Interesting:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/ar ... grx8ml7m0o
AFFILIATE SEARCH | Shop Amazon.co.uk using this search bar and support WHO!
VAR
-
threesixty
- Posts: 1136
- Old WHO Number: 14819
- Has liked: 175 times
- Been liked: 321 times
Re: VAR
I also think it has not improved the basic skill of refereeing. The process should go back to just getting the best refs you can and judging them after a game how much they got right or not. Then use that metric to demote or promote them. But do that frequently, like at least every 5 games they should remove the worst performing refs in the league and replace them with the best 5 in the lower league.
I’m sure that’s meant to have been happening all along, but I just don’t think the sanctions were serious enough for being bad at your job.
I’m sure that’s meant to have been happening all along, but I just don’t think the sanctions were serious enough for being bad at your job.
-
Mad Ferret
- Posts: 2317
- Has liked: 210 times
- Been liked: 364 times
Re: VAR
SurfaceAgentX2Zero wrote: ↑13 Jan 2026, 13:53Basically the whole thing is an ambiguous farce and allows match officials to decide outcomes whenever they choose to and to justify it on interpretation...not saying they do, but the scope is certainly there.I've always said that VAR just gives bent officials an extra opportunity to be bent.
And you can stick your automated offside up your arse, too. It still wrongly ruled out Summerville's goal against Forest.
It got ruled out because it was deemed by the officials that the ball was deliberately played to Summerville rather than the ricochet that it was.
-
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
- Posts: 878
- Old WHO Number: 214126
- Has liked: 160 times
- Been liked: 255 times
Re: VAR
Basically the whole thing is an ambiguous farce and allows match officials to decide outcomes whenever they choose to and to justify it on interpretation...not saying they do, but the scope is certainly there.
I've always said that VAR just gives bent officials an extra opportunity to be bent.
And you can stick your automated offside up your arse, too. It still wrongly ruled out Summerville's goal against Forest.
And you can stick your automated offside up your arse, too. It still wrongly ruled out Summerville's goal against Forest.
-
stubbo-admin
- Posts: 1865
- Old WHO Number: 12009
- Has liked: 372 times
- Been liked: 855 times
Re: VAR
Far Cough UKunt" wrote: ↑13 Jan 2026, 12:33 When the fuck did "phases"become a thing? Bill Shankly would have ripped this whole thing apart in seconds.
Yup. Absolute horseshit.
-
WHU(Exeter)
- Posts: 1533
- Old WHO Number: 13669
- Has liked: 154 times
- Been liked: 234 times
Re: VAR
Hated the idea of it's introduction and hate it just as much now.
SKY pushed and pushed for it, repeating the same mantra that "it will only take seconds" to clear up decisions, whilst at the same time poring over incidents in games (involving the top 4 clubs), for an age after games, with themselves not being able to agree on right/wrong after watching it a dozen times. So much for their "will only take seconds".
Football is the most watched worldwide sport for a number of reasons. Why introduce ideas from other less watched sports? "It works in cricket, rugby union, blah, blah"....so what?
It's unfair also on fans who actually travel hundreds of miles to games. Could literally miss out on the last 10 minutes of a game, because you have to balance all the unnecessary VAR interruptions, with what time your last train home is.
SKY pushed and pushed for it, repeating the same mantra that "it will only take seconds" to clear up decisions, whilst at the same time poring over incidents in games (involving the top 4 clubs), for an age after games, with themselves not being able to agree on right/wrong after watching it a dozen times. So much for their "will only take seconds".
Football is the most watched worldwide sport for a number of reasons. Why introduce ideas from other less watched sports? "It works in cricket, rugby union, blah, blah"....so what?
It's unfair also on fans who actually travel hundreds of miles to games. Could literally miss out on the last 10 minutes of a game, because you have to balance all the unnecessary VAR interruptions, with what time your last train home is.
