I think they've thought this through more than you have. The idea of a decision coming from "behind the curtain" to overrule a ref will simply breed conspiracy theories of the powers that be controlling the outcome. As it is now, there is a certain transparency in watching the ref go over to look at a replay.
I think the pre VAR system lends to the idea of conspiracy more. How does a replay that clearly shows the incorrect call being reversed lead to conspiracy. Does it in NCAA football? How does having the ref go and watch the replay avoid this? Having one person be the king dictator always leads to more conspiracy theories IMO. I don't see how a replay that all watching on TV can see and those in the stadium can see leads to conspiracy. The slowing down of the game is a serious matter and I don't think they have completely accepted this. This is all still test phase and I am betting it is altered seriously or given up on completely before it reaches world cup level. Also, I never accused them of not thinking this through more than me. Does that mean I can't discuss it in an Internet message board? People that think things through still make bad ideas. Does backwards counting clocks and run up PK's and Chivas USA ring a bell? To say "ah, they have put a lot of thought into this so it has to be awesome" is an odd reaction.
I don't agree. Throwing around terms like dictator for a referee really doesn't help to improve anything. Dictators abuse power because they are in a position to do so without consequences. Referees do their work right in front of everyone. In their attempt to call a game impartially, they make mistakes, or simply miss things. The VAR is a system to help them correct their OWN mistakes. Nothing more, nothing less. Edit: It was cruel of me to say that you haven't thought this through. I still think you are wrong, but that's OK because this is a message board.
100% agree. However, it has to be done with the least interruption to the flow of the game. IMO the current iteration of VAR doesn't do that. I think there are improvements that can come. I don't think it is a requirement for the CR to have to see the replay with his own eyes to accomplish what you suggest. That is the entire point. You have said nothing to change my mind of that. having the CR not watch the replay isn't going to bring in conspiracy theories anymore than they already exist in soccer.
This would then open the replay system to what we all fear that border line calls will all be reviewed and delay the game many times per game instead of only once or twice. I personally don't want every call to go to review just the ones that are clearly wrong or close to be clearly wrong. I think we forget that there is alot going on behind the scenes of VAR reviewing all game changing calls and there is alot of communication going on. The collaboration that you seek is going on behind the scenes. The non call penalty or red cards will always be much tougher in this environment than called penalties or red cards because of the nature of soccer where play continues and everyone involved including the VAR can pass it off as an interpretive call and not clear and obvious. The called penalty or red card is much easier to review and rescind because of the delay in play and the game changing nature of a called penalty and almost certain goal or playing a man down.
it wasn't MLS but that Man City game the whole stadium was chanting VAR VAR VAR. It's here to stay. There was even a video replay on ESPN for a Little League game.
That is an interesting thing to use as proof var is here to stay. After the kaka red card I am even less convinced it is going to stay.
Exactly. It's a terrible, but appropriate outcome. Yes, even Collin appeared to take the whole thing in good humor, and possibly even appealed to the ref to rescind the red card. Collin and Kaka are old teammates and friends - but the time and place for friendly hi-jinks is not in the middle of a mass confrontation. Kaka put his hands on Collin's face and he got a red card. I'm not sure why anyone has any problem with the ruling.
This was always my concern. Play automatically stops on a goal - making time for a review no big deal. However play that prevents a goal from happening far more often than not does not stop a game making reviews of these hesitant as they will disrupt the flow of the game - especially if wrong. Through the years, goals have become more scarce. I believe VAR has already reduced that number by 3. Have any been added? BTW - my skeptical hope is that VAR is used to catch all the the holding in the area on free kicks as well as catch all the cheap shot off the ball fouls. If AR's are trained in restraint (only raise the flag when obvious), refs show some courage and call PK's knowing they will be saved if they blow it and all the off the ball grabbing and holding is removed, it could actually make it a more exciting free flowing offensive game.
Good example of the my concern that the VAR is overly one sided in the wrong direction. 3-3 games are typically far more exciting than 0-0 ones.
Your understanding is mine. That is the issue with VAR - It easier to take goals away. In this case the only reason they were able to give a PK is that play had stopped so they could take one away.
Agree. I think VAR wouldn't have been used when Altidore was bitten and pinched against Salvador, but if he pushed and scored that would be automatically reviewed and overruled. I suspect defenders will figure out it quickly and use to the full advantage.
Sorry, but you are wrong about the events. First the speed of play (from the foul to the counter attack goal scored took 20 seconds or less) made it impossible to alert the ref in time and there was no interruption of the play until the disallowed off side goal. Second there wasnot a goal anulled because of the penalty. The goal was given off side by the AR, so there never was a goal in the first place. The crowd and the penalty culpritt thought the ref was going to look at the screen if the goal wasnot off side. The culpritt also said when he heared the VAR footage was being looked at because of the tackle, he knew enough. There was no controversy, not in the stadium, not with the players, not in the Dutch media. The only place the word controversy appeared was in the Anglo-Saxon media.
You don't play past the whistle, referees need to be trained to not blow the whistle dead the instant the AR raises the flag. That way play doesn't stop and there is still the opportunity to review the play after the goal.. NFL did this when they implemented video reviews and it works pretty well.
VAR wasn't implemented to add excitement. It was implemented to get calls right. Goals are hard to come by. That's what makes them special. If goals aren't scored legally, they SHOULDN'T count.
I'm not sure VAR would have reversed that goal.. If Morris was offside, it was by only an inch or two and it was darn near to tell via thevideo since the shot wasn't straight down the line.