VAR

[Baggy Bruin]

I hate VAR.

Football got by fine without it, it hasnt improved the game, it should be gotten rid of.

Worst thing of all? You cant even celebrate a goal any more. You have to double check to see if the twts in the VAR studio will allow it or not.

[Borin' Baggie]

Not to be flippant, but it's shit. Broadcasting VAR conversations won't improve the decisions or bring back the excitement and spontaneity of the game.


To get VAR to work they've tried changing the responsibilities of the linemen, changing the handball rule about 8 times to make it more objective and detectable and nothing has helped. Adding microphones won't do anything unfortunately

It will allow for proper scrutiny of decisions and force the PGMOL and other refereeing bodies to fix their shit. People will know the process of why the decision was made and can therefore scrutinise the process and force referees to justify decisions.

VAR isn't going anywhere, it's shit but it's not going anywhere. The decision tree rugby refs have to use when going through TMO has made it a lot more transparent, the same thing needs to happen to VAR as it's far too difficult to know what is going on.

[Sliced]

Do you honestly think there's going to be a marked improvement in decisions if we can hear the reasons for the decisions? All that's going to happen is there's going to be an extra element of analysis on MOTD which is based around whether the refs reasoning for the decision was correct.

The decisions themselves will be exactly the same, and the discussion of whether we agree with the referees decision will be exactly the same.

[Borin' Baggie]

Yes. I think there's going to be better scrutiny as to the issues of refereeing as people will be aware of the process by which the decisions were made instead of just speculation, which in turn will give people a better understanding of where the issues lie on top of allowing fans to know why something was given instead of blindly speculating.

As happened in rugby, people are better placed to know what exactly the issues in the process and scrutinise accordingly. My opinion is based on how another similar sport saw success from this very thing, to the point where one league is looking at broadcasting the audio in the stadium instead of just TV broadcasts. Given that you know that VAR isn't going anywhere, what reasons could you have for not wanting it to be broadcast?

[Sliced]

I was criticizing VAR, I don't have to do that from a standpoint of knowing it's not going anywhere. If we have to have it then it's better to have the refs with microphones, however it will serve to explain what referees were thinking when they made wrong decisions, which 99% of the time is obvious anyway.

It won't improve the decisions in the same way that changing the handball law won't improve the decisions.

The refs are currently trying to apply the laws to the best of their ability in theory. If they fuck up then they find out after the game but continue to make the same errors.
Them vocalising in real time why they make the decisions won't change a thing.

VAR is better being scrapped. Whether you think that's a realistic proposition or not.

[Borin' Baggie]

It isn't obvious though. You don't know what is being looked at and what isn't. You don't know how the referees are applying the laws. You don't know how much input either side has in the decision. You don't know the exact point that the error is made. It's far too opaque, it needs to be transparent.

And the knowledge that it isn't going anywhere is a key factor, as it not going anywhere is a core reason why it needs to be more transparent with respect to how decisions are made. Transparency has improved TMO and made it easier to address areas and move away from subjectivity in rugby, the same thing needs to happen with VAR.

[Baggy Bruin]

It isn't obvious though. You don't know what is being looked at and what isn't. You don't know how the referees are applying the laws. You don't know how much input either side has in the decision. You don't know the exact point that the error is made. It's far too opaque, it needs to be transparent.

And the knowledge that it isn't going anywhere is a key factor, as it not going anywhere is a core reason why it needs to be more transparent with respect to how decisions are made. Transparency has improved TMO and made it easier to address areas and move away from subjectivity in rugby, the same thing needs to happen with VAR.

For me I don't want "transparency" in the game. I want mud, beer and a balti pie. And I want to cheer like fck when we score and not have to wait for technology to tell me I have permission to do that. Maybe it's an age thing? i dont like mobile phones either.

[backsidebaggie]

It isn't obvious though. You don't know what is being looked at and what isn't. You don't know how the referees are applying the laws. You don't know how much input either side has in the decision. You don't know the exact point that the error is made. It's far too opaque, it needs to be transparent.

And the knowledge that it isn't going anywhere is a key factor, as it not going anywhere is a core reason why it needs to be more transparent with respect to how decisions are made. Transparency has improved TMO and made it easier to address areas and move away from subjectivity in rugby, the same thing needs to happen with VAR.

I think it’s the move away from subjectivity that’s causing so many problems. Football laws are mainly subjective (obviously not offside, ball out). But fouls are. By trying to make things less subjective, they’ve got in a mess IMO. Same as the handball rule. It works better with subjectivity IMO. Let the ref decide his opinion.

It’s different in cricket and tennis, where the laws are definitive (was the ball going on to hit the stumps, yes or no. Did the ball land in, yes or no). They were the umpire making a judgment on a definitive thing. A foul in football is never definitive. It was a subjective view on whether someone was impeded. Contact never meant it was a foul. Ball touching hand never meant it was handball. The laws were based around subjective views of the ref, and 99.9% of the time it’s fine like that. By trying to move away from that, they’ve got in a right mess. And that’s why VAR will never work IMO.

[Squid]

It isn't obvious though. You don't know what is being looked at and what isn't. You don't know how the referees are applying the laws. You don't know how much input either side has in the decision. You don't know the exact point that the error is made. It's far too opaque, it needs to be transparent.

And the knowledge that it isn't going anywhere is a key factor, as it not going anywhere is a core reason why it needs to be more transparent with respect to how decisions are made. Transparency has improved TMO and made it easier to address areas and move away from subjectivity in rugby, the same thing needs to happen with VAR.

I think it’s the move away from subjectivity that’s causing so many problems. Football laws are mainly subjective (obviously not offside, ball out). But fouls are. By trying to make things less subjective, they’ve got in a mess IMO. Same as the handball rule. It works better with subjectivity IMO. Let the ref decide his opinion.

It’s different in cricket and tennis, where the laws are definitive (was the ball going on to hit the stumps, yes or no. Did the ball land in, yes or no). They were the umpire making a judgment on a definitive thing. A foul in football is never definitive. It was a subjective view on whether someone was impeded. Contact never meant it was a foul. Ball touching hand never meant it was handball. The laws were based around subjective views of the ref, and 99.9% of the time it’s fine like that. By trying to move away from that, they’ve got in a right mess. And that’s why VAR will never work IMO.

The best post I've seen about VAR. It needs to go or it will kill the game for the match-going fan.

[Fido]

It isn't obvious though. You don't know what is being looked at and what isn't. You don't know how the referees are applying the laws. You don't know how much input either side has in the decision. You don't know the exact point that the error is made. It's far too opaque, it needs to be transparent.

And the knowledge that it isn't going anywhere is a key factor, as it not going anywhere is a core reason why it needs to be more transparent with respect to how decisions are made. Transparency has improved TMO and made it easier to address areas and move away from subjectivity in rugby, the same thing needs to happen with VAR.

I think it’s the move away from subjectivity that’s causing so many problems. Football laws are mainly subjective (obviously not offside, ball out). But fouls are. By trying to make things less subjective, they’ve got in a mess IMO. Same as the handball rule. It works better with subjectivity IMO. Let the ref decide his opinion.

It’s different in cricket and tennis, where the laws are definitive (was the ball going on to hit the stumps, yes or no. Did the ball land in, yes or no). They were the umpire making a judgment on a definitive thing. A foul in football is never definitive. It was a subjective view on whether someone was impeded. Contact never meant it was a foul. Ball touching hand never meant it was handball. The laws were based around subjective views of the ref, and 99.9% of the time it’s fine like that. By trying to move away from that, they’ve got in a right mess. And that’s why VAR will never work IMO.

Great post.