Where VAR helped us last night

[Carl Sagan]

Reviews work in cricket and tennis because they involve the fans, showing everybody what is happening. VAR needs to do that. Whatever the officials in their bizarre room near Heathrow are looking at, needs to be shown on the big screen at the ground. With a proper conclusion (ie a green "GOAL!" or a red "NO GOAL!) coming up at the end.

It's farcical to have fans and players twiddling their thumbs for several minutes not knowing what's going on. How can the authorities be so stupid as to not realize this?

[rynny]

2 minutes ago, Boycie said:

Probably? Maybe the leather of the ball glanced the leather of the fancy coloured boot. Without the camera that wasn’t in the correct position seeing it?

Thats what I’m saying init.

They checked the best view, zoomed in, super slo-mo, the only thing missing was the snicko meter. I don't know if it would have been onside or not because don't think they showed/checked if it would have been onside if he touched it. 

[Carnero]

4 hours ago, rammieib said:

With the directive that the lino’s don’t put their flag up if it’s close, I think that is exactly how they applied it last night. So ignoring the debate over the first, think of Harry’s goal...I am sure that if there was no VAR, the linesman would have put his flag up. There is absolutely no way that the Lino would have spotted the Southampton players foot and let’s be honest, it took me a while to spot it as well.

Waggy tried to head it and thus interfered so he was interfering. 

‘In the furores of everything happening and the stunning result, just to acknowledge that VAR did actually benefit us in my opinion.

Can't believe no one has liked this post up to now. For the record I'm no fan of VAR and would rather they bin it now before it's too late (and suffer the bad decisions as and when they come), but yes I said the exact same thing to my mates today, that our 1st goal would likely have been chalked off for "offside" if there weren't VAR in this game.

[eddie]

1 hour ago, rynny said:

Bryson didn't touch it. They also checked on VAR for it. 

Thanks.

[B4ev6is]

The only way it helped us by trying get us knocked out of fa cup.

First there was nrothing wrong with it perfectly good goal ruled out.

[Philmycock]

31 minutes ago, B4ev6is said:

The only way it helped us by trying get us knocked out of fa cup.

First there was nrothing wrong with it perfectly good goal ruled out.

Apart from it being offside

[Rambam]

15 hours ago, rammieib said:

With the directive that the lino’s don’t put their flag up if it’s close, I think that is exactly how they applied it last night. So ignoring the debate over the first, think of Harry’s goal...I am sure that if there was no VAR, the linesman would have put his flag up. There is absolutely no way that the Lino would have spotted the Southampton players foot and let’s be honest, it took me a while to spot it as well.

Waggy tried to head it and thus interfered so he was interfering. 

‘In the furores of everything happening and the stunning result, just to acknowledge that VAR did actually benefit us in my opinion.

I agree. Bryson’s goal would have stood, and Wilson’s disallowed. 

[Phuket Ram]

VAR is for CLEAR and OBVIOUS. Nothing I saw reviewed on VAR was clear and obvious. I'm a fan of VAR, but not the clowns that operate it. Again, it the muppets they employ that are the problem - not the technology.

[Ghost of Clough]

Set a time limit on the maximum  duration to make a decision. 30 seconds? 1 minute?

['Rambe33]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Set a time limit on the maximum  duration to make a decision. 30 seconds? 1 minute?

This is what I was thinking. The hanging around after every goal just isn't right in football and like someone said it may stop fans and players celebrating goals which would be really sad. It works in Cricket and Rugby because by nature they are very much "stop-start" sports whereas football is entertaining because of how it flows and the fast flowing nature of it. 

It needs clarity but then again so does the offside rule. 

 

[cheron85]

12 hours ago, ram59 said:

If you look close enough, every goal from a corner will be disallowed. There's always players from both sides committing fouls. 

I'd be a fan of that - Think there's way too much allowance given at corners - It's like there's an unwritten rull that shirt pulling is unacceptable in open play but fine at corners...

11 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

It's farcical to have fans and players twiddling their thumbs for several minutes not knowing what's going on. How can the authorities be so stupid as to not realize this?

Yeh - But it's the same reason they don't show controversial decisions on the half time replay - Fans would be up in arms if they thought the decision was going the wrong way

16 minutes ago, Ramitupper said:

VAR is for CLEAR and OBVIOUS. Nothing I saw reviewed on VAR was clear and obvious. I'm a fan of VAR, but not the clowns that operate it. Again, it the muppets they employ that are the problem - not the technology.

