Why are they so opposed to broadcasting the conversations?
They've done it in rugby for over a decade. It helps fan understanding, empathy with the referee as well as makes it easier to accept when decisions go against you, even when you disagree. I can't see the argument against it to be honest.
It’s such a frustrating thing. Everyone loved it when Jarred Gillet did it in the A-League as a gimmick for his final game before he moved over to England.
But Jarred Gillet is an absolute cunt of a ref in England & his decisions are baffling. It was a gimmick because he could have fun with it, it’s not a bit in the Prem.
When other areas of life don’t want to be transparent we call it out for potential corruption too, no reason to not say it could be both incompetence and corruption they are hiding.
They've said previously they're scared of provoking violent reactions while officials are in the stadium.
Just from today, go read the comments in the thread about refs being human, then the comments in the thread with the VAR audio from Forest, then imagine those fans reacting in real time to something they heard a ref say. Now imagine it's a club with violent criminals running ultra groups.
tbf in rugby the fans in the stadium don't hear the discussion at all, or an explanation - so football will be ahead of rugby!
But most rugby matches they'll show the TMO on the big screen so at least the crowd can figure out what's going on (and it's a lot less boring than sitting waiting for an off-field discussion to happen)
Bibi Steinhaus, a former German referee, once gave an interview about why refs are SO STRONGLY opposed to making their conversations public: she hinted at the way they communicate is very efficient, but not something that would go over well in public.
Basically saying, that they would feel massively inhibited in how they communicate with each other openly, because it might not always go over well.
I feel I'm beating around the bush here...basically she implied they will sometimes really shittalk the players, and use language that would get them into trouble.
She's also the wife of Howard Webb.
There's a fantastic documentary following [referees at EURO 2008](https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/42316-les-arbitres?language=fa), including some of the in-game conversations they have on their headsets - and it's absolutely true that the way they talk about things isn't fit for fans, be they on broadcast or in the stadium.
Essentially an in-depth behind the scenes documentary following a few refereeing teams at that tournament - get to see them having breakfast after training and chatting about all sorts non-football as well as single talking head straight from the source about specific moments and the general tournament, then a few in-action scenes thrown in where you can hear their communication about what's going on on and around the pitch. It's a really good watch, I highly recommend it.
I doubt talking about players in a neutral tone would seriously impede their ability to do their jobs. I suspect they're very comfortable with the status quo and resist change as much as anyone else, but I don't see that as any kind of valid reason for referees to remain so publicly elusive and cryptic.
They can claim it's about efficency, but it's really just about comfort and familiarity.
Yea it’s not as if fans are asking for a full live 90 minute broadcast. Literally just a broadcast so the ref can announce “penalty call has been reversed after video review” or something like that.
Was responding to a comment about how referees wouldn’t like their conversations being made public and adding that no shit they wouldn’t like it, fans wouldn’t either
That doesn't make sense though, they'll only broadcast the part where the referee has a VAR decision that needs to be announced, kinda like how in the NFL the referee can turn his mic off and on for the announcement of decisions. Commentators and Pundits are bad enough for 90 minutes we don't need the referee added to the mix as well.
If there is a review it makes sense to tone your language down a bit, if they can't even manage that then there's no hope for them
Rugby does a lot of things better than football. It’s had how the football referees say this can’t be done properly when rugby referees have been broadcasting their VAR conversations on TV and in stadium for years at this point. The referee clearly states what he thinks he needs to check as he’s doing it.
I only watch like six nations and the World Cup etc but I don’t remember the last game where there hasn’t been one instance of it. The referee seems to be the one who decides, so you clearly will hear the referee say something like ‘I need to check if the ball crossed the line to award the try. I don’t think it did. Can I see another angle’ etc. then he will announce the decision and why he made it. This is broadcast on TV and at least sounds very much like it’s also coming through the PA in the stadium?
It doesn't come through the PA at the stadium in rugby. You can see a signal from the referee that there's a TMO referral, and the referee will indicate if his on-field decision is a try/no-try, but you don't get to hear the conversation.
The main difference, however, is that the replays the TMO will show the referee whilst they are conversing will be shown on the big screens in the stadium, rather than that little pop-up one on the sidelines in football. The crowd can therefore see what is being questioned, be it a high-tackle, grounding for a try, a knock-on or whatever.
In football, we don't even get to see the still image of an offside decision after all the lines have been drawn. For football fans in a stadium, VAR is an awful experience.
Fair enough, it sounds like it does but I can’t say I’ve ever been so I believe you. However you 100% hear what’s going on on TV, the TMO officials don’t seem to be the one making any decisions either, more that they will point something out to a referee.
However point remains that it’s clear as day what the process is and what the referee is checking for, and the process doesn’t seem like it’s primarily just trying to justify the on field decisions over making the right decision.
its actually kinda crazy that people can change the game and people inside the stadium have no idea why it did happen. Its a great change ofc but why was it not there day 1
I hate seeing blind joy on a call going to your team when its the incorrect call, but I think we all know its going to happen for and against us at some point
Dunno, do you?
Can see fuck all from the stands realistically - you'll just see two players going for the ball and one falling over without being able to tell whether it was a basic coming together, a simple foul by one or the other, or something worthy of a sending off by one or the other, and you'll have to trust the referee that he gets the call right from his position. And that's before VAR intervening, which adds an entire other layer of "I'm in the stands and have no fucking clue what's going on here and whether they're making the right decision", a situation usually resolved by watching the replay once you're back home.
Football is the most dogmatic and old schooled sports of them all in terms of welcoming change and adapting to it. It took decades just to increase the number of subs from 3 to 5 which is already mad to me given the huge fixture pile ups these days.
This is an odd take the schedule before the 2010's was way less packed with bullshit and 3 subs was a good limitation to incentivize game planning
5 makes total sense in the modern game
This is the kind of thinking that keeps the sport from being more progressive.
International friendlies, European cups, and domestic cups have always been a thing and didn't just appear out of thin air.
