Turn on thread page Beta
    • TSR Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Surprised there's no thread on this yet.

    What do people think about it? It's not exactly got off to the best start with all the errors and the lack of clarity for those spectators actually in the ground. I was at Huddersfield when Mata scored and nobody had a clue what was going on!

    Should it be in the Premier League too?
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by sr90)
    Surprised there's no thread on this yet.

    What do people think about it? It's not exactly got off to the best start with all the errors and the lack of clarity for those spectators actually in the ground. I was at Huddersfield when Mata scored and nobody had a clue what was going on!

    Should it be in the Premier League too?
    Need to display what is being looked at by VAR refs on the big screen so fans know what's going on

    Need to have a time limit (1 minute) before a decision is made, or the original decision stands.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Fundamentally, I'm not a fan of the introduction of VAR. Goal line technology has helped and it's easy to implement. VAR, as shown by Spurs game, is still subjective when it's supposed to be objective.

    I'm not sure why it's needed. If managers and the media stopped criticising a man trying to officiate 22 players in a fairly quick paced match then that might help than installing technology, that in its trial period, is showing its far from being an improvement. Even if it's speeded up, it will still take time out of the game and whilst it works for cricket, not sure it's conducive to football.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The problem is in part football's rules are subjective and football fans need to accept the referees decision is final. Goal-line tech was a great success because its a simple issue, the ball either crossed the line or it didn't. VAR may well help decisions such as offside, but even then as shown by the Harry Kane incident that rule is more subjective than it may appear.

    VAR will mean we know the officials won't have to make decisions based on viewings at game speed but we're still going to be arguing about decisions like we are after we've seen slow motion replays as fans.

    Needs to be worked on though, help keep the fans and the teams informed. Hawk-eye in tennis adds to the spectacle and often build suspense, whereas VAR so far seems clumsy and ruins the flow of the game.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I think the problem is less VAR and more the way the rules are officiated and implemented.

    Especially in England rules are very, very subjective. That doesn' help anybody because the rules themselves and their implementation are so open to interpretation no one is sure what is supposed to be going on at any one time.

    I think VAR can work, but not under current officiating paradigms.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    The BBC and probably loads of other companies that broadcast football are trying their best to make it disappear (it seems every time VAR is used is a 'controversy' now, because God forbid the refs use it).

    Anything that has big powerful business or politicians already in power petrified tends to be a good thing, but something they manage to sway public opinion against and successfully get rid of.

    Even with the waiting it's still fantastic compared to the alternative. I watched football a lot less as it seemed games, competitions, entire futures were being decided by the ref and how the winds blew on the day and not the simple fact of who scores the most goals. It's like 'what's the point?'
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think the waiting time for a decision is that bad. It can increase the tension. I haven't watched Super League for a while so I don't know if they still do this but they used to have the Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? phone a friend clock noise play while the video ref was making a decision. Even stupid little things like that can add to the whole experience.

    If they're going to use to it then it should be a challenge system. Most sports use some kind of challenge system. Stuff like potential red cards and penalties should be challenges and that's it.

    The problem with offsides is that it is one way. If someone scored after being in an offside position it an be ruled out but what if someone wasn't offside and they were flagged offside. They've been denied a legitimate chance to score. We would have to let play carry on no matter what and then check it later and people would complain about that. We complain, no matter what and we always will so bring it in, don't bring it in. I don't care either way.

    Ultimately you're going to get good and bad decisions regardless of what is used to officiate. That's life and that's sport.

    Another thing is that there are 22 people on a football pitch that we all expect to make some mistakes over 90 minutes and we accept that. Why should it be any different the officials?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheMagicRat)
    Another thing is that there are 22 people on a football pitch that we all expect to make some mistakes over 90 minutes and we accept that.

    Why should it be any different the officials?
    Football is a sport that puts 11 players against another 11, the players are the point of it, deciding the team that plays together best and to a lesser extent who has the better players.

    Referees are there to make sure the game is played correctly, they're enforcing the rules.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    Football is a sport that puts 11 players against another 11, the players are the point of it, deciding the team that plays together best and to a lesser extent who has the better players.

    Referees are there to make sure the game is played correctly, they're enforcing the rules.
    But they're human, so they will make plenty of mistakes. Let's also not forget that this is a sport where players' behaviour doesn't in any way help the referees to do a great job.

    I also don't really care about who is better. I see sport as live unscripted theatre. All the humans there play their role. The players, the officials, the managers and the fans. It's all one big show.

    I also don't see why sport should be some kind of utopia where all decisions are perfect.

    I'd also love someone to do a poll of football fans because deep down I don't think we want matches without controversy. I think we love it.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sr90)
    Surprised there's no thread on this yet.

    What do people think about it? It's not exactly got off to the best start with all the errors and the lack of clarity for those spectators actually in the ground. I was at Huddersfield when Mata scored and nobody had a clue what was going on!

