Chasing VAR out of Scotland

[strichener]

3 minutes ago, JS_FFC said:

I would be absolutely stunned if this resolution passes and if it does, I think there's a serious possibility of the referees going on strike given that VAR being removed will be career limiting for them.

 

How so?  I keep hearing this but how many Scottish Refs are in Germany?  How many Swedish?

[JS_FFC]

1 minute ago, strichener said:

How so?  I keep hearing this but how many Scottish Refs are in Germany?  How many Swedish?

Point taken. There's one referee from Sweden. Anyhow given the number of poor decisions that have been made in the Premier League this season I'd be very surprised if the clubs vote to increase that further by replacing the one system that holds the referees to account.

[Vietnam91]

6 minutes ago, JS_FFC said:

I would be absolutely stunned if this resolution passes and if it does, I think there's a serious possibility of the referees going on strike given that VAR being removed will be career limiting for them.

They may need reminded that the game isn't about them.

It will be a mix of rich owners who started out on the terraces voting no vs rich foreigners who run the numbers though a super computer and work out their club were denied 5 goals but got 4 they shouldn't have resulting in 2.64 points better off steering their decision.

As pointed out above few clubs will go with the groundswell of feeling of their core support.

[Meeniedee]

VAR would be fine if it was used as its meant to be used ie..clear and obvious mistakes...all it seems to do now is look for a reason/any reason to chop off a goal/award a penalty...also offside has became a farce when they are looking at mm when deciding if a player is offside....

 

let the ref ref the game and if he feels that var should get involved he asks them to have a look at something he's not 100% sure of.

[GNU_Linux]

Based Barclays

[JS_FFC]

Any chance of that resolution being approved just died with the penalty decision that was just overturned in the Brighton v Chelsea game. What anti-VAR people are saying is that they think that decision being given as a penalty is okay. 

[Derry Pele]

4 hours ago, strichener said:

How so?  I keep hearing this but how many Scottish Refs are in Germany?  How many Swedish?

There are 31 UEFA Elite category referees and Collum is (now was) on there, but how many big games has he had in the last twelve months? The Swedish fella was just promoted to Elite this season after doing the U20 World Cup Final. You’d therefore assume the FIFA listed referees get VAR training as part of being on the list.

if you’re interested, there are two Scottish refs in the next category down: Beaton and Walsh

[Thistle_do_nicely]

Think the fact theres even a formal vote in England bodes well up here, going to ramp up the pressure to do the same here and with the greater reliance on season ticket income it'd surely have a good chance of getting passed.

Not really sure whether tv fans are that arsed about it, in fact they might actually lap up the "Ohhhh is VAR going to let this stand or overturn it?! I'm so excited!" drama of it and its a godsend to half-arsed sports journalists that can just spend a few minutes picking away at the referees, rather than analysing games in a way that would either bore casual fans, risk upsetting a fanbase or worst of all, involve applying a bit of thought or effort into actually fucking reviewing the match.

Loathsome as he was, I kind of liked Andy Gray picking the bones out of a defensive/attacking shape at goals e.g. pointing out that a full back was too far away from a centre half at a point in a phase of play, and showing where the defensive culpability was.

These days unless its a keeper chucking one in or a player having a Gerrardesque slip on his arse I dont think theres as much of that? I suppose the athletic/tifo try to cater to that audience, but imo they sometimes go too far in the other direction (bit of a "so you want a relatable, down to earth TV show about everyday problems... thats swarming with magic robots" now that i type it out, but surely pundits dont need to underestimate their audience *that* badly and can cater to midwits like me as a happy middle ground)

They might try a Yes Minister style whitewash "lets vote on a consultation to hold a review on how VAR operates in the fulness of time" knowing that, right enough.

Edited May 15 by Thistle_do_nicely

[JS_FFC]

From reading a few English football forums it doesn’t seem as though there is anything like the same fan majority for scrapping VAR that there is in Scottish football, although it does enjoy some support. I find VAR incredibly annoying, but I also used to hate the old situation of on field referees being given way too much power. 

[Ric]

The vote from the English teams will certainly be a watershed I feel. If they decide to drop it, it has to give weight to those keen for it to be removed up here.

I do support the idea of technology being used, as we know human fallibility is just that, fallible, and it's been writ large now we have immediate reviews of decisions. However, the way Wolves has worded their complaint, I really cannot disagree with it; introduced in all good faith but it's not providing what it promised, and in many cases is a negative to the flow of the game. Even if I feel that a lot of the anti arguments are nothing more than Ludditism there are valid complaints.

IMO, If VAR is shelved now, I do think it will be re-introduced in a different form in a few years time, and perhaps a piece meal introduction would benefit such a system coupled with rules being changes to support the level of granularity that the technology brings.

[Scooby_Doo]

11 hours ago, Newbornbairn said:

The good thing is, if England ban it our lapdogs will happily do the same. 

 

'cos England. 

I see you England's lucrative and fair play off system and raise you our big team weighted disgrace.

[Dons_1988]

I very much doubt the PL clubs will vote to remove it, and in any case I believe the league could veto it anyway. But that doesn’t mean this isn’t significant. I don’t like it but whats happening there will influence us here. 

There now seems to be near universal recognition that this thing is at best severely flawed and needs revamped in its implementation. 

This does feel like a bit of a vindication tbh. It’s almost like being anti technology that isn’t capable of achieving the outcome you set out for isn’t ludditism, it’s just practical sense. Case in point - there wouldn’t be a single argument against goal line technology being implemented as 1) it’s quick and 2) it actually fucking works. 

