VAR is not for me — Ashley Young

The actual laws of the game and the consistent application of those laws is the issue.

Mind you, the argument in football might then be the importance of a timekeeper, does time stop (apologies to Albert Einstein) when the incident occurred, when the VAR has finished reviewing, or only if a referee's ruling is overturned? Also, how is it relayed to those on the pitch and in the crowd that a review is being undertaken?

Another instance, like P&S and FFP, of how an answer merely creates another problem – although at some time in the relatively near future, we might not have players who remember life before the VAR.

It's not the only thing in life technology is ruining, there's as many mistakes made today with the VAR as when we just used good old humans.

I'm really beginning to dislike modern-day football

So for me, a biased referee on the pitch is there for all to see, but a biased VAR in a box has too much influence on the outcome without being challenged.

As for the lines across the pitch for offside hands and noses, it's just ridiculous.

There was nothing like the euphoria of celebrating a goal, once the ref has pointed back to the halfway line, but now that delerium is put on hold and can never be so unbridled.

Football needs to look at Rugby where problems are openly discussed for all to hear. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better.

Therein lies the problem, we can't seem to find enough good ones anymore, well, not for refereeing.

Although I agree with you about technology. I've lost count of people I don't know ringing up but won't tell you anything about themselves other than the company they say they are with but expect you to give them all your personal details to continue, and I don't think I even deal with any Indian companies.

VAR Rule 1) check, name of ground, shirt colour, club badge - Then make decision.

I'm happy with the concept of the VAR, just get it implemented correctly, supported by competent officials (I know!).

Nothing is ever perfect, but for starters, we, as a support base, only need to refer to the countless wrong decisions given by the human factor in derbies over the years.

Clive Thomas in the 1977 semi-final. Alan Hansen handball in the League Cup final. Don Hutchison's goal. Gerrard's two-footer on Naismith – that, okay as that got retrospectively punished, but didn't at the time. Carragher wrestling Lescott to the ground in the penalty box. Nothing.

We could produce an endless list. I'd like to have seen the VAR look at a few of those.

Nothing is 100%, but get it implemented correctly, be more transparent and get competent officials. On the pitch and those studying the cameras.

And yes, I am bitter!

The rules also seem to be open to much more interpretation now, they're buggering the game up. What happened to the difference between handball and ball to hand? One was deliberate and the other accidental.

If a referee can't see the difference, he shouldn't be a ref. Offside by a toe! bloody insane. Then when the VAR could be of use, like on Sunday, the ref doesn't use it!

Examples are legion... and quite often cheating against us!

One other thing that rarely gets mentioned: how do they define when to freeze the frame for offside decisions, ie, when is the exact millisecond that the ball is played? It can make a huge difference in the very tight calls.

Stuart Atwell, as the referee on the day, made an instant judgement that, in his view, James Tarkowski was backing into Brend Leno, making a back for him, and causing him to drop the ball. The VAR was not involved in any way in that decision – it was 100% the match official's decision on the pitch, which is exactly what Ashley Young is calling for.

What followed, including the huge angst over why the VAR was not consulted, became rendered irrelevant by the referee's whistle. (Although why can't the referee's whistle itself be potentially a "clear and obvious error"?).

The Onana incident had some similarities but the point of consistency (isn't that also what people want to see?) across the two highly controversial calls is protection of the goalie by the referees. (How Derek @9 cites these as an example of inconsistency puzzles me.)

Or is that the real problem: over-protection of the goalies? The huge differences now between infringements called inside the penalty area, on especially on or by the goalie, versus outside the penalty area involving all other players, is what's causing the problems.

But in football, you don't hear or see anything that the VAR is looking at, and even when the decision is made, the fans don't see or hear why the decision was made.

In all the other sports the referees or umpires are miked up so everything is transparent. So if all other sports allow their referees to be miked up, then why not football?

Probably because many would struggle to say why they came up with their decisions. Just take our disallowed goal against Fulham.

I understand that Mike Riley (not one of our favourite refs) said he couldn't understand why the ref disallowed the goal. While on their Monday morning show, where Sky show the controversial decisions, the ex-referee there having had all weekend to look at it, said the referee was right to disallow the goal because Keane was offside.

Now nobody is going to tell me that Paulson disallowed the goal because he thought Keane was offside – and why didn't his linesman indicate that?

As I said, all other sports you can hear and see the official on the pitch talking to the video ref in real time, whereas in football, these referees won't even do an interview 20 minutes after the game is finished. Why??? What's to hide – other than their incompetence?

When televised matches came along, decisions which were once accepted by the most important people of all – the match-going fans – were repeatedly dissected by TV companies, and debated by well-paid no-marks, eager to cause controversy and so boost viewing figures.

The sight nowadays of multi-millionaire ex-players in studios, sometimes up to half a dozen, earning huge salaries by saying nothing of importance but having a huge impact on the sport, is one of the saddest indictments on this greed-based society: and the introduction of technology, to a sport, meant to be an escape from all that, is leading to many fans turning their backs on the game.

