VAR is destroying my soul

[Romario CF]

Inter goal was called offside by linesman.

VAR (Gianpaolo Calverse) reversed the decision.

I don't know what the VAR official was smoking but you can clearly see Inter head and shoulders offside.

Just wow.

 

[Chris Davies]

My main issue with football is people diving, really annoys me "simulation".
And there is now technology to stop it dead, but it still continues.

Same. Hate diving. But it will never go away, because the attitude will always be "innocent until proven guilty" and you can be 99% sure someone has dived but very rarely 100% (i.e. when there is absolutely no contact whatsoever)... Which I thoroughly disagree with / detest.

Take Mané on Sunday - and I'm saying this as someone who wants to see Liverpool win the league this year...


He's clearly falling (with no reason to be falling) before any contact is made. To me, and I reckon to any sane person (excluding a few die-hard Liverpool fans), he's clearly diving. Except by the letter of the law. Because contact is made. Therefore it can't be considered one, and I get why, but it's horseshit isn't it.

But it'll never change because you've got ex-pros on Match of the Day saying "if you feel contact, you've every right to go down", which (again) is absolute bollocks - and on top of that, foreign divers are labelled as cheats, whereas English divers "have every right to go down". It's all bollocks.

There was a potential turning point, I think - which was shot down in flames and will stay shot down forever.

The FA / UEFA stated in the 2009/2010 season that they were going to clamp down on "simulation", and it felt like sanity was about to be restored - then (specifically) Arsene Wenger fought it from the get-go, saying diving could "never be proven" and that it was a silly, "subjective law" and laws can't be subjective (I vaguely remember him talking about legal action at some point).

Then, this happened:



A clear dive. No contact whatsoever. UEFA actually took a fucking stance:

BBC SPORT: UEFA Bans Eduardo for Diving

Wenger reacted like this:



Then UEFA got scared, and backed down:

BBC SPORT: UEFA Overturns Eduardo Diving Ban

...and that was that. No more action on diving.

So diving is here to stay. VAR won't help with that.

 

[PeterC10]

and on top of that, foreign divers are labelled as cheats, whereas English divers "have every right to go down". It's all bollocks.

Even Gary Lineker, the most liberal person in the world is guilty of that.

In the Liverpool/Spurs match Martin Tyler and Gary Neville were making accusations about Salah, when he actually stayed on his feet and got the shot off. Not long earlier Kane had thrown himself to the ground, nothing said.

 

[Stan]

As a Spurs fan, i think that it was a penalty. Aurier Made another foolish mistake. And Liverpool were so good they deserved this win.
About the diving, i can understand players diving. There used to be a time when every contact in the box was a penalty. Players seldom dived then. And then referees started creating chaos by stating that there wasn’t enough contact to give a penalty (and that same contact would have been given as a four anywhere else on the pitch). Since then forwards are ‘diving’. In quite a fel cases this is merely what i would call ‘making sure that the penalty is given’. They exagerate because they are afraid that the ref will think there wasn’t ‘enough contact’ to give a penalty. If refs will give penalties for every four in the box ( even minor ones), the diving will stop.

 

[Negatrev]

As a Spurs fan, i think that it was a penalty. Aurier Made another foolish mistake. And Liverpool were so good they deserved this win.
About the diving, i can understand players diving. There used to be a time when every contact in the box was a penalty. Players seldom dived then. And then referees started creating chaos by stating that there wasn’t enough contact to give a penalty (and that same contact would have been given as a four anywhere else on the pitch). Since then forwards are ‘diving’. In quite a fel cases this is merely what i would call ‘making sure that the penalty is given’. They exagerate because they are afraid that the ref will think there wasn’t ‘enough contact’ to give a penalty. If refs will give penalties for every four in the box ( even minor ones), the diving will stop.

I agree. Diving is absolutely wrong. But players have started doing it more and more because they have simply discovered that they can end up being denied legitimate penalties if the ref doesn't think the contact was 'enough'.

I like refs letting the game continue where possible. But really the game should be tons of tiny 'plays of advantage' and any time the advantage isn't found, it should come back to the foul. This isn't/wasn't conducive of a flowing game (especially for entertainments sake) and so it became only give fouls for sufficiently strong fouls.

But in the box, ANY foul that has even the potential to alter the decision in any way (it might even just be the foul is used for intimidation) then the player should play on, but VAR should call up on it if a goal isn't scored soon after. But of course VAR has a very strict remit. Once VAR is trusted enough and efficient enough, we could do away with diving.

