RateTheRef
General Refereeing => General Discussion => Topic started by: guest42 on Fri 07 Jan 2022 00:56
-
The Football Association is to proceed with a plan to use VAR at only nine of 32 FA Cup third-round fixtures, believing the benefits of using the technology outweigh inconsistency in the way ties could be decided.
Only matches played at Premier League grounds will have video refereeing because the FA Cup is not licensed to use VAR across all its fixtures. This means that West Bromwich Albion’s tie against Brighton on Saturday will not use the technology despite it being installed at the Hawthorns and there will not be uniformity in the refereeing.
The FA Cup has used VAR since 2018, when it became the first competition in England to implement it as part of a trial. The FA has never applied for a full licence to use the technology, however, which must be agreed with the football lawmaking body Ifab.
Last season VAR was used only at ties where Premier League clubs were at home up to the quarter-finals, where all matches were then licensed. The FA has not yet taken a decision on whether to license later rounds this season.
The FA is aware of questions over a potential imbalance in sporting standards but is reluctant to increase the running costs of the tournament, with clubs not licensed having to install the necessary minimum of four cameras and costs having to be covered to operate them and hire the necessary officials.
“Video assistant referees provide match officials with additional support and should be utilised wherever possible,” the FA said. “However, only Premier League stadiums are currently licensed to use VAR due to the infrastructure, workforce and costs that are required.”
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/jan/06/fa-cup-defends-var-nine-of-32-third-round-ties
-
Don’t the broadcasters install their cameras at every game for highlights purposes? Why can they be used for VAR. Not a great way to do it honestly but would be better than none at all
-
Don’t the broadcasters install their cameras at every game for highlights purposes? Why can they be used for VAR. Not a great way to do it honestly but would be better than none at all
Championship games are covered by four cameras. League One and Two games are generally covered by just one camera. The amount of cameras at FA Cup games will be determined by the broadcasters' requirements (and budgets). There is the problem of where you would house all the VARs (and where you would find all the trained officials) for so many concurrent games. Drawing the offside lines would be a significant problem.
-
It isn't just cameras and VAR officials, you need a leased network line from the ground back to Stockley Park, you can't run VAR over a broadband connection. Lead times for such lines with UK telco providers can be as long as 3 months. Think of it being at home when you are on a work meeting and your kids watching Netflix disconnects you ...!
I don't see the problem of some ties having VAR when others don't. It only affects the two teams in that game, and there has been an inconsistency for years anyway as some FA Cup games have goal line technology and others don't.
-
I don't really agree with it being used for some and not others. Either use it for all or don't use it. It only takes 1 game where a poor decision changes the course of a match and the unfairness is highlighted. I don't agree with the notion well it's been inconsistent for years anyway so what does it matter - inconsistency due to human fallacy is one thing, providing a technological advantage is entirely different. Using mobile VAR units at grounds that don't have GLT would also stop that technological advantage because VAR can be used for ball over the line or not queries.
As for housing all the VARs, I have said before that the FA should buy some of the mobile VAR vans. No need for the leased network line at clubs as the vans have a secure network that can be plugged in at whatever ground they are at - a more minor adaptation for clubs. They need a docking area, large enough for a long wheelbase transit and the panel is similar in appearance to what you'd see in a campsite for an RV to hook up to water/electricity. A few meters of hefty cables needed.
Can't be done for this season obviously but if the FA used a bit of foresight (I know, I know...) they could start preparing for next season!
-
I don't really agree with it being used for some and not others. Either use it for all or don't use it. It only takes 1 game where a poor decision changes the course of a match and the unfairness is highlighted. I don't agree with the notion well it's been inconsistent for years anyway so what does it matter - inconsistency due to human fallacy is one thing, providing a technological advantage is entirely different. Using mobile VAR units at grounds that don't have GLT would also stop that technological advantage because VAR can be used for ball over the line or not queries.
As for housing all the VARs, I have said before that the FA should buy some of the mobile VAR vans. No need for the leased network line at clubs as the vans have a secure network that can be plugged in at whatever ground they are at - a more minor adaptation for clubs. They need a docking area, large enough for a long wheelbase transit and the panel is similar in appearance to what you'd see in a campsite for an RV to hook up to water/electricity. A few meters of hefty cables needed.
Can't be done for this season obviously but if the FA used a bit of foresight (I know, I know...) they could start preparing for next season!
They clearly can't do all FA Cup games using VAR so if going down the all or nothing route then it would be nothing. I wouldn't agree with that - do we want a Thierry Henry type handball to occur in the last minute of the FA Cup final and not be spotted because we don't have VAR?
I'd agree it would be worthwhile looking into ways in which the use of VAR could be enhanced, such as using mobile units, although I appreciate the restraints on resources the FA faces and there's probably a reasonable question as to whether the money could be better spent elsewhere.
-
That's kind of my point. What do you do if you end up with a Championship club in the final, which has happened, and then you get a total clanger by the officials?
Also, some grounds you wouldn't even be able to get a mobile VAR unit. Take Luton for example, it is surrounded by houses, there would just be nowhere to safely set it up.
-
That's kind of my point. What do you do if you end up with a Championship club in the final, which has happened, and then you get a total clanger by the officials?
Also, some grounds you wouldn't even be able to get a mobile VAR unit. Take Luton for example, it is surrounded by houses, there would just be nowhere to safely set it up.
Staff car park as is done in Eastern European leagues
-
I don’t really understand the problem with this.
There was no such controversy from 2013-19 when GLT was used in some games and not others - surely, in theory at least, you want GLT plus VAR in as many games as you feasibly can, to reduce the number of wrongly assessed key incidents.
Let’s imagine that very clear penalties were missed both last night at Swindon and this afternoon at Crystal Palace by the on-field officials; would you rather:
1) there is no VAR on either game, so we have two crucial mistakes
2) there is VAR in all games it is possible to have, so after intervention if it was corrected at CP, now we only have one crucial mistake
Surely we agree it’s the second option, right?
I think the problem is that people don’t really like VAR in general (because there was never this philosophical discussion about GLT), which given the ineptitude of the PGMOL rollout in our country, is understandable. :)
-
That's kind of my point. What do you do if you end up with a Championship club in the final, which has happened, and then you get a total clanger by the officials?
Also, some grounds you wouldn't even be able to get a mobile VAR unit. Take Luton for example, it is surrounded by houses, there would just be nowhere to safely set it up.
Staff car park as is done in Eastern European leagues
There is no car park of any kind at Luton, pretty sure it is the same at Loftus Road. Both are completely surrounded by houses.
-
That's kind of my point. What do you do if you end up with a Championship club in the final, which has happened, and then you get a total clanger by the officials?
Also, some grounds you wouldn't even be able to get a mobile VAR unit. Take Luton for example, it is surrounded by houses, there would just be nowhere to safely set it up.
