If VAR was in use this season.....

Good.

 

Well, maybe. But I think it was an instance when VAR wouldn't have helped much - pundits in the studio immediately disagreed with each other about it. VAR reduces the number of incorrect calls but it is not magic and does not eliminate them.

 

Having watched the whole match, I thought Scott was very good and not at all big-clubbist

 

Give the two sets a fans a choice of what they'd rather have as a talking point after the game:

a) VAR taking too long

or

b) a massively unfair controversial decision tipping the game

I'm betting a) by a landslide. If the worst thing people have to complain about is the new system not being perfectly ironed out yet, I'd say it is doing well.

 

Problem is, even after consulting VAR, is the correct decision reached? It's still coming down to the officials interpretation which was many peoples issue to begin with. Salah dived for me. We need to get back to a point where we look at the way the player goes down and is it proportionate to give a free hit at goal in return?

It should be used for offsides and nothing else.

 

I'd rephrase that as a) sitting around for minutes at a time, with no atmosphere and nothing to do until the ref makes a decision which you might not even get to see.

I certainly don't want to be sitting around for 3 minutes after a goal, wondering if it has been allowed, with nothing to do but sit there. Fans probably won't sing in the confusion, scared of being taunted if it is disallowed. Will the crowd still go mad if they find out they've scored three minutes after the goal has gone in? And refs will start leaning more and more on the system, fearing the one time that they don't review a decision, incorrectly.

Football is a free flowing game where anything can happen. Whatever happened to the drama? I want to know within seconds if a goal has been scored or not - that's what makes football exciting. There's no doubt in my mind that I'd rather be on the end of a bad decision that costs us points, than put up with the current system.

If we are going to stick with VAR, you need to involve the crowd in the decision. Rugby has got it absolutely spot on. At the moment, football is trying to 'protect referees', but a lack of transparency will always lead to greater anger long-term. If this forces the referees to be more open, wear mics and show these decisions on the big screen, then at least you know what's going on and can get a bit excited watching the replay.

 

Totally agree, it would be perfect. That means it won't happen.

 

Does it really take 3 minutes for a decision? I don't know but I thought it took no more than 30 seconds. Is this longer than watching the following

• player farthest from the bench walking off slowly after being substituted when their team is winning
• waiting for the ball to be returned to the goalie after it has gone out for a goal kick who then walks to the other side of the box, taps his boots on the goal posts and then takes an age to take a goal kick
• waiting for a player to walk from the other side of the pitch to take a corner or throw in when their team is winning
• watching a player get treatment for nothing more than a minor knock while all the other players go for water
• stoppages for the ref to talk to players when there is pushing in the box prior to a corner

There are already a number of stoppages which slow the game down which can kill the atmosphere in the ground and I would rather the correct decision was given taking a minute or so than the wrong decision.

 

The three incidents in the Liverpool vs West Brom game took 1 minute, 3 minutes and just under 2 minutes respectively.
I would say anything over a minute is too long.


PS For those saying it's just a matter of ironing out the problem.. i have to question why those problems havent been ironed after the many trial that have taken place worldwide. VAR has been around for just under two and half years now. Surely enough time to have made the necessary changes in how its implemented.

 

The Salah decision on the weekend took around 4 minutes according to the Telegraph.

I'd be far happier if the decision had to be made within a minute; otherwise the original decision should be upheld. But I'd want them to show us the replay and hear exactly what the ref/ assistant is looking for. Is there any sport where spectators stand around, oblivious to what is going on?

Incidentally, I also think that the bullet points also suggest areas in which football can improve and an independent timekeeper should add a much more appropriate amount of added time than is currently given.

 

VAR has now stopped more goals at Anfield this season than either Mignolet or Karius have managed.

 

Giant flag blocks VAR

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....oal-because-a-fans-flag-blocked-the-view/amp/

 

Well VAR did disallow a goal that would have been awarded to Spurs, but it also somehow gave Spurs a penalty that would have been a free kick outside of the box without VAR.

I’m not sure why a penalty was awarded, as the fouling started a long way outside the penalty area, and it was only when the Spurs player got to the box that he threw himself down to the ground. It was a strange award, but everyone seems to have backed this up as being correct. I always thought the foul would be taken from where it started to take place, not from where it ended!!

The penalty was scored but disallowed because Son stopped in his run up. John Aldridge did that regularly and it wasn’t disallowed in the past, but maybe they’ve changed the rules since then?

The biggest problem was the length of time taken over decisions. It took far too long and the first half became farcical. It was as if someone was trying to make the system look bad on purpose.