1. Once any dive (be it one that drew a foul after the dive or not) is yellow carded, then players will stop diving (trying to get away with stuff). There should be some leeway for jumping/going limp to avoid injury on a challenge, but that is generally rare and very obvious when that occurs.
2. Once every foul in the box is called as a foul (again, likely from an improved VAR) defenders will stop trying to get away with stuff.

When playing football as kids, we just played for the game and we wanted to win, but not by cheating. So many professional sports see all sorts of 'mild cheating' to try and gain any advantage they can as there's just too much prestige and money in it these days. You even see players trying to claim a throw-in when it clearly came off them last. That's what we should be getting rid off.

 

[Cuky]

So now VAR is used to overturn correct calls from referee/linesman too??

 

[*aLe]

So now VAR is used to overturn correct calls from referee/linesman too??

Apparently.

 

[mattmid]

Could the Premier League Referees possibly handle VAR any worse than they have done so far? This week we had Guendouzi pulling Soyuncu around by shoulder, clear as day on the replay, looked at by VAR and ignored!

 

[PeterC10]

Could the Premier League Referees possibly handle VAR any worse than they have done so far? This week we had Guendouzi pulling Soyuncu around by shoulder, clear as day on the replay, looked at by VAR and ignored!

Probably not.

One of my friends told me that Fabinho's goal shouldn't have counted, but City shouldn't have been given a penalty and Liverpool should have instead been given a freekick because of Bernado Silva's early handball.

Football with VAR is certainly not dull at least...

 

[gabe.paul.logan]

VAR is ok. The game is much more fair now. The only problem people have is that is not entirely depending on vision and on milli seconds but on analysing a frame. Hell even here some people disagree on certain frames if it was an offside or a handball.

But imagine having VAR back in the WC of Korea-Japan for Italy's games.

 

[Emroth]

So diving is here to stay. VAR won't help with that

It might, IF referees grow some balls (or will be forced) to go and have a look at the telly themselves.
All VAR needs right now is referees going and having a look themselves. At the end of the day its referee decision. Referee decisions are subjective.
VAR should be there only to help. If referee says a goal, VAR says no goal - referee HAS to go and have a look himself. And at the end of the day he can stick to his decision.
Same with dives. Players are being booked for diving.
VAR is there to help. They just need to learn how to use it efficiently.

 

[mattmid]

This is the problem, they stated "Clear and obvious errors" presumably also to include something the referee didn't see but this isn't happening. Clear penalties are being ignored when it's obvious in the replay, other times they are spending 2-3 minutes which by that fact cannot be clear and obvious, can they!?

@Emroth is exactly right it has to be the referee going to have another look. VAR should be used to spot possible errors but then tell the ref you need to have another look and he goes to look. That way it's still his decision.

@PeterC10 That is what I was confused about. With the stupid attacking team handball rule then the moment it hit Bernardo Silva's hand a goal would have been disallowed had they scored, so presumably that 'foul' has to come first regardless of whether it was deemed Alexander-Arnold's handball was deliberate. Or is it not handball unless a goal is scored in which case it's an even more ridiculous rule than it already is.

 

[PeterC10]

@PeterC10 That is what I was confused about. With the stupid attacking team handball rule then the moment it hit Bernardo Silva's hand a goal would have been disallowed had they scored, so presumably that 'foul' has to come first regardless of whether it was deemed Alexander-Arnold's handball was deliberate. Or is it not handball unless a goal is scored in which case it's an even more ridiculous rule than it already is.

Yeah, I honestly think they took Bernado Silva's handball into account even though the official line was that they didn't. Wouldn't be surprised if the laws get reworded to deal with situations like this.

In general though I've given up trying to understand the handball rule since the World Cup last year!

 

[Stan]

Peter C10: IMO your friend is right about the Fabinho goal. And there is an even more absurd reason. Your friend is right that if the ref was correct he should have given a free kick for the Bernardo Silva hands. That was an offensive hands and the Trent Alexander Arnold was a defensive AT THAT MOMENT.