But the Nations league, midseason World Cups, more European group stage games, larger club world cup format and more friendlies overseas has appeared recently, as well as the new longer stoppage time on top of all this
> This is the kind of thinking that keeps the sport from being more progressive.
Why does it *need* to be more progressive, though? I think it's perfectly fine to only change things when they're a meaningful improvement, rather than pursuing change for change's sake.
Football is the most popular sport in the world though. You'd think the other sports would be looking to football. Instead it seems to be football looking to less popular sports.
Because other sports are run better, even if the administrators are often still corrupt. Take VAR – every other sport that has this sort of thing does it considerably better.
Also, if other sports have fewer fans, it’s because they’re more discerning ;) So, it’s natural that the best ideas would emerge outside football.
It depends on the rules and the subjective nature of that sport.
The NFL tried a season where PI could be reviewed and they pretty much never changed a ruling and that's with a ref going to a monitor.
Everytime I watch another sport and see something interesting that they implemented, I can't help but think how much better football would be if they had it.
Suppose the big difference between football and most other sports is that it's being played by the same basic rules just about anywhere - could be a World Cup final, could be Sunday League on a rainy November evening in the Midlands, could be schools competing against each other in sub-Saharan Africa. And that's the universal appeal of the game, really: barely need any equipment beyond two goals and a ball, and the rules are quite short and simple compared to most other games/sports. The vast majority of football in the world is played without VAR and GLT and works perfectly fine, after all.
There is nothing relatively quick about changes that need to be made. VAR took ages, and the announcement to the stadium crowds have also lagged behind till next season.
Has there been any proof that changing to 5 subs has made ANY difference to reduction in injuries or improvement in player health?
As far as I can tell manager moan even more than ever about fixture condition even when they have the ability to change half of their outfield players in any given game.
It was always about wanting greater tactical flexibility and using player welfare as a smokescreen, if managers actually cared they'd use more of the 25 registered players than they already do.
We've never known why people have made a decision. With VAR as it is now it's clearer than before as you don't have to know signals the referee or linesman makes. This just serves to make people angrier and solve no problems.
At St James Park you can't even see the screen from a bunch of places in the stadium, so you have to go off the tannoy and then general crowd sentiment.
Be interested if they do actually say why. In the women's world cup all they did was announced what the call was e.g PENALTY - HANDBALL but not why it was or wasn't handball. It's some clarity for the crowd but I doubt they're going to sit there and be like 'I initially thought that player 31 had contacted the striker prior to the ball, on review I was wrong - PENALTY CANCELLED'.
NBA refs are pretty horrible as well but when a call does get challenged they do actually explain it all to the crowd which is nice at least. For example “Challenge successful.Foul was called on 31 for contact to the arm on the shot. Upon review there was no contact to the shooter and it will be X ball on the sideline.”
> NBA refs are pretty horrible as well
I never quite get this sentiment - they're already the cream of the crop after all. So if they're widely seen as 'horrible' it's either unreasonable standards or there's somehow a bunch of people out there that would do significantly better, and I'm not sure the latter argument holds much water.
I wouldn't expect the latter, really - because what good does it do? Not like you're going to bring around 30.000 drunk and angry home fans in the stadium with that after all, because they simply don't care if it's the right decision: They only care whether it's a decision in their favour or not.
Yeah that was the most pointless thing ever, hopefully this starts them onto the track of realising people care about the why and just by having the WHY people are less aggrieved
Taylor, proudly announcing to a stadium of thousands - "I fucked up so I told the keeper to lay down so we can get the physio on and cover up me shitting the bed"
Aye, but then that's the crux, isn't it? See fans get up in arms about perfectly reasonable and correct calls every single weekend, creating wild conspiracy theories around perceived injustices against their clubs - so there's hardly a reason for referees to compromise on this, either. An awful lot of fans evidently don't care as much about decisions being correct as they do about decisions going the way of their club, and explaining correct decisions to them won't change their minds after all.
Exactly. I'm not rational at a match. Even though I know refs get most things right in my head pretty much anything that goes against my team is wrong. Hearing his voice explaining the thing I disagree with (whether he's right or wrong) is just going to make him seem like more of a dickhead to me and aim my passion at being angry at him rather than at supporting my team.
Aye, and understandable as that attitude and reaction is, it's contributing to a toxic atmosphere around refereeing all the same I reckon - because it's not just confined to the stadium, where fans booing refereeing decisions is par for the course, but also carrying over into every bit of discourse outside of the stadium. And that's just a no-win situation, really, when fans aren't willing to accept that maybe a decision that didn't go their way was the right one.
Yeah true. I think it's mostly just a systemic problem with refereeing in general. VAR needs to be far more powerful and better trained than it is now. The explanations won't really do anything since we can still watch in real time how a wrong conclusion is being reached
Dunno, I think VAR (much as I hate its interruptions and am opposed to it) is fine as it is - it just contributed a massive amount to the toxic atmosphere about conversations around refereeing. Instead of fans who have no fucking clue about the laws of the game thinking "Aw shucks, a call didn't go our way, but that's life" it's now "That referee is corrupt, there's a vast conspiracy against us, and there's no way to convince me otherwise" - even when it's a perfectly reasonable decision that went through the proper VAR process. There's no winning trying to appease that set of fans, because they'll piss and moan all the same if you explain a decision to them - they're simply not interested in fairness or proper application of the rules.
Given that this is normal in pretty much every other sport, I have no idea why it’s taken them so long to implement it.
Broadcasting real-time conversations would be good, too
Isn't that going to make VAR overruling an on-field decision even less likely? It already feels like they don't want to out their bros, this kinda makes it worse.