Staff car park as is done in Eastern European leagues
There is no car park of any kind at Luton, pretty sure it is the same at Loftus Road. Both are completely surrounded by houses.
Park it on the road?
-
That's kind of my point. What do you do if you end up with a Championship club in the final, which has happened, and then you get a total clanger by the officials?
Also, some grounds you wouldn't even be able to get a mobile VAR unit. Take Luton for example, it is surrounded by houses, there would just be nowhere to safely set it up.
Final is at Wembley so will have VAR
-
Let’s imagine that very clear penalties were missed both last night at Swindon and this afternoon at Crystal Palace by the on-field officials; would you rather:
1) there is no VAR on either game, so we have two crucial mistakes
2) there is VAR in all games it is possible to have, so after intervention if it was corrected at CP, now we only have one crucial mistake
Surely we agree it’s the second option, right?
I think the problem is that people don’t really like VAR in general (because there was never this philosophical discussion about GLT), which given the ineptitude of the PGMOL rollout in our country, is understandable. :)
Number 1 for me.
Imagine if those very clear penalties were missed in Swindon Town v Manchester City, Birmingham City v Plymouth Argyle or any one of the games with no VAR and therefore won't be corrected, unlike in the games with VAR.
1) Where is the fairness then?
2) Where is the level playing field?
3) How does that not adversely affect the integrity of the competition?
Every single team deserves to start on a level playing field and if that means more crucial errors then so be it. It might remind everyone why VAR was introduced & see it more accepted!
Why should some teams have the advantage of crucial mistakes being corrected by VAR and others not? It completely removes any fairness imo. I accept other views/opinions but for me it has to be all or nothing because it removes any fairness or level playing field otherwise.
-
That's kind of my point. What do you do if you end up with a Championship club in the final, which has happened, and then you get a total clanger by the officials?
Also, some grounds you wouldn't even be able to get a mobile VAR unit. Take Luton for example, it is surrounded by houses, there would just be nowhere to safely set it up.
Staff car park as is done in Eastern European leagues
There is no car park of any kind at Luton, pretty sure it is the same at Loftus Road. Both are completely surrounded by houses.
They must have a secure parking area for players. I can't see them having players having to drive around in circles to find a parking space and leaving their cars outside someones house 4 streets away! I think at Luton is Maple Street/Road by the corner of the main stand and the away stand. Long time since I have been there so could be remembering it totally wrong.
-
I am with bmb on this one, either var at every game at each round or no game in that round has var.
Also There were two handball incidents in the game at Hull tonight, both against the same team, which ought to have resulted in penalties and most probably would have with var available.
Lastly if mourinho was a referee you could park the var van on the field preferably in front of one of the goals.
-
Let’s imagine that very clear penalties were missed both last night at Swindon and this afternoon at Crystal Palace by the on-field officials; would you rather:
1) there is no VAR on either game, so we have two crucial mistakes
2) there is VAR in all games it is possible to have, so after intervention if it was corrected at CP, now we only have one crucial mistake
Surely we agree it’s the second option, right?
I think the problem is that people don’t really like VAR in general (because there was never this philosophical discussion about GLT), which given the ineptitude of the PGMOL rollout in our country, is understandable. :)
Number 1 for me.
Imagine if those very clear penalties were missed in Swindon Town v Manchester City, Birmingham City v Plymouth Argyle or any one of the games with no VAR and therefore won't be corrected, unlike in the games with VAR.
1) Where is the fairness then?
2) Where is the level playing field?
3) How does that not adversely affect the integrity of the competition?
Every single team deserves to start on a level playing field and if that means more crucial errors then so be it. It might remind everyone why VAR was introduced & see it more accepted!
Why should some teams have the advantage of crucial mistakes being corrected by VAR and others not? It completely removes any fairness imo. I accept other views/opinions but for me it has to be all or nothing because it removes any fairness or level playing field otherwise.
It's the same for both teams competing in one particular match.
If Reading had been knocked out because of an incorrect decision caused by not having VAR or GLT today then I wouldn't be bothered if Manchester United V Aston Villa had both of those things, because we'd be out anyway.
There are clearly multiple different factors that can affect different cup games - the very fact that one team gets drawn at home to Man City and another gets drawn at home to Chesterfield for instance. In many ways, this is just another thing that is dependent on the draw. Any team has the opportunity of being drawn away to a Premier League team.
And of course some teams will have one of the best SG1 referees whilst some will have one of the weakest NL officials. I just don't think it's really possible to make like for like comparisons between different games in the competition.
-
I am with bmb on this one, either var at every game at each round or no game in that round has var.
Also There were two handball incidents in the game at Hull tonight, both against the same team, which ought to have resulted in penalties and most probably would have with var available.
Lastly if mourinho was a referee you could park the var van on the field preferably in front of one of the goals.
I don't really understand the round specific argument - what difference does it really make if you get knocked out in fourth round or fifth round? Surely that is still having some games have VAR and not others but just in a slightly different way.
When the topic comes up, people often seem to refer to incorrect decisions in games not having VAR but I'm not sure how getting rid of VAR completely puts us in a better place. The two incorrect decisions at Hull would still have happened. If it's an argument for trying to extend use of VAR as far as possible then I'd agree.
-
BMB. You're spot on about the car park at Luton except for the names of the roads. It's on the corner of Clifton Road and Oak Road with access to the club's offices going under Clifton Road. The car park can be seen clearly on Google Maps.
-
I am with bmb on this one, either var at every game at each round or no game in that round has var.
Also There were two handball incidents in the game at Hull tonight, both against the same team, which ought to have resulted in penalties and most probably would have with var available.
Lastly if mourinho was a referee you could park the var van on the field preferably in front of one of the goals.
I don't really understand the round specific argument - what difference does it really make if you get knocked out in fourth round or fifth round? Surely that is still having some games have VAR and not others but just in a slightly different way.
When the topic comes up, people often seem to refer to incorrect decisions in games not having VAR but I'm not sure how getting rid of VAR completely puts us in a better place. The two incorrect decisions at Hull would still have happened. If it's an argument for trying to extend use of VAR as far as possible then I'd agree.
The argument is for a level playing field for all sides, ie if one game in any round var cannot be in place then no game in that round has var similar to the league cup. The reason for mentioning round by round is the later in the
Competition, ie quarter or semi finals, you get the more likelihood var can be in place all the grounds in that round.
My preference would be for the tournament to be var free altogether as In the football league.
-
Just a thought on VAR/NoVAR. Having watched the Hull v Everton game where I feel Kevin Friend missed two penalties and a probable red card, are some SG1 officials relying too much on VAR and not making some decisions during Premiership games knowing they will be bailed out. This backfires when they have games with no VAR and they are not officiating correctly expecting VAR to make things right. If this is so they should be given more Championship games or not given FA cup games with no VAR. As i said, just a thought. Alternatively did Kevin Friend just have a poor game?