 

Think they changed the pens rules so that if an infringement starts outside the box but continues in it is now a pen, think the same with the stopping of the pen run up that's not allowed nowadays, could be wrong on both though although to be fair I couldn't see the goals cos of the snow - anyone mentioned the old orange ball? seems with all this modern tech they forget the basics sometimes

 

Not sure if there's been a rule change but it's all about where you stop in your run up.. and i quote.....
"International Football Association Board rules state an indirect free-kick will be awarded to the defending team if a penalty taker feints to kick the ball after completing their run-up - although the rule adds "feinting in the run-up is permitted"

I didn't see it but presume he stopped at the end of his run up.

 

VAR doesn't work with football, that's pretty obvious already. We just need to wait until a major decision goes against one of the big boys before it's scrapped. Won't be long.

 

Imagine of there was VAR back in the day to interrupt the flow of games...

Some people are on the pitch they think it's all over..... It is n.... oh hold on it's going upstairs, they think it could be all over, looks good it's not offside but there could be a shirt tug in the build up ten minutes before, no it's ok you may award the goal, no hold on the West German coach has opted for his one appeal (it's coming) turns out there could be an infringement of rule 198b involving the inappropriate use of the word Nobby

Five mins later..... Some people are standing around on the pitch waiting to see if it's all over........ It is now

 

What's pretty obvious is that fans don't understand the rules. Mostly big club fans moaning about it as it will effect their results the most.

It was correct on all counts last night.

Put the reviews on the big screens as in other sports and it will be just fine. It's not really any surprise that it appears to be only in England that the fans are afraid of change.

 

Doesn't this form of words mean that it is a foul if the pen taker stops just before kicking the ball (ie when they've finished the running bit & are just about to do the kicking bit)?

Son's feint was mid run up so absolutely fine.

My son tells that's how Neymar takes them.

It would be odd indeed to try to kick the ball when you are 5 yards away from it (ie you finished your run up without getting as far as the ball).

I maybe should have used diagrams, or ideally a Skinner & Baddiel style video recreation of Son's pen, to explain all this.

 

When I was training as a ref (few years ago now mind) I was taught the player can slow down in the run up (which is what hazard, Ronaldo et. al do), but if they come to a complete stop then that's not allowed, indirect free kick and a yellow card. The way it's written in the rule book though is almost like a cryptic crossword clue!

Could all have been changed since then of course...

Personally I like VAR, but agree it should have replays on the screen and refs wearing mics, and needs to be much quicker. I disagree when people say it should only be for black/white decisions though. The current rules mean decisions are made based on the opinion of the ref, based on one view at real time from usually a poor perspective. VAR means that the decision can still be an opinion, that we can agree/disagree with, it's just a more informed opinion from multiple views from different angles, so more often the 'correct' decision is made.

 

Son's stop at the end of the run up was pretty stupid and there's another reason why players don't do this anymore shown by the dozen or so players who were well in the box by the time he hit the ball, I think some ended up in the stand they were so far forward, even if the ref does deem it legal he'd have to be pretty blinkered not to notice that, or refer to VAR of course

 

Surely that is a reason to stop? If he stops and only opposing players encroach, then if he misses he gets another chance anyway!

 

I’d seriously vote for (B) if VAR is used as it is now. Give each manager one challenge a game so they can eliminate absolute howlers and I’m fine with it. It’s dreadful in its current form.

 

Son takes one more stride after he feints/stops and that's to plant his standing foot to kick the ball. Hardly 'mid run up'.

Neymar feints from far further away and takes a number more steps (at least four in his most recent and thats not counting the stupid tippy toe steps he does) towards the ball before striking it.

 

Players and managers will eventually find a way to exploit it. Especially when winning a game and being on the ropes. Creating a contentious incident that buys 3 minutes stopped play could well give a team the chance to regroup.

Or maybe I'm just being negative because I crashed my car on the school run this morning.....

 

Remarkably balanced given the circs.

 

SS Billy?

 

He slowed up his run towards the ball. He didn’t feint kicking the ball after completing his run. He slowed up his run, then started it again.

If the rules you quoted are correct, then the referee made the wrong decision to disallow it.

There was a lot of encroachment though, so it should have been retaken.

 

Ive seen it now..



and see what you mean. It was obviously mid run up but then i'm guessing the other part of the ruling comes into effect. That is did he come to a complete stop rather than feigning? Is there indeed a difference? Interpretation again of course.


An encroachment call probably wouldn't have needed VAR