VAR Technology Faces Backlash Following Champions League Controversy 27
A controversial VAR (Video Assistant Referee) decision helped eliminate Atletico Madrid from the Champions League after Julian Alvarez's penalty was disallowed for a near-microscopic double touch. Despite referee Szymon Marciniak standing just feet away and missing the infraction, VAR officials intervened without the typically required "clear and obvious error" standard.
This incident has exemplified the paradox of video review technology in football: introduced to reduce controversies, VAR has instead multiplied them. Technical implementation varies significantly across competitions -- some MLS stadiums have fewer cameras available for review than others -- creating inconsistent application. The Premier League claims VAR increased correct decisions from 82% to 96%, yet the remaining errors dominate match-day discourse. The Guardian adds: VAR incidents are now so endemic that Norway's clubs were compelled to vote on whether use of the technology should be scrapped two weeks ago. Ultimately, they decided to stick with VAR, even though most of the country's professional clubs want rid of it.
In the Norwegian league, the use of VAR has become so unpopular that fans felt they had no choice but to pelt the field with fishcakes in protest, which may or may not be A Norwegian Thing. Ultimately, the decision on whether to keep or scrap VAR devolved into a power struggle of a sort between Norway's 32 top professional clubs and the federation. Whereas the vote to introduce VAR -- which Norway didn't adopt until 2023, years later than most European countries -- was conducted by those pro teams alone, the decision to scrap it was voted on by every club in the country.
Several amateur clubs told the Guardian they felt conflicted about being dragged into a fight about a technology not in use at their level. Had it been left up to the pros, VAR would have been scrapped, by a 19-13 margin. Instead, the federation orchestrated a vote among all the country's clubs to force the retention of VAR -- and avoid becoming the first nation to scrap it -- prevailing by 321 votes to 129.
This incident has exemplified the paradox of video review technology in football: introduced to reduce controversies, VAR has instead multiplied them. Technical implementation varies significantly across competitions -- some MLS stadiums have fewer cameras available for review than others -- creating inconsistent application. The Premier League claims VAR increased correct decisions from 82% to 96%, yet the remaining errors dominate match-day discourse. The Guardian adds: VAR incidents are now so endemic that Norway's clubs were compelled to vote on whether use of the technology should be scrapped two weeks ago. Ultimately, they decided to stick with VAR, even though most of the country's professional clubs want rid of it.
In the Norwegian league, the use of VAR has become so unpopular that fans felt they had no choice but to pelt the field with fishcakes in protest, which may or may not be A Norwegian Thing. Ultimately, the decision on whether to keep or scrap VAR devolved into a power struggle of a sort between Norway's 32 top professional clubs and the federation. Whereas the vote to introduce VAR -- which Norway didn't adopt until 2023, years later than most European countries -- was conducted by those pro teams alone, the decision to scrap it was voted on by every club in the country.
Several amateur clubs told the Guardian they felt conflicted about being dragged into a fight about a technology not in use at their level. Had it been left up to the pros, VAR would have been scrapped, by a 19-13 margin. Instead, the federation orchestrated a vote among all the country's clubs to force the retention of VAR -- and avoid becoming the first nation to scrap it -- prevailing by 321 votes to 129.
Americans got it right (Score:2)
A coach initiated review system is superior to VAR.
Re: (Score:2)
Golf went through a phase where viewers on tv were calling in and reporting infractions during tournaments which then results in penalties being assessed at the end of rounds. So America has already gone through something like this in the past.
In American Football - all scoring plays are automatically reviewed. To be honest, I don't see how this is any different. I saw the video and agree the left foot (
Re: (Score:2)
You are almost certainly wrong there, there is normally a "video ref" off in some studio who checks for violations and he will have raised the alarm here.
Part of the problem with VAR is that it seems to be selectively applied. Manchester United played Everton a few weeks ago and Everton were awarded a penalty when one of their players was fouled in the "area". VAR got involved. Two different MU players foule
Re: (Score:2)
Americans got which sport right? Soccer has always had multiple referees on the field looking for different things. Comparing it to another sport which doesn't is senseless.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW: Football (American) has always had multiple referees on the field looking for different things.
