Re: The Official Video Assistant Referee Thread

[Doc]

Yeah, viewed that goal way too many times than I ever would have and I too think it's a clear foul on Llorente. Big man literally pulled him back and #6 fell. Sure, they both did the usual tugging players do but Llorente went a lil extra and the ref called it.

Just checked the score, Spurs won 6-1. This level of extraness from cSpurs really is a bit odd.

[Cruijf]

I'm honestly stunned anyone can defend this decision. Llorente is very clearly pulled first, and its a wonder he even stayed on his feet long enough to full back. If anything its actually a pretty clear penalty.

[CBarca]

VAR is brilliant to use for offside decisions, I can only support it. With normal fouls and such though, it has to stay in its own realm, and I think if there is a clear and obvious error from the referee on a play where you can clearly and correctly fix the error, it's fine.

Clearly nobody finds this situation problematic though. Honestly I agree with Cruijff but I'm not going to argue about an inconsequential call. People think that's why I'm upset. I'm not, it was an FA cup game Spurs won 6-1, I don't give a shit about a call like this because of the outcome of the game. There was a penalty shout waved off by the ref in the same game that VAR looked at, which I thought was a pen, but it was decided not a pen. Fair enough, if the ref makes a mistake or judges it not to be a pen and the other ref agrees, I'm alright with that, because there was no net loss. Maybe I was the one who missed something, I can be biased. If both the video referee and the center ref make a mistake, it doesn't look good for VAR, but it's not like you lost much (besides time, which is another problematic area) from VAR existing.

This is problematic because, again I won't argue the call, but I will make this observation: the center referee did not make the call that it wasn't a goal. He realized what we all did--the amount of pushing and shoving that occurred is par for the course in a game. That kind of pushing and shoving happens on every corner and it happens on most crosses into the box.

However, for seemingly no reason at all, the goal was looked at by a video ref, who is not watching the game in real time, who is doing what we're doing which is watching the video 5 or 6 times and searching for a foul.

Does no one see how that is problematic? You can find a foul with any slow-motion replay, or even by watching the same replay over and over again. Clearly, you can see a foul on Llorente before the shot (the Son shot). It's undeniable that Llorente's shirt was being actively grabbed. You can also spot a potential foul on Llorente, which is people talking about how he pulled the defender to the ground.

Let me preface this in a different way: let's say that Lamela skied it. He missed the shot. A goal kick was given but they went to VAR and they saw Llorente's shirt being pulled in the box and gave it a penalty.

Would that not be a problematic, terrible call as well that is heavily punishing Rochdale for fairly routine shirt grabbing, pushing/shoving etc in the box?

[CBarca]

(Continuation, I split up the posts to make it thematically more clear, and allow responses to each as their own whole, although it is a multi-part response)

There is something fundamental about VAR that is problematic, and that's because the situation that the video assisted ref is in is not experiencing the same game as the center ref, nor is he likely to have the same views or philosophy of the center ref on what is a foul or not. This is problematic. Think back to some of the games that Clattenburg has reffed -- Clattenburg is known for letting the players play on for the most part. The players must adapt the way they play partially to the ref and how he refs the game. A player with Clattenburg reffing might leave a bit more in, might pull on shirts a bit more because he knows it's accepted. However, then you've got your VAR. He doesn't see things the same way, and on a replay of a corner, spots some shirt pulling he believes is egregious but Clattenburg has been known to let go. A penalty is awarded because of it. This has now become a case where a team is being punished by the fact VAR exists, not from their own volition.

There is a counterargument: "But CBarca, this is already the case with assistant refs. What is the problem with having a video assisted referee doing the same thing?"

1) The assistant refs have a very limited sphere of influence. For the most part, they will only call out of bounds, offside, and clear fouls right in front of them that the ref is not physically close to. Rarely will you see an assistant ref make something like a penalty call unless the center referee has done it first. That's why the Liverpool-Spurs game from earlier this year, and the call made by the assistant at the end of the game, was so heavily looked at. Not only was it a game deciding decision, but how many times in history have you seen an assistant ref do that? It's very rare for an assistant ref to go outside their very small sphere of influence.

2) The assistant referees aren't looking at the same play 5-8 times. They only get one shot at it, in real time, like the center referee. This means that they, even if they have different philosophies, fundamentally have seen the same thing.

3) The assistant refs are out there on the field. It may seem like a fluff point, but anyone who has played competitively knows that there is an atmosphere, there is context to the game that is occurring, and players and referees alike who are a part of the game, actually out there on the field, have a better feel for how the game is being reffed, what is being let go, what's being given, are the players upset? Are they rivals who are really going at each other? What is the crowd like? This is a lived experience that the video assisted ref fundamentally does not have.

From those three points is the point that I'm arguing for. Assistant refs, being separate entities from the center referee, have a very limited sphere of influence. That is how VAR, in my opinion, must be implemented. That sphere of influence is a review of offside decisions, and extremely clear, obvious mistakes that the ref has missed. Offside decisions are about as close to black and white as you can get (other than goal line decisions, which positively brilliant technology has been developed for). The other clear, obvious mistakes should be fairly close to black and white.

The problem is that the game is made of many, many shades of grey in many instances, and it depends on the referee and how they're calling the game, and the experience as they live it and what they see. Referees can sometimes make shocking mistakes. That should be fixed. A lot of times, there are instances where the foul can go either way. This is where VAR should not be allowed to come in.

