| i reckon if you went back over every game in history 18:43 - Jun 23 with 1818 views | textbackup |
and applied VAR they'd all have a different outcome.
the only game that would remain exactly the same would be the playoff game vs Bolton, at portman road |  |
| |  |
| i reckon if you went back over every game in history on 18:46 - Jun 23 with 1788 views | J2BLUE |
It needs to have a time limit. It's supposed to overturn clear and obvious errors. If it takes longer than one minute and 3-4 replays it isn't clear and obvious. Also something needs to be done about the timekeeping. The lack of time added on in the Scotland/Argentina match was a joke. |  |
| |
| i reckon if you went back over every game in history on 18:49 - Jun 23 with 1777 views | Bent_double |
| i reckon if you went back over every game in history on 18:46 - Jun 23 by J2BLUE |
It needs to have a time limit. It's supposed to overturn clear and obvious errors. If it takes longer than one minute and 3-4 replays it isn't clear and obvious. Also something needs to be done about the timekeeping. The lack of time added on in the Scotland/Argentina match was a joke. |
Exactly - take the 2nd England goal, you could tell from the 1st replay it was onside and a goal, yet it still took about 90 seconds for the ref to confirm, way too long. |  |
| |
| i reckon if you went back over every game in history on 18:50 - Jun 23 with 1769 views | Hipsterectomy |
| i reckon if you went back over every game in history on 18:46 - Jun 23 by J2BLUE |
It needs to have a time limit. It's supposed to overturn clear and obvious errors. If it takes longer than one minute and 3-4 replays it isn't clear and obvious. Also something needs to be done about the timekeeping. The lack of time added on in the Scotland/Argentina match was a joke. |
VAR added about 15 minutes extra time to the game today |  |
| Walter Smith's Barmy Army |
| |
| i reckon if you went back over every game in history on 18:52 - Jun 23 with 1764 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| i reckon if you went back over every game in history on 18:46 - Jun 23 by J2BLUE |
It needs to have a time limit. It's supposed to overturn clear and obvious errors. If it takes longer than one minute and 3-4 replays it isn't clear and obvious. Also something needs to be done about the timekeeping. The lack of time added on in the Scotland/Argentina match was a joke. |
100% agree.
If it's not clear after 30 seconds of reviewing, then it's not an obvious error.
I would say a time limit, or a max number of views. |  |
| |
| i reckon if you went back over every game in history on 19:17 - Jun 23 with 1708 views | Guthrum |
| i reckon if you went back over every game in history on 18:46 - Jun 23 by J2BLUE |
It needs to have a time limit. It's supposed to overturn clear and obvious errors. If it takes longer than one minute and 3-4 replays it isn't clear and obvious. Also something needs to be done about the timekeeping. The lack of time added on in the Scotland/Argentina match was a joke. |
It needs to be done in the manner of having an on-field decision and the VAR providing enough clear evidence to overturn it. If unclear, the orifinal ruling stands. That's how it works in most sports.
Doesn't help that the VAR crew are effectively generating their own queries/challenges. They are, naturally, making work for themselves to do, to justify their presence. Not every goal needs to be checked for possible, even marginal, offsides. If, instead, each manager had a very limited number of appeals (one or two per half), it would cut down on the minute examination of each action. Things like balls crossing the line (or failing to) and unspotted instances of serious foul play (e.g. violent conduct) can still be pointed out. |  |
| |
| i reckon if you went back over every game in history on 20:04 - Jun 23 with 1614 views | EdwardStone |
| i reckon if you went back over every game in history on 19:17 - Jun 23 by Guthrum |
It needs to be done in the manner of having an on-field decision and the VAR providing enough clear evidence to overturn it. If unclear, the orifinal ruling stands. That's how it works in most sports.
Doesn't help that the VAR crew are effectively generating their own queries/challenges. They are, naturally, making work for themselves to do, to justify their presence. Not every goal needs to be checked for possible, even marginal, offsides. If, instead, each manager had a very limited number of appeals (one or two per half), it would cut down on the minute examination of each action. Things like balls crossing the line (or failing to) and unspotted instances of serious foul play (e.g. violent conduct) can still be pointed out. |
Goal line technology could be kept separate from the managers/trainers limited number of appeals.....
