So, is VAR coming to Argyle? (Video ref)

[X Isle]

It will be interesting watching the game tonight if the VAR comes into play.

The A23 derby is usually a good watch anyway. I used to go to them at the Goldstone back before work got in the way, always tasty encounters. This twist just adds to the intrigue tonight.

If they were hoping for a quiet, incident free fixture to introduce VAR quietly, they picked the wrong game :lol:

 

[Old Gunner]

Watched the Notts Forest v Arsenal game yesterday.
One ref ,one linesman ,two commentators and eight cameras could not make a positive decision.
Did he or did he not ; in the end the REFEREE (dictionary meaning look it up)made a decision.
As for crowding the ref yellow cards all round until the team is down to not enough players and they lose the game.
Sorry but simple answers are not suitable for the present day.
Rant over other wise I will be on all day.

Travesty of a result --i'm a bit biased. As previously mentioned if the video evidence is inconclusive then defer to the referee. Perhaps a refinement needs to be made i.e. if a decision is not conclusive within 30 to 40 secs then the ref makes the call. As for players crowding the ref---they are not stupid, it wouldn't take them long to change their behaviours if there were immediate sanctions. This issue is always going to polarise opinion and I can see some drawbacks but make no mistake it is coming. Took an age for goal line technology to be introduced but here we are. Did you know that when football first started there wasn't a referee------

 

[Mark Jenkin]

Cricket wastes time using 2 or 3 camera angles to decide if a fielder has conceded a boundary or not, they cash in with a big electronic board which always shows a sponsor for a few seconds before announcing out or not out on 3rd umpire decisions. The players are criticised for slow over rates, I bet 3 or 4 overs a day are lost to the umpire checking replays.
I watched American football last night and a challenge was checked over and over by the referee and all angles were totally inconclusive.
Rugby league check pretty much every try now, the referees seem reluctant to make a decision because they know they have a video ref, this tends to take a long time especially when the try scorer and tacklers obscure the ball. A difference between rugby and what football will do, is the clock is now stopped during most breaks in play, at least they still get all the playing time. Of course once again instead of the ref signalling try after a decision is made, they go to the electronic board where the decision is sponsored by Tetleys/Paddy Power/Macdonalds or whoever.
It will happen in all the top leagues, the tv companies want it, advertisers can't wait (We'll have Ray Winstone in the corner of the screen offering odds on whether it's a red card or not, whilst urging us to gamble responsibly) the clubs will be happy with the extra revenue. It's not for me, I'm a traditionalist, id rather be in the car warming up at 5 after the game, than sat in the ground waiting for the 18 minutes of added video ref time to elapse.

 

[Mark Jenkin]

Watched the Notts Forest v Arsenal game yesterday.
One ref ,one linesman ,two commentators and eight cameras could not make a positive decision.
Did he or did he not ; in the end the REFEREE (dictionary meaning look it up)made a decision.
As for crowding the ref yellow cards all round until the team is down to not enough players and they lose the game.
Sorry but simple answers are not suitable for the present day.
Rant over other wise I will be on all day.

Travesty of a result --i'm a bit biased. As previously mentioned if the video evidence is inconclusive then defer to the referee. Perhaps a refinement needs to be made i.e. if a decision is not conclusive within 30 to 40 secs then the ref makes the call. As for players crowding the ref---they are not stupid, it wouldn't take them long to change their behaviours if there were immediate sanctions. This issue is always going to polarise opinion and I can see some drawbacks but make no mistake it is coming. Took an age for goal line technology to be introduced but here we are. Did you know that when football first started there wasn't a referee------

Goal line technology is instant and indisputable, nearly all other decisions are an opinion

 

[Old Gunner]

Watched the Notts Forest v Arsenal game yesterday.
One ref ,one linesman ,two commentators and eight cameras could not make a positive decision.
Did he or did he not ; in the end the REFEREE (dictionary meaning look it up)made a decision.
As for crowding the ref yellow cards all round until the team is down to not enough players and they lose the game.
Sorry but simple answers are not suitable for the present day.
Rant over other wise I will be on all day.