Televised football, from the start, should have been banned from showing repeats of controversial incidents, so avoiding all the abuse towards referees, which has resulted in this monstrous intrusion of CIA-style monitoring of every second of every game.

It's obvious that those custodians of our game were more interested in the wealth they accrued than in maintaining the integrity of the sport, and so the tail now wags the dog, and it's the fans who suffer.

I can't see why we don't just sell all the players and stadiums off and just have managers, equipped with X-boxes, and play out every match, without any problems. Then the gormless paying public can watch their teams on the box, without argument, and the managers can really earn their obscene salaries.

I will draw up another few comparisons in a moment, but firstly, why will the VAR never be like other sports, where they are miked up, you can hear the discussion and see replays on the screen, whether it is cricket or rugby, you know for sure a right decision has been made, or at the very least some justification and reasoning as to why a decision has been overturned.

For me, if you bring that in, it gives a fairer all-round chance for every team. So ask yourself: Why they will not do this?

Why they will not show replays, slow motion, and consultation, between the referee and the VAR? That would take away the advantage of the top teams getting dubious decisions, or a reason not to give the lesser team the right call.

FFP, less said about that the better, but big teams yet again huge advantage of spending more, with finishing in Europe each season, getting more to spend, while those not able to get in Europe on a regular basis, are capped at spending, so as each year passes, the wider the gap will get with the elite.

The 5-subs rule, who does this benefit the most? See above on more spending and strength in depth for the elite teams. Any of the top teams could name a full bench of Internationals to call upon, and change half their outfield players, if needed. Which leads me into my third one, baring in mind strength in depth on the bench.

My final one is the additional new added time rule – and who does this benefit? Again why not have a stop-clock, where the ref can call time off, time back on, that fans would be able to see at the stadium.

This was the one that benefited the also-rans by them being able to do a bit of time-wasting against the bigger teams. This has now been jumped on. With additional time on top of additional time, now they can justify putting 10 mins on the board, without us knowing how they got to that additional time.

It would be interesting to keep an eye on that one, and see what additional time is added, if one of the big teams are leading, and what time is added if they are a goal down, or level.

I am sure most would agree, if we had a stop watch on the screen, where the ref could stop it for time off, then time back on again, we would then know how much game time is left, we would have a fairer understanding if we could hear what the referee was communicating to the VAR, and be able to see the screen that the VAR was looking at in slow motion, and different angles. Instead, with get a still shot at random, with a line on it. How do we know that is the exact freeze frame the ball was played? One frame back, player onside, one frame after, a toe offside or armpit.

The game has gone as we know it, corrupt beyond belief. Give it another couple of seasons, and if Brighton maintain a few seasons of European football, and one of the big teams start to miss out for a few seasons, then expect their next plan of action to be implemented, with the past history performances coming in to help the big team on a slide out.

Given the way the VAR is implemented, those incidents you mention wouldn't be punished.

The big teams get the rub of the green. If anything, the VAR has highlighted that even more. It has confirmed what fans have known for years. Referees and the establishment want the big guns to win at all costs; subconsciously, refs won't give decisions against the big boys on their own turf. It's now a fact.

When Phil Neville joined he said publicly that he could commit 4 or 5 fouls at United before he got a booking but at Everton he got booked for the first foul.

I agree with Ashley Young the game was better without the VAR. It's killing the game for the match-going fan. It chalks off more goals than it gives which in itself is counter-productive.

Personally, I would change the offside rule to anything level being onside. At least we would see more goals.

Which peabrain at the FA came up with that idea?

I would love to see them. I doubt they are much different from pre-VAR referee clangers.

It is spoiling the game. Goal-line technology: Tick. Post-match review of dangerous or violent conduct otherwise missed: Tick. Otherwise, get rid.

We had the "old school" way of doing things on Saturday and the ref disallowed the goal for a foul when he should have let it go and let the VAR do the work. So the old school relies on the piss-poor officials getting it right every time.

The VAR isn't the problem, it's the stupid rules and the people applying them that's the issue.

Ashley Young is a vastly experienced player, with international experience, and I wholly agree with his view: like so many things in life these days, human intuition and judgement is increasingly seen by technocrats as dangerously fallible.

As others have highlighted, we have ended up with hotch-potch of poor officiating on the pitch, and sometimes clueless VAR analysis of match incidents at Stockley Park. The denial of the Wolves penalty late on at Old Trafford was an egregious error by all involved.

The recent incident with Man Utd''s new keeper Onana flattening the Wolves attacker and getting way with it comes to mind. If that had been the the Wolves keeper and Rashford getting flattened, it would have been a penalty without a doubt.

Now both the referee and the VAR for that game have been suspended for this coming weekend. But that's not much consolation for the Wolves supporters.

