Mixed feelings on that VAR ****. I felt it worked

[Burney]

No, he's practically the only person who ought to. Otherwise the players might just as soon officiate matches amongst themselves.

But a referee going to the VAR when he's uncertain doesn't help us with the main problem, which is referees being certain they're right when they're absolutely wrong. It seems clear to me that there has to be an appeals process available to the teams a la cricket.

[redgunamo]

Wenger has said for years that they should have a challenge system like in cricket/tennis - still quite random at the moment

I'm still not comfortable with them challenging the umpires decisions in cricket. It's not .. er .. cricket, imo.

Couldn't care less what they do in the tennis though, of course.

[Luis Anaconda]

To be fair it the concept is to be introduced by FIFA/PL/whoeever then it is only natural for managers to seek it's use when it suits them.

No different really to them berating the poor 4th official which happens every match.

Should be in the stand like rugby coaches

[Burney]

I'm still not comfortable with them challenging the umpires decisions in cricket. It's not .. er .. cricket, imo.

Couldn't care less what they do in the tennis though, of course.

If it means fewer bad decisions get made, it's a good thing. I simply don't see any counter-argument to that.

[redgunamo]

But a referee going to the VAR when he's uncertain doesn't help us with the main problem, which is referees being certain they're right when they're absolutely wrong. It seems clear to me that there has to be an appeals process available to the teams a la cricket.

No different to players being certain they're right when they're absolutely wrong, I think. The principle that the game must go on ought to be paramount, regardless of right or wrong. All we've done is encourage toddler-like tantruming, if that's a word, and a refusal to accept adjudication #NotMyUmpire

[Peter]

If it means fewer bad decisions get made, it's a good thing. I simply don't see any counter-argument to that.

It has helped with lbw and nicks in cricket, also run outs. For some reason it has led to umpires not bothering to check for no balls anymore, which is a bit weird. It may also have made the standard of umpiring slightly worse.

THe one where Malan was given out after a huge inside edge. Leaving aside the fact that he should have challenged it I was watching it live and was stunned the umpire gave out. My initial reaction was it wasn't out in a million years- hit him outside the line, he's moving and there was something wrong with it- which turned out to be a massive inside edge. I still cant quite believe he gave it out.

[Peter]

No different to players being certain they're right when they're absolutely wrong, I think. The principle that the game must go on ought to be paramount, regardless of right or wrong. All we've done is encourage toddler-like tantruming, if that's a word, and a refusal to accept adjudication #NotMyUmpire

Its hugely different. Player dont give a **** about right or wrong, they want what they want. Referees are supposed to want nothing, they are supposed to be impartial and interested only in getting a decision right.

[Bergkamp Was Best]

If it means fewer bad decisions get made, it's a good thing. I simply don't see any counter-argument to that.

I agree entirely Burney.

Football is way too open to poor decisions being made because of human error. Every goal should be reviewed to help eliminate things like incorrect offside decisions (for and against) and unspotted fouls that definitely interfere with play. However, I don't think that it should be left solely to the referee on the pitch to make a final decision though.

[Tony C]

Third umpire was useless yesterday....

[Burney]

It has helped with lbw and nicks in cricket, also run outs. For some reason it has led to umpires not bothering to check for no balls anymore, which is a bit weird. It may also have made the standard of umpiring slightly worse.

THe one where Malan was given out after a huge inside edge. Leaving aside the fact that he should have challenged it I was watching it live and was stunned the umpire gave out. My initial reaction was it wasn't out in a million years- hit him outside the line, he's moving and there was something wrong with it- which turned out to be a massive inside edge. I still cant quite believe he gave it out.

I'd agree that the standard of on-field umpiring has fallen dramatically, but would argue that that is because umpires are not being held to account for making poor on-field decisions. I'd argue that if your decisions are getting regularly overturned, you need to be kicked off the international umpire's panel and replaced with someone better. You'd soon see on-field decisions improving again.

The Malan thing is bizarre. Sure, it was a terrible decision, but I can remember worse from the days before DRS. However, I've played cricket for 35 years and never in all that time have I even feathered one and not known it (I mean I've stood there swearing blind I didn't hit it when I knew I did, obviously, but that's different ). That someone can smash the ball into his pad like that and not know he's done it enough to challenge the decision is simply astonishing to me.

In short, Malan was out there because he was a thick cünt.