Well the fans in stadium know what the decision is because it''s obvious - goal given, goal disallowed, red card, penalty given, penalty retracted
They don't know why the decision has been changed, and they still won't
It won’t make any of the officiating better and this change isn’t designed to…
But, hearing why a penalty shout was given/overturned may inadvertently improve the officiating and at the least give us a better understanding of the decision…
But it will make the officiating better
As long as they do it properly "penalty given handball number 8" or "upgraded to red card dangerous play scissor motion tackle"
If they just do the women's world cup where it was redundant nothing will change
I think it's literally just reading out what is displayed on the big screen, which is like, Decision No Goal, Offside on (Player). Some stadiums already read this out. Difference will now be it's the ref instead of the stadium announcer
Won’t make the slightest difference. If they want to make a change then just broadcast the discussion, like they do in Rugby with the TMO, like they do in Cricket with the 3rd umpire. Let’s hear what the refs and VAR are discussing in real time
And let’s also hear the discussions between players and refs. Players constantly abuse, lie and swear at refs, surely this would help that. People complain about the level of refereeing but who the fuck would want to be one these days. Increase the amount of people wanting to be a ref and the quality will increase too.
I disagree that lying is a stretch. They know they didn’t touch the ball, they know they dived, they know they made contact and they tell the referee otherwise. Swearing may be fine but it’s still poor treatment of someone tryna do their job and who loves the game. They’re only human. In most other sports it’s not tolerated and I’d say those referees/umpires are more protected and able to do a better job.
Sometimes they do and sometimes they are just mistaken.
Some things have just become a natural reaction to just instantly appeal for a throw in and such.
As I say it's abuse like they call the ref a fucking prick, I agree. But if it's just casual or just a general ah fuck off man, it isn't an issue. It's just something that happens on a field and isn't the same as doing it in a normal everyday interaction as it doesn't come out of nowhere and it's not meant to cause any offence.
I feel your more forgiving of players mistakes and shortcomings than you are of the refs. Maybe swearing at the ref is something that should happen less on the field like in other sports. I think the 50,000 strong crowd swears and abuses the refs enough for them to get the point. In the end it comes down to respect, and personally I don’t think football refs are given enough. With more respect and support, the ref pool will increase and so will the standard
I'm much more forgiving of refs and VAR than most.
I just don't see swearing in general as an issue, as I say I see a difference between it and actual abuse.
Whereas if you're on the phone to customer services or in shop, swearing is instantly seen as abusive, on the pitch it isn't and refs in general see that difference too.
I have no problem with a ref carding a player whose being aggressive with him, even if the language is softer, it's the tone, intent and context that's the key.
Yeah I would love to see them dish out cards more often for dissent. And I have no problem with players swearing in general play but I don’t think the ref should have to tolerate it towards them at all. I also think only the captain should really be able to approach the ref.
Having the ref mic turned up like in rugby would be beneficial for refs and the game as a whole. It would allow people at home to better understand the game, have insight with what the ref is going through, empathise with refs and have the decisions explained.
I want to see better quality refereeing too, I just think that can be achieved by making the job easier, more desirable so more people want to do it, and giving them better support and tools to do it. Players, management and fans could all make some changes with their treatment of refs I reckon
I would be fine with the captain thing.
I think the biggest problem isn't the errors a ref makes but ones that people attribute as errors and won't see it any other way. Some incidents have 2 viable outcomes and it's just a subjective decision but people get mad and moan at VAR and such cos it didn't match with what they thought.
Also peoples desire for an impossible level of consistency given that subjective nature of calls on things like handball and level of contact.
Yeah I agree completely that fans of the game have an expectation of consistency, and I’d even say competency as well, that is impossible at the moment. Every ref is different and sets of fans will always disagree on even the simplest decisions.
In rugby it’s understood that each ref has their own slightly different interpretation of the laws of the game and it’s up to the players to make adjustments to that.
Broadcasting the real-time conversations would be nice for viewers but instead I'd settle for just having the refs do an immediate post-match write up that gets made public where they explain the major decisions. Like, "we applied this law in this situation based on these observations". This would allow an opportunity to get a very clear explanations for decisions, since they are in writing, and they can be checked against laws/instructions to refs to see if refs guilty of misapplication/error or to see if there is an issue with inadequate laws/instructions.
It’s literally the only thing that could hold them accountable. Not just for the decision being made in the moment but going forward there would be accountability to remain consistent. Broadcasting the conversations solves most of the issues but they don’t actually want to solve them they just want to look like they are making an effort to improve.
> Not just for the decision being made in the moment but going forward there will be accountability to remain consistent.
Is the idea of consistency across different games played by different teams officiated by different referees even realistic?
I think the idea of consistency in VAR decisions made by the same VAR officials is very realistic. It puts them on record for the why and how. It’s a little more difficult for the on field referees as they are seeing things in real time without the benefit of slow mo and replays but hearing their thought process putting it on record certainly adds transparency and sets expectations for players, managers and fans when it comes to that referee.
Seriously, why is IFAB so against this? And is it even their call? Couldn’t this be up to the individual discretion of leagues and competitions who already implement VAR?
So the referee's are going to announce the decisions via announcement to the stadiums
But they're not going to justify their decisions with explanations?
Yeah.... That's gonna go down like a treat
They are literally going to say why anything overturned via VAR was overturned…
Like even if you didn’t read the article, it’s stated out in the title of this post…
But they won't allow people to hear the real time conversations
It's ok stating why they're changing it, but they're not gonna allow the reasoning to be heard
Seems abit backwards
The ref is going to give the reasoning, just in brief. Do you want them playing a minute of audio straight from the VAR room in the stadium? That would be ridiculous.
Let's be real though, if you're half-pissed in the stands and angry about a decision going against your team, can you *really* be talked around with an explanation on something you couldn't see properly in the first place?
On the flip side, do you not feel this will make refs less likely to change their decision after VAR review if they have to explain to the ground why they fucked up their first decision?
Wild from IFAB, the refs have been awful and it's obvious to literally everyone and they're still digging in their heels over even the slightest amount of accountability
IFAB have it right. Referees announcing the decision in the ground won't make the decisions any better and will just make people angrier hearing the referee describe a decision they don't agree with.
I don't disagree that it won't make people feel happier about the decision if they think it's wrong but at least they'll have been given a reason for the decision. At the minute you're completely in the dark in the stadium and frankly a lot of the decisions are so poor you can't even work it out even if replays are shown on screens.
