VAR sytem

I know the use of the system is newish to football, but it's amazing to see these farcical scenarios. Or the scenario where it can take 5 minutes to come to the correct decision. Surely the VAR themselves can just award a penalty, offside, red card etc. when it's blatantly obvious what the call should be? This must be a purely ego issue with refs on the pitch wanting 100 percent control. Also this little monitor the refs take forever to watch on the side of the pitch, surely if there's bigger screens just use them. The referees badly need help, good knows the standard of of officiating is terrible in general, so the quicker they get this sorted the better. Not really sure how they are making this process so difficult for themselves!

Why are the referees even going over to view a small screen on the side of the pitch in some scenarios (but not all)

Gary McKay wrote: The decision to disallow West Ham's goal last night was superb officiating by the Linesman.   I'd imagine others would have let it stand.

Roberto Baggio wrote: Why are the referees even going over to view a small screen on the side of the pitch in some scenarios (but not all) The video ref should be viewing it on his screen, making the call and communicating the decision through an earpiece to the referee on the pitch, like they do in the rugby.   It all seems very inconsistent and made up as it goes along, so far.

This must be an ego thing. The biggest problem with the length of time it's taking to make decisions is that you're going to have a situation in a massive match yet where a penalty call is turned down at one end, the ball is stuck in the net at the other end in the same phase of play, and before ko the ref rules out the goal and goes back for a penalty. The quickness of decision making is absolutely vital for this to work. Its comically bad at the moment. The last thing I want to see in football is the situation in rugby where people stand around watching a ref regularly take minutes on end to make a call, and everyone hams it up and pretends as if this is a great situation and something to get excited about. It will be the death of football if it goes that way regularly.

Gary McKay wrote: Arnautovic coming back from offside and letting the ball go through his legs. He actually tried to flick it. He was blocking the keepers view who would have saved the shot as it wasn't that hard but was put off by Arnautovic's attempted deflection.

planning wrote: Hans Moleman wrote: The biggest problem with the length of time it's taking to make decisions is that you're going to have a situation in a massive match yet where a penalty call is turned down at one end, the ball is stuck in the net at the other end in the same phase of play, and before ko the ref rules out the goal and goes back for a penalty. The quickness of decision making is absolutely vital for this to work. Its comically bad at the moment. If a penalty should be given, it will be given, thus rendering the rest of the move useless.  This is the future of officiating, where the right decision is always made, not sometimes made, as is currently the case. Even on the 50-50 calls, a valid case can usually be made for why the VAR came to it's final decision.  There will be a time at this WC when a VAR will be needed to send a team through and knock a team out. So if it takes 5 minutes to reach the correct decision, so be it. I don't know if it's just me, but I've noticed that diving has been effectively wiped out when watching VAR games. And that can only benefit football.

For once I kind of agree with Planning

I do also agree that they should perhaps pick up some issues quicker, if someone is watching on telly it should be a simple case of they say it straight away to the ref.

IFIRC there was an incident similar to the above situation in Confed Cup were a penalty or a free was given about 2 minutes later after the other team had counter attacked and nearly scored (Russia v Mexico???).

I think VAR needs time too, i'd imagine when they first brought in the Video Assistant in rugby it was chaotic.

As planning said there will be a case during this world cup were a team will either go through or be knocked out due to VAR decision (here's hoping its England)

alihau41 wrote: i think that each team should get one VAR referral a match, and it is their choice as to when to use it. if they get it right, then they keep their referral, otherwise that's that for the rest of the match. it'll cut out a lot of the issues that have gone on before.

I think maybe more then 1 would have to be used perhaps 3 like in say Tennis.

alihau41 wrote: lassassinblanc wrote: alihau41 wrote: i think that each team should get one VAR referral a match, and it is their choice as to when to use it. if they get it right, then they keep their referral, otherwise that's that for the rest of the match. it'll cut out a lot of the issues that have gone on before. I think maybe more then 1 would have to be used perhaps 3 like in say Tennis.     well, if you get the referral correct, then you keep your original one to use again. 3 per team, if all used, could potentially add an extra 30 mins to a game (exaggerating it saying 5 min per referral, but it's happened regularly)!

lassassinblanc wrote: IFIRC there was an incident similar to the above situation in Confed Cup were a penalty or a free was given about 2 minutes later after the other team had counter attacked and nearly scored (Russia v Mexico???). I think VAR needs time too, i'd imagine when they first brought in the Video Assistant in rugby it was chaotic. As planning said there will be a case during this world cup were a team will either go through or be knocked out due to VAR decision (here's hoping its England)