The VAR monthly review 2024/2025

[mothman]

On 1/23/2025 at 6:40 AM, SteelmaninOZ said:

 

Wild inconsistencies in VAR decision-making has been highlighted once again after this months review of Marley Watkins winner against Dundee Utd (in comparison to our disallowed goal v the rangers). From BBC - 

Collum believes the decision to award Kilmarnock a controversial winning goal against Dundee United was the correct one. Marley Watkins challenged with United goalkeeper Jack Walton in the air to head home and the goal was given following a VAR review. The Tannadice club contacted the SFA after the game to say they feel VAR continues to lead to "inconsistent interpretations" of the laws of the game. "We support the decision," Collum said. "There's not enough here for a foul on the goalkeeper. "The Kilmarnock player makes inevitable contact with the Dundee Utd goalkeeper and it's not enough to be illegal contact. We believe the goal was right to stand."

VAR has been an absolutely terrible addition since introduced, at all levels, for me. As a fan you can no longer really celebrate a goal like before because you're now always anticipating some kind of intervention, and it hasn't really reduced the amount of debate or subjectivity around big decisions. Shite.

[SteelmaninOZ]

 

[weeyin]

On 1/23/2025 at 7:53 AM, weeyin said:

Norway (hopefully) leading the way with VAR

Norway is on the verge of abolishing VAR from its domestic league after clubs in the country’s top two divisions recommended formally that it should be discontinued.

The decision by clubs in Norsk Topfotball, which represents the 32 sides in Norway’s Eliteserien and first division, marks the most significant step yet in a fierce debate over VAR’s future in the country. Now Norway is one step from joining Sweden, which has resisted introducing the deeply controversial technology so far, in staging games without its intervention.

Norsk Topfotball’s clubs passed a motion that “requests that the Norwegian Football Federation (NFF) board recommend, and that the federal assembly adopts, the discontinuation of video-assisted refereeing as soon as possible”. Their verdict will now be handed to the NFF ahead of a meeting in the first week of March at which every club in Norway, including those at much lower levels, will take a final vote on the future of VAR.

Cato Haug, the chairman of Norsk Topfotball, said clubs had agreed that VAR, of which the implementation has caused a strong backlash among fans, is unworkable in its current form. “We see the technology has potential,” he said. “But through today’s discussion and subsequent voting, we see the majority of our clubs believe the current version of VAR does not work well enough.”

 

Turns out Norway's football association is as bad as ours.

The clubs lose the vote to ditch VAR thanks to the large number of lower league and amateur clubs who voted to keep it - despite the fact none of them have VAR.

 

 

[joewarkfanclub]

33 minutes ago, weeyin said:

Turns out Norway's football association is as bad as ours.

The clubs lose the vote to ditch VAR thanks to the large number of lower league and amateur clubs who voted to keep it - despite the fact none of them have VAR.

 

 

You couldnt make that up!

[dennyc]

19 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said:

You couldnt make that up!

Easily sorted. Just tell all those lower league Clubs that they now have to adapt their grounds for VAR and bear all the costs associated with it's installation and usage. I suspect a good few might change their minds. Pretty damn quick.

Reeks of when Brechin City used to run Scottish football. Maybe they still do. No doubt one Blazer has been swapped for another Blazer. On first class expenses of course.

[joewarkfanclub]

27 minutes ago, dennyc said:

Easily sorted. Just tell all those lower league Clubs that they now have to adapt their grounds for VAR and bear all the costs associated with it's installation and usage. I suspect a good few might change their minds. Pretty damn quick.

Reeks of when Brechin City used to run Scottish football. Maybe they still do. No doubt one Blazer has been swapped for another Blazer. On first class expenses of course.

I quite liked when Brechin ruled Scottish Football. They made sure the dead club got their just desserts!

[weeyin]

9 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said:

I quite liked when Brechin ruled Scottish Football. They made sure the dead club got their just desserts!

Not quite. The rules said they should have been kicked out the league, but they were allowed to remain.

[joewarkfanclub]

21 minutes ago, weeyin said:

Not quite. The rules said they should have been kicked out the league, but they were allowed to remain.

The powers that be wanted them parachuted back into the SPL. The wee clubs made sure they came back in at the bottom tier. So although they still got more than they were due, justice of sorts still prevailed.....

[SteelmaninOZ]

 

[SteelmaninOZ]

 

[wellsince75]

6 hours ago, SteelmaninOZ said:

 

First time I've watched a VAR review, found it quite interesting and equally disheartening. 

Incident 1.  Balmer being sent off.  They explain the technical reason, the follow through being above the knee and red card is correct. Park any MFC bias here, these rules are bonkers.  He plays the ball, isn't looking a the player and catches the boy.  These kind of rules make it impossible for officials. 

Incident 2.  Thompsons red, being reduced to yellow.  It was the assistant ref who wanted the red, what was he watching and how from a couple of yards away could he have thought Thomson assaulted the player. 

Sensible way forward would be to use it for 

1) when offside by more than your arescheek 
2) review red cards to ensure accurate. 

[Richie]

I generally quite enjoy the VAR review and dare I say it quite like Willie Collum on it.

Cannot agree with the Balmer take though. Its not even a 'challenge'.

They are essentially saying he can't try and launch the ball up the park in that position.  The follow through is just physics.

As an aside, also got irked as the arm contact on Forrest was apparely insufficient and fell well short of that required to give a pen, yet a pen was given for similar contact on Scott Sinclair to hand Celtic the League Cup in 2017.

[cambo97]

1 hour ago, wellsince75 said:

First time I've watched a VAR review, found it quite interesting and equally disheartening. 

Incident 1.  Balmer being sent off.  They explain the technical reason, the follow through being above the knee and red card is correct. Park any MFC bias here, these rules are bonkers.  He plays the ball, isn't looking a the player and catches the boy.  These kind of rules make it impossible for officials. 

Incident 2.  Thompsons red, being reduced to yellow.  It was the assistant ref who wanted the red, what was he watching and how from a couple of yards away could he have thought Thomson assaulted the player. 

Sensible way forward would be to use it for 

1) when offside by more than your arescheek 
2) review red cards to ensure accurate. 

That's the first time I've seen the Balmer RC but the explanation is ridiculous, he says the Kilmarnock player comes in from the side, the Motherwell player clearly is not making a challenge but because his foot comes off the ground and hit above the knee it's a red card, that's mental using that explanation there would be two or three red cards every game. . I also seem to remember a Celtic challenge which hit the chest but was classed as a yellow as it didn't hit the face.

Why wasn't the next one a red card to the Kilmarnock player it was well above the knee and there was brutality, it was worse than the Balmer one.

[Kmcalpin]

6 minutes ago, cambo97 said:

That's the first time I've seen the Balmer RC but the explanation is ridiculous,

Essentially what he's saying is you can't make a similar challenge i.e. foot off the ground in case an opponent comes in fractionally later and from the side.

Utterly absurd.

[pretzel]

Feel like Collum is talking pish at the Balmer decision. The Kilmarnock player is entitled to go for the ball but Balmer should be more careful clearing it, lol aye ok.

[Richie]

.

[Richie]

Just now, Richie said:

Starting to dig holes for themselves when selectively citing 'Normal footballing contact' as well.

A follow trhough form a clearance is surely the above. Unless its Souness/Gazza-esque and deliberately leaving the foot in at waist/chest height.

 

 

[weeyin]

Bin it.