| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? 12:16 - Jun 16 with 12179 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 08:12 - Jun 17 with 1441 views | LowerNorth |
Not a fan of VAR, but if it has to to stay, I always thought a better way would be to introduce it in the same style as tennis appeal, perhaps give each team 1 opportunity to appeal a decision that didn't go their way in a match, this way a team would use their appeal wisely. For me at the moment it doesn't work! |  | | |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 09:04 - Jun 17 with 1403 views | gordon |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 08:12 - Jun 17 by LowerNorth |
Not a fan of VAR, but if it has to to stay, I always thought a better way would be to introduce it in the same style as tennis appeal, perhaps give each team 1 opportunity to appeal a decision that didn't go their way in a match, this way a team would use their appeal wisely. For me at the moment it doesn't work! |
This would make much more sense - at the moment it's not clear what triggers it to actually be used, seems mostly to be a response to players appealing for something. |  | | |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 09:08 - Jun 17 with 1398 views | gordon |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 19:18 - Jun 16 by BackToRussia |
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. |
I agree on this point, when a goal is scored that seems fair enough, 'just checking' for offsides is daft. This happened in one of the games yesterday when there was no possibility of offside.
Also telling linesmen not to flag for close decisions is nonssense. The quality of offside decision making has improved by a massive amount over the last twenty years or so, linesmen very rarely make mistakes now. | | | |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 09:46 - Jun 17 with 1375 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 09:08 - Jun 17 by gordon |
I agree on this point, when a goal is scored that seems fair enough, 'just checking' for offsides is daft. This happened in one of the games yesterday when there was no possibility of offside.
Also telling linesmen not to flag for close decisions is nonssense. The quality of offside decision making has improved by a massive amount over the last twenty years or so, linesmen very rarely make mistakes now. |
It is going to end up like in cricket when umpires call for a review for obvious run outs. Can you imagine if VAR was used for every corner to determine who pushed who first, once the ball was in play. Thankfully it is only the ref who asks for VAR can you imagine if team captains, or managers could call for it.
There is no mention of hindsight in the rules of the gsme just the referees opinion. If he misses it he misses it, all part of the gsme |  |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 10:18 - Jun 17 with 1352 views | Garv |
| 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. |
He may touch the ball but he doesn't take it away from the striker (you can say the striker took a bad touch anyway but that's a separate argument) so he still has possession of the ball when he was/wasn't fouled. |  |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 10:45 - Jun 17 with 1340 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 09:08 - Jun 17 by gordon |
I agree on this point, when a goal is scored that seems fair enough, 'just checking' for offsides is daft. This happened in one of the games yesterday when there was no possibility of offside.
Also telling linesmen not to flag for close decisions is nonssense. The quality of offside decision making has improved by a massive amount over the last twenty years or so, linesmen very rarely make mistakes now. |
"linesmen very rarely make mistakes now."
Hahahaha. What?! |  |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 10:48 - Jun 17 with 1337 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 10:18 - Jun 17 by Garv |
He may touch the ball but he doesn't take it away from the striker (you can say the striker took a bad touch anyway but that's a separate argument) so he still has possession of the ball when he was/wasn't fouled. |
That's irrelevant. If he touched the ball (and isn't sliding in in any kind of dangerous way) then I can't see how it is anything other than a fair tackle. | |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 12:47 - Jun 17 with 1307 views | Garv |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 10:48 - Jun 17 by BrixtonBlue |
That's irrelevant. If he touched the ball (and isn't sliding in in any kind of dangerous way) then I can't see how it is anything other than a fair tackle. |
But then if he brings the player down while the player still has control of the ball...
I'm not saying it was definitely a foul by the way. I don't think the contact was enough. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
