Do you know anyone, apart from those who are behind it, who thinks that VAR is a good thing? No. Me neither.

That, then, should be the end of the debate and the whole thing should be scrapped. The only piece of technology needed in my view is that which confirms that the ball has fully crossed the line. We don't need anything for offsides, retrospective penalties and the like. Leave that to the referee and his team; that is what he is there for in the first place. 

I can see a long-term goal of the people behind VAR being that matches are played without any match officials at all. That is one goal I would l definitely like to see being disallowed.

Although I am not a big fan of Premiership football, VAR is ruining the game. It is a total farce. Games halted for minutes on end whilst decisions are made. Players score then wonder momentarily if their strike will stand owing to something that happened a quarter of an hour earlier down the other end of the pitch. All I can say is: thank goodness that, as yet, it hasn't filtered down to the lower leagues.
"it has worked well enough for coming up to 200 years and if it ain't broke, why fix it?"

Cripes, we have had some terrible incompetent referees at the Vic over the years but I would rather take my chance with one of them than a couple of chancers viewing the match in a Portakabin some 200 miles away from the field of play. I would not disagree that it has been responsible for some correct decisions being made but having to wait several minutes for the decision kills the flow and pace of the game. In short the few benefits are outweighed by its disadvantages.

I think the worst incident I saw, albeit technically correct, was in the recent match between Burnley and Bournemouth. Bournemouth for a while were pinned back in their own box but the pressure was taken off with a long clearance down to the other end of the pitch and in a jif, bang, the ball was nestling in the back of the Burnley net. The relegation-threatened Bournemouth players celebrated with delight and, whilst walking back to the centre circle they learned to their disbelief that the goal would not stand and to add insult to injury, owing to an earlier handball, Burnley were to be awarded a penalty. Psychologically that must have killed Bournemouth, especially when Burnley converted the resulting penalty.

A few weeks earlier Liverpool had played Manchester City and something similar happened. Two handballs within seconds of each other in the Liverpool box, one of which was a nailed on penalty for City, for which their players appealed. Liverpool went down the other end and scored a quite spectacular goal from some 30 yards out. The goal stood. Was VAR looked at? Who knows? I rather suspect that the VAR people perhaps erred on the side of caution rather than disallow this goal at ...Anfield. ...I rest my case.

The main problem with VAR is, assuming that the people who monitor it are indeed human, that they are no different to the men in black (green yellow or even pink) on the pitch. They, like the rest of us, will make mistakes; it is only natural. You could ask a dozen people who witnessed the same car crash and you would get twelve different versions of the event and the same applies to referees as well as the VAR people.

Finally, let's play Devil's advocate, fellow Poolies. The choice is yours - One Pro and One Con regarding VAR:

Pro: If VAR had been in situ at Cardiff at the time of Pools' play-off final against Sheffield Wednesday, would Westy have been sent off and the subsequent penalty awarded in Wednesday's favour?

Con: Would Geoff Hurst's and England's third goal in the 1966 World Cup Final that did/did not cross the line have stood?

Answers on the back of a house brick please.

VAR is far from perfect, but my view is: leave it all to the man in the middle and his two linos. Although not without controversy, it has worked well enough for coming up to 200 years and if it ain't broke, why fix it?

Front Page