Travesty of a result --i'm a bit biased. As previously mentioned if the video evidence is inconclusive then defer to the referee. Perhaps a refinement needs to be made i.e. if a decision is not conclusive within 30 to 40 secs then the ref makes the call. As for players crowding the ref---they are not stupid, it wouldn't take them long to change their behaviours if there were immediate sanctions. This issue is always going to polarise opinion and I can see some drawbacks but make no mistake it is coming. Took an age for goal line technology to be introduced but here we are. Did you know that when football first started there wasn't a referee------

Goal line technology is instant and indisputable, nearly all other decisions are an opinion

Some decisions are subjective because the evidence is inconclusive, but some aren't and video technology can help in these instances. The same arguments were used in Rugby (and the changes in the game have been far more radical than anything considered in football--I remember watching Saracens as amateurs playing in a park in North London) and they don't seem to be doing too bad. The technology is coming but it needs a sensible and objective debate to ensure it is applied in the most effective way.

 

[Mark Jenkin]

We'll have to disagree old gunner, which is what the pundits do on pretty much any penalty decision I've seen recently. I agree it's coming by the way, not for the sports fans though, more for the money men running our sport

 

[Old Gunner]

We'll have to disagree old gunner, which is what the pundits do on pretty much any penalty decision I've seen recently. I agree it's coming by the way, not for the sports fans though, more for the money men running our sport

No worries--we will all watch with interest.

 

[East End Green]

A view from Italy after a half a season of it in Serie A:

http://www.wsc.co.uk/features/14017...nging-interventions-and-plenty-of-controversy

Personally, I'm implacably opposed. Why give television companies even more influence over the game?

 

[Willis88]

It's been fine for how many hundreds of years?

It's like when the interpretation of the offisde rule happens each year.

Just leave it alone. There's other things for football officials to get on with surely.

 

[dunlop]

One incident tonight and they never had the correct camera angle, this is the first grey area.

 

[mervyn]

Used in the Brighton Palace game this evening, but had no affect on the game in any way, as not a single controversy arose. I think that will apply to most games.

 

[IJN]

Oh no did Palace lose? :lol: :wave:

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

Watched the Notts Forest v Arsenal game yesterday.
One ref ,one linesman ,two commentators and eight cameras could not make a positive decision.
Did he or did he not ; in the end the REFEREE (dictionary meaning look it up)made a decision.
As for crowding the ref yellow cards all round until the team is down to not enough players and they lose the game.
Sorry but simple answers are not suitable for the present day.
Rant over other wise I will be on all day.

Travesty of a result --i'm a bit biased. As previously mentioned if the video evidence is inconclusive then defer to the referee. Perhaps a refinement needs to be made i.e. if a decision is not conclusive within 30 to 40 secs then the ref makes the call. As for players crowding the ref---they are not stupid, it wouldn't take them long to change their behaviours if there were immediate sanctions. This issue is always going to polarise opinion and I can see some drawbacks but make no mistake it is coming. Took an age for goal line technology to be introduced but here we are. Did you know that when football first started there wasn't a referee------

Goal line technology is instant and indisputable, nearly all other decisions are an opinion

Some decisions are subjective because the evidence is inconclusive, but some aren't and video technology can help in these instances. The same arguments were used in Rugby (and the changes in the game have been far more radical than anything considered in football--I remember watching Saracens as amateurs playing in a park in North London) and they don't seem to be doing too bad. The technology is coming but it needs a sensible and objective debate to ensure it is applied in the most effective way.

Aah, Bramley Road Sports Ground, Southgate. I remember once being stuck in the traffic on the top deck of a bus and the driver came upstairs to get a better view of a penalty.

 

[PL2 3DQ]

Var, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

 

[Bermudian Green]

Var, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

Say, it, say it, say it :greensmile:

Personally, 100% against it. By all means use reviews after the game to catch divers and other cheats, but not during a game. The ref and his assistants should be sacrosanct. Part of the fun is debating their decisions.