-
I am with bmb on this one, either var at every game at each round or no game in that round has var.
Also There were two handball incidents in the game at Hull tonight, both against the same team, which ought to have resulted in penalties and most probably would have with var available.
Lastly if mourinho was a referee you could park the var van on the field preferably in front of one of the goals.
I don't really understand the round specific argument - what difference does it really make if you get knocked out in fourth round or fifth round? Surely that is still having some games have VAR and not others but just in a slightly different way.
When the topic comes up, people often seem to refer to incorrect decisions in games not having VAR but I'm not sure how getting rid of VAR completely puts us in a better place. The two incorrect decisions at Hull would still have happened. If it's an argument for trying to extend use of VAR as far as possible then I'd agree.
The argument is for a level playing field for all sides, ie if one game in any round var cannot be in place then no game in that round has var similar to the league cup. The reason for mentioning round by round is the later in the
Competition, ie quarter or semi finals, you get the more likelihood var can be in place all the grounds in that round.
My preference would be for the tournament to be var free altogether as In the football league.
Whilst I personally disagree with the idea of a VAR-free tournament, as I think you should do all you can to correct incorrect decisions where you can, I find the argument for not using VAR at all a more coherent one than those who suggest not introducing it until it can be used in every game in a particular round.
The latter approach introduces a system where a game like Manchester United V Aston Villa wouldn't have VAR if it was played in the third round but might well if it was played in the fifth round. If the argument against it is it's not right for some teams to progress/be eliminated because of VAR when other teams don't have it, then this would not be overcome. It would just suggest that the third round is not as important as later stages of the competition.
-
I suppose they could develop a VAR-lite which would use fewer cameras and would be portable needing only a room somewhere in the ground, It would check only goals, penalties and when the referee has awarded a red card. Any offside decisions would simply be checked by eye. A single operative sending images to the 4th official.
-
Just a thought on VAR/NoVAR. Having watched the Hull v Everton game where I feel Kevin Friend missed two penalties and a probable red card, are some SG1 officials relying too much on VAR and not making some decisions during Premiership games knowing they will be bailed out. This backfires when they have games with no VAR and they are not officiating correctly expecting VAR to make things right. If this is so they should be given more Championship games or not given FA cup games with no VAR. As i said, just a thought. Alternatively did Kevin Friend just have a poor game?
And these issues are common place when SG1 are deposited in the FL. There’s been a lot of dross when this happens in the Championship.
-
Contrary to what many people seem to think, the FA Cup does not start in January. It started back on Friday 6th August at a handful of lowly non-league grounds. Even moving forward 3 months to the start of the Competition proper, this started at Sudbury's modest, but well equipped for their level, ground with their 3G pitch. It is unrealistic to expect all rounds to be treated the same (unless that means no VAR whatsoever).
As for treating all matches in the same round, the same ....... why? Fairness is both teams being treated the same in each game. It seems perverse to not use something which is designed to improve fairness, as much as possible.
(The fact that some of the decisions made by VAR are staggeringly inept anyway is a completely different issue.)
-
Contrary to what many people seem to think, the FA Cup does not start in January. It started back on Friday 6th August at a handful of lowly non-league grounds. Even moving forward 3 months to the start of the Competition proper, this started at Sudbury's modest, but well equipped for their level, ground with their 3G pitch. It is unrealistic to expect all rounds to be treated the same (unless that means no VAR whatsoever).
As for treating all matches in the same round, the same ....... why? Fairness is both teams being treated the same in each game. It seems perverse to not use something which is designed to improve fairness, as much as possible.
(The fact that some of the decisions made by VAR are staggeringly inept anyway is a completely different issue.)
Indeed - as I've said before, if you're arguing for all or nothing in the FA Cup then you're really arguing for nothing. It simply isn't viable to use VAR in every single match from August through to May.
-
As for treating all matches in the same round, the same ....... why? Fairness is both teams being treated the same in each game. It seems perverse to not use something which is designed to improve fairness, as much as possible.
Agreed. The logical extension of not using VAR despite it being available would be to not use any FIFA referees unless all the games can have one.
-
VAR at Wembley for the semis and final but not otherwise.
-
Drawing the offside lines would be a significant problem.
Why? Is only one person allowed access to the crayons at any one time ;) :)
-
Am I correct in thinking that the C Palace v Hartlepool 4th round tie will have VAR, with VAR and AVAR appointments going with it, whilst the TV game between Nottingham Forest and (PL) Leicester won't have it? No disrespect to Hartlepool, but it does seem a bit nonsensical if that is the case. I repeat, semi finals and final - Yes, the rest - No.
-
Contrary to what many people seem to think, the FA Cup does not start in January. It started back on Friday 6th August at a handful of lowly non-league grounds. Even moving forward 3 months to the start of the Competition proper, this started at Sudbury's modest, but well equipped for their level, ground with their 3G pitch. It is unrealistic to expect all rounds to be treated the same (unless that means no VAR whatsoever).
As for treating all matches in the same round, the same ....... why? Fairness is both teams being treated the same in each game. It seems perverse to not use something which is designed to improve fairness, as much as possible.
(The fact that some of the decisions made by VAR are staggeringly inept anyway is a completely different issue.)
Exactly. ‘Fairness’ comes in many types. VAR existing in one cup game and not another - is not hugely different to a FIFA Elite referee officiating one game, and a L2 official at another. There’s no sporting integrity issue here. Each team has precisely 50% chance of any incorrect decision being to their detriment or advantage in a VAR game, just as much as it does in any other.
-
Contrary to what many people seem to think, the FA Cup does not start in January. It started back on Friday 6th August at a handful of lowly non-league grounds. Even moving forward 3 months to the start of the Competition proper, this started at Sudbury's modest, but well equipped for their level, ground with their 3G pitch. It is unrealistic to expect all rounds to be treated the same (unless that means no VAR whatsoever).
As for treating all matches in the same round, the same ....... why? Fairness is both teams being treated the same in each game. It seems perverse to not use something which is designed to improve fairness, as much as possible.
(The fact that some of the decisions made by VAR are staggeringly inept anyway is a completely different issue.)
Exactly. ‘Fairness’ comes in many types. VAR existing in one cup game and not another - is not hugely different that a FIFA Elite referee officiating one game, and a L2 official at another. There’s no sporting integrity issue here. Each team has precisely 50% chance of any incorrect decision being to their detriment or advantage in a VAR game, just as much as it does in any other.
I don't agree with that in terms of the difference between an elite referee and L2 referee being down to human element. They are both level 1 referees, one may be more experienced and officiate at a higher level than the other but they are both prone to the same human fallacies as each other. They both have the same chance of having a great game or not. Adding in technology to assist one and not the other takes away the human element & gives an unfair advantage, imo.
