Chasing VAR out of Scotland

[VincentGuerin]

That Coventry decision is a genuine travesty.

Nobody who loves football can want that.

[PTR]

Genuinely painful that there will be those out there delighted with the Coventry decision. As mentioned, that's VAR in a nutshell. Surely this isn't what people want football to be? Tragic.

[VincentGuerin]

7 minutes ago, PTR said:

Genuinely painful that there will be those out there delighted with the Coventry decision. As mentioned, that's VAR in a nutshell. Surely this isn't what people want football to be? Tragic.

"Well, actually"

[Dunfermline Don]

VAR is in danger of alienating a whole generation of fans. I know that I now prefer going to games where it isn’t used. 

If it is to continue it needs to be vastly overhauled to restore my confidence in it. Football could take a leaf out of the eggchasers and have the conversation between the VAR and the ref broadcast to the fans in the ground so we can all know what is happening. 

Alternatively, like tennis, teams could be allowed to challenge a set number of decisions during a game. As at the moment it seems like they are sometimes trying to find reasons to give penalties to certain teams when no one else has seen anything! 

[gannonball]

44 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

"Well, actually"

It's the fact it was made out that offsides in VAR were factual and couldn't be really be messed up. Then when people dug in to these claims it was found to be bullshit which creates even more distrust and paranoia.

[Dons_1988]

There’s a special place in hell for the ‘offside is offside’ brigade and they will get their retribution one day. 

[Swello]

16 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

There’s a special place in hell for the ‘offside is offside’ brigade and they will get their retribution one day. 

Aye - it's been quite interesting/depressing to see so many zealots replying to "this is ruining the fun" type of points with "offside is offside". Once again, I'm convinced it's folk that don't actually go to games who generally hold these views. 

There seems to be a constituency of non-attending fans who get their main pleasure from transfer chat, contrived controversy and VAR decisions - who seem to have no conception of what it's actually like to be there to witness the sort of stuff that Coventry were doing yesterday (or even what Aberdeen almost did on Saturday). These are the folk that shite talk radio, clickbait drivel and pundits arguing with each other are aimed at.

[kingjoey]

17 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

That Coventry decision is a genuine travesty.

Nobody who loves football can want that.

For that tight a decision to be made, the system has to get the moment when the ball is touched correct to the millisecond. No way that can be done. Absolute injustice.

[Dons_1988]

1 hour ago, Swello said:

Aye - it's been quite interesting/depressing to see so many zealots replying to "this is ruining the fun" type of points with "offside is offside". Once again, I'm convinced it's folk that don't actually go to games who generally hold these views. 

There seems to be a constituency of non-attending fans who get their main pleasure from transfer chat, contrived controversy and VAR decisions - who seem to have no conception of what it's actually like to be there to witness the sort of stuff that Coventry were doing yesterday (or even what Aberdeen almost did on Saturday). These are the folk that shite talk radio, clickbait drivel and pundits arguing with each other are aimed at.

Yeah, I think it’s interesting that the pages and pages of arguing in our Match thread from Saturday is predominantly from people who (I presume) weren’t at the game. I was there and that will certainly not be my memory of it. 

[Theyellowbox]

The whole purpose of VAR is to cut of the obvious mistakes. By that very definition, no one should be coming away from a game questioning a right or wrong call. While I get offside can be a black or white decision on paper and in the VAR room, there has to be space for some subjective interpretation or not. Take the example where a player is off my a couple of inches and then scores. If the player just evades a tackle of a player getting to them, then fine, but if they get the ball miles ahead of a defender and it is very marginal, then don't chalk it off. Can be treated much like the whole red card for a last man foul debate. Offside if the defender could have got there, then chalk it off. Offside where defender would have never got there had it been marginally onside ,let the goal stand.

I'd say, at a game, fans can tell in 95%+ of scenarios as to whether an offside is right or not and it is those 5% you just cannot tell it should be used for.

If we cannot apply common sense to the decisions, then the game is gone. The beauty of football is the instant reactions. If I'm honest, I only celebrate at 80% capacity for goals now and I suspect most are the same.

I'm not anti VAR and do still genuinely think it has a place, but I am anti how we apply it.

The big Big test will be when a relegation or title is decided on a wrong call. If there is a massive cook up, then the powers thst be will have to react.

For me, the perfect VAR is limited to, ball over goal line, is a foul inside or outside the box and something like an elbow that a ref genuinely missed. 

[johnoswald2712]

I asked this question on Twitter as I honestly don’t know the answer. In games when VAR isn’t used, is level onside? Does the advantage go to the attacker? The answer to these questions used to be yes but now I honestly don’t know. If the rules have been changed do these changes only apply in games using VAR? Seems to me that different rules apply in different games. Surely that can’t be right 

[craigkillie]

There is no such thing as level, there will always be one player slightly further forward than the other. The offside law is the exact same whether there is VAR or not, the only difference is the level of precision to which a decision can be analysed.