[velo army]

Goal line tech is a really stupid waste of money mainly because there are so few instances of it being required. Folk in England probably back it because they recall Lampard's goal not being given and kid themselves that it would have mattered. How many times during your team's season will there be a moment where there's a marginal decision on whether the ball has crossed the line?

Oh, and I was getting annoyed by this, but the word is "luddism".

[Ric]

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

There now seems to be near universal recognition that this thing is at best severely flawed and needs revamped in its implementation. 

This does feel like a bit of a vindication tbh. It’s almost like being anti technology that isn’t capable of achieving the outcome you set out for isn’t ludditism, it’s just practical sense. Case in point - there wouldn’t be a single argument against goal line technology being implemented as 1) it’s quick and 2) it actually fucking works. 

Many arguments have been Luddism, though. The failings are the human element, removing the technology doesn't resolve that. It's something you agree with in your post as you are fine for a "hawkeye like" goal line technology because it doesn't rely on interpretation of the laws, it's a binary thing, it's either over or not.

As for a vindication? That's a bit strong, considering nobody supporting VAR is saying it's working as we had all hoped it would, but.. again.. it's not the technological aspect that is failing here.

19 minutes ago, velo army said:

Oh, and I was getting annoyed by this, but the word is "luddism".

That'll probably be my fault, I've been using the term without checking first.

Edit: I've gone down the rabbit hole here and checked all the standard British dictionaries that come with the browser and Libre Office and the like and they all have Ludditism as a word, along with Luddism too. Which is probably why I've not second guessed my use.

Edit 2: This is utterly pointless, but when checking this, I came across neo-Luddism which probably is the better term considering the eponymous nature of the original word.

Edited May 16 by Ric

[AJF]

16 minutes ago, Ric said:

Many arguments have been Luddism, though. The failings are the human element, removing the technology doesn't resolve that. It's something you agree with in your post as you are fine for a "hawkeye like" goal line technology because it doesn't rely on interpretation of the laws, it's a binary thing, it's either over or not.

As for a vindication? That's a bit strong, considering nobody supporting VAR is saying it's working as we had all hoped it would, but.. again.. it's not the technological aspect that is failing here.

That'll probably be my fault, I've been using the term without checking first.

Edit: I've gone down the rabbit hole here and checked all the standard British dictionaries that come with the browser and Libre Office and the like and they all have Ludditism as a word, along with Luddism too. Which is probably why I've not second guessed my use.

You cannot remove the human element though as Football’s laws are overwhelmingly subjective. That’s why those that think “the technology is fine” are never going to understand that it is never going to achieve what it sets out to.

[velo army]

19 minutes ago, Ric said:

 

Edit: I've gone down the rabbit hole here and checked all the standard British dictionaries that come with the browser and Libre Office and the like and they all have Ludditism as a word, along with Luddism too. Which is probably why I've not second guessed my use.

 

You're right about this. Now I'm even more annoyed.

[Dons_1988]

15 minutes ago, Ric said:

Many arguments have been Luddism, though. The failings are the human element, removing the technology doesn't resolve that. It's something you agree with in your post as you are fine for a "hawkeye like" goal line technology because it doesn't rely on interpretation of the laws, it's a binary thing, it's either over or not.

As for a vindication? That's a bit strong, considering nobody supporting VAR is saying it's working as we had all hoped it would, but.. again.. it's not the technological aspect that is failing here.

 

It really isn’t Luddism. If the technology is not sufficient to address the human element of failure OR the fact that it’s trying to address subjectivity and interpretation, then the technology doesn’t work. That is not a fundamental opposition to ‘technology’. 

Although I will acknowledge @velo army point on value for money re goal line technology. But removing the cost/value, no one would have a problem with the technology itself. 

And I said it’s starting to feel like vindication as the wider football world seems to be slowly coming round to this simple fact. 

 

[Ric]

3 minutes ago, AJF said:

You cannot remove the human element though as Football’s laws are overwhelmingly subjective. That’s why those that think “the technology is fine” are never going to understand that it is never going to achieve what it sets out to.

It's a bit of a defeatist attitude though. Nothing can be done so let's return to the halcyon days of referees giving clearly incorrect calls, many of which people have considerable concerns of their objectivity.

The "technology is fine argument" is correct, because it's not the technology that is failing. Look at the Lundtstam tackle, where you had a seasoned player, someone who has played 100's of games at the top level, complaining that VAR was used to re-evaluate an incorrect yellow card. OK, so Kenny Miller was roundly castigated for his nonsense, but that just underlines the problem. The ref thought it was only a yellow while being a clear red, and a very experienced player claiming the technology is ruining the game by allowing that review.

 

[AJF]

3 minutes ago, Ric said:

It's a bit of a defeatist attitude though. Nothing can be done so let's return to the halcyon days of referees giving clearly incorrect calls, many of which people have considerable concerns of their objectivity.

The "technology is fine argument" is correct, because it's not the technology that is failing. Look at the Lundtstam tackle, where you had a seasoned player, someone who has played 100's of games at the top level, complaining that VAR was used to re-evaluate an incorrect yellow card. OK, so Kenny Miller was roundly castigated for his nonsense, but that just underlines the problem. The ref thought it was only a yellow while being a clear red, and a very experienced player claiming the technology is ruining the game by allowing that review.

 

Technology is only useful if it improves what came before it. I think it has failed in that regard.

[Swello]

Can we all stop saying luddism