| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? 12:16 - Jun 16 with 12180 views | ITFC_Forever |
What a load of crap.
That’s why VAR can never work in football, even after multiple replays, it’s still an opinion based decision, not a factual one (eg; goal-line technology). |  |
| |  |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 17:25 - Jun 16 with 4019 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 16:47 - Jun 16 by Trequartista |
It does matter if the player has adjusted himself and then is tripped in a secondary motion, so a penalty for me, but not clear and obvious so a penalty should not have been given. And if that sounds farcical, that's because it is. |
For the defender sliding in it is all one motion. If he won the ball it's no pen, whatever happened with their legs subsequently. It's all part of the same tackle. |  |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 17:48 - Jun 16 with 3999 views | Sarge |
It's a game killer and needs to be ditched |  | | |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 17:53 - Jun 16 with 3981 views | m14_blue |
It's dominating this World Cup at the moment, hopefully will settle down and we can all start talking about the football again. | | | |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 18:12 - Jun 16 with 3958 views | flimflam |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 17:25 - Jun 16 by BrixtonBlue |
For the defender sliding in it is all one motion. If he won the ball it's no pen, whatever happened with their legs subsequently. It's all part of the same tackle. |
But he didn't touch the ball which has been proved from numerous replays |  |
| All men and women are created, by the, you know the, you know the thing. |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 18:14 - Jun 16 with 3956 views | farkenhell |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 16:41 - Jun 16 by Trequartista |
That's not VAR, that's goalline technology, a totally different situation. |
So you're happy for the game to be stopped for goal-line technology, but not for VAR?
I know it holds the game up, but I'm happy to trade that to allow the referee the opportunity to get a crucial decision correct. Take Peru's penalty for example - incorrect decision first time around but put right by the correct use of VAR. No-one should have any complaints, even the most ardent Danish supporter.
It becomes a problem when the officials incorrectly use VAR - such as the France penalty. There is no way that anyone in their right mind could say the referee made a clear and obvious mistake. The original decision should have stood. | | | |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 18:17 - Jun 16 with 3953 views | farkenhell |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 17:48 - Jun 16 by Sarge |
It's a game killer and needs to be ditched |
I'm sorry, but how can ensuring that an important decision has been made correctly be seen as a game killer? | | | |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 18:22 - Jun 16 with 3942 views | BackToRussia |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 18:14 - Jun 16 by farkenhell |
So you're happy for the game to be stopped for goal-line technology, but not for VAR?
I know it holds the game up, but I'm happy to trade that to allow the referee the opportunity to get a crucial decision correct. Take Peru's penalty for example - incorrect decision first time around but put right by the correct use of VAR. No-one should have any complaints, even the most ardent Danish supporter.
It becomes a problem when the officials incorrectly use VAR - such as the France penalty. There is no way that anyone in their right mind could say the referee made a clear and obvious mistake. The original decision should have stood. |
Goal line technology is instant. Maybe quit while you're only this far behind? |  |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 19:13 - Jun 16 with 3913 views | farkenhell |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 18:22 - Jun 16 by BackToRussia |
Goal line technology is instant. Maybe quit while you're only this far behind? |
OK, I'll give you a better example. 1986 and Maradona's "hand of knob". Surely you would have wanted VAR then?
If you're still not in favour, then I'll give up! | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 19:18 - Jun 16 with 3905 views | BackToRussia |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 19:13 - Jun 16 by farkenhell |
OK, I'll give you a better example. 1986 and Maradona's "hand of knob". Surely you would have wanted VAR then?
If you're still not in favour, then I'll give up! |
It's not about specific decisions, it's about working out a system to fairly review all potentially erroneous decisions. If you can do that without ruining the game then go ahead, but I don't think VAR is the answer. It's currently being used far too ad hoc and chaotically. Calls that should stay on field due them being marginal are being looked at meaning the whole game is potentially in question. Players and fans aren't celebrating properly because every goal is looked at if there's anything at all dubious in the build up. | |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 19:27 - Jun 16 with 3889 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 18:12 - Jun 16 by flimflam |
But he didn't touch the ball which has been proved from numerous replays |
It hasn't been proved.
The ball slightly deviates. It's not 100% clear if he caused that by getting a touch or not, therefore no pen. | |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 19:44 - Jun 16 with 3870 views | Trequartista |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 17:25 - Jun 16 by BrixtonBlue |
For the defender sliding in it is all one motion. If he won the ball it's no pen, whatever happened with their legs subsequently. It's all part of the same tackle. |
You have a point, I have a point. This is the issue for me. It's not clear and obvious. |  |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 19:51 - Jun 16 with 3859 views | Trequartista |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 18:14 - Jun 16 by farkenhell |
So you're happy for the game to be stopped for goal-line technology, but not for VAR?
I know it holds the game up, but I'm happy to trade that to allow the referee the opportunity to get a crucial decision correct. Take Peru's penalty for example - incorrect decision first time around but put right by the correct use of VAR. No-one should have any complaints, even the most ardent Danish supporter.
It becomes a problem when the officials incorrectly use VAR - such as the France penalty. There is no way that anyone in their right mind could say the referee made a clear and obvious mistake. The original decision should have stood. |
Yes, one is 99.9999% objective, the other is subjective.
