How many times have Arsenal fans had extensive discussions about the sheer bloody-mindedness of VAR decisions, and their unaccountability to the fans and the managers that are absolutely certain they have made grave errors?
There have hundreds of arguments for and against VAR since it was first introduced, but although it seems to work fairly well all over Europe, we can’t seem to get to grips with it in the Premier League, with irrational decisions seeming to pop up every single week.
But now there is a little hope of improvement on the horizon with a campaign led by the FIFA Referees Committee Chairman Pierluigi Collina. (Remember the bald Italian referee – definitely one of the best officials I have ever seen)
Anyway they have decided to get VAR callouts properly communicated to fans and officials during the game, with a reason for the stoppage.
FIFA reported: At its Annual Business Meeting held at Wembley Stadium in London on 18 January 2023, The IFAB followed up on the recommendations made by its Football and Technical Advisory Panels in October 2022. It agreed that referees’ live communication of video assistant referee (VAR) related decisions to the public – both in the stadium and via broadcasters – would be trialled for 12 months in international competitions, and that it would initially be rolled out at the FIFA Club World Cup™ in Morocco, which began on 1 February.
That Club World Cup (with Real Madrid involved) competition has now begun, and depending on the trial findings, it is expected be trialled again at the FIFA U-20 World Cup in Indonesia later this year, and if successful, the big test will come at the FIFA Womens World Cup to be held this summer in Australia and New Zealand.
Collina seems to be keen on the idea, telling the official FIFA website: “We decided to have this trial because we received some requests to make the decision taken by the referee after a VAR intervention more understandable for all the football stakeholders, namely the spectators at the stadium, or in front of the television” he explained.
“As language could be one of the issues, we thought this FIFA Club World Cup would be perfect because it’s a multi-language competition, with teams and, of course, spectators involved coming from all six of the different continents.”
“I have to say that there are other experiences in other sports, namely the NFL in American football, who have been doing this for quite a long time. It seems that the referees are pretty comfortable with this” continued Collina.
“In football, language could be a problem, particularly when you have to make this announcement in a language which is not your mother tongue. This may not be that easy. But as the announcement will be quite concise, I’m very confident that the referees will feel comfortable with this.”
Well, I personally think this will be a massive improvement if we can get VAR interventions to be communicated to us in real time, rather than fans just sitting there fuming!
What is your opinion on this idea?
Admin Pat
—————————-
WATCH EVERY ONE of Mikel Arteta’s and Jonas Eidevall’s Full Press conferences by subscribing to our YouTube Channel – JustArsenalVids
CALLING ALL ARSENAL FANS! Anyone who would like to contribute an Article or Video opinion piece on JustArsenal, please contact us through this link…
It seems, at first sight, a slight improvementonly, on what I have always regarded as an abomination which is ruining our enjoyment of the game , meaning VAT itself, the very concept in fact.
But in practise, Iif I understand the proposal properly, it will simply enrage fans all the more as they will see in verbal action the many totaly wrong reasons given for what are often subjective calls, but with two refs not one making the ultimate mistake. How this TRULY improves an already disastrous mistake, the actiual whole process of VAR with it s ludicrous mistakes, is a mystery to me.
Fans in general, wil accept that pitch refs, being human, will make a mistake every so often. But when a second ref with all tth “benefits ” of constant slow motion replays STILL GETS IT WRONG, no wonder ordinary decent, salt of the earth fans get outraged that even with such technical aids, refs STILL GET IT WRONG.
And that is not even mentioning the long time it takes, the ruination of proper celebration for a goals that can be chalked offseveral mitutes later. Plus the dreadful underminingof authority, before countless millions of global TV viewers, of the actual pitch ref.
This proposal is a sham. What they should do is ABOLISH VAR COMPLETELY, at least until it works so very fast that , like goal like technology,that it can be given by the pitch ref directly with no delay.
Its like putting a plaster on a cancer instead of cutting it outcompletely.
I LOATHE THE CONCEPT AND INTRODUCTION OF VAR AND PASSIONATELY WISH IT DEAD!, At least until its instant and from ONE ref only , the actual MATCH ref, with no delay at all.
Until then, ban it completely, I say!!
Do we have the same heads? Well I don’t know. But your words are just like mine. Been thinking the same way over and over again that it hurts. It’s like caveman’s time.
They should sync it with the rhythm of play
We’ve only received 1 penalty whole season.
What do people think could be the reason? Inept refs? Not enough action inside the box?
Fulham has received 7 and Liverpool 0.
