So how do you make VAR better?

[The Nomad]

After another weekend of controversy, so just how can VAR be successful? Here are just a few thoughts off the top of my head and how we could learn from the NFL - which isn't perfect, but a damn sight better than the Premier League's offering:

A SMART approach!

• Realistic - Increase the frame rate - It's widely been reported that the technology uses 50 fps, when it needs to be nearly 5 times that. This would cost potentially tens of thousands of pounds. But is a drop in the ocean compared to the revenues they receive - it should be demanded by the clubs if VAR is to continue.
• Specific - Any VAR decision is viewed by the Ref too - They have this in NFL, it really should be brought in here. Hell, this is a broadcasters dream, in NFL any review they cut to a 30 second commercial break - this is a no bloody brainer commercially. Moreover, it would stop players arguing with the officials after the game if they've actually saw the incident back so they could explain rather than stock answer "VAR reviewed it", they are so scared of the flow of the game, when all they are doing at the moment is holding a finger to their ear like they have lost signal and damaging the game.
• Time Bound If they are so concerned about the flow, they could bring a time limit in... From when the ref goes what NFL term "under the hood" - you have a 60 second timer. At the end of the timer the decision and the ref/VAR are still undecided, the outcome should be
  • Stick with on-field decision if relating to a foul/red card incident.
  • Or if it's an off-side decision, benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker.
  • This would stop incidents like the Mane one, running and running. But would also give the VAR assistant close to 90 seconds from start to finish.
• Accountable & Measurable The VAR assistants must be accountable, Pickford escaped punishment because it was "looked at". Well if that's the case, they should also be dropped where they have themselves made a clear and obvious error. Have a panel of volunteers who review the performance and make recommendations accordingly.

Sorry for the rant - genuinely interested to hear anyone's opinion on this (except scrap it).

 

[Markeh]

Give the teams a couple of ‘challenges’ per game where maybe they can review the ‘play’ they disagree on with the officials to get their point across and then leave the official to change or confirm the original decision.

thinking of that purely in the context of our last game where hopefully someone would say forget the offside what about that fucking challenge

nobody wants every decision dragged out with ad breaks but if a decision leaves everyone’s heads exploding it needs to be challenged

 

[dantes]

Have it like cricket, give each team two reviews to play with per game, which it is up to them to invoke, if it fails then you lose one review. If it fails when it shouldn't have like for us, then the refs involved are suspended without pay for the rest of the season.

 

[The Nomad]

Give the teams a couple of ‘challenges’ per game where maybe they can review the ‘play’ they disagree on with the officials to get their point across and then leave the official to change or confirm the original decision.

thinking of that purely in the context of our last game where hopefully someone would say forget the offside what about that fucking challenge

nobody wants every decision dragged out with ad breaks but if a decision leaves everyone’s heads exploding it needs to be challenged

I've thought about the challenge system too, not sure how it could work practically as they wait for breaks in play. Would effectively be negated if the ref went to look at the screen.

The timebound element is where I was trying to stop these decisions dragging on and on. a quick 30 second ad break. Come back, see what they've been reviewing rather than waiting for the ref to get there, waiting for the "lines to be drawn" etc.

Totally agree about "what about the fucking challenge" - this is where they have to be accountable. As I said in the match thread itself, it's almost like they had a decision tree which ended in the offside. Even Dermot Gallagher said as much, it was wrong and they should be held accountable for it. If I made a mistake like that at work, I'd rightly be pulled up on it.

 

[The Nomad]

Have it like cricket, give each team two reviews to play with per game, which it is up to them to invoke, if it fails then you lose one review. If it fails when it shouldn't have like for us, then the refs involved are suspended without pay for the rest of the season.

You only want the suspended without pay so you can represent them in court, to fight for their human rights! I see you.

 

[dantes]

I've thought about the challenge system too, not sure how it could work practically as they wait for breaks in play. Would effectively be negated if the ref went to look at the screen.

The timebound element is where I was trying to stop these decisions dragging on and on. a quick 30 second ad break. Come back, see what they've been reviewing rather than waiting for the ref to get there, waiting for the "lines to be drawn" etc.

