VAR - a new suggestion? - Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website

VAR - a new suggestion?

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 > Last >>

JRW2 Dulwich 30 Dec 19 3.19pm
Whether this is a new idea or has already been discussed I don't know, but it came into my mind when reading Willo's mention on the Southampton Match thread of what happens in cricket. I suggest that, as in cricket, both sides should be entitled to ask for a review of a limited number of decisions. I don't know what that number is in cricket, but in football I would limit it to two reviews per team in any one match (with successful reviews counting towards that number). Given that refs might be reluctant to admit they'd made an error, I would retain what is known in cricket as the Third Umpire to judge the reviews. But I wouldn't allow the latter to step in of his own accord - only if asked to by a captain, via the ref. And he should be given a maximum time (30 seconds?) in which to adjudicate. I believe that, knowing that they had only two reviews available, captains would only contest decisions that were "clear and obvious" - which is what we all want, and should eliminate appeals against, for example, offside decisions based on the length of a finger nail.
Alert a moderator to this post

JRW2

Dulwich 30 Dec 19 3.19pm

Whether this is a new idea or has already been discussed I don't know, but it came into my mind when reading Willo's mention on the Southampton Match thread of what happens in cricket.

I suggest that, as in cricket, both sides should be entitled to ask for a review of a limited number of decisions. I don't know what that number is in cricket, but in football I would limit it to two reviews per team in any one match (with successful reviews counting towards that number). Given that refs might be reluctant to admit they'd made an error, I would retain what is known in cricket as the Third Umpire to judge the reviews. But I wouldn't allow the latter to step in of his own accord - only if asked to by a captain, via the ref. And he should be given a maximum time (30 seconds?) in which to adjudicate.

I believe that, knowing that they had only two reviews available, captains would only contest decisions that were "clear and obvious" - which is what we all want, and should eliminate appeals against, for example, offside decisions based on the length of a finger nail.

Alert a moderator to this post

DutchEagleJohan Online Vlissingen, Netherlands 30 Dec 19 3.28pm
The easy immediate solution is: look how it is done on the continent and stop with this ridiculous use of lines in a 3D pattern, projected on a 2D screen. Where does the shoulder stop and the arm begin? How accurate is the moment when the footage is stilled to measure? While I genuinely doubt it is as accurate as they seem to think it certainly is totally spoiling the game. Last weekend 4 good goals were killed by this ludicrous use of VAR. Not even necessarily the VAR itself being the problem but the use of it. Wilf was onside, the lines on the screen are not accurate scientific data, but drawn with a certain randomness. In this instance by Mariner (who we have had some history, which did not give me a feel justice was done). As it is used imo it is killing the game. Stop it and soon, the PL is making a joke of itself. Originally posted by JRW2 Whether this is a new idea or has already been discussed I don't know, but it came into my mind when reading Willo's mention on the Southampton Match thread of what happens in cricket. I suggest that, as in cricket, both sides should be entitled to ask for a review of a limited number of decisions. I don't know what that number is in cricket, but in football I would limit it to two reviews per team in any one match (with successful reviews counting towards that number). Given that refs might be reluctant to admit they'd made an error, I would retain what is known in cricket as the Third Umpire to judge the reviews. But I wouldn't allow the latter to step in of his own accord - only if asked to by a captain, via the ref. And he should be given a maximum time (30 seconds?) in which to adjudicate. I believe that, knowing that they had only two reviews available, captains would only contest decisions that were "clear and obvious" - which is what we all want, and should eliminate appeals against, for example, offside decisions based on the length of a finger nail.
Alert a moderator to this post

DutchEagleJohan Online

Vlissingen, Netherlands 30 Dec 19 3.28pm

Send a Private Message to DutchEagleJohan

The easy immediate solution is: look how it is done on the continent and stop with this ridiculous use of lines in a 3D pattern, projected on a 2D screen. Where does the shoulder stop and the arm begin? How accurate is the moment when the footage is stilled to measure? While I genuinely doubt it is as accurate as they seem to think it certainly is totally spoiling the game. Last weekend 4 good goals were killed by this ludicrous use of VAR. Not even necessarily the VAR itself being the problem but the use of it.
Wilf was onside, the lines on the screen are not accurate scientific data, but drawn with a certain randomness. In this instance by Mariner (who we have had some history, which did not give me a feel justice was done).
As it is used imo it is killing the game. Stop it and soon, the PL is making a joke of itself.

