The VAR Review 2025/2026

[texanwellfan]

The VAR review shite is pointless and achieves nothing 

[SteelmaninOZ]

1 minute ago, texanwellfan said:

The VAR review shite is pointless and achieves nothing 

Yes the VAR is pointless and achieves nothing 

[Spiderpig]

10 hours ago, texanwellfan said:

The VAR review shite is pointless and achieves nothing 

It does achieve something, it confirms the view that fans have had for years, ie the SFA in its current form is not fit for purpose, using shit technology to justify shit refereeing decisions, with no comeback or censure, while pandering to the ugly sisters at the expense of every other club in the country.

[SteelmaninOZ]

 

[joewarkfanclub]

9 hours ago, SteelmaninOZ said:

 

No stills?

Funny that!

When you see the Gassama one before it, it really brings into question how "honest" some of these mistakes are.

Never bought into conspiracies before as both uglies benefit from decisions but Fadingers is a pen all day long in the modern game.

[Kmcalpin]

From the litle I heard from the clips, there seems to be a lot of inconsistencies in the comments between incidents i.e. was there contact yes or no/there was contact but very slight.  Also a lot of shouting from the VAR team. On that evidence, I'm far from convinced that its a logical and consistent process and thats before we get to the technology.   

 

[joewarkfanclub]

10 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

From the litle I heard from the clips, there seems to be a lot of inconsistencies in the comments between incidents i.e. was there contact yes or no/there was contact but very slight.  Also a lot of shouting from the VAR team. On that evidence, I'm far from convinced that its a logical and consistent process and thats before we get to the technology.   

 

The technology is definitely letting us (and the officials) down. But I guess thats what happens when you pay for "VAR LITE".

But I agree with you. The inconsistency in decision making is the really frustrating thing.

Not just from game to game with different officials. But also different games referred by the same official.

(Yes Mr Dickinson we are looking at you!)

[wellfan]

Once subjectivity is allowed to creep into a supposedly objective process, the game’s a bogey.

[Kmcalpin]

Just read a post from Al B on P & B. He rightly points out that the VAR team was examining arm contact. The issue wasn't that at all it was a trip. 

[weeyin]

1 hour ago, wellfan said:

Once subjectivity is allowed to creep into a supposedly objective process, the game’s a bogey.

I'd say the opposite. Too many poor decisions due to "letter of the law" rather than "spirit of the game". 

The handball rules are a great example of this where attempting to remove subjectivity has made them a complete joke. 

I agree we need more consistency and better referees. I'd prefer it, however, if we just let them do their job and ditch VAR. 

[wellfan]

33 minutes ago, weeyin said:

I'd prefer it, however, if we just let them do their job and ditch VAR. 

Most of us can probably agree on this. Scrap VAR and have referee observers review games afterwards, call out mistakes and inconsistencies, and actually hold officials accountable. Let the game flow and deal with the bad officiating afterwards.

[joewarkfanclub]

7 minutes ago, wellfan said:

Most of us can probably agree on this. Scrap VAR and have referee observers review games afterwards, call out mistakes and inconsistencies, and actually hold officials accountable. Let the game flow and deal with the bad officiating afterwards.

Same thing will happen.

No action.

But at least we would be doing without the unecessary delays and spoiling of goal celebrations!

[claretband]

He seemed to say that the VAR cameras were inconclusive but other footage did show it was a pen. I think one of our players ran across and blocked the view at the crucial moment. However it was right in front of the ref so how did he miss it? In his head he maybe thinks ah I’ll leave that one to VAR…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Yoshi-1991]

23 minutes ago, claretband said:

He seemed to say that the VAR cameras were inconclusive but other footage did show it was a pen. I think one of our players ran across and blocked the view at the crucial moment. However it was right in front of the ref so how did he miss it? In his head he maybe thinks ah I’ll leave that one to VAR…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is my biggest gripe with VAR. Instead of hoping VAR steps in, the ref should be able to request it. He should be able to say "I need another look at that". The rules around VAR seem to involve more bureaucracy than South Lanarkshire council. 

