| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? 12:16 - Jun 16 with 11995 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 12:20 - Jun 16 with 6602 views | Romeo4 |
Completely agree. Just stops the flow of the game. |  | | |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 12:26 - Jun 16 with 6583 views | Schmoke |
Like with anything newly introduced in football nowadays it's all designed for the benefit of big clubs to get to as close to 100% as they possibly can to getting everything their own way.
It's got nothing to do with correcting errors as we've just seen. |  | | |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 12:30 - Jun 16 with 6565 views | Trequartista |
Absolutely and not only are penalties often subjective so is the notion of an obvious mistake |  |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 12:35 - Jun 16 with 6547 views | monty_radio |
Mmm - not great, I agree. But a ref, who stares at those pictures and gets it wrong, has probably made a good few mistakes in his real-time career. |  |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 12:40 - Jun 16 with 6531 views | ITFC_Forever |
Bang on cue.... there’s goal-line technology giving an us instant answer. | |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 13:13 - Jun 16 with 6456 views | flimflam |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 12:35 - Jun 16 by monty_radio |
Mmm - not great, I agree. But a ref, who stares at those pictures and gets it wrong, has probably made a good few mistakes in his real-time career. |
But he didnt get it wrong although I agree VAR will suck the life out of the game.
No touch on the ball from the defender and he clipped the heels of the attacker. My point would be that his touch was too heavy and had lost control of the ball. |  |
| All men and women are created, by the, you know the, you know the thing. |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 13:20 - Jun 16 with 6445 views | sparks |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 13:13 - Jun 16 by flimflam |
But he didnt get it wrong although I agree VAR will suck the life out of the game.
No touch on the ball from the defender and he clipped the heels of the attacker. My point would be that his touch was too heavy and had lost control of the ball. |
lost control of the ball is irrelevant.
But its not a penalty. he may have felt the lightest of contact and fell over. Not a foul. Awful awful decision. |  |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 13:22 - Jun 16 with 6443 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 13:13 - Jun 16 by flimflam |
But he didnt get it wrong although I agree VAR will suck the life out of the game.
No touch on the ball from the defender and he clipped the heels of the attacker. My point would be that his touch was too heavy and had lost control of the ball. |
I think it's inconclusive whether he got a touch or not. If you can't be sure then it should be no pen. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 13:23 - Jun 16 with 6436 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 12:26 - Jun 16 by Schmoke |
Like with anything newly introduced in football nowadays it's all designed for the benefit of big clubs to get to as close to 100% as they possibly can to getting everything their own way.
It's got nothing to do with correcting errors as we've just seen. |
How on earth does it benefit big clubs more than small ones? | |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 13:44 - Jun 16 with 6397 views | Schmoke |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 13:23 - Jun 16 by BrixtonBlue |
How on earth does it benefit big clubs more than small ones? |
You'd expect bigger clubs with better players to spend more time attacking, therefore they're more likely to be involved in tight offsides, challenges on their players in the box, missed handballs, etc meaning that VAR decisions are more likely to go in their favour.
Of course some won't go their way but it's increasing the percentages in their favour. | | | |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 13:46 - Jun 16 with 6398 views | BackToRussia |
But it is a good system if you use it properly.
Whichever way you look at it, that was not a glaring error. It shouldn't be for those marginal decisions which you can't blame the ref for calling one way or the other - and indeed, which, on multiple viewings, is still unclear. |  |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 13:53 - Jun 16 with 6354 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 13:44 - Jun 16 by Schmoke |
You'd expect bigger clubs with better players to spend more time attacking, therefore they're more likely to be involved in tight offsides, challenges on their players in the box, missed handballs, etc meaning that VAR decisions are more likely to go in their favour.
Of course some won't go their way but it's increasing the percentages in their favour. |
Surely you could argue those decisions are more likely to be ruled out as well (if they're wrong). And don't the bigger clubs tend to get the bigger decisions as it stands (particularly at home)? Now refs won't be able to be so biased towards the bigger clubs? | |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 14:31 - Jun 16 with 6282 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 13:22 - Jun 16 by BrixtonBlue |
I think it's inconclusive whether he got a touch or not. If you can't be sure then it should be no pen. |
I don’t know what guidance is given to refs on that, but agreed. If they’re not sure I don’t see how something can be given.
I didn’t see it, but sounds as though the problem isn’t with the technology per se, but rather the decision. Sounds like one of these ‘entitled to go down’ situations which are a curse - those that wouldn’t lead to a freekick anywhere outside of the penalty box. |  |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 14:48 - Jun 16 with 6253 views | christiand |
The way VAR is being used and the time it is taking to make decisions - I have to say - I’m impressed with so far. Yes, they’ll be contentious decisions because ultimately the decision is down to interpretation.
The decision for the French penalty, personally I think the right decision was reached in the end. Greizmann’s trailing foot is caught by the defender as he chases the ball. If that was Dozzell running through against Norwich, I doubt very much any of us would be saying that’s ‘NOT’ a penalty! Surely it’s about getting more crucial decisions right? [Post edited 16 Jun 2018 14:58]
| |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 15:01 - Jun 16 with 6223 views | strikalite |
I'm all for getting crucial incidents right, but where do you draw the line on that? This was always going to be the problem, it could get ridiculous if it's a crazy end to end game with close to call incidents like this one..
