VAR - good or bad for the game?

Is VAR good for football?

  • Yes - once it's settled down it'll be good for the game

    Votes: 8 36.4%
  • No - it's killing the momentum of games for no real benefit

    Votes: 14 63.6%

  • Total voters
    22

swee'pea99

Legendary Member
Have to declare right up front that I was never an enthusiast. For me the bottom line was that incorrect decisions are an unavoidable part of the game, and that unless you doubt the honesty of the officials, you just accept that some will go your way and some won't, and get on with the game.

So no great surprise that I remain unpersuaded.

Admittedly it's early days...there are bound to be teething troubles. But things don't seem to be improving. We seem to have lurched from 'mustn't overrule the ref' to 'must show we're not afraid to overrule the ref' to an extent that even by the supposed rules governing VAR makes no sense. And certainly any hopes that VAR would ensure 'the correct decision' seem to have been dashed. As far as I can see, we're seeing as many contentious decisions as we ever did...we're just killing the rhythm of games, for no real benefit. (Even the ones that VAR definitively does get right - offsides that by the rules of physics weren't, by 2.3mm - don't actually benefit football. What's wrong with 'some you win, some you lose'?)

Personally I'd like to see the whole thing dropped, as a failed (arguably inherently doomed) attempt at Guaranteed Correct Decisions, and get back to having the officials adjudicate to the best of their abilities, in real time, and play up play up and play the game. It won't happen, of course, for a number of reasons - not least the amount of face that needs to be saved.

So, what do you think? On the whole, one thing & another, good for the game, or should be returned to sender with a note saying 'thanks but no thanks'?
 

greenmark

Veteran
Location
Hong Kong
After the numerous VARs used in the Rugby WC, I'd say it's good for the game.

It does indeed slow down play. However, the pause is filled with its own type of tension and intrigue, so it is a good pause.
 

Fab Foodie

hanging-on in quiet desperation ...
It can only be good. It works just fine in Rugby which has become a better and safer game as a result. Furthermore it has removed villification if the Ref. who has to make a split-second decision whilst the public get to decide by numerous replays.
More importantly is should help to remove the cynical cheating and play-acting that ruins the game. Anything that makes the much-moneyed game more honest is OK by me.

I would also get rid of yellow cards in favour of 15 mins in the sin-bin.

Football could learn a lot from Rugby which has cleaned-up its act significantly.
 

Starchivore

I don't know much about Cinco de Mayo
I don't get why they've made it so complicated. Surely it just needs to be the VAR team very quickly correcting the ref on any major errors he's made/major things he's missed?

What's with the long stoppages, and overturning goals based on a toe offside or a possible foul no one ever saw...?

I think VAR can be good to catch a dive the ref thought was a pen, or if a tackle was a straight red or yellow.... but these marginal offsides, long waits... crazy.
 

Tenkaykev

Senior Member
Location
Poole
When anything new and possibly contentious is introduced my natural skepticism always tells me to " follow the money"

With VAR the television broadcasters who hold the purse strings are setting up another advertising slot within the game. I believe that it is only a matter of time before " Just time for a quick word from our sponsors" is heard when a decision is referred to VAR.
 

ianrauk

Tattooed Beat Messiah
Football did fine for over a hundred years + without it. Contentious decisions is what make football and pub discussions great. However, the stakes these days are so high money wise I can see why some clubs do want VAR. It needs a lot more work to get right.
 
Top Bottom