Here's an idea.

When a linesman flags for offside the game should continue. If a goal is scored or the attacking side gain an advantage of a penalty, free kick or corner the offside can be reviewed. Otherwise just play on. This stops good goals being disallowed.

JonD wrote:But who is going to help the players get it right on the pitch? I wonder how far away we are from the game being played by cyborgs (in the interests of reducing players’ mistakes)?

As I grow older I enjoy football less and less. Things like the EPL, the Champions League, SKY TV, have been gently eroding the pleasure I glean from my favourite sport. Why should I expect VAR be any different?

I dare say my generation will be replaced by more tech-friendly crowd who won’t have grown up in an uncertain age when different teams competed for the title every year; when refs got things wrong, people complained, shrugged, moved on; when through the luck of the draw good teams failed to make it to the quarter-finals of European competitions.

I feel by opposing VAR I’m made to feel as though I’m standing in the way of progress when in fact I feel as though I’m clinging to the last vestiges of what made me fall in love with football in the first place.

I understand that opposing VAR is a battle I am unlikely to win, but that doesn’t mean I will meekly surrender my right to object to it.

It would be interesting to see how VAR acceptance varies with age or maybe the number of years watching football to be more politically correct ...

I'm for it but accept that there will be issues. Plus I think it needs more time before introduction in the WC or PL. My son is against it ..

rgds Dave

Stan A. Einstein wrote:Here's an idea.

When a linesman flags for offside the game should continue. If a goal is scored or the attacking side gain an advantage of a penalty, free kick or corner the offside can be reviewed. Otherwise just play on. This stops good goals being disallowed.

Tbf that's what they're supposed to do at the moment - play to the whistle, the flag is a signal to the ref and not the players, and all that.

Part of the problem is when to review - it does only happen in breaks, the trouble is those breaks have gone from 10 seconds to 3 or 4 minutes and it ruins the flow of matches - not that "flow of matches" is really a concern of anyone promoting VAR.

PerthDave wrote:

JonD wrote:But who is going to help the players get it right on the pitch? I wonder how far away we are from the game being played by cyborgs (in the interests of reducing players’ mistakes)?

As I grow older I enjoy football less and less. Things like the EPL, the Champions League, SKY TV, have been gently eroding the pleasure I glean from my favourite sport. Why should I expect VAR be any different?

I dare say my generation will be replaced by more tech-friendly crowd who won’t have grown up in an uncertain age when different teams competed for the title every year; when refs got things wrong, people complained, shrugged, moved on; when through the luck of the draw good teams failed to make it to the quarter-finals of European competitions.

I feel by opposing VAR I’m made to feel as though I’m standing in the way of progress when in fact I feel as though I’m clinging to the last vestiges of what made me fall in love with football in the first place.

I understand that opposing VAR is a battle I am unlikely to win, but that doesn’t mean I will meekly surrender my right to object to it.

It would be interesting to see how VAR acceptance varies with age or maybe the number of years watching football to be more politically correct ...

I'm for it but accept that there will be issues. Plus I think it needs more time before introduction in the WC or PL. My son is against it ..

rgds Dave

I can understand what JonD is saying about the game changing. I still have a problem that parks games don't have the same set of rules as the pros now (up until that point it was always possible your Premier League ref and two assistants might be running your parks game - not likely but possible, and the game is tangibly no different to the very top level), though I was also anti goal-line tech for this reason but it is absolutely inarguable that it has improved decision-making around goals in a way VAR hasn't. However, the local game has far bigger problems than that particular difference potentially putting people off, and as I've stopped playing now there's no reason that should bother me any more either.

Age and a change in the game from "what I like" could be a factor in my resistance to VAR, but I don't think it is - yes, when I was younger I was accepting of the backpass rule when others were critical, and as a striker I was incredibly keen on red cards for tackles from behind being de facto outlawed (and actually had my knee ruined by one in 2001 when refs had stopped doing it). However I'm ok with all the tweaks to offside even now, including the recent goalkeeper interference and in a position to affect a defender stuff - though I still think daylight should be how the law is implemented. So no reluctance to change, and I'm ok with goal-line tech now it's procen - so that's not really an age thing. And to be honest I'm more than happy that the kick-and-rush, muddy pitches, hooliganism-blighted, ramshackle holes of grounds I grew up with are gone.

VAR however? I just feel it's driven by tv companies and big clubs who want every degree of randomness affecting their successes minimised. All at the expense of "the product" and those who actually go to matches who are left hanging around in the dark, lose the excitement of goals in the knowledge they're subject to review, and also at the expense of referees who are suddenly being held to an unattainable level of decision-making. It's not about getting decisions right, it's about placating the money men and another change on the slippery slope of making football uncompetitive and less interesting.

SJG99 wrote: I can understand what JonD is saying about the game changing. I still have a problem that parks games don't have the same set of rules as the pros now (up until that point it was always possible your Premier League ref and two assistants might be running your parks game - not likely but possible, and the game is tangibly no different to the very top level)...

