VAR

[Jute]

Agreed. I cannot see any benefit VAR brings to the game. Especially for those at the stadium. I would rather the money was spent on improving the training for the match officials to improve standards instead. 

[RicoS321]

If only we could have known....

We've gone from saying that refereeing decisions even themselves out over a season, to saying that VAR decisions even themselves out over the season. It's ludicrous when you look at it that way. What is ludicrous is that there are still people saying "it isn't VAR that's the issue, it's the people using it", and "it's good, but it just needs to be used for clear and obvious errors". Even after several years, with evidence worldwide, they still don't seem to understand what it is. 

Me and my mate were discussing the BBC article about the errors too. We couldn't work out whether it was terrible journalism, or just the BBC being too weak to challenge the status quo, but in an article discussing four errors in a weekend, they never said how many were correct, or give a proportion. Any other other news story, the headline would be "80% decisions incorrect" or whatever, but they seem wary of presenting it in a bad light, or as the failure that it has been. Not just the BBC, but absolutely nobody is going into it in any depth whatsoever either. Of the four decisions that VAR intervened in, were any of them clear-cut? Would anyone have actually given a fuck about them in the aftermath? Would anyone have cared that Devlin wasn't sent off? It's the level of interference in the most trivial of things (because once you introduce VAR, it can only be the case). Genuinely, nobody gives a fuck about 90% of the calls. The overwhelming majority are calls that you can see why they were given, or weren't, and could be described as soft or otherwise. That part doesn't get talked about though. The insipid interviews with Collum only seek to validate the technology, which is why they are actually harmful. He never gets asked about calls that were let go, versus ones that weren't (because the ones that were let go aren't classed as VAR calls, despite being the case). He never gets called up on the fact that one incident has two possible outcomes depending on how the referee calls it. For instance, if the referee had given handball against Shankland, VAR wouldn't have overturned, but they let it go because he didn't (the opposite being the non foul on the goalie in the same game). The whole question of whether to re-referee a game or not, in itself, proves that the technology isn't fit for purpose, and never can be. It's a logical fallacy in and of itself. 

What should have happened was that the money was spent on training and communication. We should have asked the BBC to take the lead in its highlights programmes to present refereeing in a better light, always trying to look at why a referee might have given a decision based on the angle etc. Also, make sure to weigh up a ref's call with a striker missing a chance or a defender being out of position to show that games are won and lost on a culmination of points. I'm certain that the BBC would have been open to it, especially if they got communication from the refs. Less so the paid channels, but they'd probably fall into line for something as trivial as most Scottish football games (because they only cover the scum anyway), and they'd keep their screaming hysteria for the scum game. Rule changes such as only speaking to captains should have been in place before VAR, but also campaigns, led by players, to show refs respect, and paint a wider understanding of their fallibility. Beaton didn't have a worse game than most of our players yesterday for example. Even in the Falkirk game, where the ref was honking, Aouchiche and Keskinen were worse. It's rare that the refs are the worst player on the park, and they should be treated as players in the game, because fundamentally that's what they are.

Edited September 21 by RicoS321

[OneBrianIrvine.]

 

Quote

Cormack calls for 60-second limit on VAR checks

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/clyd841dmpxo

 

[RicoS321]

1 hour ago, OneBrianIrvine. said:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/clyd841dmpxo

 

Christ, he's been reading this forum. It's a stupid idea. It's because of people in his position (not him) were unable to think of the consequences of a decision that we have fucking VAR in the first place. Why would putting an arbitrary time limit increase accuracy? That's the reason we've got this shite in the first place apparently. How would it help me in the ground being able to properly celebrate a goal? How would we display this one minute timer in the ground? What happens when the decision timer prevents VAR wankers making an accurate call because they couldn't sort their technology in time? What happens for handball calls like Knoester's one the other day, where it very clearly struck his hand? What happens with offside, where the technology - the only thing more accurate than the linesman in 90% of cases - takes longer than one minute to setup? Why is clear and obvious subject to time at all? This solves absolutely none of the problems associated with VAR. It's also completely unworkable for very obvious reasons. As soon as an incorrect call (involving one of two teams) stands because VAR couldn't get its shite together, the answer will be to either expand the time for the call, or allow the VAR team to request a "time delay" or something shite. Because one minute is completely fucking arbitrary, and still shite.

Why does VAR have to succeed? Why can there be no way back? Why do we have to make the shite thing less shite rather than just say it is shite? Why is Cormack pretending to be powerless, rather than saying that he wants VAR removed from our game, and he'll be talking to chairman and managers to push for it's removal? 

[Radiored]

Ah wis thinkin, maybe if VAR and the ref canna mak a decision within 60 seconds, then it could be decided by haein the captain o' each team play 'rock, paper, scissors ... best oot o' three. Would at least be entertainin'.

..... But then Ah thought, this would in itself need tae be refereed ... an' nae doot there would be calls for VAR tae check that said captains were nae cheatin' ..... takin' 4 minutes tae confirm or overturn the rock, paper, scissors result   

[tlg1903]

On 06/12/2025 at 18:09, RicoS321 said:

 

Why does VAR have to succeed? Why can there be no way back? Why do we have to make the shite thing less shite rather than just say it is shite? Why is Cormack pretending to be powerless, rather than saying that he wants VAR removed from our game, and he'll be talking to chairman and managers to push for it's removal? 

It may surprise you after our chat on the St Mirren thread but overall I agree with this, the technology isn't there yet and especially for leagues that are having to go down the back of the couch for shrapnel to just be able to afford the most basic system.  That's not to say I don't think they help themselves with the way they operate it but I don't think VAR can ever be a 'good' thing until technology gets to a stage where the referee is literally an AI able to make 100% accurate decisions in milli-seconds.  Whether not having a human refereeing team on the pitch at all is desireable however is another debate