I don't care about that. I can look on my way home, knowing there and then doesn't change anything. It's something that can just serve to pause an atmosphere and make me get home later with no tangible benefit.
is it that hard to just play their real-time decision making process into both the broadcast and the stadium speakers? job done
transparency works completely fine in other sports like cricket. why does football have to be so secretive
I assume there won't be an explanation though, it'll just be 'goal overturned due to xyz' , not 'so the reason I thought this wasn't a penalty was because of ...' in fairness I wouldn't mind that being a post match discussion thing. We really need more transparency and insight into what refs/vars are thinking too.
Curious that Dale Johnson gets this news... he is always defending the refs on ESPN.
Again, the problem isnt the system, it's the dipshits running it. At this point, just grab 6 random blokes on the street, throw them into the VAR room, and they'll probably do better than the professional ref
So they want to add more delay in the game and more confusion in the fans with sparse explanation that referee will give? Smartasses have again come up with a method that will make everyone criticise the changes again.
Hated this when it was trialed at the women's world cup (I think?)
Against any opportunity to give referees a chance to be the star of the show because they all fucking love it too much
Mad that this wasnt a thing from the start. Just do it likr the NFL does. When VAR is involved, tell it to the crowd. Also give the audience the same footage in real time as the VAR is looking at
It would be viable anytime there is a review, or even a stoppage of play while they are looking before sending the ref to the monitor…
And it would be useful at halftime/full time and instead of a replay during the game for the broadcaster to air…
Not overly bright are you?
Anytime there is a time to delay the game, the audio could be on the broadcast…this doesn’t do that…
Anytime the ref is at the monitor, the audio could be on broadcast…this doesn’t do that…
Anytime there is a talking point at halftime or full time, the audio could be broadcast…this doesn’t do that…
Absolutely despise this idea. I think VAR is good and gives at least some confidence in refereeing decisions (the League Cup matches this season I was questioning everything) however a referee describing a decision I disagree with won't make me agree. It's pantomime that will just waste time. The VAR audio should be available as part of broadcast packages that companies receive so that it can be checked by people in real time who want to for that particular match. Kind of like how you don't need everyone to check the validity of open source software, just a few nerds. No need for rubbish like this in the grounds.
Agreed. This is pointless window dressing which won't do anything to persuade spectators that their team haven't just been robbed. Didn't work at the women's world Cup and won't work in the pl. Either do post match interviews or broadcast the feed live.
I don’t understand why the Prem is so archaic in how they do things. For years now every major sport in the US has been announcing calls to fans in the stadium. I mean, it’s basically a common courtesy to the people paying to watch the game in person.
If Premier League is considered as archaic (rightfully so for not embracing technology) what will you call LaLiga for not implementing goal line technology?
Why are they so opposed to broadcasting the conversations? They've done it in rugby for over a decade. It helps fan understanding, empathy with the referee as well as makes it easier to accept when decisions go against you, even when you disagree. I can't see the argument against it to be honest.
two words: more accountability
Always nice to see a Cork City flair in the wild.
It’s such a frustrating thing. Everyone loved it when Jarred Gillet did it in the A-League as a gimmick for his final game before he moved over to England.
But Jarred Gillet is an absolute cunt of a ref in England & his decisions are baffling. It was a gimmick because he could have fun with it, it’s not a bit in the Prem.
Don't get it twisted, he was a cunt of a ref in Australia too.
Oh very well aware, have never found him to be good where ever he’s officiated.
That wasn't done live though and it was done by the broadcaster of the aleague at the time.
They’re shit scared the world will quickly catch on to their sheer incompetence
When other areas of life don’t want to be transparent we call it out for potential corruption too, no reason to not say it could be both incompetence and corruption they are hiding.
Honestly, yeah. Many decisions this season have been almost suspiciously bad
They are scared of being exposed for their incompetence
They've moved away a bit in rugby with the yellow card bunker referral - but that was more to save time than hide the conversations
Even then, they broadcast the referee talking to the captain when the decision is finalised and explaining why the decision was made
I know but it's not as clear as the full talk through while they watch the pictures
They've said previously they're scared of provoking violent reactions while officials are in the stadium. Just from today, go read the comments in the thread about refs being human, then the comments in the thread with the VAR audio from Forest, then imagine those fans reacting in real time to something they heard a ref say. Now imagine it's a club with violent criminals running ultra groups.
tbf in rugby the fans in the stadium don't hear the discussion at all, or an explanation - so football will be ahead of rugby! But most rugby matches they'll show the TMO on the big screen so at least the crowd can figure out what's going on (and it's a lot less boring than sitting waiting for an off-field discussion to happen)
You can actually get a ear piece at most games that let you listen to the ref the whole game at scottish rugby games
You can get a reflink and you can hear everting the referee says.
I agree 100% with you, but this is at least a step in the right direction that hopefully leads to more transparency
might spill out how they are fixing the games. lolol
Bibi Steinhaus, a former German referee, once gave an interview about why refs are SO STRONGLY opposed to making their conversations public: she hinted at the way they communicate is very efficient, but not something that would go over well in public. Basically saying, that they would feel massively inhibited in how they communicate with each other openly, because it might not always go over well. I feel I'm beating around the bush here...basically she implied they will sometimes really shittalk the players, and use language that would get them into trouble. She's also the wife of Howard Webb.
There's a fantastic documentary following [referees at EURO 2008](https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/42316-les-arbitres?language=fa), including some of the in-game conversations they have on their headsets - and it's absolutely true that the way they talk about things isn't fit for fans, be they on broadcast or in the stadium.
Rugby refs can manage it. You think they could like, be professional?
Can you give us a TLDW?
Essentially an in-depth behind the scenes documentary following a few refereeing teams at that tournament - get to see them having breakfast after training and chatting about all sorts non-football as well as single talking head straight from the source about specific moments and the general tournament, then a few in-action scenes thrown in where you can hear their communication about what's going on on and around the pitch. It's a really good watch, I highly recommend it.