Originally posted by JRW2

Whether this is a new idea or has already been discussed I don't know, but it came into my mind when reading Willo's mention on the Southampton Match thread of what happens in cricket.

Alert a moderator to this post

Goal Machine The Cronx 30 Dec 19 3.37pm
Agree with your idea and it�s almost exactly what I�ve been saying for months. However I�d go for one review per Captain and the ref gets 15 seconds to look at the replay once from say 3 angles. If it is a clear and obvious error, that can be picked up within that time frame. It can�t continue in its current form.
Alert a moderator to this post

Goal Machine

The Cronx 30 Dec 19 3.37pm

Agree with your idea and it�s almost exactly what I�ve been saying for months. However I�d go for one review per Captain and the ref gets 15 seconds to look at the replay once from say 3 angles.

If it is a clear and obvious error, that can be picked up within that time frame.

It can�t continue in its current form.

Alert a moderator to this post

Uphill Online Bedford 30 Dec 19 3.41pm
The present 'lines' system seems to be inaccurate and I am not sure if there is any synchrony in offside decisions between the precise moment the ball is kicked and when the action is stopped - surely this may be subject to human error by the VAR technicians? The referee on the pitch should be the sole and final arbiter of VAR checks. Therefore, do as everywhere else in the world and let the ref. review it on the pitchside screen. It is absurd that another ref. sat in the comfort of a room has the final word. Man and boy Palace since my first game in 1948 sitting on my dad's shoulders
Alert a moderator to this post

Uphill Online

Bedford 30 Dec 19 3.41pm

The present 'lines' system seems to be inaccurate and I am not sure if there is any synchrony in offside decisions between the precise moment the ball is kicked and when the action is stopped - surely this may be subject to human error by the VAR technicians?

The referee on the pitch should be the sole and final arbiter of VAR checks.

Therefore, do as everywhere else in the world and let the ref. review it on the pitchside screen. It is absurd that another ref. sat in the comfort of a room has the final word.

Man and boy Palace since my first game in 1948 sitting on my dad's shoulders

Alert a moderator to this post

Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 30 Dec 19 3.57pm
I congratulate those on the suggestions they have made on this thread and are worthy of consideration. I would just like to pose the question "What has happened to clear and obvious" ? Perhaps if an offside decision is so marginal then an assistant cannot have made a clear and obvious error so his/her call is final. Why on earth is VAR spending time, with players,supporters etc waiting with baited breath to rule on whether a toe or indeed armpit is by definition exceedingly marginally ahead of the second last opponent? Edited by Willo (30 Dec 2019 3.59pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Willo

South coast - west of Brighton. 30 Dec 19 3.57pm

I congratulate those on the suggestions they have made on this thread and are worthy of consideration.

I would just like to pose the question "What has happened to clear and obvious" ? Perhaps if an offside decision is so marginal then an assistant cannot have made a clear and obvious error so his/her call is final.

Why on earth is VAR spending time, with players,supporters etc waiting with baited breath to rule on whether a toe or indeed armpit is by definition exceedingly marginally ahead of the second last opponent?

