VAR in Scottish football - Share your views

[David]

For those who aren't in the Well Society or who didn't see the email, the following was sent out today:

As the first top-flight football club in the UK to be owned by its supporters, Motherwell Football Club, through the Well Society, has a duty to ensure that the views of our fans are properly represented on important matters within the game.

Growing concerns around VAR

Over recent months, concerns have been growing among fans, players and staff across the country regarding the impact VAR is having on the rhythm of matches, the atmosphere in stadiums and trust in refereeing decisions.

In addition to these concerns, it is important to note that VAR currently costs each club a six-figure sum every season. A significant outlay that further underlines the need for a proper debate about its future.

Listening to our members and shaping the future

In light of this, the Well Society has committed to starting a process of listening and engaging with our members and the wider Motherwell support. Our aim is to gain a clearer understanding of supporters’ views on VAR and to consider whether the Society should take a position in favour of change or call for its removal from Scottish football altogether.

This marks the beginning of a wider effort to build connections with other supporter groups and to explore the potential for positive, fan-led action.

You can share your view by completing the survey available here between now and Monday 2nd June at noon.

[Spiderpig]

No survey or debate required, VAR needs binned ASAP its ruining the game, especially the pound shop version we have in Scotland and the incompetent clowns running it.

[weeyin]

I was happy to share my views in great detail.

tl;dr ditch it

 

[MJC]

It’s ruining football.

It is far too jobsworth-like and rather than intervening to correct clear and obvious errors by onfield officials it is too often going back to earlier phases of play to almost forensic examine everything that happens in the build up to goals/penalties to find even the most minuscule infringement. 
 

Get rid ASAP

[grizzlyg]

It is not being used properly.......but is only ever an issue when it affects the old squirm

[wellfan]

Get it in the bin. That was my response to the survey. 

[0Neils40yarder]

They'll never get rid of it, they've fucked it up by bringing it in but there is no going back unfortunately

[weeyin]

17 minutes ago, 0Neils40yarder said:

They'll never get rid of it, they've fucked it up by bringing it in but there is no going back unfortunately

Just need a malfunction of the technology and both teams agreeing to play without. Might look a bit suspicious when it happens at every ground every week, but worth a try,

[wellsince75]

I think it’s the best thing that ever happened to improve the modern game …

said no one ever !

 

[FirParkCornerExile]

If we bin VAR we will have 20 errors in a game called wrong rather than 2 or 3. Whether folk like it or not VAR enables the correct decision to be called in 90% of occasions. However it takes far too long to arrive at the decisions. I would strictly enforce clear and obvious error. If a decision cant be called in 2 mins the onfield decision stands. Fans waiting 3/4/5/6 mins for a decision to be called is ridiculous. I would also adopt the English automated  tech for offside decisions rather than the cheapo version we have in Scotland. In England they just do not have the carry on we have looking at offside goals. 

[FirParkCornerExile]

1 hour ago, grizzlyg said:

It is not being used properly.......but is only ever an issue when it affects the old squirm

Correct when it came in it was to ensure "clear and obvious" errors were corrected. If it takes them over 2 mins to arrive at a decision its not clear and obvious. 

[weeyin]

1 hour ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

Correct when it came in it was to ensure "clear and obvious" errors were corrected. If it takes them over 2 mins to arrive at a decision its not clear and obvious. 

That's my biggest gripe, and I have many when it comes to VAR.

If they stick with it, let the ref make the call. Give VAR 20 or 30 seconds to review if needed. Can't tell? Then it wasn't clear and obvious, so move on.

 

[Mad Dog]

39 minutes ago, weeyin said:

That's my biggest gripe, and I have many when it comes to VAR.

If they stick with it, let the ref make the call. Give VAR 20 or 30 seconds to review if needed. Can't tell? Then it wasn't clear and obvious, so move on.

 

That's more like it; two minutes is still way too long.

[andalg]

16 hours ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

Correct when it came in it was to ensure "clear and obvious" errors were corrected. If it takes them over 2 mins to arrive at a decision its not clear and obvious. 

