George Street-Bridge wrote:The point - and my starting point - is that the rules of any sport have to make it possible to keep playing the same way with or without the technology for it to be worth introducing the technology.

Unlike, say, when they changed the back-pass rule - OK, that's a different sort of change - has anyone viewed the VAR experiment in England as anything but a shambles? I suspect that's partly because the referees don't like it and don't want it to succeed (why would they?) but mostly because it doesn't suit a sports that needs to stop so infrequently.

But we added time already for injuries, substitutions etc. Are we to just carry on when players get injured, end substitutions and celebrations when teams score? I would agree if every decision was queried but by limiting appeals to obvious mistakes which have profound and unfair effects on the game? I think you are badly mistaken.

Had for instance there been VAR and radio contact with the referee only a few seconds delay would have been caused. VAR would have been seen and a quick radio message to the referee would have disallowed the goal. As it was there was a 48 second delay between the goal being scored and England kicking off. I suspect it would have taken about that long for VAR to have corrected the obviously wrong decision.

Sorry but your argument just doesn't stand up.

EDIT

Just looked at it again. The BBC showed the handball three times before England kicked off. You would have only needed one replay to be sure.

pembsexile wrote: 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.

They don't decide games, but one of the reasons for that is because lesser teams score "against the odds". As for the bookies assertion, two things here - one, bookies set the odds so they *should* win in every circumstance - in the situation you're proposed, the bookies would just make the favourite's odds so short that it wouldn't be worth the investment. Also, you haven't considered that people want to win big quickly and will always try to get the rare upset. Like my 80/1 bet on Clint Hill for first scorer against Cardiff that one time when I was extremely drunk... which won me £400.

I don't hear "people" wanting VAR at all. I hear "people" moaning on a single-incident basis that benefits their club every single time. They don't want fairness, they want unfairness, in their favour, by whichever vehicle that happens to be convenient. You just have to be bigger than that as football administrators and make decisions for the best of the game as a whole (and that's something I'm not expecting any time soon, as it disappeared from the likes of the FA even before the 1989 decision that eventually brought us the Premier League).

I agree that it's not the best system because it's too slow (by being non-instantaneous) and that's always going to be an issue compared to live real-time decision making by someone who might occasionally get one wrong. There's a wider problem that decisions are not always clear and obvious, and if they're reviewing goals where there is some question of a foul then the Llorente precedent says that's basically all of them, because barely anyone even appealed for that foul. Not sure there is a better system that doesn't involve further fabrication like coach's challenges though.

amberdave wrote:What like disallowing a perfectly good Welsh try against the Anglo Saxons?

Living in England (and not being remotely interested in rugby) I hear it was a Welsh knock-on first.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: Let's examine these two pronouncements.

Assuming your first contention is correct then your opposition to VAR is futile. The TV companies are going to get their own way in any event. Your opposition is merely a pious hope.

Basically all discussions on message boards are futile too, what's your point here?

JonD wrote:

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'm not tech savvy enough to box quote paragraphs but I would like to comment on your last but one paragraph.

You have a valid point when you say VAR = the truth and then what are the consequences. That is the reason why it is important that we get this issue sorted straight away. At the moment we have video in football, tennis, cricket, rugby and probably a few other sports as well. Unfortunately you can't hold technology back. Other than 'getting it right as soon as possible', I don't really have any other answer.

The option of 'doing nothing' and leaving it alone as it is will cause ructions. How will we answer the 'the technology is there, use it' brigade if we don't use it?

I'll come back to my point about people wanting to see decisions got right by whatever means. I could add, people probably want wrong decisions about their team put right. Stuff the opposition How do we go about doing that? It does come back to a level playing field. It will have an effect on both teams. If it is not sorted, the words, minefield and nightmare spring to mind.

I would like to see more input from ref's to hear what they think about it. They are the ones at the sharp end who will have to live with the consequences. We are in the early days of this trial and much more discussion is needed. Get the experts online, people who have much more to say than the likes of people like me.

pembsexile wrote:
You have a valid point when you say VAR = the truth and then what are the consequences. That is the reason why it is important that we get this issue sorted straight away. At the moment we have video in football, tennis, cricket, rugby and probably a few other sports as well. Unfortunately you can't hold technology back. Other than 'getting it right as soon as possible', I don't really have any other answer.

The option of 'doing nothing' and leaving it alone as it is will cause ructions. How will we answer the 'the technology is there, use it' brigade if we don't use it?

Thing is, the use of video review is very different in some of those sports.

Tennis: ball in or out. No opinion, pure factual, measurable evidence-based. Akin to goal-line tech, not VAR.
Cricket: ball touched or not: soundwaves, pure fact, measurable evidence-based.
LBW - shows velocity, pitch, angle of ball, area where ball would need to strike and path of ball, measurable evidence-based, factual.
American football: lots of natural breaks, every play can be reviewed, they even have tv timeouts to show ads. Even so, there are still LOADS of arguments about what constitutes a catch, and numerous reviewed decisions which stand - they have 3 possible outcomes: decision confirmed, decision stands, decision overturned. The first and second options are effectively "proven" and "can't tell". Again, these are generally used for de-facto measurable evidence-based decisions - did the ball touch the ground during a catch, did a player step out of bounds, did the player cross the goalline.
Rugby: natural breaks in the game are far more frequent than football. Less flow, especially with conversions happening after tries and offering a natural "score review" break, but also (as is my understanding of a sport I haven't watched for 30 years) far more "opinion" based decisions, and more akin to football's issues with the ball in play.

Compared to these, football's reviews look overbearing and based far too much on interpretation - goals are reviewed for ANY "obvious" (not obvious) foul, which so far has included incidental contact in the box that no-one has appealed for; and whilst offsides are simply on or off, there's still the grey area of interfering interpretation, the problem of contact after the initial pass which changes the direction of the ball, etc. Then there's deciding whether foul tackles are fouls despite no guidance on what a foul actually looks like which could be as clear as, say, a high tackle in rugby. In fact, the entire "careless, reckless, excessive force" determination of what is a foul/booking/sending off in football is entirely down to referee's interpretation. 10 refs can see the same thing and call it different ways and all be arguably correct (or wrong).

Simply put, football has the most action, the fewest breaks and the most complex decisions included in the review process. There are also the practicalities of managing the process, not showing the incidents at the ground (in fact for the Premier League deliberately not being permitted to show contentious issues, to help prevent crowd trouble) so the time seems longer still. But that's a practical concern rather than a decision-making one, with which there are enough problems as it is.

On a slightly different note, I love a conspiracy theory, me, but I've got my doubts about referees sabotaging the VAR trials.

Given they are daft enough to get conned week-in week-out by the likes of Dele Alli it seems a real stretch to imagine they've deliberately organized the debacle we've witnessed thus far.

I just think it would be human nature to be a bit pissed off at the authorities deciding you can't be trusted en bloc to get major decisions right.

Agreed. It's tantamount to being micro-managed, and everyone loves that(!!).

If they ARE sabotaging it then they're doing splendidly.

JonD wrote:Agreed. It's tantamount to being micro-managed, and everyone loves that(!!).

If they ARE sabotaging it then they're doing splendidly.

Hypothetically if they were doing that they would probably be putting themselves at risk of being replaced by an official who could embrace the VAR scenario in a more proficient manner.

ta Dave

Watched a few minutes of a Superleague game on the weekend and they now give video ref decisions at the ground via a wheel-of-fortune screen, it has become part of the entertainment rather than just a way to deliver essential information.

And bloody Sky has got the rights to Australian RL back so there are only three live games per weekend when Premier Sports did all eight.