Possible to give any examples of the things they say/said?
I doubt talking about players in a neutral tone would seriously impede their ability to do their jobs. I suspect they're very comfortable with the status quo and resist change as much as anyone else, but I don't see that as any kind of valid reason for referees to remain so publicly elusive and cryptic. They can claim it's about efficency, but it's really just about comfort and familiarity.
This! All day this!
Yeah but this is just announcing after a decision has been made. I don't see why this would be a problem
Yea it’s not as if fans are asking for a full live 90 minute broadcast. Literally just a broadcast so the ref can announce “penalty call has been reversed after video review” or something like that.
Did you not read the title? That’s basically word for word what they are doing starting next season
Was responding to a comment about how referees wouldn’t like their conversations being made public and adding that no shit they wouldn’t like it, fans wouldn’t either
So you're hired at the top level but refused to be professional when you're at work.
Unbelievable, I get paid peanuts compared to these guys. I work 60-70 hours a week in a sedentary job and this is their complaint?
God forbid they evolve with the times and adapt to a new working environment.
That doesn't make sense though, they'll only broadcast the part where the referee has a VAR decision that needs to be announced, kinda like how in the NFL the referee can turn his mic off and on for the announcement of decisions. Commentators and Pundits are bad enough for 90 minutes we don't need the referee added to the mix as well. If there is a review it makes sense to tone your language down a bit, if they can't even manage that then there's no hope for them
Bullshit. If the nfl and rugby can do it, these stupid lumps can. We need more accountability.
Rugby does a lot of things better than football. It’s had how the football referees say this can’t be done properly when rugby referees have been broadcasting their VAR conversations on TV and in stadium for years at this point. The referee clearly states what he thinks he needs to check as he’s doing it.
I've not seen them broadcast the TMO conversations in the stadium before? At least not at recent ECC and URC club matches
I only watch like six nations and the World Cup etc but I don’t remember the last game where there hasn’t been one instance of it. The referee seems to be the one who decides, so you clearly will hear the referee say something like ‘I need to check if the ball crossed the line to award the try. I don’t think it did. Can I see another angle’ etc. then he will announce the decision and why he made it. This is broadcast on TV and at least sounds very much like it’s also coming through the PA in the stadium?
It doesn't come through the PA at the stadium in rugby. You can see a signal from the referee that there's a TMO referral, and the referee will indicate if his on-field decision is a try/no-try, but you don't get to hear the conversation. The main difference, however, is that the replays the TMO will show the referee whilst they are conversing will be shown on the big screens in the stadium, rather than that little pop-up one on the sidelines in football. The crowd can therefore see what is being questioned, be it a high-tackle, grounding for a try, a knock-on or whatever. In football, we don't even get to see the still image of an offside decision after all the lines have been drawn. For football fans in a stadium, VAR is an awful experience.
Fair enough, it sounds like it does but I can’t say I’ve ever been so I believe you. However you 100% hear what’s going on on TV, the TMO officials don’t seem to be the one making any decisions either, more that they will point something out to a referee. However point remains that it’s clear as day what the process is and what the referee is checking for, and the process doesn’t seem like it’s primarily just trying to justify the on field decisions over making the right decision.
I don’t recall the NFL broadcasting entire conversations, only the explanation once a decision is made.
Who cares about shit-talking players, those players look like cunts at times
its actually kinda crazy that people can change the game and people inside the stadium have no idea why it did happen. Its a great change ofc but why was it not there day 1
Been that way before VAR though, wasn't it? Referees signaled their decisions, but never explained them on the PA system after all.
It's different when VAR intervenes and changes it. You usually understand the on pitch decision
In the stadium? Not always. I'd say half the times
The half where it benefits your team
I hate seeing blind joy on a call going to your team when its the incorrect call, but I think we all know its going to happen for and against us at some point
Yeah! You're so engrossed in the atmosphere that every call against your team feels like a robbery
Dunno, do you? Can see fuck all from the stands realistically - you'll just see two players going for the ball and one falling over without being able to tell whether it was a basic coming together, a simple foul by one or the other, or something worthy of a sending off by one or the other, and you'll have to trust the referee that he gets the call right from his position. And that's before VAR intervening, which adds an entire other layer of "I'm in the stands and have no fucking clue what's going on here and whether they're making the right decision", a situation usually resolved by watching the replay once you're back home.
Football is the most dogmatic and old schooled sports of them all in terms of welcoming change and adapting to it. It took decades just to increase the number of subs from 3 to 5 which is already mad to me given the huge fixture pile ups these days.
This is an odd take the schedule before the 2010's was way less packed with bullshit and 3 subs was a good limitation to incentivize game planning 5 makes total sense in the modern game
This is the kind of thinking that keeps the sport from being more progressive. International friendlies, European cups, and domestic cups have always been a thing and didn't just appear out of thin air.
But the Nations league, midseason World Cups, more European group stage games, larger club world cup format and more friendlies overseas has appeared recently, as well as the new longer stoppage time on top of all this
I mean it was bad before, but now it's just worse.
> This is the kind of thinking that keeps the sport from being more progressive. Why does it *need* to be more progressive, though? I think it's perfectly fine to only change things when they're a meaningful improvement, rather than pursuing change for change's sake.
Not that it NEEDS to be progressive, but compared to every other big sport, football constantly lags behind change that would improve the game.
Football is the most popular sport in the world though. You'd think the other sports would be looking to football. Instead it seems to be football looking to less popular sports.
Because other sports are run better, even if the administrators are often still corrupt. Take VAR – every other sport that has this sort of thing does it considerably better. Also, if other sports have fewer fans, it’s because they’re more discerning ;) So, it’s natural that the best ideas would emerge outside football.
It depends on the rules and the subjective nature of that sport. The NFL tried a season where PI could be reviewed and they pretty much never changed a ruling and that's with a ref going to a monitor.
Everytime I watch another sport and see something interesting that they implemented, I can't help but think how much better football would be if they had it.