-
stubbo-admin
- Posts: 1865
- Old WHO Number: 12009
- Has liked: 372 times
- Been liked: 855 times
Re: VAR
VAR IMO can't work without a wholesale rewrite of the laws of the game to take away interpretation and 'grey' areas, and make things black or white, and simplify complex intepretation (phases of play, 'interfering').
-
El Scorchio
- Posts: 4296
- Old WHO Number: 227648
- Has liked: 249 times
- Been liked: 1240 times
Re: VAR
That's it- it's still far too subjective and inconsistent to be accurate and as below so much scope for the decision not to be 'wrong' but still not the right or fair decision. The penalties (Paq and Soucek) a great example. If a foul isn't a foul game to game then that's massive.
There's also too much that rests on whether the ref makes a decision or not, or whether it's a good decision and what is 'clear and obvious' and what is not. There have been several occasions where something absolutely isn't clear and obvious and VAR has changed the decision. If the ref gives something on field that's really soft or egregious but VAR can't (or won't) overturn it on that principle then that's a huge problem- likewise if he doesn't and it IS a foul but not an horrendous one they stick with his decision.
The rules on 'phases of play' are broken as well and far too subject to 'interpretation'. It STILL impacted whatever came after and led to a goal or whatever and they seem to be able to pick and choose what a 'phase of play' is from one game to the next. Sometimes it's 15-20 seconds and a change of possession, sometimes it's about 3 seconds and a ricochet back to the player who was offside or handballed or whatever- yes I'm thinking Brighton away.
There's also too much that rests on whether the ref makes a decision or not, or whether it's a good decision and what is 'clear and obvious' and what is not. There have been several occasions where something absolutely isn't clear and obvious and VAR has changed the decision. If the ref gives something on field that's really soft or egregious but VAR can't (or won't) overturn it on that principle then that's a huge problem- likewise if he doesn't and it IS a foul but not an horrendous one they stick with his decision.
The rules on 'phases of play' are broken as well and far too subject to 'interpretation'. It STILL impacted whatever came after and led to a goal or whatever and they seem to be able to pick and choose what a 'phase of play' is from one game to the next. Sometimes it's 15-20 seconds and a change of possession, sometimes it's about 3 seconds and a ricochet back to the player who was offside or handballed or whatever- yes I'm thinking Brighton away.
Re: VAR
It's miserable to see tech used to take us out of the moment when football is one of the few things that allow us to enjoy life in the moment. If it's not even improving decision making then not only is not adding anything it comes at a huge cost to our enjoyment.
It should be binned. And they should commit to only use tech that gives quick indisputable decisions that takes away nothing from our enjoyment.
It should be binned. And they should commit to only use tech that gives quick indisputable decisions that takes away nothing from our enjoyment.
-
Fauxstralian
- Posts: 4297
- Old WHO Number: 321173
- Has liked: 73 times
- Been liked: 604 times
Re: VAR
Enjoyed Sundays game without it
Was in favour when it came in as thought the bias towards big teams would be reduced
Feels like it’s the opposite and in my biased way I feel like we get raped by it
Have seen 2 keepers having a pen against them for contacting an attackers head … Fabianski v Arsenal, Areola v Forest … in the last 3 years
Noone else
Do agree refs are less decisive in making calls and their mates often back them up with ludicrous decisions
Bin it and just keep goal line technology & automatic offsides
After changing the law so that there has to be daylight between the defender & attacker. None of this tshirt line , toe nail bollocks
Was in favour when it came in as thought the bias towards big teams would be reduced
Feels like it’s the opposite and in my biased way I feel like we get raped by it
Have seen 2 keepers having a pen against them for contacting an attackers head … Fabianski v Arsenal, Areola v Forest … in the last 3 years
Noone else
Do agree refs are less decisive in making calls and their mates often back them up with ludicrous decisions
Bin it and just keep goal line technology & automatic offsides
After changing the law so that there has to be daylight between the defender & attacker. None of this tshirt line , toe nail bollocks
-
threesixty
- Posts: 1136
- Old WHO Number: 14819
- Has liked: 175 times
- Been liked: 321 times
Re: VAR
Interesting what they consider an error. They’ve highlighted a deliberate handball from Killman for us.
