Club Should Demand VAR in Scottish Football

[DougJamie]

First Woman's football now VAR- Game is fecked

[bazil85]

50 minutes ago, Yflab said:

The problem with the English system is that the playing public are not really informed as to what the decision is given for. Plus for some reason the refs are not using the sideline monitors. Compare football to the TMO system deployed in rugby where the incidents are shown on the big screens. 

For me the reason similar systems to VAR work in sports like American Football & Rugby is the nature of those games (much more stop start) allows for every decision to be scrutinised. 

VAR can't work and has now been categorically proven not to work in football because of the free flowing nature of our sport. It's the same reason it's the best and most popular sport the world over. The only way it would be fair, would be to review every dubious decision from throw in to goal kick, remove assistant referees making any but the most clear cut offside call & playing on until VAR reviews everyone  and obviously that isn't practical given the hold-ups. 

Failed experiment, hopefully the people in charge put their hands up to this and remove it from our game. Has really put me off EPL & CL in recent months. 

Above is just my opinion on the matter and the reasons for it. Appreciate others are still in favour. 

[HSS]

It's got to the stage fans in England dont know whether to celebrate a goal or wait to see if it goes to VAR.

Please dont bring VAR to Scotland.

[TPAFKA Jersey 2]

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

For me the reason similar systems to VAR work in sports like American Football & Rugby is the nature of those games (much more stop start) allows for every decision to be scrutinised. 

VAR can't work and has now been categorically proven not to work in football because of the free flowing nature of our sport. It's the same reason it's the best and most popular sport the world over. The only way it would be fair, would be to review every dubious decision from throw in to goal kick, remove assistant referees making any but the most clear cut offside call & playing on until VAR reviews everyone  and obviously that isn't practical given the hold-ups. 

Failed experiment, hopefully the people in charge put their hands up to this and remove it from our game. Has really put me off EPL & CL in recent months. 

Above is just my opinion on the matter and the reasons for it. Appreciate others are still in favour. 

I’m undecided on VAR but you can’t say football isn’t a stop/start game when for generally one third of the 90 minutes the balk is out of play. 

[Bud the Baker]

On 6/24/2019 at 4:31 AM, oaksoft said:

You could also add the time lost restarting a match after a goal is scored.

I think we're one of the worse teams for this - it's just as well we don't score that often. 

[bazil85]

56 minutes ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

I’m undecided on VAR but you can’t say football isn’t a stop/start game when for generally one third of the 90 minutes the balk is out of play. 

I've possibly not explained this the best. For me the nature of football is different from the other sports I mentioned. Stop/ start doesn't automatically mean it isn't free flowing. The ball goes out, it's played right back in (in theory, time wasting is a separate issue IMO & one I wish they would address).

With American football, Rugby and a number of other sports, it is much more about specific stages of play when they stop/ start, AF especially. We don't have that in football & that's why, in my opinion it's the greatest sport in the world & VAR can't work. 

Edited October 29, 2019 by bazil85

[bazil85]

48 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Why don't they follow tennis's example and give each team captain a set number of challenges per game/half. Only use it when a challenge is made.

Because that would be absolutely horrific? 

It wouldn’t work in a sport that can be won or lost on as little as one key decision. Tennis it works because of the point scoring mechanism. 

[paisleysaint1973]

9 hours ago, Yflab said:

The problem with the English system is that the playing public are not really informed as to what the decision is given for. Plus for some reason the refs are not using the sideline monitors. Compare football to the TMO system deployed in rugby where the incidents are shown on the big screens. 

Apparently the refs came out at the start and said they wouldnt be using the pitch side monitors to review decisions they were happy to go with the VAR official no statements as too why they wont use them. They cant show the decisions on big screens at PL matches as neither Anfield or Old Trafford have big screens 

[oaksoft]

6 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I've possibly not explained this the best. For me the nature of football is different from the other sports I mentioned. Stop/ start doesn't automatically mean it isn't free flowing. The ball goes out, it's played right back in (in theory, time wasting is a separate issue IMO & one I wish they would address).

With American football, Rugby and a number of other sports, it is much more about specific stages of play when they stop/ start, AF especially. We don't have that in football & that's why, in my opinion it's the greatest sport in the world & VAR can't work. 

That's not very positive Baz.

If Gordon came out in support of it you'd be singing its praises all over the forum.

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:

Why don't they follow tennis's example and give each team captain a set number of challenges per game/half. Only use it when a challenge is made.

No reason why this can't work.

The toothpaste is out of the tube on this.

VAR is here to stay.

[Cornwall_Saint]

VAR will be fine once the referees learn to be less petty and stick to the “clear and obvious” to change a decision. Right now they are still overthinking things which are then most definitely not “clear and obvious”. Make a decision, then if it’s clearly wrong, change it. If you’re unsure and having to rewatch, then that should say not to change it.

VAR will be fine eventually, it just needs to be used properly. As for all this “free-flowing” stuff, we spend half a game watching a goalkeeper take a goal kick, watching substitutions taking place and watching a player lie on the ground for two full minutes because someone tripped him up. 

