1.) 07 Mar 2018
07 Mar 2018 12:11:49
I agree tweaking it is needed but the big question is, will they do that? if they don't it'll be nothing but a farce. Good read mate.

2.) 07 Mar 2018
07 Mar 2018 12:42:48
IMO, VAR should work fine if those in charge actually do what it takes to make it work. I always use the NFL as an analogy. Anything that has to do with a play that impacts the game (goals penalties, offsides that lead to goals or to an opportunity for goals etc. ) must be reviewed by the official on the sideline in charge of VAR and if there is no clear evidence to reverse the call after looking at it from all angles (the same ones we the fans, see on TV like in the NFL), then the call on the field should stand. If there is enough evidence, it should be reversed and the ref's decision is final. Now this dos not mean they don't get it wrong BUT they get about 90% of the calls right which IMO, is brilliant.

Now regarding fouls, free kicks throw ins, corners and stuff like that, that should be left at the interpretation of the ref (like in the NFL) cos there should be some form of human interpretation of the rules. The reason it works well in the NFL is that majority of the fans, refs and pundits, actually know the rules about how VAR works and with every passing season, it is improved to make it work. They don't have intellectually bankrupt coaches and players trying to game the system and blame it whenever they don't win, along with dishonest pundits trying to inject their opinions into what is factual. That is he biggest prob with VAR, IMO.

3.) 07 Mar 2018
07 Mar 2018 13:31:36
My opinion is VAR should only be used when there is contention in a goalscoring situation. However it should not be up to the ref to choose VAR it should be the team concerned. Each team are given 1 chance to change a decision via VAR, if the ref is correct they lose their VAR option, if they correctly overturn the decision they keep their VAR option. Using this method ensures the referee makes an immediate decision and puts the pressure on the team (captain, manager etc) to make a swift decision whether to challenge his decision. The referee will still keep some kind of control, if the players surround him insisting he has made a mistake he can ask them to use their VAR option if they are sure he's made an error.

4.) 07 Mar 2018
07 Mar 2018 14:13:24
I think your idea is a good one Molby though probably best to have maybe 3 VAR reviews as opposed to one as, should one be used incorrectly, and then a mistake is made later, the controversy stays the same. I agree though giving the teams control over when it is used puts all the pressure on the team and removes it from the referees. There also needs to be a proper understanding of the rules though - the referees association basically changed the rules of offside in order to support their employees woeful officiating - poor officials need calling out and replaced if necessary as it is the only way to really raise standards as a whole.

5.) 07 Mar 2018
07 Mar 2018 15:31:09
Molby the only change to the above would be that I wouldn't let them keep it, they have been awarded enough to overturn the decision and you would like to think the captains are smart enough only to use it at an opportune time i. e. contentious goal decision for or against or a red card.

Regarding crowding the ref I would say they lose their review, if they haven’t used it, or they start booking players again.

6.) 07 Mar 2018
07 Mar 2018 16:03:22
Should be a challenge system. The current system makes refs doubt themselves and over use it. A challenge system restores the refs authority and puts the responsibility on the team (and means there less for teams to complain about) .

7.) 07 Mar 2018
07 Mar 2018 18:04:53
My idea of only giving a team 1 (challenge) if unsuccessful is to allow referees the control and for a team to only use a challenge if they are 100% certain there has been an error. If they were given 3 challenges the teams would be more likely to gamble and undermine the ref. holding up play too many times.