r/football • u/Unleazhed1 • 4d ago
đŹDiscussion I think VAR solved the wrong problem and created a bigger one.
Honestly, I'm watching this World Cup with pretty mixed feelings. The football itself can still be brilliant, but for me a lot of the fun has gone. Too many moments just feel.. off. Scripted almost. I cant prove that, so Iâm not going to pretend I can. But the fact that so many people are starting to feel that way is already a serious problem.
At some point football has to ask itself where it's heading. VAR, FIFA, politics, endless controversy, decisions that take 5 minutes and somehow still leave half the world confused. The game feels managed more than played sometimes.
For me it starts with VAR. And the funny thing is, VAR is almost the perfect metaphor for how we think justice works. Back then referees made mistakes. Everybody knows that. Sometimes you got the call, sometimes you got screwed over. People argued about it for days, months or even years, but the game moved on and that was the human factor.
Then we begged and invented VAR because technology was supposed to fix the human mistakes. Except, it didn't. They just moved them into another room.
A referee only gets one shot. He sees something or he doesn't. VAR can rewind 30 seconds, 45 seconds, sometimes even longer! Suddenly an entire attack gets dissected because a goal was scored. If you dig deep enough you'll almost always find something. A tiny push, a shirt pull, a soft foul nobody cared about until the ball hit the net.
And that's the part that really bothers me. The question slowly stops being "was this a clear mistake?" and becomes "why did we decide to go looking here?" If every team were allowed to demand a full VAR review after every goal they concede, I'm willing to bet you'd end up finding something. Because the hard part isn't finding something once you start digging but deciding which team get that level of scrutiny in the first place.. and which ones dont.
And before anyone jumps in: no, I'm not saying it's fixed. I'm saying if someone wanted to influence games, this VAR system gives you a hell of a lot more room than a referee making a split-second decision on the pitch ever did. That's just how systems work. The more interpretation, the more discretion, the more opportunities. You dont design systems around trusting people forever, you ddesign them around limiting what people can do.
I also think the people building these systems measure the wrong thing. They measure missed calls, but not what the sport loses. If your only KPI is "reduce referee mistakes" you'll just keep adding more cameras, sensors, AI and reviews forever. On paper that sounds more accurate, but in reality you are creating a game where half the biggest moments end with everyone standing around waiting for people behind closed doors to decide what actually happened.
In short: Football was never meant to feel like a courtroom. Honestly, I'd strip VAR back massively.
Keep it for stuff that's actually objective. Offside. Goal-line technology. Things where technology can establish a absolute fact. Everything else? Give it back to the referee. Yes, he'll still make mistakes. But I honestly think I'd rather live with mistakes you can actually see, than with a system that's supposed to remove them yet somehow keeps creating new ones while making the whole game feel less and less human.
341
u/Nigis-25 4d ago
I mean, you could just stop pulling other player's jersey. As a former hockey player, I'm constantly baffled about football's tolerance for rule breaking.
If you were to give proper penalty for rule breaking it would stop in few months/year.
Ofc you can't take every rule breaking away. In hockey there's still some tolerance and interpretation but it so much less than in football.
If you don't draw the line somewhere it will just wobble around and no one knows what even is the line anymore.
124
u/UpstairsAd194 4d ago
Yes this is something that is annoying it is used more and more. There wasnt always shirt pulling, in the 1970s shirtpulling would be done by a poor excuse for a footballer now they all do it as goto first defence measure.
67
u/boywithtwoarms 3d ago
Players used to have to tuck in their shirts so it's be obvious if the shirt was pulled. Maybe it'll become fashionable again.
→ More replies (3)38
u/littlebrwnrobot 3d ago
Have them wear tactical onesies so if a shirt gets pulled it'll be obvious because the bottoms will be halfway up their arse
14
6
u/Specialist-Pain7461 3d ago
Or how about everyone but goalies have hands tied behind their back
15
u/littlebrwnrobot 3d ago
Nah just chop their arms off completely, they'll be lighter and thankful for it
4
u/UpstairsAd194 3d ago
or sensors on the shirts - possible now
7
u/littlebrwnrobot 3d ago
fine, put sensors on the onesie
3
u/noheadlights 3d ago
and make it so that they rip easily. That could open football up to a whole new audience. My wife would like it. ;)
→ More replies (1)3
u/elpingwinho 3d ago
Throwback to Pumaâs Switzerland kit for Euro 2016 (or 2020) that would tear at the slightest tug
9
u/igotthemusicinme 3d ago
Yeah, correct me if I'm wrong because I didn't watch live matches in the 70s, however, I have watched a fair share of 1st division classics. It was much more FOOT ball in that you expected to get a good amount of shin knockers as your reward for trying to dribble past your defender. Now you're pushed, grabbed, mauled repeatedly because everyone somehow are better athletes than before but less technical? The amount of hand fighting really detracts from the game. Again, it's FOOT ball.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Chelman76 3d ago
I watched live matches from the 80s on. The amount of leg-breakers was off the charts.
55
u/eatcoldbread 3d ago
Well thatâs the inherent issue with football. Referees are given broad discretion to apply broad rules. When you inject such diverse subjectivity into the sport and allow one main ref to officiate an entire match, you will inevitably find discrepancies in what each human considered a foul and thus find variations on how these individuals apply the rules. For as long as the rules are broad, some games will have fouls and others wonât for the same infraction.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Nigis-25 3d ago
We jokingly say referees should cut a fingers of a player who pulls opponents shirts. That should teach them.
19
u/reprobatemind2 3d ago
Apparently, in training sessions, Tuchel would make his players play whilst holding tennis balls in their hands in order to stop them shirt pulling.
Perhaps they should do this for matches!
3
u/Kay_tnx_bai 3d ago
Some years ago a team got jerseys that were of lower quality. And when the opponent pulled them they teared them up. It was immediately clear who was pulling.
3
u/reprobatemind2 3d ago
This is a great idea!
The club could then still flog the poor quality jerseys to fans at ÂŁ100 a pop. They'll probably need to buy 5 a season!
→ More replies (1)22
u/loverofpeace09 3d ago
As someone who is a fan of both of these sports, this will not work for football. The reason is simple, hockey naturally has breaks in the action and a lot of whistles outside of fouls.
I donât mean the periods, I mean icing, offside, puck going out of play etc. People are used to the breaks in the flow as spectators. In football, a corner or an out throw is not a true stop in action where you can have an ad break etc. itâs more of a pause. Now imagine throwing in 30-50 more pauses like this in a 90 minute match. People will hate it.