But if the ref lets both those hands go he should aslo have ruled the Fabinho goal out, because in retrospect, Trent Alexander Arnold's hands turns out to an offensive hands too. Result: no goal for Liverpool and penalty for City. If the aftermath of TAA hands was not a goal and Fabinho's shot would have ended in row Z: no penalty. I can assure you that this weird interpretation is entirely correct (it is not my interpretation, it is the interpretation of a ref on Belgian television).
What is my point? My point is that the hands rule is totally absurd and FIFA should change it totally. A hands is a hands, stop making distinction between an offensive hands and a defensive hands...because like in this case a defensive hands in retrospect can turn out to be an offensive one…

Once again, this has nothing to do with VAR, but with the absurd rules.

Oh and ruling out the Sheffield goal against Spurs is absurd too, just like ruling out Genk's equaliser in their home match (in Genk that is) against Liverpool.

And fiunally, PSG's winning goal against Brugge was far more clear and Obvious off-side than SHeffield's goal, yet VAR did not interfere. Last season, VAR was used correctly and it advantaged outsiders (Ajax against Juventus, Spurs against City for example). This year thinga have changed, we are back to normal: the big clubs benefit from VAR.

If that is the case, we might aswell stop with VAR and this from a big VAR fan. VAR itself is fantastic, but the interpretation is still made by human beings who function in a system and the system has taken over once again.

 

[Aribo n Ojo]

Anyone see the Man City goal ruled offside today? Never offside.

Alson has giving the attacker the benefit of the advantage if close for excitement now been totally dropped due to VAR?

 

[mattmid]

Anyone see the Man City goal ruled offside today? Never offside.

Alson has giving the attacker the benefit of the advantage if close for excitement now been totally dropped due to VAR?

There was a hair on his arm that was offside.

They do need to come up with something better in the offside law. What, I don't know, but this drawing lines is getting stupid. Yes, it's technically right but like you say the benefit of the advantage is gone. Maybe it needs to be pause it as it's kicked, one look, is he clearly offside, yes, ok then it's offside. Do we need to start drawing lines to check? Yes, ok, leave it then, he's onside.

 

[Cuky]

Do we need to start drawing lines to check? Yes, ok, leave it then, he's onside.

You know that won't work with fans and biased reporters. Can you imagine El Classico for example and Barca or Madrid getting a 1:0 win with a goal that was borderline offside, and after thorough examination and lines drawing it actually comes that scorer was indeed offside. It would be an outrage all over the place with "how did VAR miss that" on every news site, forum board etc.

 

[Aribo n Ojo]

There was a hair on his arm that was offside.



They do need to come up with something better in the offside law. What, I don't know, but this drawing lines is getting stupid. Yes, it's technically right but like you say the benefit of the advantage is gone

Surely 15 is playing him on? His hand looks way closer to the line than any part of Sterling.

 

[Stan]

His hand looks way closer to the line than any part of Sterling. That is correct, but his hand does not count because you can't play the ball with your hand. So, this is a correct decision.

I really don't like the reaction of most pundits to decisions like this. VAR should be there to take absolutely correct decisions (or as close as possible to that). Off-side is offside even if it is just a hair. Is that absurd? Ok, for the sake of arguments then. When does it begin not to be absurd? Two hairs, three hairs, a shoulder, one leg, two legs, two legs and an arse, the whole body? The whole body seems a correct solution, but then the discussion can restart again, was it his whole body? No, he was one hair onside. Of course that is absurd, but when does it start not to be absurd? Two hairs, three hairs, etcetera...there will always be discussion?

Always discussion? Is that an argument to stop with VAR? No.

Anybody watched Galatasaray-Club Brugge yesterday? Galatasaray players where playing the ref for the whole match. In injury time Brugge equalised and two Brugge players were sent off with a second yellow because of their celebration of the goal (i tend to agree with both yellow cards). Imagine this being Galatasaray playing Real Madrid, Barcelona or PSG. Would they have got 2 second yellow cards? No.

VAR has to stay to make it an even game, because now in every match i see the big teams are advantaged by refs when there is doubt. Without VAR Spurs and Ajax would not have played last year's semi-final.

It now seems that VAR has corrected itself and that decisions in favour of the bigger teams are not overruled anymore...remember VAR and the Cristiano Ronaldo red card at the last WC. The ref went to the screen and gave a yellow card...a big mistake, but he was afraid to sent Ronaldo off.

We need more courageous men on the pitch and in the VAR building. But VAR itself has to stay for me.