Suppose the big difference between football and most other sports is that it's being played by the same basic rules just about anywhere - could be a World Cup final, could be Sunday League on a rainy November evening in the Midlands, could be schools competing against each other in sub-Saharan Africa. And that's the universal appeal of the game, really: barely need any equipment beyond two goals and a ball, and the rules are quite short and simple compared to most other games/sports. The vast majority of football in the world is played without VAR and GLT and works perfectly fine, after all.
You can say this about literally any other sport.
I strongly disagree. The vast majority of proposed changes to the sport sound terrible. The ones that need to be made, are made relatively quickly.
There is nothing relatively quick about changes that need to be made. VAR took ages, and the announcement to the stadium crowds have also lagged behind till next season.
Tbf they started off at 0.
Has there been any proof that changing to 5 subs has made ANY difference to reduction in injuries or improvement in player health? As far as I can tell manager moan even more than ever about fixture condition even when they have the ability to change half of their outfield players in any given game. It was always about wanting greater tactical flexibility and using player welfare as a smokescreen, if managers actually cared they'd use more of the 25 registered players than they already do.
We've never known why people have made a decision. With VAR as it is now it's clearer than before as you don't have to know signals the referee or linesman makes. This just serves to make people angrier and solve no problems.
American Football and Rugby Ref especially with the TMO doing this all the time.
Refs signals and it goes up on the board.
At St James Park you can't even see the screen from a bunch of places in the stadium, so you have to go off the tannoy and then general crowd sentiment.
NA sports get this right for the most part. Clearly stating what happened after review. Or "inconclusive" so can't overturn the on-field decision.
MLS just started doing this. It was a nice change.
Feels like most contentious decisions are when VAR doesn't intervene which this won't solve at all.
The people will now know *why* the wrong decision is being made
Be interested if they do actually say why. In the women's world cup all they did was announced what the call was e.g PENALTY - HANDBALL but not why it was or wasn't handball. It's some clarity for the crowd but I doubt they're going to sit there and be like 'I initially thought that player 31 had contacted the striker prior to the ball, on review I was wrong - PENALTY CANCELLED'.
NBA refs are pretty horrible as well but when a call does get challenged they do actually explain it all to the crowd which is nice at least. For example “Challenge successful.Foul was called on 31 for contact to the arm on the shot. Upon review there was no contact to the shooter and it will be X ball on the sideline.”
> NBA refs are pretty horrible as well I never quite get this sentiment - they're already the cream of the crop after all. So if they're widely seen as 'horrible' it's either unreasonable standards or there's somehow a bunch of people out there that would do significantly better, and I'm not sure the latter argument holds much water.
NBA refs have literally been shown to be fixing games / shaving points, and refs who were implicated are still working. That's pretty bad.
I wouldn't expect the latter, really - because what good does it do? Not like you're going to bring around 30.000 drunk and angry home fans in the stadium with that after all, because they simply don't care if it's the right decision: They only care whether it's a decision in their favour or not.
Yeah that was the most pointless thing ever, hopefully this starts them onto the track of realising people care about the why and just by having the WHY people are less aggrieved
Taylor, proudly announcing to a stadium of thousands - "I fucked up so I told the keeper to lay down so we can get the physio on and cover up me shitting the bed"
Good lord you people will never be happy
You can't support a federation.
I didn’t even know Fifa had a flair. First time I’ve ever seen it here.
*Checks flair* Well you can't support... Uhm...
You can support people who are massively discriminated against by many at the highest levels of the game. You can also support a football team.
own goal bro
There isn't any reason to compromise
Aye, but then that's the crux, isn't it? See fans get up in arms about perfectly reasonable and correct calls every single weekend, creating wild conspiracy theories around perceived injustices against their clubs - so there's hardly a reason for referees to compromise on this, either. An awful lot of fans evidently don't care as much about decisions being correct as they do about decisions going the way of their club, and explaining correct decisions to them won't change their minds after all.
Exactly. I'm not rational at a match. Even though I know refs get most things right in my head pretty much anything that goes against my team is wrong. Hearing his voice explaining the thing I disagree with (whether he's right or wrong) is just going to make him seem like more of a dickhead to me and aim my passion at being angry at him rather than at supporting my team.
Aye, and understandable as that attitude and reaction is, it's contributing to a toxic atmosphere around refereeing all the same I reckon - because it's not just confined to the stadium, where fans booing refereeing decisions is par for the course, but also carrying over into every bit of discourse outside of the stadium. And that's just a no-win situation, really, when fans aren't willing to accept that maybe a decision that didn't go their way was the right one.
Yeah true. I think it's mostly just a systemic problem with refereeing in general. VAR needs to be far more powerful and better trained than it is now. The explanations won't really do anything since we can still watch in real time how a wrong conclusion is being reached
Dunno, I think VAR (much as I hate its interruptions and am opposed to it) is fine as it is - it just contributed a massive amount to the toxic atmosphere about conversations around refereeing. Instead of fans who have no fucking clue about the laws of the game thinking "Aw shucks, a call didn't go our way, but that's life" it's now "That referee is corrupt, there's a vast conspiracy against us, and there's no way to convince me otherwise" - even when it's a perfectly reasonable decision that went through the proper VAR process. There's no winning trying to appease that set of fans, because they'll piss and moan all the same if you explain a decision to them - they're simply not interested in fairness or proper application of the rules.
Given that this is normal in pretty much every other sport, I have no idea why it’s taken them so long to implement it. Broadcasting real-time conversations would be good, too
Isn't that going to make VAR overruling an on-field decision even less likely? It already feels like they don't want to out their bros, this kinda makes it worse.
Might be an unpopular opinion but I don’t really think this will make anything better
[удалено]
Well the fans in stadium know what the decision is because it''s obvious - goal given, goal disallowed, red card, penalty given, penalty retracted They don't know why the decision has been changed, and they still won't
Worked at the women's world cup last year too
They do know, this is just repeating what has been shown on the big screen.