However, they didnt disallow the goal scored by Brighton when Mav was kicked in the head.
They didnt even go looking for that infringement after the goal like they normally do.
And that is the real issue with VAR. It’s selectively applied and no one really knows what the rationale for it being used is. It seems to vary from match to match and ref to ref. It hasn’t solved the problem of bad decisions and just moved the bad decision down the line to another step.
I have always been more in favour of the Tennis style of querying ref decisions i.e. each side gets 2 or 3 queries a game. It’s already an unfair system so why not make it fairer by putting the querying decision in the hands of the teams instead of a group of off camera refs who’s credibility can seemingly never be questioned?
We’ve already had 1 var ref admit that they didnt over turn an on field decision because of the relationship he had with the in game ref. And why not have foreign, completely unafffilated refs for var. Why not go to a completely different country and get their view on an issue to break this bias that is so evident.
However, they didnt disallow the goal scored by Brighton when Mav was kicked in the head.
They didnt even go looking for that infringement after the goal like they normally do.
And that is the real issue with VAR. It’s selectively applied and no one really knows what the rationale for it being used is. It seems to vary from match to match and ref to ref. It hasn’t solved the problem of bad decisions and just moved the bad decision down the line to another step.
I have always been more in favour of the Tennis style of querying ref decisions i.e. each side gets 2 or 3 queries a game. It’s already an unfair system so why not make it fairer by putting the querying decision in the hands of the teams instead of a group of off camera refs who’s credibility can seemingly never be questioned?
We’ve already had 1 var ref admit that they didnt over turn an on field decision because of the relationship he had with the in game ref. And why not have foreign, completely unafffilated refs for var. Why not go to a completely different country and get their view on an issue to break this bias that is so evident.
Re: VAR
I was initially in favour of it, purely because of the relentless bad decisions that have gone against us, especially that last season at UP under Bilic where, if not for diabolical refereeing mistakes,we'd have been in the Champions League the following season.
But I thought it would be strictly AI like, goal-line technology, not just another tool for humans to get things wrong. Now you can't even celebrate a goal properly, it seems intent to rule out goals, no matter how long it takes to reach the decision, often resulting in a silly amount of added on time, and of course, is still prone to human error.
But I thought it would be strictly AI like, goal-line technology, not just another tool for humans to get things wrong. Now you can't even celebrate a goal properly, it seems intent to rule out goals, no matter how long it takes to reach the decision, often resulting in a silly amount of added on time, and of course, is still prone to human error.
-
stubbo-admin
- Posts: 1865
- Old WHO Number: 12009
- Has liked: 372 times
- Been liked: 855 times
Re: VAR
Far Cough UKunt" wrote: ↑13 Jan 2026, 10:51 Interesting:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/ar ... grx8ml7m0o
And then there is the consistency of interpretation....e.g. the overhead kick that was clearly dangerous by the laws of the game, and connected with Mavro's head in the build up to the Brighton equaliser. Something like that doesn't make this list, but is a clear inconsistency with other fould given in the same circumstances.
Or fouls like Paqueta rugby tackling Dunk being a penalty, but the same happening to Soucek vs Wolves twice just being waved away with no intervention.
Basically the whole thing is an ambiguous farce and allows match officials to decide outcomes whenever they choose to and to justify it on interpretation...not saying they do, but the scope is certainly there.
Or fouls like Paqueta rugby tackling Dunk being a penalty, but the same happening to Soucek vs Wolves twice just being waved away with no intervention.
Basically the whole thing is an ambiguous farce and allows match officials to decide outcomes whenever they choose to and to justify it on interpretation...not saying they do, but the scope is certainly there.