When it comes to offside its a factual decision You are either onside or offside so they spend forever to prove it.  If the referee/linesman has given the wrong decision then that by definition is a clear and obvious error regardless of time taken.  I think the offside rule needs changed to daylight rather than toenail 

[texanwellfan]

2 hours ago, andalg said:

When it comes to offside its a factual decision You are either onside or offside so they spend forever to prove it.  If the referee/linesman has given the wrong decision then that by definition is a clear and obvious error regardless of time taken.  I think the offside rule needs changed to daylight rather than toenail 

I’m sure if they sat down for a bit they could reword the offside law to enable quick VAR decisions. 
Another area needing some focus is handball decisions and again I think if they put their heads together they could come up with a quick checklist for VAR team. Just a few questions with yes or no answers. Perhaps you need all answers to be yes or maybe if any answer is yes then it’s a penalty. 
Third area than can affect a game in a big way is red and yellow cards. This one might be the hardest to resolve and I’m not sure how we get around that. 
  Not VAR but Last point is my current pet hate and not sure if rules have changed or not but apparently refs just ignore the obstruction rule now as players get away with jumping if front of opposing players, well away from playing distance of the ball, and don’t get penalized. Seems to have started happening in the last year or two. 

[weeyin]

The problem with offside is the rule hasn't kept up with VAR. It was originally designed to prevent goal-hanging, but evolved over the years.

I can't imagine any of the original lawmakers intended for goals to be disallowed because the attacker's little toe was a centimetre front of a defender's little toe. Their needs to be some leeway there - although I imagine that would be misinterpreted too.

To keep things fair, I'd always be giving the benefit of the doubt to attackers in offside situations and the benefit of the doubt to defenders in the handball situations.

[Mad Dog]

1 hour ago, texanwellfan said:

Not VAR but Last point is my current pet hate and not sure if rules have changed or not but apparently refs just ignore the obstruction rule now as players get away with jumping if front of opposing players, well away from playing distance of the ball, and don’t get penalized. Seems to have started happening in the last year or two. 

It's still a rule but it gets bent at all levels of the game because, as soon as the referee blows for a free-kick, a shout goes up for someone to get in front of the ball. All that's changed, from what I can see, is that the free-kick taker is far less likely to blooter the ball at the defender standing only a yard or two away. I agree that it is annoying but I'm a defender, so....

 

[dennyc]

Just wait until our lot try and implement the new maximum 8 second rule for goalkeepers holding the ball which  is being brought in next season. With a corner being the penalty for holding on too long. Apparently the referee is meant to visually count from 5 to 8 for all to see.  It will be like a Christmas pantomime with the crowd counting to eight every time a goalie catches the ball. Of course some referees (Robertson) will ignore it until the fourth official tells him to act, and others (Walsh) will love being the centre of attraction and award corners after six seconds. The game we love is becoming farcical. It will be fun however watching Rodgers overreact when Ox gets away with holding on to the ball for 9 seconds.

What I found hilarious is that the current Law states six seconds maximum. Clearly nobody told Craig Gordon or Liam Kelly.

As far as time wasting is concerned, all that was required was for referees to actually apply the Laws, and issue yellow cards much earlier for repeated offending. Or is that too practical a solution.

I suspect that like the obstruction rule at corners, the new law will also die a death very quickly.

[weeyin]

I never understood the 6 second rule. Or rather, how it would be implemented.

I remember asking when it was introduced - who was going to time it and was it going to be applied to every keeper every time.

Of of course, the answer was nobody was going to time it, and it would never be applied.

I agree all that's needed is proper application of the current time wasting Laws. I'm also in favour of adding that wasted time to the end of the game - although some players didn't like that when it was rolled out at the World Cup and meant 10 or 12 minutes added to all the matches.

[dennyc]

I thought it was working well in the group stages of the World Cup. Then it dawned on everyone that, during the knock out stages, drawn matches could result in even more time being added on. So 90 minutes official normal game time plus 30 minutes extra time plus anything from 20 minutes to 30 minutes 'injury' time in total. And then maybe penalties. And then possibly repeat next time out in three or four days..   So the referees were requested to limit time added on. Good intentions but ill thought out proving impractical in a Tournament sense but no reason why correct time cannot be added in League matches. Independent time keeper?