[KingswellsRed]

Bin it completely.

[Theyellowbox]

1 hour ago, johnoswald2712 said:

I asked this question on Twitter as I honestly don’t know the answer. In games when VAR isn’t used, is level onside? Does the advantage go to the attacker? The answer to these questions used to be yes but now I honestly don’t know. If the rules have been changed do these changes only apply in games using VAR? Seems to me that different rules apply in different games. Surely that can’t be right 

I think the genuine answer is that the linesmen will be guessing if it is thst close. The rule is still that level is onside and on VAR, my understanding is that if the lines cross, it should be onside. Someone will probably tell me I'm wrong on that.

I think when you get down to the essence of what the offside law was introduced for, it has become a total farce. Is an inch and advantage when you are 40-50 yards from goal? No. You can also see players now deliberately making a meal of minimal contact to draw attention to challenges in the hope that VAR will see something they didn't even feel. If/when a team loses a title or gets relegated, they will easily be able to point to VAR decisions that went against them as to reasons they lose out and others gained and then integrity has gone. 

[johnoswald2712]

7 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

I think the genuine answer is that the linesmen will be guessing if it is thst close. The rule is still that level is onside and on VAR, my understanding is that if the lines cross, it should be onside. Someone will probably tell me I'm wrong on that.

This is pretty much my understanding. No chance the naked eye can tell if players are really close so the linesman (refuse to call them assistant refs) guesses. 
 

I really don’t want VAR as in Scotland all it is doing is adding another layer of incompetence. If we must have it, I’d prefer it to be used sparingly for things like goal line technology, is foul in box but unless there is clear daylight between players to make errors clear and obvious then I think it shouldn’t interfere in offside decisions.

Part of the fun of going to games is sitting with your mates arguing about decisions but VAR is even sucking the life out of that. As soon as something happens and the ref’s finger goes to his ear your immediate reaction is “ah f**k” and then you have a 5 minute wait to further piss you off. Maybe all it will take is one club to refuse to pay for it and this will be the incentive needed to bin it.

[Scooby_Doo]

19 hours ago, Dunfermline Don said:

VAR is in danger of alienating a whole generation of fans. I know that I now prefer going to games where it isn’t used. 

If it is to continue it needs to be vastly overhauled to restore my confidence in it. Football could take a leaf out of the eggchasers and have the conversation between the VAR and the ref broadcast to the fans in the ground so we can all know what is happening. 

Alternatively, like tennis, teams could be allowed to challenge a set number of decisions during a game. As at the moment it seems like they are sometimes trying to find reasons to give penalties to certain teams when no one else has seen anything! 

The eggchasers have a totally different (and better) working relationship with the whole officiating team. Often a try is given and the ref will ask the TMO for clarification. We seem to have VAR scrutinising every goal for a reason to disallow it. From memory TMO had a lot of initial problems, but unlike football, rugby is willing to correct as they go.

[kingjoey]

3 hours ago, craigkillie said:

There is no such thing as level, there will always be one player slightly further forward than the other

Interesting. You've just rewritten the Laws of Physics in one fell swoop.

[Pizzo]

6 hours ago, Swello said:

Aye - it's been quite interesting/depressing to see so many zealots replying to "this is ruining the fun" type of points with "offside is offside". Once again, I'm convinced it's folk that don't actually go to games who generally hold these views. 

There seems to be a constituency of non-attending fans who get their main pleasure from transfer chat, contrived controversy and VAR decisions - who seem to have no conception of what it's actually like to be there to witness the sort of stuff that Coventry were doing yesterday (or even what Aberdeen almost did on Saturday). These are the folk that shite talk radio, clickbait drivel and pundits arguing with each other are aimed at.

Spot on.

[Dunfermline Don]

1 hour ago, Scooby_Doo said:

The eggchasers have a totally different (and better) working relationship with the whole officiating team. Often a try is given and the ref will ask the TMO for clarification. We seem to have VAR scrutinising every goal for a reason to disallow it. From memory TMO had a lot of initial problems, but unlike football, rugby is willing to correct as they go.

I have also seen it argued the Rugby can be more of a stop/start game than football, so having a period of time while a check is being made doesn’t disturb the flow of the game as much. 
It also seems there is a bit more respect towards the ref, though I have to admit that my only experience of watching it is on TV for some internationals. 
Having them miked up and explaining their decisions certainly helps the spectator experience.

Edited April 22 by Dunfermline Don

[Ranaldo Bairn]

Did Scotland not get humped v France by a disgraceful refereeing/VAR decision in rugbyball recently?

Rugby refs do get shown more respect than football refs, but that doesn't stop them appearing as even more insufferable c***s than ours.