Whether the ball has crossed the goal line or not is absolutely fundamental
Agree that the VAR crew should not be self-referring, they should be under the strict control of the ref |  | | |
| i reckon if you went back over every game in history on 20:54 - Jun 23 with 1554 views | Kievthegreat |
| i reckon if you went back over every game in history on 19:17 - Jun 23 by Guthrum |
It needs to be done in the manner of having an on-field decision and the VAR providing enough clear evidence to overturn it. If unclear, the orifinal ruling stands. That's how it works in most sports.
Doesn't help that the VAR crew are effectively generating their own queries/challenges. They are, naturally, making work for themselves to do, to justify their presence. Not every goal needs to be checked for possible, even marginal, offsides. If, instead, each manager had a very limited number of appeals (one or two per half), it would cut down on the minute examination of each action. Things like balls crossing the line (or failing to) and unspotted instances of serious foul play (e.g. violent conduct) can still be pointed out. |
In the NHL for example, the coach can request a review on a goal for a wide range of reasons and under the current rules they would lose their timeout if unsuccessful. Additionally if they reviewed it specifically for offside, if unsuccessful they would also take a 2 minute penalty (which means they would have to play 4 vs 5 for 2 minutes) as the offside decisions were so close and disturbing the flow of the game.
They are also toying with making all unsuccessful coaches challenges result in escalating penalties, 2 minutes for the 1st, 4 mins for the 2nd.
Other than coaches challenges, the officials will review goal line decisions and possible goaltender interference where there's doubt.
I think it's a better system. It sticks to goals, the refs don't comb every every single goal and buildup with a fine tooth comb, the team requesting reviews is discouraged from doing so flippantly ad holding up the game. |  | | |
| i reckon if you went back over every game in history on 21:17 - Jun 23 with 1506 views | Footballpete |
| i reckon if you went back over every game in history on 20:54 - Jun 23 by Kievthegreat |
In the NHL for example, the coach can request a review on a goal for a wide range of reasons and under the current rules they would lose their timeout if unsuccessful. Additionally if they reviewed it specifically for offside, if unsuccessful they would also take a 2 minute penalty (which means they would have to play 4 vs 5 for 2 minutes) as the offside decisions were so close and disturbing the flow of the game.
They are also toying with making all unsuccessful coaches challenges result in escalating penalties, 2 minutes for the 1st, 4 mins for the 2nd.
Other than coaches challenges, the officials will review goal line decisions and possible goaltender interference where there's doubt.
I think it's a better system. It sticks to goals, the refs don't comb every every single goal and buildup with a fine tooth comb, the team requesting reviews is discouraged from doing so flippantly ad holding up the game. |
Why are we trying to import everything the most popular sport ever invented by taking lessons from other, less successful (and considerably more boring) sports?
I blame plastics. Part of what I love about analysing decisions in the pub after the game. What are we allowing this nonsense to ruin our game? |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| i reckon if you went back over every game in history on 21:44 - Jun 23 with 1464 views | Trequartista |
It was so ironic that the acceptable side of VAR (objective decisions i.e. offside as opposed to subjective decisions i.e. penalty shouts) caused so much fuss.
I have to say that was one of the most entertaining games i've ever watched. |  |
| |
| i reckon if you went back over every game in history on 21:57 - Jun 23 with 1446 views | The_Major |
Not that I'm one to hold a 44 year grudge you'd understand, but we'd have probably won the Cup in 1975... |  | | |
| i reckon if you went back over every game in history on 22:35 - Jun 23 with 1392 views | norfsufblue |
| i reckon if you went back over every game in history on 21:57 - Jun 23 by The_Major |
Not that I'm one to hold a 44 year grudge you'd understand, but we'd have probably won the Cup in 1975... |
Too right we would. |  | | |
| i reckon if you went back over every game in history on 22:41 - Jun 23 with 1386 views | BloomBlue |
| i reckon if you went back over every game in history on 21:57 - Jun 23 by The_Major |
Not that I'm one to hold a 44 year grudge you'd understand, but we'd have probably won the Cup in 1975... |
I think you're holding a grudge there 😠but i agree, it still annoys me today is how come all of us in the ground that day could see both goals were fine, well all except one idiot. |  | | |
| i reckon if you went back over every game in history on 10:01 - Jun 24 with 1200 views | Radlett_blue |
| i reckon if you went back over every game in history on 22:35 - Jun 23 by norfsufblue |
Too right we would. |
Not so sure - bet Clive "The Book" Thomas would have still over-ruled the VAR. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