-
Contrary to what many people seem to think, the FA Cup does not start in January. It started back on Friday 6th August at a handful of lowly non-league grounds. Even moving forward 3 months to the start of the Competition proper, this started at Sudbury's modest, but well equipped for their level, ground with their 3G pitch. It is unrealistic to expect all rounds to be treated the same (unless that means no VAR whatsoever).
As for treating all matches in the same round, the same ....... why? Fairness is both teams being treated the same in each game. It seems perverse to not use something which is designed to improve fairness, as much as possible.
(The fact that some of the decisions made by VAR are staggeringly inept anyway is a completely different issue.)
Exactly. ‘Fairness’ comes in many types. VAR existing in one cup game and not another - is not hugely different that a FIFA Elite referee officiating one game, and a L2 official at another. There’s no sporting integrity issue here. Each team has precisely 50% chance of any incorrect decision being to their detriment or advantage in a VAR game, just as much as it does in any other.
I don't agree with that in terms of the difference between an elite referee and L2 referee being down to human element. They are both level 1 referees, one may be more experienced and officiate at a higher level than the other but they are both prone to the same human fallacies as each other. They both have the same chance of having a great game or not. Adding in technology to assist one and not the other takes away the human element & gives an unfair advantage, imo.
What advantage? That’s the the aspect that doesn’t figure. Advantage is relative. VAR changes absolutely nothing about the game. Both teams have exactly the same benefits and/or detractions.
It might feel ‘wrong’ and there’s some argument around consistency, but there’s no advantage whatsoever.
-
Contrary to what many people seem to think, the FA Cup does not start in January. It started back on Friday 6th August at a handful of lowly non-league grounds. Even moving forward 3 months to the start of the Competition proper, this started at Sudbury's modest, but well equipped for their level, ground with their 3G pitch. It is unrealistic to expect all rounds to be treated the same (unless that means no VAR whatsoever).
As for treating all matches in the same round, the same ....... why? Fairness is both teams being treated the same in each game. It seems perverse to not use something which is designed to improve fairness, as much as possible.
(The fact that some of the decisions made by VAR are staggeringly inept anyway is a completely different issue.)
Exactly. ‘Fairness’ comes in many types. VAR existing in one cup game and not another - is not hugely different that a FIFA Elite referee officiating one game, and a L2 official at another. There’s no sporting integrity issue here. Each team has precisely 50% chance of any incorrect decision being to their detriment or advantage in a VAR game, just as much as it does in any other.
I don't agree with that in terms of the difference between an elite referee and L2 referee being down to human element. They are both level 1 referees, one may be more experienced and officiate at a higher level than the other but they are both prone to the same human fallacies as each other. They both have the same chance of having a great game or not. Adding in technology to assist one and not the other takes away the human element & gives an unfair advantage, imo.
What advantage? That’s the the aspect that doesn’t figure. Advantage is relative. VAR changes absolutely nothing about the game. Both teams have exactly the same benefits and/or detractions.
It might feel ‘wrong’ and there’s some argument around consistency, but there’s no advantage whatsoever.
Being perhaps not the greatest logician in the world I am seeking to follow your argument but struggling somewhat. Please could you explain what is meant by " Advantage is relative " and also " VAR changes absolutely nothing " when to me it changes a great deal because it employs a different way of officiating. Of course the two teams in a VAR match have an equality of adjudication but I cannot see how that equality of adjudication is shared with teams in non VAR matches because the latter has far less scrutiny in decision making than the former.
-
If VAR produces no greater accuracy of outcome in decision making then it might well be said to hold no advantage over non VAR but if greater scrutiny does result in fairer more accurate officiating then surely that is advantageous to those teams playing with VAR
-
Contrary to what many people seem to think, the FA Cup does not start in January. It started back on Friday 6th August at a handful of lowly non-league grounds. Even moving forward 3 months to the start of the Competition proper, this started at Sudbury's modest, but well equipped for their level, ground with their 3G pitch. It is unrealistic to expect all rounds to be treated the same (unless that means no VAR whatsoever).
As for treating all matches in the same round, the same ....... why? Fairness is both teams being treated the same in each game. It seems perverse to not use something which is designed to improve fairness, as much as possible.
(The fact that some of the decisions made by VAR are staggeringly inept anyway is a completely different issue.)
Exactly. ‘Fairness’ comes in many types. VAR existing in one cup game and not another - is not hugely different that a FIFA Elite referee officiating one game, and a L2 official at another. There’s no sporting integrity issue here. Each team has precisely 50% chance of any incorrect decision being to their detriment or advantage in a VAR game, just as much as it does in any other.
I don't agree with that in terms of the difference between an elite referee and L2 referee being down to human element. They are both level 1 referees, one may be more experienced and officiate at a higher level than the other but they are both prone to the same human fallacies as each other. They both have the same chance of having a great game or not. Adding in technology to assist one and not the other takes away the human element & gives an unfair advantage, imo.
What advantage? That’s the the aspect that doesn’t figure. Advantage is relative. VAR changes absolutely nothing about the game. Both teams have exactly the same benefits and/or detractions.
It might feel ‘wrong’ and there’s some argument around consistency, but there’s no advantage whatsoever.
Being perhaps not the greatest logician in the world I am seeking to follow your argument but struggling somewhat. Please could you explain what is meant by " Advantage is relative " and also " VAR changes absolutely nothing " when to me it changes a great deal because it employs a different way of officiating. Of course the two teams in a VAR match have an equality of adjudication but I cannot see how that equality of adjudication is shared with teams in non VAR matches because the latter has far less scrutiny in decision making than the former.
It is relative because it means to gain over another.
Whether VAR benefits a team in a game isn’t the point. In order for it to be an ‘advantage’ then the the gain has to be made prior to the match starting. The teams in match 1 of Team A v Team B (with VAR) have no advantage or loss versus teams in match 2 Team C v Team D (without VAR).
That VAR may benefit a team is neither here nor there. In that regard it’s no different than a game with a 4O versus a game without one - which happens in cup matches in many countries.
The only scenario where a real and problematic advantage can exist is if the team winning in match 1 has an observable and distinct benefit versus the team winning match 2. There isn’t, so beyond consistency there is no advantage problem.
Real-world ‘advantage’ exists with match timings, seedings, and the likes of World Cup qualifying where 6-team groups had the same rules on suspensions going into playoffs as 5-team groups. Those are ‘real’ because the advantage is known and measurable prior to the match.
-
Perhaps, I could add - the advantage you describe can only be a problem if it is known and measurable before the match starts.
If so, out of my scenario above, is it an advantage to be Team A/B or Team C/D?
-
An interesting comparison between the words benefit and advantage
-
So in the Fourth Round Crystal Palace V Hartlepool will have VAR and Nottingham Forest V Leicester won't.
Which teams have the advantage and why, and what impact does this have on the other games?
