Originally Posted by
halo se7en
OK, so there's the passive offside interpretation. I'll give you that. If in doubt, go with the call on the field, but if VAR can get 80% of offside calls in relation to goals correct, surely that's still better than leaving it up to a flip of the coin?
I don't agree with the way it was used for the Gypo's cards at all. The ref should have called yellow/red on the spot and stuck with his decision. Those types of interventions aren't called for (hence my calls that VAR can be improved). Santalab & Llorente both should have been dealt with on the spot by the ref also - but all four of these instances shows what happens when you have an inconsistent ref.
I don't know why Bobo's wasn't called a red, but I'm happy for VAR to be used to look at it in the first instance. The fault IMO lay with whoever it was who reviewed it and failed to call it red (the head ref or whoever he is has since stated the personnel is going to change and they're reeling in what they review). But without VAR that was completely missed in the first place. In future that sort of act is likely to be called red more often than not, which is an improvement on now. An effective VAR might also mean that backplay rubbish starts to disappear when players know they won't get away with it. Bobo himself likely won't try it again knowing it's been scrutinised so heavily already.
Cricket & League are examples of where the video goes too far. The run outs were simple to decide, the rest is very grey. It seems to work in tennis OK, not that I've watched it for years now.
Essentially though, the biggest complaints about VAR seem to be how long it takes to review something, and the inconsistency of when and how it's used... both things which can be refined and improved upon.
In saying all that... if it was disappear tomorrow, I wouldn't lose sleep. But I don't mind them trialing it.
Reply With Quote