VAR begins this coming weekend. Should it exist? Should it be limited to goal/no goal? Should it be allowed to award a card, but not dial back to a kick for the foul? Should there be a time limit on how far back it can impact a game, eg, notify ref in 30 secs or we go on as-is? Should VAR have a "race steward"-like ability to refer missed calls to the disciplinary committee (ie, in auto racing sometimes the panel sees the "foul" and immediately penalizes, and sometimes it just defers the matter until after the race and maybe you get a future penalty or suspension)? If VAR watches the ref and double-checks his work, does the after-action review of disciplinary committee go away? Thoughts?
http://sbisoccer.com/2017/07/mls-to-implement-var-beginning-august-5th "instant replay" is on its way, essentially
Not a VAR fan, but if we're having it, should be for goal-no goal and obvious red cards, and nothing else, decision within 30 seconds or they leave it be, and I think they should have to show their work for transparency's sake. I'm with Bryant Gumble, it's a game. Instant replay takes it all a bit too seriously. Having said that I will make another wall of text rant about last weekend's mere child's game.
while i agree with the sentiment, if no one is going to pump the required money to train refs to keep up, this is as good an alternative as any. personally i say just pay them and train them but what do i know?
Couldn't you get at some of the issues cheaper and without the "rewind the game back" problem with (a) 3 and 4th ARs on the endlines for real time goal-no goal decisions and (b) continuing retroactive discipline by the discipline committee watching video. I watch some CFL, where things like pass interference are now reviewable as compared to NFL, and you can get the Command Center (cooler name) to make a "missed" call. So three times last game I watched people whose passes were incomplete, go back and say, wait, interference. Two of the three, they get the reversal. Why? There's enough holding and handchecking etc. where if you want to call it something is often there. I say that because, how hard are they going to review corners, where like they say about "holding" in football, you could probably call something and maybe even issue a card every trip downfield. And then there's the issue of discretion and field location. Glenn Davis the other day was pointing out how a box no-call would have been a foul midfield. Or the circumstance where a guy committing what could be a second yellow gets a pass that time. Does the "robot" upstairs get to exercise that discretion? I don't think who takes a throw-in or where is really worthy of review because this is not football with grinding generally progressive drives against a set number of downs where the "spot" matters. You try to keep the ball but really it's just a line-out like in rugby, an excuse to put the ball back in play for both teams. Acting like that needs to be absolutely accurate is silly. I do see goal-no goal as potentially appropriate, as well as no-doubter straight red cards within a reasonable period of time. I don't know if the review system should be allowed to review and essentially second guess ordinary flow of play and non-ejection decisions, either missed calls or judgments, come in and issue yellow cards. That goes back to that question of discretion and letting the ref set the bar for ordinary fouls and game management. Now, if he misses Ceren biting Jozy, another story. But many of these other reviewable items, yellow cards, is it that he missed it or that he saw it and we're not going to dignify it, treat it as something, let them play, etc.