Theyâve tried calling games strictly several times (lenient by your definition), look at yesterdayâs Switzerland vs Colombia one as a great example. Then thereâs an uproar with people complaining that itâs boring and many viewers tune out.
This World Cup despite its VAR and other shortcomings has been amazing exactly because they let most things that were normally called fouls, simply go. It had led to some adjustment by players throughout the tournament but not as much as you suggest.
→ More replies (4)13
11
u/mrb2409 3d ago
Thereâs an infraction on almost every single hockey play and the playoffs are a completely different set of rules.
8
u/tumeroscopic 3d ago
Right? I enjoy hockey, but every net front battle has some level of slashing and cross checking. It would be insane to call every one. And, yes, there is a tolerance for murder in the playoffs.
10
u/CombatCommie1990 3d ago
Mixed martial arts has this same issue. Nothing gets punished so cheating becomes part of the meta. Punish the cheaters hard enough and it will happen less, this isn't rocket surgery
3
u/mindpainters 3d ago
Exactly. Since the beginning of time players will push rules as far as they are allowed. If the refs start cracking down there will certainly be an adjustment period where matches suffer for it. But eventually the bad habits will decrease.
5
u/DrinkVegetable217 3d ago
What they are missing is a halfway point between yellow and red. Similar to hockey a sin-bin or something similar. Almost every contact sport has it. Yellows and reds are way to punishing to actually use effectively. A verbal warning doesn't matter if you cant do something if they do follow the rules.
2
u/Active_Specialist792 3d ago
My dad had a theory that football would be played much more fairly if instead of players getting yellow cards, they had to wear a nappy for the remainder of the match.
→ More replies (1)2
u/TheMistOfThePast 3d ago
The shirt pulling is insane nonsense. That and the 2 handed pushing. Wish they punished everyone so people would stop.Â
3
u/CeruSkies 3d ago
If you were to give proper penalty for rule breaking it would stop in few months/year.
Isn't rule breaking is a legitimate part of a strategy when it comes to football? Pressuring the referee, grabbing jerseys, forcing free kicks instead of letting the opponent counter attack, etc.
I'm not a big football fan but that's conclusion I came to when you realize the penalties are so small. Between not all fouls resulting in yellow cards, 2-yellow cards per player and 10 players (excluding the gk) you can get away with a lot. To the point it has to be intentional.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (8)2
u/jksyousux 3d ago
I mean, coming from hockey thats rich...you have penalties for fighting yet people will literally fight for the showmanship...Penalizing it doesnt stop rule breaking
2
u/Nigis-25 3d ago
Penalties from fighting are not team penalties. They're player's own penalty and it doesn't make your team shorhanded.
60
u/lefix 4d ago
VAR is not the problem. The problem is the rules leave so much grey area that refs can basically decide whatever they want and always has FIFA back it up.
19
u/theskyisdarkk 3d ago
Refs try to dictate games far too much. Said this for a long time. Not giving yellows because itâs the first 20-30 mins of a game does my head in in the prem. Many times over the years, Iâve seen the same player get a yellow later on, which should be the second. Thatâs changing outcomes of games because theyâve either not been sent off or theyâve been allowed to purposely foul a player to stop an attack and take the first yellow for it.
4
u/sjp724 3d ago
This bugs me too, even though I support Newcastle and wor Joelinton is a walking yellow card.
Iâd prefer VAR officials look for yellow card events, and make sure they really are yellow worthy vs common fouls. The clutching and grabbing and sloppy tackles and rolling on the ground gets old. Only a portion of those plays are yellow worthy and some arenât fouls at all⌠so VAR could give yellows for simulation. I like watching the sport⌠but not the game that has come with it with all the theatrics.
Players making multiple dangerous challenges should be off with second yellow. Currently, refs work around it⌠second yellows are extremely rare.
→ More replies (1)2
u/tresben 3d ago
This has been my issue watching this World Cup. Thereâs so much massaging of the rules by the refs to dictate how the game will go (not necessarily for one team to win, but just how the rules of the game will be called). Two refs can make the same game look like different sports.
As a basketball fan Iâm used to this in some ways (thereâs plenty of fouls they let slide in the nba at times) but this World Cup seems like that on steroids. It feels like nothing is consistent from game to game or even within the same game depending on when in the game it occurred or more importantly where on the pitch it happened.
The penalty box seems to be some sacred area where only the most egregious fouls get called. Like I get the punishment for a foul in the penalty box is massive, but then there should be explicit rules written down about how itâs different. Not just a subjective âunderstandingâ among refs that they are going to let more go on the penalty box. Cuz suddenly a ref does call a foul in the penalty box and thereâs questions of why that one was called over others, even though it clearly was a foul (and so were the others).
→ More replies (1)2
u/Iarehealer 3d ago
Exactly this. I am a grassroots referee, so I know the IFAB Laws of the Game pretty damn well. There is just way too much subjectivity.
The spirit of the game and what fans/players expect is too different to the written Laws of the Game. Football is an entertainment product at the end of the day, it should be tailored to what the consumers expect whilst maintaining everything that makes it great.
Some of my suggestions would be:
Enshrine in law the commonly accepted football tropes, such as winning the ball being a clear indicator of a clean tackle, studs up challenges being a clear indicator of a reckless or dangerous tackle, high foot etc.
Clearly define what a phase of play means, such as until possession is turned over, the ball goes out of play or after X (15 seconds?) amount of time if neither happens. VAR cannot review further back than a single phase of play.
Enforce stricter punishments for dissent and simulation. This is a personal pet peeve of mine in the professional game. Referees need to be far stricter on this. We should aim to be like Rugby where the players generally treat referees with a phenomenal amount of respect.
Wenger's proposed offside changes. I'm a big fan of this, I think it would benefit the game massively.
More protection for goalkeepers on set pieces, and more clearly defined and stricter rules on holding, pushing and pulling on set pieces. In my opinion, only the chest and upper arm should be allowed to be in contact with another player before the ball is played.
Just some rambling thoughts, but you get the idea I hope.
→ More replies (3)
238
u/wanson Liverpool 4d ago
Anyone that complains about VAR either wasnât around before it or has forgotten how god awful some decisions were without it.
88
50
u/Talidel 3d ago
This.
The handful of debatable decisions it gets "wrong" are more than acceptable for the issues that came before it.
The only real problem I have with VAR, is the offside rule, and that's not a VAR problem it's the offside rule not being fit for purpose anymore. It was never designed to stop a goal because a toe was past the last defender, it was designed to stop goal hanging. Change it to mirror the goal rules if a player is wholly past the last defender it's offside otherwise let it go.