-
If you use var in a game it has more officials contributing to decision making therefore the game is played under different rules, you should not have different rules for different teams within the same round of the same competition.
-
I keep coming back to this, but there has been a discrepancy for years as some grounds in FA Cup games have GLT and others don't. Really struggling to see how VAR is any different.
-
If you use var in a game it has more officials contributing to decision making therefore the game is played under different rules, you should not have different rules for different teams within the same round of the same competition.
That’s not an unreasonable position, but it doesn’t have anything to do with fairness or benefit/advantage.
Again, no 4O in early stages of the FA Cup. In Scotland there aren’t 4O below the Premiership but there are if a match is televised. It doesn’t affect anything outwith those specific fixtures.
The point being, unless anyone can answer the question I posed, and noted above by @whistleblower we can remove ‘advantage’ (and any other synonyms) from the conversation.
EDIT: Should have been @ReadingFan. No other edit beyond grammar was included
-
If you use var in a game it has more officials contributing to decision making therefore the game is played under different rules, you should not have different rules for different teams within the same round of the same competition.
That’s not an unreasonable position, but it doesn’t have anything to do with fairness or benefit/advantage.
Again, no 4O in early stages of the FA Cup. In Scotland there aren’t 4O below the Premiership but there are if a match is televised. It doesn’t affect anything outwith those specific fixtures.
The point being, unless anyone can answer the question I posed, and noted above by @whistleblower we can remove ‘advantage’ (and any other synonyms) from the conversation.
Another point being that when assertions are defined as cast iron truths and conversations are edited by word removal, then the time has come for me, at least, to bow out of the debate which, if anyone is so minded, they can therefore claim as a victory. I have my own, fairly well developed I hope, understanding of what does and doesn't constitute fairness and integral to that is equity and to belief I shall hold.
-
I keep coming back to this, but there has been a discrepancy for years as some grounds in FA Cup games have GLT and others don't. Really struggling to see how VAR is any different.
I guess because GLT is a fixed system determining only if the ball has crossed the line or not between the goal posts. It is to safeguard against a very rare occurrence of none of the officials being able to determine if the ball has crossed the line or not. It is merely a confirmation of a fact. It does not determine for example if the goal was legal or not, it does not trigger a review for offside/fouls that can render a goal being disallowed. Introduced after Vad II István's dreadful error at the 2012 Euros - I'm not still bitter! I'm sure Northampton v Forest Green would have benefited from it at the weekend but the number of times it is actually required is very low.
VAR on the other hand can intervene for a clear and obvious mistake in four match-changing situations:
1: goals and offences leading up to a goal,
2: penalty decisions and offences leading up to a penalty,
3: direct red card incidents, and
4: mistaken identity.
Theoretically at least incorrect penalties/red cards would be corrected (either given or not as appropriate), offside goals not given, goals scored after a foul/handball disallowed. It's a huge difference in the way the game is refereed and the safeguards in place compared to a game without it. I get that if game A has VAR and game B doesn't that both teams in each match are getting the same refereeing as their opponent but the 2 teams in game B are not getting the same as the 2 teams in game A because incorrect decisions in game B will stand unlike in Game A where they will be corrected*. That factor for me is what makes it unfair and stops all teams from having the same level playing field.
*Yes VAR can make mistakes as well as the on-field referee, they are but mere humans and you will never eradicate human error, they do however have a significantly higher chance of getting the call right as they will have access to x different camera angles, slow mo, freeze frame etc as opposed to the on-field referee who gets a split second, singular view of an incident to make their call.
-
I keep coming back to this, but there has been a discrepancy for years as some grounds in FA Cup games have GLT and others don't. Really struggling to see how VAR is any different.
I guess because GLT is a fixed system determining only if the ball has crossed the line or not between the goal posts. It is to safeguard against a very rare occurrence of none of the officials being able to determine if the ball has crossed the line or not. It is merely a confirmation of a fact. It does not determine for example if the goal was legal or not, it does not trigger a review for offside/fouls that can render a goal being disallowed. Introduced after Vad II István's dreadful error at the 2012 Euros - I'm not still bitter! I'm sure Northampton v Forest Green would have benefited from it at the weekend but the number of times it is actually required is very low.
VAR on the other hand can intervene for a clear and obvious mistake in four match-changing situations:
1: goals and offences leading up to a goal,
2: penalty decisions and offences leading up to a penalty,
3: direct red card incidents, and
4: mistaken identity.
Theoretically at least incorrect penalties/red cards would be corrected (either given or not as appropriate), offside goals not given, goals scored after a foul/handball disallowed. It's a huge difference in the way the game is refereed and the safeguards in place compared to a game without it. I get that if game A has VAR and game B doesn't that both teams in each match are getting the same refereeing as their opponent but the 2 teams in game B are not getting the same as the 2 teams in game A because incorrect decisions in game B will stand unlike in Game A where they will be corrected*. That factor for me is what makes it unfair and stops all teams from having the same level playing field.
*Yes VAR can make mistakes as well as the on-field referee, they are but mere humans and you will never eradicate human error, they do however have a significantly higher chance of getting the call right as they will have access to x different camera angles, slow mo, freeze frame etc as opposed to the on-field referee who gets a split second, singular view of an incident to make their call.
But how much of an impact does Game B really have on Game A or vice versa? It's not like a league season where every game changes the table.
And quite often you might not have any major incorrect decisions in Game B so VAR wouldn't have been needed anyway. I'd guess VAR will be used in around half the fourth round ties. It's not as if VAR is used to correct decisions in every single game. You might only have three games in the fourth round with major incorrect decisions so if they all happen to occur in VAR games then you have the opportunity to correct them.
I understand GLT will be used less than VAR generally but it's still basically the same premise.
-
I keep coming back to this, but there has been a discrepancy for years as some grounds in FA Cup games have GLT and others don't. Really struggling to see how VAR is any different.
I guess because GLT is a fixed system determining only if the ball has crossed the line or not between the goal posts. It is to safeguard against a very rare occurrence of none of the officials being able to determine if the ball has crossed the line or not. It is merely a confirmation of a fact. It does not determine for example if the goal was legal or not, it does not trigger a review for offside/fouls that can render a goal being disallowed. Introduced after Vad II István's dreadful error at the 2012 Euros - I'm not still bitter! I'm sure Northampton v Forest Green would have benefited from it at the weekend but the number of times it is actually required is very low.
VAR on the other hand can intervene for a clear and obvious mistake in four match-changing situations:
1: goals and offences leading up to a goal,
2: penalty decisions and offences leading up to a penalty,
3: direct red card incidents, and
4: mistaken identity.
