Mirth wrote:
Clear and obvious is such a nonsense clause. Trust the Premier league to take something that was intended to reduce ambiguity and add an entirely meaningless level of uncertainty.
I'm still in favour of VAR when it's implemented correctly. Even in its current state it's helped show everyone that the referees are incompetent or corrupt or both.
I dislike the NRL version because it is only activated on the ref's call and only in regard to what he asks for, but do think the Cricket and Rugby Union systems are much better. In all 3 the ref/umpire describes the situation to the VAR as to what they saw or what they want checked on in the lead up play. I also like the NFL system whereby the match referee is on speaker/audio as to what the decision is and why.
As it stands IMO football VAR is the worst such system of the 4, and much of that as it lacks clarity in game. That said I do understand some of the statements made by former refs etc in defence of the system. For example it is absolutely correct to say they are dealing with very clear and black & white laws in regards to offside play, whereas something akin to a foul or can be subjective or open to intent. However whilst they claim not to go into forensic investigation in using VAR they most certainly do in regard to black and white scenarios where there is no room for interpretation. What makes it more absurd is they hide behind the black and white nature of the rules to then justify it as being a clear and obvious error because there is no margin for error.
It's not so much the system at fault but more so the way it is set up to support the decisions made by the match officials unless being a clear and obvious error in regards to an absolute law of the game. VAR could be a tool to both improve the game and the standard of match officials, but since it's implementation it contributes little to the game other than providing cover for poor ref decisions, and then becoming the focus of attention rather than the game.
For mind the 2 biggest issues that detract from the game or improving the standard of officiating from both VAR and match officials, are firstly the ludicrous detail they put into establishing the absolute determination of a player being offside or not = the no margin for error. IMO the test of determination should be the naked eye test, and any margin for error should then go in favour of the attacking player.
Secondly the inconsistency of application/interpretation regarding foul play. In this game we are talking specifically in regards to shirt pulling. In the example above the question is raised as to if Lacazette used the opportunity of the shirt pull to lean in on the GK. Whilst 2 wrongs do not make a right IMO the actions of the 2 players cancel each other out (chicken and egg), and play continues with whatever the outcome is for the passage of play. The GK cannot claim to be prevented from making a save and the forward cannot claim to be impeded from scoring a goal. More specific to this game is the disparity in the decisions whereby the likes of Maguire get away with much greater physical obstruction as being 'normal physical contesting of the ball', and even more so when the ball is not in contention (as seen when he brought Tomiyasu down inside the area in the loss at OT). This is where if a decision is made & upheld by VAR then that becomes the bench mark/precedent and is either maintained or rejected. As such when deciding on any such decision the precedent must be a part of that decision process, and the 2 incidents should be compared to provide consistency of interpretation.
Lastly both the match officials and VAR should be miked up for review purposes, but also as seen with the uses of review seen by cricket and Rugby Union, and and decision made following a review or intervention should be broadcast for the benefit of the match going supporters as seen in the NFL.
VAR should be reviewed with a view of making it the best by using what works well with other systems and rejecting those aspects that create inconsistency and frustration, with communication and inconsistency being at the forefront.