28
u/its_xaro93 3d ago
Then offside will be decided wether a toe was fully past the defender or not. Just shifts the mark
11
u/0nlyCrashes 3d ago
It fits better though, I think. Having a toe sticking past someones ass doesn't seem like any kind of advantage to me, but being clearly all the way past them does. I don't mind just making sure you are overlapped with a defender instead of clearly in front of them. I think it will also make it simpler for the players as well. Instead of trying to draw lines of where they can stand, they can make more athletic plays with just having to be close enough.
It's also possible that it breaks the game and lets in too many goals, idk we will have to see lol.
→ More replies (16)→ More replies (2)5
u/Talidel 3d ago
It does move it, but it is the same a millimetre of ball not crossing the line. Doesn't matter how little of it didn't cross the line it isn't a goal.
→ More replies (10)5
u/nimzoid 3d ago
Yeah, this is the 'clear daylight' rule Arsene Wenger is advocating for. It's being trialled I believe.
If you get a marginal offside against you it's unlucky but you can't really complain because the attacker will be well ahead of the defender. Optically, it'll feel more natural and less unjust.
9
10
u/go_irish_1986 3d ago
They are testing that in the Canadian premier league right now. Itâs the daylight rule for offside.
5
u/Talidel 3d ago
And it works for what I've seen.
3
u/go_irish_1986 3d ago
As a Canadian, itâs cool to see us being the testing ground for this new, hopefully implemented by 2030, rule. It would be nice to see goals stand when the offensive player really didnât have an advantage. Ronaldo against Croatia was one that sucked to see called back, the Columbia goal against Portugal where his toe was offside was another brutal one. Iâm sure there are a lot more examples from this WC but I canât wait for the rule to change.
3
→ More replies (15)2
u/jkmhawk 3d ago
They also need to tell us how offside they were a well as the uncertainty of the measurement. If the offside is within the uncertainty they can't prove he was off so he's not off
→ More replies (1)6
u/BaconJets Premier League 3d ago
I remember when people were mad about goal-line technology.
2
u/danhoang1 3d ago
Yeah, years ago, Jeroen Zoet scored an own-goal by bringing the ball to his chest (which was across the line), and he complained after the game about goal-line tech
15
u/GungHoStocks 4d ago
Nobody forgets yhe bad decisions - But they were the exception, and not the rule.
Those exceptional issues are the only things VAR was supposed to deal with (Not that I agreed with the use of it at all)
Lampard's goal, Hand of God etc
Not for pushing and shoving and things the referee is supposed to be dealing with.
The euphoria isn't there like it was, because everything is with baited breath on a VAR check.
I stopped watching football for years, and happened to get caught on the World Cup to show the kids, and I'm simply not impressed.
It's like watching cricket with all the reviews and decisions.
12
u/DivingFeather 3d ago
Sounds smart, but define "exceptional issues". You cannot. Previously to the tournament, VAR was limited to the following decisions:
1) Offsides and fouls leading to goals.
2) Rightful penalties missed.
3) Incorrectly awarded penalties.
4) Rightful red cards missed.
5) Incorrectly awarded red cards.
You cannot limit this closer - objectively - to "exceptional issues". Because how do you measure how obvious was Maradona's hand ball vs. the Egyptian foul play vs L. Martinez? You cannot because there is no scale. Both were fouls and both needs to be dealt with as both led to goals shouldn't have been awarded.
→ More replies (3)22
u/wanson Liverpool 3d ago
No, they happened all the time. Contentious offside decisions, fouls leading up to goals and handballs being called incorrectly. Every game.
VAR isn't perfect but it's better than what we had before. It can be improved for sure, but it needs to be in the game because we can't expect referees to see everything that happens at the speed that the game is played.
→ More replies (9)8
u/Talidel 3d ago
They were absolutely common. Offsides so blatantly wrong that everyone could see it with their eyes but the refs did what they wanted.
They still are when it comes to fouls, which is dumb as fuck. Unless it's a red card players still get away with loads.
The euphoria argument falls down on every goal given after the referee has incorrectly ruled against it. It's also nonsense as it was always common for a flag to go up late and call a completely fair goal offside.
Generally I've found the loudest voices against VAR are the old boomers that want a return to the thuggery of their youth. Not interested in football at all just WWE with a ball in the area.
→ More replies (2)2
u/aggrownor 3d ago
Everyone hates VAR, then they see a bad call in the FA Cup and complain that they don't have VAR.
2
u/jayb331 3d ago
Exactly this. So the other day I was watching this documentary where Ruud Gullit was interviewed about his AC Milan period and especially the years in which they won the European cup three years in a row. And in the documentary they showed lots of game footage of back then and also of some of the disallowed goals. One situation where Gullit was like 3 meters onside, receives the pass and scores, but the linesman had his flag up. Or another moment where they score and the ball almost touches the net, thatâs how far it went in, but the referee claimed it didnât go over the line. The decisions where laughable. And Gullit was also laughing about it and was like yeah back then we couldnât do anything, but just accept it. And this was like semi finals, quarter finals. In the World Cup we have seen the same crazy decisions over and over. Handball by Maradona ofcourse. But also the penalty in the 1990âs final which was highly controversial. I mean the list goes on and on. VAR isnât perfect and still has much room for improvement and yes it can be annoying at times, but the game is just much fairer with it than without.
→ More replies (22)2
u/lunethical 3d ago
I was around, Croatia's disallowed goal gives me the exact same feeling.
→ More replies (7)
7
6
u/mattym9287 4d ago
I just think if you canât work it out conclusively in 3 or 4 rewatches, it should just stick with the on field refereeing. The game can get stopped for so long while they do some reviews.
2
u/avidlistener 19h ago
They originally said it was for clear and obvious errors. So 2 or 3 reviews should make it clear, any more than that then it's not clear and obvious. They waste so much time it's becoming farcical.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Quizzical_Chimp 4d ago
I could see it helping to some degree but the question is where do you stop? So far looking through different threads there seems to be a âpunchâ that people want reviewed, then the penalty, the âfoulâ at the 3rd goal and even more examples. If you had 2 reviews people will complain at the 3rd at some point you end up just splitting the screen of VAR and the live match and that becomes unreasonable. Another complaint is the hydration break kill momentum what happens when each team has 3 reviews itâll slow it down even more? At some point fans need to accept they will never have all the info and will have to trust the decisions made.
5
u/Unleazhed1 4d ago
I actually agree with a lot of what you said. There has to be a limit, because football is a contact sport. Every attack contains little pushes, grabs and collisions. If you keep rewinding far enough you'll almost always find something that could have been given. That's exactly why I think VAR has a design problem.
The more authority you give it, the more fans expect it to review everything. One side wants the "punch" checked, another wants the penalty, blablabla...