 

 

[texanwellfan]

1 hour ago, Mad Dog said:

It's still a rule but it gets bent at all levels of the game because, as soon as the referee blows for a free-kick, a shout goes up for someone to get in front of the ball. All that's changed, from what I can see, is that the free-kick taker is far less likely to blooter the ball at the defender standing only a yard or two away. I agree that it is annoying but I'm a defender, so....

 

What you mention also annoys me but I am talking about obstruction. Eg ball played back to goalie. Forward moves to chase the keeper down. 15 yards from the ball opposing players steps right in front of forward to delay him getting to the ball. Read Law 12 obstruction section. It should be a foul. If no contact with player it’s indirect. If contact made its direct kick. The refs have apparently stopped calling it now. The usual response is a player can go where he likes on the field. The law covers that response and if the purpose is to obstruct an opposing player from getting to the ball when the defender is not within reasonable playing distance of the ball then they are not allowed to do that 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by texanwellfan
I would have pasted extract from Laws here but file was too big

[cambo97]

6 hours ago, weeyin said:

The problem with offside is the rule hasn't kept up with VAR. It was originally designed to prevent goal-hanging, but evolved over the years.

I can't imagine any of the original lawmakers intended for goals to be disallowed because the attacker's little toe was a centimetre front of a defender's little toe. Their needs to be some leeway there - although I imagine that would be misinterpreted too.

To keep things fair, I'd always be giving the benefit of the doubt to attackers in offside situations and the benefit of the doubt to defenders in the handball situations.

There is no benefit of the doubt in an offside decision, it's either offside or onside. The only time that changes is with the "interfering with play" part.

11 hours ago, andalg said:

When it comes to offside its a factual decision You are either onside or offside so they spend forever to prove it.  If the referee/linesman has given the wrong decision then that by definition is a clear and obvious error regardless of time taken.  lI think the offside rule needs changed to daylight rather than toenai 

It would still be a toenail, just from a different reference point.

[fizoxy]

I don't like VAR, but the problem is the people who run it. Our referees are god awful, and we've given them a tool that helps them find more ways to be the main character.

There have been multiple occasions where the footage has given them what they need to make a decision, and they have misinterpreted a rule. 

However, as above, the complete abandonment of the "clear and obvious" requirement means that they spend 5 minutes finding a way to rule out a goal or give a penalty.

So I'd bin it, and go back to still having shite referees, but with less stoppages, and even less opportunities for Willie collum to get himself on TV.

[mothman]

On 5/21/2025 at 8:22 PM, 0Neils40yarder said:

They'll never get rid of it, they've fucked it up by bringing it in but there is no going back unfortunately

VAR was rejected by the top-flight clubs in Sweden, so it's not outwith the realm of possibility with collective objection/action. Although it was never introduced there in the first place, so a slightly different situation.

[Kmcalpin]

On 5/21/2025 at 9:13 PM, FirParkCornerExile said:

If we bin VAR we will have 20 errors in a game called wrong rather than 2 or 3. Whether folk like it or not VAR enables the correct decision to be called in 90% of occasions. However it takes far too long to arrive at the decisions. I would strictly enforce clear and obvious error. If a decision cant be called in 2 mins the onfield decision stands. Fans waiting 3/4/5/6 mins for a decision to be called is ridiculous. I would also adopt the English automated  tech for offside decisions rather than the cheapo version we have in Scotland. In England they just do not have the carry on we have looking at offside goals. 

Thats pretty much my view. Yes, it could be improved such as using more cameras, but the real problem is the way in which its being used. If we took it away, the same errors would still occur. There's a huge degree of inconsistency but thats down to refereeing standards, such as we saw with Dan Casey's red card against Kilmarnock for example. Thats purely down to the SFA to sort out. Then there's the issue of time. Currently delays of several minutes are ridiculous, unacceptable and detract from our enjoyment of the game. After all, thats why we go to games. A strict time limit should be imposed maximum 1-2 minutes and if it isn't clear or obvious then the original decision stands. I'd also extend the remit to include some limited categories of yellow card such as mistaken identity.