OH and one more thing. The biggest mistake is that VAR should only mlook at 'clear and ovious mistakes' and here we go again. What is a clear and Obvious mistake? It is almost a philosophical question. VAR should correct every mistake, perhaps with a preference foor fouls that are dangerous (the first duty for a ref is to make sure every player leaves the pitch healthy) and to penalise unfair behaviour.

 

[Negatrev]

His hand looks way closer to the line than any part of Sterling. That is correct, but his hand does not count because you can't play the ball with your hand. So, this is a correct decision.

I really don't like the reaction of most pundits to decisions like this. VAR should be there to take absolutely correct decisions (or as close as possible to that). Off-side is offside even if it is just a hair. Is that absurd? Ok, for the sake of arguments then. When does it begin ot to be absurd? Two hairs, three hairs, a shoulder, one leg, two legs, two legs and an arse, the whole body? The whole body seems a correct solution, but then the discussion can restart again, was it his whole body? No, he was one hair onside. Of course that is absurd, but when does it start not to be absurd? Two hairs, three hairs, etcetera...there will always be discussion?

Always discussion? Is that an argument to stop with VAR? No.

Anybody watched Galatasaray-Club Brugge yesterday? Galatasaray players where playing the ref for the whole match. In injury time Brugge equalised and two Brugge players were sent off with a second yellow because of their celebration of the goal (i tend to agree with both yellow cards). Imagine this being Galatasaray playing Real Madrid, Barcelona or PSG. Would they have got 2 second yellow cards? No.

VAR has to stay to make it an even game, because now in every match i see the big teams are advantaged by refs when there is doubt. Without VAR Spurs and Ajax would not have played last year semi-final.

It now seems that VAR has corrected itself and that decisions in favour of the bigger teams are not overruled anymore...remember VAR and the Cristiane red card at the last WC. The ref went to the screen and gave a yellow card...a big mistake, but he was afraid to sent Ronaldo off.

We need more courageous men on the pitch and in the VAR building. But VA>R itself has to stay for me.

Absolutely all of this. The issue with VAR isn't the concept at all, it's the execution. Any purely factual decision (like offside) should be made by VAR. The best implementation of this will be when it could do this in seconds (like a video game does instantly). Once it's quick enough, factual decisions should apply everywhere (it of course really started with goal line tech) including who a ball hit last before going out of play.

But for ANY decision that is still open for interpretation, it's simply too slow. It is also meaning a non-ref must overrule a ref and that is a bad state to be in as it puts even more pressure on the VAR decision to only correct the ref if they are sure (where sure/clear and obvious is too vague a definition).

Speed, confidence and clarity of rules will all improve VAR greatly over time.

 

[Isslander]

As if VAR wasn't bad enough on its own, the FA cup only has it for certain matches. How anyone thought this made the slightest bit of sense is beyond me.

 

[mattmid]

As if VAR wasn't bad enough on its own, the FA cup only has it for certain matches. How anyone thought this made the slightest bit of sense is beyond me.

Absolutely ridiculous isn't it? How can you have some games with it and some without?

 

[Chris Davies]

As if VAR wasn't bad enough on its own, the FA cup only has it for certain matches. How anyone thought this made the slightest bit of sense is beyond me.

Absolutely ridiculous isn't it? How can you have some games with it and some without?

As someone whose team has just got a replay against a Premier League side, entirely based on a wrongly disallowed goal being reinstated, and a clear penalty being given - all thanks to VAR... Well, I've already said I think VAR is essential, and there sure as hell is no changing my mind now...

I argued for VAR years ago on the basis that, without it, clubs could be relegated (and their future put in doubt) over bad decisions. All the talk of "fair" - that's the ultimate injustice, for me. Not staying up, because a lineman wasn't up with the play. It's these situations I think of when I think of VAR.

As for "it's not fair that some games have it and some don't" - well of course every game should have it, and my big issue here is that with some investment from the powers that be I'm sure it could have been arranged (even primatively).

But surely at the end of the day, it's better that VAR happens where possible. Otherwise you're saying "deliberately punish teams who score valid goals" - that's not fair, that's spite. The technology is there and can be used, so you have to use it.

That isn't the thing that's unfair - what's unfair is that the FA won't put their hand in their pocket to pay for temporary integration at the various grounds. It's not like there are loads more rounds of the cup left. If you're serious about VAR, and you're serious about grass roots, let's see it.