The fact is, officials both on and off the field are scared of the reaction they get from the media, fans and the clubs when giving major and close decisions against the big rich clubs. So they err on the side of caution and dodge the decision knowing they'll only get suspended for a weekend.

That ref and the VAR will be back after this weekend as though nothing had happened.

The one area where it is usually correct is in offside decisions but then the wait to see if a goal is confirmed is killing the game.

The only upside that I see is that it has reduced diving in the box.

Managers should be able to criticize referees without punishment providing it doesn't cross the lines into abuse.

Why can't we hear the conversations?

Rugby has a system where there is a time allowed to take a conversion / penalty etc and anything over that, the time is stopped. Why can't football have that to take the pressure off the ref?

Why can't the VAR tell the referee to book someone for play acting or diving?

Why can't the VAR intervene if a yellow card that leads to a second yellow, or a second yellow, is issued since it affects the game the same way a red card does?

Most of it boils down to transparency and, until it is transparent, people will always feel aggrieved.

They tried mics on refs ages ago, back in the Ince/Adams days and quickly got rid of them.

Basically the language was too ‘colourful' for live TV….should bring them back and yellow card for foul language directed at officials. Would soon stamp it out and set a much better example to the youngsters.

They don't want us to head the conversations because then there would be transparency

They don't want transparency because then they won't be able to get away with

(Choose from the following)

- bias
- inefficiency
- corruption
- psychological bias
- incompetence

It's not in their interest to be miced up so don't expect it. It ain't happening

You are right they did mic the refs up when Tony Adams swore repeatedly at the ref and they quickly stopped that experiment. When I said Mic them up it was for when they were reviewing a VAR incident and for that like in the NFL the umpires turn on their mics so the crowd can hear. I don't think anyone is suggesting going back to micing them like they did when Adams played, although it seems to work for the rugby refs who are miked for the whole game. Mind the respect rugby players have for refs is impeccable pity we allowed that to go out of football, if it was ever there.

But the upside to that decision was that City got 2 more points and won the league over the ******** by a point.

Would have been more difficult if we had been relegated, but happy to see that decision given the way the league table finished.

Do you have evidence that decisions even out or are you just trotting out some trite lines you've overheard that sound good?

Ben, while recent posts have improved immensely imo you have thrown a few generalizations that would invite the same response. I know I'm as guilty as anyone for heated rhetoric but after the Moderators' note yesterday let's try to take it down a level. Just a request nothing more than that.

Fair play: and I equally don't have evidence that the decisions even out

However, with or without VAR I feel like the bigger clubs get the major decisions

I can only think of 1 significant VAR decision that went in our favour (2 actually):
1. Decision not to send off Pickford after his foul on St Virgil

2. Ruling out Liverpool winning goal in the same match because Mane's elbow was offside - I couldn't believe that they gave that decision

I also remember Rodwell's sending off vs Liverpool which was not even a foul and the Clattenburg derby when we should have had 2 penalties

They were pre VAR days and I really don't think (in general) we get the rub of the green against that lot

Throw ins.

The amount I see where players steal more than the odd yard or two and take what I would call a foul throw never gets picked up.

Pet hate.

On the language thing, it reminded me of the Alan Shearer "if you give those, you'll give them every week" when talking about shirt pulling.

No you won't. If it get's rightfully punished players will soon stop doing it soon enough.

Shirt pulling is probably my most biggest hate as a former player. Boiled my blue blood.

We're all sensible enough to know there will never be a 100% solution. Just consistency, competency, transparency and a level playing ground.

Like players, we know they will make mistakes, but be open about it.

If the criteria is to stop the moaning it's not going to happen. Far better the ref presses a button flashing 2 fingers on the big screen with "I'll do what I want when I want you utter scum" underneath.

Certainly make for more interesting discussion on motd.

Hi Andy [42] it's been a while since we last met, I have heard that you haven't been well lately, so get yourself fit for the next 'get-together, where we can share a Guinness and chat.

Q. Has VAR improved the enjoyment of spectators attending the game? A. No.

Q. Has VAR improved refereeing performance? A. No.

Q. Has VAR improved the reputation of the sport? A. No.

Q. Has VAR made anybody within the game happier? A. No.

A. Will VAR be binned? A. No

VAR is here to stay, unfortunately. There are too many vested interests in retaining it, not least in technical development and jobs for the referees and assistants operating VAR.

VAR isn't the problem. The problem is how it is used. The interpretation changes on handball and offside mentioned in this thread are two great examples.

In rugby did he ground it, was his foot on the line, there a couple like the offside and forward passes that sometimes but even these are obvious in most instances. Although in rugby some of the tackle law change are bringing in some more decent from fans because they are more subjective.

Humans and subjectivity are the problem. Thats why VAR is not effective in football. Put a badge on it and you automatically get bias decisions and possible corruption at worst. Get rid