Yeah. I don’t know rugby or NFL very well so I could be wrong, but from my layman’s perspective something like rugby has more in-play, distinct stop-start phases than football. It seems to me like there are more ‘natural’ points during rugby matches for var to intervene. Whereas in football it’s always felt a bit clunky.
Spurs and VAR
- Thread starter Archibald&Crooks
- Start date
Yeah. I don’t know rugby or NFL very well so I could be wrong, but from my layman’s perspective something like rugby has more in-play, distinct stop-start phases than football. It seems to me like there are more ‘natural’ points during rugby matches for var to intervene. Whereas in football it’s always felt a bit clunky.
mil1lion
This is the place to be
- May 7, 2004
- 42,558
- 78,201
VAR wasn't the issue , it was the people using it. In fact VAR wasnt even used which was the real issue. What is clear is if VAR was used correctly the goal would have stood. This is what VAR does right but the officials ballsed up this one and didn't use it to make the right decision.
It's funny because VAR was not the issue in this game. If they used it the Diaz goal stands. They used VAR for the review of the red which then allows the ref to look again and make his decision. Those were the only 2 decisions where VAR was needed and 1 was used correctly.
Cel
Well-Known Member
- Jan 31, 2013
- 713
- 1,856
Not with red cards and goals though? It takes a player about 2-3 minutes to get off the pitch with a red card, and there's 2-3 minutes of celebrations every goal - that's why I picked those 2
fecka
Well-Known Member
- Jun 24, 2013
- 2,338
- 6,446
According to Viaplay pundits VAR has cut out somewhere between 75-85% of the refereeing mistakes in football according to studies (they never mentioned which).
As good as that may be, the mistakes that do happen are instead exacerbated and we are chasing perfectionism when there's none to be found. Human error will always be a factor.
Even if VAR supposedly cuts out 4 out of 5 mistakes that happen, it is certainly taking a lot of joy out of the game the way it's currently being implemented. Funnily enough, I don't believe that's the case in other sports that have similar systems.
As good as that may be, the mistakes that do happen are instead exacerbated and we are chasing perfectionism when there's none to be found. Human error will always be a factor.
Even if VAR supposedly cuts out 4 out of 5 mistakes that happen, it is certainly taking a lot of joy out of the game the way it's currently being implemented. Funnily enough, I don't believe that's the case in other sports that have similar systems.
Absolutely spot on. The outcrying from pundits and Liverpool biased media is missing the point; this was not a fault of VAR. It was a monumental human fuck up, that’s life.
It's hard to make that comparison to a lot of sports because of how open and flowing football is. While other sports have their video ref controversies the fact of it slowing down the game isn't a thing because usually the game was already stopped.
fecka
Well-Known Member
- Jun 24, 2013
- 2,338
- 6,446
As a Swede, I watch a lot of ice hockey which is way more fast paced than football and it’s never been much of an issue there for example.
As a side note , I do believe there are similar complaints about the level of refereeing at the top level in most sports I watch. It’s the same in the Serie A and La Liga too.
The sooner we realize mistakes will always be a part of the game, the happier we will be. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to improve the rules and procedures though.
VAR was the problem. As I mentioned in the match thread, the official protocol needs to have clear concise language such as "award the goal" rather than "check over". Of course there was still human error involved as their communication was clearly terrible but VAR is also at fault.
Non-biased aside, it was clearly onside.
I did say to my 3 Liverpool supporting mates at the time, that we got away with it , and that they get the rub of the green all the time, but hey ho.
needs sorting though, absolutely no idea how they do it, the World Cup version of VAR would be the one though, fully automated, take the human element away from those decisions entirely.
only reason why the FA couldn’t have bought it this summer is either cost or ego though.
I did say to my 3 Liverpool supporting mates at the time, that we got away with it , and that they get the rub of the green all the time, but hey ho.
needs sorting though, absolutely no idea how they do it, the World Cup version of VAR would be the one though, fully automated, take the human element away from those decisions entirely.
only reason why the FA couldn’t have bought it this summer is either cost or ego though.
Yid-ol
Just-outside Edinburgh
- Jan 16, 2006
- 31,168
- 19,421
On the Liverpool incident alone, it's not hard to fix, just add a bit more context to decisions.
The issue seems to be VAR thought the goal was given when it wasn't. Like in rugby just ask the full question, the goal is ruled out for offside, can you check to see if x player was on or offside. VAR check, player inside, goal is good to be given.
On VAR as a whole, it will take a lot of work and no easy fix. The interfering with the keeper while offside annoys me, Man U and City both have had goals where players have been offside and blocking the keepers view or making moves to the ball but goals given, yet vs Liverpool after richarleson hit the post we got flagged for offside. Too many inconsistencys within it all.
PCozzie
Well-Known Member
- Sep 9, 2020
- 4,177
- 19,417
Think this is the main point. There's little argument that more 'game incidents' now end with the correct decision being made, but at what cost? My main emotion to us scoring a goal is not to jump about the room like a loon, but to quickly scan the penalty box to check the goalscorer was onside, or that Romero wasn't repeatedly punching the goalkeeper in the face as the ball crossed the line.
Honestly, having now had a good few years of VAR, I'd rather take the chances with human error on the pitch to get back the immediacy of emotion.
thebenjamin
Well-Known Member
- Jul 1, 2008
- 12,298
- 39,022
They voted against the automated Var because it removes the margin for error. So you have goals disallowed for being 0.00001 milimetre offside.
Is that really the reason?
JacoZA
Well-Known Member
- Aug 2, 2013
- 889
- 4,801
dannyo
Well-Known Member
- Dec 6, 2006
- 953
- 3,010
They summed up my feelings about VAR really well on the latest episode of the view from the lane. We’ve gone from 90% accuracy to 92% with the use of VAR but at the cost of completely destroying the best part of going to watch football. The trade off is far too big for something that is still far from perfect and, in fact, perfection doesn’t even exist because people are still involved in the process.
yido_number1
He'll always be magic
- Jun 8, 2004
- 8,699
- 16,910
I don't think 90-92 is accurate. For me the issue is the Muppets operating it. Improve that and the clarity of some of the rules and we're all good.
LeSoupeKitchen
Well-Known Member
- Aug 18, 2011
- 3,114
- 7,643
Exactly this. I understand why Liverpool fans are angry. But the media outcry is inexplicable as I find this sort of mistake far less concerning than when VAR operates as intended and awards penalties from the slightest of touches or gives the most marginal or offsides.
This is actually a good example of why VAR is good, it was just a f*** up which won't happen again as there will be a procedural change
It would boggle more of Liverpool were one of the votes against it, which I suspect they were considering how much they have benefited from VAR
