Premier League looking to push major VAR change for offside calls

[chrissivad]

Leaves it too subjective for me.

 

[Johnny J]

Offsides on VAR should be used to correct the decisions like the Chelsea goal against Cardiff a couple of seasons ago where it was a clear and obvious mistake not the ones where player's toenails are playing them offside.

Exactly.

 

[InOffMeLeftShin]

Leaves it too subjective for me.

What if they just didn’t have the VAR and left it to the refs and keep the flow of the game going unless one of the coaches thought it was an obvious mistake. Bring in a challenge rule like in cricket and tennis where you get to challenge a decision and go and look at the offside if you really think there was a mistake. Keep your challenge if you win, lose it if you’re wrong so coaches only challenge when they think they are right.

Solves a lot of issues to me. Keeps the flow of the game. Will fix obvious issues. Puts emphasis on coaches so they have nobody to complain to when it’s wrong.

 

[mightyspur]

What if they just didn’t have the VAR and left it to the refs and keep the flow of the game going unless one of the coaches thought it was an obvious mistake. Bring in a challenge rule like in cricket and tennis where you get to challenge a decision and go and look at the offside if you really think there was a mistake. Keep your challenge if you win, lose it if you’re wrong so coaches only challenge when they think they are right.

Solves a lot of issues to me. Keeps the flow of the game. Will fix obvious issues. Puts emphasis on coaches so they have nobody to complain to when it’s wrong.

I hate this idea and still won't resolve the issue if a challenge is raised and the attacker is perceived to be 1mm offside

 

[wooderz]

If the lines are needed, it's onside. Offside should be obvious and giving an advantage. When you need lines ec, theres hardly advantage

 

[sausage]

I don't get why the don't just implement a birds-eye camera. Would be far simpler than the isometric potato-cam they use currently

 

[rez9000]

What if they just didn’t have the VAR and left it to the refs and keep the flow of the game going unless one of the coaches thought it was an obvious mistake. Bring in a challenge rule like in cricket and tennis where you get to challenge a decision and go and look at the offside if you really think there was a mistake. Keep your challenge if you win, lose it if you’re wrong so coaches only challenge when they think they are right.

Solves a lot of issues to me. Keeps the flow of the game. Will fix obvious issues. Puts emphasis on coaches so they have nobody to complain to when it’s wrong.

There have been a few suggestions in this thread that I've agreed with, but this is the one I agree with the most.

Give coaches two or three challenges per half or five per game or somesuch (however many is considered appropriate) and they can then challenge ref decisions by using up one of their challenges - whatever decisions they like. The decision is then referred (ha!) to VAR.

I'd add another change here: the VAR panel should consist of more than a referee(s) however - there should be former professional players and possibly even fan representatives (neutral ones) on the panel that decides. And they have say 15, 20, 30 seconds (or whatever) to decide and they do it by majority vote. No lines, no dicking around with cameras. They can watch as many replays as they like, but they have to vote within whatever time limit is set and majority wins.

 

[mightyspur]

There have been a few suggestions in this thread that I've agreed with, but this is the one I agree with the most.

Give coaches two or three challenges per half or five per game or somesuch (however many is considered appropriate) and they can then challenge ref decisions by using up one of their challenges - whatever decisions they like. The decision is then referred (ha!) to VAR.

I'd add another change here: the VAR panel should consist of more than a referee(s) however - there should be former professional players and possibly even fan representatives (neutral ones) on the panel that decides. And they have say 15, 20, 30 seconds (or whatever) to decide and they do it by majority vote. No lines, no dicking around with cameras. They can watch as many replays as they like, but they have to vote within whatever time limit is set and majority wins.

All of this is a terrible idea... and as for a "neutral fan representative"? Are you having a laugh?!

 

[InOffMeLeftShin]

I hate this idea and still won't resolve the issue if a challenge is raised and the attacker is perceived to be 1mm offside

Yeh it certainly doesn’t solve the 1mm offside issue. I guess I was just assuming that wouldn’t be challenged as it’d be too close and the game would just continue. I’m not sure what’s so hateable about it, it’s effectively how the 3rd official or Hawkeye are used in every other sport.

 

[rez9000]

All of this is a terrible idea... and as for a "neutral fan representative"? Are you having a laugh?!

What's your reasoning?

 

[mightyspur]

What's your reasoning?

Challenges work in tennis and cricket because the reasons for challenge are generally repeatable and frequent with many instances of something happening over and over again in a single game and the game stopping because of it. For example, was the ball out or in, was it actually clipped by the batsman on the way through the the wicket keeper or not, or was the ball actually dropped during that catch. Reviews aren't considered when looking at things like, was it a boundary, VAR just calls it.

Reviews also creates controversy when the player/team has no more reviews left and something massive is missed, so it isn't without its own negatives.

Football is different as you might only have a single incident that warrants a review in a game. How do you introduce a review system for something happening in the middle of the field and then the ball doesn't go out of play, or the team who raises the initial review at the time of the incident then goes on to score within a few minutes? I am sure you could come up with scenarios and how to handle them, but it's just unnecessary noise.

You also have the fact that because of the review system in cricket, the DRS is used as a tactic with teams wildly appealing on certain decisions, in an attempt to put pressure on the umpire, but then not bothering with a review because they know that later when the team has run out of appeals they still appeal vociferously potentially pressuring the umpire into changing their minds.

VAR in football is more like rugby and they don't have a set number of challenges and football can learn a lot from their implementation. Letting the crowd hear the conversation between VAR and the on field ref so they understand how the decision was made would be a big step.

I also don't like the suggestion of a time limit restriction. I want VAR and the Refs to get decisions right, not be pressured into making the wrong call because time is running out. By hearing the conversation between VAR and the Refs it would go a long way to alleviate this issue where we have 2 mins of the screen saying "VAR checking possible penalty" or something and the fans having no clue what they are looking at.