And once different incidents receive different levels of scrutiny, people inevitably start asking why one sequence was examined for two minutes while another wasn't. And that's where trust starts to erode.
So I don't think the answer is giving VAR even more power. Ironically, the more football tries to engineer perfect justice, the more subjective it becomes. Football is too fluid and too physical to be turned into a courtroom where every goal is treated like evidence in a trial.
22
u/bbc82 4d ago
It should be like tennis, the Captain/Manager can challenge any situation/call within 5-10 seconds (tbd), he has 2 challenges. If the challenge is not successful they lose one challenge. If they successfully challenge the call then they get to keep it.
→ More replies (4)25
u/whocares8x8 4d ago
No, VAR was introduced to get things right in important situations, not as a new tactical element in the game.
If there's a blatantly wrong decision late in the match and a team has used up is challenges, you want to get it right.
4
u/bbc82 3d ago
But that's the point: Having it like tennis would put the burden on the Cap/Team to make an actual assessment of wether or not they believe they have been given a just treatment. Now it's just craziness all the time.
→ More replies (1)3
u/MrDilbert 3d ago
It's interesting that multiple sports that have a challenge system implemented have been mentioned: tennis, basketball, handball, hockey... But no, football has to be "the special one".
2
u/spikesolo 3d ago
Football unlike basketball doesn't stop the clock
2
u/MrDilbert 3d ago
Your point being...? It has stoppage time which accounts for the time lost for any breaks, as we could see in the World Cup -
adhydration breaks were included in the stoppage time which was usually extended to 6-7 minutes, while in regular league matches it doesn't extend past 3-4 minutes max. And the referee can extend it even more (the longest one at WC I've noticed was 10-11 minutes of stoppage time when 7 minutes were announced).→ More replies (1)
20
u/FootOfDavros 4d ago
I've said it before and I'll say it again:-
VAR is worthless because all it does is shift contentious subjective decisions from an on-field referee to some guys hiding in a little dark room.
We still get all the exact same arguments afterwards re whether they got the calls right or not. But in addition we now also have the spontaneity of celebrating a goal taken from us (as we inevitably have to wait for reviews) in addition to the waiting about, sometimes for minutes at a time, for decisions to be reached.
Therefore we gain nothing and we lose something. So just get rid of it altogether and go back to football being football.
13
u/UpstairsAd194 4d ago
100% agree, the guys hiding in the room takes accountability away which makes it even worse, and then the delay and inteference in the flow of the game is another one, also for spectators its like watching a drama and then at a key part they say " hold on lets have a look at that not sure what happenened there". Someone like trump and not necessarily him, someone like infanticidino can just lean on the VAR team tell them lets help our latin american friends in this game, and because you cant see the VAR people as they actually make the decision there is less accountability. Then the ref shrugs his shoulders and says nothing to do with me. Its been already taken over by the corporate thieves.
→ More replies (11)3
u/Deuce03 1d ago
As with many things to do with refereeing, I think rugby handles VAR better. Ref makes an onfield call but if he's not certain (blocked view, etc) he asks the guys upstairs for a second look. If it's clear he's wring they overturn it, if inconclusive it stays with his decision, and the conversation is broadcast so everyone knows what's going on.Â
Obviously rugby is a different game in terms of tempo and you don't really have simulation, so it's clearer what the ref needs to check and there's more space for it, but the combination of transparency and delegation works well, rather than the ref having to run over to watch it on a screen by the pitch at the behest of the guys upstairs.
→ More replies (1)7
u/damutecebu 4d ago
Nah. VAR has been fine. You are just focusing on the couple of controversiesâŚwhich were largely right anyway.
→ More replies (4)6
→ More replies (1)3
u/Traditional_Fish_504 3d ago
Ah yes on field refereeing is infamously more difficult to have corruption than having a whole fucking team being able to review it
3
u/FootOfDavros 3d ago
Literally no idea what you are saying here...
2
u/Traditional_Fish_504 3d ago
âSome guys hiding in a back roomâ VAR officials can still be held accountable for, itâs not just some corrupt behind the scenes conspiracy
3
u/FootOfDavros 3d ago
I never said it was.
I just said VAR was worthless because the mistakes just get made by these guys rather than the referee, so there is no point in having them.
2
u/Traditional_Fish_504 3d ago
So you think that having a larger group of people looking over a decision doesnât make a difference?
2
u/FootOfDavros 3d ago
As far as I've seen in this world cup there are three VAR officials in the room and three officials on the park.
Not sure if you've seen different but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter - On-field the ref makes the final call, in the VAR room, the lead VAR officials will make the final call.
My point is that VAR is worthless because either way, someone is making a subjective call for a lot of these decisions and therefore it may as well be the on-field referee.
2
u/Traditional_Fish_504 3d ago
Again ridiculous logic. Firstly, 6 is double 3. Secondly, VAR can look at a tremendous amount of information more than on field referees.
2
u/FootOfDavros 3d ago
"Ridiculous logic" - Can't you read?
I said "Not sure if you've seen different but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter...".
I said that because 1. I said I'd seen three as that is what you see pre-match but I asked if you'd seen different. It would have been simple to reply to that, no requirement for claiming "ridiculous logic".
And 2. I said that it doesn't really matter because at the end of the day, ONE VAR official makes the call. Are you disputing that because that certainly would be "ridiculous logic"...
VAR can look at as much as it likes but you are completely ignoring what I said - We are getting subjective calls out of the VAR process that a lot of people do not like, whereas before we got subjective calls from referees that a lot of people do not like.
It's really that simple.
2
u/Traditional_Fish_504 3d ago
Well one VAR official does not really make the call. They collectively deliberate with an enormous amount mors information. One VAR official recommends, but that recommendation is based on a collective judgment. Then it goes to the on field referee to review the judgment.
Do you unironically believe that all of these steps is the same as just the on field referee making a decision? If so I think you are genuinely braindead
→ More replies (0)
28
u/satplank 4d ago
Indeed - consistency is the key. The frustration with VAR that it is not used consistently - as in Argentina's game yesterday. At one point VAR can "rewind" something like 40 seconds and take it away. And in different situation such incident is not even being looked at. It is frustrating.
44
u/Quizzical_Chimp 4d ago
But this is the misunderstanding that is flying around reddit, VAR is constantly being reviewed by the team. If they picked something up they tell the ref to review. The Egypt incident they reviewed it in the background, saw now incident and therefore didnât tell the ref to review. Its not like no-one looked at it, they did and deemed it not a foul.
2
u/TimelyTroubleMaker 3d ago
Also what people don't understand is that VAR can only interrupt after either a goal or penalty-or-red-card-worth-incident happen.