[GrahamH]

“No no, no no, no chance. Just hits the deck under very minimal contact…” 

Sounds like something a Rangers fan would say rather than the referee.

[Orinoco]

VAR is a farce. We dont need a pointless review program to confirm what we know already.

Run by biased, corrupt and useless officials. These guys dont want to stop their big brown enevelope appearance fee at friendly games.

[Faddyisgod]

Whilst I understand the views that people have about removing VAR I would not be in favour of getting rid of technology completely. If we are getting rid of VAR we should invest that money in semi automated offside technology. Objective calls need to be correct and corrupt officials can easily influence them in their favour as well. 

[cambo97]

14 hours ago, GrahamH said:

“No no, no no, no chance. Just hits the deck under very minimal contact…” 

Sounds like something a Rangers fan would say rather than the referee.

I would say it's exactly what a referee should be thinking and communicating to VAR, he has to be sure and communicate, he might be wrong but he only has one very quick look. I'll bet there is not one person who has been 100% certain over a decision at the game only to see a replay later and realised how wrong they were. He's giving the reason for his decision, VAR ignored that by looking for arm contact. 

[joewarkfanclub]

28 minutes ago, cambo97 said:

I would say it's exactly what a referee should be thinking and communicating to VAR, he has to be sure and communicate, he might be wrong but he only has one very quick look. I'll bet there is not one person who has been 100% certain over a decision at the game only to see a replay later and realised how wrong they were. He's giving the reason for his decision, VAR ignored that by looking for arm contact. 

Ordinarily I would agree. I hate to see players going down too easily with insufficient contact to cause it, and Id love to see it removed from the game.

That said, its not the world we live in and the authorities dont seem to want to change it, so what are we to do?

The Gassama incident at Aberdeen is actually worse. Minimal contact didnt seem to be an issue there and Collum was of the opinion it met the standard and was a clear penalty. 

Its the inconsistency that boils folks piss. And it always appears to be inconsistent in favour of the big clubs.

[cambo97]

1 hour ago, joewarkfanclub said:

Ordinarily I would agree. I hate to see players going down too easily with insufficient contact to cause it, and Id love to see it removed from the game.

That said, its not the world we live in and the authorities dont seem to want to change it, so what are we to do?

The Gassama incident at Aberdeen is actually worse. Minimal contact didnt seem to be an issue there and Collum was of the opinion it met the standard and was a clear penalty. 

Its the inconsistency that boils folks piss. And it always appears to be inconsistent in favour of the big clubs.

i don't disagree with your comments, I was commenting on the referee's rationale, he thought he went down too easily. I don't think he did and neither should have VAR but they did. We shouldn't be pulling up the referee on saying what he did.

[Kmcalpin]

35 minutes ago, cambo97 said:

i don't disagree with your comments, I was commenting on the referee's rationale, he thought he went down too easily. I don't think he did and neither should have VAR but they did. We shouldn't be pulling up the referee on saying what he did.

A player can go down too easily but that doesn't mean is not a penalty. 

Not quite the same thing but I recall Richard Tait winning a foul at Easter Road and then being booked for simulation at the same time. 

[joewarkfanclub]

40 minutes ago, cambo97 said:

i don't disagree with your comments, I was commenting on the referee's rationale, he thought he went down too easily. I don't think he did and neither should have VAR but they did. We shouldn't be pulling up the referee on saying what he did.

I think his rationale is the problem.

He is saying in his comments you are not allowed to go down easily regardless of the actions of the defending player. (Fernandez clearly hangs his leg).

His boss just went on camera and said that going down easily doesnt matter. The contact justifies the penalty decision.

Both cant be correct.

[texanwellfan]

35 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said:

I think his rationale is the problem.

He is saying in his comments you are not allowed to go down easily regardless of the actions of the defending player. (Fernandez clearly hangs his leg).

His boss just went on camera and said that going down easily doesnt matter. The contact justifies the penalty decision.

Both cant be correct.

Minimal contact from a trip can make you go down but minimal contact body to body is where some players embellish it and go down but again it’s a physical sport amd body to body contact is not necessarily a foul even if there is much stronger contact.