what is "better"? seriously. what is better? name one thing. eff off with the "lazy" ffs, you don't learn do you? as far as lumping things together .... I'll repeat my Q to delay: Are any of the 3 aspects you listed performing better now than 2 years ago?
The of them have always been problematic and are not unique to "VAR": 1. Incompetent referees 2. Poor rules changes (eg handball)
Can't score a goal from a 6ft offside position, won't get cards awarded to the wrong player etc? In other words, some of the really, really bad and obviously wrong decisions are eliminated. Not saying it catches everything (eg Pickford/VvD, but that was down to assistant ref incompetence and would have been missed without VAR as on-pitch referee didn't see/took no action).
Two are not exclusive to VAR: 1. Poor rule changes 2. Incompetent officials These two will result in errors and confusion with or without the VAR system.
Ref are instructed to use monitors more often, and are doing it. That alone is an improvement on last season. Overall, it’s obvious what is better over the last 2 years. Delay said it, I’ve been saying it for years at this point — very obvious bad calls, not anything which is close or 50/50-ish, are basically completely eliminated from the game. Whether that’s worth it will be up to the individual. Lazy is not a pejorative. It’s just categorical.
all nice but all theoretical, out of the "VAR RULES!" playbook. really - how many 6 feet offside plays have we seen caught by VAR and nobody else? how many mistaken identities have we seen? and for each of them (not that there have been any AFAIK we can point to literally dozens of ridiculous decisions. I'm not asking what VAR could do or is intended to do. what IS it doing that is beneficial to the game? my post above - no answer from you on the bolded bit:
from what I've seen it is being used sporadically - at best. more often that not refs continue to be told what (non-offside) call to make by the VAR. at that rate of "improvement" VAR will be rated as tolerable in about 20 years. what total utter nonsense. fgs it's like arguing with a Trump supporter. I guess arrogant pig-headed two-faced know-it-all is categorical also.
By obvious, I mean a foot or more offiside - the ones where the commentators used to say "he looked offside there", not the one's where they said "that looked tight". The one's where a viewer was sure the player was offside on TV replay. Don't know about you, but I've seen many very obviously offside goals over the years (pre VAR). Why do you dismiss this as "theoretical"?
Eliminating some of the obvious errors. eg Blatantly offside/onside Ball did/did not not hit arm/hand
Sam, you hate VAR and see no possibility of it ever becoming a positive. That's OK. Each to his own. But I see no upside to this line of discussion. Agree to disagree.
You just admitted a change made this season has some measure of improvement on VAR process, so you should acknowledge that your question has been answered. For specific calls they go to the monitor now. You may say it's infrequent, but it's happening more often, it's only for specific instances, it was mandated by FIFA, and it is addressing a specific complaint about VAR. That is a VAR protocol-specific improvement. Period. You've been mischaracterizing people's views for years, so to label them as similar to Trump supporters when they try to illustrate the nuances in what they've said vs what you claim they've said... black and white thinking, this way or that way, that is not anti-Trump supporters. That's exactly Trump's playbook; less nuance not more, A or B only, good or bad, no grey area. I myself am also guilty of "lazy" thinking, it's purely categorical and used to draw distinction between making shortcuts and generalizing (which at times is very helpful, just not here) and trying to parse things more finely (which is at times a waste of time, just not here). Because of the complexity of this topic, "VAR" and the LOTG, the generalization approach isn't helpful. You directly comparing the context of that single word use to a string of very specific insults and claiming it's the same is yet another demonstration of your black and white thinking, and is at this point I'm sure not a surprise to anyone paying attention.
When a certain kind of bad call used to exist, and now it doesn't exist anymore because of a video review process... that's not a "theoretical" benefit of that process. It's demonstrable that those calls no longer exist. ""
This is interesting: (Video) Chilwell foul identical to LFC challenge ignored by VAR (empireofthekop.com) I suppose the key difference is Ocampo didn't go down?
No loss of possession either. I think it’s a different kind of contact, it’s not as forceful and more 50/50, and that’s probably why it wasn’t looked at. But that will vary depending on the person looking at it. To me the question for incidents like this is if VAR suggested the ref look at the monitor, and he did, and he still didn’t give it... would that make it better?
Analysis of how margin of error could have affected all 16 VAR offside decisions in the Prem.- 5 of 14 disallowed count- Of the 5, 3 are Liverpool- Three could have changed result (2 Liverpool)- Only goal allowed would be ruled out on "Umpire's Call"A thread.— Dale Johnson (@DaleJohnsonESPN) December 2, 2020 LFC unlucky so far this season... but more so, a good case for the Dutch margin of error. Provided you prefer that very close offside calls favor the attacker.
A pen which looks kind of like there's contact in real time is given by the ref. VAR says "take a look at it", ref does. sees there's no/minimal contact. Takes away the pen. Only happens with VAR. That's why it exists. Whether it is worth it considering the issues it's caused overall is a whole other question, and will depend on the individual being asked.
Brighton got royally shafted yesterday as VAR awarded a late penalty despite the foul occurring outside the box. The referee needs to be the one making these calls, not somebody hidden away in a box somewhere. Atrocious that the referee's call was changed. https://www.sussexlive.co.uk/sport/...eddie-ljungberg-jamie-carragher-agree-4776432
"Clear and obvious" has nothing to do with assessing where a foul occurs. Just like it doesn't have a say when assessing offside calls. I don't like it necessarily, but it seems plausible it could be called a pen at any point. All about interpreting whether foul inside box is a carryover... doesn't seem like an obvious wrong call. This is the grey area of the game. Never gonna go away. Doesn't seem like it's a great miscarriage of justice to me, but I'm sure that's just because I'm madly in love with VAR or whatever.
Fabinho contact occurred on the line, which counts as inside the box. Once VAR sees that, there's no protocol to allow them to rule it another way or let it slide... there's no "clear and obvious" threshold to meet in order to overturn, it's just going to be "hey the contact happened while his foot was on the line", and it will be given.
So - why wasn't ManU's (Pogba's) goal called back? - clearly the ball hit Macguire's hand, which was in an "un-natural position" (above his head away from his body)...I thought it was "any contact with the hand/arm" by an attacking player was determined to be a no-go... Clearly (in my opinion) it was not an "intentional" handball...but I've seen goals called back for less than that...(i.e. hand on ground as player falls, ball hits hand...called a handball after goal was scored...)... Consistency?
How is this consistent with: "Clear and obvious" has nothing to do with assessing where a foul occurs.
How is it inconsistent? There's no "clear and obvious" threshold when it comes to "overruling" the ref on whether a foul took place in the box, or whether a player was offside. A ref isn't going to the monitor to see whether he missed something with regard to those factual calls on the basis that VAR told him "check it out because it's plausible you missed something clear and obvious"... VAR just tells him, "it was inside the box" or "the player was offside by an inch". The ref can go check out the foul itself, and rule on that... because it is not a strictly factual decision, it is interpretive. But not the other stuff. I'm sure same is true of rarer events, like mis-identified red cards.