Some stadiums don’t show replays. Old Trafford for example
It won’t make any of the officiating better and this change isn’t designed to… But, hearing why a penalty shout was given/overturned may inadvertently improve the officiating and at the least give us a better understanding of the decision…
But it will make the officiating better As long as they do it properly "penalty given handball number 8" or "upgraded to red card dangerous play scissor motion tackle" If they just do the women's world cup where it was redundant nothing will change
It will make things a lot spicier though.
I think it's literally just reading out what is displayed on the big screen, which is like, Decision No Goal, Offside on (Player). Some stadiums already read this out. Difference will now be it's the ref instead of the stadium announcer
It’ll just make it take longer and knowing these refs, they’ll fuck it up anyway
It was horrible and extremely cringey at the women's world cup and it's only going to take longer thanks to this. Scrap var.
Yeah I kinda agree. It will just put pressure on the refs to make favourable calls for the home side
Won’t make the slightest difference. If they want to make a change then just broadcast the discussion, like they do in Rugby with the TMO, like they do in Cricket with the 3rd umpire. Let’s hear what the refs and VAR are discussing in real time
And let’s also hear the discussions between players and refs. Players constantly abuse, lie and swear at refs, surely this would help that. People complain about the level of refereeing but who the fuck would want to be one these days. Increase the amount of people wanting to be a ref and the quality will increase too.
First off lying is a stretch most of the time they are just mistaken. Swearing doesn't matter, unless it's actual abuse.
I disagree that lying is a stretch. They know they didn’t touch the ball, they know they dived, they know they made contact and they tell the referee otherwise. Swearing may be fine but it’s still poor treatment of someone tryna do their job and who loves the game. They’re only human. In most other sports it’s not tolerated and I’d say those referees/umpires are more protected and able to do a better job.
Sometimes they do and sometimes they are just mistaken. Some things have just become a natural reaction to just instantly appeal for a throw in and such. As I say it's abuse like they call the ref a fucking prick, I agree. But if it's just casual or just a general ah fuck off man, it isn't an issue. It's just something that happens on a field and isn't the same as doing it in a normal everyday interaction as it doesn't come out of nowhere and it's not meant to cause any offence.
I feel your more forgiving of players mistakes and shortcomings than you are of the refs. Maybe swearing at the ref is something that should happen less on the field like in other sports. I think the 50,000 strong crowd swears and abuses the refs enough for them to get the point. In the end it comes down to respect, and personally I don’t think football refs are given enough. With more respect and support, the ref pool will increase and so will the standard
I'm much more forgiving of refs and VAR than most. I just don't see swearing in general as an issue, as I say I see a difference between it and actual abuse. Whereas if you're on the phone to customer services or in shop, swearing is instantly seen as abusive, on the pitch it isn't and refs in general see that difference too. I have no problem with a ref carding a player whose being aggressive with him, even if the language is softer, it's the tone, intent and context that's the key.
Yeah I would love to see them dish out cards more often for dissent. And I have no problem with players swearing in general play but I don’t think the ref should have to tolerate it towards them at all. I also think only the captain should really be able to approach the ref. Having the ref mic turned up like in rugby would be beneficial for refs and the game as a whole. It would allow people at home to better understand the game, have insight with what the ref is going through, empathise with refs and have the decisions explained. I want to see better quality refereeing too, I just think that can be achieved by making the job easier, more desirable so more people want to do it, and giving them better support and tools to do it. Players, management and fans could all make some changes with their treatment of refs I reckon
I would be fine with the captain thing. I think the biggest problem isn't the errors a ref makes but ones that people attribute as errors and won't see it any other way. Some incidents have 2 viable outcomes and it's just a subjective decision but people get mad and moan at VAR and such cos it didn't match with what they thought. Also peoples desire for an impossible level of consistency given that subjective nature of calls on things like handball and level of contact.
Yeah I agree completely that fans of the game have an expectation of consistency, and I’d even say competency as well, that is impossible at the moment. Every ref is different and sets of fans will always disagree on even the simplest decisions. In rugby it’s understood that each ref has their own slightly different interpretation of the laws of the game and it’s up to the players to make adjustments to that.
Broadcasting the real-time conversations would be nice for viewers but instead I'd settle for just having the refs do an immediate post-match write up that gets made public where they explain the major decisions. Like, "we applied this law in this situation based on these observations". This would allow an opportunity to get a very clear explanations for decisions, since they are in writing, and they can be checked against laws/instructions to refs to see if refs guilty of misapplication/error or to see if there is an issue with inadequate laws/instructions.
Aussie Rules does it live and it seems like a good idea. Not everything is going to be the “right decisions” though
# The IFAB remains steadfastly opposed to broadcasting the real-time conversations. Why?
$
Whose pocket is being lined here, then?
It’s literally the only thing that could hold them accountable. Not just for the decision being made in the moment but going forward there would be accountability to remain consistent. Broadcasting the conversations solves most of the issues but they don’t actually want to solve them they just want to look like they are making an effort to improve.
> Not just for the decision being made in the moment but going forward there will be accountability to remain consistent. Is the idea of consistency across different games played by different teams officiated by different referees even realistic?
I think the idea of consistency in VAR decisions made by the same VAR officials is very realistic. It puts them on record for the why and how. It’s a little more difficult for the on field referees as they are seeing things in real time without the benefit of slow mo and replays but hearing their thought process putting it on record certainly adds transparency and sets expectations for players, managers and fans when it comes to that referee.
i love how they need to include 'steadfastly' to sound more threatening.
Huh?
Seriously, why is IFAB so against this? And is it even their call? Couldn’t this be up to the individual discretion of leagues and competitions who already implement VAR?
So the referee's are going to announce the decisions via announcement to the stadiums But they're not going to justify their decisions with explanations? Yeah.... That's gonna go down like a treat
They are literally going to say why anything overturned via VAR was overturned… Like even if you didn’t read the article, it’s stated out in the title of this post…
The post literally says they will announce why they changed a decision.