Edited by Willo (30 Dec 2019 3.59pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

eagleman13 On The Road To Hell & Alicante 30 Dec 19 4.13pm
All good points & worthy suggestions, BUT, the powers that be in Switzerland, ie FIFA, will never allow that to happen(they didn't want VAR in the 1st place). Wishful thinking im afraid, tho, a great debate. I'm a blind man, i'm a blind man, now my room is cold, When a blind man cries, Lord, he feels it from his soul. [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

eagleman13

On The Road To Hell & Alicante 30 Dec 19 4.13pm

All good points & worthy suggestions, BUT, the powers that be in Switzerland, ie FIFA, will never allow that to happen(they didn't want VAR in the 1st place).

Wishful thinking im afraid, tho, a great debate.

I'm a blind man, i'm a blind man, now my room is cold,
When a blind man cries, Lord, he feels it from his soul.
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

beak croydon 30 Dec 19 4.26pm
Originally posted by JRW2 Whether this is a new idea or has already been discussed I don't know, but it came into my mind when reading Willo's mention on the Southampton Match thread of what happens in cricket. I suggest that, as in cricket, both sides should be entitled to ask for a review of a limited number of decisions. I don't know what that number is in cricket, but in football I would limit it to two reviews per team in any one match (with successful reviews counting towards that number). Given that refs might be reluctant to admit they'd made an error, I would retain what is known in cricket as the Third Umpire to judge the reviews. But I wouldn't allow the latter to step in of his own accord - only if asked to by a captain, via the ref. And he should be given a maximum time (30 seconds?) in which to adjudicate. I believe that, knowing that they had only two reviews available, captains would only contest decisions that were "clear and obvious" - which is what we all want, and should eliminate appeals against, for example, offside decisions based on the length of a finger nail. Cricket gives the umpire a half balls width, leniency must be built in for the refs sake, we must not undermine the man in the middle too much.
Alert a moderator to this post

beak

croydon 30 Dec 19 4.26pm

Originally posted by JRW2

Whether this is a new idea or has already been discussed I don't know, but it came into my mind when reading Willo's mention on the Southampton Match thread of what happens in cricket.

Cricket gives the umpire a half balls width, leniency must be built in for the refs sake, we must not undermine the man in the middle too much.

Alert a moderator to this post

Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 30 Dec 19 4.32pm
Originally posted by beak Cricket gives the umpire a half balls width, leniency must be built in for the refs sake, we must not undermine the man in the middle too much. Originally the narrative about VAR was that the referee in the middle would be making the final decision. The VAR in Stockley Park could advise him to reconsider his decision or to consider an incident by use of the pitchside monitor but this has all changed. NO use of a pitchside monitor and the referee on the field of play is told what do do by the VAR. Edited by Willo (30 Dec 2019 4.34pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Willo

South coast - west of Brighton. 30 Dec 19 4.32pm

Originally posted by beak

Cricket gives the umpire a half balls width, leniency must be built in for the refs sake, we must not undermine the man in the middle too much.

Originally the narrative about VAR was that the referee in the middle would be making the final decision.
The VAR in Stockley Park could advise him to reconsider his decision or to consider an incident by use of the pitchside monitor but this has all changed. NO use of a pitchside monitor and the referee on the field of play is told what do do by the VAR.

Edited by Willo (30 Dec 2019 4.34pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 31 Dec 19 8.36am
Originally posted by Uphill The present 'lines' system seems to be inaccurate and I am not sure if there is any synchrony in offside decisions between the precise moment the ball is kicked and when the action is stopped - surely this may be subject to human error by the VAR technicians? The referee on the pitch should be the sole and final arbiter of VAR checks. Therefore, do as everywhere else in the world and let the ref. review it on the pitchside screen. It is absurd that another ref. sat in the comfort of a room has the final word. This is an area of contention we are shown a still picture and the line is drawn between defender and striker however this all depends on the exact moment the ball is kicked, one frame wrong and we are looking at the wrong picture. Ian Wright on MOTM felt that VAR should be checked against the players feet which is my preference. That still would not resolve the issue above but as he said the striker would at least be able to time his run better knowing that. In the case of Wilf he was leaning forward but his feet were behind the defender. As others have also suggested if there is doubt then VAR should not overturn the original decision. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 31 Dec 19 8.36am

Originally posted by Uphill

The present 'lines' system seems to be inaccurate and I am not sure if there is any synchrony in offside decisions between the precise moment the ball is kicked and when the action is stopped - surely this may be subject to human error by the VAR technicians?

