Chasing VAR out of Scotland

[DukDukGoose]

16 minutes ago, HibsFan said:

Getting bogged down in the merits of individual decisions is one of the biggest mistakes that nominally ‘anti-VAR’ segments in the Scottish football media make.

The question shouldn’t be “was that decision right or wrong”, it should be “right or wrong: was that really worth pausing the game and detracting from the match-going fan’s experience for?”.

[Jamie_M]

There's a place for it, but not how it's being used.

What happened to clear and obvious? Or not re-refereeing games?

Get rid of their slow mo/freeze frame and as much time to pause as they like. If it's not clear and obvious with 1 or 2 real time replays, it's not clear and obvious so crack on with the game.

Or, bring in the tennis system. Each team gets X number of challenges per game. This removes VAR's annoying interventions and flips the onus on to the clubs.

Might also help cut out some of the players arguing with refs that they have never managed to do.

[RandomGuy.]

3 minutes ago, Jamie_M said:

Or, bring in the tennis system. Each team gets X number of challenges per game. This removes VAR's annoying interventions and flips the onus on to the clubs.

See this quoted as a solution constantly and I've no idea why anyone thinks this wouldn't be a complete farce.

[Jamie_M]

1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:

See this quoted as a solution constantly and I've no idea why anyone thinks this wouldn't be a complete farce.

It's already a complete farce.

[RandomGuy.]

6 minutes ago, Jamie_M said:

It's already a complete farce.

Exactly, why make it even more tedious?

You understand that we'd have even longer breaks as managers explain to officials what they want reviewed, then the officials have to find it and review it, and then explain to managers why it wasn't given.

4 to 6 times a game.

[Desp]

16 minutes ago, Jamie_M said:

Or, bring in the tennis system. Each team gets X number of challenges per game. This removes VAR's annoying interventions and flips the onus on to the clubs.

I can't believe you think the above is a solution to the below 

10 minutes ago, Jamie_M said:

It's already a complete farce.

 

[tamba_trio]

3 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Exactly, why make it even more tedious?

You understand that we'd have even longer breaks as managers explain to officials what they want reviewed, then the officials have to find it and review it, and then explain to managers why it wasn't given.

4 to 6 times a game.

I think the idea would be that you'd limit challenges and introduce a penalty of some kind for any failed challenges. 

And it should (in theory) reduce the time it takes to review because you are only reviewing one thing and not looking at the entire build up to a goal. 

[VincentGuerin]

3 minutes ago, tamba_trio said:

I think the idea would be that you'd limit challenges and introduce a penalty of some kind for any failed challenges. 

And it should (in theory) reduce the time it takes to review because you are only reviewing one thing and not looking at the entire build up to a goal. 

What about subjective decisions?

[Desp]

3 minutes ago, tamba_trio said:

I think the idea would be that you'd limit challenges and introduce a penalty of some kind for any failed challenges. 

And it should (in theory) reduce the time it takes to review because you are only reviewing one thing and not looking at the entire build up to a goal. 

Wonderful.  Every failed challenge the other team gets to have 14 players for 10 minutes and a golden ball gets thrown on the pitch which only that team can use (and score) with.  Any other wacky changes you'd like to make to football?

 

Fucking hell man.  Everyone just needs to admit it's not working.  We gave it a go, it has hindered football as a whole.  Accept it, hold your hands up and get it binned.

[Jamie_M]

13 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Exactly, why make it even more tedious?

You understand that we'd have even longer breaks as managers explain to officials what they want reviewed, then the officials have to find it and review it, and then explain to managers why it wasn't given.

4 to 6 times a game.

Doubt there would be much explanation needed when challenging a call, they will know what call (not analysing entire plays) rather than intervention out of nowhere for something nobody seen or claimed for.

Big clear and obvious.

9 minutes ago, Desp said:

I can't believe you think the above is a solution to the below 

 

Hey, even if it wasn't, at worst it would equal total carnage and expedite the scrapping of VAR.

7 minutes ago, tamba_trio said:

I think the idea would be that you'd limit challenges and introduce a penalty of some kind for any failed challenges. 

And it should (in theory) reduce the time it takes to review because you are only reviewing one thing and not looking at the entire build up to a goal. 

Haha, no chance of punishment for failed challenges.

[HibsFan]

On 17/03/2024 at 07:04, HibsFan said:

Again, this thread is not for debating the merits of VAR. It's not for discussing any past, recent or future decisions made by VAR. It's not for suggesting alternatives to VAR. It's not for pondering whether it's the referees at fault rather than the technology.

Don't make me tap the sign.

[TPAFKA Jersey 2]

I think the whole "clubs not consulting fans before the decision was taken" thing is a bit of a red herring and not a major point here.

As someone posted earlier, St. Mirren did consult the SMISA members who were overwhelmingly in favour of its introduction. I can't remember if I took part in that vote (I think I did), but if I did, I would definitely have voted in favour. This would've been because I was naive enough to think two things:-

1. It would put an end to all the dodgy (potentially bias) decisions that have constantly gone the way of the OF and have driven me nuts over all the years I've been watching St. Mirren. It never occurred to me that those dodgy (or biased) decisions would simply move from the pitch to the VAR room. I assumed the VAR room would be manned by some faceless boffins somewhere and not by the same clowns that referee our matches.
2. That the system would be employed with some level of competence and consistency (stop laughing at the back!).

My point here is that I think a helluva lot of other fans, particularly non OF fans, would've had the same thought process as me (been as daft as me) and this is partially evidenced by the St. Mirren vote.

In other words, had the fans of all clubs been consulted, I think they would have voted in favour of VAR. I think it's only experience that now tells us what a complete farce it is. That is not of course to say that we shouldn't have known better.