Why? Because when you have a match, you have a center ref who referees it one way. It is tampering with the spirit of the game, it is introducing inconsistencies in refereeing when you referee the game one way for all the black and white calls, but then when there are calls that have shades of grey to them, or ambiguity to them, you defer to a different ref. To me, that is not acceptable.

[CBarca]

Apologies for having a long, thought out opinion/response on a consequential development in the game that I love, if that's what counts as "extraness"

[Doc]

It is but I enjoyed the read, still a clear foul to me though.

[CBarca]

It's besides the point, honestly, did I not make that clear enough? The fact that multiple people here clearly see this as a "play on" and multiple people see it as "a clear foul" is problematic.

This is not the situation where VAR should have been in place.

I'm not expecting hardly anyone to watch Spurs vs Rochdale, but that was the issue with it in the game. They used VAR 5-8 times in one half. It probably could have been used maybe 2 or 3 times maybe.

It was very clear abuse of the system for many calls where there ought not to be absolutely any sphere of influence from another referee.

[Thimmy]

Surely, VAR would be less frustrating and more time efficient if they had a trained ref constantly look at the monitors outside the pitch, while they're being assisted by someone proficient at viewing and rewinding footage of relevant situations. The only problem they would have to solve, would be a method to convey the calls from the referee sitting behind the monitors, and onto the field. I can think of a few ways to solve that issue, and I think it would in many ways be a good thing to take away the on-field presence of a human referee, although I'm sure many would find that highly controversial. If a player absolutely needs to discuss something with the ref, they could for instance do so through a person standing on the sidelines who could communicate with the ref remotely, but would not be held directly accountable for any calls being made.

Naturally, there will always be the argument that taking away human error to such an extent is the same as taking away the charm and soul of the game. It could make football seem more robotic, and it's a transition that a lot of people would find hard to deal with. It's also worth mentioning that people are stimulated by controversial officiating by an on-field ref they can use as a scapegoat, whether it benefits their team or not.

However, VAR is already present in the modern game, and it's current implementation is neither here, nor there. It's still in it's early stages, but I think we can all agree that it's positive effects on the game haven't been substantial enough, yet compared to the old format, some would say it's too progressive. As it stands, it's just a half-assed, Call of Duty- esque, testing the waters- type of addition that doesn't seem very well thought through.

[guest7]

http://www.laliga.es/noticias/nota-informativa-131

OFFICIAL, VAR will be used in La Liga next season

[neuro11]

http://www.laliga.es/noticias/nota-informativa-131

OFFICIAL, VAR will be used in La Liga next season

Great news! will gladly welcome it. since this is a new technology, it might have some problems and acceptability issues which surely will be resolved or adjusted over the course of time. Other sports already have been using such kinds of technology without many complaints. Its time for Football to accept it.

[Doc]

Just wondering, would the same referees that cock up simple calls be running VAR in La Liga?

[mr-r34]

VAR needs to only be used in offside calls when it's clear cut, everything else needs to be left alone. I created a thread on this in the old forum and all the problems I mentioned are every present in the VAR system, at times it's been beyond a joke in the a league, and it's been used in the NRL in Australia for good knows how long and is still as awful as ever, whether you have interpretation involved someone's will always *bleep* it up, plain and simple.

Goal line and offside decions should be the only thing we use technology for, nothing more.

[Luca]

Football lawmakers say 98.8% accuracy of final decision with Video Assistant Referees [VAR] over 972 competitive matches. Average time ‘lost’ due to VAR = 55 seconds of playing time.

@robes @rincon @warrior

FIFA is deciding whether or not to use VAR at the 2018 World Cup in the coming weeks

[Myesyats]

Fantastic numbers right there. I'm sure we can also reduce the amount of lost time over time. It can be added up later in the game too, anyway.

This is great.

[nasir6371]

Bump, more injustice. Needed this a decade ago.

[Doc]

I guess you mean injustice for Man City because that PK was legit. In any case, no need to deflect from your team's woeful performance over 2 legs since you'll still be deserved Brexit league winners.

[rincon]

Imagine how many yellows CR could get with VAR. Maybe one day we'll see it.

[Tomwin Lannister]

Must be nice when your players have free reign to dive until they get a call, meanwhile the rest of us get booked after getting caught once.

It's practically a hack.

[Adit]

If VAR was there Buffon wouldn't have got a red ... Instead Benatia would've got a second yellow. So yeah we wouldn't be having this conversation so I'm not sure VAR is good.

[halamadrid2]

The nerve when you had players that alone had more fouls than our entire team. Not even the penalty could get him sent off. Stfu ok

[rincon]

Good old argument of "diving is fine because there are also fouls in the game".

That's good with me, just wished the same rules applied for both teams.

[Tomwin Lannister]

We got punished for our fouls lmao

Carded to hell


Where's your punishment for diving, I don't think Ronaldo has ever lost the ball and not thrown himself to the floor in a heap afterwards.

Technically if you actually followed the rules to the letter Ronaldo would be second yellowed on the reg.

[Mr Nick09]

VAR wont fix you losing 0-3 at home in champions league

[halamadrid2]

I dont know which dive your referring to. Milking slight contacts? Ok but dives? I did not see that today. Lich, Benatia and co deliberately fouled/body checked Ronaldo at every opportunity they got to get him riled up. He became abit of a crybaby towards the end of the first half but he was constantly targeted and Oliver didn't want to know. I am all for physical play but some of the Juve players reminded me of Atleti

[Tomwin Lannister]

Ironically, the current refereeing system does.

(If you're Madrid)

[Thimmy]

Ironically, the current refereeing system does.

(If you're Madrid)

[Sponsored content]