My take on VAR in soccer is that it has made offside, which was already kinda bull in how it was defined, unbearable. If you have to freeze frame to see that half an arm was ahead of the ball, it shouldn’t be a penalty.
Not quite at the level of trackers in footballs, but I have been impressed by such advances in technology as the pylon-cams at football’s end zones, and at the first-down marker. I don’t know when they came in, but it must have been within the last ten years or so. Certainly, they help to resolve a lot of on-field calls.
They are a simple but extremely effective improvement, yeah. 
You could also avoid reductio ad absurdum.
So - review calls liberally over the final 2 minutes? 5 minutes? I could see that. Or - as I believe is current, allow some number of requests for review, but after the first, there might be a loss of a timeout, or loss of yardage or something.
That is consistent with my opinion.
I think the reviewed call I saw in this bowl game concerned a possible TD. There were no pylon cams. It seemed pretty clear that the ball crossed the plane in bounds, but was initially ruled not a TD. I do not recall the eventual outcome. Perhaps it was ruled a score.
I am a huge, huge fan of video review in Major League Baseball. It’s not very intrusive, and it gets the call right. It’s a shame they didn’t have it decades before they did.
Agreed, except sometimes it takes far, far too long. Look at the play for 20-30 seconds, if you cannot decide one way or the other, go with the call on the field.
I’ll dissent here. I like the rules to be applied fairly & accurately in all cases, even when the ruling goes against my team.
(Unless, of course, they’re playing the Yankees.)
referees can’t see everything. They also can’t watch their original decision reviewed again and again in slow motion and from different angles. Which is something the entire planet can do thanks to replays.
I think referees would welcome the chance for official reviews considering it’s played out on the jumbo-tron in front of them. The court of public opinion is certainly felt from booing and may affect how they make future calls in the game. In some way it takes the edge off of making quick calls. They won’t be second guessing what they saw knowing how it can greatly affect a game.
I always liked the rule where you can challenge two calls, and, man, that’s it — if you’re incorrect. But if you’re correct, then your number of requests doesn’t drop.
So if the ref is doing a great job, and you’re just wasting everyone’s time, then you don’t get to waste much of it: you can have your say a couple of times, and get proven wrong in front of everyone, and things keep motoring along. But if the ref is the problem, you can keep calling him out whenever you, uh, have a point.
I’m sure everyone has noticed that officials, and NFL refs in particular, have refrained from blowing their whistle unless they’re damn sure that a passed ball hit the ground or the qb’s arm was going forward when the ball came out or the runner stepped out of bounds before crossing the goal line. A whistle stops the play, and a play blown dead when it shouldn’t have been is a big no-no.
I think something like this makes sense. If the evidence is not clear enough to reverse the call somewhat promptly, just move on.
With this:
I guess I’m in the minority in thinking that human fallibility - including by the refs - is a part of the game. And I’d prefer it to move along, without long delays. But, my opinion ought not matter much seeing as today’s game will be the second football game I’ve watched all year.
No - that’s the part of the implementation I don’t like.
My thought is ‘If you are going to use video replay - use it to get the right call’. I don’t see why the guy in the video booth (who is in radio contact with the on-field officials) can’t have a quick look at the replay and just say press the mike button and just say ‘Hold on here guys, I just think this is worth a second look’.
Limited reviews are silly, because then the use of the review becomes tactical - that’s not the purpose of video review - it’s to make sure the right call is made.
It’s interesting in cricket that in the event of a run-out decision being required, the umpire does not give a decision right away, but instead immediately calls for the video review.
There are three issues that need to be sorted to use video reviews:
- Do we have good quality video coverage (eg - the right angles to judge lines)?
- Do we ‘trust’ the computer grahics that are used to forecast where the ball will go, whether players are on-side or not, whether the ball crossed the line (either goal line or sideline).
- How do we implement video reviews - this is the main issue most fans have. Unlimited reviews mean the game is always stopping, limited reviews means a team can still get screwed by a bad call if they have run out of their allocation.
Pre-video replays umpires and referees probably got 85-90 percent of ‘judgement’ calls completely right and fans argued about the 10%. Now with video review, refs probably get 98% of judjement calls completely right - and fans argue about the 2%.