Totally agree about "what about the fucking challenge" - this is where they have to be accountable. As I said in the match thread itself, it's almost like they had a decision tree which ended in the offside. Even Dermot Gallagher said as much, it was wrong and they should be held accountable for it. If I made a mistake like that at work, I'd rightly be pulled up on it.

The time isn't an issue. If a player goes down in the box, he knows what happened, he doesn't need more than 3 seconds to get up and signal to his captain that it's worth reviewing, then the captain/manager decide whether the player can be trusted or if he is a lying piece of shit.

 

[dantes]

You only want the suspended without pay so you can represent them in court, to fight for their human rights! I see you.

The undefeated and undisputed best god damn lawyer in the city representing a referee? You can put your money on the 5th hearing, my ass goes down.

 

[The Nomad]

The time isn't an issue. If a player goes down in the box, he knows what happened, he doesn't need more than 3 seconds to get up and signal to his captain that it's worth reviewing, then the captain/manager decide whether the player can be trusted or if he is a lying piece of shit.

But that's what VAR is meant to do quietly in the background anyway... if it's worth a second look, they should buzz the referee to have another look with them.

 

[dantes]

But that's what VAR is meant to do quietly in the background anyway... if it's worth a second look, they should buzz the referee to have another look with them.

But that interrupts the game far too often, if you leave it up to the player involved to call for a review nobody can complain and the fans are happy.

 

[The Nomad]

But that interrupts the game far too often, if you leave it up to the player involved to call for a review nobody can complain and the fans are happy.

Ah ok - I get you, you mean rather than VAR automatically check, any foul not blown should only be checked upon a challenge flag.
However, if a ref blows for a pen, should it be reviewed automatically, or does the opposing team have to challenge that?

 

[Fabio]

Offside rule needs fixing. That's the starting point for me.

Head or feet offside, then that's cool. No one is renowned for their shoulder scoring prowess

 

[Fabio]

Also, they need to improve the cameras. Those ones don't have to be for broadcast if they don't want them to, but they need much higher FPS

If the ball is blurred when it's being passed then it's not high enough frame rate

 

[Red Bird]

I’d get more competent officials first.

 

[The Nomad]

I’d get more competent officials first.

We'll be waiting a while... Oliver is about the best this land has to offer.

 

[Brizzle]

Margin of error. When they do offsides it generates lines on the pitch. Make those lines thicker (thickness defined by some science that might estimate the impact of frame rate etc) - when the lines are touching i.e. one isn't sufficiently ahead of the other make an interpretation that is 'in line' or some sort.

 

[dantes]

Ah ok - I get you, you mean rather than VAR automatically check, any foul not blown should only be checked upon a challenge flag.
However, if a ref blows for a pen, should it be reviewed automatically, or does the opposing team have to challenge that?

Yes, the opposing team/defender has to challenge it by giving a look to his captain/manager saying that's bullshit it, never a pen, then the manager tells the official. The fact you are limited to two will keep the players somewhat honest.

 

[Beamrider]

Offsides - if you think you need the lines, on-field decision should stand because it isn’t obviously wrong. Rule needs to change in line with that.
Any incident which looks like it may lead to a player being subbed due to injury should be reviewed by the on-field ref - if the player’s getting treatment there’s plenty of time to do that.

 

[Brizzle]

Offsides - if you think you need the lines, on-field decision should stand because it isn’t obviously wrong. Rule needs to change in line with that.
Any incident which looks like it may lead to a player being subbed due to injury should be reviewed by the on-field ref - if the player’s getting treatment there’s plenty of time to do that.

The problem with this is whether the onfield decision is made and affects play i.e. if the flag goes up but is very obviously incorrect (i.e. no lines even needed) but play didn't continue to a goal.

 

[Beamrider]

The problem with this is whether the onfield decision is made and affects play i.e. if the flag goes up but is very obviously incorrect (i.e. no lines even needed) but play didn't continue to a goal.

