Without wishing to re-open the whole VAR debate, consider the merits of placing a limitation on the time allowed to review a decision...(?)
Yes, I understand that the entire intention is to arrive at the "correct outcome" following a "clear & obvious" error by the on-field officials.... ...and yes I also cynically believe that achieving decisions that benefit Man Utd is the main reason why the system was adopted in the first place...
...but if it takes 3.5 minutes (genuine example) to decide that a "goal" scored scored against Man Utd should not stand... how can it possibly be reasonably considered to have been a "clear & obvious" error in the first instance....?
IMHO with the technology available in Stockley Park, any "clear & obvious" error should be spotted within 60 seconds... otherwise it is self-evident that any potential mistake, was never "clear & obvious" in the original instance....!
I think the second sentence in the second paragraph sums it up. Mind you, Villa obviously hadn't read the rules about scoring against a top four(ish) club.
It is also about time a ref went to the sideline and stuck with his original decision.
VAR has achieved it's intention which was to limit the constant viscous criticism of referee's by Managers,M.O.D.panelists and the press.
No it hasn't. Referees are still getting criticised, rightly so a lot of the time. It's just that now due to VAR there are a lot more officials involved in making wrong decisions. Which they are still doing.
and long may that continue. I hate VAR, bring back the human referee!
Yes, someone like Trevor Kettle?😳
JTG
He is just one ref and sure we can find associates of his there but overall I grew up with it being part of the game. I would rather that than VAR which for me has done more to ruin the game than improve it.
It is also about time a ref went to the sideline and stuck with his original decision.
In other words...
...conclude that the VAR team have made a clear & obvious error....(?)
Well, not quite. The var team are meant to call the ref over if they THINK the ref has made a clear and obvious error. The word think (or it might be believe) is very important there. It means it is their opinion versus the refs original opinion...in real time.
Some of the reversed decisions I've seen my opinion hasn't changed. Both in giving and not giving the penalty. I happen to think the referees are forced to change their minds due to the pressure of going against var. The immediate question would be " what's the point of having it if you're not going to pay attention to it".
...Some of the reversed decisions I've seen my opinion hasn't changed. Both in giving and not giving the penalty. I happen to think the referees are forced to change their minds due to the pressure of going against var. The immediate question would be " what's the point of having it if you're not going to pay attention to it".
Hey-ho, you have squared the circle... ...instead of the focus being about the GENUINE issue that VAR undermines the Ref... ...we now have a CONTRIVED farcical scenario, wherein Refs are pressured not to undermine VAR...!