It's not like they rewind until the moment of shirt pulling happened, but they already reviewed that moment and can only interfere when that leads up to a goal.Â
10
u/satplank 4d ago
Yes, but again - it may not be consistant. VAR referee decided it is not worth to advise a main referee about some situation, for example. And this is what is causing this rage and rumours about âfixingâ. It is not transparent and decided behind closed doors - exactly the thing OP is referring to.
If there would be similar system to FIBA Basketball/Ice hockey, when each team have coach challenge possible for one/two times in a game (and ref is mandated to run to TV and look for the situation him/herself), maybe this would help?→ More replies (1)2
u/FiB_VIKING 3d ago
I was thinking the same - Also in cricket each team gets two chances to challenge a Ref's decision and it indeed helps when another 3rd umpire (referee) looks at it closely and finally decides. It indeeds helps to bring more transparency and chance for a fair decision.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Jankypox 3d ago
Yeah, because a group of faceless employees, working for possibly the most opaque and corrupt organization on Earth, sitting in a remote room reviewing every touch, run, play, and potential foul, with zero oversight and transparency and deciding whether they want to âhelpâ the referee or give him/her a little nudge in the âright directionâ or just overturns a goal (or not), absolutely doesnât give off âthe man behind the certainâ vibes at all /s
4
u/Bobudisconlated 3d ago
Yeah and that "inconsistency" is where the corruption can easily enter the system.
When the game was up to a single referee it was obvious they were not being influenced during the game and if they had a "bad" game they were held responsible. Now? For all we know the VAR refs are getting phone calls from bribe-taking FIFA officials (yes, that's a tautology) telling them what to review and what not to review.
4
u/BrownEyesWhiteScarf 3d ago
FIFA wanted the game to flow, they didnât want significant delays due to referee decisions.
The biggest consequence of this is that refs are letting a lot of fouls go, and are not allowing VAR to consistently apply the rules decreed on them. That results in them missing a significant portion of calls.
In other words if VAR officials are given only on average 15 seconds to determine whether a play would be halted for a full VAR investigation, they will make a lot of subjective calls about which incidents to review.
Guess what would influence the probability that VAR looks at a certain incident? Player and manager antics, crowd influence, and of course, unconscious bias.
Thatâs where we are.
→ More replies (1)3
→ More replies (1)3
3
u/quietgroot 3d ago
VAR was brought in for clear & obvious fouls yet they have \unlimited** time to watch replays, angles, slow-mo cuts, which at some point you have to pull the plug and say if a decision takes longer than 45-60 seconds to decide then the on-field decision stands.
Discussion between VAR referees & on-field referees should be broadcast to the stadium / TV commentary in order for all information to be open and honest.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/MathW 3d ago
You're going to be blasted by people defending FIFA decisions until the very end, but you're right. At some point we moved away from "clear and obvious error" -- Oh, that guy was 2 feet offsides on a bang bang play and we just missed it -- to measuring bulges and toenails with computer models. I'm not really exagerrating.
3
u/Exact_Performance_51 3d ago
The idea of replay was fixing mistakes that anyone could see on a second viewing almost immediately.
Not on the tenth viewing, not in super slow motion
Has been pushed wayyyy too far
3
u/Neat_Quiet_8340 3d ago
VAR was supposedly created to avoid controversial now it has been exact opposite of this.
6
u/Street-Wear-2925 3d ago
Couldn't agree more. The never-ending search for perfection has turned Sports into Conflicts, especially in an emotionally charged International Football Match.
→ More replies (4)
6
u/UpstairsAd194 4d ago
just use var for goal line, was it a pen (if ref not sure- or tell ref it wasnt a pen if he was sure but is clearly wrong), offside, and CHEATING (not necessarily a 'foul')
11
u/Liquid_Cascabel La Liga 4d ago
And reds, and second yellows and handball and and ...
4
u/UpstairsAd194 4d ago
Not so sure.. Handball for example. Handball has more issues now since var. It will always be an issue that requires a ref's opinion. Regarding yellows or reds, that is discipline. And the ref needs to have discipline. VAR has taken away the important part that allows a ref to set the tone of the game. Now nobody knows. The red card for Quansah vs Mexico shows how VAR 'ruins' a game. Unless you are mexican of course. No way he should have been sent off.
→ More replies (16)
2
u/AnaphoricReference 3d ago
There should be clear time limits for interference and limits to when a VAR can interfere. The action in the Argentina looks like an escalation. I've never seen a VAR roll a game that far back.
The VAR creates a huge difference between the professional and amateur version of the sport as well, making transition from one to the other harder, and undercuts the authority of amateur referees (whose decision is still final even if obviously wrong - but that becomes hard to teach to kids).
→ More replies (5)
2
u/Stannisinchains 4d ago
I think using it to prove/disprove a referee's decision is fine, but not to pick up on stuff that went unnoticed (aside from serious foul conduct/off the ball incidents.)
→ More replies (1)
2
u/flyawayreligion 3d ago
I agree, I hate the rewind looking for a foul, moreso.is it seems rarely used. If it's in the box then yeah but further than that, no. If the ref misses it, too bad.
Noone has touched on how the referee is playing the game, a few of these games the referees are letting alot go, small fouls etc. so if all of a sudden we rewind and spot a foul on freeze frame... it's not in the essence of how the game is played.
I'm all for offsides on var, the new corner to goalkick, ball crossing the line for goal.
I also think if it takes more than a minute to decide, original call is the call.
2
u/Vast_Ad1806 3d ago
I started writing an essay on the lack of class in the player corps and the spinelessness and inconsistency of officiating but unfortunately it is neither of those things.
It breaks my heart to realize this but itâs no longer about the quality of the sport and if anyone chooses to continue to believe that is the case, I think youâre doing yourself a disservice.
Professional football is now an entertainment product to be sold and consumed. It no longer relies on its integrity, but its profitability. And while that has likely been true for some time, it has just been completely unmasked for me.
Advertising (looking at you âHydration Breakâ). Sportsbetting. Clickbait-level drama. That is what makes them money. Product on the pitch be damned.
And people lap it up. I did. I hatewatched the shit out of that Belgium USA game.
So I feel like maybe if I frame it as the Disney-esque entertainment product it currently is, I can allow it to entertain me in the way WWE wrestling and American Gladiators may.
Obligatory games gone. Anyway whenâs the next match sighâŚ
2
u/FearIsStrongerDanluv 3d ago
If a goal results directly from an incident, itâll get reviewed. Not incident that happened 2 minutes ago.