Football (American) has also always had the gameplay dominated by the team coaches. Whereas in football (the one played with feet and a ball) has coaches that are unable to impact the game in any way.
Were you going to make some kind of point?
Yes, this will shock you: My point is that they are different sports and comparing them is stupid. And suddenly suggesting that the coach of a team should have an impact on the game being played is *one second, English is my fourth language, let me look this up* : fucking dumb.
No perfect solution (Score:1)
There is always somewhere the line has to be drawn. Either allow imperfection with human mistakes, or allow absolute determination, but one that changes what seems as a perfectly clean situation bar the smallest detail |ruining it" that can be seen only on camera.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that ref drama is a part of the sport. I.e. amount of ref drama is about the same. But it's now hyperfocused on smaller amount of VAR related errors, as that's pretty much all that's left.
Before it was diffused across a much wider array of errors. Which made it far less focused, and far less troublesome.
Re: (Score:2)
Such whining (Score:2)
They had a vote. A decision was made. Call the wambulance!
It's going to destroy soccer (Score:2)
The obsession with offsides a matter of inches is wrong. It must be stopped.
American Major League Baseball is experimenting with ABS, Automated Balls and Strikes. I see decisions of 0.5 inches, even less. Not good.
Perhaps the VAR could become a challenge system - but the VAR officials are drunk with power. In the EPL they interject constantly.
Awful.
Re: (Score:2)
The obsession with offsides a matter of inches is wrong. It must be stopped.
Why, is it a rule you don't like? What if it goes your way?
The reality is if you abolish it people will just look to something else to complain about. Better to win/lose on a technicality than due to human error. Rules are rules, you are able to not be offside, that is within your control as a player.
Re: It's going to destroy soccer (Score:2)
I've seen VAR decisions rely on an image showing no conclusive margin. I've seen decisions that, if you agree with that VAR, were a fraction of an inch. But if you disagreed, a fraction the other way. The VAR is uniquely flawed in this. Even in tennis you'd see decisions where it's an interpretation of the impression of the ball, which is depicted virtually identically despite speed or angle. Flawed I think.
Re: (Score:2)
matter of inches
"Smokey, this is not 'nam, this is bowling, there are rules." [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I find it highly amusing that now that a rule can be somewhat consistently enforced, it is now bad. No one in tennis is suggesting that a ball hitting outside the court by a tenth of an inch should count...
Exactly. A rule exists, one that is challenging for a human to accurately call all the time. These calls are relatively easy for a computer to call and involve determining whether a ball crosses some space. The space is completely stationary, so only the movement and timing of the ball needs to be determined. However, in baseball and in soccer and many other sports, there is a desire to aspire to the human theatrics of professional wrestling, and those theatrics are more important than getting the call
could have been worse (Score:3)
>so unpopular that fans felt they had no choice but to pelt the field >with fishcakes in protest, which may or may not be A Norwegian Thing
It could have been worse.
They could have forced the players or refs to eat lutefisk . . .
!!
VAR improves the experience of watching it on TV (Score:2)
Players and in-the-stadium supporters may be conflicted, but when you're behind your TV, it's nice that what you see gets used to improve the referee's decisions.
Apparently this is about football (aka soccer) (Score:2)
It would be kind to put the sport name (football or soccer, I don't care which) in the title, or the first sentence of the summary. I have no idea what VAR, Champions League, or Atletico Madrid are, and if you want me interested in your story you should allow for unfamiliarity and throw us a damn bone. I had to get to the middle of the summary to get a clue.
Re: (Score:2)
and if you want me interested in your story
Clearly this story wasn't for you in the first place.
Think they got the MLS comment wrong (Score:2)
Technical implementation varies significantly across competitions -- some MLS stadiums have fewer cameras available for review than others -- creating inconsistent application.
As an American and MLS fan, it's my understanding that this is how things were in MLS but not how they currently are. Apple TV+ has, since 2022, been the broadcaster of all MLS games/matches. While it was true that prior to the Apple contract that MLS stadiums could be wildly different in terms of nu
VAR sucks (Score:1)
The rules (Score:2)
correct intervention (Score:2)