VAR

Fulhams penalty againt Oldham yesterday, confirmed by VAR. Suggest you all watch it and then consider if we ( or Fulham for that matter) would have been awarded it at Old Trafford or Anfield.
 
drd said:
Fulhams penalty againt Oldham yesterday, confirmed by VAR. Suggest you all watch it and then consider if we ( or Fulham for that matter) would have been awarded it at Old Trafford or Anfield.
Click to expand...

This is the point, people are delusional if they think it will sort out the big six bias. VAR refs will look to avoid the most flak just as much as the man in the middle does.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
This is the point, people are delusional if they think it will sort out the big six bias. VAR refs will look to avoid the most flak just as much as the man in the middle does.
Click to expand...
This is exactly why nothing will change. The VAR refs will only flag up the situations which "don't rock the big six boat".
I still maintain that if VAR is supposed to achieve it's intended aim, it needs to be instigated by the managers on the touchline. If the players are screaming at their boss that there was something wrong with a goal, penalty decision etc., the manager has the option to use one of, let's say, three appeals per game to have it reviewed by VAR.
This way we avoid the frustration players and managers may feel when injustices are done. If there is a serious concern about a match influencing decision, the players can give their manager the heads up and it can be checked properly with VAR. By limiting the number of challenges or appeals each team can make, you are also limiting the effect VAR challenges can have on match time and TV schedules. I also don't think managers would use their VAR challenges lightly. Looking at our last ten or so games I would imagine Eddie would have been happy with one appeal per game, not sure there were enough incidents worthy of more. I really don't understand why VAR is not being implemented in this way. It really does make you think that there is some sort of conspiracy going on to ensure that the referees still always have the ability to manipulate a result ! Surely not ? Tennis umpires had no problem allowing the players the challenge system when it was introduced but football referees seem to be somewhat reluctant to acknowledge their own fallibility ( which we see evidence of numerous times every weekend on TV, by the way ).
 
Just been used in the Tottenham V Chelsea game. Rewound the game to check - it took 80 secs to check 2 decisions, an offside and penalty decision. What was nice to see was that the ref didn't go to the sideline, he trusted VAR to verify what he needed to know.
 
Coobster said:
Just been used in the Tottenham V Chelsea game. Rewound the game to check - it took 80 secs to check 2 decisions, an offside and penalty decision. What was nice to see was that the ref didn't go to the sideline, he trusted VAR to verify what he needed to know.
Click to expand...

A good example of why I hate it. Matchgoing fans live for the moment so that was like a damp squib of a penalty award. Better for the lino to make his decision in the spur of the moment and live with it right or wrong. Then you get the euphoria of the moment, which is way more important than right or wrong. Especially on tight decisions like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ
Coobster said:
Just been used in the Tottenham V Chelsea game. Rewound the game to check - it took 80 secs to check 2 decisions, an offside and penalty decision. What was nice to see was that the ref didn't go to the sideline, he trusted VAR to verify what he needed to know.
Click to expand...

Close to three minutes between the incident taking place and Kane taking the penalty.

The offside was hardly an obvious error either.

Plus everything SDD says directly above.
 
DJ said:
Close to three minutes between the incident taking place and Kane taking the penalty.

The offside was hardly an obvious error either.

Plus everything SDD says directly above.
Click to expand...
The other 90secs+ would have been there anyway? Chelsea players arguing (prob more if it had been given with VAR not there) and the usual fluff before taking the penalty though?
 
SlowDownDerek said:
A good example of why I hate it. Matchgoing fans live for the moment so that was like a damp squib of a penalty award. Better for the lino to make his decision in the spur of the moment and live with it right or wrong. Then you get the euphoria of the moment, which is way more important than right or wrong. Especially on tight decisions like that.
Click to expand...
I guess that's what the want it or not want it comes down to. Do people want the euphoria or the (more often than not hopefully) correct decision (not that all decisions are wrong). Personally, especially with offiside, I would rather the correct decision over the euphoria.
 
Coobster said:
I guess that's what the want it or not want it comes down to. Do people want the euphoria or the (more often than not hopefully) correct decision (not that all decisions are wrong). Personally, especially with offiside, I would rather the correct decision over the euphoria.
Click to expand...

Probably right, I think the preference probably differs depending on whether you're watching in the ground or not for many.

Easier when the offside is clear cut through - this one hardly feels like the euphoria was worth sacrificing for the 'correct' decision given that it was 50/50.
 
Coobster said:
The other 90secs+ would have been there anyway? Chelsea players arguing (prob more if it had been given with VAR not there) and the usual fluff before taking the penalty though?
Click to expand...

Part of the argument for VAR is that this would be eradicated. It’s not.

It’s also suppose to clear up controversy and yet Robbie Keane could still make a case that the yellow card could be a red, so that’s not cleared up either.
 