The referee on the pitch should be the sole and final arbiter of VAR checks.

Therefore, do as everywhere else in the world and let the ref. review it on the pitchside screen. It is absurd that another ref. sat in the comfort of a room has the final word.

This is an area of contention we are shown a still picture and the line is drawn between defender and striker however this all depends on the exact moment the ball is kicked, one frame wrong and we are looking at the wrong picture.

Ian Wright on MOTM felt that VAR should be checked against the players feet which is my preference. That still would not resolve the issue above but as he said the striker would at least be able to time his run better knowing that. In the case of Wilf he was leaning forward but his feet were behind the defender.

As others have also suggested if there is doubt then VAR should not overturn the original decision.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 31 Dec 19 8.46am
Originally posted by Badger11 This is an area of contention we are shown a still picture and the line is drawn between defender and striker however this all depends on the exact moment the ball is kicked, one frame wrong and we are looking at the wrong picture. Ian Wright on MOTM felt that VAR should be checked against the players feet which is my preference. That still would not resolve the issue above but as he said the striker would at least be able to time his run better knowing that. In the case of Wilf he was leaning forward but his feet were behind the defender. As others have also suggested if there is doubt then VAR should not overturn the original decision. The original idea was "Clear and obvious" in relation to VAR in general, not a forensic examination deeming whether a miniscule part of the body was fractionally ahead of the second last opponent and taking what seems like an eternity arriving at a decision. Edited by Willo (31 Dec 2019 8.47am)
Alert a moderator to this post

Willo

South coast - west of Brighton. 31 Dec 19 8.46am

Originally posted by Badger11

As others have also suggested if there is doubt then VAR should not overturn the original decision.

The original idea was "Clear and obvious" in relation to VAR in general, not a forensic examination deeming whether a miniscule part of the body was fractionally ahead of the second last opponent and taking what seems like an eternity arriving at a decision.

Edited by Willo (31 Dec 2019 8.47am)

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 31 Dec 19 8.56am
Originally posted by Willo The original idea was "Clear and obvious" in relation to VAR in general, not a forensic examination deeming whether a miniscule part of the body was fractionally ahead of the second last opponent and taking what seems like an eternity arriving at a decision. Edited by Willo (31 Dec 2019 8.47am) [Link] Clear and obvious was my understanding too but not according to this article; not for offside anyway.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

31 Dec 19 8.56am

Originally posted by Willo

Edited by Willo (31 Dec 2019 8.47am)

[Link]

Clear and obvious was my understanding too but not according to this article; not for offside anyway.

Alert a moderator to this post

Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 31 Dec 19 9.17am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle [Link] Clear and obvious was my understanding too but not according to this article; not for offside anyway. Indeed the article mentions that "Clear and obvious" does not apply to offsides but pundits have asserted that when they went to Stockley Park in pre-season for an explantion they were provided with handouts specifying "Clear and obvious". Chris Kamara at the weekend referred to his handout and didn't mention that offsides were excluded.A great deal of confusion reigns.
Alert a moderator to this post

Willo

South coast - west of Brighton. 31 Dec 19 9.17am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

[Link]

Clear and obvious was my understanding too but not according to this article; not for offside anyway.

Indeed the article mentions that "Clear and obvious" does not apply to offsides but pundits have asserted that when they went to Stockley Park in pre-season for an explantion they were provided with handouts specifying "Clear and obvious". Chris Kamara at the weekend referred to his handout and didn't mention that offsides were excluded.A great deal of confusion reigns.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 > Last >>

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

VAR - a new suggestion?

Site Map

Sponsors