Some simple rule changes can make VAR more acceptable to officials ,players and fans, but I’m afraid logic seems to have escaped those in authoritative positions in European and World football.I am afraid VAR has become the innocent victim of fans, when rule changes are needed to aid referees who also bear the brunt of fans frustrations.Four simple changes would alleviate problems which have arisen since the introduction of VAR.Firstly,a stopclock should be introduced and operated just as it has done very successfully in both codes of Rugby.The stopclock would be controlled by a third party who would ensure it did not run during injuries, substitutions etc.Secondly, the absurd handball rule, which imo is ruining the game, should be restricted to intentional handling only.Thirdly,in order to go some way to protecting goalkeepers, and eliminating, shirt pulling, opposition players should not be permitted to enter the 6yard box until the ball is kicked at corners and set pieces.Lastly,VAR decisions concerning the offside rule, should be based on the position of the players feet, not their knees, backside or elbows.After all the game we all love is about kicking a ball with your feet.I’m pretty sure my observations will fall on rest ears and I doubt if the VAR trial suggested will bring about a sudden Paul on the road to Damascus change for the good.
Grandad. Oh how great to read some plain common sense for once. As we are seemingly stuck with the ghastly concept of long winded Stockley Part reviews- and I would certainly ban VAR altogether if I had the power – then your suggestions are plain common sense.
I would also make all throw ins, freekicks instead. If I have to watch Ben White, especially, hold that damned ball any longer, I will go mad! I could grow a beard in the time it takes him to throw it.
You are SO CORRECT about the farce that handball has become, ever since they changed from hand to ball, to ball to hand, in an idiotic change. I also love your no bodies in the six yard box til a corner is taken idea.
Better still would be a new twelve yard line used for that idea only, OR even the whole existing penalty area which would certainly open up play and stop the stupid “wrestling” that goes on all during every corner.
I like your stop clock suggestion but if that is to radical for FIFA , I’d settle for stop time in the last ten minutes plus injury time. That’s when the time wasting really cranks up – the fake cramps, the goal kicks, throw-in and free kicks that take forever, the keepers catching the ball and flopping to the ground, the slow walk off during subs. Its excruciating, even when it is Arsenal doing it to nurse a one goal lead.
The easiest solution for handballs is to make it based on advantage, not intent.
If the act of handballing gives the player an advantage they would not have had if they had not handballed, that’s a foul. End of Story. That’s basically how we apply handballs to the attacker in the box anyway.
Yes, that would lead to more pens from accidents, but it would be fair and easy to apply without bias.
Any improvement is always welcome
Paul on the road to Damascus change for the good, I like this.
The off side rule should go like this, once a part of opposing team members are in line the decision should be onside.
Once the ball hit the hand in the box a penalty should be awarded too much grey area on penalties.
Those are two of the most contentious decisions affecting the game all day long
Oh and how could I forget, to correct things like the day of shame , Arsenal vs Newcastle we should introduce the world cup time wasting procedures with a five minute added to each cautions given for time wasting to a maximum of fifteen minutes allowed..
I did enjoy the timekeeping at the last WC.
I would introduce a time limit on the process. If the VAR ref can’t decide within 20 seconds then it’s not a clear and obvious error.
VAR is a great tool, it’s made a large positive difference in every sport that uses it. Evin the PL, where they have a rather poor implementation of it and a low standard of officials using it.
These changes will be an improvement, Collina was probably the best ref I’ve ever seen (who could argue with those eyes?!) and he’s transalting that ability into administering refereeing now. Good to see.
Interesting that they’ve opted for the US football method of explaioning after the fact over the rugby one where the specs also hear all of the the deliberations of the officials.
I like your stop clock suggestion but if that is to radical for FIFA , I’d settle for stop time in the last ten minutes plus injury time. That’s when the time wasting really cranks up – the fake cramps, the goal kicks, throw-in and free kicks that take forever, the keepers catching the ball and flopping to the ground, the slow walk off during subs. Its excruciating, even when it is Arsenal doing it to nurse a one goal lead.
Sorry, not sure how my post got stuck here.
To your point, I’d prefer the rugby approach but either is better than the secret squirrel routine of Stockley Park.
P.S.
I’m constantly amazed at the weak arguments put forward by the anti-VAR camp.
1. Early on, they said it was “spoiling the arguments people had over the decisions”. Huh? Instant replays showed within seconds who was right (to everyone except the match officials!) – and an instant replay is the same technology as VAR, it just shows what actually happened, nothing more, nothing less.