Theoretically at least incorrect penalties/red cards would be corrected (either given or not as appropriate), offside goals not given, goals scored after a foul/handball disallowed. It's a huge difference in the way the game is refereed and the safeguards in place compared to a game without it. I get that if game A has VAR and game B doesn't that both teams in each match are getting the same refereeing as their opponent but the 2 teams in game B are not getting the same as the 2 teams in game A because incorrect decisions in game B will stand unlike in Game A where they will be corrected*. That factor for me is what makes it unfair and stops all teams from having the same level playing field.
*Yes VAR can make mistakes as well as the on-field referee, they are but mere humans and you will never eradicate human error, they do however have a significantly higher chance of getting the call right as they will have access to x different camera angles, slow mo, freeze frame etc as opposed to the on-field referee who gets a split second, singular view of an incident to make their call.
But how much of an impact does Game B really have on Game A or vice versa? It's not like a league season where every game changes the table.
And quite often you might not have any major incorrect decisions in Game B so VAR wouldn't have been needed anyway. I'd guess VAR will be used in around half the fourth round ties. It's not as if VAR is used to correct decisions in every single game. You might only have three games in the fourth round with major incorrect decisions so if they all happen to occur in VAR games then you have the opportunity to correct them.
I understand GLT will be used less than VAR generally but it's still basically the same premise.
That is exactly my point. It would be fundamentally wrong to use it in some league games but not others in the same decision as that could clearly unfairly adjust end of season league positions. But an FA Cup game only affects the two teams taking part in each tie, it doesn't affect any other tie which may or may not be using VAR.
Ultimately VAR can't be used in every round. Even if you said from the 3rd round onwards, too many grounds won't be equipped for VAR, there won't be enough space at Stockley Park for the required number of consecutive games, and there won't be enough officials available. So you are left with two choices: no VAR until the semi-finals when it is guaranteed the venue being used has VAR capabilities, or use it when a PL team is at home. For me the latter is the rest option, and I suspect opinions might change if the former was used and there was an absolute clanger in a quarter final that resulted in a team being unfairly eliminated, even more so if that was a lower division team affected.
-
I keep coming back to this, but there has been a discrepancy for years as some grounds in FA Cup games have GLT and others don't. Really struggling to see how VAR is any different.
I guess because GLT is a fixed system determining only if the ball has crossed the line or not between the goal posts. It is to safeguard against a very rare occurrence of none of the officials being able to determine if the ball has crossed the line or not. It is merely a confirmation of a fact. It does not determine for example if the goal was legal or not, it does not trigger a review for offside/fouls that can render a goal being disallowed. Introduced after Vad II István's dreadful error at the 2012 Euros - I'm not still bitter! I'm sure Northampton v Forest Green would have benefited from it at the weekend but the number of times it is actually required is very low.
VAR on the other hand can intervene for a clear and obvious mistake in four match-changing situations:
1: goals and offences leading up to a goal,
2: penalty decisions and offences leading up to a penalty,
3: direct red card incidents, and
4: mistaken identity.
Theoretically at least incorrect penalties/red cards would be corrected (either given or not as appropriate), offside goals not given, goals scored after a foul/handball disallowed. It's a huge difference in the way the game is refereed and the safeguards in place compared to a game without it. I get that if game A has VAR and game B doesn't that both teams in each match are getting the same refereeing as their opponent but the 2 teams in game B are not getting the same as the 2 teams in game A because incorrect decisions in game B will stand unlike in Game A where they will be corrected*. That factor for me is what makes it unfair and stops all teams from having the same level playing field.
*Yes VAR can make mistakes as well as the on-field referee, they are but mere humans and you will never eradicate human error, they do however have a significantly higher chance of getting the call right as they will have access to x different camera angles, slow mo, freeze frame etc as opposed to the on-field referee who gets a split second, singular view of an incident to make their call.
But how much of an impact does Game B really have on Game A or vice versa? It's not like a league season where every game changes the table.
And quite often you might not have any major incorrect decisions in Game B so VAR wouldn't have been needed anyway. I'd guess VAR will be used in around half the fourth round ties. It's not as if VAR is used to correct decisions in every single game. You might only have three games in the fourth round with major incorrect decisions so if they all happen to occur in VAR games then you have the opportunity to correct them.
I understand GLT will be used less than VAR generally but it's still basically the same premise.
As it's a knockout competition the impact is not so much on the other teams but on each individual team. Winner of game A advances into the next round most likely correctly as any refereeing errors that could have impacted the result will (should) have been corrected. Winner of game B advances to the next round wrongly partially due to an incorrect game changing error by the referee. I say partially because it's up to teams to score the goals/save shots from the opponents etc. and negating any human error on the part of the referee. However, a team wrongly reduced to 10 men, especially for a lengthy period of the game, a goal conceded from a wrongly given penalty, a goal for them wrongly ruled out has a big impact on a game. The impact is on the wronged team as they are prevented from advancing when if they had VAR, like in game A, the incorrect decisions would/should have been avoided and they would have advanced not been eliminated.
I agree VAR won't be used or needed in every game it is appointed to but the safeguard is there if it is needed. Equally the referee in game B may well have the best game of his career and put in an absolute masterclass with no game changing errors and had VAR been appointed they could have spent the entire match drinking tea and eating bourbons but, as it was not appointed that game does not have the same safeguard available to game A.
I disagree with you on GLT being the same premise as VAR for the reasons I have stated above.
Interesting debate though and it's good to see how and why people view it differently.
-
I keep coming back to this, but there has been a discrepancy for years as some grounds in FA Cup games have GLT and others don't. Really struggling to see how VAR is any different.
I guess because GLT is a fixed system determining only if the ball has crossed the line or not between the goal posts. It is to safeguard against a very rare occurrence of none of the officials being able to determine if the ball has crossed the line or not. It is merely a confirmation of a fact. It does not determine for example if the goal was legal or not, it does not trigger a review for offside/fouls that can render a goal being disallowed. Introduced after Vad II István's dreadful error at the 2012 Euros - I'm not still bitter! I'm sure Northampton v Forest Green would have benefited from it at the weekend but the number of times it is actually required is very low.
VAR on the other hand can intervene for a clear and obvious mistake in four match-changing situations:
1: goals and offences leading up to a goal,
2: penalty decisions and offences leading up to a penalty,
3: direct red card incidents, and
4: mistaken identity.
Theoretically at least incorrect penalties/red cards would be corrected (either given or not as appropriate), offside goals not given, goals scored after a foul/handball disallowed. It's a huge difference in the way the game is refereed and the safeguards in place compared to a game without it. I get that if game A has VAR and game B doesn't that both teams in each match are getting the same refereeing as their opponent but the 2 teams in game B are not getting the same as the 2 teams in game A because incorrect decisions in game B will stand unlike in Game A where they will be corrected*. That factor for me is what makes it unfair and stops all teams from having the same level playing field.
