VAR

Yes but on the flip side if you get it wrong and you miss out on 2/3 defining calls in the game, players, clubs and fans alike will be crying out for it to return to its current format.

As I say, it is a good idea and if it wasn't like it currently is, this may have happened. But it's just issues with incompetent officials at the moment.

comment by Take Mahomes, Country Roads (U3979)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Take Mahomes, Country Roads (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
The challenge system in football is a flawed idea. The potential applications are too broad and you will end up with a team being beaten because of a huge and obvious error but they had already used their challenge, or being beaten by a smaller error because they are too wary to use their challenge.
_____________

But both of those are up to the team to avoid, aren't they? If you've "already used your challenge(s)", it's because you chose to dispute a correct decision: in other words, you made a mistake. If you challenge correctly, you don't lose that challenge.

And with the idea of being "too wary to use their challenge": you're only really likely to appeal the big decisions, i.e. those that lead to goals, penalties or red cards, so if you genuinely feel one of those has gone against you, use a challenge.

It's worked well in tennis and, while there is more subjectivity in football, I think the idea could transfer across. It would stop some of these fractional offsides, which nobody really wanted, as teams wouldn't really be challenging them unless they were pretty desperate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

But the issue - as you have said - is that there is subjectivity in football. Tennis uses it for a purely factual decision. Was the ball out.

A football team could use their challenge on a subjective decision and make a perfectly reasonable case that it wasn't a penalty or red card etc, and the ref decides that he feels it still was a penalty. Then the challenge is lost and you are at the mercy of a huge error.

It is an arbitrary restriction and the only purpose for it that I could see would be to be able to blame the cheated team for a wrong decision by letting people say "should have used your challenge then" or "shouldn't have lost your challenge then".

I can see of no actual benefit it brings over the current system which (barring errors, which might still happen in a challenge system) checks every major incident as standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree in general and meant to add to my post that any review system, with or without challenges, is doomed to fail if wrong decisions are still made after the review. But one improvement over the system in place now might be that the current system is just too much - goals are being ruled out that nobody would have dreamed of challenging. At least with limited challenges, the disruption of the game would be minimised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure. As you said people are likely to challenge goals. In fact for the Mane one, being so late in the game, the only way I could see it not being challenged is if Everton had lost their challenge already.

If we accept the PL that the offside was given correctly, then that means it would have been challenged and disallowed anyway or Everton would have conceded unfairly due simply to a lost challenge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's the game. Also I'd suggest that if your challenge was successful you get another one.

It works in baseball very well. There has to be substantial evidence to overturn the call on the field so there are times where it's so close at first base, it still isn't overturned. Same would apply with Mane, call was onside and it was far too close to judge as offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

But it isnt the game. As I said, the only difference between a challenge system and the one we have is that it essentially goes from, double check that all decisions are correct to only double check if a team asks and then pubish them if they were wrong. It seems inferior to the system we currently have in every way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree entirely. The game is becoming so stop start because every eyelash is being checked for ridiculous decisions.

The proposal I have would have a game stopped for review twice, not after every single goal as it is currently.

Far better for the sport.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Except that the studies have shown that the average VAR review stoppage is 1 minutes and there is one, on average, every 3 games or so. Checks happening in the background don't stop the game because play continues. So an average of 20 seconds per game is spent on VAR reviews, compared to say 30-35 minutes per game where the ball is out of play for throw-ins, free-kicks, restarts after goals, substitutions.

There are approx 100 stops and starts per game of football on average, and this was the case long before VAR.

comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 hour, 4 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) I'm the Mané - PL Champione (U1108)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by (K̇ash) I'm the Mané - PL Champione (U1108)
posted 46 seconds ago
I think with offside football should use the cricket DRS method where it is umpire (linesman) call. Like for the Mane goal if it is deemed on side with the naked eye then technology needs substantial evidence to overturn the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

They have evidence. They have a photograph showing Mane to be marginally offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not substantial though. Rather than making lines up you go by the linesman call.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So what happens if you have 2 calls in the same game. One was not called by the linesman and the goal given. VAR shows it is marginally offside but they go with the linesman call.

Team B then scores a legitimate goal that is flagged offside. VAR shows that it was just on but it is marginal and so they go with the linesman.

Two decisions given incorrectly that mean a team loses instead of winning because people prefer a less accurate system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I say marginal I am talking about the extreme Mane offside. Naked eye is probably the best way to settle this because technology does not have the frames to be accurate. Technology should correct obvious offsides or not but with Mane its not clear and obvious so on field decision remains.

I think VAR is great for offsides. It has added some much needed consistency to offside decisions. The problem is the rule itself, not the technology itself, so the offside rule itself needs to be changed and simplified.

Referee's also need to use the pitch side monitors and the VAR officials should be encouraging them to do so. The authorities also need to fess up and stop abdicating responsibility when appalling error's occur. If an official facks up, then admit the official has facked up. Their handling of the Pickford incident has been a disgrace.

Most global sports have embraced and ultimately have enhanced their product utilising technology. Football and tech is in it's embryonic stage and there has to be in improvement, but the jumpers for goalposts mentality which proceeded imo wasn't fit for purpose in modern day football.

comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 5 minutes ago
I think VAR is great for offsides. It has added some much needed consistency to offside decisions. The problem is the rule itself, not the technology itself, so the offside rule itself needs to be changed and simplified.

Referee's also need to use the pitch side monitors and the VAR officials should be encouraging them to do so. The authorities also need to fess up and stop abdicating responsibility when appalling error's occur. If an official facks up, then admit the official has facked up. Their handling of the Pickford incident has been a disgrace.

Most global sports have embraced and ultimately have enhanced their product utilising technology. Football and tech is in it's embryonic stage and there has to be in improvement, but the jumpers for goalposts mentality which proceeded imo wasn't fit for purpose in modern day football.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree - the two changes I would make to the current VAR setup are that I would have the ref team wear microphones so that fans can understand why the ref has come to the decision. Even if we disagree with the decisions at least we would know why it had been made.

The other change would only really be needed when fans are back in the stadium, and it would be to allow VAR replays to be shown in the big screens so fans in the stadium can see what is being looked at.

I don't like this idea. If you exhaust your review calls in the first 10 minutes then the ref can pretty much do what he wants from there without reference to you or video technology, and you can't do anything about it.

No need for challenges. They'll slow the game down as you'll be damned sure each team will use their full allocation. Just get the decisions correct as much as possible.

Against Everton we would have used our opportunity maybe with the VVD incident and that means you wouldn't be able to use it for the offside goal. Obviously things would have panned out differently if Pickford had been sent off but the point is one review call per 90 minutes would rarely be of any use IMO.

Is Pickfotd dirty or rash, it's an obvious red, just interested if you think it was on purpose, or he lost his head in the moment

***********************************************
Well open mics so you can here the discussion between the officials would be a start.

At least that way you might have a understanding as to they have reached the awful outcome they have.
************************************************

Take,
You have finally revealed the REAL problem with what happened. The reason that this story has received so much attention is that Liverpool did not win. Get over it!