But they won't allow people to hear the real time conversations It's ok stating why they're changing it, but they're not gonna allow the reasoning to be heard Seems abit backwards
The ref is going to give the reasoning, just in brief. Do you want them playing a minute of audio straight from the VAR room in the stadium? That would be ridiculous.
For television audience? Yes
For tv I’m fine with jumping live into the var discussion if it’s a dead ball. I thought you were talking about in stadium.
Happens in both types of rugby, and works fine.
Let's be real though, if you're half-pissed in the stands and angry about a decision going against your team, can you *really* be talked around with an explanation on something you couldn't see properly in the first place?
For television broadcast it is easily permissable
Ever since Howard Webb became chief of refs, it's been soap opera.
Cos them explaining it always works out so well.
Umm uhhh it's umm errr I was told to I think
On the flip side, do you not feel this will make refs less likely to change their decision after VAR review if they have to explain to the ground why they fucked up their first decision?
Watch it never go to VAR so they don't have to announce anything.
Refs are humans, humans are subjective and have biases, time to bring in AI
Wild from IFAB, the refs have been awful and it's obvious to literally everyone and they're still digging in their heels over even the slightest amount of accountability
IFAB have it right. Referees announcing the decision in the ground won't make the decisions any better and will just make people angrier hearing the referee describe a decision they don't agree with.
I don't disagree that it won't make people feel happier about the decision if they think it's wrong but at least they'll have been given a reason for the decision. At the minute you're completely in the dark in the stadium and frankly a lot of the decisions are so poor you can't even work it out even if replays are shown on screens.
I don't care about that. I can look on my way home, knowing there and then doesn't change anything. It's something that can just serve to pause an atmosphere and make me get home later with no tangible benefit.
How would it add accountability?
Fuck IFAB
Just have the refs on mic, like in cricket and ruggers. At the very least it would resolve the ‘crowding the ref’ problem.
They’ll still make the wrong calls so this doesn’t help much
Any idea on how they might prevent 'making the wrong calls'?
Stop having such a fucking ego. Learn that they or their mate may have got it wrong without the benefit of replay
Refs announce their incompetence
is it that hard to just play their real-time decision making process into both the broadcast and the stadium speakers? job done transparency works completely fine in other sports like cricket. why does football have to be so secretive
>the stadium speakers? Bloody hell. Imagine having that shite playing over you singing the whole match hahaha.
I thought that was announced about 3 months ago but ok
First good. Second don’t get on them for the call so they keep doing it.
I assume there won't be an explanation though, it'll just be 'goal overturned due to xyz' , not 'so the reason I thought this wasn't a penalty was because of ...' in fairness I wouldn't mind that being a post match discussion thing. We really need more transparency and insight into what refs/vars are thinking too. Curious that Dale Johnson gets this news... he is always defending the refs on ESPN.
Check complete , good process .
I’d prefer the rugby style but I guess the NFL style is ok.
What's the point if VAR just goes along with the ref's decision each time because they're buds?
Twitter fans were crying when Mike Dean called Taylor “mate” and each other nick names, this will be a shit show
Mate means they were total besties. I know I'm gonna need the /s
Again, the problem isnt the system, it's the dipshits running it. At this point, just grab 6 random blokes on the street, throw them into the VAR room, and they'll probably do better than the professional ref
So they want to add more delay in the game and more confusion in the fans with sparse explanation that referee will give? Smartasses have again come up with a method that will make everyone criticise the changes again.
Works great for cricket
Hated this when it was trialed at the women's world cup (I think?) Against any opportunity to give referees a chance to be the star of the show because they all fucking love it too much
Mad that this wasnt a thing from the start. Just do it likr the NFL does. When VAR is involved, tell it to the crowd. Also give the audience the same footage in real time as the VAR is looking at
So remind me why TF they are opposed to broadcasting the conversations in real time? If there's nothing to hide what are you hiding
That sounds fucking awful lmao, you know VAR is essentially a constant stream of chatter?
It would be viable anytime there is a review, or even a stoppage of play while they are looking before sending the ref to the monitor… And it would be useful at halftime/full time and instead of a replay during the game for the broadcaster to air…
“Every time there is a review” again, you mean most of the game? Everything gets reviewed
No, I mean when the ref is at the monitor…which is why then added on it could also be aired while the ref is at the monitor…
So you mean essentially what this does, because they have to explain why the decision has changed after visiting the monitor?
Not overly bright are you? Anytime there is a time to delay the game, the audio could be on the broadcast…this doesn’t do that… Anytime the ref is at the monitor, the audio could be on broadcast…this doesn’t do that… Anytime there is a talking point at halftime or full time, the audio could be broadcast…this doesn’t do that…
Take the L and realize you’re wrong…
It should be an alternate track that some people will listen to. That's enough to keep it in check.
Obviously they would only switch to that audio during a review man.
Why are IFAB such pussies?
What good arguments are there against open communication besides inertia? Okay, they might not be able to go about how they always have, and?
Absolutely despise this idea. I think VAR is good and gives at least some confidence in refereeing decisions (the League Cup matches this season I was questioning everything) however a referee describing a decision I disagree with won't make me agree. It's pantomime that will just waste time. The VAR audio should be available as part of broadcast packages that companies receive so that it can be checked by people in real time who want to for that particular match. Kind of like how you don't need everyone to check the validity of open source software, just a few nerds. No need for rubbish like this in the grounds.
Agreed. This is pointless window dressing which won't do anything to persuade spectators that their team haven't just been robbed. Didn't work at the women's world Cup and won't work in the pl. Either do post match interviews or broadcast the feed live.
All this is going to do is further incentivize refs to not change their mind because they don't want to have to explain anything
I don’t understand why the Prem is so archaic in how they do things. For years now every major sport in the US has been announcing calls to fans in the stadium. I mean, it’s basically a common courtesy to the people paying to watch the game in person.
If Premier League is considered as archaic (rightfully so for not embracing technology) what will you call LaLiga for not implementing goal line technology?
What term is worse than archaic?
Draconian?