Thanks fuck. Sort out these common-sense calls before it gets out of hand.
Sticking to the limited rules as an absolute will create more ridiculous calls, which wasnât VARâs purpose.
A bit farcical for Moyes to speak out against the standard of refereeing and it maybe triggers an investigation.
Wenger does that and heâs probably asked to explain his comments.
I think we just have a mediocre roster of officials in this country. Where they are rarely held accountable for their poor decision making.
This
My feeling on VAR is that it needs to be used a lot less.
This business where every goal and major event is reviewed as a matter of course (which is what I think the current rule is, even if it doesnât get presented to the crowd/viewers as a VAR review) needs to stop.
If thereâs been a massive fuck up (the âclear and obviousâ rule that doesnât get followed) then yes, call it back but the review should be done by the official on the pitch, not someone in a room miles away.
And offside needs an overhaul, measuring pixels is farcical. Only decisions that can be made with the naked eye should get overturned, and benefit of the doubt should go to attackers.
Why?
Because at the moment officials are being told what decision to make and many refs would do that whatever their own decision would be. Only very experienced refs have gone against the VAR room so far, and that lacks transparency and accountability for how decisions are made.
I donât understand why do we need to make the on field ref the main celebrity.
You can have an experienced ref as VAR as well.
I am exposed to third umpire in Cricket and they make the final decision and there has never been an ego issue between umpires.
The problem with VAR is the debatable nature of it now. You could give a ref or lino the benefit of the doubt making the wrong call in a split second or not seeing something. But calls still being shit when reviewed from many angles makes it worse.
Personally I still think itâs better now for offsides at least. We used to get calls where players were incorrectly flagged on/offside by big margins. When those went against you it was really infuriating and you really felt robbed but now that doesnât happen at all. I think the problems it was meant to solve it has solved, but itâs also added a bunch of separate problems.
I know other sports have micâd up refs. I can see why that might not be liked by refs when theyâre dealing with players, but I think it would be useful to at least hear the conversation between the ref and the VAR when something is getting overturned. At the end of the day the VAR is meant to be an alternative voice correcting human error from a ref. It also takes far too long, thereâs no reason for that to be the case.
Nobody here will be surprised to see âJohnnyNicâ with another terrible take for his article lol
Why is he comparing VAR to Brexit Iâll never know
The answer should never be the removal of VAR.
Despite the time taken & granular analysis of lines, football is no longer crying about goals given for blatant offside or goals ruled out for terrible offside calls.
We have vastly improved the experience of the offside rule.
Even the penalty calls are improved with an option to revisit a call - For instance Vardyâs dive against Ramsdale.
It needs to perhaps step back on deciding fouls to the leadup of a goal. They need to redefine the rules to make it easy or justifiable for the refs
Yeah, I think there just needs to be less VAR involvement. And it certainly shouldnât be taking 4 and a half minutes to determine an offside.
They just need to strip it back and let it be there for what they said it would be there for - âclear and obvious mistakes.â If a call is debatable or whatever then just leave it alone. At the moment itâs finding reasons to disallow goals when no one has even appealed! Itâs ridiculous.
I think there ought to be some scope for âchallengesâ.
For example, VAR only checks offsides and fouls in the build-up to a goal. What if the offside or foul wasnât picked up by a linesman/ref originally but leads to a corner? Or a dangerously positioned FK? The opposing team ought to be able to say âcheck that out, itâs contentiousâ
I really dislike the idea of challenges. Managers have never had a say in how the game gets reffed (Fergie aside of course) and itâs not something I think makes much sense to provide scope for. Why would a manager not just challenge every goal in the hope something can be found âwrongâ in the build up or a couple of moves back. It isnât tennis where youâre dealing with fact of outside the line or not and itâs just providing for more subjectivity.
I still doubt that if Tierney had watched a full speed replay within 30 seconds of our goal yesterday heâd have made a different decision. Show it on the big screen right after, ref can take a look and make his own call on if anything needs changing. Pens and the likes maybe need a bit more nuance than that.
Youâd have to structure it so that managers only get one per match or two per match. All goals get reviewed anyway.
Yea sounds terrible. They should stop reviewing all goals.
Odegaard did commit a foul there so VAR is correct.
My issue with that call is it sets a precedent.
Odegaardâs foul was 4th action prior to the goal (foul, Sakaâs pass, Martinelliâs onside run, Martinelli evading the challenge with a shrug, the goal)
Thatâs not a lot so the call is fair.
But how far are they willing to go back? What if there was a foul 20 passes prior to the goal?
Will they rescind the goal?
Like I mentioned yesterday, in both rugby and league they set a limit on phases of play they can go back. In rugby its something like 2 and in league it is 2 âtacklesâ. Itâs a bit harder with football due to the fluid nature of the game and the way possession can be had or lost.
They really do need to define some limit (be it time, passes or actions) because the way it is setup, there will always be some fault in the goals scored.