I don't think it is supposed to clear up controversy. My worry is that's the sales pitch for it, at least given by the media if not the authorities. Some decisions are objective some are subjective. When I hear idiots like Savage saying it's not a dive there was contact, or the reverse, it's not a foul he didn't touch him, then I worry that people start to think that's how the laws work, it isn't

For the objective decisions then I think every chance to help referees make them should be given, and they can be worked out really quick, offsides, ball in or out of play, that sort of thing. For the subjective decisions, then another set of eyes in the TV van saying 'did you see that? Maybe take another look' can only be a good thing. If the ref says yeah I saw it, then fine, he thinks he's done enough

What this needs though is greater clarity on certain laws of the game. I think a return to some of the older definitions would really clear a lot of this stuff up:
Handball - If the path of the ball is altered, then it's a handball. If you're in a wall cupping your balls, then the path isn't altered as it would have bounced off you anyway, it's not that difficult to judge. If it's deemed intentional, then that's a decision for the ref to make. This thing about forwards aiming for defenders arms, well if the player is really that good then he deserves the penalty, but at the same time he shouldn't need one. By the same token, kicking the ball intentionally at another player could be deemed violent conduct, or if it's clear they're aiming at a hand then it's certainly ungentlemanly conduct
Offside - Used to say if the forward is seeking to gain an advantage, also the forward used to be able to return to an onside position and negate the offside call. I rarely see that happen nowadays, but seeking to gain an advantage allows the refs the leeway they need to make a call on that
Fouls - Contact doesn't make a foul, no contact doesn't make a dive. If I swing a punch at my winger and he ducks it, I'm still off the field. If I throw myself into a two footer with one leg 18 inches in the air even if I hit no-one it's a foul. If I get kicked then roll around like a freshly landed trout, that's attempting to deceive the ref, if I hurdle an incoming challenge and stumble as I land that isn't. It's not black and white and common sense needs to be applied

Biggest thing I'd like to see is the players treated like adults as maybe they'd start acting like them rather than seeing the ref as the enemy. Ask them, if they lie have big suspensions, might help drive down the gamesmanship across the board. You can be driven and motivated to win without being a liar or a cheat
 
cockbeard said:
I don't think it is supposed to clear up controversy. My worry is that's the sales pitch for it, at least given by the media if not the authorities. Some decisions are objective some are subjective. When I hear idiots like Savage saying it's not a dive there was contact, or the reverse, it's not a foul he didn't touch him, then I worry that people start to think that's how the laws work, it isn't

For the objective decisions then I think every chance to help referees make them should be given, and they can be worked out really quick, offsides, ball in or out of play, that sort of thing. For the subjective decisions, then another set of eyes in the TV van saying 'did you see that? Maybe take another look' can only be a good thing. If the ref says yeah I saw it, then fine, he thinks he's done enough

What this needs though is greater clarity on certain laws of the game. I think a return to some of the older definitions would really clear a lot of this stuff up:
Handball - If the path of the ball is altered, then it's a handball. If you're in a wall cupping your balls, then the path isn't altered as it would have bounced off you anyway, it's not that difficult to judge. If it's deemed intentional, then that's a decision for the ref to make. This thing about forwards aiming for defenders arms, well if the player is really that good then he deserves the penalty, but at the same time he shouldn't need one. By the same token, kicking the ball intentionally at another player could be deemed violent conduct, or if it's clear they're aiming at a hand then it's certainly ungentlemanly conduct
Offside - Used to say if the forward is seeking to gain an advantage, also the forward used to be able to return to an onside position and negate the offside call. I rarely see that happen nowadays, but seeking to gain an advantage allows the refs the leeway they need to make a call on that
Fouls - Contact doesn't make a foul, no contact doesn't make a dive. If I swing a punch at my winger and he ducks it, I'm still off the field. If I throw myself into a two footer with one leg 18 inches in the air even if I hit no-one it's a foul. If I get kicked then roll around like a freshly landed trout, that's attempting to deceive the ref, if I hurdle an incoming challenge and stumble as I land that isn't. It's not black and white and common sense needs to be applied

Biggest thing I'd like to see is the players treated like adults as maybe they'd start acting like them rather than seeing the ref as the enemy. Ask them, if they lie have big suspensions, might help drive down the gamesmanship across the board. You can be driven and motivated to win without being a liar or a cheat
Click to expand...

Lots of ideas to reinvent the wheel, they’ll have to be others to make VAR work better too.

Lots of tweaks here and there needed to fix something that isn’t broken...
 
...technology is going to do so many things in our lives....improve it....ruin it....and take much enjoyment away whilst adding some too...in life as in sport we are going to have to live with it!
 
It works in rugby, it works in tennis, it works in F1, it works in NFL, but apparently football is so different that it cant work?

Dont buy that at all. Its still objective but the clear and obvious mistakes should be stopped.
 
redharry said:
still can't believe VAR confirmed that Fulham got the penalty on Saturday. Never a pen in a million years.
Click to expand...
And this, in a nutshell, is the problem with VAR. It will cause delays and spoil aspects of the game without actually being a complete solution to perceived issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ
Druss_the_Legend said:
It works in rugby, it works in tennis, it works in F1, it works in NFL, but apparently football is so different that it cant work?

Dont buy that at all. Its still objective but the clear and obvious mistakes should be stopped.
Click to expand...
You'll be telling us there's no God next.

Just you saying "it works" doesn't make it true. I've read contradictory stories from other posters on here saying its ruined the game, so why should they be discounted? Also the examples given suggest there are still grey areas.

Having said that, I'm sure that for the armchair fans it'll be perfect.
 
Druss_the_Legend said:
It works in rugby, it works in tennis, it works in F1, it works in NFL, but apparently football is so different that it cant work?

Dont buy that at all. Its still objective but the clear and obvious mistakes should be stopped.
Click to expand...

It ruins rugby. You used to be able to celebrate a try now you celebrate the possibility of a try whilst they trawl through footage of the last ten minutes looking for a reason to disallow it.

I don't watch much rugby but the last three games I've seen have had farcical disallowed tries in the last minute that would have swung the game but instead left everyone scratching their heads and feeling short-changed.

They've thrown the baby out with the bathwater - the excitement and drama is the important thing not the 'correctness' of everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;