VAR

The thing is though those that seem to get people most up in arms are the right decision. No matter what you have the definition of offside as (for example Souness is saying as long as any ball-playing part of the body is onside then it should be onside) you will get discussions about the tiny margins. Offside decisions themselves are the only part that imho VAR has been consistent with (but linesmen need to stop flagging unless they are 110% sure because flagging makes players react)

The problem with VAR isn't factual decisions being made like that, its the lack of consistency on other issues. Things like the whole 'Handball in build up to a goal' which for most of the season has been zero tolerance but over the last month we have had a mix of mainly zero tolerance and then some where its deemed 'not an obvious mistake by the ref'

 

The offside decisions are the ones that are annoying people the most though. Either the technology needs to get better or you change the definition of offside. I like Souness' idea but that's too much of a change in my opinion.

I'd just simply say, if you have to use lines, measurements etc. to work out if a player is onside or offside then in that case the advantage should go to the attacking player. If it's clearly offside and been missed by the officials (not a fecking toe or an armpit) then VAR intervenes.

Pitchside monitors should be used more too. Have they been used in the PL yet? The World Club Final was a clear example of why the pitchside monitor should be used in the PL imo.

 

No matter how you define it there is going to be a hard line of what's on or off. And actually, if you go the other way all you end up doing is throw inconsistency back into the mix as it goes back to be about opinion in the moment. Or in Souness idea, it becomes about deciding if a toenail is onside which is the same problem.

On the pitchside monitors, its been stated that the refs decided not to use them (and the clubs were also against them). I don't personally see how it improves anything really, why is the onfield ref going to have a different opinion to the video ref outside the fact the video ref has a bit more time and more and bigger screens. The ref gives his opinion to the video ref so its not like its a decision the video ref makes in isolation. It's just going to see another 3-5mins added onto every decision and almost certainly come to the same outcome 9/10

 

The referee on the pitch is the most experienced of the officials. He has to make an immediate call, in real time, from a single angle. What you have at Stockley Park are lesser experienced officials deciding whether to overrule that more experienced referee after viewing the incident in slow motion from multiple angles.

I believe a more experienced referee is more likely to get the decision correct, so by going to a monitor you have the best person making the decision from the best information. I also believe that a person is more likely to overrule their own call, rather than someone else telling someone they are wrong.

I think we will see a number of changes with VAR next season and expect the pitchside monitor to be used a lot more.

 

You are acting like the VAR refs are rookies, in some situations, they have reffed more matches in total than the actual ref and even more this season)

Burnley vs Man Utd & Arsenal vs Chelseas - Micheal Oliver (248 Matches as Ref, 15 this season)
West Ham vs Leicester - Martin Atkinson (395 Matches, 17 this season)
Liverpool vs Wolves - Simon Hooper (First inexperienced one, 10 matches last season, 6 so far this season)
Man City vs Sheffield United - Stuart Attwell (104 matches, 10 this season)
Norwich vs Spurs - Chris Kavanagh ( 54 matches and 14 this season, same number this season as Kevin Friend who was the main Ref)
Watford vs Villa - Jonathan Moss (213 matches, 13 this season. More than the Ref Simon Hooper who has 16 matches in total, 6 this season)
Saints vs Palace - Andre Mariner (321 matches, 12 this season. Match ref Madley has refed just 8 PL matches in total)
Newcastle vs Everton Craig Pawson ( 145 matches, Less than match ref mason who has 270 but Pawson has been match ref for 11 matches this season vs Masons 9)
Brighton vs Bournemouth - Graham Scott (61 matches, Match ref Paul has 69)

They are mostly highly experienced, sometimes you might have one who has less experience but that also happens with match refs and the other match officials as they obviously have to be given a chance to learn on the job.

I'm also not sure refs are the type of people to overrule their decision. It was a big problem with officials behind the goals. They couldn't make decisions, they could only try and help the ref and it was a well-documented issue that refs would largely go with how they saw it even if the other official had a better view which is why they got a rep of doing nothing. They also simply don't have proper access to the footage, they have smaller screens and rely on the VAR official to show them the right footage which slows it down and puts pressure on the ref to make a snap decision to get the game restarted (especially as they don't add the time on)

 

Still yet to see anyone able to explain how the ref looking at a small monitor, under massive time pressure and who can only see the footage sent to the screen from VAR HQ will produce better decisions than an experienced ref with multiple large screens in front of them who has less time pressure and can view it from multiple angles at the same time and can manipulate the playback to their desire, all while having the ref providing feedback on how they came to the decisions they did.

 

Except for the fact that the situation you are describing doesn't happen. VAR HQ reviews it in consultation with the ref and then explain the decision to the ref. It's no different to how a player can be sent off when the ref doesn't see something but the linesman does. There is no going back and forth between the ref, player and VAR officials, actually, the ref going to the screen is what takes longer as either the ref has to instruct VAR to have a look at something he isn't sure about or VAR looks at it as the ref made a mistake and then if it's deemed by VAR to be an offence the ref goes over and looks over it themselves so you are adding further time of VAR feeding the ref a few relevant angles then rewinding, changing angles, slowing it down ect ect on instruction of the ref to allow him to make a decision.

All having the ref check it is add another layer that adds more time onto it and the final decision goes to the person with the worst screen for making a decision on