2. Then they say it ruins their celebrations. Huh? again.
You get to celebrate twice, once when it happens, once when it’s confirmed. But so what?…
Celebrations cannot be more important than getting the right decision. To think otherwise is just plain silly to my mind. I want to know that the right team won, everything else comes a long, long way behind that overriding concern.
These are desperate non-arguments being put forward by the anti-VAR camp.
The bottom line is this: the problem with VAR in football is that the officials are terrible. Maybe there’s some bias, hard to say, but people who can’t get the decisions right with replays showing them what really happened, in my humble opinion should be… encouraged to take up another way of making a living. 🙂
VAR has actually shown up this problem. In the past people would say “Perhaps the ref was unsighted”. VAR takes away that excuse, that doubt – now we can see that the ref is simply poor at what he does. And knowing that, we can take steps to fix it.
Except for putting in time wasting procedures similar to those used in the World Cup, I say don’t touch VAR any further.While it’s a flawed technology because it slows everything down and the replays are not in real time so the same action is replayed again and again until finally a decision has to be made in favour of one team or another. However, it is better than being cheated by a wrong call. Perhaps the best idea is from Rugby League. Give each team two “captain’s calls” during a game, so that it is up to the team captain’s discretion when to use VAR and contest a controversial decision. If the captain wastes his opportunities so be it at least the game would flow much more freely.
Replays can be in real time and/or slo-mo. Watching the rugby replays – since we can see everything that’s going on in the debate among the officials – the officials often ask for both.
That’s not “flawed” to my mind, I see it as a positive that you can see it from many angles and at many speeds before making a final decision.
And yes, it may not be necessary to change VAR any further since the real problem is the abysmal standard of officiating in the PL, not the technology.
This change will allow people to hear a reasoning at least, if not the discussion that led to that line of reasoning. That should help.
I don’t like the rugby league approach because the idea is to get the right result and having captains able to give their team a breather isn’t a good thing. The officials should be the only people who can stop the game for VAR and should do so as necessary.
Any time taken for VAR should (of course) not affect the game time remaining. If that needs a game clock then so be it, let’s have one – it’s probably needed for other reasons anyway (to prevent deliberate timewasting).
IDKWIC I am in the opposite camp on VAR and I differ on almost all you say!
I accept the reality that I will not get my way though.
But IF we could give the video ref no more than say 20 seconds (as a post above this suggests),or the decision stays with the onfield ref, I would with great reluctance accept that as being less harmful than what we have at present.
We clearly disagree on absolutely every aspect then, because I also see the 20 seconds idea as destructive (that’s a tiny amount of time in this context). But it’s not about how much time, it’s about having a time limit at all since…
How would that help? You’d just get a new category of referee error (“How could he not see *that* in 20 seconds?”) and more pressure on people who are clearly struggling.
The game needs a clock and it should be stopped for VAR decisions. That would also get rid of timewasting.
Time football got into the 21st century.
P.S. I’ve always assumed that refs should be adding time for VAR decisions onto the “time added on” at the end of a match.
If they do that properly there shouldn’t be any need for a clock, but they probably don’t/won’t and the clock is a good idea for other reasons anyway, so it gets my vote.
P.P.S. The decision is always with the on-field ref.
I can agree on a clock and taking timekeeping away from the ref completely. Pointless debating two POLAR opinions on VAR any further.
Glad we agree on something on the subject 🙂
Also agree that there’s no point in further debate since your position seems entirely visceral.
That’s not meant to be offensive in any way, you don’t have to have a logical reason for your viewpoint.
Since your last two lines WERE slightly insulting, despite your stated intention not to insult, as I am indeed a LOGICAL thinker and use my head before posting anything serious, I will tell you again what my MAIN objections to VAR are.`
Firstly, it is wrongheaded policy to deliberately undermine the actual ref, often in front of global countless millions watching screens. If we wish, presumably , to try instilling discipline and abolish player cheating, diving etc etc, then we should be BACKING AND SUPPORTING the ref , NOT marking his homework and questioning his competence in full public view as VAR does, by definition of another video ref being involved .
How can we expect players to have respect for officials when we blithely use VAR and therefore massively disrespect their decisions!!. Secondly, it ruins the spectacle and passion of a goal,which is a fan highlight for almost all goals.
Before celebrating , fans first have to look to see if VAR has got involved MANY GOALS ARE CHALKED OFF , OFTEN SEVERAL MINUTES AFTER THE GOAL WAS SCORED, BECAUSE OF A MARGINAL OFFSIDE OR A SUBJECTIVE CALL FROM STOCKLEY PARK.
