[A38]

It's a subject of which I know little.

VAR.

But it's all over the back pages. There is much ado about a recent a game between Liverpool and Tottenham..

I had thought that VAR was the equivalent of the TMO system but I gather it has significant differences and that it is generally disliked and maybe distrusted.

We might have misgivings about the odd decision but taken overall I think that the TMO system in rugby works well.

The newly introduced bunker system is in its infancy but I am very happy with the concept - the game can progress whilst decisions are made outside immediate time pressure. Yes, we do need consistency but that will come.

So, has rugby got it right?

[TeflonTed]

Nearly.

The bunker system, as used at the RWC, is coming under criticism because it is remotely located, and controversially, manned anonymously. That may be a peculiarity of the completion, and shouldn’t detract from the inherent value of the bunker system.

At English Premiership level, as long as bunker adjudication is done by named people, I’d have no problem with them being at a remote location in order to serve several games. This should add consistency to decisions.

As to VAR, today’s news majors on a poor decision which seems to have robbed some team of a valid goal, but has now escalated to a “scandal” because the 2 officials involved (not anonymous, well done footy) on Saturday had been officiating 2 days earlier in the Middle East, which has led to concerns since the Middle Eastern owners of whichever club benefited from Saturday’s decision May be seen by some as having, in some way, some influence over said officials.

Forgive me if I’m light on the details, it’s the principal that counts.

[Flumpty]

At English Premiership level, as long as bunker adjudication is done by named people, I’d have no problem with them being at a remote location in order to serve several games. This should add consistency to decisions.

That's a fair suggestion, although you may need 2 bunkers in operation, as there are going to be times when several yellow cards will need reviewing at the same time.

[poyntonshark]

As far as I am aware neither the owners of Liverpool nor Tottenham are Middle Eastern, at least not the majority owners, there may well be some minority ownership. VAR has caused several concerns over its relatively short lifespan, none of which IMHO are inherent to the system itself, more down to the (in)competence of the human interpreting the video evidence. VAR and the TMO system are technically pretty much identical, simply video review.

I know of plenty who would rather that Rugby did away with the TMO. I'm not one of them, but I would prefer to see referees make more decisions and TMO only intervene for clear and obvious errors.

[TeflonTed]

Poynton,
“As far as I am aware neither the owners of Liverpool nor Tottenham are Middle Eastern, at least not the majority owners,”

I’m sure you’re right. In the hysteria over a disallowed goal I scanned many press reports, but didn’t take in much. Maybe someone said whoever was disadvantaged by the poor VAR decision sees a ME funded club as close rivals or some such fantasy logic?

Dunno, but I should have understood the surrounding issues more thoroughly……if only I could tolerate any more footie stuff.

[poyntonshark]

Not totally fantasy logic. Both Manchester City and Newcastle United are Middle Eastern owned. Liverpool, Tottenham, Manchester City and Newcastle United would all consider themselves title contenders this season. So that "significant human error" (referees association wording) would cost Liverpool against the two ME owned clubs, but would, of course, favour Tottenham against the same clubs.
I'm confident no conspiracy is involved, just simple incompetence in this case.

[FarnhamShark]

I read a report that said the issue was that the VAR official confirmed the ref's onfield decision. However, he hadn't been paying attention and didn't realise that he'd misunderstood the ref's onfield call. If so, that's simple incompetence, and nothing to with the system. However, the VAR system does cause constant argument, largely around the requirement that it only overturns an onfield call in the event of a "clear and obvious" error. In many cases the decisions are not remotely either clear or obvious.

[Latecomer]

However, the VAR system does cause constant argument, largely around the requirement that it only overturns an onfield call in the event of a "clear and obvious" error. In many cases the decisions are not remotely either clear or obvious.

Lets not forget that VAR was born due to the 'constant arguments' and vilification that occurred when players, managers, supporters and media pundits found themselves disagreeing with a referees decision. Nothing's really changed, it still goes on ....................

[SimonG]

However, the VAR system does cause constant argument, largely around the requirement that it only overturns an onfield call in the event of a "clear and obvious" error. In many cases the decisions are not remotely either clear or obvious.

Lets not forget that VAR was born due to the 'constant arguments' and vilification that occurred when players, managers, supporters and media pundits found themselves disagreeing with a referees decision. Nothing's really changed, it still goes on ....................

Indeed it just gives us more people to blame!

As others have said there is nothing wrong with the systems just some of the people that operate it.