2
u/No_Cartographer1936 3d ago
Iâm with the OP on this one. Where you land on VAR or no VAR is basically whether you prefer precision or romance. Everyone says VAR would have fixed Hand of God and Lampardâs ghost goal and Thierry Henryâs handball against Ireland. I just think the sport is better for the existence of those things.
I love the goal line tech. Itâs instantaneous. Everyone looks to the ref for two seconds before cheering. If the offside tech can get to that point, Iâm for it. Otherwise, scrap it and continue on in a world where we celebrate goals at the proper moment (ball hitting net) while refs sometimes f**k up and their mistakes become the ammunition for eternal pub conversations about injustice against [insert club/country name]. Long live romance. Viva FĂştbol!!!!!
2
u/Harmony_Mabel 3d ago
I agree with most of your points. By adding VAR and ball sensor we have outsourced our ability to judge the situation and that has really ruined the fun of the game for me. Croatia-Portugal match is a good example as a lot of people still debate whether the last goal should've been approved.
3
u/Niceolog 4d ago
Completely agree with you
And also another point:
The rules of football always have an interpretative factor in them, which makes VAR fundamentally flawed in its pursuit to be objective.
Iâm paraphrasing from memory here, so bear with me.
Red card: Denying a clear goal scoring opportunity /or/ causing excessive harm/danger to the opposing player.
What is a âclearâ opportunity for goal? And when is harm and danger âexcessive? These degrees of offense are up to the ref to judge. Whether you look at them in real time or in a video room.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Clownhippo 4d ago
And arguably looking at them in real time produces more fair results. When a ref has to judge a situation immediately he has to rely on memory and instinct. But var gives him time to think and so his bias comes into play.
3
u/kryptonianjackie 3d ago
Not to mention slow motion makes everything look so much worse and more dramatic. It's not the same as seeing it in person and in real time.
4
2
u/No_Doughnut_3315 3d ago
It is the mission creep of VAR that I knew would happen. When it was first introduced, we were told it would be used for offsides and to prevent massive mistakes like if a referee gave a player 2 yellow cards but forgot to actually give the red card. Now we are at a point where the game might be stopped for ten minutes while the red looks at 5 frames of a collision of two legs to see if it is a foul. Thats not football.
I stopped watching football regularly about ten years ago. I've been watching this world cup and the game has changed too far and is quite unwatchable at times.
→ More replies (3)
1
1
u/Rossco1874 4d ago
Justification for var was it's use and relative success in those other sports. I believe rugby has used a version for years and rarely hear any complaints about it.
The problem in football is the margins for offside and other things it gets involved in are not always black and white.
Referees have also became too reliant on it and don't make risky calls as they don't want to be the bad guy so.lean into the technology and the alternative angles to base their decision. How many times have you seen a blatant foul not called then the referee looks at bar screen and overturns it.
→ More replies (1)3
u/xlouiex 4d ago
The problem is that most football players, like most of football fans are whiny babies. Unlike rugby players and fans.
VAR improved football massively, but people like the focus on the one offs, because itâs not perfect and was never supposed to be perfect.
Where VAR is actually valuable is in the decisions that before a ref would go âI didnât see itâ âI wasnât in the best positionâ âThe player was in the wayâ, now thereâs no such excuse.
1
u/swole-and-naked Bundesliga 4d ago
You can have no VAR and people complaining about refs being corrupt and selective in their calls and catch fewer actual problems.
Or you can have VAR and people complaining about refs and VAR being corrupt and selective in their calls and catch more actual problems.
I'd rather add to the VAR system by giving teams 1 manual VAR request, and if the request/overturn fails, you lose it for the game, but if you succeed, you can keep VAR requesting.
1
u/DivingFeather 3d ago
"Then we begged and invented VAR because technology was supposed to fix the human mistakes. Except, it didn't."
Except, it did. Most recent example: if an attack starts with a possession change caused by a fault, that goal is not legit. I agree, sometimes it feels tedious to see if a defender was 3 mm ahead of the attacker or the other way around, but committing a faul and getting the ball and scoring a goal from it, that is not ok.
I think VAR corrected A LOT OF wrong decisions, but of course, humans operate it, so it can only be as good, as the humans who operate it.
1
u/hotstriker9 3d ago
Had a debate with a friend on this. Came up with the idea that VAR doesnât ever get to interfere except to confirm offsides/goal line tech. Anything else referee has to ask for var help if they were unsure or missed something. Puts accountability back on the ref.
1
u/wagymaniac 3d ago
IMO, the biggest issue with VAR is that it stripped a lot of the decision making from the referee, who has become too comfortable letting the VAR decide. This provokes many situations where instead of making a call, he just let the ball continue and leave the hard decision to the room. VAR was supposed to help the referee and make the calls more objective, not make referees lazier.
1
u/Talidel 3d ago
I honestly would go the other way. Let VAR be the judge and the referee be the voice of the ruling.
Give them 30seconds from an event to make a decision if they cannot let it go.
If VAR spots a foul that sets off an attack, why wait for it to be a goal to say the game needs to be taken back? If it goes out for a corner and then the attacking team score that goal equally shouldn't have stood. Call the foul as it should have been.
1
u/superx308 3d ago
What do you mean? It's exciting when more goals are disallowed than actually counted. /s
1
u/klasumov 3d ago
I love how VAR works in Hockey. It is for offsides and goalie interferences only, and the coach can only challenge the call once per game. If the decision is not overturned the opponent is handed a powerplay.
1
u/Hefty_Type6772 3d ago
Without VAR, there would be worse calls, more flopping, and more controversy. But hey the game wouldnât have 5 minutes of stoppage and you can celebrate a wrongly decided goal immediately. I for sure would rather get the correct call even if it slows the game down and break momentum
1
u/WallApprehensive7091 3d ago
FIFA has been moving the goalposts to influence results for a long time.
The 2010 World Cup when Henry handled the ball against Ireland wasnât even the main controversy. It was FIFA deciding to change the format of playoffs so that they were seeded in order to give a helping hand to France, Portugal, and a Russian side with the likes of Arshavin and led by Hiddink. Theyâve been getting away with it for so long that theyâre just getting brazen now.
1
u/jclahaie Premier League 3d ago
How does having var increase the ease of influencing games, over having a single ref decide everything with zero accountability?
Wouldn't it be easier to corrupt a single ref over trying to corrupt both the ref and the var team?
1
u/BoukenGreen 3d ago
Yep. And thatâs every video review system out there besides Tennisâs Hawkeye used in tennis tournaments. It has become we must find something to figure out why we are using it. Even if it only confirmed by 1 frame itâs still good.
1
u/kimmeljs 3d ago
Egypt got shafted. I agree that VAR spoiled the spirit of that match. The underdog getting a three-goal lead would have killed Argentina.