    Should it be in the Premier League too?
    I think give it another season in the cups, possibly see how it works in the world Cup before making a decision.

    Its in theory a fantastic system if implemented correctly, there needs to be a balance between allowing the game to flow and enforcing correct decisions, so possibly start with game changing decisions such as red cards and dubious goals. If the ref already ruled offside and the guy was onside then there can be an issue as people will stop play as the whistle had already been blown, so in that case var shouldn't count as that opens a can of worms.

    I feel in a stop start game or a game where the clock stops like rugby/basketball it works.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheMagicRat)
    But they're human, so they will make plenty of mistakes. Let's also not forget that this is a sport where players' behaviour doesn't in any way help the referees to do a great job.

    I also don't really care about who is better. I see sport as live unscripted theatre. All the humans there play their role. The players, the officials, the managers and the fans. It's all one big show.

    I also don't see why sport should be some kind of utopia where all decisions are perfect.

    I'd also love someone to do a poll of football fans because deep down I don't think we want matches without controversy. I think we love it.
    The refs are not a part of the competition that defines sport. The ref's 'skill with a whistle' isn't how any sport is defined. They're messengers, letting everyone know the rules. Don't be confused just because the role is fulfilled by humans (who else is going to do it? We don't have robots/automation yet.)

    The problem is your abnormal definition and view of what a sport is. It's competition between two people or teams. Just because it's on TV NOW doesn't mean it should now be theatre. If you're not entertained, it's not for you, why not just watch actual theatre?

    Imagine you worked all your life and a decision by a theatrical referee/umpire denied you a medal, trophy and recognition because he wanted a bit of controversy. Never mind everyone then saying "don't worry it's just a show, this is what makes it entertaining". That's madness.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hello there I am new here. I'm italian My opinion on VAR is good. There are some point positive in my opinion.
    First. Sure the idea of justice. You maybe don't feel the problem, but if we see the italian/ global scandal about some match selled by the Team, the problem is serious.
    Secondo. There are some team that put on the referee a psicology pressing, so they make mistake (without speaking freud). The VAR is an another tool to try to fix the problem. I don't speak about italian championship, but if we see some referee's interpretation about the Real Madrid in Champion Legue there is some ambiguity.
    Third. I agree with you about the problem of time. The seria A is different in timing after the introduction of VAR. It's only a new rule, we only get used to stop the time in specific situation. I see an half championship and now I have some problem whan I see european match without VAR.

    I'm sure that VAR can't fix every problem, because the rule (the Right, law in general) are not objective in several cases. On the other hand, in this way you can correct some big fail (human fail). In simple situation (I mean when the referee cannot see something) the time is really quickly, becouse the assistent "call" the referee and they fix the problem (outside, penalty and so on). The referee seldom go to see the replay on the screen, because he should trust her assistant. The ambiguity in the situation of game are few. I remeber only 2 o 3 cases where there are more than one correct interpretation.
    PS I'm sorry for my low english level writing, I'm here for this reason too
    • TSR Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by bammy jastard 27)
    I feel in a stop start game or a game where the clock stops like rugby/basketball it works.
    FIFA have actually proposed that each half is reduced to 30 minutes, but a system like that would be introduced. The ball isn't actually active in play for much longer than 60 minutes during an average game anyway.

    The thing that I want resolved is how spectators in the ground are informed. Old Trafford doesn't have a big screen and there's no place to put it. Anfield doesn't have one either and again, I can't see where it could go.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    The refs are not a part of the competition that defines sport. The ref's 'skill with a whistle' isn't how any sport is defined. They're messengers, letting everyone know the rules. Don't be confused just because the role is fulfilled by humans (who else is going to do it? We don't have robots/automation yet.)

    The problem is your abnormal definition and view of what a sport is. It's competition between two people or teams. Just because it's on TV NOW doesn't mean it should now be theatre. If you're not entertained, it's not for you, why not just watch actual theatre?

    Imagine you worked all your life and a decision by a theatrical referee/umpire denied you a medal, trophy and recognition because he wanted a bit of controversy. Never mind everyone then saying "don't worry it's just a show, this is what makes it entertaining". That's madness.
    A lot of the rules of football are too vague though for anyone to simply be a messenger. A lot is open to interpretation.

    TV doesn't make something theatre. People went to see these things way before TV.

    Nowhere did I say that they make decisions for controversy. They make decisions that can be controversial. That's just the way it is, so I'm more than happy to sit back and enjoy the ride.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheMagicRat)
    A lot of the rules of football are too vague though for anyone to simply be a messenger. A lot is open to interpretation.

    TV doesn't make something theatre. People went to see these things way before TV.