Goal line VAR is great, for me enough, because as said you could be looking at far too much thus stopping the flow of the game. |  | | |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 15:02 - Jun 16 with 6224 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 14:48 - Jun 16 by christiand |
The way VAR is being used and the time it is taking to make decisions - I have to say - I’m impressed with so far. Yes, they’ll be contentious decisions because ultimately the decision is down to interpretation.
The decision for the French penalty, personally I think the right decision was reached in the end. Greizmann’s trailing foot is caught by the defender as he chases the ball. If that was Dozzell running through against Norwich, I doubt very much any of us would be saying that’s ‘NOT’ a penalty! Surely it’s about getting more crucial decisions right? [Post edited 16 Jun 2018 14:58]
|
it doesn't matter if he caught his trailing leg... if he got the ball first. Whether he did or not is unclear = no pen. | |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 15:07 - Jun 16 with 6212 views | christiand |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 15:01 - Jun 16 by strikalite |
I'm all for getting crucial incidents right, but where do you draw the line on that? This was always going to be the problem, it could get ridiculous if it's a crazy end to end game with close to call incidents like this one..
Goal line VAR is great, for me enough, because as said you could be looking at far too much thus stopping the flow of the game. |
VAR has not really disrupted the flow of the game, the decisions on the whole have been quickly made. There’s been a few penalty claims in the Iceland game, but none have been given. People are getting in a unnecessary panic about VAR’s use. The officials appear to be using it with discretion so far! | |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 15:13 - Jun 16 with 6191 views | m14_blue |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 15:01 - Jun 16 by strikalite |
I'm all for getting crucial incidents right, but where do you draw the line on that? This was always going to be the problem, it could get ridiculous if it's a crazy end to end game with close to call incidents like this one..
Goal line VAR is great, for me enough, because as said you could be looking at far too much thus stopping the flow of the game. |
I couldn't really care less about getting 50/50 decisions 'right'. If it comes to the detriment of a free flowing spectacle then it's not worth it in my opinion. They're reviewing something after almost every goal, which massively detracts from what should be magical moment.
Football is a gloriously unpredictable, chaotic and at times unfair sport. I don't see the need to make it more clinical and accurate. | | | |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 15:15 - Jun 16 with 6186 views | christiand |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 15:02 - Jun 16 by BrixtonBlue |
it doesn't matter if he caught his trailing leg... if he got the ball first. Whether he did or not is unclear = no pen. |
Unfortunately, that is how football was played in the past, although I’m not disagreeing with your sentiment BrixtonBlue. How many times do you see free kicks given because players have been caught with the follow through even though the defender has got the ball first? If that’s where we are heading then it doesn’t matter where that occurs on the pitch, it’s a free kick or a penalty if in the area. That’s where the modern game is heading, players just won’t tackle. | |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 16:35 - Jun 16 with 6104 views | farkenhell |
There is nothing wrong with having the technology available to use. Think back to Lampard's "goal" v Germany in the 2010 World Cup. How we all wished that the referee had something like VAR in that game.
It is the official's misuse of the technology that was the problem today. Whether you think it was a penalty or not, I cannot see how the referee can possibly have decided there was a clear and obvious error. | | | |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 16:38 - Jun 16 with 6095 views | farkenhell |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 13:22 - Jun 16 by BrixtonBlue |
I think it's inconclusive whether he got a touch or not. If you can't be sure then it should be no pen. |
Spot on.
Although, for what it's worth, I think one of the replays shows that he did make contact with the ball.
If I was Australian, I would be spitting feathers right now. | | | |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 16:41 - Jun 16 with 6089 views | Trequartista |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 16:35 - Jun 16 by farkenhell |
There is nothing wrong with having the technology available to use. Think back to Lampard's "goal" v Germany in the 2010 World Cup. How we all wished that the referee had something like VAR in that game.
It is the official's misuse of the technology that was the problem today. Whether you think it was a penalty or not, I cannot see how the referee can possibly have decided there was a clear and obvious error. |
That's not VAR, that's goalline technology, a totally different situation. | |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 16:46 - Jun 16 with 6078 views | Trequartista |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 14:48 - Jun 16 by christiand |
The way VAR is being used and the time it is taking to make decisions - I have to say - I’m impressed with so far. Yes, they’ll be contentious decisions because ultimately the decision is down to interpretation.
The decision for the French penalty, personally I think the right decision was reached in the end. Greizmann’s trailing foot is caught by the defender as he chases the ball. If that was Dozzell running through against Norwich, I doubt very much any of us would be saying that’s ‘NOT’ a penalty! Surely it’s about getting more crucial decisions right? [Post edited 16 Jun 2018 14:58]
|
Clattenburg was saying Argentina should have had another penalty through VAR just because there was contact. How many penalties do we want in a game? Players are going to be looking for contact in the area more than trying to score a goal soon. Get rid now. | |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 16:47 - Jun 16 with 6076 views | Trequartista |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 15:02 - Jun 16 by BrixtonBlue |
it doesn't matter if he caught his trailing leg... if he got the ball first. Whether he did or not is unclear = no pen. |
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. | |
| |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 17:21 - Jun 16 with 6013 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Thought VAR was to correct glaring errors? on 15:15 - Jun 16 by christiand |
Unfortunately, that is how football was played in the past, although I’m not disagreeing with your sentiment BrixtonBlue. How many times do you see free kicks given because players have been caught with the follow through even though the defender has got the ball first? If that’s where we are heading then it doesn’t matter where that occurs on the pitch, it’s a free kick or a penalty if in the area. That’s where the modern game is heading, players just won’t tackle. |
Must admit I didn't know that if true. That's almost outlawing tackling! | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