*Yes VAR can make mistakes as well as the on-field referee, they are but mere humans and you will never eradicate human error, they do however have a significantly higher chance of getting the call right as they will have access to x different camera angles, slow mo, freeze frame etc as opposed to the on-field referee who gets a split second, singular view of an incident to make their call.
But how much of an impact does Game B really have on Game A or vice versa? It's not like a league season where every game changes the table.
And quite often you might not have any major incorrect decisions in Game B so VAR wouldn't have been needed anyway. I'd guess VAR will be used in around half the fourth round ties. It's not as if VAR is used to correct decisions in every single game. You might only have three games in the fourth round with major incorrect decisions so if they all happen to occur in VAR games then you have the opportunity to correct them.
I understand GLT will be used less than VAR generally but it's still basically the same premise.
That is exactly my point. It would be fundamentally wrong to use it in some league games but not others in the same decision as that could clearly unfairly adjust end of season league positions. But an FA Cup game only affects the two teams taking part in each tie, it doesn't affect any other tie which may or may not be using VAR.
Ultimately VAR can't be used in every round. Even if you said from the 3rd round onwards, too many grounds won't be equipped for VAR, there won't be enough space at Stockley Park for the required number of consecutive games, and there won't be enough officials available. So you are left with two choices: no VAR until the semi-finals when it is guaranteed the venue being used has VAR capabilities, or use it when a PL team is at home. For me the latter is the rest option, and I suspect opinions might change if the former was used and there was an absolute clanger in a quarter final that resulted in a team being unfairly eliminated, even more so if that was a lower division team affected.
By that I assume you are ok with a team being unjustly eliminated from a cup competition as it doesn't affect other teams?
For me it's the former, maybe no VAR until the quarter finals as opposed to the semi finals onwards. That way all teams have the same chance to advance, fairly or otherwise, or be eliminated, unjustly or otherwise, prior to the business end of the competition.
-
So in the Fourth Round Crystal Palace V Hartlepool will have VAR and Nottingham Forest V Leicester won't.
Which teams have the advantage and why, and what impact does this have on the other games?
Haven't seen any meaningful response to this, which to me speaks volumes.
The game with VAR is less likely to be decided by an officiating error. However the other game will be refereed by an SG1 referee and should in turn be less likely to be decided by an officiating error than, say, Cambridge v Luton which will probably be refereed by an SG2 official.
For every team that is eliminated in a match distorted by error, there is a beneficiary of that error. So both Forest and Leicester have a chance of progressing thanks to a refereeing error, a chance denied to Hartlepool or Palace.
All we can ask for, in my opinion, is fairness in each match and use as much as is available (VAR, GLT, the best referees) to get the games refereed as accurately as possible.
-
I keep coming back to this, but there has been a discrepancy for years as some grounds in FA Cup games have GLT and others don't. Really struggling to see how VAR is any different.
I guess because GLT is a fixed system determining only if the ball has crossed the line or not between the goal posts. It is to safeguard against a very rare occurrence of none of the officials being able to determine if the ball has crossed the line or not. It is merely a confirmation of a fact. It does not determine for example if the goal was legal or not, it does not trigger a review for offside/fouls that can render a goal being disallowed. Introduced after Vad II István's dreadful error at the 2012 Euros - I'm not still bitter! I'm sure Northampton v Forest Green would have benefited from it at the weekend but the number of times it is actually required is very low.
VAR on the other hand can intervene for a clear and obvious mistake in four match-changing situations:
1: goals and offences leading up to a goal,
2: penalty decisions and offences leading up to a penalty,
3: direct red card incidents, and
4: mistaken identity.
Theoretically at least incorrect penalties/red cards would be corrected (either given or not as appropriate), offside goals not given, goals scored after a foul/handball disallowed. It's a huge difference in the way the game is refereed and the safeguards in place compared to a game without it. I get that if game A has VAR and game B doesn't that both teams in each match are getting the same refereeing as their opponent but the 2 teams in game B are not getting the same as the 2 teams in game A because incorrect decisions in game B will stand unlike in Game A where they will be corrected*. That factor for me is what makes it unfair and stops all teams from having the same level playing field.
*Yes VAR can make mistakes as well as the on-field referee, they are but mere humans and you will never eradicate human error, they do however have a significantly higher chance of getting the call right as they will have access to x different camera angles, slow mo, freeze frame etc as opposed to the on-field referee who gets a split second, singular view of an incident to make their call.
But how much of an impact does Game B really have on Game A or vice versa? It's not like a league season where every game changes the table.
And quite often you might not have any major incorrect decisions in Game B so VAR wouldn't have been needed anyway. I'd guess VAR will be used in around half the fourth round ties. It's not as if VAR is used to correct decisions in every single game. You might only have three games in the fourth round with major incorrect decisions so if they all happen to occur in VAR games then you have the opportunity to correct them.
I understand GLT will be used less than VAR generally but it's still basically the same premise.
That is exactly my point. It would be fundamentally wrong to use it in some league games but not others in the same decision as that could clearly unfairly adjust end of season league positions. But an FA Cup game only affects the two teams taking part in each tie, it doesn't affect any other tie which may or may not be using VAR.
Ultimately VAR can't be used in every round. Even if you said from the 3rd round onwards, too many grounds won't be equipped for VAR, there won't be enough space at Stockley Park for the required number of consecutive games, and there won't be enough officials available. So you are left with two choices: no VAR until the semi-finals when it is guaranteed the venue being used has VAR capabilities, or use it when a PL team is at home. For me the latter is the rest option, and I suspect opinions might change if the former was used and there was an absolute clanger in a quarter final that resulted in a team being unfairly eliminated, even more so if that was a lower division team affected.
By that I assume you are ok with a team being unjustly eliminated from a cup competition as it doesn't affect other teams?
For me it's the former, maybe no VAR until the quarter finals as opposed to the semi finals onwards. That way all teams have the same chance to advance, fairly or otherwise, or be eliminated, unjustly or otherwise, prior to the business end of the competition.
Yes, because they would be unjustly eliminated regardless of whether VAR was being used in any other games in the same round.
-
I keep coming back to this, but there has been a discrepancy for years as some grounds in FA Cup games have GLT and others don't. Really struggling to see how VAR is any different.
I guess because GLT is a fixed system determining only if the ball has crossed the line or not between the goal posts. It is to safeguard against a very rare occurrence of none of the officials being able to determine if the ball has crossed the line or not. It is merely a confirmation of a fact. It does not determine for example if the goal was legal or not, it does not trigger a review for offside/fouls that can render a goal being disallowed. Introduced after Vad II István's dreadful error at the 2012 Euros - I'm not still bitter! I'm sure Northampton v Forest Green would have benefited from it at the weekend but the number of times it is actually required is very low.
VAR on the other hand can intervene for a clear and obvious mistake in four match-changing situations:
1: goals and offences leading up to a goal,
2: penalty decisions and offences leading up to a penalty,
3: direct red card incidents, and
4: mistaken identity.
