All this was for like an extra 3-4% of correct decisions too. Not only has it woefully failed on that front its even made on field refs worse.
This is it. VAR hasn't made the refs worse, it's just put the spotlight (a minutes-long, game-freezing spotlight) on just how bad they actually are at this.That's a bit disingenuous, when they say things like "we got 92% of decisions right" they're including Adlène Guedioura smashing it 30 yards over the bar and giving a goal kick and Jérémy Hélan dribbling it straight out of play and a Millwall throw-in being the right call.
The contentious decisions are that narrow 5-10% and they almost certainly have improved. But the errors look worse because there's no real excuse for getting it horrifically wrong and they do.
I think it has, some don't make close decisions and wait for the technology to do soThis is it. VAR hasn't made the refs worse, it's just put the spotlight (a minutes-long, game-freezing spotlight) on just how bad they actually are at this.
And who can blame them? It's human nature.I think it has, some don't make close decisions and wait for the technology to do so
See how you get here but it's a very difficult thing to narrow down to just the presence of VAR.I think it has, some don't make close decisions and wait for the technology to do so
This definitely won't happen often whilst "clear and obvious" is in place. Circling back to Tony's point about psychology, with VAR structured as it is now, sending the ref to the monitor is already saying "you've probably got this wrong".I just wish once in a blue moon one of them would go over to the screen and say nah I'm happy with my decision.
They might do if when they arrived at the screen they weren't presented with an image (with zero context) that immediately shows a perspective to say their initial decision wasn't right.I just wish once in a blue moon one of them would go over to the screen and say nah I'm happy with my decision.
Why don’t they just ask for the whole passage of play? They are like, y’know, the fucking ref.They might do if when they arrived at the screen they weren't presented with an image (with zero context) that immediately shows a perspective to say their initial decision wasn't right.
If you look at the clip I put up earlier, there's no probably. They tell our number 1 referee he is, what his decision should be and show him why with the angles and speeds they wanted. The 'we think that's worth having a look at' message is a red herring. EP says all Atwell was shown against Bournemouth was a swinging arm without the context, that's manufacturing the result you want, not letting the ref see the full pictureThis definitely won't happen often whilst "clear and obvious" is in place. Circling back to Tony's point about psychology, with VAR structured as it is now, sending the ref to the monitor is already saying "you've probably got this wrong".
Disagree. VAR provides a comfort blanket now. Not a big deal if you get a decision wrong.This is it. VAR hasn't made the refs worse, it's just put the spotlight (a minutes-long, game-freezing spotlight) on just how bad they actually are at this.
Isn't it? Seems to me the scrutiny has never been higher, at least not in the last ~15 years.Disagree. VAR provides a comfort blanket now. Not a big deal if you get a decision wrong.
It's higher because of VAR. Nobody would have mentioned Hwang or Kilman's disallowed goals before it.Isn't it? Seems to me the scrutiny has never been higher, at least not in the last ~15 years.