Agreed, you’d have to have an on-field decision, and players need to pay to the whistle, not to the flag (then if the lino gets it wrong and the ref blows, halting a legitimate attack, the on-field refereeing team are collectively responsible, just like they used to be).

 

[Beamrider]

The big issue I have with the lines is the upper body decisions - I’m never convinced that the line dropping from the player’s shoulder to the pitch is the right length - if the Mane line had stopped a fraction earlier, he’d have been given on-side. The lines aren’t an issue when it’s players’ grounded feet deciding the call.

 

[StevieM]

In retrospect - letting Skynet determine offsides and fouls was never going to end well.

At some point VAR will just wipe out humanity rather than figure out whether someone’s toe nail has pushed them into an offside position.

 

[Gerry_A_Trick]

If there's doubt, give the benefit to the attacking team.

 

[gkmacca]

Doubt shouldn't be a factor with VAR. If it's not clear and obvious, and not missed by the officials, VAR shouldn't even be discussed. It's just incredible that the very people who implemented the system cannot seem to abide by, or even understand, their own rules.

If they must persist with this ridiculous over-analysis of offsides, then the obvious thing to minimise the madness is to adopt the cricketing practice of 'umpire's call'. Have a look at the incident, and unless you can't very quickly establish there's been an error, then it's back to the ref and you stay with his decision.

 

[Hansern]

I’d like to be able to hear the conversation and reasoning from the VAR room.

 

[Fabio]

Doubt shouldn't be a factor with VAR. If it's not clear and obvious, and not missed by the officials, VAR shouldn't even be discussed. It's just incredible that the very people who implemented the system cannot seem to abide by, or even understand, their own rules.

If they must persist with this ridiculous over-analysis of offsides, then the obvious thing to minimise the madness is to adopt the cricketing practice of 'umpire's call'. Have a look at the incident, and unless you can't very quickly establish there's been an error, then it's back to the ref and you stay with his decision.

This is the crucial part for me. They need to go back to "clear and obvious error" mentality.

 

[tombrown]

I don't think the offside decision in VAR was ever subject to "clear and obvious error", I think that only applied to overturning referee decisions. As far as I recall offside VAR decisions were always based on imaginary lines & millimetres (e.g. Firmino's armpit being offside at Villa park about 12 months ago)

 

[Fabio]

I don't think the offside decision in VAR was ever subject to "clear and obvious error", I think that only applied to overturning referee decisions. As far as I recall offside VAR decisions were always based on imaginary lines & millimetres (e.g. Firmino's armpit being offside at Villa park about 12 months ago)

It should be boiled down to clear and obvious error though, especially for offsides

 

[gkmacca]

This is the crucial part for me. They need to go back to "clear and obvious error" mentality.

Yes. And then it would actually HELP the game! After all, it was designed to put right shocking errors like Pickford being left to get away with GBH. THAT is what VAR is meant to do, and that's why I was keen on it being introduced. It wasn't designed to count angels on the head of a pin or any other great mystery.

 

[gkmacca]

I don't think the offside decision in VAR was ever subject to "clear and obvious error", I think that only applied to overturning referee decisions. As far as I recall offside VAR decisions were always based on imaginary lines & millimetres (e.g. Firmino's armpit being offside at Villa park about 12 months ago)

They revised the offside issue after they introduced VAR, thus rendering it confusing when there previously was clarity. But they don't even seem to realise how vague and debatable their own revision is. They now say: 'Where there is a clear and obvious goalscoring opportunity and the assistant referee is certain the attacker actively involved is in an offside position, then the assistant should indicate the offence immediately'. Note the singular: 'the attacker involved'. If I wanted to include every forward, I wouldn't risk confusing things by wording it like that, because clearly Henderson wasn't offside, and HE was 'the attacker actively involved'. Once you include everyone else, you have to claim that someone with his back to the goal, to one side of the key action, was 'actively involved' when you freeze the action, even though that interpretation seems to contradict or at least question the previous and still extant 'not interfering with play' rule. The whole thing is like it's been written up after a boozy night at the pub.

 

[JurgenKlopp]

Scrap it, simples