[Girth]

1 hour ago, Jamie_M said:

There's a place for it, but not how it's being used.

What happened to clear and obvious? Or not re-refereeing games?

Get rid of their slow mo/freeze frame and as much time to pause as they like. If it's not clear and obvious with 1 or 2 real time replays, it's not clear and obvious so crack on with the game.

Or, bring in the tennis system. Each team gets X number of challenges per game. This removes VAR's annoying interventions and flips the onus on to the clubs.

Might also help cut out some of the players arguing with refs that they have never managed to do.

[AJF]

33 minutes ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

I think the whole "clubs not consulting fans before the decision was taken" thing is a bit of a red herring and not a major point here.

As someone posted earlier, St. Mirren did consult the SMISA members who were overwhelmingly in favour of its introduction. I can't remember if I took part in that vote (I think I did), but if I did, I would definitely have voted in favour. This would've been because I was naive enough to think two things:-

1. It would put an end to all the dodgy (potentially bias) decisions that have constantly gone the way of the OF and have driven me nuts over all the years I've been watching St. Mirren. It never occurred to me that those dodgy (or biased) decisions would simply move from the pitch to the VAR room. I assumed the VAR room would be manned by some faceless boffins somewhere and not by the same clowns that referee our matches.
2. That the system would be employed with some level of competence and consistency (stop laughing at the back!).

My point here is that I think a helluva lot of other fans, particularly non OF fans, would've had the same thought process as me (been as daft as me) and this is partially evidenced by the St. Mirren vote.

In other words, had the fans of all clubs been consulted, I think they would have voted in favour of VAR. I think it's only experience that now tells us what a complete farce it is. That is not of course to say that we shouldn't have known better.

Any good business should listen to it's consumers.

While you may be right that fans might've voted in favour of VAR, for the vast majority of supports, we just don't know because there was no consultation.

Now that VAR has been in place and had ample time to bed-in and address any "teething problems", the clubs should be taking note of their supporters opinions.

Even if a majority of fans had been in favour of implementing VAR, they still reserve the right to change their opinion given the issues that are so clearly evident.

I think raising the point about lack of supporter consultation is a valid one because it builds pressure on clubs to get the opinions of their support NOW, even if they didn't do it prior to VAR's introductions and even if they believed fans would've voted in favour for it at the time.

[TPAFKA Jersey 2]

29 minutes ago, AJF said:

Any good business should listen to it's consumers.

While you may be right that fans might've voted in favour of VAR, for the vast majority of supports, we just don't know because there was no consultation.

Now that VAR has been in place and had ample time to bed-in and address any "teething problems", the clubs should be taking note of their supporters opinions.

Even if a majority of fans had been in favour of implementing VAR, they still reserve the right to change their opinion given the issues that are so clearly evident.

I think raising the point about lack of supporter consultation is a valid one because it builds pressure on clubs to get the opinions of their support NOW, even if they didn't do it prior to VAR's introductions and even if they believed fans would've voted in favour for it at the time.

Yeah I pretty much agree with all of your post. 
I just wonder whether it’s worth antagonising club boards regarding perceived past failings when those failings are not the key source of the issue and indeed could be argued wouldn’t have changed anything had they not happened. 
If the key here is getting clubs to accept the farce that is VAR and do something about it, then perhaps stick to that point and not point the finger for stuff that they can no longer do anything about. That the main gist of my point. 

[AJF]

6 minutes ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

Yeah I pretty much agree with all of your post. 
I just wonder whether it’s worth antagonising club boards regarding perceived past failings when those failings are not the key source of the issue and indeed could be argued wouldn’t have changed anything had they not happened. 
If the key here is getting clubs to accept the farce that is VAR and do something about it, then perhaps stick to that point and not point the finger for stuff that they can no longer do anything about. That the main gist of my point. 

Aye, which is fair. I just feel that if it gets pointed out to the clubs that they failed to consult fans on the matter the first time round and we're not happy about it, then they may think twice about ignoring us in the future regarding the matter. Though, they probably wont.

Edited March 21 by AJF

[Dee Man]

1 hour ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

I think the whole "clubs not consulting fans before the decision was taken" thing is a bit of a red herring and not a major point here.

As someone posted earlier, St. Mirren did consult the SMISA members who were overwhelmingly in favour of its introduction. I can't remember if I took part in that vote (I think I did), but if I did, I would definitely have voted in favour. This would've been because I was naive enough to think two things:-

1. It would put an end to all the dodgy (potentially bias) decisions that have constantly gone the way of the OF and have driven me nuts over all the years I've been watching St. Mirren. It never occurred to me that those dodgy (or biased) decisions would simply move from the pitch to the VAR room. I assumed the VAR room would be manned by some faceless boffins somewhere and not by the same clowns that referee our matches.
2. That the system would be employed with some level of competence and consistency (stop laughing at the back!).

My point here is that I think a helluva lot of other fans, particularly non OF fans, would've had the same thought process as me (been as daft as me) and this is partially evidenced by the St. Mirren vote.

In other words, had the fans of all clubs been consulted, I think they would have voted in favour of VAR. I think it's only experience that now tells us what a complete farce it is. That is not of course to say that we shouldn't have known better.

It's all your fault then ya c**t. 

[TPAFKA Jersey 2]

48 minutes ago, Dee Man said:

It's all your fault then ya c**t. 

[csteinle]

4 hours ago, velo army said:

Ken we're mostly a bunch of aul' cvnts, but I think we should think of a hashtag which is quite catchy. The campaign needs a name to go viral so that it isn't just a few internet da's yelling at clouds. 

#VARenough?

[velo army]

1 minute ago, csteinle said:

#VARenough?

I was actually going to put "please don't make it a shitey pun ".

Something simple like #fansfirst, perhaps.