Uirah Rennie regularly refereed at parks level in Sheffield when he was a Premier League and FIFA listed referee. Never lorded it over anybody just turned up and got on with it, great guy.

I don't think many others of them have behaved the same.

SJG99 wrote:VAR however? I just feel it's driven by tv companies and big clubs who want every degree of randomness affecting their successes minimised. All at the expense of "the product" and those who actually go to matches who are left hanging around in the dark, lose the excitement of goals in the knowledge they're subject to review, and also at the expense of referees who are suddenly being held to an unattainable level of decision-making. It's not about getting decisions right, it's about placating the money men and another change on the slippery slope of making football uncompetitive and less interesting.

You're my new best friend and here's why.

I've read quite a few people's takes on VAR and apart from yours every single one of them has been of the opinion that VAR will offer a level playing field - a chance for the little club to get an even break against the big boys. I find that belief simply naïve. No TV company wants a cup semi-final of Wigan v Blackburn Rovers, They want Liverpool v Man U or Man City.

I believe VAR, as you point out, is an insurance policy for the big clubs (and TV companies) - a means of making sure that they get that penalty, or that free-kick, or in the fullness of time that corner or even throw-in. As little as possible will be left to chance.

VAR means the best teams will get the decisions that justify their financial investment.

JonD wrote:

SJG99 wrote:VAR however? I just feel it's driven by tv companies and big clubs who want every degree of randomness affecting their successes minimised. All at the expense of "the product" and those who actually go to matches who are left hanging around in the dark, lose the excitement of goals in the knowledge they're subject to review, and also at the expense of referees who are suddenly being held to an unattainable level of decision-making. It's not about getting decisions right, it's about placating the money men and another change on the slippery slope of making football uncompetitive and less interesting.

You're my new best friend and here's why.

I've read quite a few people's takes on VAR and apart from yours every single one of them has been of the opinion that VAR will offer a level playing field - a chance for the little club to get an even break against the big boys. I find that belief simply naïve. No TV company wants a cup semi-final of Wigan v Blackburn Rovers, They want Liverpool v Man U or Man City.

I believe VAR, as you point out, is an insurance policy for the big clubs (and TV companies) - a means of making sure that they get that penalty, or that free-kick, or in the fullness of time that corner or even throw-in. As little as possible will be left to chance.

VAR means the best teams will get the decisions that justify their financial investment.

Interesting Jon. However, wouldn't/shouldn't VAR have picked up Harry Kane push on Josh Labadie at the edge of the 6yd area which led to their goal. The little club would have benefited there.

Well, honestly Pembs, I don't know. Presumably so, it all depends on the agreed scope of VAR.

But if we assume that the team who have 70% of possession also dominate territorially, then isn't it reasonable to assume that the majority of VAR decisions take place in their opponents' halves?

Edit: I have until now remained blissfully unaware of Kane’s foul on Labadie. You’re not helping my mood

pembsexile wrote: Interesting Jon. However, wouldn't/shouldn't VAR have picked up Harry Kane push on Josh Labadie at the edge of the 6yd area which led to their goal. The little club would have benefited there.

I'm unconvinced VAR would have seen that goal ruled out (though the Llorente "foul" disallowed goal certainly suggests a precedent that it might have been). But even if VAR had been in place, and it had ruled out the goal, that's only a single instance. The point is that the top sides will be the ones who are most likely to be successful, and are most at risk of the random factor of human error causing a flawed judgement. The more predictable the teams with the best players can make the game, the better the chance they have of transferring their in-built financial advantage to wins.

Equally VAR might have disallowed McCoulsky's goal against Leeds for the contact on the defender as he headed the ball. We can all produce isolated examples.

SJG99 wrote:

pembsexile wrote: Interesting Jon. However, wouldn't/shouldn't VAR have picked up Harry Kane push on Josh Labadie at the edge of the 6yd area which led to their goal. The little club would have benefited there.

I'm unconvinced VAR would have seen that goal ruled out (though the Llorente "foul" disallowed goal certainly suggests a precedent that it might have been). But even if VAR had been in place, and it had ruled out the goal, that's only a single instance. The point is that the top sides will be the ones who are most likely to be successful, and are most at risk of the random factor of human error causing a flawed judgement. The more predictable the teams with the best players can make the game, the better the chance they have of transferring their in-built financial advantage to wins.

Equally VAR might have disallowed McCoulsky's goal against Leeds for the contact on the defender as he headed the ball. We can all produce isolated examples.

Ah, the numbers game. I believe that you and Jon D are correct in your assertion that the big clubs, with their territorial and possessive domination of most games see probably the most benefit from VAR. However, form, possession, and territorial domination don't always decide the outcome of games do they?

If we took those values as markers for each game, every punter would back the form team and the bookies would soon be out of business. They aren't though are they?