 

[mattmid]

As someone whose team has just got a replay against a Premier League side, entirely based on a wrongly disallowed goal being reinstated, and a clear penalty being given - all thanks to VAR... Well, I've already said I think VAR is essential, and there sure as hell is no changing my mind now...

The thing is, had your game not had VAR you would now be knocked out which would surely be unfair when you clearly shouldn't have been because of wrong initial decisions. That's why it's unfair. There was doubtless a team or two who may have been on the wrong end of decisions this weekend and have gone out when had they happened against Watford (for example as Var was in use) then they'd still be in the competition. That surely can't be right for the integrity of the competition. Surely all teams should have the benefit of it or none otherwise it is not a level playing field.

 

[Chris Davies]

The thing is, had your game not had VAR you would now be knocked out which would surely be unfair when you clearly shouldn't have been because of wrong initial decisions. That's why it's unfair.

So what you're literally saying is, two wrongs make a right?

That's what I can't get past. Say there's two teams, one goes through because VAR (reinstated an onside goal), one goes through because no VAR (say they scored an offside goal).

That's one team through based on the correct calls, and one team out because of incorrect calls. One team is "fairly" through, one team is "unfairly" through. Fair results = one.

Take VAR away. The first team goes out because there's no VAR. The second team still goes through because there's no VAR.

That's one team unfairly out, and one team unfairly through! Fair results = zero!

 

[mattmid]

No that's not what I'm saying at all. It's not about VAR itself. The games are being judged in different ways that is the point.

What I'm saying is how can you have a competition that is effectively being played with two sets of rules? Some team's are going through or out depending on whether there was VAR or not to correct a wrong decision, whilst for others it's tough shit. How can that be a level playing field for the competition?

Suppose the Premier League decide only home teams can use VAR, would that be fair?

 

[crustcyb]

The only way VAR could "see" those "string-of-hair-pixel" offsides (as an example, the offside called on Wolverhampton against Liverpool in Anfield: Wolverhampton got a goal disallowed because it was deemed offside), is if they have 8K "mega-ultra-hyper-HD" (or whatever) cameras (which they probably don't), plugged to thousand inches monitors/TV's and 120 frames per second (minimum) to determine the EXACT frame in which the ball left the passing player's foot... If they don't have such thing, then to me it will always be "fixed" to benefit the bigger team (in this case, Liverpool). If things were reversed, we can all be 100% sure that Liverpool wouldn't have a goal called off if they scored in an exact same "situation" while playing in the Molineaux. Think about it.

Of course it can be used to call off more "absurd" offsides (the most recent one when Aubameyang scored against Man. United in Old Trafford last game), but in that case, the linesman should be fired on the spot. Don't even need to finish the game... Since there's VAR, right?

Speaking of such, being a linesman nowadays (with VAR) suddenly became the easiest job in the world. You just have to run back and forth beside a line for 90 minutes and do nothing...

 

[Chris Davies]

Suppose the Premier League decide only home teams can use VAR, would that be fair?

If for some reason there was a technical limitation that meant that was the case (which is obviously not true but say it was), it would still mean half the decisions were guaranteed to be accurate, which is still a better guarantee than not having it! And remember that VAR can hurt you as well as help you.

More correct decisions is better than less. IMO.

 

[PeterC10]

Agree that VAR should be used for all matches in a round or not at all. The offside rule in England is essentially different with or without VAR, throws the balance somewhat. Would make more sense for it just to be used in the semi finals and final.

 

[mattmid]

More correct decisions is better than less. IMO.

In essence yes I agree, but if not all are benefiting from it then it is not a level playing field, it makes incorrect decisions that can't be changed even worse.

Agree that VAR should be used for all matches in a round or not at all. The offside rule in England is essentially different with or without VAR, throws the balance somewhat. Would make more sense for it just to be used in the semi finals and final.

Plus the ridiculous attacking team handball rule that often is not seen without VAR.

Talking of which what would happen in this (albeit extreme) example.... The home team have a corner, it's headed out and their player takes a shot from outside the box, it hits a defender's arm, but it's down at his side and not deliberate, play rightly goes on, meanwhile though the ricochet has ballooned back over the player's head who shot and the away team are away on the counter attack. Their player runs clear up the other end and immediately scores from it. Does that defender's handball now become an 'attacking' handball because it set up the counter attack and is therefore now a foul even though it was unintentional and not given because he was on the defending team? After all it set up the counter attack because of it and therefore created the opportunity to score.