The suggestion of ex players or even fan representatives on a panel would be a disaster. You need people who know the laws of the game, not people with a vague grasp of them. Just look at the differing opinions on the match thread, or during half-time by the pundits on what or what isn't a fair challenge. It would be chaos.

I don't like the 'armpit' offsides you get today where they draw lines that are mms apart as the technology based on the frame rate is likely to be out. For me personally, if you have to draw 2 lines it is too close to call and they should introduce an answer that just goes with the on-field referee / assistant referee decision. Get assistants flagging for what they think is offside or not at the time and if a goal is scored, then it gets reviewed. If it is too close to call, the original on-field decision stands.

 

[rez9000]

I'll go through point-by-point, if you'll indulge me:

Challenges work in tennis and cricket because the reasons for challenge are generally repeatable and frequent with many instances of something happening over and over again in a single game and the game stopping because of it. For example, was the ball out or in, was it actually clipped by the batsman on the way through the the wicket keeper or not, or was the ball actually dropped during that catch. Reviews aren't considered when looking at things like, was it a boundary, VAR just calls it.

That doesn't suggest any real difference apart from the mechanics of the game being played. Offsides and fouls happens over and over again in a football match, so what's the difference?

Reviews also creates controversy when the player/team has no more reviews left and something massive is missed, so it isn't without its own negatives.

That applies in tennis and cricket too. If a player challenges a line call a number of times and runs out of challenges, then it's unfortunate, but it's the way it is. There's a balance to be struck between ensuring that errors are caught and allowing a game to flow. I don't think anyone would realistically suggest that every decision is reviewed. That would just turn any game in any sport into one long review.

Football is different as you might only have a single incident that warrants a review in a game. How do you introduce a review system for something happening in the middle of the field and then the ball doesn't go out of play, or the team who raises the initial review at the time of the incident then goes on to score within a few minutes? I am sure you could come up with scenarios and how to handle them, but it's just unnecessary noise.

It depends on whether ensuring that officiating errors are dealt with in the interests of fairness or not. What you refer to as 'unnecessary noise' is your own (perfectly valid, of course) view that there isn't a need for it. That falls outside of the remit of how VAR should be changed. If you believe that VAR should be part of the game or that it is part of the game whether one likes it or not, then the discussion is about how to make sure it does its job properly.

You also have the fact that because of the review system in cricket, the DRS is used as a tactic with teams wildly appealing on certain decisions, in an attempt to put pressure on the umpire, but then not bothering with a review because they know that later when the team has run out of appeals they still appeal vociferously potentially pressuring the umpire into changing their minds.

Again, I don't see a major problem here. If it's about the game stopping and starting, what's the difference between a call from the touchline and a referee blowing up to award a freekick? And as for pressuring the ref, that happens now, so again, what's the difference?

VAR in football is more like rugby and they don't have a set number of challenges and football can learn a lot from their implementation. Letting the crowd hear the conversation between VAR and the on field ref so they understand how the decision was made would be a big step.

That I wholeheartedly agree with - I've been a frim proponent of greater accountability of football officials for years. Anything that drags them into the spotlight to answer for their decisions is a good thing by me.

I also don't like the suggestion of a time limit restriction. I want VAR and the Refs to get decisions right, not be pressured into making the wrong call because time is running out. By hearing the conversation between VAR and the Refs it would go a long way to alleviate this issue where we have 2 mins of the screen saying "VAR checking possible penalty" or something and the fans having no clue what they are looking at.

That's not a dealbreaker. But the effect a time limit may have on the quality of decision is mitigated by the fact that you have multiple people. It may also add a positive pressure in getting those involved to be better-informed and better-equipped to make decisions. None of these possible solutions are full-formed. There is always scope for change and refinement. OK, so the time limit causes problems? That's actually mitigated by limiting the number of challenges. If the longest VAR decision takes three minutes, but you can only have a maximum of three challenges in a half, that's only nine minutes, if every challenge takes the longest time. Or you could not have a time limit.

The suggestion of ex players or even fan representatives on a panel would be a disaster. You need people who know the laws of the game, not people with a vague grasp of them. Just look at the differing opinions on the match thread, or during half-time by the pundits on what or what isn't a fair challenge. It would be chaos.

And what's stopping those ex-professionals and fan representatives from going on a training course to learn the laws of the game before they sit on a VAR panel? In precisely the same way that, you know, referees do? You get a pool of people, you train them, you pay them and they sit on the VAR panel. And get paid for it. In the same way referees do. What's the difference?

I don't like the 'armpit' offsides you get today where they draw lines that are mms apart as the technology based on the frame rate is likely to be out. For me personally, if you have to draw 2 lines it is too close to call and they should introduce an answer that just goes with the on-field referee / assistant referee decision. Get assistants flagging for what they think is offside or not at the time and if a goal is scored, then it gets reviewed. If it is too close to call, the original on-field decision stands.

That's fair enough too. But that again falls outside of the scope of whether VAR should or shouldn't exist. What you're calling for there is actually the very same halfway house we have with VAR right now - in that it's accountable.

The issue with VAR isn't the millimetre lines or whether it's the ref's decision or not or all theother stuff that we keep hearing about. It's the lack of accountability. When those involved are not required to account for themselves, they are safe in the knowledge that they can ****-up monumentally and there are no repurcussions.

Personally, I'd be happy to scrap VAR as long as referees are being asked to account for their decisions.

Likewise, I'd be happy to keep VAR as long as referees are being asked to account for their decisions.

Add that pressure on them and you'll soon see the quality of both VAR-referred and non-VAR-referred decisions skyrocket.