I don't think it is isolated incident either. I am pretty sure that a lot of smaller clubs could give examples of how they were 'robbed' of a goal or a penalty that may have changed the outcome of that particular game. Whilst these examples may be in the minority, I don't think they can be seen as isolated incidents. Again, just to be clear, I do accept the numbers anology.

I think people are just wanting the correct decisions to be made. This is important whether you are a big club or a little club. Now, whether VAR is the correct vehicle for that is another matter. A bit slow for me from what I see at the moment. It is just that at the present time it would seem to be the best solution in trying to get the decision right.

Money does seem to be one of the driving factors in the modern game, there is probably no doubt about that. However, you mentioned that you thought VAR may be used to placate the money men. I disagree. That, in my opinion would be a step too far.

The whole issue of VAR is a hot topic at he moment. However, I think the debate needs to be broadened and we need to hear much more of the views of the smaller clubs on this issue. If, and I say, if you are correct with regards to VAR and the money men, then this is one battle that they must not be allowed to win.

pembsexile wrote: I believe that you and Jon D are correct in your assertion that the big clubs, with their territorial and possessive domination of most games see probably the most benefit from VAR. However, form, possession, and territorial domination don't always decide the outcome of games do they?

I agree with that (which is sort of the point - Question: how can the best teams minimize the risk of not winning? Answer: by promoting a process that should ensure the ref (eventually) gets the decision right).

pembsexile wrote:I am pretty sure that a lot of smaller clubs could give examples of how they were 'robbed' of a goal or a penalty that may have changed the outcome of that particular game. Whilst these examples may be in the minority, I don't think they can be seen as isolated incidents. Again, just to be clear, I do accept the numbers anology.

Yes, agreed again. I don't think anyone would argue that in the history of football any team has never once suffered a wrong decision.

pembsexile wrote:I think people are just wanting the correct decisions to be made. This is important whether you are a big club or a little club.

This is one point I can't decide on. Still pondering it.

Let's suppose that at 5pm next Saturday we straw poll 100 managers from around the country and ask "Overall, do you feel the ref's decisions benefitted your team or benefitted the opposition?" what sorts of numbers are likely to feel their team came off worse? Finger in the air estimate? Let's say, conservatively, 60% might grumble that the ref 's performance favoured their opponent?

But 60% > 50% - which means in some games both managers, despite viewing the very same incidents, felt hard done by.

So on that basis if managers think VAR is going to make things better then to some degree they're in for a disappointment.

So publically I expect managers to say "Yes, we want the correct decision", but privately, I wonder just how many might be less enthusiastic?

pembsexile wrote:Money does seem to be one of the driving factors in the modern game, there is probably no doubt about that. However, you mentioned that you thought VAR may be used to placate the money men. I disagree. That, in my opinion would be a step too far.

But this is a commercial reality. TV companies can charge more for air time when big teams are on the box.

I feel hypocritical about VAR really, as though I am saying "I am happy with footballing injustices". I suppose I am (at least I am happy with the current system). If we assume VAR = The Truth then how far might its tentacles reach within 90 minutes of football? An obvious penalty missed - ok, but what if, 30 minutes earlier, the ref had given a throw-in the wrong way? Isn't that another injustice we need to eliminate? How long will it be before teams of lawyers are studying videos ready to launch an injunction? Far-fetched for now, but it's the path we're in danger of starting along.

Right, long post. In conclusion, I have spent most of my footballing life watching Newport play shyte football. I daresay I will spend much of the remainder watching them do it some more. The concept of having perfect officiating for two teams who can't hit a cow's backside with a banjo strikes me as just a bit ironic. But hey.

I wouldn't underestimate how much the TV companies would value the opportunity to break up play so they can insert ad breaks.

It's also one more case where talking about the game takes on a life of its own which gets more and more important. On the miserable C5 programme a couple of weeks Colin Murray was rejoicing at a couple of L2 games being off so he could spend more time jabbering with his studio guest.

BT Sport usually (maybe always?) has a former ref in their live commentary team and is always desperate to trap them into soundbites which can be used against the officials.

What a palaver

You can stop all that with my one challenge suggestion

The problem then is there's a further excuse to generate unnecessary waffle when a challenge has been used up and an even more controversial thing crops up. Then the broadcasters will clamour for two, then three etc. The game just isn't geared to it in the way other sports are.

I’m not sure how, if challenges were used wisely, UTP’s idea would minimise it. Wouldn’t that approach simply mean that each side would only request VAR intervention when they were certain of success? That being the case, they’d have infinite appeals every game provided their opponents kept transgressing at corners/whatever.

The scope of the VAR analysis is key of course. I remember a Wales rugby international where the ref asked the tv ref to confirm whether Shane Williams had grounded the ball over the tryline. He had, and the try was awarded. But the video clearly showed Williams stepping into touch earlier in his run...