Refs are intimidated by Stockley Park and when they are directed to the screen for another look, only VERY rarely do they ever overturn VARS view.
But on countless occasions TV PUNDITS SAY THE ORIGiNAL , BUT OVERTURNED DECISION WAS IN FACT CORRECT.
Thirdly, VAR’s original emit was only to point out clear howlers but that is not what happens most of the time We see marginal offsides given for a toenail or a subjective SP call for a penalty, where the video ref disagrees with the first, even though fans en masse and TVpundits often say the first decision was correct.
VAR ruins the fan passion when a goal is scored more often than not. Once VAR gets involved a goal is subsequently disallowed. Not in the spirit of the game at all.
Better by far to have ONE man in total charge and to back him up, not undermine him at every turn. I accept the reality that now most fans believe we are stuck with VAR and I think that is true too. But to my mind that is footballs tragedy.
To be clear. IF we ever get to a place where technology can be transmitted almost instantly, direct to the actual ref, as in goal line tech, which works excellently, then and only then would I say VAR works.
UNTIL THEN I’D BAN IT COMPLETELY BUT KEEP GOAL LINE TECH, AS IT’S INSTANT AND CAUSES NO PROBLEMS.
THE SO CALLED CURE IS FAR WORSE THAN THE DISEASE, IMO.
It’s only insulting if you perceive it as such. It was not intended to be but since I can see no defensible logic in your position one can only conclude that your position is not based on logic. That’s not an insult, it’s an observation.
For example, it’s simply not logical to claim that a technology that is clearly designed to *assist* officials is somehow “undermining” them. That just doesn’t hold water. The officials are a group of people co-operating to try to get decisions right – there has always been a team from the days of ref + 2 linesmen. The ref often overruled the linesmen. No-one suggested getting rid of linesmen (or getting rid of referees).
The ref is also free to overrule the VAR people, if he chooses not to do so then it either suggests that the VAR people are raising the right points or it goes to his competence if he should be overruling them but doesn’t do so. Either way, neither of these things are a fault of the *technology* but of those using it – and that can be adjusted.
Nor is it reasonable to put “passion” ahead of right and wrong. To be frank, it’s a rather desperate line of argument. To that I’m afraid the answer is: please live with that tiny problem, if it really is a problem for you, because we need to get these decisions right.
It doesn’t matter what its original remit was, if they change the remit in order to get the right decisions made then that does not in any way undermine the technology itself.
Overall, you appear to conflate the flawed actions of the people using VAR with the usefulness of the technology itself. Your posts address mainly the *implementation* of the technology and the competence of the individuals using it, but all of your strident assertions are aimed at the very *existence* of VAR in football – that’s not logical since your assertions, even if they were correct, do not support your conclusions.
VAR works perfectly well in other sports, therefore it can be made to work in football.
If your lawnmower is cutting at the wrong height you adjust it, you don’t chuck it out and stop cutting the grass. 🙂
You’re right that it’s here to stay – the main reason being that even in its current flawed implementation, wherever it’s been used it has reduced the level of error significantly.
Lastly, it seems from your penultimate paragraph that you can accept the technology… if it works! Ignoring the rather Catch-22 nature of that statement, perhaps the key point is that since you say that you can accept the technology in principle, perhaps you’d now like to join the rest of us in discussing how to make it work in practice, rather than trying to justify throwing babies out with bathwater.
A pity that you have not properlyunderstood my position, as I made it perfectly plain. You say that I CAN ACCEPT THE TECHNOLOGY IN PRINCIPLE.
That is not what I said at all. I said “I would accept it with great reluctance”, PROVIDED it was almost instant and came directly to, then from, the pitch ref. That is not what you claim I said.
Your analogies to other sports are not comparing like with like. In tennis it works quite well. And why? Because it is instant. It is the long delay that spoils the spirit and necessary instant flow of the game of the game so very often; a point you dismiss as unimportant compared with getting the right decision at all costs.
You give no credence at all to the spirit of the game nor the vital enjoyment and contentment of spectators(on VAR) who are the games lifeblood and who are treated with contempt.
I see no further point in discussing, as you have a totally different philosophy from me on how the game should be refereed. I do, as you have correctly stated, accept that football will not now ditch VAR, unfortunately for the fans enjoyment; a point I give great importance to.