Theoretically at least incorrect penalties/red cards would be corrected (either given or not as appropriate), offside goals not given, goals scored after a foul/handball disallowed. It's a huge difference in the way the game is refereed and the safeguards in place compared to a game without it. I get that if game A has VAR and game B doesn't that both teams in each match are getting the same refereeing as their opponent but the 2 teams in game B are not getting the same as the 2 teams in game A because incorrect decisions in game B will stand unlike in Game A where they will be corrected*. That factor for me is what makes it unfair and stops all teams from having the same level playing field.
*Yes VAR can make mistakes as well as the on-field referee, they are but mere humans and you will never eradicate human error, they do however have a significantly higher chance of getting the call right as they will have access to x different camera angles, slow mo, freeze frame etc as opposed to the on-field referee who gets a split second, singular view of an incident to make their call.
But how much of an impact does Game B really have on Game A or vice versa? It's not like a league season where every game changes the table.
And quite often you might not have any major incorrect decisions in Game B so VAR wouldn't have been needed anyway. I'd guess VAR will be used in around half the fourth round ties. It's not as if VAR is used to correct decisions in every single game. You might only have three games in the fourth round with major incorrect decisions so if they all happen to occur in VAR games then you have the opportunity to correct them.
I understand GLT will be used less than VAR generally but it's still basically the same premise.
That is exactly my point. It would be fundamentally wrong to use it in some league games but not others in the same decision as that could clearly unfairly adjust end of season league positions. But an FA Cup game only affects the two teams taking part in each tie, it doesn't affect any other tie which may or may not be using VAR.
Ultimately VAR can't be used in every round. Even if you said from the 3rd round onwards, too many grounds won't be equipped for VAR, there won't be enough space at Stockley Park for the required number of consecutive games, and there won't be enough officials available. So you are left with two choices: no VAR until the semi-finals when it is guaranteed the venue being used has VAR capabilities, or use it when a PL team is at home. For me the latter is the rest option, and I suspect opinions might change if the former was used and there was an absolute clanger in a quarter final that resulted in a team being unfairly eliminated, even more so if that was a lower division team affected.
By that I assume you are ok with a team being unjustly eliminated from a cup competition as it doesn't affect other teams?
For me it's the former, maybe no VAR until the quarter finals as opposed to the semi finals onwards. That way all teams have the same chance to advance, fairly or otherwise, or be eliminated, unjustly or otherwise, prior to the business end of the competition.
Yes, because they would be unjustly eliminated regardless of whether VAR was being used in any other games in the same round.
But not if VAR was being used in their game, which means they did not have a level playing field with other teams.
-
I keep coming back to this, but there has been a discrepancy for years as some grounds in FA Cup games have GLT and others don't. Really struggling to see how VAR is any different.
I guess because GLT is a fixed system determining only if the ball has crossed the line or not between the goal posts. It is to safeguard against a very rare occurrence of none of the officials being able to determine if the ball has crossed the line or not. It is merely a confirmation of a fact. It does not determine for example if the goal was legal or not, it does not trigger a review for offside/fouls that can render a goal being disallowed. Introduced after Vad II István's dreadful error at the 2012 Euros - I'm not still bitter! I'm sure Northampton v Forest Green would have benefited from it at the weekend but the number of times it is actually required is very low.
VAR on the other hand can intervene for a clear and obvious mistake in four match-changing situations:
1: goals and offences leading up to a goal,
2: penalty decisions and offences leading up to a penalty,
3: direct red card incidents, and
4: mistaken identity.
Theoretically at least incorrect penalties/red cards would be corrected (either given or not as appropriate), offside goals not given, goals scored after a foul/handball disallowed. It's a huge difference in the way the game is refereed and the safeguards in place compared to a game without it. I get that if game A has VAR and game B doesn't that both teams in each match are getting the same refereeing as their opponent but the 2 teams in game B are not getting the same as the 2 teams in game A because incorrect decisions in game B will stand unlike in Game A where they will be corrected*. That factor for me is what makes it unfair and stops all teams from having the same level playing field.
*Yes VAR can make mistakes as well as the on-field referee, they are but mere humans and you will never eradicate human error, they do however have a significantly higher chance of getting the call right as they will have access to x different camera angles, slow mo, freeze frame etc as opposed to the on-field referee who gets a split second, singular view of an incident to make their call.
But how much of an impact does Game B really have on Game A or vice versa? It's not like a league season where every game changes the table.
And quite often you might not have any major incorrect decisions in Game B so VAR wouldn't have been needed anyway. I'd guess VAR will be used in around half the fourth round ties. It's not as if VAR is used to correct decisions in every single game. You might only have three games in the fourth round with major incorrect decisions so if they all happen to occur in VAR games then you have the opportunity to correct them.
I understand GLT will be used less than VAR generally but it's still basically the same premise.
That is exactly my point. It would be fundamentally wrong to use it in some league games but not others in the same decision as that could clearly unfairly adjust end of season league positions. But an FA Cup game only affects the two teams taking part in each tie, it doesn't affect any other tie which may or may not be using VAR.
Ultimately VAR can't be used in every round. Even if you said from the 3rd round onwards, too many grounds won't be equipped for VAR, there won't be enough space at Stockley Park for the required number of consecutive games, and there won't be enough officials available. So you are left with two choices: no VAR until the semi-finals when it is guaranteed the venue being used has VAR capabilities, or use it when a PL team is at home. For me the latter is the rest option, and I suspect opinions might change if the former was used and there was an absolute clanger in a quarter final that resulted in a team being unfairly eliminated, even more so if that was a lower division team affected.
By that I assume you are ok with a team being unjustly eliminated from a cup competition as it doesn't affect other teams?
For me it's the former, maybe no VAR until the quarter finals as opposed to the semi finals onwards. That way all teams have the same chance to advance, fairly or otherwise, or be eliminated, unjustly or otherwise, prior to the business end of the competition.
But scrapping VAR for whole of third/fourth round wouldn't stop teams being unjustly eliminated - indeed, you'd almost certainly see more examples of it happening. You might argue that makes the injustice fairer because it's more widespread but I'm not convinced that's a good thing.
The argument about not having it at all until QFs is one that I don't really understand. To me, the concept of some teams gaining because of having/not having VAR would still be in play but just in a slightly different way.
If you decide not to play Liverpool V Cardiff in 4th round with VAR and Cardiff are wrongly denied a 90th minute penalty which could have helped them win the game and Liverpool end up going through, then it doesn't really help Cardiff if you then decide to play say Liverpool V Luton in the QFs using VAR and this time Luton can be correctly awarded the 90th minute penalty using VAR. Cardiff have still lost out due to not having VAR and Luton have gained due to having VAR, so if that is the thing you have issue with then I'm not sure you're really any better off.
I agree with you that it has been a healthy debate though.