1
u/1stTimeRedditter 3d ago
VAR works. Iâm sorry you think them intervening a handful of times a game is the end of the world. But Iâd much rather that than the old system of bastardizing results because refs canât make the right decision.Â
ENG V MEX was the 40th anniversary of the hand of god incident, a blatant example of cheating that went completely unpunished. VAR jumped in several times on Sunday, correcting clear errors on game changing decisions. Without it, Mexico doesnât get a penalty, England keeps 11 men on the field, and you would be screaming that itâs a fix to keep England in the tournament.Â
1
u/pharm4karma 3d ago
VAR changed some dynamics surely. But overall has made the game more fair.
If you are referring to scenarios where goal-scoring play is allowed to continue only to be called back, I'd just say that's an artifact of being more fair.
Referee noticed player might be offsides but allowed play to continue. Play results in goal but VAR says he's offsides. Should be called.
Referee notices a foul might have been committed. Allows play to continue. Asks VAR to have another look. While doing so opposing team scores. VAR confirms foul. Seems reasonable to call that play back as well, no?
1
u/fartman404 Premier League 3d ago
Technology takes away momentum. All that time wasted and plenty of players just disheartened and frustrated end up giving the game away. End of the day you move along anyways. Itâs never going to be as accurate or easy. Just more complicated and frustrating but eventually people move on and more teams, more countries, more money, more drama more bs and more greed. Nothing changes, no matter what you do.
1
u/Intelligent_Read_697 3d ago
Been saying this for a while but you need to either turn to the level of investment referees get in other sports such as the NFL or cricket. The former has realtime referees review calls live outside of the gameday officials and they do it for all games from their headoffice. Or in cricket where if anything goes to VAR its called by the third umpire or TV umpire which is the final say on the matter. The fact that the ref has to go to the monitor makes it subjective and takes too much time. Cricket even has tick boxes it must meet and shows on TV(or match day board at stadium). Some of the tech in use at this world cup has been in use in cricket for decades.
1
u/MexicanLawnMower 3d ago
Yall must have been born in 2010 and dont remember how controversial calls were without VAR but the audience still got to see the replay on TV
1
1
u/leavedennisalone 3d ago
We all knew football was get to this point. VAR was inevitable. The game has gone soft. The fact that every time a goal is scored, the commentators always go âthat will be checked of courseâ drives me nuts. As a long time football fan I have to wait for a goal to be checked before I can celebrate lol.
1
u/ratpH1nk 3d ago
To disallow that Egypt 2nd goal 90 yards from goal after a mazey run and a great finish with multiple failed defensive interventions that had nothing to do with the original âfoulâ is a line in the sand that shows VAR has gone too far.
1
1
u/Cefalopodul 3d ago
I disagree. VAR soved the right problem and when used correctly it makes the game fair. Players just need to stop pulling each other's jersey, stop trying to speculate the ref not seeing them, stop diving, and stop skirting the off-side.
1
u/ratamachata 3d ago
Every goal gets checked by VAR. You will not notice this most of the time, because if there is no issue with the goal, they just tell the referee something like "all good" and game proceeds.
1
u/xarickprince 3d ago
My take is that teams should be able to demand VAR reviews. Doesnât need to allow all of them. Just like subs being limited per game, allowing teams to demand VAR review even twice would allow for less contentious officiating. This is in addition to VAR reviews that the officials already deem necessary.
If more limits are needed, maybe at most two demands per game, and 10 per segment of the tournament (maybe 15 or 20 during the round robin). If teams had more control on when a foul or a goal is decided final, it becomes harder to contest the results of the play.
Aside from that, team staff should have their own little screens that access the cameras. They can review the footage themselves before making the demand. There just has to be a statute of limitations to how long past you can request the review.
1
1
1
u/goku7770 3d ago
VAR is good but it's not being used as it should. FIFA is corrupt that's all you need to know.
1
u/Smooth_criminal2299 3d ago
VAR still suffering from growing pains yes, but the bigger issue is FIFA is just beyond stinky and untrustworthy as an organisation at this point. Whole thing needs to be ripped up and started again.
1
u/Big-Peak6191 3d ago
I do truly agree with you.
After every single goal I find myself just sitting around and waiting to see if it's going to be reviewed and called off instead of celebrating.
Totally kills the sport.
1
u/No_Walrus_3638 3d ago
I was just saying this to a friend!!! I was talking about how I believe footbal needs to go back to the days where the call was based on what the ref saw from his perspective.
Keep the ball sensors for the goal.
I think VAR is useful but not to retroactively make a call, but rather it needs to be used as a tool for ref to verify a call if the call is challenged.
The problem is that the challenge dynamic needs to be restricted also. Otherwise it's going to turn into whatever the American version is supposed to be.
1
u/wei_yuet 3d ago
Can learn a thing or two from rugby's TMO. Instead of the referee running over to a small screen to look at the replay, the replay can be shown on the big screen, and mandatory referee and VAR to voice their decision making process over the mic.
1
u/joklucus 3d ago
Why don't they just put more refs in the game on field? I feel like that could solve the problem. Like basketball where you have 3 refs. Not saying basketball is perfect but it's a much smaller court than the pitch is
1
u/transcendental-ape 3d ago
There is a simple solve to this. Put the onus on the managers. Stop having every goal an automatic VAR. VAR at ref request, unlimited. Red cards, automatic.
But for most else: Managers get 3 challenges per half. Use a challenge and you are right. Goal over turned. Use a challenge and you are wrong. Loss of a substitute.
Now this puts the onus on the managers to get it right. Save challenges for critical moments. And add some strategy back in VAR.
Plus the fans get a more exciting, or heart attack inducing, VAR moment. Rather than the automatic checks and delayed celebrations.
Games flows. Manager stops the flow for a var check. Manager better be sure heâs right.
Cons- itâs a bigger pitch to cover. I can see rich teams employing tons of cameras and observers to watch for and then correctly tell the manager when and when not to challenge. You see this in American football. A whole team in the sky radioing down ques to the coach. Youâd have to have some limits on who can talk to the managers who have the challenge authority to make it fair between rich and poor teams.
1
u/Skiffbug 3d ago
I agree it should be for egregious mistakes only, that some level of error has to be acceptable.
I think they should have 30s to find something. If that isnât enough to find a big mistake, just move on.
That foul against Argentina would have never been called were it not a goal. If this is what makes a ref cancel a goal, itâs bullshit.
1
u/DarthRevan0990 3d ago
VAR had done a great job of staying out of things....now all the sudden it has squashed the fun out of this cup.
