VAR revert to on field decision

Draw thicker lines so that calls are easier to make quicker. The thicker lines take into consideration margin for error in frame speed etc.

comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 15 hours, 4 minutes ago
I understand that, however I think one of the biggest complaints with VAR have been the amount of times spent on decisions.

I think fans would be more understanding if you only had a limit on how many calls you can review each game, as the glaring obvious errors then come down to the decision-making of the manager, rather than scrutinising the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes exactly, the only purpose this change would serve is to increase the number of incorrect decisions and shift the blame for them from the ref making them to the team receiving them. VAR is there to minimise incorrect decisions, and so you shouldn't add things that will specifically stop it from doing that.

"Sorry you conceded a 90th minute goal from 5 yards offside that lost you the match. You shouldn't have used your VAR review on the 50/50 penalty shout that the ref decided to keep to. Enjoy the championship"

Tennis uses a review system but does so for a much narrower remit (literally did the ball go out - VAR has much broader use) and even then each player has a very minimum 10 incorrect challenges per match and this can go as high as 30.

If there is a way to speed up the decision-making process using VAR, then that would obviously be the priority. I assumed they would be using the method that brings the quickest decisions, but if they can improve on this, as I have said above, through the use of automated technology for example, that should be used.

But I wouldn't be completely against the idea of just 1/2 reviews per game personally. Unfortunately, the example you have referred to above comes into play even with VAR.

"Sorry Bournemouth, that ball didn't cross the line at Villa Park and didn't result in a goal for Sheffield United. Enjoy the Championship."

comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 3 hours, 47 minutes ago
If there is a way to speed up the decision-making process using VAR, then that would obviously be the priority. I assumed they would be using the method that brings the quickest decisions, but if they can improve on this, as I have said above, through the use of automated technology for example, that should be used.

But I wouldn't be completely against the idea of just 1/2 reviews per game personally. Unfortunately, the example you have referred to above comes into play even with VAR.

"Sorry Bournemouth, that ball didn't cross the line at Villa Park and didn't result in a goal for Sheffield United. Enjoy the Championship."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I'm aware the example came into play. The point is that it shouldn't have and we should be looking into how best to prevent it happening in the future. Notably though, the Villa example was an explicit error in the system. Whilst this doesn't make it OK, it implies that it shouldn't be a very rare and unlikely occurrence. This proposal to introduce limited reviews is an active decisions that would almost certainly increase the number of incorrect decisions.

For example, how long does the manager have to make their one review? Do they get to view the replays first to confirm it? How is the manager going to see if it was a penalty in the box if the ref (who was much closer) missed it? How is the manager going to have any idea if a player was offside if he is not in-line with the play?

It would increase the number of incorrect decisions, but the frustration turns to the manager rather than VAR itself. Not that this is necessarily a good thing, but it could be alternative to improving the system.

The manager could get access to a pitch side monitor, like the referee's, in the dugout area.

It quite possibly isn't the best system practically, however I still think that would be an improvement (albeit still not great) on the current system we have in place, if it wasn't possible that we had all the technology and resource to improve the speed and accuracy of the decisions.

I would much prefer just a quicker, more accurate system. I'm more talking of potential alternatives to what we already have.

comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 4 minutes ago
It would increase the number of incorrect decisions, but the frustration turns to the manager rather than VAR itself. Not that this is necessarily a good thing, but it could be alternative to improving the system.

The manager could get access to a pitch side monitor, like the referee's, in the dugout area.

It quite possibly isn't the best system practically, however I still think that would be an improvement (albeit still not great) on the current system we have in place, if it wasn't possible that we had all the technology and resource to improve the speed and accuracy of the decisions.

I would much prefer just a quicker, more accurate system. I'm more talking of potential alternatives to what we already have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You will never get a much quicker system unless you have a way of automating the decision of whether something is a foul. At the very least, someone has to see an incident, rewind, rematch the incident, check for other angles that give a better view. There is a basic minimum amount of time that this process has to take.

That being said, the average VAR review is a little over 60 seconds or thereabouts. There is, on average, 1 review every 2.5 - 3 games. So on average about 25 seconds of a match is taken up by VAR. In an average match there are over 100 breaks in play, with the ball being out of play for around 35 minutes. When looking at all of this, VAR is barely a ripple.

I know that although I do think a quicker decision process needs to be addressed one way or another. Fans are more frustrated by the length of time on decisions, even so far to where they'd say they would rather see inaccurate decisions for an increased speed in the game.

That's why I thought you would get better efficiency (time wise) out of a review system, which would guarantee a maximum of 2 decisions per game (1 for either team) for instance. That's only because the biggest complaint with VAR is the time spent on decisions.

Challenges are imo a terrible idea,

As i said earlier in the thread, drawing the lines from the furthest forward part of a players boot would massively speed up offside decisions

the biggest problem with var is there's no single point of measurement, a player is offside if in front of the last defender when the ball is played. but when is that? is it when the passing player makes contact with the ball? when the ball leaves contact with the player? some random point inbetween? there's a lot of movement the players can make within that range, so uncertainty it built into the system, so trying to measure offside to the nearest armpit hair is pointless, impractical, and quite simply not a viable solution.
plus it takes too bloody long and then they still come out with what is quite blatantly the wrong answer far too often.

15 seconds is more than long enough to watch multiple replays, even in slow mo. so give var a time limit of 15/20 seconds to make a decision, if they can't provide a decision within that time frame then it goes with the linesmen's decision, unless the on field ref overrules the linesman.

To me the answer to all of this is simple - you have 1 minute to review the footage. If you can't decide in that time it’s obviously not clear, so stick with onfield decision.