[bazil85]

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

That's not very positive Baz.

If Gordon came out in support of it you'd be singing its praises all over the forum.

It’s not meant to be, I don’t see a great deal of positives in VAR.

 🎣 very original. 

[bazil85]

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

No reason why this can't work.

The toothpaste is out of the tube on this.

VAR is here to stay.

No reason apart from the low scoring nature of football games compared to sports that implement this sort of system... 

 

51 minutes ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

VAR will be fine once the referees learn to be less petty and stick to the “clear and obvious” to change a decision. Right now they are still overthinking things which are then most definitely not “clear and obvious”. Make a decision, then if it’s clearly wrong, change it. If you’re unsure and having to rewatch, then that should say not to change it.

VAR will be fine eventually, it just needs to be used properly. As for all this “free-flowing” stuff, we spend half a game watching a goalkeeper take a goal kick, watching substitutions taking place and watching a player lie on the ground for two full minutes because someone tripped him up. 

Already tried to clarify this. Football by it’s nature is free flowing, it moves from one stage of play to another more seamlessly. Other sports where video assist is much more affective work in stages. 

American football - change from offence to defence. Stages of play (1st - 4th down)

rugby - nature of scrums, line-outs, penalties and even the general stoppage and reset of play after tackles. 

Theres plenty of time to scrutinise decisions & pull the game back in these sports, same with most other mainstream team sports from what I can tell, because stop the clock works.

This would be very difficult in football where in theory aspects of play all run in and flow from each other (for the most part, obviously exceptions). As I’ve said though, I accept time wasting is an issue in our game but a separate one to this IMO. 

[oaksoft]

25 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

It’s not meant to be, I don’t see a great deal of positives in VAR.

 🎣 very original. 

You are on the wrong side of history here.

[Cornwall_Saint]

9 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

No reason apart from the low scoring nature of football games compared to sports that implement this sort of system... 

 

Already tried to clarify this. Football by it’s nature is free flowing, it moves from one stage of play to another more seamlessly. Other sports where video assist is much more affective work in stages. 

American football - change from offence to defence. Stages of play (1st - 4th down)

rugby - nature of scrums, line-outs, penalties and even the general stoppage and reset of play after tackles. 

Theres plenty of time to scrutinise decisions & pull the game back in these sports, same with most other mainstream team sports from what I can tell, because stop the clock works.

This would be very difficult in football where in theory aspects of play all run in and flow from each other (for the most part, obviously exceptions). As I’ve said though, I accept time wasting is an issue in our game but a separate one to this IMO. 

The game can still be allowed to flow though if VAR is used correctly. In some cases it already does.

If a player goes down in the box, the ref has a choice. He either says penalty or no penalty. If he says no, the game carries on. While it continues, the VAR guys can check and if they feel the ref has it wrong, then pull it back. Likewise a potential red card offence can be left by the referee, but can be checked out as play goes on. Likewise with offsides, if the flag stays down it can be looked at. 
 

Of course in the opposite sense it won’t flow. The referee may give a penalty, but it was won by a dive. As a fan, what would you really prefer? The diver conning a ref and winning a penalty, or a diver being caught out by cheating, getting booked and gaining no advantage from his attempt to deceive? Either way, there was no flow as the game was already stopped, but at least we end up with a better chance of a correct decision. Likewise when a goal is ruled out for offside, at least there’s a bigger likelihood of the officials getting it right than an unfair goal counting.

[bazil85]

6 hours ago, oaksoft said:

You are on the wrong side of history here.

It’s a matter of opinion based on my observation of its implementation, good effort though 

[bazil85]

4 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

 

Why would it be horrific?

In any sport, you can win or lose on as little as one key decision.

Football has a points scoring mechanism, they're called goals. At least football's one is fair, unlike tennis where you can score more points than your opponent and still lose - but that's digressing.

 

Yep so because our point scoring mechanism in many games can be one or two (or none) a challenge system wouldn’t worK. If a captain was given X number of challenges there’s no reason to really use them other than if a goal is scored or if chasing a result.

It would mean so much inconsistency. Results that stood wrongly because of a wrong call & others that were changed because someone had a Hawkeye call made. That’s not fair and yes horrific. 

[bazil85]

6 hours ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

The game can still be allowed to flow though if VAR is used correctly. In some cases it already does.

If a player goes down in the box, the ref has a choice. He either says penalty or no penalty. If he says no, the game carries on. While it continues, the VAR guys can check and if they feel the ref has it wrong, then pull it back. Likewise a potential red card offence can be left by the referee, but can be checked out as play goes on. Likewise with offsides, if the flag stays down it can be looked at. 
 

Of course in the opposite sense it won’t flow. The referee may give a penalty, but it was won by a dive. As a fan, what would you really prefer? The diver conning a ref and winning a penalty, or a diver being caught out by cheating, getting booked and gaining no advantage from his attempt to deceive? Either way, there was no flow as the game was already stopped, but at least we end up with a better chance of a correct decision. Likewise when a goal is ruled out for offside, at least there’s a bigger likelihood of the officials getting it right than an unfair goal counting.