    Nowhere did I say that they make decisions for controversy. They make decisions that can be controversial. That's just the way it is, so I'm more than happy to sit back and enjoy the ride.
    The best thing football could do for refereeing at this point is reverse all the advices that have been piled on to refs over the years and start officiating the rules as they are written rather than as what the sort of collective delusion of fans/pundits/players/executives might think they are.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sr90)

    The thing that I want resolved is how spectators in the ground are informed. Old Trafford doesn't have a big screen and there's no place to put it. Anfield doesn't have one either and again, I can't see where it could go.
    You could put one by the disabled section on where the South Stand meets the East Stand. Guessing you could do something similar at the other end.

    On the roof would have been an option if it didn't slope down too much. Celtic Park has it like that.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheMagicRat)
    A lot of the rules of football are too vague though for anyone to simply be a messenger. A lot is open to interpretation.

    TV doesn't make something theatre. People went to see these things way before TV.

    Nowhere did I say that they make decisions for controversy. They make decisions that can be controversial. That's just the way it is, so I'm more than happy to sit back and enjoy the ride.
    That's just the rulemakers putting responsibility on the refs as an easy way out. They have humans there, so lets add human decision-making, they figure. I don't know how it's not obvious they're not participants in the sport and I feel a bit weird talking about it like this.

    EXACTLY! TV doesn't make something theatre and people were watching sport long, long before Sky. In football's case, most fans go out of a feeling of representation in competition. They don't go to see if Team A gets screwed by an incorrect decision in this episode to make their league campaign interesting.

    Nowhere did I say that they make decisions for controversy. I was applying your 'incorrect decisions are better' and 'it's theatre not sport' logic to a situation where even you would surely see how it isn't the case and would be damaging to those involved.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    I was applying your 'incorrect decisions are better' and 'it's theatre not sport' logic to a situation where even you would surely see how it isn't the case and would be damaging to those involved.
    Don't think I said incorrect decisions are better but if I did then I didn't mean to. I'm just saying that they are inevitable and that can add to the drama and overall spectacle as you see how people deal with that.

    I don't say its theatre not sport, I say sport is theatre. All I'm saying is that all the human condition is there for us all to see and its those moments of real emotion that I think people hold onto. Of course, those moments are as a direct result of the sporting action but people love and remember those moments, sometimes, more than the action itself. Tardelli's celebration, Grosso's celebration, Mourinho running down the touchline, Souness and the Galatasaray flag are just some of those moments that come to mind. All I'm saying is that that is what I watch sport for, those moments that move me in some way. As I say, the sporting action dictates they kind of emotions the athletes may feel so of course they are interlinked.

    I feel I've explained myself and my comments on the theatre aspect of it, so you can reply but I won't be replying again because we'll obviously just be going round in circles unable to get on board with each other. Thanks for the discussion.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheMagicRat)
    Don't think I said incorrect decisions are better but if I did then I didn't mean to. I'm just saying that they are inevitable and that can add to the drama and overall spectacle as you see how people deal with that.

    I don't say its theatre not sport, I say sport is theatre. All I'm saying is that all the human condition is there for us all to see and its those moments of real emotion that I think people hold onto. Of course, those moments are as a direct result of the sporting action but people love and remember those moments, sometimes, more than the action itself. Tardelli's celebration, Grosso's celebration, Mourinho running down the touchline, Souness and the Galatasaray flag are just some of those moments that come to mind. All I'm saying is that that is what I watch sport for, those moments that move me in some way. As I say, the sporting action dictates they kind of emotions the athletes may feel so of course they are interlinked.

    I feel I've explained myself and my comments on the theatre aspect of it, so you can reply but I won't be replying again because we'll obviously just be going round in circles unable to get on board with each other. Thanks for the discussion.
    And this is why I skim the first/last sentences of long posts rather than read it through.

    If you actually believed there was no point in replying, you wouldn't have replied. But instead you try to have your say then cover your ears and run away to get the last word.

    Why should I think your view is valid if you don't even believe in it yourself? It was nutty enough to start with, now I think you're bonkers.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Did you see Barcellona versus Chelsea? How can you say that VAR tecnology is not necessary to see an equity match. Maybe the show will be more slow and the game will became chopped, these tecnology will change the Soccer. I think that a good sportive entertaiment is first in the idea of equity.
    The audience will quit if there is not a sane competition, the soccer istitution must fix the problem about the refs's mistake.
    We have to remember the original purpose in the sport: education. The game should teach to people how work in team, engage hard, respect the other and so on. If there isn't a equity in the game and we can get fake results, in this way the pedagogic goal in the sport is corrupted.

    I'm sure that the Barcellona is now better than the Chelsea, but the potential penalty could change totaly the match. Maybe we could talking about a differnt score, if there was the VAR in Champion Legue.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: March 15, 2018
The home of Results and Clearing

955

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.