| BCWYWF 05:56 - Oct 27 with 3363 views | BrianTablet |
Live by the sword, die by the sword...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63408599
Personally, I have always opposed VAR, except maybe for goal-line decisions.
Now that it is here though, managers shouldn't really complain when it goes against them, should they?
I still feel that it's killing the spontaneous joy of live football. [Post edited 27 Oct 2022 6:15]
|  |
| |  |
| BCWYWF on 21:14 - Oct 27 with 418 views | Trequartista |
| BCWYWF on 21:07 - Oct 27 by Guthrum |
Seems fairly clear to me: A suspicion that Silva was looking to draw the foul - which was then actually committed by the defender - is not good reason to overturn the on-field decision. Unless he was seen to blatantly change direction in order to aim for that leg.
Simulation is where the player goes down without sufficient (or any) contact having been made. |
That's your - not unreasonable - conclusion. Others may feel it was clear Silva was looking for the leg. Maybe the next incident will show a player changing direction slightly further than Silva did. Do you get my point - as much as the debate over a decision is subjective, the debate over if something is clear and obvious is subjective. |  |
| |
| BCWYWF on 22:29 - Oct 27 with 401 views | HighgateBlue |
| BCWYWF on 13:42 - Oct 27 by Trequartista |
This example seems to be more of an issue of an interpretation of the offside law rather than VAR.
VAR should remain for 'objective' decisions and removed for 'subjective' decisions, and as offside is an 'objective' decision (in quotes because its not quite objective) it should be changed so there is daylight between attacker and last defender to be offside. Then if a goal is ruled out by the tiniest sliver of daylight, the attacking team can't feel so aggrieved, as the attacker will be clearly offside.
The concept of "only reverse clear and obvious decisions" is nonsense. Clear and obvious to whom? You are just moving the subjective area along the sliding scale. [Post edited 27 Oct 2022 13:46]
|
Yes, and something might not be clear and obvious when viewed once at full speed from one angle, but it might become clear and obvious when viewed more slowly from multiple angles. |  | | |
| BCWYWF on 23:11 - Oct 27 with 381 views | Trequartista |
| BCWYWF on 22:29 - Oct 27 by HighgateBlue |
Yes, and something might not be clear and obvious when viewed once at full speed from one angle, but it might become clear and obvious when viewed more slowly from multiple angles. |
Well quite. But people are arguing that something that would take that long can't be clear and obvious. | |
| |
| BCWYWF on 10:23 - Oct 28 with 343 views | Guthrum |
| BCWYWF on 21:14 - Oct 27 by Trequartista |
That's your - not unreasonable - conclusion. Others may feel it was clear Silva was looking for the leg. Maybe the next incident will show a player changing direction slightly further than Silva did. Do you get my point - as much as the debate over a decision is subjective, the debate over if something is clear and obvious is subjective. |
Looking for a foul is not illegal (quite apart from the fact a careful defender will not oblige). Simulating one is.
It ought to be possible from a couple of slowed-down replays to confirm whether the referee's opinion is obviously incorrect or not - i.e. in this case if there was contact initiated by the defender. Once handed off to VAR, the latter should take over ultimate authority from the on-field ref. Replays and audio can be put up on big screens/PA to explain decisions to the crowd. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