I think it’s clearly showed that it can’t. So many examples now that shows VAR isn’t working & I don’t buy the ‘it'll take time’ argument. The tech is as slick as it needs to be to make decisions & all it’s done is proven it is still subjective, something many of us pointed out. 

The game carrying on and getting pulled back is the biggest issue for me. Takes away the free flowing game in many instances. We’ve seen VAR calls taking minutes, seen ones debated after match that still haven’t been agreed on. VAR observably takes away what I personally think is the best aspect of our sport. 

Diver conning the ref, getting a five match+ ban after the event & a fine. Stamp out the behaviour, don’t drag down the game. 

Offside is one of the major issues as well. Linesman flag incorrectly for a player that’s onside in goal scoring position, play stopped. Same player scores from an offside position 10 minutes later, goal chopped off. Just moves the controversy. This whole, don’t flag unless sure & play on until Var is checked nonsense isn’t working for me. 

[bazil85]

9 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

 

Are you seriously saying that (1) a challenge system wouldn't work because there are low scoring games and (2) if you can't correct all mistakes then don't correct any?

 

1. Because of the nature of how many times VAR is implemented in a game (not very many in comparison to how often challenges would happen in tennis if they were unlimited) having a set number of challenges makes no sense. I’m not saying it won’t work, I’m saying it is pointless, would be even less effective & make the game even worse in having a set number. If you agree on the priniciple of VAR picking & choosing what dubious conditions can be challenged isn’t the best approach.

You could have a circumstance with this approach where a player dives to win a penalty late on knowing a team has ran out of challenges. The penalty could be getting taken while the VAR assistant is looking at replays that the player dived but is powerless to tell the ref. Hardly fair don’t you think?

You would also have circumstance where likely every goal where a team takes a lead gets reviewed, it would become part of a standard goal. May as well use the challenges of they’re there. Would you really want a sport where every 1-0 and late half goal was challenged by teams? They’re hardly going to waste them on corners, free kick or throw ins... unless they obviously lead to  goal, in that case how far do they go back? If a corner results in a goal but the corner came off an attacker first, should they be going back & checking that or have they missed their chance to challenge the corner decision? Again controversy moved  

2. Yes, in my opinion VAR has shown it can’t work & take out controversy it just moves it. Remove VAR completely from our game & have it the way it was, ref call is final. I don’t imagine this will happen as Oak as said but it won’t change my opinion & that opinion is backed by dozens of controversial VAR decisions . 

[bazil85]

29 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

(1) So, if it works, it is still pointless?

taking penalties the old USA style way would work, deciding matches that draw on corners would work, replaying cup finals an unlimited number of times would work. Allowing 11 subs would work. Just because something would work doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be pointless & degenerative to the game. 

(2) "dozens of controversial VAR decisions" compared to how many uncontroversial ones? There are lots of controversial verdicts in courts, should we stop having trials?

Court is an irrelevant comparison. There were still uncontroversial decisions when it was the ref making the call. The point of VAR is to make fairer & remove the dubiety. It observably hasn’t done that on many occasions. 

Personally, I don't think it would work here due to the extra cost (which we can't afford) of all the extra cameras and staff that would be needed to do it properly. In the main, I disagree with your line of reasoning, however.

For me this is the only good thing about Scottish football being skint, long may us not being able to afford this system continue. Any new money in the game can be better invested in other ways 

 

[HSS]

18 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

With that reasoning it looks like you'd be happy to be relegated because of refereeing mistake and the cost cutting that would entail.

I would rather we were relegated due to a dodgy decision than put up with VAR in its current format.

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, cockles1987 said:

With that reasoning it looks like you'd be happy to be relegated because of refereeing mistake and the cost cutting that would entail.

My reasoning is, to have the game as it always was in regards to officiating. It's irrelevant to specific what ifs for me.

In the past we've had calls against us and calls for us, take the rough with the smooth. I've not once wished we had the facility to analyse decisions that went against us because I knew it would lead to the undesirable product (and wouldn't mitigate the controversy) we see currently in other competitions. 

Yes I'd be devastated if we went down by a dodgy ref decision, but we have multiple examples of dodgy VAR decisions that in theory could have done the same to a team. 

[bazil85]

Another victory for VAR in the Chelsea game. Two red cards and a penalty in 90 seconds. Take it back 15 seconds and it’s a free kick the other way. So much for game changing decisions 😂

[faraway saint]

A major, and a wee touch of common sense, is being brought in, initially in Holland, Italy & Sweden, change to the VAR ruiling on offside.

As most people have seen, it's the interpretation of the rules, not VAR, that's the problem.

Now the WHOLE body of the attacker, not his finger, has to be in front of the defender to be deemed offside.

[Albanian Buddy]

29 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

A major, and a wee touch of common sense, is being brought in, initially in Holland, Italy & Sweden, change to the VAR ruiling on offside.

As most people have seen, it's the interpretation of the rules, not VAR, that's the problem.

Now the WHOLE body of the attacker, not his finger, has to be in front of the defender to be deemed offside.

That’s a major difference and a huge advantage to the attacker. More goals guaranteed. What’s not to like!