News: VAR Experiment (video referees 2016-2018)

I find it ironic that you spend so much of your VAR arguments looking through the eyes of the fans, coaches, and the media, and so little on the refs themselves.
Look through the threads on any major competition on this board...how many times will you see a post like this:

"What a terrible call by (insert referee)....there's no way he's getting the (insert big game) now."

That is what VAR is going to eliminate, or at least drastically reduce. A referee is going to get a chance to finally see the same replays we see at home, and have an opportunity prevent a game changing error that could screw up his career, or tournament.

The fact that most people don't get the nuances of the system yet is unfortunate. Yes, people will be shocked and annoyed when something can't be reviewed, or isn't overturned when they think it should. Yes, it'll slow down the game a bit.

But the excitement isn't about technology for the sake of technology. No one was excited about the AARs because it was essentially putting a band-aid over a gaping wound, not because it was low-tech. People are excited about VAR because it's the first major change in the history of refereeing, the first real help referees have gotten since the slow-mo HD age began, where everyone at home could see a dozen beautiful angles of every call while the refs couldn't even look up at the video screen.

Fans, coaches and players alike will learn what we all know now...that replay isn't a panacea. It will open its own can of worms, and will give people new things to argue about...which, as you point out, they might enjoy.

But it'll save great refs from embarrassing decisions. It'll save ref's careers and reputations.
If you think the fans and media only care about VAR because it's a shiny new thing...fine.
We'll all know why it's really important.

 

it's a trend in pretty much every sport that soccer can no longer ignore.

Every sport that has replay tweaks the rules for a variety of reasons. I expect the VAR will be no different.

Even the Indian Cricket board has finally come around to allowing video challenges. And that's one of the most conservative sports there is.

With so much money on the line it's inevitable that the match officials are able to use this technology to try and get as many things correct as possible. It still won't be perfect. And we'll all get to argue over whether a decision was really correctly decided by replay or not. The NHL already has plenty of arguments over it's replay system. And we'll still have the DisCo to screw things up in MLS.

 

Two plays from Australia mainly about offside. One may also be about how many things var can successfully review at once

http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/vide...Sydney-highly-controversial-goal?cid=trending

http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/video/932687939839/Reddy-somehow-escapes-VAR-red-card

 

In the first play that's the kind of play you would expect would be a missed offside on the field that is caught by VAR. instead it's caught correctly live and VAR somehow overrules it.

And in the second the impression given is the only thing they looked at was the onside/offside part of the play and they completely ignored the VC.

I'm trying to have an open mind while they work out the kinks but either the system is just flawed beyond hope or this particular VAR is hopeless.

 

Premier League and PGMO split over referees' final say in video rulings

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...-pgmo-split-referees-final-say-video-rulings/


This is an interesting article about England not being sure which way to go with... Up until now, despite following the VAR implementation somewhat, I haven't really thought about this issue. So what is FIFA doing? Will we be going towards referee with a tablet view like we've had at the Club World Cup, or is VAR going to be final, like UEFA did for the friendlies? This is interesting and I guess the latter will make the game go faster, but it certainly will also have its negative effects in that the referee is giving a penalty based on what he has heard from an authoritative source, sure, but for an incident he potentially has not seen at all. Just seems weird philosophically speaking.

 

Is anybody else curious/worried about what the advent of VAR is going to do to people's expectations of those of us without the resume to be on those games?

Maybe it's a non-issue, I guess if any here have any insight into gridiron or hockey officiating at youth that would be instructive.

I wonder whether the "perfection" /s we are after here is worth it. For reasons admittedly romantic I'm not in favor of VAR, not that anybody gives a fig what a 49-year-old Grade 8 thinks.

 

So I was on a thread talking about the Rashford PK against Swansea. and the top comments were all about how they needed VAR. that this is just a travesty.

My question would be if VAR would overturn that call. Keeper did make some contact with Rashford's foot.

But all posts that fans had was that this was NOT good to have these controversial calls. This could mean relegation for Swansea, now they could have done better in 12 other matches before this call to not be in danger of regulation, but it is quite a catalyst that could push for VAR from the fans standpoint.

Like Pitt reff said I have seen this video replay used a lot during this NHL playoff season (Go Pens!!) and almost every pundit who is watch the replay comes up with a different answer than what the head NHL office comes back with. It seems to confuse more than clarify.

 

Just as calls on the field can be different based on the R or AR!

But more seriously, I think that really highlights part of what is different from how soccer VAR is being used to how it is used in many sports. Who touched the ball last or whether both feet were behind the three point line are objective issues -- they may be hard to tell, but it is an objective fact with clear criteria. Even the NFL "did he have control of the ball" questions, while having some level of subjectivity, are far more concrete than the type of plays that we are looking to review. In no universe is there going to be clear consensus on things like simulation, even with numerous angles. We're just changing the nature of the subjective review from the one chance the R (and his assistants) got to see it to multiple angles of review at a slower pace.

I think some of the support folks get from watching this type of play is that in their eyes (with their team colored glasses on), they see enough evidence to rule -- and assume that a VAR would see it their way. But we know from debates on here that people see different things in video -- we will get more consistency, but we're never going to complete consistency.

But since all of the results have been positive, maybe I'm just a luddite.

 

Honest question: In Australia, who is the VAR? That Sydney decision was awful, but I'd expect it from someone who has enough training to be...say a 4th official, or on the periphery of the league, but you'd expect by the semi-finals to have a legit top-level AR making that call. I wonder if in Australia they just don't have the depth of the bench to staff the VAR with top-level officials.

If that's the case, that's another obvious problem with this system. Even an "old-school" retired AR likely might not have the training to make that call. MLB gets around that by having one set of eyes for all games in a central location. Not rally feasible in soccer though.

EDIT: it was Strebre Delovksi, who was one of their top referees last year (or two years ago?). But I doubt he has any AR specific training so that's kind of unfortunate.

 

These are all interesting points to me. Especially the black/white decisions that are reviewable in other sports one above.

I suppose the current NHL mess is using replay to make subjective decisions. And some NFL decisions seem that way as well. But most others only use it for objective things like in or out of bounds.

We're still going to have plenty of stuff to debate.

 

On a lighter note, this cartoon by David Squires re: the A-League clash between Melbourne and Sydney, makes its own case.

 

w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶h̶a̶p̶p̶e̶n̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶v̶i̶d̶e̶o̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶c̶i̶d̶e̶n̶t̶?̶

Never-mind I found it:

 

IMO this is a clear error - not in judgement, just a missed hold. In general I share your opinion of video review, I think it's a mostly a mess, but in this particular case I think it worked as intended.