V A R

[WindyCity]

We had a penalty shout last week not given for a much more deliberate handball than the one Man City did which lead to their goal being disallowed against Spurs yesterday.

Not very consistent then .. or getting clear cut decisions right .

Yeah, that Man City "handball" was really a miscarriage of justice, imho, but, that is how the "rules" read, and therefore disallowed goal, per rule.  Totally unavoidable and happenstance touch.  Too bad for City, but they don't need any tears shed on their behalf.

[WindyCity]

I see alot of commentary against VAR in this thread.  Personally, I think it is appropriate, it's all about getting questionable calls "right".  Nothing wrong with that, I should think.

[YankeeJim]

It is still a human being calling the shots using two dimensional VAR as distinct from a referee or assistant calling them in three dimensions.  And frankly many of the decisions in VAR I have seen have been highly controversial.  I don't think it solves anything since a TV broadcast monitor has nowhere near the resolution of the naked eye even if a still camera does have sharper resolve.  It is a folly to believe a camera does not lie because a human eye is fallible.  Both are equally fragile and fallible when it comes to what is correct.  Technology is not the answer to better decisions - consistency is.  Train referees in numbers sufficiently large to ensure only the true competent gets to officiate the better games.  VAR is another avoidance of the individual responsibility that society seems so frightened of in this day and age.

As a good example of camera v human eye, in Mitro's oscar performance on Friday, my initial thought was that he had been kicked in the face. The replays first showed no contact at all and a different angle showed that the opponent might have raked his fingers across Mitro's eyes. I became convinced there was no contact when I noted a split second delay in Mitro's reaction before he did his Neymar.

[filham]

No ,I am against VAR unless we can wind the clock back to 55/56 season and apply VAR to that Vic Keeble goal for Newcastle against us in the 4th round FA Cup match at the Cottage.
Keeble bundled our keeper over the goal line for an equaliser when our keeper was in the air, I am sure Var would confirm the keepers feet were a foot of the ground.
Would love to see that decision reversed, it is one that is hard to forget for us old timers.

[toshes mate]

It is still a human being calling the shots using two dimensional VAR as distinct from a referee or assistant calling them in three dimensions.  And frankly many of the decisions in VAR I have seen have been highly controversial.  I don't think it solves anything since a TV broadcast monitor has nowhere near the resolution of the naked eye even if a still camera does have sharper resolve.  It is a folly to believe a camera does not lie because a human eye is fallible.  Both are equally fragile and fallible when it comes to what is correct.  Technology is not the answer to better decisions - consistency is.  Train referees in numbers sufficiently large to ensure only the true competent gets to officiate the better games.  VAR is another avoidance of the individual responsibility that society seems so frightened of in this day and age.

As a good example of camera v human eye, in Mitro's oscar performance on Friday, my initial thought was that he had been kicked in the face. The replays first showed no contact at all and a different angle showed that the opponent might have raked his fingers across Mitro's eyes. I became convinced there was no contact when I noted a split second delay in Mitro's reaction before he did his Neymar.

You spotted the one real piece of evidence that I am sure the assistant, if he was sharp and had been concentrating, would have noticed too.  Unnecessary IMO, but a stock item in much football when players fear the wrath of a referee.  I think both players may have thought 'hey, this is getting out of hand' and made it look worse by feigning damage instead of just getting up and getting on with it.

In cricket the decision review system looks at many situations to judge whether the ball has touched the bat and one view may convince you it has while another contemporaneous angle will show the distance between bat and ball at that moment.  Likewise the distortions of the telescopic lens fails to resolve into whether or not a ball touched the ground before it was caught.  When a decision goes our way we may be convinced the technology works and when it doesn't we may be convinced the decision maker is wrong which is the exact same situation as when an umpire gives an immediate response to an appeal. 

If we had holograph technology we may better served but until that comes (if ever) I think VAR has the same smell that humans have always had.

[charlieFFC]

I thought Huddersfield's goal last night was a result of goal line technology. Is there a difference between goal line technology and VAR.

There is without a doubt a difference between the two.

[New Kid on the Block]

I think the clubs themselves only have themselves to blame for VAR being introduced.
Now that the stakes are so high financially, it has fostered a 'win at all costs' mentality. This has spawned the diving and cheating from players, trying to get decisions to their advantage, or to have an opponent sent off. The added pressure of refs to change a decision, by being harangued by a group of players, has also become the norm. That's ruined the game for me.

Ya reap what ya sow.