The more I see of VAR, the more I think it has the capacity to completely revolutionise the sport and not in a good way. That’s not to say I’m against VAR but it’s implementation has been really hap-hazard and badly thought through.
Handball is an obvious example - in slow motion, watched from 8 different angles pretty much every time the ball hits a hand - it will be a penalty. For me, that will eventually put defenders at a massive disadvantage. I played full back a bit before my knee gave way - surely it’s completely natural to jump with your arms out, same when you’re diving in for a block? Does that make every one a handball? I’m not sure.
But it’s offside that is most concerning. The original intent of the rule was to prevent goal-hanging. It wasn’t to have people arguing over whether the attackers left knee was in front of the defender’s right foot. We’re going to have so many goals ruled out by centimetres (see Ligand in the Nations League). Is that really what the rule is for?
For me if VAR is to continue - they need to go back to the ‘clear daylight between defender and attacker’ rule or else we’re going to end up with a situation where the spontaneous reaction to a goal will be lost while everyone wonders about VAR. That will literally be the worst.
Thoughts?
We need to talk about VAR...
posted on 24/6/19
Agree with others that VAR isn't the problem, it's the laws that people should be having issues with. All VAR is doing is implementing them as they're written.
posted on 24/6/19
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 23 minutes ago
Agree with others that VAR isn't the problem, it's the laws that people should be having issues with. All VAR is doing is implementing them as they're written.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't agree with this at all.
The process of VAR is affecting how incidents are reviewed - handball, most notably.
posted on 24/6/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 23 minutes ago
Agree with others that VAR isn't the problem, it's the laws that people should be having issues with. All VAR is doing is implementing them as they're written.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't agree with this at all.
The process of VAR is affecting how incidents are reviewed - handball, most notably.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but that's the thing. When looking at a replay they're applying the rules exactly as their written, whereas typically they might miss it in real time i.e they might have felt the hand/arm was not moving towards the ball but when looking at a replay they decide actually it was.
posted on 24/6/19
comment by Cinciwolf---- jealous little scottish to$$er (U11551)
posted 9 hours, 2 minutes ago
Said at the start of the VAR era that the offside rule needs to be adjusted to give the forward the advantage in close decisions and find it ridiculous an excellently worked goal can be disallowed because a guys arris is an inch ahead of the defenders foot!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You could say exactly the same for a well worked goal that is an inch from crossing the line.
posted on 24/6/19
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 23 minutes ago
Agree with others that VAR isn't the problem, it's the laws that people should be having issues with. All VAR is doing is implementing them as they're written.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't agree with this at all.
The process of VAR is affecting how incidents are reviewed - handball, most notably.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but that's the thing. When looking at a replay they're applying the rules exactly as their written, whereas typically they might miss it in real time i.e they might have felt the hand/arm was not moving towards the ball but when looking at a replay they decide actually it was.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the rules as they are written leave incidents open to interpretation, so no, that isn't the issue.
The issue is that they're watching incidents again and again, often with slow motion, and it's distorting what has actually happened.
Watching a handball in real time, once, is often a better basis for deciding on intent from the defender.
posted on 24/6/19
But the rules as they are written leave incidents open to interpretation, so no, that isn't the issue.
-----
Which is entirely my point that it's the laws that are the problem.
Having multiple replays and angles can only be a good thing when it comes to aiding the ref's, they just need to change the rules to make them yes/no situations as far as possible and reflect the use of technology.
posted on 24/6/19
The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
I don't think the laws are a problem, although recent guidance certainly has confused things.
In my view, the problem is a mixture of the people running the game not understanding the game well enough, added to multiple replays and the effect of slow motion.
It can't only be a good thing, because I think it's already shown to be a bad thing!
posted on 24/6/19
Fully agree OP. Offside was designed to eliminate goal hanging, not for marginal gains.
posted on 24/6/19
comment by Shaun M - Ran out of usernames (U9955)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
Fully agree OP. Offside was designed to eliminate goal hanging, not for marginal gains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is my view as well. Think we’ve been conditioned by moaning managers and players to see offside as black and white, which I suppose by the letter of the law it is.
However that the original intention or spirit of the original law wasn’t to be arguing over inches here and there.
posted on 24/6/19
A fantastic idea that wasn't thought through at all. Also doesn't help (IMO) that fans have been conditioned to enjoy the controversy it's been designed to eliminate. The number of times it's flagged an incredibly marginal decision, correctly, yet a debate has still arose containing all the usual stock phrases, e.g. "benefit of the doubt to the attacker", etc... has been far too frequent.
Also hampered by the fact some of the rules are so vague and open to interpretation, like the whole ball to hand nonsense.
Think it requires a bit of work and patience, but I do like it.