberate handball for a guy jumping for the ball and it hitting his arm from less than a yard away then we're verging into ridiculous.  The nonsense I've read regarding that Greizmann penalty against Australia is beyond belief too (Alan Burrows making an absolute mockery of himself on twitter), if we're using VAR and still getting decisions wrong then I'm not sure it's worth all the palaver. 

It's also not stopping play acting, if anything it makes it worse and now every time a decision goes against a team they're screaming at the ref to go and check VAR. The only thing that will stop play acting is retrospective bannings, but that will never materialise.  Into the sea for me.

[Dunning1874]

2 hours ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

11 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

Indeed. Tonight was the first time a game has descended into farce, but that was 100% down to the referee on the pitch contriving to get decisions wrong after taking minutes to watch replays - minutes which he completely failed to make up for with stoppage time - rather than VAR.
Much like VAR being a shambles in England, it's down to the referee on the pitch being clueless rather than any flaw in the system.

The problem of course is that the referee, having correctly not awarded the penalty, the VAR team told him he'd made a clear and obvious error. Clearly in that circumstance, in a World Cup in front of millions of TV viewers (and I dare say in the majority of cases VAR is used), the ref was under severe pressure to change his mind. It would take a very strong ref to be told he'd made a clear and obvious mistake, view the monitor and then say "Nope, I was right and you were wrong." Allowing on-field referees to refer things like they do in rugby or having challenges like in tennis and cricket might make some sort of sense, but the current method just leads to the VAR team refereeing the game rather than the on field ref.

I take that point, and I don't understand why they even referred the Iran penalty in the first place when it clearly wasn't a handball while the amount of time they took to send the ref to the monitor isn't good enough. Consider the consequences of only having the referee instigate the referral though.

Absolutely everybody but the referee and Mark Lawrenson could see that Portugal's penalty was a stonewaller. The referee was adamant in waving it away when it happened, then needed several replays to make his mind up before giving it when he should have awarded it after watching it back once and seeing that it was a blatant foul.

If the VAR officials didn't have the power to refer the referee to a replay in any circumstance, what would stop a scenario like that where everyone with the benefit of the replay can clearly see the referee has got it wrong, but the referee stubbornly insists he doesn't need to watch the replay?

With the current system a referee can still stick with his original decision if he feels he got right it having been referred to the replay, and I'd suggest if he doesn't have the temperament to go with what he thinks is right under that pressure he has no business being a rop level referee. If it was changed to only allow the referee to instigate it you could have obviously wrong decisions standing due to one referee with an ego stubbornly refusing to use VAR.

[Savage Henry]

31 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

For me it doesn't remove controversy, which is the whole reason it was brought in.  I can see it's worth when there is a clear cut decision to be made (such as the Spain offside/onside call last night) but when the ref takes about 7 minutes to give a deliberate handball for a guy jumping for the ball and it hitting his arm from less than a yard away then we're verging into ridiculous.  The nonsense I've read regarding that Greizmann penalty against Australia is beyond belief too (Alan Burrows making an absolute mockery of himself on twitter), if we're using VAR and still getting decisions wrong then I'm not sure it's worth all the palaver. 

It's also not stopping play acting, if anything it makes it worse and now every time a decision goes against a team they're screaming at the ref to go and check VAR. The only thing that will stop play acting is retrospective bannings, but that will never materialise.  Into the sea for me.

It wasn't brought in to remove controversy, though.  It was brought in to remove bad decisions. That's it.  With the possible exception of last night's hand ball, almost all of the decisions reviewed by VAR have resulted in correct decisions being made, and has also seen bad decisions overturned.

  The controversy will always exist, as  well it should.  

The play acting was only really an issue last night, again, due to the poor referee.  I wouldn't suggest this world cup has been any more or less full of simulation than any other.

[The Moonster]

1 minute ago, Savage Henry said:

It wasn't brought in to remove controversy, though.  It was brought in to remove bad decisions. That's it.  With the possible exception of last night's hand ball, almost all of the decisions reviewed by VAR have resulted in correct decisions being made, and has also seen bad decisions overturned.

  The controversy will always exist, as  well it should.  

The play acting was only really an issue last night, again, due to the poor referee.  I wouldn't suggest this world cup has been any more or less full of simulation than any other.

I haven't watched every game but the Griezmann penalty was a ridiculous decision as was that Iran penalty last night. Both have had massive implications for the teams involved.  Two decisions which were looked at for a long time and still the wrong verdict was reached, Griezmann one especially, if that's a penalty then I'm afraid the game is well and truly a bogey.