Who decides which penalty decisions are VAR? Denmark have got that penalty but what about the numerous shirt-pulling incidents in the box at set-pieces which are clear and obvious? Do we carry this on until there are 5 penalties in each game. We've had 4 penalties today already. Soon the textbooks will say The Object Of The Game is to gain a penalty to score a goal, rather than to score a goal. | |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 19:54 - Jun 16 with 3854 views | Trequartista |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 19:13 - Jun 16 by farkenhell |
OK, I'll give you a better example. 1986 and Maradona's "hand of knob". Surely you would have wanted VAR then?
If you're still not in favour, then I'll give up! |
But that is one incident that is clear and obvious. There are numerous situations that occur. How do you decide if something is clear and obvious. What if it is fairly but not clearly obvious? Who defines this? It just can't work on subjective decisions. [Post edited 16 Jun 2018 19:55]
| |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 19:59 - Jun 16 with 3847 views | DarkHorse |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 19:27 - Jun 16 by BrixtonBlue |
It hasn't been proved.
The ball slightly deviates. It's not 100% clear if he caused that by getting a touch or not, therefore no pen. |
The ball doesn't deviate. Therefore, penalty. |  | | |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 20:05 - Jun 16 with 3833 views | Sarge |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 18:17 - Jun 16 by farkenhell |
I'm sorry, but how can ensuring that an important decision has been made correctly be seen as a game killer? |
Because the game moves on and is then stopped minutes later to review what happened. Goal line technology was essential, VAR is crap. | | | |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 20:38 - Jun 16 with 3802 views | itfcjoe |
Since the first one today I think it has workedquite well - the France Aussie one was too tight to call for me.
Argentina should have had another penalty though, but generally it has worked quite well |  |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 21:02 - Jun 16 with 3784 views | christiand |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 17:25 - Jun 16 by BrixtonBlue |
For the defender sliding in it is all one motion. If he won the ball it's no pen, whatever happened with their legs subsequently. It's all part of the same tackle. |
Once again that’s your version based on football a decade plus ago, not how a tackle is interpreted in the modern game and how officials are asked to view challenges now. [Post edited 16 Jun 2018 21:08]
| |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 21:20 - Jun 16 with 3768 views | ITFC_Forever |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 18:14 - Jun 16 by farkenhell |
So you're happy for the game to be stopped for goal-line technology, but not for VAR?
I know it holds the game up, but I'm happy to trade that to allow the referee the opportunity to get a crucial decision correct. Take Peru's penalty for example - incorrect decision first time around but put right by the correct use of VAR. No-one should have any complaints, even the most ardent Danish supporter.
It becomes a problem when the officials incorrectly use VAR - such as the France penalty. There is no way that anyone in their right mind could say the referee made a clear and obvious mistake. The original decision should have stood. |
Goal-line technology is clarified within seconds and the referee’s watch buzzes.... completely different to the shambles that is VAR.
And everyone has seen how accurate the goal-line technology is and it has cut out the arguing on the pitch at a stroke as everyone accepts the buzz (or not) from the ref’s watch. | |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 21:36 - Jun 16 with 3747 views | m14_blue |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 20:38 - Jun 16 by itfcjoe |
Since the first one today I think it has workedquite well - the France Aussie one was too tight to call for me.
Argentina should have had another penalty though, but generally it has worked quite well |
There will be a massive increase in penalties now, with every challenge that could technically be a foul being reviewed and given.
I think that's a massive shame. The glory of football lies in the rarity value of a goal and that is being cheapened immensely. | | | |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 21:38 - Jun 16 with 3742 views | StokieBlue |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 21:36 - Jun 16 by m14_blue |
There will be a massive increase in penalties now, with every challenge that could technically be a foul being reviewed and given.
I think that's a massive shame. The glory of football lies in the rarity value of a goal and that is being cheapened immensely. |
The alternative view is that maybe players should stop fouling people in the box?
Didn't even need to VAR the last one it was so ridiculous.
SB |  |
| Avatar - M51 - The Whirlpool Galaxy - Taken on 29th April 2024 |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 21:43 - Jun 16 with 3734 views | gtsb |
It should be the same as the cricket reviews. If it's not 100% certain then the original decision stays with the ref. |  | | |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 21:45 - Jun 16 with 3729 views | m14_blue |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 21:38 - Jun 16 by StokieBlue |
The alternative view is that maybe players should stop fouling people in the box?
Didn't even need to VAR the last one it was so ridiculous.
SB |
Well of course there will always be penalties that are obvious, such as the Nigeria one.
But we're now seeing penalties given for challenges that would never be given as fouls anywhere else on the pitch (without 10 camera angles looking for 'contact').
Players will inevitably seek to take advantage of this.
I said before the start that I feared this tournament would be characterised by soft penalties given through VAR and haven't seen anything yet to suggest I'll be wrong.
It's so hard to score a goal in football, that's what makes it so special when your team does. Although now you can't even celebrate properly until they've reviewed it.
Bah, humbug | | | |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 23:46 - Jun 16 with 3673 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 19:59 - Jun 16 by DarkHorse |
The ball doesn't deviate. Therefore, penalty. |
You need to look again/closer. The commentary team thought he got a touch as well. | |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 00:32 - Jun 17 with 3650 views | The_Last_Baron |
Goal line technology is great.
VAR is terrible and will ruin football. |  |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 01:20 - Jun 17 with 3628 views | jjblue84 |
They should scrap the rubbish technology that is ruining the game and give it back to the referee to be in charge, at least he stands up in front of thousands of people to make his decision instead of hiding away in bunkers ! |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
