1) people assume a level of precision in both the technology and laws that simply does not exist. This is not tennis, where the parameters never change. Additionally, reading the Laws of the Games, supplemental interpretations, advice to officials, etc. and there is no agreement nor consensus. If three “experts” look at the same play and have three different conclusions, how precise or accurate can anyone ever be?
2) VAR was designed to correct egregious errors (clear hand balls, carding wrong players, violent conduct, and being offside by miles) not to determine whether a player remains onside be virtue of whether he clipped his toe nails. “Clear and obvious” is supposed to be the standard, not picking every nit possible.
People will complain about refereeing regardless of the quality. Sacrificing the joy of the game in a sad attempt to placate those who will never be happy is unfair to those of us who love the spontaneity of the game, and unfair to the game itself.
Fully agree with this - it is the accusation of being some sort of luddite if you are opposed to VAR that I find most annoying. If it provided a greater benefit than downside I would be all for it. It doesn't. And it can't. Of all the issues facing football this really isn't top of the list.
A witty person (ie me) once described it as "a solution that doesn't work for a problem that doesn't exist". I invite you all to use that line and claim it for yourselves. No thanks needed.
Good article, two points, a full roll out of GLT across the EFL feels more pressing, and secondly, just improving the standard of referring in the EFL is the better option, it’s pretty awful at the moment. You can’t make up for bad refs by more bad refs in Stockley park making bad video decision
Two issues with VAR:
1) people assume a level of precision in both the technology and laws that simply does not exist. This is not tennis, where the parameters never change. Additionally, reading the Laws of the Games, supplemental interpretations, advice to officials, etc. and there is no agreement nor consensus. If three “experts” look at the same play and have three different conclusions, how precise or accurate can anyone ever be?
2) VAR was designed to correct egregious errors (clear hand balls, carding wrong players, violent conduct, and being offside by miles) not to determine whether a player remains onside be virtue of whether he clipped his toe nails. “Clear and obvious” is supposed to be the standard, not picking every nit possible.
People will complain about refereeing regardless of the quality. Sacrificing the joy of the game in a sad attempt to placate those who will never be happy is unfair to those of us who love the spontaneity of the game, and unfair to the game itself.
Fully agree with this - it is the accusation of being some sort of luddite if you are opposed to VAR that I find most annoying. If it provided a greater benefit than downside I would be all for it. It doesn't. And it can't. Of all the issues facing football this really isn't top of the list.
A witty person (ie me) once described it as "a solution that doesn't work for a problem that doesn't exist". I invite you all to use that line and claim it for yourselves. No thanks needed.
PS - Merry Christmas!
Outstanding article Sam.
Good article, two points, a full roll out of GLT across the EFL feels more pressing, and secondly, just improving the standard of referring in the EFL is the better option, it’s pretty awful at the moment. You can’t make up for bad refs by more bad refs in Stockley park making bad video decision