I HAVE, THEREFORE, TO HOPE THAT BETTER, FAR MORE SPEEDY TECHNOLOGY WILL, IN TIME , BECOME COMMONPLACE AND GO DIRECTLY TO THE PITCH REF.
THEN MUCH OF THE HARM WILL FALL AWAY.
It cannot come soon enough. But I STILL DO NOT WANT IT AT ALL; I SIMPLY ACCEPT IT WITH GREAT RELUCTANCE, AS IT IS NOT GOING AWAY. On that point, almost alone, we do agree.
I understood your position perfectly, such as it is. I’m afraid that repeating it won’t make it any more logical.
Nor will changing it on the fly e.g. Where did you say you’d accept VAR “with great reluctance”? You typed that in quotes, but no such words were in your previous post – nor any other words of that meaning.
It’s also incorrect to say that VAR is only successful in other sports because of its speed of application. Choosing tennis seems a rather weak attempt at cherry picking one sport that suits your purpose – while confusing correlation with causation.
Instead, look wider – perhaps look at rugby union where VAR is a failry slow deliberation between all the officials with the spectators hearing every word. Or US football where it also takes time and you get a summary explanation of the ruling at the end of it.
So I’m afraid it’s you who’s not comparing like with like – or not seeing the success of VAR usage for what it is – simply put, the success in other sports is due to the *accuracy* of the technology, not the speed. The failure in football is due to the (inexplicable) *lack* of accuracy. I personally don’t care if they take 5 minutes, as long as they get the right answer at the end of it. I think most people feel roughly the same way.
I also think it’s you who give no credence to others’ enjoyment of sport – there’s no enjoyment for me in watching a so-called “sport” when the outcome is often determined not by the skill of the players, but by the blunders of the officials. I think you’ll find that most people don’t enjoy watching that. Once again, your argument is an attempt to claim that you are speaking for a majority, or even a significant number, of other spectators when I believe that if there is a consensus, it’s the opposite of your view. All – and I do mean *all* – of the polls I’ve seen are heavily in favour of retaining VAR, so perhaps it’s you who should accede to the views of the vast majority?.
And it’s difficult to avoid noticing that your last sentences, shouted in capitals, speak volumes to the visceral nature of your objection to VAR.
Overall I can see no logic whatsoever in your position, I’m sorry to have to say. That’s a conclusion based on the discussion, not an insult, so please don’t take it as such.
“but people who can’t get the decisions right with replays showing them what really happened, in my humble opinion should be… encouraged to take up another way of making a living. 🙂”
Unless they are doing it on purpose? Isnt it strange VAR seems to be a problem in a league which already had substandard refereeing?
Yes, the same thought occurred to me.
Which is another reason not to have a time limit, because it’d give them another way to avoid the right decision…
If you’re a ref born in Manchester and you don’t want to overturn a decision not to award Arsenal a penalty vs Utd…. you could just take too long.
I’m pretty sure EPL VAR is rigged. After that Gabriel shirt pull by Dan Burns and no penalty, I know Arsenal are playing at uneven level.
Maybe it can,and I can’t see it making things worse.
But our real problem is, we are constantly seeking for a 100% fair and correct system, and it will not happen as long, as humans make the decisions.
A referee will always make a mistake here and there. It is natural. It is also natural, from time to time the referee’s decision will be influenced by bias, either deliberately or subconsciously. Same goes for VAR officials.
It is hard to accept, but that is the reality, and we will always be frustrated by refereeing by humans.
Some time in the future, maybe refereeing will be done by robots, which in theory could eliminate human mistakes, and at least get the bias out of the decisions.
Although you may be technically correct that 100% won’t happen, other sports achieve something very close to that.
E.g. there are very few calls in rugby union that I disagree with.
Football needs to keep at it until they get to that point. Mostly it’s about refereeing standards (or possibly bias, but I hope not).
How much of this is rooted in the findings of that review into refereeing where they showed the enormous levels of abuse refs suffer? It drives people out of that line of work so we’re left with those who can stand it, not necessarily the best people.
My approach to these things is to seek out and eradicate root causes, don’t attack the symptoms.
Anything that gets more thing right than the innept refereeing (that people have forgot) that we used to have to put up with. Im happy with. VAR for me has been a step in the right direction.
Nothing wrong with VAR (the technology), the problem is the muppets at Stockley Park implementing it, and I don’t see the requirement to adjust or change the laws of the game to suit viewers, but I do like the ideas put forward by Collina.
Just get it right in the first place.
Jax, totally agree with you. I’ve always said VAR is a good thing, the problem is the people using it at Stockley Park.