It's a new technology and they just need time to get the rules right - They obviously have added the directive for linesmen not to flag - And now maybe they need a directive that says 'borderline calls go in favour of the attacking players' or something like that - We want to be encouraging more goals not less

[ilkleyram]

Yes it's new technology but it doesn't have to have this level of teething problems - goal line technology, where measurements can be in millimetres - hasn't had any problems.  What they're doing is making it up as it goes along.  The directive now for linos not to raise their flags makes it all the more confusing for players and crowd and it was/is bad enough anyway for the interpretation of the normal offside law.  I've found myself in the strange situation of feeling sorry for linos.  They can't win.  How they adjust between VAR match and non VAR match, I don't know. How do fans adjust between the two?

And if you don't engage fans directly in the decision then they'll carry on not knowing and being up in arms and reacting accordingly.  The quicker football starts to engage fans by involving them in the decision the quicker people will accept it and move on.  Drunken neanderthals go to cricket and rugby too and fighting doesn't break out over the decision of the off field umpire.

Personally I can't stand VAR - trying to get everything right all of the time is ridiculous; the argument that it will help referees/linos is nonsense.  It'll help Sky and the punditry business for ex-players but then so did/do arguments about whether player A went down too easily, or was in or out of the box

[rustylee]

It works in cricket and tennis because the lines don’t move and you can set a camera up  directly in line the offside line is constantly moving as the defenders move it didn’t help the Bryson goal or their goal that the camera they were using to check the offside wasn’t directly in line.

[Philmycock]

2 hours ago, cheron85 said:

I'd be a fan of that - Think there's way too much allowance given at corners - It's like there's an unwritten rull that shirt pulling is unacceptable in open play but fine at corners...

Yeh - But it's the same reason they don't show controversial decisions on the half time replay - Fans would be up in arms if they thought the decision was going the wrong way

It's a new technology and they just need time to get the rules right - They obviously have added the directive for linesmen not to flag - And now maybe they need a directive that says 'borderline calls go in favour of the attacking players' or something like that - We want to be encouraging more goals not less

Why have linesmen at all then? 

[jimbo jones]

17 hours ago, TobyWanKenobi said:

Hanging around for a couple of minutes after every goal was balls. VAR can piss right off.

This is my issue. In other sports like American Football, Rugby, Cricket, Tennis etc.. they are stop start by nature, so stopping to check a video doesn’t really effect the game.  

When your stopping a game of football for 2 minutes to come to a decision that’s still being debated, it’s not very good. And video refs are not perfect in any sport there being used in and still bring up plenty of debatable decisions. 

 

[cheron85]

8 minutes ago, philmycock said:

Why have linesmen at all then? 

For the rest of the decisions I would imagine? I dunno - I don't make the rules

[ram59]

Did this mean that in future, we can't  celebrate a goal until after the kick off has been taken? 

[rammieib]

15 hours ago, curb said:

Nobody touched the ball, it was a direct goal, hence not offside. Unless Wilson was offside when he took the free kick.

Anyway it made it a bit more exciting for us, instead of beating them 5-0 we got to win on penalties.

That's not how the offside works Curb. Officials are instructed to raise not on a touch of a ball but on an obvious attempt to play the ball. (Waghorn's was very obvious)

[Mucker1884]

3 hours ago, rustylee said:

It works in cricket and tennis because the lines don’t move and you can set a camera up  directly in line the offside line is constantly moving as the defenders move it didn’t help the Bryson goal or their goal that the camera they were using to check the offside wasn’t directly in line.

That's a very good point. 

Didn't they say on the commo that new moving cameras are going to be installed for next season?  Presumably on rails(?) and presumably just at the Prem grounds(?) but I can't remember exactly what they said.

[SaintRam]

10 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

That's a very good point. 

Didn't they say on the commo that new moving cameras are going to be installed for next season?  Presumably on rails(?) and presumably just at the Prem grounds(?) but I can't remember exactly what they said.

I sarcastically made such suggestions in the twitter feeds of Gary Lineker and Robbie Savage, so I did too notice the commentary mention something about that as well late on in the game.

Although, all they said was, I believe "Smart cameras". Something along the lines of "It will be better once the smart cameras are in." I think. I think they said then it would be like Hawk-eye? Not sure.

But if its exactly the same as Hawk-eye, as you say, the cameras would need to be moving with the last defender which seems impractical at best. It would require X amount of space between the pitch run-off and the stands which isn't always there and can't easily be created. Behind the hoardings, you'd imagine.

It could be some take on the 3D system used in the NFL, that isn't as polished but doesn't take days to do? I really wish they'd gone into more detail cos just in that remark I got really interested, but with the terms they've used I've been unable to find any information out about it.