01 Feb 2021 15:46:38
With the recent discussions re: var, I'd like to point out one of the most infuriating things about it which wasn't mentioned, which is the time it takes and wastes fannying around making decisions. I'm sick of waiting 3 or 4 minutes for some guy to make a (often wrong) decision. That time doesn't get added back on in full, if at all in the first half of games. We are losing out on football action to sit around waiting on decisions. Are they going to readjust train timetables so people don't miss the last train on a weekday night when fans are back at the grounds or what?! I think people are getting used to var and its wasting of time and that concerns me.
01 Feb 2021 16:37:22
Interesting point there Dave and it reminds me of an article I read a few years back about taking the time keeping out of the hands of referee's. I seem to remember an independent report highlighting that an average football match actually only sees around 60 minutes (something like that anyway) of actual play. and that has surely gone up with VAR. There was also discussion of a mandatory 5 minutes off the pitch if the game has to be stopped for injury, to make sure the player had proper medical attention and stop the play acting and timewasting which in theory I think could work.
I actually think VAR has reduced the number of incorrect decisions which is a good thing, but agree the process needs to be refined and time should be accounted for more accurately.
01 Feb 2021 17:12:37
An observation for consideration.
Gridiron/ American football always had playbacks available throughout the games and frequently went to the review for 1st downs and sometimes for game infringements.
They finally realised that there was more time spent reviewing than playing the game.
When they went to review, the game was stopped and so were the timing clocks. This resulted in games taking up to two and a half hours.
Now there are no reviews as far as I can see and the game runs it normal timing.
01 Feb 2021 17:47:36
The subject about the injuries is a very valid point, and certainly needs looking at.
When a player goes down claiming to be injured, there should be a mandatory 5 minute pitch side assessment and treatment period, while the game continues.
It should help the game flow more freely, and hopefully stop players who feign injury when no contact is made.
VAR could be put to good use in these matters, example Bamford against Villa got El Ghazi sent off when he was supposedly poleaxed.
No contact was made, so a sending off is in order for the offender.
01 Feb 2021 18:10:35
DaveVTID why would they have to change train timetables when you say they are not adding the time on?
01 Feb 2021 18:22:34
I get the point of trying to stop people feigning injury but it's not fair for teams to be forced down to 10 men for those who get a bad kick or smashed in the head, especially for 5 minutes which is a long time in a football match.
They're already forced to the sidelines until the ref waves them on if the medical team have to enter the pitch.
01 Feb 2021 18:32:59
I am definitely in favour of the mandatory 5 minute assessment for injury. was disappointed when it didn't seem to get any traction a while back. In this day and age I'm surprised its not been considered on health and safety grounds even if the main benefit is stopping the cheating. with players going down and screaming in pain several times a game only to jump back up again, its only a matter of time before someone gets seriously injured and everyone plays on thinking its just another attempt at cheating. and that brief delay in treatment while play continues could be crucial with a severe injury. It's a shame we need a rule in place for this rather than just having an honest game and clubs taking responsibility, but sadly that seems very unlikely these days. Would love it if Villa were the first team to stop players cheating, imagine how highly our club would be regarded, even if it did cost us a few penalties and free kicks along the way.
01 Feb 2021 18:33:36
Anything that helps the game flow more freely and cuts out the play acting is worth consideration.
At what point though should a ref say, ok you’ve got to go off for 5 minutes. For instance let’s say Jack is brought down, the referee awards a free kick but Jack doesn’t get up immediately. This often happens with players and particularly to Jack. So does the referee say you haven’t got up straight away therefore it’s 5 minutes pitch side or should the player in question be given a period of time to get up and get on with it?
01 Feb 2021 18:34:54
Neve - adding playing time on and the duration of the match are two different things.
01 Feb 2021 18:35:23
Dave the bamford thing would be sorted out straight away nowadays, whether it would be a sending off which I think it should be, or just a yellow card, but I think they brought in a rule if a player tried to deceive the ref to get a player sent off then he himself would be sent off. shame there was no VAR in that game, would of being us with 11 men and them with 10. I agree with the time point that var waste, we get 30 seconds (supposedly) for a substitution the, clock should be stopped for var review, I actually thing there should be a 2 minute time limit on it, if it takes any longer then it’s not a clear and obvious mistake by the officials so go with original decision, 2 many times it takes var 3 or 4 mins when big teams are involved only for the ref to then be called to the monitor, if it go’s to var then the ref should immediately be going over to monitor to formulate his own opinion at the same time, and it should be like in rugby where we can hear every word between ref and TMO, but hey the rugby guys are real professionals so it’s probably not going to happen in football with them being so corrupt.
01 Feb 2021 20:08:54
I get your point RK and agree there would need to be a bit of discretion perhaps by the referee, but the point would be to give the ref a tool for dealing with playacting and feigning injury whilst also cutting out the screaming in agony. In reality, if a player gets a kick and wins a free kick he should be up by the time the ref has stopped the game, dealt with the offense and blown to restart. If the kick is so bad that a player needs treatment, then 5 minutes off the pitch for a proper medical check seems reasonable. Like any rule, there is a chance that it could be incorrectly enforced on occasion, but the benefits would far outway that risk and we'd all have a better sport for it. in my opinion anyway.
01 Feb 2021 20:09:03
I think a minute should be enough for the ref to make the decision.
I have just seen the very same thing happen in the Porto v Rio Ave game, played the ref for a bloody fool.
Game stopped for 4-5 minutes anyway while he lay on the pitch.
Should have been carried of for 5 minutes and the game allowed to continue.
01 Feb 2021 22:35:44
If they get a bad one then they should be assessed properly but then the fouling team gain a man advantage for 5 minutes.
We're then back to the Wimbledon days where players are trying to injure the opposition.
Obviously there's risk but its not difficult to 'accidentally' tread on people's feet or do a Harry Kane and throw yourself under a player trying to head the ball and wind them badly enough they are forced off for 5 minutes.
All it needs is for the ref to force anyone down for more than 5-10 seconds to have to go off the pitch as soon as is safe and wait a good few seconds after the restart to wave them back on rather than doing it before like they do. The extra energy expended and time out of the game should be enough deterrent.
Caveat that the off and back on has to be the nearest spot to where they were so no advantages. Defenders play attackers onside, attackers miles offside just to make them think before they do it.