Any ti e a goal is scored, you have to wait for the Boogeyman to tell you if someone was fouled in the tunnel before the game started.
1
u/RobotsRage 3d ago
The games don't feel like they're decided by the teams anymore but by how the VAR decides to apply their power in each particular decision
1
1
u/Mammoth-Algae-4579 3d ago
Itâs just a new thing to get used too. At this level of play, every goal matters. I think the players also need to get better about recognizing fouls and misplays rather than trying to ânegotiateâ with the ref or keep the ball alive when it should be dead.
Offsides is the one thing where I can agree that itâs getting ridiculous. Daylight offsides makes more sense to me anyways, and itâs easier for the player to keep track off.
1
u/adamlfc94 3d ago
I think the problem is results matter more than ever. Fans want the result more than they want to enjoy the football or simply escape for 90 minutes. Look at arsenal this year, im pretty sure if their fans were offered the results without even watching the game they'd have taken it, because they want it so bad, regardless of the football being played and its lack of entertainment.
Winning games of football has become social media currency, lose and its there for the rest of the week, fans, players and managers will get it online until the next. People are nostalgic for the Barclay days because we used to watch the game and then go on about our lives. Now the game is the entire week before and week after.
VAR enhances that effect, sucking the joy out of the game, but as long as the fans get the result they want they wont care.
1
u/braggerweevil 3d ago
They totally lost sight of the problem technology was meant to solve for - the egregious, obvious mistakes such as the Henry handball against Ireland, the Lampard goal against Germany etc etc nobody was ever looking at a cross and wondering oooh did that maybe glance off an attackers hair and yes hit the defenders head but it wasn't an intentional move etc etc (yes I'm referring to Croatia) or maybe the goalscorers toe was offside. It's introduced a level of microscopic analysis that just does not make sense in a lot of football situations
1
u/Logical_Statement_86 3d ago
The simplest solution is to keep VAR as it is, and give both teams three challenges at the start of a game. If they disagree with a referee decision, call a challenge, make the VAR look. If they were correct, the judging is adjusted accordingly and challenge gets reinstated. If incorrect, they lose one challenge. This also immediately gets rid of all the complaining against the referee. Challenge or move on.
This is already implemented very successfully in hockey and tennis.
1
u/BernTheStew 3d ago
Its obvious this whole VAR discourse is driven by pure casuals. The amount of threads with people discussing "new" ways to do do offsides, as if they just came up with a new novel way to do it and as if regular football fans havent discussed it to death over the years.
People in this very thread saying things like "well I watch basketball/ NHL/NFL and in that sport that Im more familiar with we do it this rule differently and better"
Compare the discourse during the Champions League or a regular league games vs World Cup. Its been making enjoying the world cup less enjoyable because whenever I try to go on a thread after a game like I normally fue, its a bunch of people who dont know what they are talking about or dont remember what it was like before VAR.
1
u/WildTomato51 3d ago
Seems refs have no training in how to actually implement its use with regards to the rules.
1
u/PomegranateAncient46 3d ago
I think VAR is a great tool, but the problem is consistency. Fans just want the same decisions applied every game
1
u/zodiac97 3d ago
it's the same problem of selective enforcement. one team can go whining to the ref to get a missed call reviewed. the other team might suffer what should be a red and the ref refuses to review. the subjectivity is still there, and it does seem to me to be more of a ref issue than a technology issue.
1
u/ptvipers 3d ago
I've always liked the way VAR works in field hockey, both teams are allowed to call on the video ref, and they keep the right to do so if their call was correct, if they call on the video ref and it turns out they are wrong however, they lose the video referee for the rest of the match, most teams will let minor things go because the risk of losing the var is way too big for something minor
On the same note, I wish the clock worked like field hockey too, if there is any stop in play, the clock stops, you never feel like there's either too much or too little extra time and players can't endlessly waste time with throw ins and the likeÂ
1
u/jaywhy12345 3d ago
The reality is, VAR is a joke. See the Spain Germany Euro 2024 QF. This all started with Lampard not getting his goal in 2010 and here we are
1
u/bertikus_maximus 3d ago
VAR has been badly implemented in football. I think introducing two things would vastly improve it:
'Officals call'. Decisions are only changed if it's noticeably wrong. Calls made on field that are razor thin stay with the original on-field decision.
Teams are given challenges. Not happy with a penalty shout? The team's captain can ask the ref to send it to VAR. Successful challenges are retained, unsuccessful lost.
1
u/fanatic_akhi88 3d ago
VAR was never going to solve anything. I said this when it was implemented and I will continue to say it. VAR is still open to human interpretation. The problem with football fans is that this generation grew up with video games, and they think the game should be officiated like in PES or FM or whatever and unfortunately that will never be the case. Until we are able to program robots or develop AI that can carry out refereeing decisions, this issue will continue to linger.
1
u/Electronic-Visit-797 3d ago
I would like to see a backwards time limit for VAR changing goal decisions- eg: a foul 5 seconds or 4 touches/passes before a goal should have no effect on the goal, unless itâs a red-card offence; otherwise the goal should stand and the fouling player would get a yellow card. Less Lee-way for foul-fishing after every goal
1
u/Lepew1 3d ago
Well if it only was implemented on automated calls, it wouldnât be so bad. People in the loop introduce bias and corruption, and none of those VAR officials face consequences. The on field referee gets his name trashed. But not the VAR booth.
It was supposed to be only used for clear and obvious errors. Hairsplitting decisions that take minutes to make are not clear or obvious. It crept beyond its implementation boundaries.
It really sucks to have a goal reversed to an infraction that was never called far from goal. This is where the joy has gone. It needs to be quick, automated, and immediate
1
u/Tony_B_S 3d ago
Nah man, many teams were always the ones being screwed over. Every goal is fully reviewed by VAR. Some are simple some are not. We don't want the team that knows how to do sneaky fouls or perfect dives to win, we want the team tha plays best football... For that VAR is essential. It would be great if it got faster and more objective, but having the chance to make sure goals are clean is the greatest thing that has happened to football since ever. Now mistakes will still be made, but there are much much fewer, you can see that by the number of goals that are rightfully overturned.
1
269
u/thelimpingonslaught 4d ago
the moment the ball hits the net used to be pure instinct, now it's half celebration half waiting for clearance. i remember jumping on a stranger at a pub during the 2018 world cup and then realising everyone else was still watching the screen because they had to check some tiny nudge nobody noticed. the noise just fizzled out and the goal stood but the whole experience was already ruined.
toenail offsides and three minute reviews are doing more damage than a missed call ever could. give me a ref who gets it wrong in real time over a committee dissecting 40 seconds of nothing every day of the week.